regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (02/20/86)
It has been pointed out that when the woman on the beach indicated via short replies her lack of interest in conversing, she was being less than clear about her feelings. It has been suggested that she make her lack of interest clear. We can hypothesize about what happens to the woman who politely but firmly declines further conversation: Guy[1,2,3]: (Politely) Nice day. Is that a good book? Gal: (Also politely) Yes, but I'm not interested in conversation about it. Guy[1,2,3]: Well, shit, I wasn't trying to start up a conversation or anything. I just made a comment. Who the hell do you think you are, anyway? Miss America? Why, I've seen better lookers than you 5 times today. . . She didn't initiate, and she tried to refuse contact as pleasantly as possible, but she caught flack for it. All hypothesis, of course, but I'm a relatively direct woman, and I've heard this type of response more than once in my life. The situation below isn't exactly parallel, but it illustrates what happens when a person is direct about their intentions. I like to dance, and I used to go out to bars to do just that. I've never once received a less-than-negative response to, "I'd like to dance with other people tonight" when some guy, after a dance or two, plunks himself down at "my" table and proceeds to try to discover my lifestory for the next 3 hours at mega-decibels (his presence effectively discouraging any other people from approaching the table). I don't appreciate this. It hasn't STOPPED me, of course -- I still ask other people to dance, and I've even had a T-shirt printed up that reads, "I go home alone" as a subtle indicator that I'm at a bar with a dance floor in order to dance. BUT, I have found that "direct expression" of my interest (or lack of interest) hasn't ever won me any points. (In many cases, it's easier on MY ego to be "indirect", and let the guy go away puzzled, rather than mad.) I ALSO initiate contact, and I ALSO take rejection. If I had initiated contact, I accept rejection as a possibility. When I don't initiate the contact, I resent being blamed for somebody else's weak ego. And DON'T tell me I initiated contact by being at the bar. So did "he". Or was he just there for a drink, and I was there to put down men? As we may accept that men in general don't leave the house saying "Let's go harrass some woman on the beach" women also don't leave the house saying, "Let's go lead on some guys then shut them down". It is a delicate and subtle issue. One person's "encouragement" is another person's harrassment. You ask "how's a guy to know?" Well, how's a woman to know? By observation, experience, thought, and listening to the clues. And even then we are wrong about 80% of the time. It doesn't get easier. -- Adrienne Regard "I don't know if I'm reasonable, but I am right."
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (02/23/86)
In article <177@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >It has been pointed out that when the woman on the beach indicated via >short replies her lack of interest in conversing, she was being less than >clear about her feelings. It has been suggested that she make her lack of >interest clear. We can hypothesize about what happens to the woman who >politely but firmly declines further conversation: > >Guy[1,2,3]: (Politely) Nice day. Is that a good book? > >Gal: (Also politely) Yes, but I'm not interested in conversation about it. > >Guy[1,2,3]: Well, shit, I wasn't trying to start up a conversation > or anything. I just made a comment. Who the hell do you think > you are, anyway? Miss America? Why, I've seen better lookers > than you 5 times today. . . > >She didn't initiate, and she tried to refuse contact as pleasantly as >possible, but she caught flack for it. I don't think that this counts as ``as pleasantly as possible''. It is short and abrupt enough to hurt a good many feelings. I figure anybody who makes the effort to approach you is worth at least three or four sentences. That one sentence line leaves the poor guy wondering if you snubbed him because you didn't want *any* company, or because you didn't like the colour of he shoes or what. I think that when rejecting someone it is necessary to get across whether or not you are rejecting him personally. That part isn't clear from this exchange. >I like to dance, and I used to go out to bars to do just that. I've never >once received a less-than-negative response to, "I'd like to dance with >other people tonight" when some guy, after a dance or two, plunks himself >down at "my" table and proceeds to try to discover my lifestory for the >next 3 hours at mega-decibels (his presence effectively discouraging any >other people from approaching the table) Yes, you do meet people like this. You have to up the level of rejection for some people to astronomical limits before they get the message. But this is no reason to *start* at astronomical limits. >I even had a T-shirt printed up that reads, "I go home alone" as a subtle >indicator that I'm at a bar with a dance floor in order to dance. Hmm. In Toronto that would almost universally be taken as a challenge. Perhaps you have this problem here. It is difficult to print a T-shirt with exactly what you want to say, since what you want to say will take more than a few words. But this T-shirt is not an example of direct communication -- the great unspoken question is ``why do you go home alone? because you like it that way? or because nobody has made it worth your while?'' >BUT, I >have found that "direct expression" of my interest (or lack of interest) >hasn't ever won me any points. (In many cases, it's easier on MY ego to >be "indirect", and let the guy go away puzzled, rather than mad.) I ALSO >initiate contact, and I ALSO take rejection. If I had initiated contact, I >accept rejection as a possibility. When I don't initiate the contact, I >resent being blamed for somebody else's weak ego. I don't think that it is a matter of ``weak ego''. There are tactful