How to kick a guy out after a hookup?

I do also try and help irrespective of looks and gender. Not that i always succeed...

Guess my point with this story was that sometimes good things happen when you allow strangers into your life. She could have been afraid that i would kill or rape her. I could have be afraid that she leaves with my checkbook... And we would not have had this great time we had together.

I get your point, I really do.

It's a matter of judgement in an individual situation. If someone offers help, I might accept it. I'm sure I would if it was simply holding something heavy for a moment. I'm quite friendly and appreciative under normal circumstances.

Like I said, all women (almost all) have been approached at one time or another by a man who either offers help, and when told Thank You, but No Thanks I'm Fine, starts getting very insistent re helping, to the point they start physically trying to take over. Surely you can see the difference.
At the worst, it is the prelude to an assualt, at the least, it's someone who has no boundaries and/or social skills.

Just as you were saying a woman shouldn't worry about appearing ladylike and being able to communicate her terms for sexual matters, we should also be able to refuse help when it's not needed or welcome.
However, what is it saying about the "helper" when their assistance is politely refused, continues to press, even to the point that they become angry and call the woman names?

It happens all the time. Why? Because we're supposed to be ladylike and feign helplessness and gratitude? Predators bank on that, especially with young women who are afraid to speak up because "that wouldn't be nice". Well, it's not nice of the man to press himself on someone.

Yes, good things can happen when you let strangers into your life. However, we mustn't be blind to the fact very bad things can happen also.

Believe me, I appreciate when a man holds a door for me. I also appreciate it equally when a woman does.

If a woman should be able to take a stand with a hook up buddy as far as letting them know it's time to go, they also need to be able to control all other aspects of their own lives, on their terms, without having to be called out on it.

Sure. As i said i wouldn't even think of doing it. I did it once maybe without really thinking, in a situation where the person was obviously in need of help yet hesitant to accept.

The best i can think of when trying to explain the behavior you describe is:

1. either the guy is hitting on you and angry about the rejection aka the "jerk option; it's one thing to play the Don Juan, quite another to insult those women who don't want to play the game with you; or

2. Possibly, the guy is not a jerk but is resentful of being TAKEN for a jerk. Sometimes when i did proposed help to a woman, she would refuse out of an obvious fear of male predation, a sort of tiredness, bordering on disgust, with yet another male hitting on her... Now, i can understand that it's tiring especially if your looks belong to that upper, hoter tier, but it's also a severe put down when i'm merely on my way to work and offer help to someone and am mistaken for a sexual predator. It's kind of depressing when you only had good intentions. But i never insist. I think "whatever" and to each his or her own. And yeah, i can understand the tiredness and the fear.

When you think of it, it's only mildly more agravating than those women who are NOT particularly afraid of sexual predators due to NOT beeing "hot" anymore, but refuse your help out of fear that you will run away with their stuff. Eg the 5-ft tall latino mother with kids, who wouldn't trust a gringo with any of her luggage if her life depended on it... I can understand her too: the big city is full of crooks, she's right to be afraid...

Is being ladylike any more difficult than being gentlemanly?

I think we should just stop with the social niceties and common courtesy and just start looking out for ourselves. Social situations will be much easier that way.

It's a bit of a put down when you only have good intentions, but nothing important coming from a total stranger, and obviously nothing that deserves an insult. And if the "no" is polite as you describe it, well, that goes like a breaze. All what a true helper can expect after offering some help is a little civility. To expect more than that, to expect gratitude for instance, or joy, is naïve and worse, pretentious and intruding.

My favorite philosopher once said: when you help someone in need, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.

I guess the question of what is expected of a gentleman in our times -- or to be a little less pompous, what is expected of a MAN as opposed to a total jerk -- deserves its own thread. There are still strong gender roles for males too, and that's a complicated topic which is not purely a question of trade off with the ladies ("if you're good ladies we can be good gentlemen but not if you're not good ladies"). Men also have expectations about themselves, and pretty tall ones. I certainly do. Men also ENFORCE these roles through social interactions, certain behaviors are frown upon and all that AMONG MEN. Likewise the (residual but still there) female gender roles are primarily enforced by women themselves in modern societies. Certain behaviors are frown upon etc. AMONG WOMEN.

So i think it's more complicated than a trade off. It's more like the rules of engagement of two armies. The rules are different in the two armies, although they fight one another in the "war of the sexes". The rules are also decided and enforced internally, by each army, not in negotiation with the other army.

