>And even if they aren't, it's not an excuse to harass.

Fuck off with this "not an excuse to harass" bullshit. I've already said it's not an excuse and harassment is never OK. I've already stated, twice now and this is a third time that I'm not taking the actions of the article into consideration so harassment is not the issue here. Do you understand? I want to make sure I'm being very explicit with my communication that this has nothing to do with harassment. I am talking about a scenario of undesired continued communication that does not have the intentions of harassing (sexual or otherwise).

>Women do not make a binary choice between either "being afraid of you" or "being attracted to you." If you are a friendly and reasonable person then you shouldn't have a problem.

You're now taking it out of the scenario. She was avoiding me. There's two reasons I can think of for actively avoiding someone. One of those is fear. The other is embarrassment. If you'd like to open my mind and give me more motives for avoiding someone for this context, feel free. But it seems very binary to me in this scenario.

>If you ask someone out and they say "I'm busy" a few too many times, maybe you just take the hint and move on, no?

And if they are legitimately busy? I'm finding it funny your chosen examples have all happened to me and all of them resulted in relationships. Do you have another example?

>The argument that "I'm too ignorant to know when women don't want my attention" is nonsense

I don't see why you keep making this gendered. I've already provided an example with the genders swapped. It works both ways and has nothing to do with ignorance. It has to do with a failure of communication (which is an important part of getting along and living among other human beings). Please respond to the tldr, this is a test to ensure you're actually reading my responses. When I entered this conversation and until this point it's always been about implicit messages being poor (and harmful) for communication.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and claim you do not understand how communication works. Communication requires the meaning of the message to be understood and agreed upon. When a message is ambiguous in meaning (non-direct, implicit) the meaning of the message can be received in a manner not intended by the person giving the message.

The best example of this is cultural differences in the meaning of an action. Even small things like putting soy sauce on your rice can have an entirely different meaning in Japan than in America. In Japan it can be considered rude while people in America wouldn't even give it a second thought. If I wanted to offend you, I could drown your rice in soy sauce. Now depending on your cultural background - I've either offended you, or you're unaware that my message was meant as an offense. Because this implicit meaning behind a physical mention is interpreted differently in different cultures.

Implicit messages are terrible for communication. The ability for the meaning to be misunderstood or improperly conveyed is astounding. If you want someone to leave you alone it is important to be explicit. Especially when your implicit messages are ambiguous.

TL;DR

At best you can hope that when you mean "A" they assume "A" instead of "B" when "A" and "B" are ambiguous. But there is nothing wrong with assuming "B" and it is your fault for failing to communicate if that occurs because your implicit message was too ambiguous. You failed to communicate your intentions of "A" and that failure is on you.

ps.

America has a culture where people play "hard to get" on purpose. Every example you can think of that is intended to say "stop contacting me I'm not interested" is also used by these same people as a means of "try harder, I'm interested but want to make sure you're serious".