Feminism/Sexism and Gaming/Geek/Popular culture Catch All

I should not get on the internet after so many eggnoggs in the middle of the night. I apologize, that wasn't necessary. It seemed like an interesting enough subject to enough people to warrant deeper inspection and further discussion.

You're right, it's totally related in regards to entitlement and privilege.

Nothing to see here.

It's 5:30 am here. I have thoughts. I, uh, apologize in advance.

First, an ethical question. Suppose you detect that another person is offering you some mundane favour in the unspoken hope of initiating a romantic relationship with you. If you accept the favour knowing full-well the underlying intent, yet have no reciprocal romantic intent towards that person, does this mean you are using him or her? If we replace 'romance' with 'wants to use you as a sex object', does that change the ethical situation?

Second, a related question. Suppose you can locate other people who would be willing to perform mundane favours for you in the unspoken hope of initiating a romantic relationship with you. If you solicit such a favour knowing full-well the underlying intent, yet have no reciprocal romantic intent towards that person, whose actions (if anyone's) are more predatory? What if we replace 'romance' with 'wants to use you as a sex object'?

One interesting facet of the problem is that a 'favour' is not a transaction, but it has transaction-like properties. In accepting a favour you might choose to incur a sort of voluntary debt; you don't owe that person anything, but it might be important to your belief system (and may actually be ethically imperative) that you do "owe them one". And of course, if you think that the other person thinks that you ought to "owe them one", it's ethically inadvisable to accept a favour unless you intend to provide what they think you ought to provide (or else you are knowingly misleading them for personal gain).

Another interesting facet is the question of whether favours 'stack', to use a gaming term. I suppose the archetypal Nice Guy believes that they stack linearly and unlimitedly; that x minutes spent listening to relationship problems equals y rides to the concert equals 1 ___job. (This is the ideologically-complete case; real-world Nice Guys, like all people, have weird fractured belief systems and double standards that they apply to others but not themselves, etc....) I don't really know if this is an ideal way or even a good way to define a system for exchanging favours, but it doesn't matter so much in the case of these questions: It is instead about what that favour-giver believes is happening, how much you know about those beliefs, and how you respond given this knowledge.

It seems that the Nice Guy strategy involves piling up minor favours in an effort to 'exchange' them for sex, but disguising this intention so that the favours will not be refused. Is the disguise effective, though?

4xis.black wrote:

It seems that the Nice Guy strategy involves piling up minor favours in an effort to 'exchange' them for sex, but disguising this intention so that the favours will not be refused. Is the disguise effective, though?

If the whining on dating sites and MRA boards is any indication, no.

4xis.black wrote:

stuff

This relocated back to the dating thread

In a sad note on "kinvintion cree-pahs," it seems even the least cosplay-oriented of cons has trouble with douchebags.

Yeah, that was a thing.

And as flat-footed as their initial response was they came through later. In August they properly banned that jerk and the entire board resigned over their handling of the issue.

So Iowa just ruled that a woman who was fired for being "too irresistible" is not sex or gender based discrimination.

Short story. Dentist hires woman, dentist and woman begin to flirt and text, Dentist's Wife gets pissed, woman gets fired.

LarryC wrote:

It seems obvious to me that boys who turn into men without any contact with women would not know how to relate to them or act around them once they're grown, simply by dint of lack of experience. Practice makes perfect. Do we need a study to tell us that? If you never have any exposure to playing basketball, the smart money says you're going to suck hard.

The problem with this line of thought is that it's propagating the idea that interacting with women is a separate and distinct skill from interacting with men.

Which.
Is.
Bullsh*t.

Interacting with people is a skill. If you're a dickbag to women, the smart money says that you're a dickbag to dudes too.

Jonman wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It seems obvious to me that boys who turn into men without any contact with women would not know how to relate to them or act around them once they're grown, simply by dint of lack of experience. Practice makes perfect. Do we need a study to tell us that? If you never have any exposure to playing basketball, the smart money says you're going to suck hard.

The problem with this line of thought is that it's propagating the idea that interacting with women is a separate and distinct skill from interacting with men.

Which.
Is.
Bullsh*t.

Interacting with people is a skill. If you're a dickbag to women, the smart money says that you're a dickbag to dudes too.

Interacting with people who are the gender you find sexually desirable? While there isn't really a difference between men and women, as a human being, there generally is a difference talking to someone whom you are interested in and someone you are not. How you handle that attraction in your interactions with them is something I think a lot of people screw up (myself included for quite some time) on.

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

Not to get all sexist apologist here, but I think that the notion of mocking the people in power equates to less of an offense has something to do with that. Is there less of a problem with women treating men with civility, or do we just not care and/or gloss over more instances of it happening, since it's less harmful?

SixteenBlue wrote:

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

Really?

You've never interacted with a woman who treated you disrespectfully?

