Sexism, Gaming, Pax and Fear

Okay, starting to read the additions to the original article, and I can't not point out the following section:

I’d like to address a few common questions, though. Firstly, I didn’t name the outlet because I’ve found recently that a few individuals championing a good cause can rapidly spin out of control into an angry mob, to a point that it seems acceptable to threaten physical harm against others. This isn’t acceptable and is counterproductive to the positive message. Therefore, as the situation was already dealt with by PAX, I left it anonymous, and instead focused on the bigger issue of harassment and sexism in the game industry and cosplay culture.

That being said, the website in question has made a point to out themselves and accuse me of using this blog as a platform to promote my “modeling career” and make several other unflattering insinuations in now-deleted comments. If you happen upon the conversation, which I’m still not going to link to, I ask that you please remain mature about your viewpoints even if others are not.

So, this is an example of what happens when a woman calls out unwanted behavior privately without revealing the names of the people involved, just as we all suggested that Adria Richards should have done. Note that while she didn't use public shaming or unleash an Internet lynch mob (which she was also worried about), the treatment of Meagan Marie by the IHM is no better than Adria Richard's treatment was. So while I applaud Marie's approach as being better than Richards's, this should illustrate that the bulk of the treatment of Richards did not actually have anything to do with her approach.

(However, Marie will be more unreservedly defended because she didn't use those tactics and alienate people who disapprove of them. So now we can see the actual trade-off somebody would have to make: losing a small amount of good will from a small number of supporters vs. the chance that the incident might cause no changes in the behavior of the bad actors. In this case, of course, the bad actors appear to have without being named decided that it's appropriate to double down.)

Ok, LarryC, I'm really not interested in making a full point-by-point response to your last post. Partly because I'm not sure there's a ton there to respond to, so I'll respond to these two things:

LarryC wrote:
Begging your pardon. I was thinking that objectification and clothing were kind of central to a discussion about cosplay. Nothing has really been discussed about it; differing views were not resolved or explored, as far as I can see.

Has anyone really said that women should be treated like sex objects? Have I? WTF.

Are you insinuating that I hold this view?

The majority of the thread has been a discussion about objectification and cosplay in the context of how it makes women who are cosplaying feel when they are objectified by men because of the costumes they are wearing. "Differing viewpoints" in this thread have constituted varying justifications for why costumes, clothing, the character they're portraying, etc. might elicit a reaction from men that would be sexualizing, objectifying, or abusive in one way or another. The short, simple answer is that this behavior is not solicited or acceptable because of clothing, costume, or gender. It is not justifiable. And it drills down to the fact that there simply is no situation in which a woman should be assumed to want that kind of attention, unless she says so. And by that, I mean that words have to come out of her mouth that mean exactly that. No more, no less. When you argue for some alternative viewpoint that skews this central point to how women should be treated, of course I'm going to derive from that reaction that you hold that view in some capacity. Don't play the devil's advocate if you're not willing to face the fact that someone might think something ugly of you that may or may not be true. I still don't know.

LarryC wrote:
Is there such a thing as an appropriate sexual comment in a cosplay situation in a con?

I'll repeat that, yes, when dealing with a relationship that is serious and intimate enough between both parties where there is an established comfort with and agreement upon implied consent, or in the case where there is not implied consent, but consent is explicitly and situationally granted. Even at a convention. Although I would argue that people in such a relationship would know enough to keep such interactions in the privacy of their own hotel rooms.

Hypatian wrote:
So, this is an example of what happens when a woman calls out unwanted behavior privately without revealing the names of the people involved, just as we all suggested that Adria Richards should have done. Note that while she didn't use public shaming or unleash an Internet lynch mob (which she was also worried about), the treatment of Meagan Marie by the IHM is no better than Adria Richard's treatment was. So while I applaud Marie's approach as being better than Richards's, this should illustrate that the bulk of the treatment of Richards did not actually have anything to do with her approach.

Do you really think so? I have seen nothing but praise and support for Marie on Twitter, your post is the first time I've heard about the negative reactions from the outlet-that-shall-not-be-named, and I certainly haven't heard of anything like the kind of massive sexist backlash that Richards endured. Maybe Marie is receiving large numbers of death threats, rape threats and DDOS attacks directed at her employer, and I just haven't heard about it. But if she's not, I have a hard time comparing this situation with Adria Richards'.

