I'm really glad someone has identified that it's about context and each instance should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I'm equally surprised that at the same time, it comes with a list of pre-judged decisions where you have removed the context in favour of just the title of the event.

There are absolutely situations in bars and house parties where one should not make any kind of move. Likewise, there are office parties where one could.

Before I get to the next bit, it's important to realise and understand that "no" really does mean no. With that in mind, it's also true that there are men and women who say "no", but still mean yes. This is one small facet of that whole debate, but the point is subtleties matter. People saying "no" when they mean yes is still a real thing, like it or not, and some people have a hard time differentiating when this is the case. There are also people who of course don't care, but they are far less controversial. What we need to do is all pull together to work to clarify how we communicate interest in each other. And that means all people, of all sexes and genders and orientations and class.

> I'm equally surprised that at the same time, it comes with a list of pre-judged decisions where you have removed the context in favour of just the title of the event.

I believe some situations require more assurance of “it’s okay” than others. In the office, I’d have to be super very absolutely certain it’s okay before saying anything. At a singles event in a bar I might lead with a sexual overtone and see what happens.

And no always means no. Once you say no I say sorry and move on.

Although I do like the policy of a sex club I was at once: If you do anything you have to apologize for, you are banned from the club for forever.

More venues should adopt that policy.

Absolutely, the setting can set the general tone, but I'm simply pointing out that the numerous people saying "making a pass in situation X is always wrong", because it's really not as clean cut as that.

I was especially surprised to see someone get that and say that context matters, but then still start reeling off "yes"s and "no"s to settings without context.

> Sexual overtures at an office party: not good.

Interesting. Multiple women I know started dating co-workers (in entirely different parts of the company) at work parties, and did not think it was bad or unusual. Perhaps interpretations of statements like "don't be a creep" are a lot more diverse than you think.

It all depends on how attractive you are as a male. If a woman is repulsed by you physically, then even being in the same vicinity will be construed as harassment. But if a woman is physically attracted to you, anything you say is fair game and even welcomed. So in the end “don’t be a creep” doesn’t mean anything.

While "even being in the same vicinity will be construed as harassment" is hyperbolic, there definitely is a sense that women expect men to divine whether or not they want to be asked out beforehand. The reality is that the only way to know if someone is interested is to ask them. Saying things like "read the signs" often just either discourages men from making any move at all, or emboldeneds men to make more socially unacceptable advances because they think they've read the signs.

I think this is a big part of why online dating is growing in prevalence. Why take the social risk of being labeled a "creep" when you can go to places where whether or not women are interested is determined upfront?

Rule #1: be attractive

Rule #2: don't be unattractive

'office party' is an oxymoron, but then I've never lived in California

Anecdotally, I've been hit on by women at after-parties of business events almost to the point where it was cringe worthy. But I guess these rules should only apply to men?