Hacker News Reader

Comment by brianjyee | Hacker News Reader

Not specific to hacker culture, but I always felt there was a bit of a double standard when it comes to alpha male behavior. Women are attracted to aggressive men. Women like men who take charge. Women like men who are the initiators. Now obviously there is a line that crosses over into sexual harassment, but the fact is that men who behave aggressively are the ones who succeed in sexual pursuits most often. It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment. I wish it weren't like this because I, personally, am not very aggressive.

I'm not trying to defend the behavior described in the article, I'm just saying that men act like that because it works.

View on HN

Never take advice from someone who thinks it's meaningful to talk in terms of "what women want", as if there's this undifferentiated mass with a unanimous set of values.

If you haven't noticed that different women want different things, and are attracted to different kinds of guys, that might explain why you have trouble telling the difference between flirtatious give-and-take, and one-sided harassment. Or for that matter, the difference between assertive but respectful self-confidence, and blind aggression.

"when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment"

How about if we correct that to: "when the girl responds positively to the guy, and he keeps going, it's flirting, but when she responds negatively (or tries to avoid him) and he keeps going anyway, it's creepy/sexual harassment".

Never take advice from someone who thinks it's meaningful to talk in terms of "what women want", as if there's this undifferentiated mass with a unanimous set of values.

Never underestimate the power of generalization. Women are shorter than men. Women are slower than men. Women are physically weaker than men. These generalizations allow for individual exceptions, of course, but they are true in an important statistical sense. They allow us to predict that, for example, most top basketball players, powerlifters, and sprinters will be men. Indeed, it's no coincidence that the recently completed Olympics had separate competitions not only for physically disabled athletes (the Paralympics), but also for women. They could not in general compete otherwise.

Returning to your point, I doubt you really believe that it's meaningless to talk in terms of "what women want". Despite variation in individual tastes, in general women are attracted to charming, confident men. Moreover, I'm sure you could add a few more adjectives to that list. QED.

I wish you were right. Much of the time, men have no slack in this regard—in today's hypersensitive environment, it's often "one strike and you're out". The costs of being accused of sexual harassment are high, while the costs of making false accusations are low; this leads to predictable results.

Statistics provides a wonderful set of tool for summarizing the opinions of a large group of people, but if you use it to determine your interactions with one individual instead of looking at the reactions of the person in front of you, You're Doing It Wrong.

"Men have no slack in this regard"? Really? I've never had anyone accuse me of harassment. I've only ever met one person who claimed to have beeen accused of harassment; based on the other tall tales he told (going 130mph on a dirt bike while being chased by a police helicopter, killing people with his bare hands in the Marines, and more), it's entirely possible that he made the whole thing up, or equally possible that he was actually guilty of harassment (he claimed the jury found in his favor).

The cases I've read about recently involved women clearly telling their harassers to stop, that the attention was unwanted, and the harassers refusing to heed those repeated requests. Rather than "one strike", it was more like "3 strikes, and still swinging".

There was a time when I would've been the one writing that comment, so I know what you mean. It is frustrating for meek guys (I count myself as one too) to feel like we're being called out along with harassers. But ultimately I don't think what you're saying is accurate.

It took me a long time to realize this because I didn't have very good data to work from--I didn't have a large set of observations of interactions between men and women, and out of those I did have there were very few instances of harassment. It seemed to me that based on the complaints of harassment vs. the small number of cases I'd witnessed, the problem must be that women were choosing to call normal behavior harassment when it was unwelcome. Which I think is your argument. But I've realized that that's not the case. The kinds of harassment being complained of are not borderline cases. In most of the recent cases I've read about (Readercon, etc) the harasser was explicitly told to stop at least once. That is not ambiguous, and it's not based on the perception of the person being harassed.

