Well, then we’re on the same page. This is exactly what I mean. I’ve been the same way. I can’t exactly relate to it, either. I still don’t understand why it would be fun. For me, flirting is work, more than fun. I mean, it can be fun if there’s at least the hope that it pays off down the line. My job can be fun, too, but it doesn’t mean that I want to do it for free. And gambling can be fun, but not if there is no prize to be won.
But other people “go to work” with no hope of or interest in a paycheck, just for the kicks. And they gamble for the thrills alone.
For the longest time, I didn’t know people did it. I thought that all the flirting I was observing was about getting from A to B. Then I realized that a portion of it, probably a large portion, is just about A.
I still don’t get that. It’s just useful to know that it’s a thing.
If the last couple of posts was your first introduction to this concept… cool! My hope is that this is the case for a lot of people. Because I don’t think it’s obvious. And I think that it can potentially explain many otherwise seemingly contradictory or confusing situations people find themselves in. It does for me.
That’s a great analogy from my point of view, because I think driving is one of the worst activities I can think of that some people actually enjoy. I hate being in a car and the idea of taking a road trip for fun seems akin to getting a dentist to drill out your healthy teeth and put in fillings.
Still, as much as I can’t “relate” to driving as a pleasurable activity i am well aware that there are people who enjoy it.
Well, yeah. Maybe the people flirting on here were planning to hook up at a Dopefest, or something? I dunno. How would I know? Look, I may be exceptionally dense. Not saying otherwise. And I have been clued in at this point.
For the really cluess, I’d say “try harder” is facile advice. It presumes that lack of effort is the problem rather than the cluelessness itself.
To be honest, I don’t know if the advice being handed out in this thread is appropriate for people who truly don’t get social interactions. It’s not something a bunch of schmoes on the internet can teach, though that won’t stop them from trying. But it’s really above their pay grade.
I think most people can improve their social skills, especially with professional intervention. But I agree, I think some significant portion will always be noticeably awkward and clueless. And it’s not their fault. But it’s not women’s or society’s faults either. It’s just an unfortunate reality.
I think if I were still out there I don’t think I’d be any less clueless at 50 as I was at 30. Since I wake up next to my wife each morning, she says she loves me on a regular basis, we have two kids together, and we get frisky together frequently I think I can be pretty certain she’s interested. The only way I’d realize another woman was flirting with me would be if my wife said something, and I still would probably be mystified as to how she knew. Agree that it isn’t anyone’s fault; it just is.
I slapped on the winkyface to indicate “joke”, but it still didn’t come out right. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever actually noticed anyone flirting on the Dope. I mean, not on the level I’m talking about. I don’t mean to say that every slightly flirty joking comment in the world looks like part of a strange, incomprehensible hoo-man mating ritual to me. I’m not a robot (although I am an alien). And I don’t really want to come across that way. I’m clueless, but not *that *clueless.
I’m mostly talking about, you know, this level and upwards:
That stuff, I have been known to misinterpret.
So you get situations like this:
She has a boyfriend, but keeps flirting with me. My take: This means that if I keep this up, she might cheat on the boyfriend with me, or dump him for me. Her take: She was out for a drive. Hook-up was never on the table to begin with. No ill intent.
She flirts with me, but then says that she has a boyfriend. My take: She was leading me on, which makes her a bad person, and then I was rejected. Her take: She was just out for a drive, and assumed that I had taken that possibility into account from the get-go. No ill intent.
Actually, looking at the post from Quasimodal that I quoted again. I actually have to amend my amendment. In that case, reading it again, it’s entirely possible that any “flirting” in that particular case was entirely in his imagination.
So I guess I mean stuff that is several notches more obvious than that.
It’s a good point, but speaking as a schmoe on the Internet, it’s really hard to tell the difference between the profoundly clueless and the untalented and inexperienced. Age is probably a good indicator. If you’re 55 and have never been with a woman, you’re probably beyond the Internet’s ability to help.
But, say, a 22 year old? How can you be sure if you can’t do it well or if you just haven’t yet? Ultimately the best thing the Internet can do is push people to tweak themselves just a little bit and hopefully it’s enough to get people making appropriate romantic overtures and do some actual dating. Positive experience will go a really long way for men who don’t have a natural talent for it.
There have been at least two marriages that I can recall of people who met here on the Dope, but those were some years ago. There doesn’t seem to be as much in-person socializing among dopers as there used to be. And this place is sufficiently snarky that it’s hard to tell actual flirting from sarcastic meta-flirting.
Disagree.
As I say, I spent years finding socializing, relationships and my lack thereof incredibly frustrating, but eventually managed to turn it around.
I am absolutely sure that I have something to contribute to guys who are in the same rut that I was in. I wish I could go back in time and have even a 10 minute talk with the teenage, or 20-something, Mijin…
I think the idea that useful advice cannot be shared on this topic and some people just don’t “get it”, is a big part of the problem.
I kind of agree, though I’d drop the word “noticeably”; it’s relatively straightforward to coach out physical signs of nerves. In many cases it’s as simple as telling people what things betray their lack of confidence because they usually are oblivious to them.
I’d also say in terms of socializing and dating, it’s not necessary to be the life of the party. You don’t need to be charismatic (though obviously it helps). Just a few relatively simple things about the way you listen to people, and make them feel welcome (but also give them space), is already enough to put you head and shoulders over most guys.
I think what has made the “nice guy/nice woman” problem worse in recent decades is that, increasingly, society has been promoting this notion of equality and fairness and equal opportunity and all that. Which is one thing when it’s about jobs or college admissions or combating racism, etc. but is an entirely different matter when it comes to romance and relationships.
