Should you make a move on someone you're sure isn't interested in you?

Should you make a move on someone you're sure isn't interested in you?

I'm certain you're not supposed to do that (at least unless you're 100% confident like you). And while the person I'm thinking of can be hard to decipher, it's already looking like they aren't interested.

But people (mostly men for some reason) keep pressuring me into pursuing them, even though the lack of interest is pretty apparent. It also reminds me of that time college, where I did approach someone who (I didn't know) wasn't interested. Which resulted in them freaking out, calling the cops, and the police driving me home while they calm this person down, while also giving me a quick lecture on how making moves on someone who isn't interested qualifies as sexual harassment, and to be more careful next time.

And even without that, coming onto uninterested people still seems like a dick move to make (even if unintentionally) that no one wins from. So it's probably best to next this person in favor of someone else.

Attached: magic-instant-love.jpg (668x836, 92K)

what exactly is "making a move" or "coming onto" someone?
if that shit is landing you in cop cars you're doing it very wrong and i won't recommend

This. What actions, exactly, are you doing under the umbrella of "coming on to"them?

You're s'posed to make moves for the same reason you're s'posed to take risks in life. With that said however, there are unnecessary risks we hope you're smart enough not to take.

It's probably just innocent flirting or human interaction the person didn't want from them or anyone else. The main criteria for sexual improprieties is if it's wanted or not. Even if it's only talking to someone, or simply acknowledging their existence, it's an impropriety it it's unwanted, which can warrant police intervention. It doesn't even matter how you do it just as long as the person didn't want to be interacted with.

>if that shit is landing you in cop cars you're doing it very wrong and i won't recommend
Police often escort people away from a scene as a means of defusing tension.

t. retired officer

if he's causing tension with simple small talk, he's doing it very wrong

It's likely because of the person he's trying to have small talk with, not actually him. A lot of people, usually women, don't like random strangers approaching them, and will do anything to get out of it. You're not s'posed to approach people unless there's clear indication they want to be approached.

complete bullshit
show me a single time this happened

It's quite common, son. And has been a regularity in both my careers, and my colleagues to this day. Unwanted advances are called that because they're unwanted, i.e.: they didn't want it. Doing something people don't want generally leads to conflict.

Op does not seem like he's randomly approaching people, though. If he's randomly approaching women in an awkward manor, I can see someone freaking out I guess, but I've been out and about for my entire life interacting with people and this has never happened to me. It's also never happened to any of my friends who take a lot more risks in bars and such than I do.

My guy is probably doing something really autistic, like following people or trying to force the conversation despite being shown clear nonverbal queues they no longer want to interact with him.

>it's another "white guy can't understand he's a sexual predator" episode
I remember these incidents back in my campus security days. Being called into some incident that only turns out to be some autist trying to talk to a girl, but she's acting like he pulled a gun on her or something. Weirdly reminds me of this viral video a few months ago of a guy lightly bumped into a woman with his car, but she's calling the cops and screeching for her husband. Half this job was being called into stupid shit that isn't worth it.

Sexual abuse is a very common that happens every day. But men, likely you yourself included, remain oblivious to it's existence because he rarely happens to them and their compatriots. Even murders happen everywhere and everyday, but people are generally unaware of it because of rarely they're close to it. In fact, it's largely because of how often those things that you sometimes never hear about them. Just because it doesn't happen to you and your kin doesn't it's nonexistent.

>My guy is probably doing something really autistic, like following people or trying to force the conversation despite being shown clear nonverbal queues they no longer want to interact with him.
OP already said this person doesn't seem interested, which is why he's choosing not to pursue them. Despite others pressuring him to keep at it.

and he provides 0 proof....

>Despite others pressuring him to keep at it.
literally where did anyone say anything related to that?
damn no wonder you were a cop with this level of intelligence...

>itt: yes or no question that Jow Forums is once again to destracted to answer
But no, you don't try to get with someone who doesn't want to get with you.

>But people (mostly men for some reason) keep pressuring me into pursuing them, even though the lack of interest is pretty apparent.

woops thought you meant the replies itt
now i'm the dumbass

>now i'm the dumbass
Everyone here is.

Attached: proper-imac-use.webm (480x280, 1.02M)

It's in the OP tho....

tru
is that a new Jow Forums fetish?

I know sexual abuse happens all the time, I've heard plenty of stories from girlfriends etc. I'm talking about having a woman freak out on me for asking her on a date, or simply striking up a conversation, and calling the cops on me.

This has never happened to me or anyone I know. I don't know any women who have called the cops on someone for "just talking to me weird", either. None of this can be classified as sexual abuse or even assault, by any reasonable standard.

>None of this can be classified as sexual abuse or even assault, by any reasonable standard.
It's still sexual misconduct. Which abuse and assault is but a specific part of what is ultimately the same spectrum.