NSMike:


The majority of the thread has been a discussion about objectification and cosplay in the context of how it makes women who are cosplaying feel when they are objectified by men because of the costumes they are wearing. "Differing viewpoints" in this thread have constituted varying justifications for why costumes, clothing, the character they're portraying, etc. might elicit a reaction from men that would be sexualizing, objectifying, or abusive in one way or another. The short, simple answer is that this behavior is not solicited or acceptable because of clothing, costume, or gender. It is not justifiable. And it drills down to the fact that there simply is no situation in which a woman should be assumed to want that kind of attention, unless she says so. And by that, I mean that words have to come out of her mouth that mean exactly that. No more, no less. When you argue for some alternative viewpoint that skews this central point to how women should be treated, of course I'm going to derive from that reaction that you hold that view in some capacity. Don't play the devil's advocate if you're not willing to face the fact that someone might think something ugly of you that may or may not be true. I still don't know.

You have wholly misunderstood the context of my questions and statements in this thread. Let me state baldly and plainly that I am not in favor of objectifying women. You may review prior posts of mine with that additional assumption if you like, or just don't pursue this, whatever.

Have I not quite plainly and straightforwardly stated that I am in favor of opinions being withheld, by default? That no such interaction be pursued?


I'll repeat that, yes, when dealing with a relationship that is serious and intimate enough between both parties where there is an established comfort with and agreement upon implied consent, or in the case where there is not implied consent, but consent is explicitly and situationally granted. Even at a convention. Although I would argue that people in such a relationship would know enough to keep such interactions in the privacy of their own hotel rooms.

That's contradictory. If they ought not to display such behavior at a con, then that implies that it's inappropriate, doesn't it?

I favor no, here. I asked this specifically because you qualified that inappropriate sexual comments should not be directed at women cosplaying in cons, implying that some sexual commentary is appropriate. I do not think any sexual commentary is appropriate. Moreover, view the context. The context of this question is, when is it okay for a stranger to make sexual comments or remarks to women at a con? I would say, never, once again.

Podunk wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
So, this is an example of what happens when a woman calls out unwanted behavior privately without revealing the names of the people involved, just as we all suggested that Adria Richards should have done. Note that while she didn't use public shaming or unleash an Internet lynch mob (which she was also worried about), the treatment of Meagan Marie by the IHM is no better than Adria Richard's treatment was. So while I applaud Marie's approach as being better than Richards's, this should illustrate that the bulk of the treatment of Richards did not actually have anything to do with her approach.

Do you really think so? I have seen nothing but praise and support for Marie on Twitter, your post is the first time I've heard about the negative reactions from the outlet-that-shall-not-be-named, and I certainly haven't heard of anything like the kind of massive sexist backlash that Richards endured. Maybe Marie is receiving large numbers of death threats, rape threats and DDOS attacks directed at her employer, and I just haven't heard about it. But if she's not, I have a hard time comparing this situation with Adria Richards'.

I will quote from my own message on the last page, which is a quote from the updated article:

Also also: Unsurprisingly, the update includes this near the start: 'Yesterday a lot of the fears that kept me from speaking out for so long were realized. Although the general response to my words was overwhelmingly positive, I was and still am being called a stupid bitch, a c*nt, and “all that is wrong with womankind.” I’ve been insulted, misrepresented, and threatened.'

If you read the updated article, she'll mention a number of other things that suggest a pattern of crap she's getting.

Is this exactly the same treatment as Adria Richards? No. It's difficult to say exactly how they compare, since Marie isn't going into great detail. They also work in rather different fields, etc. etc. Is it particularly different in tone? No.

Marie may not be getting DDoSed or fired, but she is getting heaped on with a ton of stuff, being called horrible names, etc... for daring to post an article saying that she doesn't plan to put up with bullsh*t any more, even though she did in fact attempt to keep things impersonal by leaving out the exact details of the event.

Part of the difference could be because she doesn't work for a tech company. Part of it could be that nobody who supports her at all has the kind of mixed feelings about the event that Richards's actions provoked. Part of it could be that the kiddies with their botnets aren't bored enough to fire it up this time. Part of it might be that Crystal Dynamics has had some practice dealing with script kiddies and DDoS attacks. Hard to say.

