"A guy desperate for approval is a guy a woman can never count on -- to show her who he really is, to stand up for what he believes in, or, maybe, to even know what he believes (without sticking a wet finger in the air)."

I've been reading your column for maybe 10 years (is that possible? back before that Pittsburgh paper folded) and this one might be my favorite. Great advice for how to recognize a person who values you, who likely has a moral compass pointed somewhere worthwhile, and who has the potential to be counted on.

I know people on here get super defensive about shy guys. Let me provide the opposite perspective-I was a shy girl.

Being a shy, waify, baby faced girl (this was many many moons ago) meant I never had the "balls" to flirt back with a guy I actually liked. Yes, like Amy said, I too would stand there like cold salmon. So they would give up. Even if I liked them-even if they flirted-even if they gave me all the signals I couldn't bring myself to interact with them for fear that I wasn't picking up the signals correctly and they would reject me.

Well that meant the only type of guy that would consistently pursue me were VERY AGGRESSIVE guys. They would try to bully me into a relationship with them. Yes-I had a few stalkers.

This was a big problem for me. I don't like that type of guy. So I grew some "balls".

I'll defend the shy guys. In our society, the ability to wrestle a bear is not useful. As long as the guy has the skills to function in society, who cares if he's bad at talking to pretty women.

I was extremely shy around women when I was young, and then managed to overcome that. It seems extremely weird to me to say that I was not worth dating, then suddenly a year later once I wasn't so shy, I was worth dating. I was essentially the same person except less shy.

Also, this doesn't ring true:
> A guy desperate for approval is a guy a woman can
> never count on

I was solely shy around dating women - it did not mean I was desperate for approval. I've always been a very independent person.

Um... Long answer, Amy. Lots of general conclusions. Not my experience.

I've known more than a few guys who were tongue-tied, bashful and embarrassed at the thought of a woman, who were lions when things got dangerous. Don't have any studies to cite. Just 18 months in Vietnam. It was common enough to become a movie cliche.

I dunno. My guess if he won't come to the door no matter how long you knock, then ladies, give it a bye. Something is going on - might be temporary, might be a psychosis. Unless you sense something really worthwhile, and you have some time on your hands, unreachable shy guys just aren't worth the effort.

But if it's simply a matter that the gentleman in question cannot compare to the silver-tongued devil at the next table, yeah, try harder. You might end up with a guy who is afraid of nothing except social patter who adores you.

First off shyness usually comes from putting a woman up on a pedestal that she doesn't rightly deserve. You might be an independent person but if your brain turns to mush when talking to a broad you care more about what she thinks at that moment.

Second off we are talking about dating here not his usefulness in society. I can think of many famous scientists who couldn't stand being around a cute girl.

Shyness doesn't mean you are a worthless guy just more of a pain in the ass to date. If you can't bring yourself to talk to me then how the fuck am I supposed to know who you are? I can't read your mind. Am I supposed to care about you because you are you?

(And don't talk to me about nobody caring about how shy a girl is-if she is pretty she could be into smearing turds all over her body and have a long line of guys waiting eagerly for her).

"But if it's simply a matter that the gentleman in question cannot compare to the silver-tongued devil at the next table, yeah, try harder."

Again, Amy wasn't saying the dude needs to talk like a poet.
He just needs to talk.

If a girl throws herself at you and you can't do anything about it how are we to expect that if she asks you out and you say yes you aren't doing it because you are a weenie and can't say no?

There is a difference between introversion and shyness.

I'm an assertive woman who has done a lot in my life. I tried dating a couple of these "shy guys". I did all the work, made all the plans, made every decision, had to constantly reassure them, listen to the "you'll find someone better and abandon me!".

Never again. If you don't have the courage to say "Hi, would you like to get a cup of coffee" then you aren't man enough to date me.

Not saying that I wanted aggressive bullies either. Thankfully, Mr. Clark is "just right".

Yeah shyness means you are too shy to be trusted to say at the moment when it matters what you really want and with who.

Maybe just maybe you can think about it later and build up the courage to say it in the future.

Wow-again I am supposed to be okay with all of this because you are "you" and there might be a chance you are a fantastic guy I'm missing out on.

(BTW my therapist told me one of the biggest problems with women is they let other guys choose them and don't speak up for what they really want. You can't trust the authenticity of people like that-no matter how nice).

Do not be harsh on Amy on this one.
Her ideal to compare every case with is Greg.

Ppen, I have a very hard time imagining you as shy, waify, or baby-faced. Clearly your time spent with pugs has taught you how to act like a boss.

If dating is your endgame, then by all means choose the ballsy ones.

If you're looking for a good husband, I'd say usefulness in society is a better indicator than smooth dating skills.

No one is saying the guys shouldn't man up (they're not doing themselves any favors)... what I'm saying is the women shouldn't necessarily give them the brush-off.

And sure. You could have a guy who's not very aggressive about pursuing a job and sucks at interviews who is an awesome worker. Obviously, if you're that guy you'll have more opportunities if you become more outgoing. But if you're an employer who happens to stumble across someone brilliant, you might want to pursue him even if he doesn't pursue you.

Probably not if the job is in sales, though.

> He just has to not be so driven by others'
> approval that he is too terrified to ask a woman
> out

Is there any correlation between shyness and approval seeking from others? I know lots of extroverts who are big approval seekers.

Agree with Amy! If you want get noticed, you have to stand up and say "Here I Am" and not hide behind a tree wearing a shrubbery costume.

I asked my hubby today what would he have done if I had said "no" when he asked me out. He shrugged and said "I would have finished my coffee and asked out the next woman that I found interesting."

He wasn't so terrified by being turned down that he couldn't speak up.

There is a very large amount of equivocation going on within this discussion.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for Amy to fully define what she means when she says "shy".

The reason I say this is because this conversation seems to keep vacillating between the type of shyness that causes people to have apprehensions about giving a speech in public and the type of shyness that is pathological and causes one to become a complete social recluse.

Jumping between such extreme conditions doesn’t help anyone make progress within this conversation.

Also, I see many attributes being attached to “shyness” that are not actually caused by being shy. As Snoopy just pointed out, being a people pleaser is a separate trait from shyness.

There is an abundance of people pleasers out there who also happen to be very socially assertive. Politicians are a fantastic example of people like this, they are anything but shy when it comes to social interactions and will approach and talk to just about anyone… they will also lie to anyones face or behind anyones back in order to gain their acceptance and approval.

Too much is being attacked to the trait of being shy that doesn’t belong and too little is being done to actually define what people mean by being shy.

If Amy is talking about the type of pathological shyness that causes someone to become a hermit I can see her point, if she is talking about the type of shyness experienced by people who are apprehensive giving a eulogy then she is way off base with many of her claims.

Men are getting sick and tired of women demanding equality and insisting they are strong and independent, and then turning around on a dime and demanding old-ass traditional gender roles when it comes to dating.

If a man not "manning up" and asking out a woman is grape jelly, then women stamping their feet and demanding selective equality are two-tongued snakes.

"But if you're an employer who happens to stumble across someone brilliant, you might want to pursue him even if he doesn't pursue you."

I work with ALOT of these guys.

A. They are too shy to negotiate their appropriate rate
B. They get screwed over financially ALL the time
C. Career wise they get zero credit.

I want to defend them-but you just can't because they have no backbone and you turn out to be the asshole.

"No it's okay I don't want to be paid that much"

And the people that I do see pursue them constantly tend to be sleazebags.

You are a product, you have to sell yourself no matter how brilliant you are. Your employer is not here to tell you what they can do for you ok? Never ever sell yourself like that.

Being a great worker is not good enough. An employer will never just be "nice" to you.

I am saying this as someone who has direct experience on both ends.

"Being a great worker is not good enough. An employer will never just be "nice" to you."

Sing it!

I was taught that if I worked hard and worked well, someone else would notice, pick me, and pay accordingly. Also, that there was a direct connection between doing great work and getting hired. Not necessarily so.

Over the last few years I've learned a lot about looking around to see how managers have life work around them, what gets funded and who gets paid what, asking for what I want and letting go of whatever doesn't pay enough. It's risky and I'm wobbly (financially, professionally) but it's working better than any other approach I've taken.

I hope this whole corporate discussion is simply an aside and not intended to be directly analogous to dating interactions.

I hope this whole corporate discussion is simply an aside and not intended to be directly analogous to dating interactions.

Posted by: Artemis at January 8, 2014 4:11 PM

I find a lot of overlap in applicability. Negotiation is a life skill, and it is risky. Taking calculated risks takes goals, smarts, honesty, and guts. Dating and creating a life with someone requires a lot of negotiation, investment, and other risks.

With jobs and with dating, you have to sell yourself. People can't just peer into your soul and see the real you. If you don't want all that hassle, that's fine. Just don't be surprised to find yourself alone and unemployed.

PirateJo the first pug I ever had was described by my vet as:

"spoiled brat, a shameless freeloader who expects everything on a silver platter"

She loved him!

I learned alot from him you are right.

@MonicaP With jobs and with dating, you have to sell yourself.

How deep the propaganda of prostitution got!

Even with jobs a self-respecting person does not sell him/herself. One sells his/her time and efforts --- nothing more.

I didn't want to make any assumptions when this whole employer/employee analogy was brought up which is why I questioned just how far people were going with the comparison.

Since it seems like people are pushing to make this a direct analogy, let's try a few questions and see where it gets us.

I would suggest that people should think very carefully about where such an analogy is heading because they might find that the analogy breaks down *very* quickly.

So here is my first question.

If dating is like an prospective employee looking for a job, who exactly is analogous to the prospective employer and who is analogous to the prospective employee (i.e. who is looking to get hired, the man or the woman)?

Now you might think you have a good handle on this analogy at this stage because on it's surface it seems appealing, but I'm pretty sure you won't like where it gets you in about two or three steps. Then I predict we will have lots of back tracking or people suggesting that the analogy is actually quite poor.

A better analogy for dating would be that of a potential business partnership, not an employer/employee dynamic because it implies a very bizarre power dynamic between people looking for a relationship.

People who view dating like interviewing to be hired or to hire someone are missing the key element of reciprocity required for a healthy relationship dynamic.

Hi Amy,

I am not sure if that was a response to my question or to someone else.

If it was a response to me, then I have just two follow up questions:

1 - Do you support the use of the employer/employee analogy as a good and direct comparison to dating?

2 - If you do support such an analogy, who exactly are you suggesting is the employer and who is the employee?

Once I know where people stand on this issue I may have some additional points to discuss. If you were responding to someone else, please disregard these questions.

Reliance creates vulnerability, regardless of whether it's employment, another type of business partnership, or a romantic relationship.

Vulnerability and power dynamics can change fluidly or abruptly in any arrangement.

Love that line Michelle:

"Reliance creates vulnerability"

2 - If you do support such an analogy, who exactly are you suggesting is the employer and who is the employee?

When you are dating you are "interviewing" people and they are "interviewing" you. At least if you are not desperate you SHOULD be doing this. You already looked at their "resume" (physical appearance & personality) and liked what you saw, now it's time to get to really know them.

When you are interviewing for jobs you SHOULD be interviewing your employer as much as they interview you. It's not about taking "any" job. Just like it's not about taking "any" person simply because they chose you.

This time I'm going off on a tangent on actual job advice.

"How deep the propaganda of prostitution got!

Even with jobs a self-respecting person does not sell him/herself. One sells his/her time and efforts --- nothing more."

Mere Mortal is wrong, don't follow his advice. If you want to negotiate the best job situation for yourself- do not EVER think that selling your time and effort will be enough. There are plenty of candidates that can do that. In fact there are better qualified people than you, and perhaps even better performing.

(When you buy a car, do you buy the best car or the car you like best? You buy a combination of both).

Essentially you are a brand and you are trying to get your employer to want to purchase you. Once they want to buy you, then you negotiate your price.

Ppen,

Of course when you are dating someone you are both "interviewing" one another in the sense that you are getting to know another person, it just isn't really analogous to a job interview. This is because within the context of that "interview" there isn't some strange power dynamic going on that is analogous to an interview between a prospective employer and a prospective employee.

When interviewing for a job the prospective employer asks a series of questions designed to test someones qualifications and expertise. The prospective employee would be out of line to ask questions along the same lines.

Could you ever imagine going in for a job interview and asking the prospective employer any question designed to test to see if they were qualified to do their job?... of course not, only a fool would do that.

By contrast, the types of questions a prospective employee asks are associated with what the job entails and what will be expected of someone who works in the position they are interviewing for.

