# Women Taking The Lead In Dating



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Reflecting upon exchanges with Ms Awesome @_Ningsta Kitty_ and Ms Diplomacy @_AriesLilith_ has made me want to make this thread, so here goes...

(Yes this text is taken from other posts I've made)

*In this specific context* ie. hetero dating, women are in a privileged position. If by virtue of your genitalia the norm is that men have to initiate courtship, then you are in a privileged position. No other demographic - gay, trans, or straight males have the cultural norm that the 'other' initiates courtship.

Even if I grant that women not initiating courtship is due to evolutionary inheritance, it's an inclination that can easily be overcome. Otherwise gay, bi or pan women would simply stand in corners waiting for other women to approach them and would die same-sex virgins.

I don't have a problem with hetero women who recognize that they are in a position of privilege, but I have a problem with hetero women who expect men to conform to this norm. And I have a problem with hetero-women who complain whilst being in this privileged position.


So my questions for the ladies;

*Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?*

_(Only sober or tipsy times count, thank you ladies.)_

*Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?*

A youtuber came up with an interesting theory. "_Women don't approach men because women are even more insecure and afraid of rejection than men. Women react very badly to being rejected﻿."

I recall witnessing a female acquaintance break down crying after being rejected by a guy she asked out directly in public. I know a lady who I rejected when I was 12 who throughout school and to this day (I'm 28), mutters insults under her breath whenever she sees me. So maybe there is something to that.
_
*Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating?* *And if not, why?*

*Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals?* 

(Bracing myself for the white knights)


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Some anger from my fellow youtubers...

*"Yes women should approach men, but it will never﻿ happen because fucking cunts like their power and don't want to give it up. When you're the one being approached, you have all the fucking power."
*
_"He did not approach u because most men r fucking sick of rejection. We r sick of women's ultra high﻿ standards. To be honest we are sick and tired of women completly and if it wasn't for sex men wouldn't even speak to women.
How about this ?

Why don't women have some guts, some courage and how about asking a man out ?

Instead of being the power mad women u r, where you prefer for a man to approach u, then u can brush him away with no more hesitation than brushing away a street beggar."
_
*"In your vid you ask 'why didn't he approach you' you then go on to say that you may have approached him but after all... what in the world would you say. See.... now women get a idea of why most of the time men don't approach women. I've had women give the whole eye contact thing, I've actually approached and said hi and then they look freaked out that I actually said hi and dared to try and talk to the woman. Honestly..... it gets﻿ old and it's why we start to not approach women as much."
*
_"I'm sick of all these egotistical women on their high horses acting like they're too good to pursue men. Any girl who refuses to ask me out no matter how much she likes me is automatically not going to get asked out in return just because of her stubbornness. I'm not saying women should only ask men﻿ out, but I do think there should be a balance in the equation. "_

*"Women don't approach﻿ men cause their terrified of rejection, it screws with their self esteem...Woman aren't as strong and independent as they say they are..."
*
_"It doesn't happen more often because women are even more lazy and cowardly than men about dealing with rejection. Also, they do not desire the company of men as much as men desire their company. For years, women wanted equal rights - to vote, to be seen as equals in the workplace and enter the military, but they still leave it up to the men to do the﻿ real fighting - down in the "trenches" - they still expect the men to make the first move. What a joke. Can't they see us laughing at them?"_


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

No wonder those guys aren't getting laid haha!!

Women don't approach men because they don't have to, it's as simple as that. 
It sucks, but it's how it works. 

Also i think many women like to see some initiative on the guys part, it tells them that here is a guy who can provide for me. If that's a cultural thing or if it's a genetic thing i don't know. I'm leaning towards both, with a very large individual part based in both genetics and upbringing. I don't think we'll ever be able to completely erase it, and i know personally i wouldn't want that to happen. I enjoy being the stereotypical male.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I've never approached a woman in my life (irl, I have online) and yet I've had quite a few irl partners... So, women DO approach men, and often so.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> I've never approached a woman in my life (irl, I have online) and yet I've had quite a few irl partners... So, women DO approach men, and often so.


The majority of men I've known don't get approached as often as they approach, you're an exception.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

DiamondDays said:


> No wonder those guys aren't getting laid haha!!


Some of the funniest shit I've ever read online have been on male dominated forums, and stories and rants about hetero-dating and relationships.



> Women don't approach men because they don't have to, it's as simple as that.
> It sucks, but it's how it works.


You're probably right, privilege breeds entitlement and laziness.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> A YouTuber came up with an interesting theory. "Women don't approach men because women are even more insecure and afraid of rejection than men. Women react very badly to being rejected﻿."
> 
> I recall witnessing a female acquaintance break down crying after being rejected by a guy she asked out directly in public. I know a lady who I rejected when I was 12 who throughout school and to this day (I'm 28), mutters insults under her breath whenever she sees me. So maybe there is something to that.


I actually would think the sensitivity is because women haven't asked men out as much as men have asked out women, and really aren't used to the rejection. The first rejection always burns the worst, however, that girl needs to get over herself if she's insulting you under her breath to this day.

There's this common feminist trope of bitter "nice guys" who invest a lot of their emotion into a woman and get extremely angry once they're rejected. I think it's the same concept, it's just the women who are bitter. I don't really condone the nice guy behavior, but I think the giant reaction to it says a lot about how society views men as initiators, and expects them to suck it up and not have any emotions once they're rejected. I think women would do the same thing if they were expected to initiate by society.

I'm pretty lucky, though, I guess. I've gotten explicitly asked out by three women in my life, and I'm still pretty young. However, I rejected the first one on the spot, the second one I started to want nothing to do with after the first date, and the third one is my current girlfriend.

I've asked out only two women in my life, though... I'm kind of a wuss. XD


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

Women don't approach men because they don't have to, really: guys are still going to pursue them, one way or another. I've found that many women are willing to meet you in the middle, but if you're not willing to at least step out of your comfort zone and take that first step, you probably won't get very far. It's like selling yourself for a job position, really; employers aren't going to ring your doorbell and beg you to work for them. They want to see that you're self-driven, worth the time and effort, an investment for their company. 

There is one advantage men have that women don't, as pursuers, and that is we have complete control over who we choose to approach, and they don't. Basically, they get all these suitors, but that doesn't mean she's crazy when it comes to all of them, and sure, she can make small changes, but even then, she's taking a gamble. There's no guarantee that any of these men are 'right' for her, and I imagine it can feel pressuring at times. 

I have to be sure they're interested and worth approaching, because I don't have time for trying to interpret mixed signals or playing cat and mouse. If you can flip the tables, take control, and make her work for your attention a bit, you're ahead of a lot of guys. Desperation is a huge turn-off, and so is self-pity. Accept the fact that you don't need a woman to feel successful or happy, and focus on yourself. You'll find yourself feeling more confident and less stressed out, and, somewhere down the road, might even get lucky. The first step would be to stop worrying over this.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I had to post this awesome comment....

*"What do I say? .. there's no conversation..? It's a grocery store."

*
*Okay now you're thinking. Now imagine the only way to get to know men is you have to approach them, and they get to decide if you're some creepy black girl and reject you on the spot. Or if you're not confident enough when approaching a FUCKING STRANGER who you﻿ feel attraction for.

*
*- Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love.

*

*FUN.
*


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> *Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating?* *And if not, why?*


I don't think this question has any absolute relevance and I'll tell you why. Not all females think this way. The majority of women I personally know do approach dating with the mindset that it's an equal playing field. Any woman who buys into the whole "the guy needs to initiate" bull shit must lack the capacity to understand that moving things forward isn't the man's job just as raising the children isn't the woman's job. It's all stereotypical bull shit. Oh, and let's not forget that there are men out there that expect women to approach them. It works both ways, so I wouldn't critcize one sex for a behavior exhibited by hetero people of both sexes. 



> *Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals?*


That's a great question. Perhaps a woman who actually has this mindset can give you an answer because I don't have a damn clue.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

torai said:


> i don't really condone the nice guy behavior, but i think the giant reaction to it says a lot about how society views men as initiators, and expects them to suck it up and not have any emotions once they're rejected. I think women would do the same thing if they were expected to initiate by society.


qft.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@_Ace Face_

Glad to read you and your social circle don't conform to the BS.

I'm curious what your percentage is?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> @_Ace Face_
> 
> Glad to read you and your social circle don't conform to the BS.
> 
> I'm curious what your percentage is?


Percentage? If you ask a more specific question, I'll answer.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@Ace Face

From the OP...

*Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?


*


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DiamondDays said:


> Also i think many women like to see some initiative on the guys part, it tells them that here is a guy who can provide for me. If that's a cultural thing or if it's a genetic thing i don't know. I'm leaning towards both, with a very large individual part based in both genetics and upbringing. I don't think we'll ever be able to completely erase it, and i know personally i wouldn't want that to happen. I enjoy being the stereotypical male.


This kind of shit makes me want to vomit. It's 2013, not every woman is wondering who's going to give them the best handout and not every man is wondering how many babies you can push out before your pelvis pops.

Everyone of every gender and orientation should be willing to take the same risks they expect other people to take when trying to meet them.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> This kind of shit makes me want to vomit. It's 2013, not every woman is wondering who's going to give them the best handout and not every man is wondering how many babies you can push out before your pelvis pops.
> 
> Everyone of every gender and orientation should be willing to take the same risks they expect other people to take when trying to meet them.


Yeah, this is 2013 and it's more similar to 1813 than most people are comfortable to admit. The truth is that outside of the educated academic western middle class, the world is a patriarchal place. I see you live in the US, your country isn't exactly known for being the most socially progressive on these issues either, so i'm really surprised that you object to my analysis. No matter what you think and feel about it, fact is that this is how the world works.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> @_Ace Face_
> 
> From the OP...
> 
> ...


There has never been a time in which I didn't. I'm pretty picky, so when I see someone I want, I go get them. That's just who I am. I'm a very aggressive go-getter.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DiamondDays said:


> Yeah, this is 2013 and it's more similar to 1813 than most people are comfortable to admit. The truth is that outside of the educated academic western middle class, the world is a patriarchal place. I see you live in the US, your country isn't exactly known for being the most socially progressive on these issues either, so i'm really surprised that you object to my analysis. No matter what you think and feel about it, fact is that this is how the world works.


It being the norm or not doesn't make it any less annoying to hear parroted. Where I'm from is irrelevant as it isn't the primary compass for how I view or interact with people.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

Yeah I can remember having exchanged some posts with you about this topic, thought it was some time ago and I don't remember the details. Honestly you seem too obsessed about this, and I hope that you don't share the same feelings as the quotes you posted from the youtube comments in your 2nd post in this thread... 

So is your main issue with women who expects men to take initiative and do all the job, but then make cruel remarks about the guys they reject? Thing is, there are women out there who don't expect men to be the one to do all the job nor go cruel with the guys they reject. You can raise your dating standards and avoid entitled bitches, just as women have to raise their standards if they want to avoid assholes. There are many selfish people out there who only wants to use you and discard you, in both genders, so I don't see how it is news anyways. If you choose to play the shallow game of simply approaching any woman you can find without filtering, then you are bound to meet some bitches anyways. You might say, "but if I have higher standards then I might as well die virgin", or "but I need to have sex often", but if you say so then that is your problem. You can't just accept to play the game then blame the game anyways. I know many guys who due to higher standards only got to date once or twice in their lives (they don't play dating games with strangers), but then they never needed to sleep with many, nor have their lives revolve in this objective anyways. If you want to have great success and sleep with many, yet you don't naturally have that success, then maybe you can try to improve your chances, yet you can't really blame the shallow game that you chose to play.

As for why rejection can be harsher for women, I think that one of the reasons is that, thanks for the society brainwash, people tend to think that guys usually don't reject women that goes to them, while women are already expected to be selective, so that when a woman is rejected, she might think that something might be seriously wrong with her attractiveness. This is of course not necessarily true (guys can be selective as well), yet it might not be easy for some to break away from society brainwash.
(but the case you mentioned is a bit too extreme, why is she so troubled by that rejection??)

As for women who expect equality but still expect men to conform to traditional gender roles... Well, there are many men and women expecting the opposite sex to fit the gender roles anyways, there are many people out there whose relationship ideals probably annoys you and me anyways. Solution is simple - don't date them if you don't agree with these expectations. 
I'm a woman that expects equality and likes certain gender roles, but I don't expect them, as in telling a guy that he must follow those rules or he is wrong not to do it. There's nothing wrong for couples to do some gender stuffs if they are both happy with it and no one's rights are being lost (as in no equality), but it's silly to go around and say "I want equality" and then simply think that guys must do as their gender role dictates.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> It being the norm or not doesn't make it any less annoying to hear parroted. Where I'm from is irrelevant as it isn't the primary compass for how I view or interact with people.


Lol, this is not about you, this about how the world actually is. For you to attack me for stating how i perceive the world to work is pretty strange. Am i not allowed to state the facts as i see them just because they clash with with how you'd _like _the world to work?

I mean, i'm all for equality and freedom to choose your own lifestyle, don't get me wrong. Personally i do like to have a stereotypically masculine role in a relationship. That does not mean that i think everybody should be that way.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DiamondDays said:


> Lol, this is not about you, this about how the world actually is.


I was responding to this.



DiamondDays said:


> I see you live in the US, your country isn't exactly known for being the most socially progressive on these issues either, so i'm really surprised that you object to my analysis.





DiamondDays said:


> For you to attack me for stating how i perceive the world to work is pretty strange. Am i not allowed to state the facts as i see them just because they clash with with how you'd _like _the world to work?
> 
> I mean, i'm all for equality and freedom to choose your own lifestyle, don't get me wrong. Personally i do like to have a stereotypically masculine role in a relationship. That does not mean that i think everybody should be that way.



No one's telling you what you can and can't say, but by the same token you can't get upset because someone opposes what you say. What either of us would like the world to be like is rather irrelevant in this discussion, especially when the op asks for person experiences and in my personal experience women have n qualms about approaching me.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> No one's telling you what you can and can't say, but by the same token you can't get upset because someone opposes what you say. What either of us would like the world to be like is rather irrelevant in this discussion, especially when the op asks for person experiences and in my personal experience women have n qualms about approaching me.


Excuse me, but what you wrote was that what i wrote made you want to puke. That's an attack. Furthermore what op asked is irrelevant, your answer was to my post, and my answer was a response to that answer.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

I think "women are in a privileged position" is a really bad way of putting it. Women sometimes might not realize the fear of rejection and pain that goes a long with it because they haven't really had to face that. But the way you phrased it I think is kind of off putting.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

chaoticbrain said:


> I think "women are in a privileged position" is a really bad way of putting it. Women sometimes might not realize the fear of rejection and pain that goes a long with it because they haven't really had to face that. But the way you phrased it I think is kind of off putting.


*privilege

Noun

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.*

Seeing as hetero women are the only demographic were it's the cultural norm for the 'other' to do the initiating, they are privileged. Whether they want to admit it or not.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

chaoticbrain said:


> I think "women are in a privileged position" is a really bad way of putting it. Women sometimes might not realize the fear of rejection and pain that goes a long with it because they haven't really had to face that. But the way you phrased it I think is kind of off putting.


Yes, this is a better way to word it, but I still think it's too broad of a generalization. It's not women. It's some women and some men who don't like doing the dirty work. In essence, there are _people _that don't like to initiate things or take them to the next level when it comes to dating and mating. That's what it all boils down to. There's not one particular group of people that performs the behaviors listed in the OP. If it's a behavior that you want to shame, then shame that behavior. If you're going to shame the perpetrators then shame _all_ of the perpetrators... not just teh wimminz, lulz.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

interesting not many women have responded to this. and the ones who did came out swinging, and got swung back at.

I'm in my mid 40's. Sober. single. 

Male. body parts all work great.

Life is really really good. 

Supply and demand baby.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Yes, this is a better way to word it, but I still think it's too broad of a generalization. It's not women. It's majority of women and some men who don't like doing the dirty work.


Fixed.

The majority women who don't want to do the dirty work will still be courted and find relationships, the majority of men will be 40 yr old virgins.

But I have read in the 40's the tables turn, and it is literally the opposite situation. In 11 years I have that to look forward to.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> interesting not many women have responded to this. and the ones who did came out swinging, and got swung back at.
> 
> I'm in my mid 40's. Sober. single.
> 
> ...


Is it true that that in your 40's the tables turn?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Fixed.
> 
> The majority women who don't want to do the dirty work will still be courted and find relationships, the majority of men will be 40 yr old virgins.
> 
> But I have read in the 40's the tables turn, and it is literally the opposite situation. In 11 years I have that to look forward to.


That might be true, but my last statement still stands. "If it's a behavior that you want to shame, then shame that behavior. If you're going to shame the perpetrators then shame _all_ of the perpetrators, not just the women."


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> The majority of men I've known don't get approached as often as they approach, you're an exception.


Have you considered that all of this is just in your head?


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Question to OP. 

why do you care ?

If you don't want to be the pursuer ... Don't. 

I have YET to see a point. 

WHAT IS YOUR POINT ?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Is it true that that in your 40's the tables turn?


