Wait Training
Use of technology in dating is leaving my single girlfriends bewildered and annoyed. For example, one went on a date with this guy. The date went well, then silence...for two weeks -- until he texted her, inviting her over for dinner. She's irritated that he didn't even call, and that he waited so long, and is considering not accepting. Is texting instead of calling a valid reason to write a guy off?
--Wondering
Not every guy's a talking-on-the-phone person, and that's okay, but there's much to be said for polite timing. Texting a girl the day after a date (even just "great time, call u soon") says a guy's interested. Texting two weeks later says he's explored every other option, including hookers and suicide, and settled for her.
Unless this guy followed up his text by calling from a hospital bed and explaining "A dog ate my iPhone -- and part of my arm," he should no longer be in the running. Behavior predicts behavior. It also illustrates character (like an interest in others' feelings). But, let's say vanishing for two weeks without a word (or even a "wrd") is out of character for this guy. He might've redeemed himself if he'd just manned up -- called to express some remorse for disappearing and apologized. At least then he'd be telling your friend "I know I don't get to do this to you" instead of "You seem like a woman who lets men walk all over her. My turn Tuesday at 7:30? And don't worry, I promise -- no hard-soled shoes or muddy hiking boots until the third date."
She didn't call him, did she?
So should he be pissed too?
Spartee at September 20, 2011 6:15 PM
Kinda thinking like Spartee. She couldn't have been too interested, either, or she would have contacted him in those two weeks. Or aren't women as liberated from sitting by the phone (so to speak) as they claim to be? Was she considering vibrators and pool boys while she was waiting? WHY was she waiting?
Michael P (@PizSez) at September 20, 2011 6:58 PM
Guys-this was a first date, and waiting 2 weeks to make contact says a lot of things, none of them good. I am an independent single woman, and in my experience this behavior sets a bad precedent like Amy alluded to.
Taking the bull by the horns and calling him isn't going to change him and make him suddenly into her. Life is too short to put up with this.
Ida at September 20, 2011 7:20 PM
Ida, as an independent single woman, why is it on him to call you? You want something, or someone, go get it.
For whatever it is worth, I have seen marriages over the years occur were where the women essentially targeted their future husbands and made that marriage happen. Those appear to be happy marriages.
The guys in those instances were simply too busy doing things the women found attractive in the first place--establishing good careers, working out, a full social life. All of those guys are still like that: busy being guys who others see as successful, interesting and good to be around.
The lesson I drew from that was if you are a gal waiting for a guy to come chasing after you, like some sort of rom-com, not a great strategy for landing great guys.
And if you are not interested enough to call him, well, I guess you are not interested enough.
Spartee at September 20, 2011 8:02 PM
Spartee, I've gone after guys plenty of times. It is not a strategy that has worked for me. Personally, I want a strong, confident man with a pair of cojones and some manners instead of a passive, insecure slacker who wants the woman to do all the work for him in a relationship. I want to be pursued. I want to be chosen. The only successful relationship I have had up until this point (age 34) was one in which the man pursued me. I never had to doubt his affections for me or his intentions. It's not about trying to emulate a romantic movie. It's about human nature.
Emily at September 20, 2011 8:34 PM
"A guy didn't call in two weeks -- he is an impolite bully; a guy called next day -- he is coming on too strong; a gay pursues a girl -- he is a stalker."
Why women think they are entitled to tell men what to do? Is it from an utter insecurity, immaturity, total respect for men, or from plain hysteria?
Mere Mortal at September 20, 2011 9:17 PM
it should be
"total lack of respect for men"
Mere Mortal at September 20, 2011 9:18 PM
If you like the guy, accept his offer. If not, don't.
Problem solved.
You're welcome.
Not Sure at September 20, 2011 9:25 PM
Why do I get the feeling that Little Miss Put Off By Texting would see nothing wrong if the roles were reversed? Oh, I bet words like "alluring" and "captivating" would be used instead of "annoying," and "rude."
Razor at September 20, 2011 9:32 PM
Hmmmmm, after three days, no matter how great the first date that he was not all that into me. After one week I would be forgetting about him and consign him into the past. Two weeks and he wants me to come to his place for dinner? Not a chance.
Texting a lot of people, not just this woman would not like a text for a second date. Besides after two weeks I would want to hear his voice again to be sure he was the guy whose voice I liked or is he the guy who had an irritating whine in his voice.
But hey if you like the guy you might want to give him a chance, text him back and suggest coffee instead. Go to his place? He has more to prove than that.
Worthit at September 20, 2011 11:20 PM
Ida, as an independent single woman, why is it on him to call you? You want something, or someone, go get it.
Spartee, although some women will, most women won't do that because there's always the risk of rejection and they can't stand being rejected.
Emily: Spartee, I've gone after guys plenty of times. It is not a strategy that has worked for me. Personally, I want a strong, confident man with a pair of cojones and some manners instead of a passive, insecure slacker who wants the woman to do all the work for him in a relationship.
Translation: I've asked men out and have been turned down and I was crushed. I've had men ask me out on dates and then I've called them a few days later because I thought the date went well, only to get a chilly response and that was devastating too. So, instead of doing those things, I want to be a passive slacker and want men to come after me and call me so I can accept or reject them.
Jim at September 20, 2011 11:26 PM
Emily, what are you bringing to the table then? You want to be absolutely secure in his feelings of affection. How are you proving it to HIM?
Or is it better he isn't secure in his relationship?
Please note, I am not meaning this as a personal attack, but as a serious question of principle. Yes, Amy can trot out her spiel on 'men need to be pursuers' but I'm thinking there should be some reciprocation somewhere along the line.
Women want to be secure and men get...? To be told how 'wonderful and special' a woman is? Pussy Power? The economics of eggs vs. sperm?
That said: the guy missed his window by about a week (yes, women will whine that a week is too long...and if they are into him, they'll still say yes)
flydye at September 21, 2011 12:07 AM
I don't buy the "if he doesn't call within a few days, he's not interested enough" line of reasoning.
Why does the guy have to be head-over-heels, can't-stop-thinking-about-her, nuts for her after one date?
He clearly enjoyed spending time with her and wants to get to know her more and spend more time and money doing just that. Okay, I get that he'd have been wise to do a little post date maintenance, but it shouldn't discount him completely.
Here's something phone call related that really threw me for a loop. I had taken a woman out several times and eventually banged her once. Once I called just to chat and she asked if I wanted to take her somewhere Friday night. "No, not a good night for me." She angrily started saying crap like "Clearly, I'm more into you than you are into me." Jesus, the message I got was to not bother calling unless I had some plans -- oh, and not to ever call this woman again for any reason. I'm really glad her batshit crazy side showed up that early in the relationship. That could've been horrible.
whistleDick at September 21, 2011 2:41 AM
Judging by my experience, Amy's advice is dead on. If a man is really interested, he doesn't wait two weeks to call. He doesn't even wait two days. Guys who have been interested in me made contact even when they were in the midst of a 60 hour work week, or had been up since 4:00 AM driving to and from a business meeting in another city, or dealing with a family crisis, etc. If they want to be with you, they make time, THEY CALL.
Lizzie at September 21, 2011 3:38 AM
Just to be clear, when I said if they want to be with you, they call, I'm not declaring that's as it should be. I'm saying that according to my experience, that's how it is. Spartee's stories of happy marriages that resulted from women chasing men just sound unlikely to me given my world experience, though there are always exceptions to the rule. Plus you almost never know for certain what's going on in other people's marriages or how happy they actually are together.
Lizzie at September 21, 2011 4:19 AM
Lizzie,
Why does a man have to be "really interested" to merit a second date? That's kind of my point and I think most of the guys on here would agree.
Often, people mutually enjoy a first date but don't necessarily glean enough information from the date to be "really interested". Imagine what has to be a pretty typical conversation between buddies after one of them has had a first date.
"So how'd it go with so-and-so?"
"It was fun. We had a good time and she has a lot going for her. I'd see her again."
Wouldn't you say that this is a more typical and healthy reaction to a first date than staying up all night in a cold sweat thinking about her and what she might be doing right now? It's pretty rare, and creepily naive, to be on fire for someone after one date, however pleasant the exchange.
I will readily concede that an acknowledgement of some kind (text, nowadays, I suppose) is the polite thing to do and this guy committed a pretty serious faux-pas. I just don't think it should totally rule him out.
"If they want to be with you, they make time, THEY CALL."
He has no idea whether he wants to "be with her". They've only had one date. Now he's offering to take her out again. Guess what? He'll be paying. She should take him up on his generous offer and stop looking at the calendar.
If he was scratching around her door like some creep that has nothing else going on, she'd have a lot more to complain about.
Just in case you felt the above dramatization of my little conversation between friends felt contrived, I'll include the rest of the typical conversation below:
"So ... ja do 'er?"
"Fuck yeah." -- insert fist bump here.
whistleDick at September 21, 2011 4:23 AM
Personally, if I went on a date with a guy, and he didn't call or text for 2 weeks, I'd go on a date with another guy. It's just a date, people! This is not mating-for-life, this is finding-out-if-the-other-person-is-fun-to-be-with. But waiting 2 weeks to call or text says to me "I had fun, and we could maybe be friends, after I exhaust all other options". If I say no, and he calls again, then maybe I'd say, "coffee?" If he's agreeable, I'd meet him for coffee. Or I'd say, "well, I'm going to see (insert band name here), if you're there, I'll catch up with ya." If not, oh well. Life's too short to wait on one person for something that might not even be in your best interest in the long run.
Flynne at September 21, 2011 5:31 AM
Man, this opened a whole can of lady-hating worms.
So, it's been about five years since I've been on a date, and apparently in that five years texting and Internet dating totally changed the dating landscape as I remembered it.
I'm curious - is texting now considered the same as calling someone? Is texting someone after a date to invite them somewhere else okay? Aaah, I feel so old!
Choika at September 21, 2011 5:38 AM
"Personally, I want a strong, confident man with a pair of cojones and some manners instead of a passive, insecure slacker who wants the woman to do all the work for him in a relationship."
We are all captives of our experiences, thanks to the way our brains are wired, and anecdotes are no substitutes for data, but I will relate one anyway.
One fellow I used to work out with was a former competitive body builder, black belt, a "go to" trial attorney for a national company, and he was, I kid you not, as good looking as JFK Jr.
In short, he was Apollo's more studly, black-haired brother, and as you would expect, he did not lack confidence (or any portion of his reproductive parts).
So how did his wife (attractive, yes, but no supermodel) end up with him? She hunted him like a hungry tigress after a fawn. She actually told him her intentions and went for it.
Two decades and some Apollo-like kids later, she is still fierce about him (and his now-peppery hair). He still dotes on her, in between marching to ongoing successes in life.
Do you think she would have married him if she hung back and waited for him to chase her? Nope, he would have kept working out with me, busting opponent's butts in the ring, and making other lawyers cry, until some other gal grabbed him by the collar and said, "time for you to marry...me."
Almost all the succesful, charismatic, married guys I have known were targeted by their wives, not vice versa. These guys--former college jocks, graduates of elite schools, professionals in competitive careers--spent their teens and early twenties working very hard and developed into sucessful men by their late twenties and early thirties. By that age, each guy was hitting his full stride and used to running hard in life; gals had to catch him if they wanted that type of guy. He was not slowing down his pace to woo her; in fact, he had simply forgotten how to slow down.
If you want to date an artist, musician, cop, junior high schoolteacher or someone like that, I suppose the rules could be different. I just don't know as much about that slice of the population, to be honest. As I said, we are captives of our experiences. I do know that the most accomplished, macho dudes I know were not mooning after gals, trying to woo them. They were accomplishing things. All of them are still married, with kids, and still seem quite pleased with their wives.
