Here are some excerpts from Phaedra Starling’s “Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced” (via lostgrrrls). I chopped it up but you should definitely look at her full post (by clicking that link) sometime cuz it’s really good:
You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really. Even to say that you like her hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for women to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s Rapist. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win her over with charm or flattery. Believe what she’s signaling, and back off.
On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.
So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.
I don’t like assuming bad things about strangers because it seems like a poor way to live. I’m not yet certain what I think of the “Schrödinger’s Rapist” concept (how’s that for being an agreeable/noncommital feminist?!) but this quote is definitely getting at something important, and that is the issue of
RESPECTING SOCIAL SIGNALS.
First off, I want to clarify that even though the above example refers to male rapists, the separate issue of respecting social signals is gender neutral. I believe that it translates directly to respect for one’s personal agency, and I’ve seen both women AND men suffer from someone ignoring this agency.
Now, my female perspective:
Nothing makes me angrier than when a guy is hitting on me, and I am uncomfortable, and I am showing that I am uncomfortable, and he ignores my obvious discomfort.
Yes, some people lack social skills, and I don’t like to assume that they are doing the “bad thing” of consciously disregarding my discomfort. But even in the case of the socially stupid, there comes a point where I expect to be given a way out.
By “way out,” I simply mean the opportunity to not reciprocate the flirt’s advances. As I said, I try to give others the benefit of the doubt in social situations. I make great efforts to achieve a certain level of social sensitivity, and I understand that the majority of other people probably don’t analyze social interactions as much as I do. So, in order to treat bad flirts fairly (and note that this only applies when I am not enjoying the flirting), I use the following process for as long as necessary:
- I want this person to leave me alone.
- I am showing him that I am uncomfortable.
- He is still bothering me. I assume that he is socially stupid.
- I look for him giving me a “way out,” or an opportunity to end this uncomfortable situation.
- I find no evidence for him giving me a “way out.”
- I verbally express my lack of interest (ie. “no thanks” or “I have a boyfriend”)
- Repeat steps 3-6.
Ideally, people would be aware enough to stop at step 2 and, ideally, I would be more confident in asserting step 6. Overall, though, this process seems pretty fair to me (tell me if you disagree!). Most importantly, it shows what I find disrespectful: the need for step 7.
After an explicit verbal denial, any further pressure shows a lack of respect for the flirtee’s personal agency.
As I think about this particular form of disrespect, one boy continually comes to mind. This boy (who I will refer to as “Cricket,” the name of my least-favorite dog) tried SO hard to have some sort of romance with me. I’m not sure if Cricket just wanted sex, or was going for some sort of intense Wuthering Heights-esque relationship, but he was unrelenting.
Now, I don’t like to recount the details of Cricket’s aggressive pursuit because it makes me feel conceited—even though his pursuit really was more stressful than flattering. I’ll just leave it at the fact that he forced me to repeat my 7th step more times than I can recall. And if you still call any of this a humblebrag, then we have very different conceptions of what is worth bragging about. In fact, I’d like to clear up why I disagree with this particular humblebrag accusation, since it occurs so often:
Unrequited affections are not brag-worthy. If anything, I think unrequited affections are proof of a misunderstanding. For example, X wants to kiss Y. But Y does not want to kiss X. Either Y does not understand X enough to see why they should make out (HIGHLY UNLIKELY), or X does not understand Y enough to see why they should never ever let their lips touch (MUCH MORE COMMON). After all, if Y is correct, then Y will never want to kiss X, and who in their right mind would want to kiss someone who will never enjoy the kiss?
The above assertions are all grounded on a view of love as a sort of mutual contract. I’m not completely sure how to articulate/defend this view yet, but I feel pretty confident in saying that romance, in its purest form, must be shared. Otherwise, it is not romance.
Y is either missing out on something great or is receiving affection that is meant for someone else (that is, the person X imagines Y to be). Nothing brag-worthy or even enjoyable here.
So this is why I have no patience for pushy flirts.
Back to Cricket. For several months, I couldn’t figure out why Cricket made me so angry. He never touched me or blatantly tried to manipulate me. In fact, he was surprisingly honest, too honest at times (which is perhaps the most reassuring vice of them all). He seemed to know what he wanted, and he pursued what he wanted. So why did I hate him?
I started to question myself. He seemed much more self-assured than me, so maybe he was right. Maybe that “women only want what they can’t have” stereotype was true, and I was only resisting because I was primed to pursue guys that were bad for my emotional health. Maybe my initial instincts were wrong and he was the correct X and I was the rare case of the mistaken Y and he was just too perfect for me to realize we were meant to be together.
Then I stopped reading Reddit posts about “the friend zone” and watching 90’s rom-coms about “the chase” and remembered that my instincts were more trustworthy than this guy’s confidence. He was making me miserable, for God’s sake.
EVEN IF Cricket had been right, he still should have respected my rejection. By disregarding my rejection, he was also disregarding my right to control who is involved in my romantic life. This is precisely why “the chase” is harmful: it requires a level of disrespect for self-agency.
If Cricket could confidently make advances in the face of my continual denial, then something was wrong with him. There comes a point when lack of discouragement is a red flag. It was only when I looked at Cricket’s pursuit from a distance, and noticed that my right to say “no” had never entered the equation, that I realized why I hate him:
I hate him because he is disrespectful—NOT because I’m a neurotic female who doesn’t know what’s good for her.
.
.
.
I really hope Cricket doesn’t read my blog.
(That goes for both the dog and the boy.)
Either way, here’s a pic of the dog:
…now you understand why I hate this Cricket, too.
