I have an aphorism about this. Male aggression, female selection. The man must make a move but it is the woman who actually chooses.

I do note that most of the biggest whiners on your comment threads re: women and how unfair they are, are also rather obtuse when it comes to dating and flirting, and are rather bitter that the world is as it is and not as they think it should be.

I'm sure responses to this will be equally obtuse by the usual gang of suspects. Life's not fair. Deal.

I am rather obtuse myself, but I've figured out that the world isn't going to adjust itself to my liking.

I am at a disadvantage here, I concede, but I have to assume it's my own fault that I can't read signals worth a flip.

When my (now) husband called off the romance after a couple months of dating, citing "we're going too fast," I took it with grace. I was somewhat disappointed but the essence of life is choice - mine AND his. I figured I'd never hear from him again, but I sure wasn't going to go after him. Big sea, lots of fish, end of story (I am not one of those who believes in "only one man for me in the world.")

I still haven't told him (dear, you can quit reading now) that when he called me a month later, I didn't immediately recognize his voice, but played along until I figured out who it was! He had dated some in that month; I had dated a bunch, and he expressed to me in words of one syllable in that call that all the time he had been out with others, he had been wishing he was with me.

Now, I ask you: If I had made excuses for why he wasn't calling me, if I had called and emailed every ten minutes - or actually, even once - would I have gotten such a declaration? I really don't think so! He would have been reacting to me instead of acting on his own, and there is a huge difference in that. We have been together for the 20 years since, and it has been wonderful.

Amy, you are right ON with this!

>> I am rather obtuse myself...

My wife asked me out, some 26 years ago, as she was having a New Year's party. I brought a date.

> They might say no, but a "no" generally isn't
> followed by the sound of a big guillotine
> falling on your neck

After all these years, I'm still amazed by the oblivious insensitivity each gender bears for the burdens carried by the other.

Hmm. An "uncomfortable science". Actually sounds like guillotine study!

Many men are obtuse, but the corrilary is many women have no idea how to flirt, and don't realise how bad at it they are.
Odds are that guy she is eyeing has been better fake flirted with, half a dozen times that week by waitresses or salesladies looking for a sale or a better tip.

For a Mother Nature's stand point of view, it is all about reproducing next generation. SHE could be careless about who asked out whom.

The key point you cannot ignore is that the man must be able to get it up to release the sperms for the reproduction.

So, if a man asked woman out, generally you don't have to worry about that department. However, if woman asked man out, you have to accept the possibility that he may not be able to get it up by just looking at you. Then, you might have to give him a head to help him get it started. Most man will accept this offer.

So, as long as you are cool with giving him a head, there is nothing wrong with woman asking man out.

Human reproduction is not different from dog's. I don't think they care about the etiquette of who asks out whom first. The female dogs send scent signals in the air and the male dogs picks up the scent. After that, I don't think they argue about which gender should ask first for a doggie date.

Why do you think humans should be any different?

I meant to comment on that column, but I was pretty busy last week, and by the time I read through it, the thread was played out.

Here's the thing, and I had to argue with myself about this too: The woman-asking-the-man-out thing, it just doesn't work. Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it just doesn't work. Yes, the fact that it doesn't work violates all modern concepts of gender equity and equal rights and responsibilities and all that. In a "fair" world, it wouldn't be that way. But it is that way; that's what the evidence shows, and we have to accept that.

Actually, my attitude on that changed when I got into ballroom dancing. In that endeavor, it is very traditional that the man ask the woman for a dance, and the women wait to be asked. Like a lot of guys, I used to assume that in the dating scene, the man takes all the responsibility and the woman has all the control. But ballroom dancing made me realize something: the responsibility to initiate means I get to make the first choice. If no one asks a woman to dance, she doesn't get to dance. That's a very powerful thing. True, if I ask a woman to dance, she has every right to say no. That's no skin off my nose, though; there's lots of other women in the ballroom. And if a woman turns me down several times in a row, I won't ask her any more. Guys, you need to look at the dating world the same way; everything starts by you choosing the woman. If you don't ask her, then either she doesn't get a date with you, or else she has to flip the script and then expose herself to the disadvantages of both the male and female roles.

The ballroom environment is actually a great enforcer of appropriate social behavior. If a guy has wandering hands, or poor hygiene, or if he only ever asks the hottest girls in the room for dances, word gets around among the women and pretty soon he'll find himself being consistently turned down. By the same principle, a woman who ignores her partners, or lectures them, or only accepts dances from the best dancers, will soon find that she doesn't get asked very much.

(I personally do not have a problem with women asking me for a dance, in general. However, I have found that some who do so are not really wanting to dance with me; they are just demanding. Situation: A women comes up to me and asks me for a dance, but unfortunately I've already promised that dance to someone else. I say to her, "I've already promised this one to Judy over there; can we do the next one?" If she can't accept that, then I know what she's up to.)

Oh, and:

"and he hit on me with talk of kernel panics..."

Damn! Why didn't I ever think of that?

> It's urging men to do what's necessary for
> them to have love and sex in their lives.

You are that taken with your opinion of the world? Truly?

Put another way: When a woman says she doesn't like sexually denigrating chatter, the matter shouldn't end with "Get over yourself, Kitten." There's more to say and there's more to hear. There's nothing heroic about condensing everything into a thickskinned mentality.

Rejection hurts a lot, and it's a pretty detached person who doesn't feel it. However, math can help here. With more attempts comes more successes, in addition to more failures. Knowing there are lots of women who will say yes will makes the nos feel less deeply personal.

There are all types of men and all types of women and saying there is only one correct way for them to proceed is overly simple.

"You are that taken with your opinion of the world? Truly?"

She's been saying this for years, has the backing of a few behavioral psych professors, and you just now noticed?

What have you been doing?

Gee. Just read back in this blog!

I find her approach reasonable. Doesn't a lady want someone who can be bold on her side? This first impression is a fine place to see if you're talking to Casper Milquetoast.

Amy, you are right ON with this!