Whatever the ladies decide for their rules of engagement doesn't matter that much when it comes to defining our own. We have to adapt to the times and to women as they are now, but we decide how to play the game also in function of broader factors, some of which may be political, some personal (like the experience of having a daughter), some deeply Darwinian. It's not just a tit for tat.

Most of the social rules involving being a gentleman or a lady revolve around courtship/mating rituals. This is why males can act normally around each other, but have to worry about all the cultural niceties when we are around a female (even a sexually unavailable female).

I don't find the army metaphor very useful. I feel much more constrained socially around women than I am around men. If I am making a woman uncomfortable, I feel bad. If I make a man uncomfortable, he can deal with it.

Men and women, ideally, should be treated equally in professional, legal or social settings. Any standard that applies to a women should equally apply to a man. I have invoked this basic principle in many arguments on this forum.

Of course, our society doesn't believe in this principle. Feminists don't believe in this principle either. It is interesting to me the similarities between modern day feminism and earlier ideas of chivalry from centuries earlier. Both of these revolve around protecting a vulnerable, and special ideal of femininity.

Part of this resistance to true equality may be Darwinian in that a part of the ways human behavior evolved was necessary to ensure that we reproduce... and of course the way that our social behavior provides for the conceiving and raising of children is an important part of that.

What also makes a big difference Olivier, is where these encounters are taking place, and also if the person in question "fits" in the situation.

I've spent a little time just now thinking back on examples of situations.

Now don't get the idea that this sort of thing happens everyday, I'm just showing three of of numerous distinct scenerios.

In one type of situation, there are numerous people around. Someone holds a door open for another, picks up a dropped item, asks if you need help getting something ackward into your trunk when you're even a little bit stuggling, etc. etc. That is a "thanks" or "yes, could you lift this end up for me and we can slide the box in that way" situation. Followed with words of thanks, then each person goes their way. In fact, I too ended up going on a date with someone who helped me in a home depot parking lot secure something on the roof of my car. After he helped me, he asked me what my project was, we talked, agreed to meet later for dinner. It was a decision on my part that he was not someone to be cautious of. A big part of it was that he didn't try at any time to invade my space in an unwelcome way, or during are conversation it was not in any way obvious he was after a shot of leg. We were also surrounded by many people. He was just being pleasant. The invitiation for dinner wasn't intrusive. I remember it was he that suggested we meet at a restaurant. So, it wasn't like this stranger was now trying to get access to where I lived. I was in control of my part since I came and went in my own car.

To interrupt myself for a moment, I just hit on a big point. Control. Not control in that I'm keeping myself from someone, denying myself. It's that one is totally free with all options at any time to stop or continue. It's the not feeling obligated under a specific situation to comply to some socially accepted "ladylike" or "gentlemanly" behavior. Or, to comply. My decision, and no one elses.

On the other end of the spectrum...but still in control. Occassionally there will be in the news a story of a rape or assault taking place while a woman was, lets say jogging in the park, or going to her car. Ok, for a moment, for simplicities sake, let's just go with a woman being the victim. Could be the other way around, but let's just keep it simple. A rapist who is a stranger attacking you is an opportunist. He wants to find a victim in rather isolated area, but not TOO isolated.
Here, I'm thinking of the times I go walking/hiking on a greenbelt that circles part of the city. I have never been worried about being assaulted on the greenbelts in question. That's because to get to it one has to walk down a steep hill, on sometimes slippery ground, depending on the weather. Once down in the valley between hills, there's a path that winds miles through forest, never closer than 3 miles from populated areas.
It is unlikely someone with bad intent would make the effort to climb/walk miles out of their way to accost someone, who by the mere nature that they are down there, is in pretty good physical shape, and more likely to be able to fight someone off. Especially in light that even though there's lot's of trees and so forth, it's mostly a case of if you can see me, I can see you and maintain distance. Also, ready made defenses all around in terms of branches, rocks, etc.
There would be absolutely no reason for someone to get that close to someone else to "just be friendly"
There's been only one time in 20 years that I felt unsafe down there, and it wasn't down in the woods. I was finishing up my hike, had climbed back up out of the valley, and was making my way through a 1/2 mile flat trail at the top of the the ridge, back to my car. 100% visibility through trees with narrow trunks set apart from each other. Looking ahead, I saw someone who looked totally out of place. No one wears jeans down on the greenbelt. You just don't. He was this tubby guy wearing of all things, jeans, cowboy boots, a plaid cowboy shirt and Stetson. I remember thinking "He looks like Hoyt Axton"...look him up. Some big running to fat lumbering ox. But big. In his hands he was, amazingly, holding this maybe 3 foot stout tree branch. I stopped dead in my tracks. I stood, made direct eye contact, waited. Now, I do live in Texas, but for the situation, this person looked as out of place as a panda bear sitting in economy class on a airplane. Long story short, I ended up giving him wide wide berth, Not turning my back on him, while he attempted to make the most inane conversation with me. I don't know if he was mentally deficient or what, but it was like it never (seemingly) occurred to him that he was a 300 pound man holding heavy weapon, trying to talk to a 120 pound at the time woman. I can't remember what he was saying exactly, but he was scary to me since I was alone. I knew this big guy would never have been able to get down into the valley without having a coronary, or be able to chase someone through rough terrain. He chose the "kinda" isolated area. One where, if he mean harm, he thought he could depend on a woman being "ladylike" and accept his supposed friendliness. ****....that.
As I was making my way around him, at one point he started to take a step forward, and I stopped dead in my tracks, pointed at him and said "Don't MOVE"
Was he looking to assault someone, or was he just stupid? I really don't care. All I know was that I had to maintain as much control over my personal situation as I could, and being a lady, or obey social norms be damned.

