Women: How to and not to hit on a man

[Causa Mortis]

So this is my PSA to women. Hitting on a man should be a really easy and rewarding venture; by taking a bit of initiative, and you can often do better than you would if you just waited on the guy. Plus I like being hit on, since its usually a guaranteed homerun and requires no work on my part.

Ranked below are ranked by most to least effective:
1. Make small talk for 3-4 minutes about something innocuous in the environment, touch him on the arm or shoulder, then excuse yourself. He'll pursue unless he's not interested or a tool.
2. Make fun of him in a playful way.
3. Talk to my friends about something substantive.

Ranked below are the most ineffective strategies:
1. The squeamish "I'm sorry I'm hitting on you" approach, which kills any attraction instantly
2. The overtly sexual come on. Even though I probably would like to fuck you within 10 minutes of us meeting, its just uncouth to come out and flatly say it.
3. Putting your financial feelers out within the first 3 minutes of meeting me. Show some restraint and at least wait 5.

Discuss

[catzmeow]

Women frequently express the overwhelming desire to scrog you within minutes of being introduced? I find it humorous that I'm also watching South Park: Imaginationland.

[khadi]

Ranked in order of least to most excruciating for an INTJ:
3. Talk to my friends about something substantive.
2. Make fun of him in a playful way.
1. Make small talk for 3-4 minutes about something innocuous in the environment, touch him on the arm or shoulder, then excuse yourself.

[ElstonGunn]

1. Make small talk for 3-4 minutes about something innocuous in the environment, touch him on the arm or shoulder, then excuse yourself. He'll pursue unless he's not interested or a tool.

I wouldn't catch the hint, and I doubt I'd pursue. I'd take it as a woman wanting to chat for a second about something innocuous in the environment, and then wanting to go on her merry way.

Just to make this a little clearer for me, if that constitutes "hitting on" for you, what in God's name doesn't? I would have guessed that "Talking to someone else about something that's actually worth talking about for its own sake" wouldn't count as hitting on me, but that's on your list, too.

I'm really hopeless at this, aren't I? :p

[Margot]

So this is my PSA to women. Hitting on a man should be a really easy and rewarding venture; by taking a bit of initiative, and you can often do better than you would if you just waited on the guy. Plus I like being hit on, since its usually a guaranteed homerun and requires no work on my part.

Ranked below are ranked by most to least effective:
1. Make small talk for 3-4 minutes about something innocuous in the environment, touch him on the arm or shoulder, then excuse yourself. He'll pursue unless he's not interested or a tool.
2. Make fun of him in a playful way.
3. Talk to my friends about something substantive.

I often do these things with zero intention of hitting on someone. I wouldn't want them to be automatically interpreted without additional details or context as a "guaranteed homerun".

[Causa Mortis]

Women frequently express the overwhelming desire to scrog you within minutes of being introduced? I find it humorous that I'm also watching South Park: Imaginationland.

I didn't say that. I said "overtly sexual comeons"

I wouldn't catch the hint, and I doubt I'd pursue. I'd take it as a woman wanting to chat for a second about something innocuous in the environment, and then wanting to go on her merry way.

The touch on the arm was a hint.

Ranked in order of least to most excruciating for an INTJ:
3. Talk to my friends about something substantive.
2. Make fun of him in a playful way.
1. Make small talk for 3-4 minutes about something innocuous in the environment, touch him on the arm or shoulder, then excuse yourself.

Ah, the good ole "you're not an INTJ if..." argument.

---------- Post added 07-18-2010 at 12:48 PM ----------


Just to make this a little clearer for me, if that constitutes "hitting on" for you, what in God's name doesn't? I would have guessed that "Talking to someone else about something that's actually worth talking about for its own sake" wouldn't count as hitting on me, but that's on your list, too.

I only interact with women for one reason. They're not worth talking to otherwise; although decent ones exist, its a bad bet. Ergo I don't see how its useful to interpret anything as just a desire to chit chat.

[ElstonGunn]

The touch on the arm was a hint.

Which I wouldn't get, because I seriously am that obtuse. Any "If, then" statement is only as good as its assumptions. I think you need to modify yours to "He'll pursue unless he's not interested or a tool or if he didn't get the hint or if he doesn't like the concept of pursuit or he's busy with something else or he's overly concerned about the possibility that you're not interested and were just talking to him for no real reason."

Or maybe you already covered that with the "tool" idea. ;)

[Dasein]

Wait, overt sexual come ons are a no go?
Damn.

