Entitlement, Good Faith and Miscommunication

[kheserthorpe]

I often see people accusing others (most often the opposite sex, though this actually can happen in other types of social relationship as well) of entitlement. Sometimes, they are quite correct. Some guys think they're owed something for buying you dinner. Some women are gold diggers, and so on.

I think those people are a minority, however. Most people's level of entitlement is not actually that high. The reason this issue comes up so often is that people feel like there was a false pretense, which creates a feeling of being used. That’s different from entitlement.

There are many things we do in life we do, happily, not expecting any direct payback, rather because we want to within the context and nature of the relationship. Do we have some expectations back? Probably some, but they are less specific than the 'entitlement' accusers would say.

Let me give a few examples:

• If a company flies a candidate in for a job interview, they do this on the assumption that the candidate is at least considering the job. If the candidate meets the company and decides they aren't interested, or if they accept a different job, so be it. On the other hand, if the company found the candidate never had an interest in the job and just wanted to visit the city, they'd feel taken advantage of. The candidate wasn't acting in good faith.

• If you buy a gift for a friend for their birthday, what do you expect back? You probably expect some appreciation. You might hope they do something on your birthday. Do you feel that you are owed a gift back? You might. Is that entitlement? Perhaps. But let’s take a step back. You are probably in the short run happy if they appreciate the gift. If you then find out they don't actually like you, and speak ill of you behind your back, you'd probably feel used. It's not that you were trying to buy their friendship; it's that your desire to invest in making them happy was done within the context of a mutual friendship. If that context was not, in fact, in place, then you would NOT have invested in that way.

So let’s look at a couple of scenarios where people are accused of being 'entitled' in a dating context:

• A takes B out on an expensive date. A tries to initiate something physical at the end. B announced that they should just be friends. A is upset. Is A displaying entitlement? Maybe, but maybe not. If A thinks they are OWED something physical in exchange for dinner, then A has inappropriate expectations. If B knew they only saw A as a friend before dinner, B bears most of the blame. This situation is a lot like the 'job interview' one. A has the right to expect B is treating this as a date in good faith. If B already knows they're not interested in dating, only being friends, it’s inappropriate to accept something given in the context of dating. There is a difference between ‘date didn’t lead anywhere’ and ‘was just using them for dinner and company’.

• A similar example: A sees B at a bar, and offers to buy B a drink. This is the above situation, writ small. If B has no interest in A (perhaps B is already in a relationship), B should decline. If B is at least open to talking to A and giving A a legitimate shot, go ahead and accept. A does not have the right to expect sex for a drink. A -does- have the right to expect B will chat genuinely and give them a chance to get to know them in a 'date' type context.

A drink Kheserthorpe would find hard to turn down: a whiskey old fashioned with flamed orange peel. This has a tangential relationship to the take at best.

• A sleeps with B, thinking B is interested in a relationship. B is not. A is angry. Is A being entitled? Like most of these scenarios, it depends on nuance. A slept with B with the expectation that they were at least on a potential track towards a relationship. That was apparently not true. Is that because B lead A on? Did A simply assume that sex always meant a potential relationship? Was it somewhere in between?

• A and B become friends. A is interested in B and thinks B might be interested back. A treats B far better than they would a friend - doing more favors, being more helpful and providing a lot of emotional support. A asks B out and is turned down. A is upset. Is A being entitled? If they think they are owed sex for emotional support, yes. If they were providing emotional support in the context of a relationship they thought was forming, no, they were perhaps naive, but that's not the same.

There's a common thread in almost all of these examples, at least in the version of each that isn't 'being entitled': the two people involved have different understandings of the nature of their relationship. So one is behaving in a way that is reasonable for what they imagine the relationship's scope to be, and then feels used when they find out that the relationship is something else.