I guess what I want to say really is, 'stop feeling threatened by this.' If you are a person with even a barely-functioning social instinct, and recognize and respect when someone feels uncomfortable in a situation, there is only a microscopic chance that anything you do will be misinterpreted as harassment. And if you do say something that someone interprets as sexist, the first response will simply be to call you out on it. That's a conversation it's ok to have if you're confused, 'I'm sorry; I didn't mean to offend you. Could you tell me what about what I said bothered you?' Again, if you're a person with a basic social instinct, you will prefer to modify your behavior in small ways to make the people around you comfortable. If you truly feel someone is being unreasonable, just avoid them.

In this thread we find relationship advice from geeks (average HN reader I presume). It is funny because I speak as one and HN is the last place I expect to read such comments. But saying "I'm sorry; I didn't mean to offend you. Could you tell me what about what I said bothered you?" is the most technical and least pro-flirty (is that even a word?) thing I have read in this thread. As a more technical person myself, one part of me says it is appropriate to get feedback so that we can perform better next time. But the normal person inside of me screams in horror after reading it because somehow it kinds of seals the deal for it. That seems like one thing i should never say if I am interested in initiating a relationship of any kind. It just instinctively feels wrong. But hat could be just me.

At the point someone has called you out for being sexist, the relationship you should be focused on pursuing is the one with the next person, because your shot with this one is gone.

Yes! And if you're so worried about how "technical" you'll sound when asking for feedback (which you may or may not get - nobody's entitled to give it), you also miss out on the potential to get some data points to refine your approach in the future. Sounds like a good opportunity to repeat that same old mistake all over again and write it off as "I just wasn't flirty enough." Not the problem, never was the problem.

Behavior like grabbing a strangers crotch from behind and disappearing before she has a chance to turn around "works"?

No, it most certainly does not. There is a big difference between being confident and showing leadership, and groping strangers in public.

And the "agressive, alpha male" (which is a term that I hate, by the way) persona doesn't work for everyone, either. I know plenty of women for whom that's a huge turn off.

> It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment.

It's creepy and harassment if it's creepy and harassment. You can flirt without grabbing someone's crotch, without trying to lick them without permission. There are also more appropriate venues for flirting, and less appropriate venues. At a hacker conference, people are generally more interested in talking about hacking and less about flirting; and in particular, there are many women there who will already feel a little ill at ease and marginalized due to how few of them there are relative to the men, who might not take kindly to many people treating them more as a potential date than a peer. At a singles bar? Flirting is probably more appropriate.

And yes, there is a certain degree to which some behavior will be interpreted as flirtation by some people and creepy by others. To avoid that, it's good to try to cultivate a certain sense of self-awareness, and when in doubt, err on the side of not being creepy.

> At a hacker conference, people are generally more interested in talking about hacking and less about flirting;

Even if I were trying to pick someone up at a conference, I'd talk about hacking, engage their interests, ask them what they are working on, etc. Intellectual flattery.

Physically, I'd be cool. If, after some time, the woman initiated some innocuous physical contact (shoulder & arm touching, for example), I would not reciprocate in kind. No, I would reciprocate with more platonic interest. This might be slightly disappointing at first, but it would build trust. Physical reciprocity only later, like a long-delayed echo.

Really, the physical stuff is entirely dispensable in the courtship phase. So is any kind of sexual innuendo. Keep it cerebral, boys. Ask questions, listen.

But, I'm not looking to pick anyone up.

"If, after some time, the woman initiated some innocuous physical contact (shoulder & arm touching, for example), I would not reciprocate in kind. No, I would reciprocate with more platonic interest. This might be slightly disappointing at first, but it would build trust. Physical reciprocity only later, like a long-delayed echo."

At which point she would think you aren't interested in her and then move on mentally and physically to someone else.

I commented heavily in the original HN thread because of comments like this. You're not defending the behavior... you're just saying women are literally asking for it.

Theres this myth that men who are assholes succeed with women. I suppose they do technically succeed - in getting women with low self esteem to sleep with them through manipulation and "pickup artist" techniques. But how successful do you think they are at finding a truly fulfilling and meaningful relationships? How successful do you think they are with bright, intelligent, worthwhile women who have their act together. You really think those women are walking away from defcon wishing they met some guy who "negged" them, and physically forced himself on them?