[katrin]

3. Talk to my friends about something substantive.

I don't understand what this means. Why should she talk to your friends instead of you?

[tooboku]

The touch on the arm was a hint.

Depends... I found lately that girls just want to touch my arms. No interest necessary. I just have a lot of euro-fitted shirts that make my arms look bigger than they actually are. I laugh at this.


Wait, overt sexual come ons are a no go?
Damn.

Uh... it certainly does simplify things. No guessing required. Unless you're after an INTJ specifically. We tend to have trust issues.

... but you Das, I welcome any overt display of sexual interest.

[Blse]

I wouldn't catch the hint, and I doubt I'd pursue. I'd take it as a woman wanting to chat for a second about something innocuous in the environment, and then wanting to go on her merry way.

Just to make this a little clearer for me, if that constitutes "hitting on" for you, what in God's name doesn't? I would have guessed that "Talking to someone else about something that's actually worth talking about for its own sake" wouldn't count as hitting on me, but that's on your list, too.

I'm really hopeless at this, aren't I? :p

I would get the hint, and back and I was single, would pursue.

I often do these things with zero intention of hitting on someone. I wouldn't want them to be automatically interpreted without additional details or context as a "guaranteed homerun".

Careful, you're coming on to a lot of guys then, especially if they engage in wishful thinking. I know you're just trying to be nice but I can gurantee you that quite a few men think you're flirting with them. I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's the way gender relations work. Also see it from a man's perspective, how are we supposed to distinguish such friendliness from flirting? For many women this is as overt as they'll ever get: touching on the arm, etc...

Wait, overt sexual come ons are a no go?
Damn.

Well, depends. Some guys, myself included, see them as crass.

I don't understand what this means. Why should she talk to your friends instead of you?

I was asking myself the same. If a woman is interested in me, I want her to talk to me. Conversly, if I am interested in a woman, I will talk to her.

[Margot]

Careful, you're coming on to a lot of guys then, especially if they engage in wishful thinking. I know you're just trying to be nice but I can gurantee you that quite a few men think you're flirting with them. I know it's not what you want to hear, but it's the way gender relations work. Also see it from a man's perspective, how are we supposed to distinguish such friendliness from flirting? For many women this is as overt as they'll ever get: touching on the arm, etc...

My phrasing was a bit unclear. I didn't mean that I do these things often, but rather that when I do behave that way, it's often without romantic or sexual intent. I agree that the touch on the arm or shoulder would be the easiest signal to misinterpret, but it really depends on the situation. If this was a "lingering" touch with eye contact and a warm smile then yes, it would make more sense as a hint. It would also depend on what kind of culture the person is from; in some cultures, casual physical contact is an accepted norm, merely a sign of warmth. That's what I meant by additional details and context - those are what will help men distinguish friendliness from flirting.

[yoginimama]

I only interact with women for one reason. They're not worth talking to otherwise; although decent ones exist, its a bad bet. Ergo I don't see how its useful to interpret anything as just a desire to chit chat.

In that case, shouldn't you move to Nevada (or someplace else where prostitution is legal) and just hire prostitutes? If you're only interested in women for sex, why bother with all the crap about waiting for women to hit on you and interpreting signals and such? That seems like a very inefficient way to pursue what you want.

I would think you'd be much happier going someplace where you can be totally up front about what you want (sex) and how you want it (with no chit-chat or personal stuff) and there will be thousands of women who will be more than happy to give you exactly that. For a fee, of course--but then, dating ain't cheap either.

[fokalina]

I only interact with women for one reason. They're not worth talking to otherwise; although decent ones exist, its a bad bet. Ergo I don't see how its useful to interpret anything as just a desire to chit chat.

Oh, really?

My problem with this statement is that your interpretation of others is based on yourself.
Many people engage in "chit chat" out of pure friendliness (i.e. no sexual stimulus). I do (and I'm an INTJ).
That being said, my version of "chit chat" is not exactly typical. I hate customary greetings, superficial compliments, and gossip. Rather, I prefer to be slightly abrupt and quirky. I'll share a bizarre tidbit of knowledge or ask a random question. It's pretty awkward, I'll admit. But it makes me smile...and almost always, they do too. :) I've actually gained many friends/friendly acquaintances this way.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, as it probably only works for a certain personality/demeanor, but I would like to say that it (interacting with someone solely to "chit chat") exists. And I think it would be wise to keep that in mind.

[SoWhat]

"talk about something substantive." Why else would I talk? Doesn't mean I'm flirting.

