Pursuing relationships is inherently puerile
Intro
I've seen a disturbing trend online where expressing interest in others for the purpose of being in a relationship with them is thought to be inherently puerile. This view is relayed more simply as "men pursuing women is always sexual and disgusting".The topic is most often brought up by women who are expressing disgust at how they've been treated by men online and asking for online networks to change somehow to stop men from saying things they dislike to them.
To start off, I'd like to make it clear that I don't approve of men coming onto women in an overtly sexual fashion and refusing to back down. Even this statement is hedged a bit, because I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being overtly sexual by itself. What exactly is said does matter as what is said can be the difference between stating what you are looking for and being an ass.
Harmless interest condemned
The example I've been giving at the start of discussions about this online has been a man saying to a woman "You have pretty eyes". This statement is obviously a pickup line, and is making it clear that there is physical interest. There are assuredly disgusting people who use this line as a method of finding others with which to have a one night stand. That does not, though, make this opening statement disgusting."You have pretty eyes" is a harmless statement and a simple compliment. It may be a bit of an odd thing to say as the opening statement to someone you don't know online, but it does communicate a few things: 1. The speaker is interested in the physical appearance of the recipient. 2. The speaker likely wants some sort of relationship.
Online = Public
Even with this simple beginning statement I've been told by some online that the statement is already harmful to them. They say "I don't want such contact from men, it should be obvious that I don't want it because I am on {social network x}. If I wanted it I would be on {social network y}" I disagree because I view all social networks as "public meeting places".
Analysis - Whistlers
I think one should view any place online where you interact with strangers as being equal to public settings such as walking down a public street. If you are walking down the street and a person whistles at you, you can react to it in a number of different ways:- You ignore it entirely
- You take it as a compliment
- You don't respond
- You look at the whistler and smile and nod
- You look at the whistler, and decide to go talk to them and start up a conversation
- You take it as something lewd
- You still ignore it and move on
- You get angry and say/gesture something back
- You approach the whistler and start a confrontation
- You go berserk and start a political campaign to make a law that whistling at others on the street is illegal in your town and punishable by a fine or a short stay in the local jail.
In the example responses and reactions I've given, you can see that some people may appreciate being whistled at, where others dislike it strongly. This is expected and reality. I cannot say firmly that whistling at people on the street is a terrible behavior, nor can I say that it is a good healthy thing. It depends on the situation.
I personally have never whistled at someone on the street. It seems unrefined to me. Despite that I don't think all whistlers are inherently "bad people". I think they are doing the same thing I said earlier, they are expressing physical interest in someone. Their end goals are not clear from the initial statement; they may have bad intentions, or they may have harmless intentions and just are giving a compliment. It is also possible they have zero interest in a relationship or interaction beyond the initial whistle.
Example - Approaching a stranger
I'll give some examples of interactions I've had in my life.When I was younger, before I was married of course, and when I was dating, I once approached a cashier in a store and told her she was attractive and asked her if she would go on a date with me. I had to wait in line to do this because there were customers. I felt extremely embarassed doing this, and I didn't say anything overtly rude. I just expressed interest and asked a stranger point blank for a date. She reacted by saying she was in a relationship. She didn't get angry at me, she simply declined. That was it. I walked away feeling sheepish but at least proud of myself for trying.
Was it inappropriate for me to do that? You could easily argue yes, because the woman I approached was at her workplace and as a result had to be polite to me. Even if she hated being approached, she couldn't tell me off in that setting or harshly explain how terrible it was of me to approach her that way. I'd like to believe that her response was honest and that she simply wasn't interested, but I don't really know.
Online communities can be seen the same way. While they are equivalent to public settings, there is not complete freedom of response. As we all know, the "internet never forgets", so many people don't say what they actually think online because they don't want to be held accountable eternally for a short lapse in judgement when responding to a random irritant.
This is a good thing and makes the internet more of a "safe place" than you think, but only under a few conditions:
- The interactions are visible to all publicly ( or at least to a large group such as one would encounter in public )
- The interaction cannot be changed after the fact to deny it ( some social networks let you revise what you say online, effectively letting you hide something you said that was inappropriate after the fact )
- The identity of the posters is a real identity, or at least one with a reputation that can be damaged ( so that there is some realistic consequence for saying things one should not )
Also in this example there is a difference from the situation to online communities. I did not have any personally identitying information about the woman I asked out. She had a nametag, but even that may not have been her real name. As a result, she may have felt safer in the situation than someone in a modern online setting with their real name attached to the interaction. There are plenty of accounts of women being stalked online by people interested in them, with them attempting to do something about that, and having few options to stop it.
That is problematic. It is problematic both that people behave this way ( persisting to bother a person even after their recipient says "no" a single time ), and also that there is little consequence to those doing the stalking unless they are threatening in some fashion.
Online Handle
I believe that the eventual solution the world will come to is having "long term online handles" online, and making all public interactions a matter of permanent record associated with that identity. In order to prevent spam, such online handles should be tied to a real person, where bans/blocks will follow all handles used by the originating person.What I mean by this, is that the people responsible for posting online content should be held accountable to everything they say and do in the online public arena. I am including "private forums" and "social networks with groups".