+1

Cousin Dave: Here's the thing, and I had to argue with myself about this too: The woman-asking-the-man-out thing, it just doesn't work. Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it just doesn't work.

I think there are certainly cases where it doesn't work because the man is very macho/traditional and can't deal with a woman taking the initiative, and you concede that that there are times it does work, but I've been maintaining all along in my discussion with Amy (and others) that when it doesn't work it's most likely because the man simply isn't into the woman. It's no different than a man asking a woman out. There's no guarantee that's going to work. She may turn him town or she may accept and they may date for a while and then she may decide that she's just not that into him and break things off (or, of course, he may be the one to decide to end things.)

If a woman does decide to ask a man out, and he agrees because he finds her attractive and he thinks she seems interesting and they go on a date and have great time talking and discover they have a lot of interests in common, is he going to wake up the next morning and say to himself, "Y'know...Jennifer sure was a lot of fun to be with last night and I think she's whip-smart and super-hot and I can't believe she likes most of the music I do and that she wants to visit Sicily as much as I do...but I've gotta call her and tell her I can't see her again because she asked me out."?

No, of course not. He's going to want to see her again and if they continue to hit it off and if, once they end up in bed, the sex is great, he's going to continue to want to see her. And then, going forward, what will happen to them is what happens to every couple who begin dating: they'll either end up in a long-term relationship (including, perhaps, marriage) or they'll break up for one of the countless reasons couples break up.

Yes, the fact that it doesn't work violates all modern concepts of gender equity and equal rights and responsibilities and all that. In a "fair" world, it wouldn't be that way. But it is that way; that's what the evidence shows, and we have to accept that.

I'm curious. What, exactly, is this "evidence" you speak of?

Actually, my attitude on that changed when I got into ballroom dancing. In that endeavor, it is very traditional that the man ask the woman for a dance, and the women wait to be asked. Like a lot of guys, I used to assume that in the dating scene, the man takes all the responsibility and the woman has all the control. But ballroom dancing made me realize something: the responsibility to initiate means I get to make the first choice. If no one asks a woman to dance, she doesn't get to dance. That's a very powerful thing.

It's also an absurd thing (as tradition often is) that if no man asks a woman to dance, she doesn't get to dance. In contrast, every year at our Folklife Festival (at Seattle Center over Memorial Day weekend) there are contra/swing/zydeco dances in a dance hall. At all of those dances, everyone is free to go up to anyone else and ask them to dance. Women aren't required to sit or stand passively waiting for a guy to ask them. Many of them do that, but many others will go up to a guy and ask him if he wants to dance. Most guys say yes and they go off and have a fun time dancing together.

Laura, There are all types of men and all types of women and saying there is only one correct way for them to proceed is overly simple.

Touché. That's the big difference between how Amy and I view things. Her view is absolutist; mine isn't. Amy feels, very strongly, that women should never ask men out. I feel it depends on the woman and, in particular, how she feels about men who might be shy.

If I had an advice column and a woman wrote to me saying there was a guy at her health club who smiled at her and seemed interested but who never asked her out, and she was wondering if it would be okay for her to ask him if he wanted to grab a cup of coffee sometime, I'd say...

Sure, go for it if you want to. He might be involved with someone else and just being friendly, but he might also be interested in you and shy. Now, if he is interested and shy, and if you feel the same way that my fellow advice columnist, the Advice Goddess, does about men who are too shy to ask a woman out -- that they are "weenies", worthy of scorn, disdain and contempt -- then you obviously should not ask him out. But if shy men don't disgust you, then go for it, I wish you well and let me know how it turns out.

A comment I made on Betsy Hart's blog in 2009, in response to her column "Girls Don't Call Boys":

http://www.scrippsnews.net/node/41496

I somewhat agree with the column. It’s the title that’s a turn-off.

After all, there ARE still those who frown at any sign of initiative from a woman, and most women would like to weed out such men in a hurry. I.e., “calling” on the phone can be interpreted to mean the boorish behavior you described, but many would interpret it to mean proscribing even a dating tactic as subtle as “I’m going to the town hall tonight – there’s a meeting about the zoning issue and I thought you might want to know so you can hear it.”

Besides, as one man pointed out a year ago or so on this blog, men who keep pursuing women who may or may not be acting coy could find themselves in legal trouble – or, at least, branded as boors. So they NEED signs from a woman that she’s truly interested. In short, as Miss Manners said, “pushy tactics are self defeating. The trick to a relationship is learning to move just slightly more slowly than one’s partner.” Of course, she meant both sexes when she said that.

I’m not saying that the romantic role of men-as-pursuer shouldn’t be given a chance before a woman assumes that a man is shy and needs strong hints. Just that there are plenty of circumstances where a modest woman could easily lose a man she desires due to his misinterpretation of her message – such as when she’s the only woman in his neighborhood who isn’t throwing herself at him or even speaking to him before being spoken to.

Thanks for the link to the article, lenona.

Betsy Hart: Flash forward and the social engineers can say whatever they want to, but here's why we know these instincts remain part of us: Line-up 20 married couples and ask how they fell in love and became engaged. 19 of them will have a tale of how he initiated the romance.

Well, duh. Of course 19 of 20 married couples are going to have a tale of how he initiated the romance, because very few women will take the initiative. Now, I'm not saying women should do this but if women did initiate as much as men, then you might very well find a 10/10 split.

Plus, I'd be very curious to see a study of marriages that resulted from the man initiating the romance vs. ones where the woman did to see if there are any general differences, like is it possible that a higher (or lower) percentage of female-initiated ones report the couple as being happy? Or are men more (or less) likely to cheat in a marriage that resulted from a male-initiated romance?

Betsy Hart again: News reports are that millions of women are furious with "The Bachelor."

Her mention of that show gave me a thought. I wonder which show male viewers prefer: "The Bachelor" or "The Bachelorette"? The men-love-the-chase school of thought should, I would think, predict the "The Bachelorette", since men would presumably work their testosterone into a frenzy putting themselves in the place of a man competing with other men for a woman.

