Females and their aversion to initiating

[identity]

Why do most women insist on being approached even when they make little effort to hide their interest? I don't lament the societal rules that require men to make the first move, but I find it silly that a significant number of women abide by these rules dogmatically.

For example, I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me as I was sipping my cup and reading a book. The seat next to her's was taken, while the one next to mine was empty. After a few minutes of pretending to ignore her I finally made eye contact, smiled (she smiled back) and subtly glanced at the seat next to mine as a hint. Apparently it still didn't strike her that she was physically unapproachable (was I supposed to walk up and start a conversation while towering over her?). I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

This whole circus has happened many times in the past. Why does it happen?

[Amphorian]

I have approached all my past relationships. Why can't shy guys take the initiative now and then?

[Storm]

Because many men find it off-putting and women have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not.

But there are women that approach first.

[identity]

I have approached all my past relationships. Why can't shy guys take the initiative now and then?

Kudos for breaking this stupid rule. I think that shy guys don't take the initiative because they're shy. Just a hunch. :p

Because many men find it off-putting and women have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not.

But there are women that approach first.

I won't attempt to speak for half of the world's population, but I'm sure most men would love the idea of being approached first. If the woman is physically attractive, then success is virtually guaranteed (yeah, men ARE pigs).

Incidentally, the statement "because many women find it off-putting and men have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not" far more aptly describes the source of male anxiety.

[Elfrun]

Social conditioning. Women aren't supposed to be the aggressors in life.

[Vagrant]

Because many men find it off-putting and women have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not.

The problem is, many women also find it off-putting, and men have no idea whether it'll put them off or not. :p

[ArtistTyrant]

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

[larkin]

Lately I have been trying to make more of an effort to be willing to approach both guys and girls, as long as they're not total strangers. I'd like to be able to go up to someone, more or less express interest, and if it works out, great, if not, no big deal. Sometimes I can do it, sometimes I can't. Almost always easier said than done.

I'm sure most men would love the idea of being approached first. If the woman is physically attractive, then success is virtually guaranteed (yeah, men ARE pigs).

Well that's a pretty big if, now isn't it? You're presupposing the guy is attracted to the girl approaching? And just the thought that it's mostly about physical attraction alone makes it even more difficult, rather than less so - if a girl turns a guy down after being approached, the guy can and will tend to say she's being standoffish and would have turned down anyone. But if a guy turns a girl down after approaching, based on the sentiment above, it would take an amazingly confident girl not to think she wasn't attractive enough. Even though in reality, there are a million and one reasons that either a girl or a guy would turn someone who approached down.

Incidentally, the statement "because many women find it off-putting and men have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not" far more aptly describes the source of male anxiety.

Nope, pretty much describes the anxiety for anyone approaching. Again, there's a lot of reasons someone might find it off-putting or not be interested. Because randomly chatting up a complete stranger is just the least successful way to meet someone. It takes a lot of effort, honestly, to get over the initial distrust people have of the person willing to do it. "Something must be wrong with them if they're this desperate," is usually how my unspoken line of thinking goes - and I know better.

[daydreamer]

Why do most women insist on being approached even when they make little effort to hide their interest? I don't lament the societal rules that require men to make the first move, but I find it silly that a significant number of women abide by these rules dogmatically.

For example, I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me as I was sipping my cup and reading a book. The seat next to her's was taken, while the one next to mine was empty. After a few minutes of pretending to ignore her I finally made eye contact, smiled (she smiled back) and subtly glanced at the seat next to mine as a hint. Apparently it still didn't strike her that she was physically unapproachable (was I supposed to walk up and start a conversation while towering over her?). I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

This whole circus has happened many times in the past. Why does it happen?

first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. based on what you say and my own experiences i would say this is probably often the case.

why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

as for initiating. the only worthwhile relationships i have been in with men were the ones that i initiated. i'm sure there are many reasons, some having to do with me, but some also having to do with men.

[larkin]

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

awesome sentiment, and of course a very well-thought-through, enlightening post. is there something in the water lately? are you also going to claim you're just joking, even though lots of women really are vocal feminist bitches?

[daydreamer]

no kidding larkin^^, sheesh.

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

i call bullshit on you artisttyrant. what is with the female bashing. i'm out guys. clean it up or count me out. ask real questions or dont even start. see you in more civilized threads, this looks like a repeat of the curiousgeorge thread.

[Synchronicity]

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

This conflicts with reality.

[Sxq]

I've been approached by girls before (not entirely sure if it was in romantic context - maybe it was and I was just to shy to flirt back) and it is kind of surprising at first. The last time it happened I wasn't ready for it and didn't know what to say. Kind of a "why is she talking to me??" moment.

However I think in a situation like yours it would be awesome, and I would have no trouble reciprocating those feelings.

[Kalarchis]

I agree with Elfrun; gender roles are drilled in from a very early age. But, it can't all be attributed to that. More than a few times I've heard a woman say that she didn't start getting the partners she really wanted until she started actively looking. I can't speak for all guys, but I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind if more ladies started taking the initiative.

[Pink Daisys]

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

I suddenly realize that I just like to argue with people. So, here's goes his defense:

women want sexist treatment when it benefits them
Paying for her half of the date, holding doors open, giving up a seat on the bus. These are all pretty good examples of this. I would never be stupid enough to not pay for a date's meal because, hell, I want to date this person and 25 bucks is meaningless in the context of a relationship but think about the reverse?

If a date ever happened and the woman tried to pay for the man she would get shouted down it would almost be emasculating and at best all she can hope for is to pay for her own stuff. Why is it OK one way and not another?

and decry it when it doesn't benefit them
Of course they do, that's just straight-up logic. I vaguely remember reading something about how women make 80 cents for every dollar a man makes doing the same job. I don't know whether or not there's some reasoning for the gap (men are physically stronger and apt to be better at unskilled labor for example) but if you think you're being slighted you're going to complain.

So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.
I'm not quite sure how to go about this one. If you're vocal about being something then the man isn't going to have to guess what you are and doesn't run the risk of accidently approaching someone he doesn't like. It's kind of like saying "A man won't approach a woman because she might be wearing a bright orange shirt!" Well, I mean, if the person is wearing it and you don't like orange then you'll just find someone who isn't wearing said shirt.

[Blse]

why don't men get this? [i.e. that a smile is just a smile]

1) Wishful thinking
2) Because women typically have a more intimate way of communicating
3) Because men typically interpret women's bahvior in an overly-sexual manner

At least that's what social science says...

gender roles are drilled in from a very early age. But, it can't all be attributed to that. More than a few times I've heard a woman say that she didn't start getting the partners she really wanted until she started actively looking. I can't speak for all guys, but I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind if more ladies started taking the initiative.

Seconded.

[WoodElf4U]

To the OP (avoiding other conflicts on this thread):
Since you did not speak one word to her, you can not know what she was thinking. Perhaps she was interested in you, or what you were reading, or she is a mute and can't have a conversation. Who knows.

If glancing at the seat next to you is not enough, I blame subtleness. Use an open hand gesture or wave her over. If nobody makes a clear move, and neither wants to intrude, then it won't go anywhere.

My mom first asked my dad on a date (long long ago), and I know other women that do the same. Whatever gender, if you have the confidence to do so, then approach people.

[Causa Mortis]

Most of my past quality relationships have been with women initiating, either on the approach or asking for the first date. This is partly explained by the fact that I do not have an aggressive style, and partly explained by the fact that I have always struggled with approach anxiety.

[Elfrun]

There's a difference between wanting to understand 'why' and understanding 'why not'.

Kalarchis is right, the why is simply how women are raised, it's a social thing. In most western societies, and then some, women are taught to be passive. It's not the be all or end all, there are plenty of women who are more aggressive in this area, you only need to look at the gay community to see when there is a need, and it is accepted, it happens.

As to the why not, there is no good reason imo, personally I think tradition for traditions sake and gender roles are bullshit and see no issue with anyone taking the initiative to get what they want in any aspect of life, including romance. I agree that being passive in this area often times results in ending up with the wrong partner so it is in a woman's best interests to play a more active role here.

[TigerL]

I think she WAS initiating contact, i.e. through non-verbal eye contact, just not in the way you expected. And I don't get why she was "physically unapproachable" - what's so odd about walking over and asking her while you were standing up if she wanted to sit next to you? Generally, women (excepting INTJ women perhaps from the posts here) do initiate verbally or non-verbally but still expect the guy to ask them out. We just need to keep our eyes/ ears open.

The two times I asked a guy out directly, it did not go well. I met them through get-togethers at friends' houses. They were both too shy to keep my interest in the long run.

[LionsPride]

Why do most women insist on being approached even when they make little effort to hide their interest? I don't lament the societal rules that require men to make the first move, but I find it silly that a significant number of women abide by these rules dogmatically.

For example, I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me as I was sipping my cup and reading a book. The seat next to her's was taken, while the one next to mine was empty. After a few minutes of pretending to ignore her I finally made eye contact, smiled (she smiled back) and subtly glanced at the seat next to mine as a hint. Apparently it still didn't strike her that she was physically unapproachable (was I supposed to walk up and start a conversation while towering over her?). I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

This whole circus has happened many times in the past. Why does it happen?

I'm not sure which scenario you are reading, but in the one listed above, it looks to me like she's the one that did the initiating. She deliberately caught your eye several times, when she finally got you looking she hinted for you to sit next to her. The fact that you knew she had an interest in you shows that she did an excellent job of communicating her intentions. I think asking for her to make her intentions even more known seems greedy. Flirting is often an art of subtly. No one person, generally, wants to stick their neck out too far. She stuck hers out a bit, don't you think have responded in kind? I think a "is this seat taken?" would have been a reasonable action for you to take that wouldn't have required you to make any obvious moves on her.

I agree that women should ask men out and vice versa, but I think you need to expand your definition of approach a bit. Just because she didn't buy you a drink or write her phone number on a napkin and slip it to you doesn't mean she wasn't the first one to advance. If you had sat next to her, who's to say she wouldn't have been the first one to suggest meeting again?


I won't attempt to speak for half of the world's population, but I'm sure most men would love the idea of being approached first. If the woman is physically attractive, then success is virtually guaranteed (yeah, men ARE pigs).

As an aside, if you wouldn't mind keeping the derogatory men statements to a minimum I'd appreciate it. As others have mentioned, there's a lot of sexist comments going around and I'd like to see less of it rather than more.

As to the comment itself, women that approach men will face rejection just like men do, regardless of attractiveness. I think the scales might be better if you are comparing one night stands, but when it comes to relationships men have their own criteria women have to deal with. Perhaps you should remember that the women you are looking at and saying "I wish she would approach me" are only the ones you wish would approach you. If you looked at ALL the women in the room, like the married ones, the dumb, the ones with too much make up, the ones that hate sports, the ones that are too old or any of the other criteria that isn't purely attractiveness that you might use to decide if someone is for you or not and ask yourself "if they approached me, would I date them?" I think you would find you would come up with reasons why you are busy Friday night...

[Amphorian]

For example, I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me as I was sipping my cup and reading a book. The seat next to her's was taken, while the one next to mine was empty. After a few minutes of pretending to ignore her I finally made eye contact, smiled (she smiled back) and subtly glanced at the seat next to mine as a hint. Apparently it still didn't strike her that she was physically unapproachable (was I supposed to walk up and start a conversation while towering over her?). I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

I'm not sure which scenario you are reading, but in the one listed above, it looks to me like she's the one that did the initiating. She deliberately caught your eye several times, when she finally got you looking she hinted for you to sit next to her. The fact that you knew she had an interest in you shows that she did an excellent job of communicating her intentions. I think asking for her to make her intentions even more known seems greedy. Flirting is often an art of subtly. No one person, generally, wants to stick their neck out too far. She stuck hers out a bit, don't you think have responded in kind? I think a "is this seat taken?" would have been a reasonable action for you to take that wouldn't have required you to make any obvious moves on her.

If I read the OP correctly he hinted at her to sit next to him, not the other way around.

[Bluesea]

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them.

I think this could be said of men too - for example, there are men who want women to make them feel masculine by giving them the lead, ensuring they feel they 'wear the pants' and for women to 'be feminine' for them however they also want them to earn the money while they stay home and look after kids and even make the first move to ask them out on dates ...

Maybe we are just moving towards a world that is less controlled by the prescribed gender rules of yesteryear ... which could be liberating for both parties but confusing too at times as we find out new ways to work out who is "supposed" to do what, when ...?

[IrishGuy]

Most of my past quality relationships have been with women initiating, either on the approach or asking for the first date. This is partly explained by the fact that I do not have an aggressive style, and partly explained by the fact that I have always struggled with approach anxiety.

I'll second that. Although, I have not been so lucky as to be approached by a woman.

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

Focusing on the section in bold. This is somewhat true in my experience, but I think this could just be due to the local culture in Orange County. Women here seem to carry themselves with an awful lot of entitlement. They expect celebrity treatment at the minimum. I remember being made fun of because of my car. People ask me why I drive such a POS car (why don't I drive a new car). I tell them that I bought it myself; my parents did not give me one free. I have a 15 year old compact car that is kept clean (inside and out) and detailed (wax, armor all, tires). Basically, standard maintenance. And somehow this is mark down on me compared to the guy with the mud caked Boxster with bald tires from driving like an idiot. Our parents are roughly the same socio-economic level but he's judged positively by women based upon what his parents gave him and not by how he treats what his parents have given him.....

Then again, I have to ask myself; is this the type of woman I really want? The answer is no. Much more egalitarian women do exist (even in Orange County). I just have to go and find them. Not all women are over-entitled brats and not all men are jerks; there are good people out there. They just have to be found.

first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. based on what you say and my own experiences i would say this is probably often the case.

why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

as for initiating. the only worthwhile relationships i have been in with men were the ones that i initiated. i'm sure there are many reasons, some having to do with me, but some also having to do with men.

I think we do get this. It's just that it is not easy to distinguish between the "I'm interested smile" and the "I'm just smiling at you to be polite smile." We just have to make an educated guess...

[Nomadic]

It is very rare for women to be encouraged or rewarded by being sexually aggressive, whereas there is a perceived expectation for men to be the aggressors. How someone would behave when they think they're not being observed often defies gender typing, whereas many people are more likely to conform to societal expectations in public or under scrutiny.

[Kurt IV]

The main reason I find it hard to approach girls is because I always try to prepare a conversation. I know you can't prepare a conversation (small talk). But I still do it, and by the time I'm ready to approach, the girl is off with some other guy. :)

[Extremophile]

The main reason I find it hard to approach girls is because I always try to prepare a conversation. I know you can't prepare a conversation (small talk). But I still do it, and by the time I'm ready to approach, the girl is off with some other guy. :)

This is exactly how I am with guys =/ I am trying to pick up the courage to initiate and say hi and by the time I convince myself, they are already chatting up some other girl...

Maybe you should initiate with me next time you see me, I guarantee no other guy will so you don't have to worry about me being off with some other guy :P

[LionsPride]

If I read the OP correctly he hinted at her to sit next to him, not the other way around.

Noted, that's my mistake. I saw the "towering over her" and thought he was standing at the time.

[SelfMadeBum]

I think it's just that women are more subtle in their ways of pursuing; no woman wants to come across as sexually aggressive, so we do the whole thing - subtle unnecessary touching, hair tossing, smiling, standing or leaning close, etc. These are the ways we let you know we like you. We don't want to have to beat you over the head with it.

[curiousgeorge01]

I think it's just that women are more subtle in their ways of pursuing; no woman wants to come across as sexually aggressive, so we do the whole thing - subtle unnecessary touching, hair tossing, smiling, standing or leaning close, etc. These are the ways we let you know we like you. We don't want to have to beat you over the head with it.

Yes this is true. The problem is that some hints are so light that we don't notice. The other times they're heavy but they mean nothing. I guess the only solution is to take all the bait, and find what's good and what's not.

[karenann33]

Sorry but I would have done the same thing. The only time I've ever actively pursued a guy in a situation like that was when I was drunk. Normally I'm very shy about things like that.

[Harmony]

About 75% of the time I'm the one that makes the first move. And apparently, I should have made the move the other 25% of the time... Considering I keep talking to old guy friends that tell me they wanted to date me, but didn't think I was interested.

Maybe, both men and women screw around too much instead of acting on their own instincts.

[kkam]

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.


Funny. I've found a similar rule to be true with some men: They want to act sexist when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. As a general rule, they make blanket statements like this one.

[curiousgeorge01]

Funny. I've found a similar rule to be true with some men: They want to act sexist when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. As a general rule, they make blanket statements like this one.

He's probably referring to the feminist movement.

[LordCorbin]

Maybe, both men and women screw around too much instead of acting on their own instincts.

Part of the problem is we ARE acting on instinct. Society generally does its part in reinforcing gender roles, but the reality is men are more sexually aggressive. Women wait to be approached and society tells them that they should wait(generally speaking). Heck, it works out in your favor(you meaning women) because you can wait and see how far a man is willing to go to get your approval. The approach is nothing more than a screening process in mate selection. In the West it has become a great deal more acceptable for a woman to be aggressive in this manner(which is great as far as I am concerned) but the little dance is not likely to ever be cast aside.

[Shinigami]

My analysis is that she was shy just as you were Identity, she had the same insecurities in approaching you that you had. Granted it was easier for her to approach you since you had an empty seat. Some women like us men to take the lead and approach them, it shows them the confidence and alpha maleness that they are looking for.

