Men are usually handed the responsibility of initiating dates or sexual encounters. Are we ready to move past these stereotypical roles?
Being rejected sucks.
Let me tell you about my first experience with it. Like me, the object of my desire was 13 years old, and he was the hottest thing ever—a geek who loved the natural sciences. He seemed like an awesome match for an Internet-obsessed nerd girl with weird pets. Sadly, he responded to my overture by saying that I could shove one of my pets up my ass. I can laugh about this now, but it sure sucked in my teens, and gave me a complex about asking guys out that lasted through my 20s. Like just about everyone in the world, I know about the pain of rejection.
But I know how the receiving end can get, too. I grew up into a woman who—like many women—routinely manages unwanted advances from men. Some of those advances are not made with good intent, like the guys who shout gross comments at me in the street. Yet at the same time as that kind of deliberately invasive behavior is going on, there are also people of all genders trying to initiate real, mutual romantic relationships—often misstepping even when their partner is receptive, and often experiencing very sad rejections.
♦◊♦
Men are usually handed the social responsibility of initiating dates or sexual encounters, while women usually get the social responsibility of appearing attractive and open enough to convince a man to say something. The awesome data-crunching blog for the dating site OKCupid notes that men send nearly four times as many introductory messages as women. Dr. Debby Herbenick, a research scientist at Indiana University and author of Because It Feels Good: A Woman’s Guide to Sexual Pleasure and Satisfaction, told me, “While for male-female interactions it appears that men do much of the initiating, it’s really a certain type of initiating—maybe saying hello first or asking the woman on a date.”
In other words, women often work hard to send approachable signals first, but it’s men who are expected to express overt interest. Herbenick adds, “I think it’s more often when people step out of their gender roles—such as when women don’t just settle for nonverbal initiation but walk up to a man and ask him out—is when things get tricky in many (but fortunately not all) instances.”
In my middle-school case, I don’t think that Natural Sciences Boy rejected me because I was the one to initiate; I think he wouldn’t have been interested no matter what, because that’s the fate of 13-year-old nerd girls. But now that I’ve grown up, I’ve generally found that it’s strange and difficult to be a woman who initiates. Don’t get me wrong—I like it when guys ask me out; I really don’t ever want to be in a position where I’m taking all the sexual initiative—but I often find that I start the conversation, offer my number or ask for his, suggest dinner, suggest that we go home together, etc. And I often find that guys don’t react well.
♦◊♦
Part of the problem may be that straightforward women are often seen as “sluts.” In the blunt words of Derek L., cofounder of a San Francisco–based company called Social Savant that claims to help men improve their romantic lives: “I’m not surprised that women don’t make the first move. They have so much to lose. There’s judgment from their girlfriends (‘Oh my God, she’s such a slut to hit on that guy’). And she risks judgment from the guy she approaches (‘Oh my God, she approached me, must be a slut, I’ll just fuck her and dump her’).”
This forms an interesting contrast to what men experience as initiators. I’ve already written about some of the romantic and sexual double binds men deal with as part of a previous AlterNet article. One of the points I made is that usually, when men initiate, they don’t have to fear being seen as “slutty”—but they do have to worry about being seen as “creepy.”
Some men, feeling frustrated with those anxieties, claim they would just love it if women would do all the initiating! And yet those same men will sometimes act as Derek described above—labeling women who initiate as sluts—or, alternatively, simply won’t know how to react to an initiating woman.
As Hugo Schwyzer, a senior professor of gender and women’s studies at Pasadena College in California, says: “Men often say that they have no problem with an aggressive woman, until they actually meet one—and find themselves confused. What might seem flattering and relieving in theory becomes discombobulating in practice, as some men (by no means all) flounder without … a clear-cut role. Many men claim that it is burdensome to have to risk rejection by always taking the initiative—but many discover that they feel equally burdened rather than liberated by having to let go of the culturally familiar role as dominant partner.”
♦◊♦
I’ve found that in some ways it’s useful that many guys don’t react well to me making the first move, because a guy who can’t handle hacking our society’s gendered scripts is probably not a great partner for me anyway. But even with less traditional guys, everything seems to go better if I cede the stereotypical initiation role—if I focus more on looking cute, batting my eyelashes, not seeming too interested, and smiling really widely.
It’s confusing, and I’d love to have more access to tried-and-true social strategies for how to navigate these tricky shoals. Surely there are ways for a woman to initiate that feel less threatening or confusing for men than others; I want to learn them. I’d also love it if more men in my life had access to good tactical advice on how to initiate with me. It’s not in my interest for guys who could be a great match to feel paralyzed approaching me because they’re not sure how to avoid coming off as a creep.
My relationships are a major topic of discussion with close friends, of course. That’s where a lot of my best ideas come from. It’d be nice to have access to more, though. Supposedly, there’s a whole dating advice industry that could help me with this. But as a feminist, I’m quite aware of the flaws in that industry. For women, there are awful stereotypical treatises such as The Rules, which tell us that the less genuine we are, the better. Men are served by “pickup artists” who often give misogynistic “seduction” advice. (It’s worth noting that there are pickup artists who recognize and critique the most unpleasant attitudes within their subculture, and who seek to co-opt its best analysis for real, non-adversarial gender liberation. As one such pickup artist writes: “There are a lot of problems with the seduction community that feminists correctly observe, including misogyny, cynicism towards relationships, and a few tactics that are bad for consent.” Unfortunately, none of these guys have yet written their own pickup guide.)
♦◊♦
When I Googled “feminist dating advice,” not much came up to help me. The fifth hit was probably my favorite, a one-line blog post that says very simply, “Oh, for Chrissakes—just pick up the phone and call him.” Well … OK, that’s funny, and it can be decent advice, sometimes, in some circumstances. Something funnier comes from the very first hit—an article from the popular site Jezebel.com:
Step 1: Don’t be an asshole.
Step 2: Do whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t violate Step 1.
I don’t disagree. At the same time: what now? Where do I go from there?
Many feminists say that it’s “not our job” to give positive romantic advice—especially to men. But the question of how heterosexual men act romantically is extremely relevant to heterosexual women.
There are plenty of honorable men who want to approach receptive partners but have trouble figuring out how to do so. When we feminists can have a positive impact on that, then we should offer to help. And after all, it’s not like we can’t include advice on how to respect boundaries alongside, perhaps, tactical advice on how to read a woman’s signals or how to approach her in a charming way.
Personally, I’m not sure I’d be the best source of advice for feminist women who want to date mainstream guys, because I don’t tend to date mainstream guys. (It’s also unclear how many mainstream guys would want to date me. Many are thrown off by my unshaven legs and discussions of privilege.) Still, notwithstanding the fact that every man is a beautiful and unique snowflake, I could isolate a number of frequently effective Clarisse Thorn Romance Tactics. Because I don’t know whether those tactics work well for me due to other characteristics of mine, or because I tend to be attracted to guys who respond well to them, maybe one place to start could be with an open space for discussing romantic strategies that strive to be both feminist and ethical—and also enjoy a high success rate.
One of the most important things feminists can do is give people of all genders more choices in how we live our lives, and how we interact with the gendered scripts that shape us. Surely, feminist romantic advice could be a powerful tool for this.
