Can i buy you a coffee?

[Coito ergo sum]

Well that's what I think.

If I'm reading a book I want to read my book. Leave me alone.

You presume that a conversation with you is more in my interest than reading my book.

We both disagree.

So there we are.

Although admittedly you will get more sex in the long run.

Fair enough, of course.

But, the reality is that in our culture people talk to each other all the time. If someone says something to me in line at the bank, wouldn't I be as justified to say "if I'm standing their deep in thought, I want to stand their deep in thought. Leave me alone?" I don't see why not, unless my desires are to be presumed less important than yours, right?

Same goes for people in a pub, where people also go to socialize, or to the common area of the Barnes & Noble bookstore. Whatever they are doing, even if it is sitting there staring into space, my assumption has to be that that is what they want to do and they are not to be spoken to, right?

My question was, and still is, how do you reconcile that with your suggestion that it is, in fact, o.k. to talk to people in cafes, coffee shops and such, "if the time is right?" When can anyone know the time is right? Even if someone looks at you and smiles, is that an invitation? How so?

EDIT to add: I guess part of our difference of opinion, though, seems to stem from what our view of the cultural significance of a cafe or a coffee shop is. There are tables and chairs in proximity, facing each other like a living room or lounge, set up in the format of a room where people commiserate. This, to me, sets up a coffee shop or a cafe as a social atmosphere, and one where it is expected that people may interact with each other, say hello, "nice day, isn't it?" and that sort of thing, and that general communications about the news, days events, and that sort of thing are expected, along with other communications where someone says "Hi, nice to meet you,"and follows up with a communication.

Coffee culture -- coffee house culture -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_culture "A "coffeehouse or "café" is an establishment which primarily serves prepared coffee or other hot beverages. Historically cafés have been an important social gathering point in Europe. They were—and continue to be—venues where people gather to talk, write, read, entertain one another, or pass the time."

Culturally, a coffee house is, in my view, and as described in the wiki article, a social place. It's been that way for hundreds of years -- an open gathering place where townspeople show up and chit chat -- to talk -- to "entertain one anotheror pass the time", in addition to reading and writing.

How would such a culture develop, if people were not somewhat free to meet new people there? How do you meet someone and talk to them without saying hello, starting conversation and maybe buying a cuppa for each other now and again. It seems pretty normal.

I absolutely love neighborhood gathering spots, those places where people from a neighborhood come together to socialize and connect. There are many different types of spaces that could function as gathering spots in a neighborhood: coffee or tea shops, restaurants, bars, parks, town squares, and other outdoor spaces, churches, public-access buildings or outdoor terraces on a university campus, public government buildings like libraries, corporate office buildings with public areas, the possibilities are endless.

One of my favorite neighborhood gathering spots (which was also a gathering spot for interesting people of the Greater Cleveland metro area as a whole) is Algebra Tea House, pictured below:

http://zorach.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/ ... ing-space/

I love this place because it’s the kind of place where you can easily strike up interesting and meaningful conversations with people.

If only this blogger knew how inappropriate this is....eh?

Spaces in which people can get together and hang out are obviously fun. They help people to relax, and they provide a good place for groups to get together in a more public setting, or a place for single people to go if they just want to get out of their house or apartment.

How can this be? I mean -- they have no right to assume anyone wants to be talked to, right?

[Thinking Aloud]

Demeanour.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, not looking up, not making eye contact except maybe a polite "hello" or nod as you sit down, deep into a book, concentrating, headphones in - probably not interested in chatting just there and then.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, looking about occasionally, smiles and says "good morning, lovely day" as you sit down, switching from book to breezily watching the world go by - more likely to welcome conversation.

Your mileage may vary - it's remotely possible the second example is recording the whole thing on video so that they can put you on the internet, lose you your job and family, and prove how close to rape they came that day.

Worth noting I've never been in a coffee shop for a coffee, never mind been offered one, or offered someone else one, so my experience is somewhat limited.

[devogue]

Well that's what I think.

If I'm reading a book I want to read my book. Leave me alone.

You presume that a conversation with you is more in my interest than reading my book.

