I’m not sure the chaser/chased paradigm still holds. I’m 40 years old, bald, ugly as sin, grossly overweight, have the social skills of a mongoose, and have only a marginally above-average income (and probably a below-average standard of living). However, I’m a nice guy, and I take pains to associate with groups of good people. As a rule, women come on to me–or the question of “who made the first move” is open to debate. It’s a little surprising, but it’s true.
Don’t be silly.
Putting aside the fact that I disagree that the current dating setup leads to rape (if this was the case, we wouldn’t see so much rape happening in places of the world where marriages are arranged…I think you need to do a better job supporting your theory for what motivates most rapists because I don’t think it’s a matter of “unambiguous communication”…if anything, I think it’s because they don’t or can’t get what they want using socially acceptable means and that problem with exist regardless of how women expressed themselves), I’m also looking at what other people are posting in this thread.
Just about everyone who has agreed with your thesis seem not to be focusing on rape prevention, but rather the problems they have with getting a date with someone. Being blind to social cues is a problem that many men have, as Quartz pointed out. So this leads me to ask: why is it necessary for society to change to accomodate these men? Why not try to teach men to be more sensitive to non-verbal indicators of disinterest? Why should we believe the system’s flawed as opposed to the men who have these “mishaps”?
Exactly. I put a good amount of work in making sure that I’m a desirable dating partner- time in the gym, money spent on attractive clothes, etc. So I’m not too sympathetic to people who feel like they are owed a partner with no effort.
shrug The women friends I have who are comfortable enough to discuss this stuff around me, and more importantly are self-aware enough to realize what they’re doing, freely admit that men are at a complete disadvantage in trying to understand what most women are thinking most of the time, and have recommended that I not even spend the effort to try to follow the intricate, recursive, and often constantly revised flowchart of decisions. Their collective advice, for whatever it is worth, is essentially to just ignore the noise and be the best version of myself that I can present, and that will presumably appeal to some fair maiden. (Of course, they all think that I’m eminently datable, but don’t themselves have any suitable female friends to link me up with, so one does have to wonder at their ultimate sincerity.) If I spent my time trying to figure out the myriad of signals put out by women I’d be utterly paralyzed in the contradictions.
Stranger
I don’t think I agree 100% with the OP, but I do think there’s some validity to his points. That is, there’s a lot of misreading of signals or frustration that comes from some social norms that just don’t make a lot of sense anymore.
For instance, one thing that frustrates me is feeling like I have a pretty good read on a girl and then not getting a straight rejection. Straight rejection sucks, but it sucks more to find out in a more roundabout way. Is she playing hard to get and trying to judge how interested I am, in which case I need to be more aggressive, or is she not interested but doesn’t want to hurt my feelings, in which case I should give up? I can’t see that ever having a positive effect, because if it is the former and the guy reads it wrong or doesn’t want to look creepy if he thinks he read it wrong, she lost out; if it’s the latter but the guy misreads it, she’s now in a more uncomfortable situation than just saying she isn’t interested.
Or another situation that frustrates me is when I somehow hear about a girl lamenting that she was interested in a guy but he wouldn’t make a move. I understand and appreciate the chaser/chased dynamic, it’s sort of a biological imperative, but that doesn’t mean that we still have to be slaves to it today. If a woman is interested, there’s nothing wrong with making it perfectly clear; there’s no need to rely on subtle communication, especially if you don’t think he’s getting it.
So, really, all I’d like to see is a little more straight forward communication, not necessarily in the form of “can I touch your butt?” but at least “I’m not interested” or “I am interested”. I’d really prefer to see men and women on more equal grounds and a lot less lopsided in how the chaser/chased dynamic plays out. Similarly, I hope that a little more straightforward and balanced would lead to people being will to be rejected and being able to accept it more easily.
So, I guess it all just comes down to better communication. Sadly, in a world where we’re so easily in touch, but in so many less personal ways, I think the gaps in communication will only get worse unless we make efforts to correct them now.
And, to add one thing, I do think communication is important in a relationship, but expecting someone you don’t know very well to have a strong grasp of your non-verbal cues just seems… odd. If it’s a relationship that has any decent basis of communication, it shouldn’t be long at all before both parties figure out those non-verbals cues, even when they may have gotten them dead wrong at the start.
So when they agree with you they are “self-aware.” Got it.
All I can say to this or to any other strategy for mate selection is: How’s that workin’ out for ya? Because these threads are often filled with men doing borderline or outright sneering at women who then wonder why they can’t find a date.
In these type of situations, when you’re clearly confused and don’t know what’s going on, do you ever come out and ask her to set you straight?