In retrospect, the tables were really never that stacked. It was just I played the wrong games.
I cannot compete in an SJ competition. I don't comb my hair, I don't follow rules, I don't kiss ass to the alpha male, or anyone for that matter.

In my 20's I figured out how to find women. I was married from late 20's through early 40's.

Now life is really good. Most of the single guys are apparently impotent, drunk, or confirmed assholes, even when compared to me, which is impressive. Of those that are left, many want younger women which is a turnoff for me.

The men's sex drives is fading fast. Women by their early 40's have figured out how sex works, and some LOVE it. for a 45ish woman, her choices are compete for the few guys in their mid 40's, be a cougar, or date even older guys.

Life is good.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Question to OP.
> 
> 
> I have YET to see a point.
> ...


(irony).........

(GRINS)

I am smiling because I have tried to ask that of you a few times........

(smiles and hugs and stuff)


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Women don't make the move because our conditioning has taught us that men are supposed to initiate (because men are dominant, women are submissive). In return, because women rarely initiate and face rejection, they are far more fearful of rejection than men. Men become desensitized as they approach more.

Generally it's women aged 21-24 who develop a somewhat superiority complex due to chodes hitting on them nonstop in bars and guys always validating their shit on facebook. They start thinking they're better then they actually are.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Question to OP.
> 
> why do you care ?
> 
> ...


I can tell you the point. The point is to call out all women for a behavior displayed by some women and some men with a little bit of trolling mixed in for the fun of it  Isn't that right, OP?


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> *Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?*


Actually more often than not. It's usually on complete impulse. I don't like putting myself out there, but then one day I'll make a move in spite of myself. Tends to work in my favor.
I do really like it though if the guy takes some initiative. I might get flamed but:


DiamondDays said:


> Also i think many women like to see some initiative on the guys part, it tells them that here is a guy who can provide for me. If that's a cultural thing or if it's a genetic thing i don't know. I'm leaning towards both, with a very large individual part based in both genetics and upbringing



Yes. This is true for me. I've been in situations where I made most of the moves and they just sat there letting me do the work. It was boring for me. And on top of that- a little nerve-wracking.
Are they gonna expect ME to assert for us if someone is in our way? If they are acting more of a receiver than initiator, is that that going to carry over to sex? TURN OFF. 
I prefer someone dominant...likes being in charge. I don't mind being bossed around a little (even outside of the bedroom). 

That being said, that's what _I _want. Not all girls feel the same way I do nor do I expect them too. Men and women have lots of different dynamics between one another. It depends on what you want in a partner. 




strangestdude said:


> *Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?*


I agree with @_DiamondDays_ on the first page. Because they don't _h__ave _to. Also yeah rejection as a girl REALLY REALLY sucks. @_AriesLilith_ hit the nail on the head. Guys aren't "supposed" to reject girls. So if you get rejected, it calls your attractiveness into serious question. 

*My advice to men looking to be pursued:*
Look for something good about yourself that distinguishes you from the crowd and FLAUNT IT. There is an art to this. 
It's the same thing women do. You have to appear on the radar of women that WANT to pursue. Don't be too much of a wallflower, otherwise they might not know you exist in the first place.
Some girls get away with being gorgeous. They don't need a personality (not to be harsh here). They smile and giggle and the guys are totally after them. They go for the eye candy approach.
Wanna hear a secret? So can you!
It just takes a lot more work, but I have seen it quite a bit. Really hot guy, total hunk, looks like he could be from a Sports Illustrated magazine. He sits there and smiles and girls gather around him like moths to a flame. He barely does a thing.
He's utilizing the SAME method.

Don't change yourself too much. In fact change is the wrong word. You should always be yourself. But if you want a certain kind of a person or at least want to catch their attention, think of ways you can do so. 
Some of those youtube comments are so damn bitter. It's both sides really: men and women who weren't able to find what they were looking for and adopted a whole "everyone is against me" attitude instead of seeking other options. They regarded little things they could do to help their approach to the opposite sex as _
So what? I have to CHANGE? I can't be ME anymore???
_No. That's not it at all. Unless you regard those traits as an core part of who you are, it's not who you are. A lot of them are just habits and insecurities one has acquired over the years.

I don't want to get too off topic, but I hope nobody feels like if they don't want a partner, they're broken or damaged in some way. To each his own. http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...le-treating-my-like-failure-being-single.html This thread goes into it more.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

DiamondDays said:


> Excuse me, but what you wrote was that what i wrote made you want to puke. That's an attack. Furthermore what op asked is irrelevant, your answer was to my post, and my answer was a response to that answer.




I didn't say *you* made me want to vomit, I said your *opinion* on this issue made me want to vomit. I don't know you. You perhaps might make me sick to my stomach but I'd have to give you a chance first. 

Since we're posting on this thread, the op's thesis is always relevant.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Moop said:


> Yes. This is true for me. I've been in situations where I made most of the moves and they just sat there letting me do the work. It was boring for me. And on top of that- a little nerve-wracking.
> Are they gonna expect ME to assert for us if someone is in our way? If they are acting more of a receiver than initiator, is that that going to carry over to sex? TURN OFF.
> I prefer someone dominant...likes being in charge. I don't mind being bossed around a little (even outside of the bedroom).
> 
> That being said, that's what _I _want. Not all girls feel the same way I do nor do I expect them too. Men and women have lots of different dynamics between one another. It depends on what you want in a partner.


Would you say that your attitude is common among other women or are you more submissive than the norm?


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Villainous said:


> Women don't make the move because our conditioning has taught us that men are supposed to initiate (because men are dominant, women are submissive). In return, because women rarely initiate and face rejection, they are far more fearful of rejection than men. Men become desensitized as they approach more.
> 
> Generally it's women aged 21-24 who develop a somewhat superiority complex due to chodes hitting on them nonstop in bars and guys always validating their shit on facebook. They start thinking they're better then they actually are.


Somebody sure drank that PUA cool-aid. You even adopted their retarded slang? Well, whatever floats your boat i guess.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Moop said:


> A
> Look for something good about yourself that distinguishes you from the crowd and FLAUNT IT. T.


don't do this within 300 feet of a school though........


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> (irony).........
> 
> (GRINS)
> 
> ...


Personally via PM or forum?

Because the last exchange I sent something for fun(silly) and you responded serious. 
and then proceeded to talk about your manhood. So I just let it be. 

Honestly, this forum is crazy. And I thought I was crazy! :tongue:

Doc. You mis-perceive me.
That's all I'm saying. You're all cool in my book. Just, I must confuse you. And that's okay.


----------



## Echoe (Apr 23, 2012)

*Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?*


Only have one experience, but a few times I wanted to initiate something "amplifying" and may give in to such another time.


*Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?*


I wonder how many women tend to take some "initiative" a fair bit in a relationship anyway ? 
I think most of us probably prefer being the more submissive one on the whole I guess. Part of it should just be the classic "ideals" of men being the protective leaders. Men have traditionally been expected to be assertive and take the lead, there's still a lot of shaming out there for guys being "weak" or submissive, and vice versa in the case of women of women being "manly" and assertive. Or society seems to be becoming steadily more liberal about these things, perhaps we'll someday not care as much. Men with their higher levels of testosterone should just be more assertive and more desiring of taking the lead anyway, and women with our greater lack thereof probably wind up preferring to "follow" a bit more anyway as well, soooo I would imagine our biological dispositions feed into it too.


*Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating?* *And if not, why?*


Some might not call it privileged. I suppose *I* feel a bit privileged it's there; to be frank I kinda prefer someone who has a bit more direction in their nature than I do (I don't know if that's a bit bad on my part). 


*Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals?* 



Not sure of this claim or maybe our interpretations of things differ, but I can't really answer this. Maybe they just mean they don't want the man to take the lead on errything, and/or they don't feel everyone should have to follow traditional gender roles but they want to at some degree or another.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Personally via PM or forum?
> 
> Because the last exchange I sent something for fun(silly) and you responded serious.
> and then proceeded to talk about your manhood. So I just let it be.
> ...


sigh........

i must confuse you. I was joking, and you disappeared.

I seem to remember an email asking you what the point was to this loooooooooooong writeup you sent me about, oh wait, EXACTLY one month ago!!!

(hugs!)


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Lmao @_drmiller100_



DiamondDays said:


> Would you say that your attitude is common among other women or are you more submissive than the norm?


Alright...I'm not sure how to answer this question.
The only girls I can speak for are girls that I am close to. We are open with each other and have been friends long enough where I know what they actually want, not just a front. On top of that, I'm only counting people I got to know in my 20s (current age), because high school is a turbulent time. I don't know if the people I have lost touch with have changed.

Out of the 6 women I am sure of, 5 are submissive like me (sexually speaking). Submissive doesn't mean passive by the way. Two separate things. By submissive I mean more willing to please. And also liking it rough.
In terms of traditional gender roles (ex: how they would feel about a guy bossing them around outside of the bedroom), 2 of them are similar to me. The other 3 are not.

Edit: On another note, why won't it let me Mention other members the first time I reply? It only works if I go back and edit.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> *In this specific context* ie. hetero dating, women are in a privileged position. BULLSHIT.
> 
> If by virtue of your genitalia the norm is that men have to initiate courtship, then you are in a privileged position. BULLSHIT.
> 
> ...


Who the hell are the white knights. You have some weird mental fetish. Stop trying to infect everyone with it. 

Ugh ...


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> sigh........
> 
> i must confuse you. I was joking, and you disappeared.
> 
> ...


UGH! RELAX! 

Just be more easy going, relax and don't be counting days. It'll only push every introvert you know away.

*sighs of defeat from a world full of extroverts and expectations*


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> *Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals?*


Ohhh oops I never replied to this, now did I? 
Let's put it this way, I would not want to be born as a woman before the women's rights movement.
Some girls might say they don't want "traditional roles", because they see traditional as how it was way back then.

When I was younger, I tried reaaalllly hard to be the antithesis of the traditional woman. I wanted to be the revolutionary! Look at me paving this new path, I'm a fearless VISIONARY!
And although I might be in other areas of my life, dating/men/relationships is definitely not one of them.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

DiamondDays said:


> Somebody sure drank that PUA cool-aid. You even adopted their retarded slang? Well, whatever floats your boat i guess.


...So I'm right.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

This. Thread. Is. A. Delight.


----------



## DiamondDays (Sep 4, 2012)

Villainous said:


> ...So I'm right.


First paragraph, yes. Second paragraph was only semi-misogynistic PUA dogma.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Moop said:


> L 5 are submissive like me (sexually speaking). Submissive doesn't mean passive by the way. Two separate things. By submissive I mean more willing to please. And also liking it rough.
> .


Clarification please. I'm 6'1", and 260 pounds, and really strong for my size. What exactly do you mean by rough?

Submissive. I've dabbled in the BDSM scene. Submissive has a definition there, and masochist has a different meaning.

and as an 8/7 ENTP, the nuances of gently dominating I get confused on. And "rough" could mean I don't shave that day, or rough could mean bring the brass knuckles.


----------



## clairdelunatic (Mar 20, 2013)

*Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?
*
I don't know how to interpret "to the next level." From current acquaintance to romance? Or, "Hm. Man at bar I want. I'll buy him a drink?" I think, at best, if I knew someone already whom I've liked, I've been encouraging. Crap. Am I now one of these privileged women?*

Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?

*I can't speak for _more hetero women_. Personally, I am an indirect person. In everything. In fact, one of the reasons I joined PerC is to get myself to express myself more directly in ways other people understand. (I'm afraid I'm not succeeding quite yet.) ;P Also, I'm painfully aware to possibilities of imposing on someone else.

If we're going to play this gross generalization game, do women tend to be more indirect?
*
Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating? And if not, why?

*By privileged position, do you mean "having less responsibility in initiating?" Where does that leave a person? That's an extremely dis-empowering place to be, actually -- where your only agency relies on triggering someone else to act? It's not a privilege to have as your only power the power to attract. That's severely limiting if someone truly believes that's what s/he is allowed. *


Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals? 

*Why do guys promise to "help out around the house" but then can't be bothered to? I don't know, @strangestdude... With all due respect, I'm usually empathetic to an extreme, but answering these questions, it's feeling more and more like a personal aggravation that you've tried to pose in a larger frame of reference. And I get that a lot of guys probably feel this way. I also totally get that it's hard to be the one expected to initiate all the time. 

But maybe the expectation isn't really there? I guess I'm wondering why you feel it is.

And as for inconsistency, isn't everything inconsistent? People say things they don't mean ALL. THE. TIME...


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> I've dabbled in the BDSM scene. Submissive has a definition there, and masochist has a different meaning.


What's the difference between the two? Masochist revels in pain and submissive doesn't necessarily do the same?



drmiller100 said:


> and as an 8/7 ENTP, the nuances of gently dominating I get confused on. And "rough" could mean I don't shave that day, or rough could mean bring the brass knuckles.


No damage that remains for a day or two after. Bruises are whatever. It happens. I don't need the neighbors noticing marks and start spreading domestic violence rumors lol.
Ummm...I'm not really sure how to tell you where the line is. I prefer if the guy concentrates on his pleasure versus mine. Works out very well that way. And if they're on top, I prefer them to go at it as wildly as they want. 
Broken beds? ...It happens!


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

so you want to date a guy with Fi dominant, not Fe.
I'm more interested in pleasuring the woman, not "using" them.

Probably why I made a crappy dom now that I think of it that way.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

strangestdude said:


> *Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?*


I made the first move the very first time I had a crush. I wrote something for him, and handed it to him after school. I waited seven or eight years to do it because I was very shy. He rejected me brutally and his friends teased me afterward.

I made the first move the second time I had a crush. This time, I only waited a year to do it. I gave him a chocolate heart for valentine's day. He ate it, but rejected me.

I didn't make a move the third time I had a crush, because I already knew he wanted my best friend.

The fourth time I had a crush, we showed a mutual interest from the first conversation. Neither of us made the first move. I ended up with my first boyfriend.

I made the first move the fifth time I had a crush. I made it very clear from the beginning that I was interested. I waited three years hoping he would change his mind, but he rejected me despite my persistence.

I made the first move the sixth time I felt interested in a guy. He didn't reject me. I lost my virginity to him.

I made the first move the seventh time I wanted someone, and he rejected me politely, remaining my friend for a couple of years while I pined for him.

I made the first move the eighth time I wanted someone, and ended up with my third boyfriend.

I made the first move the ninth time I had a crush, and ended up with my fourth boyfriend, who settled for me after I was persistent long enough. It was a disaster.

The tenth time I wanted someone, I made it clear, but he wasn't interested.

The eleventh time, I didn't tell the guy because I thought he might be gay. He wasn't, but he didn't seem interested when he finally found out about my feelings.

The twelfth time I wanted someone, it was obvious from the beginning that we both liked each other, and I ended up with my fifth boyfriend.

The thirteenth time I wanted someone, I made the first move, and this one actually was gay. We remain close friends.

The fourteenth time I wanted someone, I made the first move and he wasn't interested. I remained persistent for a couple of years. Eventually he asked me if I wanted to be his girlfriend, knowing how badly I wanted him. He briefly dated me online, but he was never actually very interested in me.

The fifteenth time I wanted someone, I made the first move, and now I am happily married to him. Neither of us proposed to the other. Deciding to marry was a discussion in which we were both equally involved. 



strangestdude said:


> *Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?*


Some of us do. I think it is a matter of individual preference. The ones who don't might be shy, or they might be very traditional. I think things are getting more balanced lately, although it's still not perfectly fair or equal. 



strangestdude said:


> *Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating?* *And if not, why?*


I think we usually understand. Some of us willingly give up the privilege of passivity in order to take a more active, decisive role in getting to determine who we end up with. Choosing who we want to ask out feels more empowering to some of us than being chosen would, even though there is a certain power in getting to say yes or no to the ones who choose us. I think the main point is that having a choice about whether to take the passive or active role is what gives us an advantage. 



strangestdude said:


> *Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals?*


I think it will take more time for feminism to change things in this area. We are gradually approaching equality, and it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to make the first move. I don't think anyone should ever have to feel like s/he is expected to be the pursuer just because of traditional gender roles. Some individuals are better suited for it than others.

I knew quite well which guys I liked, and I almost always took responsibility for showing an interest, even though I am naturally shy. Sometimes it took me a while to work up the nerve, but if I wanted someone badly enough, I saw no point in silently pining away without saying anything.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> I've never approached a woman in my life (irl, I have online) and yet I've had quite a few irl partners... So, women DO approach men, and often so.


wow what planet do i live on not the one you do, i must be on the wrong one =(


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Have you considered that all of this is just in your head?


must be in my head too! ahhhh! get it out!!...


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Jwing24 said:


> wow what planet do i live on not the one you do, i must be on the wrong one =(


Or perhaps in a more conservative area of the same world......


----------



## Don Draper (Apr 16, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> *In this specific context* ie. hetero dating, women are in a privileged position. If by virtue of your genitalia the norm is that men have to initiate courtship, then you are in a privileged position. No other demographic - gay, trans, or straight males have the cultural norm that the 'other' initiates courtship.


