Right. “Boys will be boys” comes to mind.
There is that, too.
Again, back in the early 90s, when I was in college, “no means no” was revolutionary. But looking back, that was it. There was no other public discussion going on of what men’s responsibilities were, aside from paying attention to “no” in the context of sex. A pretty low bar, I think you’ll agree, and yet “no means no” was regarded as unrealistic and unfair at the time.
And of course, Gloria Steinem’s ad hoc one-free-grope rule (created for the benefit of Bill Clinton) was also unhelpful.
This is the same story I linked above but an audio version, with the voices of the people involved.
I second this, we seem to have lost the moral ideal of trying to be a ‘gentleman’. Instead of having ideal behavior, we focus on not crossing legal boundaries of very bad behavior.
I’m reminded of certain men who have retreated behind things like “technically, 16 is legal” when called out.
The other point to keep in mind is that the number of people who make up stories or embellish is going to change when someone can expect to be believed instead of expecting to be disbelieved or blamed.
In light of that, yes, of course there needs to be a concern that the willingness to hear everyone with a story to tell does not become a willingness to condemn based on every story told. Yes, of course there has to be a concern that someone could tell a story about something they say happened many years ago when perhaps there are motives simply to smear someone.
When the conditions surrounding telling this kind of story changes then yes, the percentage with motives to make something up are going to change. Having said that, I don’t think there is any going back to the days when someone tells a story, the person who comes out looking the worst in the story says it never happened, and the story is automatically deemed a fabrication. I don’t think the days are coming back when people did not have to concern themselves about what would happen if their partner DOES “kiss and tell.”
In the 1980’s, promiscuity was practiced with a blithe lack of concern for the likelihood of passing around communicable diseases. Then came a communicable disease that brought on a lengthy and difficult death to relatively young people, and that changed very suddenly.
People do adjust behaviors when they accept that there are natural consequences to doing otherwise. Divine law is built to protect us from the consequences of sin. It is not arbitrary.
Having said that, I would hope no one wants to use the penal system for anything but serious sexual assaults for which there is concrete evidence. That leaves social and professional consequences as the personal price paid by those who choose to commit lesser offenses. As for those who are accused of lesser offenses without proof, we already have other sins in that category, such as offenses against integrity in business and in social interactions. We work our way through these things. We don’t need a situation where it is OK to tell your friends that so-and-so is in the habit of borrowing money and never paying it back (because these other friends, having money in their wallets, have a need to know) but don’t let anyone get a bad reputation in the sexual realm because it is somehow less fair to talk about things like that. We should not be so afraid that someone could get the wrong idea about someone who did choose to be in a questionable situation…that is, I mean stories told after an out-of-marriage sexual encounter when there is evidence that the encounter did take place.
The willingness to hear people say out loud that they were given unwanted attention they took as sexual is going to put a chill on encounters that used to be thought “safe,” just as AIDS put a chill on behaviors that were thought to be safe but never were safe.
Out-of-wedlock sexual encounters are not safe. They are forbidden by divine law for a reason: chastity is not like keeping kosher, a mere expression of religious devotion! Putting your hands on someone not your spouse in anything like an intimate way was never “safe.” There was always the chance of arousing emotions the person doing the touching did not mean to arouse. Making comments that could be taken as sexual were never “safe,” or “just good fun” even if the targets who didn’t like it weren’t in the habit of complaining and spouses of those engaging in this kind of thing “never knew.” Sexually-suggestive talk and behavior in professional or academic settings has never been something that caused no harm. Let’s not complain about the prospect of having to cut that kind of thing out. Even though it was rarely meant with bad intentions, it was never needed and it did do harm, usually unspoken harm, sometimes without the realization of those who chose to do it.
Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones, no obscenity or silly or suggestive talk, which is out of place, but instead, thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. Eph. 5:3-7
If our political adversaries wanted to make elective abortions difficult to procur, I would hope none of us would refuse to help them because we were so caught up in avoiding working with them that we would fail to do something good in order to avoid association with them. On that account, judge what is proposed as we go forward on its merits. Some will be reasonable proposals, some won’t, but we shouldn’t shoot anything down just because it is proposed by someone we don’t like. After all, “even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile.”
–As a friend points out, there are a lot of reasons to reject a guy aside from looks. He could be way too young, way too old, reeking of alcohol, obviously several sandwiches short of a picnic, not your ethnicity (very important in some groups), not your religion (also very important), too religious or not religious enough (within the particular religion), a coworker (some people don’t want to date at work), doesn’t speak your language well, divorced, married, engaged, has a child or children, has problems holding down a job, poor money management, bad life choices, not smart enough, nothing in common, iffy hygiene, vegan/carnivore, has poor social skills, smokes, smokes pot/too much pot, too straitlaced, too extroverted, too introverted, wants kids/doesn’t want kids/doesn’t want enough kids, has pet you’re allergic to, too close to family/friends, doesn’t seem to have any relationships with family or friends, too outdoorsy, too indoorsy, too liberal, too conservative, too aloof, too clingy, too illiterate, too overeducated, too alternate, not alternative enough, etc.
