Both Amy and the husband need a swift kick to the head, since they are both blaming the innocent wife for a situation she didn’t cause.
Amy, by now, should be familiar with the concept of the "soft no" -- women are socialized that saying "no" directly is rude and likely to have negative consequences, especially if they have reason to be concerned about their safety FROM the person they're saying "no" to.
The wife was being creeped-on, the text message was unsolicited, and SHE SAID NO, AND TOLD HER HUSBAND ABOUT IT.
My guess is that the phrasing of the "audacious" message probably contained some plausible deniability (so that if she outright said "I'm not interested in you romantically or sexually, I'm married," the note-sender could claim that it was all perfectly innocent, he was just giving her a compliment, why is she overreacting and being rude, etc.)
It can also be actively dangerous to give a hard no -- and given that this person has connections to her family, she may not have felt safe or socially comfortable doing so.
She acted with integrity and was honest with her husband, and both he and Amy are acting like she did something wrong by trying to politely get away from this jerk hitting on her.
It is very, very common to "freeze" or "fawn" when someone does something that makes you uncomfortable, and it sounds like the phrasing of her response was an attempt to deal with the awkwardness of receiving the text, in a way that didn't cause offense and get this already-creepy person angry at her.
Now, of course, her husband AND Amy seem to think that she is responsible for the unwanted proposition, and that her attempt at politeness was really a suggestion that she welcomed future advances.
So, her husband has been given carte blanche to continue to be a judgmental ass about it, as well as told that his inappropriate choice to send a scathing text "on his marriage's behalf" was entirely fine.
no subject
Amy, by now, should be familiar with the concept of the "soft no" -- women are socialized that saying "no" directly is rude and likely to have negative consequences, especially if they have reason to be concerned about their safety FROM the person they're saying "no" to.
The wife was being creeped-on, the text message was unsolicited, and SHE SAID NO, AND TOLD HER HUSBAND ABOUT IT.
My guess is that the phrasing of the "audacious" message probably contained some plausible deniability (so that if she outright said "I'm not interested in you romantically or sexually, I'm married," the note-sender could claim that it was all perfectly innocent, he was just giving her a compliment, why is she overreacting and being rude, etc.)
It can also be actively dangerous to give a hard no -- and given that this person has connections to her family, she may not have felt safe or socially comfortable doing so.
She acted with integrity and was honest with her husband, and both he and Amy are acting like she did something wrong by trying to politely get away from this jerk hitting on her.
It is very, very common to "freeze" or "fawn" when someone does something that makes you uncomfortable, and it sounds like the phrasing of her response was an attempt to deal with the awkwardness of receiving the text, in a way that didn't cause offense and get this already-creepy person angry at her.
Now, of course, her husband AND Amy seem to think that she is responsible for the unwanted proposition, and that her attempt at politeness was really a suggestion that she welcomed future advances.
So, her husband has been given carte blanche to continue to be a judgmental ass about it, as well as told that his inappropriate choice to send a scathing text "on his marriage's behalf" was entirely fine.
FFS.