whether it's "predatory" for a senior in college (21) to prey on a 100-level STEM student (basically an 18 year old/pre-college according to my friend), that's a whole different question from "consent to being hit on" in my opinion
How close to the truth is this as a different take on your situation: "you slowly hit on them, and they wanted it, so they didn't report you to HR/make it a big deal"?
My question is genuine though and stands: when is it okay to communicate interest in someone? If the answer is never, it doesn’t really impact me, it just feels very telling with the times (third places evaporating, and most people spend most of their time outside the home at work). If there is a line, I’m curious where that line is, not to leverage it but to respect it.
“Don’t be a dick” but you’ve still gotta put yourself out there if you want optimize for luck and possibility. To handle rejection with grace is key.
> But many lovers meet at work, and it doesn’t necessarily end in scandal (conversely, it could lead to a fairy-tale ending, like the Obamas, who met at a Chicago law office while in their 20s). Data from 2017 shows that as many as one in 10 heterosexual couples in the US say that they met at work. Considering some data shows people in the US between the ages of 20 and 50 spend nearly four times as much time with colleagues than they do with friends, this seems all but bound to happen.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220228-the-inevitabil...
And most people have introvert friends and extrovert friends. You meet safe and good people through friend circles and then they get you to meet the other person.
>I mentioned to several of the people I interviewed for this piece that I’d met my husband in an elevator, in 2001. (We worked on different floors of the same institution, and over the months that followed struck up many more conversations—in the elevator, in the break room, on the walk to the subway.) I was fascinated by the extent to which this prompted other women to sigh and say that they’d just love to meet someone that way. And yet quite a few of them suggested that if a random guy started talking to them in an elevator, they would be weirded out. “Creeper! Get away from me,” one woman imagined thinking. “Anytime we’re in silence, we look at our phones,” explained her friend, nodding. Another woman fantasized to me about what it would be like to have a man hit on her in a bookstore. (She’d be holding a copy of her favorite book. “What’s that book?” he’d say.) But then she seemed to snap out of her reverie, and changed the subject to Sex and the City reruns and how hopelessly dated they seem. “Miranda meets Steve at a bar,” she said, in a tone suggesting that the scenario might as well be out of a Jane Austen novel, for all the relevance it had to her life.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex...
I think the solution that leaves everyone happy is: start a conversation with that woman, but if she's not interested, leave her alone.
Look at it in utilitarian terms:
* If the woman you're talking to isn't interested, your attempt to start a conversation will create a brief unpleasant experience for her.
* If she is interested, there's a chance at a great, long-lasting romance which will benefit both you and her.
The positive utility from finding your future spouse is much larger than the negative utility from a brief unwanted conversation. So on expectation it often makes sense to start that conversation.
"[27/F] Why don't guys approach me? I even go out on my errands alone, or hang out at cafes alone (like, go out and eat while reading a book) just to put myself out there."[1]
(edit) removed link to avoid HN's flooding someone's Reddit post
And that doesn't happen, so...
The real point seems to be to scare away men who can be scared away from ever attempting this.
Then only dominant/aggressive ones will do so. And they're seemingly the ones women want, so...
Two days ago at a party I saw a woman sexually harass multiple men without any repercussions, and she constantly apologized afterwards which somehow made it ok to continue the behavior all night.
Yes, that person clearly has unresolved issues to work on but the double standard is there and it's harmful in both directions.
Women have different personalities and indicate their attraction or lack of attraction in very different ways. Flirting for some women is the exact same behavior presented to everyone for other women.
If you want to know if a woman is attracted to you, ask her out and see what she says
how does one ask a woman out if the default is supposed to be "don't hit on me right now ever"?
Sometimes she'll say no to test to see if you're serious or not and probably to test your social acumen too. Picking up whether it's a "no, I'm not interested" or a "no, but I want to see more" is exactly the kind of social cue reading I'm talking about.
And yeah learning that can be rough for people who aren't naturals and especially rough for spectrumy folks. Some of whom will probably even say there is no such thing at all because they can't see it. But them's the breaks. The reality of the sexual marketplace is what it is.
Taking no for no, and moving on with a smile to other women can show confidence, and maybe she will reconsider and take steps to get back into your social life.
In general, asking over and over again hoping for a different answer can signal desperation.
So it turns out in this situation, the spectrumy response of just taking a response at face value, can also be the best strategy for the "sexual marketplace".
That is in addition to it just being the right and decent thing to do, of course.
Now why these social cues are so often subtle or ambiguous is itself an interesting question. It's not one I have any good answers to though. In this area, as in most, I'm a phenomenologist and not a theorist. Needless to say the phenomenology I've developed precludes telling a woman I'm interested in about the phenomenology I've developed. Except of course when I think she might find it attractive. Human social interactions are marvelously complex. Frankly my inclination to start navel gazing has set me back once or twice.
you're asking socially awkward + nervous + scared guys to 1. go out of their comfort zone and smoothly create inorganically an opportunity to strike up a conversation with someone, and 2. sprinkle in something that is considered flirtatious but not too strong that it falls under the category of "hitting on"
BTW, I’m not talking about PUA stuff here. Rather, I would think of it as practising the art of conversation, and cultivating a curiousness about other people.
A skill that you need to practice with dedication and that "takes time" to learn still doesn't sound basic.
As someone that has participated in lots of flirting, conversation, and curiousness about other people, I can say confidently that being curious and being good at conversation are not sufficient to navigate flirtatious behavior successfully, unless you're using "art of conversation" as a huge umbrella term which includes charisma / etc. If you are doing that, then I'll note that probably the majority of people on Earth have not mastered the art of conversation (or even cultivated it much) by such a broad definition.
isn't flirting a form of hitting on somebody?
which one of you is right? i have no clue
Some people just seem to know how to do this. For others its near impossible. I'm in the others group. When a girl was flirting with me in the past I sent messages to her that I wasn't interested. As I had no idea how to play that game. I didn't even know it was going on. Then when I was interested in a girl I tended to creep her out by being too awkward too direct. Even when I asked my wife out she almost dropped the phone as I shocked her by being too direct. Luckily we'd been friends for years and she knew me well enough to say yes.