As someone said already, theres a huge difference between being an aggressive asshole and being assertive. The asshole licks a random womans tattoo to start a conversation. The asshole grabs a womans crotch and hides in a crowd. The assertive guy decides to start a conversation with a woman he thinks is interesting, and if hes at all socially aware he knows when shes uninterested in continuing to talk and he moves on.

The line that shouldn't be crossed is being an asshole that sexually assaults women, its really not that blurry.

"I suppose they do technically succeed - in getting women with low self esteem to sleep with them through manipulation and "pickup artist" techniques."

"How successful do you think they are with bright, intelligent, worthwhile women who have their act together."

This trope is bullshit. People who respond to methods that you disapprove of are somehow less worthy people? Where's your evidence for this? This sort of insult shouldn't be any more welcome than the behavior this thread is supposed to be about.

They aren't less worthy as human beings, they aren't "sluts" or whatever you thought i meant. In my experience women who are attracted to assholes simply aren't worthwhile in the context of being pursuing romantically - i dont have much to offer them. They are adults and can do what they please. But someone who responds positively to being treated like shit is going to be a waste of time and effort for me. In my experience, it was always because of immaturity or a lack of self esteem that they allowed themselves to be treated poorly.

Yes this is all anecdotal, you caught me, i don't have any studies on the dating habits of women and assholes. I think saying my comments are worse than sexual assault is tad bit hyperbolic.

"Theres this myth that men who are assholes succeed with women. I suppose they do technically succeed - in getting women with low self esteem to sleep with them through manipulation and "pickup artist" techniques. But how successful do you think they are at finding a truly fulfilling and meaningful relationships?"

Here's the thing, plenty of the guys lamenting don't know what a fulfilling and meaningful relationship IS, therefore they conflate an abusive one they can't have with what they should have.

It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment.

Yep, and that makes it incredibly hard to be a guy. You're almost "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when it comes to flirting and initiating things. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to know - in advance - how someone is going to react.

That said, there is a line somewhere, of behavior that is never appropriate towards someone that you don't already have an established relationship with. Asking a random female (or male, for that matter) to "come up to my room for a pillowfight" is just stupid in almost every conceivable context.

I think you should realize your comment - in a thread about counteracting sexual harassment towards women at conferences - is about how incredibly difficult it is to be a man. Nevermind how difficult it must feel to try to fit in as a minority group at a conference only to find yourself sexually harassed by a stranger.

Appreciate how privileged you are when your worry isn't "i hope some random man doesn't try to grab my ass" but instead "how am i supposed to know if this random woman wants me to grab her ass?". Is it really that difficult to be a guy? Is the line of sexual harassment (especially in the context of the articles examples) really that hard to figure out?

I think you should realize your comment - in a thread about counteracting sexual harassment towards women at conferences - is about how incredibly difficult it is to be a man.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that. I believe that part of solving the larger problem here involves both sexes having a better understanding of the position of the other. This is not as simple as "guys suck, you all need to change."

Nevermind how difficult it must feel to try to fit in as a minority group at a conference only to find yourself sexually harassed by a stranger.

Sexual harassment sucks whether you're a minority or not. I'm very sympathetic to the plight of women at conferences (and elsewhere) but not going to sit here and apologize for being male either.

Appreciate how privileged you are when your worry isn't "i hope some random man doesn't try to grab my ass" but instead "how am i supposed to know if this random woman wants me to grab her ass?".

Meh. We all have our own crosses to bear.

Is it really that difficult to be a guy?

Absolutely.

Is the line of sexual harassment (especially in the context of the articles examples) really that hard to figure out?

In the context of the examples cited in this article, I'd say "no." Which, if you read my original comment, I'd already made that point. In the more general sense, the absolutely is pretty much "it depends." Men have absolutely been accused of "harassment" for behavior that other people (including other women) would shake their heads at and go "WTF? That's not harassment at all." There's definitely an element of subjectivity in all this.

Compared to being a woman, it is not difficult to be a guy. I'm not sure how you can look at this article about how so many women get sexually assaulted or harassed at tech conventions and think, "It's so tough being a guy."