[Thinktress]

So this is my PSA to women. Hitting on a man should be a really easy and rewarding venture;

You are so right. That's why I'm wondering why any sane woman would follow suggestions in a PSA from someone who admittedly doesn't think highly of women.

Furthermore, what horse do you have in this race? Can't you just go to realdoll.com, pick a couple of nice models, and tape record your own dialogue? They don't really even need to move, right?

PSA. Hilarious.

[Dasein]

Be nice, guys. He doesn't mean this stuff. He is just hurting.
We have all been there; I used to wonder why men would ask me to dinner, when I knew all they wanted to do was use me for sex. It is hard not to get jaded after a break up, and commit fallacy of composition regarding the opposite sex.
I like this post; I learned men are not impressed with my free expression of sexual intent.

[dontmesswithme]

A woman talking to his friends about something substantive would indicate intuition and sophistication. If his friends are impressed with her, he will want to have sex with her even more because of the competitive urges that men have in this area. If she starts talking to his friends because she intuitively knows this, and he knows she knows (and she knows he knows she knows), then so much the better. This would mean she would not be boring to him, she would be more of a turn on, and that would make the sex that much better. The brain is the greatest sexual organ. Causa Mortis could, after all, go ahead and buy a blow-up doll because he says that most women are not worth talking to and are only good for sex. However, a blow-up doll would not have "N". Or warmth, for that matter. Or the potential to provide hope.

[Elfrun]

I only interact with women for one reason. They're not worth talking to otherwise; although decent ones exist, its a bad bet. Ergo I don't see how its useful to interpret anything as just a desire to chit chat.

... because not all men are like you in that regard, the idea of men only ever speaking to women as a hit-on is disturbing. The division between the genders is not so great that men and women have to designate one gender to the "relationship/sex" category and the other to "the rest".

That said, I agree with your tips with hitting on a guy, I just sure hope not all men take conversation as the sign of interest, cause I'll speak to anyone ;D

[Thinktress]

Be nice, guys. He doesn't mean this stuff. He is just hurting.
We have all been there; I used to wonder why men would ask me to dinner, when I knew all they wanted to do was use me for sex. It is hard not to get jaded after a break up, and commit fallacy of composition regarding the opposite sex.
I like this post; I learned men are not impressed with my free expression of sexual intent.

When someone posts on this board I'm not going to second guess what they mean. If someone's hurting they are justified in saying shitty things to and about others and we can just assume they don't mean it? Nope. We're each accountable for what we say. Trust me, none of us are out here having a perfect life. It's not very elegant to take one's problems out on anyone else. Assuming that is even happening, again, since you are speaking for someone else.

Secondly, you are not "learning" anything at all about men in general from this "PSA." You are learning the "preferences" of this one particular person. You have to decide if this is the type of person you would even normally choose to date before considering his information.

[Dasein]

Agreed, I don't think taking problems out on other people is acceptable. However, I usually like giving people the benefit of the doubt that when they say such things, they are only speaking emotionally. I have read the emotionally charged, bitter previous posts of the OP. Of course, I could just be jumping to conclusions, because I would really not wish to believe ANYONE really thinks like this.

[plotthickens]

Hitting on a man should be a really easy and rewarding venture;
ineffective strategy: The overtly sexual come on. Even though I probably would like to fuck you within 10 minutes of us meeting, its just uncouth to come out and flatly say it.

I only interact with women for one reason.

Is this double standards or just mixed signals? I can't decide.

[Aurelia]

Secondly, you are not "learning" anything at all about men in general from this "PSA." You are learning the "preferences" of this one particular person. You have to decide if this is the type of person you would even normally choose to date before considering his information.

This is true. You also always have to consider the source when someone gives unsolicited advice.

[Thinktress]

Is this double standards or just mixed signals? I can't decide.

Oh, let me clarify the first bit. He meant easy and rewarding for HIM, Plotty! lol

But yeah, as for the rest of it, double standards, mixed signals, a lot of general contempt, some projection...

[operatorfivetwo]

I'm hopeless when it comes to someone flirting with me, I'm usually oblivious, you've got to hit me over the head with it before I realise it. So either be straight to the point and just tell me you're interested in me or be as overt about it as possible. Small talk will only make me lose interest and telling me to smile (which I've found out recently whilst on the job is an attempt at times to create an opening/a prelude to the flirting part of it.) will only annoy me and make me ignore the person in question.

