Catcalling

[CatGoddess]

I've been told (by my friend, who may obviously be biased, but is generally brutally honest) that I'm more attractive than average. However, perhaps because I 1. live in a fairly liberal community and 2. am small and young enough in appearance that people might be uncomfortable with sexualizing me, I've never been catcalled. The thing is, I think it would be kind of... nice to receive obvious attention because I'm garbage at reading social cues and also because it feels good to be told you're hot (as long as there's no actual harassment going on). However, it would be impossible to signal to people that I'd be cool with getting catcalled, so...

However, I came across the following internet post:

Regarding wolf-whistles and such, it seems like in an ideal world, we'd invent a new obvious signal, like a red bracelet or something, that explicitly showed that a woman enjoyed this sort attention. Right now, there's a bad pooling equilibrium where some women dress sexy because they want that kind of attention, and some women want to dress sexy without getting that kind of attention, and there's no way to tell them apart.

Personal experience/opinion with catcalling, thoughts on the poster's idea, or both?

 

[Cognisant]

<- Everybody likes to feel pretty sometimes.

The impression I get from talking to older men is that catcalling/wolf-whistling used to be somewhat socially acceptable, it was crass but there was this "boys will be boys" attitude. Like a woman might go into a bar wearing tight shorts and a guy grabs her ass and she'd slap him and that was the end of it, he just got a bit fresh with her and got his comeuppance.

These days if the same situation played out she might scream and he could be ejected from the premises, banned from returning and possibly charged with sexual assault.

Obviously ass-grabbing is an extreme example but it illustrates just how much has apparently changed, once upon a time catcalling/wolf-whistling might have been crass but acceptable but these days I think it varies wildly depending upon where you are and who you're calling to.

Maybe this makes me autistic (hard stare at several people) but I think the red bracelet is a great idea, in this day and age social norms are a lot more ambiguous, unless you live in a small town where everyone's known each other for years the exact nature of what's considered "normal" isn't well defined. A woman wearing tight shorts in a bar might be from a country town and advertising "I want attention, someone buy me a drink" or she could be some city girl just out with the girls and just wearing those shorts because they're in fashion.

Having some way to clearly and unambiguously define "hey I'm looking for attention", "I want to be complimented", "let me approach you", "stay away" or "I'm gay", would be of benefit to everybody.

 

[Grayman]

Meeeeoooowww!!!

Give me a meow! Give me a purr! What's that spell!?!? Meow! She is purrrty!!!

 

[Black Rose]

cat, cat this is your mother. I just want to know why you never call me anymore. this is the third message this month from me. please call soon honey biscuits. father and I miss you.

 

[CatGoddess]

Well I'd definitely be down with somebody calling me a cat. "Here kitty, kitty, there's a good CatGoddess!"

It seems like that often comes with its own expectations, though. And, while kitty ears would be fun to wear around, I'm not so sure about a butt plug tail...

Maybe this makes me autistic (hard stare at several people) but I think the red bracelet is a great idea, in this day and age social norms are a lot more ambiguous

Is that an autistic thing? Because I see no reason why such a thing wouldn't be helpful. I mean, nobody would force people to follow bracelet codes, but if you chose to wear one that didn't correspond to what you wanted it'd be your own fault for lying to people. It would be like blaming people for hitting on you if you wear a shirt that says "please hit on me".

Besides, it's not like it hasn't been done before; it used to be that dressing "provocatively" was a clearly understood signal that you wanted sexual attention. More recently, specific earrings for men and bright hair dye of a certain fashion have been implicit signals within the LGBT community. But if there could be more widely understood signs to help with social interaction, that'd be nice. Maybe I should just make a t-shirt that lists off my social motives and objectives?

Anyways, social ineptitude is a sign of autism/ASD/aspergers, but I've always seen things like a strong, borderline pathological desire for plan and routine (i.e. feels genuine emotional distress when a plan is derailed) as a more important factor in it. Also, an inability to understand metaphors and sarcasm.

 

[Niclmaki]

Never been catcalled, or catcalled someone.

I think it is kind of poor taste. Or is a bit classless and tacky. Maybe even a little creepy.