This seems like a pretty broad generalization. In non-hetero relationships there are still going to be some strong male and female polarities(energy, if you will) that will take on some of those traditional gender roles...and everything between of course. 



strangestdude said:


> And I have a problem with hetero-women who complain whilst being in this privileged position.




I think a lot of guys have this point of view...and you don't have to look any further than those youtube nut jobs, who obviously aren't getting laid, to see it in it's extreme form. There's a sense of resentment. _Boohoo! Women have it sooo easy, all they have to do is sit back and they have all the power. _*Wrong.
*
They do have all the power if you put your sense of self-worth into the opinion of a complete stranger who may have their own problems in life at the moment and don't want to exchange 5 minutes of awkward conversation for a drink.

I used to have this same resentment for a long time. I'm not going to sit on a high horse or say I'm better because I've changed my views based on reading and experiences...it's just how I've grown to see the world in a more realistic, healthy and positive aspect for myself.

I mean think about it...put yourself in the shoes of a beautiful woman. They constantly have to try and decipher if someone is trying to take something from them. They constantly have to test guys to see if they're really who they present themselves as. And, they have to deal with a never-ending line of resentful drunk idiots coming up to them trying to hit on them or manipulate them... offering no value. Sure, they have a lot of nice things given to them...free drinks, no waiting in lines, etc. At what cost though?

Read this article on Life Through the Eyes of a Beautiful Woman by Mark Manson, that he wrote after his time in Thailand. Here's the gist of it if you don't want to read the whole thing:




Mark Manson said:


> And what’s amazing is how all of this attention, all of these offers, and all of the constant harassment — and yes, it does become harassment after a while — completely changes your mindset. After a week, it had gotten old. By two weeks, my attitude had noticeably changed. After a month, I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone.




I'm not trying to say women have it _so_ hard...not at all. People just need to understand that they have problems and obstacles to overcome in the dating scene too. They're just much different problems than we face.

*


strangestdude said:



Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?

Click to expand...

*Women's social standing, generally speaking, is much more important to them than it is to men. If they're rejected by a man in front of a large social group it could drop her social value relative to the group. However, when women do take a direct approach, it is usually very subtle. _That's an interesting watch/shirt/whatever. _A lot of it is accomplished through body language and subtext too.

Look, I'm not trying to bash you OP. You bring up some interesting discussion points and questions. I think you do need to realize though that beautiful women don't necessarily need to take a direct approach. The alpha guys who are secure with themselves and on their own path in life are going to pursue a relationship with them if that's what they're interested in at the moment. And they aren't going to cry on youtube if a woman tells them to fuck off.


----------



## Seranova (Mar 1, 2013)

_Okay, valid points and questions aside...why does this sound like a whinefest about someone is not getting laid enough because most women with some sense can see through the crapola? And I have a feeling I have seen something similar here recently. *shrugs* Anyway, who wants popcorn? _


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

if you want to be successful dating a beautiful, intelligent, kind woman, then learn that all women are beautiful and think they are intelligent, and consider themselves kind.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

drmiller100 said:


> if you want to be successful dating a beautiful, intelligent, kind woman, then learn that all women are beautiful and think they are intelligent, and consider themselves kind.


It should be noted that most men think the same of themselves --simply replace kind with cool-- but it doesn't mean that they are, and I can't imagine the kind of sycophant that would agree that someone is something they're not simply because they're pretty.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

I can't hold all the ad hominems in this thread. lol.

This phenomena most certainly does exist, despite the claims of some posters. I wish the world wasn't so archaic too; but in reality, most men have to initiate because their aren't enough women who would even entertain the thought of doing it themselves.

This is most definitely a privilege, despite the fact that some posters insist that it is not.

To the point that woman "suffer" because they get approached all the time: I guarantee that the levels of "harassment" would decrease if more women initiated. Most men know that if they even expect a chance, then they must initiate, if this changes then they would be much less inclined to pursue without discretion and most of these issues of women getting approached too much would decrease.

That's why I'm skeptical about it being something women "suffer". The ball is completely in their court and they could change things if they wanted to.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

*Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?

*I'd say 90% of the time, I take the initiative. By that I don't mean I always say it with so many words, because I don't think "asking out" is the only way to start a relationship. I mean I approach the person first, tell them what I think about them, if I like them, etc.*

Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?

*Hmm... I'd say it has a lot to do with fear of rejection, but I'm not sure if that's all there is to it. Maybe there's something to do with the chase, the thrill of being pursued. In most species, males do the courtship to females, instead of the other way around. Perhaps there's something biological there? I recall Freud said something that I agree to some level: _all men desire all women, and all women want to be desired by all men_.*

Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating? And if not, why?

*I recognize that, but I'm not sure that most women do. I think it's a lot easier for a woman to get a guy than for a guy to get a woman. I've always noticed that men will say "yes" even if they're not that interested, sometimes just because they think that's what men have to do - get laid as much as they can, even when they don't really want to. You know, social pressure and all that. 
But I obviously know that not everyone follows that "rule".*

Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals?

*Because most people are hypocrites.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> Honestly you seem too obsessed about this, and I hope that you don't share the same feelings as the quotes you posted from the youtube comments in your 2nd post in this thread...


See my sig.



> So is your main issue with women who expects men to take initiative and do all the job, but then make cruel remarks about the guys they reject? Thing is, there are women out there who don't expect men to be the one to do all the job nor go cruel with the guys they reject. You can raise your dating standards and avoid entitled bitches, just as women have to raise their standards if they want to avoid assholes.


The majority of women seem to have a sense of entitlement.

On the net the majority of women complain about the men attempting to court them; nice guys who complain about being friendzoned, guys who aren't confident (lacking compassion that they've approached a stranger ), complain about the standard of men approaching them, etc.

Men complain about not being able to even attract *anyone*, women giving numbers and ignoring their calls after they've given them their number, women ignoring their messages without even a polite 'no thanks'. On male dominated forums (and I'm talking non PUA forums) men regularly talk about methods of how to court women, because it's necessary due to the cultural norm.



> If you choose to play the shallow game of simply approaching any woman you can find without filtering, then you are bound to meet some bitches anyways. You might say, "but if I have higher standards then I might as well die virgin", or "but I need to have sex often", but if you say so then that is your problem.


See you're stereotyping us men. We don't just approach for sex, we also approach so we can date and form relationships. Some dudes don't work in a job, or have a social circles that includes many women and so - due to the cultural norm - initiating courtship is the only way to find a romantic relationship.



> You can't just accept to play the game then blame the game anyways. I know many guys who due to higher standards only got to date once or twice in their lives (they don't play dating games with strangers), but then they never needed to sleep with many, nor have their lives revolve in this objective anyways.


They must be close to being asexual, or have little to no desire for a romantic relationship, or have incredibly high standards. 



> As for why rejection can be harsher for women, I think that one of the reasons is that, thanks for the society brainwash, people tend to think that guys usually don't reject women that goes to them, while women are already expected to be selective, so that when a woman is rejected, she might think that something might be seriously wrong with her attractiveness.


Society? I think women. They are quick to label guys gay if they turn them down.

This is of course not necessarily true (guys can be selective as well), yet it might not be easy for some to break away from society brainwash.



> (but the case you mentioned is a bit too extreme, why is she so troubled by that rejection??)


Wish I knew. But engaging with her (I know her family) would be more trouble than it's worth.



> I'm a woman that expects equality and likes certain gender roles, but I don't expect them, as in telling a guy that he must follow those rules or he is wrong not to do it. There's nothing wrong for couples to do some gender stuffs if they are both happy with it and no one's rights are being lost (as in no equality), but it's silly to go around and say "I want equality" and then simply think that guys must do as their gender role dictates.


I have no problem with women who want traditional gender roles, but I have a problem with a sense of entitlement. "Men should propose." "Men should ask us out on dates." Rather than. "I'd prefer it if a man proposes to me." "I'd prefer it if a man asks me out on a date."

Check out this classic sense of entitlement that hetero women have that I was discussed on the black phillip show (not a transcript)....

"I let him eat my pussy."

You *let* him eat your pussy? It was a privilege for him?



> Solution is simple - don't date them if you don't agree with these expectations.


You don't know what their expectations are until you approach them.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

android654 said:


> I can't imagine the kind of sycophant that would agree that someone is something they're not simply because they're pretty.


They are called simps.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I can tell you the point. The point is to call out all women for a behavior displayed by some women and some men with a little bit of trolling mixed in for the fun of it  Isn't that right, OP?


No, it's to highlight the cultural norm that men are expected to court women.

Your social circle sounds like an exception.

Don't be mean.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Moop said:


> I've been in situations where I made most of the moves and they just sat there letting me do the work. It was boring for me. And on top of that- a little nerve-wracking.
> Are they gonna expect ME to assert for us if someone is in our way?


Now you're thinking. Now imagine that was the cultural expectation for you in order to find a relationship. 
Imagine how consistently boring, nerve wracking and frustrating that would be for you. 

And now imagine reading and listening to men complain about women not being interesting and confident enough when approaching them even though they let *you* do all the work.

In the words of a youtuber...

Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love.

Now you can understand the anger in those youtube comments.

(Good advise to men though BTW, seriously)


----------



## Watch Key Phone (Mar 29, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I can't hold all the ad hominems in this thread. lol.
> 
> This phenomena most certainly does exist, despite the claims of some posters. I wish the world wasn't so archaic too; but in reality, most men have to initiate because their aren't enough women who would even entertain the thought of doing it themselves.
> 
> ...


The problem with the arguments in this thread is the way people are blaming individual women for something which is caused by societal norms.

Imagine that I am a woman, and I am sick of being approached and harassed by men. Judging by your logic, I should be able to solve this problem by approaching every man I see. If I do that, men will magically stop approaching me in return?

That's not how it works. It's a problem with society. And just like an individual man cannot be blamed for societal sexism or expected to solve the problem alone, an individual woman cannot be blamed for societal expectations of (straight) relationships, or expected to solve the problem.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

I dunno it's kinda cool not being chased by women everywhere, so I like that I should take the lead


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I'm not sure why you can't accept that there is a cultural norm that men are expected to initiate courtship and make marriage proposals, but here goes...



Ningsta Kitty said:


> JUST because you have this little "theory" in your head all worked out does NOT mean that is reality. JUST because a woman is more of a feminine energy, does NOT mean she is privileged. Privileged for what? If she's half way decent looking and not too fat and has a nice personality ... what does that mean to you? She is privileged to take her pick of the flock? Give me a break!


It's reality. 

In a nutshell if the average man doesn't initiating courtship they will die alone. If the average woman doesn't initiate courtship they will have others attempt to court them and have people to consider having a relationship with. That's privilege.



> MAYBE women who don't do the chasing are NOT privileged - MAYBE they have it WORSE! Did you ever think of that?


As an experiement approach a few very attractive guys over the course of week (because average looking dudes will probably be nice to you, unlike most women to guys) tomorrow in a bar or public place, tell us what the experience was like internally. 



> Maybe it's not in their nature to chase, AS IT APPARENTLY IS THE CASE WITH YOU.


Believe me. Most guys chase because they have to, not because they want to. I chase because I have to, not because I want to. 



> Because I happen to have 2 close acquaintances IRL who are gay and 1 who is Bi-sexual and they most certainly (very much in the same way a hetero couple does) sort out who is the more aggressor or leader of the relationship.


I didn't say in the context of a relationship. I was referring to initating courtship. 



> There are PLENTY of men dating women who did not initiate the contact.


I wasn't referring to contact, I was referring to direct courtship ie. "Can I have you number?" "Would you like to go out on a date?" "Will you marry me?"



> Oh yeah ... *TROLLING*. Because YOU ARE BORED and apparently need to get laid as well.


 _
_You're a big meanie. My fleshlight is all I have :sad:.



> _Oh baby. PLEASE touch me neckie sometime. Might I send you pics of my boobies. Because you are JUST so alluring and smart. I can hardly contain myself. Oh baby. Oh baby. Please._


*Lubes fleshlight whilst reading*



> None. Because men like to go from 0-10 as FAST as they can! ... There was never a problem with a man not willing to take his pants off.


You've never had to initiate courtship?... Seriously please do my experiment. You'll see how challenging it is, and you'll have more empathy for dudes.

I shaking my head how you can admit to never having to initiate courtship and not thinking you are in a position of privilege. 



> LET ME TELL YOU WHY ... Because THEY DON'T WANT TO.
> The one's who do ... DO. It's that simple.


What's motivating that want? Expectation or preference? That's my point.



> Who the hell are the white knights.


Men who reflexively defend women on internet forums. 



> Stop trying to infect everyone with it.


You're already infected.



> Ugh ...


*Strokes fleshlight.*


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

clairdelunatic said:


> But maybe the expectation isn't really there? I guess I'm wondering why you feel it is.


The majority of women I've know who are friends or acquaintances will not ask a man for the phone number, or to go out on a date etc even if they like him, they will wait (and complain, which is the part that pisses me off) that the man isn't being direct. Not saying all, but the majority.

I've haven't got a problem with women preferring men to be direct, but to show you expect it by complaining about the dude's lack of initiative irritates me.

One of the ways I tried to gauge if my perception was by asking women of PerC to estimate the percentage of times they've initiated courtship. Women here don't seem to want to do that though. Or perhaps I'm on too many ignore lists.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

snail said:


> I think it will take more time for feminism to change things in this area. We are gradually approaching equality, and it is becoming more socially acceptable for women to make the first move. I don't think anyone should ever have to feel like s/he is expected to be the pursuer just because of traditional gender roles. Some individuals are better suited for it than others.
> 
> I knew quite well which guys I liked, and I almost always took responsibility for showing an interest, even though I am naturally shy. Sometimes it took me a while to work up the nerve, but if I wanted someone badly enough, I saw no point in silently pining away without saying anything.


Your post was warming to read. It was nice reading how your marriage was a mutual conclusion. I thought about your story of how you and your husband met (you shared it before) as I was writing the OP I remember thinking how your story in no way conforms to norms. I have no problem with traditional gender roles - I have a problem if they are expected (I think you've expressed the same perspective). 

(As well as being feminist) Am I right in thinking that part of your ability to empathize with the cultural expectation put on men in hetero dating is because you know how challenging it can be. I think if more women were active they'd talk about 'awkward' men who attempt to court them less harshly.

There's a scene in the comedy hitch where Eva Mendes Character politely says to a dude who approaches her (paraphrasing) 'I know what it takes to approach a woman who you don't know, so this isn't a reflection on you, but I'm not interested.' Was nice fiction.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Or perhaps in a more conservative area of the same world......


I live in an inner city in the UK... 

Either you are very attractive, rich or famous... Or you live in Thailand.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Don Draper said:


> This seems like a pretty broad generalization. In non-hetero relationships there are still going to be some strong male and female polarities(energy, if you will) that will take on some of those traditional gender roles...and everything between of course.


I agree. But I was highlighting that hetero women as a demographic are the only one's who have it as a norm that they will be courted.



> I think a lot of guys have this point of view...and you don't have to look any further than those youtube nut jobs, who obviously aren't getting laid, to see it in it's extreme form. There's a sense of resentment. _Boohoo! Women have it sooo easy, all they have to do is sit back and they have all the power. _*Wrong.
> *


That is power. That dude in the article was in a position of power. 



> I used to have this same resentment for a long time. I'm not going to sit on a high horse or say I'm better because I've changed my views based on reading and experiences...it's just how I've grown to see the world in a more realistic, healthy and positive aspect for myself.


Props. (seriously)



> I mean think about it...put yourself in the shoes of a beautiful woman. They constantly have to try and decipher if someone is trying to take something from them. They constantly have to test guys to see if they're really who they present themselves as. And, they have to deal with a never-ending line of resentful drunk idiots coming up to them trying to hit on them or manipulate them... offering no value. Sure, they have a lot of nice things given to them...free drinks, no waiting in lines, etc. At what cost though?


No circumstance is perfect (and nor do I believe it ever can be), but the good outweighs the bad. The glass is half full from where I'm sitting.



> Read this article on Life Through the Eyes of a Beautiful Woman by Mark Manson, that he wrote after his time in Thailand.


That was a great article. However I still don't see it as a disadvantage, I see it as an acclimatization to privilege. He could have played a more active role in getting to know the women who approached him, but he didn't because (like he said) he could knowing that someone else would hit on him later.

Of course it has problems (there's is nothing perfect in life) but it is a far better position to be in than the initiator.

It's lonely at the top, but it's crowded and miserable at the bottom.



> I'm not trying to say women have it _so_ hard...not at all. People just need to understand that they have problems and obstacles to overcome in the dating scene too. They're just much different problems than we face.





> Women's social standing, generally speaking, is much more important to them than it is to men. If they're rejected by a man in front of a large social group it could drop her social value relative to the group.


I like that theory.



> However, when women do take a direct approach, it is usually very subtle. _That's an interesting watch/shirt/whatever. _A lot of it is accomplished through body language and subtext too.


I agree that is a female approach, but I wouldn't call that direct - to me that's initiating conversation. Initiating courtship is asking for a number or asking to take someone out on a date. I used to have a friend who was ladies man, it was amusing to watch women position themselves to be 'picked up' but wouldn't initiate things.