You had two options in that scenario, 1: If you weren't that attracted to her, just sit there and continue your reading.
2: Go up to her in spite her siting situation and open with something like, "I couldn't help you looking at me and I just wanted to say hi, would you like to join me on my table over there?" or "This is going to take 2 minutes, sorry to bother you but I thought that you were cute so I wanted to come over and say 'hi'". Talk to her a little and if it picks up invite her over to your table.

For some women we have to approach them because they want to be chased, others will approach you however. We as social creatures have to learn to read our counterparts.

[Causa Mortis]

About 75% of the time I'm the one that makes the first move. And apparently, I should have made the move the other 25% of the time... Considering I keep talking to old guy friends that tell me they wanted to date me, but didn't think I was interested.

Maybe, both men and women screw around too much instead of acting on their own instincts.

IMO, guys who want to date a woman but who don't have the testicular fortitude to ask a woman out aren't worth your time. If he can't get over the prospect of a woman saying "No" that says a lot about him maturity wise.

Send clear signals and initiate if you like, but I would not lose sleep over low-confidence guys not asking you out.

[The Drifter]

Social conditioning. Women aren't supposed to be the aggressors in life.

Women are the aggressors in every other aspect of my life. Why can't they be the aggressors in the one situation where it's convenient to me?





The Drifter added to this post, 0 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Because as a general rule, women want sexist treatment when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. Benefits of course being in their estimate. So men on average feel less able to approach women because they might be one of those vocal feminist bitches.

+1





The Drifter added to this post, 6 minutes and 8 seconds later...

I don't ask women out anymore. There are too many attention whores who blatantly feign interest until you approach them. Then suddenly she is appalled that you would think she was coming on to you. The whole goal is to lure you into giving her some validation. She doesn't want you, she just wants to be wanted.

[Harmony]

IMO, guys who want to date a woman but who don't have the testicular fortitude to ask a woman out aren't worth your time. If he can't get over the prospect of a woman saying "No" that says a lot about him maturity wise.

Send clear signals and initiate if you like, but I would not lose sleep over low-confidence guys not asking you out.

True, but couldn't the same be said for women who don't have the guts to make a move as well?

I've always been very different from my girl friends. When I want something I have the habit of going for it... So who knows, maybe I don't give some guys time to actually approach me because I'm too impatient. :p

[curiousgeorge01]

I don't ask women out anymore. There are too many attention whores who blatantly feign interest until you approach them. Then suddenly she is appalled that you would think she was coming on to you. The whole goal is to lure you into giving her some validation. She doesn't want you, she just wants to be wanted.

Yes I've seen this happen often. I guess the logical approach is to approach all of them or none of them; I've chosen the latter.

[Solaris]

Kudos for breaking this stupid rule. I think that shy guys don't take the initiative because they're shy. Just a hunch. :p



I won't attempt to speak for half of the world's population, but I'm sure most men would love the idea of being approached first. If the woman is physically attractive, then success is virtually guaranteed (yeah, men ARE pigs).

Incidentally, the statement "because many women find it off-putting and men have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not" far more aptly describes the source of male anxiety.

But you did "speak for half the world's population" in your OP. It sounds more like you are bitter or annoyed with rejection and uncertainty than than you don't understand this "rule."

I have approached and been approached. I'm a rather assertive person, but prefer a man to be a man and be at least as strong as me. I prefer to be approached, but only when my patience wears out really. As I prefer strong men, I'm not sure if they'd welcome being approached -- but as I prefer men not tied to stereotypical roles, this often isn't an issue.

Maybe the woman in your OP wasn't available but found you attractive just the same. Happens a lot.

[Insight]

first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. based on what you say and my own experiences i would say this is probably often the case.

why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

It's also frustrating for us when women conflate sexual signals, niceness, and mere politeness. I'm guessing you usually mean to convey the latter two. I can't speak for all guys, but for a lot of us, when women return eye contact and smile, that means, "Okay . . . I'll give you a minute or two. Impress me." We think this because we're constantly looking at women when we're walking around, and most avoid eye contact altogether so they don't have to be bothered. We overestimate a woman's interest, because we want her to be interested, because we already are :-D

Basically, if a woman doesn't want a guy to chat her up, it's a bad idea for her to smile at him. Even to be polite. Screw politeness! What you want is more important, and we'll know not to waste our time or yours . . . it's honest communication, and ultimately win/win for both.





Insight added to this post, 2 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Part of the problem is we ARE acting on instinct. Society generally does its part in reinforcing gender roles, but the reality is men are more sexually aggressive.

You seem to mean that men are inherently more sexually aggressive, independent of any social conditioning. Do I understand you correctly?

Because if that's the case, I'd disagree . . .

[Autoptic]

I'm a rather assertive person, but prefer a man to be a man and be at least as strong as me. I prefer to be approached, but only when my patience wears out really. As I prefer strong men, I'm not sure if they'd welcome being approached -- but as I prefer men not tied to stereotypical roles, this often isn't an issue.

:huh:

[Solaris]

:huh:

Ah, contradictory except in my head sorry. Let me clarify:

I like men to be masculine ,as I know myself to be fairly "masculine" in certain personality characteristics and hobbies. I want them to be more masculine than me (not assholes or stereotypical jocks, just masculine and comfortable with it). However, I don't think anyone has to be tied to a certain role or state of being, and don't want a man who needs me to be a delicate little flower who can do nothing for herself -- because I am never going to be that. That's what I meant.

For example. I am the stay-at-home wife while my husband works. We're about to have a baby, and we are so damn picky about who would raise our children (as that's what early daycare is to us), that we prefer this. For reasons that aren't exactly relevant here, so I won't discuss them, this arrangement makes the most sense and is feasible. I don't feel like I have to be the stay-at-home, and he doesn't force me to. I could go off and have a job/career if I like, as long as we raise our children in a manner we both agree upon.

When he's home on the weekends, he likes to garden and take care of plants -- a stereotypically feminine thing to do. I kill most of the plants I try to raise it seems.

Make more sense now?

[rain]

2: Go up to her in spite her siting situation and open with something like, "I couldn't help you looking at me and I just wanted to say hi, would you like to join me on my table over there?" or "This is going to take 2 minutes, sorry to bother you but I thought that you were cute so I wanted to come over and say 'hi'". Talk to her a little and if it picks up invite her over to your table.



It would irritate me if a man approached me and said that.

[Vagrant]

first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. based on what you say and my own experiences i would say this is probably often the case.

why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

The reason being is that men frequently misinterpret friendliness as interest -- even I do it (and I'm keenly aware that I do it now, just not in the moment when it's important to recognize). We figure that unless there's a reason for them to be talking to us, it's interest.

I'm not sure which scenario you are reading, but in the one listed above, it looks to me like she's the one that did the initiating. She deliberately caught your eye several times, when she finally got you looking she hinted for you to sit next to her.

But see, that's a completely unclear sign. Maybe if she had a giant sign over her head saying "come hither" or was waving you to come over, I might take that as the initiation. But just looking at you? If I went up to every woman who looked at me, I'd probably have bruises all over.

I think asking for her to make her intentions even more known seems greedy. Flirting is often an art of subtly.

That's the rub -- if it's too subtle, no INTX I know will act upon it. In fact, a lot of people won't act on it. Being looked at really doesn't clearly demonstrate much.

The main reason I find it hard to approach girls is because I always try to prepare a conversation. I know you can't prepare a conversation (small talk). But I still do it, and by the time I'm ready to approach, the girl is off with some other guy. :)

Likewise.

so we do the whole thing - subtle unnecessary touching, hair tossing, smiling, standing or leaning close, etc. These are the ways we let you know we like you. We don't want to have to beat you over the head with it.

Except those are ambiguous actions once again. I have plenty of female friends who do this all the time, but clearly have no romantic interest in me. If those were occurring with a random stranger, yeah I might think they're interested, but anybody else I would be second guessing.

Part of the problem is we ARE acting on instinct. Society generally does its part in reinforcing gender roles, but the reality is men are more sexually aggressive.

Actually...

If you do speed dating, normally the woman sits at the same table and men rotate around. That's normally what's done. But if you switch it up for men to sit at the same table and the women to rotate around, the women become more sexually aggressive, and the men become more selective.

I don't think it's instinct -- I think it's cultural.

She doesn't want you, she just wants to be wanted.

Which brings up another point about flirting often being way too subtle -- almost every guy I've known has met these attention-seeking girls. Who will flirt with you just to feel special, not because they're actually interested in you. Their actions make flirting even more ambiguous, and men not inclined to act on what might seem obvious to you.

[curiousgeorge01]

Which brings up another point about flirting often being way too subtle -- almost every guy I've known has met these attention-seeking girls. Who will flirt with you just to feel special, not because they're actually interested in you. Their actions make flirting even more ambiguous, and men not inclined to act on what might seem obvious to you.

In other words, guys approach every girl who shows interest or none. Girls, make it more obvious or get the other girls to stop this dumb behavior.

[daydreamer]

It's also frustrating for us when women conflate sexual signals, niceness, and mere politeness. I'm guessing you usually mean to convey the latter two. I can't speak for all guys, but for a lot of us, when women return eye contact and smile, that means, "Okay . . . I'll give you a minute or two. Impress me." We think this because we're constantly looking at women when we're walking around, and most avoid eye contact altogether so they don't have to be bothered. We overestimate a woman's interest, because we want her to be interested, because we already are :-D

Basically, if a woman doesn't want a guy to chat her up, it's a bad idea for her to smile at him. Even to be polite. Screw politeness! What you want is more important, and we'll know not to waste our time or yours . . . it's honest communication, and ultimately win/win for both.



there is more to life than sex. lol i'm not going to screw politeness. as a 40yo married woman i seriously doubt that most the smiles i get have a sexual intent behind them. if i believed that i would never have made friends with many of the married men that i am friends with now, and that would be a shame.

i still do get looks/smiles from younger guys, especially when i'm at the mall, and i while i do not know the full intent behind every one i'm sure that for many of them it is merely a reaction... not something thought out. i will smile back. and that does satisfy them. i seriously doubt they are wanting to get involved with a little old lady like me, but they appreciate the acknowledgment.

but i do see your point insight. it is exactly what i was trying to draw attention to. my question "why don't men get this?" -- i know why, because the ones that do not get this are just frustrated, and want some formula to make everything easy for them. at least they think they do. in reality they do not - do you want to sleep with a robot? or artificial intelligence that acts exactly according to a set of rules that make sense to you?

in reality the wise ones eventually realize that life is just a little more complicated than they will ever be able to completely figure out (women have to learn this too.) but the pleasure in exchanging simple smiles doesnt have to be complicated. enjoy it for what it is.

[Baccara]

Why do most women insist on being approached even when they make little effort to hide their interest? I don't lament the societal rules that require men to make the first move, but I find it silly that a significant number of women abide by these rules dogmatically.

For example, I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me as I was sipping my cup and reading a book. The seat next to her's was taken, while the one next to mine was empty. After a few minutes of pretending to ignore her I finally made eye contact, smiled (she smiled back) and subtly glanced at the seat next to mine as a hint. Apparently it still didn't strike her that she was physically unapproachable (was I supposed to walk up and start a conversation while towering over her?). I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

This whole circus has happened many times in the past. Why does it happen?

I can think of three reasons, just off the top of my head:

1) The woman doesn't have any interest. She's smiling because you're smiling, and glancing down at the seat because she's thinking about something else and only half aware of her surroundings, or maybe wondering why this stranger keeps staring at her, or maybe noticing that the seat is a really hideous color.

2) If a woman initiates a relationship with a man and he turns out to be a total loser, psycho, etc., then the fact that she picked him up becomes a mark against her judgement of character, her self-respect, her discretion, her intelligence, or any other "image" qualities that might be socially reflected by her choice of a (potential) mate.

3) The woman is interested, but is testing you: she wants to see whether you have the guts to approach her first, and to get some idea of your character by the way you approach her. For instance, "Hey, babe, buy you a beer?" is very different than, "Excuse me, but is that an original edition of Byron's poetry?" but both send clear messages about the initiator.

[Autoptic]

2) If a woman initiates a relationship with a man and he turns out to be a total loser, psycho, etc., then the fact that she picked him up becomes a mark against her judgement of character, her self-respect, her discretion, her intelligence, or any other "image" qualities that might be socially reflected by her choice of a (potential) mate.

Why come when it's women it's not considered an ego matter, and why isn't she a coward?

3) The woman is interested, but is testing you: she wants to see whether you have the guts to approach her first, and to get some idea of your character by the way you approach her. For instance, "Hey, babe, buy you a beer?" is very different than, "Excuse me, but is that an original edition of Byron's poetry?" but both send clear messages about the initiator.

Such snap judgments are no more substantial than the subtle (ambiguous) signals (noise) already mentioned. You do realize together 2 and 3 is a setup for her likely following hypocrisy? What does any of this say about her character?

[The Drifter]

Which brings up another point about flirting often being way too subtle -- almost every guy I've known has met these attention-seeking girls. Who will flirt with you just to feel special, not because they're actually interested in you. Their actions make flirting even more ambiguous, and men not inclined to act on what might seem obvious to you.

Frankly, western women have destroyed the ability to communicate in heterosexual relationships. They've massaged and altered every form of communication to the point nothing means anything anymore. In an attempt to shift the blame when there is some sort of miscommunication they've redefined everything into oblivion. You can't even trust signals when they're overtly sexual because even if they're authentic there is still the issue of whether she is under the influence, being coerced, or just plain crazy. If these things aren't clarified until during or after (which is often the case) some kind of sexual behavior, the man risks imprisonment. She doesn't even have to feel conflicted enough to shame or press charges, her friends will do it for her (often without her permission, for her own good of course).

[Amphorian]

Frankly, western women have destroyed the ability to communicate in heterosexual relationships. They've massaged and altered every form of communication to the point nothing means anything anymore. In an attempt to shift the blame when there is some sort of miscommunication they've redefined everything into oblivion. You can't even trust signals when they're overtly sexual because even if they're authentic there is still the issue of whether she is under the influence, being coerced, or just plain crazy. If these things aren't clarified until during or after (which is often the case) some kind of sexual behavior, the man risks imprisonment. She doesn't even have to feel conflicted enough to shame or press charges, her friends will do it for her (often without her permission, for her own good of course).

WTF is up with stereotyping in this thread? o_O Geez, if you're going go on like that then I get to say all Western men are too simple minded and pessimistic about relationships. And if they don't understand what a woman wants and why, it's automatically the opposite gender's fault instead of their own lack of knowing to begin with! Simply put, Western men are lazy when understanding women and play the blame game.

See? I can do it too! :p

[daydreamer]

WTF is up with stereotyping in this thread? o_O Geez, if you're going go on like that then I get to say all Western men are too simple minded and pessimistic about relationships. And if they don't understand what a woman wants and why, it's automatically the opposite gender's fault instead of their own lack of knowing to begin with! Simply put, Western men are lazy when understanding women and play the blame game.

See? I can do it too! :p

agree with you amphorian. if he doesn't like western women he should move and leave us alone.

[Amphorian]

agree with you amphorian. if he doesn't like western women he should move and leave us alone.

Western? Western? I'm a Texan! I'm a Southerner! ;D

That makes me blunt, bold and down to Earth with a hint of courtesy and proper manners. I'm pretty sure he has more against my kind to boot! With our kind polite, flirty manners yet behind the back stabbing. :cowboy:

[larkin]

Others have pointed out the fair amount of ridiculous whining on this thread in nicer ways than I will - what is this, a Robert Bly weekend? - but I feel compelled to respond, in the hopes that people who want to seriously explore the question of why women less frequently initiate contact can go ahead and do that. I'm noble like that.

Women are the aggressors in every other aspect of my life. Why can't they be the aggressors in the one situation where it's convenient to me?

If you've let yourself be pwned by the women (and probably people) in your life in every way possible, why would you expect them to do something convenient for you *now*? You're the one who set the standard for utter passivity and you blame womankind for it? Well, to be fair, taking personal responsibility doesn't really seem like your deal.

I don't ask women out anymore. There are too many attention whores who blatantly feign interest until you approach them. Then suddenly she is appalled that you would think she was coming on to you. The whole goal is to lure you into giving her some validation. She doesn't want you, she just wants to be wanted.

In other words, guys approach every girl who shows interest or none. Girls, make it more obvious or get the other girls to stop this dumb behavior.

Both grievances in response to the idea that the ratio of the number of girls who might be flirting with you to the number of girls who want to sleep with you/date you might not exactly be one to one. (And again, I can't imagine how that could be possible.) But to this, let me just say that most of us have a limited wellspring of sympathy in life. And if the end result is you approach fewer women, well, great, problem solved for everyone, what's the complaint again?

[The Drifter]

WTF is up with stereotyping in this thread? o_O Geez, if you're going go on like that then I get to say all Western men are too simple minded and pessimistic about relationships. And if they don't understand what a woman wants and why, it's automatically the opposite gender's fault instead of their own lack of knowing to begin with! Simply put, Western men are lazy when understanding women and play the blame game.

See? I can do it too! :p

I'll never give a damn about any of you based on a brief encounter and could give a damn about playing the game either. It ain't worth the hassle.





The Drifter added to this post, 1 minutes and 50 seconds later...