rejections, and rejections which make you feel like something the cat dragged in. Just because somebody elseinitiated the contact with you doesn't mean that he should be prepared to take anything from you -- as a simple matter of fact he *can't* think of everything. You shouldn't have to spend 3 hours (or 20 minutes) letting him down gently, but a little consideration doesn't hurt. After all, while you are there to dance first, and meet people second (if at all) he may be there to meet people first, and dance second. >And DON'T tell me I initiated contact by being at the bar. So did "he". >Or was he just there for a drink, and I was there to put down men? As >we may accept that men in general don't leave the house saying "Let's go >harrass some woman on the beach" women also don't leave the house saying, >"Let's go lead on some guys then shut them down". I hope that one can assume this. But on three occasions I have lived in a shared house where there were women who used to do exactly that. I was invited to do the same. I don't think that this is representative of most women -- I certainly hope that it is not -- but it gave me the willies. All of these women were under 25 -- I hope that as they grow older they will grow out of this. I think that the problem is one of inexperience and ignorance more than anything else. There is no great place to learn ``how to take a rejection'' anywhere but through experience. And there is no great way to learn how to give a rejection, either. I have noticed the following pattern of bahaviour, though. A man approaches a woman, and they have a few minutes pleasant conversation. But suddenly I get the impression that she panics. What if I can't get rid of him when I want to? Panic, panic, panic -- then crushing rejection. This leaves one stunned and bewildered guy. This particular pattern of bahaviour is flawed on more than one front. First of all, it hurts someone unneceesarily, and second of all it teaches men to expect crushing rejections. As they toughen up to be strong enough to take this kind of stuff, they can end up so insensitive that they are totally oblivious to kinder rejections. And women who run across them learn that (some) men are very hard to get rid of, and so while involved in pleasant conversation with a man may panic, because they are unsure that they can get rid of him when they want to.... around and around and around it goes. clearly everyone would be better off if they knew how to give and how to get a rejection without becoming an insensitive jerk. If somewhere along the line men and women learned not to be afraid of each other this would be a great thing as well. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura laura@lll-crg.arpa
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (02/25/86)
In article <546@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: >In article <177@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >>I like to dance, and I used to go out to bars to do just that. I've never >>once received a less-than-negative response to, "I'd like to dance with >>other people tonight" when some guy, after a dance or two, plunks himself >>down at "my" table and proceeds to try to discover my lifestory for the >>next 3 hours at mega-decibels (his presence effectively discouraging any >>other people from approaching the table) > >Yes, you do meet people like this. You have to up the level of rejection >for some people to astronomical limits before they get the message. But >this is no reason to *start* at astronomical limits. Agreed, but it is hard for me to imagine that you [Adrienne] "never once" received a less-than-negative response to that. Come down South, I'll dance with you and (if I feel like it) *ASK* you if I may join you at your table, or if you would like to join me at mine. Besides, with the kind of modern attitude you express here, if you let me join you you won't *expect* me to buy all the drinks. ;-) >>I even had a T-shirt printed up that reads, "I go home alone" as a subtle >>indicator that I'm at a bar with a dance floor in order to dance. > >Hmm. In Toronto that would almost universally be taken as a challenge. Yep -- here, too. >>BUT, I >>have found that "direct expression" of my interest (or lack of interest) >>hasn't ever won me any points. (In many cases, it's easier on MY ego to >>be "indirect", and let the guy go away puzzled, rather than mad.) I ALSO >>initiate contact, and I ALSO take rejection. If I had initiated contact, I >>accept rejection as a possibility. When I don't initiate the contact, I >>resent being blamed for somebody else's weak ego. > >I don't think that it is a matter of ``weak ego''. There are tactful >rejections, and rejections which make you feel like something the cat >dragged in. Just because somebody elseinitiated the contact with you >doesn't mean that he should be prepared to take anything from you -- as >a simple matter of fact he *can't* think of everything. You shouldn't >have to spend 3 hours (or 20 minutes) letting him down gently, but a >little consideration doesn't hurt. After all, while you are there to >dance first, and meet people second (if at all) he may be there to meet >people first, and dance second. I see your point Laura, and definitely agree that tact is in order at least at the start until there is reason to be otherwise. I have to agree with Adrienne, though, that it is VERY often weak ego instead. BTW, congrats to Adrienne for initiating contact -- it is most welcomed from this quarter! >>And DON'T tell me I initiated contact by being at the bar. So did "he". >>Or was he just there for a drink, and I was there to put down men? As >A man approaches a woman, and they have a few minutes pleasant conversation. >But suddenly I get the impression that she panics. What if I can't get >rid of him when I want to? Panic, panic, panic -- then crushing >rejection. This leaves one stunned and bewildered guy. This particular >pattern of bahaviour is flawed on more than one front. First of all, it >hurts someone unneceesarily, and