“Hey, I need to ask you something. Don’t be afraid of being honest with me, either. It’s totally cool. I just need to know one thing, because I like you and I’m having a hard time figuring out if you feel the same way. Are you interested in dating me?”
If you find this to be a hard, awkward thing to express, then can you really fault a woman for not expressing her feelings any more directly?
I think it’s also the case that many men react badly or angrily to a straightforward dismissal, so women who have experienced that reaction may resort to a softer or more elliptical approach in order to avoid that sort of confrontation.
Stranger could have possibly phrased it better; however, if I take his meaning correctly, a self-aware person of either gender will be aware of and make (reasonable) allowances for the fact that the two genders in our society are socialized differently (and may or may not have inherent differences, not even opening that can of worms) such that their communications/signalling processes are notably different.
Where I think he fails is not expressly showing an understanding that “his own” and/or “the generic male” thought process is every bit as opaque as his view of “the female thought process”. Certainly it strikes me that many men approach decision-making in a roughly similar way to each other, and many women approach it in a different but fundamentally equally sound roughly similar way to each other.
Interestingly, I have absolutely excellent results (in terms of “finding out the answer without causing undue tensions or discomfort”) with this kind of direct inquiry, especially when I am in a position where the general trustworthiness of the words coming out of my mouth (that is, the person I’m talking to is in a position to believe with some certainty that I WILL be totally cool with a rejection) is already established by acquaintance or reputation. In point of fact, as a person in a nontraditional relationship dynamic, being open and up-front in this manner is generally the best possible way for me to avoid a heck of a lot of angry drama.
Totally true, and well put.
I feel bad for people who don’t like to play by the conventional rules and yet at the same time find it mood-killing to talk about this kind of stuff with potential partners.
Me, it’s top of my list of flirting activities. I want to know how she thinks, how she theorizes, how she visualizes the ideal and analyzes the everyday world. Doesn’t have to be a card-carrying name-brand feminist but should not be unfamiliar with feminist theory and thought. I expect to be grilled, tested, poked & prodded for my own attitudes & expectations and I expect her to enjoy that too.
Hey, I know I’ve got odd tastes 
Right, because presumably you’re not expecting her to read your mind and automatically know that you’re confused. You’re letting her know, “Sorry, but I don’t understand your language here. Communicate with me in a way I can understand.”
I’m wondering if some of the frustration in this thread is because both men and women are sitting back wondering why the other person won’t speak their language. Women assume that a guy who can’t take a hint is doing so because he’s a creepy jerk, and men assume that a woman who isn’t verbally spelling things out to him letter by letter is toying with his emotions using sadistically cryptic machinations.
Certainly there are some patterns and some really weird thinking on both sides of the divide. But the big thing for me is what I said: Is it working?
As you said later in this post, direct, plain speech can go a long way toward clearing up misunderstandings but it has to be in the context of a situation that is non-threatening enough that someone won’t dissemble just to avoid getting on the wrong end of rage or a grudge.
Noo. I talk about everything and in my relationship we have a code for “This question is going to force you to think about your attitudes, so beware!” I love that sort of give-and-take.
I spell things out letter by letter AND toy with his emotions using sadistically cryptic machinations all at the same time. I am nothing if not efficient.
No, they’re self-aware when they acknowledge that the convoluted chain of rationale they often run through when describing their opinions and reactions to a man whom they may be interested in is not decipherable to the external world. The “he should have known that I was interested in him, but not on a Thursday after a full moon and he should have known better to bring a bouquet with blue daisies with pink daisies,” and so forth is the bane of any coherent attempt at discerning the intention and suitable approach.
Before you brand me an unrepentant misogynist beyond any hope of earthly redemption, permit me to point out that most men, and myself most definitely included, are pretty obtuse to even the most obvious and unambiguous signals of interest short of a memorandum or a full tongue kiss. Of course, it is not atypically the case that such blatant signaling is followed by a complete and apparently inexplicable reversal of interest. In general, I don’t find it worthwhile to spend time trying to figure out what women are thinking, because I’ll likely never figure it out to any useful degree of precision and frankly I probably don’t want to know anyway. Whenever I am pulled into female discussions as the Designated Male Point Of View I find that the ensuing discussion merely makes my head ache in a way that quantum chromodynamics does not. I’ll fully admit to and accept responsibility for my part in being an almost complete imbecile in the romantic arena, which is no one else’s fault but my own.