Not all women are looking for a hookup every time they leave their house. If you hit on a girl at a convention, and she thinks you're creepy, it's your fault. You shouldn't be hitting on her.

You might come back with, "But what about all those girls who say it's creepy for one guy to hit on them but it's attractive for another? How am I supposed to know if I'm the creepy guy or not?"

To which I would reply... How many times has that happened to you? How many times have you been called creepy by a gal at a bar only to have her run off with another, more attractive guy who gave her the same exact line? I'd guess that happens pretty rarely, right? Maybe never?

Compared to being a woman, it is not difficult to be a guy.

I don't know about you, but I'm not trying to make any such comparison. Nor do I find it to be relevant. This isn't about "is it harder to be a guy or a girl," it's about the fact that it's tough to be a guy OR a girl. IOW, women aren't the only ones who have challenges when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. And I don't believe it makes sense to look at the challenges that either sex has, in a vacuum. We're all in this together. We need more shared understanding that goes in both directions, not more antagonism.

No dude, it’s fucking easy being a guy, twice so if you’re white, three times so if you’re straight. In fact, that’s so true it has come to be known as The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...

You cannot argue that “it’s tough being a guy” and then say you weren’t comparing it to being a woman. What the hell else were you comparing it to, being a Tyrannosaurus? However tough you may think your position in life is, chances are pretty high you’re living it on The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.

You cannot argue that “it’s tough being a guy” and then say you weren’t comparing it to being a woman.

Actually, I just did.

What the hell else were you comparing it to, being a Tyrannosaurus?

I wasn't comparing it to anything.

However tough you may think your position in life is, chances are pretty high you’re living it on The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.

Great, that's not something I can control, now is it? Of course I have empathy for people on all the other difficulty levels, and want to help make things better for them. But I still have my own problems regardless of how easy anyone else thinks my life is.

Of course, none of this is really relevant to the conversation that started all this, and I'll probably regret replying to this comment later.

Again, to reiterate what I said before... what we need is more shared understanding, that goes both ways, and less antagonism.

You may not have intended to compare it to anything, but you were. The words “incredibly tough” cannot be used without being in comparison to something, because without the comparison they _lose all meaning completely_. So however you want to spin it, whatever, but your words were words of comparison.

1) A skyscraper is really small. A skyscraper is really big. 2) A skyscraper is really squishy. A skyscraper is really cuddly.

All of the above are implicit comparisons, but the ones in 2) are really dumb and make no sense. Are you suggesting you really meant to fit category 2 despite pretty clearly using terminology befitting category 1? It's really better for you to just own up and admit you made a small mistake, than to dig your heels in deeper and show your reluctance to listening, to being receptive to learning anything new.

Everyone has their own problems in life. The issue at hand is women suffering from problems caused by the very same people who repeatedly attempt to diminish the severity of their (women’s) problems and try to make it about men, instead. Again.

“what we need is more shared understanding, that goes both ways”

There is plenty of understanding of your position already. It's not a hard one to figure out. We're calling out the sense of entitlement, privilege, and refusal to stop whining about your problems every time we're trying to have a conversation about _someone else's_ problems.

If you aren't trying to make such a comparison, why did you state that in the first place? It's meaningless to state everyone has it difficult when talking about how a specific group has it a bit more difficult.

Yes, men have problems too, but we're not talking about them right now. This is about how women are treated in tech.

Every single example in the article was out of line and simply never appropriate.

I'm willing to believe that maybe some of these men simply do not understand the difference between confidence and assertiveness and straight-up sexual harassment. If the guys are truly ignorant to the rudeness of their actions, the red/yellow/green card should have a very positive effect.

The line is going to vary depending on the personality of the person you're trying to flirt with and how attractive they find you. That's just the way it is. This is why you flirt in a civilized manner first, and look for signs that they are or are not interested. And if you're paying attention you ought to notice if you make them uncomfortable, and apologize.

"And if you're paying attention you ought to notice if you make them uncomfortable, and apologize."