Ulairi wrote:
I have one quibble with people: dressing up in cosplay is not like wearing a sports jersey. I hear that all the time and its' a really bad analogy. Dressing up in cosplay is like dressing up in full football garb not wearing a niner's jersey. The video game equivalent is wearing a Zelda t-shirt not dressing up like Zelda. I hear this analogy a lot and it really drives me nuts. If I put on my catchers gear and was walking around I would expect attention even if I'm at a baseball card convention.

If you were dressed up in full football garb, would it be OK to tackle you?

Larry, I am just not interested in arguing with you. Yes, your initial statements clearly indicated that you were against objectifying women. Then you tried to find the cracks in that argument. I am telling you there are no cracks. Is it culturally permitted? Then it's wrong. Is it mistakenly assumed from the clothing? Then it's wrong. Is there another position that allows objectification of women? No. Do you think so? I can't tell. Don't blame me when you take a position that you don't actually believe. It's intellectually dishonest and destructive to genuine discussion. Not to mention your little derails about the service industry. I'm not sure where the thread title or general subject matter of the thread for the past 7 pages at all directs us to that discussion.

LarryC wrote:
That's contradictory. If they ought not to display such behavior at a con, then that implies that it's inappropriate, doesn't it?

To some extent, yes. This was hastily written on my part, as I was trying to get out the door to the gym. What the public interaction may end up doing is giving spectators some kind of implied crowd-sanctioned consent to objectify a woman if her husband does so in public. In that way, it's inappropriate if the person does not wish to be objectified. Ultimately, PDAs are not generally bothersome to me, and I would never make such a presumption that someone else's PDA is consent for me to engage otherwise. I cannot speak for others.

Mike, from my perspective you have done a stand up job dealing with backhanded cultural insults couched in doe eyed naivete for the last few pages, and I commend your effort.

From my perspective, it makes me think we really need to break P&C up into two different forums. It feels like there's a genuine split in the way people want to approach discussion.

I could've sworn I saw this posted on GWJ but I can't seem to find it. Women may have been hired to entertain industry dudes at notch's GDC party.

http://kotaku.com/minecraft-creator-...

Last night, Mojang, the studio that created Minecraft, hosted a big shindig at the Game Developers Conference, dubbed ".party()". There were flashing lights, a Skrillex set, and according to rumors, paid companions in the V.I.P. room. Rumors that Minecraft's creator Markus Persson says just aren't true.

-Notch and others in charge of the party deny that they hired women to mingle with guests.
-The day has been spent trying to figure out who "patient zero" was and who those women could have been.

This issue has exploded up on Twitter. The discussion has involved many people but mostly notably Holly Green. Her and notch have been tweeting each other and eventually met for lunch to discuss the issue. Notch says he's looking into these accusations.

Notch has been getting some backlash since the story broke. While he and Green were speaking on Twitter, Green started receiving nasty comments. Once they met in person, the hate she's been receiving was ramped up to 11.

Reading about other abuse in this thread earlier today made me physically ill. I actually felt nauseous. I really have no words. This stuff is just crazy.

CheezePavilion:

Sometimes I think I'm taking crazy pills, to be honest.

NSMike:

1. If you're not interested in discussing anything, just ignore me the way Hypatian does. I prefer that to being misrepresented and accused of being evil.

Really.

2.


Yes, your initial statements clearly indicated that you were against objectifying women. Then you tried to find the cracks in that argument. I am telling you there are no cracks.

You're totally misreading the intent. I'm not arguing FOR the legitimacy of the objectification. I'm looking for the reasons why people think it's okay. Not you. The people who do so. Paleocon and KaterinLHC had a difference of opinion on whether it's okay to offer unsolicited opinions out of the blue. I was hoping to unpack why that difference exists, not justify the objectification of women. Good Lord.

3.


Is it culturally permitted? Then it's wrong. Is it mistakenly assumed from the clothing? Then it's wrong. Is there another position that allows objectification of women? No. Do you think so? I can't tell. Don't blame me when you take a position that you don't actually believe.

I'm NOT taking a position I don't believe. NOT. Not even a little bit. Don't assume. I personally find it offensive. To be plain, you have offended me. You did this by assuming malevolent intent and interests on my part, and then openly condemning for things I didn't intend. You assumed that I had a particular intent based on your biases, and then acted on them. Please don't.

Seth:

If I wanted to insult your culture, I'd be doing it openly. If you think I'm saying my culture is superior, think again. I'm not. I'm pretty sure, though, that your saying that was a personal insult. Is it?