All I am saying is if you are sitting there, insisting that a man call you, you may be waiting a long time. Not because he is not interested in marrying/dating someone but rather simply because in his full life, he is focused on other things. And as he rises in life, he finds he can afford to miss a good thing, including a good mate, because likely another opportunity will come along shortly.
Spartee at September 21, 2011 6:22 AM
I see a lot of assumptions, and very little communication going on.
LW sees the worst case: He's only interested because he can't get anyone else. Guy could be sincere but lacking in social skills, somewhat shy - testing could be a clue, or busy or even have had a car in the garage. I can only assume.
Being old, I have less time to waste than most, so pick up the phone and call the guy if you're still interested.
"Hey, you didn't call for 2 weeks. I thought you weren't interested." Ball is in his court. Anyone with English as a first language could figure out where this is going based on the reply.
That takes about 30 seconds. If he's not worth 30 seconds, why'd LW write the letter?
MarkD at September 21, 2011 7:07 AM
s/b "texting could be a clue"
MarkD at September 21, 2011 7:08 AM
If she was interested could have texted him, maybe the day after the date to say, "Had fun last night! Thanks so much for a great evening. Hope to see you again soon. :)"
Then, if he's interested, too, that lets him know that she's receptive to date 2. If he doesn't call after getting a text like the one above, then he's NOT interested. If he waits two weeks without a single word, (not even a text saying "I had fun too. Next couple weeks are pretty crazy, but let's hang out after that")he's either seeing her as a last resort, or his communication skills are lacking.
sofar at September 21, 2011 7:35 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2500997">comment from sofarIf she was interested could have texted him, maybe the day after the date to say, "Had fun last night! Thanks so much for a great evening. Hope to see you again soon. :)" Then, if he's interested, too, that lets him know that she's receptive to date
Wrong. Women should not pursue men, even in small ways. He finds out whether she's receptive to date #2 by asking her out.
Amy Alkon at September 21, 2011 7:50 AM
Lizzie wrote:
Judging by my experience, Amy's advice is dead on. If a man is really interested, he doesn't wait two weeks to call. He doesn't even wait two days.
I agree. If I am interested in someone, I would never wait two weeks. Even if I was only mildly interested, I would at least get in contact one way or another to let her know that I enjoyed the evening and I would be calling again.
My wife once told me that she would never ask someone out. We were part of an online singles group that also had get togethers at local bars and restaurants. When I think back, it seems that wherever I would sit, she was always next to me. Eventually I got the message and asked her out.
Steamer at September 21, 2011 8:48 AM
Inviting someone over (by text) for dinner at one's house after two weeks of no contact doesn't sound like he's into her... It sounds like he's seeing if she's available for some pizza and a booty call.
ahw at September 21, 2011 9:17 AM
Wither this weird assumption that after a single date, sparks are flying, the chemistry is set and everyone knows where their future lies.
Doesn't anyone have any patience any more? Good relationships take time to develop.
Women should not pursue men, even in small ways.
I assume you are being sarcastic since this contradicts the entire human history of romance. Traditionally, how a woman "pursues" a man is different from how a man "pursues" a woman, but they are both pursuit.
I find it bizarre that women want equal rights yet many then eschew all traditional courtship AND become absolutely passive. Almost every marriage I know of, the woman played an active roll.
Joe at September 21, 2011 9:35 AM
Wrong. Women should not pursue men, even in small ways. He finds out whether she's receptive to date #2 by asking her out.
I guess I'd just feel like a cold bitch if I didn't at least text/call and thank him for coffee/drinks if he bought them for me. Or just say, "Hey I had a good time during that walk we took."
Maybe taking out the last "hope to see you again" sentence would make it better/less pursue-y?
For me it wouldn't be pursuing so much as exhibiting manners -- I'd want to be able to say, in some way that I had fun doing that stuff he planned and thought I would enjoy. And to thank him.
sofar at September 21, 2011 9:52 AM
"Women should not pursue men, even in small ways.
I assume you are being sarcastic since this contradicts the entire human history of romance. Traditionally, how a woman "pursues" a man is different from how a man "pursues" a woman, but they are both pursuit.
I find it bizarre that women want equal rights yet many then eschew all traditional courtship AND become absolutely passive. Almost every marriage I know of, the woman played an active roll."
Most men need encouragement to know that their attentions are both welcome and appreciated.
This is particularly true with shy intelligent men, a lot of whom are engineers and scientists pulling down the big bucks but sometimes short on social skills.
These men do not read dating books, etiquette books or advice columns.
Most of them need a clear demonstration of interest from a woman. Many of them are not good at picking up on hints or clues, are not very verbal, nor do they "read between the lines" and infer interest like women tend to do.
Men are generally even more worried than women are that a date might not find them physically attractive and sexually desirable.
Because their sexual desire is so caught up in physical appearance, they assume that women look at men the same way.
IMHO, passive women often end up alone or with players, because they don't have the sense to appreciate that a man who is very skilled at dating, is not necessarily going to make the best husband, father or life partner.
Isabel1130 at September 21, 2011 10:05 AM
Traditionally, how a woman "pursues" a man is different from how a man "pursues" a woman, but they are both pursuit.
Agreed. I guess you could say women "pursue" by showing interest. And showing interest (which is different from desperation) is so important. Women I've known who buy into the "playing-hard-to-get" theory either don't get asked out or end up with really pushy guys who manage to get with them because they refuse to take "no" for an answer.
I agree with Amy that it often works best the majority of the time when guys do the pursuing in the beginning and the asking out. But women need to supply encouragement, as Isabel1130 said.
For example, if you like a guy, and he's taken the initiative, say, the last three times (set up three dates, or made three "out-of-the-blue-just-to-chat" phone calls), it's your turn. Call HIM out of the blue to say "hi" (if you're mostly talking by phone) or suggest something fun and casual you could do together ("So, I got some comped tickets to a movie screening. Wanna go?").
I mean, if I were constantly planning stuff to do with a friend, and that friend never initiated plans with me, I would back off. And a lot of guys would do the same.
sofar at September 21, 2011 10:24 AM
Amy,
I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that Greg does all the heavy lifting in the relationship regarding where and when to go places? Do you never suggest a weekend somewhere or an event you want to go to?
Since I don't get that vibe from you, when does it transition from 'not being the pursued' to 'a real relationship'?
flydye at September 21, 2011 10:59 AM
I agree strongly with Isabel - especially paragraphs 4 thru 9.
Men aren't all the same. Some will pursue you even when they're not all that interested and others will be really in to you but not take the obvious steps. If you want the biggest possible choice you'll work with all possibilities.
thom at September 21, 2011 11:13 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2501519">comment from flydyeAre you saying that Greg does all the heavy lifting in the relationship regarding where and when to go places? Do you never suggest a weekend somewhere or an event you want to go to?
Since I don't get that vibe from you, when does it transition from 'not being the pursued' to 'a real relationship'?
Sorry, but are "haven't had a second date" and "been together for eight and a half years" really indistinguishable? You get into a relationship that works by letting a man pursue you. I tell total strangers to mind their manners. It's not like I'm afraid to say "Hey, wanna have a drink" to a man, but I know better, because it tends to set up a dynamic for a man to not appreciate you as fully in the relationship, or worse, you can get involved with a man who's not interested enough to pursue you but says yes because, well...cool! A woman asked him!
To answer what seems like kind of a ridiculous question...we both suggest things to do all the time. I most recently (this weekend) told him we need to go to the new nat hist. museum with the dinosaurs at USC (I actually suggested going a few weekends ago, but the TSA thing and radio prep have kept me/us busy). And he's coming over to cook me dinner tonight, and I suggested that I ask our friend Andrea for a movie recommendation (she last recommended "The Guard," which we both loved), but he said it'll be whatever's on Netflix.
Amy Alkon at September 21, 2011 11:14 AM
LW strikes me as yet another sniveler. The guy is probably hard up for a date, didn't really want a second one.
He forgot the cardinal rule about stringing along a girl. Keep a few second-rate types happy with phone calls, cards, flowers etc. until a ringer comes along.
The situation is probably not reparable at this point. Too bad, I think he could have used this chick a few times.
BOTU at September 21, 2011 11:23 AM
You still haven't identified when it's suddenly 'safe' for a woman to actually show interest in a man as anything but someone dancing in front of him with a target on her chest.
flydye at September 21, 2011 11:36 AM
I'm with BOTU. This guy's roster maintenance skills are severely lacking.
whistleDick at September 21, 2011 12:01 PM
"Men aren't all the same. Some will pursue you even when they're not all that interested and others will be really in to you but not take the obvious steps. If you want the biggest possible choice you'll work with all possibilities."
Men with good social skills and dating tactics are low hanging fruit. They get picked up quickly but often turn out to be less than ideal for the long term.
I also agree that pursuit especially when it becomes excessive,and obsessive is a bad idea. You don't want a man that feels trapped because you have hounded him and chased away all the competition,
But showing an interest and doing nice things for a man especially when they are reciprocated is always a good thing to do.
When I met my husband, in a school situation, I did two things for him before he asked me out. The first thing I did was loan him a book, because he had read the author, and enjoyed his work. We had talked about the author and our mutual interest in the hall between classes.
The second thing I did, was to take him some cookies that some other friends and I had baked one weekend.
That was pretty much all it took to get the ball rolling.
Isabel1130 at September 21, 2011 12:11 PM
In short, he was Apollo's more studly, black-haired brother, and as you would expect, he did not lack confidence (or any portion of his reproductive parts).
So how did his wife (attractive, yes, but no supermodel) end up with him? She hunted him like a hungry tigress after a fawn. She actually told him her intentions and went for it.
@Spartee - she sounds like most of the women in Heinlein novels. The phrase they often use is, "I'll chase him until he catches me".
WayneB at September 21, 2011 2:23 PM
@WhistleDick:
"Lizzie,
Why does a man have to be "really interested" to merit a second date? That's kind of my point and I think most of the guys on here would agree."
I didn't say a man had to be really interested to merit a second date. I said that in my experience a man decides very quickly if he is interested and demonstrates it in no incertain terms. He doesn't wait two weeks. He calls, early and often. Waiting two weeks to make further contact generally signals a lack of true interest, again judging from my experience and observation. If a woman has to wonder whether a man is interested, odds are he's not.
Lizzie at September 21, 2011 3:51 PM
Ugh! I meant "uncertain terms".
Lizzie at September 21, 2011 3:52 PM
Hi Lizzie,
That may be your experience, but that anecdotal evidence shouldn't be applied to all men. In my experience as a real-life man, I don't decide very quickly if I'm interested. In fact, I'm quite slow to commit to the bother of pursuing a woman.
I've probably missed out on a few gems in this manner, but ... meh. I've only had one relationship in my life that eventually led to being in actual love -- and that one wound up causing an excruciating amount of pain.
Fuck 'em. I can't be bothered. I'm also, by all accounts, a huge catch. Anyone who was unduly annoyed by me not calling for a while would be missing out.
whistleDick at September 21, 2011 6:58 PM
If a guy is really interested in you, not only will you not be left wondering, you will not be able to get away from him. Choose from that pool, or choose none of them and wait for the pool to grow.
Any guy who waits two weeks is not interested, he is looking for a booty call.
Pirate Jo at September 21, 2011 8:18 PM
Lizzie: Spartee's stories of happy marriages that resulted from women chasing men just sound unlikely to me given my world experience, though there are always exceptions to the rule.
The implication I see here is that, whenever a woman pursues a man (or even just initiates something with him) the man is supposed to welcome her with open arms and they end up living happily ever after.
It may very well be true that when women take the initiative with men, they strike out more often than not. But so what? That is likely the case when men take the initiative with women. Men have no guarantee that their advances will be accepted, so why should women?