—This is an edited version. The original first appeared on AlterNet.
—Photo Maxime Guilbot/Flickr
About Clarisse Thorn
Vocalyze
Wow. This is becoming quite the topic on GMP.
Why can’t we all just agree that the answer to these questions is going to vary depending on the individual? What works on some women won’t work on others. Likewise, some men are OK with bucking traditional gender roles while others prefer to be the one who initiates. There is no magic answer that will solve everything.
I also find it slightly insulting to insinuate there is a need for a feminist think tank to supply heterosexual men with romantic advice. Thanks but no thanks.
Most of us will stumble mightily before we find someone with whom we connect. But that’s part of the process. Why alter it?
“I also find it slightly insulting to insinuate there is a need for a feminist think tank to supply heterosexual men with romantic advice. Thanks but no thanks.”
Engaging relations is a field where a lot of men have problems. It is easier for women to obtain casual sex than it is for men. If feminism is the great equality movement it’s proponents claim it to be, then the movement can’t cherry-pick what inequalities it wishes to fight. Besides it would probably be a good strategic move by feminists to actually listen to male problems as well, if they want men to participate in solving female problems.
“Most of us will stumble mightily before we find someone with whom we connect. But that’s part of the process. Why alter it?”
This is akin to the ‘life isn’t fair, deal with it argument’ often used by people who are aware of injustices, but don’t want to change them.
Women didn’t have the vote in the 1800:s, so why should we be concerned today with pay equality? This is the same argument, in another context. It is valid there, neither is it valid in your example.
There are so many clueless men who assume this is just a gender construct, thanks to the idiocy of feminism. But it’s clear from biology that men will ALWAYS be the pursuers and women will ALWAYS be the pursued. Only emasculated males hope to change this to suit their dysfunctional behavior. http://manhood101.com/ebook.html
“I also find it slightly insulting to insinuate there is a need for a feminist think tank to supply heterosexual men with romantic advice. Thanks but no thanks.”
Men and women communicate differently, and sometimes men make the same mistakes over and over. Sometimes their male friends do not recognise these mistakes. Men and women should both be involved in discussion about what types of approach styles will work best. It’s the same for women, they can make the same mistakes over and over as well, sometimes they need a man’s honest opinion about what to do or not do. Heterosexual Feminists and MRAs should both be working toward better communication, and dating advice from Feminists is part of that puzzle. I’ve definitely heard men give their buddies advice that is just awful and doesn’t end up working.
I may be an outlier here but I have a very tough time handling being approached by men. The minute there is anything that sounds of being aggressive, dominant or in charge, I immediately recoil and get defensive, or even reactive, and the last thing I am interested in is sex or the man who is behaving that way.
So, I don’t even like “looking cute, batting my eyelashes, not seeming too interested, and smiling really widely” as these seem kind-of coquettish to me and likely to provoke/inspire the aggressive, dominant or in charge attitude that I find so repellent on even a visceral level.
So, for me I tend to be much more comfortable with men who are friendly in an authentic way. If they are assertive in a non-threatening way, where they seem respectful and open to whatever answer I give, this makes a big difference. I suppose may be true in the reverse, that men may be open to women making friendly overtures rather than overtly sexual ones?
Maybe once a friendly relationship is established and I know I’m dealing with an authentic man who can hear words like “no,” who can negotiate, who can ask for what he wants (not demand it), who can talk relationally and empathize with others, then there is room to play around with one person being dominant or aggressive because a basis of mutual respect, boundaries, etc. has been established. This may be what men mean when they say they think would like a woman showing interest? They just don’t want to feel like they are being manipulated or are in overly vulnerable position with someone they don’t know; basically the same concern I have.
I think one reason people of both sexes don’t like overtures (even though they sometimes say they do), is because you have to react. You have to say yes or no; it puts you on the spot like that and this can be intimidating, frustrating, annoying; all feelings that don’t go along with sexual attraction or even friendliness.
“I think one reason people of both sexes don’t like overtures (even though they sometimes say they do), is because you have to react. You have to say yes or no; it puts you on the spot like that and this can be intimidating, frustrating, annoying; all feelings that don’t go along with sexual attraction or even friendliness.”
Exactly. When the gender roles regarding initiation are reversed, it is the woman’s choice to do so. The man is forced into the situation. If a woman doesn’t want to deal with that, she gets to choose to do so, allowing the men to approach, and again, she gets to choose. I would love a woman I found appealing to be forward with me, I’m fairly awkward socially. But the only woman who has ever been forward with me didn’t appeal to me, and was very sexually aggressive, to the point where, if it was a man acting in such a way to a woman, other men would have stepped in.
I am a little unnerved that the author makes the assumption that her rejections are due to men who can’t deal with aggressive women… as if she should expect 100% success (or even 50%) if men were better capable. perhaps the rejection wasn’t graceful due to a lack of experience with being the rejector, but I doubt the rejections themselves were so commonly due to rigid male social constructs.
Gender is hardwired, not a social construct as fraudulent feminists try to dupe the world into believing. Men just need to get their balls back to stand up to the idiocy of feminism: http://manhood101.com
Most men aren’t attracted to masculine “bitches” like you who try to pretend to be men. This is a total turn off to real men. Only feminists who seek to control and emasculate men are interested in changing the dynamics of biology to suit their childish fantasy of becoming men.
Feminism only works when men allow bitches to remove their authority. As soon as they stop allowing it, it stops happening immediately.
So says the misogynist.
It would be easy to just talk down your hate, to show you for the sad, self-hating, misanthrope (sadly I fear your comments show a hate for men and women) you are. Instead I’m gonna drop some (social) science on ya. Maybe a little education will help move you past being a child and help you see how you too can be a man.
Gender is a social construct. That is part of the very definition of gender. Think of it this way, people are born with a (usually) determined biological sex, either male or female. This is predicated on genitalia. Or, if one takes a genetic approach to it, we can be separated into sexes based on our chromosomal makeup (again, usually). Remember though, there are people who are born hermaphrodites, or are considered ‘neuter’ due to an almost complete lack of external primary and secondary sex characteristics. Sex is not a simple dichotomy. The same is true of gender.
Gender is primarily a social construct, reflective of the dominant (by virtue of power not numerical majority) social norms, mores, customs and social contracts. To be sure the base differences between the (primary) sexes contour gender to some degree, but they are absolutely social constructs. And there are more than two of them. This is not a simple matching game; ‘this one goes with that one’ is the way children understand the world.
Unfortunately sex and gender are almost always conflated, especially within the context of a discussion such as this one. The angry and ignorant (read: guys like you) like to mix them up because it falsely supports their (again, read: your) simplistic and fearful/angry ideas about how people should behave, look, think. The world is not simple, nor are people, so you need to up your game and be less simple. Stop being pointlessly angry, grow up and recognize that it’s not your balls that make you a man (if indeed you are one).
Word.
Whatever works.