Specific compliments are a lot more my style. Eg. “Hey I think that vest looks really nice on you”. “Hey, your singing and humming is really cute.”

 

[Cognisant]

Well I'd definitely be down with somebody calling me a cat. "Here kitty, kitty, there's a good CatGoddess!"

It seems like that often comes with its own expectations, though. And, while kitty ears would be fun to wear around, I'm not so sure about a butt plug tail...

Spoiler

But if there could be more widely understood signs to help with social interaction, that'd be nice. Maybe I should just make a t-shirt that lists off my social motives and objectives?

I think normal people would say that's too confronting/unromantic.

Personally I think being upfront about what you want is the least confrontational thing you can do, if someone's religious/conservative and they want to get married soon and you don't then it's best if they know that as soon as possible, better to give someone the bad news first then surprise them with it later. It also puts the ball back in their court, if they want to pursue you then they know they'll have to reassess their priorities, maybe it's something they're willing to compromise on, maybe not, in any case it's better to make that decision upfront than be ambushed with it after dating for six months.

Of course things change over time, after you've been dating someone for six months you might be ready for something more but I think there's a world of difference between offering that to someone and giving them an ultimatum. I think that's why people are secretive about what they want, they're afraid the other person might not want the same so they're deceptive, indeed they may be trying to force a decision in their favor by buttering someone up before hitting them with that ultimatum.

As I see it being deceptive and trying to make someone's decisions for them is incredibly unromantic, personally I define romance as knowing someone and wanting to be known by them.

Relationships are based on shared experiences, as someone who changed schools a lot growing up I found it immensely frustrating that although I could make friends I would never be as close to them as they were with each other. They knew each other, they had shared a history and because I could not be part of that history I was always to some degree the outsider.

So in my mind the ideal romantic relationship is one of profound understanding, founded upon a mutual desire to know and be known by each other as much as possible and thereby be as close as possible.

Suffice to say I think the shirt's a great idea, maybe you should do a kickstarter for it?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

if there would be one thing I'd agree on with feminists, it's that catcalling never actually resulted in anything the resembles a romantic/sexual interaction between two people and thus can be considered as mere aggression without any further aim than, perhaps, to humiliate.

I don't think you would find catcalling a satisfactory source of validation. What I personally have experienced many times, however, is how positively surprised women are when they are approached in bars etc. Not always, of course (that would be giving myself a bit too much credit), but surprisingly often. And of course, this is the conundrum we find ourselves in modern society, which is that women want attention from men, and men want to give it to them, but men are being told that any form of aggression (in the sense of taking initiative) is inappropriate, or "creepy" or whatever, so they never even learn how to do it in the first place. I would consider catcalling almost like a vocalization of that desperation.

 

[CatGoddess]

@Serac Hmm, maybe. Again, I've never experienced it firsthand so I really wouldn't know. I guess I was mostly wishing there were a blunt and easy-to-read signal that I could actually comprehend? For instance, I have no idea if anyone else has ever been interested in me; I only know of my bf, whom I could only tell was interested to begin with because he would literally stare at me (and specific parts of me).

That's generally considered pretty creepy, but I saw it as an objective metric of interest and was somewhat relieved to find someone expressing it. I mean, what sort of high school kid actually approaches their crush, anyways? Not the ones in my social circles, at least.

Also, maybe people wouldn't like a blunt approach because they enjoy "playing the game"? I used to think the whole "gurls have beta orbiters whose diks they won't touch with a ten foot pole" thing was a myth because who the hell does that? But apparently it actually is a thing for some people, because I've seen a number of young women bragging about how many "clueless" dudes they're leading on and cashing in from.

Does giving a girl a 20 every time she's hungry and giving her emotional support whenever she needs it entitle you to sex? No, but it's kind of shitty on the other end if you know the guy thinks he has a chance even though he doesn't and you just lead him on... But yeah, my point was that maybe such people would object to a "bracelet" system or whatever because then they'd be obligated to actually give a straight answer and not toy around with other people.

In the interest of not being sexist, I think the same applies to the dude "collecting a jar of hearts" in that song that used to be on the radio. Although, that always made me think of some sort of organ donation program O_o

I think normal people would say that's too confronting/unromantic.