> math can help here. With more attempts
> comes more successes

I can, like, dig it. I've applied these arithmetic considerations in my own life, as recently as 26 hours ago.

But they don't speak to anybody's strongest feelings about attachment. People want what they want.

I think men detest "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" equally. I say this as someone who watches both, but then, I'm a woman and my friend, Byron, actually was the bachelor one year, so I started having "bachelor parties" that year and have continued since. My husband will join us ladies to watch sometimes, but I'm sure he'd rather be watching football.

The shows are pretty lame, but that's the fun of it - kitchy, stupid entertainment.

But even on those shows - even with the bachelor, where it's obvious that the women are pursuing him - the women who make bold moves, such as handing him their underwear, usually get cut in favor of those who are a more coy and allow him to do the pursuing.

A couple of years ago, bachelor "Jake" was freaked out when a girl broke the rules and snuck down to his room at night. You could tell it was a mood killer and caused him to rethink her as a prospect. He ended up choosing her, but the relationship was a disaster.

And the only "bachelorette" who ended up marrying her choice did so after he wrote her poetry. He was a very shy guy, but he had the balls to write those poems and read them on national TV to pursue her. They're still together and have 2 kids.

I think men detest "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette" equally.

Not me! I was a little late to the "Bachelor/Bachelorette" party but once I started watching (4th or 5th season, I think...Byron must have been before that time as I don't remember him) I was hooked. Yes, they're very contrived, but, like you said, it's entertainment. Plus it's about people and relationships I find that far more fascinating than, say, watching huge chunks of flesh and testosterone in tight pants running around with a ball (unless, that is, the Vikings are in the Super Bowl...then I do a 180.)

But even on those shows - even with the bachelor, where it's obvious that the women are pursuing him - the women who make bold moves, such as handing him their underwear, usually get cut in favor of those who are a more coy and allow him to do the pursuing.

The thing is, we don't know that the bold moves are the main reason for the heave-ho. They may be, but we don't know that. If was on that show and really liked a woman for various reasons she could hand me her grandmother's underwear and I'd still give her a rose.

Jim, it's great you like the Bachelor! Nobody remembers Byron's season. It was their lowest ratings ever for any bachelor show, partly because he was serious about finding love, and he wouldn't let the producers coax him into creating needless drama. He filled us in on all the behind-scenes scoop. They ply (plow) those ladies with alcohol, so it's actually a wonder more don't take off their underwear!

He chose a woman that they brought back from another season (rejected by another bachelor). He fell for her as soon as they met, so the producers had to work to make it suspenseful after that (and obviously failed!).

I met her. She was very nice. They stayed together 3 years, but she had alcohol issues and actually punched him in the face. It's probably not ideal to meet on a reality TV show.

The latest Bachelorette, Ally, seems truly in love with Roberto though. I hope they last.

"Mating is a dance." Thank you Amy; that, and your expansion on that afterward really are very helpful.

I was one of those liberated women who asked men out - men who for the most part looked interested in me - and the asking out changed things for the worse. I was also the aggressive one in initiating my (just-ended) relationship and marriage, and because of my largely unilateral persistence, I missed a lot of signals that would have told me that he wasn't right for me.

Joe J's comment at 2:40 is spot-on. Unfortunately, I am also one of those women who pretty much can't flirt to save her life. If I flirt, it's accidentally when I end up in a conversation with a guy that I find interesting (both the guy and the conversation). I guess I'll figure it out eventually.

They ply (plow) those ladies with alcohol, so it's actually a wonder more don't take off their underwear!

Thanks for the info...I just called Chris Harrison to sign up!

Looked up the episodes on Wikipedia. The first one I saw was the fifth season, with Jesse Palmer. Bryon was after that but I must've skipped it because the next one I remember was Charlie O'Connell. I was later to the "Bachelorette" party, due to my preference for watching a bunch of attractive women to a bunch of dudes. The first of those I saw was the one with Ali. Yeah, she and Roberto seem like a great couple. That was one of two times I've picked the winner from the first episode...I figured she'd pick Roberto because he was not only charming but the best-looking guy there, and I figured that Brad would pick Emily because she was sweet but also impossibly gorgeous.

I can't remember her name but my favorite contestant was a brunette in (I think) her 30s on Jesse's or Charlie's season. She was sharp, very articulate and wickedly sexy.

I was one of those liberated women who asked men out - men who for the most part looked interested in me - and the asking out changed things for the worse.

Angel, the key there is "looked" interested. You thought they were but, as it turned out, they really weren't. That doesn't mean there was something inherently wrong in you asking them out. Guys ask women out all the time who they feel look interested in them only be turned down, or dumped after a few dates.

I was also the aggressive one in initiating my (just-ended) relationship and marriage, and because of my largely unilateral persistence, I missed a lot of signals that would have told me that he wasn't right for me.

Women can (and do) also miss signals that a guy isn't right for them because they're dazzled by his charm when he's pulling out all the stops to impress and pursue them. Again, there's nothing inherent about asking someone out that makes one miss (or ignore) red flags.

Jim, I'll try to address a few things:

"I've been maintaining all along in my discussion with Amy (and others) that when it doesn't work it's most likely because the man simply isn't into the woman."

From what I've read, that isn't quite the story. The story tends to be more that if a woman approaches a man for a date, the man is likely to regard it as a couched sexual proposition. And if that isn't what the woman intended, someone is obviously going to wind up disappointed. Data seems to be hard to come by, but I've run across this:

http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt2.pdf

They do mention that different studies have led to different results. Their own study showed that of relationships where the first date was initiated by the woman, half made it past six months. However, they also mention another study which found that only 13% of such relationships made it past the third date. They mention that the other study was performed in 1981, and maybe things had changed since then, but they don't really dig into it.

They did state that in their own survey, 34% had asked a man out at least once, and almost none (less than 1%) had ever been turned down. They also said that 78% of men reported having been asked out at least once, which was an interesting disparity.

"Plus, I'd be very curious to see a study of marriages that resulted from the man initiating the romance vs. ones where the woman did to see if there are any general differences"

I'd like to see that too. So far, I haven't come up with anything.

