Girl dates me for being nice to her: Matrix glitch report.

Post Reply New Topic

My advice would be to run far away from this thread. If she's making out with you, she likes you. You can try to push forward, if she says no, try again another day.

+1

More or less that. But if she is very, very clear about not wanting to go anywhere near it, stop.

And you should stop trying to plant this seed in his head that her "no" could mean anything other than what she says it does...........

I'm pretty sure I can't be bothered trying to weave between "no means no" no's and "teehee look how coy I'm being but keep going" no's. I'm more inclined to say "Any woman trying to pull that kinda BS on me isn't worth my time". Any woman that would want a man keep going after saying no has f****d up issues that I don't want any part of.

It depends to what extreme this 'coy game' goes, but I agree with you.

There's something I use when confronted with persistent weird/confusing behaviour regarding physicality from someone I don't know very well. It's called the "What's going on?" conversation. If I am not satisfied with the results of this conversation, or too many grey areas remain, that's it - no matter how I feel. Got to draw a line somewhere.

Well said!

There is a difference between "no" and " we shouldn't be doing this" though.

"We shouldn't be doing this" is more of a sentence she could say to make herself feel less guilty about hooking up with you where a plain "no" is self explanatory.

If you are already hooking up with a woman and she sais " we shouldn't be doing this " than that is to relieve guilt. Whereas if you were already hooking up with a woman and she said "stop" or "no" that means exactly what it sounds like.

I wouldn't have to.

The convo would go like:

"Are you comfortable with this?"
"No." (insistent or flat)
(STOP)

I agree that "no" in most contexts is what it says on the tin (and I'd trust jt with anyone from here). Not always, unfortunately. Which is why I'd check in - or even use a BDSM type traffic light system. Again, anyone that jokes around about consent is not worth my time.

There are murky other answers that could go either way.

If a woman told me "what do you think?" I'd ask her to tell me.

"Actually, I'm not into this" or "I don't want this" is difficult to misinterpret.

Saying x people shouldnt be giving out advice is not a personal attack, putting idiot at the end of your reply is.
I dont think I need to point you out the difference between both but just in case:

Its a politeness thing boo.
There are thousands of members and you are bound to disagree with some.
While you can:
-Point out that they lack enough intellect to keep you interested
-Point out that they arent making any sense
-Point out a million other things.
You cant:
-Outright call someone: stupid and so on, not even troll(there are propper ways of dealing with trolls saying that they are a troll in your reply isnt one of them)
-Diagnose another member to make fun of them(this should be self explanatory but happens way more than it should)

If you can point me out where exactly he made a personal attack against you(an outright insult like yours or an attempt to diagnose you to make fun of you) please do.
Otherwise you need to stop making personal attacks against members.

The list above gives you plenty of space for argument without losing your manners

I other words, Boo:

You can strongly imply someone is a "idiot" as long as you don't specifically call them an "idiot."

and

You can also tease and say all sorts of horrible things about someone as long as you preface it with manners, such as "with all do respect" or "sorry to say......." and don't try to diagnose thier idiocy.

Better yet, you can phrase insults in the form of a question:
The original:

The fixed version:

In this fixed version you're not calling him anything just asking, thus associating him with the term indirectly.



This is "Civil Discourse 101" here in the states........ It's how politicians do it......... Manners........

There have been countless threads to explain the rules where we are the ones pointing that out:

Ie:http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt204613.html
Personal attacks.
Posters must refrain from making personal attacks. Do not call people stupid or a***holes etc for not agreeing with you. You are allowed to think this - moderators aren't the thought police! Just don't express it in your posts! Attack the opinion not the poster. Personal attacks are a slightly fuzzy area because criticising someone's political or religious beliefs could be interpreted by some as a personal attack (but moderators do not consider it such) similarly it is easy to insinuate that someone is stupid for having various opinions but frankly the moderators don't have the time or inclination to wade through every post looking for sarcastic comments! Provided people don't get too out of hand this forum is given a wide scope for debate; which frankly is what the members themselves want here, not moderators stepping in all the time censoring their opinions.


Boo is more than aware of this policy which is why I called him out on it

Can I say for example:
"You did not answer the question, your last post proves your lack of intelligence" ?

Here I am attacking his post by saying it proves...something, not attacking the poster.

Persuading a woman that says "we shouldn't be doing this" could also be seen as coercion, because you're trying to convince the woman to her advantage when she might want to have sex but not be fully on board with it.

If you're going to be that literal, you should accept what she says at face value - and say, "no, we shouldn't". And have a very disappointed lady on your hands.

You would be "diagnosing" him as lacking intelligence which as Spongy pointed out is one of the big no-nos.........

Keep it rhetroical and only imply he's an idiot and you should be fine.

I agree with this . . . why play stupid games? Either you want to have sex or you don't.