The Original Poster (OP), a 25-year-old man, consistently avoided sharing an elevator with a specific woman in his apartment building for about two weeks during his weekday commute. This behavior stemmed from advice OP received from his mother intended to prevent making women uncomfortable, which included instructions to never enter an elevator if a woman is alone inside.
The OP chose to consistently take the stairs, an extra minute or two of travel time, whenever he saw this woman already in the elevator. The immediate aftermath occurred when he encountered the woman’s friend, who accused him of being a ‘dick’ for making her friend feel bad and demanded an apology, claiming the OP’s actions were damaging the woman’s self-esteem. The OP is now confused and questions what he missed or did wrong in this situation.
AITAH For not getting on an elevator with only a woman on it?
In the field of interpersonal dynamics, Dr. Morgan Simmons is known for noting, “Boundary setting is often misinterpreted when the intent behind the boundary is not clearly communicated, leading to assumptions of hostility or rejection.”
The OP acted based on pre-emptive social scripting meant to avoid perceived threat or imposition. While this advice is common, its consistent, non-verbal application—repeatedly choosing the stairs—can easily be interpreted by the recipient as active avoidance, judgment, or even fear directed specifically at them. For the woman involved, seeing a neighbor repeatedly bypass her presence, even if the neighbor uses the stairs, can easily erode self-esteem, as the implied message is that her presence alone is undesirable or unsafe.
The friend’s reaction suggests a high level of emotional investment or a belief that the woman’s feelings trumped the OP’s right to choose his route. The OP’s confusion is valid; he did not act maliciously. A potential path forward for the OP, should he wish to mend the situation, involves a neutral, brief explanation if he encounters the woman or friend again, such as stating he was trying to be respectful of space, but without accepting blame for her feelings. Moving forward, the OP should recognize that social advice must be applied flexibly to specific contexts.
REDDIT USERS WERE STUNNED – YOU WON’T BELIEVE SOME OF THESE REACTIONS.
The core conflict for the OP lies between his established safety precaution, rooted in a desire to respect potential boundaries, and the unexpected negative interpretation of his actions by the woman and her friend. While the OP intended to be considerate by avoiding an awkward situation, his consistent avoidance behavior was perceived by the other party as a deliberate slight or judgment against the woman.
The central question is whether the OP’s precautionary measure, based on general advice about stranger interaction, constitutes an actionable offense when it leads to negative feelings in the other person. Readers must weigh the OP’s good intentions against the impact of his avoidance: Was avoiding potential discomfort for himself worth causing perceived isolation or offense to the woman, or was the friend’s reaction an overreach based on a misunderstanding?