I chatted to 2 women in a nightclub and (stupidly because I was frustrated with the cultural norm) they kept repeating that they were leaving and made it clear they wanted me to ask for their number, I refused because I was pissed that they wouldn't just ask. 



> Look, I'm not trying to bash you OP. You bring up some interesting discussion points and questions.


That is was my goal.



> I think you do need to realize though that beautiful women don't necessarily need to take a direct approach.


I would replace beautiful women with *the average woman*, But I agree. 

I accept that this is the norm. And I accept that unless I work in a profession with women (I'm planning to become self employed), I'm going to have to initiate things. This thread is for all the men who are frustrated, and a call for hetero women to question their expectations and to have more empathy for dudes who initiate things with them.



> The alpha guys who are secure with themselves and on their own path in life are going to pursue a relationship with them if that's what they're interested in at the moment. And they aren't going to cry on youtube if a woman tells them to fuck off.


True. But not everyone can be an alpha broski.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Seranova said:


> _Okay, valid points and questions aside...why does this sound like a whinefest about someone is not getting laid enough because most women with some sense can see through the crapola?_


I expect that viewpoint from someone in a position of privilege.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Watch Key Phone said:


> The problem with the arguments in this thread is the way people are blaming individual women for something which is caused by societal norms.


I don't see anyone blaming individuals. I blame the demographic for not challenging this norm. Despite feminism being a part of pop culture in the west, hetero dating seem to be an area women *expect* men to conform to traditional gender roles in regards to courtship.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> See my sig.


This?



> *"**Now imagine the only way to get to know men is you have to approach them, and they get to decide if you're some creepy black girl and reject you on the spot. Or if you're not confident enough when approaching a FUCKING STRANGER who you﻿ feel attraction for.
> **
> - Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love.*


Doesn't seem conclusive to whether you really share the feelings of those quotes of your 2nd post in this thread or not. But since you've posted them, I guess you really do...

But what's with this "Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love."? Blaming the gender roles expectations solely on women? I'll quote @*Watch Key Phone* as his/her comment is pretty much how spot on:



Watch Key Phone said:


> The problem with the arguments in this thread is the way people are blaming individual women for something which is caused by societal norms.
> 
> Imagine that I am a woman, and I am sick of being approached and harassed by men. Judging by your logic, I should be able to solve this problem by approaching every man I see. If I do that, men will magically stop approaching me in return?
> 
> That's not how it works. It's a problem with society. And just like an individual man cannot be blamed for societal sexism or expected to solve the problem alone, an individual woman cannot be blamed for societal expectations of (straight) relationships, or expected to solve the problem.


@*strangestdude*, it's understandable that some men might feel frustrated with women who are selfish and feels entitled that men should do all the job - for some reason these are called bitches -, yet blaming the entire problem of this situation to women's responsibility is not only unfair, but also an immature and irresponsible way of dealing with the issue.

I don't see anyone here agreeing that women has the right to expect men to do all the work, nor saying that we don't have empathy for men who has to deal with the hard parts of having to take initiative. But thing is, if you are going to portray all this by making men look like victims and generalizing women as the bitchy ones with entitlement issues, of course many would disagree with you...



strangestdude said:


> Men complain about not being able to even attract *anyone*, women giving numbers and ignoring their calls after they've given them their number, women ignoring their messages without even a polite 'no thanks'. On male dominated forums (and I'm talking non PUA forums) men regularly talk about methods of how to court women, because it's necessary due to the cultural norm.


I'm sure that if a woman is hardly attractive, she would also barely attract anyone... This might sound cruel, but this is how the world is, with no exception for any gender. If you don't have any attractiveness, you probably have a much harder time attracting others. You might say that this is about few to none women doing the approach so that it's harder for men (buh huh men suffers more? ~_~), thought I have to assume that generally these men you are talking about are the ones frustrated with having no success at all, I hardly see other men complaining with such a degree of frustration.
Also, try having an ugly woman approach a man, there are men out there who can reject and ridicularize them as well, in cruel ways as well.



strangestdude said:


> See you're stereotyping us men. We don't just approach for sex, we also approach so we can date and form relationships. Some dudes don't work in a job, or have a social circles that includes many women and so - due to the cultural norm - initiating courtship is the only way to find a romantic relationship.


If you want people to have a better opinion of the men you are talking about (yup, not the men in general but those men you are talking about - grouping all the men together in this category would be unfair), then try to post better things than quotes like your 2nd post in this thread. Things like this:



> _We r sick of women's ultra high﻿ standards. To be honest we are sick and tired of women completly and if it wasn't for sex men wouldn't even speak to women._


(and all those "pussy" and "dick" of your past posts... )



strangestdude said:


> They must be close to being asexual, or have little to no desire for a romantic relationship, or have incredibly high standards.


They are as sexual as healthy men can be, have strong desire for relationships and has realistic standards. It's just they are not desperate to approach strangers all the time, nor they are into such shallow games, nor they make their lives revolving about finding sex or partners.



strangestdude said:


> I have no problem with women who want traditional gender roles, but I have a problem with a sense of entitlement. "Men should propose." "Men should ask us out on dates." Rather than. "I'd prefer it if a man proposes to me." "I'd prefer it if a man asks me out on a date."
> 
> Check out this classic sense of entitlement that hetero women have that I was discussed on the black phillip show (not a transcript)....
> 
> ...


See?? Words like "pussy" again...

And again, no one is agreeing that women has the right to expect men to do all the job - again, these are called bitches anyways -, and people can sure sympathize/empathize with certain hard things men have to deal with for having to take initiative often... But this kind of attitude, of generalizing hetero women for this sense of entitlement and then blaming them for the situation, plus all this pussy dick thing, and all the quoted anger from those fellow men (from youtube) with such horrible degree of hate and frustration... I don't see how this helps the issue you'd want to change (which is encouraging more women to take initiative), it rather creates more gender wars...


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Watch Key Phone said:


> The problem with the arguments in this thread is the way people are blaming individual women for something which is caused by societal norms.
> 
> Imagine that I am a woman, and I am sick of being approached and harassed by men. Judging by your logic, I should be able to solve this problem by approaching every man I see. If I do that, men will magically stop approaching me in return?
> 
> That's not how it works. It's a problem with society. And just like an individual man cannot be blamed for societal sexism or expected to solve the problem alone, an individual woman cannot be blamed for societal expectations of (straight) relationships, or expected to solve the problem.


 Societal norms are dictated by the actions and dynamics of individuals. 

You are absolutely right that you will not magically change the world over night by initiating with men, but absolutely wrong in implying that your individual actions don't make a difference.

Every time a woman mocks a guy for not initiating, whilst they themselves are just as easily in a place to do the same, she is contributing to the problem, individually.

Leading by example does make a difference, but individuals can indirectly affect change by supporting receptive men and encouraging initiating women. This culture has hardly contributed this and several individuals in this thread similarly prove that.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

@AriesLilith: I agree that the language used in the quotes is seen as less than attractive, and I agree that better forms of communication are present. But you need to understand that many men have been taught (usually through cruel experience from both men and women) that they are not allowed to show a soft side. This is why they reduce everything to "sex" and "pussy"; they're not allowed to talk about love and intimacy. It is yet another privilege that men simply do not have.

Many men believe that if they showed vulnerability in having a desire for sensitive things, they will be shunned by the girls who want a "bad boy" and shamed by the guys who want to look like one in front of her. They believe this because of overwhelming sets of experiences in our culture which prove as such.

Once again though, the ball is in the ladies court to change it. Guys wouldn't talk like that if they didn't feel like they have to in order to receive love and respect.


----------



## You Sir Name (Aug 18, 2011)

I never felt weird about approaching men, and I wasn't aware that this was such a big "issue" for some men
i put issue in quotations because honestly, if one of your biggest problems with the other sex is the fact that it's more socially acceptable for them to wait to be approached, you _might _be the more priveleged sex, considering just one disturbing fact; 1 out of 6 women, including myself, have been raped.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

You Sir Name said:


> I never felt weird about approaching men, and I wasn't aware that this was such a big "issue" for some men
> i put issue in quotations because honestly, if one of your biggest problems with the other sex is the fact that it's more socially acceptable for them to wait to be approached, you _might _be the more priveleged sex, considering just one disturbing fact; 1 out of 6 women, including myself, have been raped.


That's like shaming somebody for discussing tax reform in America because their are starving people out there without running water. This isn't a pissing contest between which gender has it worst, and I don't want to see this thread derailed off topic like every other gender discussion.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> @_AriesLilith_: I agree that the language used in the quotes is seen as less than attractive, and I agree that better forms of communication are present. But you need to understand that many men have been taught (usually through cruel experience from both men and women) that they are not allowed to show a soft side. This is why they reduce everything to "sex" and "pussy"; they're not allowed to talk about love and intimacy. It is yet another privilege that men simply do not have.
> 
> Many men believe that if they showed vulnerability in having a desire for sensitive things, they will be shunned by the girls who want a "bad boy" and shamed by the guys who want to look like one in front of her. They believe this because of overwhelming sets of experiences in our culture which prove as such.
> 
> Once again though, the ball is in the ladies court to change it. Guys wouldn't talk like that if they didn't feel like they have to in order to receive love and respect.


I can understand the social expectations of men having to appear strong and such, thought blaming women for that degree of bitterness they suffer making them reduce everything to "sex" and "pussy" is just an excuse to play the victim role and push the ball of responsibility to women.

There are social expectations of women having to look pretty and how the uglier ones have to go through certain hard situations as well, yet should women play the victim roles here and just blame men for this? I don't think so. A grown up woman should be mature enough to realize that social expectations like this are not only men's job to change it. A mature woman would also understand that it's up to her to not conform to the idea that her worth only resides in her physical attractiveness, just like a mature man would alo understand that it's up to him to not conform to the idea that men should not have emotions or even degrade to such levels of "sex" and "pussy".


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> I can understand the social expectations of men having to appear strong and such, thought blaming women for that degree of bitterness they suffer making them reduce everything to "sex" and "pussy" is just an excuse to play the victim role and push the ball of responsibility to women.
> 
> There are social expectations of women having to look pretty and how the uglier ones have to go through certain hard situations as well, yet should women play the victim roles here and just blame men for this? I don't think so. A grown up woman should be mature enough to realize that social expectations like this are not only men's job to change it. A mature woman would also understand that it's up to her to not conform to the idea that her worth only resides in her physical attractiveness, just like a mature man would alo understand that it's up to him to not conform to the idea that men should not have emotions or even degrade to such levels of "sex" and "pussy".


 I agree, but I also understand that this requires the privilege of agency. Some people are actually taught to behave in a certain way and are violently bullied and assaulted for deviating from this. Our society has no problem empathizing with the "battered women" who are blinded to their construct but give little thought to how the same principle applies to some men. 

This is why analyzing social behavior is important, and why it is equally important to conduct an analysis upon it with both reason and empathy, even if we find the behavior and style of it repulsive.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

I'm trying really hard to comment on the value of your points instead of being insulted. It is nerve wracking, boring and frustrating. I don't think that's fair to men. Then again things aren't so fair to women either. 
Most men I meet can overpower me in minutes, even if they don't exercise much. It's just biology. How is that fair to women? I know that's not the point you're trying to make, but it sounds like you're saying women and men are equal in every way, but look what _men _have to deal with. What I listed is just one example of ways we are not equal and might never be.



strangestdude said:


> And now imagine reading and listening to men complain about women not being interesting and confident enough when approaching them even though they let *you* do all the work.
> 
> In the words of a youtuber...
> 
> ...


I understand it sucks for men. I wouldn't want to have to approach people and then be rejected without even understanding why. Some chick just says "oh he's not cool" or "he's creepy" especially if I hear it behind my back. They continue letting me do the work while spreading shit about how awful I am.
And that's why I strive not to be those girls. Cause it's not fair. 
I don't let the men do all the work on top of that. Some of them choose to do so anyway even when I try to dissuade them. 
But I do admit I rarely say "I'm not interested" unless they ask me a question leading to that. As far as I'm concerned, I should not have to do that unless the person brings it up first. 
Most of these points aren't directly addressing your question, but I hope you see not all girls are like that. And the ones that act that way are being cruel or maybe don't know any better. Maybe they think that's the way things are supposed to be. 

You know what, men say stuff like that about women all the time too. They bash on the girlfriends/wives, say they're boring and oh this is the best I can get. How is that any different? It almost feels like it's cool to talk badly about your girl. And if you accommodate her, your friends call you pussy-whipped. And apparently it's cool to talk about women like they're toys, up for grabs, just another notch in the bedpost. And saying otherwise is frowned upon as well. The more notches in your bedpost, the better, right?
How is that fair to women at all?
Not that all men do this, but it does seem like the norm. On the other hand, not all women are guilty of what you are saying either.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> The majority of women I've know who are friends or acquaintances will not ask a man for the phone number, or to go out on a date etc even if they like him, they will wait (and complain, which is the part that pisses me off) that the man isn't being direct. Not saying all, but the majority.
> 
> I've haven't got a problem with women preferring men to be direct, but to show you expect it by complaining about the dude's lack of initiative irritates me.


Man, that has always seemed absurd to me. When my female friends would complain saying something like "Aw, he hasn't called me... waaaah... *pouts miserably*", I'd always ask "Then why the hell don't _you_ call, if you really wanna talk?". I never understood that. If a girl likes a guy, I don't see why she shouldn't make the first move. It just made me realize how strongly the cultural gender roles are still present. The same women that love benefiting from all the doors that feminists opened for them over the decades are still inconsciously expecting men to play _their_ roles.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Good discussions. 

Listening is a way to learn, to grow. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

So what will you take away from this convo?

For me, if a lady approaches me it is a HUGE, strong hint she is confident. From there, if she is intelligent (established in the first 30 seconds of discussion), I am interested. 

That simple.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

The problem here is that society has conditioned the male ego. I personally always expect the man to make the first move, to at least try. It is not a power thing. Even if he makes a fool of himself, just the fact that he is trying is enough for me to meet him half way. I would never be rude to a man if he was attempting to pick me up. At best, I would politely decline(unless he was acting like a douche). It is the law of the jungle, I could not respect a man that waited for me to intitiate. Sorry, you have to try, at least give me the eye and smile at me, start to walk toward me. Men are not like women, they are rarely flexible in the way we are. If you are too chicken to intitiate then you are probably too chicken to love me for who I am in my weakest moments and therefore do not deserve my best, you are dependent on my being assertive to make you pull the weight in the relationship, you will want me to stifle myself and take all of your bullshit just because you think you are so damned special. This is the first thing that comes to mind and often proves to be true.

Men that wait for women to make the first move are often selfish and insecure behind their nice guy image or even their bad boy image. They are often insensitive to women that do not meet their ideals of being "strong" women, passing them off as clingy or needy. But they will run around kissing the ground that the "strong" women walks on. Strong, meaning that she does not rely on him too much for emotional support. Strong, meaning that she doesn't expect him to assert himself and takes all of his bullshit. Strong, meaning that she is a "challenge", which is just an excuse to avoid to intimacy.

I am by no means a traditionalist and have been called "strong, independent, etc." by several men that I've dated. But it has been my experience that, no matter how sweet and cute and diligent, these men that cannot take intitiative are passive aggressive deadbeats that need a woman to kick their ass, whether it be emotionally, mentally or physically.

Why do I have such a harsh mindset? Because men are not allowed to express their emotions in this society, as thus tend to be as emotionally selfish as women can be, if not more. If he cannot approach me then it shows me that, in spite of what he may pretend, it is not an equal relationship he is looking for. It is an easy, ego boosting one, or a "challenging" ego boosting one. Unless you are one of those super competetive, aggressive dudes that needs an equally competetive, aggressive woman, then you need to grow a pair and take the intitiative because it shows that you are EMOTIONALLY available and not just a selfish pussy. Oh, and it would help if you actually admit to being shallow and go after women of substance instead, that will give back all that you give to her, 100%.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

CaMiMa said:


> Man, that has always seemed absurd to me. When my female friends would complain saying something like "Aw, he hasn't called me... waaaah... *pouts miserably*", I'd always ask "Then why the hell don't _you_ call, if you really wanna talk?". I never understood that. If a girl likes a guy, I don't see why she shouldn't make the first move. It just made me realize how strongly the cultural gender roles are still present. The same women that love benefiting from all the doors that feminists opened for them over the decades are still inconsciously expecting men to play _their_ roles.


In most cases, men that do not call are simply not interested. They will lie and say that they are "just busy", but this is only so that they can keep their options open. Now, if these women never call the man and they want him to call them all the time, then that is a different story altogether. But they probably have a right to be upset, because that is typical douchebag behavior. Problem is that they cling to the notion that these guys will change or pretend that they aren't the douchebags they really are, turning these women into whining, desperate time wasters that only drag down their self esteem.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I live in an inner city in the UK...
> 
> Either you are very attractive, rich or famous... Or you live in Thailand.