>This has never happened to me or anyone I know. I don't know any women who have called the cops on someone for "just talking to me weird", either.
Then you're about as incredulous and willfully ignorant as people who dismiss the occurrences of sexual abuse simply because it's never personally happened to them or people they know, or dismiss gender and racial discrimination for the same reasons.

you still haven't provided a single link where this happens...

It is not sexual misconduct by any reasonable definition of the term. It's definitely not sexual misconduct by any legal definition. Plus you literally could not convict someone of sexual misconduct even if this was how it's defined. (It's not).

Sexual misconduct would require aggressively coming onto someone or making explicit sexual suggestions. Asking someone on a date does not meet this criteria. The closest thing you could reasonable claim is sexual harassment, but asking someone on a date is definitely not harassment unless it's repeated.

I don't even know what your point is, though. OP didn't give enough information so we asked for clarification.

Sexual misconduct is any unwanted behaviour of a (typically) sexual nature. That's literally it. If it's not wanted. There are different types of it: sexual harassment, sexual assault, sexual molestation, etc. Different types of sexual misconduct, but still under the misconduct umbrella. Even simply talking to somebody is misconduct as long as it's unwanted.
>The closest thing you could reasonable claim is sexual harassment
Sexual harassment is one of the types of sexual misconduct -_-

>It's quite common
>Can't provide a simple example
Low quality teenager larper.

I once called the police on a guy trying to talk to me. It was because I recently had to deal with harassment from an ex-boyfriend, so my patience was thin enough to go straight for 911. I don't know where they drove him off to, or what happened to him.

Yeah, I feared this would happen. Men like you like you know nothing about sexual harassment. The main criteria is the presence of consent. Sexual misconduct has a lot of layers to it with some not having to do with the law. But it all comes down to consent and if it's there. And if there's no consent active, you're overstepping boundaries enough to be considered misconducted behaviour. Friendly greeting can qualify as misconduct as like there's a lack of consent somehow.

This thread is full of trolls.

This is really solid bait. Proud of you.

Attached: 1395224812466.gif (269x199, 785K)

>OP didn't give enough information so we asked for clarification.
You're asking for clarity on a question about whether or not you should approach someone who doesn't want to be approached.

Well there is always the possibility that OP is in his head and thinking the girl does not like him bc he has low self esteem

Or maybe she seems uninterested BECAUSE she honestly doesn't like him. I don't know why that's so hard for guys to understand.

Yeah I just know I almost lost out on my girl bc I told myself she didn't like me. It turned out she was waiting on me wondering wtf was wrong with me.

You lost* out on her because she was never interested. You told herself she didn't like you, because she never had any feelings. If you didn't pick on any cues she gave, it's because there weren't any. If she truly loved you, she would've made it a lot more obvious. This just a massive cope over the fact your crush didn't like you back.

>(*): you can't lose what you never had

funny, I had a similar situation to yours. except I told myself it was my low self-esteem making it seem like she didn't want me, and will be losing out on her because of it. so I decided to finally make a move, discovering that she really didn't like me, and wound up with a stalking accusation that ruined my reputation.

Daily reminder that OP is the same autist who creates this thread every day. He is mentally ill and needs therapy and no amount of facts or logic will work on him.

>creates this thread every day
Do tell.

Attached: robert-mueller.jpg (1820x1024, 346K)

He always says the same things like a broken record.
>I want a gf why can't I have one I have tried so hard
>Well I have actually never asked a girl out
>No girl has ever shown interest in me so why should I ask a girl out when she isn't showing interest
>If I ask a girl out she will call the cops and have me arrested on false rape charges

Well shit never stalk go for it once and take the no! Like wtf?!?! How making a SINGLE move escalated to stalking is disconnect.

Don't. If they're not into it, just don't.

Half of Jow Forums (hell Jow Forums itself) spouts this crap. Not just one person.

Pursuing someone who isn't interested in you is stalking behavior. :/

>How making a SINGLE move escalated to stalking is disconnect.
a single incident is all you need to make an accusation

that's pretty much all i did. she didn't seem like she wanted me, but i thought it was just my negativity affecting my perception. so i decided to take a plunge and make only a single move. almost ruined my life.

Wtf? Is this bait? Arnt you already hanging out with this person? Are you not at least semi-familiar with this person? When you make your move she will go with it or will tell you no. If you she says no then leave her alone???? If you don't do anything weird people will think she is a bitch bc if your just hitting on her/making a move or flirting that's actually kinda normal. Girls will tell you or make it really plain they don't like it. If she ignores you let her??? But hit her up and ask her out/hang out/ get to know her make a move?? Respect her response??? Am I crazy here?

What was you move user? Honestly what did you do/say?

In this case it is the one and same autist, he is easy to recognize.

So what did you do? Grab her ass? Stalk her on social media and outside her home?

Ok I was wondering if I was in crazy land for a second. I'm a little older and I was wondering if the kids are really that bad nowadays.