The types of questions asked by the prospective employee and prospective employer are VERY different.

This is one of the reasons I am saying the analogy is really quite terrible. On a date there is no question that one party could ask that would be off limits for the other.

Yet if people are going to insist that the analogy is good, then they need to stop beating around the bush and say whether it is the man or the woman playing the role of the employer.

To make an argument by analogy and then avoid defining how the two analogues correspond to one another suggests people are just saying it because it seems like it makes sense when they haven't actually thought it through.

This type of argument stinks of lazy reasoning.

Ppen - thx. And I can follow your analogy just fine, no worries here.

Art. - no one claimed the analogy depends on the ee/er roles being sex or gender dependent.

As an aside: I think this economy has made dating even more frustrating for straight people, because the economy makes it hard for folks to play out traditional gender roles, where increasingly more women out earn men. That's how it looks to me from the sidelines.

Artemis you sound like you're a drag at parties. When someone says apples and oranges do you insist one must define who is the orange and who exactly is the apple?

I guess id be the orange since I'm so acidic.

But if you must know from an evolutionary perspective the woman is the employer.

The essential point here is: pity is a lousy basis for a relationship.

And as far as Greg goes, hey, he's an ideal to aspire to. Nothing wrong with that.

Even with jobs a self-respecting person does not sell him/herself. One sells his/her time and efforts --- nothing more.

Nope. You're selling yourself. Lots of people have time and effort to offer. The person hiring you is asking: "Are you the type of person who will fit into this company's culture? Will you show up on time and dress appropriately? Will you steal from the cash register when no one is looking?" Even when they're looking at the time and effort you have to offer, they judge you based on how you present yourself. I know a lot of talented, hardworking people who never get noticed because they sit in the shadows and hope for the best.

No matter how talented you are, if you can't present yourself well, the jobs and the promotions will go to someone who can. No matter how wonderful you are, if you can't bring yourself to speak to a woman, she will go out with someone who can.

Amy has said before, and I'm paraphrasing, that a man doesn't ask a woman out because she looks like to the sort of person who feeds the homeless. The same goes for men.

To add: I think some of the commenters here are getting themselves in knots because they're operating under the assumption that the woman (or employer, as the case may be) is the one with the power. In dating and in the hiring process, if both people have a lot to offer, then the process is more like a dance in which both people move differently, but neither has the upper hand.

"In dating and in the hiring process, if both people have a lot to offer, then the process is more like a dance in which both people move differently, but neither has the upper hand."

Yes! Exactly.

I am fortunate to be friends with a lot of really bright men. They are kind men, and considerate men, and interesting men, with advanced degrees.

They do many nice things for me, and we can carry on an intelligent conversation about politics, economics and our mutual hobby.

Most of these men would not have the faintest idea what to talk about with a woman who didn't share their interests.

It isn't fear that keeps them from chatting up random women, it is puzzlement over what to say, and when to say it.

I have to thank you Amy - I'm in the midst of a new relationship, which for me is few and far between. She did exactly the right thing, flirted, etc, made it clear she was available, then yes *I* asked her out. Well, actually I volunteered to drive 500 miles to spend the weekend in the desert with her. To which the answer was "Yes"! If it had been no I would have been a little upset, but I had to try. One of the things I've learned from your columns is "never die wondering", and also that I had to remember what those things dangling between my legs are for!

It isn't fear that keeps them from chatting up random women, it is puzzlement over what to say, and when to say it.

Posted by: Isab at January 9, 2014 3:04 PM

I've been with the same woman for about half my life, and sometimes that's still a challenge. It's a worthwhile challenge.

...and Ltw, congrats!

Thank you Michelle! One of those situations where you've known each other for 20 years (same social group) but never both been single or otherwise not licking our wounds. Fingers crossed...

Ppen Says:

"But if you must know from an evolutionary perspective the woman is the employer."

Thanks for the answer... I'm not exactly sure why it had to be like pulling teeth to get that response. The question was VERY straightforward.

So far as parties go, you must be quite the hoot as well... you enter into a conversation, state an opinion, someone asks you to elaborate... and you then don't bother to answer the question and then go on and on about something else.

Now that we've established that in the women are the employer, let's now go back to what you personally said about employers in this very conversation and swap out men and women and see what we get:

"Men are a product, they have to sell themselves no matter how brilliant they are. Women are not there to tell men what they can do for you ok? Never ever sell yourself like that to a woman.

Being a great man is not good enough. A woman will never just be "nice" to you."

That is how this analogy translates based upon your very own statements.

This is why the analogy is just plain wrong, dating isn't like this.

Any man foolish enough to date a woman like that deserves what he gets.

You have defined an abusive dynamic and defend it by dancing around the core issues at play.

Michelle,

"Art. - no one claimed the analogy depends on the ee/er roles being sex or gender dependent."

No one had stated it explicitly which is why I asked for elaboration.

As you can see, there was the unstated implication that the employer was actually women and that men are interviewing for a job.

I know this was being implied for the following reasons. Amy and others assert that men and women have different roles to play within a dating environment. They then posit the employer/employee analogy which also has two different roles.

In order for the analogy to work, men and women must correspond to either the employer or employee role.

However that has rather horrible implications when it comes to dating that neither men nor women will find particularly nice.

For example, if a man has had a job for years and decides to take on a second job in order to earn some extra money people would consider him to be industrious.

Following this analogy we should consider a man who has a long standing relationship who decides to start dating other women to be a positive trait, yet women generally don't find such a lack of fidelity to be desirable.

The analogy really is piss poor and doesn't deserve to be defended, it breaks down under even the most mild scrutiny.

Amy,

When it comes to employers and employees there is no clear set of rules about just who is pursuing who. Sometimes a person is actively seeking employment, and other times employers are actively seeking to hire someone.

So again, how does this analogy fit?

Quality employers will actively recruit talented individuals across the country and they fly them in all expenses paid for an interview.

What is this analogous to in dating if women are supposed to be the employers as Ppen has stated and men are supposed to be pitching themselves during the interview as you have stated?

This would be the equivalent of women initiating dates, paying for the dates, and the men having to put on a good show and not screw things up in order to succeed.

However, this reverses the gender assignments that have been made for the roles of men and women.

The reason this analogy is so flawed is because it ends up contradicting itself.

In fact, it only would apply to really low level jobs being pursued by very unskilled job seekers.

Is that what we are talking about here? The strategy low quality men need to use to date low quality women?

Art., MonicaP nailed why sex or gender assignment doesn't matter for the ee/er analogy:

"To add: I think some of the commenters here are getting themselves in knots because they're operating under the assumption that the woman (or employer, as the case may be) is the one with the power. In dating and in the hiring process, if both people have a lot to offer, then the process is more like a dance in which both people move differently, but neither has the upper hand."

Posted by: MonicaP at January 9, 2014 1:50 PM

Michelle,

I actually agree to a large extent with MonicaP and with you if you share her outlook.

The only problem I have here is that there are others who are using this analogy in a decidedly different fashion where they are suggesting that one person in the employment or dating situation does have or should have the "upper hand". They simply aren't acting like prospective employees or men ever have much to offer (or that even when they do have much to offer it simply doesn't matter).

I mean, it isn't a stretch to come to that conclusion when Ppen states the following about employers:

"You are a product, you have to sell yourself no matter how brilliant you are. Your employer is not here to tell you what they can do for you ok? Never ever sell yourself like that.

Being a great worker is not good enough. An employer will never just be "nice" to you."

It couldn't get much clearer than this... even if you are a great worker and have a lot to offer, it simply doesn't matter, there is no mutual dance here... the employer holds all the cards and the employee should just count themselves lucky that they even have a job. She then goes on to explain that women are the equivalent of the employers in this analogy (which I kind of knew would be the case, but I needed to confirm before saying anything because I don't like putting words into peoples mouths).

That isn't about the mutually beneficial interaction or dance that MonicaP is describing. It is about one person having to jump through hoops for someone else who doesn't appreciate them and who has no obligation to even be friendly or kind. Is this really a good foil for dating?

Amy also seems to hold this type of position when she explains:

"But yes, it's the man pitching the woman, and a man needs a set of balls instead of the expectation that women will instead do a searching study of him..."

In reality, when it comes to employment, sometimes a person is very aggressively trying to get a job and other times an employer is very aggressively trying to fill a position. And yes, an employer who is actually interested in an employee will do a background check in addition to an interview... they will want to do a "searching study" if they are actually serious about hiring anyone.

Somewhere all of these details have gotten lost in the conversation and these two individuals are acting as if every employer is mcdonalds and every job seeker is a high school drop out.

Yes, under that type of situation mcdonalds is never going to seek you out or even advertise for you to show up (they have a high turn over rate and low retention rate so no one employee really matters). They are in the drivers seat because unskilled workers are essentially a dime a dozen.

When we are actually talking about decent jobs and qualified applicants the story is very different. So why are we locked into the situation where neither party has much to offer as opposed to discussing scenarios where both are bringing something to the table?

Similarly it is very different when it comes to men and women who have taken the time and effort to make themselves into something.

Truth be told, I would have had less of a problem with this analogy if it was presented by someone with an outlook like MonicaP because her perspective is more in line with dating situations where both parties are actually interested in success.

The alternative described by both Amy and Ppen is unlikely to result in healthy long term relationship dynamics because they insist that one party needs to have the "upper hand" and that the quality of a particular man isn't really that important because women aren't going to bother assessing his quality on their own.

When talking about dating it makes the most sense to talk about people who both have something to offer. If one or both doesn't have something to offer it isn't going to last anyway, so why make that the focus of the analogy?

"Women evolved to be the pursued and men the pursuers. Sex is more costly for women than men (I've written about this NUMEROUS times before). Women look for men to show they have courage and other qualities we evolved to look for in men."

Men evolved to desire the company of young, cute, proportionate women who are generally submissive. Men also evolved to be competitive builders and conquerors. Yet the women of your generation have berated us from the day we were born for it. We have been asked to forego our evolutionary desires for the greater good of equality. So if you want to call shy guys grape jelly, I'll stand by my belief that modern women demanding equality are two-tongued snakes.

All this talk that women are "pickier" and are in a position to choose presumes something that exists in real world only for few women. Actual choice for most is quite limited: be picky -- and be alone. Both genders have imperatives to pursue the "other half" and a more sensible approach than that of power hungry bitches is to be respectful of that "other half" as humans. They are not your "employee" or servant or ATM machine --- unless both of you are into BDSM.

Some good points in the thread, a few over-generalizations here and there perhaps.

@"it's the man pitching the woman, and a man needs a set of balls instead of the expectation that women will instead do a searching study of him to see that he's nice to puppies and daises"

Generally true, but I think there are probably situations where women perhaps ought to at least try a little harder at doing some 'searching' in the men they encounter ... e.g. there seems to be a certain type of single woman one encounters these days who whines there are 'no good men out there' while waiting for a handsome prince to land on their doorstep, unwilling to 'settle' for otherwise decent men they meet, and sometimes not realizing they can no longer attract men as easily as they did in their 20s ... I mean, there's 'picky', and then there's over-picky.

I also think of people like my brother who is a shy type but a good, decent guy, reliable, makes very good money (but doesn't advertise it :/ drives an old car, wears old clothes), would be loyal and dedicated to the right woman ... but in his 40s and single, and I've seen a number of women, some frankly below his station snub their nose at him just because he's a kind of reserved type. (Mind you, he was engaged at one stage, to a really nice girl, she passed away though :/ and he hasn't met anyone else since.)

"It couldn't get much clearer than this... even if you are a great worker and have a lot to offer, it simply doesn't matter, there is no mutual dance here... the employer holds all the cards and the employee should just count themselves "

Artemis you have now confirmed to me you must be zero fun at parties.

WHEN THE FUCK DID I SAY BEING A GREAT WORKER DOESNT MATTER? I said it's NOT enough. Just like being a "nice" guy isn't enough. Obviously when I'm giving advice on employer/employee I'm discussing careers.

I have never said an employer holds all the cards either. If you had any reading comprehension (and both Michelle and MonicaP agreed with me) you would understand that what I was saying is:

You must sell yourself and get people to want to buy you. Whatever way you sell yourself. Once a person wants to buy you, then the "dance" begins.
That is how you negotiate a salary when you are in a career.

If they want you they will pay.

Didn't you read how I stated all these "shy" guys undersell themselves when they can sell themselves for MORE. THUS THE EMPLOYER DOESNT HAVE THE UPPER HAND.