Is this communication breakdown anyone's fault? It could be either, or neither. It could be that the person who feels used was simply naive and projected their feelings on the other person. It could be that they are inexperienced, and can't imagine that someone wouldn't know from their behavior what they felt. It could be they can't imagine the other person behaving the way they did without them feeling something. It could be that they were 'passively' lead on. Some people, particularly those who are quite good looking, can fall into a habit of flirting with everyone. I don't believe they even realize it. They have just learned over time that when they behave in a certain way, people like it and are happy and respond well. They don't even think of it as 'real flirting' (and for them, it probably isn't). And finally of course, there are people who intentionally lead others on for their own benefit, in some cases directly lying.

Is there a point to this long take?

TL/DR:

• Some people are entitled, but a lot of people are just hurt, because while they did what they did gladly without direct expectations of payback, they would not have done it had they understood that the nature of the relationship was not what they imagined. That's not being entitled.


• Don't make assumptions about how other people are thinking or feeling as you form relationships of any sort.


• Ask for what you want, don't just give and hope for reciprocation. By being clear about your expectations, you avoid feeling like you were lead on later.


• Don't actively lead people on, and if you want to be a decent person, watch out for naive people who actively lead themselves on, with you as the focus.

[Anonymous]

I understand that it isn't entitlement, but I do feel objectified nonetheless when I'm treated like... if I'm nice to someone... I miiiight date them or sleep with them. Why should we have to be sooo clear that we are definitely not interested? I feel it should be the other way around. Assume nothing will happen... always assume friendship and then if it's mutual that a relationship is in the cards... cool date. But not... behave as if you might stand a chance at marrying this person you met. You don't automatically do it to guy friends, why are females always treated like little more than 'girlfriend material' if they get along on a friendship level? A lot of times, the "miscommunication" is disrespect or denial. If I say "I'm not interested." and your brain says "Maybe if I treat her like a girlfriend anyway she'll see that she's wrong and she just needs to give me a chance.", it's not a fair situation. That person is setting expectations despite what has been clarified. Whatever you call it... entitlement mindset or not... it's disrespectful and a little bit delusional.

Although, I will agree, I have a habit of being very conversational and it's often seen as flirting. I've become used to it. I personally am not flirting or expressing romantic interest, I don't flutter my lashes or make contact etc... but apparently enjoying a conversation means I might enjoy-well nevermind. You get the drift.

Either way, I'm not jaded because like you, I know it's not malicious. I just do my part, on my own end, to keep my intents clear so that there's no confusion. I agree that it's miscommunication, and in some small way... it's not intended in deceit... but I do think if we were examining our own parts in these situations and being more real with ourselves and the other person involved, it would happen less. Whether intended or not... in at least some way, it's still a form of mild self-absorbed entitlement. Entitlement is complex and not entirely a direct literal translation.

[kheserthorpe]

I think that believing 'if i treat someone like a girlfriend/boyfriend anyway they'll see they need to give me a chance' is a terrible thought to have in your head, but we do see it - primarily among the inexperienced. I think that when you've actually had someone -want- to be with you, the absence of those signals can make it obvious that it isn't happening.

And as I said, I think there's a range between people being lead on and people being delusional.

I think a fair number of inexperienced guys approach girls because they're attracted, but then don't flirt, because they're too shy or are afraid of seeming creepy. They really don't have any clue how to get beyond acting like a friend.

Beyond that I'd also say that male-female friendship tends to involve a far higher level of emotional intimacy than male-male friendship (though perhaps not so different from female-female friendship). That -confuses- inexperienced guys. Not the girl's fault. But it happens.

Thanks for commenting

[Bluemax]

Damn good take. This ought to be promoted. It's a pity it hasn't been commented on more.

[harakiri]

Excellent post.

I found the picture of the whiskey + orange peel to be integral to the overall message.

I hope everyone sees your last bullet point: "Don't actively lead people on, and if you want to be a decent person, watch out for naive people who actively lead themselves on, with you as the focus."

[inamorata]

I like the analogies. Good Take. ^^