These women...don't consider that there might be something really good under the surface of a shy guy...
1. Some men don't consider that there's "something really good" under the "surface" of women they deem too fat/too skinny/too ugly/too old/too whatever. That's life cupcake. People are drawn to what they are drawn to. If a woman wants an assertive man, she isn't going to listen closely for your squeak.
2. If you just sit there moping/staring/whatever it is you're doing: it generally turns girls off. In some cases it even makes you seem creepy or stalkerish. "Wow, he's been staring at me like a kicked puppy for 25 minutes...he must be secretly signaling that I should come over and let him ask me out". How titillating...We aren't psychic. And if we were, we'd have better things to use these gifts on than deciphering if the guy at Table 5 is imagining us naked in his bed or just thinking about doing his taxes...
3. You got a girl by NOT being "shy". You TALKED to her, which is all Amy has ever suggested. She didn't say walk up to some girl and club her with your johnson while bellowing like a Minotaur. You did exactly what Amy has said to do...and it got you a girl....remind me what the problem was agagin?

Every so often I run into guys from my past who tell me, "I had the biggest crush on you." And I totally would have gone out with them, but I had no idea!

"Typically, you get what you want in life by asking for it."

Isn't this as true for women as it is for men?

Isn't this as true for women as it is for men?

Sure, and if a woman isn't getting hit on, maybe she should be more proactive. But if she is getting hit on by other men, some of them attractive to her, why should she bother trying to get shy guys to come out of their shell?

"the dynamic that works is for women to flirt and let men know they are interested."

This dynamic works perfectly well if and when the woman isn't at all interested in the guy who isn't approaching her (i.e. the man in question is of low status).

This dynamic fails to work when a woman is interested in a man and he doesn't seem to be receptive to whatever signals she believes she is sending off.

In such cases there is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman taking the advice that DrMaturin highlighted and being a bit more proactive.

Men and women both have more success in life when they actively go after what they want.

Passively waiting around for the world to give you what you want is a strategy that isn't optimized for success.

bellflower, I am so going to learn to bellow like a Minotaur while beating Mrs. Slow with my johnson. Although, I think I'll do it right after sex. Thank God I wasn't drinking something when I read that sentence.

Thinking about these threads, I think while somethings are mention, like being told no isn't painful, and no girl worth your time is going to do something truly horrendous. (The worst I've ever seen was when I was a 17 year old lifeguard, and an overweight, balding, divorced guy who looked 40+ to me asked this 19 year old lifeguard out. She just said no, but then ran over to hang with me so he'd stop talking to her. In other words, the worst I've seen was pretty tame. In fact, it gave me the guts to ask her out, instead of shyly harboring my crush. Alas, she just tried to set me up with her younger sister.)

But, I don't think they're ever reminded that we like people a lot more if they like us. Even if you've been wasting a month worshiping some girl, if she says no your asking her out, she'll instantly be much less crushable. Maybe that megawatt smile will seem a tad insincere, or maybe you'll notice she never lets you finish a sentence, something will arise.

Of course, if she says yes, maybe she'll want you to bellow like a Minotaur.

Amy,

You keep trotting out this whole evolution defense, but it wreaks of common misconceptions about how evolution works with regard to behavior.

Misconception #1:

"Human behavior is genetically determined."

It isn't. Behavior is in no way exclusively controlled by genes. The environment has significant influence.

Misconception #2:

"If it's evolutionary we can't change it"

That we may have some genetic predisposition to certain behaviors says nothing about whether or not those behaviors are adaptive for us in certain circumstances.

We evolved to have a sweet tooth... but if you want to avoid diabetes it is wise to curb your sugar intake.

Same goes for dating. That women may have evolved a predisposition to passively wait for the universe to give them what they most desire is maladaptive.

Women who recognize that they can do something active to get what they are after will be more successful.

Misconception #3:

"Current mechanisms are optimally designed"

Even if you could conclusively prove that the current mechanism is what you say it is (which you can't)... it says nothing about whether that mechanism is optimally designed for modern social structures.

In fact, we should expect that the current mechanisms are NOT optimally designed for success in our environment.

As a result, the most successful people will be the ones who recognize where those current mechanisms fail and adapt appropriately.

Those who fail to adapt will fail to leave behind a genetic legacy.

SlowMind: I'm glad you enjoyed it. Glad I wasn't drinking something when I read your response! :)

True story. A guy I knew in college in the 1980s was shy and had no luck with women. He read about a guy who would just go up to women in bars and and with confidence say something like "You're hot let go out of here and fuck." and a certain percentage would do it.
He tried it (I was a witness) and every night he would have some woman say yes. He may have had to ask 30 women before one would say yes.
Side note... He ended up marrying the last one. Still married today.

People, Amy is right on this one. Don't ask me how I know this. Oh alright, if you insist. I'm one of those strong, tall, successful women who can sometimes seem a bit intimidating for some guys. Even when I've flirted my ass off and was sending all the right signals (hopefully -- we all just do the best we can, right?). So anyway once I was really, really smitten with this guy. He seemed totally interested but never made a move, so I thought, well, you're a modern woman, go for what you want, Girl. Let's just say ... not successful. Reread Amy's reply until it finally sinks in. I sure wish I had. This approach diminishes a woman in a man's eyes, albeit perhaps subconsciously. I mean, in my story here, it was basically a reflection of the guy's own insecurity: "Why would this great gal be going after me. Must not be so great after all". Slept with me, sure, but was always looking for something "better" to come along. Mind you, this turned out to be a guy who always wants what he doesn't have and has what he doesn't want. But that's a different story and hey, the heart wants what it wants, and my heart wanted him. Ok, so this is just my one little anecdote, dismiss it if you wish, but I'm writing to say that Amy's advice is simply correct, and I for one would never repeat that mistake. Fortunately, Mr. Marie is a Minotaur of a guy.

Looking back, I can't believe how long it took me to figure this out. Being infatuated by dozens of women and not understanding how they couldn't see how great I was. And maybe they could, but nothing HAPPENED, because I was too much of a whimp to do anything.