I manage a guy that is brilliant, never networks, doesn't see clients but he is his own "brand". He is the pillar of the biz. When I hired him do you think I thought I had the upperhand?

"When talking about dating it makes the most sense to talk about people who both have something to offer."

What exactly is wrong with you? I mean that in a serious way.

Do you know why I said from an evolutionary perspective the woman is the employer? Because she gets cock thrown at her all the time. Men don't get pussy thrown at the same way- if you ever listen to a comedian you would understand that.

That doesn't men are not choosy when it comes to relationships (just like uh a person with a career), it just means it's different.

When a woman wants to "buy" a man, she'll make herself available. There is no weird power dynamic (whatever the fuck you mean).

"That doesn't men are not choosy

* mean

By the way Artemis do you always ask people to define things in literal terms?

Like when I say throw "it's like trowing a hot dog down the hallway", do you want me to explain in detail that I am not discussing a whole hot dog *bun, ketchup, mustard, pickles* but only the weenie part?

The most valuable relationship advice I've read in a while came from Cracked:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fanpage&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

Amy has consistently (and adamantly) said that a woman shouldn't ask a man out because:

. men don't respect women who ask them out (so therefore, the relationship will inevitably end), and

. if a woman asks a man out who hasn't asked her out she's asking out a weenie who she won't respect (so, therefore, the relationship will inevitably end)

The fact that relationships which begin with a woman asking a man out don't last means nothing by itself because relationships that begin with a man asking a woman out end all the time.

What I'd be interested to see is actual evidence that relationships which begin with a woman asking a man out are far more likely to end than relationships where a man asks a woman out. Yet, in the time (about two years) I've been on this forum, I've yet to see that.

@JD ...I've yet to see that

Full blown rebellion on Amy's plate?
Good.
:-)

Last summer, a guy contacted me online twice after two meetups, but never introduced himself at either one. Being an introvert among introverts, I know it's not easy to meet people, but if I can muster enough courage to do it, I expect a man to do it, too. I used to be involved with a man who didn't want to be alone, but didn't want to get too close because he'd been hurt before. I'll be damned if I get involved with another coward.

Art., I'm not sifting through that much text on the short ride from work to happy hour tacos.

I've skimmed Ppen's response and second it - power dynamics are not position-dependent (insert joke about being on top, or topping from the bottom).

Where I could have used more clrealy defined terms is back a few posts ago, on that terribly constructed word problem.

Lobster, if your brother is within driving distance of Philly and hasn't sworn off parenting, can you sway him into joining Match.com? My best friend is looking.

Ppen Says:

"Artemis you have now confirmed to me you must be zero fun at parties."

Good thing you and I probably run in very different circles. I do like how you approach this discussion by always starting out judging whether or not you would enjoy being around someone else in a social situation.

I've got some news for you... you aren't exactly my cup of tea either.

So now that we have that out of the way can we focus on the topic?

"You must sell yourself and get people to want to buy you. Whatever way you sell yourself. Once a person wants to buy you, then the "dance" begins.
That is how you negotiate a salary when you are in a career."

You must have spent most of your life working in jobs like retail and other low skilled jobs.

High quality employers sell themselves to prospective employees at least as much as the employees sell themselves to the employer.

This is why the way you are using this analogy is piss poor. It assumes everyone is either a crappy job or a low skilled worker.

You are making the assumption that the employee is always selling themselves to the employer while the employer doesn't do anything active to recruit.

In my experience, when you are highly qualified at what you do and hence very desirable to a prospective employer they will go out of their way to recruit you.

My most recent job transition involved being flown across the country all expenses paid at a moments notice for a special interview that started off with the company sitting me down to go over their total compensation package. They put me up in a lovely hotel, provided me with a nice rental car, and provided me with spending money to cover any expenses I might incur during my trip. Within a week they were sending me an official employment offer from the corporate office.

Your description of the dance beginning only AFTER you have sold yourself to the employer doesn't match up with the experience of highly qualified candidates.

If you have the credentials employers will track you down.

Maybe that is completely outside of your experience, but then your experience in incomplete.

This is why when you use the analogy the way you do it doesn't work.

Ppen Says:

"Do you know why I said from an evolutionary perspective the woman is the employer? Because she gets cock thrown at her all the time. Men don't get pussy thrown at the same way- if you ever listen to a comedian you would understand that."

Yes... that works for mcdonalds where unskilled labor is a dime a dozen.

Highly qualified workers get jobs thrown at them all the time.

This is why your perspective doesn't work. It assumes men are constantly on the search for a job and employers are constantly having to turn away crappy applicants.

That model only works for low quality jobs and unskilled labor.

As for the evolutionary argument, that also breaks down to a large extent given the context of the letter writer.

My suspicion is that you don't know why and aren't curious why either.

If you are interested in actually engaging in a discussion about this I'd be happy to explain, otherwise I won't waste my time.

"I do like how you approach this discussion by always starting out judging whether or not you would enjoy being around someone else in a social situation."

But uh...this is a column written about social interactions. Why wouldn't I judge you based on how utterly annoying you are?

"You must have spent most of your life working in jobs like retail and other low skilled jobs."

Actually, I'm a woman, and I've worked with nothing but dudes in jobs that require 10+ years of apprenticeship (a pretty much dead tradition). But good to know you're as judgmental as I am even if you whine about how I keep making assumptions.

"This is why the way you are using this analogy is piss poor. It assumes everyone is either a crappy job or a low skilled worker."

First you say my analogy does not work because in every employer/employee relationship there is a weird power balance where the employer has the upper hand. Now you are saying it does not work because there is NO power balance? Which is it? Make up your mind. I'd hate you either way but still.

"My most recent job transition involved being flown across the country all expenses paid at a moments notice"

Ya know Artemis, I act as an “agent” for a guy who had the same scenario. I negotiated his rate. He’s never written a resume in his life, hell he didn’t even graduate elementary school. Now that guy, that guy impresses me. You? You seem like you spent too much time in school. Ya know those people that spend too much in school, think too highly of themselves and are too analytic about every little detail, annoy the shit out of everyone? You seem like the type. Perhaps I’m biased as I've spent the whole day with a woman like that.

“Your description of the dance beginning only AFTER you have sold yourself to the employer doesn't match up with the experience of highly qualified candidates.”

It’s because you have already “sold” yourself, “branded” yourself in a sense. I manage a biz where we do not advertise, we do not sell to the public, we do not have a google presence. But we have “sold” ourselves already.

Selling yourself does not mean advertising yourself. It does not mean whoring yourself out. Why is this so complicated? Why do you take things so literally?

It means you are something and people know it and they are attracted to it. You have proven yourself in their minds (not your own).

Look the reason I say women are the employer is because they search for the best candidate and throw their pussies at that candidate.

Men are always submitting their applications (cock) regardless of whether they are qualified for the career.

Let's put it this way. As in jobs, as in life the best person isn't always the one to make the cut. It's the one that has proven themselves.

So basically the column is about a girl who offered a guy a huge salary, with all benefits including 4 weeks paid vacation. And the guy couldn't even submit his resume.

"It's the one that has proven themselves."

I meant to write “It's the ones that have proven themselves to others.”

I need to edit better. Geez.

"Highly qualified workers get jobs thrown at them all the time."

High quality workers (employees) = George Clooney type guys

Jobs (employers)= Pussy

George clooney type guys (employees) get pussy (jobs) thrown at them all the time.

My analogy still works! Yay!

(And admit it, you're the one that said the employer/employee analogy doesn't work because it implies the employer has the uppher hand. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SAID IT! NOT ME!)

Ppen,

I'm honestly not interested in getting into a pissing contest with you or even having a contentious discussion, I'm only interested in the facts.

The employer/employee analogy is what would be classified as a weak analogy or what is sometimes called a false analogy.

Of course there will be some overlap, what is under discussion is the degree of overlap.

One could also make an analogy to dating that involves prostitution (i've seen that before as well)... that is ALSO a weak analogy, but the proponents of it always point out small and non-universal areas where the analogy seems to work.

So ok, let's talk about "George Clooney" type guys for a second.

Theses are the guys who are the prime catches, the top of the ladder when it comes to women being interested.

As has already been established, women tend to look for provider types in long term relationships.

So who exactly are the prime candidates for provider types amongst young adults (remember, the letter writer is talking about college age people)?

Well it would be college men.

Let's run down a few more facts here:

1 - Amongst young adults, about 1 out of 5 men are unemployed.

2 - On college campuses women outnumber men by a factor of 3 to 2.

3 - Women tend to be attracted to men who have attained equal or greater educational status.

What does this imply?... It implies that college men are in short supply and high demand. That is the guy we are talking about with respect to the original letter.

Clinging to the fantasy that young college men are somehow on the end of needing to pitch themselves constantly to prospective women doesn't apply in a situation where the women outnumber the desirable men by such a large figure.

Just to put this into perspective using your employment analogy. Ever if ever one of those men got involved with a college women... 1 out of 3 women on campus would still be single and dateless.

This notion that women are choosey and men take whatever comes their way only works in situations where all other factors are roughly the same.

College men who are interested in long term relationships should be expected to be extremely choosey under these conditions and women would be expected to have to be very competitive over the shortage of "good provider" men.

That is what evolution considerations would predict.

This is why when NicoleK said this:

"If dating is your endgame, then by all means choose the ballsy ones.

If you're looking for a good husband, I'd say usefulness in society is a better indicator than smooth dating skills."

She was hitting on a very important topic here.

Young women who are looking for good husband material can't play by the same set of rules that you and Amy are suggesting. Those rules apply to the 1970's and 1980's when the ratio of men to women on college campuses was roughly 1 to 1.

The ratio is not slowly approaching 1 to 2 in men's favor. Acting like these considerations do not have a significant effect on dating behavior of both men and women is foolish and ignorant.

It also has nothing to do with young men being "shy" or being "wimps". It has to do with the fact that due to the simply forces of supply and demand they are recognizing that they get to pick and choose too.

In essence, all young college men are essentially already at the top rungs of the social status ladder.

Amy said something very good with regard to this kind of situation before:

"You adapt to fit the world; you don't whine that the world won't work around you."

That is what is happening. The world for young college men isn't the same as it was in 1975 and whining about it won't change anything. Young college women need to adapt to this changing landscape... which means that adamantly refusing to approach men might be a poor strategy.

Young high school drop outs however still need to do all of the pursuing precisely because they are not of high long term relationship value.

It is a brave new world out there for young college women, it is time to recognize this and adapt accordingly.

Artemis,

Amy does not give advice on how sex/dating *should* work. Your statistics wont change the fact that at our core there are things about human nature that can not be changed, that can not be made logical.

Frankly I too find all the evolutionary throwbacks of our ancestors annoying. (Personally I'd rather be a lesbian and just be done with these bullshit courtship rituals ---but the idea of eating pussy grosses me the fuck out ).

I notice if there are *top candidates* women prefer to go to them even if it means they will have to share the male. We are exactly like chimps.

I would love to ask a man out--except for the part where I would have zero attraction to him if I had to do that. It just feels "wrong". Like wearing cheap shoes, or NOT blowing a guy on the first date.

Guys! If you can't work up the courage to chat up a lady, you can always let this little guy do the talking.

The magic starts at about 2 minutes in:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/ventriloquist-subway-new-york-city-nigel-docta-gel-dunkley_n_4576697.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york

Now that I'm home, I can write this. This reminds me of the Hollywood Undead song that goes, "Girls keep breaking up with me, it's never any fun. They say they already have a pussy, they don't need another one."

I think it was Dwight Eisenhower who said, "Negotiation only comes from strength. Weakness has to beg."

Ppen Says:

"Amy does not give advice on how sex/dating *should* work. Your statistics wont change the fact that at our core there are things about human nature that can not be changed, that can not be made logical."

Except the advice Amy is offering in this very specific situation actually goes against human nature within an environment where desirable men are scarce.

I'm not the one advocating for how things *should* be... I'm the one advocating for what the science actually tells us about human nature under different environmental conditions.

Needless to say, human mate selection is a bit more complicated and nuanced than is being recognized here.

Let me shed some light on this issue with actual science:

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/male-scarcity-is-differentially-related-to-male-marital-likelihood-across-the-life-course/

Feel free to read the whole article if you like, but I'll quote a few of the important bits:

"When men are scarce in a female biased population, there is less incentive for competition among men for relationship commitment and paternal investment because male scarcity enhances their short term mating success. Females have less selective power and may exhibit lower thresholds for male commitment in order to have
sexual relations."