We both disagree.

So there we are.

Although admittedly you will get more sex in the long run.

Fair enough, of course.

But, the reality is that in our culture people talk to each other all the time. If someone says something to me in line at the bank, wouldn't I be as justified to say "if I'm standing their deep in thought, I want to stand their deep in thought. Leave me alone?" I don't see why not, unless my desires are to be presumed less important than yours, right?

Same goes for people in a pub, where people also go to socialize, or to the common area of the Barnes & Noble bookstore. Whatever they are doing, even if it is sitting there staring into space, my assumption has to be that that is what they want to do and they are not to be spoken to, right?

My question was, and still is, how do you reconcile that with your suggestion that it is, in fact, o.k. to talk to people in cafes, coffee shops and such, "if the time is right?" When can anyone know the time is right? Even if someone looks at you and smiles, is that an invitation? How so?

And that is fair enough as well.

There has been something profoundly unsettling about our exchange, CES - something deeply weird about our species' social interaction and the "mathematics" underlying our bonds...

'Tis a strange game we play...

[Coito ergo sum]

Demeanour.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, not looking up, not making eye contact except maybe a polite "hello" or nod as you sit down, deep into a book, concentrating, headphones in - probably not interested in chatting just there and then.

This is obvious and undisputed. Clearly, people have to do their best to judge these things. But, the article is suggesting that it is "harassment" and Devogue is suggesting it is inappropriate based on the person's intent or unstated desires.

Devogue says "I" don't want to be talked to. I just want to sit and read my paper. But, nobody can know that advance, and just because a person is sitting reading - or looking up -- doesn't provide a definitive answer about their desires or intent. A person may look up to think, or nod as you sit down merely out of habit or politeness. A person may not be reading at all, but may merely be thinking, and still will want to be left alone, but again, we can't know with any degree of certainty in advance.

And, the location is important -- it's a coffee shop, which I think is one point in favor that people ought to reasonably expect they might be spoken to, like if they're at a bar or something. If someone didn't want to socialize, they would go to a less social locale.

Clearly - there are some understandable rules of etiquette -- like if someone is on the phone, you should probably not interrupt them unless it is an emergency. Or, if someone has their eyes closed and headset on, may not be the best time. But, sitting their reading the paper or a book? That to me presents no indication one way or the other.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, looking about occasionally, smiles and says "good morning, lovely day" as you sit down, switching from book to breezily watching the world go by - more likely to welcome conversation.

If they can say that to me, why can't I say that to them? And, if I can say "good morning, lovely day" to them as I sit down (not sure why I couldn't if they can impinge on my privacy by doing the same thing), then why can't I also say something else? Like - "is that a good book? Who's the author?" Or, "I love that book?" and then "Look, I'm going to grab a coffee -- fancy one?"

Your mileage may vary - it's remotely possible the second example is recording the whole thing on video so that they can put you on the internet, lose you your job and family, and prove how close to rape they came that day.

Worth noting I've never been in a coffee shop for a coffee, never mind been offered one, or offered someone else one, so my experience is somewhat limited.

That first bit there about being recorded is an idea I would not want to put in the head of ApeLusters. We already saw one of those type things discussed a while back on Skepchick or something. http://gawker.com/5916731/dont-ineptly- ... on-twitter Your comment about recording reminded me of that one, LOL. Woman who was never asked out or asked for contact information, upset that a man on a plan talked to her for 10 minutes and then went to sleep. But, according to the article I linked in the OP, the mere fact that this guy talked to her is harassment anyway.

[Thinking Aloud]

Demeanour.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, not looking up, not making eye contact except maybe a polite "hello" or nod as you sit down, deep into a book, concentrating, headphones in - probably not interested in chatting just there and then.

This is obvious and undisputed. Clearly, people have to do their best to judge these things. But, the article is suggesting that it is "harassment" and Devogue is suggesting it is inappropriate based on the person's intent or unstated desires.