Well, I realize now that I might not be THAT great, but I'm not an idiot either and when things don't work, you change them. So I changed. Somehow I managed to get married to one of those girls I was infatuated with and divorced from her and after that divorce, I finally broke out of that whimpy place I was in and started doing. Every time I felt sorry for myself and thought things weren't working out, I asked myself the same question - "what are you going to do about it, crybaby?". What you think and ponder is all nice and dandy, but doing really is the yard stick we're all measured with.

Not doing gets you nothing. Of course it does. It leaves you dry and unfulfilled. I'm not talking about being flashy or obnoxious or in your face. I'm talking about grabbing instead of napping. Being honest about your wants and sincere about yourself regarding women, jobs, friends - it makes your life so much better.

I didn't really think about much back then. I just started changing my ways and started picking up women with a lot better success rate, even though a divorced guy in his late 30s (now early 40s) with two kids really isn't what most women long for. But I got them. And I even got nice, wise, loving, caring and even raunchy women. This is working for me in all aspects of my life.

Reading this column has made a lot of things a lot more clear and put into words what I probably already knew.

Hey Marie,

I'm curious if you would be so kind as to answer a few quick questions for me.

Are you the one and only woman that Mr. Marie ever approached romantically in his life?

If not, what happened with the other women he approached before he met you?

Was Mr. Marie the only man who ever approached you romantically in your life?

If not, what happened with the other men who approached you before you met him?

Damn it, I need a minotaur!

Artemis - what does that matter? Lots of people are in relationships that don't last for a variety of reasons. And lots of people find love the first time around. Has nothing to do with this topic.

Dani,

It actually has a great deal to do with the topic because a claim is being made based off of obviously flawed reasoning.

Maybe my point will make more sense if I rephrase her statement in a different way. Imagine if some random guy showed up and said the following:

"People, Amy is wrong on this one. Don't ask me how I know this. Oh alright, if you insist. Once I was really, really smitten with this woman. She seemed totally interested, so I thought, well, you're an assertive guy, go for what you want. Let's just say ... not successful. Ok, so this is just my one little anecdote, dismiss it if you wish, but I'm writing to say that Amy's advice is simply wrong, and I for one would never repeat that mistake."

Perhaps the flaw in reasoning is more obvious to you when stated this way.

My point is that it isn't valid to draw broad conclusions about dating dynamics that are intended to apply across the board to every person on earth from a single experience like this.

That she approached a guy one and only one time in her life and it didn't work out tells us nothing about the success or failure of this behavior in a general sense. As you just stated:

"Lots of people are in relationships that don't last for a variety of reasons."

That specific relationship could have dissolved for any number of reasons that are completely unrelated to how things got initiated. Based upon her description my money is on the fact that the guy in question was a flake and relationships with flakes never last long.

What my questions have to do with this topic is that I am trying to get her, you, and others to understand that a statistical sample of 1 doesn't help you draw these kinds of conclusions. This is critical thinking 101 kind of stuff here.

Simply put, if it is valid reasoning for her to assert that Amy is correct on the basis of one failure in dating she had... it would be equally valid for some guy to make an identical assertion on the basis of one failure he had in the dating market.

Needless to say statements of this kind don't actually tell us anything useful beyond the fact that the person involved tends to give up activities at the first sign of challenge, difficulty, or failure.

This isn't a statistics class. It is an advice column. And I am allowed to make decisions on my personal life based on just one example. Could it be a stupid decision to make? Sure. But it is my life and therefore my decision. And having someone else come in and criticize them because they aren't "statistically valid" would not be met with joy and happiness and a rethinking of my position.

> Could it be a stupid decision to make? Sure.
> not be met with ... a rethinking of my position

Wow, just wow!

What's the point of talking to people who aren't open to a rethinking of their position even when they admit to making stupid decisions?

>>Pinkie LeStrange: Damn it, I need a minotaur!
>>Amy Alkon: I have one living in my garage.

This is going to be a thing now isn't it? What have I done? LOL

Dani,

You asked me why my questions were relevant.

No need to pitch a fit when I explain to you why they are important points to take into consideration.

You are welcome to make whatever decision you like in your personal life (monumentally stupid decisions included)... quite frankly, if you end up making one poor decision after another it is no skin off my nose.

However, you are purporting to tell other people how they should behave on the basis of your extremely limited experience.

When you do that I am going to feel comfortable calling you out on it and explaining the flaws in your reasoning.

I started thinking of my past in terms of this topic. I've been married now for 25+ happy years, but I dated a lot in my 20's and early 30's. So do the math, I was dating in the 70's. There was still a very strong sense of male vs. female, and it was most typical for a woman to wait to be asked out by the male. That's how most of my scenarios went. I can only think of one where I was the aggressor, not because he was a wimp but because I was mad for him. That didn't end well. We slept together (hell, it was the 70's and we all slept together) but he dumped me quickly. Most of my experience was that I would flirt, the guy would either get the idea and ask me out, or he wouldn't and I'd find another target. Not that this is scientific in the least, I realize that. But. Most of the guys I dated fell hard and fast. Most told me they loved me within a month or two. I had more than my share of proposals.

I do think that there are times when the reality falls outside of this paradigm. But I think there's a lot of truth to Amy's ideas.

Laurie,

That is all well and good... but I implore you to carefully think about what you just said:

"I've been married now for 25+ happy years, but I dated a lot in my 20's and early 30's."

Right, so one relationship out of all of the people you dated turned into a 25+ year happy marriage.

You dated "a lot"... and have only one example of where it was successful long-term.

That means the success rate of men approaching you is essentially zero (i.e. it only worked out once).

How is that any different from the success rate of your one and only time approaching a guy instead?

"Most of the guys I dated fell hard and fast. Most told me they loved me within a month or two. I had more than my share of proposals."

Please consider for a moment that those men would describe their experience with you in exactly the same way you described your experience with the one and only guy you went after:

"That didn't end well."

The issue here seems to be one of perspective.

Of course everyone wants to be in the drivers seat with it comes to attraction... everyone wants the other person fawning over them and then they get to decide how they wish to proceed.

This is a universal part of human nature.

However there is no deep truth to the idea that relationships instigated by men tend to work out better than relationships instigated by women.