Jesus Christ, there are so many things with this post, I don't know where to begin.

Whether or not you're familiar means nothing. In fact, most stalking and sexual harassment cases happen between people who know each other. Even straight up rape and molestation, the victim is often very close with the perpetrator.

It doesn't matter if she says either yes or no. It doesn't matter if you leave her alone. It still doesn't change the fact you partook in stalking behavior anyway. And the fact you did something to make them think that is bad enough.

"Weird" is a subjective and meaningless distinction based purely on interpretation. I promise you that anything you're doing right now is considered weird to at least someone. Hell, in my culture, smiling at people you're not familiar with is considered a weird and rude thing to do.

Women aren't always direct with their rejections for fear of retaliation. Which is a risk that's sadly common.

Flirting is only positive if it's reciprocated. If not, then it's harassment. Same goes for hitting on people who aren't making it obvious they want to be hit on.

"Respect" is also another subjective and meaningless phrase. What's respectful for one person is also going to be disrespectful for another? Want to know something that's also respecting her? Not making a move and bothering her.

Holy crap, user.

Tldr but I got a feeling it's something I'd chuckle at

and your proof is...?

Wrong user. I'm literally saying hang out make one move if they don't like you move on...wtf?? How is making one move stalking? Ask her to hang out one on one. Do this a few times? See if you like each other? If it seems like she likes you too make a move. If she rejects you leave her be???

How do you think anyone gets with anyone? Girls also can do this but often want the guy too in my experience. And if you hang out and flirt often or whatever then it's much much less weird then running up to a girl you don't know in public and being like hey want to fuck vs building something and then taking a single chance when the moment seems right. Yeah context super matters here...wtf. Don't come on so strong its frightening. I've had gay guys hit on me in really uncool ways as well as respectful ways and I'm always like thanks I'm flattered but no. I get it but you can also not be creepy/weird. Hell even women have hit on me creepy and I had to turn them down. I didn't hate anyone for it I just realized they were shooting thier shot and rejected them also in a not shitty manner if they were respectful of me in thier attempt.

>Ask her to hang out one on one.
That is making a move and enough to get accused. And baseless accusations were hard enough to get away from before the Believe Women™ crap got popular.
>Do this a few times?
That's actual harassment.

I don't think you're really aware of what's happening out there. There's risk beyond bad feels from rejection.

You are actually stupid I obviously mean after she says yes hang out one on one a few times to see if you like each other while flirting. No one gives a shit if you just ask a girl to hang. You didn't even make a move you set up a situation in which making a move might be acceptable.

It's stalking if it's an unwanted advance. Period. That's what makes an act a stalking and sexually harassive act: if they wanted it or not. If. They. Wanted. It. Or. Not. That's not a hard concept to understand. That shouldn't be a hard concept men always make it out to be. What makes something stalking and sexually harassive behavior is if it's unwanted or not. Unwanted. A simple word meaning the opposite of want. Or if that's too hard for you: something they did not and do not want.

How many times you do it doesn't change that. Doing it once and only once doesn't change that. How you do it doesn't change that. If it's weird or normal doesn't change that. Being 'respectful' doesn't change that. Actually leaving them alone doesn't change that. Unwanted is still unwanted.

People get with others by getting with those who actually want to get with them. Why do you incels have a hard time understanding that? People only get with each other if they want to be with each other. They don't get with others for any other reason. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

>No one gives a shit if you just ask a girl to hang.
Except the girl, obviously.

Women make it obvious they want you, there’s no guess work. The guys telling you to keep trying don’t understand the situation. If she shows no interest, just be friendly and helpful if you want her in your life. If all that matters is her getting with you, then I’d say move on because life is too short to waste on people that don’t care.

Not OP's case, as he's certain the person isn't interested, but some guys (like me) a really fucking dense, to the point a girl's interest is obvious to everyone around but to you (except months later, watching memories in hindsight).

That said, it doesn't hurt to get to know a non-interested girl and even take a few shots. Interested/non-interested isn't such a clear cut, some girls are simply open to trying something.

Wrong. That can happen but often women simply do not send any signals, possibly because they are too afraid the guy isn't into them.

And even for those who aren't dense, and/or otherwise excellent at picking up on these things, there are also people who aren't very easy to read, and tend to be inaccessible books.

>That can happen but often women simply do not send any signals, possibly because they are too afraid the guy isn't into them.
That, and they're sometimes afraid people might read too much into them and try something.

Jesus fuck. You are dense. I obviously ment after you ask her and she says yes you then hang out a few times to see where it's going....I'm straight right? My roommate was gay. So a lot of gay dudes would hit on me/make moves. I literally said just said no and proceed to go on with my life. One time a dude legit whipped his dick out in my kitchen. That's the only time I gave a shit/caused a rukus about it. Cause that was disrespectful as hell. Most women might make fun of you to thier friends but as long as your just literally asking them out literally no one will give a shit past gossip. And it's lame as fuck gossip if your an adult so it'll get old to listeners fast. It's actually a boring story. user asked me out....and??? Girls ask guys out too. They are also just as creepy if not more so lol.