–If you read online advice columns (or CAF for that matter), you’ll see how important these compatibility issues can be in actual relationships, so a lot of people will preemptively avoid incompatible people. Heck, Red Pill guys tend to have huge AVOID lists of their own.
–Aside from compatibility, there’s the issue of–is this inconvenient? I promise you, that in my single days, the dreamiest guy on the planet would have gotten the brush off from me if I was late to class, studying for a test, on the way to the airport, crampy, headachy, etc. Sometimes it’s just a bad time.
–Plus, as I’ve mentioned before, a lot of women have very heavy social programming against talking to men that they don’t have some sort of prior connection to. I would never, never, never have ever given my phone number to a man met in some public place. I might politely exchange a few sentences with him and even enjoy it, but I would make darn sure not to provide information about how to find me.
–Lastly, I have to mention the effect of LOVE on women’s receptivity to male attention. For example, when I was courting my future husband and a newlywed (before we had kids) I literally had eyes only for my husband. I remember maybe one time in those years thinking so-and-so-is-kinda-cute, but 99.9999% of the time, I literally couldn’t even see other men. So, yeah, if anybody had come onto me during those years, no matter how devilishly handsome, I would be annoyed by being bothered by him, because I wasn’t interested.
–I feel like your vision is that it’s all about raw sexuality, as if women just float around, with no problems, responsibilities, ideological commitments, personal preferences, or existing relationships, whereas the truth is that any sensible women will have most of those things.
And in case anybody wants to say, “But most women aren’t sensible,” I would respond, “Then why use techniques that work best on women who aren’t sensible, especially when purportedly seeking a for a long-term relationship and/or wife?”
The answer is in your question
- the men are seeking shorter term gratification, not a wife
- they are targeting women who aren’t sensible, and thus use the best tactics for the target.
The “NO’s” are inconsequential in this sales strategy. It takex x number of no’s to get that yes.
The thing is, one also sees Christian men (including Catholics on CAF) recommending these pickup techniques for finding a wife, which the techniques seem very ill-suited for. It’s an odd strategy. Why, for example, would one want to share a checkbook or raise children with a woman who is so naive that she can’t see through this stuff?
If it’s legal, TOUGH.
You can complain and whine about it all you want, but there isn’t a thing in the world the law will do.
Where are these posts?
Nobody’s asking the law to do anything–but we are free to say that the guy shouldn’t be Senator.
I don’t have any right this minute, but it’s not hard to find guys recommending pickup technique on CAF.
Wait a week or two, and somebody will do it again.
All the advice I’ve seen here has been geared towards finding a real relationship, not ‘hook-up’ advice.
I always find it interesting when people complain about how there all these hateful, stupid posts on here but can’t cite a single one.
I’m wondering how many accounts on this site either just have a grudge and that’s why they lean feminist or MRA or are looking for any and every excuse to politicize the conversation to virtue-signal left-wing values just so they can say they aren’t right-wing in front of their “friends”.
Yes, it’s THAT obvious.
I don’t have any interest in protecting salesmen with that sales strategy. They use those tactics at their own risk. It might get them a date, but it also might make them a social and professional pariah. As those tactics are not illegal but also not protected, they are free to proceed with that in mind.
OK, well, it turns out it is legal to have company or school policies against certain behaviors and to fire or expel anyone who won’t abide by them. Those who don’t like it can complain and whine about it all they want, but the law won’t be on their side.
It is high time that those policies be enforced just as strictly if not more strictly on the people at the top of the organizational ladder as those on the bottom. They are in the positions of greater trust.
There is no reason in the world for bad behavior to be protected by the favor of the law, let alone to claim to be entitled to favorable public opinion.
There are certain behaviors that are protected as a matter of liberty. Touching people who don’t want you to touch them and making personal comments that impede the raisons d’être of the group that has given you the privilege of associating with them are not protected actions.
I see “virtue-signaling” is still your new favorite word!
Everyone who makes a statement that reflects liberal values is not virtue-signaling.
That is basic strategy for insurance and door-to-door type sales. Keep knocking till you get a yes, and you aren’t concerned about repeat business.
It’s more of a bar tactic or with random people on the street you don’t know (can’t hurt your rep). You generally won’t see it in an office type situation.