I said this before on another thread and I'll say it again: if a woman takes the initiative with a man and he doesn't respond favorably, it's not because he can't handle a woman doing that.
If a guy ends up talking to a woman at, say, an opening at an art gallery and they seem to have interests in common and he's really enjoying her intelligence and wit and he finds her attractive and sexy and she says, "I've gotta take off to meet a friend but how would you feel about talking some more over a cup of coffee sometime?" he's not going to respond with "Hell no, are you out of your mind? I only go out with women when I ask them."
Obviously there are many more happy marriages that result from a man asking a woman out than from a woman asking a man out simply because men ask women out far more than vice-versa. But there are also a lot of unhappy marriages that result from a man asking a woman out and it may very well be that of all marriages that result from a woman taking the initiative, a higher percentage of those are happier than the percentage of happy marriages that result from a man taking the initiative.
Jim at September 21, 2011 11:04 PM
@whistleDick:
"In my experience as a real-life man, I don't decide very quickly if I'm interested. In fact, I'm quite slow to commit to the bother of pursuing a woman."
In my experience as a real-life woman, that makes you an unusual man.
Lizzie at September 22, 2011 3:25 AM
@Jim:
"The implication I see here is that, whenever a woman pursues a man (or even just initiates something with him) the man is supposed to welcome her with open arms and they end up living happily ever after."
I wasn't implying that in any way, shape, or form. I was implying that in my opinion, a woman pursuing a man sets off alarm bells in his head and/or earns his contempt. As such, it's not a strategy I would advise any woman to adopt. Again, I'm sure there are exceptions. You probably have discussed this topic with more men than I have. On the other hand, I've probably dated a lot more men than you have. With both men and women, there can be a disconnect between what they say they want in a partner and what their insides actually go for.
Lizzie at September 22, 2011 3:37 AM
"@Spartee - she sounds like most of the women in Heinlein novels. The phrase they often use is, "I'll chase him until he catches me".
I think Spartee made some interesting points. Although, in general, I adhere to Amy's view that women shouldn't pursue, I think there are some guys, either too busy or clueless, that may need some pursuing.
I'm not afraid of it, I've initiated dates a few times. They weren't failures in every case, but none of them really lead anywhere either.
During a particular self-confident period, I just handed an attractive guy my card in a club, as he was leaving. I thought, hey why not? It's just a numbers game. He might call. He seemed genuinely flattered, but he didn't call (who knows, he could've been married...or gay?)
My husband pursued me hard the first night we met. But he did wait a few days to call. In the meantime, I had a date with another guy, and happened to run into my husband's friend (who introduced us the first night). He apparently called Jeff and said something like, "You better jump on this! She's out on a date with someone else!"
Jeff called me the next day, asked me out, and we've been together since.
So, maybe that, in itself, demonstrates that guys need an extra push...from someone. If you ARE interested, it's best to jump on it. There's no guarantee that a woman will still be available in 2 weeks.
lovelysoul at September 22, 2011 6:16 AM
@Lizzie:
"In my experience as a real-life woman, that makes you an unusual man."
If the usual man is what you're after, set a timer and make damn sure he calls before that timer dings. No woman has any trouble nabbing the usual man.
whistleDick at September 22, 2011 7:16 AM
Lizzie, your experience has no relationship to any man I know, including myself. I may have an immediate initial attraction for a woman, but play it very slow. And if she shows no interest, I drop her like a stone. As long as it's not persistent stalking, most men and women are flattered by attention of the opposite sex.
I'm growing convinced that women in general have lost the ability to flirt--or rather, it has been pounded out of them as sexist--and pursue men in any traditional way, yet demand that men follow a ritual.
Joe at September 22, 2011 9:10 AM
I wish more men would play it slower! Unfortunately, that's not what I've found.
WhistleDick: "If the usual man is what you're after, set a timer and make damn sure he calls before that timer dings. No woman has any trouble nabbing the usual man."
I hope that's a general "you" and not a specific aimed at me "you". Because I never said I was after the usual man, or that I demand 120-mile per hour pursuit. I described how men have behaved in my experience.
Lizzie at September 22, 2011 11:27 AM
"Often, people mutually enjoy a first date but don't necessarily glean enough information from the date to be "really interested"."
True, but we're not talking about picking out wedding invitations here--just figuring out if you're into someone enough for a second date. If you are, then there's no good reason not to get in contact with someone within 1 or 2 days to let them know you had a good time. IMO that goes for women too; I always send a "Hey thanks again for dinner last night, I had fun" type text--especially if they paid. And maybe LW's friend never sent that text and that's partly why it took him 2 weeks to get in contact. But I doubt it. Gender roles aren't exactly a secret in our society, and if the guy takes 2 weeks to text it's probably not because he's sitting by the phone waiting for her to make the first move, but because he's just not that interested.
"Now he's offering to take her out again. Guess what? He'll be paying. She should take him up on his generous offer and stop looking at the calendar."
No, he invited her to his house for dinner. Via text. That says "booty call" more so than "generous offer" to me.
I mean, I see your points--and Spartee's, flydye's, and Joe's--in general, but in this particular situation I really, really don't think the guy is that interested.
Shannon at September 22, 2011 1:03 PM
Lizzie,
It's most definitely a general "you" in the sense that it's not meant to insult in any way.
Though it's also a friendly, more specific, "you" if you're looking past good men and writing them off as not interested if they're not taking an aggressive run at you.
I'm just saying that any woman might miss out if they follow these rules of how many days between calls, etc. This particular case is a little different because there was no acknowledgement of the successful date with a thank you text from either end.
Shannon,
You also make a good point. This particular guy gave a hail mary booty text and had probably exhausted the rest of his bench. You can't blame a guy for trying. :)
whistleDick at September 22, 2011 2:12 PM
Just one more quick thing. If I took a woman out and didn't get some sort of e-mail, text, or phone call almost immediately thanking me for a pleasant afternoon, I'd figure she wasn't interested in a second date. That would put her in the running for, at best, a hail mary booty text. She doesn't seem to take any responsibility for not sending some sort of thank you.
The thank you doesn't signal serious interest. It simply means she was raised properly.
whistleDick at September 22, 2011 2:18 PM
Lizzie,
I'm sure you have dated more men than I have since I have dated zero. On the other hand, I've dated women, one of those women took the initiative with me and it neither set off alarm bells in my head nor caused me to view her with contempt. In fact, we spent two years together before the relationship ended and the ending had nothing to do with the fact that she had taken the initiative. Furthermore, I firmly believe that not one of my male friends would feel alarm or contempt about a woman simply because she happened to take the initiative with them.
I'm not suggesting that taking the initiative should become a "strategy" for women. I am saying that it is a tactic that can, and does, work and that perhaps, just perhaps, women might want to consider it once in a while instead of being passive and whining that a man they like didn't ask them out or didn't call them after a date.
I am also saying that I believe when a woman does decide to take the initiative and is turned down, she inevitably blames it on the man ("well! he obviously has contempt for women who are forward!") instead of accepting that is much more likely that he simply was not interested in her for some reason.
Jim at September 23, 2011 11:59 AM
I'm not afraid of it, I've initiated dates a few times. They weren't failures in every case, but none of them really lead anywhere either.
Lovelysoul, the fact that none of these situations led to marriage or a relationship doesn't mean that one can conclude it was solely (or mainly) because you initiated things. We guys initiate things all the time that don't end up going anywhere.
During a particular self-confident period, I just handed an attractive guy my card in a club, as he was leaving. I thought, hey why not? It's just a numbers game. He might call. He seemed genuinely flattered, but he didn't call (who knows, he could've been married...or gay?)
Again we see the "blame the man" approach. Classic. You didn't say "who knows, maybe he didn't find me attractive?" Instead it's "he could have been married or gay." This reminds me of a guy I knew in college. Every time a group of us would go out to see a band and he'd ask a woman to dance and get turned down he'd come back and say "she's a lesbian." He had to blame the women in order to preserve his ego.
Jim at September 23, 2011 12:15 PM
As long as it's not persistent stalking, most men and women are flattered by attention of the opposite sex.
I couldn't agree more, Joe. Of course, it doesn't mean that a man or woman is flattered by attention from anyone of the opposite sex. If a fat, homely, poorly-dressed man starts chatting up a woman, chances are she's not going to find that flattering.
I'm growing convinced that women in general have lost the ability to flirt--or rather, it has been pounded out of them as sexist--and pursue men in any traditional way, yet demand that men follow a ritual.
I had an "aha!" moment about five years ago while on another message board. We were discussing this "should women ask men out?" thing, and I mentioned to the women there that they didn't need to actually ask guys -- that we'd be more than willing to do the asking -- as long as they just let us know they were interested by, for example, flirting. But what a number of the women said was that they didn't want to make their interest in man obvious, even by just flirting, because if they did and he didn't respond, then they knew they were being turned down and they couldn't, or didn't want to, deal with that rejection. So their flirting was either very low-level (the kind many men could reasonably mistake for just friendliness) or non-existent. If they did some low-level flirting with a guy and he didn't respond, they could tell themselves that he just wasn't savvy enough to pick up on their signals, not that he was turning them down. Their ego remained intact (again, it's the "blame the man" approach.)
I'm not saying all women do this -- women run the continuum from not flirting at all to aggressive pursuit of a man they're interested in -- but it gave me insight into why women who don't flirt (in an obvious manner) are that way.
Jim at September 23, 2011 12:53 PM
"Again we see the "blame the man" approach. Classic. You didn't say "who knows, maybe he didn't find me attractive?" Instead it's "he could have been married or gay."
Jim, I didn't mean to imply that he might not have found me attractive - and certainly not that he was to "blame" - just that in that situation, you have no idea, so the rejection is easier to swallow.
And I know guys do this all the time, and you have my respect.
lovelysoul at September 23, 2011 1:34 PM
Thanks lovelysoul. You're right. In a situation like that, you don't have any idea why someone never gets back to you. It's just that I hardly, if ever, see a woman acknowledge that maybe the reason a guy never called was because he simply wasn't interested in her.
And I know guys do this all the time, and you have my respect.
Thank you and yes we do. We do a lot of asking and we get turned down a lot. Amy and other women may sneer at some men for their lack of cojones but even shy men probably put themselves out there far more than almost all women.
Jim at September 23, 2011 2:07 PM
Everybody, men and women, engages in ego-saving rationalizations. It's the human condition. As is each sex pointing the finger at the other as being more to blame for the difficulty of relationships.
Lizzie at September 23, 2011 2:08 PM
True Lizzie, but I feel (and you probably disagree) that men are much less likely than women to engage in ego-saving rationalizations when they've taken the initiative and have been rejected. So many women seem to still rely on the old "men don't like it when women make a move" claim instead of accepting the fact that they got a thumbs-down.
Jim at September 23, 2011 2:57 PM
Well...I'm afraid I do disagree because I have seen first hand too often how badly men react to rejection. No matter how polite the rejection, it is made out to be your fault, you are declared to be a stuck-up bitch, etc. In my teens and twenties, I was followed, insulted, berated, you name it. People don't like rejection, period. Some deal with it maturely, some don't.
I was good friends a few years ago with a man where the friendship ended because he eventually wanted it to be a romance and I didn't. We had many interesting conversations about men, women, and relationships. He said all the "right" things during those conversations. That if a woman wasn't interested, it didn't bother him, he simply moved on to the next. That if a woman felt she could do better elsewhere, more power to her, no skin off his nose. That sex was relatively unimportant compared to enjoying the company of a like-minded woman. Then when I wouldn't become his lover, he became furious and abusive, said many hurtful things about me, my family, my friends, my life choices, probably even my cat. Once again, the message was that I didn't want a particular man because something was wrong with me. A friendship I cherished ended because having sex with me became more important to him than all the good times and talks we had shared. He later cooled down and make contact with me again, but the damage was done.
