Netflix Bans Eye Contact for More Than 5 Seconds
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
From The Independent:
Streaming service says it is ‘proud of the anti-harassment training we offer to our productions’
Christopher Hooton
@christophhooton
16 hours ago
Isn’t that one of Tracy Jordan’s contract demands on 30 Rock: staffers are not allowed to make eye contact with the star? I can only find a Jack Donaghy clip, though:
Follow @steve_sailer
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
As a service to humanity, I am proud to offer my MakeYourMovieInMogadishu package, whereby guys who put up some money (a “Producer” or an “Executive Producer”, depending upon how much was ponied up) can schtup the wannabe actresses without fear of future retribution from a newborn Virgin Mother Theresa who fucked 217 Producers on her way to stardom
#TimesUp boys.
The shrinking little #MeToo darlings apparently can’t even handle eye contact.
We should know where this is going.
Even this allows too much involuntary eye contact.
#BurqaOrBust! #FeministShariahNow!
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article12406562/Frankfurt-macht-mobil-gegen-Burka-im-Buergeramt.html#cs-cn-burka-DW-Politik-Faisabad-jpg.jpg
I notice that iSteve doesn’t have any skype capabilities.
To paraphrase Phil Mickelson, “Is there a rule that allows me to see my coworker when I hit on her?”
It’s rough out there.
It's rough out there.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
Dammit. Paraphrasing doesn’t require quotation marks.
To quote Homer Simpson, “D’oh!”
It’s a much bigger insult to women if you act as though they are invisible.
Men, on the other hand, don’t take it personally so long as you aren’t ignoring basic communication.
If you ever work with the general public, you’ll quickly learn what pleases women, and noticing them is indispensable in that regard. Even lesbians expect that courtesy.
Refusing to look at them at all is actually kind of hostile. But if confronted with some stupid rule, well, feel free to give them what they asked for.
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
What's the difference between a Finnish extrovert and a Finnish introvert?
The Finnish extrovert looks at the OTHER guy's shoes.
Avoiding eye contact is also why the Norwegian navy put bar codes on the hulls of all their ships.
It's true! When they return to port they Scandinavian.
Speaking of eyes, Ole the Norske went to the optometrist. Being on the dyslexic side he had problems during the examination.
Optometrist said, "Cover your left eye, Ole. No, the left eye, that's your right eye. No, the other one. Ole, just remember which is your left hand, you write with your left hand, right? So cover your, right, I mean left hand with your, I mean your left eye right with...." Exasperated, he pulled out a paper bag from the supply desk, cut a small round hole in it, put the bag over Ole's head with it aligned with his right eye.
"OK, Ole, now read the letters you see over there on the wall."
"E...F...P...T...O...Z...L...P...E...D...."
"Excellent, Ole." The doctor turned the bag so it was aligned with Ole's left eye, brought up the next chart, and again Ole read the letters.
"That was very good, Ole. How did that work for you?"
"Vell, Doc, OK I guess, but I was hoping for a pair of those wire rim aviators like Toivo flies his plane with."
I guess it all comes down to who’s holding the stopwatch.
OT
The Pot Industry Is Overwhelmingly White, and One Congresswoman Wants to Change That Rep. Barbara Lee of California has crafted a resolution to help open up the marijuana industry to people of color.
Sometimes, all it takes is a poorly named weed strain to illuminate a real problem.
Just this week, Shanita Penny, the president of the board of directors for the Minority Cannabis Business Association, was contacted by a black woman who was shocked that a marijuana dispensary in Maryland is selling a strain called “Strange Fruit” – taking its name from the Billie Holiday song that uses fruit as a horrifyingly vivid metaphor for the countless African Americans who were lynched across the Deep South mere decades ago.
Penny, whose organization aims to increase diversity in the cannabis industry, is rightfully riled up ……..
–From current Rolling Stone Magazine
She has a long and arduous task ahead of her, I fear, rooting crimespeak out of the drug trade.
Great show.
Netflix must complete the loop by banning Chick Fil A takeout from the premises.
I love love love where all of this is headed.
Sheer insanity. Just love it.
Men, on the other hand, don't take it personally so long as you aren't ignoring basic communication.
If you ever work with the general public, you'll quickly learn what pleases women, and noticing them is indispensable in that regard. Even lesbians expect that courtesy.
Refusing to look at them at all is actually kind of hostile. But if confronted with some stupid rule, well, feel free to give them what they asked for.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Olorin
Ignoring someone is generally hostile, but eye contact is somewhat cultural. In some cultures, looking down and avoiding eye contact is a sign of respect for a superior; it is a sign of subordination and can be misinterpreted by Americans as rudeness or lack of sincerity.
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.
You can look, but don’t touch. In fact celebrating the hateful differences that make us stronger sometimes requires taking a real horror-show gander. I can imagine somewhere in the bowels of the 5th year of the Kamala Harris administration we’ll be treated to a mandatory livestream on our televids of Homeland Security Secretary Chelsea Manning’s cliterectomy as she becomes a true Muslim woman. Vidy well my droogs, vidy well!Replies: @BenKenobi
What woman would want a man who never held his head up while out in public? None.Replies: @AndrewR
Here, Pimp Snooky can be seen accompanied by his stable, the hoes in which are required at all times to face the floor while in the royal presence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGWhwXwPf-k&t=3s
Actually many younger women feel like any glance from a male stranger is harassment.
A glance from a male non-stranger who they know (coworker, classmate, friend/aquaintance) is appropriate, but it shouldn’t last longer than 2-3 seconds. However, a boyfriend or male relative can stare longer than that.
If you’re having an active conversation with a female, you typically have to break eye contact after 3-5 seconds.
The above isn’t meant to be a joke. That’s how it works these days. So if NetFlix is instituting a 5-second rule on staring, that’s consistent with modern-day social customs. NetFlix is formalizing an unofficial norm that’s observed by almost all young people (and many older people too) these days.
If you’re good-looking, you can sometimes get away with staring. For the rest of the male population, failure to obey the above rules can often have severe reprecussions.
Or would that fall under non-good looking males and thus looking past five seconds no matter what is creepy.
Imagine being labeled creepy for simply looking, and yet if you hold your head down that's also creepy as well as projecting non-confidence.
Really difficult to win either way. You just have to hope you were born with the looks of Brad Pitt (ca. early '90's, during Thelma and Louise, River Runs Through It phase) and hope for the best. Then you might get a pass. Maybe.
"No, no, no! Stop it! Stop falling over in my direction, it looks as though you're staring at me! If you're gonna pass out, look someplace else! And for the love of Mike, quit staring! It's way too creepy! If you keep it up, no more water for you!"Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
“Nawww gurl, I ain’t lookin’ atchu.”
A glance from a male non-stranger who they know (coworker, classmate, friend/aquaintance) is appropriate, but it shouldn't last longer than 2-3 seconds. However, a boyfriend or male relative can stare longer than that.
If you're having an active conversation with a female, you typically have to break eye contact after 3-5 seconds.
The above isn't meant to be a joke. That's how it works these days. So if NetFlix is instituting a 5-second rule on staring, that's consistent with modern-day social customs. NetFlix is formalizing an unofficial norm that's observed by almost all young people (and many older people too) these days.
If you're good-looking, you can sometimes get away with staring. For the rest of the male population, failure to obey the above rules can often have severe reprecussions.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AndrewR
Those modern day customs to which you refer are the result of men being bullied down into not being men. They have become non-verbally subordinate to women. (Read my previous comment.)
If what you say is true, if the younger generations are doing this as common practice, then it is a bad sign for the future.
OT
Canadian company offering $250 DNA heredity tests is accused of scamming customers after a man submitted a sample from his DOG and was told it was a descendant of Native Americans
Canada grants aboriginal population ‘Indian Status’ that includes tax benefits
CAPC is a group representing indigenous people living outside of reserves
Membership card with CAPC resembles Canadian government-issued ID
CAPC offers DNA test through Toronto lab that ‘confirms’ aboriginal ancestry
But a number of people proved tests were a hoax after sending dog DNA
The dogs were ‘confirmed’ to have aboriginal ancestry
UK Daily Mail
15 June 2018
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5846901/Canadian-company-claims-offer-DNA-tests-proving-Native-American-heredity.html
“If you want to get rich start a religion or a fake DNA test lab” – L Ron Hubbard
IndianNative AmericanFirst Nations tribunal now:"Is, there something, Mr. Dances-With-Wolves, that you're not telling us? Remember YOU ARE UNDER OATH to the Spirit of Winter!"Enterprising trolls are already learning to employ jesuit stare, I bet!
…actually no, they probably have learned to do that long time ago.
Steve YouTube has the clip under don’t look at mr Jordan in eyes.
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
Wonderful! Fantastic!! What percentage of the Netflix employee car pool consists of Priuses with faded I’M WITH HER bumper stickers? 95%? Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of nu-males.
You can look, but don’t touch. In fact celebrating the hateful differences that make us stronger sometimes requires taking a real horror-show gander. I can imagine somewhere in the bowels of the 5th year of the Kamala Harris administration we’ll be treated to a mandatory livestream on our televids of Homeland Security Secretary Chelsea Manning’s cliterectomy as she becomes a true Muslim woman. Vidy well my droogs, vidy well!
