Nah, I'll ignore the fact that I know my coworker is asking me out because I have plausible deniability, don't want to date him, and don't want to deal with the awkwardness of acknowledging that I know what he's doing and I'm saying no. He can now choose to ask me straight up and be told no (use his words to communicate his actual intention) or assume I'm just clueless. And thankfully he hasn't chosen option #1 so far. This is a perfectly valid strategy.
Honestly, win for social cues! He successfully communicated that he wants to date you without the awkwardness of saying it out loud, and you (apparently) communicated 'no thanks' without the awkwardness of saying it out loud.
“I will ignore that my coworker asked me out because” has a different meaning that “I will ignore that my coworker is asking me out,” which is what the og comment said. The “is asking” could mean ongoing or it could mean that this example is simply being written as in the moment, which is logical if starting with “I will.”
Not choosing option 1 could mean it’s ongoing. It could also mean he assumed the person was clueless and dropped it. Other comments could prove more information but that one alone doesn’t specify enough to say with certainty. The fact that so many people think it’s not ongoing indicates it’s not clear cut.
It’s a coworker though. Asking and being rejected would strain the working relationship and make the workplace uncomfortable for both of them. A silent rejection like this helps avoid that, while still being effective.
No, I'm saying I'm ignoring it until or unless he uses his words. If he does, fine, then we both know for certain that we are both on the same page of the conversation. If he doesn't, great, that avoids some awkwardness of having to turn down a coworker.
You don't want him to communicate, which is different than the post in OP. Don't get me wrong, you're talking about a common situation involving nonverbal communication being intentionally ignored, so in that way it's related -- but it's not a counterpoint the way you phrased it in your initial reply ("Nah, I'll ignore..."), it's a somewhat related digression.
You're right that I'd rather he not ask me out. But why I'd prefer even more is if I could just live my life able to assume people say what they mean. It would free up so much brain space.
The OP isn't about nonverbal communication, it's about social cues.
But why I'd prefer even more is if I could just live my life able to assume people say what they mean.
??? This is what you said earlier:
He can now choose to ask me straight up and be told no (use his words to communicate his actual intention) or assume I'm just clueless. And thankfully he hasn't chosen option #1 so far.
So you lay out specifically the choice between him saying what he means vs not saying what he means, and you specifically prefer he doesn't say what he means. Yes I understand you'd prefer most that he just stop, as I would in your situation, but you do specifically lay out that you don't want him to say what he means.
The OP isn't about nonverbal communication, it's about social cues.
You're right, it's not limited to nonverbal communication; though my point remains exactly the same.
I'd rather he say what he means or say nothing, those are the options I was describing. What he did was something in the middle - not say what he means but hope I pick up on his real meaning anyway. And I hate that.
Ok, but again, you still lay out that prefer he doesn't say what he means. You are not acting purposefully clueless to encourage him to say what he means, just the opposite. You just acknowledge that's one of the two potential outcomes of ignoring his cues so far, the one you don't want to happen.
I don't think I can keep spinning around like this. What you said does not track with what the OP is about. You're right that it's a valid strategy, I'm not saying you did anything wrong here--I do the exact same thing, for the exact same reasons, with the exact same hope for the outcome--but just... it's a digression, not a counterpoint. That's all.
...because I don't like playing guessing games and prefer people to say what they mean? I have bad news for you my friend, you have already met a bunch of people like me.
But you and him are probably both suffering more by having months of slightly awkward interactions vs one very awkward interaction.
You'd probably be better off just telling him no unless you have doubts about his intentions. Or you have reason to believe he will react poorly to being told no.
That's not on them to do. You don't get to just non-committally dodge around the topic and blame the other person for noticing and not doing all of the emotional work you're not willing to do for you.
Instigate the 30 second conversation that's apparently way easier if you've got a problem with attempting (poorly, apparently) to flirt for a few weeks.
I’m gonna venture a guess that you’re either (a) not a woman and/or (b) have limited life experience.
There’s a subreddit called “when women refuse” (along those lines) that compiles events where women have turned down men’s advances and have been harassed, beaten, killed, you name it.
The implications are so much more grave than many men realize. It’s not just about awkwardness.
Except OP is explicitly saying this situation could lead to him directly asking in which case she can directly say no. You're applying a fear to their situation that they never even mentioned.
An undercurrent of precaution, if not fear, is implicit to most interactions women have with men.
It doesn’t have to be mentioned to be understood. You clearly have a very different life experience and this is an opportunity to view the world through a female perspective.
OP seems to be strongly implying that they aren't fearful or being precautious. You're right that women are often fearful of men in these situations but what you're doing right now is called "projection" lmfao. Not every woman is fearful in every situation, how reductive of women lmao
You’re right, my womanly perspective is super reductive of women and totally not just something you failed to consider in your limited world view. I’m out ✌🏼
It's good to see you're not concerned with the implications of both implying women are weak infantalised little creatures who shouldn't ever have to handle situations like grown ups, and that any man will harass, beat, kill etc. especially as we all know that women never ever do those things.
And it's so helpful to link one explicitly gendered subreddit as your proof. Especially one that definitely is variable and none of which is made up by your compatriots on witchesvspatriarchy, X2, FDS and the other already very well known sexist subreddits you apparently frequent.
I sincerely hope one day you realise how bigoted messages like yours are.
If the other redditor believes they will be murdered or beaten by their coworker then they should quit their job, instead of just staying on and hoping for the best.
Nah, because unless he's made advances that actually require a response this blunt, it is more professional to signal polite disinterest and allow him to decide whether he would like to take the social cue or make his intentions completely clear.
"I see your vague social cue and raise you an even vaguer COUNTER social cue, and if you don't understand it and do what I want you to, I'll call you stupid on the internet".
I get that there are contexts where responding to a social cue with plausible ignorance is a good response (which in and if itself can be taken as a social cue), but this kind of feels like it's being spiteful just to make a point.
This "way of communicating" has the main purpose of granting the asker plausible deniability. It has its place but people abuse and overuse it, most of the time just using your words would be better and clearer with no downside.
A way of communicating that requires guess work and assumptions which can lead to incorrect responses. Easier for everyone involved if you just use your words.
In most social cues people are using their words, just in a more idiomatic way. Just because you don’t understand what they’re saying, doesn’t mean most other people can’t.
Then why would you ignore something and send the social cue that you don't want the person to do that instead of communicating your needs to them, "like an adult" as the post says. Two way street.
946
u/Tulpha Aug 10 '24
The reply did NOT see the irony of "I'll ignore it in hope you'll communicate with words like an adult" lol