So, like everyone else here my views are shaped perhaps too much by my own personal experiences.
Lizzie at September 23, 2011 4:00 PM
Lizzie, I'm not sure we're disagreeing here. I was talking about men being less likely than women to engage in ego-saving rationalizations when they've taken the initiative and have been rejected. I didn't say that I think men are less likely to take rejection badly. A guy can accept that a woman just isn't into him and, at the same time, get angry about it.
In fact, I'd say that men are probably more likely to react to rejection with anger (including, unfortunately, violence) whereas women are more likely to react with grief and depression.
The guy you mentioned sounds like he couldn't accept that you just weren't into him physically/sexually. He had to say (or imply) that something was wrong with you and I'm sorry to hear that he turned on you like that.
Very interesting about all those things he said to your during your conversations. I suspect he wasn't being honest, that if there were women in his past who also rejected his sexual overtures, that also bothered him a great deal. I'm curious about this "eventually wanted it to be a romance" thing. How long were you guys friends before he let you know this? Had he given no inkling whatsoever earlier on that he found you attractive and wanted something more than a friendship?
Jim at September 23, 2011 4:46 PM
I did get an inkling now and then. The first was when I suggested we both meet another male friend for lunch and he snapped something about why didn't I just go with that other guy if that's who I wanted to spend time with. It sounded to me very much like jealousy and I was so taken aback that I didn't immediately respond and he quickly said he was just kidding. I still thought it odd enough that I asked him about it directly, and he denied being jealous and claimed he never gets jealous. A couple more inklings followed and I specifically made it clear that I couldn't have that kind of relationship with him, and he again denied having any such expectation, that he valued my friendship more than anything, etc. About a year and a half into the friendship it abruptly became crystal clear that he wanted more. I did like him a lot, we had a great intellectual rapport, so I told him I needed some time and space to consider it. Instead, he amped up the pressure to mega levels and I reacted by that pressure by saying I wanted only a platonic relationship. That's when it turned ugly.
In regard to ego-saving, I interpreted the angry reaction to mean the man believes the woman has rejected him because there's something wrong with her, some sense that she's "led him on" even if she hasn't. But maybe you're right and they're just lashing out.
Lizzie at September 23, 2011 5:21 PM
Amy:
"To answer what seems like kind of a ridiculous question...we both suggest things to do all the time. I most recently (this weekend) told him we need to go to the new nat hist museum..." "need to go"? as in: "I need to go so you must go also"? How about: "I would like to go to the new nat hist museum this weekend, would you like to join me?" hmmm?
jesse at September 24, 2011 4:10 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2512003">comment from jesseJesse, sorry, but there's something broken and twisted about your thinking.
We "need to go" because it's a really cool place. We passed the dinosaurs outside there at the LA Times Fest of Books and I probably said the same thing: "We need to go there!"
"How about: "I would like to go to the new nat hist museum this weekend, would you like to join me?" hmmm?"
I wouldn't go without Gregg, and that's a weird way to ask.
If I want to do something, I just tell him and we do it. If it's a French movie, I might say, "Honey, can we see a French movie?...one I think you'll really like!" The last one we saw together, "Public Enemy Number One," about a French gangster, he loved.
Gregg is not a big people person, so I'm careful not to bring him to places he'd hate to go -- unless I absolutely need boyfriend support for some reason there, which is rare, and usually business-related.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2011 6:27 AM
Guys who pick apart things like "need to go" or "want to go" are precisely the kind we're discussing in the other column. I feel sorry for their girlfirends/wives. Imagine not being able to use a commmon phrase without having it analyzed.
lovelysoul at September 24, 2011 8:02 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2512145">comment from lovelysoulExactly right, lovelysoul.
We have an easy relationship, Gregg and I. There's no need to say anything any particular way as long as you aren't unloving -- and Gregg teases me all the time, but I love it and his teasing is never meanspirited. Two of my favorite regular teases:
Regarding my ADHD: "Do I have your divided attention?"
When he's frustrated helping me from afar with some type of computer support: "Just go up to the fucking finder...darling!"
He always makes me laugh, and he's wonderful and kind and worries about whether I've eaten and whether I have food in my refrigerator -- kind of like a very manly mother hen. I lucked out and I'm happy, and so is Gregg, and there's no need to pussyfoot around anything I want, or vice versa, because we wouldn't ask things that would make the other unhappy. Seeing the dinosaurs/nat history museum isn't something I need to ask whether we can do -- just when.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2011 8:10 AM
Thanks for the extra information, Lizzie. In hindsight, it's pretty obvious he did snap at you out of jealousy over that lunch meeting with your other friend. And then you said there were a couple other indications that prompted you to make it clear to him that were weren't interested in a romantic/sexual relationship.
So, considering that he was viewing you as more than a friend at those points, I wonder why he adamantly denied that until a year and half into the friendship?
I understand you reacting to his pressure the way you did -- applying that kind of pressure to someone when they want to think about something is never a good idea -- but, out of curiosity, if he had given you the time and space you asked for, do you think there was any possibility you would have said yes? After all, it seems like you simply weren't attracted to the guy sexually so how might time and space to consider it have changed your mind?
When a guy reacts angrily to rejection I think that in some cases it might be because he feels that the woman has "led him on." But I believe that in most cases it's because he realizes all too well that she's not into him, and that hurts, so he lashes out.
Jim at September 24, 2011 9:34 AM
Good questions, though I'm not sure I have the answers. I suspect he was perhaps playing a part; pretending to want only friendship with the goal of it developing into something else. But then he reached a stage where he couldn't pretend any longer and had to force a resolution, one way or the other. My cousin (a man) surmised that he got so nasty about it at the end because he needed it to be over and it's sometimes easier to make that happen by being so harsh that the other person does the ending for you. I found out later that he told a mutual acquaintances, also a man, how great it was to be seen out and about with a younger attractive woman. This mutual acquaintance remarked to me that many men like to be seen with attractive women as it raises their status in the eyes of other men. Here I thought he just enjoyed my company as I enjoyed his.
As for your second question, I think there's no doubt I made mistakes. I wasn't physically attracted to him, so I should never have given him even a smidgen of hope by saying I would think about it. He was just so intelligent and I enjoyed talking with him so much, that I thought it worth considering. Somebody once said, maybe Nietzsche, that for marriage one should only consider, "Will I be able to converse well with this person in old age?" because all else in marriage is transitory. Not saying I was thinking marriage, just that general idea. The fact remains that you also have to sleep every night with that person, no matter how scintillating the conversation during the day.
My other probable mistake was continuing to try to be friends after I became fairly certain in my own mind that he was attracted to me. I've learned to trust my own instincts more. When somebody acts jealous, they probably are jealous even if they deny it. When somebody acts angry, they probably are angry with you even if they deny it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. In one of our last conversations, I acknowledged these mistakes and apologized for hurting him. His reponse was "But you didn't hurt me." I hope that at least is true.
Lizzie at September 24, 2011 10:15 AM
Regarding my ADHD: "Do I have your divided attention?"
That's hilarious! I love it.
Mean-spirited teasing can be extremely hurtful but good-natured teasing like that can, I believe, really help two people bond.
Jim at September 24, 2011 10:16 AM
It's not like I'm afraid to say "Hey, wanna have a drink" to a man, but I know better, because it tends to set up a dynamic for a man to not appreciate you as fully in the relationship
Amy, I remembered you writing about how you and Gregg met on another thread and just found it:
So, I guess he technically "pursued" you since he presumably asked you to go to the market and he presumably made the move to kiss you. But you were the one who initiated things by talking to him (and, I would guess, also giving him some nonverbal cues that you had an interest in him.)
So now, here you guys are, eight years on and quite happy together. Since we know that Gregg liked you back then, do you think he would not have agreed to go with you if you had taken things one small step further and asked him to go the Farmer's Market? Or, do you think he would have agreed to go with you (because cool! A woman asked me!) but that one small difference -- you asking him to go to the market in addition to initiating a conversation with him -- would have then "set up a dynamic for him to not appreciate you as fully in your relationship."
Jim at September 24, 2011 10:29 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2513578">comment from JimI tease Gregg about his parallel parking. Mine is terrible. His is worse. He somehow lacks some essential spatial sense when looking behind him, predicting distance. This is hilarious because he is a great driver, the guy you want behind the wheel if you have to do one of those 360 degree rubber-burning turns to escape the bad guys, and he is from the Motor City and even worked on an automotive assembly line at one point.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2011 10:41 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2513583">comment from JimMating is a dance. Beyond what's effective psychologically, just as it's rude to do a monologue instead having a conversation, you don't hog all the moves. It's graceless.
Women should indicate interest if they are interested. It's not nice to make the guy do all the work and guess whether you're going to reject him.
Men feel good about pursuing a woman and succeeding (and "winning her"), even if she has given them signals that she's interested. Why would I want to take that away from Gregg? That seems really stupid. He got a chance to act manly because I didn't take over. I'm a very strong person, but sometimes real strength takes waiting to let somebody else make a move instead of taking over.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2011 10:45 AM
Thanks again, Lizzie. One one hand, the idea that he was pretending to want only friendship with the goal of it developing into something else seems quite plausible. But on the other hand, it seems very odd to me that a guy could (or would) hold off on expressing a desire to be sexual with a woman he was attracted to for a year and a half.
Your cousin's idea about the reason for his anger also seems plausible.
As to what your mutual acquaintance said, even if this guy did like to be seen out and about with you, that's not mutually exclusive with him enjoying your company. I've been with two women who were very attractive, the kind that turn heads. While I admit it was kind of flattering to get "hmmm...what's he got going on?" looks from men (and women), that was not the reason I was with these women. I was with them because I was very attracted to them and enjoyed their company. (I do think there are some men who want to be with an attractive woman primarily to show her off and boost their ego but I believe they are a very small minority.)
In a way, it's probably good (from his perspective) that he put so much pressure on you when you told him you wanted time and space to consider becoming romantic/sexual. If he had given you that, it seems like you would have almost certainly come back with a "no thanks" anyway.
Your situation with this guy is a perfect example of how looks matter to women just like they do to men (although not necessarily to the same degree.)
Yes, looks will fade before the ability to have a good conversation (or laugh, or do activities together) but, as you noted, you're going to be sleeping with your partner every night and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be physically attracted to someone you're going to be sexually intimate with. I think the problem comes when someone chooses looks over the ability to converse. Then when looks fade, what do you have? But if you have both, then you can still enjoy talking to each other even when you're both all gnarly and wrinkly and saggy.
My other probable mistake was continuing to try to be friends after I became fairly certain in my own mind that he was attracted to me. I've learned to trust my own instincts more. When somebody acts jealous, they probably are jealous even if they deny it. When somebody acts angry, they probably are angry with you even if they deny it.
That's a tough one. Yes, you probably should've trusted your instincts more about the signs of his jealousy but, on the other hand, if he was very convincing in his denials and you liked his friendship so much, I can see where it would be easy to overlook the red flags.
I've enjoyed the conversation with you but it's a gorgeous sunny day here in Seattle (we won't have too many more before the relentless onslaught of rain begins) so I'm headed out to enjoy it. Cheers!
Jim at September 24, 2011 11:14 AM
Thanks Amy (although you basically dodged my question.) Gregg may have had a chance to "act manly" by asking you to go the market but I'm 99% certain that if you had asked him to go the market (and even if you had also -- oh the horror! the horror! -- made the move to kiss him), you guys would be just where you are today, that he wouldn't be valuing you any less.