The cold reality is that most relationships fail, only a relatively small fraction last.

Who initiates seems to play no role at all in the odds of long-term success.

The only role it seems to play at all is in who rejects who when things go south.

This whole notion about women never doing anything active in dating appears to be more about insulating them from rejection than about the generation of successful relationships.

Artemis - I am not pitching a fit. I am also not "purporting to tell people how to behave". In fact I haven't suggested to anyone in this board how they should behave. So before you berate me you should make sure I actually did what you are accusing me of. Truthfully you have no idea on what criteria I have for people I will not date again and so you can't possibly be sure that you would try to convince me that my reasoning is flawed.

Snoopy - I didn't admit to making a stupid decision. My decision to not date a certain type of person has worked out rather well for me actually and you will need to try a lot harder then "one experience is not statistically relevant" to make me decide that type of person is someone I could be happy with.

"...because men evolved to be the chasers, they suspect something is wrong with a woman when she pursues them..."

Or to put it more simply, its not feminine.

I think it might be kind of flattering to be pursued, but the problem is that the women who would be doing the pursuing are just not the type who are desirable to men, or at least the particular men they would be going after. Still, I think this situation is mostly hypothetical. The only time I've ever seen girls actively go on the chase was in 7th grade, and even then it was only the fat or "special" girls that nobody wanted. I've never seen this happen even once outside of middle school.

Dani,

You really aren't making a whole lot of sense here. Let's recap for a second:

I asked someone some questions to try and draw attention to the fact that there reasoning had serious holes in it.

You then jumped in and directly asked me why any of my questions mattered with respect to this discussion.

I responded by describing to you how and why my questions were related to the discussion.

After I did this, you responded with the following:

"I am allowed to make decisions on my personal life based on just one example."

Which suggests that I was in some way telling you how you have to live your life.

Can you tell me exactly where I told you how you had to live your life?... because as far as I can tell no one has told you that you have to do anything.

This is why I am saying you "pitched a fit"... no one told you how you need to behave and yet you went off on a tirade like a teenager yelling at their parents how they are an adult and should be able to live their own life.

Please notice how defensive you became when I turned it around on you and suggested that it was you informing others how to act. Here is what you said:

"In fact I haven't suggested to anyone in this board how they should behave. So before you berate me you should make sure I actually did what you are accusing me of."

So... just out of curiosity, where did I tell you or anyone else how they should behave?

Shouldn't you have made sure I actually did what you were accusing me of?

Or does that rule only apply to other people?

Grizzly Says:

"the problem is that the women who would be doing the pursuing are just not the type who are desirable to men, or at least the particular men they would be going after."

The problem you have identified isn't significantly different than the problem that young men encounter when they first begin to enter the dating market.

Young men often overestimate their mate value and go after women who are "out of their league". Overtime they learn to properly gauge where they stand and hence seek women who will be more receptive to their advances.

That a woman who approaches a man for the first time might go after a guy who is "out of her league" isn't surprising in the least. It is the price of overestimating ones mate value on the dating market.

So far as this kind of activity being the purview of women who are in some way undesirable to men, there is a confounding problem for such individuals.

If they are undesirable, men aren't going to approach them either.

So what is the answer for those women, to just settle into the idea of growing old and dying alone while doing nothing proactive to try and improve their life situation?

There is nothing particularly unique about the situation you have described. We don't go around telling undesirable men to just hide in a corner somewhere and admit defeat... we suggest they should remain active in their attempts to make a romantic connection.

Not sure why I read through to the end of this as its the same debate every single time this topic comes up and I've yet to see anyone change their mind.

I just wonder, where is it expressly stated that a woman should just sit passively and wait for the man she wants to come to her? It seems that the suggestion is to flirt her ass off, which is a course of action, if not the direct one being proposed by those who argue against Amy's advice.

If you think the rejection that comes from flirting your ass off and not being asked out can't be painful (and I've been on the receiving end of an outright rejection too), you'd be wrong. You just learn to put it into perspective, deal with it and move on.

Artemis - a tirade? I posted about 7 sentences - hardly enough to constitute a tirade! But thanks for the laugh!

Artemis, why is your nomme de comment that of a whiny, 13 year old, perpetual virgin goddess?

Though perhaps the perpetual whiny part answers itself.

Dani,

So you admit to spending 7 sentences complaining about how I'm not "allowing" you to live your life how you want to... and when I ask you to show me evidence of where I was telling you what to do suddenly you have nothing to offer?

Yet at the same time you presume to lecture me about not accusing you of doing things you haven't done here:

"So before you berate me you should make sure I actually did what you are accusing me of."

I think I've identified the problem here, you are a self-absorbed hypocrite with reading comprehension issues.

Maybe it is time for you to take your own advice and make sure someone is actually telling you how you should live your life before spending "7 sentences" insinuating that they are bossing you around.

Niki,

I'm happy to help explain:

"I just wonder, where is it expressly stated that a woman should just sit passively and wait for the man she wants to come to her? It seems that the suggestion is to flirt her ass off, which is a course of action, if not the direct one being proposed by those who argue against Amy's advice."

The issue at play is one of conflicting definitions of passive and active.

If a guy were to simply "flirt his ass off" and do nothing more his behavior would be characterized as that of a "passive wimp".

Identical behaviors by two different people cannot simultaneously be described as passive and active.

If on the other hand it constitutes "active" behavior for a woman to "flirt her ass off"... then is would similarly constitute "active" behavior for a man to do precisely the same thing.

I didn't define what was active or passive in this discussion, I'm simply applying those definitions to everyone in the same way.

It is only those on the other side of the conversation who have to continually shift the meaning of these words depending upon who we are talking about, which doesn't make much sense when we are talking about words like active and passive.

Can you think of any other context where a specific behavior is described as passive or active depending upon who is expressing the behavior?

At issue for me here is the fact that the arguments being put forth are poorly constructed, inconsistent, and unsupported by anything other than "anecdotal evidence" (which as we know isn't useful evidence at all).

I'm perfectly willing to be convinced if someone could actually piece together a coherent and reasonable argument.