second of all it teaches men to expect >crushing rejections. As they toughen up to be strong enough to take this >kind of stuff, they can end up so insensitive that they are totally >oblivious to kinder rejections. And women who run across them learn that >(some) men are very hard to get rid of, and so while involved in pleasant >conversation with a man may panic, because they are unsure that they can >get rid of him when they want to.... > >around and around and around it goes. clearly everyone would be better >off if they knew how to give and how to get a rejection without becoming >an insensitive jerk. If somewhere along the line men and women learned >not to be afraid of each other this would be a great thing as well. Bravo! I've been in the exact scenario described above by Laura many times. What you (i.e., I) have to do is realize what has just happened and blow it off -- otherwise you can feel the insensitivity Laura mentioned growing insidiously... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
ray@utcsri.UUCP (Raymond Allen) (02/25/86)
In article <546@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: >I have noticed the following pattern >of bahaviour, though. > >A man approaches a woman, and they have a few minutes pleasant conversation. >But suddenly I get the impression that she panics. What if I can't get >rid of him when I want to? Panic, panic, panic -- then crushing >rejection. This leaves one stunned and bewildered guy. This particular >pattern of bahaviour is flawed on more than one front. First of all, it >hurts someone unneceesarily, and second of all it teaches men to expect >crushing rejections. As they toughen up to be strong enough to take this >kind of stuff, they can end up so insensitive that they are totally >oblivious to kinder rejections. Actually, some of us just chalk it up as a lack of awareness (or, possibly, a refusal of the rejector to become aware) of the effects of their behavior. >And women who run across them learn that >(some) men are very hard to get rid of, and so while involved in pleasant >conversation with a man may panic, because they are unsure that they can >get rid of him when they want to.... > >around and around and around it goes. clearly everyone would be better >off if they knew how to give and how to get a rejection without becoming >an insensitive jerk. If somewhere along the line men and women learned >not to be afraid of each other this would be a great thing as well. As usual Laura, you have hit the nail on the head. (ouch :-) ) I tend to see this type of behavior a lot, especially in "high pressure" environments such as bars, dances, maybe even the beach. My pet explanation for this is as follows... Suppose persons A and B are the correct (but not necessarily desired) MOTAS for each other. Furthermore assume that they are each receptive to meeting someone new. (If the second assumption is not true then it is unlikely that conversation between the two will ever be amicable -- and besides, lots of other netters have already written treatises about what happens in that situation :-) But I digress...) So, in some manner of social intercourse our two individuals cross paths and begin to (talk, discuss, argue, rant, etc.) about whatever strikes their fancy. Now what happens is that one of the individuals in question (in Laura's example, the woman) decides that the other is not suitable for them for some personal reason(s). To compound the problem the other person *is* interested in continuing the conversation. As an auxiliary condition, there may be other people around that the disinterested person may want to meet. The result? The disinterested person will begin to feel pressured and, subsequently, resentful of the other person's stubborn refusal to get up and walk away. This may eventually lead to a curt drop-kick in the manner described by Laura above. This is (another) classic example of non-communication. The proper course of action for the disinterested person is to *politely* inform the other that I (the disinterested individual) do not wish to continue the conversation rather than letting things rise to the boiling point along with the attendant explosion of nasty verbiage. (I *love* English :-) ) Now I am the first to concede that this is very difficult to do. Any rejection is bound to hurt feelings. The proper way to convey rejection is to try to impress upon the other that you feel that he/she is not for you. This is much better than insulting the persons appearance, intelligence, ancestry, etc. Of course if the other person is a boor who will not take "no" for an answer, *then*, perhaps, a stronger rejection may be called for. As a side note, it is also worthwhile for one to notice the behavior of others when making conversation. If you note that the person to whom you are speaking is constantly looking at everything other than yourself then you might suspect that they are finding what they are looking at more intersting that you. This might be a good time to make a farewell gesture. It will be quite obvious at this point whether or not your company is desired. Enough yacking. I return to reading the net.news. -- Ray Allen | "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it." utcsri!ray | - Oscar Wilde as quoted in "Parachutes & Kisses" by Erica Jong
sanjiva@goedel.UUCP (Sanjiva Prasad) (03/16/86)
In article <2199@utcsri.UUCP> Ray Allen ( utcsri!ray) writes : > In article <546@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) writes: : : : > of action for the disinterested person is to *politely* inform the other ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > that I (the disinterested individual) do not wish to continue the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > conversation rather than letting things rise to the boiling point > along with the attendant explosion of nasty verbiage. (I *love* English :-) ) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You mean UNINTERESTED (:~) Cheers, Bottoms up ( not literally ) and Mud - in - your - eye . Sanjiva