As a single guy before getting married 38 years ago, I always felt more comfortable initiating conversations with new acquaintances of the opposite sex when we might meet in the context of a party or a graduate school class. Seeing each other for the first time in that kind of setting makes it a lot more natural to approach a potential love interest. Even when I was propelled to get acquainted because I felt sexual attraction to someone new, seeing that individual as a person first – made things a lot less awkward for both her and me. It helps to see others as subjects of our affection rather than objects for our manipulation. That’s basically a paraphrase of Martin Buber who spells it all out in his classic book, “I and Thou.” I would hope that self-described feminists feel the same way.
Rabbi Weinsberg-
I appreciated your comment and like the idea of seeing “others as subjects of our affection rather than objects.”
The only thing I would add is that it has only been in the last 40 years that women in the aggregate have had enough political and economic autonomy to even be subjects (that is, to have agency in the world) and to have enough self-awareness and confidence to function in that role. Many women are still not out of the psychology of being objects, and our culture is unfortunately still not out of the habit of treating them that way, although I see signs of improvement all the time.
I would probably describe myself as a humanist before being a feminist. My interest in feminism mainly has to do with getting rid of the toxicity of patriarchy.
Here’s a feminist approach-a-man trick that has never failed me: initiate while a) making your expectations about exclusivity clear, and b) giving the recipient some time and space.
One example would be when I told the man who is now my fiance something along the lines of, “I want to kiss you–if you’re not kissing anyone else, because I had mono once and it was terrible. So let me know when you’ve made up your mind about being exclusive about kissing with me.”
Similarly, I initiated the first discussion of sex with him; again, I included my expectations and concerns about not just exclusivity, but birth control and STDs.
Monogamy is not what everyone wants or should have; however, CLARITY really is, and almost nobody turns down clear, non-threatening offers like that from people they’re interested in.
Yes, I’ve had good luck with the direct approach, especially when you let them know you like them first.
I do think sometimes it’s hard to get everything on the table. In sex, STDs, exclusivity are important, but I feel birth control is a big topic. If birth control fails, what happens, etc. So I think it can take a while to get through those discussions. Can I ask how long between your first kiss and your first sex?
I agree that a direct approach to things are better. This seems to work VERY well. Being straight forward about what you value in a relationship is great! Anyone NOT receptive to this is probably not going to be a good relationship.
I do have an issue with your phrasing: “So let me know when you’ve made up your mind about being exclusive about kissing with me.”
You’re not really giving him a choice. It sounds more like an ultimatum, which isn’t very feminist. You sound a bit controlling here, like you’re expecting something he doesn’t have a choice in giving. Then again, I don’t know the situation or the guy. You do however, sound as though you put a lot of humor into your directedness which keeps it fun for everyone.
That’s pretty direct and to the point.
Reasonable guys just want to know where they stand with a woman. If she’s somewhat interested, then say so. If you don’t want to be bothered, then say so. Guys who push the issue are either troublemakers or guys with poor social skills. The first deserve what they get and the second just need some advice in learning how to act better.’
But I’d love to see more women be forward with contacting men. Sometimes, if you wait for what you want, you don’t get it. A woman should be able to go and get the man she wants and damn anyone who wants to shame her for doing so.
That’s not a clear offer. That’s you LYING about your intention.
How ironic, a man doing the exact same thing you did would be accused of being “entitled” and “creepy”.
It’s almost as if the problems with dating are all because of women refusing to communicate clearly because they are always being manipulative and trying to get more for themselves. This clear approach would never work on a woman because they want men to “work for it” which is a blatant power play.
almost no man
“I’ve found that in some ways it’s useful that many guys don’t react well to me making the first move, because a guy who can’t handle hacking our society’s gendered scripts is probably not a great partner for me anyway. ”
Does this mean you directly initiate frequently or infrequently?
And are ‘mainstream” guys readily identifiable by sartorial, consumption or grooming choices? Some of the freakiest flags fly proudly behind the camouflage of nondescript clothing and no tattoos/bodymods.
From what dataset does Dr. Schwyzer draw his inference regarding the most common reaction to an aggressive initiation of contact by a woman? For such a rare occurrence it would seem the man’s role is clear: to smile, nod the head and enjoy the ride.
First off, and as a preface to my comment…Clarisse, were I single, I’d look you up based simply on what you’ve said about yourself, and hairy legs and discussions on privilege aren’t turn-offs to me. Guess, I’ll have to look you up next lifetime….
About a couple of years ago, I was one of the unfortunate male posters on the now notorious “Schrodinger’s Rapist” blog post on Kate Harding’s Shapely Prose. I proposed several alternate ideas on how a guy could make a cold contact with a woman without being seen as a potential rapist, including the Victorian practice of using personal cards as a means of an minimal intrusion form of contacting a woman you may have just seen during a random encounter.
In each case, none of these allegedly enlightened feminist women could give me an answer. Not a decent answer, not a clear answer, or even an ambiguously vague answer; I got no answer at all from these women. Instead I got remarks like “why should I have to bother?” The only thing that I could ascertain from what I read is that cold contacts with women was like other games of chance; either you hit the jackpot and got a date or you rolled snake-eyes and ended up being creep-shamed.
Social dynamics sets men up as the pursuers in hetero-normative relationships, but because of that, men have to bear the onus of rejection. In today’s society, as noted by the “Schrodinger’s Rapist” blog post, more and more facets of male roles in relationships are being portrayed as toxic. We are called “potential rapists” when we try to meet women we see in public, but yet when men decide to reject the dating environment and opt out of the whole thing, we’re also condemned and ridiculed.
Because of the hoops and hurdles that modern men have been subjected to by modern women, some men have responded in two manners that are notable; the PUA culture and the MGTOW movement. PUA or Pick Up Artist culture is a very typical mechanistic response to the woes of the dating scene using psychological manipulation and observation to trigger and play upon specific responses that many women respond to in a sexual context. However reprehensible some people may find the use (or misuse) of “game,” it is based on psychological fact and it works. I personally do not use or condone game because it is a dangerous tool and in the hands of the wrong people, can cause a lot of harm. In addition, once you become accustomed to using manipulation as a means to deal with people, it’s hard to break the habit.
As for the other (which I admittedly know very little about), MGTOW is an acronym for “Men Going Their Own Way,” and it is a socio-philosophical movement that eschews any relationships (especially romantic) with women other than professional (I assume that female family members and purely platonic friends are still associated with). By the way, these men are not “gay” as some detractors try to frame them as being; most just indulge either in a life of abstinence, simply indulge in alternate sexual practices, or just frequent prostitutes (based on statements from men I know of who follow this practice).
Another movement which I’m keeping separate from the above two is what I term “the expatriate dating scene.” These are men who actively avoid any romantic relationships with American women. They cite reasons including “entitlement,” “fear of post divorce poverty,” and other less than complimentary things regarding American women.
I’m not going to judge any of these groups at all other than to say that their very existence is apparently a measured response to what some men feel is a hostile relationship environment for American men. A number of American men had problems in the dating world and these responses are how they chose to deal with them.
The rest of American men just muddle through the best way they can. If they happen to be high enough on the social ladder, then they can coast on their status. But for the rest of us normal guys, we have to navigate the minefield of American dating.
I’m no relationship guru; my success with dating was due to a lot of luck and a degree of personal celebrity. I can say this with certainty; I do not envy today’s young men. In my day, at least I was able to approach women with out fear of being labeled a “potential rapist,” or creep-shamed because I picked a woman with issues to be attracted to.