"Mind you, this turned out to be a guy who always wants what he doesn't have and has what he doesn't want. But that's a different story and [...]"

Posted by: Marie at February 27, 2014 12:38 AM

On the contrary, (not knowing the details) I think it might speak to the heart of the same story.

If you are constantly playing games to try to attract either women or men, with no thought as to whether they can take the "real you" and you the "real them" long term, you are going to be in for a lot of short term relationships when the initial attraction wears off.

Long term relationships depend on finding a mate, with similar values to yours, and the first value you must share, is a belief in, and dedication to making a long term relationship work, what ever strategy you used to initially meet this person.

I would be willing to bet that lots, and lots of relationships fail, or never start when the man performs the late 20th century dating ritual entirely correctly.
I remember a guy in college vaguely, who asked me out repeatedly, and I never felt even a spark of interest in him sexually or otherwise. There was nothing there, and there wasn't going to be.

The thing I admire most about my now husband of 33 years, was his incredible sense of humor, and his kindness to children and animals.
He was worth a little work, and I happily did the initial work to become his friend, and see if anything took off from there.

If it had ended in just a friendship, I would have been fine with it.

I think a lot of women don't understand the difference between a tactical mistake (I was too aggressive) and the actual real reason, a relationship fails (he just was not that into you).

I think the whole "he doesn't value me because I didn't let him do the chasing or I was too eager" is psychoanalytical tea leaf reading,

If you meet each others needs, and value each other as much as you value commitment, you would still be together, regardless of how you met, or who ever asked who out for coffee first.

This is why all evidence, pro and con is going to be anecdotal.

There are simply too many factors in play here for anyone to form a valid hypothesis as to the likelihood of a successful long term relationship based on something so trivial, as initial dating behavior.

"Mind you, this turned out to be a guy who always wants what he doesn't have and has what he doesn't want. But that's a different story and [...]"

Posted by: Marie at February 27, 2014 12:38 AM

On the contrary, (not knowing the details) I think it might speak to the heart of the same story.

Posted by: Michelle at February 28, 2014 8:19 PM

Spot on Michelle.

She identified the primary issue, and still wants to believe that if she had played the game "correctly" she might have won.

I think she dated him because he asked her out, not because there was anything special about her. He's not walking around with "shy guy" stamped on his forehead. Girls don't have X-Ray vision and see right through to a guy's core. They only see how he looks and what he does. But it seems this guy would rather believe there's something special about this girl than to realize his action is what made it happen. "No, I don't live in a world that isn't fair, and people actually have to work for what they want"
I think that great term that Amy once introduced me to(ego-shelter) applies here.
Maybe it has nothing to do with a guy's character or genetics. Mabye that action sets a necessary tone for the relationship. Why would we not hire someone who has their feet up on the desk and a WTF attitude at an interview? Because that's not what we want out of an employee. It doesn't matter who he is at the core. It only matters how he is for this job. Same goes for relationships. But it seems many mistake attraction for personal validation. They're NOT the same thing.

Isab,

I just wanted to say that I think everything you said in your post at "Isab at March 1, 2014 9:29 AM" is extremely insightful and well thought out.

This entire notion that relationships simply don't work properly when a woman does anything beyond the act of "flirting" to get things moving rests upon several ideas that have not been established as fact (and at least one that I am extremely confident is actually false).

That a woman may ask out one guy at some point in her life history and things went sour or didn't work out is not convincing evidence that approaching men in general is an ineffective strategy for establishing a long-term loving relationships. It isn't convincing due to the reality that over that same period of time she has likely been approached by many men with whom things also didn't work out or went sour. If this was all the information we had to go on the more accurate conclusion to draw would actually be that men approaching women tends to be a more ineffective strategy than the reverse (please note that while I say "more accurate", I actually think both conclusions are completely and utterly wrong).

The issue at play here I believe is one of confirmation bias.

It is psychologically appealing to believe things didn't work out with the guy they went after because of a flawed strategy as opposed to him simply rejecting her as a partner because of her personality.

It is about protecting ones ego as opposed to facing the cold reality of having been rejected by someone you took a personal risk on establishing a relationship with.

The entire language about this subject is even distorted and twisted to make it out as if refusing to take that personal risk is actually doing the guy in question a favor... he wants to be the one to pursue you after all, it's just the way he "evolved" to be... even if he states otherwise people here know better... it's all subconscious you know.

As you have said, relationships fail or succeed for a wide variety of reasons (this is a fact that no one even disputes), so to boil down ultimate success to such a trivial component as something like who initiated the first conversation misses the mark by a wide margin.

I'm very impressed with your outlook on life.

Artemis - no I am not admitting that, but if it makes you feel better to think that of me then feel free to do so. I did get confused because I thought you were advocating that people shouldn't make decisions on who they should date based on just one experience because that isn't statistically relevant. And I do have a problem with that because sometimes you just need one (or even less) to know that a person with certain attributes isn't right for you.

Be careful not to invalidate data with models or interpretations of that data. Data is still data. Truth is not in interpretations. Truth is in data. Interpretations just make the gestalt easier to see, work with, and predict.
And in my experience, it works that way. Women tend to degrade men who make comments on their body parts. Just like men tend to degrade women who ask them out. Most men will say they'd love this, relieving them of all the anxiety of doing it. But when it really happens, they knock her down a few notches in their mind. It's not a 100% thing. But it's a generally true thing.
WHY they do it doesn't matter so much. Most of the why stuff seems to be an attempt to throw it in someone's lap as their job to fix, like saying it's overly-judgemental women, confirmation bias, or societal programming. But who's ever fault it is or job it is to fix, it doesn't change the reality that it happens. And if someone wants to hook up, they work within this reality, rather than waiting for it to get fixed.

"And in my experience, it works that way. Women tend to degrade men who make comments on their body parts. Just like men tend to degrade women who ask them out"

So what? Studies show that most men are intimidated by woman who are smarter than they are.

Say you are a high IQ woman.

Do you disguise your intelligence, to go out with guys who are less smart than you are in order to get into a relationship, which will probably never work long term ?

or do you tell the guy up front you are working on a doctorate in nuclear physics, so he can get out quickly?