>I obviously ment after you ask her and she says yes you then hang out a few times to see where it's going
That implies if it's wanted. If it turns out otherwise, then it's unwanted. Really simple, user.

>My roommate was gay. So a lot of gay dudes would hit on me/make moves. I literally said just said no and proceed to go on with my life.
Still doesn't change the fact it was unwanted, user. Not every murder, thefts, break-ins, rapes, etc. go reported. And it's quite common for victims to want to move on with their life than to proceed further.

>but as long as your just literally asking them out
It would still qualify as making unwanted advances. Which warrants accusations, even formal reports.

>Girls ask guys out too. They are also just as creepy if not more so lol.
Then they are also making unwanted advances and partaking in sexually harassive behavior. But just because they also dabble in these behaviors, doesn't suddenly change what men are doing.

Lol yeah you ask if they say yes you continue if not you stop. We have said this a million times. You literally don't want anyone to ask or ever hit on anyone because you have a bug up your ass about the subject. One human must ask or make a move on another for a relationship to happen. Otherwise you sit there and both like each other and stare at each other doing nothing. Enjoy your...nothing I guess. I've been to nervous to make a move on a girl I've been hanging out with I think she likes me but I'm not sure. This just reminds me I'm going to have to do don't soon or even if she does like me she is gonna move on.

Stop posting these ugly mixed trannies, faggot.

Because it's not important. If you think you have a "right not to be talked to" in public, you're fucked in the head. You do have a right to be left alone if you don't want to talk to anyone, but if I walked up to you in public, for example, and said "hi, how are you?", and you called the cops, you're absolutely in the wrong as far as I'm concerned.

The thing is, if I were still talking to you by the time the cops got there, obviously I'm doing something wrong. That's the thing, if a girl didn't want to talk to me, I'd realize it way before the police ever had a chance to come pick me up lmao.

You're not making much sense here, based on my experiences as a human person who interacts with other humans in public.

None of that means anything, and is just regressing to virtually unrelated details. If someone doesn't want to talk to you, then it's unwanted. Really that simple.
>I've been to nervous to make a move on a girl I've been hanging out with I think she likes me but I'm not sure. This just reminds me I'm going to have to do don't soon or even if she does like me she is gonna move on.
And if it turns out she wasn't interested, then you made unwanted advances. Which is sexually harassive behavior.

>You're not making much sense here, based on my experiences as a human person who interacts with other humans in public.
Humans interact with each other because they consent to it. i.e.: they wanted to. If they don't, there's no interaction. That's it.

>The thing is, if I were still talking to you by the time the cops got there, obviously I'm doing something wrong. That's the thing, if a girl didn't want to talk to me, I'd realize it way before the police ever had a chance to come pick me up lmao.
That still doesn't mean you didn't do anything. Just because you leave the murder scene doesn't mean the murder didn't happen.

>Lol yeah you ask if they say yes you continue if not you stop.
you were still coming onto them tho. which is enough to qualify as sexual misconduct even when you leave them alone. this shit doesn't depend on how it plays out and if you keep pursuing or let them be. it's based on if it happened at all.

>> Humans interact with each other because they consent to it. i.e.: they wanted to. If they don't, there's no interaction. That's it.

This is logically impossible. In order to interact with someone a person must initiate this interaction. What you're claiming is that, in order to prevent sexual misconduct, one must ascertain consent before ever interacting with anyone else.

I don't think I can make it any more clear than this. You're either trolling or there's a real serious disconnect in your head about how reality works.

Your simple. Lol of course someone has to do something. Again enjoy your...nothing or whatever

>This is logically impossible.
It's not. It's how functional, basic human interactions work. When there's mutual consent and willingness between all involved parties. Any two people of adequate functionality and sociability are able to recognise willingness between each other and proceed. It's not logically possible for it to happen any other way.

>In order to interact with someone a person must initiate this interaction.
When there's affirmative and active consent between each other. This goes for all interactions, not just sexual.

>What you're claiming is that, in order to prevent sexual misconduct, one must ascertain consent before ever interacting with anyone else.
... That IS how go about them. When there's actual consent between the involved. That IS how prevent misconduct, but verifying if there is consent or not. Are you high?

i don't think you have to harass and rape people because "someone has to do something," user.

You're missing a step here. Here's what you're saying:

>> See someone you want to interact with
>> Verify consent (caveat: you can't interact with them to do so) (HOW?)*
>> Initiate conversation

If one cannot initiate conversation prior to receiving consent, there must be some mechanism for requesting this consent. Let's assume you're talking about nonverbal queues: These are not defined in law anywhere, or in any policy I'm aware of, in concrete terms, and are subjective. Therefore, there's no concrete way to interact with anyone.

