Man/Woman, Chaser/Chased

Great Debates
1

As an alternative theory to that of a Rape Culture (i.e. where rape isn’t treated as the crime it should be) which produces results like these, I’d like to suggest that the problem is in the system by which people meet each other and date.

To some extent, there really isn’t a “system” in the US (nor, I presume most of Europe). For instance, in Japan there’s the o-miai, where two people are set up on a date by their families, which is chaperoned. After the first date, the two parties will decide whether they’re interested in further dates, and by the third a formal “yes” or “no” to the relationship is decided. Though most dating is not done via o-miai in Japan.

If there is a system in the US, it’s simply that the man chases. He is the initiator of the first and probable most subsequent dates, he is the one who must go in for the first kiss, fondle, or other hanky-panky. He is the one who must ask her to marry him. Our whole system is based on forcing the man to make an attempt and hope she doesn’t reject it. But that’s the thing, if she does reject it, you’ve just done something to make her uncomfortable. If you read her right and you were just suave enough, you might have gotten in and felt up her bum so that she appreciated it. But there’s no way to know that until she melts into it or she slaps you. But just as often as not, what a woman will do is do neither of those, but rather grin and bear it until she can figure out a way to escape, keep the guy distracted, or keep him out of arm’s reach. But of course, if he could read her all that well, he wouldn’t have felt her up to begin with, so there’s a decent chance that he won’t realize that this non-reaction isn’t acceptance. His meter is now entirely in the wrong and he’s ready to move on to step 2 while she’s trying to figure out how to prevent more cases of step 1.

But then let’s say that she did concretely rebuff him. Often this will be after hours of building himself up to going for it. He knows that he needs to move things forward (give chase) or she’ll lose interest, but at the same time he doesn’t want to do anything she wouldn’t want, nor to have her suddenly scream out and slap him in the middle of a crowd, so he sits there analyzing and over-analyzing everything she does or says to try and figure out whether or not its time to make his move. Being that he has to move things forward and given that he really would quite like to advance for its own merits, it’s fairly likely that in his over-analysis that he’ll rationalize things in his own favor greater than they merit. By the time she rebuffs him, he’s already got a lot of effort invested and a lot of rationalizations all-built up and ready to spring in to action to explain why things that seemed negative really weren’t. It’s entirely possible that he’ll not take the no as a no either because he can see how it’s clearly wrong, or how she really must understand how much effort he’s put in.

Particularly if a man is new to dating, he’s going to be more stressed out, less aware of the conventions, and more liable to do something stupid – and that’s generally going to be something that makes her uncomfortable.

A lot of this could be easily handled by basic communication. “Are we to the point where you’d feel alright if I gave your bottom a bit of a squeeze?” But, frankly that just sounds dorky – and rather crude if you aren’t to that point yet. But that’s dorky by the standards of today. There’s nothing to prevent the creation of a new standard where a girl carries about three pins, red, yellow, and green, and changes them based on what she’s ready for with that guy, but that does kill the “chase”. You’re no longer having to analyze and find exactly what she wants, she’s just telling you what to do.

Now while miscommunication, over-analysis, and stress shouldn’t lead to rape or other such extreme events, I’d have to vote that it does. Figuring that the results of anything will lie on a bell curve, with the average outcome of a misjudgement being to make a girl a bit uncomfortable, there’s going to be some small percent on the edge of the curve where things just go to hell. Obviously this doesn’t include all cases of rape, but still it’s probably a decent percentage.

To further theorize, I can see two goals to this chase dynamic:

  1. To make sure that he really wants her. If he’s not willing to work for it, he’s probably not all that interested.
  2. Being socially adept is a key component of success in the greater world. Traditionally, a woman wanted a man who could dependably support her.

While I wouldn’t say that #2 should no longer be a factor, it should at least be noted that these days a man should have equal right to want someone who will be working hard as well. And similarly, why in particular should only the girl care about whether the other party is willing to work for it?

Overall I’d say that a more structured system of dating would allow for fewer mishaps, as at least a few recognized milestones could be established where clear, unambiguous communication was expected. It would also allow for something more suitable to modern society and the equality of the sexes.

2

Sage Rat, your OP is brilliant.

I think the most frustrationg thing is people, being stupid, like this mystery.