Jim at September 24, 2011 11:21 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2513635">comment from JimI can't say for sure how he'd feel, but I wouldn't respect him the way I do. I read people pretty quickly, and Gregg presented very clearly to me as a nerdy introvert -- not the kind of guy who's comfortable talking to people or hitting on women, and he rose to the occasion and asked me out despite that.
Because he asked me out, I feel wanted and feel he's manly, and he especially impressed me when he grabbed me and kissed me at my car.
And I wouldn't have asked him (or any man out). If a man doesn't want me enough to lay his ego on the line for 13 seconds, or if he doesn't have the balls to do it, I have no interest in him.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2011 11:29 AM
Interesting. Well there you have it. Gregg likely would've have valued you any less. It's you who would have valued him less.
Jim at September 24, 2011 11:32 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2513647">comment from JimInteresting. Well there you have it. Gregg likely would've have valued you any less. It's you who would have valued him less.
You say this like it's a bad thing. It just is.
Action is character. I see the bravery of my friend Thom, who can barely move any parts of his body, and yet goes out in the world to Starbucks and does his own grocery shopping.
It's foolish just accept a person on faith. It's what a person does that makes me respect them, and shows of courage, even small ones, are important. By not just seizing the entire mating process, you give a guy a chance to show you who he is, which I think is rather important. The point isn't just inserting a guy into your life in the fastest, easiest way possible.
The fact that I don't do that, when there's not a guy in the world I'd be afraid to ask out, is why I have a wonderful relationship. I let a lot of guys show me who they are and I showed them right out the door shortly after they'd come in it.
Why would you want a woman to ask you out? Because it's "easier"? The last guy I want is one who can't risk 13 seconds of emotional rejection. Not a man. A weenie. And I love men.
Amy Alkon at September 24, 2011 11:40 AM
Amy Says:
“Men feel good about pursuing a woman and succeeding”
Yes they do, but there is no evolutionary benefit for them to “feel bad” about being pursued either.
This whole notion about men pursuing women and women never pursuing men has nothing to do with the way a man is going to feel.
A man feels good no matter how he succeeds at getting a woman.
To suggest otherwise is as silly as saying that if a man buys a steak from the supermarket he feels worse about eating it than if he stalked the cow and butchered it himself. Let’s be fair, if a guy likes steak he would be just as happy eating it if it appeared on a plate in front of him without any effort as he would be doing all the work. In fact an argument could be made that a person who enjoys steak would prefer not to have to do all the hard labor in getting the food from a thousand some odd pound animal onto his dinner plate.
This whole thing about a man always having to pursue and a woman never pursuing is all about the preferences of women, which is fine, but to obfuscate it in terms of what men like and prefer is not intellectually honest or supported by science.
Reality at September 24, 2011 6:03 PM
"it seems very odd to me that a guy could (or would) hold off on expressing a desire to be sexual with a woman he was attracted to for a year and a half."
I don't know. He dated several women during that time period and spoke openly about it, so it wasn't as if he was pining away for me in lonely celibacy.
"Your situation with this guy is a perfect example of how looks matter to women just like they do to men (although not necessarily to the same degree.)"
He was actually handsomer than several men I have been attracted to. Attraction is still in many ways a mysterious and complicated phenomenon.
Lizzie at September 24, 2011 6:07 PM
Me: Interesting. Well there you have it. Gregg likely wouldn't have valued you any less. It's you who would have valued him less.
You: You say this like it's a bad thing. It just is.
Amy, you're the one claiming that it's men who value women less if the women ask them out. Yet, in this case anyway, you're the one who has the issue with it. And that very well may be the case in general, that's it's mainly women who have the problem with the women-asking-men-out thing, not men.
Action is character.
OK, by that logic, since men play a much more active role in obtaining dates, men have much more character than women. On behalf of all men, I accept the compliment.
By not just seizing the entire mating process, you give a guy a chance to show you who he is, which I think is rather important.
If you had simply chosen to ask Gregg to go the the Farmer's Market with you after your chat at the computer store, that would have been "seizing the entire mating process"?
Why would you want a woman to ask you out?
I don't think you've been paying attention to what I've been saying. I've never said I want women to ask me out. What I did say was that a woman once asked me out and it didn't cause me to have contempt or disrespect for her or to value her any less because I didn't get to play MIGHTY BIG GAME HUNTER, and we ended up being together for two years.
Furthermore, I've never said women should ask men out. All I've been saying is that if a woman does choose to ask a man out and he either turns her down or they go on a few dates but it doesn't turn into a relationship, it's most likely because he's not into her (not that attracted to her, doesn't feel they have enough in common, doesn't think the sex is all that great, etc.), not because he's contemptuous of her for asking him out.
The big difference between us here is that you're being absolutist ("women should never ask men out") and I'm not. I think if a woman feels like it, then she should feel free to go for it, as long as she understands that her asking a man out is no guarantee that he's going to accept or that it's going to turn into a relationship, just as when a man asks a woman out there's no guarantee she's going to accept or it's going to turn into a relationship.
Jim at September 24, 2011 8:01 PM
Amy: Men feel good about pursuing a woman and succeeding
Reality: Yes they do, but there is no evolutionary benefit for them to “feel bad” about being pursued either.
I completely agree (and never argued otherwise with Amy) with what she said above. But you make an excellent point, Reality...thanks. In fact, one could argue there would have been an evolutionary benefit for a cave man to welcome a cave woman jumping his cave bones, because he could sire little cave rats with her as well as with the cave women that he grabbed by the hair.
This whole notion about men pursuing women and women never pursuing men has nothing to do with the way a man is going to feel. A man feels good no matter how he succeeds at getting a woman.
Well, now I have to differ with you just a bit here. I do think that some men probably do have a problem with a woman asking them out. These would, in my opinion, tend to be the very macho, very traditional kind of men. They would likely be the same kind of men who would have trouble having a female boss. But, by and large, I agree with your last sentence.
To suggest otherwise is as silly as saying that if a man buys a steak from the supermarket he feels worse about eating it than if he stalked the cow and butchered it himself.
Using your example and applying Amy's reasoning, a guy who buys his steak from the supermarket is a weenie. Real men get their steak by killing and butchering cows.
This whole thing about a man always having to pursue and a woman never pursuing is all about the preferences of women, which is fine, but to obfuscate it in terms of what men like and prefer is not intellectually honest or supported by science.
Well again, I must differ slightly; I'd say mostly about the preferences of women. I'm sure some men have to always be the pursuers. But, overall, I agree. I noticed a post by CousinDave on Amy's blog, where she made a post on this topic. He wrote: "The woman-asking-the-man-out thing, it just doesn't work. . . In a "fair" world, it wouldn't be that way. But it is that way; that's what the evidence shows..." and it made me curious exactly what this "evidence" is.
Jim at September 24, 2011 8:36 PM
I don't know. He dated several women during that time period and spoke openly about it, so it wasn't as if he was pining away for me in lonely celibacy.
Even so, it still seems odd to me, but I guess I'm looking at it in terms of what I'd do. I can't imagine being with a woman that I really liked and was attracted to and refraining from even kissing her or touching her for a year and a half. I mean, I'm not a guy who has to have sex by the third date (or even the tenth) but waiting a year and a half? No way.
He was actually handsomer than several men I have been attracted to. Attraction is still in many ways a mysterious and complicated phenomenon.
When I say that looks matter to women I don't mean that every women needs to have a man that most people would agree is "handsome." I just mean that the man's looks have to appeal to her in some way. A guy can be the greatest guy in the world, but if his looks don't appeal to the woman he wants to have sex with, then he's not going to be getting naked with her.
It's the same thing with men. We men don't need "supermodels", contrary to what many women seem to think. We just want a woman who is attractive to us in some way.
Jim at September 24, 2011 8:52 PM
"All I've been saying is that if a woman does choose to ask a man out and he either turns her down or they go on a few dates but it doesn't turn into a relationship, it's most likely because he's not into her (not that attracted to her, doesn't feel they have enough in common, doesn't think the sex is all that great, etc.), not because he's contemptuous of her for asking him out."
Well, I think that's the point. Not that a guy would feel "contempt", but that he wouldn't value her as much as a woman he actually felt compelled to pursue.
And we women have an innate and evolutionary-based need to know that we are the one a man would feel strongly compelled to pursue because that would also equate to him wanting to PROTECT us.
A cave girl just wondering into a cave and giving him a piece isn't necessarily going to be worth the fight. Maybe she is or maybe she isn't, but she can't know this, so there's a built-in insecurity about the relationship from the start.
At least that's the way I've always felt when I've done the pursuing, or made it too easy for a guy to get into my pante. Sure, he's THERE, but is it just an easy booty call or would he throw himself on the subway tracks to rescue me?
Guys like easy sex, and will stick around just because of that. Girls like easy money, and will stick around just because of that. Both sides know this, so we contrive ways to flesh out who really cares about us from those who don't.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2011 6:42 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2514717">comment from lovelysoulNot that a guy would feel "contempt", but that he wouldn't value her as much as a woman he actually felt compelled to pursue.
Lovelysoul is exactly right on this and all the rest. You may not like that this is the way things are, but it's the way things are.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 7:19 AM
Well, I think that's the point. Not that a guy would feel "contempt", but that he wouldn't value her as much as a woman he actually felt compelled to pursue.
OK lovelysoul, let me restate: if a woman does choose to ask a man out and he either turns her down or they go on a few dates but it doesn't turn into a relationship, it's most likely because he's not into her (not that attracted to her, doesn't feel they have enough in common, doesn't think the sex is all that great, etc.), not because he's contemptuous of her for asking him out or because he values her any less for asking him out.
As I've said before, I see this as an ego-saving excuse on the part of women. If a woman does ask a man out and he turns her down or it doesn't turn into a relationship, she doesn't want to accept the fact that he just wasn't into her so she has to put the blame on the guy.
And we women have an innate and evolutionary-based need to know that we are the one a man would feel strongly compelled to pursue because that would also equate to him wanting to PROTECT us.
Well then, if you want to view it that way...we men have an innate and evolutionary-based need to spread our sperm as much as possible so in addition to wanting to protect the woman we pursue and marry, we also want to pursue and have sex with other women.
At least that's the way I've always felt when I've done the pursuing, or made it too easy for a guy to get into my pante. Sure, he's THERE, but is it just an easy booty call or would he throw himself on the subway tracks to rescue me?
Countless men who pursue women do it precisely because they want to get into their pants. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was more likely that a man who pursues a woman is just after sex, compared to a man a woman might ask out.
Jim at September 25, 2011 11:26 AM
You may not like that this is the way things are, but it's the way things are.
Amy, it has nothing to do me liking or disliking the way things are. I've asked women out my entire life. When it comes to dating, I've put myself out there far more than you have. But the one time I was asked out, I found it flattering, I didn't value the woman any less, and we ended up together for two years. And I can assure you there are many more men like me out there.
What I've been disagreeing with all along is your absolutism, your opinion of the "way things are." Life isn't that black and white.
Jim at September 25, 2011 11:38 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2515141">comment from JimBut the one time I was asked out, I found it flattering,
That doesn't mean it set up a good dynamic, and I frankly doubt whether you can truly say how you would have felt if you had to pursue her.
This isn't to say that every time a woman asks a man out it will definitely end badly or cause him to devalue her, but it's quite likely, and those of you advising women to ask men out are doing them a disservice if you don't tell them it's rather likely to cause them to be devalued in the man's eyes.
Because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
And furthermore, maybe she would have felt better about you and the relationship if you'd manned up and pursued her. Or, did she not even give you the chance and drag you off by the hair? This suggests a lack of social sense and desperation. Sometimes, desperate girls get guys, too, of course, but it's not an ideal course of action.
Do tell -- what compelled her to ask you out rather than flirt with you and see if you would pick up your part of the action?