Just soak that in for a moment. Within a population (which doesn't mean the population across the entire planet when we are talking about evolution, just like you can talk about a population of ducks at the local pond and not be talking about all ducks on earth), if men are scarce, women have LESS selective power.

You and Amy are applying the general case about human mating strategies where women by and large are choosier and incorrectly applying it to a situation where men are scarce (i.e. on college campuses).

In that kind of environment we should expect men to be especially picky and women to alter their dating behaviors.

This is actually the reason we see things like hook up culture on college campuses, it is because the men are scarce and the women are actively competing for their sexual attention.

Arguing that men should be aggressive pursuers in such an environment or they are "wimps" doesn't actually capture what is going on.

The men on campus don't need to aggressively pursue because they are a relatively scarce commodity that the college women are competing over. Sure, those women could go for the high school drop outs and local department store clerks... but they want providers remember?

The high quality potential providers are not in high quantity in their surroundings.

Anyone who neglects the specifics of an environment when offering evolution based advice doesn't understand evolution very deeply.

I'm not talking about how things *should* be, I am talking about how things are.

I'm going to go ahead and call it. Ppen clearly wins.

Whistledick,

I'm glad that when I provide actual scientific evidence to back up what I'm saying it means I've "lost".

Good reasoning skills.

That being said, I'll ask you the following question.

From an evolutionary perspective, if there is a population where women outnumber men, would you expect mate selection and dating behaviors to adjust to meet this condition?

The science is very clear in this area and it doesn't favor what Ppen has been saying.

I think perhaps Artemis is being too pedantic in his interpretation of the analogy. The main point is that it's not enough in this world to possess sterling character. You need enough courage to show yourself to people, whether to a prospective employer or prospective mate. I won't be able to tell how charming or accomplished you are if you hide your light under a bushel.

The recent job transition Artemis referenced where he described being pursued still involved, in his own words, an INTERVIEW. He was offered the job, so the odds are he didn't blow the interview. My guess would be that if at the interview he had stared at the floor the whole time, muttered answers in a voice too low to be heard, and appeared wretchedly unsure of himself, he probably wouldn't have been offered the job. Unless the employer was desperate.

Lizzie,

It actually isn't that I'm being pedantic over the analogy. It is that some people are attempting to smuggle certain assumptions about gender roles in with the analogy that don't fit.

For example, the same people what are advocating that men are the prospective employee who needs to impress the employer (i.e. women) in order to get the job (i.e. the date) casually ignore that within the context of employer/employee relationships it is the employer who foots the bill within the relationship.

These same individuals would argue that men who pursue women have the obligation of footing the bill for the date, but that would make the men the employer.

The problem is that the roles of men and women in dating and the roles of employers and employees within getting a job have no consistent relationship (even from the perspective of the people promoting the analogy).

They like the analogy because it enables them to put forth a case that appears neutral in value, but it is actually completely and utterly incoherent.

That is what makes it a bad analogy.

In your opinion aren't there good analogies and bad analogies?... and if so, how do you go about judging how good or bad they are?

That people are clinging so much to a bad analogy seems rather odd to me.

This is especially true because in every case, be you a man or a woman you will tend to have more success in life if you are willing to put yourself out there. That isn't a fact in dispute.

What is in dispute here is how their notion of gender roles has no consistent relationship to their notion of employment roles.

If they were consistent they would advocate that women should pay for dates just like employers pay for employees... or conversely that employees should pay for the opportunity to work.

On the one hand the person doing the interview has to dress up nice and be prepared to hold up a good conversation, which is the gender role they assign to women and the prospective employer has to foot the bill for the interview process, which is the gender role they assign to men.

Yet on the other hand they claim it is the person doing the interview who needs to impress the employer in order to get offered the job, which is the gender role they assign to men and the prospective employer needs to sift through many applicants and then gets to choose who they like best, which is the gender role they assign to women.

That is why the analogy doesn't work. Because sometimes men are analogous to the employer and sometimes they are analogous to the employee depending upon which they like better for the present point.

Reasonable analogies don't need to be constantly fiddled with like that, and that has nothing to do with being "too pedantic" or overly critical.

The analogy sticks precisely because it is wishy-washy and ambiguous. They would be better off just abandoning the analogy and just sticking with talking about dating alone.

Mark my words: Women positively citing evolutionary psychology to defend their gender bias will absolutely hate it if men abandon notions of equality and start acting on our own evolutionary imperative.

If you want an idea of what male evolutionary imperative looks like, go to ReturnOfKings.com and start reading.

When I say that women are the employer it's because the form of payment is pussy (and I say this tongue in cheek).

A man paying for a date doesn't make them the employer because he is taking out actual physical money and actually paying for something.

I think this discussion is getting too pedantic. I am only using this analogy as to why men have to ask women out.

Even- if- according to your statistics there are less men in college than women, there isn't a crazy shift in gender ratios. This isn't post WW2 Europe. She shouldn't just be dating college guys anyways.

By the way Artemis re-reading your points it seems to me you have this weird bias against people who didn't go to college.

You even accused me of being a "retail worker or another lowly skilled job" because of my views.

I suspect the fact that you got an edumacation is a big part of you identity. Something you use to feel snobbishly superior.

That college educated women don't want men who didn't go to college because it must mean those men are:

"high school drop outs and local department store clerks.."

My guys here-who work with their hands-don't seem to have a problem getting women who went to college. They're very manly, ask women out, are good providers, bold.

I like them alot. The idea of needing a woman to ask them out-I think their heads would explode if they ever thought of such a thing.

"This is actually the reason we see things like hook up culture on college campuses, it is because the men are scarce and the women are actively competing for their sexual attention."

Ok ok I know I've been replying too much but I'm having so much fun. There is something really wrong with your interpretations of things you observe. Are you male or female btw? I suspect male but Artemis is a goddess.

"Hookup" culture in college doesn't happen because men are scarce. Why would you say that? Have you ever "hooked up"? Do you think it's only prevalent in college? Why-even when the ratio shifts-do women hook up?

It's really really simple.

It happens because both sexes are young, horny, and wanna fuck around.

"When I say that women are the employer it's because the form of payment is pussy (and I say this tongue in cheek)."

Posted by: Ppen at January 11, 2014 10:48 AM

If your dating tastes change, come on over - I think you'd play well on our team.

Amy: And furthermore, it isn't "gender bias" (what a crapload) to say that men should ask women out and not the other way around. It's generally what works best and sets up the best dynamic in the relationship...

Amy, as I wrote above...

What I'd be interested to see is actual evidence that relationships which begin with a woman asking a man out are far more likely to end than relationships where a man asks a woman out. Yet, in the time (about two years) I've been on this forum, I've yet to see that.

Ppen Says:

"By the way Artemis re-reading your points it seems to me you have this weird bias against people who didn't go to college."

Not really. What I have is a "weird bias" against people with poor reasoning skills. Technically even this isn't exactly correct because what I actually have is a bias against poor reasoning, I'll be nice and friendly to anyone who treats me nicely and friendly.

Please remember that you opened the door to all this when you started off being rude and obnoxious.

Remember back when you chose to take us down this path:

"What exactly is wrong with you? I mean that in a serious way."

I'm pretty sure I had been very polite and friendly with you before you started with this school yard mean girl stuff.

Here is a simple rule of social interactions to keep in mind, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I mean seriously, you are quite the sensitive special snowflake for taking such offense at my suggestion that you worked in retail after you went out of your way to suggest I was mentally ill.

I think you still have a bit of maturing to do if you expect to be rude to others while they continue treat you politely.

I'm still willing to converse in a polite manner by the way, but it will require you to play by those same rules.

That is a pretty standard expectation when adults engage in a conversation.

Look, I get it... you tried to be a bully and then got knocked in the teeth, no need to whine about it. Just dust yourself off and play nice, I promise to reciprocate.

Ppen Says:

"Even- if- according to your statistics there are less men in college than women, there isn't a crazy shift in gender ratios. This isn't post WW2 Europe. She shouldn't just be dating college guys anyways."

Um... these aren't "my statistics". This is a well established trend that has been in effect for over 10 years. Go see yourself it you don't believe it. If you aren't sure how to find it I'll even provide you with a link.

As for a "crazy shift in gender ratios", 3 women for every 2 men is a significant shift from the normal 1 to 1 ratio we have in the population at large. Just to put this into perspective for you, in order to generate such a ratio for the population at large, the new born boy infant mortality rate would have to be ~20%.

Would you really just brush off 1 out of 5 infant boys dying as an insignificant occurence?

I do find the last part of what you said regarding who young college women *should* be dating rather ironic considering you said the following:

"Amy does not give advice on how sex/dating *should* work.. Your statistics wont change the fact that at our core there are things about human nature that can not be changed, that can not be made logical."

Nothing you say about who young college women *should* or *shouldn't* be dating will change the fact that at our core there are things about human nature that cannot be changed, that cannot be made logical.

By and large college women aren't all that interested in dating people of lower educational attainment. I didn't make up the rules, this is just a well substantiated scientific observation.

Why is it when the science tells you something you don't like you suddenly abandon the science?

When you piece all of the relevant pieces of data together it strongly suggests that modern college campuses are composed of populations where desirable men are a scarce resource and as a result women don't get to be as choosey.

I'm sorry if you don't like that outcome, but that's just the way it is.

If women were by and large willing to date men of lower educational attainment this wouldn't be an issue, but that isn't how women evolved. They seek men of equivalent or better social standing, and unfortunately for your stance educational attainment is a critically important status symbol in our society.

I didn't make society this way, it's just what the science tells us.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention something important. You stated that a sex ratio of 3 women for every 2 men isn't a "crazy shift" and then said it wasn't like post WW2 Europe.

Well I hate to break it to you, but the sex ratio in post WW2 Europe for young men and women was about 3 women for every 2 men (i.e. the ratio is approximately the same as on college campuses)

Check it out for yourself on page 9 and 13 of this report:

http://econ.korea.ac.kr/~ri/WorkingPapers/W0730.pdf

I'll also quote this portion of the manuscript:

"An excess supply of women, for instance, increases the outside mating opportunities available to men and raises intra-female competition."

Ignore the evidence all you like, but for young college aged men the rules you would like to apply don't work because the environment is very unusual.

You can't simultaneously say that the gender ratio different after WW2 represented a "crazy shift" while the current gender ratio on college campuses isn't then they are this close to one another.

I'll let you chew on this for a while and look forward to seeing how you adjust your opinion based upon this new information.

You think....and let me get this straight I tried bullying you? I'm mocking you. I'm making fun of you and you don't even see the humor in my remarks.

You're not even polite, you're stiff, pedantic, trying to give an air of sophistcation that you lack. Why are you so overly literal and analytical? People keep telling you and you insist otherwise by trying give them long detailed outlines.

You can call me immature but that's like telling me my hair is too shiny, my teeth too white and my personality too radiant. (All true btw).

I didn't take an offense to being asked if I worked a "low skilled job". I was annoyed that you associate my world view and advice as something only retail people would experience. Those lowly plebs they don't get flown out to interviews like you do! In fact when using my analogy I couldn't have imagined such a scenario existed until you snobbishly spelt out your little story.

And you keep bringing up ratios on college campuses and that this is the type of guy women want to date because only college men can fit the role of provider. Neither Amy or I believe that.

I'm telling you that a college aged woman is like a big ol prime steak. She will never ever need to ask a man out. Once she becomes beef jerky like me then things get more difficult, and you gotta go on clearance, hand out coupons, put out pop out ads.

And look Michelle above told me I'd be more than welcomed on her team. I would have no problem asking women out, financially supporting them and having a young good looking broad as a stay at home wife. But I'm straight and the idea of doing it for a man, even an educated man with a ton of degrees is like asking me if I'd like to smell a construction porta potty instead of a bouquet of roses.

((((And bringing up the lesbian thing-there are still women in that group who expected to be asked out and dinner paid for by the date. I had two friends who were complaining about nobody asking them out and whining that if they were asked out who was gonna pay.. I told them... you pay and the look of disgust on their faces, I swear I was telling them they should go kill a puppy or something.))))

(((By the way every time I go out with them to lesbo clubs I get all the pussy thrown my way)))

Ppen Says:

"You think....and let me get this straight I tried bullying you? I'm mocking you. I'm making fun of you and you don't even see the humor in my remarks."