If you've let yourself be pwned by the women (and probably people) in your life in every way possible, why would you expect them to do something convenient for you *now*? You're the one who set the standard for utter passivity and you blame womankind for it? Well, to be fair, taking personal responsibility doesn't really seem like your deal.


There is no pwnage taking place. Just attempted pwnage that wastes my time.

[Nameless]

I think it mainly has to do with gender roles.

[polaroid]

What's with all the female hate on this forum in general? Geez.

Hey, guys, guess what! Women are humans, just like men. Women even have personalities just like men do. How awesome is that? Women can be shy or outgoing or obnoxious or friendly...

So, guys, when you have so many bad experiences with women that you feel that all women are horrid monsters, maybe you should take a look at yourself. Just sayin'.

On topic:

I never approach strangers. I hate when strangers approach me. Even if they are super polite and kind and just want to respectfully pay me a compliment, I just turn red and start stuttering and feel really awkward. But that's just me. Most people have a much more reasonable reaction to that sort of thing, I'm guessing.

As for nonstranger scenarios... I've never really approached/been approached that I can say. I've only ever dated people I was friends with first, where a mutual attraction slowly became too obvious not to discuss. If I'm not friends with the person I have a crush on, I generally just let it die. I don't see much point in dating someone I'm not good friends with.

[curiousgeorge01]

Yea I pretty much gave up the game, it's either they make it clear or I don't bother.

I don't think men hate women, I just think there are a lot of obnoxious female behaviors that women don't acknowledge and that drives men batty since they can't address the problem. Even in my other thread, someone finally admitted women don't talk about it because they're afraid men will take advantage of the info somehow; so they just deny deny deny. I think because of that, there's like this code of silence among women not to talk about their own faults and guys who actually like a girl have to accept it or just stay away. And any guy who "dares" to pry, gets a mouthful and he wonders wtf just happened.

[Lil]

The OP said:

"Was I supposed to walk up and start a conversation while towering over her?"

Yes.


Traditionally the way it has worked (and rather well) is that the woman sends a strong signal (verbal or non-verbal) that "if you ask me, the answer will be yes." That's what she did.

[Storm]

Yea I pretty much gave up the game, it's either they make it clear or I don't bother.

I don't think men hate women, I just think there are a lot of obnoxious female behaviors that women don't acknowledge and that drives men batty since they can't address the problem. Even in my other thread, someone finally admitted women don't talk about it because they're afraid men will take advantage of the info somehow; so they just deny deny deny. I think because of that, there's like this code of silence among women not to talk about their own faults and guys who actually like a girl have to accept it or just stay away. And any guy who "dares" to pry, gets a mouthful and he wonders wtf just happened.

Do you really believe this, George? That the entire female sex has gotten together and made a pact not to talk about their faults?

I also will tell you that one person voicing an opinion does not make it true for all, or even the majority of a set population.

Many women will initiate, but many won't because of social norms. Being rejected within social norms is one thing, being rejected simply for going against social norms is completely different.

/initiates despite the social repercussions.

[curiousgeorge01]

Do you really believe this, George? That the entire female sex has gotten together and made a pact not to talk about their faults?

I also will tell you that one person voicing an opinion does not make it true for all, or even the majority of a set population.

Many women will initiate, but many won't because of social norms. Being rejected within social norms is one thing, being rejected simply for going against social norms is completely different.

/initiates despite the social repercussions.

Do I think it's an explicit pact? No. But I do think one exists that is silently understood whether it's cultural, learned, or through peer pressure. You don't have to prove/disprove it to me, but yes I believe it.

Good for you, I'm glad you do.

[Airius]

I think it's attractive when the guy makes a first move. It shows me that he's confident and he knows what he wants.

[Insight]

there is more to life than sex.

Of course. Which is part of what makes sex so much fun.

but i do see your point insight. it is exactly what i was trying to draw attention to. my question "why don't men get this?" -- i know why, because the ones that do not get this are just frustrated, and want some formula to make everything easy for them. at least they think they do. in reality they do not - do you want to sleep with a robot? or artificial intelligence that acts exactly according to a set of rules that make sense to you?

I think many of us, men and women alike, understand that people have missions and concerns and values and distractions that for much of the time eclipse the erotic. I shook off the pubescent preoccupation with sex after my first serious girlfriend.

I would make precisely the opposite point. I feel that as I get older, I have to further and further refine the way I communicate . . . verbally and non-verbally. Flirting when you're in your early teens is awkward, unpracticed, unsubtle. After you've been to college, and bars, and clubs, and concerts . . . flirting usually seems like a ritual . . . the same few, distinct sequences of events happen over and over. It seems that as we repeat this process, we all get a sense of how to influence the other person depending on what we want. There already is a formula out there . . . or, rather, a language. One time I was talking to a woman at a university. We started flirting, but surely enough she started caressing her wedding ring. It was polite, it was subtle, and it was practiced . . . but it was loud and clear that she wasn't interested. We parted amicably :-D

But doing that does requires attention . . . having a vested interest in influencing the other person. Which requires being occupied with that other person . . . instead of being occupied with myself. And there's a lot going on in my life and in my head that I prefer to pay attention to.

I guess that would annoy me . . . maybe you're right. It's certainly not going to stop me from talking to women, though :-)

[Vagrant]

I think the problem for me is that I see women who sneak peaks at me, in a way that's almost indicative of interest, yet because of all the ambiguity, I refuse to act. Instead of coming over, they just keep sneaking peeks.

[Blse]

Men get aggressive because women send signals that are ambigous. Since men are usually the one's approaching (and thus the ones being rejected), men become frustrated with this ambiguity. That's where "the women hating" (as a female participant in this thread put it) comes from.

The core of the issue if you ask me is that flirting and the non-verbal languages that accompanies the initial parts of courtship is so inefficient. With peoples' diverse communication styles, what is fliriting with one person isn't fliriting with another - the same signal has a different meaning depending on person. The ambiguity in indirect communication is bound to cause lots of frustration regardless of gender. That's why I try to be as direct as possible, even in situations when others rely mostly on subtle signals - saves time and energy.

[cara]

I think it's attractive when the guy makes a first move. It shows me that he's confident and he knows what he wants.

that is THE point - approaching the subject of desire :gorgeous: with relentless self-confidence and sweeping her off her feet by giving her a trustworthy, auspicious gaze signalizing endless options :charming: and making her think that with this guy, ANYTHING could be possible (either here or there, today or tomorrow, maybe together forever,...WHATEVER!...)

but that is a tough one, even for emotionally more secure men. if I recall correctly, I have only experienced such an approach ... hmmm, let me think ...ahh ... NEVER!! *sigh*

to the defense of the male sex I must allege that this fact may also be a result of my rather impatient attitude which may have leapfrogged the eager ambitions of males I have crossed in former days of dating (although rather unlikely, but hey, ENFPs are people pleasers - I always have to say something nice and encouraging, too *:freak:*). I tend not to wait until something wild happens. instead I follow the slogan 'make it happen' ;D

[ToC]

Showing their interest IS initiating. It's up to you to interpret what signals she's sending you, be they to buzz off or come over. Women "initiate" more often than men.

[Shinigami]

It would irritate me if a man approached me and said that.

Fair enough it does not work on everybody. It usually works for me though and it would have worked on that woman. She was sending the signals. An approach like that when done right shows the woman that you are very confident and socialable.

[plushbug]

Speaking as a fat ol' 50-something, here, my shortlist of reasons why I don't and never have "initiated" with men runs something like this:


Early basic learning, ie., gender conditioning, which for my generation/social class/cultural background was 100% "ladies don't" (the general response to most impulsive or uninhibited behaviour, which I have to say put me well off being a lady at an early age, but that's another story). This may be somewhat less of an issue for later generations, but still seems to be significant. I guess...we may have some opportunity not to be condemned as whores for initiating these days, but offsetting that with the opportunity to be condemned or worse, if we initiate with men who end up being bad news for us, the situation doesn't seem really any easier.
Fear of being not just rejected, but nastily rejected--sneered at, told to f-off in any number of creative and ugly ways--because despite not-bad looks, even back in my 20s before I got thick-waisted, I knew that I didn't qualify as enough of a "looker" to have a hope of that not happening (50/50 odds, high enough to be utterly terrifying). Now, I grant that in my case that was probably intensified because I'd been on the receiving end of bullying in my teens, that had left me better-than-average able to imagine how ugly it could get...but given the levels of body insecurity I've seen in younger women over the years, I suspect I wasn't unusual in feeling this possibility as inhibiting.
Fear of my initiating being interpreted as sexual, when it wasn't ready to be. Interest is interest, curiosity is curiosity, finding a man attractive or just someone who looks and sounds like someone you'd enjoy knowing or talking with is one thing, but it doesn't mean--not on first contact, not necessarily on 50th!--that I've any immediate interest in going to bed with him, or that I can promise I ever will.
Fear of my initiating being accepted and pursued as sexual, when it wasn't. Ie., not only does the guy interpret that my smiling at him means I want to go to bed with him, he figures it's right NOW (think campus pub or other party scenes, where alcohol and drug goggles are solidly in place).


Fortunately, there IS a lot more to life than sex.

[curiousgeorge01]

OK fair enough, those are all valid points. ^^

I do agree with Toc that women do initiate more than men do, subtly anyway.

[alrightgame]

I think it's attractive when the guy makes a first move. It shows me that he's confident and he knows what he wants.

This assumes confidence is the defining trait needed in a relationship. Are you saying you judge every male you want to date by how much confidence they have first and foremost?

Confidence is not a trait everyone shares and many woman who think this way have to understand this or they are closing off the doors before entering them. Last time I heard, the reason men want to be in a relationship is the fact that women does just this; boost ego, confidence, and personal affection.

Edit: Also, about one of the comments above "Women "initiate" more often than men.". Initiate means starting a friggin conversation that says you are interested, not look in the general direction of that person and wait for them to embarrass themselves. That is about as inanely mysterious as you can get.

[Harmony]

Where exactly does it say that a conversation has to take place before anything has been initiated? Do you know how many people I have approached because they smiled at me... Or had the bartender bring me a drink... Never spoke a word... Sending a drink someone's way is a pretty good initiation if you ask me.

[Vagrant]

that is THE point - approaching the subject of desire :gorgeous: with relentless self-confidence and sweeping her off her feet by giving her a trustworthy, auspicious gaze signalizing endless options :charming: and making her think that with this guy, ANYTHING could be possible (either here or there, today or tomorrow, maybe together forever,...WHATEVER!...)

but that is a tough one, even for emotionally more secure men. if I recall correctly, I have only experienced such an approach ... hmmm, let me think ...ahh ... NEVER!! *sigh*

to the defense of the male sex I must allege that this fact may also be a result of my rather impatient attitude which may have leapfrogged the eager ambitions of males I have crossed in former days of dating (although rather unlikely, but hey, ENFPs are people pleasers - I always have to say something nice and encouraging, too *:freak:*). I tend not to wait until something wild happens. instead I follow the slogan 'make it happen' ;D

That or you watch too many movies.

Seriously.

[postem]

first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. based on what you say and my own experiences i would say this is probably often the case.

why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

as for initiating. the only worthwhile relationships i have been in with men were the ones that i initiated. i'm sure there are many reasons, some having to do with me, but some also having to do with men.


Damn i always get the wrong signals. More than one time girl said "no its not what you are thinking", of course, not with those words.

[Seriously]

Speaking as a fat ol' 50-something, here, my shortlist of reasons why I don't and never have "initiated" with men runs something like this:


Early basic learning, ie., gender conditioning, which for my generation/social class/cultural background was 100% "ladies don't" (the general response to most impulsive or uninhibited behaviour, which I have to say put me well off being a lady at an early age, but that's another story). This may be somewhat less of an issue for later generations, but still seems to be significant. I guess...we may have some opportunity not to be condemned as whores for initiating these days, but offsetting that with the opportunity to be condemned or worse, if we initiate with men who end up being bad news for us, the situation doesn't seem really any easier.
Fear of being not just rejected, but nastily rejected--sneered at, told to f-off in any number of creative and ugly ways--because despite not-bad looks, even back in my 20s before I got thick-waisted, I knew that I didn't qualify as enough of a "looker" to have a hope of that not happening (50/50 odds, high enough to be utterly terrifying). Now, I grant that in my case that was probably intensified because I'd been on the receiving end of bullying in my teens, that had left me better-than-average able to imagine how ugly it could get...but given the levels of body insecurity I've seen in younger women over the years, I suspect I wasn't unusual in feeling this possibility as inhibiting.
Fear of my initiating being interpreted as sexual, when it wasn't ready to be. Interest is interest, curiosity is curiosity, finding a man attractive or just someone who looks and sounds like someone you'd enjoy knowing or talking with is one thing, but it doesn't mean--not on first contact, not necessarily on 50th!--that I've any immediate interest in going to bed with him, or that I can promise I ever will.
Fear of my initiating being accepted and pursued as sexual, when it wasn't. Ie., not only does the guy interpret that my smiling at him means I want to go to bed with him, he figures it's right NOW (think campus pub or other party scenes, where alcohol and drug goggles are solidly in place).


Fortunately, there IS a lot more to life than sex.

Excellent points.

Addressing the OP I'd say the woman probably wasn't THAT interested or she would have picked up on your signal.

To others on this thread; Don't hate us because we are polite and don't expect us to change just because you have issues. ;)

[Yuan]

I think we all have some insecurities that may affect whether we can approach someone or not, this is one factor. Then there is the social factor. I'm not an expert and this is simply my opinion - there are many women out there (how many?) who wouldn't approach guys because they think guys should approach them; this also includes the whole paying for dates etc.
A third factor is natural, hormones. Women are generally less hormonal than guys. We guys are always bubbling, while girls aren't. This influences the interest to approach someone. It can also make us guys feel like girls don't approach us ever because we are so aware of all the many girls who are not approaching us, it seems like so many.
What about movies, series, soap operas, etc? They can implant a pretty big stereotype in men and women. For instance, women see men approaching women in movies, they like it and wish it happened like that for them. Now they wait for it to happen.
For men, it increases the idea that women only want to be approached and don't want to put the effort in approaching.

Do not take the above as written in stone please. These are just ideas you can all think about, disregard if you disagree or explore if you agree.

Regarding the original story: I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me

I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

I would also consider this as interest and would also write her off as a daft one. If she wasn't interested, she shouldn't have been glancing the way you described at you in the first place. It gives the wrong idea because i believe people glance at others curiously if they find something attractive in them.

[Vagrant]

A third factor is natural, hormones. Women are generally less hormonal than guys.

I'd seriously like to disagree with this opinion.

Women's hormones are constantly flowing through their body and varying based on the time of month. Men's hormones are relatively constant and predictable.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[alrightgame]

Where exactly does it say that a conversation has to take place before anything has been initiated? Do you know how many people I have approached because they smiled at me... Or had the bartender bring me a drink... Never spoke a word... Sending a drink someone's way is a pretty good initiation if you ask me.

Because human principles that subject communication require spoken words to be thoroughly understood, at least if those words are made clear. Anything else is just too ambiguous. I'm not psychic, don't expect me to be, as a smile could be just a smile, not a sign of interest or an open invitation. Also, most people with low confidence don't go clubbing.

[SelfMadeBum]

There is a thread here about clues persons missed that were indications of interest from someone of the opposite sex. The majority of those who missed the clues are guys and the come ons were far from subtle.

So it seems even where females show obvious interest, it is often misinterpreted or goes unnoticed.

Maybe the problem lies with the guys.

Look - went and got some:

My worst was when a girl sent me a text message saying "Come hither".

My last gf kissed my cheek about 5 or 6 times before it clicked to me as well.

Scenario 1, young woman approaches after weeks of flirting, pulls up a chair, touches me, smiles, first words:
XX: "So, XY asked me to prom. I'm going to go with him unless sommme-onnne else asks me."
Me: *stare*.
XX: *stare*.
Me: *stare*.
XX: "Unless sommme-onnne else asks me...Someone. Else. Asks..."
Me: *stare*.
XX: "Nevermind."


When I was in college, I was visiting this girl in her dorm room, when she nonchalantly announced, "You're so cute! I wanna molest you..." I thought she was joking...

I was on a field trip with the rest of the audition choir in high school, and I seemed to be spending a lot of time with one classmate. One day, as we were joking heartily with one another she burst out with "We should date!"

Should I even bother to go on?! Seems like even when women literally throw themselves at guys, somehow the message is lost in translation.

[Il Prodigio]

When I get approached by a confident girl, the first thing I think to myself is, "Wait, is this a joke? Do I have to be on my guard? What does this girl want? Does she just want to sleep with me? Is she just effing with me?"

not even kidding lol. If a girl comes hard at me, I need to feel comfortable. I assume that's what girls go through when a really confident good looking guy approaches them.

[larkin]

This assumes confidence is the defining trait needed in a relationship. Are you saying you judge every male you want to date by how much confidence they have first and foremost?

Confidence is not a trait everyone shares and many woman who think this way have to understand this or they are closing off the doors before entering them. Last time I heard, the reason men want to be in a relationship is the fact that women does just this; boost ego, confidence, and personal affection.