[Thinktress]

I'm hopeless when it comes to someone flirting with me, I'm usually oblivious, you've got to hit me over the head with it before I realise it. So either be straight to the point and just tell me you're interested in me or be as overt about it as possible. Small talk will only make me lose interest and telling me to smile (which I've found out recently whilst on the job is an attempt at times to create an opening/a prelude to the flirting part of it.) will only annoy me and make me ignore the person in question.

As a woman, I also like a guy who has the huzpah to just be direct and tell me, this is what I WANT. It's sexy to me. Not if they do it in some crass sexual way, but if they are really aggressive about stating their interest in me.

OMG, is THAT really what that "smile" thing is all about? I think I just smile more in general now, so I don't get it so often anymore, but I used to get it just constantly and it made me so angry. And it WAS always from men (duh, I guess that should have been a clue that maybe it was about flirting - how oblivious can I be?). If that's what it was, then what a wrong way to approach.

[operatorfivetwo]

As a woman, I also like a guy who has the huzpah to just be direct and tell me, this is what I WANT. It's sexy to me. Not if they do it in some crass sexual way, but if they are really aggressive about stating their interest in me.

OMG, is THAT really what that "smile" thing is all about? I think I just smile more in general now, so I don't get it so often anymore, but I used to get it just constantly and it made me so angry. And it WAS always from men (duh, I guess that should have been a clue that maybe it was about flirting - how oblivious can I be?). If that's what it was, then what a wrong way to approach.


It's a shame that quite a few people just lack the nerve to do it out straight...indeed without the crassness , simply a " hi, listen , I find you quite attractive, would you like to have a drink sometime , see where that leads to.". That being said though, this would be my general way of going about it, but most people find it too direct or are rather surprised by it , it does somewhat put someone on the spot.

As for the smiling, I just thought it was an annoying trait that people cant handle something/someone different. it wasnt untill last saturday actually that this girl's wingwoman confronted me about how tactless I was and that I had inadvertendly hurt her feelings whilst she was just trying to create an opening since she found me interesting etc. With this being said, I'm not saying it's always the case but chances are that it might be an attempt.

Props for you to be able to smile more these days, I simply cant to it on command without it looking extremely forced and like im about to do something.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis View Post

Hitting on a man should be a really easy and rewarding venture;

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis View Post

ineffective strategy: The overtly sexual come on. Even though I probably would like to fuck you within 10 minutes of us meeting, its just uncouth to come out and flatly say it.

Originally Posted by Causa Mortis View Post

I only interact with women for one reason.


Is this double standards or just mixed signals? I can't decide.

lol good catch. I'd go with double standard.

Guess what CM it's also crass and uncouth to only want to talk to women for sex.

[Thinktress]

Props for you to be able to smile more these days, I simply cant to it on command without it looking extremely forced and like im about to do something.

Yeah, no - I won't do it on command - THAT still annoys me, lol. But I'm a lot happier now than I was when I was younger (and not NEARLY as serious all the time), so I just naturally seem to smile a lot more than I used to.

[LifesEcstasy]

Hey I've been told by guys to "smile" and it just makes me want to punch them in the face. Really, really crap flirting tactic with an INTJ.

[operatorfivetwo]

Yeah, no - I won't do it on command - THAT still annoys me, lol. But I'm a lot happier now than I was when I was younger (and not NEARLY as serious all the time), so I just naturally seem to smile a lot more than I used to.

Fair enough, I guess it all depends on the situation for me.

Hey I've been told by guys to "smile" and it just makes me want to punch them in the face. Really, really crap flirting tactic with an INTJ.

Tell me about it. The thought that crosses my mind then sometimes: " sure, im smiling right now but iv already killed you 3x in my mind"

[ElstonGunn]

That's what I meant by additional details and context - those are what will help men distinguish friendliness from flirting.

I remember reading about a study they did in which men were supposed to determine whether a woman was flirting with them or just being friendly. My memory of it is hazy, but I think the general take-away was that we're horrible at it-- we take flirtation as being friendly, and friendliness as flirtation. We completely misread you most of the time. (Or I guess the other way to look at it is that you women suck at conveying your intentions. :p)

Does that sound familiar to anyone, or am I just remembering things that don't exist again?

[egernunge]

I remember reading about a study they did in which men were supposed to determine whether a woman was flirting with them or just being friendly. My memory of it is hazy, but I think the general take-away was that we're horrible at it-- we take flirtation as being friendly, and friendliness as flirtation. We completely misread you most of the time. (Or I guess the other way to look at it is that you women suck at conveying your intentions. :p)

Does that sound familiar to anyone, or am I just remembering things that don't exist again?

