Hindi movies routinely show a

Hindi movies routinely show a "hero" misbehaving with a girl, stalking her, and constantly being in her face. The result? She falls in love with him eventually. I feel this is symptomatic of a deeper issue

Hindi Movies – Do Women WANT to be Hounded?

Anupa was watching a movie called Vicky Donor on her laptop the other day and was telling me how the hero “gets” the girl. First she finds him irritating, but he continues to stalk her, force himself on her and make her feel uncomfortable. They slowly she starts to care for him and they hook up!

Wait what?

Everything I know about human nature and whatever experience I have with women tells me that this is impossible. India’s a dangerous place for woman and a stalker is not a threat to take lightly. Continue rebuffing them and they can easily get violent. Especially when movies from all over the country teach men that if they continue to harass the woman long enough, she’ll give in and fall in love with them. I’d written about this when I watched the movie “Rockstar” where I was astounded by how a girl “fell” for the “hero” even after he continued behaving in an abominable manner.

A common theme running through all these movies is the perceived class difference between the girl and the guy. In real life, there’s no way I can imagine an employed girl or one who has a good future ahead of her, hooking up with a loser like the hero. The reason why this happens in films I think is because it’s targeted towards the large swathe of men who in reality simply have no chance to meet up, socialize ,or flirt with girls who are confident, accomplished, and intelligent.

And harassment needs no spectacular skills. Anyone can constantly stalk another person without relying on good qualities in themselves. You don’t need to connect with the girl on an intellectual level, be nice to her, determine whether you’re a good match or not, find out if you share the same principles, or simply accept the fact that she’s not interested and may never be. No – that would be too fraught with risk. Too much “bhav” to the girl if you give her the power to decide whether or not she’s interested in you

The solution is much simpler. Just force her to be interested! After all, everyone knows that deep down a woman’s “No” actually means yes doesn’t it? Just to confirm whether or not I was reading this right, I asked Anupa how she would feel about someone constantly waiting outside her home, harassing her at work, calling her all the time, and imposing himself on her privacy 24 hrs a day. She said she would not only be turned off, but would call the police!

Which brings me to the next question. Why do these filmy girls not complain to anyone or call the police? A stalker is no laughing matter. Instead, she just *tut tuts* her disapproval and carries on. She doesn’t seem worried that the guy’s a psycho and that he might attack her one day. All this just affirms what these jobless guys in the real world want to believe – that deep down inside, women like to be eve teased and catcalled.

Now it’s possible that I’m living in a fantasy world and that the majority of women don’t actually mind. Maybe I’m wrong in thinking that they would find it scary. I don’t think so however. With the newspapers full of reports about women getting assaulted and harassment turning into something deadlier, I think it’s just common sense to be afraid of a stalker.

But this depiction isn’t going to change unless men themselves get disgusted with the tactics employed by these so called “heroes”. It needs to be driven home that such behavior is unacceptable and if the guy wants to have a decent chance with a girl, he needs to make her feel secure in his presence. Not be constantly worried that he’s going to fly off the handle.

Unfortunately, social realities play second fiddle to box office performance. And you gotta give what the majority of people expect and hunger for. And right now, that appears to be the assurance that you can essentially force a woman to fall in love with you by behaving like a total creep.

Comments

  1. Hrishi says:

    There is a long list of such movies.. Rockstar and Vicky Donor as you have pointed out. There is Sholay where Veeru not only relentlessly harassed Basanti, but also threatens with a suicide bluff and tries to be the voice of God.

    There’s Haseena Maan Jaaegi, an entire movie and song sequence on it..

  2. Murali says:

    You should hear Sienfeld in
    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f80f01f1dd/jerry-seinfeld-on-men-and-women-from-standupfan
    When it comes to women, men making an ass of themselves seems to be a global phenomenon.

  3. Western Point of View says:

    One should note that these are works of fiction.

    I mean, you don’t see a guy with a Big Hammer, an Iron Suit, a Bow and an Arrow or dude laced with Super Soldier sera running around NYC chasing aliens in real life, do you?

    Its entertainment. We enjoy it. The film industry has no responsibility towards any of these malicious attacks.

    • bhagwad says:

      Every movie has some elements of fiction, and some elements of reality. It’s impossible to create a 100% fictitious movie. Most of the time though, the audience knows exactly what is fiction and what is reality. No one in their right mind will think that Thor’s hammer is real.

      What I notice in many Indian films though is that often people are not able to distinguish between what elements are real and which ones are false.

