On "Everyone knows that 'x' = 'sex'" and (not) taking the indirect route

In the past couple of weeks, an idea has come up again in my PUA/dating advice research. It's one that I reject quite vehemently, and at its worst I feel it ties into rape culture (but I don't want to talk about that so much). It's also one of those tropes that ends up making me feel like an alien.

A couple of weeks ago, a commenter at Clarisse Thorn's linked to this video from the RSA Animate series:



Steven Pinker is talking about direct versus indirect language, and how he thinks that works and reveals stuff about human minds. I disagree with almost all of it! Again, I don't really want to talk about the whole video and why I disagree with Pinker (if anyone wants me to explain my disagreements, say so and I'll do another post and we can debate it there).

What I want to talk about is the specific point at 1:45 in the video (also referenced at 6:30-ish):

"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?" That has been recognised as a sexual come-on for so long that in the 1930s, [a cartoonist whose name I don't catch] drew a New Yorker cartoon in which a man says to his date, "You wait here and I'll bring the etchings down."

...

People aren't naive and it's hard to believe that any grown woman could be fooled by the line about the etchings. None-the-less, there is something that is more comfortable about asking to see etchings than asking for sex. So what is going on there?

The deniability is not really plausible.

Well, I didn't (and generally wouldn't) recognise it as a sexual come-on (and, frankly, the 1930s cartoon doesn't make sense to me in that context - is he suggesting he'll just shag her where they are?) According to Mr Pinker, I guess that would make me "naive", and I guess it's just as well that I am not a young woman with an interest in etchings, otherwise I might end up with someone raping me (okay, so I am discussing the rape culture thing a little...)

A different commenter at the same thread on Clarisse Thorn's blog, writes:

An invitation for an intimate time alone with eating or drinking is the polite lie like the previously mentioned bait. It’s how we pretend that we’re not talking about if we like each other enough to be physically intimate – like we pretend that we’re going back to someone’s house to look at their antique camera collection, or ‘for a coffee’. Or that ‘My roommate’s out for the weekend, come over and watch a movie, I’ll cook dinner’ isn’t an invitation to have sex on the couch.

Similarly, Charlie Nox's "Feminist PUA" site (tagline "Refuse to Choose Between Being Nice and Getting Laid") has the following advice in a recent post:

“Hey, we haven’t done a movie marathon in a while. Want to come over and catch up on our bad 80′s movie watching?” Would be a perfect example. This is a version of the – “why don’t you come up and have a night cap.” No one involved is fooled – everyone knows that sex might happen. But that’s the important difference. Sex MIGHT happen. It’s not certain, no one is committing to anything, there’s no pressure.

Even in CN's watered down "might" happen version, I'm not with it.

Without being given these primers, I would never have found out on my own, except by virtue of being sexually assaulted (sorry, again with the rape culture reference), that "dinner and a movie" meant "shagging".

In a live situation (as opposed to theoretic discussion, where I have now been given these primers) I would STILL not get it. If my date says, "I have the flat to myself this evening, come over and watch a movie, I'll make dinner," then I expect to be watching a movie and eating dinner. I don't even consider the possibility of sex, if that's all that's done. Two exceptions spring to mind: one is that she and I have already discussed shagging together, and maybe have already done it, so I already know that it's something that might be established as a pattern; the other is that the invitation is given with enough non-verbal cues (as in, VERY obvious nudge, wink, air-quotes around "movie", etc - don't expect me to get it from vocal cues, I need exaggerated visual cues to get this). In either of these cases, I'm still likely to check my read of the situation - "So, should I bring condoms?"

There is a third option, which is exemplified by a scene in the movie Brassed Off (I forget the characters' names, or who speaks which lines):

A: Would you like to come in for coffee?
B: Sorry, I don't drink coffee.
A: I haven't got any.

Or, "Sorry, I don't like etchings" - "That's okay. I haven't got any."

Or, "I'm not really into movies" - "That's okay. I haven't got anything to watch them on."

Basically, if it's an offer that can't even possibly be genuine, then I'll look for the ulterior motive (i.e. sex), but otherwise I probably won't get it.

Let's flip this around: I don't get that "etchings"/"dinner and a movie at mine" is supposed to be code for "sex". I only know "coffee" is supposed to be because I have seen that one before and had it explained to me. So, when I offer to cook dinner and show my date a movie, and she says yes, then what? Well, I'm not going to be offering her sex, but she thinks that I am. CN offers the following manoeuvres as possibilities:

Mutually pretending like you aren’t planning to have sex is exciting! There is the tingle when he touches your arm (was that on purpose? accidentally? should I touch him back?). There is the rush when she puts a pillow on your lap to watch the movie (should I stroke her hair? touch her back?). People like the thrill and fun of building up to sex (when done well of course).

