Whenever I bring up the topic of meeting members of the opposite sex, the male commenters here inevitably strike up the “OMG WOMEN MAKE IT SO HARD I WON’T APPROACH ANY WOMAN WHO DOESN’T HAVE A GREEN LIGHT WITH MY NAME ON IT PASTED TO HER FOREHEAD” song and dance. Their position is understandable, but women are instinctively programmed to put the man through the paces in order to get to her. This is because (a) women know that men want the most bang for the least buck, and (b) women want to be worth more than a buck. Women who make themselves extremely available to men have very little way of telling if the man liked them specifically, or if the man was merely taking advantage of convenience. Making a man work for it is a way of differentiating the warm body seekers from the specifically me seekers.
This is the general reason that women don’t approach men. Most of the other reasons are situational and personality-centric, as I discuss below:
- She’s shy. Some women are terrified of talking to anyone they don’t know. Clearly this leads to glowing results when women who are petrified of strangers and men who are petrified of women mix.
- She’s intimidated. This is a little different from shyness. Shyness is more of an inner timidity, whereas intimidation is externally based. A woman who is not usually shy may become intimidated depending on the situation, such as:
- She feels he’s out of her league. Contrary to what the majority of the manosphere thinks – that all women are entitled landbeasts who wear XXL “head bitch in charge” T-shirts over their industrial strength bras and blast men for not being able to “handle them” – many women will balk at initiating interaction with a man they feel is markedly superior to them in looks, popularity, intelligence, socioeconomic status, etc. A woman will think to herself, “A man like that could have any woman he wants, so why me?” and as a result, either outright ignore the man or only give furtive little glances when she hopes he’s not looking. (Exception: women who attend fan conventions and pay for pictures with their objects of affection. The exchange of money and experience of waiting in a line make it okay to approach, giggle, praise, and sometimes sneak a grope.)
- He’s surrounded by bros. Much like men grouse that women can never be found alone, women also find men surrounded by a posse intimidating. Little Susie Sweetheart, pounding heart in her dry throat, will be much less likely to approach Hal Hotness if Hal is surrounded by five bros who are all slapping each other on the back while grunting about the manliness of
Tom Brady’s hairfootball. Same goes for Susie approaching Tom Tron and his five engineering buddies who are discussing their latest Halo 3 strategies. Too many bros, especially if one of the bros is a class clown type who is loud and attracts a lot of high-energy attraction, says to a woman that the man doesn’t want to be bothered. - He’s surrounded by attractive women. While some women will be motivated by preselection competition, most women are not self-confident enough to cold approach a man who is constantly surrounded by other women, especially if the other women are good-looking, or at least popular (the good-looking vs. popular Venn diagram doesn’t always have the greatest overlap), or THINNER. Susie won’t want to deal with the competitive shunning by the women, and she will also ask herself why Cory Cubicle would talk to her when he’s already got his hands full with some nice stuff.
- He has never shown any previous signs of acknowledging her existence. A hurried “thanks for holding the door” at the elevator at work, followed by pushing the button and zero conversation, doesn’t count. Non-communicative inertia just begets more non-communicative inertia. There’s little more humiliating than attempting conversation with someone six months after seeing the person every day, and having that person look at you like they’ve never seen you before.
- She’s a creature of habit. Some women (and men, too, for that matter) settle into a rut of existence and find it immensely difficult to break out of the daily grind. I don’t know if it’s that they find it too energetically taxing to vary their routines, or what, but there are just some people who habitually refuse to stray from the path every once in a while, even if it’s at the cost of meeting new people. This means that if you’re not currently on the schedule, you might never be.
- She’s not interested. Yes, sometimes this is the reason women don’t initiate contact. It usually means that the man hasn’t done anything to make himself stand out as someone to consider. He hasn’t demonstrated any personality, any leadership or expertise, any sense of humor, any smidgen of fashion sense, any physical fitness, any special talents. If you are the definition of drab, you’re stacking the deck against yourself.
I’d say that intimidation and interest are the most easily solvable issues. So if you’re a man and you’re frustrated that women aren’t cold approaching you, understand that just as, if not more, difficult for women to do than men, and then check and see if you’re doing things that make it even harder.
Haley's Halo 
Granted, there are guys that want cold approaches from girls… But I think most guys would rather be the initiator. Not only is it more manly, but it gives a better chance of getting better value.
I agree with most of what you said here. And men should be focusing on what they can change, not on what they wish girls would do. I no longer wait for girls to approach me, which pretty much was garunteed to fail badly. I’d much rather approach them, hard as it is.
But there is a subset of girls who apparently go out of their way to avoid every possibility of being approached, for whatever reason, and then wonder why they only get approached by narccicists and jerks. Being availible dosen’t mean that you have to do the approaching.
This is useless for detecting detecting real IOIs from girls. Waiting for a cold approach is a failing strategy for the vast majority of guys. Assanova’s recent posts on this topic are 1,000% better.
A lot of women also seem to think that it is the man’s job to approach.
I’d note though that striking up a conversation with a guy seems like it’s just part of being sociable. I do tend to think though that the guy should at least have the balls to do the actual asking out.
I’m shy, but I never had much trouble with finding a boyfriend. I scored 100% introversion on the Myers-Briggs test, as introverted as a person can be. I don’t flirt, I don’t strike up random conversations, and I don’t like small talk. Everyone I know calls me “quiet.”
I do talk with guys, get to know them, and befriend them, which then sometimes (like 0.01% of the time) leads to something more. Usually I had just one or two male friends at a time. I’ve never “cold approached” someone on a street, never went to bars or clubs, or anything like that.
As far as humiliation goes, I remember a time of asking a male friend out to a movie, and he turned me down and started telling me about how he’s in love with this other female friend of his. I moved on, and stopped talking much more to him. Yeah that was a massive rejection, but guys experience that all the time. I don’t think he respected me any less or thought of me as “easy” for doing that. It just wasn’t a match, and that’s that.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with the premise that women don’t “approach.” As I said, I never ever approached. I tend to do the friendship thing, which I suppose is sort of the classic “beta male” way strategy of passively getting with a girl, except it actually does work, since I was attractive enough for the guys to think of me with romantic potential. There was no “alpha carousel,” “hooking up” or “friends with benefits” going on, because I let the guys know early and often that I was looking for true love, and they all respected that.
There are different ways to interpret the idea of making oneself extremely available to men. Practically nobody will advise you to make an obvious beeline for every man you find remotely attractive. That’s far more than just “making available” and will result in a haul of mostly warm body seekers.
Minimizing the perceived cost of approaching and conversing with you does not have to mean minimizing the amount of effort required for a romantic or physical relationship. Don’t confuse the two.
I think of “making very available” as just being generally friendly, outgoing, and talkative with everyone around you, whether male or female, young or old, ugly or attractive. When you present yourself as a happy, nice, laid back person with a sense of humor and open to conversing with all kinds of people, every normal guy in your vicinity who is even slightly attracted to you will have the least possible amount of inhibition about approaching you. For example, in my opinion, your making friendly chitchat and joking around with the bride’s 85 year old great-uncle and 10 year old niece at a wedding makes it slightly less intimidating for an average guy your age to approach you than if you are sitting stiffly alone or confining your small talk to other women your age.
The point is not to make all men around you feel certain that you will accept anyone’s romantic overture. It’s to make them feel that you are likely to somewhat enjoy (or at least not act visibly pained or offended by) speaking with them, even if you are not romantically attracted, and rejection will not be unnecessarily humiliating. On the other hand, if you look like you are perpetually scanning the room for attractive men, it gives the impression that you feel talking to anyone unattractive is a complete waste of time and nobody wants to get the reaction you describe getting in your last post (Novocaine and so on).
I also want to add that following my advice above about being friendly to everyone around (including people who aren’t romantically interesting in the least) makes it much easier to chat with attractive guys without it appearing to be a deliberate blatantly romantically motivated “approach.” If you talk to 40 out of 60 people at a housewarming party, including women and children and gay guys and old people, everyone will have a chance to at least notice you, and no one guy should get the impression that you are hitting on him.
Well-done post, but I think it’s a bit of a non-sequitur. Men don’t really need to know why girls don’t approach, they only need to know why girls don’t approach THEM. Adn for a man bothered by the approach double standard, a rationalization of the status quo is not going to change his mind.
I’ll write a shorter, parallel post: Reasons Men Don’t Approach.
(1) Too many previous rejections
(2) The price of a rejection is too high
(1) is mostly on the guy – if he’s getting a lot of rejections, he needs to change something (his targets, his pool, his game).
(2) is pretty much on the woman. Pyrotechnic rejections – mocking him in front of others, “as if!” comments or other degradations are uncalled for and bitchy. There’s a “sweet spot” to reject someone – too quickly and you look stuck up, too late and you lead someone on. That goes double if you take a free drink from a guy you aren’t interested in; it goes triple if other guys see you reject someone (they will almost certainly not approach, or approach for a pump and dump.)
In other words, both genders should treat their interactions as if others are watching, because they are. You could call it “third-party signaling.”
This is what I’m talking about when I say Assanova’s blog is better:
“the shy girl IOI. This one is very easy to notice with hired guns and girls that are with someone that you’re already talking to. If she is being quiet and afraid to look you in the eyes, then it is most likely a stealthy IOI. But maybe she is really just trying to avoid talking to you, right? Well, a good way to sort this out is to make a joke or to try to start a conversation with her. If she starts smiling or holds a conversation with you, she likes you. However, if she just gives you one or two word responses, she is just trying to avoid showing any kind of interest whatsoever because she doesn’t like you at all.
, is when a woman starts having a conversation with you out of nowhere. I don’t care if you are in a classroom, dealing with a hired gun, or in a nightclub, if a woman that you don’t know starts a having a random conversation with you, then she likes you and is just making up an excuse to talk to you because she likes you. And if she is a hired gun, if she does more than just a casual “How are you today?” or something of the like, then she likes you (i.e. she starts asking you personal questions).
You may think that you are just friends, but unless you are her gay boyfriend, almost anytime a girl comes out with you alone, she likes you. If she sees you as just a friend, she will almost never come out to meet you without another one of her friends with her. However, keep in mind that I am referring to newer girls and not girls that you’ve been friends with for years.”
“many women will balk at initiating interaction with a man they feel is markedly superior to them in looks, popularity, intelligence, socioeconomic status, etc.”
Good. Nature still works sometimes, apparently.
If he is that much higher status, expect to nothing more than a fling regardless of who initiates.
“He’s surrounded by attractive women.”
Take what I said above and double it. In this instance you have absolute verification that he is out of your league. You could always hope that you are the special snowflake that will win his heart away from all the bikini models (a strategy attempted by many a female 5/6). Breath-holding not recommended.
This brings up a point about how men are often criticized for being “afraid” to approach women of high status. Umm, we’re not afraid, we’re REALISTIC.
Most men can quickly ascertain a woman’s market value, and if they see her as an 8 and they are a 6, they will not waste the effort.
I think it’s unacceptable for Christian women to treat Christian men in a snobby or superior way. I’m wondering how this happens…perhaps she has had the experience of being friendly only to have the guy misunderstand? Perhaps she has had men hang around her, clealy interested but not pursuing, and she wants to prevent this from even starting?
How about Christian women treat Christian men kindly? How about Christian men ask more women directly to do low-key casual things like go to coffee? If one party isn’t interested, be kind and affirming as you make that clear.
I question the strategy of a man trying to get women to make cold approaches on him.
Men should approach women. What kind of relationship do you want? If a man approaches a woman, he sets the tone for the future. He decides when and where to initiate, proposes a plan, and she accepts or rejects him. There will be plenty of opportunities to hand over your balls later, but at least start off on the right foot.