      And of course everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one can shift the blame for bad behavior onto someone or something else. But it’s obvious that Indian films influence the behavior of people. No one is trying to shift responsibility. I’m just stating a fact that they have influence.

    • Western Point of View says:

      I can argue the same thing about American horror movies–they “influence” people to kill or slash. I can also argue the same about, say the Bible. It inspired Charles Manson.

      Indians are not that stupid, however. THey can distinguish what is real and what isn’t. And if they can ‘t, who cares? Everything is an influence upon people–where they live, what they eat, etc. Don’t you notice how crime ridden areas tend to produce more criminals than areas that lack as much crime? Because the city itself is an influence.

      If we dictate Hindi films, what else do we dictate?

      As I said, its harmless entertainment. We enjoy it. Nothing wrong with it.

      You say pushy, I say persistent. Its the American dream (taking place in a Hindi film).

      • bhagwad says:

        Sure, you can say it.

        What do you mean “dictate”? Are you saying that I’m forcing filmmakers to show or not show something? I have a right to make any observation I want no?

      • Western Ponit of View says:

        I don’t believe you are saying that we should forc filmmakers, but these observations may be slightly off. I mean why only single out Hindi films? Perhaps we should look into other factors–poverty being probably the bigger one. Also lack of law enforcement in many areas as well as law enforcement simply not being paid enough to even want to enforce the law (which is why cops make a lot more money in the US now than they did in the 70s).

        I really see these typical Hindi films as well as the issues seen in India as apples and oranges. The same things happen here in poor areas of the US (most go unreported), yet no one can say Hollywood is at fault.

        My personal observation with the ills in India (and around the world) simply is living in a society that is overburdened by laws. Too many laws=difficult to keep track of. This leads to society simply not even caring for any single letter of the law. Essentially, India’s socialist methods of doing things have led to such ills. Just one of many observations.

  4. Some guy says:

    Girls date the rockstars and the bad boys in college.
    You are wrong.

  5. Pink says:

    Couldn’t have said it any better… Also these heroes are portrayed to have a good character (which is fictitious) & are depicted in a way in which the audience look forward to see the characters get along.It is fictitious because they show the hero to be (over-) protective and possessive ( ,also obsessive!) of the girl he is seeing, but the real goodness needed of a man is to respect the woman’s opinion of him & whether she is open to the relationship and then take it forward…. Not being pushy and persuasive just because the guy is in love with her! Indeed stacking is creepy! Sadly that is shown as the girl perceiving it as the guy’s devoted love for her. Also agree with your point on the class divide shown between the hero and the heroine.
    I don’t know if the movie makers play safe by being conventional or if they have a large target audience that still believes in attracting a girl this way. Hope the trends in movie making & also ad making change for the better, soon. :)

  6. A.Madhavan says:

    Excellent post.
    I think what is portrayed in pop culture and especially movies sets a standard of “normalcy” to the audience. Like, it’s normal to get harassed, and you’re just supposed to give in regardless of whether you like the guy or not. So basically – the guy has all the control and you’re just supposed to tolerate.
    I feel that such films should be banned or that actors should refuse to do films that lighten the seriousness of harassment.
    And for young men, boys who idolize these actors – it is sending the message that “this is how you get the girl”, UM excuse me, WOMEN ARE NOT A PRIZE. It is another form of objectification!

    Show/Hide Replies
    • bhagwad says:

      Well, I’m against banning any type of expression no matter how offensive. But yes, actors – male and female – can (and should) refuse to take up roles requiring to behave like this. That’s the next best thing to audiences boycotting the film.

      And yeah, the perception of the woman to be “gotten” essentially removes her free agency. Heaven forbid she actually exercises some real choice of her own instead of being browbeaten into giving it!

    • “UM excuse me, WOMEN ARE NOT A PRIZE. It is another form of objectification!”
      I agree with most of your percept, except this part. The idea of a partner as a prize, or of the the opposite sex as an object is inevitable in a heterosexual free market dating.
       
      It is in our biology to objectify our potential mates. As a man, I am programmed to pursue the most attractive woman I can find. The same goes for women. However, our actual ability to attract an attractive member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is determined by our ‘value’ in the context of sexual marketplace. Hence, having an attractive non-platonic partner IS a statement of status – a socially tacit recognition of our ‘worth’ in the socio-sexual hierarchy. Despite their vehement protests, most women DO value a man who is more attractive than one who isn’t. Despite their vehement screams about how women are objectified – most feminists would be grossed at the idea of sleeping with a man who is not as rich, tall or of a social league as they’d want their mate to be.
       