I really don't think I relate to the typical conception of romance. I mean, I know that Twilight's an overused target for criticism, but that was written by a woman and wildly popular with teenage girls. So apparently stalking, being a jackass, and over-the-top flattery constitute romance.

On a slightly different note, there's a big divide between those who believe it's more effective do things like affect confidence, be emotionally stoic, etc. if you want to "get" the "average" woman and those who believe that it's more effective to just "be genuinely nice" and "respectful". Has anyone ever tested this?

 

[Hadoblado]

Dating aps exist?

If you dl tinder, you'll get infinite attention in a setting you've explicitly volunteered to partake in. It'd be compartmentalisable, instead of following you around wherever you go in public.

Otherwise, typically, if you show implicit expressions of interest, people will be more likely to express their own interest. Typically compliments.

But yeah, if you're young or young looking, there's a line people will usually draw because it's okay to be aggressive creepy to women but it's not okay to be in the same conversation as pedophilia unless you're of specific subcultures.

 

[Black Rose]

 

[Minuend]

You're looking at catcalling without context. In itself it might seem alluring, like it's positive validation. But that's kinda like thinking your uncle coming up to you and hitting on you is good validation, and him showing you you're hot, is nice. I mean, you're kinda ignoring a couple of factors in there that might make that attention not ideal.

First thing you could do is trying to imagine what you would have to be like to catcall someone. What type of personality would you have to have, what would motivate you to do it. Knowing a lot of guys would dislike it and feel you were ignoring their boundaries and want to be left alone in a public space, what would still drive you to do it? How would you have to be?

And then ofc, there are several other types of personalities and motivations than that version of you. What would motivate them to do it, how would they perceive women, attractiveness etc?

Then picture a couple of men you respect, find highly intelligent. Can you see them catcalling? Why/ why not?

You can do the same exercise with guys who stare openly at your boobs. Considering social norms are important, and people follow them as a sign of respect and doing what's "proper", or just blending in etc- how would a person have to be like to ignore that and stare, which is considered rude by most people? Why would a person do that, what would motivate him to? What would it take for you to stare openly at a guy's crotch?

When you start asking yourself these type of questions, it becomes easier to see where people come from, and how you don't really want attention from maybe even most people. And how often compliments and validation are not really for your benefit at all, but has more to do with how the other person works and thinks, perceives, and what s/he feels when s/he validates you.

Also, be aware there's a lot of predatory guys out there who's looking for people who don't pick up on it, and there are guys who just don't give a fuck if you're hurt in whatever mess they're entangled in. So instead of being open to people who break social norms like staring at your boobs, it's something that you should be mindful of. That type of indifference or obliviousness to social norms tends to come with other type of behavior that is as well, which tends to cause a lot of problems. Whether social norms are followed is not just about whether they are logical or not, it's also says something about what the other person is aware of, and which one he breaks and why says a lot about him as well. Sometimes breaking social norms ca be appropriate or nice, but other times it's a warning sign something is not as it should be.

As for reducing orbitors etc with bracelets; some people take advantage of others and have various motivations for doing so. Bracelets would be exploited as well.

 

[CatGoddess]

Hmm, well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my boyfriend's just socially oblivious and has poor self-control. I guess I should've said that I knew him decently well beforehand, which probably factored into me being relieved/happy instead of creeped out?

I'm usually oblivious/indifferent (not willfully, I just forget that they're a thing unless I'm consciously thinking about them) to social norms. Perhaps that's one reason why other people aren't "open" to me? I mean, at the risk of sounding whiny, I don't think I'm really in a position to be picking and choosing whom I interact with (unless they pose a serious danger to me, of course). If I did, there probably wouldn't be anyone left.

I'm not sure I have a coherent position on this anymore, actually. It's probably true that the sort of people I hang around and would be interested in wouldn't catcall, but at the same time it would be nice to get affirmation from someone, even if their motives were selfish and/or sketchy. At the same time, though, that seems to edge awfully close to leading people on, which would be mean. But the bracelet would solve that - "looking for attention but not casual sex", and then people could give attention or not without anyone having to second-guess themselves.

