Hmmm. That’s a good point about this convention making it more difficult for women to make moves because it paints them as pushy or slutty. Despite what I’ve posted here, I actually do tend to be the aggressor, and I would much rather just ask than do the “Hey, notice me! Can’t you see I wore my low cut shirt? Can’t you see I just complained about the boring weekend I’m gonna have” thing that women generally do when they are trying to get someone to ask them out.
Not caring (too much) about being rejected is the appropriate level of investment in a relationship that is not yet at the “let’s have a cup of coffee” stage. It’s not emotionally callous, it’s simply matching the other party’s level of investment.
Aha, so you think they are undercutting the market.
I guess I don’t see what is wrong with your second statement. A lot of people have a period of life where they are not ready to settle down, but would still like a bit of romance even if it is not with a life partner. What’s so bad with having fun with that time? Basically, if you are not going to be serious with anyone anyway (maybe because you are in school, or busy starting a career, etc.) why would you need any other pretense behind your dating life?
Women effectively ask men out now, by flirting aggressively, asking leading questions - "Got any plans this weekend? Or, “Got any plans tonight?”, and talking about how they’d love to have dinner at a certain restaurant or see a certain movie.
With me, most of the women who do this are not women I’m interested in dating. It’s easier to duck them now than it would be if they felt comfortable putting the question to me directly.
So yeah, I’m happier with the men-ask-women-out convention.
It may be my non-US cultural background, but listening to whining or seeing a woman flashing half of her tits is really not something that’ll make me want to spend an evening with her. Much less ask her about a date, where I can’t even unload her on someone with other priorities than my own. I prefer to socialize with people with whom I’m reasonably sure to be able to keep up an intelligent conversation for more than three minutes, and those actions you describe quite efficiently brands the woman as a bimbo in my mind.
No-one on here has said “OMG, I can’t do it!”; it’s just people complaining about having to do it and/or wishing that the onus wasn’t on men.
But as for “being a man” I would like nothing better than walking up to someone and being 100% direct. It’s the fact that you cannot be explicit and must instead play the game which makes it a chore for me (and before you say it: I willingly go through that chore because I like many of the things that result).
There’s a rule that’s generally held for me since childhood; when someone tells you to “be a man” they are telling you to do something that’s stupid or unpleasant for you, but beneficial for them.
I told my mother this theory as a kid, and she commented “for us, it’s ‘ladylike’.”
From what I hear many women feel that way about the “slut”, so it would not surprise me to have many men feel that way about the “player”.
(I AM presuming you are using the “generic you” in that sentence…)
You asked about the “hate” – too many people in our culture, like I said, hold on to a notion that they have to be “better than that”. Which is indeed putting too damn much into it.
BUT when you add that to the Player’s notion of it being some sort of behavioral-technique “game” then you get into what I felt was objection #1, the idea of validating manipulation. Does the Player really care that his target(s) have their heads on straight and know what they’re getting into, and is just playing around until he finds The Right One, or is he just a user-discarder? The misogynist rhetoric creates a presumption of the later.
Oh, another objection I just thought of: As you put it, “…now and then you are going to strike out […] it’s not the losses that count, but the one time that you win big.” QFT, indeed. But many people feel that you should just do it the old-fashioned way and (wo)man-up and go in and take your lumps; seeking to apply PUA techniques is seen as “juicing”, in a way. Which of course ironically means they, too, are also looking at it as a competition where someone else has an unfair advantage.
What are you arguing for? I am honestly confused. Do you think the convention should be that it’s the man’s job, but the woman’s option to ask someone out? I mean, if you are saying that men should not be EXEMPT from asking women out, I agree with that, but that seems pretty meaningless unless you are saying that men have some sort of responsibility to ask women out that is not shared by women. But you also seem to feel that women ought to be allowed to ask men out.
Honestly, it seems to me that you are arguing that men who don’t want to ask women out are being pussies but women who don’t want to ask men out are simply employing a useful but strictly optional filter, and that that is the best possible system. And I agree, it would be the optimal system for women. I don’t see how it’s best for men. It would maximize a woman’s options while putting the onus entirely on men. I also don’t think it’s what we have, at all–I think there is a lot of pressure on women to passively wait on men to make the first move, and a lot of pressure on men to correctly read signals and then make it–and I don’t think you can have one (men should make the first move) without the other (women should wait before it’s made.)