Would any of the forum ladies like to give SixteenBlue a new experience? :p

Demosthenes wrote:

Interacting with people who are the gender you find sexually desirable? While there isn't really a difference between men and women, as a human being, there generally is a difference talking t someone whom you are interested in and someone you are not. How you handle that attraction in your interactions with them is something I think a lot of people screw up (myself included for quite some time) on.

I bolded the part I like a lot, and I think you can clarify a lot of discussion here and on the other thread. It explains partly why Nice Guys can often be generalized as men trying to earn sexual favors from women who don't consider said Nice Guy attractive - because we've sold that whole "it doesn't matter how astonishingly ugly you are, it's what's on the inside that counts" a little too well. Ever wonder why the Nice Guy's definition of assholes and douchebags always have sick abs and/or don't smell like old pizza?

This is a crude description, of course, but I do think that Nice Guy behavior is intended to overcome a lack of physical attraction from the targeted individual.

Jonman wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Women don't seem to have as much of a problem treating men with respect.

Really?

You've never interacted with a woman who treated you disrespectfully?

Would any of the forum ladies like to give SixteenBlue a new experience? :p

Haha, obviously we're talking in generalities. Definitely not saying never.

Bloo Driver has a good point though, but I still think sexual desire has nothing to do with the ability to interact or treat people with respect.

All you ever need to know about women and courtship you can learn from Jimmy Stewart in Shenandoah.

Seth wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Interacting with people who are the gender you find sexually desirable? While there isn't really a difference between men and women, as a human being, there generally is a difference talking t someone whom you are interested in and someone you are not. How you handle that attraction in your interactions with them is something I think a lot of people screw up (myself included for quite some time) on.

I bolded the part I like a lot, and I think you can clarify a lot of discussion here and on the other thread. It explains partly why Nice Guys can often be generalized as men trying to earn sexual favors from women who don't consider said Nice Guy attractive - because we've sold that whole "it doesn't matter how astonishingly ugly you are, it's what's on the inside that counts" a little too well. Ever wonder why the Nice Guy's definition of assholes and douchebags always have sick abs and/or don't smell like old pizza?

This is a crude description, of course, but I do think that Nice Guy behavior is intended to overcome a lack of physical attraction from the targeted individual.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/BntB_zps36f42197.jpg)

There's a terribly thin line between a romantically persistent courter and a stalker/sexual harasser, which can make things confusing for men.

My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He worked with my sister and repeatedly asked her out before she agreed. While they can look back on that as the romantic story that's led to 16 years of marriage and two lovely boys, the reality is that he was one email to HR away from things going very differently.

I might add a handsome beast at that! (Seriously both in the old series and the new one, the beast is pretty damn handsome.

IMAGE(http://www.big13.net/Achorman%20photos/Burgandy.jpeg)

....I am not a furry.

Seth wrote:

I might add a handsome beast at that!

Love.

Love never changes.

Thing is, his most "handsome" features weren't his looks. His best feature was his ability to keep a promise.

It's like I told my mom recently. I don't need Prince Charming. I need Ulysses.

momgamer wrote:

Thing is, his most "handsome" features weren't his looks. His best feature was his ability to keep a promise.

It's like I told my mom recently. I don't need Prince Charming. I need Ulysses.

Ulysses S. Grant? Well, I think all of the available US Presidents (that one's dead, by the way) are taken, so you'd need a cheating President, I'd suggest starting with Bill.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know, different Ulysses, I'm bored and felt the need to make a joke.)

No joking allowed here, Valentine Wiggin.

Seth wrote:

No joking allowed here, Valentine Wiggin. ;)

And that officially makes you the first person to make that joke. Congrats! Only took... 9 years and 11 weeks for something to make the reference.

Demosthenes wrote:
Seth wrote:

No joking allowed here, Valentine Wiggin. ;)

And that officially makes you the first person to make that joke. Congrats! Only took... 9 years and 11 weeks for something to make the reference. :D

Ender's Game Over, Man!

Well, it had me spitting marbles.....

Demosthenes wrote:
momgamer wrote:

Thing is, his most "handsome" features weren't his looks. His best feature was his ability to keep a promise.

It's like I told my mom recently. I don't need Prince Charming. I need Ulysses.

Ulysses S. Grant? Well, I think all of the available US Presidents (that one's dead, by the way) are taken, so you'd need a cheating President, I'd suggest starting with Bill.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know, different Ulysses, I'm bored and felt the need to make a joke.)

Well considering that the other Ulysses was a king who hung out with gods, a mere President might actually be easier to come by.

gore wrote:

Well considering that the other Ulysses was a king who hung out with gods [color=red][size=18]IN SPACE[/color][/size], a mere President might actually be easier to come by.

IMAGE(http://animespin.com/ulysses31-3.jpg)

Come for the feminism, stay for the hideously obscure geek references.