Confidence is, if not "the" defining trait, a defining trait needed in a relationship. That's why a willingness to ask someone out directly, if not necessarily approach a complete stranger, is such an essential first step. (That's for a guy - thanks to blah blah social standards/gender roles, that have been discussed rather thoughtfully by some folks on this thread, there tend to be different preferred indicators for confidence in women.) Being an equal partner in a relationship requires a certain amount of confidence; if I'm closing off doors to someone notably less confident than I am (or vice versa), that's intentional, because that person is unlikely to be a good partner.

That being said, there's no magic level. Sometimes if both partners have roughly equal levels of confidence, even if that level isn't what other people would consider healthy or what have you, that's sufficient. And yes, being in a relationship should increase the confidence levels of both people, although that's certainly not how it always works.

But ultimately, no one wants to constantly be worried that they're going to "hurt" the other person, which is often what happens when there's an imbalance. Showing you're secure enough to handle the rejection on the first approach is a good indicator of whether or not you can handle the possibility of rejection in later pursuing a relationship.

[SelfMadeBum]

When I get approached by a confident girl, the first thing I think to myself is, "Wait, is this a joke? Do I have to be on my guard? What does this girl want? Does she just want to sleep with me? Is she just effing with me?"Could I extrapolate from this that you are not entirely comfortable being approached by a female?

[LionsPride]

But see, that's a completely unclear sign. Maybe if she had a giant sign over her head saying "come hither" or was waving you to come over, I might take that as the initiation. But just looking at you? If I went up to every woman who looked at me, I'd probably have bruises all over.

Except those are ambiguous actions once again. I have plenty of female friends who do this all the time, but clearly have no romantic interest in me. If those were occurring with a random stranger, yeah I might think they're interested, but anybody else I would be second guessing.


I think the problem for me is that I see women who sneak peaks at me, in a way that's almost indicative of interest, yet because of all the ambiguity, I refuse to act. Instead of coming over, they just keep sneaking peeks.

Following up with what SelfMadeBum pointed out, signals, even those that are obvious to everyone else but the person who is expected to receive them, can be ambiguous. If you are getting peaking glances from a girl you don't have to walk up and start telling her she is cute or ask her to go to dinner with you. The glances are an opening to a conversation, not a pickup line. Making repeated eye contact is generally a sign of interest. The more times it occurs or the longer the gaze is held, the more likely it is to be flirting as opposed to something else (assuming you aren't wearing some obnoxious hat or haircut). With that said, you should spend less time trying to decipher if these glances are interest or accidents and more time figuring out a no pressure way to start a conversation. Even if you do decide that she's interested in you, you still have to talk to her and not forcing her to reject/keep you in the first few minutes of meeting by jumping straight to the punch is going to work in your favour. Not only that, but if you don't have the face rejection right away, you might find it easier to do the approaching. By the way, this advice goes both ways. Ladies, if you see a guy catching your glance, wandering over with a neutral conversation starter won't toast your chances with him. If he's a traditionalist, he'll still find that he's the one doing the asking and he probably won't even notice that you did everything but roll out the red carpet to get show going.

As for wishing the other side of the population were different, if you want to raise the chances of meeting someone you need to be willing to start the conversation and be open to being approached. Unfortunately approaching or being approached can be according to taste. Some men want to be approached, some men don't. Some women won't approach, some will. Wanting the other group to do it the way you like is a preference, not the way it 'ought' to be. As frustrating as it is. :p

[Causa Mortis]

When I get approached by a confident girl, the first thing I think to myself is, "Wait, is this a joke? Do I have to be on my guard? What does this girl want? Does she just want to sleep with me? Is she just effing with me?"

not even kidding lol. If a girl comes hard at me, I need to feel comfortable. I assume that's what girls go through when a really confident good looking guy approaches them.

Really? I mean, unless you work for the CIA, just roll with it.

I've found that when a woman asks me out, things tend to work out pretty smoothly if you catch my drift.

[Vagrant]

There is a thread here about clues persons missed that were indications of interest from someone of the opposite sex. The majority of those who missed the clues are guys and the come ons were far from subtle.

So it seems even where females show obvious interest, it is often misinterpreted or goes unnoticed.

Maybe the problem lies with the guys.

Look - went and got some:









Should I even bother to go on?! Seems like even when women literally throw themselves at guys, somehow the message is lost in translation.

And that's why subtle doesn't work. ;)

Also, it's usually easier for a 3rd party to recognize what's going on then the person who is flirting/being flirted with. Especially with us INTJ's. :p

(assuming you aren't wearing some obnoxious hat or haircut)What, you mean I can't wear my top-hat to school?

[Baccara]

Why come when it's women it's not considered an ego matter, and why isn't she a coward?

Because historically western women weren't allowed to go out and accomplish much on their own, so their social value was determined by marriage. A woman wasn't someone, she was someone's wife, so who she chose to marry determined who she wanted to become. And divorce used to be a rare thing---forbidden by law, once---so if you married a deadbeat, you were deadbeat's wife for life. And even now, long after women's lib, that stigma of judgment still hasn't disappeared.

Ie, more of that subconscious socializing crap.

Such snap judgments are no more substantial than the subtle (ambiguous) signals (noise) already mentioned. You do realize together 2 and 3 is a setup for her likely following hypocrisy? What does any of this say about her character?

These aren't ALL the things EVERY woman would think in this situation, just a list of possibilities that I came up with after thinking about the initial scenario. The exact outcome would depend on the individual woman in question. And hypocrisy is when a person says one thing and does another. Thinking something means nothing until spoken or acted upon, and so doesn't say anything about a person's character.

[Autoptic]

These aren't ALL the things EVERY woman would think in this situation, just a list of possibilities that I came up with after thinking about the initial scenario. The exact outcome would depend on the individual woman in question. And hypocrisy is when a person says one thing and does another. Thinking something means nothing until spoken or acted upon, and so doesn't say anything about a person's character.

The meaning of the male's approach is relative too and harder to discern as quickly as it seems to be usually judged and rejected. She wouldn't be likely to judge the male's character differently on the basis of the same actions she will/did or won't/didn't do?

[SelfMadeBum]

And that's why subtle doesn't work. ;)

Also, it's usually easier for a 3rd party to recognize what's going on then the person who is flirting/being flirted with. Especially with us INTJ's. :pI was pointing out that instead of women becoming more forward, men maybe should become more sensitive to nuance.

Or maybe we just all need to meet in the middle.

[curiousgeorge01]

It's difficult to understand the nuances. I've said this before, I've been approached by women who blatantly seem to like me but say they don't. I've also been approached by women who completely ignored me but whom I found out had crushes later. Other times I DO get it right but maybe a week into a relationship I apparently 'killed it' because I did something with bad timing. Frankly, I think other women are ruining it for those of you who DO have an intention to date and DO want to follow through.

[SelfMadeBum]

We are subtle, you don't get it; we're obvious, you don't get it.

Solution?

Approach us! Ambiguity? Gone!

[LaoTzu]

On reflection: I've only dated women that have approached me first...

cool :)

[curiousgeorge01]

We are subtle, you don't get it; we're obvious, you don't get it.

Solution?

Approach us! Ambiguity? Gone!

LOL that's what I said earlier. Either the guy approach all the chances or none; if they're not going to know, then you have to take all the chances.

[alrightgame]

Maybe the problem lies with the guys.

The problem lies with ambiguity and assumption.

Approach me and try to talk to me, I'll answer your questions, and I'll try to answer a few to you. If you are not interested after that, walk away.

[curiousgeorge01]

Well I guess somebody is going to have to "man up" then.

[SelfMadeBum]

The problem lies with ambiguity and assumption.

Approach me and try to talk to me, I'll answer your questions, and I'll try to answer a few to you. If you are not interested after that, walk away.But if I want to be friends, I'll keep talking to you; if I'm interested, I'll keep talking to you.

See where the problem arises?

[curiousgeorge01]

But if I want to be friends, I'll keep talking to you; if I'm interested, I'll keep talking to you.

See where the problem arises?

I guess the flip side to that is that a man is afraid he's going to be used and abused.

[SelfMadeBum]

If you're unsure how a female feels about you, ask her straight out or otherwise make your intentions with her clear. She will be happy to clarify things for you.

The way I see it now, men are never sure if a woman's advances are real or if they just want to be friends. Isn't the best way around this for the man to make the advances?

[curiousgeorge01]

haha I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just telling you what men are afraid of. And I think in men's minds, knowing he is interested is easier (since for the most part they are) than knowing when a female is interested.

[Autoptic]

If you're unsure how a female feels about you, ask her straight out or otherwise make your intentions with her clear. She will be happy to clarify things for you.

The way I see it now, men are never sure if a woman's advances are real or if they just want to be friends. Isn't the best way around this for the man to make the advances?

So he should ask straight out to avoid ambiguity? Why shouldn't an interested female do the same?

His methods fail he needs to fix it. Hers fail he needs to fix it?

[SelfMadeBum]

So he should ask straight out to avoid ambiguity? Why shouldn't an interested female do the same?

His methods fail he needs to fix it. Hers fail he needs to fix it?I've given examples of females doing exactly that and men completely missing it. So women stepping up their game doesn't seem to be the best solution, since men are unsure about their real intentions, no matter what they do.

Hers seem to fail, not because she wasn't forward enough, but because he doesn't recognise the signals for what they are, even when they are blatant.

[Autoptic]

If you're unsure how a female feels about you, ask her straight out or otherwise make your intentions with her clear.

Hers seem to fail, not because she wasn't forward enough, but because he doesn't recognise the signals for what they are, even when they are blatant.

By signals, do you mean the actual words in English or otherwise appropriate language of her asking him straight out? I don't recall seeing that.

[SelfMadeBum]

By signals, do you mean the actual words in English or otherwise appropriate language of her asking him straight out? I don't recall seeing that.The actual words have been said in English and still he didn't get it. Guys have said that females have propositioned them, and it still didn't click.

So it seems even where she is forward and clear about her intentions, it doesn't get through.

[Autoptic]

Neither side has initial reason to trust the other. If ambiguity is a problem, directness is the rational method. There isn't going to be magic bullet beyond that.

[SelfMadeBum]

Actually, the tone seems to be that women assume men are approaching them for that reason, while men remain unclear of women's motive in approaching them, no matter how clear.

All I'm saying is, it seems like women simply being more direct may not be the answer.

[Autoptic]

I wasn't aware men would consider direct women to be suspicious. Women seem to have distinct prejudices of direct men as well though. By that, it's not going to favor either.

[Coralaisly]

This is a very interesting topic, and because I was also interested in finding these answers, I bought a couple books on body language and found some pretty interesting results:

on page 290 of The Difinitive Book of Body Language by Allan and Barbara Pease I read this:
"Ask any man who usually makes the first move in courtship and he will invariably say that men do. All studies into courtship, however, show that women are the initiators 90 percent of the time. A woman does this by sending a series of subtle eye, body, and facial signals to the targeted man, who assuming he is perceptive to pick them up, responds to them... ...Any man who crosses the floor to chat up a woman has usually done so at her request after picking up her body-language signals. It just looks as if he made the first move because he made the walk across the floor. Women do initate up to 90 percent of flirtatious encounters, but it is done so subtly that most men think they are the ones taking the lead."

It goes on to explain in detail what exactly these signals are, how subtle they can be, and gives a few pretty good ways of determining whether or not a woman is flirting with you. It also (to my great displeasure) explains that men give many fewer signals in comparrison to women, and what they are. Since INTJ guys (and girls) tend to be highly analytical, and tend to do their studying, I think that this book would be a very good recource for anyone who, like me (even though I'm female) struggles when trying to pick up when a smile is just a smile and whatnot. And no, before anyone asks, I don't get anything for recommending this book. I found a recource that has been very very helpful to me, and thought I'd pass it on to my fellow strugglers :)

I have, on this forum and in person in many cases said things to the contrary to the things in this post, and needless to say, I have changed my mind concerning those previous statements.

[Autoptic]

Assuming a male's interested in something but putting him through an unrealistic passive-aggressive verbal gauntlet to judge anything further doesn't count as favoring the male, btw.

[SelfMadeBum]

Guys have said in this very thread that women have approached them and they went 'What's going on? Why is she talking to me? What does she want?' etc.

You latter two sentences, I can't comment on, as I barely understand them.

[Autoptic]

It goes on to explain in detail what exactly these signals are, how subtle they can be, and gives a few pretty good ways of determining whether or not a woman is flirting with you.

Would the exact same signals in the exact same sequence and situation mean anything completely different?

[alrightgame]

But if I want to be friends, I'll keep talking to you; if I'm interested, I'll keep talking to you.

See where the problem arises?

Indeed. I studied the behavior of soldier beetles for a half hour today. They didn't seem to mind getting down to business. Too bad humans are sooo complicated when it comes to social structuring.

[Coralaisly]

Would the exact same signals in the exact same sequence and situation mean anything completely different?

It really depends on the signals and the context. Do you have an example? Granted, it's a book, it's not fool proof, it does account for pilot error on both sides, but it's still very enlightening.

[SelfMadeBum]

This is a very interesting topic, and because I was also interested in finding these answers, I bought a couple books on body language and found some pretty interesting results:

on page 290 of The Difinitive Book of Body Language by Allan and Barbara Pease I read this:
"Ask any man who usually makes the first move in courtship and he will invariably say that men do. All studies into courtship, however, show that women are the initiators 90 percent of the time. A woman does this by sending a series of subtle eye, body, and facial signals to the targeted man, who assuming he is perceptive to pick them up, responds to them... ...Any man who crosses the floor to chat up a woman has usually done so at her request after picking up her body-language signals. It just looks as if he made the first move because he made the walk across the floor. Women do initate up to 90 percent of flirtatious encounters, but it is done so subtly that most men think they are the ones taking the lead.":laugh: This is exactly what I said in my first post in this thread. Why I let myself be swayed, I have no idea.

[curiousgeorge01]

Yes women do most initiating through body language but who is to say that that language is understood? The men who believed that they were the ones to make the first move may have not noticed the body language and just started talking to the girl b/c she did something strange that made the men question it; just like a woman would question something if I did something strange, like drop my cup 10 times in a row. However, if the men did not notice, doesn't that actually mean he DID make the first move? It's similar to the tree falling in the forest question, if no one heard it, does that mean a tree actually fell? I guess what I'm saying is that if it was never understood then the gesture technically was never made. LOL now we're getting philosophical about it...

[Coralaisly]

:laugh: This is exactly what I said in my first post in this thread. Why I let myself be swayed, I have no idea.

Read the book, you won't be swayed again :) I've found the information in that book and a few others so helpful (in so many situations, not just dating) for people who are highly analytical, it might be a great tool for connecting thoughts with acitons. It gives an almost cold scientific approach to people's actions and what they mean. It's also a fun thing to use when people watching or watching tv, as you begin to realize how vast the boundary sometimes is between what we think, believe, say and mean, and how we get those messages across. I like to turn on tv in a language I don't understand and watch what people do, and look for little clues that do and don't go along with their other actions. It's a lot of fun :)

[IrishGuy]

Showing their interest IS initiating. It's up to you to interpret what signals she's sending you, be they to buzz off or come over. Women "initiate" more often than men.

I would imagine that women "showing interest" translates well among women, but if you want to claim that you initiated, then the "showing interest" cues must translate well among men.

I think that if you want to claim that you "initiated" that you have to ask and bear the burden of being accepted/rejected. Women sending subtle cues and expecting the guy to interpret the cues and come over and start a conversation leaves women with acceptance/rejection power. Not to mention, it seems that the men are doing all the work in this scenario. Therefore, I do not think that subtle cues can constitute initiation.

You can try and claim that a guy not coming over constitutes rejection, but it could just as easily mean that he interpreted the signal as coincidental and thought nothing of it as a result. Therefore, he wouldn't be rejecting you, just misinterpreting.

Where exactly does it say that a conversation has to take place before anything has been initiated? Do you know how many people I have approached because they smiled at me... Or had the bartender bring me a drink... Never spoke a word... Sending a drink someone's way is a pretty good initiation if you ask me.

I agree that conversation is not essential for initiation, but the non-verbal initiation must be something that can be easily comprehended by the recipient and either accepted or rejected. Sending a drink over would qualify under that definition, I think.

There is a thread here about clues persons missed that were indications of interest from someone of the opposite sex. The majority of those who missed the clues are guys and the come ons were far from subtle.

So it seems even where females show obvious interest, it is often misinterpreted or goes unnoticed.

Maybe the problem lies with the guys.

Look - went and got some:



Should I even bother to go on?! Seems like even when women literally throw themselves at guys, somehow the message is lost in translation.

It's confusing. It's highly irregular that a woman throws herself at a man. Men usually have to pay out money in a dark corner to get that kind of treatment from a relative stranger. There are too many women out there who use sex as a weapon for that to be a good cue (is she trying to take advantage? Is she drunk or under the influence of something? Does she just want to have sex? She doesn't seriously want a relationship does she?).

If a man engaged in this sort of behavior towards a woman he would be sued and/or arrested. That's why that behavior does not work; it conflicts with what is considered acceptable behavior in general. I can only speak for myself, but if a woman wants to successfully initiate she could just start with a "hello."


We are subtle, you don't get it; we're obvious, you don't get it.

Solution?

Approach us! Ambiguity? Gone!

If you were obvious then there wouldn't be a problem. If you're trying to attract a man then your cues must be obvious to men, not just to women. Obvious cues to women that are not obvious cues to men are an obvious waste of time.

If you want to be treated as an equal you must act as an equal. I hold doors open for women, and I have had a door held open by a woman for me. Trust me you can actually go up and talk to a guy once in awhile.