I am ugly, working class and 99.99999999999999999999999% of the world has no idea who I am. And I live in the US.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

Couldn't resist.

_Why all these conflicting specifications
Maybe to prevent overpopulation
All I know is that all around the nation
The girls are crying and the boys are masturbating_


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

rosegeranium said:


> In most cases, men that do not call are simply not interested. They will lie and say that they are "just busy", but this is only so that they can keep their options open. Now, if these women never call the man and they want him to call them all the time, then that is a different story altogether. But they probably have a right to be upset, because that is typical douchebag behavior. Problem is that they cling to the notion that these guys will change or pretend that they aren't the douchebags they really are, turning these women into whining, desperate time wasters that only drag down their self esteem.


I disagree. In the cases I mentioned, the girls hadn't even had sex with the guy yet. And they were complaining because the guy got their number and didn't call in the first couple of days. And maybe those guys _were_ busy. Maybe they were insecure about if the girl really wanted them to call or not. Maybe they didn't know what to say... Or maybe, in the worst case scenario, they weren't in fact interested. But being upset about an assumption makes no sense. 
Why not just call and ask? Why is it that if a girl doesn't call, it doesn't mean she isn't interested, just that she's waiting for him to call? Why a guy is necessarily a douchebag if he doesn't make a move after a first date? That's almost like saying that when a girl has sex in the first date, she's necessarily a slut. There are plenty of reasons why someone would behave a certain way, and the only way to know is by asking and getting to know the person better. 

The point is, assuming a man should do something just because he is a man, and by that labeling him when he doesn't act that way, is the same as perpetrating gender roles. And your comment is an evidence that this expectation does exist, in my opinion.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

rosegeranium said:


> Why do I have such a harsh mindset? Because men are not allowed to express their emotions in this society, as thus tend to be as emotionally selfish as women can be, if not more. If he cannot approach me then it shows me that, in spite of what he may pretend, it is not an equal relationship he is looking for. It is an easy, ego boosting one, or a "challenging" ego boosting one. Unless you are one of those super competetive, aggressive dudes that needs an equally competetive, aggressive woman, then you need to grow a pair and take the intitiative because it shows that you are EMOTIONALLY available and not just a selfish pussy. Oh, and it would help if you actually admit to being shallow and go after women of substance instead, that will give back all that you give to her, 100%.


I can't even begin to say how wrong that is, in my experience. Every relationship that _I_ started wasn't at all with selfish guys. It was quite the oposite. Most of them were just insecure, afraid I wasn't interested, or just slow. Once I took the first step, they showed themselves as caring and invested emotionally in me. Maybe the problem isn't that a woman takes the lead, is with who. If you choose selfish guys, they will be jerks no matter who starts the relationship.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

CaMiMa said:


> I disagree. In the cases I mentioned, the girls hadn't even had sex with the guy yet. And they were complaining because the guy got their number and didn't call in the first couple of days. And maybe those guys _were_ busy. Maybe they were insecure about if the girl really wanted them to call or not. Maybe they didn't know what to say... Or maybe, in the worst case scenario, they weren't in fact interested. But being upset about an assumption makes no sense.
> Why not just call and ask? Why is it that if a girl doesn't call, it doesn't mean she isn't interested, just that she's waiting for him to call? Why a guy is necessarily a douchebag if he doesn't make a move after a first date? That's almost like saying that when a girl has sex in the first date, she's necessarily a slut. There are plenty of reasons why someone would behave a certain way, and the only way to know is by asking and getting to know the person better.
> 
> The point is, assuming a man should do something just because he is a man, and by that labeling him when he doesn't act that way, is the same as perpetrating gender roles. And your comment is an evidence that this expectation does exist, in my opinion.


Why should sex determine whether or not the guy calls? In my mind, if you are interested then you will call within three days or so. Also, remember that guys are terrified of clingy women, and those girls probably know that. The last thing they want is to be rejected, so if it is agreed that he will call then he should call. At least he should make a quick call to say,"hi". 

If a guy is shy or slow, then I'm sorry but he needs to overcome his fear to speak with the girl. That shows you are interested. Period. It's not as if the girl should sit there like a stone, or that she shouldn't approach the guy first. Hey, I'm sure it works out plenty of times when the girl approaches first. But for the most part, I think the guy should make the first move and let the girl meet him halfway. She can be assertive later in other ways.

I'm very shy to approach men, but I've done it and it was great until they started being passive aggressive losers or emotionally insensitive douchebags that loved to string women along. I got over my fear of rejection. I do lots of things that scare the crap out of me because that is what you do when you want something bad enough. You face your fear! In this case, I think that men should usually do the appraoching because it demonstrates that he can treat the women as a true equal. It seems like a double standard but that is just how it is for the most part. If the above does not apply to you, then great.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

rosegeranium said:


> Why should sex determine whether or not the guy calls? In my mind, if you are interested then you will call within three days or so. Also, remember that guys are terrified of clingy women, and those girls probably know that. The last thing they want is to be rejected, so if it is agreed that he will call then he should call. At least he should make a quick call to say,"hi".


The last thing_ anyone _wants is to be rejected. If there is a phone number exchange, either one can call. If the guy says in so many words "I'll call you on (specific date), just wait", then I agree that not calling makes him a douche. I hate when people can't keep their word. But the cases I mentioned didn't display like that. It was simply a number exchange and a casual "I'll call you", so any assumptions do seem absurd to me.



> If a guy is shy or slow, then I'm sorry but he needs to overcome his fear to speak with the girl. That shows you are interested. Period. It's not as if the girl should sit there like a stone, or that she shouldn't approach the guy first. Hey, I'm sure it works out plenty of times when the girl approaches first. But for the most part, I think the guy should make the first move and let the girl meet him halfway. She can be assertive later in other ways.


That's your opinion; I don't think guys have that obligation. But what the OP was saying is exactly that it's a privilege to just be able to wait, because it is socially expected for men to make the first move. Just like you said.



> I'm very shy to approach men, but I've done it and it was great until they started being passive aggressive losers or emotionally insensitive douchebags that loved to string women along. I got over my fear of rejection. I do lots of things that scare the crap out of me because that is what you do when you want something bad enough. You face your fear! In this case, I think that men should usually do the appraoching because it demonstrates that he can treat the women as a true equal. It seems like a double standard but that is just how it is for the most part. If the above does not apply to you, then great.


Some guys are also shy to approach women. Some women can also be passive aggressive losers or nutcases after the relationship starts. Who begins the relationship doesn't determine how it unfolds. Just who you choose to have the relationship with does.

And even though this is just your opinion, I have to say that this


> *I think that men should usually do the appraoching because it demonstrates that he can treat the women as a true equal*


 makes no sense at all to me. How is it that doing what men have been doing forever - starting the courtship - makes them see women as equal? I'd think is the other way around. Seeing women as equal means that they should expect women to overcome their fear of rejection just as much as they do.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

rosegeranium said:


> The problem here is that society has conditioned the male ego. I personally always expect the man to make the first move, to at least try. It is not a power thing. Even if he makes a fool of himself, just the fact that he is trying is enough for me to meet him half way. I would never be rude to a man if he was attempting to pick me up. At best, I would politely decline(unless he was acting like a douche). It is the law of the jungle, I could not respect a man that waited for me to intitiate. Sorry, you have to try, at least give me the eye and smile at me, start to walk toward me. Men are not like women, they are rarely flexible in the way we are. If you are too chicken to intitiate then you are probably too chicken to love me for who I am in my weakest moments and therefore do not deserve my best, you are dependent on my being assertive to make you pull the weight in the relationship, you will want me to stifle myself and take all of your bullshit just because you think you are so damned special. This is the first thing that comes to mind and often proves to be true.
> 
> Men that wait for women to make the first move are often selfish and insecure behind their nice guy image or even their bad boy image. They are often insensitive to women that do not meet their ideals of being "strong" women, passing them off as clingy or needy. But they will run around kissing the ground that the "strong" women walks on. Strong, meaning that she does not rely on him too much for emotional support. Strong, meaning that she doesn't expect him to assert himself and takes all of his bullshit. Strong, meaning that she is a "challenge", which is just an excuse to avoid to intimacy.
> 
> ...


Perfect example of the kind of woman my OP was about.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

rosegeranium said:


> I'm very shy to approach men, but I've done it and it was great until they started being passive aggressive losers or emotionally insensitive douchebags that loved to string women along.


*
- Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love.*


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

CaMiMa said:


> The last thing_ anyone _wants is to be rejected. If there is a phone number exchange, either one can call. If the guy says in so many words "I'll call you on (specific date), just wait", then I agree that not calling makes him a douche. I hate when people can't keep their word. But the cases I mentioned didn't display like that. It was simply a number exchange and a casual "I'll call you", so any assumptions do seem absurd to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Men demonstrate that they are afraid of being tied down, this is widely accepted. They will say that they like an assertive woman, but only if she meets his exact ideals or just wants sex. Men need to call first because it shows that they are not afraid of investing their emotions and time into the relationship. Once a man does that, usually women are more than happy to reciprocate equally. If she doesn't, well, then perhaps she is the one with the fear of commitment or has lost interest.

You can tell a lot about a person in the first month or so of dating them. Little warning signs will pop up. Yes, sometimes women can turn out to be nutcases or passive aggressive, but I believe it is up to the guy to bail out if she doesn't change, and vice versa. You put your foot down and say, "I will not tolerate this. If it does not change, then I'm out of here." But painful though it may be, the guy needs to try. He needs to make the first move. Then she can make other first moves later. Like, for example, this may sound trivial but I open doors for my boyfriends, I call them up and intitiate stuff, I buy them stuff on Valentines Day, I buy them random "just because" gifts, I take the lead too. But I need to see that you've got the strength to approach me first. 

Men have a fear of intimacy more than women do because of how society has raised them. Granted, some women are too emotionally dependent and obsessed with having relationships, something I don't understand. Again, probably societal programming. But men will call a women clingy when she is merely showing her interest, they constantly play games, they are always wanting to keep their "options" open, they put off commitment but string the women along. Or, they want the woman to do everything, they want her to lead him around like a puppy, they are never there for her during her weak moments, wanting her instead to be the consummate mother and lioness just because he's "sensitive" and "nice".

The reason I say that men should approach because it demonstrates he can treat her as an equal is because society puts great pressure on men to suceed, to be the "alpha, to not show emotion. I am very sensitive to this and do not encourage such expectations. But it is often the case that if a guy cannot take the lead in the beginning or around commitment issues(marriage, etc.) then he will not be able to treat her with due respect because society very often makes men like this insecure. His standards will be high in a way that is illogical, he will become passive aggressive and resent her for being too strong in the long run, or he will expect her to bear the brunt of his insecurities, making her the stereotypical "man". In other words, if a man cannot approach the woman then very often(not always!), he is too insecure to form an equal partnership and will ab(use) her emotionally later. Again, if this does not apply to you then awesome.

Also, it has been mine and other women's experience that men that want you to take intiative are often manipulative and surprisingly shallow. They go above and beyond a woman's need for the man to take initiative as a means of proving his strength and interest. Did you ever think for a second that shyness is a form of control, even manipulation? They often enjoy getting the woman to do things for them, it is an ego boost to them, not a courtship ritual. They often want the most beautiful, hot girls in the room but think that they cannot get them, so they become the inverse, the shy guy that's too sweet and afraid of rejection to approach anyone. Awe, what a catch...not! And before anyone attacks my perspective by calling me a bitter, "ugly" girl, let me say that I am apparently considered quite attractive.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh. If any nice, good guys that prefer the woman to intitiate do not meet the above descriptions, then please ignore my post. I'm sorry to stereotype, but we end up being categorized whether we want to be or not. That is human nature and it is up to smart people to overlook stereotypes when appropriate.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

@strangestdude No, a better example of the type of woman you are describing is the cold hearted bitch that harshly rejects the man and waits for him to do everything. She makes it incredibly hard for the guy to approach, only to insult him when he builds up the courage to do so. But often these type of women are the target of shallow men! Those kind of men rarely want a pretty, stable, fun girl. No, they want a super hot, endlessly exciting woman. Which is just fine. But prepare for rejection!


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Frank T. J. Mackey in _Magnolia_, with Tom Cruise as Mackey, that's what this thread reminds me of. Mackey was this self help with women guru, kind of blaming women for all the bad luck men have in the dating game. Mackey was the estranged son of Earl Partridge, and he had issues.

One of my favorite movies.


----------



## Murky Muse (Mar 19, 2010)

I don't have much experience in dating, so I don't think I have much to add. I can say that on the few times I've tried for a relationship I have roughly 1/2 on who initiated it. If I'm interested in a guy, then it's only logical that I make that interest known.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

marked174 said:


> @*rosegeranium*
> 
> You didn't really answer the question. Why is the double standard okay to you? Why should men be held to a different set of expectations than women?
> 
> ...


I absolutely did answer your question. I said "But it is my belief that typically, so long as we don't have an ice princess on our hands, that the relationship will tend to end up more healthily than if the man is the one that initiates. That is why I say all of this. I have noticed that men that wait for the woman to approach are often manipulative, passive aggressive and quite shallow. Of course this is not always the case and *breathes* if it does not apply then forget it." 

So I am basically saying that, more often than not, the man needs to intitiate first because I believe the relationship will turn out more healthily. It is not as if I think I am "hot stuff" or even that I am self entitled. If anything, you are projecting. 

How is it that simply because I expect the man to intitiate that I think men are "un-special", or that I don't have to prove anything? I think men are very special, I absolutely think that I must prove my worth to the man in the relationship as well. What, have you not read my other posts? Probably not, you are too focused on my use of the words "chicken" and "pussy". I just think that men should be the ones to initiate. 

If anything, I think men are so special that I think they should intitiate. I wouldn't expect anything less of men and, as you have conveniently ignored, am very nice and approachable regardless of whether or not I end up rejecting the guy. I give my all, but I want to see him make the first move. Why? Because men tend to be lazy when it comes to relationships. If a chick is hot and she asks him out, he'll probably say,"Sure,why not?" But usually(again, I say not always...it's as if people take pleasure in ignoring my extempting them in advance, should they not fit the profile), these men will float along with women forever, never committing but never leaving the relationship either, confusing the hell out of her. Seen it countless times, it is a form of controlling behavior. Typically, relationships that end up healthy and committed begin with the man initiating because men are more reluctant to commit than women are, they are afraid of losing their freedom and all that jazz. And do you relaize that all I am suggesting is a simple "Hello, my name is ___. What's yours?" or something like that? It's not like he has to jump through hoops! I understand it is very scary but it is scary for women to get involved with men at all because they very often tend to cheat on us and string us along, getting cold feet with things get comfy or resenting us, adversely, for acting like the men in the relationship and being passive aggressive.

When a man initiates, it shows the woman,"Hey, I am making this effort to show that I see you as worth my time. I am willing to the take the risk and thus am also less likely to string you along." The trick is, however, to seperate the douches from the good guys that approach you, which is usually pretty easy. 

Do you see where I am coming from? I am not trying to be mean, although I realize some of my words were harsh.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> I also blame men. In another thread I went at the 'simps', men who put pussy on a pedestal. Maybe I'll do a thread at another date criticizing the simp culture.


Honestly if you are not entirely blaming hetero women for this, then you could have done it with better ways than your first 2 posts in this thread... Coz if you give off the impression that you might be blaming only women for this and make such generalizations, then it's obvious that people would rather take defense and disagree.

It's like, how is the best way to have people understand more certain gender issues? Blaming the entire opposite gender is certainly not the way.



strangestdude said:


> Check out the hate from women against 'nice guys' who express frustration in dating, for an idea of why more men don't express their hurt and frustration in dating in environments where women are present.


It's true that there are some women who are bitches and are cruel to guys who are genuinely innocent, thought there are "nice guys" that are far from innocent... and nice...



strangestdude said:


> Those guys were venting. Try to find some male dominated forums and look at threads on dating if you are really interested (PM me for 2 links).


Those quotes from your 2nd post seems more (extreme) blaming than venting...



strangestdude said:


> If they are, and in their community they've only found 2 women in their lifetime who they want to date (let alone be in relationship with) then that speak volumes about the quality of women in the community TBH. I'd advise them to emigrate... Seriously.


I just realized that when I've said "date", I was forgetting about the real meaning in cultural context, as I was associating "dating" with being bf/gf. Well, of what I know of those around me, people can go on dates but it is not clearly defined. It's more like two people hanging out casually and it eventually leading to somewhere.

They are normal guys with normal social circles (friends, colleagues, and so on). They are just not interested in asking complete strangers for dates just coz they look pretty... They often prefer to know them a bit more before taking romantic interest and invest their feelings in it. Meeting through friends or colleagues and then exchanging contacts and talking online is actually one of the popular ways to get to know better first. It doesn't always happen and it might be rare (their social circles are not that big and they are not meeting new people all the time anyways), but then they are not that desperate for relationships. They might have much less opportunities, but they still ended up having long term relationships that lasted/lasts for at least a few years.

