AliceFraser

The Hot Guy Fallacy

Added 2017-11-08 02:19:05 +0000 UTC

There's a certain argument that I have been hearing a lot of in the wake of the #metoo hashtag about the kinds of men that women are 'outing' as harassers.

Rather than describing the argument, I'll give some examples:

"The ability to label men as ‘creepy' is just one privilege that women enjoy, and a constant source of fear of ostracizing that all men must fear in our society," - Reddit

A very funny SNL sketch also laid out this argument, here.

The idea is that 'hot guys' can 'get away' with behaviour that would be characterised as creepy if it were being enacted by average guys.

The argument basically goes "a creep is just a word for a guy a woman doesn't think is hot".

Unfortunately, despite the very funny SNL sketch, the issue is actually more complicated than that. It's not about whether you're attractive - it's about whether you're attractive to her. The process of flirting is a two way street, an exchange of energy, eye contact and 'go signals'.

Part of what is attractive about a person is whether they are tuned in to you. Connecting with someone often means being able to read their signals, and demonstrating an ease of communication that makes the person feel valued and (to whatever extent, whether casual or serious) cared for.

Understanding someone's subtle signals proves to them that they are not just a body to you, but a whole person, and part of the proof of that is that you are capable of connection, nuanced understanding and empathy.

If you hit on, or continue to hit on a woman who isn't giving you 'go signals', you're a creep, not because you're unattractive, but because you are demonstrating a lack of communication skills. It's a creepy thing to a woman, because it implies that you are unwilling or unable to understand a subtle 'no'. That's a threatening thing to be on the other end of. If someone can't understand 'no', they could harm you.

On one hand, there are people (let's say men, because although there are creepy women, this argument is usually heavily gendered) who are neuro-divergent who find subtle signals of body language difficult to interpret. That can mean that otherwise 'harmless' or well meaning men get labelled as creepy.

That doesn’t mean the guy is actually a bad guy, but it means he’s overstepping a boundary he should be respecting, and whether the boundary is invisible to him, or irrelevant to him is difficult to ascertain from the receiving end.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof is on the aggressor in that case, to make clear his capacity, and ask for clarification. It's not fair, if you are 'signal blind' or unable to register boundaries purely as a function of your wiring. But the alternative is to ask women who don't know you or your intent to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who from their perspective is a potential predator, who is uninterested in their consent or comfort.

The willingness to hear no and take no for an answer is an incredible defence against accusations of creepiness. Giving people an exit, not metaphorically standing between a woman and the door is a way to save face for both parties, and demonstrates a generosity of spirit that is in itself a very attractive thing.

For women, the burden of proof in this instance is to make your boundaries clear, and not accuse a man of being a creep if it's possible to determine whether he's just awkward or socially inept.

Calling a man a creep is approximately the equivalent level of social insult as calling a woman a bitch. It goes to his gendered masculinity and attractiveness, and diminishes his humanity. So I can understand why it's important to men to avoid the epithet, or to attribute it to an outside factor - something that he can't help. If being labelled a creep is just about whether you're hot or not, then women who reject you can be labelled as shallow and cruel.

Unfortunately it's more personal than that.

---

Caveats: This is just a line of thought, trying to explain why this line of argument sits wrong with me.

Human relationships are extremely complex, and I'm sure there are some women who are both shallow and cruel, particularly when it comes to rapidly labelling and dismissing guys who are just clumsy at negotiating the intricacies of the sexual sphere. This is a counterargument to the aggressive and embittered people who are trying to abdicate responsibility for their own bad behaviour by characterising all women as shallow.

In my personal experience, I've been attracted to men of many body types and personality types, and I've found handsome men creepy, and unusual looking men very comfortable to be around.

One potentially complicating factor is the attractiveness of confident men. Arseholes can be confident. Confidence is an attractive quality that, like charm, doesn't necessarily demonstrate any depth of character. Women, like men, can be tricked by charm and confidence. I don't think that necessarily negates any of the points in the body of my argument above.

Let me know what you think.

---