Yeah... that'll show me... you aren't resorting to playground bully tactics... you're just making fun of me lol

It is statements like this that convince me you are a low class idiot.

What do you think playground bullying tactics entail exactly if not making an attempt to mock someone?

Look, I don't care one way or another.

Just don't pitch a fit when I suggest you probably have worked in relatively unskilled jobs most of your life after you start the mud slinging.

It makes you sound a lot like the annoying little sister who continually pokes the hell out of her older sister only to run away crying when the older sibling swats them away.

"I was annoyed that you associate my world view and advice as something only retail people would experience."

Sorry, but your advice is more appropriate to people at the unskilled side of the labor market.

The more skilled the employee is the less and less your advice applies.

"Those lowly plebs they don't get flown out to interviews like you do!"

It seems to me that it isn't me who has a problem with people with less education but rather you are annoyed by the fact that people with much more education are treated very differently.

I'm sorry you feel that way but that is how the employment market works. Did you really think that someone who graduated from a top law school (note I am not talking about myself, this is an example) was going to have the same experience within the job market as someone with an associated degree from a community college?

I didn't realize this would come as a surprise to you because it seemed pretty obvious to me.

"And you keep bringing up ratios on college campuses and that this is the type of guy women want to date because only college men can fit the role of provider. Neither Amy or I believe that."

Luckily it doesn't matter what Amy or you believe to be true. What matters is the scientific evidence. The science is very clear, women tend to date and marry men who have equal or greater educational attainment. Just like women tend to date men who are taller than they are.

Your personal beliefs on this issue are inconsequential... but they are telling.

They are telling because it seems you are very quick to toss out evolutionary explanations when the conclusions agree with what you already believe and yet equally quick to reject evolutionary explanations when the conclusions fail to resonate with what you already believe.

What this tells me is that for you science is just a convenient justification for your opinions that is easily tossed aside when its conclusions make you uncomfortable.

Like I said... I don't have issues with people who are uneducated, I have an issue with people who apply poor reasoning.

"I'm telling you that a college aged woman is like a big ol prime steak. She will never ever need to ask a man out. Once she becomes beef jerky like me then things get more difficult, and you gotta go on clearance, hand out coupons, put out pop out ads."

Your failure to take gender ratios into account shows just how little you understand how evolution works.

Someone who actually understands evolution would ask the following question and understand the answer:

Under what set of conditions does it become adaptive for women to become more assertive in mate selection?

No evolutionary biologist or psychologist would offer the answer of "none". Especially in light of all the evidence that shows that women can and do become more assertive and less choosey in environments where there is a significant gender ratio imbalance.

So you a chick or a dude?

Ppen,

That depends, first I need to know which gender would strengthen my argument?

If the answer is neither then all you need to know for the purpose of this discussion is that I'm taken and that you should stay on topic.

"It seems to me that it isn't me who has a problem with people with less education but rather you are annoyed by the fact that people with much more education are treated very differently."

Uhh...when did I ever say that? Did anyone interpret that but you?

You keep interpreting things wrong-is that a common theme in your life?

When have I come off butt hurt on here? When did I poke you and "run away"? Why do you keep bring up school yard fights, colleges, bullying, mean girls club, little sisters?

Weird comparisons for a grown person.

Ppen,

You certainly seem butt hurt to me.

I mean, let's take a look at something here for a second:

"In fact when using my analogy I couldn't have imagined such a scenario existed until you snobbishly spelt out your little story."

So you put forth an analogy and I then offered you new information that you had never even thought of before and it "annoyed" you?

Who get's "annoyed" when someone tells them something they didn't know?

I understand how it can be annoying when someone explains something to you that you already understand... but how exactly is it annoying to have someone share an experience with you that you "couldn't have imaged"?

That seems like a bit of an over reaction don't you think?

Do you always get annoyed when you learn something new?

Can't answer a simple gender question huh?

".. but how exactly is it annoying to have someone share an experience with you that you "couldn't have imaged"?"

I was being sarcastic that I had never heard of a job offer like yours.

(I told you I act as an agent, negotiate the rate for a guy who had a similar experience.)

You seem to have a really hard time with analogies, metaphors and sarcasm. Are you autistic?

Ppen,

Look, I'll just save you some time here. I know why you are interested in my gender and it isn't for any reason that is useful to me.

You recognize that you've lost the arguments when it comes to science and evidence, so you want to adjust tactics and make things more personal... low class people resort to this kind of thing.

The problem for you is that the best psychologically manipulative tactics to use on a woman aren't the same as those to use on a man.

Hence you need to know my gender before you can figure what tools to use.

You simply don't know how to engage in that kind of manipulation with someone when you don't know what their gender is.

So stop wasting time with this nonsense.

That being said, I asked you a few questions first that you have neglected to answer. Maybe if you provide me satisfactory answers to my questions I'll consider answering yours.

As for analogies and other literary devices, I'm actually quite good at them, that is why I recognized your analogy as being really poor.

I to love how within your analogy the financial resources of the employer corresponds to "pussy" and not to the financial resources of the man.

You know, the sign of a really good analogy is when completely equivalent things somehow fail to correspond to one another (see... I can be sarcastic too).

Yup, you're definitely a dude.

But why pick the name of the goddess Diana? Ah you must have picked it from some sci-fi book where the character was male.

Ppen,

Out of curiosity, did you even bother to read any of the links I provided with actual information regarding the topic under discussion?

My guess is no which would be a pity because you could have learned something from those articles, I know that I certainly did. For example, I learned that the sex ratio in post WW2 Europe was close to 3 women for every 2 men and that this had dramatic effects on the mating strategies prevalent during that time period.

That was an interesting thing to learn and helped to solidify my position.

On the topic of evolution, I read an interesting book last summer:

Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live

http://www.amazon.com/Paleofantasy-Evolution-Really-Tells-about/dp/0393081370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389538272&sr=8-1&keywords=paleofantasy

About the author:

Marlene Zuk (born 20 May 1956) is an American evolutionary biologist and behavioral ecologist. She worked as professor of biology at the University of California, Riverside (UCR) until she transferred to the University of Minnesota in 2012. Her studies involve sexual selection and parasites.

Yes I skimmed them and was utterly confused as to why you looked up the actual ratio. I didn't want to explain why it was silly of you to do that.

Even when the ratio shifts to more women than men they still don't ask men out.

They might take a screwdriver, take out all the screws, remove their pussies, put it on a table in front of a man but they'll never directly say

"Will you go out with me?"

They've never done it in human history when men have been decimated by war so why would they now? And men have never expected women to directly ask them out.

Lizzie will be reading that book!

Hey Lizzie,

I'm going to take the opportunity to latch onto your more substantive topic because I'd like to make an effort to trend away from the toxic interaction Ppen and I have been having.

Anyway, I haven't read that book specifically, but based upon what it is saying in the review section I'd have to agree that it is dangerous to assume that the process of evolution has completely stagnated since the paleolithic era.

One of my favorite examples of evolution in modern humans is the development of lactose tolerance in adults. This is a trait that didn't really emerge until dairy farming became prevalent in Europe.

Ppen Says:

"Yes I skimmed them and was utterly confused as to why you looked up the actual ratio."

Why would you be confused by the fact that I went and checked a claim that you made?

Facts actually matter to me, so when you made an assertion I went to see if it was correct. It turned out you were wrong and the ratio roughly matched the ratio we currently see on college campuses.

""Will you go out with me?"

They've never done it in human history when men have been decimated by war so why would they now? And men have never expected women to directly ask them out."

Really???... not one woman in all of human history has ever initiated a date with a man?

Come on now, even you can't possibly believe this, your position is simply too strong to be defended.

Most dates aren't initiated by someone saying "will you go out with me?" anyway. They are initiated by invitations to activities (often times involving food).

It seems completely plausible that directly after WW2 many single women would have competed for the affections of the surviving young men by offering them a home cooked meal.

A single woman inviting over a single man for a home cooked meal would constitute a date if she had any romantic interest in him.

I think you are taking your position way too far and have dug yourself in way too much.

You are literally declaring knowledge of all of human history at this point when we already know in the modern age women have asked men out on dates before.

The self-proclaimed nice-guys and shy-guys like to point out how unfair women are to them. And yes, they are unfair, just like men are unfair to overweight girls. Attracion isn't designed to give everyone a fair shake. It's there to ensure the propagation of the species I think. And as Amy often points out, the last 50 years or so of the women's movement hasn't really changed our dating preferences, hardwired into us after millions of years of evolution.
But as another article called "10 reasons nice guys finish last" pointed out "If women only dated pretty boys with money, most women would be single." I've known plenty of shy guys who didn't cruise bars like sharks asking girl after girl for a date who eventually got a girl to date and marry. I've known plenty of overweight women in meaningful long term relationships. So I just don't buy that if a person's eternally single or mostly out of relationships rather than in them, the reason for this is the preferences of the opposited sex.
The unfairness is that some guys got to go into adulthood with huge, gaping holes in their hearts and others didn't. So that "what other people think of me" -esteem is them trying to fill this huge hole. And unfortunately, the dating world doesn't do a very good job of it. It's not the proper forum to rail at what an unfair world it it. They have to fix that mom-wound before they can ever get intimate with another women.

"Marlene Zuk [...] Her studies involve sexual selection and parasites."

Posted by: Lizzie at January 12, 2014 6:56 AM

That is a fascinating combination - thanks for the recommendation!

Ppen, in my relationship the gender roles played true to pattern as well. She asked me out and then years later said she doubted I would have asked her out. So I asked her out. At a bar. As if we had never met. Torture for an introvert who is overly earnest. And what do you say to impress someone who already knows your morning breath? But I understood and wanted her to have the peace of mind that comes from receiving that Grand Gesture. (P.S. She planned our first date and she nailed it, and I think the most expensive item of the evening was a cup of coffee.)

Dave - well said. Thank you.

You keep stating facts and interpreting them wrong.

Others agree with me and you keep insisting you are right by writing these long humorless comments.

You keep taking my words and taking them to extremes. I've never said a woman asking a man out has never happened in human history, I've never said being a good worker doesn't matter and I sure as hell have never said that an employer has all the power when negotiating a salary. There is implied knowledge between parties and you lack it. Other people get it except YOU. Other people tell you they understand what I mean except YOU.

The reason you bringing up the ratio of WW2 men is silly is because I was saying there isn't a crazy ratio shift in men because they are dead. If anything they are dead in their mouths.

It's like I need to put disclaimers for you when nobody else needs them. Do you not understand tounge in cheek? Mockery vs bullying (god please don't bust out the actual definitions and try to prove your pendantic points)

The column was about a 19 year old who asked Amy whether she should just directly ask the guy out. The answer is no. I don't care what the ratio of women to men is in college campuses. It doesn't matter.. Men who went to college are not the only worthwhile men to date.

The role of provider is not just shown by educational success but by being bold enough to utter the words "let's hang out"

That is why these shy guys get no pussy despite making money and having an education. Women will occasionally be with these guys and resent the shit out of them. I have seen it played out countless times by educated women who are desperate for a man. ( My best friend runs a college).

You don't even understand hookup culture in college and I suspect it's because you observe too much and experience very little in the way of social interactions. Your sarcasm is atrocious and you nit pick analogies trying to factually prove them. Even your comparisons of "mean girls" club, "little sisters", school yard bullying speaks volumes to me. You even think that those type of insults have any weight with a woman like me who has a career of working with nothing but "manly" men.

And you are accusing me of wanting to use gender to be psychologically manipulative. You're the one using gender stereotypes to hurl weak insults.

At least call me a bitch or a cunt.

I looked up your comment history and you have these type of arguments with everyone. That says a lot about you and the futility of arguing with you.

Ppen, after this week you are, truly, one of my favorite people in the "bitch" club. If there's ever a convention, I' hope to have the pleasure of meeting you.

Tonight the library was selling children's books, and I thought of this thread as I read "Pierre in Love," which covers the basics of wooing a woman.

Pierre is some sort of varmint, and a fisherman by trade. He falls in love with a rabbit named Catherine, an elegant ballet teacher, "How elegant she was! How clean! How ... Unlike himself."

He anonymously leaves gifts to woo her, and in an unexpected moment blurts out his undying love. But she cannot love him, because she is in love with someone else, "an adventurer, bold and brave."

"He went back to his cottage and wept like a broken wave."

At this point, I'm tearing up, I have to blow my nose, and there's no hand sanitizer in the library.

But for the first time in months, Pierre can sleep, and eat. He realizes that "it wasn't being in love that made him so miserable ... It was keeping it a secret." (Come out, come out, whomever you are.)