I assumed this meant no staring at people you’re not talking to. They are actually banning looking at the person you’re conversing with?
On the bright side, the boss can whirl his chair to look out the window, perhaps with hands clasped behind head, while ordering the minions around. Company policy, nothing I can do.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
Isn’t it great how women have improved the workplace?
It’s not supposed to make sense. It’s just another way for women to get rid of men they don’t like.
On the bright side, the boss can whirl his chair to look out the window, perhaps with hands clasped behind head, while ordering the minions around. Company policy, nothing I can do.
.
.
bending over to shred some paperwork, for example?Replies: @Pericles, @Rosie
The shrinking little #MeToo darlings apparently can't even handle eye contact.
We should know where this is going.
Even this allows too much involuntary eye contact.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/BURQA-AFP.png
#BurqaOrBust! #FeministShariahNow!Replies: @Blind Nil, @Laugh Track, @ThirdWorldSteveReader
Jeepers creepers, after looking at those peepers I am beset by similar uncontrollable lust as a Victorian gentleman sighting an exposed ankle.
Is safer then, to talk to a female with your back turned to her?
I bet they would really love that…
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
Precisely so. Hence the American (and, originally very English) emphasis on looking someone in the eye as a integral to equality, dignity, and freedom (independence).
Men, on the other hand, don't take it personally so long as you aren't ignoring basic communication.
If you ever work with the general public, you'll quickly learn what pleases women, and noticing them is indispensable in that regard. Even lesbians expect that courtesy.
Refusing to look at them at all is actually kind of hostile. But if confronted with some stupid rule, well, feel free to give them what they asked for.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Olorin
Five seconds sounds like a pretty long time tbh, depending on the context. Obviously, if you’re having a discussion, it’s only polite to make eye contact.
I have had to be very careful about this, and it took me until relatively late in life to understand it. I am genuinely interested in people, and tend to become captivated when a person is saying interesting things. When the person is someone else’s husband, it’s not a good look, even though in truth it is wholly innocent. I just make friends with men very easily, and that without being interested in sports.
On the whole, I think the five second rule is probably a pretty reasonable. Indeed, those of us who are I'm the most socially perceptive often need and appreciate the guidance. If I'm going to be judged for breaking a rule, I'd prefer to at least be told about it ahead of time.Replies: @Jack D, @Anonym
Soi-disant royalty seeking to prohibit the serfs from looking up from the ground should all emigrate to Finland.
Exhibitionist provocations such as gazing at the other guy’s shoes too long aren’t tolerated.
Stare-catting is a frank challenge, and could get you knifed.
Do you think they’d be happy there?
Why is it that only white men complain about this stuff?
Looks like Men of Color are respectful and have strong relationships with females
No wonder white girls prefer Men of Color
I think you meant men of color have strong EYE CONTACT with females:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1XGPvbWn0A
The Pot Industry Is Overwhelmingly White, and One Congresswoman Wants to Change That Rep. Barbara Lee of California has crafted a resolution to help open up the marijuana industry to people of color.
Sometimes, all it takes is a poorly named weed strain to illuminate a real problem.Just this week, Shanita Penny, the president of the board of directors for the Minority Cannabis Business Association, was contacted by a black woman who was shocked that a marijuana dispensary in Maryland is selling a strain called "Strange Fruit" – taking its name from the Billie Holiday song that uses fruit as a horrifyingly vivid metaphor for the countless African Americans who were lynched across the Deep South mere decades ago.
Penny, whose organization aims to increase diversity in the cannabis industry, is rightfully riled up ........--From current Rolling Stone MagazineReplies: @Expletive Deleted, @Stan d Mute
How does Shanita like the decades-and-decades-old trade name for Afghani/Punjabi hashish, “Paki Black”?
She has a long and arduous task ahead of her, I fear, rooting crimespeak out of the drug trade.
The Pot Industry Is Overwhelmingly White, and One Congresswoman Wants to Change That Rep. Barbara Lee of California has crafted a resolution to help open up the marijuana industry to people of color.
Sometimes, all it takes is a poorly named weed strain to illuminate a real problem.Just this week, Shanita Penny, the president of the board of directors for the Minority Cannabis Business Association, was contacted by a black woman who was shocked that a marijuana dispensary in Maryland is selling a strain called "Strange Fruit" – taking its name from the Billie Holiday song that uses fruit as a horrifyingly vivid metaphor for the countless African Americans who were lynched across the Deep South mere decades ago.
Penny, whose organization aims to increase diversity in the cannabis industry, is rightfully riled up ........--From current Rolling Stone MagazineReplies: @Expletive Deleted, @Stan d Mute
I suppose then that Michigan’s “Monkey Paw” is also now on the list of bad weeds?
Who cares? What we really want to stare at is a nice set of hooters!
Is there also a rule against mirrored sunglasses? I think I ‘see’ a loophole….
I get it. Six seconds and you’re in rape territory. I predict lack of communication and eye contact will lead to a lot of accidents on set.
Who’s going to be carrying the stopwatch? Any bets out there on how long this “rule” will last?
Like most silliness, this too shall pass.
You can look, but don’t touch. In fact celebrating the hateful differences that make us stronger sometimes requires taking a real horror-show gander. I can imagine somewhere in the bowels of the 5th year of the Kamala Harris administration we’ll be treated to a mandatory livestream on our televids of Homeland Security Secretary Chelsea Manning’s cliterectomy as she becomes a true Muslim woman. Vidy well my droogs, vidy well!Replies: @BenKenobi
I was cured, alright!
Netflix are pathologising normal Male-Female interactions while also releasing this:
The girls and boys don’t know how to interact anymore because of Tinder. No flirting thanks to technology.
I’m not even going to look up who the owners of Netflix and Tinder are, since I can guess what I’ll find.
Then they gave the Obamas a $50 million dollar bribe after he appointed someone in their hierarchy ambassador. Screw them.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
A glance from a male non-stranger who they know (coworker, classmate, friend/aquaintance) is appropriate, but it shouldn't last longer than 2-3 seconds. However, a boyfriend or male relative can stare longer than that.
If you're having an active conversation with a female, you typically have to break eye contact after 3-5 seconds.
The above isn't meant to be a joke. That's how it works these days. So if NetFlix is instituting a 5-second rule on staring, that's consistent with modern-day social customs. NetFlix is formalizing an unofficial norm that's observed by almost all young people (and many older people too) these days.
If you're good-looking, you can sometimes get away with staring. For the rest of the male population, failure to obey the above rules can often have severe reprecussions.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AndrewR
Does that apply to cameramen too? I guess the average take length will get even shorter and movies will get even jumpier.
In the US, I used to avoid staring too long. In Japan, I just the “dirty foreigner” label and stare away.
I think this is within Japanese norms. When it’s cherry-blossom season, everyone comes out to watch cherry blossoms because they are so fleeting. Likewise, fine T&A is so rare in Japan that when you see it, it’s almost gone already. So, I look as long as possible.
Reactions are mixed. Sometimes you get eye-rolls or women moving away from you, but also I’ve gotten return stares, been stalked in supermarkets, and been asked out in English lessons. It all depends. There are no rules, just compulsions.
The shrinking little #MeToo darlings apparently can't even handle eye contact.
We should know where this is going.
Even this allows too much involuntary eye contact.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/BURQA-AFP.png
#BurqaOrBust! #FeministShariahNow!Replies: @Blind Nil, @Laugh Track, @ThirdWorldSteveReader
Heavy mascara use, though…
BTW one of a few perks of getting older when you’re a woman is being able to socialize freely with whomever you wish without incurring any suspicion if you stare at someone’s husband a little too long. Whereas with men, I would imagine you all have to be more careful, not less, with time.
On the whole, I think the five second rule is probably a pretty reasonable. Indeed, those of us who are I’m the most socially perceptive often need and appreciate the guidance. If I’m going to be judged for breaking a rule, I’d prefer to at least be told about it ahead of time.
5 seconds is a long time, especially in the eyes. I look at attractive women quite a lot when I see them. However, you need to be discreet and break it up a bit - you can easily vary it by alternately looking at whoever you are talking to, and the various attractive women in the room. (If there is only one attractive woman you need to find a few random things to look at around the place before your gaze goes back to the attractive female, before flitting around again.) In this way society does not view you as a creep or stalker type. Women probably do notice, and in my experience almost always like the attention from me if it is noticed.
Most men don't notice. The only one who did, said that "It's like you're hunting", and that was many years ago when I was maybe 19 or so. Of course, that was in a drinking situation at a party. He was a bit older but definitely intelligent and definitely liked women a lot. He was probably more artful about the way he looked at women. He was a small guy, but could handle himself well for his size and always dressed to flatter himself. He had some success. Anyway, since that time I have become somewhat more discreet. I don't think I was that lacking in discreetness then, just that this guy was a good noticer.