I don't think you need to apologize. Their uncomfortable demeanor could be brought on by lack of attraction rather than offensive behavior (assault/harassment), in which case their negative reaction will be a clear sign to get out.

This is why you flirt in a civilized manner first, and look for signs that they are or are not interested.

Yeah, it's easy enough to simply be polite, throw out some very casual flirting, and the see if the other person responds in kind. If they don't, don't try to escalate the encounter. Somehow this seems to escape an awful lot of people for some reason...

Yup. Geeks (male and female) can be dense about flirting at times, though. I'd like to think that I'm more perceptive nowadays, but when I was a sophomore in college I was asked out and taken on a date without realizing it, for instance. So be aware that they might just be really enjoying the conversation and not realizing that you're trying to flirt. Which doesn't even mean they wouldn't be happy to flirt back if they realized how things were! So again, just always be willing to revise your assumptions about the situation, and always be polite and be ready to back out if you misread things.

Really..."damned if you do, damned if you don't"? There are easy ways to approach women without worrying if you've crossed the line on your initial remarks. While you might have to be a mind-reader, at times, to know if they like you, you certainly don't have to be psychic to know if your remarks are offensive or rude.

Agreed. I was generalizing out of haste, since I didn't (and don't) have time to write a manifesto. :-)

Or your understanding is limited to hasty generalizations.

It's even worse to start invading someone's personal space.

That said, not all women will automatically assume you are creepy just because they are not attracted to you.

Most people will not find you creepy because they are not attracted to you. Most people will not find it creepy if you flirt and they are not attracted. They will find it creepy if they don't respond to the flirting and you continue to do so. They will also find it creepy if you start from a position that doesn't leave them an option to politely disengage from flirtation (e.g. starting with "want to fuck?" is creepy because it gives no chance to the other person to participate in what should be a mutual escalation of attraction - that you have already decided their level of comfort with the notion is a personal boundary violation).

I have never seen one women who, after a smile and eye contact, was offended or disgusted by an invitation to a drink. No matter if she was interested or not - the only point after that is accepting a "no thank you".

It is not hard to be a man if you just act polite but still purposive <sarcasm>just don't try to fondle her before you said "hi".</sarcasm>

I know it is neither easy nor fun, especially if there are social phobias involved, but it is definitely not hard to be a guy trying to flirt with a women. Maybe uncomfortable, but rumors are, that women who try to flirt with a man have the exact same problems.

Holy moly. I think you need to take a good look at this blog post, and all the blog posts it links:

http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/11/the-c-word/

Hopefully this read will clear some stuff up. You need to lose the victim complex.

Hopefully this read will clear some stuff up. You need to lose the victim complex.

LOL... based on that alone, I don't think I'm going to waste any of my time on the link you posted. Pointing out that both sexes have their own set of challenges, and refusing to toe the "women are good, men are bad" line is hardly having a "victim complex."

Oh sure, all sexes have their challenges. However, the particular case you bring up has been thoroughly debunked time and time again. It is annoyingly pervasive.

Sometime it comes very close to being that when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment.

That's because it's a personal, relationship kind of thing. Your behavior depends partly on the other person. There is no single set of rules that will cover all people, all circumstances, all the time. (For "polite company" or formal gatherings there are of course protocols. But at a party, it's much more individual and personal.)

Absolutely. So you'd agree that what's over the line in one circumstance could be interpreted as harmless flirting in another. And that much of the time, the guy must guess where that line is and that he'll be wrong sometimes.

'what's over the line in one circumstance could be interpreted as harmless flirting in another.'

Yes. You're allowed to greet your friends by hugging them if that's the kind of relationship you have with them. You are not allowed to greet a bank teller that way, or a canvasser, or most of the other people you encounter. The fact that what's appropriate in one situation is inappropriate in another situation is tangential, because...

"the guy must guess where that line is and that he'll be wrong sometimes."

is not really true. First of all, understanding how another human feels in a situation is not 'guessing.' As social animals, humans are excellent at reading cues from body language, facial expressions, etc. to understand how other humans feel.