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 12:26 PM
Jim, you're right that men have an inate need to spread their seed and sleep with multiple women, which means that compelling a man to commit to only one woman is a challenge. The burden is on us, as women, to send the signal that we are worth the effort and sacrifice.
Although many guys will go out, perhaps even for a few years, with a woman who pursues him, the majority find the thrill of the chase sexually exciting. It's built into your nature to "hunt" the prize. Doing so creates endorphins, which generally leads to a greater level of bonding. By pursuing her, the man views what he has "caught" as more valuable than what simply fell at his feet.
Put simply, that deer meat in a guy's freezer, achieved by his own hands and sweat, while sharing the bond of the hunt with his buddies, will always taste better than a steak from the grocery store.
A woman who gives herself up too easily defeats this basic male instinct. True, there are exceptions, and this might turn out ok for her, but as a strategy for attracting men, it's about as smart as sleeping around.
Yes, there are a few men who may still want to marry a woman who has slept with every other guy in town, but more typically, this taints a woman's reputation as being "too easy" and eliminates her from serious contention as a wife.
This isn't fair. She isn't, of course, less valuable as a person just because she sluts around, but, in mating, perception is everything, and it's a decided disadvantage for women to appear too easy to get.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2011 12:35 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2515181">comment from lovelysoulVery well put, once again, lovelysoul. The examples are particularly good.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 12:48 PM
That doesn't mean it set up a good dynamic, and I frankly doubt whether you can truly say how you would have felt if you had to pursue her.
How I might have felt if I had pursued her is irrelevant. I didn't sit around wondering about that. I liked who she was and the fact that a smart, fun, attractive and sexy woman like her had chosen to ask me out was flattering, not appalling.
This isn't to say that every time a woman asks a man out it will definitely end badly or cause him to devalue her, but it's quite likely, and those of you advising women to ask men out are doing them a disservice if you don't tell them it's rather likely to cause them to be devalued in the man's eyes.
Amy, because it is your opinion that this will cause all (or most) men to devalue women doesn't make it true. I happen to believe differently.
And furthermore, maybe she would have felt better about you and the relationship if you'd manned up and pursued her. Or, did she not even give you the chance and drag you off by the hair? This suggests a lack of social sense and desperation. Sometimes, desperate girls get guys, too, of course, but it's not an ideal course of action.
Do tell -- what compelled her to ask you out rather than flirt with you and see if you would pick up your part of the action?
We first met on a local radio station message board. I was immediately taken with her writing, particularly her great sense of humor. But, of course, I had no idea what she looked like. A few months later, the people on this board had a picnic. I went, saw this gorgeous woman, and found out it was her. We had, I felt, a very good connection from our bantering on the message board but I was a bit intimidated by her because, while I'm not exactly hard on the eyes, she was definitely above my pay-grade. We chatted briefly at the picnic (the guys there were practically swarming all over her) but I didn't ask her out or ask for her phone number. I was thinking about it when, about two weeks later, I got an email from her asking me if I wanted to have a beer together...and we were off and running from that evening.
Now, if she had asked me out and I didn't find her attractive and hadn't fallen for her great sense of humor, I probably would've politely declined.
As to why she sent me that email instead of waiting for me to ask her, I don't know. Never asked her. If I had to guess it's because she's a very outgoing woman, not passive at all. She's also very unconventional and I think traditional, conventional women are much more likely to expect and wait for a man to ask them out.
Jim at September 25, 2011 1:34 PM
Although many guys will go out, perhaps even for a few years, with a woman who pursues him, the majority find the thrill of the chase sexually exciting. It's built into your nature to "hunt" the prize. Doing so creates endorphins, which generally leads to a greater level of bonding. By pursuing her, the man views what he has "caught" as more valuable than what simply fell at his feet.
If you crave that man who gets so excited by the thrill of the chase, what makes you think he's going to lose that thrill once he marries you? It might very well be (and it wouldn't surprise me) that men who are less into the thrill of the chase are more faithful partners.
Put simply, that deer meat in a guy's freezer, achieved by his own hands and sweat, while sharing the bond of the hunt with his buddies, will always taste better than a steak from the grocery store.
I understand that point, lovelysoul. But, in return, the point I'm trying to make is that -- to continue with your analogy -- men don't have to kill and butcher a deer in order to enjoy venison. My younger sister used to live in Jackson, Wyoming. While visiting her there many years ago I went with her and her husband to a party. One of the guys brought out some elk meat. I'd never had it before and it was delicious. But I enjoyed it for what it was. I didn't sit there thinking "this is great, but I bet it would be so much better if I had killed and butchered it myself."
A woman who gives herself up too easily defeats this basic male instinct. True, there are exceptions, and this might turn out ok for her, but as a strategy for attracting men, it's about as smart as sleeping around.
Sigh. I said before, and I'll say it again: I'm not suggesting that women ask men out as a strategy. What I am saying is that, there may be certain circumstances where a woman may choose to use it a tactic and, if she does, I don't view it as the horrible decision that you and Amy obviously do.
Yes, there are a few men who may still want to marry a woman who has slept with every other guy in town, but more typically, this taints a woman's reputation as being "too easy" and eliminates her from serious contention as a wife.
I'm not clear how a woman choosing to ask a man out for a cup of coffee equates to her sleeping with every other guy in town.
Jim at September 25, 2011 1:56 PM
"How I might have felt if I had pursued her is irrelevant. I didn't sit around wondering about that. I liked who she was and the fact that a smart, fun, attractive and sexy woman like her had chosen to ask me out was flattering, not appalling."
Yes, but the fact remains that the relationship didn't work out. Why? Did she leave, perhaps in pursuit of a more aggressive mate? Or did you end it?
Honestly, as a woman, I wish things were different, but Amy is right that this tends to set up - or be a symptom of - a less than ideal dynamic.
For instance, I have a gorgeous girlfriend who, due to being cheated on a few times, has this theory that she should only date average-looking or even ugly men - not the men who tend to swarm around her because she is, in fact, a prize worth pursuing.
She often has to send a pretty strong signal of interest to the less attractive men, who are intimidated and can't believe they have a chance with her. But, in the end, her relationships never seem to work out. The guys are usually paranoid that they can't hold on to such a beautiful, desirable woman and react with jealousy whenever any better-looking, more aggressive guys get around her.
I suspect, deep down, they realize that they didn't "earn" her affections. It's like winning the lottery or inheriting money...or, as the old saying goes, belonging to a club that would have you as a member. On one level, they have to wonder, "what's wrong with her that she would pick me, even though I did absolutely nothing to deserve it?"
lovelysoul at September 25, 2011 2:02 PM
Yes, but the fact remains that the relationship didn't work out. Why? Did she leave, perhaps in pursuit of a more aggressive mate? Or did you end it?
It ended for a few reasons. First, I knew she had been a smoker but she said she had quit (and she seemed to since I never saw her smoke.) But then she started it again and I couldn't stand it (I think smoking is a disgusting habit.) Second, although she was very smart, I hadn't really noticed that she wasn't very intellectually curious until we spent time together. For a while, I kind of brushed it aside, thinking I could live with it but, ultimately, it really got to me. Third, I was older than her (46 at the time to her 35) but she ended up meeting a guy even older, in his 60s -- a real sleazy guy (the gold-chain-wearing type) -- at a bar and he ended up getting her hooked on cocaine. If she had ended up getting into coke by herself or through a friend, that would have been one thing. I would've been supportive of her going through treatment (which she eventually did.) But I had met this older guy, knew he was trying to hit on her, told her I didn't want her hanging around with him but she did it anyway so when she had her problem with coke I said "that's it."
I still think about her and every few months will have some very vivid dream about her. And although things ended badly, while we were together, I took a 6-week trip to Italy & France with her that was my favorite out of my eleven trips to Europe. We started with a wonderful week in Venice, then went to Rome, then up to Siena, then to Vernazza (one of the Cinque Terre villages) and ended in Nice, France. She was a lot of fun to travel with and it doesn't get any more romantic than making love in Venice to a woman whose eyes make you melt. (I call it "the honeymoon without the marriage".)
Honestly, as a woman, I wish things were different, but Amy is right that this tends to set up - or be a symptom of - a less than ideal dynamic.
Well, we can go back and forth with this forever. Minds obviously aren't going to change.
I think the situation with your friend is different. For one thing, she's sending them a strong signal of interest but, apparently, they're still taking the initiative from there. And second, I really can't blame the guys for being cautious, especially if the "attractiveness gap" between them and her is substantial. Looks are important to people and I'd predict that even if she was with one of these average-looking guys for a while, she would eventually dump him for a better-looking guy. I'd bet anything that when she's been with a less-attractive guy and they're out somewhere and these better-looking, more aggressive guys get around her, she flirts with them. I'd bet her behavior gives them reasonable cause to be cautious.
Jim at September 25, 2011 3:37 PM
Well, Jim, your ex girlfriend sounds a little messed up. That's not to say that a woman you had pursued wouldn't also be messed up, but I think it does tend to prove that there is a weird dynamic going on, as there also is with my friend.
There's nothing in the scenario that Amy and I are suggesting which prevents a woman from showing an interest. In fact, that is a necessity. It's just that, in general, they should let the guy do the asking out.
Maybe if a guy really seemed shy or socially awkward, there could be an exception, but, even then, a woman should probably only put herself in his vicinity - ask him to a group event or out for a cup of coffee after work - not a "date".
If he doesn't take the hint after that, then he's too passive or socially awkward...or just not that into her.
lovelysoul at September 25, 2011 4:08 PM
Well, Jim, your ex girlfriend sounds a little messed up. That's not to say that a woman you had pursued wouldn't also be messed up, but I think it does tend to prove that there is a weird dynamic going on, as there also is with my friend.
You can't draw a straight line from the fact that she asked me out to the fact that our relationship ended (or to how it ended.) It's not cut and dried like that. I pursued the next woman I was with. She didn't get involved with an older guy and coke but she was very mean and nasty to me in arguments and, I discovered, had a huge chip on her shoulder about men (due to being molested by a brother when she was younger and never dealing with it.) All-in-all, she was more messed up than the one who asked me out.
There's nothing in the scenario that Amy and I are suggesting which prevents a woman from showing an interest. In fact, that is a necessity. It's just that, in general, they should let the guy do the asking out.
Hey, we're all in agreement about a woman showing an interest. I realize that. I just don't feel, as you and Amy seem to, that a woman is opening the gates of Hell if she chooses to ask a man out.
Maybe if a guy really seemed shy or socially awkward, there could be an exception, but, even then, a woman should probably only put herself in his vicinity - ask him to a group event or out for a cup of coffee after work - not a "date".
Well, that's really all I'm saying. If a woman wrote to me asking if she should ask a guy out, I wouldn't recommend that she plan a fancy-schmancy date at an expensive restaurant. All my former girlfriend did was send an email asking me if I wanted to join her for a beer. Or, in Amy's case, she could've asked Gregg if he wanted to go the Farmer's Market. Simple stuff.
If he doesn't take the hint after that, then he's too passive or socially awkward...or just not that into her.
I agree with you there. Most likely not into her.
Jim at September 25, 2011 4:39 PM
Jim,
It seems like the only disagreement you had with what I said was that you believed I was talking in universalities as opposed to generalities.
I tend not to talk in universalities as there are almost always exceptions (see, I’m not even talking in universalities about this).
Unfortunately it is very easy to take conversations about the tendencies of men and women and assume that one person or another is being too general. For future comments I make it is probably safe to assume that when I talk about men or women in general, I am just referring to the majority and not corner cases and exceptions.
Reality at September 25, 2011 5:33 PM
Out of curiosity, is there any scientific reference material that can be provided which specifically supports the notion that relationships that begin with the man pursuing the woman are inherently more stable and functional than relationships that begin with the woman pursuing the man?