LarryC wrote:
I'm looking for the reasons why people think it's okay. Not you. The people who do so. Paleocon and KaterinLHC had a difference of opinion on whether it's okay to offer unsolicited opinions out of the blue. I was hoping to unpack why that difference exists, not justify the objectification of women.

I actually think this is a great point of discussion and a good thing to look at, because it gets to the root of the problem. Why you have to phrase it in a way that it seems like you're taking up the position of the misogynists, I don't know. This is a great question. Why can't you just raise it this way in the first place? Far less confusing and fosters healthier discussion.

I thought it was transparent that that's what I'm getting at. Why would you assume that I'm directly contradicting something I already plainly said?

Let's look at the clothing thing. Some people in here apparently think that it's okay to react to it as a public display. I objected to that on a fundamental level. Apparently more fundamental than you, NSMike. I don't think clothing should be commented on or matter at all. But clearly you don't think so. What's going on there? Where's the line between wearing formal dinner wear, and doing performance art? Why is it okay to say, "You look pretty," to someone in a formal evening gown, but not when she's doing Vampirella?

Pointless. - Certis

Edit: non-constructive

Edit: non-constructive

[resolved]

Seth wrote:
Took nine pages for LarryC to make this all about him. New record.

To be fair, I'm quite, uh... Impaired at the moment, and when I made my last post. I'll respond when more coherent.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Once you're down to arguing over the intent of what you're saying over a span of pages, you've run aground of having anything new to add. Probably time to move on.

A discussion about how women are treated poorly in a male dominated society often ends with a bunch of dudes debating over how offended they are to be misrepresented. Might be worth some self-reflection in a dark room with a stiff drink. Probably also a good idea to re-read the original post and remember that it's highly likely this thread isn't about you.

Edit: Certishouser'd!

LarryC wrote:
I thought it was transparent that that's what I'm getting at. Why would you assume that I'm directly contradicting something I already plainly said?

Let's look at the clothing thing. Some people in here apparently think that it's okay to react to it as a public display. I objected to that on a fundamental level. Apparently more fundamental than you, NSMike. I don't think clothing should be commented on or matter at all. But clearly you don't think so. What's going on there? Where's the line between wearing formal dinner wear, and doing performance art? Why is it okay to say, "You look pretty," to someone in a formal evening gown, but not when she's doing Vampirella?


Personally I wouldn't walk up to a stranger in an evening gown and tell them that I thought they looked pretty either.
I think what Yellek posted on the subject covers any instance of telling a stranger they're pretty, regardless of attire.
Yellek wrote:
I think there is a bit of a gray area around saying someone is pretty. Generally that has been a safe compliment in the past, and in most contexts assuming it was said in a non-threatening and non-expectation way I don't think it would bother me. But, it is just SO much better to give it some context. Like referring to the costume in cosplay, not the generic comment on being attractive. Or if you must be generic, "you look great!" rather than you look pretty. It can be uncomfortable getting "pretty" or other similar comments from complete strangers because you have no frame of reference to know what their end goal is. You don't know them, they don't know you, where is this going? I've responded to a random compliment by a small smile of acknowledgement, the bare minimum of acknowledgement, and had it followed up with an assumption that was an invitation to approach/harass/whatever. Or, ignored it and been called a bitch for it.

Usually people only tell complete strangers that they find them attractive in an attempt to start a conversation with them, using the expected acknowledgement of the compliment as an "in" (and possibly getting angry if the expected acknowledgement isn't there).

Sometimes I like to think of our culture as a very badly-designed software API.

People can be represented as objects with various interfaces that they expose in various situations. You do not, as a general rule, have access to the entirety of another human being in everyday life; most of what they are is abstracted from you so that you don't have to worry about it. A grocery store clerk, for example, makes a small set of interactions available to her customers (who in turn make a small set of interactions available to her). She allows me to purchase groceries. She may have the ability to sign me up for a Safeway Club Card or whatever. We may have the ability to make small talk. I am not responsible for looking after her dog while she's on vacation; she is not responsible for teaching my kids algebra.

'Sex Object' is an interface that may be legitimately exposed, for example, by erotic dancers. In rare cases like this, ogling someone is a thing they permit you to do. There is of course a real person behind that interface, but you don't necessarily get to/need to know about or interact with that person. The person is abstracted, and this I think is reasonable (if horrifying in the existential and ethical senses).