The men who offer help when you drop a package in front of a starbucks, or who help you get up off the ground if you've fallen down or gotten your bike stuck in the mud on a more remote trail don't scare me, set off bells, and they get thanked.

It's the men who try to "help" you when you are in that gray zone of "I'm not exactly in the middle of nowhere, but there's not too many people around either." who scare me.

If a womans (or mans) body gets found out in the woods, they didn't start out there. That's just where they were dumped.

In any event, I can get that it may be depressing because hey, I'm a nice guy, I don't mean harm. But when all is said and done, the other persons reaction to you is what they have chosen, and whether you like it or not is beside the point.
Just like someone could say "well, you should be more friendly", well, it would be totally fine to respond "you shouldn't tell me how to act because it makes you feel depressed."

Like the OP. Because of her confusion on what to say, and maybe feeling it wouldn't be lady like or friendly to say "you need to go home now" she's feeling conflicted. Why go through life like that?

For every person who knowingly or unknowingly makes you question if you're being a "nice" person, there's at least one other who already knows you are, and you don't have to prove it to them. Probably more than one, because they've actually seen you how you really are.

It would be very interesting to hear the other side of this encounter. I wonder what this gentleman would say about this strange women who yelled at him for no reason.

I had a roommate who was a large Black man. He was 6 foot something and had to weigh well over 250 pounds. He was the nicest guy, and it really bothered him that people would treat him like a monster.

He would also make a point to make small talk to people around him, particularly to white women who would act so nervous. He did this because he didn't want to be treated like a threat just because of how he looked.

He was the nicest guy you could meet. He would joke about this, but it hurt him that he had to do this.

From what you describe, i could have been scared too. The three ft pole is a problem. You did well to keep at a distance from that pole. When it comes down to safety/security, all the niceties are off the table. The world DOES include quite a few fucked up types.

Almost every man can tell you a similar sorry from the other side, going something like this: entering a parking lot or a dark alley or whatever, i spot this woman there and she spots me and gets scared like crazy, runs away, calls the cops or any other variant. We understand. Life is harder for you galls from this viewpoint. Not that no man ever gets mobbed or raped or killed mind you, but generally it's by another man so we don't fear women the way you fear us.

We fear you in other ways, for other things.

I don't personally care much for "lady-like". Of course I appreciate kindness but that's genuine, it comes from the heart not from a set of rules. For some reason I like bad girls, rebels, wild raunchy women, fragile sluts, daredevils and tomcats, hysterics, poets and damaged goods. I don't really care for women (and men) who conform all the time. Find that boring, "tue l'amour" as we say ("kill love").

I like the outliers. As a teen i was in love with Patti Smith, not just her music, but the girl herself. I still love her. She's my r n' r hero. So as my wife always says, whatever the size and shape of your feet, there's a pair of shoes out there that fits, so go and find it. Remember Goldielocks... Some like it hot, others like it cold. We men are diverse and we like diversity in women too. Otherwise there'd be no fun.

Which brings me back to safety vs. risk taking. We all have different tolerance levels for risks, but what's important to remember is that the reward of a high-risk venture can be very high (or very low). So i am not saying: be reckless -- it DOES depend on the situation and whether you have a good feel for a person -- but once in a while, trusting oneself in the hands of a total stranger just based on such a "good feel", an intuition, can be exhilarating.

