Consider this iconic seduction scene from '58 movie The Lovers, from 58:55 on. It is dark, quiet, behind a large house at night. Jeanne walks past Bernard, not seeing him. B follows quietly, approaches, J is startled to see him.
Important context missing from your conclusion: It's from a movie called The Lovers.
If it was from a movie called The Rapist or The Killer, no woman would find it romantic. And I hope no man either.
As to men's confusion about "what exactly women really want" - here's a simple rule. Don't follow women on lonely roads, especially at night. In real life that's a creepy thing to do. And if a woman acts inconsistently when she can't shake off the man, it's partly because she's afraid that persistently telling him to stop following her will make him angry and attack her and partly because she's not sure if he's a creep or just a romantic.
Mating games are played subtly. Whether a "no" is a "No!" or a "Keep trying!" depends on very fine nuances. This often depends also on how the woman later acts. If she finally walks away, it was a 'no', if she hesitates and keeps playing, it's a test. Women must play this way in order to keep the option of rejecting the courtshipping man open without losing their face or avoiding the threat of assault. So whether she "consented" or not depends on both, subtle nuances and what happens afterwards.
I've read B as annoying, then J as trollish. Maybe this feeling of it being romantic is really about inflated ego (because the other party wants the relationship you pretend you don't).
Frankly, if the consent obsession could drop such behavior, it'd be good. Presumably it can't because humans need to human.
You said it in your first line, but didn't use it in explaining why women - or men - find that scene romantic. As I pointed out, they wouldn't find it romantic if it occurred in a movie called The Rapist or The Killer. And since real life doesn't come with a label telling us whether the man following us is a prospective lover or a prospective rapist/killer, it's just common sense for decent men not to follow women on lonely roads, especially at night.
From what I have observed I think people's real world romantic interactions and rituals and such are much more bizarre and strange than really anything depicted in films or media etc. Secondly I think when people refer to consent they are not usually referencing any particular set of positive facts, that is consent isn't a reducible property at least to positive facts, rather they are sensing or intuiting some sort or aurora of consent or non consent or something, I think this is similar to the way in which moral realists sense moral facts, even if some realists might object to this characterisation.
I haven’t watched the movie in question, but… Many things to consider before painting a “men find women baffling” picture. First, a 1958 screenplay carries social mores from a thankfully bygone era. Second, the written screenplay fails to account for the nonverbal nuance of her no-but-yes or no- don’t-stop communication. Third, the screen in screenplay form utterly fails to account for prior relational context in which it’s highly likely that the rules of the chase were already established. And, I’m sure there are plenty of people of all persuasions who find that scene revolting, hypocritical, cliché, or just banal. Like me. I’ll chase a love interest all night long—but only if there’s actual interest. I don’t see interest in the transcribed scene above due to the utter lack of writing of the missing pieces.
In fictional contexts, consent has always looked different, with women swooning and consenting to behavior that would be considered creepy or even rape in the real world. For example, consider Rhett Butler scooping up Scarlett O'Hara to carry her up the stairs for...well, they never specifically showed what, did they?
In this scene, set in the late 50's, yeah, Jeanne consented, relative to what people considered consent at the time, and have long been willing to count as consent in a fictional scene starring attractive people. When an audience can daydream of seducing or being seduced by who they've suspended disbelief for, the threshold for consent is pretty low.
By contemporary standards, no, Jeanne didn't consent. As you wrote, Bernard ignored several unambiguous expressions of disinterest and even touched her (held her hand) without first seeking and obtaining affirmative consent.
I don't think it's a simple yes or no, but whatever it is, I think it's more subjective than objective. The rules of the time matter (is that why it's called "dating"?), the relative attractiveness matters, and possibly more than anything else for an example like this, it matters that it happened in a movie where people want or expect the players to seduce and be seduced. It's still romantic (to some people) because it happened in a movie in 1958, not by the water cooler in a 2023 office.
This is a perfect illustration of how the wokist definition of consent breaks courtship. In the modern world he would not dare pursue her. Or would become a target of widespread persecution and cancellation by a horde of NPCs.
In any fair moral code, the type of behavior that J exhibits here would be seen by all, including courts, as decreasing her credibility should she (or a third party) pursue charges such as stalking.
Don Geddis, would you find it romantic if the movie title was *The Rapist*? or if the title was neutral, but you knew that it was about a rape/murder/attack? And how many women do you know who find being followed by a man on a lonely road at night romantic instead of scary? would you tell a single sister, daughter, or friend that she should welcome being followed by a male stranger on a lonely road at night because it's so romantic?