I say hiding who you are, does you no good in the long run.

Likewise if you are an independent woman who is more socially agressive than most women, who is confident enough to ask a guy out for coffee, or over for dinner, hiding those characteristics , by taking a passive approach to dating, will attract men who will not work out long term, wasting both your times.

I know a number of men, who really hate helpless clingy girly girls. They dont want to spend their life having to hold some nuerotic woman's hand. (Even if the sex is really good)

If you people think that sexual attraction will trump everything, and that initial dating "tactics" matter, in the long term, you are truly naive.

You know what keeps relationships together long term?

Shared values, and honor. If you dont have that, you are operating your love life on the same fickle moral plane as a Chimpanzee.

Dani Says:

"I did get confused because I thought you were advocating that people shouldn't make decisions on who they should date based on just one experience because that isn't statistically relevant."

That is all well and good, but you got unnecessarily aggressive in your conversation with me on the basis of you not understanding my position... and remained so even AFTER I expressly explained that you are free to do whatever you want in your personal life.

What is at stake here is whether or not someones singular personal experience is sufficient grounds for telling other people how they should live their life.

I for example tried brussel sprouts one time and found them to be revolting and vile. They disgusted me so much that even to this day I adamantly refuse to eat them.

That being said, it would be rather obnoxious for me to tell other people that on the basis of my personal revulsion for that particular food item that no one else should consider eating them... and what's more, that people who tell me that they enjoy brussel sprouts are just fooling themselves and on a subconscious level they hate them as much as I do.

I am actually advocating for letting people inform others what they are comfortable with and actually believing them... the other side of this discussion presumes to tell others how they "really" feel.

"There's a difference between pretending to be somebody you're not and restraining yourself and not bouncing all over a guy like a Labrador puppy."

Of course there is a different between these things.

I find the way you try and reason through things to be very odd... you always jump to extremes when it suits you and then appeal to averages when it suits you... the conversation never seems to actually focus upon an individual person and what that person may or may not like in a prospective partner.

Let's be very clear on one thing... men are probably not going to appreciate a woman "bouncing all over" them like a puppy.

However the reverse is also true. Women don't want some overly eager and desperate guy going after them either.

Desperation is an unattractive quality for anyone to display.

That being said, let's look at the options you have put on the table. In your estimation women can either:

1 - Flirt to indicate interest and then wait for the man to show interest in return.

OR

2 - Club him over the head with her handbag and drag him home.

You honestly lack the imagination to conceive of a set of activities that exists within the vast middle ground between these options?

You know... like striking up a conversation with the guy first if she is interested in him.

That is a little less extreme and far more reasonable than knocking him unconscious don't you think?

Your entire mode of thought on this issue is literally riddled with fallacious arguments. That should be a sign to you that your position isn't as well thought out as you seem to think it is.

Needless to say, Isab is 100% correct in her framing of this issue.

There's a difference between pretending to be somebody you're not and restraining yourself and not bouncing all over a guy like a Labrador puppy. Dating should not be a one-woman show. It's a dance. One person takes a step forward (like the woman, by flirting to indicate interest). She then needs to wait for the man to show interest, not club him over the head with her handbag and drag him home. "Because I can" is not a good enough reason to do many things.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 2, 2014 7:01 PM

Believe it or not, I don't disagree, I just don't know any people who met their long term partners through the formal dating model you describe.

And when you aren't dealing with pickups, and are meeting your potential life partners through family and friends, I don't think the man asking the woman out is quite as cut and dried as you portray it.

In my world, people often ask their single friends over to dinner together to see if there is any chemistry between the two, or two people belong to the same club, and end up socializing on club trips, before any "dating" takes place.

I don't think it is inappropriate for a woman who meets a guy, in a class at college, to say," I have to go the study for a test now, would you like to get some coffee later and work on this group assignment together?

The labrador puppy example is a caricature of the over eager and the desperate which would be off putting if it was either a man or a woman behaving that way.

"And when you aren't dealing with pickups, and are meeting your potential life partners through family and friends"

Don't think it happens like that as often anymore. It's kind of an outdated model-though I do think its the best way to meet a long term partner I just don't see it happening in my generation anymore. Baby we gots the internets for that.

Yo Artemis baby cakes you're back. Couldn't stay away from my Latina ass right?

"It's kind of an outdated model-though I do think its the best way to meet a long term partner I just don't see it happening in my generation anymore."

What does this even mean?

You don't see people in your generation meeting long-term partners anymore?

Isn't the advice being offered here supposed to be about how to establish a long-term stable and healthy relationship?

If the people in your generation aren't establishing long-term healthy relationships anymore... and Isab's advice is the best way to achieve long-term relationships... and the people in your generation aren't using Isab's model and are instead using a model more akin to what you and Amy advocate... what conclusions can we draw?

The only valid conclusion based upon this information is you guys are offering advice specifically designed not to lead to long-term stable and healthy relationships... but instead designed to lead to a string of short-term relationships.

"what conclusions can we draw?"

That you never dated much. Am I right?

No wait I bet you will write a long diatribe on how a. It is irrelevent to the subject matter or b. you dated plenty and had peeps obsessed over you but only granted your oh so special peen to your current squeeze.

Look dude Isabs model is the "ideal" on how to meet a mate but that shit is outdated for several reasons.

Yes family and friends is the best way to meet someone following they are anything like you, and are actually personable. And they limit your options to what THEY like and who THEY associate with. And if all the above conditions are met and you are of the same mentality as your friends and family then you have achieved the best way for meeting a long term mate.

See how utterly outdated that is? People dont live like that anymore because you have the ability to literally associate with anyone thanks to technology. You move around. You text. You e-mail. You Skype.

Look at the loney nerds back in Isab days, I see their modern counterparts hooking up with chicks using the internets. Why wait for the possibility and limitations of your social group when you got all this other shit going on at the same time?

And if I think about it how the fuck is a gay guy gonna hook my ass up? My shitty family? My friends who each have a certain type of group they associate with?

I'm not the only one in this situation. I'd love to live in the "ideal" but fuck that shit I'll just meet strangers like the classy broad I am.