If you're unsure how a female feels about you, ask her straight out or otherwise make your intentions with her clear. She will be happy to clarify things for you.

The way I see it now, men are never sure if a woman's advances are real or if they just want to be friends. Isn't the best way around this for the man to make the advances?

Women's advances are too subtle to be called advances. In fact advances implies forward behavior. There's not very much that can be considered forward about sitting, smiling, and looking pretty all while expecting men to come up and talk to you.

[Coralaisly]

Yes women do most initiating through body language but who is to say that that language is understood? The men who believed that they were the ones to make the first move may have not noticed the body language and just started talking to the girl b/c she did something strange that made the men question it; just like a woman would question something if I did something strange, like drop my cup 10 times in a row. However, if the men did not notice, doesn't that actually mean he DID make the first move? It's similar to the tree falling in the forest question, if no one heard it, does that mean a tree actually fell? I guess what I'm saying is that if it was never understood then the gesture technically was never made. LOL now we're getting philosophical about it...

I guess in that situation you'd have to wonder if he subconsciously picked up on the signals... And that's true, a lot of times men (and women) don't consciously notice. A lot of the actions women make are picked up even though it's not really something outwardly/obviously noticable, like for instance, shifting her weight from one foot to another may just mean that her shoes are uncomfortable or that she's displaying her hip to waist ratio, it could also be a combination of the two where her mind is telling her to display even though she doesn't consciously know what she's doing. For someone like you who likes to analyze like that, I think the book would be a lot of fun. It'll give you even more to ponder :)

And the tree falling question I love. To me, it's of corse it makes a sound unless it's in a vaccum. The tree falling will displace the air partacles and create waves while ricocheting on the ground which if a human or animal is in presence are percieved as a sound. Or are you asking whether or not the tree never grew or fell, that it is just there?

[TigerL]

This is a very interesting topic, and because I was also interested in finding these answers, I bought a couple books on body language and found some pretty interesting results:

on page 290 of The Difinitive Book of Body Language by Allan and Barbara Pease I read this:
"Ask any man who usually makes the first move in courtship and he will invariably say that men do. All studies into courtship, however, show that women are the initiators 90 percent of the time. A woman does this by sending a series of subtle eye, body, and facial signals to the targeted man, who assuming he is perceptive to pick them up, responds to them... ...Any man who crosses the floor to chat up a woman has usually done so at her request after picking up her body-language signals. It just looks as if he made the first move because he made the walk across the floor. Women do initate up to 90 percent of flirtatious encounters, but it is done so subtly that most men think they are the ones taking the lead."

It goes on to explain in detail what exactly these signals are, how subtle they can be, and gives a few pretty good ways of determining whether or not a woman is flirting with you. It also (to my great displeasure) explains that men give many fewer signals in comparrison to women, and what they are. Since INTJ guys (and girls) tend to be highly analytical, and tend to do their studying, I think that this book would be a very good recource for anyone who, like me (even though I'm female) struggles when trying to pick up when a smile is just a smile and whatnot. And no, before anyone asks, I don't get anything for recommending this book. I found a recource that has been very very helpful to me, and thought I'd pass it on to my fellow strugglers :)

I have, on this forum and in person in many cases said things to the contrary to the things in this post, and needless to say, I have changed my mind concerning those previous statements.

I've also done some reading on this and the stuff I've read also say this.

Bottom line is: if you are getting the results you want whether you or the person of your interest intitiates, then all is find and good. BUT if you are not getting the results you want, don't blame the other party and complain about it, realize that you may have to change your methods or attitude. After all, isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and yet expecting different results?

FWIW, there are definitely men out there who catch these signals easily (perhaps not INTJs?). There was this guy with beautiful eyes on the bus recently who I couldn't help sneaking a few peeks at. After a quick glance or two, I found him sneaking peeks at me. We got off at the same stop but I was with my parents. Later, when we were heading back, it turned out he was also waiting for the bus. It was interesting to see how he maneuvered himself so he could be right behind us in the bus line. If I weren't busy taking care of my parents, he probably would have spoken to me. Just goes to show a little eye contact goes a long way and why I usually DON'T make eye contact with men I don't know.

[SelfMadeBum]

It's confusing. It's highly irregular that a woman throws herself at a man. Men usually have to pay out money in a dark corner to get that kind of treatment from a relative stranger. There are too many women out there who use sex as a weapon for that to be a good cue (is she trying to take advantage? Is she drunk or under the influence of something? Does she just want to have sex? She doesn't seriously want a relationship does she?). Exactly! Women who make overt sexual advances are not trusted by men. Even with unambiguous signals, some men either don't take it at face value, or miss it altogether.

If a man engaged in this sort of behavior towards a woman he would be sued and/or arrested. That's why that behavior does not work; it conflicts with what is considered acceptable behavior in general. I can only speak for myself, but if a woman wants to successfully initiate she could just start with a "hello."I've also heard from men in this very thread that with an advance like this, they never know whether a girl just wants to be friends or more. I can attest to that, because I would go over and say hello to a guy I think would make a good acquaintaince or a useful contact. There isn't necessarily a romantic invitation in the word 'hello'. Apparently, that's not clear enough of a signal.


If you were obvious then there wouldn't be a problem. If you're trying to attract a man then your cues must be obvious to men, not just to women. Obvious cues to women that are not obvious cues to men are an obvious waste of time.You just said yourself that sexual advances from women are uncommon, and further, raise suspicion in a man. How much more obvious could a woman be?

If you want to be treated as an equal you must act as an equal. I hold doors open for women, and I have had a door held open by a woman for me. Trust me you can actually go up and talk to a guy once in awhile.No kidding. :thinking:

Women's advances are too subtle to be called advances. In fact advances implies forward behavior. There's not very much that can be considered forward about sitting, smiling, and looking pretty all while expecting men to come up and talk to you.A woman can only be forward in the way that a woman understands being 'forward', so you're right, an obvious cue to a woman wouldn't be to a man. Short of a woman becoming a man and seeing things from his perspective, what is your suggestion?

And instead of trying to change the behaviour of other women, shouldn't men examine and try to modify their behaviour so that they can better pick up the subtle song of the female mating call? Seems to me that a person can't change everyone to suit himself, so he must change himself to bring about results he desires.

[Coralaisly]

Bottom line is: if you are getting the results you want whether you or the person of your interest intitiates, then all is find and good. BUT if you are not getting the results you want, don't blame the other party and complain about it, realize that you may have to change your methods or attitude. After all, isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and yet expecting different results?

That's exactly why I bought the book in the first place. What I was doing was not working, and I figured "I know this lack of success can't just be that I'm just entirely unatractive, and that no one's interested. Maybe I'm missing something. All my friends tell me I'm a flirt, and I have guys approach me, but I don't know why." And then one day it hit me. Body-Language! It's studying people's signals. So I got the book and immediately I figured out what was going on and why. I was the only common denominator, so I figured the problem must have something to do with me not doing or not understanding something.

And let me tell you, the difference has been obvious.

[Autoptic]

And instead of trying to change the behaviour of other women, shouldn't men examine and try to modify their behaviour so that they can better pick up the subtle song of the female mating call? Seems to me that a person can't change everyone to suit himself, so he must change himself to bring about results he desires.

So the women who are having a problem with men should do what? Tell them to change as you're doing?:stunned: You're making my headache worse and not helping some of our claims that women are duplicitous in their rationalization of maintaining relative passivity and indirectness.:suspicious:

If that's confusing—the females needn't deal with the male in the male's way, but the male should deal with the female in her way, and this is supposedly just the "rational" solution of both's problems. We're supposed to just ignore the obvious ulterior motives women would have for not taking their own medicine here?

Maybe I'm missing something. All my friends tell me I'm a flirt, and I have guys approach me, but I don't know why.

So your signals were just noise, and this doesn't disprove their real functionality in communication?

[IrishGuy]

Exactly! Women who make overt sexual advances are not trusted by men. Even with unambiguous signals, some men either don't take it at face value, or miss it altogether.

I've also heard from men in this very thread that with an advance like this, they never know whether a girl just wants to be friends or more. I can attest to that, because I would go over and say hello to a guy I think would make a good acquaintaince or a useful contact. There isn't necessarily a romantic invitation in the word 'hello'. Apparently, that's not clear enough of a signal.

Your statement implies that this is some justification for women to not approach men. What I was saying is that if a man engaged in the same behavior as the woman he would be sued. Men are usually the ones sued and convicted/punished for inappropriate sexual advances. The fact that a woman would engage in the behavior for which men would be sued is confusing. That is why men do not trust these women. This is to be contrasted to a woman who starts with "hello." Saying "hello" is not initiation, it is merely a start to an initiation. That's why I said "she could just start with hello." Personally, I am not suspicious of the latter women. They are making an advance but are being respectful to the man and themselves by not pouncing on him like a pornstar. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Now of course women can have trouble communicating that they just want to be friends instead of a unit....

A woman can only be forward in the way that a woman understands being 'forward', so you're right, an obvious cue to a woman wouldn't be to a man. Short of a woman becoming a man and seeing things from his perspective, what is your suggestion?

And instead of trying to change the behaviour of other women, shouldn't men examine and try to modify their behaviour so that they can better pick up the subtle song of the female mating call? Seems to me that a person can't change everyone to suit himself, so he must change himself to bring about results he desires.

I think that you're forgetting that when men and women talk face to face they engage in verbal as well as non-verbal exchanges. The difference between verbal communication and the "subtle song of the female mating call" is that in conversation the non-verbal cues have much more context and a whole lot less ambiguity. Also, in a conversation/when a woman initiates men are focused on her and her body language (whether or not they are actively conscious of it). Whereas, when women just sit and sing the non-verbal song it is just sort of projected out into space. It is dependent on men actively looking for it all the time and correctly interpreting it. Having one party rely solely on non-verbal cues just seems inefficient.

Yes, it could help if men practiced more on learning the nuances of the female "song." However, I think caution should be exercised since I have noticed that a woman's subtle cues vary greatly from culture to culture. Thus, I think it is less ambiguous when women approach men and engage in verbal contact instead of relying on non-verbal cues since verbal communication helps give her cues context. Thus, I think women could also do well to learn the sweet song of their own voice in attracting men.

[Autoptic]

Exactly! Women who make overt sexual advances are not trusted by men. Being direct about interest isn't the same as being sexually aggressive.

Even with unambiguous signals, some men either don't take it at face value, or miss it altogether.

As IrishGuy was saying, the examples given weren't just direct English simply stating interest. They'd potentially to definitely qualify as sexual harassment for the male. At best, a male would likewise likely be rejected for just trying to get laid.

If a man engaged in this sort of behavior towards a woman he would be sued and/or arrested.

Are you seriously suggesting the male do what the females were doing in those examples anyway or were you suggesting men do something else which you're pretending not to differentiate?

[IrishGuy]

Are you seriously suggesting a guy do what the women were doing in those examples anyway or were you suggesting men do something else which you're pretending not to differentiate?

No, not at all. It just seemed that selfmadebum interpreted male confusion about an inappropriate sexual advance from a woman as proof that men cannot comprehend "obvious" advances by women. I was making an argument that the men were confused because the behavior is so inappropriate, as opposed to not being able to comprehend an appropriate advance from a woman.

I'm not quite certain where I suggested that a guy do the same thing as the woman in those examples. That's not what I was trying to communicate.

[Autoptic]

No, not at all. It just seemed that selfmadebum interpreted male confusion about an inappropriate sexual advance from a woman as proof that men cannot comprehend "obvious" advances by women. I was making an argument that the men were confused because the behavior is so inappropriate, as opposed to not being able to comprehend an appropriate advance from a woman.

I'm not quite certain where I suggested that a guy do the same thing as the woman in those examples. That's not what I was trying to communicate.

Not you. Selfmadeburn was saying the females in those examples were simply being direct and that it wasn't working, thus the males should be direct which would obviously mean they should do the exact same kinds of things which as you were saying very obviously wouldn't work that way.

[Coralaisly]

So your signals were just noise, and this doesn't disprove their real functionality in communication?

It doesn't actually. 9 out of 10 of the guys who approached me I actually did find attractive, but I hadn't consciously done anything to invite them over, so I didn't know what the signals were or how to harness them/control them. So basically I believed all of these to be pure luck, but looking back on thse situations, I did use a lot of the signals listed in the book, but I didn't know that I was doing so. In otherwords, I didn't know that I was flirting, but I was... subconsciously. And after reading the book, I actually went out and tested them, and it worked. It's just as much about becoming more aware of yourself and the signals you put out as seeing the ones that others send you, and knowing what to do in response.

And their functionality still holds true. If I want to intimidate someone, I know to never let my eyes fall below theirs and to make myself appear bigger. Does it always work? No, but it's a lot more effective than just going on a whim and trying something, anything. The same is true with other signals as well. All of it is really a numbers game, it's just having a strategy, and getting some insight into how others play it.

My experience is that INTJ's (guys and girls) have trouble relating to people, and picking up signals. My recommending the book is in an effort to ease this by giving a recource to bridge that gap. The book also recognizes that not every time a certain signal is given it's to be acted upon, it's kind of like a strategy...

Just because I didn't know what signals to send, doesn't mean I wouldn't have sent them had I known what they were.

[Autoptic]

All of it is really a numbers game, it's just having a strategy, and getting some insight into how others play it.
...
The book also recognizes that not every time a certain signal is given it's to be acted upon, it's kind of like a strategy...

That's a problem. Such games are obnoxious. It's playing up to precisely what I'd hate about the women in a manner that's irritating to infuriating to get one that's expressly and perhaps purposely obnoxious to deal with. What kind of strategy is that?


Locate conspicuously annoying person.
Interact annoyingly with annoying person.
Be increasingly annoyed at continuously annoying person.
?
Profit.

[Coralaisly]

That's a problem. Such games are obnoxious. It's playing up to precisely what I'd hate about the women in a manner that's irritating to infuriating to get one that's expressly obnoxious. What kind of strategy is that?

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a fool proof strategy. If there were, everyone who wanted to find someone would find someone. And then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? :)

You also have to account for the fact that just because you're interested in her, she may not be in you.

I, too, wish it was just that easy as twirling my hair around my finger and having a completely compatable, physically and mentally attractive person show up and be attracted to me, too. But that kind of thing only happens in stories. I guess if you really want it, I guess you just have to play the game, however annoying it may be. It is kind of nice to gather all the information you can beforehand though. It's kinda like fishing, you can cast the line, but it doesn't mean anything's gonna pick up today. Do you starve, or do you try another approach? I realized something I was doing wasn't working, so I changed my approach, the result: I'm now engaged. Is that entirely thanks to the book? No. But it was a very helpful tool. It let me know whether what I was doing was working, and if he was interested, and I picked up clues I'm absolutely sure I would've missed otherwise. Much more helpful than just getting fed up and not trying.

[SelfMadeBum]

So the women who are having a problem with men should do what? Tell them to change as you're doing?:stunned: You're making my headache worse and not helping some of our claims that women are duplicitous in their rationalization of maintaining relative passivity and indirectness.:suspicious:

If that's confusing—the females needn't deal with the male in the male's way, but the male should deal with the female in her way, and this is supposedly just the "rational" solution of both's problems. We're supposed to just ignore the obvious ulterior motives women would have for not taking their own medicine here?The females aren't the ones with the problem here. Check the original post. It was a complaint/question about why women do not approach, not about women having problems communicating their interest. If the thread was about the latter, I would say 'women be more blatant'

So it went a little like this:

Man/Men: Why don't women approach us?
Woman/Women: Well we don't approach because.../We do approach, we just do it sublty
Man/Men: Well, why aren't you more blatant?
Woman/Women: Well, we are often blatant and you still don't get it
Man/Men: Be more blatant then

And I'm now saying:
But it's not our problem, it's guys having problems picking up on signals.

So the rational solution for a male with this problem is not for all females to change, but for the change to start with him.

*rubs your neck and shoulders to ease your headache*

[crux]

Not to ruffle anyone's feathers around here, but this thread got me to thinking. Suppose if:

(1) Women want to see tolerated gender equality in society
and
(2) Women want to have equal opportunity in exercising their rights as someone equal to anyone else

then doesn't that technically imply that the great majority of women are not actually exercising their right to do things unconventionally even when it comes to relationships? :uneasy:

And for the record, yes I am a single (and hence dating) male if that makes any difference.

[SelfMadeBum]

Your statement implies that this is some justification for women to not approach men. What I was saying is that if a man engaged in the same behavior as the woman he would be sued. Men are usually the ones sued and convicted/punished for inappropriate sexual advances. The fact that a woman would engage in the behavior for which men would be sued is confusing. That is why men do not trust these women. This is to be contrasted to a woman who starts with "hello." Saying "hello" is not initiation, it is merely a start to an initiation. That's why I said "she could just start with hello." Personally, I am not suspicious of the latter women. They are making an advance but are being respectful to the man and themselves by not pouncing on him like a pornstar. That was the point that I was trying to make. I think we we're at cross purposes there.

You are attempting to explain why men may not trust sexual advances from a woman; I was pointing out that that is one of the most obvious ways a woman would think to make an advance. And that comment about 'pouncing on him like a pornstar' shows why there is serious hesitation for some women to approach men in any real aggressive way.

All I pointed out about the 'hello' suggestion is that it will not solve any ambiguity that men already feel when approached in such a way by a woman.