And the book just keeps getting better. It has a happy ending, which I won't ruin for you.

Ppen Says:

"You keep stating facts and interpreting them wrong."

Actually no. I've directly quoted the sources, I haven't don't any "interpretation".

The science is very clear on this issue. When the the operational sex ratio (ORS) is biased toward one gender over the other we see significant changes in mate selection and courtship behavior.

This is across multiple species including human beings.

This is very well established science.

That you don't like the conclusions scientists have come to in this area doesn't mean I've misinterpreted anything.

You need to educate yourself on this subject more before having such a strong opinion. You keep talking out of your ass on this subject and you keep being wrong.

Neglecting to take the ORS into account when evaluating courtship dynamics will lead you to bad conclusions.

Now for this part:

"I've never said a woman asking a man out has never happened in human history"

This is a direct quote from you:

"They've never done it in human history when men have been decimated by war so why would they now?"

So exactly what did I misinterpret here Ppen?

You claimed that women have never asked men out on a date in human history even after the population of available men has been reduced to a fraction of the equilibrium value.

I then state that this is a ridiculous contention because we already know that women have asked men out under less extreme conditions.

You haven't been misinterpreted. You just say extreme and indefensible things, then when I call you out on it you deny having ever said it in the first place.

I read and understand what you say just fine... you just seem to have a very crappy memory.

This part is important to address:

"The column was about a 19 year old who asked Amy whether she should just directly ask the guy out. The answer is no. I don't care what the ratio of women to men is in college campuses. It doesn't matter.. Men who went to college are not the only worthwhile men to date."

It is this position where you have gone completely off the rails and abandoned reason and science.

To say that the ratio of men to women in a particular environment has no effect upon courtship behavior is just plain wrong.

None of the science supports your position.

Let me spell it out for you. The less common desirable men are, the less they need to actively pursue women in order to have them still be sexually available.

This is why the number of out of wedlock childbirths spiked after WW2. The scarcity of men allowed them to have lots of commitment free sex... and this was back in the 1940's.

You are clinging to your view of how you think the world *should* be as opposed to how the world actually is.

When desirable men are scarce, they get much pickier and don't have to commit to have all the sex they want. At the same time women become less picky and become more sexually aggressive.

What you fail to understand is that the general case you are clinging to only works when the operational sex ratio is close to 1 to 1. Outside of this condition things change.

I'll even provide you with some reading material here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_sex_ratio

The article is referenced with scientific articles that you should read to get the best understanding of the subject.

Here is a direct quote though:

"As the OSR becomes more biased, the sex that is in excess will tend to undergo more competition for mates and therefore undergo strong sexual selection.[4][8][18] Intensity of competition is also a factor that can be predicted by OSR.[2] According to sexual selection theory, whichever sex is more abundant is expected to compete more strongly and the sex that is less abundant is expected to be "choosier" in who they decide to mate with. It would be expected that when an OSR is more biased to one sex than the other, that one would observe more interaction and competition from the sex that is more available to mate. When the population is more female biased, more female-female competition is observed and the opposite is seen for a male population where a male biased would cause more male-male interaction and competitiveness. Though both sexes may be competing for mates, it is important to remember that the biased OSR predicts which sex is the predominant competitor (the sex that exhibits the most competition)."

Everything said there directly supports the arguments I've been making all along and is further corroborated with the scientific articles I've linked you to.

That women outnumber men on college campuses by a factor of 3 to 2 and that women with college education are generally uninterested in dating men without a college education means that college men get to be much choosier and college woman have to be much more sexually aggressive in order to get their attention. That might even mean pursuing them on occasion.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but that is just the way it is.

Artemis, you might want to brush up on evolutionary theory. It takes a while for selection pressures to act. Besides resistance to specific diseases, I can think of two significant traits that that have arisen in all of recorded history: the abilities to digest large quantities of grains, and to digest milk as adults. Arguably, the former was necessary for civilization to occur, and the latter was instrumental in the formation of Indo-European civilizations, so maybe they don't count. At any rate, we're talking over 5000 years, and if the traits were universal, vegans and paleos wouldn't be waging dietary wars.

In my generation, men outnumbered women in college. That was the 80's. Humanity has not changed since then.

The fact is the manifestations of evolutionary pressures on societies are neither obvious, nor germane. In our society, men ask women out. It is the expectation of both genders, at least when straight. You can argue all you want, but it is pretty obvious that if a guy wants to date women, he has to ask them. Yeah, it's hard, but so is never having a date. (And, I imagine, waiting for a guy you like to ask you out.)

I am an introvert. And I was once shy. (They are not the same thing. One is a predilection, and the other is a lack of confidence; some women find a bookish,quiet guy sexy, no women find a man without confidence sexy.) When I met my wife, I was still shy, but I realized not asking her to dance was worse than asking her to dance. Just do it.

Wow Michelle I will look this book up in my library. Too bad they don't have a kindle copy.

I love cute books like that.

Thanks for the compliments I love your comments too.

I think it's funny that gender roles still play out in gay relationships.

Like I said I would have no problem supporting financially or asking women out. But doing it for a man? Hell naw.

And Artemis when I say in all of human history women have never asked men out I do not mean it LITERALLY. It's not backtracking. Again there is implied knowledge between parties when you say statements like that and I think no one on this website thinks I LITERALLY meant that.

Just like when I say I want to fuck every guy on earth that looks like Lenny Kravitz I don't literally mean it. I mean I'll try but there are too many even for me.

As for educated women wanting educated men. They are not going to lower their standards for a guy with a bunch of degrees because of some ratio. They'll just compete for the guys that do ask women out and ignore the ones that don't. Sometimes women even prefer sharing men than lowering their standards. Just like chimps.

After WW2 women had more social freedom to fuck around. Which is the situation now too. And even in hooking up, which I've done a lot of, men still ask the women.

I've seen women throw themselves at my male friends when they were young and they were too inexperienced to know what was going on. They would say things like "stop by my job, house etc." and they would stop by and uh...do nothing. So the women gave up, stopped inviting them and now looking back they call themselves morons. That is NOT asking a man out btw it's implying. God please don't make me explain why.

"Nice guys" need to stop thinking being nice is enough. If all you have to say about yourself is "I'm nice," then you don't have much to offer. There are tons of nice guys in the world.

Women have to be more than just pretty, too. It helps, but if she doesn't know how to respond to men, she's going home alone every night no matter how pretty she is.

A new car and a new pair of glasses. Women told me I was now somehow 'different', more cool. Women are just as superficial as men. Take what you can get while you can get it.

You seem to have a really hard time with analogies, metaphors and sarcasm. Are you autistic?

Posted by: Ppen at January 12, 2014 4:53 AM

In my opinion, yes, We have been through this grind on several other threads.

"Yes, we are continuing to evolve but complex cognitive adaptations take a vastly long time to change and the 50 years post women's moment is just a tiny fleck of time."
Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 13, 2014 5:29 AM

And it has only been slightly longer than fifty years, and only in western Europe and America that men have been expected to approach women they barely knew, and chat them up, in order to find "a date"

Prior to that time, in about 99 percent of the world you met women through your extended family, or social circles, and it was considered rude and ill mannered to approach a woman you had not been properly introduced to.

SlowMindThinking Says:

"Artemis, you might want to brush up on evolutionary theory. It takes a while for selection pressures to act."

I'm well aware of the time scales upon which evolution occurs. However, just to be clear, it is a complex function that depends not only upon time, but also upon the strength of the selection pressure.

If the selection pressure is weak then evolution occurs at a relatively slow pace. If the selection pressure is strong then the evolution occurs as a relatively quick pace. I use the term "relatively" here because it is a comparison, not an absolute.

In any case, the sexual selection response due to changes in the operational sex ratio is not in any way a new or recent adaptation.

This adaptation exists across multiple species from guppies, to insects, to human beings.

This implies the adaptation is VERY ancient. It didn't have to evolve over the past 50 years. This adaptation has been in existence as long as humans have walked the earth.

"In my generation, men outnumbered women in college. That was the 80's. Humanity has not changed since then."

Yes... and then men outnumbered women on college campuses the women were able to be *more* picky than usual.

That is how the operational sex ratio works.

When men outnumber women, the women become more selective and the men compete more.

When women outnumber men, the men become more selective and the women compete more.

This adaptation didn't have to evolve since you were in college... it's been there for millions of years.

I've already presented some scientific papers on this subject. The scientists who study evolution aren't ignorant of how evolution functions.

The science is VERY clear. When the OSR is far from 1 to 1 the mating strategies of males and females change.

There is a real resistance here to science it seems when the science doesn't seem to jive with the dating philosophy promoted here.

Here is some actual science to help:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534709001128

The article is called "Bateman's principle and human sex roles"

Here is some of the relevant text:

"In summary, current sexual selection theory indicates that variables such as choosiness and competitiveness are influenced by multiple factors and provides little support for the view that a single sex-role stereotype will apply universally to all human populations."

"(ii) males will be choosy in populations with a female-biased OSR, considerable paternal investment, and/or considerable variation in female quality"

Like I said... none of what I am saying is controversial within the field of evolutionary psychology.

When it comes to things like choosiness, pursuit, gender roles, courtship, etc... more than just eggs and sperm come into the equation.

The operational sex ration is also an important factor that people here are extremely resistant to taking into account.

This isn't my opinion on the subject. This is what the science tells us.

Ppen Says:

"And Artemis when I say in all of human history women have never asked men out I do not mean it LITERALLY."

Oh... I get it. You say that woman have never asked men out in all of human history.

I then say that your position is far too extreme to be taken seriously.

You then say that you never said it.

I then show you where you said it and you claim that it wasn't serious.

Stop being a weasel.

If you weren't being serious, then you could have just agreed with me that the position was intentionally extreme and not meant to be taken verbatim.

Instead you said this:

"You keep taking my words and taking them to extremes. I've never said a woman asking a man out has never happened in human history"

I didn't take your words to extremes... you just keep saying extreme things and then acting as if I put those extreme positions in your mouth.

Ppen Says:

"As for educated women wanting educated men. They are not going to lower their standards for a guy with a bunch of degrees because of some ratio."

The science says otherwise.

This is just the way women evolved. Accept the reality and move on.

"I then say that your position is far too extreme to be taken seriously."

Sooo close you almost got the joke.

Let me explain:

It's supposed to sound too extreme. Dude no one takes it LITERALLY, that's why I'm telling you I never said it.

I know what I wrote word for word but that wasn't its actual meaning. The flavorful hints behind it is what I'm really saying.

Everyone gets what I'm saying except you. Don't you think it's odd?

And I'm with Isab you sound like you have autism.

Bro ain't nothing wrong with that.

Ppen,

I've really tried to be nice here with you, but I'm just going to give it to you straight.

You are either a moron or a horrible person.

Here is why. On the internet the normal social ques that indicate sarcasm within a conversation are largely absent.

This is why people coined Poe's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of extremism or fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

However, saying that a woman has never asked a man out in human history simply isn't blatant enough (or humerous enough) to distinguish you from someone who authentically held such extreme views.

If it was your attempt at humor, and your humor was so amazing... you need to then explain why no one laughed or informed you how funny your joke was (here is a clue... you aren't a funny person, humor is a refined skill that you haven't quite mastered yet).

That you don't comprehend that internet interactions with people you do not know are significantly different from face to face conversations suggests you are monumentally stupid.

Now for the potential that you are a horrible person.

Let's say for one second that I actually believed that you thought I suffered from autism (by the way, I don't actually believe this).

This would mean that you have spent days on the internet mocking a person with a mental handicap.

That would make you a truly horrible individual.

So there you have it, take your pick Ppen... you can be a complete and utter idiot, or an asshole.

Like I said before, you are a pretty low class individual who has probably lived her whole life surrounded by people who don't particularly value science or education.

But don't worry, I understand you psychology now.

If you say something here in conversation that turns out to be correct then you meant it and were completely serious.

By contrast, if you say something here in conversation that turns out to be wrong then it was a joke.

That is the psychology of a weasel.

Here's an analogy that might be apropos:

Reading Artemis' posts is like reading the posts of a horse's ass.

Now we get to watch him post links to studies about how a horse's ass doesn't actually have digits and, therefore, cannot type comments on a blog. Perhaps he'll say that my statement is really more of a simile and will cite English journals on the subject.

All the while, everybody on here will know EXACTLY what I mean by the above statement and there really isn't any need to parse it any further for the sentiment to be fully understood.

