Huh? No! What is it with this thread and people projecting thoughts into others’ heads?
I didn’t say or think that anything was at stake in Even Sven’s described situation other than a one night stand, and I didn’t say or think that she was signaling anything other than interest in that prospect.
It means the same thing to me as well. In my eyes, anything other than “yes, I’d like to go” or “no, sorry, I can’t make it that night, but let’s go out next week”, should be regarded as an unambiguous rejection.
But guys who apparently can’t read between the lines like this probably need to behave in the manner they wish women would.
You said you could see how people could call her behavior “dishonest”, and all I’m saying is that they would be wrong to say that.
FWIW, that’s exactly what happened. He sent over a mutual friend to clarify things. I told the friend what was on my mind. Dude apparently didn’t feel like that was an attractive offer, and I didn’t feel like pressing it. That was that.
We are SO not wired the same in our brains.
The two questions do have a bit of overlap but far from the same thing.
Question Two lends itself to the following interpretations:
• I’d like to go out with you and here is my first overture in that direction
• I have tickets to this thing. It would be stupid to let a ticket go to waste. I don’t think you’re entirely horrid company and moreover I’m comfortable that YOU, at least, won’t take this as a romantic gesture or anthing like that. Wanna come along?
• I was under the impression that you were a real fan of cow chip throwing. I would not have invited just anyone but I, too, really care about this sport. I’d like to have the company of someone who shares my enthusiasm for this spectator event. Would you be thrilled at the prospect?
• I really really like you. I can’t imagine anyone I’d rather spend time with, except maybe, you know, a sexual-romantic interest. We have so much in common. Here’s a chance to spend some time hanging out together, will you come?
Question Two does NOT put the questioner on record for having said “I have thought that maybe you’d like to go out with me, that you are interested in me that way, because I’m interested in YOU that way. Do you want to date?”
I’d much rather be asked the first question. I understand what is being asked and the moment I answer she knows what she wants to know. In the case of Question Two, if I say “Sure!” she still doesn’t know if I want to date her, now does she?
That’s an interesting response!
I cannot think of circumstances where I would feel moved to ask the first kind of question. The way I figured out if someone wanted to date me was to ask them out on a date. Of course, while on the date I would make sure that I did or said something that made it clear that this was a romantic date and not just pals hanging out. Like kissing or holding hands.
But my default (back when I was single, during the mid-Neolithic period) was that I was looking for romantic partners, not platonic friends, although I had women friends as well.
I don’t even know how I could answer the question “do you think we could ever date each other” unless we had been on a date. Part of the dating process is to find out if you have common interests besides just the sexual. And I cannot imagine becoming friends with a woman who was at all available and reasonably desirable (when I was also unattached) and not having it occur to me that she might be a possible subject of carnal attention.So if we were both single and friends and I hadn’t asked her out already, and she asked me if we would ever be an item, I suppose the answer would generally be No.
Thanks for your response.
I think this is part of something I have noticed before - the rules of dating have changed since I was in the mix, and that makes it more difficult to communicate, because no one has the same script.
Of course, in my day if a woman stood downwind of you, you were engaged.
Regards,
Shodan
No, she’s “dishonest” because she’s being flirty and demonstrating interest even though she actually has little or no interest.
Whether this behavior should be viewed in a pejorative or simply incidental context (i.e. whether it is manipulative for the express purpose of pulling other peoples’ strings for fun and profit, or just a difference in the way interactions are viewed by different people) is not of issue; the fact remains that even sven is being inconsistent not only in her behavior but in her description of her behavior; although the example provided was intended to display that the thought processes behind apparently mixed signals are actually clear to everyone, but in fact is a very pointed example of giving mixed, and indeed, utterly false signals specifically to keep the party in question confused about the the intent of *even sven, who doesn’t find the fellow in question appealing (except given the impetus of unmitigated amorousness combined with inhibition-reducing intoxication) but nonetheless presents the appearance of exactly the opposite. Far from being a counterexample, it is a textbook archetype of deliberate manipulation and mixed signaling, and in no way indicates that the process of internal reasoning that provided the display is in any way predictable or accessible to the outside world, which is my singular bone of contention with even sven; she is saying one thing and presenting an example that displays the opposite.
Note that I’m not indicating that some ultimately futile attempt to change the paradigm of such behavior, such as that proposed by the o.p., is useful or would result in any modification of the underlying lack of mutual comprehension, nor that the onus should be on women, or more generally, anyone who engages this in this kind of deceptive or intentionally inconsistent behavior. No doubt some people like playing this sort of game, and enjoy the drama that comes with being outraged that so-and-so inappropriately advanced a proposition that was previously indicated as welcome. The only practical response to such attitudes if one does not wish to engage in such sport is simply to ignore it and the person presenting it.
Stranger
No, but if you accept, there’s a higher likelihood that you want to date, than if you don’t accept. Not knowing for sure adds a little mystery to things, and this is not an inherently bad thing. Because it will motivate her to engage you in conversation, pick your brain, and study your responses to find out if you like her. This helps build chemistry.
It’s all a matter of picking your poison.
It really hasn’t changed. The rules are simply context-dependent, and it’s up to individuals to know what context they’re working in. I can’t imagine this not always being the case.
I’ve had guys ask me out to things and I didn’t automatically assume they were interested in dating me, because our history of being platonic friends.