Occasionally men or their friends will let me know that the woman I am talking to is married if I am talking to an attractive woman who happens to be married. I am not sure why that is. Maybe they feel threatened. In these cases I might ask questions, smile or laugh, but never progress to the next step of touching a hand or an arm or any other physical contact, which is the next phase in the flirtation/seduction game. In fact, if I am talking to a married woman I don't do more than make polite conversation as I don't want it to go any further. In fact, I usually don't go out of my way to talk to married women especially wives of friends or acquaintances.
When you are in a social situation, it's almost always best to break off conversation before the other person does, before they get bored or end the conversation on you, both male and female. Again, doing this breaks you out of the stalker box, just like cycling your gaze around the room does. You don't want to end the conversation prematurely, just to be a dick. And you can come back to people. But "always leave the audience wanting more" is a good dictum. This also allows you the opportunity to eventually talk to the other attractive women or interesting people in the room (interesting can be men or women).
Women notice who is mixing well in a social situation. And they also notice who the other attractive women are talking to/flirting with. It makes you more attractive in their eyes.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
This is hardly modern. Walter Mitty appeared almost 80 years ago, and was based on stereotypes that were hoary even then. It’s part of Anglo-Saxon culture.
He might resemble a large number of young American men today though, if what I was replying to is correct.
On the whole, I think the five second rule is probably a pretty reasonable. Indeed, those of us who are I'm the most socially perceptive often need and appreciate the guidance. If I'm going to be judged for breaking a rule, I'd prefer to at least be told about it ahead of time.Replies: @Jack D, @Anonym
Better still, forget about making up silly mechanical “zero tolerance” rules (accompanied by dire punishments) in order to regulate all aspects of human behavior. And not only to regulate them but to regulate them in a way that favors certain groups over others (even if the rule appears neutral on its face). Although the rule may say that no one is allowed to look at a co-worker for more than 5 seconds, really it is directed at (and its enforcement will be even more directed at) older white men looking at younger women.
The STEM part of me likes to see the rulemakers getting numerically specific. I wonder if they’ve also specified how long your gaze must shift elsewhere before starting a fresh 5-second clock?
Maybe if two stare-able women are present, you can spend 5 sec on one, then shift to the other, then back to the first?
Moldbug used to talk about how blacks were in effect the new American royalty/samurai – the rest of us were supposed to know our place and treat them with the deference that was due to them by right of their hereditary rank. Certain rules that were applicable to mere commoners could not be applied to them (the entire premise of BLM was based on this). If a black person comes into your cafe and wants to sit at a table and use the bathroom without buying anything, you had best keep your mouth shut or face the consequences of your impudence.
Now women want to get in on this game and assert their own hereditary privileges – the right not even to be looked at by commoners. Next will be the rule that you are not allowed to show your back to women and must walk backward when leaving their presence. Kowtowing would not be too much to ask either.
See also, Lady Godiva. Woman want to be able to dress (or undress) in as provocative a manner as they wish (in order to attract alphas) without having to worry about those pesky betas looking at them.
Now they all go to Trader Joe's after yoga class, including my wife. Whoever invented yoga pants should win a Nobel Prize or something.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
In the West and in the US in particular looking down is a sign of weakness or inferiority, a lack of total confidence in one self. Especially if you are walking along with your head down. That’s a total lack of confidence in who you are as an individual. But then again, some cultures don’t value individuality at all whatsoever. And individuality is (for the most part) largely a Western concept.
What woman would want a man who never held his head up while out in public? None.
I wonder if there is a correlative rule against dressing in such a way as to attract attention.
Frank had the right idea.
A glance from a male non-stranger who they know (coworker, classmate, friend/aquaintance) is appropriate, but it shouldn't last longer than 2-3 seconds. However, a boyfriend or male relative can stare longer than that.
If you're having an active conversation with a female, you typically have to break eye contact after 3-5 seconds.
The above isn't meant to be a joke. That's how it works these days. So if NetFlix is instituting a 5-second rule on staring, that's consistent with modern-day social customs. NetFlix is formalizing an unofficial norm that's observed by almost all young people (and many older people too) these days.
If you're good-looking, you can sometimes get away with staring. For the rest of the male population, failure to obey the above rules can often have severe reprecussions.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AndrewR
Yes, but what if a person is severely near-sighted? He’s not staring per se, but because of his prescription it appears as if he is “staring” when in actuality it takes a bit longer for things to come into focus?
Or would that fall under non-good looking males and thus looking past five seconds no matter what is creepy.
Imagine being labeled creepy for simply looking, and yet if you hold your head down that’s also creepy as well as projecting non-confidence.
Really difficult to win either way. You just have to hope you were born with the looks of Brad Pitt (ca. early ’90’s, during Thelma and Louise, River Runs Through It phase) and hope for the best. Then you might get a pass. Maybe.
Except even the Alphas can’t stare too long at them either. They gots to know the rules as well.
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
Seems to me, eye contact and staring are two different things. At least in my experience. Maybe I’m doing it wrong.
A glance from a male non-stranger who they know (coworker, classmate, friend/aquaintance) is appropriate, but it shouldn't last longer than 2-3 seconds. However, a boyfriend or male relative can stare longer than that.
If you're having an active conversation with a female, you typically have to break eye contact after 3-5 seconds.
The above isn't meant to be a joke. That's how it works these days. So if NetFlix is instituting a 5-second rule on staring, that's consistent with modern-day social customs. NetFlix is formalizing an unofficial norm that's observed by almost all young people (and many older people too) these days.
If you're good-looking, you can sometimes get away with staring. For the rest of the male population, failure to obey the above rules can often have severe reprecussions.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AndrewR
Anyone getting the feeling that some women either have too much time on their hands or are very emotionally delicate wall flowers that a six second stare is to them way out of line? Can just imagine Molly Pitcher during the Revolutionary War passing out water to wounded soldiers, who were falling down from being shot by enemy fire.
“No, no, no! Stop it! Stop falling over in my direction, it looks as though you’re staring at me! If you’re gonna pass out, look someplace else! And for the love of Mike, quit staring! It’s way too creepy! If you keep it up, no more water for you!”
It’s not a made up rule, Jack. The rule already exists, and not articulating it just puts less socially adept men at a disadvantage. “Don’t be a creep!” is not helpful. “Don’t stare at people for longer than five seconds” is at least useful guidance. If a man finds himself leering at a young woman for more than five seconds, he should probably be aware that he is sexually attracted to her and make it a point not to stare. This is just basic self-awareness and civilized propriety.
I do think it’s ridiculous and chickens—- that Netflix made this rule but well mannered people wouldn’t really need it.
I like to look at women as much as the next guy but being discreet and not getting caught is part of the game.Replies: @Rosie
The idea the guy should meekly and callowly avert his gaze when he realizes he is attracted to a woman leads us to pajama boy, the so-called vegetarian men of Japan, and all the rest of it. It's horseshit.Replies: @Rosie
You are disregarding the element of power and authority. Depending on the circumstances, a stare can feel like a threat. It would seem to me that being able to interact with a young woman (possibly another man’s wife) without leering at her like a dirty ole’ man ought to be a basic requirement of leadership. I’m fairly certain Plato would agree.
It's horseshit.Replies: @Rosie
They even do that at the grocery store. Maybe that’s how the old Alpha Beta supermarkets got their name.
Now they all go to Trader Joe’s after yoga class, including my wife. Whoever invented yoga pants should win a Nobel Prize or something.
Tracy: ‘I’m easy Jack Donaghy..I’m easy like a Sunday morning…( to crew) don’t look at me! Don’t look me in the eye’
Jack to crew ‘don’t look Mr. Morgan in the eyes’…
“Guidance” is fine, except that “guidance” usually turns into a re-education session where all kinds of ideologically dubious non-sense is mixed in with the “guidance”.
“Guidance” is fine, except when you find out that you are being fired because you violated the “guidance”.
If someone is so socially out of touch that they have reached adulthood not knowing what is/is not “creepy”, will crude mechanical rules like this really help them? Or is this really just a power play? WE (women) get to decide what is creepy now and EVERYTHING that beta-ish males do is creepy. They don’t have to touch us or even talk to us – we pronounce that even LOOKING at us is creepy so avert your gaze, incel! In the past we had to grin and bear it, but those days are over and now we can let our true feelings about betas be known (even though we have to hide our true feelings about every other group on Earth). Betas are creepy, creepy, creepy and we want them GONE completely.
At some point, these rules take you back to a Victorian/Turkish harem model – the only “safe” space” for women is one from which all males have been COMPLETELY excluded (except for eunuchs and the sultan). Women will take over all existing institutions – workplaces, universities, etc. and drive out the EEVIL men. If they have not killed all the male children by that point, the males will need to have something to do so they will have to start their own all male institutions and we will have gone full circle.
I’m tall enough that I can look right over the heads of 90% of the people I talk to. Surprisingly this is often unappreciated.
As long as there is no five second rule for staring at tits and ass I am ok with it.
When I was growing up, my parents taught me, “It’s not polite to stare.”
I do think it’s ridiculous and chickens—- that Netflix made this rule but well mannered people wouldn’t really need it.
I like to look at women as much as the next guy but being discreet and not getting caught is part of the game.