Secondly, while I’m sure what Haley has said in this post is accurate from a woman’s perspective, it is probably not a good idea to “solve” the intimidation problem. Don’t be seen with attractive women? Don’t be seen with a group of close male friends? Don’t be physically attractive and potentially out-of-her league? Every single one of these things is critical in establishing your value as a potential mate.
The solution is simple – do try to make yourself easier for women to approach. Just approach them instead. Virtually everyone agrees, both sides will be better off.
Correction, last paragraph should read:
The solution is simple – don’t try to make yourself easier for women to approach. Just approach them instead. Virtually everyone agrees, both sides will be better off.
I think some of the comments here are talking past each other. At least for me, I wasn’t talking about women making cold approaches, I was talking about women making it easier for the kind of men they want to make cold approaches to them.
“This finding suggests that men apologize less frequently than women because they have a higher threshold for what constitutes offensive behavior. In Study 2, we tested this threshold hypothesis by asking participants to evaluate both imaginary and recalled offenses. As predicted, men rated the offenses as less severe than women did.”
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/why-do-women-apologize-more-than-men-its-not
Haley’s least attractive quality on display here is the number of social infractions at which she takes offense, and the severity of the offense she takes at them. If she were to improve her girl game, that would be the place to start.
I saw a recent comment at Married Man Sex Life that I think has some bearing on approaching and pursuing from both sides of the aisle:
“I used to get hung up on the idea that my wife should be initiating sex. My logic was that it would send a strong signal that she was actually interested.
Now I know that my desire for her to initiate was actually a desire to get what I wanted without having to risk rejection/failure first. I since decided that I don’t really care how sex gets started. I just want it to happen.”
This sounds like the rationalizations I hear from some women on why they expect men to do ALL the work. “He needs to approach because HE needs to show ME he’s interested.” When I hear girls doth protest too much about how “guys should do the approaching/pursuing,” it’s usually a sign that they are scared of the risk. Usually women who talk like that are not putting themselves out there by giving IOIs, using indirect strategy, etc.
No one worth your time will approach or pursue you if you don’t give sound environmental cues you are going to make it worth their time.
“women are instinctively programmed to put the man through the paces in order to get to her”
Well, it isn’t that instinctive if women in many countries don’t do that. In the country I live, women are warm and friendly when you approach, give lots of IOIs and make the approach easy. Then, if they find that the guy is not interested or not good for them, they have time to evaluate this when they get to know him.
About women making men hopping between obstacles to get to them, I bet this is not in the genes but in the culture. It is only a sign of American entitlement princess complex. (“I deserve it!”)
This is OK and fine. But don’t whine when you lose 90% of your prospects because you like to play hard to get. You will never know how many decent men you have lost because you haven’t given them the chance to approach you. Playing hard to get makes sure that only the most overconfident players will get to know you. A brilliant strategy…for the pump’n dump.
Then, the age of 35 comes and it is “Where have all the good men gone?”
nothingbutthetruth is spot-on-
Putting through the paces in cultural, not hard-wired.
The idea that it is hard-wired into women is just a rationalization further allowing the woman to continue this behavior.
There is a bit of implicit arrogance in that thought as well – that the man is just a salivating pile of hormones looking for release and that the woman is the more mature and emotionally detached party.
Haley –
Here is another thing to think about:
Who enjoys the pursuit more, the successful player, or the quite nice guy? The player loves the chase, since he wins so often. The very act of putting a nice guy through the paces is likely to convince him that you want him to vamoose. They are used to rejection, so they will politely back off when resistance is met.
But the player is undeterred. HE has had many successes, and if you read the PUA blogs you will note that they are very used to dealing with resistance.
This strategy that you describe is likely to filter you nothing but alphas who are on the hunt. A failing strategy for husband-seeking, even though I am sure it has entertainment value.
My God, the sheer density on display here really beggars the imagination. Only having time for a few sentences right now, I can start with:
“women are instinctively programmed to put the man through the paces in order to get to her.”
Does it not occur to you that this is the very picture of women having an entitled and demanding attitude? I don’t think it’s particularly a crime to be entitled or demanding, but if that is so obviously the source of your (pl) problem then you (pl) should at least be honest about it.
“This is because (a) women know that men want the most bang for the least buck,”
Again, the classic — and genocidal — equation of “men” and “men that I find handsome and attractive”. No dear, not _all_ men want the most bang for the least buck, it’s just the kind that _you_ prefer that roll that way. The fatal flaw resides in you, not in men at large.
Lastly, you should pay attention to what Jack, Nothingbutthetruth and Badger Nation have been telling you here; it’s the bracing truth that you need to face.
Julie–
How about Christian men ask more women directly to do low-key casual things like go to coffee? If one party isn’t interested, be kind and affirming as you make that clear.
Well, if Christian men are following advice from Boundless, they are praying and discussing coffee with older married male mentors before they even suggest coffee to a woman. So there’s no such thing as low-key. Second, being “kind and affirming” usually just translates into the much-loathed LJBF.
nothingbutthetruth–
Then, the age of 35 comes and it is “Where have all the good men gone?”
Boundless says they’re too busy playing video games and defrauding women. SNAP!
—
I think that we’re often discussing two issues around here, and that we don’t always make the distinction clear. There’s attracting someone and there’s bonding with someone. Some people tend to come here and make comments with the assumption that one is the other.
PUA terminology is only concerned with attraction, so of course some of the things that are important in the long term get ignored. The problem is that in today’s marketplace slower-growing attraction has no chance to develop. I don’t think that there is much that our generations can do to change that. We’re all still struggling to find ways to compensate.
Oh, and Julie, there are a number of women who I’d gladly ask out for coffee if I could only pin them down long enough to actually be able to ask them.
I think the real issue is one of demographics. The numbers don’t favor the Christian woman, as there are fewer devout Christian men than women, and many of them have already married young.
Haley seems to be quite intelligent and looking for a masculine type of man. Relatively intelligent and masculine men are rarer to begin with, and since religiosity is not a handicap, they are much more likely to be already married.
On the other hand, nerdiness is a handicap, and there are more nerdy men than women in general, so it was relatively easy for me to get a nerdy man. My husband is a math, computer and video game nerd, and a lot of women would overlook him based on that. But I’m also a web, computer and video game nerd.
I would agree with Badger Nation, nothingbutthetruth, and others about playing “too hard to get.” But I also know how hard it is to be more open and forward, given my own extremely introverted tendencies. I didn’t “date” and only inadvertently stumbled upon meeting my husband in an online game. That’s probably not an option for Haley.
“Boundless says they’re too busy playing video games and defrauding women. SNAP!”
That would be one or the other, yes? Most video gamers aren’t the type to get many defrauding opportunities (ifyouknowwhatimean…)
“Second, being “kind and affirming” usually just translates into the much-loathed LJBF.”
When what they often mean is “let’s just be casual acquaintances”. Preferably, “let’s just be strangers”.
:-p
“How about Christian men ask more women directly to do low-key casual things like go to coffee?”
I took the “coffee date” out of my repertoire early in my dating “career.”
First, “food dates” isolate two people into their one-on-one small-talk skills, take them away from interesting activities, and suppress their ability to improvise and display excitement.
Second, a coffee date feels like a fake date, like you haven’t generated enough rapport or interest to justify a real date. Its redeeming value is its low expectation and ease of exit without awkwardness. Going on a fake date with a person you are genuinely interested in is one foot in the LJBF grave.
If you’re going to do a “safe” social outing I’d rather go to a free museum, street event or whatnot.
Badger–
First, “food dates” isolate two people into their one-on-one small-talk skills, take them away from interesting activities, and suppress their ability to improvise and display excitement.
This is true. Coffee dates are a horrible idea for two people who barely know each other and have limited small talk skills with people with whom they don’t feel an immediate rapport. However, as you mentioned:
Second, a coffee date feels like a fake date, like you haven’t generated enough rapport or interest to justify a real date. Its redeeming value is its low expectation and ease of exit without awkwardness. Going on a fake date with a person you are genuinely interested in is one foot in the LJBF grave.
I’m not sure that coffee dates are fake dates if it is made clear that it is a date (i.e., man asks and pays). How is, say, going to the mall and trying on silly hats any more of a “real” date than sitting down and drinking coffee? Besides, people typically understand food dates to be real dates unless there is ambiguity in the asking (a la the stealth date). It seems like you are trying to find a bright line test for investment, like if there isn’t sufficient investment, then it’s not a real date.
“if it is made clear that it is a date (i.e., man asks and pays)”
Always gotta get that female-benevolent patriarchy in there…
“How is, say, going to the mall and trying on silly hats any more of a “real” date than sitting down and drinking coffee?”
Because you are displaying a range of your characteristics, which indicates more investment and interest. It’s a better date because the opportunities for dominance, social proof, kino escalation, etc are strong, as are the chances for her to respond in kind.
“Besides, people typically understand food dates to be real dates unless there is ambiguity in the asking (a la the stealth date).”
You’re missing my point. My point is that a coffee date is “safe,” non-threatening, doesn’t require a lot of effort, easy to ambiguate and easy to exit from without an explicit rejection or an expectation of initiating another date (i.e. both sides are protected from having to do further action). But those are the reasons it’s a bad date!
“It seems like you are trying to find a bright line test for investment, like if there isn’t sufficient investment, then it’s not a real date.”
A date is “real” when it provides context for romantic escalation. There is zero romance for me in going to a Starbuck’s in the middle of the day. A coffee date at night at a quirky coffeehouse, now that’s another story.
I do think coffee-style dates make very good “quickie” dates AFTER you have gone on a few dates with a woman. They give the opportunity to build comfort and display listening skills, which are essential but should be displayed after the attraction/alpha traits are demonstrated.
““safe,” non-threatening, doesn’t require a lot of effort, easy to ambiguate and easy to exit from”
Safe and comfortable – like a MINIVAN!!
Maybe it’s the romantic in me talking, but I think the date is “real” when the feelings are real. When you don’t feel anything for the guy, an elaborate dinner at the fanciest restaurant wouldn’t feel romantic. When you’re in love with the man, just snuggling on a park seems like the most romantic date.
I also pay for dates if I like the guy a lot. I paid on dates with my husband before we were formally together. I suppose it could be seen as a sign of desperation or neediness, but I wouldn’t do it for a guy I didn’t like.
“Safe and comfortable – like a MINIVAN!!”
Did you see “The Other Guys,” Mark Walhberg describes Will Ferrell’s Prius as “like being inside a vagina.”
Badger–
Always gotta get that female-benevolent patriarchy in there…
Oh, are men now wanting women to do the asking and insist on the paying?
Because you are displaying a range of your characteristics, which indicates more investment and interest.
But isn’t the whole point of first (or early) dates getting to know someone you hardly know and may only sort of be interested in and NOT investing much in the person in case it doesn’t work out? If a woman doesn’t know a man very well, she may feel jittery about going anywhere with him that is not completely “safe.” (This is why so many church girls insist on being “friends first.”) Unless you think that women should only go on dates with men to whom they are already attracted…
A date is “real” when it provides context for romantic escalation. There is zero romance for me in going to a Starbuck’s in the middle of the day.
But why does a date HAVE to have romantic escalation, if the whole point is getting to know more about the other person? (Alas, it seems the mere glow of my feminine countenance is insufficient to stoke the romantic fires of a man in the middle of the day.)
“Oh, are men now wanting women to do the asking and insist on the paying?”
I just get disappointed overhearing women say to each other, “so what if you’re not interested? You should go on the date anyway, at least it’s a free dinner!”
“But isn’t the whole point of first (or early) dates getting to know someone you hardly know and may only sort of be interested in and NOT investing much in the person in case it doesn’t work out?”