You can still ask, what about those who don't have friends at all? For those guys, maybe they can still find some opportunities online? Forums, online games, dating sites, and so on...
But if you really lack of any opportunity at all and are desperate enough to approach random strangers, then it's still not all women's fault if you still don't have success... Sure, you have rights to get mad at bitches that doesn't know how to reject you decently, thought that's not all women's fault... If I don't have luck in meeting any guy and I don't have success at a bar, and some guys might even be cruel enough to joke with my lack of attraction and desperation, then I'd hate them but certainly don't blame all the guys for this (guys can be cruel with ugly girls as well)...


----------



## Cephalonimbus (Dec 6, 2010)

rosegeranium said:


> I have noticed that men that wait for the woman to approach are often manipulative, passive aggressive and quite shallow.


That's quite a bold statement... If you're not trying to be mean, i hope you do realize that this is basically an accusation aimed at less assertive men in general, and saying that it doesn't apply to everyone doesn't change the judgmental nature of your statement.

Have you considered the possibility that they're just shy?

Sure, passive aggressive and manipulative behaviour are presumably more common in people who aren't very assertive, but i think you're confusing correlation with causation. The reason people exhibit such behaviour is because they're emotionally unhealthy, not because they're not assertive. If they were more assertive, the only thing that would change is the way their emotional problems would manifest themselves. They would be more likely to exhibit unhealthy behaviour of a more assertive nature such as physical aggression and domination.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

rosegeranium said:


> Do you see where I am coming from? I am not trying to be mean, although I realize some of my words were harsh.


I'm trying to find the underlying causes for your position. They seem to be largely based on either stereotypes or personal experience/bias (lots of generalized assumptions about most men without supplying reasoning or conditions which supply credit to the characterization).

Your position lacks principle. It cherry picks the standards among individuals based solely upon gender (without providing a correlating dynamic which is necessary to justify treating them differently). In other words, you don't really say why men should initiate other than because it is what you want.

To be fair, no one else really supported why women should initiate instead of men. The majority of posts argue that it should be closer to equal whilst another majority wants to bring up assault, oppression, and rape for some reason... UNTIL NOW!

I argue that if anything women should initiate more than men, for if this was the cultural norm then fewer men would make unwanted advances towards women. Since men are generally larger and more threatening than women, it would better protect both genders if the ladies took the lead. 

I also believe that those cases of assault, oppression, and rape would actually decrease if women took the lead, and therefore find it bizarre to see people cite these issues in opposition to the OP.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

Diligent Procrastinator said:


> Or perhaps in a more conservative area of the same world......


Yeah Chicago is really conservative =)

And the people that I pass in the street everyday, they are all conservative too.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

Seranova said:


> _Okay, valid points and questions aside...why does this sound like a whinefest about someone is not getting laid enough because most women with some sense can see through the crapola? And I have a feeling I have seen something similar here recently. *shrugs* Anyway, who wants popcorn? _


OOO does it have cheese???


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Jwing24 said:


> Yeah Chicago is really conservative =)
> 
> And the people that I pass in the street everyday, they are all conservative too.


Are you trying to imply the opposite of what you said?

If you are, then why are you whining about it here? It's not my, or anybody else's, fault that women do not approach you, and making it seem like it's someone else's fault will certainly not make people want to approach you.

If you are not, then ignore the above.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

marked174 said:


> To be fair, no one else really supported why women should initiate instead of men. The majority of posts argue that it should be closer to equal whilst another majority wants to bring up assault, oppression, and rape for some reason... UNTIL NOW!
> 
> I argue that if anything women should initiate more than men, for if this was the cultural norm then fewer men would make unwanted advances towards women. Since men are generally larger and more threatening than women, it would better protect both genders if the ladies took the lead.
> 
> I also believe that those cases of assault, oppression, and rape would actually decrease if women took the lead, and therefore find it bizarre to see people cite these issues in opposition to the OP.


I think everyone should be free to do what they want, as long as it's not harmful for others. That's why I think women should be able to initiate more relationships. There are no underlying reasons to it.

Edit: Also, I think filling gender roles and following stereotypes blindly, without even considering individual motives, brings a lot of problems. People don't question the norm, usually; they don't question anything, so they just repeat past behaviors - sometimes trying to justify it with empty excuses, also repeating what they've learned. That kind of thing is what starts labels and prejudice, half the time; people don't even know why they call someone a slut or an asshole, other than that someone isn't doing exactly what society expects of them. If they had a better grasp of why they behave the way they do, they might empathize more with other people's behavior.

To be fair, I disagree with the last part of your post. I don't think it will ever be the cultural norm for women to begin courtship, nor that the fact women might initiate more could decrease cases of rape or what have you. I don't think the mass can ever change, just individuals. Human nature will always be human nature, and just like many women will always prefer to be chased than to take the first step, there will always be men finding excuses to rape or oppress.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

CaMiMa said:


> I think everyone should be free to do what they want, as long as it's not harmful for others. That's why I think women should be able to initiate more relationships. There are no underlying reasons to it.
> 
> Edit: Also, I think filling gender roles and following stereotypes blindly, without even considering individual motives, brings a lot of problems. People don't question the norm, usually; they don't question anything, so they just repeat past behaviors - sometimes trying to justify it with empty excuses, also repeating what they've learned. That kind of thing is what starts labels and prejudice, half the time; people don't even know why they call someone a slut or an asshole, other than that someone isn't doing exactly what society expects of them. If they had a better grasp of why they behave the way they do, they might empathize more with other people's behavior.
> 
> To be fair, I disagree with the last part of your post. I don't think it will ever be the cultural norm for women to begin courtship, nor that the fact women might initiate more could decrease cases of rape or what have you. I don't think the mass can ever change, just individuals. Human nature will always be human nature, and just like many women will always prefer to be chased than to take the first step, there will always be men finding excuses to rape or oppress.


I agree that bad people will always do bad things, but I do believe that a reversal would cause such occurrences to decrease. I never said that such a reversal would happen, but that if it did it would be hypothetically superior to the current state of things.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

In the present and historically, yeah, women have it easier when it comes to certain things, and this is one of them. But you'll never get most women here to admit that they can be at an advantage for that's a disadvantage to feminist philosophy.


----------



## sme14 (Apr 29, 2013)

I don't approach men because I like manly men. And in that definition, I mean some one who will fight for me and protect me. If I am doing the hunting at the beginning, this guy does have the balls to satisfy me.


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

marked174 said:


> I agree that bad people will always do bad things, but I do believe that a reversal would cause such occurrences to decrease. I never said that such a reversal would happen, but that if it did it would be hypothetically superior to the current state of things.


Hmm I also don't believe that women taking more initiative is really relevant to decreasing rapes or harassment. I don't think that average men with average confidence or looks, or other attractive qualities is having that much of a hard time to find at least few partners in their lives, it's not truly a matter of who takes initiative, as women being more assertive would not change the fact that they would still not want guys that are not attractive to them at all anyways.
So maybe it would e easier for the average to attractive guys as they are not expected to take initiative, but for those who lacks of success and are desperate enough to resort to rape, I don't see much would change for them. Women would simply go for those she feels attracted to anyways, just like men does anyways.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

sme14 said:


> I don't approach men because I like manly men. And in that definition, I mean some one who will fight for me and protect me. If I am doing the hunting at the beginning, this guy does have the balls to satisfy me.


"I like women who are very ladylike. I want someone who is submissive and will make me a sammich whenever I say, and if she isn't willing to jump through these hoops which I made for her then she doesn't deserve me (because I'm so special)."

I know that you probably don't think that you sound like this, but you kinda do. It's not that hard to think that way, though, because our current culture supports this mentality from the woman and hates it from the men. It's still a double standard, though.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

AriesLilith said:


> Hmm I also don't believe that women taking more initiative is really relevant to decreasing rapes or harassment. I don't think that average men with average confidence or looks, or other attractive qualities is having that much of a hard time to find at least few partners in their lives, it's not truly a matter of who takes initiative, as women being more assertive would not change the fact that they would still not want guys that are not attractive to them at all anyways.
> So maybe it would e easier for the average to attractive guys as they are not expected to take initiative, but for those who lacks of success and are desperate enough to resort to rape, I don't see much would change for them. Women would simply go for those she feels attracted to anyways, just like men does anyways.


I can't prove my theory about it, but I still think it would make a difference. Sadly, I have yet to find a culture who is willing to test it. Regardless, both genders should initiate equally in my opinion. I have yet to hear a good reason why men should be expected to pursue.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

sme14 said:


> I don't approach men because I like manly men. And in that definition, I mean some one who will fight for me and protect me. If I am doing the hunting at the beginning, this guy does have the balls to satisfy me.


If a man doesn't initiate they don't have balls/courage.

You are the kind of woman I was referring to in the OP. Simply because a man doesn't initiate it's a negative judgement on their character. 

Like @marked174 points out, if we made equivalent statements about women we'd be called misogynists.


----------



## sme14 (Apr 29, 2013)

marked174 said:


> "I like women who are very ladylike. I want someone who is submissive and will make me a sammich whenever I say, and if she isn't willing to jump through these hoops which I made for her then she doesn't deserve me (because I'm so special)."
> 
> I know that you probably don't think that you sound like this, but you kinda do. It's not that hard to think that way, though, because our current culture supports this mentality from the woman and hates it from the men. It's still a double standard, though.




I actually just laughed out loud at work. Yes, but maybe my use of the word balls would have dismissed the notion of myself being very ladylike; however, that was subtle. Wanting a strong man who takes the initiative doesn't mean I am not strong or do not take initiative, but I think those two qualities are naturally more perfected in a male due to history/genetics/evolution. The opposite is very true of what you said. I know I am strong, and I just weed out someone I know wouldn't be able to handle my personality this way. I think there are lots of girls who will meet you halfway (probably all Extroverts); I really do because I see it all the time.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> You can still ask, what about those who don't have friends at all? For those guys, maybe they can still find some opportunities online? Forums, online games, dating sites, and so on...


See that's the privilege talking... It's pretty much the same cultural norm on online dating.




> But if you really lack of any opportunity at all and are desperate enough to approach random strangers, then it's still not all women's fault if you still don't have success...


Again the privilege talking... Men who approach women are automatically desperate.

*"**Now imagine the only way to get to know men is you have to approach them, and they get to decide if you're some creepy black girl and reject you on the spot. Or if you're not confident enough when approaching a FUCKING STRANGER who you﻿ feel attraction for.
**
- Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love.

*_(I hope you've noticed that the kind of women I was referring to in the OP, are now showing up in the thread.)_


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> See that's the privilege talking... It's pretty much the same cultural norm on online dating.


Hmm... I'm not sure about this. In real life, sure. But does it work the same online? I ask because internet allows a mask of confidence, which hides insecurities and fear of rejection, and everyone is able to create their online persona. All online relationships I know of - some of them between PerC members - have started because the girl said something first. Don't you think internet makes us more equal in a way?


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> See that's the privilege talking... It's pretty much the same cultural norm on online dating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is suggesting meeting people online when you don't have other ways (like having a wider social life) privilege talk? Women also meet people online. I've met a few myself back then, and even took initiative in talking to them and even revealed my crush for them to some of them. And who said that men approaching women are desperate? Approaching women is not desperate, but if you feel the need to approach random strangers all the time, making it the center of your life, then it is desperate. If my whole text (which includes the part you've quoted) made you misunderstand then I hope this clarifies my opinion.
And I think that I've replied to your signature already. If blaming women for this situation is all you can post (which seems pretty clear specially the "Welcome to the life you've created for men you apparently love."), then I don't see any more point in debating with you about this anymore.


strangestdude said:


> _(I hope you've noticed that the kind of women I was referring to in the OP, are now showing up in the thread.)_


Yes, unfortunately I'm noticing them now. Thought many here still would probably agree with me while people can choose their own preferences, no gender should be forced to follow the gender roles and no one has the right to tell anyone that they are wrong to not follow the gender expectations.

And personally, I don't agree that guys that don't like to take initiative or are shy are wrong or have any psychological issue.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but here's my answers to @strangestdude initial questions. I'll write more later when I get through the 18 pages of posts....





> *Out of all the men that you've liked in your life (enough to want to date, or at least kiss) what's the percentage of times you've directly taken things to 'the next level'?
> 
> (Only sober or tipsy times count, thank you ladies.)*


The number of times it's been successful, or the total number of times? The number of times it's been successful, like twice. The number of times total....a lot more.

With my boyfriend I was the one who actually asked him out after we had chatted online for a couple days. And he was super happy I did it (even though he said he was going to do it that night, I beat him to it). He said he gets really shy when it comes to stuff like that so the fact that I initiated the idea was a relief for him. He never knows the right time.

Though only about a month before I met my boyfriend I had gone out with a guy from work whom I liked and thought liked me, and we hung out a lot and had great conversation, but I had no idea if he liked me like that or just as a friend, so I got the guts to kiss him on evening after we had hung out. Yeah.....that crashed and burned. He freaked out, said he had just started talking to this other girl, I was so embarrassed and awkwardly said goodbye and ran into the subway.



> *Why don't more hetero women take a direct approach in dating?*


Societal rules. Fear of rejection. Concern for our safety, or even just being played.

For me personally it's fear of rejection.



> *Do you think hetero women recognize that they are in a privileged position (in this specific context) shared by no other demographic in dating? And if not, why?*


I wouldn't call it a privileged position, so much as the odds are more in our favor for finding ANY man. It doesn't mean we're privileged if we are constantly hit on by men that we have no interest in. It only becomes distracting. 

And I've never been the girl who was hit on constantly either. Men that hit on me like in college were usually really sleazy. The men who hit on me in a more appropriate manner I often missed the cue and confused them for just being friendly/nice. I'm much more demisexual anyways, so the idea of picking up a guy in a bar is something I would never do. I need to have some sort of emotional connection to them before I could even think of them in a romantic way. I see guys I'm attracted to sexually, but it would never cross my mind to even approach them because physical attractiveness is very different for me than wanting to be with them. 



> *Why do so many hetero women say they don't want traditional gender roles in a relationship but expect men to conform to traditional gender roles in dating and marriage proposals? *


I have no idea. I personally don't really spend time thinking about it. 

My current relationship isn't 100% bound to gender roles, but it's not opposed to them either. My boyfriend wants to be the provider. He's an ISTJ, so that desire for traditional rules is important to him. He wants to be able to provide financially. He wants to be able to afford a nice ring for me. He appreciates it when I do things like take the bill at dinner, since he knows I'm not doing it or not doing it for any defined reason, and sometimes I just like to surprise him. But we have our "rules". Example: If we get delivery to my place I pay. If we get deliver to his place he pays. If I/we make dinner (at my place) I almost always buy the ingredients. If we go out to dinner he usually buys dinner and I buy dessert. 

I think it also has a lot to do with how we were raised.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

AriesLilith said:


> Fair enough. But one more thing, I really can't agree with it when you where assuming that this issue is women's responsibility..


Still won't admit it. :happy:

I've already said that I don't blame the situation soley on women, but this thread is addressed to hetero women. 

In another thread I advised guys to qualify women as much as they qualify you, and not to be simps.

Simp.

•A man that puts himself in a subservient/submissive position under women in hopes of winning them over, without the female bringing anything to the table.

•A man that puts too much value on a female for no reason .

•A man that prides himself with "Chivalry" in hopes of getting sexual gratification form women .

•A square with no game other than “Rolling out the Red-Carpet” for every female. 


And I also posted this video advising men not to bend over backwards for women;


----------



## AriesLilith (Jan 6, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Still won't admit it. :happy:
> 
> I've already said that I don't blame the situation soley on women, but this thread is addressed to hetero women.
> 
> ...


Ok, I can agree with this privilege logic now. :happy: (video is a bit long so maybe I'll check it later)


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@strangestdude

I used to have that sort of "look out for myself" and "don't be vulnerable" philosophy - I saw women being taken advantage of, and I took the opposite route and became a conquerer of men who would make them chase me and beg while I asserted my independence. However that just lead to battlegrounds rather than to love. If two people love each other and neither one goes in with any expectations, and both are honest about vulnerabilities as they come up and yet strong enough to know that they won't take crap and can't be taken advantage of, then both people end up "bending over backwards" even though both people are independent and capable of taking care of themselves and don't expect the other to do things for them. In love, it's a partnership. I used to view it as a battle I had to win but that was self destructive as well as hurtful to others. I was thrusting myself into an exciting battle to be sure, but I was depriving myself of the chance to love and be loved. Also, all of that energy and fiest is better suited for my work and my workout routine. Why waste that energy in an interpersonal battle? I'll sum it up: if someone is a person I have to "protect myself from" then it's not love and their ass needs to be dumped.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@_Maybe_

Great post. Hopefully dudes can find a balance between our two posts.

I don't advocate selfishness though, I advocate exchange and sharing. Simps are dudes who are selfless, and end up like the dudes in viral videos *literally* begging for their ex to take them back publicly...

(I don't consider taking care of a sick partner selfless if you love them, because I'm not talking about just material goods)

I've no problem with the dudes crying publicly, but to beg publicly... They either posted it themselves (extremely poor decision on their part) or their ex was such a fucking bitch that she posted it online for people to laugh at. 