Devogue says "I" don't want to be talked to. I just want to sit and read my paper. But, nobody can know that advance, and just because a person is sitting reading - or looking up -- doesn't provide a definitive answer about their desires or intent. A person may look up to think, or nod as you sit down merely out of habit or politeness. A person may not be reading at all, but may merely be thinking, and still will want to be left alone, but again, we can't know with any degree of certainty in advance.

No, you can't be 100% certain in advance, but body language, acknowledgements/greetings, and eye contact are pretty good indicators. I think most of us read those unconsciously anyway, and know whether someone is intent on what they're doing. The cultural differences that seem to be apparent here suggest that in your (CES) environment, more people are likely to be approachable in such a location than might be the case in Dev's.

And, the location is important -- it's a coffee shop, which I think is one point in favor that people ought to reasonably expect they might be spoken to, like if they're at a bar or something. If someone didn't want to socialize, they would go to a less social locale.

Again, that's perhaps a cultural thing. North-West Europeans are maybe more reserved, and maybe do go to places like coffee shops to have some time alone, rather than to be sociable. If that's the case, we adjust to the 'norm' of our environment and act accordingly.

Clearly - there are some understandable rules of etiquette -- like if someone is on the phone, you should probably not interrupt them unless it is an emergency. Or, if someone has their eyes closed and headset on, may not be the best time. But, sitting their reading the paper or a book? That to me presents no indication one way or the other.

Back to body language. Someone head-down, intently reading, and paying no attention to what's going on around them - probably not an invitation to interrupt. Someone reading more lightly, taking in their surroundings, taking the trouble to look up and about and acknowledge (at least the existence of) other people - more likely to welcome an interruption.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, looking about occasionally, smiles and says "good morning, lovely day" as you sit down, switching from book to breezily watching the world go by - more likely to welcome conversation.

If they can say that to me, why can't I say that to them?

I think it was apparent from my example that you most likely could.

And, if I can say "good morning, lovely day" to them as I sit down (not sure why I couldn't if they can impinge on my privacy by doing the same thing), then why can't I also say something else? Like - "is that a good book? Who's the author?" Or, "I love that book?" and then "Look, I'm going to grab a coffee -- fancy one?"

I think that's the point I was making. Their demeanour, friendly greeting, and level of activity has already suggested that they're not intent on what they're doing - which means they're less likely to view your response as interrupting or (gasp horror) harrassment.

Your mileage may vary - it's remotely possible the second example is recording the whole thing on video so that they can put you on the internet, lose you your job and family, and prove how close to rape they came that day.

Worth noting I've never been in a coffee shop for a coffee, never mind been offered one, or offered someone else one, so my experience is somewhat limited.

That first bit there about being recorded is an idea I would not want to put in the head of ApeLusters. We already saw one of those type things discussed a while back on Skepchick or something. http://gawker.com/5916731/dont-ineptly- ... on-twitter Your comment about recording reminded me of that one, LOL. Woman who was never asked out or asked for contact information, upset that a man on a plan talked to her for 10 minutes and then went to sleep. But, according to the article I linked in the OP, the mere fact that this guy talked to her is harassment anyway.

I watched a video the other day that strongly suggested there are certain elements who will deliberately set up situations to 'prove' their point about men. But we digress...

[Santa_Claus]

I think it would be harrassment if someone started talking to me using multiquotes.

[Thinking Aloud]

I think it would be harrassment if someone started talking to me using multiquotes.

O Hai!

[Santa_Claus]

Oh, and just to make clear - that any woman sitting in public without a male member of her family is a whore.

FACT.

[Coito ergo sum]

Demeanour.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, not looking up, not making eye contact except maybe a polite "hello" or nod as you sit down, deep into a book, concentrating, headphones in - probably not interested in chatting just there and then.

This is obvious and undisputed. Clearly, people have to do their best to judge these things. But, the article is suggesting that it is "harassment" and Devogue is suggesting it is inappropriate based on the person's intent or unstated desires.

Devogue says "I" don't want to be talked to. I just want to sit and read my paper. But, nobody can know that advance, and just because a person is sitting reading - or looking up -- doesn't provide a definitive answer about their desires or intent. A person may look up to think, or nod as you sit down merely out of habit or politeness. A person may not be reading at all, but may merely be thinking, and still will want to be left alone, but again, we can't know with any degree of certainty in advance.