If women were more forward or open in their desires, I for one would be easily pleased. In fact, we need to come up with a way to tear down the social constructs that get in the way of women and men freely expressing their sexuality with each other in a healthy way. I for one would like to see feminist women constructively come up with dialogs as how men who are feminist-friendly could approach a feminist woman who they happen to be attracted to. But if what I’ve seen on Shapely Prose and based on my discussion with Katie Baker on the “Catcalling” article is any indication, I don’t see that solution coming in either your or my lifetime, Ms. Thorn.
In fact, the only other self-professed feminist who has even entertained any discussion on this subject is a transwoman. How’s that work?
As usual, I enjoy your articles and enjoy the discussions that they engender.
Sorry, I don’t see that women have created such an oppressive environment for the Poor Menz like you are implying. Of course, it’s a man’s right to choose his own company, but you can’t honestly think that it’s reasonable to blame bitchy women ruling the world for men’s loneliness and rejection of the status quo relationship.
The fact is, “picking up” women is a totally bullshit way to meet them. I’ve never once had a relationship with a guy who walked up to me in a bar, in church, or even in class who asked me out before getting to know me. When you express overt sexual interest in a woman up-front, yes, WE THINK YOU MIGHT BE A RAPIST.
I just can’t stomach the whiny nature of your post, and I see why the women on Kate Harding’s blog threw down a little smack. I’m going to go ahead and say that the pain of being rejected and having to devise new strategies for approaching women … is not nearly as intense as the pain of being raped, or even the fear of being assaulted or raped. As someone who is NOT A WOMAN, I understand that you don’t get that … women don’t all live in constant fear, but I am certainly cautious around men because of my past sexual experiences, not all of which have been pleasant.
If men choose to react by dating foreign ladies or *gasp* abstaining from sex entirely, that’s fine. They can (a) continue to act like boorish dunderheads, (b) learn how to respectfully approach a woman, or (c) remove themselves from the dating pool entirely. I’m a celibate woman because I can’t handle the stress that comes with the dating life and the sexual expectations therein. I’m also pissed at men who approach me “cold” sometimes because … well, hey, it’s late, we’re on the bus together, and the chances exist that he’s interested in just rubbing his erection against me, which I REALLY don’t need in my life (again).
I understand that it’s an inconvenience to men to have women enact standards for “cold-calling,” but I’m going to go ahead and say that POTENTIAL SEXUAL ASSAULT to me trumps any sad feelings you have about being rejected. Not to be an ass, but it’s hard for heterosexual men to truly appreciate this because … well, they are heterosexual men. Admittedly, there’s a lot that we women don’t understand because we’re women, but in this specific case, we fear for our physical safety, while you fear for your emotions. We win.
I’d rather be able to date someone who has worked with me on a class project, whom I’ve met a couple times at work, who’s a regular at my bar that’s proven his non-skeezy status … instead of someone just walking up off the street or in a crowded room. The key to building a relationship is to get to know someone, and you’re totally disregarding that when you go hit on a lady just because “she caught your eye.”
Why don’t you go back and re-read the responses you got on Schroedinger’s Rapist, because it’s clear that you chose to disregard all the feedback you got from real women. In doing so, you’ve decided that women’s opinion really isn’t right (no matter how many women tell you you’re wrong), and you’re just going to do what you want to do despite our obvious rejection of your behavior. FYI, that’s extremely unattractive, and it won’t get you laid. I’d advise you to revisit those comments because no matter how harsh, they reflect how women actually think, instead of how you’d like women to think.
What you’re providing isn’t intellectual discourse, it’s explaining why women are wrong to feel the way they do because you’re a man and you’re better equipped to tell us how we should respond to you. I’m calling bullshit.
And, one more time for those who missed the overall theme of the Kate Harding post:
Your right to talk to me does not trump my right to be left alone.
This pertains to members of all genders, for the record.
Actually if you are in a public area, yes, people have the right to free speech and not the right to tell other people to not talk. Oh wait — of course women get far more rights than men. Silly me, I forgot.
I’ve spent the last several hours trying to figure out a way to respond to this without sounding like a total asshole. It’s just not possible. How utterly ARROGENT!!! To believe the all of society, both men and women, should all change millennia of established, functional, effective and even desired social constructs just to cater to your personal trauma. I’m sorry you were raped (yes, this is an assumption, but given the clear disdain you present in your reply, only true rape could explain the damage you display), I really am. I don’t expect you to just forget about it, or move on living life as if nothing happened, but that’s not what you’re doing here. You are trying to tell all men that read your reply that they are (rightfully) considered rapists by all women and should act accordingly, and telling all women that they should not condone the behavior that you personally find uncomfortable, despite the fact that, for eon’s, that has not only been the social norm (not only for humans, but all creatures), and WORKED FINE. That they should actively reject that behaviour, even if they find it acceptable, even desirable (women don’t get dressed up and go out to clubs to avoid getting hit on, clearly some women like getting hit on by strangers), simply because it is uncomfortable to you. So I repeat. HOW ARROGENT!!!.
I don’t condone Rape by anyone, and I realize I can’t possibly imagine the pain and anguish that can cause. But you are victimizing all men for the actions of the one that violated you. You are making every man you meet into the very criminal deviate that virtually all men despise. You are telling all men they are guilty of being a rapist unless they can prove otherwise, and then denying them the opportunity to prove their innocence unless you are forced to interact with them (yes, I said it. The only men you are allowing into your life are men forced upon you. By work, by school, by friends. Only men that you are given no choice about meeting do you give a chance to redeem themselves… to proven his non-skeezy status (your own words). Now, you can rightfully claim the assult you pile upon men pales in comparison to that inflicted upon you, but that was one man victimizing one women. You are victimizing the entire population, and by suggesting men shouldn’t approach women they don’t know, ever, you are ensure every man who here’s that suggestion is likewise victimized, not just those who try to approach you.
And lastly…
“The key to building a relationship is to get to know someone, and you’re totally disregarding that when you go hit on a lady just because “she caught your eye.””
You too are disregarding this “key to building a relationship” when you deny anyone the option to get to know you, and you them, simply because they have a penis (and that is what you’re doing. perhaps you feel the need to do so to cope with your personal trauma, but don’t pretend for a second it isn’t also rejecting the very same key to building relationships). And by claiming your expectations should be the norm, you are denying it to every other woman out there that DOES want to get to know new people.
firstly its “arrogant” .. but I really would like to address your statement of “To believe the all of society, both men and women, should all change millennia of established, functional, effective and even desired social constructs” It is not arrogant to believe that ALL of society should stop physically abusing children or people.. regardless that it has gone on since the beginning of time. Also what you are saying is perception based “functional, effective, and even desired” can be applied to polygamy, burqa’s, the beating of women, slavery, marrying children, circumcision (male and the horrific female).. the list is long.. shall I go on? It is not arrogant to want to change anything that one perceives as wrong, and just because you happen to think something is okay, does not mean that someone else does.