Simpin ain't easy. I know from experience.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

I also think this privilege explains why there is a double standard regarding judging a woman and a man differently for having multiple sexual partners.

If a lesbian chick said she'd slept with a lot of women I'd high five her, if a hetero women said the same I'd shrug. The lesbian chick had to have 'game' to sleep with a lot of women, the hetero chick didn't.

My broskis @2:39 know what's up.






Thoughts?


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> I also think this privilege explains why there is a double standard regarding judging a woman and a man differently for having multiple sexual partners.
> 
> If a lesbian chick said she'd slept with a lot of women I'd high five her, if a hetero women said the same I'd shrug. The lesbian chick had to have 'game' to sleep with a lot of women, the hetero chick didn't.
> 
> ...


I understand your point, but only if you see it as a competition. It's like "guys have it harder, so sleeping with a lot of girls is admirable; for women it's easier, so there's no challenge, and therefore they're sluts, whores, losers, etc". But I don't see it that way because I don't think the number of people you sleep with says anything about you. A girl might have slept with a lopt of guys simply because she likes sex a lot, just like a guy would do the same for the exact same reason. When you say it in terms of who has more "game", it's as if people had sex with a large number just to prove they're better in the chase. I'm sure some guys do it for that reason, but why assume everyone is like that?

Also, the guys from 2:39... I might be an exception, but a guy paying me a drink doesn't mean anything. Besides, it's not like I never bought a guy a drink.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

CaMiMa said:


> But I don't see it that way because I don't think the number of people you sleep with says anything about you.


Nor do I essentially. But I still high five for having game. :happy:



> When you say it in terms of who has more "game", it's as if people had sex with a large number just to prove they're better in the chase. I'm sure some guys do it for that reason, but why assume everyone is like that?


Game just means the ability to be generally attractive (ie. non-verbal and verbal communication skills).



> Also, the guys from 2:39... I might be an exception, but a guy paying me a drink doesn't mean anything. Besides, it's not like I never bought a guy a drink.


Dude was joking.


----------



## sme14 (Apr 29, 2013)

I approach men, but in a purpose of friendship. Then, he can take it to the next level. If a man is polite/giving me value without reason it is a major turnoff. My brother has a lot of luck with the ladies because he honestly has such a 'don't care' attitude towards them. Also, women may fear that they come across wanting sex (god forbid) if they do initiate. With INTJ women though, I would say all of these generalizations are untrue. I think with normal women though once the first step has been taken they are more apt to initiate the next level. 

Sort odd fact for here: women hit on me all the time- more than men.


----------



## justjessie (Oct 7, 2009)

I approached I guy once but I just wanted to feel him out and be friends first. (I think all relationships should start with friendship. Just the way I do things.) Then after I said I was hungry hoping he'd offer we go get something to eat so we could sit down a talk more, which happened, I decided I only wanted to be friends. 

As I was reading the first post that started this thread, i thought of this theory, maybe girls wait for the guy approach them because throughout history man has always been the hunter and provider and women figure well, if he has the guts to approach me, then he has the courage to accomplish other goals in life. Idk , just a thought.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

AriesLilith said:


> @_rosegeranium_, not every guy is assertive and some of them can be shy or even feel insecure when it comes to taking initiative, and there's nothing wrong with it (unless they just blame the opposite sex for everything). Assertiveness or lack of it is not what makes a man decent, assholes/bad guys certainly has assertiveness but they are certainly not decent.


It has nothing to do with being "assertive". There are non assertive men that will gather the courage to speak to a woman. And there are plenty of assertive men that will let women come to them. Of course there are shy men! But shyness is something we all have to try to get over. Are you telling me that a guy should let his shyness prevent him from talking to you? Then he is simply not interested enough. He won't die if he approaches you. I'm shy, but I overcome it and do things like approach people and such things! We can't just dwell in shyness for our whole lives, how can we come to truly love ourselves? Shyness is just a protective coating we wear that keeps us from getting what we want because we are afraid of being dissapointed.

It is imperative that a man approach you because men are lazy when it comes to relationships, it has NOTHING to do with masculinity or assertiveness, it has to do with showing the women that he is willing to place himself on the line, indicating that he is LESS LIKELY to use her for sex or string her along in a relationship he won't commit to. Yes, women do this kind of thing too, but men do it much more than women and are much sneakier about it. If you are even just pretty and you go up to a single guy and ask him out, he will probably say yes and he will give you the impression he wants a relationship when he just wants sex or a noncommitted relationship, stringing her along for years. Seen it way too many times.

There is NOTHING wrong with being shy. But if you really want something, you must overcome your shyness. This is coming from someone that has always battled shyness and who knows shy men that have battled it and approached the women they are attracted to. Of course, there will be couples that say, "NO, you're wrong, I approached my husband first and we've been married ten years, it's great." Well, then good for you, I'm truly glad! But just as these men are claiming that women just want money as a rule I am allowed to claim that men need to approach the woman first, as a rule. I am making generalizations just as they are. 

Also, it makes me laugh that previous posts have claimed that assertive men tend to be more abusive. Bull. There are plenty of non assertive men that are extremely abusive behind closed doors. They take out their own flawed views of themselves as not being "manly" enough out on the women they are with, hitting them, verbally abusing and even murdering them. Most murderers are "non assertive" types. These kind of men are manipulators and are really good at seeming innocent, passive, wouldn't hurt a fly. I'm certainly *not* saying that men that are shy are all like this, but they are *not* exempt from being abusive at all, just because they don't come across as "assertive".


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

justjessie said:


> I approached I guy once but I just wanted to feel him out and be friends first. (I think all relationships should start with friendship. Just the way I do things.) Then after I said I was hungry hoping he'd offer we go get something to eat so we could sit down a talk more, which happened, I decided I only wanted to be friends.
> 
> As I was reading the first post that started this thread, i thought of this theory, maybe girls wait for the guy approach them because throughout history man has always been the hunter and provider and women figure well, if he has the guts to approach me, then he has the courage to accomplish other goals in life. Idk , just a thought.


Women probably can and have been able to provide for themselves in the past before they were oppressed by men. I am not a feminist, by the way, but it is my belief that there were many Amazon-like women running around bringing home the goods, so to speak. 

The thing is that nowadays our society has turned men into commitment phobic narccissists that measure their masculinity by their paychecks and the amount of hot chicks they can bed. Pretty much all men suffer from this. So if women just start going up and asking guys out, men will exploit women's silly need for a male figure in their lives and string them along, use them for sex or just never commit. When a man actually makes the effort to talk to a woman first and pursue her, as long as he is not acting like a douche wanting to conquer her hotness(a lot of women refuse to recognize douche behavior, pretending they don't see it when it is there from the beginning), he will then demonstrate clearly to her that he is not just looking for sex or a noncomittal relationship. When a woman exploits a guy, it is obvious, she lets him give her money. She acts sneaky and evasive, you will sense it right away if you pay attention to something other than her breasts,seductive ways or the sex she gives you.

When a guy exploits a woman it is not as obvious because women have this strange idea of what a "nice guy" is. Men are, sadly, more left brained then women because of how society has trained us. They are the best salesmen, they are the best actors. Truly nice guys are blunt and will tell you things you may not want to hear, they don't necessarily end up making a lot of money but they do take responsability for themselves, they are very upfront about how much they like you and if you play games with them they wil dump your ass like a hot potato.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

rosegeranium said:


> But just as these men are claiming that women just want money as a rule I am allowed to claim that men need to approach the woman first, as a rule. I am making generalizations just as they are.


Please just address me directly.

I'm stating an observation (gold diggers) you're proposing an injunction (men *should* approach women), big difference.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

sme14 said:


> I approach men, but in a purpose of friendship. Then, he can take it to the next level.


Yeah that's not initiating courtship.



justjessie said:


> *Then after I said I was hungry hoping he'd offer we go get something to eat* so we could sit down a talk more, which happened, I decided I only wanted to be friends.


God I hate that shit.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Nor do I essentially. But I still high five for having game. :happy:


I don't... Having sex with a lot of people doesn't impress me. I literally don't think it means anything at all, good or bad.



> Game just means the ability to be generally attractive (ie. non-verbal and verbal communication skills).


Hmm... Well, I'm not American, but whenever I heard someone complimenting a guy for "having game", it was never in the sense of "you are so attractive and your personality is so great that women like you"; instead, it was more like the guy was doing/saying certain things for the solely purpose of getting more girls, or a girl in particular. So as I understand it, when a person has game is doesn't mean they're being genuine; just that they're making a conscious effort to get laid. And that's why it seems like it's as if people were talking about a competition. But I might have understood it wrong.



> Dude was joking.


I figured. But his joke was related to a point he was trying to make, so I'm not sure if he doesn't believe that to some extent... It's not like there aren't guys who don't.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

rosegeranium said:


> When a woman exploits a guy, it is obvious, she lets him give her money. She acts sneaky and evasive, you will sense it right away if you pay attention to something other than her breasts,seductive ways or the sex she gives you.


Spotting false 'nice guys' is pretty easy to a male onlooker, in fact that's a common thing that 'nice guys' who women like you demonize complain about. "I warned you what he was like!" 

Also I think women are better liars than men - paternity fraud (google that shit) is a sustained lie to both child and partner over years or decades.

Maybe men should wait for women to approach them to protect themselves in the same way you're advising women?


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

rosegeranium said:


> There is NOTHING wrong with being shy. But if you really want something, you must overcome your shyness. This is coming from someone that has always battled shyness and who knows shy men that have battled it and approached the women they are attracted to. Of course, there will be couples that say, "NO, you're wrong, I approached my husband first and we've been married ten years, it's great." Well, then good for you, I'm truly glad! But just as these men are claiming that women just want money as a rule I am allowed to claim that men need to approach the woman first, as a rule. I am making generalizations just as they are.


At this point, I don't know if you're trolling anymore. If not, then you should do motivational speeches. "Go on, guys, get over your shyness. It's your obligation to approach women and swallow whatever issues you might have, otherwise you can't be called men. True men have balls."
The world isn't black and white.


----------



## CaMiMa (Oct 22, 2012)

strangestdude said:


> Spotting false 'nice guys' is pretty easy to a male onlooker, in fact that's a common thing that 'nice guys' who women like you demonize complain about. "I warned you what he was like!"
> 
> Also I think women are better liars than men - paternity fraud (google that shit) is a sustained lie to both child and partner over years or decades.
> 
> Maybe men should wait for women to approach them to protect themselves in the same way you advising women?


I definitely think we are better liars. We're wonderful even lying to ourselves, which is probably why some women see that a man is obviously not nice and still go for it.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Please just address me directly.
> 
> I'm stating an observation (gold diggers) you're proposing an injunction (men *should* approach women), big difference.


You are so self absorbed that you consider yourself the only male posting such viewpoints, or that will post such views, or that are thinking in such a fashion as they read your posts? It is obvious that most men that support your views that women should do the approaching have an issue with women being gold diggers or being impossible to please, thought they may deny it to save face. And then you take my posts out of context, creating more fallacies in an attempt to (weakly) dismiss my argument. It is obvious to everyone that your labeling of women as gold diggers very much ties into your reasoning that women should approach men. You are blustering in the typical fashion of one in denial, trying to detract from the real issue at hand-*you are angry at women for not giving you what you want, so now you expect them to come to you and other men even though it is clearly at their disadvantage to do so as a whole*.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

rosegeranium said:


> *And then you take my posts out of context, creating more fallacies in an attempt to (weakly) dismiss my argument.*.


Your arguments are hypocritical and based on a double standard, and they are a weak attempt to justify traditional gender roles in dating. 



> *you are angry at women for not giving you what you want, so now you expect them to come to you and other men even though it is clearly at their disadvantage to do so as a whole*


There is no clear disadvantage.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> You realise these are the kinds of signals that fly right past the majority of men, don't you?


IMO hetero women generally don't think about how they are perceived by men other than looks and number of sexual partners. To them their in-direct communication is 'obvious'.

Due to the cultural norm they don't have to. Men obsess about how their communication is being received by women (PUA, numerous threads in forums on the net asking for advise on how to court women).


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

strangestdude said:


> IMO hetero women generally don't think about how they are perceived by men other than looks and number of sexual partners. To them their in-direct communication is 'obvious'.
> 
> Due to the cultural norm they don't have to. Men obsess about how their communication is being received by women (PUA, numerous threads in forums on the net asking for advise on how to court women).


 Oh, I agree with this - but it just seemed liek another example of "women thinking they're taking the lead and being direct" when actually nothing of the sort is going on. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Diphenhydramine said:


> but it just seemed liek another example of "women thinking they're taking the lead and being direct" when actually nothing of the sort is going on.


Her later description made it seem more 'organic' in the conversation TBH. But her initial description sounded like just that.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

strangestdude said:


> Yeah I think from there perspective that's what they are doing. From my perspective I feel manipulated, and like they are avoiding taking the initiative due to a fear of rejection.
> Of course in the context of a conversation you will make tactful comments to see if the person finds you as attractive as they do. But I've noticed that even when it gets to the point of obvious mutual attraction some women still won't ask and will play games purposefully putting the burden on the man.


Hmmm ok I think we are speaking two different languages here. I'll take your word for it. It still sounds like you are going "I'm tired of being the one to do the work when it comes to getting a girl. It's _their turn now!!!" 
_But maybe I am taking your words to be more extreme than they actually are.



strangestdude said:


> - Welcome to the life you've created for the men you apparently love. :tongue:


I wish you wouldn't say this so much....it sounds like you are throwing everything I said into this box that is the above and I just don't think that's true.
And besides. You doesn't mean ME. You means most women. I try to break out of some of the norms. I won't judge a guy for having a weak, nervous moment where he is afraid to approach me. And I walk up to lots of people (whether or not it's for romantic reasons) and strike up conversations. 
And besides it's not just men that get torn into pieces. It's women too. Testing the waters is terrifying for both genders. There's a lot at stake. But no risk, no reward right? 

Although, if this is your whole point, then yes I agree:


strangestdude said:


> Very few women will admit the advantage they have in hetero dating due to the cultural norm...


We do. *At least when it comes to the courting.* As long as we look decent, some guy some day is probably gonna approach us and say hi.
Men have it differently.
After courting? Advantage is gone. A lot of the times, the ball ends up in the guy's court and we're stuck wondering what is going on. 



strangestdude said:


> And see my avatar.


Who is that again???? I keep wanting to say Robin but that's not his outfit at all......
Am I missing something? >_>



strangestdude said:


> Are you a chick?


Yessir. But that neutral gender symbol is so cool looking, isn't it?



strangestdude said:


> If a woman just has low self worth and that's her only way courting then I have no problem personally, however I've known women who's self worth level was fine (higher than mine) but simply didn't want to ask and risk being rejected. One is motivated by low self worth or shyness, and the other is egotism.


Hmm...I dunno about this. Like I said, it can be hard to read other people. You want to get a feel for what kind of guy they are before laying your cards down.
I am pretty confident. But I know better than to go ahead and directly ask some men. They'll take it as "omg the power is mine now- YESSSSSSS" and then start treating me like dirt. I'm a careful observer. I have seen girls that take the approach you would rather and get themselves torn up for it.
And a guy getting rejected (quoting @_AriesLilith_ again) is not nearly as crushing for his reputation as a girl getting rejected.
It just feels like you may rigid in these point of views. For example, would you reject someone like me because of the above? 
I'm the kind of girl who believes in equality in a relationship, 
wants to be partners not expect the guy to take care of all of her needs while she complains about him, 
will make the first move quite often (yes, even in that area)
is genuinely curious about your interests 
is willing to work hard to make ends meet if she has to.

I think I'm a decent catch....I'm at least a nice change of pace from ice queens, but it sounds like you would throw the possibility of someone like me out the window because I'm cautious. I recognize men do have to put themselves out there a lot. I try to make it easier for them. If I don't feel like they have a chance with me period, I dissuade them. I don't let them pay for stuff. I don't give them any reason to think I might reciprocate their feelings. 
And if I see a guy "testing the waters", I try to give them feedback one way or another so they don't have to be scared. They have an idea of where they stand and what to do next.



strangestdude said:


> IMO hetero women generally don't think about how they are perceived by men other than looks and number of sexual partners. To them their in-direct communication is 'obvious'.


I completely disagree with this. Maybe there are some girls this is true for, but being a girl, I KNOW this is not true. I can't tell you the amount of times me and my girlfriends got together, calculating what to do next with a new crush. 
_"How should I say it??? Should I say it like this???"
"hmm I dunno, what about this instead?"
"But then this might happen..."_
We obsess wayyyyyy more than you think!!!



strangestdude said:


> Due to the cultural norm they don't have to. Men obsess about how their communication is being received by women (PUA, numerous threads in forums on the net asking for advise on how to court women).


https://www.google.com/search?q=lop...87,d.dmQ&fp=e51d9a2c5001e6ba&biw=1366&bih=643

https://www.google.com/search?q=why...57j5j0l2j62l2.3077j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=att...0.57j0l3j62l2.2327j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=why....57j65j0l3j62.1606j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

double post


----------



## Marie Claire (Aug 12, 2011)

I don't think that women are in a privileged position. I think that men initiating courtship gives them the power. It's no fun when you're single and have to wait around for someone to ask you out. I've had guys who were clearly attracted to me, not ask me out. On two occasions, I decided to take the initiative and ask them to go out for coffee. On both occasions, I was rejected. I quickly understood that if a man wants to go out with you, he'll ask. Also, I get the feeling that being asked out by a woman makes them feel less than manly.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Marie Claire said:


> I don't think that women are in a privileged position. I think that men initiating courtship gives them the power.