No, you remembered correctly :)
Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a short article about the study. Interestingly, it was more likely that the men (and women, who were not doing much better in this study) misinterpreted sexual interest as friendliness than the other around. Maybe you can't be too direct after all.

[Thinktress]

I remember reading about a study they did in which men were supposed to determine whether a woman was flirting with them or just being friendly. My memory of it is hazy, but I think the general take-away was that we're horrible at it-- we take flirtation as being friendly, and friendliness as flirtation. We completely misread you most of the time. (Or I guess the other way to look at it is that you women suck at conveying your intentions. :p)

Does that sound familiar to anyone, or am I just remembering things that don't exist again?

Yeah, that makes sense. I know I've seen tons of posts even on these boards with guys saying that women were obviously flirting if they were just doing things like smiling at them or being nice to them - things that the women intended as just polite or friendly. It seems as though there is a lot of confusion in this regard and its very subjective dependent upon the recipient and their background/personality/emotional makeup/previous experience or lack thereof/culture/and a million other things.

Direct leaves no doubt. Of course, direct freaks some people out. But who needs them? I figure its nice to weed out the folks you'd always have to beat around the bush with at the very beginning.

[Tito]

2. The overtly sexual come on. Even though I probably would like to fuck you within 10 minutes of us meeting, its just uncouth to come out and flatly say it.
As a male that from time to time gets hit on by women, I must say that everything you said is true; this one being spot on.

Granted, I've only been approached once by a woman that really wanted to get busy with me and she made sure I knew it, literally. Unfortunately for her, I turned that down.

I don't like overly aggressive women, even if it was for a one-night-stand. Albeit if a woman becomes slightly aggressive after hitting on me for some time; then yes, that's a definite turn on and will guarantee her the catch.

But coming from the get-go on an aggressive slant will simply cause me to press the ignore button. Sorry.

[paleoeco]

Guess what CM it's also crass and uncouth to only want to talk to women for sex.

Now, if you want to jump the fence, talking to a gay man for the sole purpose of having him blow you is quiet the norm and is considered perfectly acceptable.

[Causa Mortis]

As a male that from time to time gets hit on by women, I must say that everything you said is true; this one being spot on.

Granted, I've only been approached once by a woman that really wanted to get busy with me and she made sure I knew it, literally. Unfortunately for her, I turned that down.

I don't like overly aggressive women, even if it was for a one-night-stand. Albeit if a woman becomes slightly aggressive after hitting on me for some time; then yes, that's a definite turn on and will guarantee her the catch.

But coming from the get-go on an aggressive slant will simply cause me to press the ignore button. Sorry.

Its great when they initiate, and I'll date down if they do. But coming on TOO strong is just off putting.

[plotthickens]

Its great when they initiate, and I'll date down if they do. But coming on TOO strong is just off putting.

*takes notes just in case there is the slightest chance I might be fishing anywhere near a CM might be cruising the waters*

[zeroz]

Lol...I think this thread has a lot of women misinterpreting what Causa Mortis actually was trying to state (even if it was not worded exactly right). I might be making an assumption here, but my intuition strongly tells me that by stating

I only interact with women for one reason. They're not worth talking to otherwise; although decent ones exist, its a bad bet. Ergo I don't see how its useful to interpret anything as just a desire to chit chat.

he was not referring to sex alone, but that he mainly talks to women in the hope of a romantic relationship. He finds the whole "friendship only" thing with women as having little or no practical use. Plus, the fact that "sexual tensions" usually arise in male-female friendships only adds to the complications. In the end, male-female friendships probably only create more harm than good (at least for very introverted male INTJs).

Now assuming that this is what he meant to say, and based on the idea of practicality or efficiency, I have to agree with him that being "friends only" with women has no use. It simply leads to other complications that I do not want to deal with. In my view (again, MY VIEW), there was a very practical/simple reason why men and women were kept from being "friends" in society (in all societies all over the world) until very recently (past 50 years or so). It just was not accepted. Why? It has to do with our primitive instincts. No matter how evolved we like to think we are, there is a subset to our true nature which is looking to just ****. There is also another subset which is looking for some form of emotional connection. Combining these aspects, a "relationship" is the best of both worlds (plus in the olden days, there was the whole cooking and cleaning aspect as well, but I won't delve into that here).