So what you're saying, in effect, is that unless you're lucky enough to initiate with someone who you believe is giving you consent, and is, then you're conducting sexual misconduct.

This is blatantly absurd.

Just ask her out. Dont be afraid of rejection. It builds character. Youll become immune to it so when you take risks and it doesnt work out, its not as bad.

Yeah no said that at all. Ask on a date is not rape LOL faggot. Even if your a girl your a faggot.

>there must be some mechanism for requesting this consent
It's called reading the room and between the lines. If you can't tell, or if it seems like there's nothing to read from, that means lack of consent.

>Let's assume you're talking about nonverbal queues: These are not defined in law anywhere, or in any policy I'm aware of, in concrete terms, and are subjective.
That's legality and the law realm. Which is a different, and virtually unrelated subject.

>So what you're saying, in effect, is that unless you're lucky enough to initiate with someone who you believe is giving you consent, and is, then you're conducting sexual misconduct.
If you're making an advance on someone who didn't communicate consent one way or another, then it's misconduct through-and-through. Whether or not you can tell doesn't change that.

>This is blatantly absurd.
It's human socialisation 101, incel.

asking someone on a date is an unwanted advance if they weren't interested.

>asking someone out who's already communicating disinterest
....

So you're talking about non verbal queues, which are subjective and change from person to person. Let's say I interact with a person who is friendly and they showed consent via non verbal queues, but secretly they wished I wasn't interacting with them. I'm not guilty of sexual misconduct as defined by... you.

Now let's say a different person expressed the same exact nonverbal queues, but they actually wanted to interact with me. I'm now not guilty of sexual misconduct. My behavior has not changed.

Do you see the issue with this? What would you suggest in this situation?

>> It's human socialisation 101, incel.

I'm not a virgin.

Anyway, if we're not talking about legality here, you're just expressing an opinion which the OP has no obligation to conform to, so you can fuck right off.

Not nonverbal cues, human interactions in general.

>Let's say I interact with a person who is friendly and they showed consent via non verbal queues, but secretly they wished I wasn't interacting with them. I'm not guilty of sexual misconduct as defined by... you.
No, you're guilty of misconduct, and delusionally thought the person was consenting.

>Now let's say a different person expressed the same exact nonverbal queues, but they actually wanted to interact with me.
Then whatever advances are wanted until indicated otherwise.

>My behavior has not changed.
Your behavior doesn't have to do anything. If it's unwanted, it's unwanted. Simple as that.

>What would you suggest in this situation?
By not making advances and interacting with people who don't want to interact with you.

>I'm not a virgin.
You're still an incel, virginity or not.

>you're just expressing an opinion
Official criteria and standards for sexual misconduct and harassive behavior are not opinions.

Might as well try. If they say no then he can apologize and walk away. Its not complicated.

>> Not nonverbal cues, human interactions in general.

There's body language, and there's speech. What other ways of interacting are you referring to?

>> Your behavior doesn't have to do anything. If it's unwanted, it's unwanted. Simple as that.

You literally just stated that despite my behavior not changing in these two scenarios, I am guilty when interacting with the first, but not the second. Note that there's no difference in the way either person responded to me, which is the premise I presented. The only difference is the internal feelings the first person is having. Therefore, no amount of socialization could possibly prevent misconduct.

This is not a viable approach to interacting with others. It necessarily means people need to risk misconduct in order to converse with others.

>> By not making advances and interacting with people who don't want to interact with you.

Not possible, as shown above, while following your opinion of what misconduct is.

>> Official criteria and standards for sexual misconduct and harassive behavior are not opinions.

Official according to who or what entity? You already said:

>> That's legality and the law realm. Which is a different, and virtually unrelated subject.

What official body is creating these criteria / standards?

>My behavior has not changed.
your behavior doesn't have to change. sexual impropriety, like social cues, is contextual and subject to interpretation. it depends deeply on the people involved, and if there's active consent at play. you can have the same behavior towards two different people, and if one welcomes it, then it's consensual and okay, but if the other doesn't welcome it, then it becomes an impropriety. it comes down to context and the people involved, not if it qualifies under some arbitrary standard that works across the board (which kind of doesn't exist), but what happened and who it happened to. whether or not it's pervasive is a common misconception that only adds further difficulties. the only thing pervasiveness can attest to is the severity of the case, not the case itself. but what marks the difference between consensual acts and improprieties and misconduct depends solely on the context, those involved, and whether one of them considers it as such. even innocent and unintentional acts are still improprieties if under the right circumstances.

apologising and leaving them alone doesn't suddenly make it not harassment. and in cases of harassment, apologies only serve to make things worse.

Lol I've used my mouth words to say no before and I'm sure anyone who isn't retarded can too and litterly never give a shit about it again. Your trolling and I'm bored. I've had threesomes as well as been super turned down as well as turned people down. Never got accused of shit. Cope more.