Don't feel bad. You don't really have to worry about what they think, do you? Just treat them like anybody else...

Good post Olivier. I wanted to comment on the above in general.

Tolerence for risk. There is what others perceive you are tolerating, and what you feel you are tolerating.

A few years ago I was watching a documentary about rock climbing. I mean the real thing, up sheer cliffs with no gear. This one young man was talking about risk. He was being asked how he could take such huge risks. To us (well, I don't know if you rock climb), it seems so dangerous, eveb deadly. This guy though, was really wise beyond his years. Most people would have judged him by his outward appearance. Very edgy. His words and thoughts though were quite different. He spoke of how he was not a risk taker, that he never moved a millemeter without knowing exactly where his last dozen moves were, where and how he would make his next move, cross checked multiple times, and where he was looking his next several moves to be, changing and editing this plan after every move. It was like he was a grand master chess player. He not only knew exactly where every part of his body was at all times in the enviroment he was in, he knew where each part would be depending on what he chose to do next. Maybe most importantly, he knew how and where to back off to a previous position, not even when necessary, but when he felt the slightest question on what was currently going on, long before it became any type of intolerable risk for him.

I feel I'm taking more risk driving my car 5 miles to the store, with all the possible unknowable moves of other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, than this guy making his across a cliff face, when you look at how he does it.

So, the thrill of giving yourself up to a stranger? I guess it depends if you have a backup plan. The scenerio of being a woman simply seeing a man and running off hysterically? Well, like many, too many people we just sort of go through life on auto pilot, getting surprised by things, people it never entered our minds to expect. If I'm going to enter a parking lot, dark alley (unlikely) or whatever, you can be sure I've done a scan of my environment, and have most likely seen you (if you're just another innocent person in the same area) before you see me. If you were someone with bad intent and hiding, I would be far less "surprised" and/or taken off guard than a lot of people, because I was thinking ahead of the possibilities. Some people entering a dark parking lot might feel risk and being out of control because they just see a dim void. I see the bushes, vans, areas that could serve as hiding places, and am ready to back off at any time. Because of this awareness, a person can go through life more calm, as they know what to avoid. Can all danger be eliminated? Of course not. But the oblivious are much more prone to walking right into it.


Paranoid? No. Prepared. In fact someone who would say that's paranoid will go on my radar as someone to watch out for. The person saying that is the jerk, or the manipulator trying to get you to not behave in what you have determined is your best interest. Paranoid is a word meant for someone who thinks space aliens are sending dangerous beams through us, or other tin foil hat things. So when I do something that might appear risky, I'm more likely just better prepared than the screaming running woman.

Try to explain to a 14 year old kid with dark skin why women clutch their bags and walk to the other side of the path when they walk by. I had to have this talk with my son. He absolutely noticed it, and it upset him. One day he had me (a White man) walk 20 ft. behind him to the public transportation station from our house. I believed him when he told me about it, but to see it myself was quite jarring. This is a kid, my kid, and these women didn't recognize him as a human being as they passed..

It is important to remember that there are two human beings involved in these interactions. I would ask Chai to consider how the other people feel when she has these interactions.

We live in a very safe society. American women in general have very little danger of violence from strangers. Of course you can find some examples, but these risks are very low compared to other risks you take... for example driving. And men are at more risk of facing violence from strangers (albeit from other men, but risk is risk) than women are if you look at the objective facts from crime statistics.

Perceived risk is often different than real risk.

I'll read this at home -- too little time now... Just wanted to share this song which nobody will understand, but it encapsulate my sentiment so well that I just can't resist.

Diane Tell - Si J'étais un Homme (if I were a man)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdgt8djNe9M

Il faut dire que les temps ont changé. -- Admittedly, times have changed.
De nos jours, c'est chacun pour soi. -- Nowadays , it's every man for himself.
Ces histoires d'amour démodées -- These old-fashioned love stories
N'arrivent qu'au cinéma. -- Only happen in movies.
On devient économe. -- We've become more careful.
C'est dommage : moi j'aurais bien aimé -- It's sad; I would rather have had
Un peu plus d'humour et de tendresse. -- A little more humor and tenderness.

That can be seen as a good thing.