WhistleDick,

What you don't seem to get is that I actually don't care if you call me a horse's ass or a jerk or some other comment intended to insult that is clearly a subjective opinion. You are entitled to your own opinion, what you aren't entitled to is your own facts.

I only argue against objective factual claims that are false.

That being said I'll point out that neither you, nor anyone else has substantively addressed my point about the OSR being neglected.

Calling me a horse's ass or a jerk or any other name you can come up with doesn't alter the scientific reality that mating strategies dynamically shift as a function of the operational sex ratio.

You simply cannot insult or wish away science.

I get it though, I've challenged your preconceived notions of how the world works and hence you feel the need to attack me as a person instead of attacking the arguments themselves.

This is a completely natural response. I'd expect the same from young earth creationist if I presented them with evidence of the earth being billions of years old.

They don't seem to like facts and evidence either.

Artemis,

The trouble is that you're having a separate argument from anybody else. Your facts are completely correct, yet they don't have anything to do with the premise of "should a woman ask a man out?".

Of course women will have to adapt more aggressive courting strategies if there is a shortage of desirable men. It doesn't necessarily follow that they must ask men out. They might more aggressively flirt, make themselves more available, buy a wonder-bra, etc. But that has nothing to do with the argument about whether or not a woman should ask a man out. For example, my now ex-wife absolutely threw herself at me many years ago. But, she didn't ask me out. That was my job in her view and, given such obvious signals, if I hadn't, that would've indicated either that I wasn't interested or was a pussy. That's all that's being said here. There aren't really any scientific studies necessary. Certainly not any scientific studies that have nothing at all to do with that simple premise.

Of course your facts and scientific studies are correct and thoroughly researched that after WWII, a surviving man in our society had a much better crack at the many single women around. Does it follow that all he had to do was stay at home listening to the radio while pussy simply hurled itself, suction-cup-like, on the windows of his apartment? Even in this wild scenario, he'd have to throw open the drapes to get some idea about just what was making those "thud" sounds and leaving slug trails on the glass.

In the entire History of the world, in any environment, in any controlled experiment, and in every conceivable case, a man still has to ask a woman out. Everyone else here will instantly get the real communicated meaning of this over-reaching statement. Sadly, you won't.

whistleDick I need to type this so Artemis knows that your comment is hilarious:

hahhahahahahaha.

(Now Artemis you can't dispute humor because you insists someone must comment on it)

whistleDick,

Thank you for choosing to engage with me substantively on this subject. That is really the only way to make progress within a discussion like this.

"Your facts are completely correct, yet they don't have anything to do with the premise of "should a woman ask a man out?"."

They are actually quite relevant in this area for the following reasons:

1 - The activity of asking someone out for a date is quite specific and not actually anything human beings specifically evolved to do. Other primates don't go around having dates. Furthermore, the modern notion of dating is only a few decades old which we have already established is not enough time to have developed specific adaptations for. When people here make the claim that women have evolved not to pursue (i.e. not to ask men out on dates) the claim involves courtship behavior which is a MUCH more general category.

2 - It has been very well established within the scientific literature across many different species (i.e. this is a general trait of sexually reproducing species) that when the OSR is heavily biased the resulting courtship behaviors change significantly.

Taken together this implies that we should expect within human populations that have a skewed OSR we should expect significant changes in courtship behavior.

In particular, when there is a population with an excess of women, the men will become more choosey, the women will become less choosey, the men will engage in less aggressive pursuit than normal, and the women will engage in more aggressive pursuit than normal.

As for the specific notion of asking out, Ppen has already stated that if a woman invited a man over to her apartment to watch a movie or for dinner that it wouldn't constitute a date.

That seems like a rather bizarre statement and I don't think it is accurate. To me that would be the woman initiating a date... even if by some act of elaborate verbal engineering someone managed to define a date in such a way as to exclude this type of behavior which was obviously initiated by the woman.

"That was my job in her view and, given such obvious signals, if I hadn't, that would've indicated either that I wasn't interested or was a pussy. That's all that's being said here."

That is what is being said here, and it is not an accurate description for what is going on.

Allow me to make my point by going to the most extreme situation possible with respect to the OSR.

Imagine yourself for a moment as the very last man on earth. All other men had been eradicated by some form of horrible disease and you were the only guy left.

Do you honestly think for one second that you would have to ask anyone out on a date in order to have access to all the sex you wanted whenever you wanted?

You simply wouldn't have to ask anyone out on a date... and it wouldn't be because you were a pussy, or a wimp, or because you were uninterested in sex.

That you wouldn't have to ask anyone out at all is simply a manifestation of that fact that within such an extreme scenario you are under no obligation to impress any of the women around you... you're the only game in town at that point.

Under such an extreme situation they would be competing for your attention.

Now obviously on college campuses things are not nearly that extreme, however the point is that applying normal expectations for male or female sexual selection behavior in an environment where women outnumber men by a margin of 3 to 2 is just plain wrong.

"Of course your facts and scientific studies are correct and thoroughly researched that after WWII, a surviving man in our society had a much better crack at the many single women around. Does it follow that all he had to do was stay at home listening to the radio while pussy simply hurled itself, suction-cup-like, on the windows of his apartment?"

Of course it doesn't follow.

However, it also doesn't follow that the young women of the era would have been well advised to avoid inviting the surviving young men over for dinner (i.e. a date).

There is a very large middle ground here to cover. I'm actually the one trying to be reasonable here and suggest that such a behavior would be prudent and reasonable given that specific situation.

"In the entire History of the world, in any environment, in any controlled experiment, and in every conceivable case, a man still has to ask a woman out."

Except that the human species survived for tens of thousands of years before the practice of "dating" was developed.

Let me cut you and others off at the pass though before you point out that the men of those times still pursued the women... just in a different way.

I agree. However, as we know from the research dealing with the OSR, it is the activity of pursuit that is modulated up or down by sex ratio.

Since it has been observed that when the OSR is weighted toward a heavily female population the women actively pursue more often than usual and the men become more choosey than usual... it stands to reason that when the OSR is weighted toward a heavily female population, women will be more likely to ask men out on dates, and men will be more selective in who they are interested in dating.

The thing you must keep in mind is that initiating a date is simply a manifestation of active pursuit. We already know that active pursuit is significantly influenced by the OSR, hence it follows so should date initiation.

This is simply a natural consequence of evolutionary forces at play when a certain set of environmental preconditions are met.

Ppen,

Yes yes... I'm quite certain it would kill as a stand up routine.

Can you see my eyes rolling?

You know what though. Since you seem to think that comment is so obviously hilarious, I suggest you print it out and read it at an open mic night at your local comedy club.

I think the dead silence in the audience will help to recalibrate your sense of humor.

Okay Artemis. You stay at home jerking off and when I see a woman that is attractive, I'll ask her out. I'll let you know how the science breaks down. Here's a hint of how I expect the results of our very scientific experiment to pan out: my penis is inserted into the vagina.

Plus, you might not do as well as you'd imagine in your "last man on Earth" scenario. :)

whistleDick,

I don't think you get it. The OSR is environment dependent.

Most environments that exist right now do do not have a ratio of 3 women for every 2 men.

Most are closer to 1 to 1... which for a sexually reproducing species is the equivalent of it being biased in favor of women.

This means that you should expect to have to do the pursuing.

I think the problem with having this sort of discussion is that you and others seem to think all evolutionary rules are in some way universal as opposed to conditional.

This is a conditional situation. If the specific set of conditions does not apply men should expect to have to do the active pursuing.

I do get it. You're imposing unrealistic and very specific conditions to create a hypothetical in which a woman would have to come groveling to a man for sex. You're right. It's an imaginable situation. However, the letter writer was not asking about some alternate universe. I don't believe a 3-1 ratio in a college environment would do that either.

WhistleDick,

You are setting up a strawman argument here.

I've never suggested that given the current gender ratio on college campus women should grovel to any man for their attention.

What I am saying is that the advice given to a college woman should in some way be substantively different than the advice given to a woman in any other situation with regard to dating.

The difference in this advice should reflect the fact that the OSR in her environment is out of wack and might require her to be more active in her pursuit of men she is interested in than would otherwise be the case.

But that is a more difficult argument to defeat than the groveling one you've concocted.

What would your advice be Artemis?

Why didn't you say that in the first place? I don't think anyone would have argued with that at all.

whistleDick,

I attempted on multiple occasions to engage in a real conversation on this subject where I could have clarified my position and eliminated confusion. I don't necessarily expect people to just understand what I am saying right off the bat (especially when the topic involves things like evolutionary biology)... sometimes it takes a few real exchanges to get to the heart of the matter.

It didn't exactly take you and I very long to achieve that goal. What was it, 2 or 3 comments?

On the other hand It is quite difficult to express oneself effectively when at every turn they are being accused of being mentally impaired.

Ppen,

If I were talking to a college aged girl interested in dating a college aged guy who didn't seem to be getting her signals I'd probably explain that unlike most other environments she is likely to encounter, the modern college campus is a bit out of the ordinary.

I'd explain how usually men are expected to put in a certain degree of active pursuit, but because on the modern college campus there is about 3 women for every man that degree of active pursuit is probably going to be reduced.

On the flip side, if she is really interested in that particular guy, she might have to ramp up her usual tactics to take into account that there is more competition from other women than usual.

The exact manifestation of this behavior I'm happy to leave up to debate, all I am saying is that based upon the OSR we should fully expect it to be more active than would be the case for a woman in her 40's where the OSR of her dating cohort is much closer to 1 to 1 which allows her to drive a harder bargain.

I simply don't think calling a college guy under these specific circumstances a wimp or a loser is particularly helpful or accurate. A guy in that situation is receiving a lot more female attention than usual which means that if you want him to pay attention to you, the signal to noise ratio has to be higher than usual.

Obviously I'm not a professional at giving advice in an entertaining way, but what I am saying is that there was probably a way to get these kinds of ideas across with wit and humor and I think taking the OSR into account here could have been helpful.

Quick correction, it should say:

"3 women for every 2 men"

Rather off topic, but....

There is no way I have time to read all the wordiness above. I barely have time to read the technical manuals and tax code changes that my job requires. My only comment (and I usually read MUCH more than I comment) is this:

Artemis says that his current employer offered him his job because of his excellent, highly honed skills. According to him, he's fantastic. I have no idea what he does for a living, but I do have to wonder how he has so much free time in the middle of the day to post his arcane, arrogant invectives.

I think maybe he owes his clueless employer a few hours.

I should have added: longwinded. Good lord, dude. Get a life. Or are you writing a thesis?

Laurie, I guess these folks are writing essays on how disappointed and enraged they are that women are not how they want them to be, but how they actually are.

I have problems with women, too, but I'm willing to learn things, if that's what it takes. My friend met his wife while he was learning ballroom dancing, for instance.

I'm even willing to milk a telephone pole while driving my pirate car to work, if that's what it takes to get a girlfriend.

Ppen Says:

"Amy does not give advice on how sex/dating *should* work. Your statistics wont change the fact that at our core there are things about human nature that can not be changed, that can not be made logical."

Except the advice Amy is offering in this very specific situation actually goes against human nature within an environment where desirable men are scarce.

I think my head just exploded.

Human sexual nature is not simply malleable to a given situation.

"Why, oh why, can't women act the way we want them to???"

Laurie Says:

"I do have to wonder how he has so much free time in the middle of the day"

Posted by: Artemis at January 15, 2014 2:31 AM

That isn't the middle of the day Laurie. I post almost exclusively during the very early morning hours.

But let's not let a little thing like facts get in the way of your made up nonsense.

mpetrie98 Says:

"Human sexual nature is not simply malleable to a given situation."

Actually many components of human behavior is malleable to the natural environment.

That is one of the most fundamental findings and predictions of evolutionary psychology.

I've presented the scientific evidence which establishes this result. I can't force you to pull your head out of the sand to read it.

mpetrie98,

I've actually done you a favor and found a link to some reading material for you to check out:

http://www.southalabama.edu/psychology/gordon/Baumeister%282000%29SexualOrientation_Female.pdf

The title of this paper is "Gender Differences in Erotic Plasticity: The Female Sex Drive as Socially Flexible and Responsive"

Whistledick is correct, as is PPen. They are arguing from reality as opposed from the whine, "Life should be fairrrrrr!" My advice comes out of reality. Sorry, wimps. You're going to have to grow a pair.