I think that you're forgetting that when men and women talk face to face they engage in verbal as well as non-verbal exchanges. The difference between verbal communication and the "subtle song of the female mating call" is that in conversation the non-verbal cues have much more context and a whole lot less ambiguity. Also, in a conversation/when a woman initiates men are focused on her and her body language (whether or not they are actively conscious of it). Whereas, when women just sit and sing the non-verbal song it is just sort of projected out into space. It is dependent on men actively looking for it all the time and correctly interpreting it. Having one party rely solely on non-verbal cues just seems inefficient.

Yes, it could help if men practiced more on learning the nuances of the female "song." However, I think caution should be exercised since I have noticed that a woman's subtle cues vary greatly from culture to culture. Thus, I think it is less ambiguous when women approach men and engage in verbal contact instead of relying on non-verbal cues since verbal communication helps give her cues context. Thus, I think women could also do well to learn the sweet song of their own voice in attracting men.I don't disagree. My post took the slant it did because it seems to be men who are experiencing the problems re: women not approaching them.

The whole time I was trying to see things from the male point of view, trying to find ways to help you guys resolve the problem of females not approaching, when in reality, they often are. All in all, I suggested men consider being the aggressors where there is uncertainty about a female's interest, as well as becoming more adept at reading and interpreting female signals of interest and for women who wish to be more successful in communicating their interest to men, I suggest they be more direct.

Deal?





SelfMadeBum added to this post, 8 minutes and 7 seconds later...

Being direct about interest isn't the same as being sexually aggressive.All I meant was it is an example of a direct advance, which is met with suspicion instead of favour. Sort of explains why many women choose not to use this tack.

As IrishGuy was saying, the examples given weren't just direct English simply stating interest. They'd potentially to definitely qualify as sexual harassment for the male. At best, a male would likewise likely be rejected for just trying to get laid.Not sure what examples you're referring to. Do you mean those from the 'Obvious Clues I Missed' thread? Because there is an example there of the female saying 'We should date' plain as day, and still wasn't taken seriously.

Are you seriously suggesting the male do what the females were doing in those examples anyway or were you suggesting men do something else which you're pretending not to differentiate?Again, what examples?

[igeryu]

Funny. I've found a similar rule to be true with some men: They want to act sexist when it benefits them and decry it when it doesn't benefit them. As a general rule, they make blanket statements like this one.

Although I'm not truly against the niceties of chivalry, its funny that the concept originated due to the idea that women were incompetent and needed men to do everything for them...it wasn't even of good intentions originally.





igeryu added to this post, 8 minutes and 40 seconds later...

Were women truly incompetent or were our certain physical weaknesses compared to men misinterpreted?

Not in and of themselves. If they were any less capable of something, it would've most likely been solely due to macho men not allowing them to partake in certain tasks or learn certain skills.

[curiousgeorge01]

I guess in that situation you'd have to wonder if he subconsciously picked up on the signals... And that's true, a lot of times men (and women) don't consciously notice. A lot of the actions women make are picked up even though it's not really something outwardly/obviously noticable, like for instance, shifting her weight from one foot to another may just mean that her shoes are uncomfortable or that she's displaying her hip to waist ratio, it could also be a combination of the two where her mind is telling her to display even though she doesn't consciously know what she's doing. For someone like you who likes to analyze like that, I think the book would be a lot of fun. It'll give you even more to ponder :)

And the tree falling question I love. To me, it's of corse it makes a sound unless it's in a vaccum. The tree falling will displace the air partacles and create waves while ricocheting on the ground which if a human or animal is in presence are percieved as a sound. Or are you asking whether or not the tree never grew or fell, that it is just there?


Haha this thread is pretty fun! I love it!


Yes the tree will make a sound but it only makes a sound if there is someone there to perceive it; since an expression of anything is only there if someone perceives it.





curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 4 minutes and 22 seconds later...

I've also done some reading on this and the stuff I've read also say this.

Bottom line is: if you are getting the results you want whether you or the person of your interest intitiates, then all is find and good. BUT if you are not getting the results you want, don't blame the other party and complain about it, realize that you may have to change your methods or attitude. After all, isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and yet expecting different results?

FWIW, there are definitely men out there who catch these signals easily (perhaps not INTJs?). There was this guy with beautiful eyes on the bus recently who I couldn't help sneaking a few peeks at. After a quick glance or two, I found him sneaking peeks at me. We got off at the same stop but I was with my parents. Later, when we were heading back, it turned out he was also waiting for the bus. It was interesting to see how he maneuvered himself so he could be right behind us in the bus line. If I weren't busy taking care of my parents, he probably would have spoken to me. Just goes to show a little eye contact goes a long way and why I usually DON'T make eye contact with men I don't know.

Yes you are right, someone has to change something if it doesn't work. You're not going to change the opposite sex.

Ok I have a similar example tell me what you think:

There's this cute girl on the bus I take to work and one day there's a seat behind me that's free and she sighs really loudly and plops down on it. I sort of look at her and she looks back at me but I didn't say anything. I few weeks later she has trouble opening her bus card wrapping, and after fidgeting a while I smile at her and hand her a pair of scissors on my pocket knife to which she brightly blushes and smiles. I smile at her once in a while and she smiles back occasionally, but other times she just turns the other way and avoid me completely. Does this mean she's interested or has no interest at all? I have no idea, I def leaned towards the latter. Or is this the case of because I didn't react quick enough I "lost the moment."





curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 5 minutes and 48 seconds later...


It's confusing. It's highly irregular that a woman throws herself at a man. Men usually have to pay out money in a dark corner to get that kind of treatment from a relative stranger. There are too many women out there who use sex as a weapon for that to be a good cue (is she trying to take advantage? Is she drunk or under the influence of something? Does she just want to have sex? She doesn't seriously want a relationship does she?).

If a man engaged in this sort of behavior towards a woman he would be sued and/or arrested. That's why that behavior does not work; it conflicts with what is considered acceptable behavior in general. I can only speak for myself, but if a woman wants to successfully initiate she could just start with a "hello."


The man brings up a good point.

[Autoptic]

Not sure what examples you're referring to. Do you mean those from the 'Obvious Clues I Missed' thread?

I can't find the thread.:confused: I thought a few were strongly sexual and at least one involving nudity. Granted I'm sure the latter at least was purely sexual in intent and as such was fitting (though still quite the double standard).

Because there is an example there of the female saying 'We should date' plain as day, and still wasn't taken seriously.

That would be the guy's problem and sounds wonderfully like it'd be negatively feeding back on me among others (both such problems and guys).:(

[SelfMadeBum]

Here's that thread. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[kkam]

Not to ruffle anyone's feathers around here, but this thread got me to thinking. Suppose if:

(1) Women want to see tolerated gender equality in society
and
(2) Women want to have equal opportunity in exercising their rights as someone equal to anyone else

then doesn't that technically imply that the great majority of women are not actually exercising their right to do things unconventionally even when it comes to relationships? :uneasy:

And for the record, yes I am a single (and hence dating) male if that makes any difference.


It seems to me by reading over all these posts that gender inequality is causing equal confusion and problems among members of BOTH sexes.

I have, many times in the past, initiated with men. I do exercise my rights to do things unconventionally, but the moment I sense sexism coming from a man then I move on. If I am going to break through boundaries, then the man I'm with needs to be able to do the same.

[firebee]

What I was saying is that if a man engaged in the same behavior as the woman he would be sued. Men are usually the ones sued and convicted/punished for inappropriate sexual advances.

"But but that touchy woman! She had only turned me down twice a day for the past month! How was I to know that she didn't want to date me?"

It would be helpful to come up with an actual example of a man who was successfully sued for making overt sexual advances on one occasion to a woman who was not his coworker, customer, student, et cetera.

For the joy of anecdotal evidence, I can note that the two most recent men who initiated overt sexual advances with me ultimately got laid, whereas the two men who I have come closest to taking official action about conducted a string of mocking or creepy advances (respectively) over the course of an significant period of time which ultimately got to the point of talking at the back of the head of a person who was completely ignoring them in favor of conducting the business that they had come to the office or store (respectively) to do.

I'm thinking it just might be possible to discern the difference between "unambiguous" and "howlingly inappropriate" well enough that the species is not in danger of dying off.

[Storm]

Having read this entire thread, it seems we are now deeply involved in another "Battle of the Sexes" (tm).

People are taking the example of one or even a few people of the opposite sex and acting like these people represent the entirety of that sex. From reading the thread and personal experience, it appears that both men and women initiate, that both men and women misread signals, and that both men and women are often nervous about initiating.

Lesson: If you are interested in someone, approach them and start a conversation and find out.

[curiousgeorge01]

Yes pretty much LOL. It seems like everyone perceives each other's actions erroneously.

[Amphorian]

Ok I have a similar example tell me what you think:

There's this cute girl on the bus I take to work and one day there's a seat behind me that's free and she sighs really loudly and plops down on it. I sort of look at her and she looks back at me but I didn't say anything. I few weeks later she has trouble opening her bus card wrapping, and after fidgeting a while I smile at her and hand her a pair of scissors on my pocket knife to which she brightly blushes and smiles. I smile at her once in a while and she smiles back occasionally, but other times she just turns the other way and avoid me completely. Does this mean she's interested or has no interest at all? I have no idea, I def leaned towards the latter. Or is this the case of because I didn't react quick enough I "lost the moment."

Oh she's definitly interested. She's turning away because you're not picking up her signals. But if it continues on like this she's just going give up and completely ignore you. Her sigh meant, "Oh what a bad day, talk to me please o'Curious Georgie *bats lashes*." Then the smile is, "Oh! He finally noticed me! He's so sweet helping me out. I wish he'd talk to me." Her turning away is, "Am I not good enough? Pretty enough? Interesting enough?"

Yep. -Pats George's head- You missed your chance. She might give you some more though. ._.




And a side note for the thread. I pick up men's signals quite easily. Sometimes they're over the top though. O_O Like the other day in Drawing I class. This guy that keeps on trying to chat with me and comments on my artwork made quite an advance. (Mind you I don't even know is effing name) During the break most of us we standing in the hall near the door. He comes strutting down the hall and bam! puts himself right into my personal space to the right side of me. He starts trying to chat with me. I give him short annoyed replies. He doesn't get the fucking hint. Then he grabs my left wrist (reaching across me) to pull my hand closer to him and he goes, "Oh nice watch." I'm in shock going, "What should I do? Hit him? Verbally talk him down? Tell him to get the fuck out of bubble?!!!" I didn't do anything but stand there with a "WTF" look on my face.

It gets creepier though! There is another guy that stares at me in class and I was thinking about going up to him until he wore a Jesus t-shirt but that's another story. ._. Anyways, when that other guy grabbed me this guy jumped up from his spot (he was sitting on the floor across from me) as if he was going protect me. O_o I swear I attract locos. >_>

I think the first is an E(S/N)FP and the other I(S/N)TJ.

Hey... maybe there is something up with MBTI types and learning signals in the mating game?

[curiousgeorge01]

Oh she's definitly interested. She's turning away because you're not picking up her signals. But if it continues on like this she's just going give up and completely ignore you. Her sigh meant, "Oh what a bad day, talk to me please o'Curious Georgie *bats lashes*." Then the smile is, "Oh! He finally noticed me! He's so sweet helping me out. I wish he'd talk to me." Her turning away is, "Am I not good enough? Pretty enough? Interesting enough?"

Yep. -Pats George's head- You missed your chance. She might give you some more though. ._.




And a side note for the thread. I pick up men's signals quite easily. Sometimes they're over the top though. O_O Like the other day in Drawing I class. This guy that keeps on trying to chat with me and comments on my artwork made quite an advance. (Mind you I don't even know is effing name) During the break most of us we standing in the hall near the door. He comes strutting down the hall and bam! puts himself right into my personal space to the right side of me. He starts trying to chat with me. I give him short annoyed replies. He doesn't get the fucking hint. Then he grabs my left wrist (reaching across me) to pull my hand closer to him and he goes, "Oh nice watch." I'm in shock going, "What should I do? Hit him? Verbally talk him down? Tell him to get the fuck out of bubble?!!!" I didn't do anything but stand there with a "WTF" look on my face.

It gets creepier though! There is another guy that stares at me in class and I was thinking about going up to him until he wore a Jesus t-shirt but that's another story. ._. Anyways, when that other guy grabbed me this guy jumped up from his spot (he was sitting on the floor across from me) as if he was going protect me. O_o I swear I attract locos. >_>

I think the first is an E(S/N)FP and the other I(S/N)TJ.

Hey... maybe there is something up with MBTI types and learning signals in the mating game?

Hahah now that you explain it THAT way I can see that she likes me, though I still find it somewhat ambiguous ie maybe the first time she sighed loudly she was just tired and the blushing could just be embarassment. But can you see how I misinterpreted it? I suppose I interpret the turning away and ignoring me as, "ok I guess you want nothing to do with me." Actually I didn't talk to her for other reasons; I've heard her speak to other people and she sounds whiny. Whiny with other people means whiny with me...sigh* can't win.

Yea the first guy is a little too forceful. I guess with the second guy you just don't like religion? Isn't that cute that the 2nd guy wanted to protect you?

[Amphorian]

Hahah now that you explain it THAT way I can see that she likes me, though I still find it somewhat ambiguous ie maybe the first time she sighed loudly she was just tired and the blushing could just be embarassment. But can you see how I misinterpreted it? I suppose I interpret the turning away and ignoring me as, "ok I guess you want nothing to do with me." Actually I didn't talk to her for other reasons; I've heard her speak to other people and she sounds whiny. Whiny with other people means whiny with me...sigh* can't win.

Yea the first guy is a little too forceful. I guess with the second guy you just don't like religion? Isn't that cute that the 2nd guy wanted to protect you?

Eh.. whiny. -shudders- I'll agree with you on that one. Avoid at all costs. O_O;
But eh, no I can't see but can see why you did? I mean I'm pretty preceptive to my surroundings and learning how they function. I have this need to know how things 'tick'. I LIKE studying human behavior actually. So that'd be the difference between you and I.

I still have issues with religion at the moment especially considering it was used against me and to mantipulate me. I'm open to friendships with those peeps but I'm really not over it. No reason to lead someone on if you have issues to begin with! Right? No it wasn't cute. (Not to mention cute is an evil four letter word) It was annoying because I was like, "WTF? You think I can't protect myself?! Thou shall not pity me! >O *gives an annoyed glare*" I want someone that'll respect and like the fact I can kick ass when need be. *sighs with George and gives a pat* I know how you feel. Cookie? =D

[curiousgeorge01]

Well I guess I placed a higher value on her ignoring me. As someone else mentioned on this thread, sometimes by pursuing something a girl considers it harassment, so I defaulted. Add on top that she was whiny and I just didn't think it was worth it overall.

Cookie? Yum! *chomps* LOL. Yea I know what you mean, I had a similar experience with religion when I was young so I don't date religious women unless they're open minded to my beliefs on the subject. I don't hate religion mind you, I just don't want it interfering with my thoughts or imposed on me. I'm glad you CAN kick ass. I generally take the position of letting a woman fight her own battles unless she needs me to jump in ;). But yea I think the guy thought the other guy was getting physical and he had to prevent it if you will.

[PLC]

Having read this entire thread, it seems we are now deeply involved in another "Battle of the Sexes" (tm).

People are taking the example of one or even a few people of the opposite sex and acting like these people represent the entirety of that sex. From reading the thread and personal experience, it appears that both men and women initiate, that both men and women misread signals, and that both men and women are often nervous about initiating.

Lesson: If you are interested in someone, approach them and start a conversation and find out.

Yeah seriously. All I see reading this is "What we do doesn't work so YOU have to change your ways!" from both sides.

There was a few points I wanted to bring up but I think it's going to be worthless anyway.

[PLC]

Alright, since I got some time, here's my take on this topic. There are so many confusing points in this thread I don't even know where to begin with, I guess I'll start with the OP:

Why do most women insist on being approached even when they make little effort to hide their interest? I don't lament the societal rules that require men to make the first move, but I find it silly that a significant number of women abide by these rules dogmatically.

For example, I was in a coffee shop today afternoon and I couldn't help but notice an attractive woman sneaking glances at me as I was sipping my cup and reading a book. The seat next to her's was taken, while the one next to mine was empty. After a few minutes of pretending to ignore her I finally made eye contact, smiled (she smiled back) and subtly glanced at the seat next to mine as a hint. Apparently it still didn't strike her that she was physically unapproachable (was I supposed to k up and start a conversation while towering over her?). I wrote her off as a particularly daft one and sure enough she was the first one to leave (intentionally passing my way and articulating a warm goodbye).

This whole circus has happened many times in the past. Why does it happen?

I don't behave like this with someone I've never seen before if I'm not interested. So as far as I'm concered, the warm goodbye shows that there was indeed interest to be interpreted behind the gesture. Yet:

Addressing the OP I'd say the woman probably wasn't THAT interested or she would have picked up on your signal.
first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. [...]
why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

If they're indeed right, I'd say that this is why men tend to not give much importance to subtle clues as they are more often misleading than not, especially for INTJs since they tend to overanalyze the smallest details. And I'm not even getting into "attention cravers" who will purposely mislead you with not so "subtle clues" that were meaningless or the classic "supposedly detected subtle clues" that weren't clues at all. Some girls are "colder" and won't show much signs even if they're interested. Some will intentionally hold back to play a game or because they don't want to scare the guy being too interested too fasts. So yeah, nothing means nothing.