The tinder app thing sounds reasonable enough, though; maybe I'll download it when I'm a little older.

Wow, I just realized that danger looks more like "dang-er" than "DANE-jur".

 

[Minuend]

Hmm, well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my boyfriend's just socially oblivious and has poor self-control. I guess I should've said that I knew him decently well beforehand, which probably factored into me being relieved/happy instead of creeped out?

Well, yes, that's what I meant if someone breaks a social norm, it can indicate obliviousness or indifference (sometimes contempt). I guess that person in particular is kinda irrelevant to the topic overall, but be wary of letting people off the hook on the count of them having "poor self control" or being "oblivious". Sometimes these are excuses or a person trying to minimize the effect of harmful actions, or continue being shit to people around them without caring to learn how to improve. Which again ties in to a personality with unflattering personality traits that's usually connected to other unflattering personality traits

A person is a whole, you don't get people who just bully a bit on the side and is completely nice and dandy in every other aspects of life. If that person is ok with bullying someone, that means there has to be personality traits and values that somehow enables him to do it. You can't take that action apart from the rest of the person, apart from the rest of his life

The same way, someone who catcalls has values and attitudes that enables him to do so, and these traits follow him in every aspects of his life. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's like a rapist serial killer, but I am saying he most likely have some values or personality traits that have negative consequences for people around him. It doesn't have to be a big things, or have huge consequences. It can be small things.

I'm usually oblivious/indifferent (not willfully, I just forget that they're a thing unless I'm consciously thinking about them) to social norms. Perhaps that's one reason why other people aren't "open" to me? I mean, at the risk of sounding whiny, I don't think I'm really in a position to be picking and choosing whom I interact with (unless they pose a serious danger to me, of course). If I did, there probably wouldn't be anyone left.

Is this a response to what I said? Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about people who becomes your friends? Or are you talking about people students/ colleges/ acquaintances?

I'm not saying you should stop talking to everyone who has some distasteful behavior, unless maybe if it's severe. I was only saying validation from them might not be worth much. Talk to people normally, even when you don't like them. As long as you set boundaries and keep people at a distance when neccessary, you don't need to stop talking to people. Not sure if that's what you meant. You might want to limit being "nice" to guys (smiling a lot, being overly extroverted), as that have a tendency to be interpreted as flirting and might gain you some unwanted attention. It's just a precaution women have to take because there's quite a few potential stalkers etc out there

I'm not sure I have a coherent position on this anymore, actually. It's probably true that the sort of people I hang around and would be interested in wouldn't catcall, but at the same time it would be nice to get affirmation from someone, even if their motives were selfish and/or sketchy.

What would create a need for validation in a young woman? Validation from people she might not even like if she knew them? And why validation pertaining to the exterior in particular? Why would this be important to the degree she doesn't care where it comes from as long as it arrives?

At the same time, though, that seems to edge awfully close to leading people on, which would be mean. But the bracelet would solve that - "looking for attention but not casual sex", and then people could give attention or not without anyone having to second-guess themselves.

Bracelets are poor, poor substitution for developing empathy and understanding people. It wouldn't even work as a crutch for lacking in empathy (empathy, here, as in understanding what other people think/ feels and why). Not developing in that area will always leave a gaping hole in your perspective and understandinging of things. It's like learning biology but refusing to learn about the cell. Sure you might know a thing or two about biology, but your perspective will always be incomplete. Understanding people is one of the biggest boosts you can do in understanding why societies and the world is as it is. It also helps you navigate your life, avoiding people who will fuck shit up, and finding hidden gems in people most remain skeptical of. Etc

Though, I'm more curious about how you, again, mention this about leading people on. Why is that a focus point for you? Do you have a lot of experience with some person who did that a lot? Is it something you were told growing up you should not do? Did someone do it to you?

If you really want attention/ validation from anyone, you could always try streaming or instagramming your butt like the other kids are doing.