"Many of them do that, but many others will go up to a guy and ask him if he wants to dance. Most guys say yes and they go off and have a fun time dancing together."

I've observed similar, actually; there's a difference between the ballroom/latin world and the swing and salsa venues. I can think of two big differences. One is that the ballroom is more likely to have a big mix of age and attachment groups; the ballroom we go to has teenagers and people in their '60s, and yes, they do dance together. The other difference is the level of physical contact. I love West Coast swing, but the amount of physical intimacy isn't in the same neighborhood as waltz or tango. In those dances, there is no such thing as personal space. I think that somehow drives the need for a bit more formality in how the men and women approach each other.

But they don't speak to anybody's strongest feelings about attachment. People want what they want.

Totally. Being rejected by someone is gut-wrenching for some of us. Skydiving feels retarded when we have a perfectly good plane under our asses. But people who force themselves to deal with the rejection are rewarded eventually.

I didn't date much before my first marriage. Every rejection felt like more evidence that I was a troll who should sit at home with a bag on my head. After my divorce, when I got the nerve to put myself out there, I was still rejected a lot. But I was also accepted enough that the rejections didn't feel like a personal attack on me. They happened because the people I was interested in were looking for something different: someone taller, someone with red hair, someone who could play the violin with her tongue, whatever.

Whoever you are, however old or fat or bald you are, you have something someone wants. Finding that someone requires a person to be open to a lot of pain, and I get why people don't want to risk it. It's awful. My husband and I have said that one reason we will never cheat on each other is because neither of us ever wants to date again.

Looking at the married couples I know well enough to have any idea who have gotten together in about the last 15 years I see a strong trend...the women made the first move. Short term dating is a lot more of the guy making the first move.

As Joe (I think it was) said, one big problem is women don't flirt. I realize this is regional as when I went back east on work in the hour we waited were waiting for dinner reservation I had more women flirt with me than I had in the year previously. In general, a woman flirting with me is a sign she is not interested in dating but rather getting a bigger tip or something. This just happened to me today...I got a phone number a couple of weeks ago and things just weren't happening ..she was always busy or whatever. Tonight a txt, she was at work and it dead so I should I come visit her. Looked up the name of the place...strip club.

Even though I'm the type to do the asking, there have still been a fair number of women who have asked me out.

I've turned some of them down, and gone out with the others.

As it turns out, there's been no real difference in the duration of my relations with them, as opposed to those *I* asked.

Though my longest relationship was with someone I asked out, the second longest (and my current one) was with a woman who asked me.

I may be an outlier, but I really don't care about ideas concerning the 'proper' way to have a relationship, I only care if there is value in it.

There's enough diversity and variation in the realm of human interaction to accomodate both kinds of approaches.

I like the pursuit. 90% of the time, I'm the one who makes the approach.

Even so, I don't feel threatened when a woman decides to be the aggressor. In a way, it's kind of flattering.

My current girlfriend asked me out (together 12 years now).

I don't resent her for not being submissive enough to wait for me to ask her (though I had already decided to ask her out, she beat me to it). I'm happy to be with her, regardless of who did what first.

I'm not saying that Amy is wrong, overall, but to presume that there are no exceptions to the rule seems a bit presumptious.

I may be an outlier, but I really don't care about ideas concerning the 'proper' way to have a relationship, I only care if there is value in it.

Thanks Tim. Good to hear another guy who feels like I do. And I believe that a lot of other guys feel the same way.

I'm not saying that Amy is wrong, overall, but to presume that there are no exceptions to the rule seems a bit presumptious.

I think she accepts that men with attitudes like you and me exist but I'm sure she feels that we belong to a very tiny minority of exceptions. Where she does have a "no exception" policy is her rule: Women should not pursue men, even in small ways. Under this rule, it is apparently a grave mistake for a woman to even ask a man to have a cup of coffee.

Amy has repeatedly said that there are exceptions. Of course, it works out sometimes, but is it wise advice to women? No.

Using my example from the other thread, sometimes men still marry women who have been extremely promiscuous. But, in general, men are turned off by that as far as picking a long-term partner, so it would be harmful to tell women that slutting around wouldn't matter just because it works out on rare occasions.

It's not fair, but perceptions are everything in dating. A woman pursuing a guy is usually a bad idea. It makes her look desperate and therefore less valuable in his eyes.

Tim, you had already decided to ask your girlfriend out, which is a bit different. She just beat you to it, but no doubt, she was pretty certain how you felt before she did the asking.

Amy, your idea that female rejection—especially in public—is not a big deal has not been thought through very well.

Suppose a man approaches the woman he thinks is the most attractive in a club or bar.

If he is rejected or brushed off, he is not only personally humiliated, his status has been lowered in the eyes of every woman who saw it. If he approaches another woman who saw it, she will reject him as well. This is because she knows two things about him, i.e. she was not his first choice, and he was not good enough for the first woman, therefore not good enough for her. The more often this happens, the greater the chances that every woman in the place will have seen him be rejected. Before this happens, he must make one of two choices. Wait until some new women show up, or leave. Success breeds success, but failure also breeds failure.

This is a very expensive and annoying way to meet a mate. I think there is a good reason that for most of human history, arranged marriage was so common and long lasting.

Ken, you're assuming anyone in the club is paying that much attention to this exchange. The only time anyone even notices this going on is if the man is being very flamboyant in his approach, or if the woman is very flamboyant in her rejection. To everyone else, if they even notice, this looks like any other interaction.

This is one of the most important lessons I learned in dating again: No one cares as much about what I'm doing as I think they do.

I don't know any woman who frequents clubs who bases her choices on who some other woman turned down. Maybe that woman turned him down because she has a boyfriend, or because she's a lesbian, or for any number of reasons. If the guy looks good and presents himself well, being turned down by another woman on the other side of the bar doesn't matter.

Dunno, Amy and MonicaP... I have more than a few situations similar to Ken's, not every one, but often. :shrug:

There's 2 things...
1]Rules like this have to be broken sometimes, but you have to count the cost of when. When advising women in general, it's one thing, but an INDIVIDUAL can take their chances...