What makes our culture a sh*tty API is that the 'SexObject' interface is implemented all the way up at the level of 'Woman', such that all subtypes of Woman are by definition SexObjects. Your Grocer, if she is female, is a SexObject; your female coworker at a high-tech company is a SexObject; your grandmother is a SexObject. This doesn't make any sense. It is poor design.

In an ideal system, physical appearance wouldn't even be a thing you could access unless the situation called for it. (Indeed, an ideal system wouldn't even expose gender unless you were a) using a toilet or b) having sex.) As a party guest interacting with another party guest, maybe you get to see what the person looks like and what they are wearing. (You still don't get to blatantly ogle them though.) As a Cosplayer people might get to see your outfit but not necessarily your actual body or face. In general, casting from Cosplayer to SexObject should throw a TypeError of some sort.

Alas, the nature of sexist societies is that the system is rigged against one gender. It exposes far more of women's features than it does men's, permitting malicious applications to exploit them in all sorts of devastating ways.

That kind of sounds like you want every one to wear a burka including men in your ideal world. A world where everyone is the same. Reminds me of a twilight zone episode.

I'm going back a bit to the conversation about women *in* games, and wanted to leave this here: IMAGE(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18iwyj5ycdtmljpg/original.jpg)

This was my reaction to GW2 when I first made a character. My first character, an engineer, in the "create a character" thingy had a pretty awesome outfit; but when I finished the character creation, and launched the game; it was a sexy-maid outfit.

All of the outfits (after lvl 20 or so) for the races that are not Asura, are eye-candy for male players. (Tis why Cruella is an Asura, Asura females are allowed to wear clothes.)

This sort of thing goes to the very core of women in gaming. I'm aware that most of the people playing games are men; but perhaps part of that is that younger women aren't hardened by years of playing games, and are offended by the fact that 90% of their gaming experience is *as* a sex object.

Duckilama got annoyed with GW2 because of the way his female warrior ended up dressed at lvl 80 in top of the line gear. There is no reason why men can have full armor, but women have boobs and bellybuttons. I realize that bringing "reality" into a game is a silly thing; but seriously; what woman who had the ability to wield a sword as big as she is would also think: "Ok, bra, undies, scrap of loin wrap...yeah, I'm ready to fight orcs!"

The reason it is problematic is because it further entrenches the idea that women are "for looking at". It makes females an "other". Women, in games, in tech, and in life, have had enough of being the "other".

Seth wrote:
Roland I have to believe you're not trying to say this, but - because I still need more clarification, and please forgive what I can only say is my own incredulity at what I hope is a miscommunication- but are you saying your penis and your mouth are so inextricably tied that you verbalize literally every sexual thought you have?

NO
Men are not animals, and should not act as such.
Actually both women and men are animals, why do people always forget this? Also, "animals" often have complex mating rituals and some mate for life. The only rapists I know of are dophins and humans, so it seems we should act like animals.

Jayhawker wrote:
I think you missed what was being satirized in that video. It was making fun of how little HR departments understand what sexual harassment is.
No, that's just it, they understand perfectly well and that's why it scares the sh*t out of them. The exact same words and actions by one guy Joe and another guy Bob can be seen as sexual harassment depending on which one of them is doing it. Remember, as has been said here many times, it's only the viewpoint of the victim is the viewpoint that determines whether something is inappropriate. "He looked at me funny". Is that a valid justification for attacking someone and claiming self-defense? No, but it is in a sexual harassment claim.

Back to what I meant though. Women are aesthetically pleasing/I'm heterosexual-those two phrases are basically inseparable in my mind. I'm also very honest. I can't really fathom lying to a woman and saying that I want to be friends when I'm trying to get her naked. I can't claim being platonic from the start because my preferred path is from friend to lover to partner. If I claim platonic at the start and my feelings change I would be lying; I cry and tremble at the thought of being a cad. While I have not confirmed this, women don't believe it when I say that I want a friendship where sex is possible but not the goal. Finally, people are dangerous. Thus at the end of the day, women I could have sex with have higher utility than ones I can't and that puts them below the threshold of risk/reward required to make social contact.

This is really, really creepy. Please tell me I am missing the sarcasm.