Ppen,

Way to go with your usual activity of attempting to derail the conversation with nonsense.

I have no doubt that you've "dated" substantially more than I have in terms of raw numbers of people.

But that is primarily because none of my relationships have been short term.

I just celebrated my 5 year anniversary with the most amazing person I have ever met... and that relationship wasn't established using the kind of rote short-term mating strategy that you and Amy promote as being the best way to go.

Isab has been married for 25+ years and she claims the same thing about the best way to go about finding suitable long-term partners that I have been saying.

In otherwords... you are ignoring the suggestions of people who have actually succeeded at obtaining healthy, long-term, stable relationships early on in their life in favor of suggestions from people who went with the short-term mating strategy and hopped from one relationship to another all through out their 20's and early 30's.

I don't know how old you are, but my suspicion is that we are probably in the same generation.

So sure... you might have dated more people than I have... but I've dated fewer people for longer and have actually succeeded in finding a long-term partner for the rest of my life.

You are using a faulty model.

The suggested strategy is pretty much text book "short-term" mating techniques.

"Long-term" strategies differ by a significant margin.

Needless to say, a fool is someone who does the same thing over and over expecting different results.

How has your search for a long-term partner been going using the method you promote?

"Look dude Isabs model is the "ideal" on how to meet a mate but that shit is outdated for several reasons."

It isn't outdated at all.

In fact most of the people I know who are married and have long-term stable relationships were either introduced by friends (i.e. they met at a party hosted by a mutual friend)... or who defied the "bar pickup" dating model that you and Amy keep pushing on everyone.

That strategy will work great for establishing a routine of one short term failed relationship after another.

If that is what your goal is then great, more power to you.

But if you want to find real love, a partner who believes in you, will stand by you, and shares your life values... that method is not really your best bet.

I'm surprised to find this discussion still going... I don't think a bar-pickup model is what Amy advocates. Very much the opposite. Let me tell a story. My ex was a woman who threw herself at me. No, she didn't ask me out originally -- we were introduced by friends. She was from out of town and was staying with a friend. We went out a couple of times before she left.

A few weeks later, there's a knock at my door one evening. It's her, bags in hand: "Hi, my dad kicked me out. Can I move in with you?" Like an idiot, I said yes. The first couple of months were great, but from there it was all downhill (I only realized that later). It wound up being a five-year relationship and a brief marriage that only ended after I discovered that she had cleaned out my bank account and forged my signature on dozens of credit card applications.

To cut a long story short, I've since realized that she was a major Cluster B -- borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, the whole works. Think back to your childhood and teenage years, guys. When you were 9, did that pretty girl that used to ignore you suddenly start telling you that she'd like you, if only you would go beat up some other boy for her? When you were 14, did some other pretty girl suddenly start hanging all over you and saying how nice she'd be to you if you would help her pass this exam, and then dump you afterwards? When you were 17, did some pretty girl promise you sex if you'd hide her weed in your locker at school, only to rat you out? This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are leery of women who throw themselves at men. Because we've learned that most of them are manipulative bitches who only want something out of you, and will dump you like five-day-old fish as soon as they get what they want.

I had those experiences too, but when the ex showed up at my door with her bags, I ignored that little voice in my head. And I paid for it. I've since had a few instances where women blatantly came on to me, and I was able to recognize immediately what their angle was -- to make another guy jealous, or to get themselves out of trouble. Cluster B's are so dangerous to our mental well-being that we've evolved strategies for filtering them out of our relationships quickly. No, not all women who come on to men are Cluster B's, but most are.

Yes, CousinDave, this is clearly over the top. I have met these women too, and let me state for the record, I have "never" showed up at anyone's door with a suitcase in hand. Nor would I.

Nor have I ever manipulated a man into proposing, gotten pregnant "by accident", or lied about something to get my own way.

Spotting cluster B's is an art form in itself.

The truth is, most men "date" because they are looking for sex, the easier, the better, and if they can get it without a commitment, they will take it.

Women on the other hand, tend to be more interested in relationships.

The old joke about what does a lesbian bring to the second date?
(Answer: a moving van ) recognizes this reality.

Dating is a sex game, for a lot of people, and not a method for finding a long term relationship.

Many people jump to the sexual part way too quickly, and end up emotionally attached to really unsuitable people.

I have a very pretty thirty year old daughter. She has been pursued by countless suitable men, and unsuitable men, primarily because of her looks, and their sexual interest.

She is now in her third unstable relationship with an unsuitable long term partner, because her fickle emotions are driving the train, and not her better judgment.

I don't see this changing. She makes poor choices.

I wonder if you would have been snagged by your cluster B ex wife, if you had been thinking "is this a person I want to spend the rest of my life with, to be the other genetic parent for my children"? as opposed to,

" gee, she looks hot, let's nail her, and sort out this whole relationship thing later. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102808034.html

Interesting study.

Says basically what I have been trying to say. Lots of people dating are just looking for sex.

"I wonder if you would have been snagged by your cluster B ex wife, if you had been thinking "is this a person I want to spend the rest of my life with, to be the other genetic parent for my children"? "

She wasn't that hot. It had to do more with my own insecurity. I think you're missing something: for a man, what's the best way to acquire a (more or less) assured sex partner? A relationship. Yes, there are alpha males that can go out and find a new lay every night, but that doesn't describe most of us. That means we can't casually discard existing partners just becaus we'd like some strange.

So the potential of the relationship isn't something that can be just ignored. In my case, it was rather the opposite: I thought that a woman throwing herself at me was the only way I could have a relationship. For most of my single life, I had next to zero luck with women, so having one fall into my lap (almost literally) seemed like manna from heaven at the time.

"Says basically what I have been trying to say. Lots of people dating are just looking for sex."

Uh so?

And anyways Amy doesn't tell women to sleep early on with a man if she wants a relationship.

I get what you are saying-meeting people through friends and family leads to long term commitment. And the guy doesn't directly have to ask the woman out because they are always hanging out. But by your own previous admission it could take years for a shy guy to take the initiative in that situation. It's those long drawn getting to know yous.

For what? For long term commitment using a model that not everyone can partake in.