2]you could always opt out as well. Take some time off and decide exactly what you want from relationships and WHY you want them. There is some merit to the saying: "if you want peace, then live alone..."

> a guy I know who looks like a giant Martian baby
> (he has alopecia) has THE most beautiful and
> sweet wife because HE had the balls to ask a
> gorgeous woman out when other men were
> intimidated.

Oh, this is getting pathetic... Yes yes yes! The poor, slender, bee-stung-lipped supermodel is weeping into her room service, alone in her suite at the Waldorf on a Saturday night, with "I Love Lucy" reruns laughing at her in black-&-white from the TV set, because men are courageous enough to approach her... And just be real...

Yeah. Sure.

What IS it about feminine nature that summons these idiot narratives?

AREN'T courageous enough, I meant. You knew that.

Carolla used to do about 40 minutes on this.

It came right after the rant about how all women say 'I love a man with a sense of humor!', even when they made room for nothing more ironic in their lives than a lesser rerun of "Friends".

Amy, I have not only thought this through, I've lived it through. Before I got out of the dating scene I adopted the 'go ugly early' strategy. Don't wait until you have been turned down by all the hot girls, because if you do, the ugly girls will turn you down too. Being rejected is not just an emotional blow that a real man should be able to withstand, it reduces his future choices.

Ken, you're right in a way: If you never ask a woman out, you never have to worry about reducing your chances with the other women. That makes a sort of sense, I guess. But in both cases you're probably going home alone, and if you ask, at least there's a chance you're not. If you're fine with setting the bar low at the outset, that's certainly a strategy, too. It depends on what you're looking for, but purposely setting the bar low seems sad for you and insulting to her.

But SwissArmyD raises a good point: Taking a little time off from dating to figure out what you want is excellent advice. This can take the edge off of a lot of the desperation.

I've said it before, but I'm a big fan of services like Match.com. If you do it right, you get the best of both worlds. You know she's interested, at least a little, if she agrees to meet you, but you can do the usual courtship dance from there.

One thing I wish people would make better use of is friends. Your friends, if they really know you, will be able to set you up with people who have a better chance of being a match. Or, if they are more subtle, they can "happen" to invite a friend you might like to a party or group outing. Then you can get to know him or her in a more comfortable setting, with support from friends, and maintain plausible deniability if there's no chemistry.

No one wants to fight with me any more, so I have to quibble with Monica:

> One thing I wish people would make better
> use of is friends.

I *completely* agree with this, OK? I've made a bunch of comments here about that, and I'll dig out the links if you like. I think a lot of idiot divorces and single-parent nightmares could be avoided if people prepared for marriage by earning and sustaining the best friendships they could find... And then relying on those friends to hone their insights and selection of a partner.

That's MUCH better than trusting their own naive hearts and broken families for guidance. Far too many squeeze the trigger with idiot songs from Disney and Whitney Houston (or whomever) rolling around in their skulls, promising that nothing is more important for a good union than their own twitching impulses.

That's why it's a surprise that you recommend Match dot com. I don't know anything about the service, but I presume it's not a network of genuine friends. Presumably there aren't a constellation of relationships like you'd find in an extended family or a church group or some other social team.

Team sports make it happen, not data processing. Our acceptance of judgment about third parties is always colored by our opinions of the ones who offer the judgment. Thoughtful triangulation is how a social organism survives. If a shallow horndog says "That Monica's a psychobitch", a more thoughtful man will approach you knowing only that you seem to relate to men at a bandwidth that fools can't appreciate. This is not a data processing function, it's a human one. Ya gotta watch the eyes.

The big (silly) problem I have with this comment stack is that you folks conflate dating with The Big Throb. When someone has selected The One and been rebuffed, there's zero utility to saying 'Now's the time to get out there and sow some oats!' Oats aren't what the guy had in mind... He wanted Gertrude. Or she wanted Edgar. At that hour, such souls aren't interested in the arithmetic of wide, playful, scattershot gambling.


Well, OK, Amy's in the advice column business. I remember back in the day, when Paglia started a somewhat comedic series for Spy Magazine. She elsewhere noted that her responses were intentionally brief: Advice columnists aren't paid to consider every outcome. (Note Cammy's use of the words "tart" and "snappy" here, and note that each response is shorter than its inquiry.)

But for this topic, I think there's a distinction worth noting— Chasing tail, or flirtation, and even extended romances are a different challenge than partner selection, requiring different skillsets... And maybe different earnestness.

Love is a marketplace, but not everything is negotiable.

I always liked the humor of this wording: May I have one?

But then, my teen years were spent in flannel.

Furthermore, a guy I know who looks like a giant Martian baby (he has alopecia) has THE most beautiful and sweet wife because HE had the balls to ask a gorgeous woman out when other men were intimidated.

Oh, and sure, full-of-themselves assholes asked her out, but like me, she wasn't having any of that.

She's gorgeous but the only guys who asked her out were Martian Sheen and full-of-themselves assholes?

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

There's no shortage of men willing to chat up and ask out women who are attractive -- I've been in a relationship with two very attractive women (not at the same time) and I saw firsthand how much attention they got from other men...plus, when I'm out and about, I'm always observing people and attractive women are always getting attention from men -- and I highly doubt that all these men are "full-of-themselves assholes."

I am not sure why dating coaches & apparently advice columnists are stuck on the idea others don't notice what you are doing. Maybe if it is in extremely crowded place they can't see. And the opposite is clearly true - what is the called - social proof? Yes, many guys over estimated it, still it is real. I notice way too much, the curse of working as extra security through college.

After college, the friend thing doesn't seem to work too well. I believe in my group of friends case it is because there were few women and all us guys tended to like the same qualities. So for example, if Mike met a girl who would be good for me...well, she was also good for Mike so he wouldn't pass her on so to speak. If Mike is dating Jill and Jill introduces me to her friend Jane, what happens if Mike & Jill break-up...makes gatherings difficult. The other problem with that is my friends tended to be dating the "best" of a group of girlfriends. Case in point, My friend's then GF insisted on setting me up with her best friend. Best friend ended up not being able to make it because she didn't get released from rehab - for the third time.

