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.

Because we are talking about men who have been told a whole loads of reasons why not, but will only leave when told of a bf.

Or in other terms, when it is the only reason they will accept.

So
I'm not interested - doesn't work
You aren't my type - doesn't work
I'm happy being single - doesn't work
Not looking - doesn't work
Have a boyfriend - solution!

Why is the last one the only one with any effect?

But if you don't want to engage with a stranger, you don't owe that person an explanation. You don't want to engage with them, therefore they should fuck off and leave you alone. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

I outlined a situation earlier in the thread.

When I first met my best friend, it was in the student bar at uni. He offered to buy me a drink. All I had to say was "no, thank you"; he replied with "are you sure?" and left it at that. I didn't even have to mention a boyfriend. Likewise when he asked me out.

My darling ex, on the other hand, has been told to fuck off countless times, been told I've got a boyfriend and still pestered me. Some people don't like getting their own way, yet they don't realise the effect it has on the individual who's decision they are trying to change.

Wampster- perhaps you can answer the question here better than anyone- why is it that you stop "trying" to chat someone up when you learn that they have a partner, rather than when they first appear disinterested? Or is it more usual, in your experience that the person will tell you they have a partner as one of the first responses to you trying to chat them up?

Well for a start, I don't do pestering, I just talk to the bloke, try to subtlely let him know I am interested in him and when he says, 'My girlfriend thinks that too' I think, oh well, and make my excuses and leave. Don't see that as abnormal behaviour myself, but there you go.

That isn't abnormal - providing the man you are speaking to wants to speak to you.

"But if you don't want to engage with a stranger, you don't owe that person an explanation. You don't want to engage with them, therefore they should fuck off and leave you alone. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?"

Do you tell Charity Muggers to fuck off? Or do you say 'I don't want to talk to you and I shouldn't have to'? Or do you say the most convenient excuse like 'Sorry, I'm late'

Again, pages of moaning, the same points over and over - 'We shouldn't HAVE to say we have a boyfriend, waaa!' - but no solutions. It seems like this is just all about venting.

But, I've no way of knowing until I speak to him, have I? We'd never get anywhere if we did not try. If he said, 'go away I don't want to talk to you', that would be an explicit rejection and I would go away.

No Wamster but if he is talking to someone else would you go and interrupt his conversation? Or if he makes it clear before mentioning a girlfriend that he isn't interested would you go away?

But it's not us women who should be solving the problem, Severin.

Just like it's not women who should be preventing rape.

Which makes more sense...

"Don't get harrassed"
or
"Don't harrass"

Sorry misread your last post - so you finally answered the question I asked about 23 pages ago. You would go away if they said no I don't want to speak to you. So why is it different for these men who don't leave when rejected?

Please, I don't mind arguments about the topic, but enough of this excusing rape nonsense.

We are talking about a bloke chatting a woman up when she may not wish it, irritating, annoying as hell and, yes, he should take the hint straightaway, we are not talking about rape here.

And for the record, in my view rape is never excusable at all and nobody should have sex if they have said no to it or be forced by another into it.

Severin - as someone posted way back we may have got onto solutions if other people hadn't come on with their ridiculous arguments. I think that was one of the reasons for the thread.

They should leave when rejected, of course they should, but can't you see that unless he becomes abusive or threatening, I don't see it as that big a deal?

Bloke: 'Let me buy you a drink'
Woman: 'No thanks'
Bloke: 'Oh go on, just a drink'
Woman: 'No thanks'
Bloke: 'I only want to buy you a drink'
Woman: 'Look, I'm not interested'
Bloke: 'OK, point taken, see you later. Have a good time'

Now the man is being persistent, I agree, but no real harm done. It is only when he says, 'Fuck off, then, you tart' or words to that effect i.e. becomes abusive or threatening that it is a problem.
And, yeah, if a woman does feel threatened, ring the police or call the bouncer over.
That's all I've tried to say here, really, persistence is only an issue if the bloke then becomes abusive or threatening. I don't see persistence being a bad thing in itself.
That's how I see it, others view it differently, that is their choice. I'm not going to argue anymore.

I am leaving this thread now. I've had enough.

Yes sprogger (and addressing Severin's point) trying to make women understand the precursors may help in being less tolerant of this type of behaviour rather than just regarding it as a nuisance that they have to put up with.

This is why we have these discussions here.

Thank you for the link Sprogger.

I cannot believe you still haven't got the point of the thread, Wamster. It is not those men that go when you ask them, it is those men that don't - or don't until you mention a partner (or interrupt your conversation/evening out) that we have a problem with.

Severin, you may have "opinions," but you also clearly have an agenda in coming to the MN message boards. The two are not mutually exclusive you know. It's often helpful to get a picture of where someone is coming from - like the thread about universal paternity testing/whether women who don't disclose the father of their children are committing a "highly immoral" act, etc.

Soz, meant to say that was your thread Handivedscallops linked to upthread.

Try this scenario Wamster, no violence or insults, does it sound at all intimidating to you?

M - Can I buy you a drink?
W - No thanks, I have one.
M - So are you here alone.
W - Actually I'm with friends and we were in the middle of a conversation, sorry
M - So you wont talk to me?
W - No, sorry
M - What if I want to talk to you?
W - I'm sorry, no.
M - You can't make me move
W-
M - I know you like me
W -
M - You are just playing hard to get
W - I'm not playing, please leave me alone
M - I could make you come
W -
M - I bet you are wild in bed
W -
M -
W -
M -
W - Please go away.
M - Come back to my place
W - No.
M - You couldn't do better than me
W -
M - You'd love my cock in you
W -
M - So when do I get to bang you?
W - Not if you were the last man on earth and I had a gun to my head
M - I could make you scream
W -
M - I have a massive cock
W -
M - Do you want to see it?

And on and on..

So no threats, no violence, so insults, but funnily enough the woman is quite likely to feel intimidated.

Or do you think she's a delicate flower?