Second, as a previous reply said, paying attention in your interactions with other humans is actually your responsibility. If you are the least bit perceptive, you are extremely unlikely to be wrong about 'where the line is.' And to go a little further in the you-really-shouldn't-feel-threatened-by-this vein, if you're one of the people who worries about crossing the line unintentionally, you've probably never been near it.

if you're one of the people who worries about crossing the line unintentionally, you've probably never been near it.

QFT. I was very intimidated by these discussions until I realized this point.

> humans are excellent at reading cues from body language, facial expressions, etc. to understand how other humans feel.

For most people, yes. For some of the geekiest among us, I'm not sure that always holds.

Fortunately this skill can be learned by most of us for whom this is unintuitive. I have had to actively learn about body language cues for all sorts of situations. I can now do it reasonably well, but I have to pay attention a bit and do it consciously. Some people can't learn this, but they are pretty rare, and it is pretty obvious that they have problems with it, and as such, a wider leeway is given by most people out of compassion.

It's an interaction, not a one-way thing. The only thing that I think makes a difference is consideration for the other person. Acting with no regard for them is jerky behavior. On the other hand just being willing to back off or even apologize if you've crossed the line can be an improvement.

> And that much of the time, the guy must guess where that line is and that he'll be wrong sometimes.

Violating someone's personal space or verbally harassing them isn't flirting, its harassment and assault. There is no conflation of the two, and those that do try to relate them are doing so to enable and excuse their harassing behavior. In cases where you don't know what is acceptable, honest and polite communication always works, and of course you could always DO NOTHING and stop worrying about it.

No.

Women (and men) are attracted to assertive behavior, not aggressive behavior. Huge difference.

I'd venture to say that for a shy person the difference isn't necessarily that large, I can understand missing social cues when you are constantly ignoring warning signs just because you are out of your comfort zone.

(that said I will never understand nor defend the scenarios depicted in the article)

I'd venture to say that for a blind non-participant the difference isn't necessarily that large.

Meanwhile, aggression covers a lot of ground, which includes clubbing someone over the head, and generally being a jerk. But the fact that someone uses this word with two "g"s and two "s"s to describe some part of the process of building a happy family does not mean that other people are going to automatically know how to build a happy family after having read the paragraph that uses those words...

Women are attracted to aggressive men. Women like men who take charge.

Broad, broad strokes.

I won't say that you're wrong, because I have absolutely no evidence to back it up, but I know that it isn't true 100% of the time. So, if you behave that way, you run the very real risk of offending x% of women that are not attracted to aggressive men. It is most definitely not a universal rule, and I've had success with women by talking to them like a normal person, and attempting (probably failing, perhaps endearingly so) to be charming and funny. It just seems like a better option.

There's also the other issue of hitting on people at professional conferences, which seems like it's a terrible idea.

Ugh.. the last thing we need is to turn this into a general sexual attraction discussion about what (we think) works and what doesn't. It's a way more complex and controversial topic that we don't have to solve in order to address the "women in IT" problem when there is a much simpler solution:

DON'T TRY TO HIT ON WOMEN AT CONFERENCES OR OTHER BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTS AT ALL. PERIOD.

There is no shortage of more appropriate times and places we can test our theories about alpha male behavior, aggressiveness or what have you. Hell, some venues are specifically intended for such endeavors! Use them!

"DON'T TRY TO HIT ON WOMEN AT CONFERENCES OR OTHER BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTS AT ALL. PERIOD."

But that is in itself IS a generalization. I have family members and best friends who met their SO's at conferences or in professional environments. Or you can look at famous people who met their SO's working on the same project.

You can meet a person and develop a relationship with them without hitting on them.

The point is, there isn't a sharp delineation. Thats what allows any uncertainty into the discussion, there isn't a hard and fast rule on what behavior is acceptable.

The real rule, is to start off completely polite, and judge your behavior based on your reception. You start talking about an interesting exploit, impress each other, and the next thing you know you're talking about more personal stuff. Or, someone gives you the cold shoulder, talk is awkward, and you move on instead of forcing things into a sexual context.