There is nothing useful about cutting the potential to find a meaningful relationship in half. Not all people are good at approaching others (as evidenced by the stories of uncertainty and nervousness in the “how often are you hit on” thread), but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be good partners. If that person happens to be a straight man, why shouldn’t he have the opportunity to find a mate? What use is there in leaving him to rot because he can’t approach a woman?
I’m the one who approached my partner–the first Vaginal American I ever even hit on in my life–and struck gold. Not everybody can do that, but it’s entirely possible that there are women who can who might find great happiness with men who can’t.
For women to hang back and wait for men to approach them means that a) women who aren’t getting approached will beforever alone and b) men who can’t approach women will be forever alone.
Who the hell does that benefit? A small group of women who attract attention by being both approachable enough to not intimidate and physically attractive enough to invite interest, and a small group of men aggressive enough to get them. There’s nothing good for humanity at large to give those people some special breeding advantage over all others.
If men who can’t approach women are somehow unworthy of finding a partner, why should women who can’t approach men get a free pass there? Doesn’t it make sense to even the playing field for everyone and increase the chances of happiness?
It shouldn’t be determined by what equipment you’ve got. If we need a convention, let’s go with something that people can choose for themselves, like a ring in the left of the nose means you like to do the asking, in the right means you wish to be the one asked.
I agree with the disagreements. Nothing personal, even sven, but the OP reads as incredibly sexist, parochial and narrow-minded. “Current conventions are a great benefit to women, therefore they are useful.” I would say that, for the same reasons you find them useful, they are clearly not at all useful to men.
I do think that ‘convention,’ whatever it may be, can be useful; social rules act as an instructional manual for right behavior, and knowing that there are rules can be comforting, even if following them creates a challenge, or if they feel unfair. But, that’s an argument for there being some sort of convention, not for a specific convention.
I’m not sure that’s true. As a woman, I don’t feel like accepting a date means that much. Obviously I’m not going to go out with someone I think is horrible, but if I don’t know someone that well and I’d like to get to to know them, why not accept? It may turn out that we’re horribly incompatible but accepting one date is hardly like accepting a marriage proposal. I think you’re reading a lot into stuff that (for me anyway) isn’t there.
Women have the valuable commodity, and most of them know it. That is why men have to do the majority of the approaching.
Besides, if a man wants anything more than sex, he is best served avoiding the women who approach him. Sorry about the wide brush, but if you’re going to play the odds, it’s true.
This assumes that the “shy guy” is LESS likely to be a man just looking to get laid than the bold guys and or players. And that the “shy guy” is LESS likely to be interested in a long term/serious relationship. And that the “shy guy” is MORE likely to bolt and or find something better sooner (and be able to actually do so).
At best, thats a hell of a bunch of assumptions. At worst I’d say that those are generally NOT true. Therefore your method of filtering is bassackwards.
Consider two guys: One who just wants to have fun and one who wants to have a relationship.
Fun guy will ask lots of girls out because he’s just looking to have fun. It doesn’t really matter how compatible she is. He’s looking for a few days or weeks of fun. He’s good at asking girls out because he’s doing it a couple of times a week. Practice makes perfect and he’s had lots of opportunities to hone his skill.
Relationship guy will be searching for a woman who is suitable for a long-term relationship. Rather than being happy with anything female, he’s looking for a woman with several different qualities. He doesn’t run into these women often–maybe just a handful a year. He might only ask a woman out a couple of times a year. He’s probably clumsy because he doesn’t know how to go about it.
So if a woman is basing her decision on a relationship on how well the man approaches her, she’s really being conned. He knows how to approach and what to say because he’s practiced it hundreds of times on other women–women he’s no longer in a relationship with. The smoother a guy is, the better chance that he’s just looking to have a bit of fun until the next thing comes along.
And IMO that dynamic is the main source of this sterotypical situation. A woman telling all her friends about this “great guy” she just meet and is dating. Then, a short period of time later crying her eyes out because “great guy” has left her. Duh, your crappy selection method got you that.