I’ll share an exploit from last spring. I had a morning class with this one girl. Always set next to me. Would do things like stand in the door holding it open for me while I was clear across the freaking commons. When I finally made it to the door I asked her why she did that she said something like “oh just to talk to you”.

I thought this to be a sign of interest. Not so. I asked her out and she said no, thanked me, then proceeded to stay clear away from me the rest of semester like I was some kind of creep for asking or something.

The hell? People are weird man.

3

I’m not buying it.

For one, these days I don’t think it is quite so rigid. I’m an occasionally impatient woman, and I’ve never had a man object to me making the first move. I don’t think it’s that uncommon for women to take control.

I also think there is some value in the whole “feeling each other out” process. Part of finding out if you are compatible with someone is figuring out how well you can read each other. If a guy is not able to read my signals, there are going to be problems in the future and I want to know that ASAP. I want someone who is on the same wavelength as me, not someone who is so socially awkward that everything needs to be spelled out. There is no reason to go into evolutionary biology to explain this. Someone who is completely unable to read me is not going to be much fun to hang around and probably won’t make a good lover.

If the dude thinks I want sex when in reality I just want to hold hands, there are going to be other problems later. And if the dude is so wrapped up in himself and his ego that he fails to notice or acknowledge what I want, that’s also going to be a problem I’ll want to know about.

I’d argue Japan’s system is designed to serve Japan’s concept of marriage, which is a lot more like a business/family partnership than the more romantic version we tend towards in the west. From my understanding, “chemistry” is far less important in Japan than more easily measured criteria such as salary, family background, etc. In the west, we expect to have this chemistry, so our dating system has evolved to include ways of assessing that.

4

While I understand that, a little unambiguous communication could go far. An "I don’t like you that way " would have made the situation infinitely better. And while it’s great women are becoming more proactive it’s a little unfair to expect the dude to constantly put him self out there.

That signal business is freaking tiring. Both genders use it, and both get burned by it. It turns dating into a game of minesweeper, but not an ordinary game of minesweeper, but a game of minesweeper that will likely tell you that hit a mine in a way that makes someone feel like an awkward creeper.

I guess the problem with the direct approach is it opens up the “but why?” response to not being interested, which isn’t very fun to answer. A signal has the advantage of not providing an opening for an argument.

It’s all a big mess that almost makes one wanna say sod it and take a voluntary Darwin Award.

Except that when it works it’ll be worth all the trouble, that’s the hope anyway.

5

“No way?”

Really?

This completely discounts the system of social cues and unspoken communication that exists. While I’ll allow for a small percentage of inscrutable women, in my view the vast majority aren’t the blank slate you paint here.

6

According to this study when women are the pursuers, they end up lowering their standards.

Works for me.

7

Here’s my suggestion: on dates, men wear crotchless pants and women go topless. The woman can see the man’s erection and know he wants sex. The man can see of the woman’s nipples go erect and know she wants sex – or that it’s cold.

8

Actually someone did make mood lipstick. I think it’s mostly kind of a novelty toy for couples but Broadsheet.com did prove how awesomely relevant it is by wondering about the potential for rape.

9

I have to agree with this. I’m not exactly a social butterfly myself but I’ve never had problems dealing with women or making my interests known without it seeming ‘creepy’. Frankly if I find myself attracted to someone than I flirt with them. If they respond than I take it further, if they don’t then I smile and back off. I’ve never quite grasped what’s so difficult about this.

Recently I was dealing with someone I know well who I was attracted to. We talk and laugh together about things quite frequently and I thought there might be some chemistry. She’s a co-worker even, an equal footing co-worker mind; I don’t approve of moving up or down the ladder as that triggers my ‘ick’ radar. I made a move, but she wasn’t interested. She smiled at me with that “oh, I didn’t know you felt that way” smile and backed away. I nodded and excused myself. The next morning we both showed up and chatted like nothing had happened. She’s still one of my closest friends at work and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Maybe I’ve been lucky with the women I’ve dealt with but this has been my usual experience with rejection. It doesn’t affect me personally and I’ve always managed to keep a friendly, (i.e. non awkward), rapport with them. (I’ve been on the other end of this equation as well, so that might make it easier.)