Now they all go to Trader Joe's after yoga class, including my wife. Whoever invented yoga pants should win a Nobel Prize or something.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
Yoga pants look terrible on most women.
OK. It sounds like your real objection is to something other than the five-second guideline.
I say let’s take a wait and see approach.
I have to tell you, Jack, I don’t know what “beta” means, so I can’t really offer any insights into whether we do or not hate beta males, so I’ll have to defer on that question.
A glance from a male non-stranger who they know (coworker, classmate, friend/aquaintance) is appropriate, but it shouldn't last longer than 2-3 seconds. However, a boyfriend or male relative can stare longer than that.
If you're having an active conversation with a female, you typically have to break eye contact after 3-5 seconds.
The above isn't meant to be a joke. That's how it works these days. So if NetFlix is instituting a 5-second rule on staring, that's consistent with modern-day social customs. NetFlix is formalizing an unofficial norm that's observed by almost all young people (and many older people too) these days.
If you're good-looking, you can sometimes get away with staring. For the rest of the male population, failure to obey the above rules can often have severe reprecussions.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Mr. Anon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @AndrewR
Generally in our culture – regardless of sex, age or status – the speaker looks away from the listener’s eyes every few seconds for a second or two while the listener stares into the speaker’s eyes until the speaker is done speaking. Looking at someone for more than a few seconds straight while you’re speaking to them is generally only done when one is being extremely stern (or sexual).
What woman would want a man who never held his head up while out in public? None.Replies: @AndrewR
When I was in tech school the Air Force, there was a senior master sergeant in my chain of command. He was big, black, cocky and bombastic. Once he dressed me down for some infraction in front of all the instructors. Perhaps I truly felt contrite or perhaps I was just faking it; I don’t know. All these years later the details are fuzzy. But I vividly recall lowering my eyes in submission/shame while he was chewing me out, and I will never forget how he yelled “look at me when I’m talking to you.” To this day I’m not sure what to think about that incident. Was that a “cultural difference” or was he just a sadistic bully? I certainly don’t think there is anything disrespectful about lowering your eyes when a superior is chastising you.
Think a moment: Can any one here imagine President Trump holding his head down constantly (especially when walking about)? Can any one imagine him not looking directly at people in the eyes?
Look at the various videos of Donald Trump. He may have many faults, but a lack of self-confidence isn't one of them. Generally, alphas are confident. And they hold their head up and look at people in the eyes, oftentimes for longer than five seconds.
Imagine that.Replies: @AndrewR
I do think it’s ridiculous and chickens—- that Netflix made this rule but well mannered people wouldn’t really need it.
I like to look at women as much as the next guy but being discreet and not getting caught is part of the game.Replies: @Rosie
I looked at the article to see if I could find the precise wording of the edict in question, but no luck unfortunately. Her Imperial Majesty Queen Rosie would not make such a rule for her as-yet (and almost certainly bound-to-remain) non-existent subjects, but rather suggest it as a way of avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Bright-line rules are somewhat threatening by nature as Jack fairly points out, and there is a risk of creating paranoia and undue self-consciousness.
California doesn’t deserve the entertainment industry any longer. The people who control it are creeps who don’t represent normal people anymore. We should work together relocate it to Texas where it belongs.
They are indeed different. Netflix is trying to put a definition of something so they can enforce a rule. They need a line of some kind, so they estimate five seconds as normal, which it probably is. Everyone looks around and hardly ever just stares at someone for more than a few seconds.
This is all about nothing. No, what it really is about it how we used to have a culture, and every normal person knew instinctively what to do. No one had to tell us. This is like those signs they are putting up in some European countries or whatever to tell the Muslim invaders how to behave around women.
This was not necessary before. When someone was weird or pervy or creepy, we all knew it. Especially in the core, American, Northwestern European culture that we used to have.
Which is it? How exactly do you time it so that it's just innocent eye contact as opposed to staring?Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Achmed E. Newman
This is actually pretty funnyReplies: @BB753
Walter Mitty is a caricature of a mild man who dreams of doing things he is not right for. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think he represented the majority of Anglo-Saxon men when Thurber created him.
He might resemble a large number of young American men today though, if what I was replying to is correct.
Look at the good side of this. As long as you don’t make eye contact, you can apparently stare as long as you want, as long as that “want” is in the lower extremities. Leg or feet fetishes anyone?
But eye contact? This is serious business. Think of the implications for a man being accused of “sexually assaulting” a woman with his stare … or, “raping” her with his eyes.
The downside is that all of this is a moving target. There’s the rule for this afternoon. Tomorrow, there will be new rules. The point is that moving forward, men will do whatever bubbles from the depths of an individual female soul that quickly explodes into global conformity. Resist and you will be found guilty ahead of time for “feetism”, “legism”, “disdainism”, “genderism”, etc.
The point is, men can’t win. Female self-hate has apparently reached the point that many women no longer want to be reminded that they’re women. They also no longer want to be reminded that they’re not men, either. So, what do these women want … “translucentism”?
Maybe feminists should adopt the burka to separate themselves from the majority of humanity that enjoy being male and female as well as the interaction between the two. Of course, that might engender another kind of “stareism” as men fantasize over what’s behind the veils. If this happens, those who don’t stare will likely be found guilty of “ignorism”, which will quickly be interpreted as “deplatformism” as another vile instance of male “sexism”. As I said, men can’t win.
Hence, I vote for a formal concordat between men and feminists such that feminists do agree to wear burkas. As for the men being found guilty of “ignorism”, at least it’s a passive tripe. I doubt that “ignorism” (ignoring women wearing burkas) can be easily reinterpreted to include yet another reformulation of English that implies sexual assault and/or rape.
Predating today’s yoga pants, there was something called the spandex rule. It said that people who don’t have nice bodies should not wear spandex in public. This goes all the way back to the 1980s when women started wearing stuff like that for aerobics, etc. The rule should really include yoga pants now.
Come to think of it, if we're going to abide by the 5-second rule, the 17-second* rule, etc., then there should be a yoga-pants rule. Since on-the-spot measurements are out of the question in today's topsy-turvy world, how about, like the "creep rule", any rear-end that we don't reckon the average guy would want to stare at for anything close to 5 seconds should be
ticketed and towedcovered up in blue jeans? Quid pro quo, Clarices!.
.
* You know, the one about how long a piece of food can stay dropped on the floor before you can't eat it.
The girls and boys don’t know how to interact anymore because of Tinder. No flirting thanks to technology.
I’m not even going to look up who the owners of Netflix and Tinder are, since I can guess what I’ll find.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
I cancelled Netflix last year after they changed their rating system to pass/fail from a 1-5 scale after some Deplorables were mean to Amy Shumer. Or somebody else I’d never heard of. I was a customer for 10+ years. I told them why I was quitting and never heard anything.
Then they gave the Obamas a $50 million dollar bribe after he appointed someone in their hierarchy ambassador. Screw them.
The shrinking little #MeToo darlings apparently can't even handle eye contact.
We should know where this is going.
Even this allows too much involuntary eye contact.
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/BURQA-AFP.png
#BurqaOrBust! #FeministShariahNow!Replies: @Blind Nil, @Laugh Track, @ThirdWorldSteveReader
Better use the more modest models that cover the eyes, just to be safe:
That’s not what I was saying. If you walk along in public and never, ever hold your head up, it’s a sign of total lack of self-confidence. It’s weakness, fear, etc. Certainly not confidence.
Think a moment: Can any one here imagine President Trump holding his head down constantly (especially when walking about)? Can any one imagine him not looking directly at people in the eyes?
Look at the various videos of Donald Trump. He may have many faults, but a lack of self-confidence isn’t one of them. Generally, alphas are confident. And they hold their head up and look at people in the eyes, oftentimes for longer than five seconds.
Imagine that.
I imagine always looking down at the ground while you walk is a bad thing in all cultures (unless you're avoiding hazards). But in other contexts, eye contact is culturally relative.
Now hold it, hold it. Regarding the five second rule, is that “One mississippi,…..two mississippi….”, or is that “One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Time’s up! Avert the eyes!”
Which is it? How exactly do you time it so that it’s just innocent eye contact as opposed to staring?
As with other things, if she thinks it's lasted too long, it's lasted too long; if she thinks it hasn't lasted long enough, it hasn't lasted long enough.Replies: @sabril
What’s a useful shorthand working definition of Beta? Think: Woody Allen.
A working definition of Alpha? Think: Brad Pitt.
When it comes down to it, looks/outward appearance play into it.
Who’s gonna call “creepy” if Brad Pitt happens to go over the five second rule? However, if Woody looks for even three seconds, he’s not gonna get any mercy.
Are you generally unclear what husband point was? This stuff is all Military Bearing 101. You should not have made it out of boot camp without knowing better. (I’m resisting making smart remarks about the Air Force, although I guess even mentioning that resistance kind ignores is such a remark…).