This is a fair point, now we’re just haggling over the “price” – the threshold of investment required for an honest romantic effort.
“Unless you think that women should only go on dates with men to whom they are already attracted…”
Actually, I have no idea why a woman would want to go on an honest-to-God date with a man she’s NOT attracted to. That’s unfair to everybody, the guy who thinks he’s got a shot and the girl who is likely to talk herself into something she’s not really hot for.
“But why does a date HAVE to have romantic escalation, if the whole point is getting to know more about the other person?”
I think we have slightly different definitions of dating. In my opinion, dating begins when both sides are attracted and interested in escalating. If those aren’t met, then two people aren’t really on a date – they are socializing, for sure, getting to know each other and whatnot, but there’s not really any romance on the table.
Hope–
Maybe it’s the romantic in me talking, but I think the date is “real” when the feelings are real.
So until (or unless) a woman has “real” feelings, she’s going on fake dates?
Badger–
Actually, I have no idea why a woman would want to go on an honest-to-God date with a man she’s NOT attracted to.
Because she MIGHT become attracted to him after she gets to know him better. Most women divide their attraction to men into three categories: Never, Eh, and Yes. An Eh man is neither here nor there, but he could become a Yes, depending on the circumstances. Most women don’t have a lot of Yeses in their lives, and who’s to say any of the Yeses will be reciprocally attracted? So a pure numbers strategy is to give some of the Ehs a chance, which means going on dates with men who are not repulsive but who (thus far) haven’t done anything to be particularly attractive, either. Many women have married men who started out as Ehs but became Yeses because the women gave them a chance.
Also, I’m not sure I understand your reasoning: if dates are supposed to make a woman attracted, then how can she go on a date in the first place if she can only accept from men to whom she is attracted?
In my opinion, dating begins when both sides are attracted and interested in escalating. If those aren’t met, then two people aren’t really on a date – they are socializing, for sure, getting to know each other and whatnot, but there’s not really any romance on the table.
So if it looks like a date and has the form of a date, but you don’t “feel” romance, you’re really just “socializing”? That definition just seems too arbitrary.
Yes, I would define those as “fake” dates. I didn’t do the “dating around” thing, partially because as I said I’m extremely introverted, and it feels completely unromantic to me. So I wouldn’t think of going to a coffee shop or getting food with a guy as a “date,” and I only ever did things like that with coworkers or to meet up about work projects.
By the time my husband and I were doing restaurants, we were already crazy about each other. I just don’t see the point in doing “romantic date” stuff with someone you have no romantic feelings for, and I never believed in the idea of kissing a bunch of frogs to find the one prince. I remember the names of every guy I’ve ever kissed (not very many), and with one silly exception from a truth and dare, they all told me they loved me.
I do agree that an “Eh” feeling could turn into a “Yes” feeling, but I disagree that this should be done via “dating” and food/movies/man paying for stuff. I think first and foremost it’s important to establish rapport and compatibility of interests, goals and personalities, and I’ve always been able to do that in a non-dating context, without the obligated awkwardness of the “dinner and movie” or “first date kiss.” Maybe I got spoiled by this when I was younger, so I only accepted dates from men who were already falling in love with me, and for whom I had similarly strong feelings. I realize this isn’t the norm, but maybe what’s “normal” isn’t the best way to fall in love and get married?
“which means going on dates with men who are not repulsive but who (thus far) haven’t done anything to be particularly attractive, either.”
Wait a minute – you told us a few thread ago that “for women feelings don’t turn off and on light a light switch,” so why are we to believe an hour at Starbuck’s is going to change her mind about Plain Joe?
No self-respecting man wants to go on a date with a woman who thinks he’s an “Eh.” Besides, a man of good social skill will be able to realize he’s an “eh” (the IOIs don’t lie) and won’t ask the woman out in the first place. So you’re saying she should go out with all the desperate betas who can’t read whether or not she’s interested.
“Also, I’m not sure I understand your reasoning: if dates are supposed to make a woman attracted, then how can she go on a date in the first place if she can only accept from men to whom she is attracted?”
In the interest of common ground, you may be operating from an antiquated model, where dates were social calls. That no longer exists. I can talk to women outside of chaperoned events and seek attraction there. I don’t ask a woman for a date unless I’m interested. Dating is supposed to build on extant attraction to escalate the relationship. The bar for attraction is not that complicated – you either feel it or you don’t.
“So if it looks like a date and has the form of a date, but you don’t “feel” romance, you’re really just “socializing”?
If you are going on a “date” with someone in whom you are not a priori interested, you’re not really going on a date. If you don’t show up with “I like this person, let’s see where this goes,” you’re just spending time with a friendly person. In the same way you can have repeated casual sex over the course of a few weeks, and that’s not dating either – that’s just F’ing.
“That definition just seems too arbitrary.”
I think it makes perfect sense – mutual attraction=dating – but let’s go with the crude definition – “it’s a date if sex is a possibility.” If that’s too intense, fill in heavy kissing, petting or something else. I think you are being obtuse and obstinate in the face of a differing opinion. I view dates as platforms for interested people to experiment with escalating their relationship. You view dates as a place for women to interview applicants and see if they can find something interesting about a man – serious risk of activating the rationalization hamster. Maybe that’s a matter of definition, but I consider dating people you aren’t attracted to to be dating in bad faith for men or women.
If you’re expecting the man to pay for a woman’s time, the least he can demand is that she actually be interested before she accepts. I understand wanting to “give him a chance,” but that sounds a lot like pity dating. (An aside: what’s funny about the “man should pay” paradigm is that in today’s SMP, a man’s relationship “time” is much more scarce than a woman’s, so it’s sophistry to act like he should compensate her for it.)
I’m not a Christian and was born and raised in Asia, but I do have my spiritual beliefs. To put this conversation in a spiritual sense, dating is not about casting a wide net and seeing what gets caught. That is counter-productive and can even kill the love before it begins.
It should be done with the goal of connecting with another person on a soul level. Without that connection, you are just two fleshly bodies using physical sensations (food, sex, money etc.) to force a spiritual connection. This rarely if ever works.
If your minds, hearts and souls are compatible, then the physical connection can come later. That is why I always only did “dates” after there was love. My husband and I had a special affinity and closeness before our bodies ever touched. It is like we met in the spiritual realm and fell in love with each other’s souls. It didn’t happen over “dates” but with lots of talking over “platonic” situations which involved no movies, restaurants or going out anywhere.
What I’m saying might sound completely idealistic, but the soul level is the strongest bond. It far transcends any material transaction like paying for dinner or physical activity like kissing a stranger. You have probably heard this, since you are religious. A good man is very much capable of falling in love before he ever touches your body, if the two of you have a metaphysical connection. Well, it’s true.
Haley, spot on about the yes, eh and no thing.
Well, I disagree about the coffee date. I think it’s perfect. If I am ambivalent about a man, or have been set up by someone and so I don’t know the man yet, a coffee date is low-key and a great way to get to know someone. It’s the only reason I agreed to be set up with my husband–I said I’d meet him but only if it was for coffee. Since I figured it probably wouldn’t work out, going on a dinner date felt like too much investment.
If I’m being asked out by someone I know and someone who I’m attracted to, then a coffee date is perfect–if he does not pursue me further, I don’t feel so much like he gave me strong signals something more would happen.
Back when I was single, I mean.
Oh also, to the man who said he would ask more women out for coffee if he could catch up with them, I would try emailing or calling them on the phone.
P.S. Thinking about this a bit more…
When I was single, if I was asked out by someone I wasn’t particularly attracted to, or mildly attracted to and this man took me on what definitely felt like a “date”, then I was on guard the whole time. Thinking that I hoped he wasn’t too into me, and what if I had to let him down easy, and therefore attuned to all the reasons I didn’t think we’d work out. Him spending lots of money on me or taking me to do something exciting wouldn’t override that.
HOWEVER, if he took me on a very low-key date, like coffee, then my guard was not up so much, because the outing was so casual. This enabled me to be more open to the ways we were connecting. Also, because it was so casual, it left me wondering how he felt about me–this would often intrigue me. For me, it was much easier to let attraction build, and get to know a man slowly, when the stakes seemed low and he was not trying too hard to impress me. Other good dates in my opinion along this line: going for a walk in a beautiful area, going running or ice skating together, meeting at a coffeehouse to hear a singer-songwriter, grabbing lunch at a cafe, etc.
“Many women have married men who started out as Ehs but became Yeses because the women gave them a chance.”
Not quite. It it was because the women gave THEMSELVES a chance to get over their fairy-tale ideas of romance.
A man with self-respect does not want women to “give us a chance”. How arrogant and condescending – like a parent trying to get Johnny to try the broccoli.
“I know the broccoli does not look appetizing, dear, but *give it a chance*, you might like it!!”
Whatever.
The very phrasing of that statement reveals an attitude that the girl is pretty darn cool, and the guy is “eh”, but the girl, in a moment of magnanimous grace, decided to descend from the mountain and see if she could not give it a go with Mr Nice Guy.
I think that many women think they occupy some sort of SMP purgatory between the heaven of alphas and the hell of betas (yes, I am using ‘those’ terms). Not hot enough to snag a fierce catch (hi, Ashley), but certainly good enough that MR beta orbiter can be safely shunned for now.
In the old days they had a different name for beta orbiters – husband and father.
Ladies – your beta orbiters are like a dreadful mirror, reflecting your real sexual market value directly back at you.
“In the old days they had a different name for beta orbiters – husband and father.”
My recent theory on betatude is that in olden days, alpha characteristics were encouraged, within reason, and so beta men had much more leadership and attraction qualities, because they had been developed over their lives by people who knew they needed to have them. So you had pretty good husband candidates – natural betas who could play enough alpha to attract and lead a mate.
Today, society is generally feminized – white-collar office/service economy, collaborative social models, broad influence of feminism even in churches, social welfare state. That’s not to say it’s good or bad, but it means masculine traits are discouraged, so beta guys don’t get the training in the modest alpha traits they helped them be successful generations ago.
Badger–
Wait a minute – you told us a few thread ago that “for women feelings don’t turn off and on light a light switch,” so why are we to believe an hour at Starbuck’s is going to change her mind about Plain Joe?
Who said that after one hour she would do a 180 in attraction? Female attraction grows. It is possible that after a one-hour coffee date, the woman who previously had 5% attraction to a man now has 15% attraction to him. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Also, I still think your definition of dating is poor, or at least insufficient. Basing a definition on feelings is a pretty bad metric. What if halfway through the date, the man does something Unforgivable and the woman loses all attraction to him? Is it still a date? What if two people are “socializing” and the woman starts feeling attracted halfway through? Is it a date now? If you are married and your wife goes on a one-on-one “socializing” with another man but claims she has no feelings for him, has she gone on a date? Would you be comfortable letting your wife go on one-on-one outings with other men, confident that because there are no “feelings” involved, your wife is not dating them? After all, if there are no feelings, then it’s just socializing and not a date.
Form matters. Most people will interpret a man and a woman alone together in a social setting to be on a date. Does it matter if the two are guaranteed to kiss at the end or not? On an anecdotal level, I have generally found that being in one-on-one situations with male friends certainly FEELS like a date, even if it’s just supposed to be “hanging out.” Maybe it’s not a date proper, but there is still usually a strange tension borne of it being just the two of us, probably because one-on-one male/female interactions in social settings are by their nature sexually charged. That is why I think it is better to label even so-called innocuous coffee dates as dates.
P.S. jack: I don’t think you’re in any danger of a woman doing something so insulting as giving you a chance. So rejoice, you’re free of that particular curse!
“P.S. jack: I don’t think you’re in any danger of a woman doing something so insulting as giving you a chance. So rejoice, you’re home free!”