Romance and relationships is one of the most brutal, discriminating arenas of human interaction that there is in the entire world. I’m not saying this in a cynical way - I say this in a completely matter of fact way. Equal opportunity doesn’t apply here. “Fairness” doesn’t apply here. It is a ruthless arena - if someone isn’t attracted to you, they aren’t attracted to you. Arguments of logic, fairness, reason or rationalizing won’t work. You can’t sue someone into being attracted to you, either.
For a man or woman who has grown up with notions of egalitarianism, fairness or equality in their minds, it is therefore all the more brutal when they are rejected for reasons that seem completely unfair to them - or when they see some people being extremely attractive and having no problem attracting the opposite sex while some other people will never be married due to being ugly or unattractive or whatnot. The “equal/egalitarian” sentiment in society makes the unfairness all the more galling.
Many people see a problem with income inequality in the world, for instance - hey, why are there billionaires when there are millions of people starving in Third World Countries - but see no problem with “attractiveness inequality” - hey, why do some women get all the guys or some guys get all the girls while some other ugly or unattractive people will never be asked out on a date? It’s because romance and relationships are an exceptional arena in human interaction - “exceptional,” as in, the rules that would apply towards most other aspects of society don’t apply here.
In a certain sense, romance and relationships is totally a meritocracy and yet not a meritocracy at the same time. It’s a meritocracy in the sense that people are attracted to whom they’re attracted to, and they’re not attracted to those they’re not. It is not a meritocracy in the sense that earning more money, doing volunteer work, getting good grades, etc. doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll be more attractive to the opposite sex.
I guess that I can’t really see why it should be different from other skills or areas of knowledge. In recent years, I’ve learned to play the guitar, taken up running and exercise, and learned about Roman history. All after the age of 30. I sure keep learning and doing new things in adulthood.
Besides, I don’t need those analogous examples: I’ve improved my social skills after the age of 30. So, there you go.
OK, maybe you could argue that social skills are like language, you’ll never be fluent if you don’t do your learning at an early age. Maybe so. But even if you only learn a sentence here and there, it’s still something. Even a few words of Italian can be useful for your next vacation, even if you’ll never pass for a native.
Maybe you could say that it’s not about skills, it’s about the person you are. And I agree with that, to an extent. But I also disagree. Or, rather, being is tangled up in all sorts of way with doing. “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do, that defines me. I’m Batman!” I can say, and mean it: I am a better person now, because I do things differently. Being is doing.
In one sense, I think it may actually be easier to improve the more clueless you are, not the other way around. It can be like that with other things. If you’re already close to perfect at something, it’s hard work to find that 1% of further improvement. But if you’re absolutely crap at it, even one simple trick can potentially make a big difference.
Louis CK had a good bit about this. When it comes to dating, we’re all assholes. “You feel sorry for ugly people? Well, you go fuck one, then. Right, I didn’t think so.”
It is brutal. You kind of have to accept the brutality of it.
Although, BTW, I keep coming back the the “nice guy resume / bad guy resume” thing. I think it’s useful to actually have a clue what makes you attractive, as opposed to what you’re stubbornly insisting should make you attractive. There really does seem to be a lot of confusion there. Let’s look at your little list:
Earning more money: Good. Getting good grades: Probably good. Doing volunteer work: No. Most likely, no one cares.
Or take my list from above, in this context. Playing the guitar: Good. Running and exercise: Good. Roman history: No. No one cares.
People are always telling you to “be passionate about something”. But it kind of matters what you’re passionate about. (Which, I guess, *should *be obvious. If you’re a passionate child pornographer, that’s *really *bad.) I mean, in the strict context of finding dates. I’ll still geek out on Roman history, I just don’t expect anyone to find that particularly arousing, per se.
I don’t think that was monstro’s point, that useful advice cannot be shared. I think her point was solely that there could be people who simply cannot benefit from even the most useful advice.
To use an exaggerated example, a person with advanced dementia probably will not benefit from advice about social interaction. The average 10 year old, on the other hand, probably could. In between those two points are a lot of humanity, some falling closer to one side, some to the other. If someone essentially says that they cannot benefit from the advice, I’m willing to take their word for it.
May be a relevant factor for some, but I always knew I was not merely nicer than the typical guy, I was also cuter than the average guy, and better conversation and a better listener. And more modest too.
Seriously, I don’t think attractiveness, at least in the sense of appearance, is a very big factor here. Confidence, somewhat more so, I admit, but that becomes a circular-reasoning exercise— is the experience of failing to be appealing to folks you were hoping would find you attractive due to lack of confidence, or is it the cause of it?
I’ll readily concede that variant gender identity & expression probably doesn’t explain it all either, but I’m going to stick to my position that it’s a substantial factor. For everyone on this thread who has chosen to tell anecdotes about how their courting flirting and dating experience was not heavily choreographed by gender-specific expectations, there are ten zillion songs movies and autobiographical accounts supporting my premise that that’s nevertheless how things tend to operate, it is how things are depicted as operating, and therefore that someone whose expression of sexual-romantic interest and availability are atypical for their sex is going to have a particularly difficult time with what is already, for everyone, an emotionally challenging task.
I sometimes wonder if everybody has something that they “don’t get”. I have a few friends who say they don’t get math. I do get math, and I’ve occasionally tried to explain math to them when they’ve asked me. I’ve had other friends and family ask for help with computers. I don’t mind that, and I even find that it even tests my understanding of things to try and find some way to explain them. But it’s hard to know if it really does the trick. I can’t follow them around and solve every equation for them. I wonder if there’s really some fundamental difference in how our brains learn to absorb this information. I’ve never found the magic words to convert someone who doesn’t get math into someone who does.