No, you can't be 100% certain in advance, but body language, acknowledgements/greetings, and eye contact are pretty good indicators. I think most of us read those unconsciously anyway, and know whether someone is intent on what they're doing. The cultural differences that seem to be apparent here suggest that in your (CES) environment, more people are likely to be approachable in such a location than might be the case in Dev's.

Sure, and if I looked at a person and got the impression they were not interested in interacting, I would not do so. But, a follow up point to that is whether it is improper (or according to the article, harassment) if I get it wrong. I mean -- let's say someone is sitting there reading their book, and another person just politely says, "hi -- I was wondering if I could buy you a cup of coffee?" Even if the person is just sitting there reading, if we assume nothing else, I can't imagine that being improper in any way. Now, if the answer is no and the offeror continues to solicit attention from that person, I can certainly agree it has crossed the line since the intent of the person is now known.

And, the location is important -- it's a coffee shop, which I think is one point in favor that people ought to reasonably expect they might be spoken to, like if they're at a bar or something. If someone didn't want to socialize, they would go to a less social locale.

Again, that's perhaps a cultural thing. North-West Europeans are maybe more reserved, and maybe do go to places like coffee shops to have some time alone, rather than to be sociable. If that's the case, we adjust to the 'norm' of our environment and act accordingly.

That, of course, may be true. I have heard several Irish and English guys say over the years that people in the US, often they refer to women, are more forward in the US. Christopher Hitchens wrote about his early experiences in the US, and how he found Americans to be very open, welcoming and communicative. So, I think this may be a point that I will need to consider when I travel there.

Clearly - there are some understandable rules of etiquette -- like if someone is on the phone, you should probably not interrupt them unless it is an emergency. Or, if someone has their eyes closed and headset on, may not be the best time. But, sitting their reading the paper or a book? That to me presents no indication one way or the other.

Back to body language. Someone head-down, intently reading, and paying no attention to what's going on around them - probably not an invitation to interrupt. Someone reading more lightly, taking in their surroundings, taking the trouble to look up and about and acknowledge (at least the existence of) other people - more likely to welcome an interruption.

Yes, very true. But, the author in the OP makes no such distinctions. I would always recommend understanding body language as best as one can and acting accordingly. But, that, again, says nothing about whether the action is harassment or even anything more than a slight breach of etiquette. A polite "can I buy you a cup of coffee?" -- even in a situation where someone is head down and concentrating, does not seem to me to rise to the level of impropriety, if a no answer is immediately honored, that is.

Person sitting reading in a coffee shop, looking about occasionally, smiles and says "good morning, lovely day" as you sit down, switching from book to breezily watching the world go by - more likely to welcome conversation.

If they can say that to me, why can't I say that to them?

I think it was apparent from my example that you most likely could.

And, if I can say "good morning, lovely day" to them as I sit down (not sure why I couldn't if they can impinge on my privacy by doing the same thing), then why can't I also say something else? Like - "is that a good book? Who's the author?" Or, "I love that book?" and then "Look, I'm going to grab a coffee -- fancy one?"

I think that's the point I was making. Their demeanour, friendly greeting, and level of activity has already suggested that they're not intent on what they're doing - which means they're less likely to view your response as interrupting or (gasp horror) harrassment.

Yes, but if they don't say that to me first -- can't I say that to them first? That was my point. You suggested that they might communicate to me a willingness to chat by saying something to me first. But, if I've not given them an indication that I want to talk, why would they be within propriety to start talking to me? And, if they are within propriety to do that, then wouldn't I be, too? We're in the same place, and neither of us has given each other any non-verbal cues. I would think under the Dev analysis, that someone would just leave me be.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, and just to make clear - that any woman sitting in public without a male member of her family is a whore.

FACT.

[mistermack]

Bugger body language.