You’re such a flirt.
@Julie
I appreciate the suggestion, but that would mean that I’d have to have her phone number. To date, none of the women I’ve dated have managed to give me a working phone number at first, and not from lack of interest. (To be fair, that includes the one who never answered her cell phone anyway.)
This is probably something I should be more aggressive about, but I’m still surprised at how many barriers single women put up around themselves these days. I don’t think it was like this in my parents’ time, at least to hear them tell it.
Wayfinder,
You may be able to get her email address or phone number from a friend, from Facebook, from a church directory, or even from calling the operator (do people still do that?).
Jack, it is true that women often develop attraction slowly. I think of the men who I crushed heavily over, men who I felt at the time were so amazing that if I couldn’t marry them, I would just stay single.
Did I fall immediately for these men? Not at all. Looking back, I met them, thought they were nice enough, sort of cute, worth getting to know, but I remember feeling almost amused when they showed some interest in me. I could not have predicted that months later, they would be on my mind constantly, and I would feel as if they were nearly perfect. That’s what it means to give someone a chance. It means the woman is slightly intrigued, the guy is not a definite “no” and so she’s willing to see what happens. Obviously, if the woman is super sure that it would never go anywhere, there is no sense in accepting a date.
@Julie
Oh, I have. :) If I’m really motivated I can usually dig up some way to contact her. But girls these days seem to have an aversion to giving any information at all out. It’s like pulling teeth, and for most girls I just don’t bother.
Julie-
I understand your point.
But you must admit that there is a difference between your description “slightly intrigued” and Haley’s, which was “eh”.
Your position of being slightly intrigued implies that you see some definite potential.
I don’t get the same impression from Haley’s comment.
The big difference between men and women is that men usually get over the idea of getting a 10 early on. Women, eternal optimists they are, will very often gladly discard their 20s and most of their 30s hoping against hope that their “6” bait can catch a “9” or “10” fish.
But if they wait too long, they will find that they have exhausted the grace and patience of the men who are their equals. It would take a miracle for me to put a ring on a girl’s finger.
Haley would have to describe further what she means by “eh.”
Yes, I agree with you that people need to be better educated about parity, and the unlikelihood of ending up with someone who is more desirable than themselves. Perhaps blogs like this one and others, along with books like “He’s Just Not that Into You” will gradually help all people understand this better. Parents and churches could also help educate people. Too often, people hold out for an ideal that is unrealistic given what they have to offer. I think people should look for someone of a similar attractiveness, and then after that, be picky on things like spiritual maturity, compatibility, and emotional health.
I think things really changed when women ceased to need men economically as they did before.
It’s kind of like how I view the job market. When I was single and I really needed a job to support myself, I was a lot more open-minded, and would apply for jobs that were not my ideal, but were suitable and would pay the bills. And I’d be grateful to get a job like that, and see the positives in it.
Now that I’m married and my husband is supporting us, when I think about going to get a job, I am much pickier. It has to be something I’m passionate about, part-time, flexible, etc. Or I just won’t apply for it, since I don’t NEED it for basic survival. Of course, the longer I stay out of the job market because I’m being super picky, the more gaps on my resume, the more my skills are outdated, and the less likely I am to find something I enjoy, let alone my ideal.
It’s interesting that this whole thing is being framed in terms of whether a woman can grow in attraction to a guy she finds, “Eh.” Aren’t most women today being bred to find the average guy “eh”? Good guys go unnoticed because women make it clear that they don’t want to be approached by them. Factor in that women usually don’t approach men and the outlook is bleak for marriageable women, especially Christian marriageable women.
When I first saw my husband, my stomach did somersaults and I didn’t think there was any way he’d be interested in me. He certainly wasn’t lacking female company (Neither of us were Christians when we met, though I’d been raised in a strict intact Christian household). It wasn’t that I thought I was unattractive, just that a guy who was objectively attractive wouldn’t be attracted to me. Obviously I was wrong.
Furthermore, I was raised that good girls do not “chase after” men. That if you made yourself worth the effort the right guy would approach you. Looking nice and being approachable was the extent of what we were encouraged to do. What I had going for me was that my husband was raised in a family that was pretty much untouched by divorce at the time we met. His parents, as well as his extended family, had good marriage track records and he was certain that marriage would be great if he married the right girl.
The point of this ramble I guess, is that while trends and conventional wisdom are somewhat useful when it comes to predicting what works and what doesn’t, you want to be sure (especially as a Christian) to be aware that wonderful, divinely inspired things can happen even if they defy conventional wisdom.
“Women, eternal optimists they are, will very often gladly discard their 20s and most of their 30s hoping against hope that their “6″ bait can catch a “9″ or “10″ fish”.
America is the only place in the world where a woman who is a 4 can look a man who is a 6 with contempt, as if he was not fit to tie her shoelaces.
Of course, the woman thinks that she is a smoking hot 9, because men who are a 8 have banged her while they were drunk.
The only irritating part is waiting for the inevitable harvest of comeuppance.
Wayfinder–
But girls these days seem to have an aversion to giving any information at all out.
Women will only give out contact information easily to a man who interests them and has their trust immediately. Generating comfort is crucial to securing digits. Without generating a sufficient amount of comfort with a woman, she will be afraid that you could be a stalker, rapist, child molester, call-50-times-a-day guy, or all-purpose weirdo. Or, she’s just not that into you.
Julie–
Haley would have to describe further what she means by “eh.”
By “eh” I mean not repulsive but not super attractive. He’s “okay.” If he asked you out, would you want to run away screaming in horror? No. But would you run around your room shrieking with joy, either? No.
Too often, people hold out for an ideal that is unrealistic given what they have to offer. I think people should look for someone of a similar attractiveness, and then after that, be picky on things like spiritual maturity, compatibility, and emotional health.
Don’t forget financial fitness (not pure riches, necessarily, but healthy financial attitudes and practices).
I think part of the problem with advocating parity is that people often do not have a realistic view of what is realistically attainable. As we’ve discussed here before, a woman’s friends usually form a cheerleading squad that offers no realistic assessment of a woman’s true market value. Parents and grandparents aren’t always much better.
I think things really changed when women ceased to need men economically as they did before.
I would add that the simultaneous loosening of sexual morals was just as critical. When women don’t need men for financial security and can get sex and attention from higher-grade men without societal censure, the pressure to “settle” nearly vanishes.
terry–
Aren’t most women today being bred to find the average guy “eh”?
Maybe, but I think you could just as easily say that most average men today have been bred to BE “eh.” It’s hard to imagine women of any generation or any social standing enraptured by men who are as docile and subservient to women as they are in the workplace, rarely showing any sort of inner spark of life and vigor. Most women don’t need to be with the CEO, but they would like to be with someone who approaches life as more than just a bloodless cog in the machine.
“It’s hard to imagine women of any generation or any social standing enraptured by men who are as docile and subservient to women as they are in the workplace, rarely showing any sort of inner spark of life and vigor. Most women don’t need to be with the CEO, but they would like to be with someone who approaches life as more than just a bloodless cog in the machine.”
Talk to the the sensitivity training folks in HR about that one and the endless persecution and firing of men who run afoul of the feminist machine in corporate America.
Besides, most women today are being bred to be promiscuous and vain.
Verily I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for an average man to enter the Kingdom of Haley.
Haley, I would also wonder if women do have a fairly good idea of parity, but the lopsided sex ratio in the church skews this. For example, she’s a 7, and he’s a 7. However, he has many more options than she does, and time on his side to boot. So he’s either in no hurry to get married, or he’s holding out for an 8 or 9, a match that may be more likely in the church than in the secular world.
Haley: Maybe, but I think you could just as easily say that most average men today have been bred to BE “eh.”
When I was first directed to this site it was with the suggestion that there might be useful and thoughtful content. But now it’s clear to me, at least, that you’re just another whacked-out misandrist with one fixed idea — and that one wrong.
Since there’s nothing to see here, I’ll just move along and not darken your blog again. But, really, girl: get some help, before you get cats.
Nice slam, Esau.
It’s absurd for an American woman to complain about American men in general. American men are at or near the top of the global mating hierarchy, while American women are far down the list.
This is not to deny the progressive de-masculinization and de-civilization of American men. Just that it has progressed much faster amongst the women. And Churchian women are far from exempt.
I could never stop reading this blog entirely, though, given my fascination with the psychological complications arising from an integration of Game with Christianity.
It’s hard to imagine women of any generation or any social standing enraptured by men who are as docile and subservient to women as they are in the workplace, rarely showing any sort of inner spark of life and vigor. Most women don’t need to be with the CEO, but they would like to be with someone who approaches life as more than just a bloodless cog in the machine.
Oh, the irony.
It was women, of course, who relentlessly drilled this new workplace culture into place in the 80s and 90s. I was there when I started to work in corporate America in the early 90s, which was kind of the “Jacobin period” of workplace “restructuring”, and the heyday of harassment claims. After enough of this, yes, men adapted by becoming docile cogs in a wheel — a feminized corporate wheel, mind you, enforced by the hugely pink collar HR departments. These changes, more than anything else, pacified men in the workplace.
All but the most intractable, of course, who also tend to be the most ambitious — yes, you guessed it, the “natural alpha” who is the most resistant to feminist reprogramming and enforced corporate docility. They often get rewarded by getting to play by a dififerent set of rules, as we know, in the workplace as well as outside of it. And that lends some credence to the view of feminism as a massive “shit test”, designed so that almost all men fail, but that only the “true north Alphas” stand out, and are therefore more easily identifiable for appropriate breeding opportunities.
A corollary, however, which is also true: it’s hard to imagine men of any generation of social standing enraptured by women who are as pushy, entitled, self-focused, narcissistic and whiny as the typical American corporate bitch. Do they date and marry them? Yes, just like said women eventually date and marry said cogs-in-a-wheel. But it’s far from ideal, and far from what either wants in the deal.
Ah, it’s such a joy to see how fabulously miserable the situation really is.
I was just reading something interesting at Advocatus Diaboli’s. It may shed some light on why women of average looks such as Haley have such trouble landing a husband without employing those complaisant arts Ben Franklin praised in older women:
“Porn replaces mediocre relationship sex. It does not replace the need for men to fuck enthusiastic, hot looking and skilled women.
However the need for me to get a non-paid mediocre booty call type relationship is considerably reduced by porn. That is not to say that I would shun an opportunity, however it is unlikely that there would be any extraordinary effort to get one.
High quality and interactive porn is a viable alternative to lifeless, wallet-draining and soul-sucking marriages.”
Porn has impacted the long-term sexual value of hot women and the total sexual value of average women both in married and unmarried relationships. This leads to greater desperation by women in the sexual marketplace.
What women want most is to be in an intimate relationship. Their leverage over men is sex, and sex is usually the first thing she offers a man when she desperately wants something. Relationship sex is also the main component of a woman’s ability to retain intimacy with the man.
So you can see the problem. Porn has eviscerated the average woman’s value proposition, and shortened the hot woman’s honeymoon of power in a relationship.
There is nothing an average woman can offer an American man today that is worth the financial and emotional risks of divorce.
Furthermore, since women have the same desperation but less intimacy, they more willingly offer sex, and their relationships last a shorter time once the passion wears off and porn becomes more attractive. Then they’re thrown onto the market again with loosened morals to soak up more demand.
“It’s hard to imagine women of any generation or any social standing enraptured by men who are as docile and subservient to women as they are in the workplace, rarely showing any sort of inner spark of life and vigor. Most women don’t need to be with the CEO, but they would like to be with someone who approaches life as more than just a bloodless cog in the machine.”