Example - Solicited
I'll give another similar example from my life, but with myself on the other side of the interaction. I was working at a university bookstore as a sales clerk. I was working the register. Some women were in line. After a rang up whatever their purchase was, they eyed me up and down and then asked me what I would want to strip at a party for them.I was not thrilled by this proposal of theirs. I was raised to be well behaved and not fool around. I declined their offer apologetically. I said that I appreciate their interest but I unfortunately would not be willing to do so.
Despite thinking their proposal was inappropriate I did not judge them nor get angry. You might say "Yeah why would you? You are a guy". If you think or say that sort of thing you are a sexist. There is no difference between being treated as a sexual object either as a man or a woman.
Freedom is sacred
You might also say "Yeah it is equally offensive to be treated as a sexual object either way." I don't agree. People have sexual desires, and they find engaging in them to be enjoyable. People enjoy pornography, strippers, and one night stands. You may find some or all of these things morally offensive, but it does not make it acceptable to be rude or mean to those who do. It is not acceptable in a free world to attempt to enforce the morality you beleive in on others.It is acceptable to share your moral beliefs and views. It is acceptable to explain why you think your views are reasonable and should be followed. It is not acceptable to force those views on others, regardless of whether you are "ultimately correct". Even supposing the existence of absolute truth, it is extremely unlikely that any of the various sets of beliefs in society are equal to that truth.
What I believe in is peace between all humans and an attempt to minimize strife while maximizing freedom and happiness of all humans globally. Such an ideal cannot be reached by enforcing rules upon others. It cannot be reached by creating "safe environments" ( code for expelling those you disagree with )
The way to reach peace is by figuring out what is actually hurting people, and doing the best we can to minimize the harm. Hearing things that offend you doesn't count as "being hurt", regardless of how oversensitive and whiny you may be.
Guess what: There are plenty of things I don't want to hear from others. Many of the things I see online seem really dumb and harmful to society and to others. I think the world is full of harmful insanity. Despite this, going around and telling everyone they are terrible and then trying to organize society to enforce my personal views on everyone would be stupid of me.
People will disagree with others. They will disagree strongly. They will have strong emotional reactions to the views and actions of others.
Next time you feel the desire to chew someone out and tell them how horrible and wrong they are, ask yourself whether doing so improves the world. It may improve the way you feel yourself, by expressing how you feel, but you are causing more harm than good by attacking someone you disagree with.
You might think "No; those people need to know what they are doing is wrong or they won't correct their behavior." I sincerely doubt that. There are some situations where people do things that are bad and are clueless to recognize it. In those situations it is acceptable to politely tell them that what they are doing is harmful or offensive. In fact, if you react in a polite way with reason, it is even acceptable to share your view that what someone is doing is bad, even if there is nothing wrong with their actions.
Engaging with others in society in a polite way, using reason rather than uncontrolled emotion, is crucial for maintaining peace. This includes how you interact with those you consider mortal enemies of your views and how you think the world should function.
Religous condemnation
I will address this particular point further, as I've met a lot of religous folk who seem to think that condemning the actions of others is acceptable. It's not.Even if others do or say things that you think are "deserving of hell", it is not acceptable to tell those people "you are going to hell". It is not acceptable to belittle others, or to refuse to interact with them because they are "bad".
If your religion states that such things are okay, or that violence or verbal abuse to others is acceptable, I'll be the first to tell you to go fuck yourself. Two can play the "it's okay to be an asshole to others game". Unlike others who believe in being a pacifist, I do not. I believe in standing up and defending peace with all necessary emotion and force.
I believe in minimizing such nonsense, but I will not let bullies rule the world, nor those who have the loudest voice be the only ones who are heard.
Inaction = Acceptance
Cooperation of all mankind cannot be brought about by pacifism or zen meditation. It can only be brought about by working hard towards treating your fellow human well and by standing against anyone who is opposed to equality, acceptance, and cooperation.I'm drifting from the original topic of this post. What I wished to address was condemnation of men for wishing to find someone to be in a relionship with. I'd like to return to something I mentioned at the start. There are men ( and women ) who are approaching others and saying things that are rude and unacceptable. Such things can feel very hurtful to the recipients of those statements.
What can we do!
There is a legitimate question to be asked in regard to those hurtful people: What can be done to stop that harm from occurring?You aren't going to like the answer.
You don't. A society of cooperation non-judgemental humans MUST allow free expression and statements.
You are probably thinking: "WTF! You just expect everyone to take it??" No. As I just mentioned, to create a harmonious world, responding to those who are disrupting that harmony is still necessary. I believe harmful statements should be met with equal force and intensity. If someone says something rude to you, you should first attempt to politely ask them to stop and advise them that what they are saying is rude.
If someone continues with offensive communication to you, it is perfectly reason to be angry with them, tell them off, publicly share the offensive crap that they said with others in the community etc. The point is to be balanced and reasonable in your approach.
Address individuals
Additionally, you must treat each person as an individual. It is not acceptable to react crazily to one person because other people who you consider to be "like them" said "bad things" to you previously. Each person gets their own chance to be a reasonable human.