Now, given that I'm not planning to have sex if I've made that offer, but am a tactile and cuddle-loving person: touching, and "pillow on the lap" (I'm guessing the implication here is that she then puts her head on the pillow, but I could be wrong!) seem to be natural steps in a perfectly chaste but loving situation; and I would have no problem cuddling/caressing my partner and feeling it meant nothing more than that we were sharing an intimate and pleasurable time while watching the telly. I would not interpret these moves as sexual, unless (as already mentioned) we already had established in some explicit format (either discussion, or doing) that we had a sexual relationship.

So, what happens? Either a) she pushes it further, trying to make a non-sexual situation into a sexual one (because she thinks it already is one), and thus making me feel uncomfortable (which kills the mood), or b) she goes away thinking I must not find her sexy because I invited her for sex and then didn't make a move on her. CN says that the "dinner and a movie at mine" line is a good way to ensure there's no pressure, but for me there's far more pressure, because I am expecting one thing (dinner and a movie) and my date might be expecting something else (sex). That leads to tension, which is a form of pressure.

In short, if I'm "pretending it's not going to happen" then as far as I'm concerned, it's not going to happen.

Back to the RSA Animate video: At 7:40, Mr Pinker discusses economists' and logicians' concept of mutual versus individual knowledge, where individual knowledge is stuff that everyone knows for themselves, and mutual knowledge is stuff that everybody in the situation knows that everyone else knows.

It is supposed to be mutual knowledge that "coffee/etchings/dinner-and-a-movie-at-mine means, 'let's have sex'" (Steven Pinker discusses this at 9:45 in the video). If it's true that everyone knows that, then it is also true that the person you're inviting for coffee/etchings/dinner knows it, and therefore that if they agree, then they are agreeing to sex with you. But there's no guarantee that they know what it "really" means. These codes are socially-constructed and require someone to be familiar with the social context of the statements before the meaning is grasped. I had to learn what "coffee" meant. Until I saw these posts and comments, I didn't know what "dinner-and-a-movie" meant, and I never knew about "etchings" until I watched the RSA video. "Mutual knowledge" that is not explicitly stated is only an assumption, it is not true knowledge. In fact, I would argue that there is no euphemism 'x' for which it can be said that "Everybody knows that 'x' is code for 'let's have sex'", and certainly, that is the only way I feel able to proceed with wanting sex.

For this reason, unless I have clear and incontrovertible evidence that this particular dating partner, in this particular situation, knows that I intend "dinner and a movie at mine" to mean "I am setting up a situation in which sex is on the cards", then I am not going to assume that she has any idea or any clue that that's what it could mean, or that her "yes" means that she is open to the idea of sex with me.

So, sticking with the assumption that I was using this ruse to set up the possibility of a sexual scenario, I'm going to feel compelled to read her touch or her pillow on my lap as being chaste moves, just the way I would interpret them if I hadn't had an ulterior motive.

CN implies that the uncertainty is exciting and part of the sexual thrill of setting up this sort of situation. But for me it's the complete opposite. It completely kills the mood, kills any sense of sexual excitement, it just makes me feel dirty and wrong (and not in a good, sexy, way - in a creepy, horrible way).

CN says:

If what you want is to sleep with someone, coming right out and suggesting they come over to shack up is rarely a good strategy unless you have a pre-existing no-strings attached, call me up anytime agreement for sex. But if you want to have sex with someone you are dating, or a friend, or an ex, you will be far more effective if you employ a little strategic obfuscation of your motives.

As discussed above, a pre-existing sexual relationship is about the only time when I could feel confident and sexy while using obfuscation! With "dating, or a friend, or an ex" then anything other than an explicitly stated sexual motive (or understanding of my sexual motive) is going to result in me assuming they don't know, or don't want, sex to be involved. (Not to mention that, frankly, if my relationship with an ex is on a level where I feel I can't come out and say that I'd like sex with her, then I wouldn't want sex with her anyway.)

Now, CN does admit that:

Now, will this strategy guarantee you sex? Of course not. There are plenty of other ways you can make someone awkward and uncomfortable. And, if you don’t frame your invitation right, the other person may have NO idea what you’re suggesting. If this is the case, you’ll have a lot more work to do before something sexual will happen between you two.