      Outside the sexual marketplace, we usually interact with other people as objects – not in the whole dimension of their human existence. My neighbourhood supermarket cashier is just the bloke to runs the cash register – thats all that is relevant when I interact with him. The same with the waiter at my favourite club OR my dentist. I don’t care other personality aspects of my dentist, except that he has the skill and expertise to tend to my teeth. Every stranger is an ‘object’ to us, unless we break the ice and familiarity comes into the picture.
       
      On that note, the more a man objectifies a woman – the less of a stalker he is likely to be. The fact that I view a random woman as nothing more than her physical attributes is the easiest way to get over a rejection – since I know nothing of her as a person, I can simply move on to the next woman who piques my interest. Of course, the idea of women as replaceable is offensive to women – because they like to believe themselves as special snowflakes who are unique from everyone else (a symptom that men have rarely suffered from, given our keen awareness that without our efforts and tangible accomplishments, we are socially disposable).
       
      This is where a lot of Indian men, conditioned by Bollywood beta-fication, fail. Some of the films are painful to watch, when a man completely humiliates himself to prove his worth to a woman who is nothing but ordinary. He’ll fight a band of goons, save her from vicious rapists AND at times – risk death from her brothers and parents just to be ‘eligible’ for her. Basically, he has to be a superman for a woman to find him attractive. Hell, in the film Rockstar, it wasn’t until he WAS an internationally acclaimed rockstar that the relationship went from a platonic one to sexual one.

      • bhagwad says:

        The OP was making the point that women don’t want to be viewed as a prize. And once again, I’ll take the word of women about what they feel over that of a man. Unless of course other women themselves show a different view point.

        Arguments from evolutionary psychology are weak. They’re usually untestable, don’t take into consideration that upbringing can completely change a person’s behavior and they’re invariably vague and overly simplistic.

        For example, I’m a man and I most certainly do not go after the most physically attractive female I can find.

      • When the OP said “WOMEN ARE NOT A PRIZE” the implication was quite clear; he was talking about his own indignation that women are viewed as conquests. Hence, the subject of the discussion is whether women ARE prizes or otherwise; NOT whether women *want* to be viewed as such. The latter line of reasoning is ridiculous, given that women have their own *subjective* interpretation of what objectifies them and whether they’d want to be seen as conquests. My girlfriends for instance, pride on being ‘trophy girlfriend’.
         
        As for evolutionary psychology (or sociobiology, as its formally known), it is still the closest to science we have as far as explanations of human behaviour is concerned, despite the inherent weaknesses in social sciences research. After all, humanity isn’t like a software code that can be repeatedly given inputs to come out with the same predictable and exact outputs – there is a mind boggling diversity in every aspect of human behaviour and our instincts.
         
        A person’s upbringing can change their *behaviour* BUT it doesn’t kill the instincts. It merely engineers how we are express ourselves. The strictures of pre-marital sex in traditional India didn’t drive sexuality underground – it simply made them manifest in very unhealthy and perverted ways (like street molestation, etc.). Despite the culturally entrenched strictures of monogamy and the ideation of family life, desi men visiting Bangkok or Tashkent are anything but monogamous. Hell, even in India – being married and under the watchful eyes of the society doesn’t stop your morally uptight uncle to cop a feel of a random woman in a crowded bus or metro.
         
        Also, being seen as a conquered adds to a woman’s free agency. You have to WIN a prize to get it. If you fail to win a prize in a certain event, you have to get out of your comfort zone to practice, up your game and play again in an event thats favourable to your game.

      • bhagwad says:

        The OP is a woman. So yeah – she’s saying that women don’t want to be viewed as a prize and it’s insulting to view them that way.

        Evolutionary biology is overly simplistic and works backwards to draw its conclusions. It sees a behavior and then comes up with an explanation post hoc. It can’t make predictions, is utterly untestable, and is too simplistic. It’s nowhere near being a science. It’s a joke.

        No one know what anyone is “programmed” to do. The human brain has an unprecedented amount of plasticity. “Programming” is almost all cultural and contextual and environment based.

      • “For example, I’m a man and I most certainly do not go after the most physically attractive female I can find.”
        The fact that you find her physically attractive speaks for *your* instincts. Not your behaviour, which is whether you choose to go for her or not, something that is determined by the context.