The idea is: You are reaponsible for everything you do. You should do everything to the best of your ability and be sure and proud of what you do and who you are as a result. If you legitimately need help, ask your shipmates (comrades) for help. They will help you. If you screw up, own it: admit it as soon as possible to minimize the bad consequences, and take complete responsibility for your mistake, fixing it and taking any punishment (including any chewing out by superiours) like a man: chin up, shoulders and back straight, head and eyes straight forward, look the man helping you (and he ia helping you!) in the eye so he knows you know what’s happened and you appreciate his corrections; that you are contrite and won’t let it happen again.
The guy may have been a dick for all that, but avoiding minor infractions in the military are the green M&Ms – they serve another purpose.
Sunglasses will be next on the bad list. God only knows what perverted thoughts are coursing through the brains of those Foster Grant-wearing creeps, not to mention Vuarnet, Ray-Ban and any other pedestrian brand you can think of.
On the other hand, Ferrari and Porsche sunglasses pass muster.
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/comicads/xray.jpg
Isn’t Netflix the outfit gumming up the Internet with movies?
Even with the boob tube, cable, and DVDs, people just can’t get enough Hollywood.
I haven’t paid for a movie in a loooong time. The last movie I bought was “Dr. No” out of a $5 bin somewhere. Alas, the single disc had the special features, but not the movie.
I cannot imagine what is going through a 300 lb. woman’s mind when she stuffs her enormous fanny into a pair of skin-tight pants, or why any woman thinks blue or purple nail polish is attractive.
Women are strange creatures, even more conformity-oriented than men. It’s a rare gal who even finds the red pill, let alone takes it.
At least when I was a young man, there were loads of good looking, slender, well-groomed dames, but it’s frightening out there now.
Never go full Whiskey.
Durrr. I don’t think “taking it like a man” requires looking directly at the person yelling at you. Yes, I learned military bearing in boot camp. This guy was not a drill instructor.
Either you understand these things, having learned them during boot camp, or you do not, because you did not.Replies: @AndrewR
The amount of eye contact demanded in Anglo-American culture is annoying, and probably reflective of its ridiculous extrovert-centrism. Also IIRC women prefer face-to-face orientation in conversations over shoulder-to-shoulder, so that would also make sense. A culture by and for blabbering women (and their homosexual and alpha/psychopathic relations).
On the whole, I think the five second rule is probably a pretty reasonable. Indeed, those of us who are I'm the most socially perceptive often need and appreciate the guidance. If I'm going to be judged for breaking a rule, I'd prefer to at least be told about it ahead of time.Replies: @Jack D, @Anonym
BTW one of a few perks of getting older when you’re a woman is being able to socialize freely with whomever you wish without incurring any suspicion if you stare at someone’s husband a little too long. Whereas with men, I would imagine you all have to be more careful, not less, with time.
5 seconds is a long time, especially in the eyes. I look at attractive women quite a lot when I see them. However, you need to be discreet and break it up a bit – you can easily vary it by alternately looking at whoever you are talking to, and the various attractive women in the room. (If there is only one attractive woman you need to find a few random things to look at around the place before your gaze goes back to the attractive female, before flitting around again.) In this way society does not view you as a creep or stalker type. Women probably do notice, and in my experience almost always like the attention from me if it is noticed.
Most men don’t notice. The only one who did, said that “It’s like you’re hunting”, and that was many years ago when I was maybe 19 or so. Of course, that was in a drinking situation at a party. He was a bit older but definitely intelligent and definitely liked women a lot. He was probably more artful about the way he looked at women. He was a small guy, but could handle himself well for his size and always dressed to flatter himself. He had some success. Anyway, since that time I have become somewhat more discreet. I don’t think I was that lacking in discreetness then, just that this guy was a good noticer.
Occasionally men or their friends will let me know that the woman I am talking to is married if I am talking to an attractive woman who happens to be married. I am not sure why that is. Maybe they feel threatened. In these cases I might ask questions, smile or laugh, but never progress to the next step of touching a hand or an arm or any other physical contact, which is the next phase in the flirtation/seduction game. In fact, if I am talking to a married woman I don’t do more than make polite conversation as I don’t want it to go any further. In fact, I usually don’t go out of my way to talk to married women especially wives of friends or acquaintances.
When you are in a social situation, it’s almost always best to break off conversation before the other person does, before they get bored or end the conversation on you, both male and female. Again, doing this breaks you out of the stalker box, just like cycling your gaze around the room does. You don’t want to end the conversation prematurely, just to be a dick. And you can come back to people. But “always leave the audience wanting more” is a good dictum. This also allows you the opportunity to eventually talk to the other attractive women or interesting people in the room (interesting can be men or women).
Women notice who is mixing well in a social situation. And they also notice who the other attractive women are talking to/flirting with. It makes you more attractive in their eyes.
Example: Mark Zuckerberg. If he were ever to become single again, there are plenty of women who would be willing to overlook his supposed creepiness, if they knew ahead of time that he was a mega billionaire. Funny how that works.
Being introduced in social gatherings as "among the top 1% of wealth earners" or "Whisper, whisper, he's a billionaire." Funny how things like the five second rule then seem to disappear out the window.
Stare away, it's his party.
Which is it? How exactly do you time it so that it's just innocent eye contact as opposed to staring?Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Achmed E. Newman
It’s the woman who counts and who does the counting.
As with other things, if she thinks it’s lasted too long, it’s lasted too long; if she thinks it hasn’t lasted long enough, it hasn’t lasted long enough.
So for example, let's suppose you are leaving for lunch and you need to tell the receptionist where you will be in case Bill from Accounting needs you. And let's suppose she is chatting on the phone in what is clearly a social call. In that situation, it's not unreasonable to look at her for more than 5 seconds in order to get her attention. But now she can file a harassment complaint against you for daring to distract her from her shirking.
Heck, if you just glance for more than a split second at a woman who is dressed provocatively what's to stop her from claiming it was actually 6 seconds? Most women don't think, they feel. And if a woman is looked at for more than a split second by a man she deems unattractive, there's a good chance she will feel harassed and conclude that he must have violated the rules.Replies: @Rosie
This new rule against staring is going to really hamstring all the hypnotists on the film crew. Next they’ll be ordering the gaffers not to … do whatever gaffers need to do to gaff effectively. Mgmt should stay out of craft.
5 seconds is a long time, especially in the eyes. I look at attractive women quite a lot when I see them. However, you need to be discreet and break it up a bit - you can easily vary it by alternately looking at whoever you are talking to, and the various attractive women in the room. (If there is only one attractive woman you need to find a few random things to look at around the place before your gaze goes back to the attractive female, before flitting around again.) In this way society does not view you as a creep or stalker type. Women probably do notice, and in my experience almost always like the attention from me if it is noticed.
Most men don't notice. The only one who did, said that "It's like you're hunting", and that was many years ago when I was maybe 19 or so. Of course, that was in a drinking situation at a party. He was a bit older but definitely intelligent and definitely liked women a lot. He was probably more artful about the way he looked at women. He was a small guy, but could handle himself well for his size and always dressed to flatter himself. He had some success. Anyway, since that time I have become somewhat more discreet. I don't think I was that lacking in discreetness then, just that this guy was a good noticer.
Occasionally men or their friends will let me know that the woman I am talking to is married if I am talking to an attractive woman who happens to be married. I am not sure why that is. Maybe they feel threatened. In these cases I might ask questions, smile or laugh, but never progress to the next step of touching a hand or an arm or any other physical contact, which is the next phase in the flirtation/seduction game. In fact, if I am talking to a married woman I don't do more than make polite conversation as I don't want it to go any further. In fact, I usually don't go out of my way to talk to married women especially wives of friends or acquaintances.
When you are in a social situation, it's almost always best to break off conversation before the other person does, before they get bored or end the conversation on you, both male and female. Again, doing this breaks you out of the stalker box, just like cycling your gaze around the room does. You don't want to end the conversation prematurely, just to be a dick. And you can come back to people. But "always leave the audience wanting more" is a good dictum. This also allows you the opportunity to eventually talk to the other attractive women or interesting people in the room (interesting can be men or women).
Women notice who is mixing well in a social situation. And they also notice who the other attractive women are talking to/flirting with. It makes you more attractive in their eyes.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Just make sure your martinis are shaken, not stirred, Mr. Bond.
Looks like Men of Color are respectful and have strong relationships with females
No wonder white girls prefer Men of ColorReplies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen
“Looks like Men of Color are respectful and have strong relationships with females”
I think you meant men of color have strong EYE CONTACT with females:
Lol yes. A good tailored suit helps but is not essential. 😉
However, it’s a game, there are rules. Following those rules makes all the difference. Otherwise you’re just a nerd who some women can see some potential in if you’re lucky. It helps to not be short, and to be physically attractive. Or… if you completely disobey the unwritten social rules, you can become a stalker. So you don’t smile, pay no attention to personal hygiene or modes of dress, and stare at the one woman for minutes without breaking it up? It doesn’t matter how good looking or tall you are, you will send out signals that there is something wrong with you. In bold and caps.
What’s the point of being a nerd if you can’t research, analyze and power-game your way to success, even in a social situation? There is probably a +5 to charisma most people just leave on the table.