Often our social norms have implicit exceptions but not exceptions that will ever be openly approved of. For instance consider the norm that people can't consent to sex while very intoxicated or asleep. Yet no one ever disapproves of the happily married couple who hooks up (in their usual way) while very intoxicated or with the partner who gets woken up with a bj.
I think the sense is that the official rules are things ppl can stand on when others judge them negatively. If you misjudge how much a potential partner is into you but you get explicit verbal consent you can raise that as a defense even if other people judge you to be a dick or to have acted weirdly.
We have another level of interaction which requires correctly gauging the other person's feelings. In other words the role the social rules play isn't to perfectly deliniate acceptable behavior but to deliniate what's clearly and unambiguously acceptable and identify the point beyond which the defense of a good faith misreading is no longer sufficient (now we'll condemn you if we judge you read the situation wrong)
This can be frustrating for those of us who are more about clear statement than social cues but I think the social cues people could reasonably say that this is actually for our benefit: if you can't manage the double meaning in the explanation of the rules you'll probably fuck this up.
Our norms about consent to converse are very different from other kinds of consent. Yes, there is a line at which talking to someone who isn't willing becomes stalking or harassment but every time you continue an argument with someone after they say they didn't want to talk about it you've pushed a conversation on them they didn't consent to.
Disclaimer: I'm a male, so I shouldn't insist I know what her (fictitious) character is thinking. And I can't see her body language, which would help a lot. But *just* based on what's here? She consents.
J starts off by acknowledging that there's an interaction even though the conversation didn't have a "Good evening" in it. Her "Can’t you leave me alone? I need to think" does push towards a genuine rejection, but it's much more whimsical than "Please leave me alone, I need to think," and came after the playful, "When I’m tired, everyone bores me, and you’re boring me now."
Even if B is not at all her type, and she isn't at all interested in seeing this go anywhere, she's still acting the way *I* act when I'm fine talking to someone, and I just want them to be more interesting and/or willing to put up with a bit of surliness.
Important context missing from your conclusion: It's from a movie called The Lovers.
If it was from a movie called The Rapist or The Killer, no woman would find it romantic. And I hope no man either.
As to men's confusion about "what exactly women really want" - here's a simple rule. Don't follow women on lonely roads, especially at night. In real life that's a creepy thing to do. And if a woman acts inconsistently when she can't shake off the man, it's partly because she's afraid that persistently telling him to stop following her will make him angry and attack her and partly because she's not sure if he's a creep or just a romantic.
Mating games are played subtly. Whether a "no" is a "No!" or a "Keep trying!" depends on very fine nuances. This often depends also on how the woman later acts. If she finally walks away, it was a 'no', if she hesitates and keeps playing, it's a test. Women must play this way in order to keep the option of rejecting the courtshipping man open without losing their face or avoiding the threat of assault. So whether she "consented" or not depends on both, subtle nuances and what happens afterwards.
I've read B as annoying, then J as trollish. Maybe this feeling of it being romantic is really about inflated ego (because the other party wants the relationship you pretend you don't).
Frankly, if the consent obsession could drop such behavior, it'd be good. Presumably it can't because humans need to human.
You said it in your first line, but didn't use it in explaining why women - or men - find that scene romantic. As I pointed out, they wouldn't find it romantic if it occurred in a movie called The Rapist or The Killer. And since real life doesn't come with a label telling us whether the man following us is a prospective lover or a prospective rapist/killer, it's just common sense for decent men not to follow women on lonely roads, especially at night.
From what I have observed I think people's real world romantic interactions and rituals and such are much more bizarre and strange than really anything depicted in films or media etc. Secondly I think when people refer to consent they are not usually referencing any particular set of positive facts, that is consent isn't a reducible property at least to positive facts, rather they are sensing or intuiting some sort or aurora of consent or non consent or something, I think this is similar to the way in which moral realists sense moral facts, even if some realists might object to this characterisation.
I haven’t watched the movie in question, but… Many things to consider before painting a “men find women baffling” picture. First, a 1958 screenplay carries social mores from a thankfully bygone era. Second, the written screenplay fails to account for the nonverbal nuance of her no-but-yes or no- don’t-stop communication. Third, the screen in screenplay form utterly fails to account for prior relational context in which it’s highly likely that the rules of the chase were already established. And, I’m sure there are plenty of people of all persuasions who find that scene revolting, hypocritical, cliché, or just banal. Like me. I’ll chase a love interest all night long—but only if there’s actual interest. I don’t see interest in the transcribed scene above due to the utter lack of writing of the missing pieces.