> I have a friend who looks like Sophia Loren...

Oh this is such frogwash... For fuck's SAKE.

1. Did I say it was frogwash earlier in the comment stack? Yes, yes I did say it was frogwash.

2. Was I right? Yes, I was right when I said it was frogwash.

3. Did I sketch out a whole "lonely supermodel" scenario to mock this frogwash in a directly expository way? Yes, yes I did compose such a narrative.

4. Did anyone answer me when I asked what the source of this crazyness is? No, nobody answered me.

I'd like to write fourteen paragraphs on the nuance of it all, but it's a workday. Condensed: Someone's taking too much childish pleasure in describing "having men grow a set of balls" as the solution to an entirely imaginary problem—

Sophia Loren Can't Get Laid!

And isn't that *IRONIC!?!??!?!*

Sophia Loren!

No. It's preposterous on its face. This is about SOMETHING ELSE. If not for you, then for Weeping Lonely Sophia.

Monica was right: "Whoever you are, however old or fat or bald you are, you have something someone wants."

If you're going to fault lonely men's timidity as the source of so much sorrow, it's a safe bet that Sophers isn't fully concho of the feelings of those around her, either.

Hey Amy! Here's an idea! Let's have one of your commenters here meet Sophia for lunch. Real quiet- 'n sly- like. I'm buyin'!

And then our Secret Agent Commenter can report back to us whether or not [A] she actually looks like Sophia Loren and [B] whether she's fully aware of the feelings and flirtation her beauty stimulates from the men of her environment.

It is true, but not for every attractive woman. I've noticed differences. My girlfriend with the big fake boobs will get approached anywhere and everywhere. Not necessarily asked out though - usually bought drinks and chatted up.

My classier looking attractive girlfriends don't often get approached, which I also found true for myself, particularly when I was younger and more attractive, strangely enough.

I noticed back then that when I was dressed nicely, made up, with my hair fixed, etc, guys didn't approach me, but if I went to the grocery store the next morning with my hair tangled, a wrinkled pair of jeans, and mascara smeared beneath my eyes to grab a carton of milk, I'd be hit on frequently.

So, my theory is that only the boldest, most aggressive guys will approach the Sophia Lorens of the world. If a woman looks like a hot mess, she's approachable. If she's perfect, most guys will be initimidated.

My dad actually told me this when I went off to college. He said to attract guys never be too put together...always have "a button missing or a run in your stocking". lol I thought he was nuts then, but now, I think he has a point.

That's why it's a surprise that you recommend Match dot com.

I had a good experience with it. I used it to increase the number of people I was meeting, but I depended on my friends to tell me whether they were douchebags. I couldn't believe the number of people who came up to me after my divorce and said, "Yeah, I always thought that guy was an asshole." I insisted they tell me the second time around.

It's also good for people with a low threshold for dating failure. You have a basic sense of their interest level before you ever meet, and if it doesn't work you, you'll likely never run into them again. It can be good for building social skills.

People seem to think something went wrong when they are rejected. That's the whole point of dating. You weed through the people who don't meet your needs for whatever reason until you find someone who does. Other people are doing the same thing. It takes a lot of resilience to handle the rejection, but the alternative is quitting.

As far as using friends, not all friends are equipped to help you on this. Friends who are already in relationships are a good choice. And sometimes it'll go badly anyway.

My comment keeps going to spam, although it doesn't have a link in it.

Thanks, Amy.

I also like Match and online dating sites for that reason. Guys would approach me online who would probably never do it in person. After all, it was just a "wink" or an e-mail. The risk of crushing rejection was lower. It gives the shyer, less polished guys more of an even playing field.

I can only think of one woman that was beautiful and not asked out often...this woman was at a singles mingles advice event and she specially asked why she never got asked out. It was clear...she gave of this vibe that she would rather kill you than look at you.

Almost all of been like my one girlfriend's friend. She always complained that no one approached her. What it really was is the one super hot6'4" guy she had picked out at the club that night had not approached her...the 40 or so other guys didn't count.

> It was clear...she gave of this vibe that
> she would rather kill you

Exactly. It's beyond ironic that this feminine fantasy of the lonely beauty is irresistible to the crew in here... As if what was most needed from men was a capacity to ignore erotic subtleties.

It makes no sense that this would be a "feminine fantasy". A male fantasy, perhaps, but there's nothing to be gained by women pretending to be lonely and not asked out. Why would we share this with each other? Or observe it? And how the heck would you guys know anyway?

True, as Banker notes, some women send off a negative vibe, or may not count the ugly or idiot guys that approach and ask them out (we all get those!).

But, be honest, you wouldn't approach Sophia Loren and ask her out - for real (not fantasy). You'd assume she'd say no. You'd assume she has countless better options, and oodles of other admirers.

And you'd probably be right, but many men mistakenly assume this about a really beautiful woman when the truth is that she actually is alone - at least at that moment.

Also, like I said, this tends to happen to my more sophisticated beautiful friends. My "hot mess" girlfriend, with the spilling over boobs, never has this problem. When we're out, she's always a little tipsy, and guys view her as an easier target, I think. They don't look at her and imagine they'd need to come up with something terribly clever to say.

Still, this means she usually gets the dregs of the room. There's something about that barbie doll look that mostly attracts that element. So, the guys who ask her out are not usually the ones she wishes would. She's a lot smarter than she looks.

> there's nothing to be gained by women pretending
> to be lonely and not asked out.

"That's wrong", I thought, while reading those words. Then I glanced down at the signature. It's the one who judges her own soul to be lovely!... Even though others strongly disagree!

So I'll get back to this later.