It baffles me how someone thinks like that. But if you've read through this thread and still believe that, then I doubt there's anything that I can say to change your mind.



> On two occasions, I decided to take the initiative and ask them to go out for coffee. On both occasions, I was rejected. I quickly understood that if a man wants to go out with you, he'll ask.


Kudos to you for getting trying. But striking out twice is nothing in comparison to the amount of rejections most guys I've known have had (even dudes who are 'ladies men'). Rejection is inevitable when taking the initiative in courtship - which is what I suspect many women want to avoid.

Remember how you felt approaching, and the experiences of being rejected. Avoiding those feelings are sometimes the reasons why guys won't ask you out.

Seeing as you seem like you won't approach men anymore after your experiences this quote (in the gentlest way possible) applies to you...

*Welcome to the life you've created for the men you apparently love.*



> Also, I get the feeling that being asked out by a woman makes them feel less than manly


Dudes into traditional gender roles will (not that there's anything wrong with that IMO). You are probably attracted to dudes like that.


----------



## Marie Claire (Aug 12, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> It baffles me how someone thinks like that. But if you've read through this thread and still believe that, then I doubt there's anything that I can say to change your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm now in a relationship with an INFP. He was the one to ask me out. We're very happy together.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Marie Claire said:


> I'm now in a relationship with an INFP. He was the one to ask me out. We're very happy together.


You missed the point.

Rejection is what the typical male has to accept due to the cultural norm. You exercised the option of giving up initiating and letting others court you. Most men couldn't be confident that they will be courted exercising that option due to the cultural norm, you could... That's your advantage as a woman.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Moop said:


> "I'm tired of being the one to do the work when it comes to getting a girl. It's _their turn now!!!" _


If I took that attitude I'd die alone and never have sex again.



> And besides. You doesn't mean ME. You means most women. I try to break out of some of the norms. I won't judge a guy for having a weak, nervous moment where he is afraid to approach me. And I walk up to lots of people (whether or not it's for romantic reasons) and strike up conversations.


Yeah not you.



> After courting? Advantage is gone. A lot of the times, the ball ends up in the guy's court and we're stuck wondering what is going on.


That is true... After initial courtship. But I'm talking about finding a mate not sustaining one.



> Who is that again???? I keep wanting to say Robin but that's not his outfit at all......
> Am I missing something? >_>


He's a superhero from the graphic novel and movie, the watchmen. He was called the comedian. He was a living mirror for the hypocrisy, ulterior motives, and savagery he saw in civilization. He behaved like a violent sociopath... But he was self aware.








> Yessir. But that neutral gender symbol is so cool looking, isn't it?



Hmm...I dunno about this. Like I said, it can be hard to read other people. You want to get a feel for what kind of guy they are before laying your cards down.



> I am pretty confident. But I know better than to go ahead and directly ask some men. They'll take it as "omg the power is mine now- YESSSSSSS" and then start treating me like dirt.


It's better to avoid those men full stop IMO.



> I'm a careful observer. I have seen girls that take the approach you would rather and get themselves torn up for it.


I've seen women do the same... And it's more common due to the cultural norm.



> And a guy getting rejected (quoting @_AriesLilith_ again) is not nearly as crushing for his reputation as a girl getting rejected


I think the only way to 'normalize' rejection for women socially is if more women initiate courtship. 

But trust me even though it can still be humiliating regardless if it's socially normal, a lot of women a rude... But then a lot of guys don't know when fucking give up. 



> It just feels like you may rigid in these point of views. For example, would you reject someone like me because of the above?





> I'm the kind of girl who believes in equality in a relationship, wants to be partners not expect the guy to take care of all of her needs while she complains about him,
> will make the first move quite often (yes, even in that area)
> is genuinely curious about your interests
> is willing to work hard to make ends meet if she has to.


You sound like a good woman.

I think I'm a decent catch....I'm at least a nice change of pace from ice queens, but it sounds like you would throw the possibility of someone like me out the window because I'm cautious. 



> I recognize men do have to put themselves out there a lot. I try to make it easier for them. If I don't feel like they have a chance with me period, I dissuade them. I don't let them pay for stuff. I don't give them any reason to think I might reciprocate their feelings.
> 
> And if I see a guy "testing the waters", I try to give them feedback one way or another so they don't have to be scared. They have an idea of where they stand and what to do next.


You sound nice.



> I completely disagree with this. Maybe there are some girls this is true for, but being a girl, I KNOW this is not true. I can't tell you the amount of times me and my girlfriends got together, calculating what to do next with a new crush.
> _"How should I say it??? Should I say it like this???"
> "hmm I dunno, what about this instead?"
> "But then this might happen..."_
> We obsess wayyyyyy more than you think!!!


C'mon... Men have an entire fucking industry that has emerged based on this obsession... PUA.

And forum after forum I've been on dudes are sharing strategy, and giving each other advise on how to communicate effectively when initiating courtship. I've witnessed thread after thread, pages upon pages of bro advise.

When I look at threads from women the majority are asking for advise on what to do once courtship has began. But I don't frequent female dominated forum, only mixed and male dominated so perhaps on female forums so maybe threads on how to *directly court* men is more common than I think.


----------



## Marie Claire (Aug 12, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> You missed the point.
> 
> Rejection is what the typical male has to accept due to the cultural norm. You exercised the option of giving up initiating and letting others court you. Most men couldn't be confident that they will be courted exercising that option due to the cultural norm, you could... That's your advantage as a woman.


I think that there is something in men that makes them pursue women. When the dynamic is switched (if the woman takes charge), it makes them value her less. They may accept to go out with her, but the relationship will fizzle out. I'm going to start a thread about this in the INFP forum, if you want to check it out.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Marie Claire said:


> I think that there is something in men that makes them pursue women. When the dynamic is switched (if the woman takes charge), it makes them value her less.


FWIW I like the 'softness' of traditional femininity, and I probably wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a woman who didn't have that. (Mainly because I'm a HSP/INFP, and I prefer gentleness). But I don't care who initiates courtship.

I also realize that the kind of women I like 'soft women' will probably want men to approach them, but I'm not just complaining about the cultural norm on my own behalf. 

You're talking about men who prefer traditional gender roles in courtship as well as in the context of a relationship. I'm skeptical, that's the majority of men.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Marie Claire said:


> I think that there is something in men that makes them pursue women.


What do you believe that something is?

Cultural, biological, spiritual?

And do you only mean hetero men?


----------



## Marie Claire (Aug 12, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> What do you believe that something is?
> 
> Cultural, biological, spiritual?
> 
> And do you only mean hetero men?


Testosterone.

Of course, I only mean heterosexual men.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Marie Claire said:


> Testosterone.


Based on? And can you elaborate?


----------



## Marie Claire (Aug 12, 2011)

strangestdude said:


> Based on? And can you elaborate?


I'm not looking for a debate. Believe what you want to believe. I'm going out to enjoy the sunshine.


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

Marie Claire said:


> I'm not looking for a debate. Believe what you want to believe.


You're making a claim about a testosterone influencing courtship and relationship. I've already guessed that it's personal hypothesis but I was genuinely curious why you thought that.

If you like, you can present the foundation of your conjecture and I won't reply to it.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

One girl was pretty shy in person, and waited till I asked her out, but after every date she would text up a storm asking when she would see me again winking and winking etc.. 

It turned out she was more in it to have sex with me than anything (that biach!) but thats some perspective at least.

The other girls that have taken even more initiative, like asking me out a lot, I haven't really found attractive.

Except for one now that seems to be taking the initiative to ask me a lot of questions about my personality, which I seem to love for some reason.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

Marie Claire said:


> Testosterone.
> 
> Of course, I only mean heterosexual men.


I don't think testosterone is necessarily the determining factor in whether a man takes initiative or not. I think it is more a societal factor, but because of how screwy society is, I think that it is healthier for the man to approach the woman. Society has conditioned men to value women less if they approach him and men tend to be lazy when it comes to relationships anyway. I think that this is a dynamic that will never dissipate because males tend to fight with each other too much. I'm not sure if testosterone is to blame for this...I think it is more that males are naturally the physically stronger sex and, because they(hopefully) end up taking care of the female during her pregnancy and child rearing, end up competing more often for resources.

EDIT: Perhaps males are meant to take the lead in this regard because female aggression is extremely detrimental to the development of the child.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

rosegeranium said:


> Perhaps males are meant to take the lead in this regard because female aggression is extremely detrimental to the development of the child.


How so?


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

Moop said:


> How so?


Ok think about it...This is only my belief, but females are somewhat more emotionally unstable than men. I think that is just how they are wired. It does not make them less intelligent than men, nor does it make men less emotionally deep. An analogy might be that if male and female were glasses of liquid, males would be the slightly thicker liquid. When there is a disturbance, the male quivers a bit less, does not slosh around a much.

I believe women are equally capable leaders and thinkers as men. But women have been gifted(or cursed) with a bit more emotional mutability. This, I believe, is very good for child rearing. Of course, a woman does not have to have children to be "complete", she can apply her sensitivity to other things and men can as well. 

If women were going around asking the men out, they would start to fight as men do. But look at how women behave toward each other. Women will do things that men would rarely do to one another(come up and flirt with your boyfriend in front of your face, steal boyfriends, slap each other and fight over silly things, get jealous at the drop of a hat) and take far more time to recover from any slights made against one another than men. You could say this is societal programming or insecurity, but I believe it is due to the slightly more unstable nature of women. 

When women have children they need to be emotionally stable as possible. If women are going after the men, it will make them too unstable emotionally. The children will be totally screwed up. Some say that polyamory is a good antidote to such behavior but I believe jealousy is an instinct too powerfully ingrained in human nature.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

@rosegeranium 

How does female aggression equate to emotional instability? If I'm following your argument correctly it goes:

1. Females are less aggressive because they are natural mothers.
2. Females are more emotionally unstable.
3. Females have to be more stable because they are natural mothers.

In short, it seems, unless I've missed something, that you are arguing that aggression + instability are the same thing when talking about women (but not men since somehow men are stable and aggressive) and that they should rid themselves of these traits if they want to be good mothers. Can a woman not approach a man confidently and assertively and still be stable emotionally? Just because men take the protector role during pregnancy, and just because they are physically stronger, does not necessarily mean that women are not allowed to take the role of the approacher.

Also, the bit about women starting fights like men do - do men really physically fight that often? I don't think so. There's nothing but speculation to suggest that a woman becoming more assertive would result in a fight. And don't you think that maybe the reason women act the way you mentioned is because they are powerless in society? Maybe if they were in more control of asking men out they wouldn't have to resort to bitchy competitiveness. It might also lead them to be more 'emotionally stable' because they don't have to let their love lives be completely out of their power, at least in the first stages anyway.


----------



## rosegeranium (Apr 1, 2013)

bombsaway said:


> @_rosegeranium_
> 
> How does female aggression equate to emotional instability? If I'm following your argument correctly it goes:
> 
> ...


It is not as cut and dry as all that. In modern society, there is more room for unconventional behavior. For me to say that women taking the intitiative in dating to be unconventional, I can see how that sounds shortsighted. And I am sure that there are times when the roles reverse and everything turns out great.

You make is sound as if I am saying that women are just emotional trainwrecks and that men are the pillars of balance and emotional stability. If you read my post, I am not making such a blanket statement. I do believe that women, however, are genetically predisposed to be more emotionally mutable, more prone to emotional instability, which can actually be a good thing. I do not think they are predisposed to such a nature by more than a mere fraction than men. I also do not believe that a woman must be a mother to be complete as a human being, or that she must be attracted to men, or act like a traditonal female or even seek out a traditonal family unit.

I believe women are equals to men in all ways. How so, you might ask, if I propose that men take the intitiative when it comes to dating? I believe that it complicates things less. I believe that it also proves to a woman that the man actually wants a committed relationship, so long as she is on the look out for douchebag, pick up artist behavior. Men are lazy when it comes to relationships. If an attractive women asks a single guy out, he will probably say yes, and may very well procede to string her along with the promise of a committed relationship or use her for sex. Women do this to men as well, but I believe to a lesser extent.

I already stated that society and insecurity may be the reason for women acting bitchy and competetive. But I believe that, due to women's slightly more unstable emotional nature, they are more prone to destroy each other over a man affections. Doesn't mean they will, but I believe it is a factor.

No woman wants to be told she is more emotionally unstable than a man. But it's not as if I am saying it is by even a moderate margin. Even if this weren't the case, jealousy and competetiveness will always rear it's head when human beings start searching for mates. It may not rear it's head amongst all women, but inevitably some, just as it does with some men. Women and men both need to be emotionally stable. Fathers play a huge role in the lives of children as well. But women must maintain harmony amongst themselves especially because they typically will spend the most amount of time from the beginning with the child, even if they are working. 

Women are most responsible for teaching their sons, especially, how to be emotionally intelligent. They cannot do this, they cannot help each other even raise their young, if they are going out and scrapping over men, turning them into irritable, paranoid, cold beings. They will give their sons horrible images of women, who will in turn become womanizers and abusers. Males have more leeway in this regard, although ideally women will step up to the plate and prevent males from fighting over females rather than sitting back and watching the show, which I think is horrible. I would never let men fight over me and would probably jump in and kick both their butts before they could do it to each other, lol! 

This is coming from a girl that came out of the womb a tomboy. I am more masculine than feminine in a lot of ways. I am not at all saying that women can't be tough, intelligent, leaders, friends, lovers, etc. on par with men. Also, I didn't say that men necessarily fight that often_, _but tended to do so during more primitive times because they were the main gatherers of resources. I said this in a previous post.
In the end_, _my words are intended for practical purposes.That is all.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Moop said:


> How so?


http://biososial.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/campbell1999.pdf


----------



## strangestdude (Dec 8, 2011)

@rosegeranium

I'm much more sympathetic (which doesn't men agreeing for anyone outraged) to your perspective than before.

I personally play around with the idea of 'masulinity'/yang and feministy/yin as metaphors for values, traits and behaviors and core personality dispositions. And although born gender is a general indication where on the spectrum between the 2 one will lie, it doesn't necessarily determine it.

David Deida in an interesting book called the way of the superior man makes the same case. He believes that anyone of any gender or sexuality can have a masculine or feminine 'essence' (metaphors for core personality dispositions), and it was only due to a catchy title that he didn't alter the name to be gender biased. And he says we've got to a stage where men who have a masculine/yang essence are ashamed of it, and women with a feminine essence are ashamed of it.

He basically makes the case that if you have a feminine or masculine essence certain behaviors are of detriment or benefit to your long term character development. So I take what you are saying in the same 'spirit' as what he was talking about, and the ideas I'm playing with. 

This vid is an intro to the ideas I'm playing with regarding masculinity/yang and femininity/yin core character dispositions...






What do you think?

_I'm getting tired so this post is a bit disjointed but I think you'll get the point._


----------



## Khaine (Sep 13, 2013)

I usually have woman approaching to me. The first 'relationship' (I don't have too clear what it was) it was with her iniciating and leading. I had woman approaching me at the point of harassing me (and I'm not joking) when I'm doing things outside, on my own, many times.

I have the experience that woman try to ruin things when are in a leadership position and have some kind of attraction to a man, even when it's obvious thet they are perfectly able to handle it. Thats why I think is better to me to show that I can have initiative if I want to, even if she is the one that approaches me in first term. I have some theories about it, as showing after.

Btw, I hadn't read all the post, but the reason in my opinion about woman wanting men leading are basically two:

1. Is a way of passing a test. Leaders are not going to wait for things to happen. They go and get it. Woman who are looking uncounciously (or not ) for the typical attractive man (who among other things is a leader) knows this on an instictual level (if they don't reach there by common sense).

2. They are not responsible. This is more important than it seems. Do you any of you know what happens to a woman that likes sex? A woman that is known, or even suspected, to have had sex with a lot of people? Even worse, she has it in a constant basis? I know. I meet cases. I don't desire that not even to my worst enemy. 

Society has an absolutely absurd and strong bias against sex in woman. There is a biological mechanism that make them prefer things to 'just happen', but is culturally exaggerated and taked out of context. This, among a lot of other things regarding dating and sex, makes relationships between men and woman very artificial and with a lot of preconceived notions.

Also, I think that assertiveness is important for both genders, and I see an encouragement of a lack of it in females that I dislike. They are perfectly able to handle things, but they are pushed to show they are not. This is as stupid as making men fake what they _cannot _do to appear as competent.

Lesson learned: think outside the box. After all, social rules are done to be breaked, in a more or less subtle way.


----------