I have spent some time looking and can find no such evidence based study which supports this claim.
Instead what I see here are individual preferences and anecdotes which doesn't really constitute robust support.
Reality at September 25, 2011 5:37 PM
Lovelysoul says:
“Not that a guy would feel "contempt", but that he wouldn't value her as much as a woman he actually felt compelled to pursue.”
The counter point to this statement is that anyone who pursues anything or anyone is going to ultimately place higher value on whatever or whoever it is than if it was just handed over.
As a result is appears arbitrary and illogical to assert that men have to value women more in the beginning of a relationship than women have to value men in order for those relationships to be successful.
Anecdotes and personal preferences aren’t going to make this kind of a claim any less arbitrary or illogical.
To make this statement make sense we need a good rational reason for why relationships wouldn’t work if the value dynamic was flipped at the start of the relationship. Thus far I haven’t seen a compelling case made.
“we women have an innate and evolutionary-based need to know that we are the one a man would feel strongly compelled to pursue because that would also equate to him wanting to PROTECT us.”
That is great, but again it is arbitrary. I could just as easily construct an evolutionary-based argument that men need to know that they are the ones a woman would feel strongly compelled to pursue because that would also equate her to wanting to offer her sexual fidelity.
Men and women both have evolutionary desires that would warrant the kind of statement you made above. As a result it is an arbitrary choice to select one over the other.
“A cave girl just wondering into a cave and giving him a piece isn't necessarily going to be worth the fight. Maybe she is or maybe she isn't, but she can't know this, so there's a built-in insecurity about the relationship from the start.”
Again there is a counter point to this statement that would take on the following form:
A cave man pursuing a cave girl in order to get her sexual attention isn’t necessarily going to secure her sexual fidelity. Maybe she will have sex only with him or maybe she won’t, but he can’t know this, so there’s a built-in insecurity about the relationship from the start.
This really gets to the crux of the matter now doesn’t it. The question here isn’t about who should pursue and who should be pursued. It is about who should feel confident in the beginning of the relationship and who should feel insecure.
Do you have any scientific papers to cite that indicate that relationships work better when men are the ones who feel insecure at the beginning of a relationship? I ask because I can’t find any and I have looked.
“At least that's the way I've always felt when I've done the pursuing, or made it too easy for a guy to get into my pants.”
Right… which means your belief on this issue is driven by personal preference and anecdotal experience.
This is really the only thing which supports this contention which makes it difficult for me to accept as a general evolutionary principle with regard to human mating behavior.
If someone can show me the data I would be much more likely to believe them on this issue.
Reality at September 25, 2011 5:53 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2515813">comment from RealityUgh...yet another comments section-destroying long bloviation.
Again, per Daly and Wilson: Sperm are cheap. Eggs are expensive. Men can fuck and walk away. Women can get pregnant. We evolved for women to be "more valuable" in the mating game than men, and our genes don't know from birth control because complex cognitive adaptations take hundreds or thousands of generations to take hold [Don Symons, Evolution of Human Sexuality].
Please don't make it boring here with long-winded comments. I really hate that.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 6:13 PM
Amy,
The fact that sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive have little to no baring on the claim you are trying to make.
The reason it has no baring is because approaching someone for a date and having sex with them are two different things.
Your contention would only hold up if asking a man out on a date was the same as propositioning him for sex.
Since they aren't the same your argument fails.
Reality at September 25, 2011 6:40 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2515875">comment from RealitySorry you don't understand what I wrote. That doesn't make it incorrect.
Please don't make my comments section dull. You've done that now on a number of entries, with these long, blathering comments, and I'm getting tired of it. You want to blather on repetitively at great length, sign up over at Blogspot.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 6:56 PM
Amy,
My last comment was rather short so cut the "don't make my comments dull" stuff. It has nothing to do with how much or how little I write and everything to do with whether or not what I write supports what you have said. I can cite multiple examples of where I wrote "long winded" comments and you commended me for them... when they supported what you were saying.
Also, I understand what you wrote, you are just not making a logical or well supported argument here.
Exactly how do we get from this:
"Sperm are cheap. Eggs are expensive."
To your conclusion that:
"Women should not pursue men, even in small ways."
The second does not logically follow from the first and I am sorry that you find it "dull" to have that pointed out to you and everyone else.
Reality at September 25, 2011 7:04 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2515890">comment from RealityI've explained this over and over and over and over again, and you leave these long blathering comments over and over and over again.
Read David Buss' "Evolution of Desire" if you need help understanding this.
Other people seem to get what I'm saying just fine -- and I've said it in NUMEROUS columns and numerous comments.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 7:09 PM
Amy,
My last two posts have been extremely short as you requested, yet you keep harping on this "long blathering comment" thing. I think you are just trying to obfuscate the fact that you don't actually have real scientific evidence to support your contention. So instead you defend your position by saying there is something wrong with the way I write.
I am familiar with the works by David Buss. Your contention is not supported by anything he has written that I am aware of.
I actually could tell you why men should ask out women as opposed to women asking out men, and it isn't any of the reasons you have been talking about.
Unfortunately it would take a "long winded" post to explain why so I won't bother. Needless to say, your rational is way off on this one.
I know you hate to be wrong, but the odds are against you being correct 100% of the time. Sometimes it is better to understand why you are wrong instead of insisting that the other person doesn't understand why you are right.
Reality at September 25, 2011 7:32 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2515978">comment from RealityAgain, you have taken over numerous comments sections here with long and repetitive comments. The fact that you are now trying to hold yourself in check vis a vis the length -- after I finally had to go so far as to ask you to stop wrecking my comments section -- does not change that.
Others seem to get what I'm saying just fine. And it's not that I "hate to be wrong." In fact, I like to be correct, and have spent this week asking for criticism from friends whose minds and literary judgment I respect. I consider that criticism a gift.
My rationale isn't "way off." I have supported my point of view just fine, over and over and over.
Ah, and once again, the comments section is turned into a roaring bore with these exchanges with you, and I sure don't appreciate it.
If you find me incomprehensible and wrong, please go elsewhere. Fast.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 8:21 PM
Amy,
I have done none of the things you suggest. My posts have by and large been shorter than most give by others. In fact I only had 1 long post. Yet this is what you are focusing on instead of supporting your arguments.
One thing I have noticed about you is that when you actually have a good argument you present it.
When you don't have a good argument you resort to fallacious argumentative tactics.
This behavior is beneath you. You should know better.
For example:
"Others seem to get what I'm saying just fine."
This isn't a valid argument. Furthermore, you know that this isn't a valid argument.
This is the same piss poor logic used by religious folks to try and shut up atheists like yourself.
This is a classic "appeal to the people":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_popularity
The fact that others agree with you does not reinforce your claim anymore than the fact that many people believe god exists supports that contention.
I don't find you incomprehensible, but the claim you have put forth does happen to be wrong.
I'm sorry that being wrong bores you. That is just the way it goes sometimes. Other times your logic has been spot on, just not on this one.
Reality at September 25, 2011 9:28 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2516099">comment from RealityYou've noticed nothing of the sort. I'm not going to continue this with you. You're ruined my comments section on numerous columns with your long, repetitive, and pointless comments.
Others have remarked on what a bore you make the comments in the way you pretend there's an argument and some point left unaddressed when it appears you simply like to hear yourself talk. And talk. And talk. You're done here.
Amy Alkon at September 25, 2011 9:46 PM
Again, per Daly and Wilson: Sperm are cheap. Eggs are expensive.
This is why gay men and straight women are fortunate. They can save money by ordering sperm omelettes.
Jim at September 25, 2011 11:16 PM
I think you are just trying to obfuscate the fact that you don't actually have real scientific evidence to support your contention. So instead you defend your position by saying there is something wrong with the way I write.
Reality, that's my feeling too.
Jim at September 26, 2011 12:30 AM
The way I see it, this whole thing centers around timing. 2 weeks is to long.
OK, I don't see it as he must be in a hospital bed during that time.
If he's like me and lives a very busy life, he doesn't have lots of time for dating.
I work a full time job and am trying to build a business at the same time. I don't date right now, and probably won't for awhile.
But if I met an interesting girl I would ask her out. And if like most of the time, I was swamped for a week or two, I'd call her again when I had time to give to her.
Sure two weeks is a bit much, I understand that. But there is a lot of reading into this innocuous situation.
He has the cojones to ask a girl out, so he probably does it more than once. Odds are good he could have gotten somebody else if he felt like it, at least for coffee or a date.
If that is so, he called her back to get a second date because he wants one.
The two week turn down point seems a little meaningless to me. If there is nothing interesting about someone, sure turn them down. But otherwise, well why not go out again and see what happens? Worst case scenario, girl gets a free meal and can lose his number afterwards. I didn't notice her saying she had any other plans at the time.
I'd guess that she's dateless a lot because of her little rules.
Robert at September 26, 2011 2:59 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2516750">comment from RobertBetter to be "dateless" than go out with men who aren't that interested. Gregg didn't call me the evening of the night we met (we met at around 12:30 pm, and I had my French group dinner and he was getting on a plane that evening) but he called me the next night from Tishomingo, MIssissippi as soon as he got back to his hotel.
Unless a guy tells you he is just CONSUMED with building a business, etc., assume that he isn't interested if he lets two whole weeks go past.
Amy Alkon at September 26, 2011 5:58 AM
Reality mentioned sexual fidelity, and, to me, this is another reason why women pursuing men doesn't usually work.
A woman who pursues a man is sending the message that she is sexually aggressive. Not a good bet for long-term monogamy.
For instance, Jim, your girlfriend got involved with another man...and cocaine...but I'm betting she could've gotten cocaine without the involvement with another man.
You don't see that her pursuing you was kind of a red flag. You were flattered and viewed her as "unconventional" (translation: I'll cheat if it suits me), but she was basically announcing that she was a risky prospect.
By contrast, a woman who waits and allows a man to pursue her is sending the message that she's not easily gotten - by him or any other man.
lovelysoul at September 26, 2011 6:24 AM
By the way, this also applies to men. In retrospect, I should've realized that my ex chasing me down a NYC street might've been a red flag for a cheater. Yes, it's a cute story of pursuit, but he routinely pursued women very aggressively - not like he was basically shy and suddenly felt compelled to take a wild, romantic chance. He was too comfortable being the pursuer (and, turns out, he remained this way! lol)
Gregg's kind of pursuing is more genuine and indicative of a steady, reliable, and faithful guy. It shouldn't come too easy for a guy, but he'll man up and do it for the right lady.
lovelysoul at September 26, 2011 6:45 AM
Others have remarked on what a bore you make the comments in the way you pretend there's an argument and some point left unaddressed when it appears you simply like to hear yourself talk
So there are never points unaddressed? I haven't seen Reality being a bore particularly. I certainly hope you aren't banning him.
flydye at September 26, 2011 7:45 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2516817">comment from lovelysoulReality mentioned sexual fidelity, and, to me, this is another reason why women pursuing men doesn't usually work. A woman who pursues a man is sending the message that she is sexually aggressive.
Very good point. If I were just looking for sex, I wouldn't care about taking a risk and being direct. Plus, guys aren't likely to turn down sex unless they find you unattractive, think you might have a disease, or think you might go psycho on them.
And thanks, lovelysoul, for noting that I don't say there are no exceptions -- it's just not a wise idea in general for women to pursue men for the reasons both lovelysoul and I lay out.
Amy Alkon at September 26, 2011 7:45 AM
"Unless a guy tells you he is just CONSUMED with building a business, etc., assume that he isn't interested if he lets two whole weeks go past."