Yes it can be seen as a good thing but to me, it looks more like we've lost our way in the middle of the journey. The journey towards gender equality is I think worthwhile -- if slightly utopian in sexual matters because those matters are deeply biological -- but men are a bit bewildered right now re. the many contradictory demands made of us. Perhaps more crucially, the level of inter-sex acrymony, fighting and downright violence is not going down. Men and women don't seem to have found that sweet spot of renewed peace and tranquility between genders that we hoped for at the start of the journey. It's not even improving. I'm not sure that's statistically supported but it seems to me that violence against women in particular is not going down in western societies, and i seriously wonder if men and women still love eachother these days in the way they used to (sometimes). In short, romance is dying. Porn on the other hand is thriving and interestingly homosexuality is progressing. As if love was easier WITHIN genders. If I could be so bold, I would say that the only true romantics nowadays are the gays.

The sweet spot of "renewed" peace and tranquility?

When exactly, in what age or millenium, was this happening, that it could be "renewed" today?

You wonder if men and women still love each other these days the way they "used to"?

When exactly was that?

Romance?

Romance isn't bringing someone flowers that the cat is going to eat then throw up, or some perfume that will end up sitting on a shelf forgotten.

Romance is working hard side by side as equals towards a common goal. Be it ploughing a field or running a household. Romance is noticing the other person has a bill that's coming up due, and going online and paying it because they'd forgotten. Romance is taking care of the other person when they are sick, not spending too much money at a restaurant for a meal and wine.

Romance is found in the mundane tasks that are done out of love, not rocks that sparkle but really have no value except that someone told us they do.

Women lost their way in the journey many years ago, when matrilineality was taken away from them in favor of lineage being figured by the males line, thus taking away inheritance through the womans line. How does that make sense anyway? A woman always knows the child is hers. The man, fearful that he may not be the father, turned it around so not only was the presumption of fatherhood his, but that only the males (who might not have even been his) inherited, leaving females out in the cold unless they could find another man to "protect" her.

And what did women trade this for? Romance? Getting a bunch of flowers when the man decides to pick some up? Poetry on scraps of paper? Hey, whatever it takes to make you feel ok about believing you rightfully control what you took from an entire gender long ago.

I'm inclined to feel a lot more romantic when I'm given something that benefits me, not some silly gesture.

Yeah, maybe romance as some, or you see it has gone away. That's because the woman can now afford to get herself the things she used to have to wait around for someone to give her. If it wasn't even what she wanted, she had to show gratitude or she might miss her opportunity to someday be given something she does want.

The good old days Olivier, weren't all that good.

I believe fighting and violence aren't much different from any other time. The people who have had violence done against them are just speaking about it now.

I think you and Chai are both indulging in revisionist historical fiction.

Chai is making a common mistake. She has a very Modern Western perspective of romance and the role gender plays in society. She assumes that this viewpoint can be applied across cultures and time.

Of course each society has a different way of resolving these issues. Saying that our culture is right and all of the other cultures that are now or have ever been are wrong is satisfying in one sense, but other cultures ... and even women in other cultures... will disagree.

In our evolutionary history it was important for us to have children and to ensure that they survived until adulthood. Any culture that figured out how to make this work survived. And those that didn't ceased to exist. And it turned out that there were several solutions to this problem that led to successful, productive societies.

Let me quibble with some facts.

- Homosexuality is not new. I don't see any evidence that it is increasing (as you seem to suggest).

- Violence against women has been tracked over several decades. It it significantly decreasing in the US.

- Romance (as Chai defines it) didn't exist in most cultures. Marriages were built on social obligation and were often arranged. Most people made it work because they were expected to and because it was their social duty to produce children.

- There is no historical trend away from matrilineality. There are a small number of matrilineal societies that have developed from time to time.

- The idea that men and women are in competition is a strictly modern Western idea. In most society the roles taken by men and women were understood to be the way to best survive and prosper as a group.

Okay, point well taken that there was never any point at history when gender relations were "tranquil". There's always been violence, exploitation and all that. But there were at least hopes of happy marriage. Now it seems like the new normal is that women hate men and vice versa. And it's how it should be, almost; it's not seen as an issue. I see it as a risk.

About romance. I do understand what you say, i hope. You are talking of helping one another in a particularly intimate and tender manner (in my own words). That's powerful stuff but it misses the central element. This sort of love you describe can exist between siblings, parents and their children or grand children, or even between very good friends.

Romance needs something more: hormones, sensuality, sex, and jealousy (expectation of exclusivity). Plus the expectation/desire of procreation, in many cases. That's a lot more than taking good care of one another.

It's possible of course to procreate without all this cultural construct of "exclusive love". It's done all the time.

I just checked some stats and you're right on homosexuality not increasing. I stand corrected.

On violence against women, i'll let Chai respond.