I thought this might be a useful article for a few con-goers

[matchgirl42.livejournal.com]

I could go on and on with an explanation, but I'll just link the column with the caveat: this is not me saying *anything* about your average con-goer. Please read the article through before reacting. Ktnx.

Guest blogger Starling: Schrodinger's rapist, or a guy's guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

Comments

[mhaithaca.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing the column. Cons are certainly an environment where you'll tend to run into a few people who don't have an innate understanding of social conventions, so this is a good forum for a reminder.

As a man -- and a tall one -- I'm aware that I could be physically imposing or threatening, and do my best to be neither.

However, I'm generally pretty outgoing, and frequently strike up conversations with complete strangers. Some, naturally, are women. Some of these are giving "signals" that they're receptive before I start, as you describe, and others are not. Some, of course, are looking busy or specifically looking intentionally closed off. But I won't interpret a lack of signals -- before I start talking -- as a "leave me alone." I can't. A woman, or a man, who's simply looking out the window isn't saying "stay away." If I try to strike up a conversation for whatever reason, and the person's not interested, of course I'll take the hint and stop.

It may be that "don't approach strangers" is a clearer message for folks who lack the ability to make their own assessments effectively, and of course it's appropriate in dark alleys as the column says, but I don't think it's a good general message. Such overgeneralization increases the risk that a reasonable reader might dismiss an otherwise cogent thesis.

Thanks again!

[ambyr.livejournal.com]

A woman, or a man, who's simply looking out the window isn't saying "stay away."

Why do you get to decide this? Because when I am staring out the window (on a train, or bus, or building lobby), that is exactly the signal I am trying to send--that I am busy, engaged in an activity, and do not wish to be interrupted by strangers without good reason (e.g., I am blocking their way to the building exit, or the bus is on fire). It's no different than someone interrupting me while I am reading a book or watching a DVD on my laptop. A stranger trying to talk to me is a stranger sending the signal that they think their desire (to engage in conversation with me) trumps my desire (to engage in my chosen activity). I may not assume they are a threat, but I will almost certainly assume they are being rude.

[acciochocolate.livejournal.com]

I agree.

[mhaithaca.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I could have been much clearer by saying "A woman, or a man, who's simply looking out the window isn't necessarily saying 'stay away,' and in the absence of any other signals, it's unlikely I or others would interpret it that way."

The point I was trying to make is that many folks are open to talking with others in most public settings, and I'm unwilling to assume that people who aren't sending a clear signal to the contrary should be considered off-limits. I'm always willing to leave someone alone when they ask me to, or when they send a clear signal. I don't get to decide when someone wants to be left alone; they do, and I always respect that decision if it's shared with me. Always.

If you're reading, or wearing earphones, or working, I'm unlikely to interrupt, because it would be rude unless the bus is on fire, as you suggest. But if you don't seem to be busy and I try to strike up a conversation for whatever reason, please don't assume I'm being rude, because I'm not. (Someone who didn't take the hint if you said "Thanks, but I'm not interested in chatting, would certainly be rude.)