It does suck for the betas though, because women like attention from the men they like attention from, and despise attention from the people they wish would go away. But… even shorter, not particularly attractive guys can get laid. That guy I mentioned in the earlier post, he was about 5’6″ tops. Not very facially attractive. But he styled his hair well, and was known for wearing these silky, stylish nightclub shirts so much that we called them (guy’s name) shirts. I was too young and stupid to realize that this was a calculated thing to improve his appeal, but it worked. I know he banged at least one attractive woman, and I’m sure more than that. He was smart and going to earn a reasonable amount. He was funny, cool, into music and kind of vulgar in a calculated way that would not get him #metooed but make them laugh and begin to consider him sexually. Not my style but for him it worked.
People with physical disadvantages definitely have to work harder at it, but it can be done. Earn more money, be funny, be in a band, look at what the other short guys do who get laid and find a way to win.
5 seconds is a long time, especially in the eyes. I look at attractive women quite a lot when I see them. However, you need to be discreet and break it up a bit - you can easily vary it by alternately looking at whoever you are talking to, and the various attractive women in the room. (If there is only one attractive woman you need to find a few random things to look at around the place before your gaze goes back to the attractive female, before flitting around again.) In this way society does not view you as a creep or stalker type. Women probably do notice, and in my experience almost always like the attention from me if it is noticed.
Most men don't notice. The only one who did, said that "It's like you're hunting", and that was many years ago when I was maybe 19 or so. Of course, that was in a drinking situation at a party. He was a bit older but definitely intelligent and definitely liked women a lot. He was probably more artful about the way he looked at women. He was a small guy, but could handle himself well for his size and always dressed to flatter himself. He had some success. Anyway, since that time I have become somewhat more discreet. I don't think I was that lacking in discreetness then, just that this guy was a good noticer.
Occasionally men or their friends will let me know that the woman I am talking to is married if I am talking to an attractive woman who happens to be married. I am not sure why that is. Maybe they feel threatened. In these cases I might ask questions, smile or laugh, but never progress to the next step of touching a hand or an arm or any other physical contact, which is the next phase in the flirtation/seduction game. In fact, if I am talking to a married woman I don't do more than make polite conversation as I don't want it to go any further. In fact, I usually don't go out of my way to talk to married women especially wives of friends or acquaintances.
When you are in a social situation, it's almost always best to break off conversation before the other person does, before they get bored or end the conversation on you, both male and female. Again, doing this breaks you out of the stalker box, just like cycling your gaze around the room does. You don't want to end the conversation prematurely, just to be a dick. And you can come back to people. But "always leave the audience wanting more" is a good dictum. This also allows you the opportunity to eventually talk to the other attractive women or interesting people in the room (interesting can be men or women).
Women notice who is mixing well in a social situation. And they also notice who the other attractive women are talking to/flirting with. It makes you more attractive in their eyes.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
It sounds like you have some pretty good rules of thumb. Did you come up with these on your own, intuitively? Or get guidance from someone else?
I argue he should probably make eye contact, smile, and begin a conversation to gauge whether the interest may Ben reciprocal; this is the civilised and manly – indeed gentlemanly – thing to do. If the guy determines there is. O interest, of course he should accept that graciously and politely carry on with his life, still treating the woman respectfully, and, yes, not ogling her like a jackass. This is how men and women treat each other in Western society for centuries ignoring not millennia before the current shitshow.
The idea the guy should meekly and callowly avert his gaze when he realizes he is attracted to a woman leads us to pajama boy, the so-called vegetarian men of Japan, and all the rest of it. It’s horseshit.
Any rule in America about avoiding eye contact places people in a subordinate position. In the case of Netflix, the rule applies to everyone, apparently, but what it really does is make men subordinate to women, because it is understood that this rule exists to prevent men from staring at women.
There are many cases of people in power demanding that servants or staff not look at them. It is complete and utter bullshit and does not belong anywhere in our culture.Replies: @Abe, @Pericles, @Autochthon, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Forbes, @Negrolphin Pool
In the documentary Pimps Up Hoes Down, one of the recurring themes is that the ho is never to make eye contact with The Pimpin’ as doing so is a form of insubordination or, worse, reckless eyeballing.
Here, Pimp Snooky can be seen accompanied by his stable, the hoes in which are required at all times to face the floor while in the royal presence.
Does the frenetic, tourist-with-Handicam style of cinematography that seems universal in the few television shows I’ve watched over the last 10 years have deeper roots than mere artistic novelty? Is it a more faithful reproduction of the attention span and interpersonal style of the audience than the more stable and expansive shots of old?
Maybe this new rule will help ease customers’ frustration with the fact that over the last week, it’s been difficult to make eye contact with a single Netflix movie for even 5 seconds.
Canadian company offering $250 DNA heredity tests is accused of scamming customers after a man submitted a sample from his DOG and was told it was a descendant of Native Americans
Canada grants aboriginal population 'Indian Status' that includes tax benefits
CAPC is a group representing indigenous people living outside of reserves
Membership card with CAPC resembles Canadian government-issued ID
CAPC offers DNA test through Toronto lab that 'confirms' aboriginal ancestry
But a number of people proved tests were a hoax after sending dog DNA
The dogs were 'confirmed' to have aboriginal ancestry
UK Daily Mail
15 June 2018
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5846901/Canadian-company-claims-offer-DNA-tests-proving-Native-American-heredity.html
"If you want to get rich start a religion or a fake DNA test lab" - L Ron HubbardReplies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous
This could get ugly a lot quicker than you think. I can see problems at the
IndianNative AmericanFirst Nations tribunal now:“Is, there something, Mr. Dances-With-Wolves, that you’re not telling us? Remember YOU ARE UNDER OATH to the Spirit of Winter!”
On the bright side, the boss can whirl his chair to look out the window, perhaps with hands clasped behind head, while ordering the minions around. Company policy, nothing I can do.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Since you’ve perused the policy memo, Mr., what-was-it, Pericles, can you tell me if I may stare at a lady I’m not not conversing with for more than 5 seconds if she herself is looking the other way …
.
.
bending over to shred some paperwork, for example?
If she's a subordinate, no.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
I bet they would really love that...Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
They do that in soap operas all the time. People on soap operas talk to each other when they’re looking in all different orthogonal directions.
It’s the stupidest form of magical thinking. Men can assault, control, and dominate women with their gaze. Complete lunacy.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/11/15/300BB5A300000578-0-image-m-76_1452527273527.jpg
Throwing darts in lovers' eyes.
I agree with Jim Don Bob. That rule has been blatantly disregarded for a decade running. I think only 5 % of women who wear yoga pants SHOULD BE wearing yoga pants. That’s 5% of the general female population, not 5% of the females in yoga classes, of course.
Come to think of it, if we’re going to abide by the 5-second rule, the 17-second* rule, etc., then there should be a yoga-pants rule. Since on-the-spot measurements are out of the question in today’s topsy-turvy world, how about, like the “creep rule”, any rear-end that we don’t reckon the average guy would want to stare at for anything close to 5 seconds should be
ticketed and towedcovered up in blue jeans? Quid pro quo, Clarices!.
.
* You know, the one about how long a piece of food can stay dropped on the floor before you can’t eat it.
Which is it? How exactly do you time it so that it's just innocent eye contact as opposed to staring?Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Achmed E. Newman
There’s an app for that.
You men don’t understand. The ban on >5 seconds of eye contact applies only to icky beta males. Alpha Chads are exempt. They can stare at women all they want.
This old SNL skit with Tom Brady says it best:
The goal of feminism is to place maximum constraints on male sexuality whilst removing all constraints on female sexuality.
Women must be freed from womb-polluting icky betas (ideally through imprisoning them) so they can pursue their hypergamous instincts for 5 minutes of Mr. Big.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
On the other hand, Ferrari and Porsche sunglasses pass muster.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
Time for this again:
What else is in the teaches of Peaches?
So much for all those school teachers who said, “Look me in the eye when I’m talking to you!”
"No, no, no! Stop it! Stop falling over in my direction, it looks as though you're staring at me! If you're gonna pass out, look someplace else! And for the love of Mike, quit staring! It's way too creepy! If you keep it up, no more water for you!"Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
Eh, it’s all true. Rhett Butler started out by “undressing Scarlett with his eyes”; fast-forward a couple of hundred pages, and he’s doing marital rape. (Which she seems to have enjoyed, but I guess she wasn’t Woke enough.)
5 seconds is a long time, especially in the eyes. I look at attractive women quite a lot when I see them. However, you need to be discreet and break it up a bit - you can easily vary it by alternately looking at whoever you are talking to, and the various attractive women in the room. (If there is only one attractive woman you need to find a few random things to look at around the place before your gaze goes back to the attractive female, before flitting around again.) In this way society does not view you as a creep or stalker type. Women probably do notice, and in my experience almost always like the attention from me if it is noticed.
Most men don't notice. The only one who did, said that "It's like you're hunting", and that was many years ago when I was maybe 19 or so. Of course, that was in a drinking situation at a party. He was a bit older but definitely intelligent and definitely liked women a lot. He was probably more artful about the way he looked at women. He was a small guy, but could handle himself well for his size and always dressed to flatter himself. He had some success. Anyway, since that time I have become somewhat more discreet. I don't think I was that lacking in discreetness then, just that this guy was a good noticer.