You know, every single time I’ve been this upfront and blunt, it has been just short of complete disaster. I had one woman (who I had invited out of our normal interactions so that there would be no possibility of embarrassment in front of our common friends) literally grab her purse and run out of the restaurant. As has been impressed upon me by virtually all of my female friends, women do not like to be confronted by, questioned about, or otherwise forced to admit to an interest or attraction; in general form, they prefer to be coy and noncommittal about their interest, and prefer to allow the man to take the brunt of risk of assertion and rejection. I haven’t noticed a significant difference between women in more traditional social roles and those inclined toward a more progressive lifestyle in this regard; this inclination seems to be deeply rooted in sociobiological imperatives and, at least from casual discussion with gay friends, a huge problem for lesbians who are, as a class, reluctant to approach one another. (In contrast, most “out” gay men that I know have no problem with walking up to another guy, whether he’s evidently queer or not, and propositioning him.)
Frankly, I don’t think the o.p.'s proposal has merit, nor does it really account for the reality of romantic interactions. A highly formalized ritual does not ensure a greater level of success for men (or women) who are retiring or socially inept; all that it really guarantees is that everybody is matched up with someone regardless of how inappropriate or unwanted the connection. There may be something to be said for arranged marriages in terms of defined expectations, but happiness and satisfaction is not a primary goal of such arrangements. It would be far more useful, in absence of an organically created cultural scheme for dating, to educate both men and women who are otherwise deficient in the social memes of romantic interaction so that they can communicate effectively rather that attempting to rigidly formulate such interactions, which is destined to backfire badly for everyone involved.
Stranger
I have the sincere feeling that you think this solely because the men who talk about it are men who are complaining.
Because, honestly, if you were right about your sexual hypotheses, there would be approximately three male-female relationships in the world.
I don’t even understand what this is supposed to mean.
Stranger
But at least you have your answer right then and there. Not ambiguity, no trying to “read” anything. You have a crystal clear response.
It may sound like I’m being flippant, but I’m not. A woman who is truly interested in you would not flee from that kind of question. They might be embarrassed, and they still might try to be coy (hopefully in a charming way), but bolt out a restaurant…not likely. It does kind of depend on how you go about it, though. If you’re too serious, as if there might be a to-do if she says the wrong thing, then yeah, you might scare someone away.
But if you don’t even try to clarify (and I’m speaking general “you”), then complaining about her failure to communicate doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
It means that the men who talk about reading signals are the men who are complaining about being bad at it.
And if every man were as bad as you say, and every woman were as flighty, inscrutable, and passive, no one would ever have a relationship.
How’s that a “disaster”? You wanted a clear unambiguous response that you would know how to interpret. You got a clear unambiguous response that you knew how to interpret. Sounds like a win to me.
While I wouldn’t necessarily brand you an irredeemable misogynist, I have to say that in my experience, your view of general male “obtuseness” is not borne out by the evidence. I don’t think most men are as clueless about signals of interest or as fundamentally bewildered and hostile about women’s thought processes as you seem to be.
For one thing, do you really consider it “inexplicable” that a woman would give you a full tongue kiss and then lose interest in you? Do you imagine that a passionate kiss automatically constitutes some kind of contract of sexual desire binding the contracting parties to continue sexual contact until fulfillment is reached? Some people kiss to test the waters, or because they feel like a kiss at that place and time, but it just doesn’t happen to inspire them to continue pursuit of that particular partner.
I’ve occasionally had that reaction myself upon kissing men, and I’ve occasionally had that reaction from men upon kissing me; there’s nothing mysterious or specifically female about it. Anybody who would automatically consider such a phenomenon “inexplicable”, or even think that it’s something that necessarily needs explaining, is probably either extremely young or else (as indeed you’ve candidly acknowledged) missing a few cards from the “romantic interaction” deck in the “emotional intelligence” game box.
Reading your posts two things are clear. You are really smart in some ways, and you really like words. Big fancy $45 dollar words. The kind most people save up for a whole year to buy a set.
Consider:
Now see about all I got out of that is something about String Theory, and some kind of chart describing distorted space. I can tell by what I know of String String theory and the cotext that it must be very complex, but the full impact flew right over my head.
I wager most people would do even worse. They might describe figuring that out as:
the (snip) is mine.
Anyway what I’m trying to do is show words only have meaning if there’s shared understanding of what that meaning is. Your female friends are telling you that you need to chillax in the most cliched manor possible. Speaking of cliches.
See right now you have a hammer. It’s not an ordinary hammer, but a hammer of logic, science, and being articulate. You’re proud of that hammer, as you should be. You must be well read to have a hammer like that. You can whack it all day long with that hammer.
However when you have quality hammer everything looks like a nail, even screws. If you want screws you gotta use screws. However the world of screws is different. A screw driver uses different logic then a hammer. It makes no sense to the world of hammers. All that turning instead of whacking.
Your female friends are simply using screw driver logic. Using words that don’t quite mean the same things to you so they sound nuts.
Believe me I’m in your boat. But knowing why is part of getting out. My personal why is I tend to be shy and awkward, and bad at signals, but I’ll learn.