Exactly. As I noted above, a man who was interested in me got up at 4:00 AM, drove 4 hours for a business meeting, drove 4 hours back home the same day, and still called that evening when he got back. Of course there are exceptions, but if you go on a date and don't hear a peep for 2 weeks, most likely he's not that interested.
Lizzie at September 26, 2011 11:18 AM
@Reality
What you say about no direct link between evolutionary needs and "men shall pursue women, not the other way around" maxim, might be correct, but it is irrelevant for this discussion.
"Men shall pursue women" is a current cultural dictum. These dicta change according to circumstances. Cultural mores could be as strong factor as biological setups.
Mere Mortal at September 26, 2011 11:55 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2517635">comment from Mere MortalCulture is biologically driven. If you're interested in reading more about this, check out work by Boyd and Richerson and AJ Figueredo. (Aurelio Jose Figueredo.)
Amy Alkon at September 26, 2011 3:53 PM
Amy,
Thanks for putting a muzzle on Reality. That guy is Ambien on two legs.
Rozita at September 26, 2011 5:07 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2517822">comment from RozitaYou're welcome. This is an asshole-friendly site, but if you make my site a boring read, and persist and persist, well, you're tempting my tendency to have all speech be free. Granted, your speech is still free if I ban you; you just don't get free bandwidth from me to do your speaking on.
Outside of the mob that came over here to ruin my comments section (I write about them in my book), I've banned fewer than five people since 2003. Reality is probably #3 or 4. Chuckles (of memo format comments) was one of them (after about 20 people begged me to do it), then he came back and I let him stay, but he seems to have wandered off again (thankfully!).
Amy Alkon at September 26, 2011 5:26 PM
I get what you're saying Miss Alkon, but "Not that interest" CAN become "VERY interested" in a fairly short span of time.
I just don't see a serious worst case scenario in this case for her to say yes. Still no apparent sign of interest after date two, or he only calls every few weeks, yeah sure, drop him.
But I must say I think you're taking this particular assertion about his interest level to quite the "Cosmo" level.
You're reading his absense in terms of female expectation. But lets think about this logically? How long is two weeks really? For time intensive jobs, the regular week is pretty much out for dating. The weekend is open, so that is Friday & Saturday, MAYBE Sunday for something lite if one intends to do early to bed early to rise thing for work.
So two weeks is essentially more like 4-6 days. And in that time, well he's single, he might have had another date with someone else.
"Interest" does not mean "Immediately exclusive" after all. So it seems to me that the notion of a few days timestamp is more a feminine expectation, than a practical expectation.
A month...yeah sure, two weeks? True, I think the courteous thing to do would have been to attempt some type of correspondence with her in the interim. But that offense is small enough to be overlooked. And like I said before, worst case, she gets a free meal. And obviously she doesn't have anything else to do. So I say take the date, see how it goes, and if his behavior is repeated, hell then lose the number.
Robert at September 28, 2011 1:35 PM
I agree with Robert, give him one more chance, if he's an ass, this kind of thing will show up as a pattern of behavior, if he turns out to be a great guy, then great.
Lobster at October 3, 2011 5:11 PM
Amy sez: "Read David Buss' "Evolution of Desire" if you need help understanding this."
I'll just chime in with one comment here: it's amazing how these pop-cum-scientist evpsych writers always end up affirming 1950s-stylesexual values, isn't it?
It`s easy to believe in these sort of simplistic evolutionary explanations (i.e. "Men chase women and not the opposite because evolution has wired us all to do that") when one's knowledge of other human cultures doesn't extend beyond the whitebread American suburbs.
If one were to do the slightest bit of reading in ethnography, however, one would quickly find many examples of women being sexually aggressive. I can cite a couple, if you'd like, but I don't want to be even more tiresome than I'm already being.
Bottom line, Amy: if you want to talk about "the rules", great. But please ditch the presumption that said rules are somehow human universals. The ones you're stating wouldn't even work particularly well in today's Rio de Janeiro, let alone in the vast majority of human societies that have existed and are REALLY alien to your values.
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette at October 4, 2011 10:33 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2536492">comment from Thaddeus Gregory BlanchetteThere's cross cultural evidence from cross-cultural studies that there ARE human universals, so you're quite wrong in your criticism, which mainly seems like the same old smug "ev psych sucks!" stuff. Yawn.
Amy Alkon at October 4, 2011 10:52 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2536519">comment from Thaddeus Gregory BlanchetteIf one were to do the slightest bit of reading in ethnography, however, one would quickly find many examples of women being sexually aggressive.
Yes, and you can find examples of people eating their young, but it doesn't mean it's generally optimum behavior for humans.
Again: Yawn.
Amy Alkon at October 4, 2011 10:54 AM
"There's cross cultural evidence from cross-cultural studies that there ARE human universals..."
Yes there are. None of those studies, however, has a wide enough sample over a large enough selection of cultures to allow us to create the sort of "universals" ev psych people seem to enjoy. I don't recall a single decent cross-cultural ev-psych study that proves, for example, that men are sexually more "aggressive" than women.
In fact, I can't think of a single ev-psych study that has been able to define "sexual aggression" in a non-tautological way - and as an anthro forwarded to a bio and med school, I read a lot of ev psych! Most ev-psych studie seem to operate on this logic: "let male sexual behavior = sexual aggression. Men are thus more sexually aggressive than women".
Can you point us to studies you think are exceptions to this rule, Amy? Because nothing is more -yawn- than pop ev psych. Popular biodeterminism has been a fad among middle class Americans since Spencer, and it gets regularly debunked.
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette at October 6, 2011 8:22 AM
A typical ev psych "cross-cultural study" sample selection, by the way, goes something like this:
30 students at an East Coast American university.
200 patients at a West Coast American public hospital or clinic.
50 factory workers from Japan.
12 Nigerian school girls.
Hey presto! You now have a "cross cultural study" from which you can infer behaviorial norms for all the 20 billion or so human beings that have ever lived.
-grin-
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette at October 6, 2011 8:26 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2539700">comment from Thaddeus Gregory BlanchetteA typical ev psych "cross-cultural study" sample selection, by the way,
Says who? Based on what?
I'm not interested in "typical" studies -- nor should anyone be. What matters is whether a specific study is valid and reliable, based on solid methodology. The "shaky bridge/sturdy bridge" study, for example, by Dutton and Aron -- NOT ev psychs -- I believe had a sample size of 23, yet is referred to as if it means something. I wrote to Aron and said, "Hey, man, help me out -- show me a study that supports what you conclude from this (inadequate sample size) study. He sent me two, neither of which did.
Amy Alkon at October 6, 2011 9:00 AM
It seems, then, that you yourself are refuting ev psych's "transcultural" conclusions.
I'm not a fan of projecting onto humanity my own particular beliefs and using bad studies to do so. But then again, Amy, I'm not the person here claiming to have the inner skinny on how "human" sexual aggression works: you are. So what possible difference does the Dutton and Aron study make to our current discussion? I'm certainly not holding that out as proof of a solid transhuman characteristic.
So back to the original question: what are these great, methodologically-solid studies that prove that your particular dating preferences are a transhuman norm?
My point with the ethnographic data, by the way, isn't that you find the odd case or two of sexually agressive women: it's that this sort of thing absolutely peppers the ethnographic record, at least for pre-civilized soceities. It seems to be something of a constant: when women get let off the leash of social-sexual control, they act damned aggressively.
I'll agree that keeping women's sexuality on a social leash also seems to be a constant, but that's fairly well proven to be social, not biological. Otherwise, how would one explain the great transformations in female sexual behavior that have occurred over the last 50 years or even, say, in one small group during given rituals and moments?
This is what I love about ev psych: youy claim to be working with human constants when it comes to sexual behavior, mbut even the most cursory look at human sexual behavior in ONE society - say the U.S.American - over the last 50 years shows how enormously plastic sexual behavior can be.
What happened? Did Earth pass through a radioactive cloud some 50 years ago which caused sexual behavior to mutate at an unheard of pace?
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette at October 6, 2011 12:07 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2011/09/wait-training.html#comment-2540035">comment from Thaddeus Gregory BlanchetteDutton and Aron's study is relevant because it's a widely accepted stuff with shit methodology.
To denigrate ev psych as a whole is to betray a prejudice against ev psych. All studies are flawed; some are more flawed than others...to the point of being unacceptable vis a vis any conclusions they come to.
You come across as a guy with an ax to grind against ev psych in general. Yawn.
Amy Alkon at October 6, 2011 12:18 PM
Again, regarding Dutton and Aron's study, my question is why is this relevant to our current discussion? People believe that "science" proves a lot of stupid shit. One bad study is not an excuse for destroying an entire field. I'm not denigrating evpsych based on that study, by the way: you brought it up, not me.
Yes, I do have a bit of an axe to grind against evpsych. Not the field itsel, mind you, but it's pop amateur proponents who took one or another class in university and now like to use one or another of its authors as a "key to everything", particularly whatever half-baked notions they've come up with regarding human sexuality.
So let me refine my dislike here: it's not so much professional evpsych people that are the problem 9though I have bones to pick with many of them): it's the amateurs like yourself.
You remind me of the people who read Spencer on "social evolution" back in the 1880s and who became convinced - based on the reading of that one author and his cronies - that "race is everything" in human social behavior. Meanwhile, science was busy disproving Spencer's postulates. Because he was easy to read and understand, however, and because he gave laymen a convincing Theory of Everything, it took the Second World War to finally bury his theories in pop culture. And even now, you have lunatics like Phillipe Rushton who want to dig up the rotten corpse of race theory, simply because it proves that their personal political views on "why blacks are stupid" have some relevance.
You want to "prove" your point on female versus male sexual aggression? It's quite easy: show us one transcultural study with a large enough "n" and random selection of respondents which supports your theory.
Just one, Amy.
Surely that's not too difficult for a crack ev-psych theorist such as yourself?
Thaddeus Gregory Blanchette at October 13, 2011 11:51 AM
To denigrate ev psych as a whole is to betray a prejudice against ev psych. . . . You come across as a guy with an ax to grind against ev psych in general. Yawn.
Questioning a theory or assertion doesn't mean that one is denigrating it. Furthermore, to question a theory or assertion doesn't mean that one has prejudged it. It may be that one was open to the theory or assertion and that, after examination, found it to be lacking sufficient substantiation.
This is what I love about ev psych: youy claim to be working with human constants when it comes to sexual behavior, mbut even the most cursory look at human sexual behavior in ONE society - say the U.S.American - over the last 50 years shows how enormously plastic sexual behavior can be.
Thaddeus, a number of years ago I was on an internet forum with a group of radical feminists. They believed that the behavior of men and women was completely determined by culture and whenever I mentioned evolutionary psychology they basically responded with derision and dismissiveness. So it's been interesting to come onto this forum and see someone who believes the opposite, that evolutionary psychology explains all male and female behavior, but who shares the practice of being scornful and dismissive of people who question it.
I happen to believe that men and women likely are wired in some fundamentally different ways but that this does not mean we aren't influenced, perhaps greatly, by our environment or that we are all "prisoners of the savannah". It may very well be true that men are wired to "hunt" women, but that doesn't mean that what Amy asserts is true: that if a woman does so much as ask a man for his phone number, and the man and woman end up becoming involved, her action will almost certainly set up a dynamic that will cause the relationship to end.
To me, the more important issue is: do the man and woman like each other? do they have common interests? are they sexually compatible? Amy has repeatedly likened dating to a dance. I think that's a good analogy but I've pointed out to her that a couple can dance -- and indeed dance quite well -- regardless of who did the initial asking. What I see as most important question is not "who asked the other to dance?" But "how much do they enjoy dancing together?"
Jim at October 14, 2011 11:46 AM
Leave a comment