Yes you as the woman can invite that mutual friend over for dinner or whatever the fuck you're both into but Jesus Christ don't presume it will lead to marriage. And don't assume that the guy wouldn't also like to have dinner with that stranger, whom he finds exciting, but is too socially akward to ask out.

And Artemis I always knew you were around my age. You sound really pretentious. Are you gonna reveal your age or hold on to it like your gender?

Jesus don't give us an explanation as to why.

"Says basically what I have been trying to say. Lots of people dating are just looking for sex."

By the way my dad told me he got married the first time because it was the only way to have sex back in his day.

"Says basically what I have been trying to say. Lots of people dating are just looking for sex."

By the way my dad told me he got married the first time because it was the only way to have sex back in his day.

Posted by: Ppen at March 4, 2014 1:19 PM

Yes, Prostitution was invented sometime in the 1970's I believe.

Funny Isab, but I come from an ultra religious and isolated community where people meet their spouses via family and friends!

Hookers didn't exist in his area at the time.

Funny Isab, but I come from an ultra religious and isolated community where people meet their spouses via family and friends!

Hookers didn't exist in his area at the time.

Posted by: Ppen at March 4, 2014 3:46 PM

And I suppose both his hands were cut off in a farming accident...

This bullshit just keeps getting deeper.

. Before the wide spread availablity of birth control, people understood, that when they signed up for marriage, they were signing up for the real possibility of parenthood, and the accompanying family life, not just sex.

So lets just say, either your dad, or his first wife, did not value committment as much as some other people do.

Relationships based on sex alone tend to do poorly over the long haul, because there is always someone out there more fun to fuck, than the same old at home.

Without values, and commitment, relationships don't last.

There is also no society anywhere, that has not had premarital sex, extra marital sex, and prostitution. Even the Amish. Your claims to the contrary.

"And I suppose both his hands were cut off in a farming accident..."

So the pleasure of the hand is equal to the pussy?

I didn't claim that pre martial sex doesn't or didn't exist please indicate where I wrote such a ridiculous notion especially when I'm trying to drill into your head that I don't care if people mostly date for sex nowadays. Because people get married or at least used to for sex too (even people they met through family and friends!). That's why I brought up the example of my father. And they got married, realized they couldn't just fuck one person as their community makes them believe and started hooking up. So what people are doing now isn't anything new.

Nobody on this fucking comment section thinks a solely sex based relationship is gonna work. Amy and my advice is to wait to fuck a guy if you want a long term relationship DESPITE us not following the rule.

Buy Jesus the notion that you have to have this long drawn out friendship leading to a relationship seems not particularly conducive to just asking broads out and moving on. By your own admission, in previous conversations it can take a long ass time for an amazing guy to make a move because he is too shy or perhaps too obtuse. WE GET IT..

And then you and Artemis keep bringing up how you should meet partners. We get that too but it's not feasible for MOST people.

And imagine Amy giving the advice "we'll meet boyfriends through family and friends!"

There is a reason you both sound outdated.

"So the pleasure of the hand is equal to the pussy?"

Real sex, is not a constitutional right. I don't see you volunteering your lady parts for the common good to make a bunch of guys happy.

If a woman doesn't want to have sex until she is married or engaged, that certainly is her business. And probably smart, considering.

We all make all sorts of excuses for stupid shit we did when we were young. Your father is no different.

My father waited until he was 41 to get married, after he knew that he was probably going to survive his injuries from World War 2.

Kind of like how Amy approached her desire for a pet...i.e. responsibly

When you have been in some kind of stable relationship for about twenty years (probably impossible I know, because you come across as a total flake)

Come back and tell us, it is all about the sex....

"When you have been in some kind of stable relationship for about twenty years (probably impossible I know, because you come across as a total flake)"

Why is stable relationship for about twenty years is better than a relationship of every two years?

You are basically preaching the audience to eat less and exercise every other day for at least 30 minutes. And no one is listening.

The general public realized that having sex with the same person for twenty years is very boring and not good for your mental and physical health. And if you are not well, you are no good to anyone including your children, your partner and yourself.

With the help of technology, we are hooking up each other and it is not going to change. And I think it is better that way. Happy people are more productive.

Do not preach that long term relationship is good and short term relationship is bad. It just depends on each person.

For a long term relationship, I suggest you get a dog.

And Isab what the fuck is your point? I don't care if a woman waits a billion years for sex or two seconds. I never said it was a constitutional right. I keep asking you to cite those things you keep insisting I say. Jesus are you Artemis?

I asked my father why he got married as a teenager he said "because I was horny". That's it. He told me his primary reason for getting married was to have sex just like my mother told me the primary reason she had kids was "because everyone else was doing it but I didn't really want them." I think these are the kind of things people do but have a hard time admitting.

Yes people marry in religious communities for other reasons too but wanting to have sex trumps their logic in picking an appropriate partner. That isn't any different than what people do now in forming relationships with people they primarily want to have sex with (and not looking at additional markers).

AND when the fuck did I say stable relationships are all about sex? WHEN? I said your suggestions on how to find a mate are OUTDATED.

Very few people meet their partners via family and friends anymore. Or have long courtships before asking a broad out.

And great you've been married a long time and thus your advice is better.

I have had stable relationships. I choose the partners I do because I have no desire for marriage or kids. And it's hard for me to find a guy who doesn't try to "trick" me into it, or want me to live with him. But I don't hold on to the notion that other women want the same thing as me. So I don't tell women to meet men like I do, or fuck them when I do.

But the end all be all is having a relationship like yours right? It doesn't matter that I've had 22 year close friendships with male friends because I'm a flake since I don't live like you or think like you.

Ppen Says:

"Amy doesn't tell women to sleep early on with a man if she wants a relationship."

This part of her advice is the only portion that actually matters when it comes to the successful development of a long-term relationship.

The act of who spoke to who first or who invited someone somewhere first doesn't play the significant role Amy suggests it does.

If a woman approaches a man first... and then doesn't have sex with him for many dates she will successfully weed out the men who are only after sex.

Having sex too quickly is the relevant issue, not the other stuff that seems to be the focus of these debates.