Now I should mention I do not necessarily agree with her sentiments, but I did want to contest your statement. The middle east still likes to marry 8 yr old girls to 40+yr old men.. it has gone on for millennia, and they seem to think its just dandy and works.. i happen to think its disgusting and they should be shot
“It is not arrogant to believe that ALL of society should stop physically abusing children or people”
When did this become about physical abuse? Trying to deflect from the discussion at hand? Secondly, when did physical abuse become and effective and even desired social construct? You’re just trying to vilify me to dispute my opinion based on character rather then merit. It’s a weak tactic used by weak people. Is that what you want to be?
“Also what you are saying is perception based “functional, effective, and even desired” can be applied to polygamy, burqa’s, the beating of women, slavery, marrying children, circumcision (male and the horrific female)”
So both men and women, and society at large, find the beating of women (what, you find the beating of men acceptable enough not to mention here? Throwing men off moving trains for racing to catch the train and getting on the women only car… that is perfectly fine?), slavery and marrying children to be effective, even desirable? I highly doubt you’ll find many (in our culture) who actually feel that way, certainly not enough to claim that society accepts that as a social construct. Men approaching women they don’t know… that IS a social construct that is accepted by both men and women, and society as a whole.
As to the Burqa… We in western society do not see it as acceptable.. and guess what, our women aren’t required to wear them. As society begins to change it’s mind, then these social constructs become unacceptable, and will change… naturally. But we are far, far, far, far, far, far away from society finding men approaching women (as a general concept) as unacceptable, and truth told, I highly doubt we ever will.
“the list is long.. shall I go on?”
By all means, continue listing off things that are seen nether as, effective, functional, acceptable nor desirable by the fast majority of people and society as a whole, and pretend they relate to what’s being discussed.
“It is not arrogant to want to change anything that one perceives as wrong,”
By all means, do so, try to change it all you want. But that’s not what I’m opposed to, that’s not what she’s doing. She is looking at something that she personally find’s uncomfortable and scarey, and being arrogant enough to believe that she is representative of all women everywhere, and demanding that all men cater to her feelings (and by arrogance, all women), despite the evidence that most women don’t share her fears. There are entire industries designed around catering to women’s desire to attract men they don’t know. Clubs are popular for this express purpose. Certain clothing (miniskirts), perfume, make-up… these are all culturally designed for the express purpose of attracting a man, and continue to be used (if not solely, at least in large part) for that purpose today. Clearly, her fears do not represent all women. If she wants to change the world, then she needs to change the desire to want to do this activity, not make the assumption that every woman is like her and force men to change accordingly. If women (as a whole, not individually) don’t want it, men (as a whole, not individually) won’t do it. It’s that simple.
“The middle east still likes to marry 8 yr old girls to 40+yr old men.. it has gone on for millennia, and they seem to think its just dandy and works”
Our culture does not feel that is acceptable, and as such. WE DON”T DO IT. As to stopping the activity in the middle east (and/or other cultures), we can’t just go over there and say “I don’t like it, stop!” because it isn’t going to work. You may try, and you have tried… there is a reason the world thinks the US is arrogant, but that does not make it the “right” way to do it. We need to show “why” it’s wrong, and not just on an individual level. We can not try to change other cultures by demanding they conform to our personal expectations, we need to convince them to find the behaviour unacceptable to themselves. This can be done, and the more morally reprehensible the act, the easier it generally is to sway popular opinion.
And that is where k-Pedia failed, and why I responded as I did. She responded on an individual level (her personal fear), claiming it is a societal view (all women have this fear. And just to be clear, we’re not talking about men approaching a women alone on an empty street in the middle of the night. She finds men approaching unknown women in a club, the very industry designed for that express purpose and that women flock to, just as unacceptable as the above lone street approach.), and it’s not. It’s far from it. And it’s arrogant as hell to believe otherwise. And I’m not willing to let that slide, especially when it comes with the express justification of calling me a rapist simply for having a penis.
“but I really would like to address your statement of “To believe the all of society, both men and women, should all change millennia of established, functional, effective and even desired social constructs” It is not arrogant to believe that ALL of society should stop physically abusing children or people”
And just to clarify why you are so far off the mark, you missed a very important part of my quote…”…just to cater to your personal trauma”. You’re trying to argue that societal constructs should be able to be changed because the very society they exist in feel they are unacceptable. This I agree with, but that is different then arguing societal constructs should be changed because “I” feel they are unacceptable, which is what I was opposing.
So, again…how do you “respectfully” approach a woman and more importantly, how in the hell did you ever get the idea that any approach that I would advocate would not be respectful? In fact, the underlying tone of your post is that you find most contact with men distasteful. So, your viewpoint really doesn’t factor in this particular discussion, which is “why are men expected to make the first move.” You don’t want them to make any move toward you at all.
“Why don’t you go back and re-read the responses you got on Schroedinger’s Rapist, because it’s clear that you chose to disregard all the feedback you got from real women. In doing so, you’ve decided that women’s opinion really isn’t right (no matter how many women tell you you’re wrong), and you’re just going to do what you want to do despite our obvious rejection of your behavior. FYI, that’s extremely unattractive, and it won’t get you laid. I’d advise you to revisit those comments because no matter how harsh, they reflect how women actually think, instead of how you’d like women to think.”
And most importantly, you are proving my point. You did not answer my question. Instead, you chose to take offense and began to make personal attacks to try to deflect the observations I made in my argument (whiny? get over yourself, sister…I’ve been married for 17 years and happily so to a woman I met “cold” in a bookstore…so apparently, I did something right, eh?). In addition, you chose to make false attributions to my commentary. I’m personally not worried about “getting laid” as I mentioned that I’m married.
This discussion was about men having to make the first move when they encounter women. The point that I was making is that the current social landscape has made it far more tenuous for men to make that first move than ever. My entire point was that there needs to be a reconstruction of the social dynamics of contact that allows people to engage freely while maintaining the freedom to deny engagements without the social burden and stigma of rejection.
Human dynamics has proved that men and women encounter each other all the time in public and those meetings work out far better than you would lead everyone to believe. Secondly, nowhere in my post did I say that any woman had to accept a cold contact from a man. Human choice is the ultimate arbiter in any potential meeting and subsequent relationship. When two strangers encounter each other in a public setting, barring any criminal activity, the following things are most likely to happen:
- Both will agree to interact, they will begin to communicate and things will progress from there.
- One will decide not to interact, no or little communication will occur and they will go their separate ways.
If the person who does not wish to interact clearly states that they do not want to, then that’s the end of it. If the other person persists, then that is harassment. Nobody is claiming that it isn’t. Get over your persecution issues…you are reading far more of your personal problems into my statement than what I wrote.
“I’m a celibate woman because I can’t handle the stress that comes with the dating life and the sexual expectations therein. I’m also pissed at men who approach me “cold” sometimes because … well, hey, it’s late, we’re on the bus together, and the chances exist that he’s interested in just rubbing his erection against me, which I REALLY don’t need in my life (again).”
Instead of engaging in an intelligent conversation, you chose to seek some vindication and revenge for whatever personal harm that was done to you. Well, guess what…I’m not going to even give you the courtesy of an apology because you don’t want one; you would rather revel in your victimhood and wear it like a license to treat any man you encounter like shit. This is what I was talking about when I said “women with issues.”