This is a new complaint from our hostess: usually she’s complaining about the men at church or that she meets on the street, but now it’s the men at work? I’m not sure what she is saying, but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong.
Obviously most men are “cogs” at work and always have been. Take a look at the men in old sit-coms: Ralph Kramden, Darren, Ward Cleaver, Jim Anderson–they’re all cogs. (Gomez Addams is an exception, I grant.) I’m a cog myself. If our hostess can’t accept a man who is a cog in a large machine, her marriage choices will be few indeed and limited mostly to ne’er-do-wells.
I’m also not sure what our hostess means by “subservient to women.” Obviously, if you have a woman boss, you have to be subservient to her, as you would with any boss. Now maybe some people would have found Francis Drake or Lord Palmerston insufficiently manly, but I find that hard to believe. If it means that most men aren’t engaged in Roissy-style banter at work, well, duh. That sort of behavior will get you in trouble, and dating people from work is a bad idea anyway.
She probably just wants someone she finds interesting to talk to. Someone who comes across as passionate about something in life. Different women find different men interesting and vice versa depending on personality, hobbies, commonalities.
Well of course she is upset.
What is the most telling here is how narcissistic her comment is in a historical sense.
Most people for all of human history have been cogs. Haley lives in a more privileged time and nation for females than in all of human history. This fact is empirical evidence that women cannot be satisfied.
I suppose princess Haley feels similar contempt for the men who died building the railroads, the panama canal, fighting in WWI and II.
I assure you that they were not the quasi-alpha of your dreams.
After a comment like that, I’m not certain that God Himself is debating whether or not he would trust one of his cogs to your wifely “care”.
I attribute this to the Disney Effect. The fables of pop culture have been so thoroughly drummed into young women that they have a distorted view of their actual importance to the world in a historical sense.
Women need to have a “shovel the gravel moment”:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/29/the-secret-of-life-shut-up-and-shovel-the-fuckin-gravel/
God almighty did not create the heavens and the earth so that picky 21st century American women could dally about complaining about the lack of delicious, enticing male companionship.
By “eh” I mean not repulsive but not super attractive. He’s “okay.”
The problem here is that you’re thinking “eh” instead of “hmm, maybe.” If a good man (i.e., one looking for a wife) sees a girl who’s cute but not striking, he doesn’t think “eh, she’s okay” but “hm, she’s kinda cute.” There’s a big difference in the mental processes — the latter considers a genuine possibility, while the former recoils from a last resort.
Parents and grandparents aren’t always much better [at injecting reality about a girl’s SMV].
This is an important point, I think. The self-esteem culture, and parents who promote it (and often try to live vicariously through their children) now exacerbate the cheerleading problem rather than mitigate it. Grandparents are often still old and wise enough to be level-headed, but are usually a minimal influence.
Most women don’t need to be with the CEO, but they would like to be with someone who approaches life as more than just a bloodless cog in the machine.
I’d like to echo some of the responses above: most men were “cogs” even before feminism changed workplace culture to be overly sensitive and risk-averse. Sometimes I think the obsession a lot of women have with “passion” is confusing strong beliefs and interests with extraversion and showing off. There are lots of deep-down, smoldering-fire, passionate-but-private people out there who get overlooked because they don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves or go for cool-sounding, low-paying jobs.
I’ve talked about this on Boundless once or twice, but remember: women have a ton of freedom to work in jobs they are passionate about. Men, if they want to be good marriage prospects, need a job that’s stable and well-paying, which often means unexciting (to women) fields like engineering. Most 20-something guys who keep putting off stable, decent-paying (read: boring) work find themselves at 35 with a near-entry-level job and no savings to speak of. And, as I just read today, most entrepreneurs don’t start their business until nearly age 40, so the young “cog” may just not have struck upon the innovative way to take advantage of his skills yet.
Most importantly, though, what does our Lord say to men?
“Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do. […] Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your vain life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.”
Find joy in the simple things in life, because you don’t take anything with you. I hope to find a wife who doesn’t mind living a simple, quiet life — and I’d advise young women to acclimate themselves to the idea. It used to be called growing up.
I have a simple rule for determining whether or not to approach a woman: is she interested? If I have to WONDER whether or not so-and-so likes me, then she’s not; since she’s not interested, I won’t approach-end of story. If a gal is interested, she’ll let a guy know, and she’ll make it easy for him…
Julie,
“Now that I’m married and my husband is supporting us, when I think about going to get a job, I am much pickier. It has to be something I’m passionate about, part-time, flexible, etc. Or I just won’t apply for it, since I don’t NEED it for basic survival.”
Is your husband OK with supporting you so you can wait for your “passionate” job? Does HE get to do something “passionate”? Or do you have kids you are taking care of that gives you a pretext to sit out the job market?
“Haley lives in a more privileged time and nation for females than in all of human history.”
Well, here I disagree. First, as far as we can see, Haley is just a cog herself at her job. Second, she doesn’t have a husband or even a boyfriend. Meanwhile, the liberal feminist culture of her elders and betters tells her that coghood is so much more meaningful and rewarding than a husband and children, the slacker culture of her contemporaries tells her that casual sex is better than either coghood or marriage, and the church tells her not to be judgmental. I feel like my mother and my grandmother had it much better.
There’s a lot of selective reading going on here.
y81–
This is a new complaint from our hostess: usually she’s complaining about the men at church or that she meets on the street, but now it’s the men at work?
Well, men at church and men on the street have bills to pay, too, you know.
My point is not that it’s bad to be a “cog”. It’s bad to be a lifeless, bloodless cog with no inner spirit.
CAB–
The problem here is that you’re thinking “eh” instead of “hmm, maybe.” If a good man (i.e., one looking for a wife) sees a girl who’s cute but not striking, he doesn’t think “eh, she’s okay” but “hm, she’s kinda cute.”
You’re presuming that women become attracted to men similarly to the way men become attracted to women. Most women, just by looking at a man, do not become attracted to him. (For that to happen, he needs to be very good-looking or giving off very visible alpha vibes, and even then, that might not be sufficient.) Women become attracted to men through their actions. A man who merely goes through the motions and doesn’t cause any waves doesn’t give women a whole lot of reasons to take notice.
There are lots of deep-down, smoldering-fire, passionate-but-private people out there who get overlooked because they don’t wear their hearts on their sleeves or go for cool-sounding, low-paying jobs.
How is a woman supposed to know that the guy she thinks is boring at work has deep-down, smoldering-fire passion when he is boring at work? If you dress in the boring man’s uniform (baggy light-colored jeans or khakis with a neutral-colored knit polo shirt), you’re making the case for your boringness even more strongly.
MarkyMark–
If I have to WONDER whether or not so-and-so likes me, then she’s not; since she’s not interested, I won’t approach-end of story. If a gal is interested, she’ll let a guy know, and she’ll make it easy for him…
I think that strategy only works for good-looking or very confident men. Like I said to CAB, women don’t usually become attracted to men just for existing.
“How is a woman supposed to know that the guy she thinks is boring at work has deep-down, smoldering-fire passion when he is boring at work? If you dress in the boring man’s uniform (baggy light-colored jeans or khakis with a neutral-colored knit polo shirt), you’re making the case for your boringness even more strongly.”
Of course, the women could, you know, TALK to the men and find out what lights their fire, and not judge a book by its cover. But given your apologia for AWs’ helplessness in this post, maybe that’s too much to ask. In my experience, it’s the most badass, strong-silent men who wear the most low-key outfits, because they don’t feel the need to be ostentatious.
(Is your husband OK with supporting you so you can wait for your “passionate” job? Does HE get to do something “passionate”? Or do you have kids you are taking care of that gives you a pretext to sit out the job market?)
Yes, to all of the above. I put him through school for years so he can do what he’s passionate about, and now I’m home full-time with kids for a while. If it was a matter of our family’s security, or a matter of supporting him again should he need to find a different job, I would be open to any job out there. But while he’s happy in his job, and my kids are young or young-ish, my criteria for what I’d accept are different.
“How is a woman supposed to know that the guy she thinks is boring at work has deep-down, smoldering-fire passion when he is boring at work? If you dress in the boring man’s uniform (baggy light-colored jeans or khakis with a neutral-colored knit polo shirt), you’re making the case for your boringness even more strongly.”
It’s deliberate. We’re camouflaging ourselves from vapid women.
Sorry everything isn’t served up for you on a plate nice and easy. We’ll get right on that.
Badger–
Of course, the women could, you know, TALK to the men and find out what lights their fire, and not judge a book by its cover.
Why would women talk to men who seem boring? It’s like you guys just expect women to chat up every man who exists just because he’s alive, and then you act deeply wounded that women don’t all see through the blah packaging to your precious inner souls full of deep passion and zest for life.
Men – especially young men – almost never take the time to engage women they’re not interested in…why would women not do the same?
Also, dressing well is not the same as dressing ostentatiously. Good grief, the commenters on this blog love to extrapolate everything to ludicrous lengths.
Haley: Badger Nation and Jack said (briefly and more pointedly) what I was going to on your second bit. But on “eh,” I’m well aware that attraction works differently for men and women. What we’ve been trying to point out to you is that saying “eh” (no potential) instead of “maybe” (potential) implies that you’re not interested in letting attraction grow, but instead want to get a man who’s already a “yes” — and that’s clearly a bad strategy unless you’re a hottie (and often even then, if you’re looking for a husband rather than a boyfriend). Your insistence that a man has to “make waves” to get noticed is not a good sign at all.
Think about this: At work, you can argue that there are two kinds of people: those who are trying to get things done, and those who are trying to get ahead. Do you really want the latter category?
Haley, I’m not trying to be snarky but to say the following as nicely as possible.
From skimming some of your posts, and increasingly from your followups in this thread, I’m getting the impression that you think abstractly and theorize about men a lot, but rarely get to know actual men on any meaningful level, except maybe on the internet which is no substitute for real life and the occasional pressure-filled overanalyzed romantic pursuit.
If your religious beliefs forbid socializing or being friends with men “just for fun” (as opposed to targeted pursuit of marriage), then that’s that, and I totally respect it. But if you’re not morally opposed, I humbly suggest you make a serious effort to spend more time with and around men in casual circumstances (including groups) without romantic pressure, and learn to see them as people rather than rungs on some Game ladder who are either above or below you.
There are plenty of cool, bright, funny guys out there with diverse interests and passions. Those qualities aren’t usually tattooed on their foreheads or expressed by their work outfits. Getting to know people requires a certain general level of comfort, which you seem to lack when it comes to the opposite sex. I think building up your comfort level in co-ed situations will make it much easier to get to a mutual attraction scenario, perhaps even with someone you wouldn’t have expected to.
A blog is never a complete portrait of its author, so apologies if I read you wrong.
CAB–
What do you think “making waves” means? It seems pointless to continue this discussion if we can’t even agree on the terms, which is the sense I’m getting from you.
P.S. Some people try to get ahead by getting things done. The twain are not mutually exclusive.
Why would women talk to men who seem boring? It’s like you guys just expect women to chat up every man who exists just because he’s alive, and then you act deeply wounded that women don’t all see through the blah packaging to your precious inner souls full of deep passion and zest for life.
One moment, you’re saying that women become attracted by getting to know a guy; the next, you’re saying that men who “seem boring” aren’t worth a woman’s time in getting to know. Are you seeing the problem here?
Men – especially young men – almost never take the time to engage women they’re not interested in…why would women not do the same?
Because for men, it’s much simpler: if we’re attracted physically, we see potential and want to get to know you. If we’re not, we know that it’s almost certainly not going to work no matter how shining your personality is.
But if women need to let attraction grow… shouldn’t they be open to men they’re not interested in yet? Being friendly is certainly a good way to get asked out more often.
“Why would women talk to men who seem boring?”