Like... the bar at a Vegas hotel where people go to chill between talks and at the end of the day?

Do you also think it's weird that if my boss called me the "worst programmer ever" in a formal review I'd be unhappy but that I'm perfectly OK with hearing it from a colleague in the pub?

The vast, vast majority of the time people react differently to the same actions depending on the source of the actions. You do it, I do it, everyone you know does it. Why is it only a "double standard" when women do it?

it isn't like this, you're assessment is fallacious.

There's nothing wrong with flirting with women, if they aren't interested then they can be quite clear about it - the problem is that some peoples idea of flirting is creepy and borders on harassment.

Try not making sweeping statements about what women do and don't like, and work from there. PS, it's not all about sex.

If it is just flirty, no it is not creepy. I am flirty, assertive and generally "a type" in a lot of social settings. I get rejected plenty. I've never been labeled as a creeper for this. I have become platonic friends with the women who I met by flirting with them, but weren't interested in my advances.

The creepy label is not about "some guy who isn't attractive to me is flirting with me". It is about "some guy keeps flirting/making advances even though I am not interested". And before the standard replies start cropping up:

* I am not a particularly attractive male

* I am not a mind reader

* I am not some sort of atypical nerd with "great natural social skills too"

* I am not just ignorant of what is said behind my back.

Basically, if you want to flirt without risking creepy, keep a few things in mind:

* Learn to understand non-verbal communication, it is 90% of flirting.

* Never (at first anyway) be overly direct. This is a 2 person mutual decision/consent game. At no point should you make the other person feel they have no input into the direction of interaction. Always start flirting subtle, because it respects the other person's right to reciprocate or disengage without confrontation or needing to defend them-self.

* It is ok if they aren't interested. It doesn't make you a creep in their mind, you being a creep makes that happen. Just back off as soon as you are aware of disinterest (see first bullet), continued flirtation after disinterest is communicated is what gets people the creep label.

* There are appropriate times and places for flirtation. Outside of that, creep label is a high probability. Learn these :)

I guess all of this is to say: being creepy isn't about flirting when a woman isn't attracted, it's about not following the socially OK norms of flirting and not respecting the rejection)

Final note: some women do just label guys who flirt creeps, just as some men label all women outside of church as "whores". They are not the norm, and don't worry about it, some people are just different, or hurt, or whatever, but it doesn't make their reality your reality.

It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment.

I've heard this line many times, and it makes sense on the surface, but "flirting" isn't a singular act. Even if a girl isn't into a guy, a guy can introduce himself and start a conversation without coming off as creepy. If she's into him, then maybe things will progress to flirting, but if she's not, that's when the guy should get the signal to not be creepy and push something that is unwelcome.

A lot of things "work" with women. But creeps act like they do because they're horny losers, not because they're having so much success with it.

Anyway, the whole alpha male debate is besides the point. Also, I think you're confusing aggressiveness with not being a complete wimp. I often see women being attracted to dominant, strong, self-confident guys. Aggressive ones? Not so much.

"It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment."

Almost? Oh really?

It's sad that these people pose such little concern about the women so much as jealousy that they can't be hostile towards women and "get away with it".

I have to say your comment hits home for me. It's my personal opinion/observation that

> the fact is that men who behave aggressively are the ones who succeed in sexual pursuits most often.

I have myself seen the so called "bad boy" attitude succeed in a number of situations in real life. This just gives wrong signal to other men. The so called double standard has no easy solution. Or an easy way to recognize it either. It's one of those things that exist and no one either knows about it or doesn't talk about it.

I hate sexual harassment as much as the next guy/girl. But the line between sexual harassment and being aggressive is vary blurry. It's not black and white, it's rather subjective. What may be harassment for one person may not necessarily be so for others. I believe it is not intentional all of the time. What people need to know is to know the boundaries. Understand what is not apparent/obvious.

"I have myself seen the so called "bad boy" attitude succeed in a number of situations in real life."

Those "bad boys" are interesting in ways that you are not.