So, thanks to you, I’m putting on my “asshole hat” now and the kid gloves are off.
Now going back to your post, I have actually come to understand what is going on. This is what I’m talking about; you and your ilk are the ones declaring male social interaction with women as toxic. You want to be able to call the shots as to when you want to meet a guy? Fine with me. That’s what this whole post is about. Get off of your dead ass and go meet somebody…or not. It’s your choice. It has always been “your choice.”
In today’s society, women are the ultimate arbiters of sexual access for heterosexual men. Again, because men have been biologically and socially directed toward being the initiators of sexual contact, the onus of rejection lies upon them. The divergent modes that men have adopted are direct responses to that. A lot of men are tired of having to endure what women like you are putting them through, so they have come up with alternative modes of social interaction. You don’t want to meet new men or respond to a man who you have not been introduced to; that is your choice and you have the freedom and respect to indulge that choice. But don’t you dare vilify a man who approaches you respectfully just because he doesn’t fit your “criteria” of contact.
Your fear does not give you the right to act like a disrespectful bitch because some guy makes the mistake of thinking that you are an attractive and decent woman. (Yes, I’m insulting you back. You started it and I’m going to give as good as I got.) If you don’t want to talk to people you don’t know, then that is your right. But you do not have the right to criminalize people who do so because they don’t know that you are fucked up in the head due to a situation that they had no knowledge of or had no part in causing.
Based on your logic, I should hate and vilify every White woman I’ve ever encountered because one falsely accused me of mugging her when I was 16. But guess what? I’m smart enough to understand that the world is filled with people and just because one does you wrong that you shouldn’t cloister yourself from the rest of the world.
You have the right to decline interaction with anyone you wish; man or woman. Most men will read the writing on the wall, apologize, and wish you a good day. Feel free to call the cops on those who don’t get the message and insist on invading your personal space and violating your personal sanctity.
But what you and those hatefully misandrist women over there want is for all men to leave all women alone, whether all of those women agree with you or not. You’ve suffered at the hands of some fucked up individual? The world can be a savage place, and it’ll chew you up and spit you out if you are not careful.
BUT YOUR FEAR DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TREAT ME LIKE A CRIMINAL OR DENY ME THE RIGHT TO SEEK HUMAN CONTACT. You need to “check your privilege” with that nonsense. If I lived my life like you are dictating, then I would have never met my wife and my life would have been the poorer for it.
“If men choose to react by dating foreign ladies or *gasp* abstaining from sex entirely, that’s fine. They can (a) continue to act like boorish dunderheads, (b) learn how to respectfully approach a woman, or (c) remove themselves from the dating pool entirely.”
This is part and parcel of what I was talking about. Rather than engage my viewpoint, you resort to shaming language. In fact, your above statement was an attempt to creep shame these men who have chosen alternative modes of interaction with women with the veiled insults. Engage my points logically or concede the field.
“I’d rather be able to date someone who has worked with me on a class project, whom I’ve met a couple times at work, who’s a regular at my bar that’s proven his non-skeezy status … instead of someone just walking up off the street or in a crowded room. The key to building a relationship is to get to know someone, and you’re totally disregarding that when you go hit on a lady just because “she caught your eye.”
But have you ever considered that visual indicators are often the spark that starts the process of discovery? You interact with people that appeal to your personal preferences and the most evident of those preferences are based upon visual cues of attractiveness. Try to think about that the next time you are approached by some guy you know from work or church; what initially drew him to come within your sphere of influence? Perhaps it was because he saw something that he liked.
Back in the Victorian/post Victorian era, men and women who had not been introduced did not interact except in the narrowest and strictest of situations. A man who initiated a cold conversation with a woman was called a “masher” and was socially (and sometimes legally) punished for his behavior. If you want to live your life in such a cloistered manner, then by all means do so. But what I get from you and others like you is that you want that choice to be taken away from women who are more open and willing to meet people in the world.
“”What you’re providing isn’t intellectual discourse, it’s explaining why women are wrong to feel the way they do because you’re a man and you’re better equipped to tell us how we should respond to you. I’m calling bullshit.”
And I’m calling you a fucking coward because you did not engage a single point I made. You instead resorted to shaming tactics and bullshit appeals to emotion rather than logical discourse. I never once stated that women should feel any way at all. I listed some reasons that men may feel the way that they do and I listed a number of alternative modes that men have adopted because of evident behavior that women (including you) have demonstrated.
How dare you come in here and try to shame me into agreeing with you and dismissing a valid observation of how men are dealing with the dating landscape just because it offends your delicate sensibilities…any sympathy you might have gotten from me ended with the closing of your response to me.
To paraphrase the Hip Hop poet laureate, Ed Lover:
“C’mon girl…getdafuckupouttaherewithdatbullshit!”
So I’m pretty late to this party, but I just wanted to make one point here in response to this rant of yours.
I’m a pretty feminist guy and I spend a lot of time on feminist blogs. On the rare occasion that I find something written by a commenter objectionable, the last thing that I would do is to write a huge rant calling them whiny, dunderheaded, insulting their intelligence, and overall negating their personal experiences. You know why? Because feminist websites are a space for women to voice their opinions, and as a man it’s not my place to go on there and shit all over them.
So it would be really fucking nice if you could extend that same courtesy to men here, when they’re honestly discussing their personal experiences and concerns. Okay? Back the fuck off.
Nice
The most damaging phrase in the language is: ‘It’s always been done that way.’
- Grace Murray Hopper
OK, I’m going to cut through some of the crap and name-calling I see here. First of all, this is not a place that is going to ultimately “right” your list of grievances. There is NO one way to woo a woman. Being too timid around a woman is not a good thing. I personally love it when a guy teases me with his attention. Y’know…he catches my eye, and then looks away, but then maybe jokes with me a little later on. Drives me crazy wanting to know if he’s into me, because I’m rapidly becoming into him.
Guess what?! This theory (as one of my exes called it: the “cat theory”–because cats seem to respond better when you act disinterested in them) helps a lot because you’re not coming on to strong and not too weak, there’s MYSTERY. Notice: there’s also a lack of heavy (or any) touching in this scenario. I graduated with a degree in Communication and let me tell you, there is nothing harder to interpret (and with a bigger range of interpretation) than nonverbal communication. So use it SPARINGLY. Lightly brush her hand when you reach for the salt, make her WONDER if you did it on purpose. DON’T grab her ass, her breast, her arm, her leg…none of it, unless you KNOW she’s only in it for a night. (This advice I’m dispensing is for dating/relationships, not one-night stands.) If you give us a line we WILL immediately disrespect you, UNLESS it’s an AWESOME, hilarious line we’ve never heard before, then we’ll just think you’re witty.
This is what is disrespectful: and I believe this touches on what K-pedia was trying to convey… just because you TALK to us, does not give you the right to go further, especially if we tell you to stop or go away. I had a guy once that talked to me at a bar and on the way out, grabbed my ass. My smiling at you does NOT give you the go ahead. I believe that guys worth their salt are going to control their urges, and I believe they can. The status quo is not: all men are horny and will take a mile if you give them an inch. I refuse to accept this “assumed reality”.