Oh I don’t know, to get a husband and have children. Shocking concept. Believe it or not, seeming boring is an honorable trait amongst men.
Your long essay was well put, Jack. If you’re looking for that old-time effacement, it’s on tap in the Far East.
“Making waves” sounds, to me, inherently disruptive. In most workplaces, standing out is usually a bad thing — if you’re just working hard and occasionally being innovative, your coworkers probably aren’t going to hear much about it, but if you screw up or start causing other people problems, then they will. But I’m the sort who doesn’t like being in the spotlight and can’t stand show-offs, so I’ll admit I might be reading too much into that.
And of course getting ahead and getting things done are not mutually exclusive, but the mentalities involved often come to light eventually.
CAB–
But if women need to let attraction grow… shouldn’t they be open to men they’re not interested in yet? Being friendly is certainly a good way to get asked out more often.
You seem to be recommending the female equivalent of a man blindfolding himself and getting to know every woman he runs into in the hope that he will discover that she has a nice body and attractive face. Yes, female attraction is usually not instantaneous and needs time to grow; yes, women should be open to getting to know men; but my goodness, is it too much to ask that a man do anything to make himself more attractive? All the whining about how women need to give men a chance – ANY man a chance – makes men sound like fat girls complaining that guys can’t see past the surface to see the “real them.” DON’T BE A MALE FAT GIRL.
Re: making waves – that’s not what I meant. While women don’t generally want to marry men who upset the apple cart, they like it when the man gives it a little shake every now and then. Calm lakes are pretty, but ripples and waves are more exciting. Get the drift?
feminist lurker–
Your post was very kind.
The longer I live the more strongly I believe that a woman’s ego is her greatest barrier to happiness.
What rich irony. Teach a man game, be he ever so fail, and he will shortly have a parade of women frolicking through his bedroom. Teach a woman game, and she will… continue to deny all responsibility for her actions and life outcomes.
I can only conclude once again that women are not to be reasoned with but emotionally manipulated.
Haley has none of that old tyme resolve to swallow her pride, find a realistic match, display a flattering fascination in talking about himself, and landing a family.
She’s surrounded by men at or near the top of the SMV global hierarchy, bargains for her national gender’s lower status, and still is so picky she refuses to close a deal.
My recommendation: spend 3 months in Russia feeling completely invisible to expat and local men alike, then come back chastened and grateful to settle.
Julie,
Thanks for the clarification. When kids are in the home, it makes sense for one parent to take a break from work or to pull a part-time gig to be available.
I must admit I don’t understand 21st-century couples without children where the wife doesn’t work full-time. The man’s basically paying for the pu**y or for a maid, or some combination of the two. I have no interest in a sit at home wife.
But that doesn’t apply to you, so no problem.
Hey Badger Nation:
That’s certainly how I felt about working when I didn’t have kids yet. However, like I said, I was putting my husband through school so he could land a mediocre paying job. By me working, we could pay off debt, save up a house down payment, etc. Also, I think it is valuable for a woman to have solid work experience because many things can happen which could necessitate her going back to work at some point. The downside of that thinking is that to achieve those skills and work experience, marriage and childbearing are often delayed.
We’re basically arguing about two separate issues: guys approaching girls and girls letting guys approach them.
Guys shouldn’t expect girls to approach at all. Even if it’s in her best interest, she probably not going to realize that, and it’s pointless to wait around hoping that she does. If you’re the guy, go ahead and ask her (and I need to ask for more phone numbers).
Similarly, girls would do better if they made themselves more approachable. If you’re too scared to start a conversation, don’t be surprised if people treat you like you don’t exist. You may think you’re being shy, but more than likely they think that you’re too frigid or stuck up. You don’t have to ask him out, but if you won’t make yourself availible to be approached then you’ve selected yourself out of the dating pool.
This is basically an argument about is and oughts. None of us can change the opposite sex, but we can change ourselves. If you’re sitting around waiting for someone to notice that you exist, the burden is on you.
You seem to be recommending the female equivalent of a man blindfolding himself and getting to know every woman he runs into in the hope that he will discover that she has a nice body and attractive face.
That’s not a good analogy, because you’re ignoring the fact that attraction mechanisms and priorities are different. Men looking for a wife care about a lot more than looks; it’s just that looks both are important and can be evaluated quickly. Women do care about looks to an extent, but not as much or in the same way as men — you are principally attracted by things that take time to discover.
Haley, I haven’t been arguing that you should give more men a chance for their sake, but for yours. If you continue to think of men you’re not instantly attracted to as a potential-less “eh,” and then expect them to do something to make you attracted to them (even if you haven’t been giving them the time of day because your first impression is that they’re boring), you’re just setting yourself up for failure.
I should add that I haven’t been arguing for girls asking guys out here. But it wouldn’t hurt you to make yourself more attractive by being more open and friendly — as was pointed out in the thread before this one. And I think I’m done going back-and-forth about this, because I can’t seem to get past your insistence that men need to make themselves more attractive to you.
“Why would women talk to men who seem boring?”
Oh I don’t know, to get a husband and have children. Shocking concept. Believe it or not, seeming boring is an honorable trait amongst men.
I thought I was weird for thinking that seeming boring is, in some ways, a virtue. Glad to hear I’m not the only one.
CAB–
I think it’s pretty obvious that we are talking around each other at this point because we don’t agree on what the word “attractive” means.
“It’s like you guys just expect women to chat up every man who exists just because he’s alive”
What? You’re the one who wrote a post (If I like him he can do better) starting with an anecdote of a woman who was “annoyed” that a man didn’t chat her up simply because they were both walking in the same direction.
If women want to be approached, they need to be approachable, and it can’t just be, to use your words, “men I want to approach me.” Just as women are taught to judge men by how they treat waiters, clerks, etc, men judge women by how women treat other men, especially less-attractive ones. If it’s a mile-high bitch shield for Boring Joe but sweet eyes and giggles for Brad Pitt’s stunt double, we know what kind of character we are dealing with.
I think that when men introduce themselves, talk to women, ask them out for casual dates, it can make them more attractive because it’s a demonstration of friendliness and leadership.
As for my advice to single women, of course, there will be men that you are not attracted to in any way, physically or otherwise. However, I would not be married today if I hadn’t agreed to go for coffee and get to know a man who was not my “type” and who didn’t produce strong attraction in me right away. I think if you’re going to err, then err on the side of being more open-minded, not less. You just never know! It’s not like you have to want to marry every guy you get to know. But the wider your net, the more chance of catching a fish. :) Some men truly are “buried treasure” and it’s you who will be missing out if you cross them off your list too quickly.
“However, I would not be married today if I hadn’t agreed to go for coffee and get to know a man who was not my “type” and who didn’t produce strong attraction in me right away.”
Glad it worked out. I always cringe when I hear women talk about men who are not their “type,” because I always interpret it as code for “not what I imagine as my ideal lover.” Rejection is one thing; hamster-led rejection is shallow and nasty. Glad you bypassed that nonsense!
BadgerNation:
Surely some of it had to do with him not coming off as super alpha. But I’m probably like a lot of women in that I’m not thinking in clearly sexual terms. It’s more to do with the man’s attitude and my response. So for example, I cannot relate to the term ‘gina tingle. I never had genital reactions to alpha men I had just met. It’s more along the line of “He seems confident, he climbs mountains and plays guitar–I think I feel some butterflies in my tummy.”
Also, I’m sure men have types don’t they? Perhaps your dream is a sweet, feminine, petite blonde. So maybe when you meet a woman who is tall, brunette, and has a great sense of humor, she is not your “type.” It doesn’t mean you don’t find her attractive or don’t want to get to know her better.
Julie,
I just so often hear “he’s not my type” as a blanket excuse to dismiss a man without a fair hearing, or to avoid escalating with a man who wouldn’t meet her friends’ requirements, that I’ve come to not take it as an honest answer as much as a social maneuver. Kind of like “I have a boyfriend” has been mutated from a true statement into a throwaway line for a girl to say “go away.”
Well, perhaps it is. I think that getting to know men who are “not your type” is a very wise move though for women. If in the past, men who ARE “your type” either didn’t pursue you or they did pursue but the relationship failed, then perhaps your radar is not great and your head needs to weigh in more, so your heart gets a chance to follow, and hopefully, you get a better result!
Also, I’m sure men have types don’t they? Perhaps your dream is a sweet, feminine, petite blonde. So maybe when you meet a woman who is tall, brunette, and has a great sense of humor, she is not your “type.” It doesn’t mean you don’t find her attractive or don’t want to get to know her better.
Not to nearly the same degree women seem to have, no.
Men tend to value variety — some have preferences, to be sure, but most of us find various types attractive, really. That’s a key difference, here, between men and women, as I’ve said here before: men like more women and more types of women than women do vis-a-vis men. It appears to be in a woman’s nature of attraction to winnow, and a part of this is winnowing in towards a certain “type”. Again, there are men who have preferences for this or that type of appearance, but by and large different combinations of attractive all work well for most of us.
by and large different combinations of attractive all work well for most of us
This has been a fascinating discovery for me. Just when I see a girl who I think is absolute perfection, I walk around the corner and see another girl who is even better. And the two look nothing alike.
“I can only conclude once again that women are not to be reasoned with but emotionally manipulated.”
Which may be accomplished for beneficial OR malevolent ends. If a person will not yield to logic, then they are signaling that they are probably responsive to manipulation.
“If it’s a mile-high bitch shield for Boring Joe but sweet eyes and giggles for Brad Pitt’s stunt double, we know what kind of character we are dealing with.”
Oh, YES! We are constantly watching how you treat other men and are assessing whether we should approach you.
American women attempt to perfectly calibrate their bitch shields to allow only acceptable men filter through. You would THINK this is an acceptable strategy. But no, for the reasons stated. When we see her get fluttery around Mr. Fierce Catch, we know know what her threshold of attraction is, and will avoid wasting time approaching her.
I remember a perfectly nice chat I was having with a girl once who seemed cheerful and engaging with me. Some other guy walked up and joined the conversation. She went from cheerful to a melting, coquettish kitten.
I noticed that she was talking to me less. I walked away. She never noticed. It is always illuminating to experience such a real-time appraisal of your value by a person in whom you are interested. Did she get the guy? Don’t know, but I’d never consider her again.
C’mon Hale – tell me again what a loser I am. I miss your constant reminders of how I will never get a girl interested in me. Wait – you’re ignoring me – you’re communicating the same thing!! How clever, don’t stop: the rejection hurts so good.
Julie-
“Well, perhaps it is. I think that getting to know men who are “not your type” is a very wise move though for women. If in the past, men who ARE “your type” either didn’t pursue you or they did pursue but the relationship failed, then perhaps your radar is not great and your head needs to weigh in more, so your heart gets a chance to follow, and hopefully, you get a better result!”
Depends on the use of “your type”.
Does type mean:
Outdoorsy canoe-kayak type?
Quiet artsy type?
Redneck bar-bowling type?
Heavy church involvement type?
Fun, upbeat, humorous non-conflict type?
Or does type mean:
Tall
Dark
Handsome
Rich
Myself, I think it would be hard for me to be happy with a granola hippie, dancing around like Natalie Merchant, making beaded things girl.
So “type” can be legitimate.
But if by my “type”, I mean that she needs breasts of a certain (minimum) size, or a certain hair color, or a tush of a certain (maximum) size, then I would hope that everyone would call me out on such superficial wants.
I recognize that Haley is talking about wanting attributes in men that are probably legitimate, but it does not seem that she wants to have to extend much in the way of effort on her part. It seems that she expects a good customer-service experience from the men around her, instead of seeing them as real, feeling, flesh and blood human beings. I see no love for her fellow human beings in her posts.