And EVEN if you interpret the signs correctly, then you have to make a smooth approach:

I hate when strangers approach me. Even if they are super polite and kind and just want to respectfully pay me a compliment,
I think it's attractive when the guy makes a first move. It shows me that he's confident and he knows what he wants.
It would irritate me if a man approached me and said that. [about a comment I considered the best approach]


Confusing much? This is why some men can become irritated by this whole flirting thing since trying is the first step toward almost-guaranteed failure. I'm pretty sure women feel just the same about it but someone has to do it. And don't give me the "it's a cultural thing" excuse. If you want to follow the stereotypes, go ahead but that's not how you break them. This is why artisttyrant's comment sometimes seem to make sense to me; an unfair situation will always be ignored by those it favors.

Because many men find it off-putting and women have no idea whether you'll be put off by it or not.

Men don't know if their approach will put off women either, see my previous point.

I've read this elsewhere on the forum. I don't find it off-putting, more like a form of flattery and I'm pretty sure that's the case for most guys. If the guy is really put off by a girl who initiates, he's probably looking for a girly girl who will shut up and be pretty, cook and make babies. I doubt that's what most girls on here are looking for and it's not the kind of girl guys on here seem to be looking for either. I think I can say that generally, a girl who initiates usually scored a few points before she even said anything.


The main problem in this thread is that man wants women to approach them and women want men to approach them. The least effort the better, especially in a situation where the potential risk of losing face can be quite high. The bottomline is that it wouldn't hurt anybody if both genders would put a little more effort into it but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just quoting people to prove my points. No offense was meant to anyone.

[GreenBulldog]

I don't ask women out anymore. There are too many attention whores who blatantly feign interest until you approach them. Then suddenly she is appalled that you would think she was coming on to you. The whole goal is to lure you into giving her some validation. She doesn't want you, she just wants to be wanted.

I agree that there are many attention whores out there, but I'm not jaded enough to no longer approach women.

What I do is approach them and say in a very, straightforward way my interests and intentions. Since being upfront and straightforward doesn't feed their egos or their needs, they're usually the ones who are frustrated after I walk away.

first of all exchanging smiles does not necessarily mean anything further is wanted. based on what you say and my own experiences i would say this is probably often the case.

why don't men get this? it is as frustrating to me as it is for them...

It is? You're not talking about the, "Oops. Our eyes met" smile, are you?

If it's blatant smiling at someone, then what? Do women do it for attention? Do they like the feeling that they're being desired? If so, then you supported Drifter's theory.

2: Go up to her in spite her siting situation and open with something like, "I couldn't help you looking at me and I just wanted to say hi, would you like to join me on my table over there?" or "This is going to take 2 minutes, sorry to bother you but I thought that you were cute so I wanted to come over and say 'hi'". Talk to her a little and if it picks up invite her over to your table.

It would irritate me if a man approached me and said that.

LOL!

You would LOOOOVE me then because I'm hardly that polite.

Providing that you're attracted to the man, why would it irritate you?

it is exactly what i was trying to draw attention to. my question "why don't men get this?" -- i know why, because the ones that do not get this are just frustrated, and want some formula to make everything easy for them. at least they think they do. in reality they do not - do you want to sleep with a robot? or artificial intelligence that acts exactly according to a set of rules that make sense to you?

As much as I hate to admit to this, I'm one of the men she's talking about. Not in the same degree as some of them, but I definitely have some of it.

One time I was talking to a woman at a university. We started flirting, but surely enough she started caressing her wedding ring. It was polite, it was subtle, and it was practiced . . . but it was loud and clear that she wasn't interested. We parted amicably :-D


This is one of the reason I'm very upfront with my intentions. It would piss me off if I were to find this out any further than 30 seconds after I approach. Yes, I'm impatient and hate wasting time.

If you're unsure how a female feels about you, ask her straight out or otherwise make your intentions with her clear. She will be happy to clarify things for you.

The way I see it now, men are never sure if a woman's advances are real or if they just want to be friends. Isn't the best way around this for the man to make the advances?

I agree with this dude.

Some guys are pissed that women don't take the initiative and women are ambiguous. Fine by me. More opportunities for guys like me who likes to make things happen.

Furthermore, ambiguity leads to manipulation. Being upfront and straightforward doesn't.

[Foote]

In the OPs example, I think the eye gesture she made to sit down was her version of initiating. Might have been a bad example but I understand what the OP is saying.

[Prunesquallor]

Since my last message was deleted, I'll try to restate it in a less 'offensive'(edit=offtopic, incomprehensible reference) fashion.

As has been much discussed in the "women are responsible for being raped" thread, there are many fine gentlemen who interpret flirting, clothing not a burqa, or any sort of 'forwardness' as a promise of sex which, when not fulfilled, results in anger and sometimes violence - or simply pained entitlement, resentment, and sexism. Et cetera. Even those who do not forcibly take what they feel they deserve can be inconvenient, irritating, offensive, annoying... As such, being too encouraging as a girl is dangerous, and/or often misinterpreted, unless one is fully prepared to put out immediately.

I would love for it to be just as easy for girls to initiate, and directly, since bullshit annoys me, but there are difficulties and consequences guys do not face.

[daydreamer]

Confusing much? This is why some men can become irritated by this whole flirting thing since trying is the first step toward almost-guaranteed failure.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'm just quoting people to prove my points. No offense was meant to anyone.

no offense taken... and i'm quoting you in the same manner.

sounds like a "glass is half full of something that would be incredibly delicious only if the glass were completely full of it" kind of thinking to me.

one out of the 3 women you quote say they like it. the inconsistency is daunting? lots of things must be then. inconsistency is the rule with all people.

[Prunesquallor]

no offense taken... and i'm quoting you in the same manner.

sounds like a "glass is half full of something that would be incredibly delicious only if the glass were completely full of it" kind of thinking to me.

one out of the 3 women you quote say they like it. the inconsistency is daunting? lots of things must be then. inconsistency is the rule with all people.

Right! Because women are, like, individuals! Like, real human beings? Not a strange puzzling, homogenous hive mind! Just, individual humans with minds of their own.

(Bear with me, it's a new idea to some people)

[daydreamer]

It is? You're not talking about the, "Oops. Our eyes met" smile, are you?


maybe... it's context dependent. an example:

i'm at an outdoor table in front of a coffee shop, some think that's romantic but to me it'a coffee shop it's my day to treat myself to hot tea and play with my new itouch. i notice a cute guy at another table. duly noted. i'm married so i deliberately do not want to catch his eye or start anything, cuz lordy ! don't even get me started on that...

time passes and i'm absorbed in my pente game. a homeless guy walks by mumbling bizarre obscenities and something about the rain and it's oddly amusing how upset he is about it because we're in sunny california and it hasn't rained in 280 days. in amusement i look up and naturally my eyes meet the only other sentient set of eyes there - we exchange knowing glances and smile since we both get a kick out of the homeless guy. i do a doubletake of what he said in my mind. i look back and sentient man is still looking at me, smiling, i smile back. he says something kinda witty. so he's witty, that explains the je ne sais pas in his eyes. i smile at his comment and maybe nod.

at this point, what happens? i realize, oh shit... i see that wow i got a response from a breathing woman look in his eyes. i get up and smile one more time nervously, just to be polite. god damn homeless person ! funny though he was, he ruined everything. what a bitch i am for thinking that.

i console myself on the drive home by thinking, well sheesh i mean maybe the guy was married too, and was just being friendly. maybe i should stop thinking about it. yeah. i mean who the hell am i really.

the next time i'm at that coffee shop i think about how cute he was.

and that friday me and a friend are partying and perusing the local craigslist ads for fun, and damned if there isnt an entry: 1130 am carpe diem coffee shop. a homeless man walked by saying something funny and we shared a laugh and a smile. we both know it was more. let's have coffee together next time...

oh... my... GOD !! - besides, i was drinking TEA

[Paul Siraisi]

From what I can tell, women are physically designed to attract men, much less so vice versa. There's arguably a biological/evolutionary foundation for that. Then culture, and a sense of tradition, would develop around the instincts. Not that individual women themselves necessarily appreciate or even enjoy the reality of their bodies' effect on men (or the accompanying tradition of being chased by men).

[INTJDownUnder]

Nope, pretty much describes the anxiety for anyone approaching. Again, there's a lot of reasons someone might find it off-putting or not be interested. Because randomly chatting up a complete stranger is just the least successful way to meet someone. It takes a lot of effort, honestly, to get over the initial distrust people have of the person willing to do it. "Something must be wrong with them if they're this desperate," is usually how my unspoken line of thinking goes - and I know better.

I agree with you completely about the success rate of approaching random strangers. That's precisely why I don't do it even though I know that I could if I really wanted to.

What do you believe is the most successful way to meet someone?

I've tried joining clubs and various societies and the like, but whilst the organisations were worthwhile in their own right I always found the membership to be completely unsuitable dating wise. All older than me, already partnered up and... worse of all... the membership is fairly static without much churn, so it's not like you can just bide your time and hope for the right person to come along.

Kinda why I'm partial to online dating but still very much a rookie in that arena.

[GreenBulldog]

maybe... it's context dependent. an example:

i'm at an outdoor table in front of a coffee shop, some think that's romantic but to me it'a coffee shop it's my day to treat myself to hot tea and play with my new itouch. i notice a cute guy at another table. duly noted. i'm married so i deliberately do not want to catch his eye or start anything, cuz lordy ! don't even get me started on that...

time passes and i'm absorbed in my pente game. a homeless guy walks by mumbling bizarre obscenities and something about the rain and it's oddly amusing how upset he is about it because we're in sunny california and it hasn't rained in 280 days. in amusement i look up and naturally my eyes meet the only other sentient set of eyes there - we exchange knowing glances and smile since we both get a kick out of the homeless guy. i do a doubletake of what he said in my mind. i look back and sentient man is still looking at me, smiling, i smile back. he says something kinda witty. so he's witty, that explains the je ne sais pas in his eyes. i smile at his comment and maybe nod.

at this point, what happens? i realize, oh shit... i see that wow i got a response from a breathing woman look in his eyes. i get up and smile one more time nervously, just to be polite. god damn homeless person ! funny though he was, he ruined everything. what a bitch i am for thinking that.

i console myself on the drive home by thinking, well sheesh i mean maybe the guy was married too, and was just being friendly. maybe i should stop thinking about it. yeah. i mean who the hell am i really.

the next time i'm at that coffee shop i think about how cute he was.

and that friday me and a friend are partying and perusing the local craigslist ads for fun, and damned if there isnt an entry: 1130 am carpe diem coffee shop. a homeless man walked by saying something funny and we shared a laugh and a smile. we both know it was more. let's have coffee together next time...

oh... my... GOD !! - besides, i was drinking TEA

LOL!

I guess that is an prime example of, "oops, our eyes met" smile.

But gees, why didn't that guy just approach you on the spot and find out if you were available or not? It would have saved you from thinking about him later and him going on craigslist.

Maybe some people like this kind of stuff......This chasing a ghost and not getting what you want kind of stuff. If so, it's beyond comprehension to me.

[PLC]

Since my last message was deleted, I'll try to restate it in a less 'offensive'(edit=offtopic, incomprehensible reference) fashion.

As has been much discussed in the "women are responsible for being raped" thread, there are many fine gentlemen who interpret flirting, clothing not a burqa, or any sort of 'forwardness' as a promise of sex which, when not fulfilled, results in anger and sometimes violence - or simply pained entitlement, resentment, and sexism. Et cetera. Even those who do not forcibly take what they feel they deserve can be inconvenient, irritating, offensive, annoying... As such, being too encouraging as a girl is dangerous, and/or often misinterpreted, unless one is fully prepared to put out immediately.

I would love for it to be just as easy for girls to initiate, and directly, since bullshit annoys me, but there are difficulties and consequences guys do not face.

Sounds like a poor excuse to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong but unless you hang in terrible clubs, I believe it's only a very small minority of guys who will pull off that kind of crap. It's just like if I'd say "I'm not going to take my car because I could have an accident and burn alive!". There are crazy people out there and I don't live in a nuclear bunker for that much.

no offense taken... and i'm quoting you in the same manner.

sounds like a "glass is half full of something that would be incredibly delicious only if the glass were completely full of it" kind of thinking to me.

one out of the 3 women you quote say they like it. the inconsistency is daunting? lots of things must be then. inconsistency is the rule with all people.

I don't have a problem with it personally but I understand how it can be frustrating for guys who have been turned down a wee bit too often.



Speaking of which, since there was a few women saying we're too dense to read subtle clues in this thread, I've started paying attention to those a lot more than I used to. I've met 2 women lately. The first one seems to be sending all kinds of "subtle clues" like if she was really interested but apparently she doesn't care at all. While the second one, she's amazing but I'd swear she's trying extra hard to stay cold and show zero signs that could mislead me into thinking I could be something more than a friend... but all her friends are telling me that she is very interested.

So yeah, f*ck those childish games. Being very busy these days, I'm in no hurry so I just let things go and see how it flows. If it works out, fine, if they fail to communicate their feelings efficiently; their loss. It's much more fun that way.

[Prunesquallor]

Sounds like a poor excuse to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong but unless you hang in terrible clubs, I believe it's only a very small minority of guys who will pull off that kind of crap. It's just like if I'd say "I'm not going to take my car because I could have an accident and burn alive!". There are crazy people out there and I don't live in a nuclear bunker for that much.

There's a whole thread on why women are to blame for being sexually assaulted, a point of view defended by (I assume) non-rapists. This entitlement complex and associating whining bullshit crap is more common than the people who will force it. Strangely common, sadly.

[PLC]

There's a whole thread on why women are to blame for being sexually assaulted, a point of view defended by (I assume) non-rapists. This entitlement complex and associating whining bullshit crap is more common than the people who will force it. Strangely common, sadly.

I didn't bother opening that thread because I believed it would be full of either:
a) whining bullshit crap
b) Things everybody already know.


I still believe that the odds on getting stuck with a harmful creep are fairly low, unless you like hanging around those.

[Prunesquallor]

I didn't bother opening that thread because I believed it would be full of either:
a) whining bullshit crap
b) Things everybody already know.


I still believe that the odds on getting stuck with a harmful creep are fairly low, unless you like hanging around those.

I'm not talking about harmful creeps, though they exist too. I'm talking about the average jerk who thinks that if a girl flirts, but doesn't have sex with him as soon as he wants, she's somehow done something wrong. That simple flirting/sexy clothing is somehow a promise of sex, and it's somehow 'unfair' to 'lead them on.' That needn't result in violence, but still bullshit, petulance, nasty remarks, all sorts of foolishness that one needs patience to deal with.

There are high odds of running into these people. The average guy usually thinks what girls do is more meaningful, sexually, than it is.

Same rationalisation, different results, many of which are irritating. Not talking extremes here.

(You described that thread quite accurately, though)

[daydreamer]

Sounds like a poor excuse to me. Please correct me if I'm wrong but unless you hang in terrible clubs, I believe it's only a very small minority of guys who will pull off that kind of crap.


huge generalization about which you have no experience. you are one man. most likely you will admit that women are not constantly hitting on you, or constantly thinking that you are giving an invitation and then taking that invitation. i never go to clubs. i get hit on and looked at more than just casually all the time. for some reason there is a segment of the male population - granted i cannot say how large or small said segment is, but they are very busy - who think that grocery stores, costco, target, coffee shops, delis, gas stations, the interstate, the bike path, the street i live on, the dog park... are places that i am going to pick up men. i'm not. does that mean i absolutely hate any attention? of course not !

i don't egg people on... but for crying out loud, last time i checked men were people too, and if they smile at me i'm gonna smile back... if they are walking their dog on my street and i'm walking mine, i'm gonna smile at them - sometimes even first !! i might even talk with them. i'm not hitting on them, even if i don't wear a ring or instantly introduce the fact that i have a husband within the first couple of sentences. i'm giving them some credit that they are people worth talking to in their own right ! there is more to a man than his penis !

you know, often i will find out the men i am talking with are married or in a relationship. since i'm not on the prowl, i don't ask for this information up front. but often i will meet their wives or girlfriends. very often these people are my neighbors, or they live not far... we may find we have something in common. should i ignore every man unless and until i meet his wife first, and only then treat him like a person? i can see it now, how the husband describing to his wife what an unfriendly person i am... how that is really gonna help my chances of ever meeting her, or becoming friends with her, and of all of us my husband included becoming friends.

[PLC]

Then I guess I naively thought that common sense was more widespread that it actually is, yet again.


You should get a sex change, being a women seems to be such a pain in the ass!

[Prunesquallor]

Then I guess I naively thought that common sense was more widespread that it actually is, yet again.


You should get a sex change, being a women seems to be such a pain in the ass!

That seriously is naive, yes. To not realise that many men, because of mentalities common in society and a more single-minded focus on sex rather than human interaction in general, will have a similar pattern of assumptions, and to not understand or notice that people get resentful and petulant when their assumptions are proven wrong?

You must live under a rock.

And being a women can suck yes, but avoiding humans makes it better - and I still prefer having my genitalia on the inside, thank you. It seems safer.

