First, a housekeeping note.
From this point forward, the use of the slang contractions substituted for the plural form of "you" will not be tolerated on this blog. EVER. Comments not conforming to this rule may be edited or removed, and the poster may be permanently banned. After all, I did say it's important to have standards.
So wow, this thing really blew up over at
Pete's. 26 comments last time I looked, plus a bunch more entries over at
Dizzy's, including one today. Not to mention some obnoxious rif-raf (probably linked from CDL) who managed to demonstrate a lack of brains (i.e., use of ad hominem attack) and balls (i.e., anonymous) at the same time. Usually us guys make the mistake of using one of those at the expense of the other, not have a lack of both, so I salute you, Mr. Boneheaded Anonymous Commenter, for lowering the bar for the rest of us.
Well, I certainly didn't expect that big of a response. I can't go over all the stuff on both sites in detail, but I do think I need to respond to the gist of them, because it seems like the commentary goes well beyond what I was saying. So, I write this to clarify my position--which, I believe, shouldn't be terribly controversial. After all, most of the gripes that have been conveyed I'm in perfect agreement with... and they don't go to the point I wanted to make (although perhaps they might go to some of Pete's instead).
So, to precisely restate my objection that started this, it is that blame was placed upon CDL for missing a hint and continuing from there. Missing a hint cannot be blameworthy conduct. It is not even "conduct" at all. One cannot decide whether one will fully comprehend something or read between the lines. One can certainly try, and one may even be right most of the time, but on those occasions when one does not, it is not blameworthy. It is a failure of performance, it is not a bad choice. The choice to communicate in hints rather than directly IS a choice. The speaker has assumed the risk of not communicated, and by virtue of that choice, bears the responsibility if that choice leads to non- or mis-communication. You cannot equate a failure of performance to a bad decision. That would be like saying that a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver is as guilty as the drunk driver because he didn't jump out of the way in time. Nor can you say that the listener has assumed a risk of miscommunication by placing him/herself in a broader social context; as that would be the same as blaming the pedestrian for going outside that day.
This isn't to say that the partner from CDL did anything wrong. In her case, the hint preceded a direct shootdown. In my book, she did everything right. CDL made an ass of himself by continuing after the direct shootdown, and for that he certainly is blameworthy, not the partner.
Moving on to the comments and new posts... I can't stress enough that my argument is very narrow and is a
moral argument about decisions, assignment of blame, and assumption of risk. Inferences of what I would say beyond that are probably--and have been--wrong. So please hold all the "So you're saying that..." stuff, because a lot of it probably goes beyond that context. The only way my argumemt went beyond this was when I also stated that I would be pissed if someone thought I was communicating something I wasn't and that I bore the consequences... This is not an argument against communicating in hints, it is an argument against assuming that what you know what a hint was and
acting on it. By deciding to act on imperfect information, the actor has now assumed a risk and is blameworthy for the consequences.
I don't believe that people can ever expect 100% direct communication all the time or anything even close to that. Hints and subtleties are, and will always be an important part of human communication, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. The better people can use and pick up on these things, the better their social interactions would be...when it works. But, what's important is to remember that this information is imperfect. So, by all means, hint away, and try to read them in others. But, keep in mind that if you are communicating indirectly, or assuming that you've read such a communication yourself, that YOU bear the moral burden for the consequences if you're wrong because YOU had the power to either say it directly or ask a direct question. The other person didn't have a choice in the matter.
I hope it's obvious that this applies to men as well as women. All those instances where guys assumed that a girl would pick up a hint and then blamed the girl for that... those guys are wrong, not her. All those assholes in clubs that are assuming that someone is flirting without knowing and acting on that assumption with aggressive grabbing and whatnot... they're wrong, not her. But at the same time, the girl who turns down an advance by saying she's busy instead of not interested, implying that she'd accept the date another time, eventually leading to an embarrassing situation later on that would have been prevented but for her decision to rely on his picking up the hint... she's wrong, not him. And the same for things that happen within an existing relationship, where the consequences are much, much higher.
Finally, I want to address the "telemarketer" argument. As I've said above, hint away. Hinting can get rid of a lot of unwilling advances and is probably not only a good idea in the bar/club situation, but is quite necessary. It does not solve the imperfect information problem, though, and cannot be expected to (although it does help). But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that one can be out somewhere and have an entitlement not to be propositioned in some way. Quite the opposite, I think everyone has the right to ask and everyone has the right to decline. This is quite different from what might be appropriate of course, but appropriateness doesn't count for much and in a lot of cases really shouldn't. Of course, you and I are still free to think less of people that do inappropriate things, especially when it does count for something.
