Some men really hate women being single don't they?

[solidgoldbrass]

inspired by a couple of other threads including the separatism one. Have you ever noticed that if a man you don't like or know or fancy is trying to persuade you to date him or spend time with him or even just talk to him, the only really effective way to make him fuck off is to tell him that you are another man's property. Just saying No, leave me alone, no thanks, actually I am having a conversation with my female friend and am not interested in talking to you, never seems to work until you throw in My Boyfriend or My Husband.

No worries empusa, I should've been clearer in the first place

HerBex,
I think to say that anybody must be a man if they disagree with them shows a certain cowardice, disregard for men, and lack of imagination.

A sort of cowardice because there is no way I can prove to you realistically that I am indeed female.

Disregard for men because, after all, if I were a male who had feminist tendencies I would take it as an insult and bloody rude if people hurled the fact of my gender around as an insult because they disagreed with me.

Lack of imagination because obviously not every woman is going to agree with everything those who claim to be feminists say.

Everything so far put forward by those who are against men persistently chatting woman up insist that it is men who change and not women.

Out of interest, I asked my friends how they would feel if a man chatted them up persistently. I stressed that I did not mean how they would feel if he was violent or abusive, just persistent.

A few of them said that they made a point of refusing the first few offers of a drink made by a guy they were interested in 'just to see if the guy was really interested', then, after the guy had persisted a bit more- which may mean he go away and come back later, which they would welcome-they would accept the drink and the two of them -as my friend crudely put it- would 'get off with each other'.

Now imagine that same bloke -who was successful with my mate- tried this persistence (not abusive or threatening just not accepting words like ' I don't want a drink) with women who did not want it. He's not to know not to be persistent because, well, it worked last time.

My point is this: it's not just the men that need re-educating if persistent chatting up is a problem (for those that it is a problem for, that is).

"My point is this: it's not just the men that need re-educating if persistent chatting up is a problem"

Can I just re-phrase this? Let me know when you have a problem...

"My point is this: it's not just the men that need re-educating if harrassment is a problem"

"My point is this: it's not just the men that need re-educating if sexual harrassment is a problem"

"My point is this: it's not just the men that need re-educating if sexual assault is a problem"

When the man is creating the problem, he is the one who needs re-educating. Not the woman. The woman is passive (eg; the persistent chatting up is happening to her, I don't mean whether she is passive or aggressive) The man is active. He is the one doint the persistent chatting up.

You've deliberately misinterpreted what I have said here, Don'tCallMePeanut.

I wouldn't expect anything else, though.

But, then of course, women can never do any harm, can they?

I've no idea if you're a man or not Wamster and I don't really care.

Shall we discuss why so many men think that it's OK to approach women and hassle them when they're either on their own or out with other women, but they don't do it when the woman is with a man, even if that man is very probably not her partner.

Of course. Go ahead and make accusations based on gender...

As for being a man with feminist tendencies, people, men or women, who think that there is no problem with women not being allowed to go about their lawful business unharassed, don't have any feminist tendencies IMO.

HerBeX, don't you get it?

Us "little girlies" need protecting by big strong men...

never mind the fact that I'm probably better at defending myself than my male best friends, but hey ho

If people want to avoid confusion when it comes to the old chatting -up game (NOT talking here about abusive behaviour or violence) then the onus is on men AND women to be honest and straightfoward in their relations with each other and not play games of 'seeing how interested he is' and making him ask a few times to buy them a drink.

If all the women here who are complaining about persistent men, are upfront and honest and do not play the 'let us see how interested he is' game by making the guy ask several times for a drink, I respect them, if they do play this game, then they are hypocrites.

Anyway. We don't have evidence you've asked said friends. But those responses, particularly the ones about getting off with said man don't feel very... convincing? But the point is, he has pestered them to get the response he wants from them.

Coercion.

Ahem. Lets apply that in the bedroom.

