Jejudo, South Korea
EG guy should stay out of the picture.
Um, I'm not sure I understand why.
Except for that, everything your saying makes perfect sense to me. I don't really want to speculate on her personality (she is, at least for me, an engaging speaker) but I do see a pattern: she's very interested in taking down people in power. Richard Dawkins is just the last in a series. In April, it was Lawrence Krauss and in this video, she talks about wanting to write a book on Oprah Winfrey.
Intriguingly, Justicar, the apparent bad boy of Pharyngula, has keyed on Watson's use of the imperative, "Guys, don't do that."
Among other things, what got him going, he says, is the description of this as a suggestion. It's not a suggestion. He's right. I noticed that immediately but chopped it up to being hyper-sensitive to this kind of stuff in Korean or Japanese (this is a long story).
I think he's on to something (no surprise there). In private conversations, I've been trying to point out that you don't need to see EG's invitation as anything more than what it was and still see RW's response as valid.
I've also tried to make the point that it should be seen at face value in order to avoid pesky and endless speculation on his intent.
Even further, I've made the argument that you must take it at face value. Why? If you assume that it was a sexual proposition and she had said yes, what happens next?
When it comes to sex, we keep the ambiguity in play precisely because nobody is ever quite sure of anything.
Or has the relationships between men and women suddenly become less complex, less frustrating, and less . . . exciting?