Okay, then it's not a useful designation to assign to people. What you're describing is more usefully described as "poor social skills", "awkward moments", and "unwanted advances", etc. Framing it as sexual misconduct is dangerous and hurtful to the parties who must make advances to obtain relationships. (Almost all men. It's especially dangerous for those with disorders like autism).

Most well adjusted women are capable of rejecting those who make advances. It shouldn't be on the advancing party to intuit that, especially if they're not making it clear the interaction is unwanted.

It only really becomes an actual issue if the advancing party is persistent after being rejected or being shown clear signals that the advanced upon party is not interested, or if there's physical advances without invitation. Otherwise, I'm of the opinion that the (in most cases) women who don't want to be interacted with ought to make it clear, and if they don't the advancing party shouldn't be vilified for continuing the interaction.

>You literally just stated that despite my behavior not changing in these two scenarios, I am guilty when interacting with the first, but not the second.
Your innocent in the first, but guilty in the second. Your behavior doesn't have to change, nor have to do anything in the first place. If you're doing something unwanted, then you're partaking in misconduct. Simple as that.

>The only difference is the internal feelings the first person is having.
So what? It's still unwanted whether or not you could tell. Ignorance of a crime is neither excuse not defense for committing it.

>Therefore, no amount of socialization could possibly prevent misconduct.
Almost everyone who's an adequately functioning human being and not an incel do this everyday with ease.

>This is not a viable approach to interacting with others. It necessarily means people need to risk misconduct in order to converse with others.
This is the approach we all take everyday, incel.

Incel means involuntary celibate. I'm not celibate. I'm sexually active. I am a functional person who has healthy relationships with women. I have never had a woman call the police on me.

I'm sure a couple of times when I was learning how to interact with people, I probably made a few women uncomfortable, but tough shit.

>> So what? It's still unwanted whether or not you could tell. Ignorance of a crime is neither excuse not defense for committing it.

It's not a crime.

>> Your innocent in the first, but guilty in the second. Your behavior doesn't have to change, nor have to do anything in the first place. If you're doing something unwanted, then you're partaking in misconduct. Simple as that.

Now we're going in circles. Refer to previous replies.

>> This is the approach we all take everyday, incel.

No it is not. Men in the real world risk rejection. Every man I know, and many women, have been rejected. Women have rejected me, I have rejected women.

According to your definition, there would be no rejection, because everyone would be able to intuit consent prior to the interaction.

>What you're describing is more usefully described as "poor social skills", "awkward moments", and "unwanted advances", etc.
has nothing to do with those, and i really don't know how you came to those conclusions. it's just sexual improprieties, like many indiscretions (including crimes) depends greatly on the event and people involved.
>Most well adjusted women are capable of rejecting those who make advances.
most women are flighty with their rejections for fear of reprisals. which are sadly common.
>It shouldn't be on the advancing party to intuit that
if you make any initiations, then whatever happens is on you. those who make the first steps are the ones who take the responsibility.
>especially if they're not making it clear the interaction is unwanted.
shouldn't have to.
>It only really becomes an actual issue if the advancing party is persistent
it doesn't. it just adds to the severity. persistence means nothing if there isn't already an act to persist in.
>women who don't want to be interacted with ought to make it clear
they usually put their safety at risk that way. and are responding to something they never asked for.
>and if they don't the advancing party shouldn't be vilified for continuing the interaction.
people get vilified for doing bad things. not if it was intentionally bad, not if they're also bad people, but if the action turns out to be bad.

>Incel means involuntary celibate.
It also means people who partake in sexually harassive behavior, people who don't see an issue with those behaviors (you), people who can't read the room and between the lines (you), losers who go on killing sprees, etc.

>I'm not celibate. I'm sexually active. I am a functional person who has healthy relationships with women. I have never had a woman call the police on me.
Sure you don't. Because incels are known for their honesty.

>I'm sure a couple of times when I was learning how to interact with people, I probably made a few women uncomfortable
Then you're a sex abuser.

>It's not a crime.
Sexual harassment, misconduct, whatever is a crime.

>Refer to previous replies.
Okay, they're still wrong, incel.

>No it is not
It is. It's how we all socialize with people, incel.

>Men in the real world risk rejection.
Men in the real world also rape, harass, and partake in other sexually abusive acts.

>Every man I know, and many women, have been rejected.
Which suggests misconduct on their part.

>because everyone would be able to intuit consent prior to the interaction
Everyone who isn't a dysfunctional incel are able to intuit consent.

>> has nothing to do with those, and i really don't know how you came to those conclusions. it's just sexual improprieties, like many indiscretions (including crimes) depends greatly on the event and people involved.

You keep changing what you're talking about. We're talking about initiating a conversation or asking someone out, here. These are not "sexual improprieties" or "crimes". What you've done is called "changing the goal posts".