That’s it really. No need to get in a tizzy about it all. NO need to call names or make brash statements about the other sex. You will need to have patience when dating, after all, it’s all a game really. Seriously, if you’re in a hurry to get with someone, or to just get someone (in whatever context) you’re not being centered on the other person. Being selfish is completely fine, but if you want quality, sometimes it takes longer.
Hope that helps….someone….anyone. heh
“The most damaging phrase in the language is: ‘It’s always been done that way.’”
In case this was directed at my comment “should all change millennia of established, functional, effective and even desired social constructs just to cater to your personal trauma.”… There is a distinct difference between “it should stay that way cause it’s always been done that way”, and “ It has always been, and continues to be, a very effective, and desirable way to do things.”. Equating the two as being the same things isn’t reasonable, because they aren’t. The wheel has always been round, and while yes, it has always been that way, it remains that way because it has always been effective and desireable, and will continue to be round so long as round wheels remain effective. Likewise, the social construct of men approaching women has always been that way, it remains so because it remains an effective and desirable social construct by society as a whole (if perhaps not by some individuals within it). If and when it becomes no longer desirable or effective by/within society, it will change, but we aren’t there yet.
Yes, that quote was directed at your comment.
Men approaching women doesn’t satisfy the natural properties of physics. It’s a societal thing, but it’s getting in the way for some. I get what you’re saying but your analogy is just as unreasonable because you’re just arguing semantics and not the root of the issue. You’re basically comparing the two phrases as I would compare coconuts and gravity to bears eating humans. What? …Precisely.
Guys’ minds may be wired to HUNT, but it doesn’t mean that logic and instinct can’t work together to come to some sort of a compromise. Especially since dating isn’t totally in nature’s design (having lots of sex is) so I would argue that natural laws need not apply.
Had man been made to float, the needs of cars to have round wheels would be utterly superfluous. So, if prehistoric man had been designed to date and try things out, then his approaching her would make an “evolutionary” sense (if you will…being that a long-standing tradition of men asking women would be a legit argument), but really….women have a lot more to lose in the game of evolution, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to make a move and have that move respected? Has men making the first move routinely satisfied their biological needs? What if women aren’t animals, but people! and they want to make their own decisions about their future? And imagine if that was met with skepticism or insult? Not good. It would make anyone feel pretty shitty.
Is it really more effective for men to approach women? I’ve heard of men and women having about equal luck when either partner does the asking. In fact, I’ve heard more positives from women asking men out that the other way around. I tend to side with the theory that men approaching women is more effective, but you then have to ask yourself WHY is that so? Biology? Society? Which is it? That’s what I was referring to with the quote and that is what I was challenging. My quote is completely reasonable provided you are questioning on what basis your own logic comes from, because I am. You know one side of the story, I know the other–if you listen to understand you will see a bit more about why women asking men is troublesome for us.
Welcome to the beginning of the deeper conversation.
“Men approaching women doesn’t satisfy the natural properties of physics.”
You’re deflecting. You do know what an analogy is?
“It’s a societal thing”
It’s more then just a social thing. Many male animals put on displays for potential mates, hence why most males in nature are more colourful then their female counterparts. It is how they approach their females and convince them to choose them to mate with (sometimes for life). But we human males don’t have brightly coloured plumage we can display in hopes of attracting women, so must use conversation to accomplish that goal.
“but it’s getting in the way for some.”
And when it gets in the way for enough, things will begin to change, naturally. But we are a long, long, long way from being there.
“I get what you’re saying but your analogy is just as unreasonable because you’re just arguing semantics and not the root of the issue.”
It isn’t semantics. In the first phrase, it is a single person trying to change millennia of socially accepted constructs for their own personal needs, when the vast majority still find it acceptable, functional or even desirable. I am not opposed to changing social constructs, but for it to be done for the sole benefit of a single, selfish individual is ludicrous. The second, your phrase, suggests maintaining those constructs for no other reason then that’s how it’s always been. See the difference? One rejects change due to a social acceptance of the construct, a desire by the vast majority to maintain the status quo, the other simply wish’s to maintain the status regardless of the vast majorities wish’s.
I reject K-pedia’s assertion that change is needed, because there is ample evidence that this is not an opinion generally shared by the vast majority, that the tried and true methodology remains acceptable, even desirable, and has been for a very, very long time. And millennia of tradition hold up far stronger then her personal damage for determining what society needs.
“Guys’ minds may be wired to HUNT, but it doesn’t mean that logic and instinct can’t work together to come to some sort of a compromise. Especially since dating isn’t totally in nature’s design (having lots of sex is) so I would argue that natural laws need not apply.”.
You feel there is no logic involved? That flirting is all about instinct, but only for the guys? That most guys don’t compromise? Seems a pretty hateful thing to say.
“so why shouldn’t they be allowed to make a move and have that move respected?”
Depends what you mean by “move”, and depends whether you can demonstrate that making such a move isn’t respected. Several women on this thread have already stated they have done the approaching of men, and none of them have really been disrespected, from what I’ve read. Some of them have been rejected, but really, men get rejected constantly, that isn’t the same as disrespect, is it?
“What if women aren’t animals, but people! “
You are aware these aren’t mutually exclusive?
“and they want to make their own decisions about their future?”
Are you suggesting women don’t have choice now? Last I checked, women get to choose pretty much everything regarding their future, and with the exception of reciprocally choosing the women, more or less have to sit back and do as the woman chooses.
“And imagine if that was met with skepticism or insult?”
Is that what’s happening? Cause from what I see, a very insignificant number of women’s population are trying to speak for all women, and change what is both accepted and desired, by most other women. From what I see, it is people like K-pedia who are trying to deny women the choice they’ve made. Are we wrong for pointing out and being sceptical of this damaged woman’s personal agenda? Do we deserve to be met with scepticism and insult for pointing out her selfishness?
“Is it really more effective for men to approach women?”
Does it need to be more effective to be accepted or desirable? Does it matter why? It’s the way it is and almost everyone likes it that way, why change it for everybody to satiate the few who don’t? what makes those few so damn important?
“Welcome to the beginning of the deeper conversation.”
I don’t think so. With condescending comments like this, I really would rather not deal with you if I can avoid it. This will likely be my last response to you on the subject
What an excellent but lengthy commentary & discourse on what boils down to two people talking to each other.
As a heterosexual male, I approach women with the same attitude that I would approach men — I treat them as a potential friend. Starting off with “Hello, my name is Ben” *smile*. If she returns the smile, that’s good; if she continues with a mirrored response “Hi, my name is Samantha”, even better.
I’m 100% certain if a woman walked up to me and introduced herself in a similar way, I’d be completely floored (internally), yet receptive to at least seeing where the thread leads. If things start to turn negative, such as excessive complaints about various people, work, obvious self-esteem/self-control issues, etc.) I’m immediately turned off.
So my key points for both gender in approaching the opposite sex are: positivity, humor, and simple confidence.
To all the heterosexual men that want to approach a woman respectfully, this man just wrote the foundation.
You sir are a breath of fresh air and from your one comment I can say you are a pioneer in what a good man would be like.
I second that!
Kudos for reasonable, respectful, honest approaches for all genders and sexualities alike.