Occasionally men or their friends will let me know that the woman I am talking to is married if I am talking to an attractive woman who happens to be married. I am not sure why that is. Maybe they feel threatened. In these cases I might ask questions, smile or laugh, but never progress to the next step of touching a hand or an arm or any other physical contact, which is the next phase in the flirtation/seduction game. In fact, if I am talking to a married woman I don't do more than make polite conversation as I don't want it to go any further. In fact, I usually don't go out of my way to talk to married women especially wives of friends or acquaintances.
When you are in a social situation, it's almost always best to break off conversation before the other person does, before they get bored or end the conversation on you, both male and female. Again, doing this breaks you out of the stalker box, just like cycling your gaze around the room does. You don't want to end the conversation prematurely, just to be a dick. And you can come back to people. But "always leave the audience wanting more" is a good dictum. This also allows you the opportunity to eventually talk to the other attractive women or interesting people in the room (interesting can be men or women).
Women notice who is mixing well in a social situation. And they also notice who the other attractive women are talking to/flirting with. It makes you more attractive in their eyes.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Of course, to use the sports dictum, “Winning is the best deodorant”, or “winning covers up major flaws.” So too does having lots of money.
Example: Mark Zuckerberg. If he were ever to become single again, there are plenty of women who would be willing to overlook his supposed creepiness, if they knew ahead of time that he was a mega billionaire. Funny how that works.
Being introduced in social gatherings as “among the top 1% of wealth earners” or “Whisper, whisper, he’s a billionaire.” Funny how things like the five second rule then seem to disappear out the window.
Stare away, it’s his party.
Canadian company offering $250 DNA heredity tests is accused of scamming customers after a man submitted a sample from his DOG and was told it was a descendant of Native Americans
Canada grants aboriginal population 'Indian Status' that includes tax benefits
CAPC is a group representing indigenous people living outside of reserves
Membership card with CAPC resembles Canadian government-issued ID
CAPC offers DNA test through Toronto lab that 'confirms' aboriginal ancestry
But a number of people proved tests were a hoax after sending dog DNA
The dogs were 'confirmed' to have aboriginal ancestry
UK Daily Mail
15 June 2018
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5846901/Canadian-company-claims-offer-DNA-tests-proving-Native-American-heredity.html
"If you want to get rich start a religion or a fake DNA test lab" - L Ron HubbardReplies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Anonymous
It is perfectly possible that a test that can accurately classify human samples cannot detect non human samples. ‘Not human’ may not even be one of the allowed outcomes. It’s all Bayes.
Men, on the other hand, don't take it personally so long as you aren't ignoring basic communication.
If you ever work with the general public, you'll quickly learn what pleases women, and noticing them is indispensable in that regard. Even lesbians expect that courtesy.
Refusing to look at them at all is actually kind of hostile. But if confronted with some stupid rule, well, feel free to give them what they asked for.Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Rosie, @Olorin
Reminds me of this one night in the ’80s a a tiny tap room between Ishpeming and Wobic:
What’s the difference between a Finnish extrovert and a Finnish introvert?
The Finnish extrovert looks at the OTHER guy’s shoes.
Avoiding eye contact is also why the Norwegian navy put bar codes on the hulls of all their ships.
It’s true! When they return to port they Scandinavian.
Speaking of eyes, Ole the Norske went to the optometrist. Being on the dyslexic side he had problems during the examination.
Optometrist said, “Cover your left eye, Ole. No, the left eye, that’s your right eye. No, the other one. Ole, just remember which is your left hand, you write with your left hand, right? So cover your, right, I mean left hand with your, I mean your left eye right with….” Exasperated, he pulled out a paper bag from the supply desk, cut a small round hole in it, put the bag over Ole’s head with it aligned with his right eye.
“OK, Ole, now read the letters you see over there on the wall.”
“E…F…P…T…O…Z…L…P…E…D….”
“Excellent, Ole.” The doctor turned the bag so it was aligned with Ole’s left eye, brought up the next chart, and again Ole read the letters.
“That was very good, Ole. How did that work for you?”
“Vell, Doc, OK I guess, but I was hoping for a pair of those wire rim aviators like Toivo flies his plane with.”
You are either a liar or a fool or both: if you learned proper military bearing, you learned it includes not averting your gaze when a superiour looks you in the eye, especially if he is castigating you. You also learned that this applies to all superiours, who all have every right to correct your infractions, not merely to drill instructors during basic training.
Either you understand these things, having learned them during boot camp, or you do not, because you did not.
You apparently weren’t in high school in the 1970s.
Throwing darts in lovers’ eyes.
.
.
bending over to shred some paperwork, for example?Replies: @Pericles, @Rosie
The memo tells me ‘it depends’. Don’t do it if you’re unattractive though.
Think a moment: Can any one here imagine President Trump holding his head down constantly (especially when walking about)? Can any one imagine him not looking directly at people in the eyes?
Look at the various videos of Donald Trump. He may have many faults, but a lack of self-confidence isn't one of them. Generally, alphas are confident. And they hold their head up and look at people in the eyes, oftentimes for longer than five seconds.
Imagine that.Replies: @AndrewR
I suppose I was primarily responding to what Buzz Mohawk said.
I imagine always looking down at the ground while you walk is a bad thing in all cultures (unless you’re avoiding hazards). But in other contexts, eye contact is culturally relative.
As with other things, if she thinks it's lasted too long, it's lasted too long; if she thinks it hasn't lasted long enough, it hasn't lasted long enough.Replies: @sabril
Yeah, in theory staring can be a form of harassment but in practice a rule like this will be used as a tool to oppress men deemed to be undesirable in some way.
So for example, let’s suppose you are leaving for lunch and you need to tell the receptionist where you will be in case Bill from Accounting needs you. And let’s suppose she is chatting on the phone in what is clearly a social call. In that situation, it’s not unreasonable to look at her for more than 5 seconds in order to get her attention. But now she can file a harassment complaint against you for daring to distract her from her shirking.
Heck, if you just glance for more than a split second at a woman who is dressed provocatively what’s to stop her from claiming it was actually 6 seconds? Most women don’t think, they feel. And if a woman is looked at for more than a split second by a man she deems unattractive, there’s a good chance she will feel harassed and conclude that he must have violated the rules.
Don't you guys have anything more important to bitch about than some harm that hasn't even happened?
Women ruin everything. Because they refuse to fit in at work as it is and want it remade to their specifications. They want to feel confortable and screw everything else. It’s as if they never wanted to leave home, but make their workplace their home.
We are so doomed!
The truth is that concerns about exploitation of women in the workplace are not new. As long as women work, and some of us have no choice, this is going to be a problem. I suggest you put yourself in the place of a man whose wife has to work to make ends meet. How would you want her to be treated?Replies: @BB753, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @MBlanc46
Why Do Indian Men Stare At Women
This is actually pretty funny
If a state feels like a threat, that’s down to the feelzer: it’s nothing to do with the person looking at her (and it will invariably be a female, because they are the ones with the feelz…). This protest of the evil eye is as superstitious and childish, and of a piece with, all the other nonsense about one’s ostensible right not to be offended by words others say. It’s the reaction of the listener or the viewed to dictate what others may say or, now, even look at, based entirely upon those offended persons’ own hysterical, subjective protestations.
It’s horseshit.
Texas doesn’t need more liberal wackos
Jack to crew 'don't look Mr. Morgan in the eyes'...Replies: @Harry Baldwin
I recall reading that when Hillary was First Lady, she directed the White House staff not to look directly at her when she passed them in the halls. I can’t find a source for this, though.
https://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/
The idea the guy should meekly and callowly avert his gaze when he realizes he is attracted to a woman leads us to pajama boy, the so-called vegetarian men of Japan, and all the rest of it. It's horseshit.Replies: @Rosie
Yes, he should avert his gaze if he is in a position of power over a woman. It’s not appropriate to come on to your subordinates. Otherwise, I have no disagreement at all.
The best bet for a man is to somehow make the woman feel special and important when he casts his eyes her way, and for her to feel that its her own idea that the man is looking/staring at her.
Lest we forget, there were plenty of women who said yes to Donald Trump, and many of them were subordinates.Replies: @Rosie
This old SNL skit with Tom Brady says it best:
https://youtu.be/PxuUkYiaUc8?t=8s
The goal of feminism is to place maximum constraints on male sexuality whilst removing all constraints on female sexuality.
Women must be freed from womb-polluting icky betas (ideally through imprisoning them) so they can pursue their hypergamous instincts for 5 minutes of Mr. Big.Replies: @Rosie
I guess you didn’t see this the first 999 times I posted it.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/
.
.
bending over to shred some paperwork, for example?Replies: @Pericles, @Rosie
If she’s a peer, yes.
If she’s a subordinate, no.
One of these days you're going to wake up with a p__s in a different life as a man and quickly realize what it's all about. It'd probably be a good thing that all your comments will have been wiped by then due to the Cultural Revolution and the SHTF.