      • bhagwad says:

        Still, it means I’m not “programmed” to go after her, to use your words. If I was, I’d have no choice in the matter.

      • “So yeah – she’s saying that women don’t want to be viewed as a prize and it’s insulting to view them that way.”
        Well in that case, my mistake. However I still stand by my contention. Having attractive mate(s) IS a prize, given that attracting men and women involves active and deliberate effort AND skill (apart from factors beyond individual control). In a social situations, a person’s value in socio-sexual terms is judged by the attractiveness of their current and past mates.
         
        This brings me to an interesting phenomena I observed – outside of the arranged marriage culture, men who are the most likely to be loyal, selfless and honest to their mates and who are the most ‘upstanding’ in a moral perspective – generally tend to be with boring, unattractive and/or exploitative girlfriends/wives AND don’t get very far from their baseline in the socio-economic ladder. It is the trend pretty much everywhere in the world.
         
        “Evolutionary biology is overly simplistic and works backwards to draw its conclusions. It sees a behavior and then comes up with an explanation post hoc.”
        That is a very pop-psychology way of explaining it. First of all, human instincts manifest themselves within the cloak of human behaviour. Hence, to study our instincts – we have to work backwards, first try to observe behaviours, analyse them and by taking into account the social control factors, try to figure out what the motivating factors of such behaviours might be. The black box theory.
         
        Also, you can actually predict human behaviour with a very good degree of accuracy. Socially skilled people (seasoned lawyers, politicians, business magnates, etc.) are very efficient at predicting and exploiting people’s instinctive nature for their personal benefit. The usually learn their craft like I do – by interacting with people day in and day out, and using that experience to learn how to figure out the motives and intentions of others.
         
        “Still, it means I’m not “programmed” to go after her, to use your words. If I was, I’d have no choice in the matter.”
        This is a textbook case of naturalistic fallacy. If something is a part of our instinct, it does not mean we are slaves to it. As cognitive beings, we have a choice on whether we want to act on our instincts or not (in a given circumstance). But yes, instincts do form a large motivating factor in our behaviour – at times it even manifests itself in-spite of our social conditioning.

      • bhagwad says:

        The problem is the use of the word “instincts” as a monolithic force. If I have an instinct to go after attractive women, I have other instincts to do what’s best for me which might not favor that one. You’re also overlooking that people are capable of “programming themselves” as they go through life.

        As a programmer myself, I was directing my arguments at the word “programmed”. A programmed entity has no choice but to follow its programming. Evidently you were using that word in a different way.

        When you say “Having an attractive mate IS a prize”, who are you speaking for? Not for me certainly. Not for any person who has enough self esteem to not require society’s approval. In fact, I’m not sure who you’re referring to. You can speak for yourself certainly, but to extend that to others you need to give some reason other than “I say so”.

        It’s one thing to have opinions about morals and what’s right/wrong, good/bad, how people should behave, what is good for people’s health etc. These are all opinions and two people can argue over them based on the axiomatic system they’re starting out with.

        Most of your opinions however are not about such things, but about facts which you say you have observed. But anecdotal evidence isn’t the best way to convince others. They are valid for you, but to make the claim that they impact the species as a whole you need to present a lot more than that. More importantly, you aren’t claiming that these are your opinions about reality, but are making claims about reality itself. And to convince someone about this, I think you need to do a lot more.

      • “You’re also overlooking that people are capable of “programming themselves” as they go through life.”
        I did not. Please take the time to read my comments again and specify a single point where I negated the influence of social programming.
         
        “As a programmer myself, I was directing my arguments at the word “programmed”. A programmed entity has no choice but to follow its programming. Evidently you were using that word in a different way.”
        Thats where the problem lies. As a computer programmer, you don’t get my perspective, which is that of a ‘people person’. Hence, you perceive my explanation of human behaviour in mechanical terms. The human mind is not analogous to a piece of software – every of our behaviour crops out of not one single block of programming, but several overlapping motives. Instincts is one of the many and just because it doesn’t manifest in all cases – doesn’t mean that instincts has no influence on our behaviour.
         
        “When you say “Having an attractive mate IS a prize”, who are you speaking for? Not for me certainly.”
        I did not purport to speak for you as an individual. I speak from a social perspective, of how you are perceived in the society by the quality of your mates. If you are seen with attractive mates, people perceive you to be of high social worth and behave accordingly. Moreover, I find the company of a beautiful woman immensely more enjoyable than the company of a less beautiful one – which is a ‘prize’ in itself.
         