 

[Pizzabeak]

The guy has to talk to the girl first :shrug:

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@Minuend you seem to have divided men into two categories; men who break social norms, and men who are "intelligent".

women like attention from men just like men like attention from women, and at this point in time, all the "social norms" have stripped men of the ability and opportunity to act naturally and attractively around women

that's why there's so many creepy men out there btw – men who try to look up skirts of their female colleagues and whatnot. Japan, for example, where men have become so cucked that their idea of flirting is to grope women on the train

 

[Minuend]

@Minuend you seem to have divided men into two categories; men who break social norms, and men who are "intelligent".

Not at all. A lot of people who break social norms are quite intelligent. A lot of people who unintentionally or intentionally does shitty things are intelligent. Intelligence has little to do with how considerate you are towards others. And like I said, breaking social norms is sometimes a good thing.

When I spoke of the intelligent men catgoddess knew of, I was trying to make her visualize how an intelligent, respectable man can be, to create a contrast from someone who shows, well retarded behavior, catcalling. It's to show her how there exists men who have integrity and who wouldn't lower themselves to that behavior, to create an image of men being better than horndogs shouting at women. So to speak. Because that's how they're often portrayed in pop media, and some come to think that's normal in men, a source for validation of self, even
But ofc, there are plenty of situations where "good" men do "bad" things due to their circumstances, lives, frustrations.

I'm trying to create an image for people who are not used to do these exercises to understand other people, the 2 previous posts are not good for trying to understand how I perceive men or people. Because that's not their purpose

Why do you think I have such a simplistic perspective about people (/men)? Does that seem like a logical conclusion based on the posts you've read by me? Well, I drunk post a lot, so I guess not much nuance is perceived by me. (I guess a lack of empathy/ understanding me combined with negative feels toward women could create that result as well)

 

[CatGoddess]

Is this a response to what I said? Not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about people who becomes your friends? Or are you talking about people students/ colleges/ acquaintances?

I was just saying that, considering I have poor social skills, I don't see why I should go about vetting who I befriend based on that criteria. You were saying that people who don't tend to follow social norms usually have:

values or personality traits that have negative consequences for people around him.

I don't agree. And, if people who don't follow social norms (again, I'm usually doing it out of obliviousness or indifference, which you seem to think is just as bad as doing it out of contempt) have these values or personality traits, it's just as likely that I have them too. Unless you believe that that applies only to men.

So, yes, it would 1. be hypocritical and 2. leave me with no friends, because other people are already doing exactly what you described: vetting me out because of a lack of social skills. And, yes, I know the difference between not paying attention to norms like keeping my hair neat and making more "egregious" offenses. I do both.

Though, I'm more curious about how you, again, mention this about leading people on.

Because it's a dick move. And it's relevant to the current discussion, especially because it's a hot button topic for incels and feminists alike. I could provide you with possible reasons why this is important to me so that you can in turn provide armchair psychoanalysis, but that seems like confirmation bias of your pre-existing ideas.

What would create a need for validation in a young woman? Validation from people she might not even like if she knew them? And why validation pertaining to the exterior in particular? Why would this be important to the degree she doesn't care where it comes from as long as it arrives?

It's actually more of an objective metric than receiving praise from friends. You can't trust that the people you actually know/like won't just butter you up to "bolster your self-esteem" or some such garbage (to clarify, self-esteem is nice, but not when it's founded on lies). I like validation I can actually trust, is that bad? I thought everyone did. And, no, these beliefs are, for the most part, NOT from personal experience; it's just internal reasoning.

Bracelets are poor, poor substitution for developing empathy and understanding people.

Some people never develop those skills. Personally, I have tried to do so for quite some time and I still come up very, very short. I don't see what's so terrible about wanting social signals to be easier to read. Some people are born with the ability to easily understand human behavior beyond just an intellectual level. Other people, like myself, work at it and still don't succeed.

Your argument seems kind of akin (in principle, not seriousness, obviously) to the argument that giving medical aid to 3rd world countries hurts them because, in the long run, they won't be motivated to fix their social and economic problems. Maybe that argument would hold if it were actually realistic to expect them to fix those problems on their own. A lot of people only experience small amounts of self-improvement through happy accident.