I'll just say "I told you so" right now, and get it over with.
Future, Rosie, to be known as Ross McFly, I told you so!
Now hold on a minute. That’s not being honest. Most women, once they realize that the person is a position of authority, and one that can benefit them down the road, are quite ready and willing to put up with being stared at.
The best bet for a man is to somehow make the woman feel special and important when he casts his eyes her way, and for her to feel that its her own idea that the man is looking/staring at her.
Lest we forget, there were plenty of women who said yes to Donald Trump, and many of them were subordinates.
Call Ripley’s then, because it seems we agree.
Either you understand these things, having learned them during boot camp, or you do not, because you did not.Replies: @AndrewR
Good god, what a boring troll you are. The boot camp environment is unique. The way you act towards your instructors at boot camp is not nor is it meant to be exactly how you act towards your superiors after boot camp.
It's horseshit.Replies: @Rosie
This is nonsense. You are confusing assertions of fact which may or may not offend others with threatening conduct, real or perceived. Nonverbal communication is tremendously powerful, and a man can threaten to rape a woman or punish her for refusing his advances without saying a single damned word!
I suspect that what is really going on here is that you are concerned about questions of proof. These are legitimate concerns. How can you prove a man threatened a woman by looking at her the wrong way. You probably can’t. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Nor does it mean civilized men don’t have a moral duty to consider how their conduct affects others around them. Powerful men are rightly held to a higher standard. Indeed, any man who doesn’t hold himself to a higher standard should not hold any position of power.
BTW men and boys have “feelz” too. My boys know when they are in trouble. They can tell from the tone of my voice, the look on my face, etc. My husband, too. It is simply ridiculous to say that only women are sensitive to nonverbal messages.
So for example, let's suppose you are leaving for lunch and you need to tell the receptionist where you will be in case Bill from Accounting needs you. And let's suppose she is chatting on the phone in what is clearly a social call. In that situation, it's not unreasonable to look at her for more than 5 seconds in order to get her attention. But now she can file a harassment complaint against you for daring to distract her from her shirking.
Heck, if you just glance for more than a split second at a woman who is dressed provocatively what's to stop her from claiming it was actually 6 seconds? Most women don't think, they feel. And if a woman is looked at for more than a split second by a man she deems unattractive, there's a good chance she will feel harassed and conclude that he must have violated the rules.Replies: @Rosie
Despite the usual douchebaggery, you make a fair point here. I don’t think mostwomen would purposely use this rule to harass men, but some might, and that is reason enough to not have such a rule. I’m not convinced that it is a rule in any event. I do think it is a reasonable guideline for self-monitoring purposes.
Don’t you guys have anything more important to bitch about than some harm that hasn’t even happened?
We are so doomed!Replies: @Rosie
This would be a legitimate gripe if you men had an exclusive right to “the workplace.” Whatever is the logical basis for that assumption?
The truth is that concerns about exploitation of women in the workplace are not new. As long as women work, and some of us have no choice, this is going to be a problem. I suggest you put yourself in the place of a man whose wife has to work to make ends meet. How would you want her to be treated?
That's my workplace in a few words, and it's hell for ordinary men. Of course, all my bosses are clueless feminist women in their fifties.
Maybe it’s a clever market-expanding ruse by the guys who manufacture speed chess clocks.
The truth is that concerns about exploitation of women in the workplace are not new. As long as women work, and some of us have no choice, this is going to be a problem. I suggest you put yourself in the place of a man whose wife has to work to make ends meet. How would you want her to be treated?Replies: @BB753, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @MBlanc46
Imagine being a man, a traditional one not a soyboy, and having to work in an environment over 70% female. Over half of whom are pre- or perimenopausal. That is, unhinged, irritable and unfriendly most of the time. These harridans, they ignore you at best. At worst they make plans to make your life miserable. The young ones just ignore you, which I prefer. As for the guys, they’re either sullen older men gloomily waiting for early retirement, or SJW soyboys.
That’s my workplace in a few words, and it’s hell for ordinary men. Of course, all my bosses are clueless feminist women in their fifties.
This is actually pretty funnyReplies: @BB753
Good luck imposing a five second stare ban in Bollywood!
Sheer insanity. Just love it.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
Next stop: Moscow!
Then they gave the Obamas a $50 million dollar bribe after he appointed someone in their hierarchy ambassador. Screw them.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
Agree.
Perceptions cannot be a criterion for crime save under unjust tyranny, and crimes must be acts objectively verifiable. Only a madman or a villain prohibits acts so nebulous only the ostensible victim gets to decide whether they even occurred.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
See my exchange with “Autochthon” on this page to see this homosexual psychopathy in action.
The truth is that concerns about exploitation of women in the workplace are not new. As long as women work, and some of us have no choice, this is going to be a problem. I suggest you put yourself in the place of a man whose wife has to work to make ends meet. How would you want her to be treated?Replies: @BB753, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @MBlanc46
Well.
How about dress codes for women so that they invite fewer stares?
If she's a subordinate, no.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Rosie, I don’t think you get the concept of what a nice-looking ass is about. Ass has no class, it is just there, and very inviting, I might add. Really, there’s no way you CAN get the concept.
One of these days you’re going to wake up with a p__s in a different life as a man and quickly realize what it’s all about. It’d probably be a good thing that all your comments will have been wiped by then due to the Cultural Revolution and the SHTF.
I’ll just say “I told you so” right now, and get it over with.
Future, Rosie, to be known as Ross McFly, I told you so!
While intense eye contact seems to be frowned upon in the corporate world, bombarding journalists with press releases about corporate trivia clearly isn’t. Someone should start a me too campaign for people who are sick and tired of being bombarded with trivial propaganda from well-funded progressive NGOs and underemployed corporate public relations staff.
Don’t be obtuse Rosie, its unbecoming.
Don't be uncharitable.
They look great on teenage girls. And I always let them pass me in the halls because I walk slow.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
And you believe everything posted at OkCupid? Did not realize that it is the be all and end all pertaining to relationships, hookups, dating, etc. in 21st century America.
That’s because they are looking at cue cards.
The source, I believe, is a book written by a former Secret Service agent who worked the Clinton detail. More information here, including her aversion to being looked at or spoken to by “non-essential” people:
https://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/
As is the case with much in this modern world, I find myself confused.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/shocking-number-of-americans-have-sex-at-work/
A whole lot of people are getting busy at work, so they’re obviously violating the 5-second rule. And I don’t think they care.
She’s part of a gender that rates 80% of the opposite gender as less attractive than average. Maybe guys should just post pdfs of their bank statements.
I always knew that Pareto was up to something with his 80/20 law.
Once again, I don’t disagree that there should be no five second rule per se. I’m just saying that it is a reasonable guideline for self-monitoring. Still, subtle as they are, nonverbal communication is real and courts sometimes allow testimony concerning it under the lay opinion rule.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html
Not necessarily, but then some evidence is better than none. Where is your evidence?
What is the source of the 80/20 rule? I am only aware of the okcupid article, now removed from the internet, that very clearly indicated that women are less selective than men when it comes to making contact with dating prospects, despite their relatively harsh attractiveness ratings. If you have some other evidence for this Pareto principle, let’s see it.
https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principleReplies: @Rosie
I’m not. Several times I have thought I had grasped the essence of betaness, and then come to find out I still didn’t quite get it.
Don’t be uncharitable.
Pareto himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
The best bet for a man is to somehow make the woman feel special and important when he casts his eyes her way, and for her to feel that its her own idea that the man is looking/staring at her.
Lest we forget, there were plenty of women who said yes to Donald Trump, and many of them were subordinates.Replies: @Rosie
I suspect it’s this assumption that women are all prostitues, implicitly or explicitly, that gets a lot of men in trouble.
Surely you don't think attractive young women want to screw rich, powerful old perverts for a living. Otherwise, I'd have to ask why you suppose they bothered getting a day job to begin with.
Oh, sorry about that, you said “quite ready and willing to be stared at.”
Surely you don’t think attractive young women want to screw rich, powerful old perverts for a living. Otherwise, I’d have to ask why you suppose they bothered getting a day job to begin with.
No, boot camp is not like the fleet for the navy, but it builds the foundation therefore; apparently in the Chair Force boot camp is just a bit of silliness to while away the time.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/shocking-number-of-americans-have-sex-at-work/
A whole lot of people are getting busy at work, so they're obviously violating the 5-second rule. And I don't think they care.Replies: @ScarletNumber
You can very easily bend someone over a desk with no eye contact.
The truth is that concerns about exploitation of women in the workplace are not new. As long as women work, and some of us have no choice, this is going to be a problem. I suggest you put yourself in the place of a man whose wife has to work to make ends meet. How would you want her to be treated?Replies: @BB753, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @MBlanc46
We built workplaces. That makes them ours. You want workplaces, go build your own.
Well then, I assume you have no quarrel with business owners running their businesses, which they built, as they see fit, including summarily sacking men who stare at women for more than five seconds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principleReplies: @Rosie
Where was the part about women all competing for the top 20% guys? I must have missed it.
Didn’t you go to High School?
I don’t think you have the Lady Godiva story down right.