That at least acknowledges the issue when I'm receiving the invitation: although when it comes to Yours Truly, "framing your invitation right", as discussed above, effectively means being explicit about something - either, we're already explicit about the sexual objective of the relationship, or we're explicit that the invitation isn't genuine (by use of nudge/wink/"air-quotes", or by admitting that the pretext is false - "I haven't got any"). What it doesn't recognise is that I'm never going to be confident that my non-verbal cues (or "I haven't got any" line) is going to clear up the situation for the other person; and anyway, I would feel as if making those sorts of gestures would creep out the other person far more effectively than just coming straight out with what I really mean!

Another thing it doesn't recognise is whether or not I feel awkward or uncomfortable in a situation, which is what I've been discussing here for the most part.

But this strategy will be much more likely to result in you being alone with the target of your affections. And being alone with them gives you a statistically greater chance of getting in their pants, than if you lay on your cards on the table and get met with a dial tone, a dodging joke or a firm declaration of friendship as your response.

Eh, I'm really not interested in having sex with a statistic, so "statistically greater chance" doesn't impress me.

And, I think it's important to be aware that my reaction to a sexual come-on after I've invited a date to "dinner and a movie at mine" is much more likely to be the personal, face-to-face conversation equivalent of "a dial tone, a dodging joke or a firm declaration of friendship" than it is to be either of us getting into the other's pants.

Now, that's all very well, blasting the idea that "everyone knows 'x' means 'sex'", and the idea that you can use 'x' as a strategy to build up to sex with someone. But there's a clear truth in the above statement by CN: it certainly is much more conducive to getting sexual with someone if you can get alone-together time with that person! So it's fair to say, "What's the alternative? What could I do instead?"

Now, to date, all my sexual encounters have come from a straightforward "lay your cards on the table" situation. However, those were also situations where the possibility and desire for sex had already been discussed explicitly beforehand and it was just a question of when we would feel ready and how it would happen. So we can put those to one side and think about a hypothetical situation, and put me in it and see what I might try:

Hypothetical: I've been dating a woman for a bit, we've gone on a few dates together, cuddled, kissed, maybe a little bit of more serious fondling after that most recent date or two - I think it's time to test the waters and see if she's looking to get fully sexual with me. So, how do I deal with that, without laying cards on the table (because I feel like she might be the type to react as CN describes)?

What I think I would do is make it a totally open-ended. That is, I would not offer any "pretext", but also would not mention sex. It would just be, "How about coming over and spending the evening with me?" It sets up no non-sexual expectations so I don't need to fear that she expects 'x' and only 'x'; but it still allows the pretence that it is some unspecified non-sexual activity that is proposed. Now, let's assume that she's cautious and thinks saying "yes" to such an open-ended invitation is still a little bit on the slutty side - a bit too obviously a pretext for a sexual situation. So she responds, "To do what?" At which point I say, "Let's see what we feel like," and give a couple of genuine possibilities (most likely including "I'll make dinner and we watch a movie", but I'd say that meaning "watch a movie"...) and add another vague term with a bit more of a hint, e.g. "or whatever we feel like" or "or something more, if you're lucky" - trying to pitch the vague term based on the tone of voice with which she said, "to do what?" If she still pushes for specifics, then (again, based on tone of voice and how it feels) probably make a joke out of the ulterior motive - "Ah, you got me, I really just hoped to get you alone and shag your brains out, but how about that movie?" Ideally, it wouldn't go that far - I'd hope she said yes after "let's see what we feel like", because it's still open-ended when she arrives, and we can then have a conversation, see how body language, touching, etc develops, maybe let the talk get sexual, and go from there... or, if she's not actually up for it (or we're just going slower than that), then because there were no promises either way, I can get out the DVDs or whatever and see what develops. (Although, as noted above, uncertainty about motives is not a good or sexy thrill for me, it feels creepy, so it needs to be judged very well indeed by her if that's the way she wants to go.)

That's about the only "obfuscation" approach I can see being comfortable with using myself.

Here's the TL;DR bullet points:

• There's no such thing as "everybody knows [x] means 'sex'."
• Uncertainty is not a turn-on for me
• I'll take you at your word if you invite me for dinner and a movie - if I don't make a move on you, it's not that I'm not interested in you sexually, it's because I didn't realise you wanted it, and probably didn't even bring a condom (and regular ones are too small, so having your own supply might not help there)
• If I invite you to mine for dinner and a movie, keep the flirting light and fluffy - it DOESN'T mean sex, and if you overdo it you might drive me away instead; but if I invite you over for "whatever we feel like", that's your cue to go for it, if you want to.