andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (02/06/86)
In article <1083@watmath.UUCP> jamcmullan@watmath.UUCP (Judy McMullan) writes: > ... I think a better social situation would be one where >either (1) people become acquainted for a certain amount of time before a >sexual relationship is established (2) there were social situations where it >was recognized that the people involved were interested in a sexual relation- >ship and so women were not approached at any old time or place no matter HOW >inappropriate or what they were reading. I'd like to respond to this, as I've thought about this a lot. This would be a better social situation, but I don't think it's ever going to happen. If A likes B better than B likes A, it's natural for A to try to change B's mind, so that B will like A better. In the current situation, if A is a woman and B is a man, she is expected not to make any advances to B, but instead to indicate to B that she would accept if he made advances to her. If B doesn't read the signals correctly, or is not self-confident enough, they've both missed out on a potentially good relationship. A is contributing to this problem as much as B. If we had a non-sexist society, there would be an equal division of expectations on either side, and less difference between the average male and the average female reaction in this kind of situation. As I understand it, in gay and lesbian groups, where there's a smaller amount of variation in aggressiveness in advances, a lot of this A-pursuing-B stuff still goes on. That suggests that it will still go on in the wider society; so that men and women both should change their approaches to relationships while still acknowledging this tendency. --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "The showers beat on broken blinds and chimney-pots"