mASF post by "Wild Bard"
posted on: mASF forum: Tactics / Techniques Discussion, March 3, 2004Hi Madbad,
On 3/4/04 12:18:00 PM, madbad wrote:
>
>Now, come on pal. I did not
>make syllogism. To take my
>specific take on a
>specific situation and imply
>that I was making a broad rule
>is more
>appropriate to politics than
>scholarship.
But we don't have nearly enough information for it to be "a specific take on a
specific situation"!
All we know is that a man (age, attractiveness, personality, and everything
else of relevance unknown) at a course she is going to was applying kino.
Your opinion that in the situation described above we can confidently conclude
that she was attracted or aroused by this touching suggests that you are indeed
applying an extremely broad rule to the situation.
It is extremely common for a certain sort of man to exploit social conventions
in order to cop a feel.
>
>Can I be certain that this
>woman was aroused by the kino?
>No. But I think it
>is very likely and made a
>rhetorical case based upon my
>belief.
But if you are not applying a broad rule to this situation, how could you have
come to the conclusion that your theory is "very likely"?
Here's why:
>
>They are married. Married
>people have spent a lot of
>time together and there
>are many, many people out
>there who are a little too
>touchy feely. We've all
>met them. It's just not
>something that you bring up to
>your spouse. It's just
>a minor annoyance.
But we have no idea to what extent this guy went to. One or two minor incidents
would probably not have been worth even mentioning if they weren't too invasive
and/or the guy wasn't too creepy about it, but we have no idea.
If this happens to her as often as you suggest, with "many, many people" out
there being overly touchy-feely, then this incident would have had to have been
all the more unsettling for her to have commented at all.
Again,
>there is no reason to believe
>from the original
>posting that this guy "groped"
>her.
I agree, she would have had no compunction against reacting negatively towards
him if he had crossed the line of what could plausibly be considered
acceptable.
It doesn't have to go to the point of groping to be invasive.
He didn't grab her
>breasts or ass. He was
>just touchy feely... it didn't
>go someplace so inappropriate
>that she could be
>really angry... and yet, it
>wasn't just the common
>annoyance or she wouldn't
>have brought it up.
You've jumped from one end of the spectrum to the other without passing Go, and
without collecting $200!
How about touching to the point where it WAS remarkable, but not to the point
where she feels socially justified in reacting with overt anger?
Quitesomebody is Quiteright, it does appear as if you are projecting a scenario
taken straight out of an erotica story onto this situation. Your theories about
the woman in the OP aren't completely impossible, I'm not saying that, but
unless you feel that your take on it is the rule rather than the exception,
there doesn't appear to be any logic behind your line of reasoning.
Unless you ARE applying a broad rule to this situation, which you denied above,
there is just no way you could have come to these conclusions based on what
little we know.
If the information given in the OP is enough to say that she was aroused, and
that simply telling her husband about it suggests to us that she obviously
feels guilty or is futilely trying to stop herself from becoming aroused, then
I would be much obliged if you were to explain your line of reasoning.
|