        “Not for any person who has enough self esteem to not require society’s approval.”
        Being socially smart and exploiting how people *think*, is not the same thing as approval seeking. You essentially manipulate the instincts and so called ‘intuition’ of people – to put yourself in a better position, rather than submitting to their diktats. Approval seeking on the other hand, is conforming your words and deeds in a way that is least offensive to others – like say, men who bend over backwards to placate their bosses, women around them, their parents, etc. Approval seeking is when a lawyer is reluctant to defend a rape accused because he fears that would kill is ‘good image’ with women. Being suave is when a lawyer defends a rape accused and is still able to justify his stance from a socio-moral perspective, which shows him as a man of strong will, command and character.
         
        I suppose as a computer programmer, you probably find it hard to see it that way.
         
        “More importantly, you aren’t claiming that these are your opinions about reality, but are making claims about reality itself. And to convince someone about this, I think you need to do a lot more.”
        Bingo! A very predictable argument, which is why I desisted from providing anecdotal evidence in my previous posts; and used the ‘small boobs’ argument as a point of reference (in my last comment that you decided to delete). I can’t *prove* what happens in my life in an online blog, AND given your limited social perspective (no offence), there is no way for me to use a reasonable frame of reference that you would understand.
         
        Also, I am not particularly exceptional as an individual, just one of the 6 billion humans on this planet. I am not exceptionally privileged in any way – not extraordinarily good looking, wealthy, smart, powerful or whatever. So if something works for me, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work for millions of others who might be in a situation that parallels mine.

      • bhagwad says:

        When you use the passive form of the verb “program” to make it “programmed”, you’re implying that programming is something that happens to you. As opposed to an active form of the verb which you would have used were you referring to people programming themselves.

        Second, your reference to “being programmed to pursue the most attractive female” is a clear reference to biology along with your reference to the phrase “as a man”. None of this showed a glimpse of what you would call social conditioning. If this is not what you meant, then simply say so and we can move on. Just a mis communication.

        Calling something a “prize” is meaningful only if it’s a prize to the person “possessing” the so called prize. So it matters not if other people think it’s a prize. What matters is the perspective of the primary individual. In that context, it’s not meaningful to say that an attractive woman is a prize since you can’t speak for males who do not view it in that way.

        This isn’t about our personal experiences. Those are fine as anecdotes. The problem arises when you try and extend those anecdotes to propound general principles about human beings as a whole. That is what I object to. Isn’t that reasonable?

      • “…you’re implying that programming is something that happens to you.”
        I wasn’t implying that. By using your techie analogy, the programming I refer to, is the software(s) installed in your brain (~cognitive schema). There are several cognitive schemas present in our psychological make up – some of them are installed like an ordinary software, such as social condition; while others are more innate and hard-wired, like our socio-biological instincts. To figure out what our instincts are, we need to study human behaviours across several cultures, behaviours among individuals in differing circumstances, do our best to negate the reporting biases and find out the common thread that shows a preponderance of probabilities towards a certain trait being an instinct. Unlike exact sciences such as physics, where it is possible to experiment till you arrive at a definite conclusion (theory), it is not yet possible to formulate solid and conclusive theories in the social sciences given that every individual is a different ‘experiment’. How any individual human being behaves in a certain social context depends not on instincts alone, but an interaction of various programming in his cognitive schema.
         
        As higher biological beings we are adaptive. We aren’t slave to our instincts – we can, for example eat bread, salt and water to survive for weeks – despite our bodily requirements of a more expansive range of nutrients. In such a context, if I tell you that “it is our biology to get N amount of a X nutrients in our diets”, it does not imply that non-fulfilment of that requirement would lead to our extinction (hinting inevitability) OR humans would refuse to consume ANY food if X isn’t present in N amounts. Unfortunately, this is where our whole misunderstanding lies. You perceived what I said for the human world, in a much more simplistic computer analogy – when humans are be-dazzlingly more complex than any machines humans could create OR any mechanical systems you could understand.
         