I think a lot of guys take rejection personally when they shouldn’t. Just because someone doesn’t want a relationship with you doesn’t mean they don’t think well of you as a person. I’m a straight male and I deal with women easily on a platonic level. I might be unusual in that regard, but it seems like a natural reaction to me.

My experience, (and I fully confess that this might be atypical), is that if a woman is attracted to me as a man, she’s going to respond in a manner that’s obvious to me. Typically, and I might be going into too much detail here, I’ll lightly touch her on the lower back while talking to her, that seems to be a universally accepted ‘signal’. If she moves away, that’s a ‘signal’ to me to back off without any awkwardness. If she moves closer to me, than that’s a good sign to keep talking to her. If she ‘freezes’ in place that’s a BAD SIGN! Back off and give her space.

Personally I don’t think I’d want a more formalized method of interaction. It would take all the fun and excitement out of it. :stuck_out_tongue:

10

Can you use it on nipples? I like nipples!

11

What does this mean exactly? What did you do?

12

I’d like to know if this kind of signal-reading aspect to courtship and the character of it that makes formalizing it seem to somehow miss the point is culturally universal. (ETA: Should rewrite that sentence.)

If I were a guessing man, I’d guess that it’s a biologically driven behavior, functioning to select for facility with “mind-reading” (by which I don’t mean literal mind reading, but the interpretation of more or less subtle personal cues). Total guess though.

13

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I put my hand on her lower back and made sure we had eye contact, (eye contact is very important). We were talking about something work related and it was near the end of our shift. I asked her if she wanted to go get something to eat, but she demurred so I backed off.

Why I think this is important… Private space is very important to most people and I think putting your hand on someone’s lower back implies a certain level of intimacy without crossing a line. If they turn around or back away that signals that your not allowed in their space. I touch or tap my friends on the arm or shoulder quite frequently if I’m trying to get their attention about something, but touching someone on the back and leaving your hand their for more than few seconds is, to me at least, a ‘signal’. It’s reserved for people I’m attracted to.

Personally, I don’t like people standing too close to me (private space), so if I’m close enough to someone to leave my hand on their back comfortably and they don’t move that’s also a signal that they want me there, or at the very least they find my presence acceptable. I want to make it clear that I don’t think it’s a 100% ‘green light’, but it’s a critical first step.

14

On reviewing my previous post I feel the need to differentiate this…

It occurs to me that the difference between someone ‘freezing’ and someone ‘not moving’ could seem difficult to ascertain at a moment’s notice, but there might be some subtle interactions involved because I think there is a difference. Someone who freezes stands straighter and avoids eye contact. Conversely, someone who is inviting you in ‘leans’ into your touch. It’s subtle, but it’s noticeable, to me at least.

15

I see that, as usual, those who are doing well under the current system want to keep things as they are.

16

Isn’t that always the case? :stuck_out_tongue:

17

Sigh…

First you say you are good at interpreting peoples signals and then you give an example where you screwed up intepreting someone’s signals.

You’re flirting with coworkers and touching them? Boom, thats sexual harrassment.

18

Yes, I made a mistake in this particular situation. But making that mistake without taking it personally is just part of the dance. It doesn’t mean they dislike you it just means they’re not attracted to you. That was my entire point.

Putting your hand on the back of an equal co-worker when asking them out for dinner is sexual harassment? I’ve never been through a sexual harassment course but I’m not sure I buy that.

19

This is the key point. Some people have a savoir-faire, some don’t. Advice I used to get (though I was too shy to take it) was to get up the courage to ask direct questions. You get a lot of No’s (and maybe an occasional slap) but you get laid a lot too!

I don’t agree that a man too shy to approach a woman will be inconsiderate or a poor lover; in fact it may be the opposite is true.

Maybe he’s got the social skill and savoir-faire to know when to do it, and when not to. (If I’d tried this I’d probably have been laughed at, more than accused of harassment.)

I left U.S.A. to spend time in different cultures, developed more self-confidence and even became somewhat flirtatious. (Despite the higher confidence, my social skills are still muddled…)

20

In the US, it’s not sexual harrasment. Between co-workers (i.e., no heirarchy involved) it would have to involve repeated behavior after requests that it cease (IIRC).