>> most women are flighty with their rejections for fear of reprisals. which are sadly common.

Yeah, that's true. That's why well adjusted people are good at realizing they've been rejected without a hard "no". This comes from nonverbal language, ghosting, etc.

>> if you make any initiations, then whatever happens is on you. those who make the first steps are the ones who take the responsibility.

If I accidentally make someone uncomfortable by asking them on a date, sure I'm responsible for making her uncomfortable, but that's just a part of how our society works. It's up to the askee to reject me in some manor. There's nothing wrong with what I did.

>> shouldn't have to.

Well, you do, necessarily and logically and that's the reality of how social interactions work.

>> it doesn't. it just adds to the severity. persistence means nothing if there isn't already an act to persist in.

The act, as we've already stated numerous times, is initiating a conversation or asking someone out. That act isn't wrong. It becomes wrong when the initiating party crosses a line, that line is persisting.

>> they usually put their safety at risk that way. and are responding to something they never asked for.

They *sometimes* put their safety at risk. Until a crime is committed, or the perpetrator crosses the previously mentioned "line", no wrong doing has been committed.

>> people get vilified for doing bad things. not if it was intentionally bad, not if they're also bad people, but if the action turns out to be bad.

It's not bad.

>> It also means people who partake in sexually harassive behavior, people who don't see an issue with those behaviors (you), people who can't read the room and between the lines (you), losers who go on killing sprees, etc.

No it doesn't.

>> Sure you don't. Because incels are known for their honesty.

One can't maintain an honest discussion if they assume the opposing person is being dishonest, so we ought to give this up if you think I'm lying.

>> Then you're a sex abuser.

According to whom? You're the first person to accuse me of this. Making someone uncomfortable is not sexual abuse. Girls have asked me out and made me uncomfortable just because I didn't want to have to respond. I'm an adult, however, so I did, and I let them down gently. No abuse occurred.

>> Sexual harassment, misconduct, whatever is a crime.

Asking someone out is not misconduct or harassment, neither is initiating a conversation. We've covered this. Plus you've already stated we weren't discussing the law. You're going in circles.

>> It is. It's how we all socialize with people, incel.

I've already shown the logical impossibility of what you're saying.

>> Men in the real world also rape, harass, and partake in other sexually abusive acts.

Asking someone out or initiating a conversation that requires rejection is what we're conversing about.

>> Which suggests misconduct on their part.

You're trolling.

>> Everyone who isn't a dysfunctional incel are able to intuit consent.

Almost no one, besides people who have never been in relationships or haven't had sexual experiences, can claim they haven't rejected anyone or haven't been rejected. This is obvious and true, unlike your statement.

You're clearly trolling now.

>We're talking about initiating a conversation or asking someone out, here.
which can still be an impropriety depending on context and circumstance.
>That's why well adjusted people are good at realizing they've been rejected without a hard "no".
a lot of people aren't well-adjusted by that standard then. people, especially men, tend to freak out for being rejected at all. not how they're rejected, mind you. but that they were rejected for any reason. even if it's only a kind, simple, inconsequential "no." some women have been killed for that.
>If I accidentally make someone uncomfortable by asking them on a date
then it would count as an impropriety, given the context and circumstances.
>There's nothing wrong with what I did.
there is if it's taken that way. "wrong" depends on impact, not if you meant to.
>and that's the reality of how social interactions work
then you have an incorrect, sheltered, and increasingly ethnocentric view on "reality." social interactions work more on subjectivity and ambiguity than objectivity and directness.
>is initiating a conversation or asking someone out
which is still an impropriety.
>That act isn't wrong.
it is depending on the situation. not whether or not you think it's wrong.
>It becomes wrong when the initiating party crosses a line, that line is persisting.
if persistence is the line that specific context. in some, initiating an interaction in the first place is crossing the line.
>They *sometimes* put their safety at risk.
they always put their safeties at risk. women have a 1:6 chance of being assaulted or murdered for this if the fbi is to be believed.
>no wrong doing has been committed
just because you don't think it's wrong doesn't mean it isn't.
>It's not bad.
see above. whether or not it's bad doesn't depend on you and your intention, but the impact, and if it's considered a bad thing by the other party, not you.

>No it doesn't.
It does. Have you not seen the incels in the news, Jow Forums, and 8ch? You're an incel.

>One can't maintain an honest discussion if they assume the opposing person is being dishonest
One can't maintain any discussion with the assumption that the other person is completely sincere. Even if you're closest friends and family aren't always going to be entirely honest with you.

>According to whom?
The behaviors you describe yourself as doing.

>You're the first person to accuse me of this.
Most sex abusers go unpunished, and even unaware of their crime.

>Asking someone out is not misconduct or harassment, neither is initiating a conversation.
It is if it's unwanted. That's very clear.

>I've already shown the logical impossibility of what you're saying.
Then you're average person does the impossible on a day-to-day basis, by your logic.