Still, who cares if you get the girl? You're not entitled to date any/every woman. You do not get to because you want to.

Yea, i did say i have seen it work, but that does not mean i envy them. I just meant that people are usually expected to adhere to rules that are not clearly defined and change from person to person.

Thanks for the clarification.

Shouldn't the concept of who a person wants to date change from person to person? There are suggested behaviors, but solid "rules" are generally dictated by people trying to sell a book of questionable value, not people legitimately trying to help you succeed in your dating life :)

Indeed, the concept of who a person wants to date should change from person to person. --- (1)

But a case of harassment/flirting is not black and white because (1).

Downvoted because your posts are unnecessarily hostile to people who are posting innocent questions/observations.

Hostile I am, but constructively so. They should not feel so entitled to have everyone fall for them, simply because they "deserve" to be loved.

They (being anyone who thinks "women love jerks" is an acceptable thing to say undigested) need to step way back and think about why they find themselves in this position without blaming women for not wanting them as they are.

I have said this in another comment. [edit: I see you are the same person :)] I did say I have seen it work, but that does not mean I envy them. I am not saying weather something is right or wrong. I am just putting forward what I have seen and trying to make sense of it.

They need to step way back and think about why they find themselves in this position without blaming women for not wanting them as they are.

The point I was trying to make is that people are expected to adhere to "rules" that either don't exist or not well defined and hence subject to change from person to person. Generalizing is not an option because such thing are usually complicated and the accused might not have don't it intentionally. It is sometimes simply not clear where to draw the line.

Sure, at a night club... maybe. But not at a professional conference.

It was a hotel bar in Vegas. It happened to be the same hotel the hacker conference was at.

DEF CON is not a professional conference. It's hacker spring break.

This is true, most women do like men who take charge. But I'm not sure if women who come to hacker conferences are looking forward to flirt with men. In that case it is unwanted attention. In any case when you are flirting with a girl, especially in tech events where they won't be expecting such a behavior, take charge but gauge the reaction and back off if she's getting uncomfortable.

Your comment is pretty aggressive in its assertions.

Considering the sheer number of married or otherwise partnered non-aggressive men I know, you're full of shit.

If it worked, why did any of the women complain? Why didn't they swoon and drop their pants and beg to be taken on the spot? Because it doesn't work.

People like interesting, dynamic partners.

Not being an awkward schlump is attractive. Being an asshole is not so much.

http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.sht...

"I'm just saying that men act like that because it works."

Interesting thought. I'm wondering if there has every been a study or even one of those TV shows to prove out that point.

It would seem to be fairly easy to setup with some "honeypots" and a group of males to see what happens with each behavior. Or simply a group of women with male actors playing the role of aggressive males.

Of course it all depends on the parties involved. But I know they've done similar non-scientific things even with hair color and found blond woman asking questions in central park in NYC get more attention than brunettes.

This is merely an issue of reciprocity. Reciprocal interest takes time to develop. Don't get ahead of yourself, and don't use the alpha male as your personal frame of reference--they are outliers.

People like people that are confident, and that is all there is to it. Aggression does not "work" unless you prey on someone's self-doubt.

Seriously?

Many women are attracted to aggressive behavior, but that's hardly a universal. It's probably true that the most aggressive guy might get laid fastest, but if that comes at the cost of the respect of your peers why are you at a professional conference instead of a singles bar?

Ahhh...the good guy / jog myth.

Why not "aggressively" try to pay genuine attention, or make her laugh? Yes, be bold if you like someone, sure. And don't suck up too much either, nobody likes that, male or female.

Showing someone you like them and then gauging their reaction takes balls -- but showing someone you like them, and then ignoring their rejection, is rather weak. Needy even. That those brutes delude themselves into thinking that's top notch alpha male behaviour is one thing -- but if you're shy yourself, don't buy into it. Some women like assholes; most don't. Being bold and maybe even cheeky is one thing, but only the weak seek outright dominance. (Which goes for females who like to play games, too; same cause, different course of action).

SNL had a good training video to help you. Google "Tom Brady sexual harassment"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com