To put things in perspective... a woman who is looking for a long-term committed relationship would be better off asking a guy out and waiting to have sex for 6-months, than she would be flirting to get the guy to ask her out and then having sex with him 3-weeks later.

The dominant factor is the timing of sex... not who walked over to who first.

"And the guy doesn't directly have to ask the woman out because they are always hanging out. But by your own previous admission it could take years for a shy guy to take the initiative in that situation. It's those long drawn getting to know yous."

A man who takes a long "drawn out time" getting to know you before asking you out is a man who is interested in a long-term committed relationship with you.

A man who asks you out after a brief flirty interaction may have zero interest in you long-term.

The point I have been trying to get across is that men value their time... in fact, they generally value their time more than their money.

A man willing to invest his time in you without quick sex being the primary goal is someone who is looking forward to having sex with you for many years into the future.

"And Artemis I always knew you were around my age. You sound really pretentious. Are you gonna reveal your age or hold on to it like your gender?"

Ppen... I don't understand why you would have a problem respecting my preference for privacy when it comes to sharing information about my demographics. (obviously you understand that I am not comfortable doing that... yet you keep pushing the issue... so while you may believe I am being pretentious, I will point out that asking people to share personal information they clearly aren't interested in sharing is rude... maybe if you were less rude you would see me as being less pretentious because I wouldn't have to feel so guarded around you)

I simply don't make a habit out of sharing personal information over the internet that has no direct baring upon the discussion at hand.

To that end it would be nice of you to realize that my age, gender, skin color, etc... have no baring here. They just aren't relevant.

If you note, I never ask you any specific details about you. I presume that you will tell me what you are comfortable sharing and just leave it at that.

There are many questions that I could ask you if I was so inclined, but I respect your right to only share the information that you volunteer, all I ask for is the same treatment.

"To put things in perspective... a woman who is looking for a long-term committed relationship would be better off asking a guy out and waiting to have sex for 6-months, than she would be flirting to get the guy to ask her out and then having sex with him 3-weeks later."

According to your logic, a woman, who is looking for a short-term committed relationship, "she would be flirting to get the guy to ask her out and then having sex with him 3-weeks later."

After all, you just validated Ppen's point of view. Ppen was right all the way as much as you were right for the people, who are looking for a long-term relationship.

Your problem with your logic was that we all are looking for a long-term relationship. Most of us in U.S.A. are no longer interested in "until death do us apart" deal. With internet, the entire county became a meat market. We are no longer interested in eating the same hamburger for the next twenty years.

Your lover needs to be admired by you. Or you need to abandon her/him, so that other people have a chance to admire her/him.

"I would be willing to bet that lots, and lots of relationships fail, or never start when the man performs the late 20th century dating ritual entirely correctly."

Good point. There may be some kernel of evolutionary truth to the idea of men pursuing and women being pursued, but honestly it gets blown way out of proportion by advice gurus like Amy and over-internalized into a pretty mindless social construct by far too many women. There are plenty of desirable women whose romantic and sexual needs are going unmet due to an inability to mold their unique personalities to a fairly arbitrary set of rules, and an unwillingness to risk rejection, and they aren't served well by this over-emphasis on roles and rituals. There is also a self-serving element there (that probably has something to do with its perpetuation) in the sense that it seems to promise women that simply being attractive is enough to land a great guy, no risk required. Sorry, but all achievement requires risk, and simply being female and beautiful doesn't give you a pass.

Also Amy, I gotta say - "pussyboy" is a pretty angry, even violent, word choice and suggests a rather warped outlook towards men or maybe people in general. Again, probably not the best service to your readers if you're asking them to absorb that angry mentality, whether or not you have a logically valid point underneath it.

Chang Says:

"After all, you just validated Ppen's point of view. Ppen was right all the way as much as you were right for the people, who are looking for a long-term relationship."

I was never in disagreement with either Ppen or Amy when it comes to the position they advocate if someone is only interested in a string of short term relationships.

If that is what someone is after more power to them.

The issue is that they offer this advice as a "one size fits all" solution when it isn't.

If someone were to be interested in a long-term relationship, following their suggestions is a great way to shoot themselves in the foot.

JB,

You bring up a very interesting point with regard to the use of the word "pussyboy" in the context in which it is used.

First you must understand that Amy is an advocate of shaming people into a specific set of behaviors.

That being said, that type of philosophy logically breaks down when you are trying to shame someone into being daring or brave.

Someone who is too timid/afraid to approach a woman for a date isn't going to be shamed or bullied into being more confident and brave.

Courage is a quality that is generated through being inspired to take action... you can't berate/insult someone into being a confident and bold individual.

Ah yes, shame. There may be times when it's an appropriate and useful emotion - if you lie, cheat, steal or put someone's life or property in danger, you probably need to feel shame for those actions, and if you fail to generate it within yourself, then the law, a parent, or some other external observer should do it for you. But I think most of us are prone to feeling it way more than we need to, especially when confronted with parents (or others trying to adopt a parental tone) who are deliberately trying to evoke shame as a shortcut to some desired behavior. IMO, it's a pretty inappropriate and long-term counterproductive way to address someone who is going through the normal struggles of maturing from a timid, risk-averse young person into a generative adult. In this particular context, it's also not doing any favors for the women on the other side of the equation who are being led to believe that they are justified in adopting a "shame on you pussyboy" attitude towards men who don't have things 100% figured out. What man in his right mind would want that kind of energy in his life, let alone expose his children to it?

JB said -- "What man in his right mind would want that kind of energy in his life..."
----------

Not this one. That's for sure. I had a Mom at birth. I don't need another Mother, thank you very much.

Wow, Amy, you sure have made a lot of fat and Asperger's girls ANGRY with your truthful post, hahaha!

I don't lift a finger and men are all over me. I know how to attract men. It's being, not doing.

Lose the weight, use some makeup, learn to act like a woman instead of the boys you grew up around and Daddy treated better, and leave this author alone. Seriously: no one here is fooled.

If you were so right, you'd be moaning under HIM right now. Instead, you're here. Curious that.

Off to moan under my Him,
A Feminine Smart Chick