I find it amusing that Amy and others on this board, have taken a modern American form of social matchmaking called "dating" which has really only been in existence for a hundred years or so and imposed hard and fast biological rules on the right and the wrong way to do it.
For example, there is no word in the Japanese language for "date"?
The high divorce rate in this country practically screams, that American "dating" is a very poor method for finding a lifetime partner.
Historically, men were the ones that had the personal freedom to move around and do the asking because no girls from respectable families were going to be going around in public alone and meeting strange men. The age of the automobile kind of changed all that.
In small traditional communities and even large ones historically, women tended to end up married to friends of their brothers or the sons of their own parent's friends. I have a few distant and elderly relatives who are "double cousins" because of this phenomena.

So basically, I think the right way and the wrong way to date, is kind of a red herring. As a system for forming stable relationships, it has been pretty much a bust. It leads to people forming relationships primarily on the basis of sexual attraction alone, with alpha male assholes fathering more than their share of children, on women with room temperature IQ's and poor judgment which they then refuse to take financial responsibility for, and the government picks up the slack.

In the modern dating concept of the "assertive male" being the only one worth having, there seems to be very little thought as to what might be good qualities in a parent or a life partner, and also little thought that deferring sexual gratification might be a good idea until you figure out if you can actually live with this person.

"The high divorce rate in this country practically screams, that American "dating" is a very poor method for finding a lifetime partner"

No, it only screams that we CAN get divorced here. Marriages were no better, and actually much less happy in most cases before. Just because people were trapped in them didn't make their choice of partner, or the method, any better.

When conducted properly, modern dating leads to more fulfilling and truly compatible matches.

heh, Isabell1130, dunno that I'd talk about the Japanese not having a word for date, when their methods of partnering are entirely different than ours, plus they have the whole herbivore problem, in addition to women simply opting out altogether.

You do have points, but saying it's a bust, doesn't change the fact that it will be this way moving forward.

One of the important things about the old way of doing things, is that the 2 lovebirds rarely had a CHOICE, especially the woman. It was more stable because there was no way out of it, without ruination and disapproval of the community. The divorce rate is high because people have a choice if they want to stay or go, not because people were happier then.

That's not to say that a 3rd way wouldn't be better... it's too easy on the front end to stop a marriage now. No fault seems to be a bad thing. Trying to figure out how to choose well, is the best bet, but easier said than done.

On a different tack... Men are acutely aware that they are the ones that are seeking approval of women [for the most part] who are the gate keepers. In that way they are not really intimidatted by a well put together woman, as much as they may feel it's not worth their time. Out Sophia lookalike? What's to be gained by boring old Mr. Normal asking her out, if he feels he isn't in her league? She may let you buy her dinner, maybe even a number of times, but there are always predetory guys around, and you are always waiting for her to trade up. In such case, unless you are a looker yourself, the odds are against.

Sure some American are weenies, as Amy might say, but how many are simply realists? Even the EvoPsych people have done studies on how people pair based on how they look, and wealth attributes. Sure, go bravely against the grain! As long as you realize what the likely percentages are. Triangulate down a little bit, and you might find better matches.

Once you start getting older though, just finding someone available may be harder...

Oh, and? For those women that suggest things like Match.com? I would submit that the female experience is far, far different from a guys'... It's almost like putting a resume on monster... Many apply, few are contacted at all much less dated, and you TOTALLY have to watch out for chislers, hwo want to be fed and waterred, but have no intention of actually dating.

Women have to watch for that too, Swiss. I see some of the same profiles online of guys I dated or corresponded with over 6 yrs ago! They obviously aren't seriously looking for a relationship, but they manage to hook-up with women using these sites. So, it works, pro and con, based on what one is looking for, but both women and men have to become savvy about evaluating prospects.

It's really no different than the real world. In fact, I always felt better informed with online dates than just meeting someone at random. At least I knew some basic background info. True, their profile might be full of lies, but so could everything a guy says to me in person.

Ultimately, you have to develop sound romantic judgment and recognize how to recognize good and bad character traits. I don't think we do enough to teach this discernment. We prepare our youth for so many things they'll probably never need, yet when it comes to choosing partners, we fail to give them much specific information.

You can learn a lot about a person on a first date if you know what to look for. Unfortunately, many people don't.

Swiss Army dad, you and I are more in agreement than you might think.
I brought up the Japanese because Americans tend to be very myopic as to the fact that their current way of doing things may not be the only way.
I am in favor of any way for men and women to meet and get to know each other that is not the instantly smitten with lust fairy tale nightmare that TV and the movies has sold us.
When I was in college, I always felt pressure when a guy asked me on a date. What did he want? What was he looking for?
All the men I eventually dated I met at parties and group things or in class where we could go for coffee or lunch and each pay our own way until we decided that we wanted to spend more time together. I like nerdy guys who are not high maintenance and don't style their hair. I want to be able to see how they treat their mother and father. I love engineers because they are generally intelligent without being pretentious.
Formal dating with men pursuing aggressively and women responding is, as far as I am concerned, Kabuki theater, which will tell you very little about whether you are with a good long term prospect or not. Sometimes you get lucky, but more often than not, you are wasting your time.

Here's another one of Hart's - from 2006:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hart050906.asp

Excerpts:

Here's the bottom line, according to the Corbett sisters: A List Man ...

* Makes the first move.

* Calls within 24 to 48 hours to set up the first date.

* Makes the first date easy and fun (and yes he picks up the check).

* Calls within 24 hours to set up the next date.

* Wants to talk to you every day and wants to spend his free time with you.

* Demonstrates unconditional loyalty.

* Talks about marrying you in concrete terms and actually proposes — or lets you know his intentions.

The Corbett sisters maintain that if he's "heard the alarm," (meaning "I saw her, I was ready, and that was it") these things will happen in the first 30 days.

(snip)

Unfortunately, I can't find the same column on her blog anymore, let alone the many comments there, so here are a few snippets from the long page I printed back then.

A: But what if she was crazy about him?

J: Then she should do nothing and wait for him to notice her and make the first move. If he doesn't, then she shouldn't date him. If nobody else does either, then she shouldn't date at all.

(GAG! So if a girl is surrounded by jerks at school who wouldn't be caught dead with a less-than-pretty girl, that proves SHE shouldn't be dating anyone at all??)