[GreenBulldog]

huge generalization about which you have no experience. you are one man. most likely you will admit that women are not constantly hitting on you, or constantly thinking that you are giving an invitation and then taking that invitation. i never go to clubs. i get hit on and looked at more than just casually all the time. for some reason there is a segment of the male population - granted i cannot say how large or small said segment is, but they are very busy - who think that grocery stores, costco, target, coffee shops, delis, gas stations, the interstate, the bike path, the street i live on, the dog park... are places that i am going to pick up men. i'm not. does that mean i absolutely hate any attention? of course not !

i don't egg people on... but for crying out loud, last time i checked men were people too, and if they smile at me i'm gonna smile back... if they are walking their dog on my street and i'm walking mine, i'm gonna smile at them - sometimes even first !! i might even talk with them. i'm not hitting on them, even if i don't wear a ring or instantly introduce the fact that i have a husband within the first couple of sentences. i'm giving them some credit that they are people worth talking to in their own right ! there is more to a man than his penis !

you know, often i will find out the men i am talking with are married or in a relationship. since i'm not on the prowl, i don't ask for this information up front. but often i will meet their wives or girlfriends. very often these people are my neighbors, or they live not far... we may find we have something in common. should i ignore every man unless and until i meet his wife first, and only then treat him like a person? i can see it now, how the husband describing to his wife what an unfriendly person i am... how that is really gonna help my chances of ever meeting her, or becoming friends with her, and of all of us my husband included becoming friends.

What you said has validity to it, but at the same time, there are lots of "attention whores" who like to lead men on by expressing attraction, or romantic and/or sexual interest in a manner that is vague, ambiguous, and lighthearted or playful (aka FLIRTING).

At the same time, I blame men too because they're letting "attention whores" lead them on. If you express your interests by being direct and specific; forcing a woman to either reciprocate your interests or not, men wouldn't get played or mislead.

What I'm trying to say to men is that if you know exactly what you want and you want to go in a roundabout and beating around the bush manner by concealing, hiding, and hinting your interests; and/or being stealthy in general, you run the risk of playing a game of manipulation. If that's what you want, more power to you, but if you get played, blame yourself.

[daydreamer]

What you said has validity to it, but at the same time, there are lots of "attention whores" who like to lead men on by expressing attraction, or romantic and/or sexual interest in a manner that is vague, ambiguous, and lighthearted or playful (aka FLIRTING).

At the same time, I blame men too because they're letting "attention whores" lead them on. If you express your interests by being direct and specific; forcing a woman to either reciprocate your interests or not, men wouldn't get played or mislead.

What I'm trying to say to men is that if you know exactly what you want and you want to go in a roundabout and beating around the bush manner by concealing, hiding, and hinting your interests; and/or being stealthy in general, you run the risk of playing a game of manipulation. If that's what you want, more power to you, but if you get played, blame yourself.

sounds totally reasonable to me !

[Prunesquallor]

What you said has validity to it, but at the same time, there are lots of "attention whores" who like to lead men on by expressing attraction, or romantic and/or sexual interest in a manner that is vague, ambiguous, and lighthearted or playful (aka FLIRTING).

At the same time, I blame men too because they're letting "attention whores" lead them on. If you express your interests by being direct and specific; forcing a woman to either reciprocate your interests or not, men wouldn't get played or mislead.

What I'm trying to say to men is that if you know exactly what you want and you want to go in a roundabout and beating around the bush manner by concealing, hiding, and hinting your interests; and/or being stealthy in general, you run the risk of playing a game of manipulation. If that's what you want, more power to you, but if you get played, blame yourself.

And there are hundreds of thousands of girls who are falsely called "attention whores" simply because they rejected someone who read too much into simple kindness and courtesy, or simple flirting. Rather more of them than the real "attention whores."

Also, flirting very often does not lead to sex or indeed anything much. Basic fact, one worth realising. People who don't understand this tend to blame the other person for not living up to false expectations, again. Directness, moreover, much as I like it myself, is not feasible when it is, in fact, not clear if one reciprocates interest or not - like if one wants to actually find out something about the person first, other than the size of their mammary glands. It's only good when there already is a clear answer. Flirting is usually a way to find out if you like a person, if, for example, you consider something other than their appearance. It's not a promise or a guarantee, but a filtering and a stalling mechanism, a way of collecting information. It can also be a harmless way of passing the time, for those who enjoy it. Anyone who considers it a guarantee of anything is bound to get burnt. And it's their own damn fault.

Certain more intense levels of flirting, however, should really go with intent, or it's misleading. I grant that.

[PLC]

That seriously is naive, yes. To not realise that many men, because of mentalities common in society and a more single-minded focus on sex rather than human interaction in general, will have a similar pattern of assumptions, and to not understand or notice that people get resentful and petulant when their assumptions are proven wrong?

You must live under a rock.

I don't know, I'm very respectful of my female counterparts and so are the guys I hang with. I also don't hear my female friends complain about that either. I know there are assholes out there but I'm pretty good at avoiding them I guess. I figured that kind of behavior wasn't all that common.

And being a women can suck yes, but avoiding humans makes it better

Agreed.

and I still prefer having my genitalia on the inside, thank you. It seems safer.

Downhill biking accidents often made me wish they were also inside. It is indeed a lot safer!

[Prunesquallor]

I don't know, I'm very respectful of my female counterparts and so are the guys I hang with. I also don't hear my female friends complain about that either. I know there are assholes out there but I'm pretty good at avoiding them I guess. I figured that kind of behavior wasn't all that common.

Agreed.

Downhill biking accidents often made me wish they were also inside. It is indeed a lot safer!

It's like racism. Black people notice it more. It's nice that you have a good crowd - I've managed one too, but it's hard to be oblivious to it when one is a target.

There are good people in the world, though, and intelligent ones. It's just that they tend to be less vocal, and the ones who go around and hit on everyone, and so the most visible, don't tend to be those decent people quite as often. It's as much a visibility thing as anything else.

Downhill biking accidents? Sympathy.

[Autoptic]

Flirting is usually a way to find out if you like a person, if, for example, you consider something other than their appearance. It's not a promise or a guarantee, but a filtering and a stalling mechanism, a way of collecting information. It can also be a harmless way of passing the time, for those who enjoy it.

Flirting involves a limited set of faked reactions and only limited, shallow conversation. It's worthless for collecting useful information or verifying compatibility. Those who don't enjoy it aren't going to be enjoying the other person either. They would be specifically souring on some of us as a direct result of it.

[daydreamer]

Flirting involves a limited set of faked reactions and only limited, shallow conversation. It's worthless for collecting useful information or verifying compatibility.

not if you're flirting with nerds or geeks.

[Prunesquallor]

Flirting involves a limited set of faked reactions and only limited, shallow conversation. It's worthless for collecting useful information or verifying compatibility. Those who don't enjoy it aren't going to be enjoying the other person either. They would be specifically souring on some of us as a direct result of it.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Like anything, you don't need to do what everyone else does if you don't like it. Conversations about goat sex, triceratops/lobster combinations and Doctor Who can be flirting if you do it the right way. Any conversation topic you like, with the right mood, can be flirting. Sharing mutual hatred of humans can be flirting.

[Autoptic]

Then you're doing it wrong.

Like anything, you don't need to do what everyone else does if you don't like it. Conversations about goat sex, triceratops/lobster combinations and Doctor Who can be flirting if you do it the right way. Any conversation topic you like, with the right mood, can be flirting. Sharing mutual hatred of humans can be flirting.

And you're doing this for no reason at all? I don't do anything of the sort with random people in person nor desire to, certainly not with strongly attractive females. That's quite unpleasant in the moment and, again, in special ways, afterward. The most vital information would still be off limits. You don't know if they're single, sufficiently attracted, or at all viable for whatever kind(s) of relationship you're after. Most relevant personal information would be hard to impossible to get at.

[GreenBulldog]

And there are hundreds of thousands of girls who are falsely called "attention whores" simply because they rejected someone who read too much into simple kindness and courtesy, or simple flirting. Rather more of them than the real "attention whores."

Also, flirting very often does not lead to sex or indeed anything much. Basic fact, one worth realising. People who don't understand this tend to blame the other person for not living up to false expectations, again. Directness, moreover, much as I like it myself, is not feasible when it is, in fact, not clear if one reciprocates interest or not - like if one wants to actually find out something about the person first, other than the size of their mammary glands. It's only good when there already is a clear answer. Flirting is usually a way to find out if you like a person, if, for example, you consider something other than their appearance. It's not a promise or a guarantee, but a filtering and a stalling mechanism, a way of collecting information. It can also be a harmless way of passing the time, for those who enjoy it. Anyone who considers it a guarantee of anything is bound to get burnt. And it's their own damn fault.

Certain more intense levels of flirting, however, should really go with intent, or it's misleading. I grant that.

Well, I agree with you.

That's why I said IF YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, be direct.

If you don't know what you want and you're trying to find out, go ahead and do so. I never said anything about that.

But yeah, one of the ways manipulative head games occur is by coercing people to read things that aren't true or misleading, so don't trust your mind. Ask for it directly. If you're good at "the game" so to speak, more power to you. Forget what I said. For me though, specially as an impatient INTJ, I do things direct (expressing my interests).

You heard it guys!!! FLIRTING DOES NOT LEAD TO SEX!!!!!!

Moral of the story if you want sex only: DON'T FLIRT!!!

Lets get some definition clear so there's no mix-up:

Expressing your interests: being direct & specific; forcing a woman to either reciprocate your interests, or not reciprocate your interests

Flirting: Expressing attraction, or romantic and/or sexual interest in a manner that is vague, ambigious, and lighthearted or playful. You don't really force a woman to commit to a definite "yes, I'm interested" response or a "No, I'm not interested response."

[Prunesquallor]

And you're doing this for no reason at all? I don't do anything of the sort with anyone for any reason in person nor intent to, certainly not strongly attractive females. That's quite unpleasant. The most vital information would still be off limits. You don't know if they're single, sufficiently attracted, or at all viable in whatever kind(s) of relationship you're after.

What do you mean for no reason? I don't need an ulterior motive to talk to people, if that's what you're asking. And for me the most vital information is whether they're funny, whether we get along, whether they're worth seeing again, whether I like them as a human. I don't decide to date a person, or determine what precisely I want from them, before I know who they are - random leaps of faith are not my style; I prefer informed decisions. What I'm saying is that if I decide to flirt with someone, it will in no means be conventional, flirting needn't be; such options exist. I haven't the patience to be typical. But if I really need to know something, I ask. Usually not a problem.

If all you're interested in is determining their availibility, you can either be direct or sleaze it up until it's unmistakeable, your motives. Or just wait a bit until you find out. All m.o.s have their different difficulties, of course, but that's normal.





Prunesquallor added to this post, 2 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Well, I agree with you.

That's why I said IF YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, be direct.

If you don't know what you want and you're trying to find out, go ahead and do so. I never said anything about that.

But yeah, one of the ways manipulative head games occur is by coercing people to read things that aren't true or misleading, so don't trust your mind. Ask for it directly. If you're good at "the game" so to speak, more power to you. Forget what I said. For me though, specially as an impatient INTJ, I do things direct (expressing my interests).

You heard it guys!!! FLIRTING DOES NOT LEAD TO SEX!!!!!!

Moral of the story if you want sex only: DON'T FLIRT!!!

Lets get some definition clear so there's no mix-up:

Expressing your interests: being direct & specific; forcing a woman to either reciprocate your interests, or not reciprocate your interests

Flirting: Expressing attraction, or romantic and/or sexual interest in a manner that is vague, ambigious, and lighthearted or playful. You don't really force a woman to commit to a definite "yes, I'm interested" response or a "No, I'm not interested response."

Seems reasonable. Though it's not always coercive mindgames, but more often simple misunderstanding, simple assumptions.

[PLC]

And you're doing this for no reason at all? I don't do anything of the sort with anyone in person for any reason nor desire to, certainly not with strongly attractive females. That's quite unpleasant in the moment and, again, afterward. The most vital information would still be off limits. You don't know if they're single, sufficiently attracted, or at all viable for whatever kind(s) of relationship you're after. Most relevant personal information would be hard to impossible to get at.

Well if you want to know more about a women you can create a form for her to fill and have her submit her candidature when she's done. It's VERY efficient but it might be a little awkward.

You'll get around knowing all the vital info if you stick around long enough. Most people love talking about themselves, you just got to get them to open up. As an example, I've seen a women I've met recently 3 times for a few hours. It's not a whole lot of interaction but I already know her life inside out and I believe she knows quite a lot about me at this point... or at least more than enough to know if we want to meet again. I have a great time every time I see her so even if it doesn't lead anywhere in the end, it's not wasted time at all. It's not rocket science.

It's not always easy but sometimes we make it harder than it should be.

[Prunesquallor]

It's not rocket science.

No, that's easier. ;)

[Autoptic]

What do you mean for no reason? I don't need an ulterior motive to talk to people, if that's what you're asking. And for me the most vital information is whether they're funny, whether we get along, whether they're worth seeing again, whether I like them as a human. I don't decide to date a person, or determine what precisely I want from them, before I know who they are - random leaps of faith are not my style; I prefer informed decisions. What I'm saying is that if I decide to flirt with someone, it will in no means be conventional, flirting needn't be; such options exist. I haven't the patience to be typical. But if I really need to know something, I ask. Usually not a problem.

If all you're interested in is determining their availibility, you can either be direct or sleaze it up until it's unmistakeable, your motives. Or just wait a bit until you find out. All m.o.s have their different difficulties, of course, but that's normal.

What you're describing violates most of most people's definition of flirting. What you seem to be describing as dating would likewise be an initial relationship. You seem to be initiating dating like interaction, sans much of the flirting, and calling that flirting.

With an aversion to interacting with people in general and attractive ones in specific, informed decisions to pursue anything beyond the typical business or non interaction would be based on appearance which is a vital point and something sufficiently scarce not to happen upon regularly and accidentally, especially with any apparent reciprocity.

[GreenBulldog]

Seems reasonable. Though it's not always coercive mindgames, but more often simple misunderstanding, simple assumptions.

Regardless of whether it's mind games or simple misunderstandings, it can be prevented. That's the moral of my point.

[Prunesquallor]

Regardless of whether it's mind games or simple misunderstandings, it can be prevented. That's the moral of my point.

It can, yes. Mostly.
And without assuming malice or manipulation on the part of the other person, just because one misinterpreted them.
That's my point.

[Autoptic]

Well if you want to know more about a women you can create a form for her to fill and have her submit her candidature when she's done. It's VERY efficient but it might be a little awkward.

All of this stuff is awkward. The entire point is to get what I want with minimal loss before burnout.

You'll get around knowing all the vital info if you stick around long enough. Most people love talking about themselves, you just got to get them to open up. As an example, I've seen a women I've met recently 3 times for a few hours. It's not a whole lot of interaction but I already know her life inside out and I believe she knows quite a lot about me at this point... or at least more than enough to know if we want to meet again. I have a great time every time I see her so even if it doesn't lead anywhere in the end, it's not wasted time at all.

This isn't a shared experience. Once for a few seconds is more interaction that I care for with people in general, and self inducing further sexual frustration and emotional drainage is well beyond mere wasting time. Dating is unpleasant including any lead up and certainly any let down.

[PLC]

All of this stuff is awkward. The entire point is to get what I want with minimal loss before burnout.



This isn't a shared experience. Once for a few seconds is more interaction that I care for with people in general, and self inducing further sexual frustration and emotional drainage is well beyond mere wasting time. Dating is unpleasant including any lead up and certainly any let down.

Then your only option left is to get a prostitute. Straight to the point, no questions asked!

Seriously though, if you want a relationship without putting any effort into actually getting there, you might as well forget the whole concept entirely. It's just not going to happen.

[d3molitionMayne]

Seriously though, if you want a relationship without putting any effort into actually getting there, you might as well forget the whole concept entirely. It's just not going to happen.

Ha yea there's a whole lotta wishful thinking going on in this thread right now. I think the biggest failure in here has to be the average male's inability to see the difference between "interest" and "desire".

[Autoptic]

Then your only option left is to get a prostitute. Straight to the point, no questions asked!

Wrong point. Incomplete and counterproductive.

Seriously though, if you want a relationship without putting any effort into actually getting there, you might as well forget the whole concept entirely. It's just not going to happen.

I expected effort. I was just saying the pursuit itself sucks. The effect is much the opposite of the intended a relationship. Pursuing in a manner that personally precludes success isn't a grand idea either.

[LadyInHeels]

I am pretty much crap at flirting, so if there is a guy I REALLY like I will at least try to start a conversation, if nothing else for the fact that I at least tried so I won't regret doing nothing. But it's definitely hard for me, I have a really hard time gauging a guy's reactions.
I would prefer it if the men started the conversations, that way the power of whether or not I'm going to respond is in my hands, not theirs.

[jimnorris]

psychologically speaking, one of the most basic needs of a woman is the need to be desired. even if she demonstrates that she is interested, most women still have that need for the man to make the motion. it proves he desires her and that fulfills a need. that doesn't diminish women who do make the first move since clearly we are all individual and unique in our make up but i hope it helps to understand why most won't make that move. how else could the female mantis trap the male... ooops!! did i just say that? :D

[PLC]

Heh, who would have known...

Some girl did something we could consider "initiating" with me today and she was quite blunt and I liked it very much (and I let her know, of course!)

You can do it girls!