Please keep in mind to what I was responding, to wit,
Seth wrote:
RolandofGilead wrote:
I am not comfortable with you implying that you’d like to have sex with me.
I don't like this implication, following it would mean I could never talk to or look at a woman again.

I need much, much more clarification of how these two things are related.

It means I don't typically bother talking to or looking at people who are unavailable because it's not worth it.

RolandofGilead wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
I think you missed what was being satirized in that video. It was making fun of how little HR departments understand what sexual harassment is.
No, that's just it, they understand perfectly well and that's why it scares the sh*t out of them. The exact same words and actions by one guy Joe and another guy Bob can be seen as sexual harassment depending on which one of them is doing it. Remember, as has been said here many times, it's only the viewpoint of the victim is the viewpoint that determines whether something is inappropriate. "He looked at me funny". Is that a valid justification for attacking someone and claiming self-defense? No, but it is in a sexual harassment claim.

Back to what I meant though. Women are aesthetically pleasing/I'm heterosexual-those two phrases are basically inseparable in my mind. I'm also very honest. I can't really fathom lying to a woman and saying that I want to be friends when I'm trying to get her naked. I can't claim being platonic from the start because my preferred path is from friend to lover to partner. If I claim platonic at the start and my feelings change I would be lying; I cry and tremble at the thought of being a cad. While I have not confirmed this, women don't believe it when I say that I want a friendship where sex is possible but not the goal. Finally, people are dangerous. Thus at the end of the day, women I could have sex with have higher utility than ones I can't and that puts them below the threshold of risk/reward required to make social contact.

This is really, really creepy. Please tell me I am missing the sarcasm.

Please keep in mind to what I was responding, to wit,
Seth wrote:
RolandofGilead wrote:
I am not comfortable with you implying that you’d like to have sex with me.
I don't like this implication, following it would mean I could never talk to or look at a woman again.

I need much, much more clarification of how these two things are related.

It means I don't typically bother talking to or looking at people who are unavailable because it's not worth it.

Not sure that clarification decreases the creepiness. Do you have female friends? Family members? Are you only interested in speech when it leads to mating?

Hypatian wrote:
I will quote from my own message on the last page, which is a quote from the updated article:

Also also: Unsurprisingly, the update includes this near the start: 'Yesterday a lot of the fears that kept me from speaking out for so long were realized. Although the general response to my words was overwhelmingly positive, I was and still am being called a stupid bitch, a c*nt, and “all that is wrong with womankind.” I’ve been insulted, misrepresented, and threatened.'

Emphasis mine. I read the updated article before making my last post, and while it's disheartening to hear about a sexist backlash from some troglodytes I don't get the impression from her update that the scale of the negative response even begins to approach what happened to Richards. There is no way one can characterize the general response to Adria Richards' actions as "overwhelmingly positive." As you say, though, she does not provide many details, so we're just discussing semantics and our own completely unsubstantiated assumptions.

KaterinLHC wrote:
The difference between saying "Wow! You look really sexy in that outfit. Perhaps we could get together sometime?" and "I bet a man can't please you in bed, but I am willing to try, hotstuff!" is exponential.

No, it really isn't. Either way, you (the general you, not you Rev) are a) offering up unsolicited opinions on a woman's appearance; b) objectifying the woman by relating to her not in terms of her individuality, but in terms of your sexual interest.
True enough, but here's the thing, I quote LarryC saying the same thing below, I don't know anything about this stranger in front of me other than what she looks like. That is literally the only piece of information I have to go on.
I mean, I'm all for flirting, and if you really want to hit on a woman, then hey, go right ahead. But there's so many other ways to express your interest in her besides making it about the degree to which she floats your dong.
No there isn't. Given the utility and risk vs reward of contact, why *else would I talk to a complete stranger? This is the crux, the fact that I'm initiating contact gives away the fact that I have some kind of interest in her. I've lived 30 years, the number of times I've received unsolicited social contact is ~5.
*Also if someone is in obvious need of assistance you should talk to them.
LarryC wrote:
KaterinLHC:
Many guys (and most guys I know of) generally initially get attracted to a woman because of how she floats their dongs. .. Given that interest and that opinion, how else would a guy hit on a woman, except exactly as how Phoenix Rev expresses? Many guys know nothing about a woman who interests them other than how much she turns them on. That may creep you out, but it's true for a lot of people nonetheless.
QFT