But if someone who is just an acquaintance asked me out, I would assume that he was looking to date me.
She had interest in fooling around with him at her convenience. If he chose to see more into her signals than that, that’s on him. His read on the situation should have included all the signals she was sending, good and bad, not just the kind that were flirty. She’d only be dishonest if she explicity told him things that she knew weren’t true.
As it stands, he did the right thing. He wasn’t sure what her signals meant, so he sought clarification before he built up his hopes and dreams. Another man probably would have not needed that clarification, because he can figure things out implicitly.
Really? Exactly how much interest does a potential romantic partner have to feel in you before they are ethically justified in demonstrating interest in you? Let’s see some numbers here, with appropriate units of measurement. 
And to what extent does demonstrating some interest in you ethically commit a potential romantic partner to some sort of further sexual or romantic encounter with you? As I asked in a previous post, do you really think that even a definite expression of attraction like, say, a passionate kiss actually constitutes some kind of contract of sexual or romantic intent which must be followed up or else it’s unethical?
I think The Tao’s Revenge is spot on in saying that Stranger’s misunderstanding here is that he’s confusing noisy signals with deliberately mixed signals. Flirting and even kissing don’t always represent a deliberate attempt to convey to somebody that you’re definitely interested in pursuing romantic and sexual possibilities with them further. Somebody who flirts with you or even kisses you and then doesn’t want to go any further down that road with you isn’t necessarily being dishonest with you; sometimes they’re just expressing a fleeting or mild or changeable impulse that doesn’t represent a serious intention, or in other words, “noise” rather than “signal”.
And yes, both men and women can and do send those noisy signals. If you don’t want to deal with such noise, then you need to be very up-front and direct with potential partners about the fact that you interpret indications of interest very seriously. Tell your potential partners in so many words that you would prefer that someone refrain from expressing any interest in you at all unless they want to convey that their interest in you is serious.
I don’t think this is even close.
even sven described her behavior as follows -
At the end of the date, and the beginning of the party, she was simply friendly, because “there were no sparks”. Then, as the party went on and the ones she wanted weren’t showing any interest, she explicitly says that she changed her behavior towards hims in order to keep him on the hook, in case she wanted to have sex, was drunk enough, and nothing better offered itself. Then nothing did, and she changed again and blew him off.
I don’t see any way to label this besides “mixed signals”, unless you want to go with even more pejorative terms that rhyme with “block pleasing”.
No one is suggesting that she deserves to be raped, or that she owes him sex, so please don’t bother with that.
Maybe she’s hot enough, or knows men whose self-esteem is low enough, to get away with this kind of thing, but it doesn’t seem to me that’s there’s any misunderstanding involved.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s only mixed if you think in black and white terms.
There’s a wide spectrum between “I hate your guts and I’d rather spend a lifetime in Hell rather than talk to you” and “I love you so much, please marry me on a rainbow.”
Even was sending him signals somewhere within that range, and that’s okay.
She was sending him two different signals, both within the range. She said very explicitly that she changed her signals in order to keep him on the hook, and then changed again to shoot him down.
I think she treated him pretty shabbily. If he was enough of a doormat to put up with it, the more fool he.
Regards,
Shodan
She didn’t shoot him down, though. She was friendly with him at first, then was flirty some time later, and then she chose not initiate any further interaction because she was tired and disinterested. Not seeing anything dishonest or shady here, sorry.
It is sort of odd because you see so many women decrying this kind of behavior–guy willing to sleep with a woman but then saying stuff like, “Oh, I dropped her when something hotter/tighter came along.” Like, in movies/pop culture, that kind of behavior makes a guy a complete tool. Or would you guys say that’s pretty much fair behavior, regardless of sex?
Imagine someone saying to a woman -
“Yeah, I know I said we might get together and see a movie on Friday, but I found someone else who isn’t as fat as you are, so now I am not really interested anymore. Bye.”
Nothing dishonest or shady there, either.
:shrugs:
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s a great idea for all you guys who have problems with “mixed signals”.
When you find yourself interested in a young lady and would like to date her, ask her if she is in a relationship. If she says no, ask her out. You might get a yes and you might get a no, but she’s not going to misintepret your intentions and go then and pull out the “wanting to be friends” stuff, this way she knows you are asking for a DATE.
If she says yes ( that she is in a relationship), smile, and say “too bad” then walk away or change the subject to something neutral – whichever is appropriate in the situation. Do not press the issue or respond in such a way that casts doubt on her honesty. For Gods sake, don’t ask her out as “just friends”. This means she’s not for you and if you are too emotional invested this early on to walk away, then that is the source of your problems.
Are you objecting to the friendly-flirty-disinterested signs she was sending the guy at the party? Or are you objecting to how she unambiguously expressed her intentions when asked to explain herself later?
I’m starting to see here an interesting irony here. It reminds of that pivotal scene in A Few Good Men, right before Jack Nicholson’s character admits to calling the Code Red.
This is fine, but I don’t see how it would address the interactions between even sven and the guy at the party. Because they did date, she’s not in a relationship, he apparently did not want to be “just friends”, and she began by communicating No, then encouraged him to stick around and keep trying, and then changed it to No again when she decided she wasn’t drunk and horny enough.
Regards,
Shodan