>> which can still be an impropriety depending on context and circumstance.

Not really. There are very few circumstances or contexts where asking someone out for a drink would be considered harassment or some kind of abuse. One example might be if the person asking is in a position of power over the person being asked. Other than that, it's simply not wrong to ask someone out. EVEN if it makes someone a bit uncomfortable.

>> a lot of people aren't well-adjusted by that standard then. people, especially men, tend to freak out for being rejected at all. not how they're rejected, mind you. but that they were rejected for any reason. even if it's only a kind, simple, inconsequential "no." some women have been killed for that.

And? Doing the asking isn't the problem, it's when the perpetrator escalates to something actually bad that it becomes an issue. You can't just say something is bad because certain people take it too far.

>> then it would count as an impropriety, given the context and circumstances.

According to what standards? According to who? Most normal people accept that it's okay and actually necessary for people to shoot their shot in a romantic fashion to obtain a partner. If it was an impropriety to do so, it would literally be impossible to get into a relationship.

>> there is if it's taken that way. "wrong" depends on impact, not if you meant to.

No, there isn't. If I walk past someone, they could take it the wrong way and think I was attempting something, even though I was minding my own business. There are a lot of insane people in the world, and we can't create social stigmas and policies based on random peoples feelings. There has to be some kind of objective measure.

>> then you have an incorrect, sheltered, and increasingly ethnocentric view on "reality." social interactions work more on subjectivity and ambiguity than objectivity and directness.

If anyone is sheltered, it's you. Social interactions ARE very subjective and ambiguous, which is why risk is necessarily involved here. There are no definite invitations in dating without explicit language, which requires interaction prior to consent for said language. It's literally insane to claim otherwise.

>> which is still an impropriety.

It's not.

>> it is depending on the situation. not whether or not you think it's wrong.

There's almost no situations where it is wrong. There are a few, like if they're a person who has power over you such as the workplace, but otherwise it's simply not wrong. Asking someone, "Would you like to get drinks on x day" cannot be considered some sort of misdeed or no one would ever date, period. If you can somehow invent and put into law a way to ensure with 100% accuracy the people we ask out are definitely going to say yes, I'd be all for it, but it's not possible at all.

>> if persistence is the line that specific context. in some, initiating an interaction in the first place is crossing the line.

There are very few situations where this is the case. There are basically none where initiating a simple conversation could be classified as wrong. It doesn't depend on the receiving persons random emotional reaction.

>> they always put their safeties at risk. women have a 1:6 chance of being assaulted or murdered for this if the fbi is to be believed.

Cite this. You're probably not clear on how this statistic was calculated. If 1 in 6 men who were rejected murdered the woman rejecting him, there would be significantly less women on this planet. 1 in 6 in their lifetime, maybe. The FBI has no idea how many men ask how many women out per day, so it'd be absurd to even come up with this number with out conducting a study. Link it.

>> just because you don't think it's wrong doesn't mean it isn't.

Just because you thin kit is wrong doesn't mean it is.

>> see above. whether or not it's bad doesn't depend on you and your intention, but the impact, and if it's considered a bad thing by the other party, not you.

Like I said, if you take this to the logical extreme, society would fall apart. You can't convict someone based on random emotion.

>> It does. Have you not seen the incels in the news, Jow Forums, and 8ch? You're an incel.

Just because you think I have something in common with incels doesn't mean I fit a definition of the term.

>> One can't maintain any discussion with the assumption that the other person is completely sincere. Even if you're closest friends and family aren't always going to be entirely honest with you.

People in a discussion MUST assume the opposing party is being sincere, or there's no fucking point in having the conversation. You can question the other persons intentions and such, but if you assume they're not being genuine in their statements you ought to seek a proof of this instead of going in circles. If I were to assume you're trolling, for example, I would never bother responding to you. I do think you're trolling, but for the purposes of having a discourse, I take your statements as if you're being serious. Otherwise I wouldn't even reply.

>> The behaviors you describe yourself as doing.

That makes no sense. The behaviors I've engaged in are not an entity that create judgements.

>> Most sex abusers go unpunished, and even unaware of their crime.

That doesn't make me a sex abuser you retard. I've never even touched a girl without her touching me first. You have no idea who I am and you're making wild accusations because I said girls who have rejected me were probably uncomfortable that I asked them out. EVERYONE is uncomfortable with rejecting anyone else, because it doesn't feel good to hurt others feelings. It's not because they were hurt. It's just awkward.

>Asking someone out is not misconduct or harassment, neither is initiating a conversation.

>> It is if it's unwanted. That's very clear.

It's not clear to anyone but you. I don't want to go to work, that doesn't mean my work is harassing me.

>> Then you're average person does the impossible on a day-to-day basis, by your logic.

The average person gets rejected and rejects others, therefore, by your own logic, everyone who has had normal sexual or romantic relations with others is some kind of abuser.