        Coming to the issue, yes, we are ‘programmed to pursue the most attractive women’. However, whether we actually pursue depends on many social factors:
        1) If she is ‘available’
        2) If not, if its safe to pursue her
        3) Whether she is likely to reject or accept our approach
        4) Whether a rejection is worth it, in the given context
        5) If there are other social consequences of pursuing her
         
        These factors ultimately determine whether we act on our instincts. But out instincts are still there. Now coming to the whether an attractive woman is a prize or not, it again depends on many factors – in the social context, a ‘prized woman’ might be different from an individual context. For instance, the social stereotype of an attractive woman in a certain circle might be a size zero blonde with D-cup breasts. However, if an otherwise attractive man prefers smaller boobs, brunette hair and a more curvy physique – his idea of a prize is NOT the social stereotype. But even then, he will still prefer to pursue a woman who is a prize at least in his individual context. The same goes for women’s attraction triggers as well and how they choose mates. Even in the free market dating world, how people interact depends on economic principles.
         
        “That is what I object to. Isn’t that reasonable?”
        In that context, yes. However, I did not say my experiences are universal OR that they apply to every human situation without exceptions. What I observed is the general social trend in most civilised societies. People DO judge you qualitatively by the quality of your mates AND it is inescapable unless you are a social hermit. A ‘high self-esteem’ outside the context of socio-economic accomplishments is an illusory state of being. Like being high on cocaine and thinking you’re the king of the world.
         
        A man who is seen with attractive women for example, is perceived to be more attractive and with less of an aura of suspicion by other people (including women who’d claim they don’t ‘think that way’). I have tested this with several men – including a 30-something customs officer who never had any girlfriend – it worked like a charm. I just had to pair him up with an attractive East European friend of mine and introduce him at a house party. Women who would otherwise wouldn’t talk to him or approach him were drawn to him like moths to a fire.
         
        Personal experiences can be negated as social trends only when the experience is particularly unique to the person and the context. However, when it is a consistent trend of personal experiences, across several individuals, it is a very relevant social trend. That people view their prospective mates as ‘prizes’ is a social trend. Both men and women do it consistently – women are far more likely to assess a man in terms of social capital. Both men and women find it offensive to be evaluated as prizes and at the same time, it is an inescapable social reality? Both men and women prefer to deny that such a social reality exists, as it runs against their illusory idea of a just and equitable world? However, it’s existence is evident when you EXPERIMENT to establish whether such a social reality exists, like the example I presented above.

      • bhagwad says:

        I disagree with your statement that you’re not talking about human experiences in general without exceptions. Your words are not conditional, and demonstrate no nuance. For example, when you proclaim “A ‘high self-esteem’ outside the context of socio-economic accomplishments is an illusory state of being.”, you’re making a universal statement. You’re not saying it’s true for you or true for some people. That statement is designed to be applied to everyone. And without proof to back up your assertions, it’s meaningless.

        If you were to qualify your statements, they would get more credibility. If you had some proof to back them up, that would be even better. As they are, I just hear assertions without any foundations.

        You still haven’t addressed the fact that we humans can choose to program ourselves and free ourselves both from biological programming (as far as it exists) or social conditioning. I’ve already given you reasons why your choice of passive verb indicated the nuance of your thought process.

        Yes, humans are complex. And that’s why it’s not good practice to use the word “programmed” in the first place. That word originated and continues to be used in a computational context. You can hardly use it and then complain that I view it in that manner!

        Also, it’s entirely possible that I don’t view a woman as a prize even in my individual context. I’m not at all convinced that there is any instinct to view a mate as a “prize”. There can be social conditioning sure, but instinct means something else entirely. I think the problem is arising because you’re using words in different contexts without justification. You’re talking about “programming”, “instincts”, and “social conditioning” all in the same breath.

        Is being viewed a “prize” an inescapable social reality? According to you it is. However, there’s no proof that a different society will not view things in this way. Now if you can show something to be biological, then you can apply it to all humans. But the standard of proof there is even higher than with social conditioning.

        So far I haven’t seen either a lower or a higher standard of proof. And before you say that this is just a blog etc, you have to ask what the purpose of this discussion is. Is it to uncover the truth? If so, then you have to be convincing. You can’t do that merely with assertions or by drawing general statements from personal anecdotes.

        If it’s not to uncover the truth, then why the back and forth?

  7. Just from an opinion from my own experiences… Being stalked in real life is not something a girl ends up falling for. We get scared, and then REACT! I have had men follow me home from work, show up at random locations(Wow, since we’re BOTH here it MUST be fate!), come to my events un-invited, send me messages on social networking sites telling me, “We’re meant to be and they can take care of me.”, etc. As a professional model, this is not only unprofessional, it’s frightening. We DON’T like it. If you make an advance and we don’t ask to hang out with you… Most likely we are JUST doing our job. We want to be nice to everyone… Don’t make it creepy!!!

Add Your Comment