This study built upon a previous study (1982) in which observers were asked to judge the behavior of females and males during mixed-dyad conversations. The results of that study suggested that men might have been socialized to interpret any form of friendly behavior from a woman as an indication of sexual interest. It is suggested that these males’ misperceptions may be a cause of date rape. The hypotheses in the present study were that man’s tendency to interpret male-female mixed interactions in sexual terms still occurred; that males would endorse rape myths more strongly than females; and that those that endorse rape myths would interpret mixed conversations in more sexual terms than those that did not endorse rape myths. Ninety-one undergraduates were shown videotape of a male-female interaction in a social environment. The results replicated the 1982 study. Additionally, it was found that those that endorsed rape myths were more likely to perceive mixed interactions in sexual terms than their counterparts. Male participants were more likely to endorse rape myths than female participants, but this gender difference failed to explain most gender differences in perceiving mixed interactions. The results suggest that people that have been sexually harassed stand a greater chance of secondary victimization by men than by women. Secondary victimization refers to the unhelpful comments victims of crime sometimes receive from those in their environment. The results also suggest that, depending on the circumstances, either gender might feel uncomfortable during mixed-dyad interactions. The best solution would be for both women and men to inform the other about their true intentions. 2 tables, 8 references