As men, we often find things in women (even those that we don’t pursue) that we find admirable and “love-able” about them (ironic by-product of the whole “sensitive-male” thing).
Like all things in life, often the best things are hidden and not obvious. Rare is the case where the best choice something that smacks you in the face as “obvious”.
Haley’s disdain for corporate “cogs” is clear. She seems to have no interest in giving them a warm personality to open up to. No, they must be a fully-actualized person with lots of “spark” potential and their act totally together.
Haley – what part of “helpmate” don’t you understand?
Answer – all parts of it.
cleared in hot–
Just when I see a girl who I think is absolute perfection, I walk around the corner and see another girl who is even better.
“Perfection” is a strong word. Where is this veritable Eden?!
“Well, perhaps it is. I think that getting to know men who are “not your type” is a very wise move though for women. If in the past, men who ARE “your type” either didn’t pursue you or they did pursue but the relationship failed, then perhaps your radar is not great and your head needs to weigh in more, so your heart gets a chance to follow, and hopefully, you get a better result!”
I agree with this, and the key factor is an open mind to possibility.
“It appears to be in a woman’s nature of attraction to winnow, and a part of this is winnowing in towards a certain “type”. ”
As I said before, most of my experience with a woman’s “type” is not what she finds intrinsically attractive, but a selection of social factors – women who have always wanted to marry a doctor, or a pilot, or someone their friends will be jealous of, or a guy who looks like their first crush or whatever. Usually they are in that age where they feel rationally justified in being “choosy” and like to hold up an image of being choosy, which means the hamster is a big part of the decisionmaking.
What is this hamster anyway?
For me, I guess “type” meant a guy I was quite attracted to, and then after that, someone I felt a kinship with emotionally, spiritually, intellectually. It was a tall order, especially when you are also looking for maturity, high character, someone who would make a good father…
BUT, if your definition of attractive can be widened, or you can give a man a chance even though you feel only mild attraction at first, this greatly improves your prospects. Especially given that women’s attraction generally grows over time.
Julie,
The “hamster” is the rationalization hamster, a term coined by Roissy for women’s tendency to give a plausible rational sheen to their hindbrain-based decisions, and also to push away uncomfortable truths that are apparent to others.
One classic example would be a guy who doesn’t call back in the socially expected manner. It is typical for women to bend over backwards to excuse this behavior, to avoid the most likely explanation that he’s just not that into you – “he must have a reason he didn’t call! maybe he had something come up. Maybe his sister is in the hospital. Maybe his cell charger broke.”
The hamster is a biological relative of the hypergamouse.
OK, makes sense. But is this tendency toward rationalization a female thing or a human thing?
Julie-
A human thing, of course.
But our culture encourages/excuses rationalization on the part of women more than men. Womens’ GENERAL penchant for being more emotionally oriented than men probably has some relevance as well.
Check out Dalrock for a recent post on The Hamster.
The book “He’s Just Not That Into You’ was, I think, a form of anti-hamster effort.
Julie,
You may want to check out Roissy’s latest post which coincidentally deals with the issues of “type” and of the rationalization hamster:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/womens-standards-crumble-easily-given-the-right-incentives/
In short form, a woman he meets dictates her deep and wide checklist of physical, social and constitutional characteristics. When he bumps into her later, she’s dating a man with almost none of them and loving it.
I’ve looked at Roissy’s blog before. Surely he has an understanding of what often makes men and women tick down deep. However, he has a short-term view and one too focused on sex. I read that story you linked to–I have a hard time imagining myself or my Christian friends having done something like that, not when it was time to really look seriously for a husband.
In my opinion, a blog like that could be helpful for men to understand why they may not be attracting women. However, if you are a Christian, then you’re not targeting the women that a man like Roissy would be. So some of what he says could apply, but much of it will not. If I had met a man like Roissy when I was single, perhaps I would have been attracted to him–probably if he’s good-looking and has good game. Would I have rationalized dating or sleeping with someone like him? Maybe as a young college student…if he fooled me and pretended to be a Christian… But not as I got older and more mature and was looking for long-term husband and father material.
Julie–
One of Roissy’s tenets is that all women are the same, regardless of age, time, or locale. So in his opinion, a woman who did not follow the hamster in picking a husband would only be denying the hamster, not actually getting rid of it.
In my opinion, all people are capable of doing all sorts of things they believe unimaginable; the main thing that keeps them from doing these things is circumstance. For a Christian woman, the greatest strategy to keep herself from doing things she swears she will “never” do is not to put herself in situations where it will be easy to rationalize them away.
I think that most Christian women, if pressed hard enough in the right way by a very attractive alpha male, will succumb. That more Christian women don’t succumb is probably due to the alpha male botching his approach, not the woman’s virtue.
I think that strategy only works for good-looking or very confident men. Like I said to CAB, women don’t usually become attracted to men just for existing.
You’re tacitly admitting a tenet the HBD adherents trumpet: that 90% of men are INVISIBLE to women; that is to say that 90% of men are NOT sexually or otherwise appealing to women. Ergo, my strategy stands: if I have to wonder if a gal is into me, then she’s not-end of story.
“a woman who did not follow the hamster in picking a husband would only be denying the hamster, not actually getting rid of it.”
I don’t think that’s ontologically tenable. The reality of things is their external manifestation, not some imaginary imperceptible essence.
“I think that most Christian women, if pressed hard enough in the right way by a very attractive alpha male, will succumb.”
I think it’s highly unlikely that the average woman with a grasp of metaphysical reality, a university degree and a real job will succumb to Roissy-style silliness. (Unless you define “alpha male” in a non-Roissy way as referring to genuine status and character, rather than skill at psychological manipulation.)
Julie,
Before you double down on the purity of Christian women and their impervity to game, you might want to read this post (NSFW):
http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/context/
Short summary – through not-particularly-clever text game, Solomon induces the deacon’s daughter to send him a topless photo. Haley is spot-on on this one.
Badger–
I saw that post a while ago. Ultra depressing on so many different levels.
And ultra-realistic. The sewer of popular culture affects the Christian woman to nearly the same degree as secular women.
And Julie-
My personal experience is that Christian girls always treated me worse than secular girls. Actually, the two girls (very cute, even) who most treated me with interest and respect turned out to be wiccan.
Haha – such irony. Needless to say I could not get into an unequally yoked relationship.
To be honest, I think that I have more of what probably could be labeled “hate” for Christian girls than non-Christians.
1) Because they were haughtier and more unrealistic.
2) They had less excuse than an unsaved girl.
Every time I tried to return to the Church body to find a wife there were women determined to remind me of why I left.
As someone else once pointed out, it is probably a mix of the Disney effect, the prosperity message, and the princess entitlement complex.
I think Haley’s second to last comment gets it basically right.
Roissy-style Game will work on Christian women as well, given the proper circumstances, and, of course, given that the Game is well-tailored.
The basic idea Roissy has — which, based on my own life experiences and observations — is that most women, regardless of their commitments or arrangements or values, are susceptible to being “flipped” for an evening at least if you run good, tight Game on them.
The married ones, the moral ones, the ones with values merely present more “obstacles” to be overcome by the guy running Game, but they can be overcome, and in some cases can be used as advantages (the whole thing plays on the idea of “being bad just this once”, in some cases, or the lingering feelings of some boredom or low-level malaise or what have you that may plague the married or the moral or the valued at times … these are the foundations that the Gamer will lay in terms of feeding the rationalization hamster of a woman with this kind of background). Remember, the Game-runner is not just trying to seduce you, he is also trying to feed your rationalization hamster so that you don’t resist the seduction effectively, and instead rationalize giving in to it — that’s a big part of Game, in terms of overcoming the resistance most women have to being considered “easy” or “gameable” –> in the case of the married/moral/valued ones, it’s simply a case of tailoring the message to meet the particular obstacles, and feed the hamster appropriately. If the guy knows what he is doing (which Game assumes he does), this scenario is more than adequately Game-able. As Haley says, the best way to avoid it happening is to avoid the situations in which a guy would be running Game like that.
Roissy, of course, has no values, and so has run Game on numerous women with these kinds of backgrounds, especially married ones. He claims never to have targeted married women per se, but nevertheless he has had numerous married women among his conquests, and some of the situations he has described are, frankly, enough to make any guy quite cynical about women.
jack,
The unfortunate fact is that feminism and American Protestantism have arrived at the same crossing (institutionalized female superiority and pedestalization), through different means.
Feminism has posited women as the embodiment of ideal values for a modern, urban, cooperative, secular white-collar society, and men as threats to that society.
Religious-right America has kowtowed to its customer base of women and invested in a radical reinterpretation of scripture that men are “fallen” and women are “soul-savers.” Catholicism has the additional factors of Virgin Mary worship, intense shaming of male sexuality and complete lack of acknowledgement of female sexuality.
Brendan-
Far be it that I come off as a gender equalist, but the same would be true of most men.
Given a hot enough girl in the right slinky outfit, and enough of a serious come-on and most guys could be ‘flipped’ for a night.
I would suppose that the only reason that this does not happen more is due to hypergamy.
Men will more often trade quality for quantity in the casual sex market. It is only the fact that 80% of men are invisible to women that prevents that, in my opinion.
Well, of course, Christian women are game-able. What I am saying is that at a certain point, at least for me, the kind of man who was able to interest me really changed. As a younger woman, I was able to fall for immature and immoral jerks. As I got older, say mid-twenties, there was a definite change(perhaps my brain matured) and though I was still drawn to alphas, they were those of high character and self-restraint. Maybe my environment changed and that was part of it, or the guys around me had matured. But I think I was finally able to be attracted to the type of man who would also make a good father. Think of how someone like Jim Elliott would have been had he lived in our time. It was still not great, because they were still alphas, thus not in a hurry to commit to any woman, especially one that wasn’t their ideal. But once I started falling for men like this, someone like Roissy would not have intrigued me unless he was putting on a very good act and not acting sleazy in any way.
It really doesn’t matter what Christian women in general do. It matters what Christian woman who have reached a certain level of maturity and discernment are looking for.
“It really doesn’t matter what Christian women in general do. It matters what Christian woman who have reached a certain level of maturity and discernment are looking for.”
Yes, but it also matter to many of us what she used to do when she was chasing alphas, and especially jerky alphas.
Good men are not really interested in “winning” alpha scraps.
Good point. I can see why men feel like that.
Perhaps, Julie, but I would submit that a good number of such women have not reached that level of maturity even well into their marriages.
Well, Brendan, you’re probably right. I just know I am surrounded by Christian women who seem happily married and faithful. Most of them are married to men who you would probably call betas.
Both genders would be wise to screen for maturity as one of their chief criteria in a mate. This is one reason I am not crazy about the idea of early marriage.
Given a hot enough girl in the right slinky outfit, and enough of a serious come-on and most guys could be ‘flipped’ for a night.
I would suppose that the only reason that this does not happen more is due to hypergamy.
Men will more often trade quality for quantity in the casual sex market. It is only the fact that 80% of men are invisible to women that prevents that, in my opinion.
Definitely, but we know that, don’t we? I mean no-one is out there saying that men are *not* subject to sexual temptation, are they? Not least of all in the church.
Women, on the other hand, are often assumed to be less so, precisely due to the fact that they are hypergamous and more focused, sexually, than men are.
I just know I am surrounded by Christian women who seem happily married and faithful.
As one of those married Christian “beta” men, I can assure you that this is indeed true…up until the point that it is not.
“I think it’s highly unlikely that the average woman with a grasp of metaphysical reality, a university degree and a real job will succumb to Roissy-style silliness. ”
I strongly disagree, but it sort of depends on definiton…Mystery-style routines and maxims work on a
but the principles of social dynamics have much broader appeal and application.