Marlene Zuk I respect on bugs. She’s way out of her league in the “Paleofantasy” realm. Google the numerous debunkings of this.

It's sad how desperate a few posters above are to have reality conform to their fantasy of how things "should" work. Why not just argue that women should fall through ball-less guys' ceilings and blow them?

Oh, and there's a confusion about somebody in a relationship having an "upper hand" and the notion that the dynamic works poorly when a woman drags a cowering loser off by the hair instead of expecting him to do something to be worthy.

The argument here by Artemis and others is one for the welfare of entitlement pussies and their not needing to change -- to man up, to develop self-respect.

Amy,

It is plainly obvious to me that you do not understand the nature of my argument.

It is ironic that you would state that "Whistledick is correct" and insinuate that I am wrong when Whictledick most recently said this to me:

"Why didn't you say that in the first place? I don't think anyone would have argued with that at all."

Apparently once they understood the nature of my argument they didn't find it very controversial.

And yet you and others push against it seemingly out of reflex instead of actually trying to understand what I have been trying to get across.

Your disagreement with my on this particular point puts you in square opposition to the science on this subject.

Amy,

I am getting the distinct impression that you are one of those people who uses scientific results as a support when those results are in line with your already existing philosophy, but rejects and dismisses credible science without consideration when those results would require an adjustment of your position.

I've already linked to ~5 different academic articles that support my point... I could link to 100's more.

My point is in no way controversial from a scientific perspective.

Your failure to take into account things like the OSR is a problem.

When you originally did it, I figured it was simply out of ignorance. That you continue to resist incorporating this information now that I've made it available to you is troubling.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but your aren't entitled to your own facts.

On this specific issue I'm the one trying to look at things realistically... you on the other hand are ignoring relevant scientific findings.

I'd also like to be very clear on one more thing:

"The argument here by Artemis and others is one for the welfare of entitlement pussies and their not needing to change -- to man up, to develop self-respect."

That is a strawman argument of your own design. This isn't an argument that I have been advocating or putting forth.

If you want to argue against my points you need to do so by first accurately characterizing my position instead of making one up.

Amy,

"Because there are more men than women doesn't mean it will suddenly work for women to throw themselves at them. It means women should do more to compete with other women."

This is where you have fundamentally mischaracterized my position. First off, you got the ratio backwards in your first sentence (but I'll assume this was a simple error on yout part).

Second... and I have been extremely clear on this point. I have never adcocated that women should "throw themselves" at men.

I pointed out this discrepancy to Whistledick just a little while ago when I said this:

"I've never suggested that given the current gender ratio on college campus women should grovel to any man for their attention.

What I am saying is that the advice given to a college woman should in some way be substantively different than the advice given to a woman in any other situation with regard to dating."

You and others keep tossing up this tired old strawman argument instead of addressing the substance of my argument.

That this keeps happening despite my constant clarifications suggests you aren't approaching this discussion fairly or rationally.

Artemis, your number of posts in this thread is an indication of a failure to communicate. I'm going to give you some advice. It is meant kindly, so please consider before responding.

I'd like to suggest that when you find yourself at loggerheads with a group, and you just can't seem to communicate, that you check to see if you are making assumptions that the others are not, and vice versa. Rather than adopting the tone that others are not erudite enough to follow your reasoning, realize that either you are not communicating well (by the definition of "communicate") or that you are wrong.

For example, it is not until your twelfth response that you make it clear you talking only about college campuses:
"...On college campuses women outnumber men by a factor of 3 to 2..." (The following discussion in that post makes it clear what you are talking about.) Given the length and number of your posts, I suspect the vast majority of posters missed that. If the Op and the ensuing discussion had explicitly assumed college campuses, we might have assumed that with you. (Note, while the Op references a thread about a classmate, the Op's question and Amy's answer are more general than that.)

Do not beat casually mentioned analogies into the ground. No analogy stands up to intense scrutiny - an analogy is not a model. You come across as pedantic, and few really listen to you. I know I no more than skimmed any of your posts until you misapplied OSR.

Even though I agree with you that women in most colleges today undergo more female-female competition for males than in previous decades, I will argue with you over the applicability of OSR to the college dating environment, and that women asking men out is a necessary conclusion even if it is applicable. I question using a theory that attempts to explain the evolutionary development of a species, and not the behavior of a subset of a species that is momentarily (for only 4 years) removed from an environment of equal numbers (High School) and re-injected back into an essentially 50/50 environment (society at large). I question using OSR for a situation unique in the history of our species: the male:female ratio of mating age has has been no lower than 1:1 throughout recorded history, and women rarely, if ever, have had the primary choice (in fact, the most common paradigm has been parents doing the choosing). I question the assumption that dating in college is aimed at finding a mate: more common reasons are just having fun, looking for companionship, and looking to get laid. (While I might have might my wife in college, I did not ask her to dance because I was looking for a mother for my children.) And, as I said earlier, I question that women responding to their unfavorable environment responding by dropping the expectation that men ask them out. All sorts of other behavior changes seem more likely: change in dress, flirtatiousness, poaching, chasteness, chastity, whatever it is that the lead males at their college appear to value.

But that's enough for now.

SlowMindThinking,

Thank you for your kind response. I do appreciate when people converse with me in a fair and reasonable manner.

I'd like to point out a few things that I would like for you to take into consideration.

The first is that I am very much interested in effectively communicating with others, however in this specific case I feel it is incorrect to place all or even most of the blame at my feet.

Specifically, when I entered into this conversation I started by asking questions so that I could get onto the same page as everyone else and understand where everyone was coming from. Put simply, I desired to clarify things.

Asking questions for clarification was not met with kindness or answers but rather the following accusation (by Amy herself in this case):

"Artemis, this isn't an interrogation; it's a comments section."

So I couldn't ask questions because even asking 2 (that is all I asked of Amy) was distorted into some sort of "interrogation" as opposed to an attempt to get on the same page.

Great... so now questions were off the table at which point I tried to discuss things without questions and simply make my points.

Well that didn't work out so well either because Ppen decided to turn the conversation into some juvenile game of insults as evidenced by her comment:

"I'm mocking you. I'm making fun of you and you don't even see the humor in my remarks."

Great... so I can't ask clarifying questions, and when I attempt to open a dialogue with my own points and evidence, instead of addressing those points, the whole conversation is turned into a session of "mocking".

I have been fighting an up hill battle here the whole time to even have a fair, open, and reasonable discussion with several of the people here (including Amy).

Just recently Amy has still failed to get the core of my argument straight and I don't believe it is because she honestly gave anything I said a fair shake.

That would be fine... but not to come out and say that I am "wrong" or that I "don't get it" when she hasn't the foggiest idea what my perspective happens to be.

Needless to say, in this specific case I feel the communication failure occurred as a result of the fact that my points called some of what Amy had to say into question rather than the actual substance of my argument.

Even now Amy tells you that you got it "exactly" and has failed to even recognize that she misrepresented my position completely.

If she had been interested in open and honest dialogue she would have acknowledged that she got my argument wrong and that there might be more to what I have been saying than she previously thought.

If I am wrong on this point, could you please point me to a post she has made that would be considered to be one of "good faith" in response to me?

All of her comments are either snide, insulting, or passive aggressive. Certainly not conducive to a productive conversation.

Now for your points with regard to the OSR:

"Even though I agree with you that women in most colleges today undergo more female-female competition for males than in previous decades, I will argue with you over the applicability of OSR to the college dating environment, and that women asking men out is a necessary conclusion even if it is applicable."

You wouldn't have to argue with me on this point.

My point was and remains that the advice given to this particular college aged woman was in no way distinct from the advice Amy offers to any woman.

The advice was utterly generic and failed to take into account the specifics of that young woman's dating environment which might require her to increase her level of competition.

Please recall that the letter in question described the young lady as having played ping pong with the young man she was interested in as if this activity would somehow be indicative of interest in an environment where female ping pong partners are probably a dime a dozen.

None of that young ladies reported activities would necessarily distinguish her from the many other college women that man was interacting with. That is a problem if you want him to take notice (please note that this doesn't imply she should get down on her knees and beg for him to take her to a movie).

There is a wide gulf between being someones table tennis partner and begging them for a date... my point is that given her environment she might need to do something more substantial than playing ping pong or chatting with him in the hallway. That might be too low level for her specific situation.

"I question using OSR for a situation unique in the history of our species: the male:female ratio of mating age has has been no lower than 1:1 throughout recorded history, and women rarely, if ever, have had the primary choice (in fact, the most common paradigm has been parents doing the choosing)."

You are neglecting the obvious answer to your objection. Adaptations related to the OSR are not something unique to humans. They exist for all sexually reproducing species. It is an ancient and well conserved adaptation.

Also, I've already shown the data from post WW2 Europe within which the OSR became skewed and the data supports the existence of such adaptations within modern humans.

There isn't really anything particularly controversial about anything I've been saying.

"And, as I said earlier, I question that women responding to their unfavorable environment responding by dropping the expectation that men ask them out. All sorts of other behavior changes seem more likely: change in dress, flirtatiousness, poaching, chasteness, chastity, whatever it is that the lead males at their college appear to value."

Again with this strawman about dating. I don't care about who asks who out.

Just a quick question for you so we can get on the same page. Where in the aforementioned advice column was there any mention of the young lady altering her behavior in accordance with the OSR to improve her chances of getting the attention of the young man she was looking to attract?

There was nothing special in there to account for her specific situation which might require additional effort on her part compared to other scenarios.

That is my argument... and it is an argument that not one person has bothered to address as they keep attributing arguments to me that I didn't make.

Amy,

It seems like you aren't following what I've been saying.

In this letter, the letter writer specifically references an earlier advice column you had here:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2013/11/the-blocked-sta.html

Within that letter you were providing advice to a young college woman who described her relationship with the guy she was interested in as follows "We hang out a lot, eating together and playing pingpong..."

Nothing about her relationship with this guy suggests that any of her activities would rise above the level of a completely normal interaction between a male and female student.

There is nothing about her behavior that would really indicate interest to the guy unless every college man is just supposed to assume that any ping pong partner he has wants him to ask her out on a date. Nothing about her described activities would indicate that she is actively competing with other women on the college campus for his attention. Grabbing some lunch in the student union and proceeding to play some ping pong simply isn't going to cut it in this situation

In any case Amy, it is clear that you haven't bothered to read anything I've said and yet still feel entitled to declare that I am wrong about one matter or another.

That would be like someone not reading one of your books, but deciding to post a negative review on amazon.

I'm pretty sure you would find that to be unfair and unreasonable, I feel the same way about your handling of this conversation.

If you don't want to read what I have to say that is your option. However, if you haven't read my posts in detail, you would be wise not to present an opinion on what my arguments are. This is simply a matter of common courtesy that I've extended to everyone else here.

Amy,

That's all well and good... but you have failed to address the following criticism:

How was your advice to her in any way substantively different than your advice to any other woman in any other circumstance?

The answer is that it was exactly the same as always.

Based upon her statement that she ate with the guy and played pingpong which are the only specifics mentioned it seems odd that she was "flirting her ass off".

I'm calling bs.

When someone offers specific examples those are usually the most prominent indicators of what is going on. When someone offers ambiguous indicators such as "flirting her ass off" it suggests very low level kind of activity that might very well go beyond notice in that kind of environment.

As for ego, that is kind of rich coming from someone who went on an active campaign arguing with every reviewer who gave you a 1 star rating for your book. You actively complained that any of the 1 star reviewers didn't read your work or give it a fair shake... and yet here you are not reading what I have to say and telling me how wrong I am. How exactly would you know? You certainly haven't properly described my arguments.

Your problem Amy is that you simply cannot accept criticism and fail to acknowledge legitimate points.

Contrary to your statements I'm not actually a brick wall... I'm willing to adjust my perspective when someone brings good points to the table.

You haven't done that because you haven't bothered to understand my position.

Exactly how and why should my position change when you don't bother to read what I have to say or respond to my actual position?

You are making a mockery of what a discussion actually is and then holding me accountable for the results. You don't permit questions, you don't bother to read what critics have to say, you dismiss what they say out of hand, you manipulate and misconstrue their perspective... and then when none of that is sufficient to alter their perspective you declare that they are intransigent.

If you had bothered to engage with me in an open, honest, and reasonable manner you might have been surprised just how receptive I am to good counter arguments.

You can't simultaneously refuse to read what I say and declare that I am wrong with what I have said.

Those positions are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to read a single thing I write, but if you want to offer criticism of my position it is proper to first read what my position entails.