And kudos to the author for opening the discussion.
(Josie)
I have no interest in listening to the foolish rhetoric of how to teach a man to talk to women. It is idiotic and moronic. It is your choice to view every man as being a potential rapist- but the facts/stats don’t bear this out.
If you choose to view yourself as a victim that is your choice. The easiest line to use is “hello.” It is simple, direct and effective.
Some of this stuff is just such nonsense.
Jack, sad truth is that enough women have had bad experiences with potentially threatening situations that it does make women a little leary. Don’t confuse that with women playing victim just because they are aware and self protected to their situations.
Personally, I am just not aggressive enough to approach. The few times I did, the guy wasn’t really interested in me to begin with. Because men are generally more aggressive, if a man truly wants to be with me, he will make that first step. And while I am sure there are amny wonderful cases of it working out when the woman approached, I figure since for me not being as aggressive, the right man for me will be one that approaches me.
We’re not discussing approaching women alone on a subway at night, or on dark streets with nobody else around. we’re not talking potentially threatening situations. There are some women on here saying men shouldn’t approach women they don’t know… ever. Others are telling men that it is unacceptable to offer flattery based on looks (not that there is anything else to flatter a stranger about), others say it is acceptable, so long as it’s done respectfully, meanwhile, the players, the guys who are getting women regularly, are being assholes and are surrounded constantly… So when Jack suggests women telling men how to hit on them is a pointless idea, most men will tend to agree. perhaps for different reasons, but still
A woman has a right to ask a man for a date. Period.
Men who have a problem with that fundamental human right do not deserve to be in dating relationships.
Instead of asking the same ole tired question, “Why are men expected to make the first move?”, we need to work on more egalitarian dating scripts.
Perhaps the man will always initiate more than the woman, but it is barbaric to expect the man (or the woman) to initiate all or most of the time.
Hi all,
I just read through the comments and I think the missing part in all of this is a basic sense of civility. That’s what makes an invitation to a date successful. When the person you are asking, understands that you would like to get to know him or her and you can demonstrate the capacity to give that person an honest opportunity to get to know you.
The only other perspective I’ll share is that the only rules that exist are the ones you choose – no one from any gender is “handed” any responsibility whatsoever. There are no excuses for not making choices you like.
So be nice and be free to choose the terms on which you live and the rest should follow.
Cheers!
Ms Thorn believes that she has little success approaching men because those men are uncomfortable with her stepping outside “scripted” gender roles. But might it not be that those men just aren’t interested in HER?
It is often said that a man will have to approach 10 women to find one who is interested in HIM, so why would the ratio be any different for a woman who approaches men?
Men are often told to be patient, not expect immediate results/instant gratification, etc., etc., why do women expect the first man that they approach to be receptive?
Going back to college forty some years ago….
A guy who was even only slightly above average in looks and social skills who worked with–class, field projects, employment, etc.–women but did not seek to open a social, sexual or romantic relationship with any of his colleagues was in the tall grass.
Women were not initiating much at the time, but they were sending messages like crazy. Directly, with eye-batting or whatever it was, other types of body language, through third parties.
The apparent lack of interest generated a huge amount of interest. No idea why, but it certainly seems like a way to start out, as opposed to what the sales folks refer to as “cold calls”.
Unfortunately, again no idea why, some of these guys didn’t get the message(s).
Maybe women are talked out of making the first move from an early age. Here’s a video of a first kiss that might be proof.
http://tubeatude.com/2011/05/07/high-five-for-first-kiss/
Clarisse: Just keep pushing with you taking the first move, whenever you want to. Eventually you are going to run into a great dude, who is probably too shell-shocked by the surrounding douchebags. Really, all in all, the dating world is plagued with ignorance and over ten thousand years of backwardness.
You know, I really like this article.
It makes me want to talk about one thing. Self-esteem.
Girls get hit on all the time until it becomes an annoyance? Guys almost never get hit on at all.
I grew up with 2 sisters who dealt with this. They seemed annoyed at guys hitting on them. For me, since I never got hit on, I assumed I was in the bottom 1% of the most wretched people. Guys want to be complimented to, you know?
I rarely get a “hey hot stuff” or anything like that, so I can see how it’s hard for guys to relate, because most of us would give our left foot just to have a day of that. And for it to be considered an annoyance? Well, that just makes us feel replaceable, and that girls consider us below them. “Let’s see if this guy can prove he’s not a waste of my time while I polish my nails. Wasn’t good enough? He’s a creep.”, that type of thing. It takes all the guts we have to make a move, and summoning up those guts is entirely ignored like it was some sort of walk in the part to show up and risk being pepper-sprayed.
Also, It seems like all girls have to do is be themselves and guys come. My ex got boyfriends all the time, and had time for a valedictorian graduation and preparation for med school. But if a guy isn’t out making a move, learning to make a move, or whatever, he’s single until death. ”
If the girl wants to study, more power to her. Guys will come. But if the guy wants to study, he has to sacrifice his potential for a relationship.”
You can bring up “but girls have to look pretty”, but every time I bring that one up, I’m reminded by girls that “we don’t look good for guys, we look good for ourselves! styling and clothing are hobbies, not mating rituals”. So they invalidate that argument.
Yes and all that relationship work is unpaid work that feminists of course always forget to add up when they pretend that a woman has “two shifts” or go on about women’s unpaid work is so important it ought to be recognised.
INITIATORS:
In my experience, it’s just doesn’t work when I approach men. I wouldn’t be surprised if the best romances were the ones in which the man pursues a woman he really wants, so why change it? Sometimes men are very tactless. “Hey baby yo’ ass looks get in those jeans” will not get you far with a woman who is not a stripper or prostitute. Men also do themselves a disservice by hitting on every woman they see. If a man comes to me after he’s been hitting 5 other women, I am going to say no.
Whoever it is above gave men testicles to be aggressive and horny, a mate pursuit area in the brain much larger than that of a female, maybe they were meant to be more assertive in the mating area?
CREEPY:
If “creepy” is referring to elavatorgate guy, damn straight he was creepy and rude. He wanted to have sex with her and not even bother wooing her. I might have slapped him that stuff makes me angry!
SEX:
Of course, women have an easier time getting sex. Men are sexually loose by nature, not very picky, and much less likely to say no than a female. If women were more like men, it would be very difficult to get into a relationship. i guess the solution would be either men learn to keep in their pants a bit more or make women more like men. That goes along with the general feelings of entitlement to sex men feel. *shrug*
This is the reason why I will never take feminists seriously on any subject involving initiations. The hypocrisy is to thick you can through it with a laser.
Every single one of the excuses and rationalizations that Clariss gives amount to
“It’s easier when we let me do all the hard work”
and
“when women do initiate life isn’t all kittens and lolipops”
Well no s*** sherlock!
Not a SINGLE one of the things that Clarisse gives as reasons for women not initiating are things unique to women… Not.. a.. s.i.n.g.l.e. one.
And this is true with all women defending why women still love keeping an 11th century gender role when it suits them, they always say something like “well I tried initiating, and it wasn’t perfect and ideal”.
So women have to have everything absolutely ideal, perfect and never experience rejection for them to do it? That’s basically the gist of this article.