Also, how can you, personally, be so certain that you understand who people are inside and what their motives are, anyways? "Creepy" ways of showing interest might stem from "bad values", sure, but they could also stem from not knowing any better. Again, some people do not naturally develop the ability to pick up on or understand social cues. And some guys might do "creepy" things because they don't realize they're "creepy"; they might even think that a woman would find those things flattering.

 

[redbaron]

i just meowed at a random passer by

they didn't meow back

i must be doing something wrong

 

[Cognisant]

You can't draw a conclusion from a single experiment, try meowing at more people, meowing louder, meowing repeatedly, and for your control group try barking.

 

[lightfire]

moo

 

[Minuend]

I don't agree. And, if people who don't follow social norms (again, I'm usually doing it out of obliviousness or indifference, which you seem to think is just as bad as doing it out of contempt) have these values or personality traits, it's just as likely that I have them too. Unless you believe that that applies only to men.

Eh, no, never tried to imply that, I think you pretty much misunderstood most of what I said, so i guess there's no point in this for either of us. I've written stuff like "can be", "sometimes" etc, but you seem to think I mean everybody who does x is always y. Even when I've explicitly wrote it can indicate obliviousness or indifference (sometimes contempt). See how there's room for it being because of other things, and how I seperate those 3 as not neccessarily being the same reason in the same person?

I was actually thinking about writing something like "ofc this applies to women as well", but thought it would be obvious, so I didn't. But from your and serac posts I guess you're kinda just looking for the worst interpretation you can find and try not to understand what I write. You're looking for flaws and things to disagree on, not trying to understand what I actually write

I mean, I'm autistic and went from being completely oblivious in social situations as a 18 year old, to understanding people pretty well some 5-6 years later. And there's still room for improvement. I'm kinda just lucky people didn't take advantage of me, because I was retarded. Understanding people is complex pattern recognition, so to speak.

 

[CatGoddess]

i just meowed at a random passer by

they didn't meow back

i must be doing something wrong

We could meow at everyone we meet, so that we can identify each other. It can be the sign of our secret underground society.

@Minuend I am not deliberately trying to misconstrue what you're saying.

See how there's room for it being because of other things, and how I seperate those 3 as not neccessarily being the same reason in the same person?

I was not saying that you implied they were the same reason in the same person. I was saying that you seem to imply that those 3 all cause bad behavior and indicate bad values and bad personality traits. You also told me to be wary of such people, which suggests equally "penalizing" people who have poor social skills and people who malevolently screw others over.

Okay, you said "sometimes" and "can be", but you do see why someone might assume you were implying those sometimes and can be's to be significant, frequent-enough occurrences, right? It is pretty obvious that some people act in X way because you can say that about basically everything - some people are into puppet sex, some people eat dogs in America, some people liked the Star Wars holiday episode.

I cannot dispute that some people disregard social norms due to underlying personal problems. However, the fact that you brought it up in the first place, and made it the central focus of your argument suggests that you believe this is true for a large portion of the people disregarding social norms, to the extent that it should factor into my "calculations", and that I should act under the assumption that somebody acting against social norms has dangerous and "undesirable" traits.

I am not "looking for things to disagree on". I am disagreeing with my interpretation of what you said. Perhaps my interpretation is incorrect; however, it doesn't make sense to assume that somebody not understanding you is their "fault". It is possible that that's true, but it could also be the result of you not communicating well. Note that I am not asserting either of these possibilities to be the case. I'm simply saying that your assumptions that serac and I are deliberately misunderstanding and trying to paint you in a bad light are not founded.

You said it would be impossible for the two of us to converse on anything because I am trying to misunderstand you (which, you don't have to take my word on this I guess, but I'm really not). If what you actually don't like is disagreeing with other people or arguing (Fe?) (not saying that this is necessarily the case, but IF), I suppose I will abandon this "argument".

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

(I guess a lack of empathy/ understanding me combined with negative feels toward women could create that result as well)

"negative feels toward women"? Is it because I was rude to Jennywocky once?

As long as women don't get together in large groups and weaponize strange ideas, I tend to like women more than men.

 

[CatGoddess]

How about when men weaponize strange ideas? (cough cough conspiracy theorists cough cough, also some of the British world war II plans were literally "weaponizing" some pretty wackadoodle stuff.)