However, I will state that there have been 2 or 3 women in my life I was friends with, but had limited desire to have a relationship with. This was due to a deep sense of loneliness, so I turned to them to have someone to talk to. Nonetheless, I will stand by what I have essentially proclaimed: I see no use in being "friends only" with women.

Having said all this, I can only hope that the quantum fluctuations in the universe work in my favor, so that the readers and following posters understand what it is that I am stating, instead of simply and unreasonably being offended by my sense of practicality.

[Pheehelm]

Regarding the flirting/friendliness confusion -- a lot of the problem is not just that a lot of guys misinterpret friendliness as flirting, it's also that a lot of guys know a lot of guys misinterpret friendliness as flirting, so when they interpret certain behavior as flirting, they think "oh, I'm just being one of those egotistical males who fluffs up his ego by misinterpreting friendliness as flirting" when they're actually misinterpreting flirting as friendliness misinterpreted as flirting.

[crabnebula]

Regarding the flirting/friendliness confusion -- a lot of the problem is not just that a lot of guys misinterpret friendliness as flirting, it's also that a lot of guys know a lot of guys misinterpret friendliness as flirting, so when they interpret certain behavior as flirting, they think "oh, I'm just being one of those egotistical males who fluffs up his ego by misinterpreting friendliness as flirting" when they're actually misinterpreting flirting as friendliness misinterpreted as flirting.

This is exactly why I always assume they are attracted. If they aren't...well, too bad, not my loss. Yes, this keeps away females who truly want to be friends and nothing more, but they are a small minority, so its all works out in the end.

[irini]

So this is my PSA to women. Hitting on a man should be a really easy and rewarding venture; by taking a bit of initiative, and you can often do better than you would if you just waited on the guy. Plus I like being hit on, since its usually a guaranteed homerun and requires no work on my part.

Ranked below are ranked by most to least effective:
1. Make small talk for 3-4 minutes about something innocuous in the environment, touch him on the arm or shoulder, then excuse yourself. He'll pursue unless he's not interested or a tool.
2. Make fun of him in a playful way.
3. Talk to my friends about something substantive.

Ranked below are the most ineffective strategies:
1. The squeamish "I'm sorry I'm hitting on you" approach, which kills any attraction instantly
2. The overtly sexual come on. Even though I probably would like to fuck you within 10 minutes of us meeting, its just uncouth to come out and flatly say it.
3. Putting your financial feelers out within the first 3 minutes of meeting me. Show some restraint and at least wait 5.

Discuss

I think a cude smile and a glimpse is enough to start ... something

[GCD]

I'm not a people person. Excluding the occasional moment of comedic insight when I think (for some unknown reason) that someone might be entertained by my wit, and the thankfully much less rare event of finding someone else entertaining, I don't "enjoy" talking to anyone.

I love doing things with other people. Talking, … not so much.

So if I were to agree with the general concept that "Why else would I want talk to a woman?" is, to a man, a rhetorical question with romantic interest as the one true answer, I would probably want to follow it up (rather quickly) with the additional thought "And why on earth would I ever want to talk to a man?"

But that's just me. I don't "want" to talk to anyone.

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there are things that I do want that I might not get without talking to people. And so I do talk, and not only out of necessity ("Yes, I would like fries with that), but out of social convention as well ("Hey Big Dog, you ready to knock some tennis balls around).

That said, and back to the original point of the thread, I have to wonder if it must not be a completely different process for a woman to hit on a man as compared to a man hitting on a woman.

And by that I mean (assuming that "hitting on" implies sexual intent), the male default position seems to be to want to have sex with everyone (who is sex appropriate) until something happens to flip the trigger out of default.

Him: Hi, I'd like to have sex with you. What's your name.
Her: (Flattered) Oh aren't you cute. (Resolved and stern) NO.

Thrust and parry. Back and forth. Are we there yet. Don't make me stop this car.

Women, on the other hand, I can't claim to understand; but, … assuming that they know right away whether they are sexually attracted to a particular man but choose not to have sex unless or until there is an emotional connection as well, are we advising a woman how to hit on a man before or after she is actually ready to have sex.

me: (blog much?)
me: (leave me alone …

I'm sorry)

me: (oops, channeling a different thread)


Of course, if "hitting on" just means expressing an interest in finding out more about someone before making up your mind as to whether you might or might not have any further interest in continuing to know them, whether as the party of the first part, or as the party of the second party (henceforth to be known as the after-party), then you would most likely want to disregard everything starting at "and by that …"