>It seems very appalling when you focus on the bits you don't like and ignore the bits like "no unwanted advances".

Yes, lets cultivate young hetero men to expressly look for sexual opportunities where they have an explicit and conscious asymetrical power-relation to women. Quality dudes these will be.

Would it be ridiculous to possibly interpret this instead as young hetero men looking for opportunities where they have something to offer? Or should they only look for sexual opportunities where they are outclassed by their peers?

While the thirsty may equate to "drug" users, love lacks math(s). There's plenty of CEO women with mechanic husbands. Station is somewhat orthogonal to quality, but not completely.

I'm most depressed that the prevalent attitude of 20's-30's somethings (men and women) tends to be maximizing hookups, binge drinking, and self-indulgence. Read a book, mentor a kid in high school, raise a service animal, donate blood, volunteer for the food bank, or talk to another human like human regardless of where they come from.

I'm not sure if I follow. Maybe you were thinking I meant "outclassed" literally?

I just mean this seems like a case of men competing for womens attention in an arena where they have some kind of competitive advantage against the other men around them.

If you can't go to the bar and be better looking than the guys around you, why not go to a class where you can be more helpful than the guys around you?

As much as it creeps people out to say it out loud, a lot of social life is transactional and competitive.

If you want friends or lovers, you have to have something to offer to them, and it has be more valuable than what other people are offering.

Some people don't have to find clever ways to make this work, or to think about this at all, because they are naturally valuable in some way. These guys are probably not that.

Teenager behavior. I get it. Some kids (and people) need validation and obsess about it, while the winners (and old people like me) care less and go with the flow.

Some folks, e.g., spoiled, expect their desired group to be attracted to and/or be friendly to them. (Brag alert: Myself and my SO - not models but not fugly.)

Others expect others, e.g., incels, expect others to treat them badly, and have a proverbial chip on their shoulders. This can be a combination of social and physical looks. People who have physical disfigurements or unusual appearances have it rough in the world, that it can either make them stronger from repeated exposure or tear them down to retreat into and hate themselves and maybe others. Yellowman and (RIP) Shock G.

I don't understand why that would be specifically teenager behavior. Would it be teenager behavior to apply for jobs where you have relevant skills? It seems like the same thing to me.

We all have something to offer in the right environment, and are relatively useless in the wrong environment. Is there something juvenile about recognizing that and aiming for the right environment?

I didn't ignore that, but chose to focus on the fact that other commenters have seemed to ignore all the problematic lines lines completely surrounding those three words. There can be only willing advances between the person making the advancing and the the person it is advanced on, but in the completely wrong environment can affect everyone else who has to be in an environment who has to be in the same environment. These surrounding lines spell out how such behavior affects everyone else. A later comment by the professor makes explicit the harm being done:

> Even worse, some women in the class seem oblivious to this or don't care, while the majority of them are insulted and hurt by this.

> but in the completely wrong environment [welcome advances] can affect everyone else who has to be in an environment who has to be in the same environment.

Well, honestly, I dunno what to say - people who are getting mad that their peers are hooking up can't very well petition[1] to stop other people from hooking up.

> A later comment by the professor makes explicit the harm being done:

>> Even worse, some women in the class seem oblivious to this or don't care, while the majority of them are insulted and hurt by this.

So? That's just a different way of saying "People who don't get dates get hurt and angry". We already know that.

We also know that the professor in this case doesn't know that the majority of them are insulted and hurt, because the professor in this case did not actually do a survey of the class.

After all, even if only 49% of the class are oblivious or happy with the arrangement, that doesn't scream to me "Something wrong is going on here".

[1] Well, they can but then they look stupid.

You're still being blind to everything else that happens as a precondition to auditing students making advances to attractive students, if you think that

> That's just a different way of saying "People who don't get dates get hurt and angry". We already know that.

Perhaps I should spell out one aspect of it.

These auditing students have to survey and evaluate the female students taking the class for their attractiveness. It's uncomfortable and distracting to receive such attention when you are in an environment that's primarily for academic learning.

Now, I'll admit that perhaps this is only mildly uncomfortable. But as I said in my original comment, the likely result of students taking things into their own hands would be to just take a less preferred course that they feel more comfortable in with respect to sexual attention.

Making the interested parties "disgusted and uncomfortable" - on purpose! - pretty much qualifies as "unwanted advances".

> Making the interested parties "disgusted and uncomfortable" - on purpose! - pretty much qualifies as "unwanted advances".

If you read the link you'd see that the women have actually stated that there were no unwanted advances.

Luckily you are here to mansplain to them how there poor female mind doesn't understand what "unwanted advances" mean...

I'm sure they all appreciate it.