I’ve known bazillions of “average women with a grasp of metaphysical reality, a university degree and a real job” who have fallen for guys with game. Pretty simple blustery game too. In fact I think they are particularly susceptible to social thrills because they’ve been told to do all these careerist things all their life, and when they get above water they find punching the white-collar clock is not really very fulfilling on its own.
The fact is that people in general, and modern young women in particular, have a fundamental need for social approval. One way of looking at game is as a way to demonstrate (or fake) high social value, to paint yourself as someone who can bestow worthwhile social approval, and then to encourage (or bait) someone into doing certain things to which you respond with social approval. How exactly that is accomplished is a matter of style and environment.
“It really doesn’t matter what Christian women in general do. It matters what Christian woman who have reached a certain level of maturity and discernment are looking for.”
Yes, but it also matter to many of us what she used to do when she was chasing alphas, and especially jerky alphas.
There’s also the fact that when you are truly committed to living a certain kind of life, the efforts of gamers and others to affect your behavior are going to roll off your back. Really dedicated Christians are not going to be swayed by social fads, whispers, PUAs or other sirens.
But a good number – most, probably – of “Christian” people are either along for the ride but either not really that invested (they get the social benefits of church life), or are easily swayed by other temptations and so church acts as a competitive inhibitor to other more negative life paths.
But that’s another whole thread. The church is not just for the pious.
A woman will think to herself, “A man like that could have any woman he wants, so why me?”
Oh yes, this happens to me all the time. As one girl told me, “I imagine women are just lined up outside your door, why would you want me?”
But Racer X likes to share his wealth, and help those girls who may feel disadvantaged in the romance department. They are always most grateful for my services and their new found confidence in their sexual value.
Badger–
Really dedicated Christians are not going to be swayed by social fads, whispers, PUAs or other sirens.
I think that’s hardly the case. Falling to sin is usually more like being a frog slowly boiled to death, rather than being hit by a bus. Everyone has a weakness.
Who made women this big prize? Why are men given the pleasure of all these rejections? Just does not seem fair.
I certainly hope you haven’t tried running game on the kind of women that Roissy has, Brendan. The promotion and stressing of “game” by Christian men, especially those who swallow it whole, is especially depressing both ethically and intellectually. Cleared, I highly doubt you’re one of the “beta” husbands Julie knows.
Julie, don’t worry; there will always be men and women of superior character, who have no use for creeps of either sex trying to seduce them for loose nights together.
Badger, that is tragic. Solomon really is trash; I wonder why in hell Dalrock, the professed Christian, would ever reinstate his garbage. Isn’t that like the equivalent of Haley here resurrecting some trash site by a woman on how to seduce old men and take their money?
Interesting that this post has generated more discussion.
Jennifer, you might benefit from reading this. It is one of the best expositions of the integrations of Game into Christianity that I have ever read. Key points: (1) Christian men must understand the base nature of women; (2) women — ALL women — respond to Game; and (3) not every student of Game seeks to be Roissy 2.0 or Roosh Jr.
Solomon II might be crass, but it’s spot on.
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/truths-seen-in-the-mud/
We need manhood and reality; women respond to manhood, and not all “game” represents that by any stretch. Nor does every woman despise the idea of tender sex. The post had some great points, but as usual he dismisses the harm of Roissy and projects total submission onto women (most men want to be good fathers, so it’s ok for them to read Roissy because they’ll resist corruption? I’m sure “most” women want to be good wives; should we then say it’s ok for them to read feminism? Let’s not forget the easily tempted nature of either sex) . Being man and woman isn’t playing in the mud; I consider it running barefoot through fields. It’s natural, but not dirty, and Solomon is a fool. So is anyone with the practicing philosophy of “Everyone’s got dirt within, so we might as well draw it out and play in it”.
Women force men to do all the approaching, but complain whenever they get approached.
Thats right bitch. If there is no green light then she is ignored hahah
it would be very nice for a change for the women to approach us men, but with so many women nowadays that play hard to get and have a very serious attitude problem, it is very hard for us to approach them.
Mr. “Truth” – The pickup artist instructors deny that change is taking place, and that fewer guys are actually approaching women these days. As you say, maybe women have to see that the old “game” is gone and that men have more value (?). Maybe it will make the approaching more 50-50.
It’s because men have this rock-hard shield that is so difficult to tear down and they will scare off women who approach them thinking that women are going to do bad things to them that hurts their masculinity. Men hate being used and hurt by women which is why they want to be in control. Men can never trust people who approach them, not even women. Men don’t like bad women. They want perfectly good women who act like ladies, not lesbians nor maneaters. Men are still the ones approaching women but women have to look and act a certain way so that way a perfect man can approach them by not interacting with others and looking less attractive just to make it easier for a man to approach them. And most of the time, men like nice shy women who are loners, not mean loud ones.
well where i live, many women nowadays are into other women anyway which makes it very hard for us straight guys looking to meet a good woman today. went to a restaurant the other night and i will not give the name, and two women were making out at the bar. so with many of these type of women that are out there, it certainly makes it much more harder for us guys to approach them not knowing if they will start cursing at us and acting crazy.
It’s strange that so many women/girls do not understand that the fear of rejection in men is very high while those same guys can be excellent potential partners. They think that such men are wimps/gays but this is simoly not the case. It is simply the fear of rejection.
Women should approach men much more often than it is happening right now (which is basically almost nothing). My reasoning is the following:
0) It will help develop more relations
since it will temporarily eliminate the fear of rejection of men (and the fear of approaching)
1) women are now more than ever independent
and men (and also women) expect to some degree that they show IOIs and an active role in the game
2) Women can then choose which partner they like as to hoping that he will approach
Which because of the fear of rejection rarily happens.
The argument that women think that some men are out of their league is an argument seldom valid.
The reasons women do not approach men are basically the same as far men as might some think. This reasoning is wrong: women have far less fear of rejection and fear of approach simply because they’re not expected to approach. Men perceive that women might come off as closed: this true but this is the fault of some guy in the past who approached her the wrong way. This is why most women seems to be not open or closed to be approached.
If you are a girl/women and you see a guy you like muster up the courage to go and talk to him, trust me you’ll be suprised at what succes you’ll get! Do not give up after a few rejections almost all men will be flattered that you’ll spend time and effort to go talking to him and they will quickly give you a chance.
Dirk/pua ; Are you for real? Even suggesting that women should (gasp) risk rejection? That makes you a woman hater,resentful of women and without a soul! How dare you say anything like that!
No, I’m not a woman hater Dave, all I’m saying is that there are a lot of benefits if (more) women do approach men. These benefits are for both genders the same.
If any I think you are without a soul. Your posts do not seem to add anything to this thread also your posts seem to have an underlining hate towards women. I see that a lot today in men and it’s just sad frankly.
I believe that a lot of women feel that its the guys responsibility to approach the woman (Historic purposes).
From a guys point of view I find it really awkward having to approach women and wish that women would approach guys a lot more instead of saying stuff like ‘I was too shy to talk to him’ or ‘It just didnt feel right’.
pps76
Mr. Dirk (PUA) – i am sorry that my poor communication skills caused you to place me in the underlying hate women club for just “suggesting” that the expectation for men to approach ( or else wear the labels you already have for us) is a double standard.
If you want to feel better and assume that I am in jail ( I’m not) so that you can disagree with me with more gusto, that is fine.I believe that there is a legion of “good guys” (OK,not good to you) who wait for women to approach them so that they at least know that the woman is interestedThey will wait. So now you can go ahead and trash us all, about your frank sadness about us.
with so many Gay Women nowadays that certainly adds to the problem, Doesn’t It?
>> i am sorry that my poor communication skills caused you to place me in the underlying hate women club for just “suggesting” that the expectation for men to approach ( or else wear the labels you already have for us) is a double standard.
Apology accepted.
>>If you want to feel better and assume that I am in jail ( I’m not)
I don;t assume you are in jail buddy I just disagree with you.
>> so that you can disagree with me with more gusto, that is fine.I believe that there is a legion of “good guys” (OK,not good to you) who wait for women to approach them so that they at least know that the woman is interestedThey will wait.
I don’t understand the message it is contradicting to what you have said earlier. So what is your message exaclty?
>>So now you can go ahead and trash us all, about your frank sadness about us.
Dating goes two ways buddy. I’m sorry if I can;t convey that message to you more clearly.
Dirk PUA – Message may better be presented this way by something I saw recently. Author, Melissa Kirk (Psychology Today) says that women are missing out on good men who just do not approach women, not out of fear, but simple consideration of space and comfort, and NOTHING to do with “an underlying hate towards women”. Dating goes both ways with that double standard?
Women should approach us men for a change since we get rejected a lot.
“Why would women talk to men who seem boring?”
“CAB–
‘But if women need to let attraction grow… shouldn’t they be open to men they’re not interested in yet? Being friendly is certainly a good way to get asked out more often.’
You seem to be recommending the female equivalent of a man blindfolding himself and getting to know every woman he runs into in the hope that he will discover that she has a nice body and attractive face. Yes, female attraction is usually not instantaneous and needs time to grow; yes, women should be open to getting to know men; but my goodness, is it too much to ask that a man do anything to make himself more attractive? All the whining about how women need to give men a chance – ANY man a chance – makes men sound like fat girls complaining that guys can’t see past the surface to see the ‘real them.’ DON’T BE A MALE FAT GIRL.”
I know these comment are four years old, but I don’t see that they were ever addressed here in the way that I would have addressed them, so I’m going to comment in spite of the fact that I’ll likely just be talking to myself in the process.
Anyway, the difference between a fat person and a person who seems boring is the “seems” part. A person doesn’t SEEM fat. They ARE fat. You don’t start to see someone as less fat the more you get to know them. In contrast, you might find out that someone is in fact not boring, and it probably wouldn’t even take that long to figure this out. I hope this distinction has become clear in the four years since Haley made these comments.
What is very weird is that many women will Approach the Creepiest looking men but reject us. Don’t get it.
Any woman could scream harassment if a guy so much as looks at her. This being the case – and it is – I don’t know why any men bother even acknowledging women at all outside purely professional circumstances (office meetings, etc.). This is not sexist or mysogynistc – it’s pure self protection against potential loss of everything (including basic freedom) because somebody doesn’t like your face. I absolutely know that women have to put up with totally unacceptable things (approaches, catcalls, and much worse) every day (almost exclusively from men) that men don’t – but I want no part of being thought of as ‘creepy’ or whatever – because I am not. So … I just stay away and don’t even make eye contact with women – ever. If a woman likes me – and a few have – no matter how crazy attracted to her I may be – Sorry – I’m not available – please find somebody else.
Most of the women nowadays are very Severely Mentally Disturbed to begin with let alone have them approach us Good men looking for love now since they have become so very Dangerous and are complete Psychopaths as well. And the real reason why i have said this which at one time which was about a couple of months ago when i approach this woman that i really wanted to meet which i was so very Attracted to her when she Cursed me out at that time for No Reason at all. I never did anything Wrong for this to happen to me which i believe that this woman was probably Abused by an Ex Boyfriend or a husband that she was once married too. Well this certainly explains why many of us men are still Single today when we really Shouldn’t Be at all. No reason to Blame ourselves for the Change in the women of today that are really the problem.
Thank you for making this post.
Not only is it good to see this stuff listed, but there’s things that I hadn’t considered in your list of reasons why women don’t approach. The points in the intimidated list are all important for guys to know and understand when going out picking up girls. Especially the part about being surrounded by his buddies.
As you mentioned, it’s difficult for a guy to summon the courage to approach a group of girls, so the inverse must be true as well. Hearing it from a female perspective helps reinforce that.