"Fancy sex tonight?"
"No thanks, darling."
"Are you sure?"
"yes, I'm sure"
"oh please..."
etc, until the woman "gives in".

Why is the woman's response first time round not enough?

HerBex,

I have explained to you why some men think it is OK to approach women who are out on their own. It's *ing obvious, really, it is called social interaction.

They think it is OK to ask if she wants a drink several times and be persistent in asking her because the last woman they chatted up played the (nauseating imo) game of playing hard to get, but relented eventually by allowing him to buy her a drink.

So, they think, may be the next woman will play the same game.

This is not excusing violent or abusive behaviour, just explaining why men may think it is OK to be persistent.

I'd say I'm pretty honest. I don't see the point in playing games. If I really like someone, I say yes.

And how about the women who "give in" because it's the only way to avoid what they feel is confrontational behaviour?

Have you not read my post, Don'tCallmePeanut?

Your theory of coercion is bollocks!!

My friend/s told me that if a guy they LIKED and WANTED to get off with asked them if they wanted a drink, they would refuse the first few times, in order to see how keen he was and then, at a time they thought appropriate, allow them to buy them a drink.

Coercion? My ar**.

If they were playing a game (one of which I have never heard of I must admit) then they would be entering into a conversation with the man and generally engaging with him.

We are talking about situations where the woman DOESN'T WANT to engage in conversation and the man DOESN'T LISTEN. How hard is that to understand? Really?

You haven't talked about how they'd respond if the man wasn't interested. Which is what this is about.

It's not about us women "playing games"

I mean, you haven't talk about how the'd respond if they were'nt interested in the man.

*sorry, dyspraxia is playing up a bit today

"I have explained to you why some men think it is OK to approach women who are out on their own. It's *ing obvious, really, it is called social interaction."

So how come they don't think it's OK to approach a woman who is out with a group of mixed sex friends or another man who is prob not her partner?

And do you understand Wamster, that a woman who is out with a group of female only friends, is not out "on her own", seeing as how women are people too?

Interesting that after all this time, all this thread, you're still talking about women being out on their own, when plenty of people have mentioned that it doesn't just happen when you're on your own - it happens when you're deep in conversation with (a) female friend(s). Though not with a male one. Because then you're not "out on your own", you're out with someone real.

So you've got some wanky friends who play stupid games Wamster.

Why should some men presume that just because Woman A was a wanker, Woman B will be too? Unless he thinks all women are interchangeable of course.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat, No my friends make a point of seeming not interested in the guy at all, nonchalant, as disinterested as possible.

Women do this sort of thing all the time. Maybe not the ones YOU mix with, but, take it from me, their mothers feed them guff like 'you don't want to seem to eager in him. Act aloof'. 'Always refuse first offer of a drink'. It's shit, but it happens and just because I, or anybody else, think it is wrong is besides the point - it still happens.

"They think it is OK to ask if she wants a drink several times and be persistent in asking her because the last woman they chatted up played the (nauseating imo) game of playing hard to get, but relented eventually by allowing him to buy her a drink."

So these poor darlings have been forced against their will to do this?

Yes, they may very well be, as you put it, 'wanky', but they are still WOMEN. They are still WOMEN who need to change their behaviour. It's not just men who need to change, that is the only point I am trying to make and it is good that you agree.

Can you please explain how your friends would respond if they were not interested in the man in question?

When my mum preached the "not seeming too interested thing", she explained that she meant not jumping into bed on the first date. She used to say "playing games will only confuse the poor man and lead to problems."

If women do go around 'playing games' and saying no when they really mean yes (the prevalence of which I doubt as I have never done it myself or seen any of my female friends do it) then surely the quickest way for the poor menz not to find themselves in such a confusing situation would be to take the woman at her word to start with.

Man: "would you like a drink?"
Woman, 'game playing' and actually wanting a drink: "no, go away"
Man: goes away.
Woman: decides not to play that game again.

Well said, thistledew