Does Jeanne consent to this conversation?
In fictional contexts, consent has always looked different, with women swooning and consenting to behavior that would be considered creepy or even rape in the real world. For example, consider Rhett Butler scooping up Scarlett O'Hara to carry her up the stairs for...well, they never specifically showed what, did they?
In this scene, set in the late 50's, yeah, Jeanne consented, relative to what people considered consent at the time, and have long been willing to count as consent in a fictional scene starring attractive people. When an audience can daydream of seducing or being seduced by who they've suspended disbelief for, the threshold for consent is pretty low.
By contemporary standards, no, Jeanne didn't consent. As you wrote, Bernard ignored several unambiguous expressions of disinterest and even touched her (held her hand) without first seeking and obtaining affirmative consent.
I don't think it's a simple yes or no, but whatever it is, I think it's more subjective than objective. The rules of the time matter (is that why it's called "dating"?), the relative attractiveness matters, and possibly more than anything else for an example like this, it matters that it happened in a movie where people want or expect the players to seduce and be seduced. It's still romantic (to some people) because it happened in a movie in 1958, not by the water cooler in a 2023 office.
This is a perfect illustration of how the wokist definition of consent breaks courtship. In the modern world he would not dare pursue her. Or would become a target of widespread persecution and cancellation by a horde of NPCs.
In any fair moral code, the type of behavior that J exhibits here would be seen by all, including courts, as decreasing her credibility should she (or a third party) pursue charges such as stalking.
Don Geddis, would you find it romantic if the movie title was *The Rapist*? or if the title was neutral, but you knew that it was about a rape/murder/attack? And how many women do you know who find being followed by a man on a lonely road at night romantic instead of scary? would you tell a single sister, daughter, or friend that she should welcome being followed by a male stranger on a lonely road at night because it's so romantic?
Often our social norms have implicit exceptions but not exceptions that will ever be openly approved of. For instance consider the norm that people can't consent to sex while very intoxicated or asleep. Yet no one ever disapproves of the happily married couple who hooks up (in their usual way) while very intoxicated or with the partner who gets woken up with a bj.
I think the sense is that the official rules are things ppl can stand on when others judge them negatively. If you misjudge how much a potential partner is into you but you get explicit verbal consent you can raise that as a defense even if other people judge you to be a dick or to have acted weirdly.
We have another level of interaction which requires correctly gauging the other person's feelings. In other words the role the social rules play isn't to perfectly deliniate acceptable behavior but to deliniate what's clearly and unambiguously acceptable and identify the point beyond which the defense of a good faith misreading is no longer sufficient (now we'll condemn you if we judge you read the situation wrong)
This can be frustrating for those of us who are more about clear statement than social cues but I think the social cues people could reasonably say that this is actually for our benefit: if you can't manage the double meaning in the explanation of the rules you'll probably fuck this up.
Our norms about consent to converse are very different from other kinds of consent. Yes, there is a line at which talking to someone who isn't willing becomes stalking or harassment but every time you continue an argument with someone after they say they didn't want to talk about it you've pushed a conversation on them they didn't consent to.
Disclaimer: I'm a male, so I shouldn't insist I know what her (fictitious) character is thinking. And I can't see her body language, which would help a lot. But *just* based on what's here? She consents.
J starts off by acknowledging that there's an interaction even though the conversation didn't have a "Good evening" in it. Her "Can’t you leave me alone? I need to think" does push towards a genuine rejection, but it's much more whimsical than "Please leave me alone, I need to think," and came after the playful, "When I’m tired, everyone bores me, and you’re boring me now."
Even if B is not at all her type, and she isn't at all interested in seeing this go anywhere, she's still acting the way *I* act when I'm fine talking to someone, and I just want them to be more interesting and/or willing to put up with a bit of surliness.
The same scene in 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDrymMvc31k
Econ's own E. Berne, meet psychology's own R. Hanson
https://ccpgc.usmf.md/sites/default/files/inline-files/Games%20People%20Play%20The%20Psychology%20of%20Human%20Relationships%20by%20Eric%20Berne%20%28z-lib.org%29.pdf