A few years ago, I was in a pub with a male friend.
A woman he knew, who was obviously a bit drunk, came talking to him.
She was right up against me, side to side. I moved a bit, and she moved, again against me. I thought there was some message being passed on here.
She wasn't bad looking, but I didn't fancy her. I don't like drunk women anyway.
I moved again, she moved again. This kept on happening, and I eventually looked up, and the three of us had gone round in a complete circle, and we were facing the way we started.

I didn't fancy her, I didn't even like her, and I'm really angry now, looking back.
Who gave her the right to assume that she could just come on to me like that, without any encouragement from me? Why do women feel that they are free to act like that, but men should not?


I'm sorry I fucked her now.

[hadespussercats]

Oh, and just to make clear - that any woman sitting in public without a male member of her family is a whore.

FACT.

The other day I stopped in a Starbucks I used to frequent, before a better place opened up closer to our apt. J and I and Sprog often went on weekends, as a nice destination for a walk-- then we'd go to the park to eat breakfast.

Anyway, this barista looked at me and exclaimed, "Here without your husband and your baby?! What is UP with you?!!"

I just blinked at her, then turned to the other barista and placed my order. But I was really tempted to point out to her that we don't in fact live under Sharia law, so I'm allowed out of the house without my male consort.

I think she was stoned.

[Santa_Claus]

Oh, and just to make clear - that any woman sitting in public without a male member of her family is a whore.

FACT.

The other day I stopped in a Starbucks I used to frequent, before a better place opened up closer to our apt. J and I and Sprog often went on weekends, as a nice destination for a walk-- then we'd go to the park to eat breakfast.

Anyway, this barista looked at me and exclaimed, "Here without your husband and your baby?! What is UP with you?!!"

I just blinked at her, then turned to the other barista and placed my order. But I was really tempted to point out to her that we don't in fact live under Sharia law, so I'm allowed out of the house without my male consort.

I think she was stoned.

My bet is that you were showing lots of naked flesh. Including your ankles.

It's WHORES like you who give women the bad name they have.

Praise be to Jesus that you will be stoned in the next life. Praise be to Mohammed that you will be stoned in this.

[Thinking Aloud]

Back to body language. Someone head-down, intently reading, and paying no attention to what's going on around them - probably not an invitation to interrupt. Someone reading more lightly, taking in their surroundings, taking the trouble to look up and about and acknowledge (at least the existence of) other people - more likely to welcome an interruption.

Yes, very true. But, the author in the OP makes no such distinctions. I would always recommend understanding body language as best as one can and acting accordingly. But, that, again, says nothing about whether the action is harassment or even anything more than a slight breach of etiquette. A polite "can I buy you a cup of coffee?" -- even in a situation where someone is head down and concentrating, does not seem to me to rise to the level of impropriety, if a no answer is immediately honored, that is.

I agree the author considers any uninvited approach to be "harassing", which is ridiculous. However I wouldn't interrupt someone, even politely, if they're clearly already 'busy' in the manner you describe above.

Yes, but if they don't say that to me first -- can't I say that to them first? That was my point. You suggested that they might communicate to me a willingness to chat by saying something to me first. But, if I've not given them an indication that I want to talk, why would they be within propriety to start talking to me? And, if they are within propriety to do that, then wouldn't I be, too? We're in the same place, and neither of us has given each other any non-verbal cues.

OK, I'm working on the assumption that one person is already seated and the other is just arriving, as would be the dynamic in a coffee shop. If you're just arriving I don't think a polite "good morning" along with "is this seat taken?" or whatever as you sit down would be seen as intrusive, even if they're engrossed - their response or lack of should be indicative of their willingness to engage further, and you can adjust your own reactions to suit. If you're already in position and someone else arrives, again there's no harm in a greeting and further pleasantries as they settle - and then you take if from there: if the headphones come out, or they open a book with no further talking, it's pretty clear (in my opinion) that the conversation's over. If not, then off you go.

I would think under the Dev analysis, that someone would just leave me be.

If you were showing no outward signs of wanting to engage, then yes. There are plenty of signals people can give off - in my opinion, remaining engrossed in something is not a signal they want to be offered coffee, but then that's just my take on it.

[Santa_Claus]

BTW the above is NOT offensive because it is true.

FACT.