Me: I trust you're not going to be badly turned off by a gesture that could just as easily be accidental, such as a dropped book. Men who would count THAT as too forward sound alarmingly like the boys in high school who want nothing to do with any girl who doesn't look like a fashion model (and who probably wish all other girls would just put on burkas and keep quiet). Of course, there's nothing rude about not DATING a particular person, but shunning for shallow reasons the people you work with every day - male or female - is rude no matter how young you are. While women certainly don't need the company of shallow men (and vice versa), people under 21 can and do open their eyes when gently nudged by their peers. It's all about moving slowly and carefully.

(What I should have added is that those girls who would never be called pretty, even when skinny, clearly have to act constantly happy, confident, and outgoing even when they'd rather stay home and cry - even though that's clearly far more work than other girls have to do. Why? Because otherwise they never WILL get asked out! So in a way, that IS "making the first move," even though it might be wise if such a girl doesn't appear to be interested in any particular boy.)

Robert said on Betsy's blog (I've had to shorten his words here and there): "(Some will say your recent column) is hopelessly out of date. (I would agree, though not for feminist reasons.) As a man (born in 1970), I say it because my generation and beyond was brought up to believe that nice men do not aggressively pursue women. Hence it tends to be those who are willing to flout the rules of society and to use people only for their own selfish needs and who tend to those your standards would call 'worthy.' (I am married to a wonderful woman who e-mailed me) and who - I thank my lucky stars for this every day - was always very clear and blunt that she liked me.........I have spent my entire life trying to do the right thing. (Male friends of mine with the same nice-guy ideals of mine) tended to spend life lonely, while those more aggressive.....had more luck....I always wanted a wife and family. However, I never wanted to be the jerk or date rapist that seminar after seminar pointed out that I would be if I made any unwanted advances. (One used to hear) on many college campuses that a second phone call could be considered sexual harassment, and that it was demeaning to a woman to pick up the check.......In short, there are a lot of nice guys out there who are never going to do the things on your 'list.'.....I'm guessing (some jerks) pick up copies of 'The List' or 'The Rules' to enhance their manipulative skills. Straight forward honesty, however, can never be wrong......what is wrong with just saying 'I like you'? It certainly worked for my wife and me."

"No, it only screams that we CAN get divorced here. Marriages were no better, and actually much less happy in most cases before."

I would love to see a study that shows anything of the sort. For example, a comparison of happiness and the divorce rates in countries that do not do "dating" in the traditional American sense.

"Just because people were trapped in them didn't make their choice of partner, or the method, any better."

People did get divorced even a hundred years ago. It was just much less common because the government did not step into the daddy function and men and women weighed their options more carefully than they do now. Often people who were not getting along would remain married but live in different places so they did not annoy each other.
The marriage rate in general is way down among professional men. This is what modern courtship and easy divorce has brought us. A lot of smart men don't want families especially when they realize that there is a good chance of it being nothing more than a ruinous financial burden in the case of divorce.

"As a man (born in 1970), I say it because my generation and beyond was brought up to believe that nice men do not aggressively pursue women"

Aggressively pursuing women is camping outside their doorsteps and stalking them, not asking for a date. Calling twice is "sexual harrassment" only by extreme feminazi standards. This guy has been to too many feminist "seminars".

"I would love to see a study that shows anything of the sort. For example, a comparison of happiness and the divorce rates in countries that do not do "dating" in the traditional American sense."

This can't be compared. A burka-wearing woman, subjugated to male authority, is "happy" just to be chosen for marriage, not shunned by her society, even with her clitorus mutilated or removed. She knows nothing of love, true companionship, or sexual fulfillment. She can't even fathom it, so box checking "happy" won't prove anything.

It's sad that you, as a woman, are even making such arguments.

My mother-in-law was married over 50 years and had 7 kids. She was miserable and trapped. He cheated on her repeatedly and abused the kids. Big Irish Catholic "happy" family.

She's 92 now, and a few years ago, she confessed to her children that the love of her life was not their father but a man she'd had an affair with many years into her unhappy marriage. They were bridge playing partners, along with their spouses, but she said they remained in touch until he died. I am so saddened to know that she never got to experience the joy of being with the man she truly loved.

It's delusional to believe that marriages were better before people had free choice. Yes, it's harder now, but that's because our culture has raised the bar. We've intruduced love.

> but there's nothing to be gained
> by women pretending to be lonely

You're pimping the market. By kindergarden, most boys have figured out that no matter how faithful their sweethearts appear to be, they're always testing the vibe for romantic replacements... There's ALWAYS room in the Bullpen.

Perhaps more to the point, being propositioned is a thrill. Politicians, hookers and carnies know this. It's always fun to think I still got IT, Baybee...!

> you wouldn't approach Sophia Loren
> and ask her out

Since she's been married to the same man since before I was born, that's probably true. (I can remember the name without looking it up: Carlo Ponti.) (And now she wears wigs, and I can't be bothered with such people.) Apparently it offends you to think that masculine desire doesn't make all men crawl at all times....

> amusing that Amy and others on this
> board, have taken a modern American form
> of social matchmaking called "dating"
> which has really only been in existence
> for a hundred years or so and imposed
> hard and fast biological rules

Yeah. And (again) that they confuse workaday lust with mate selection.

Isabel says a lot of good stuff.


"Lovelysoul" does not:

> it only screams that we CAN get
> divorced here.

We can always count on LS to champion the forces of darkness and incompetence.

> doesn't change the fact that it
> will be this way moving forward.

Says who?

> We've intruduced love.

Perhaps no conceit is more deeply held by these generations, or more pathetically grandiose: Before WE got here, no one ever had feelings!

Attachment.

You can not buy it, but it's true, and I've seen this with some frequency. I have a friend who looks like Sophia Loren and who is not asked out, and it's actually pretty common. Another friend who is attractive and very friendly and French (but speaks perfect English and looks American) sold a book about how she could not get a date in Los Angeles. American men, especially, have become weenies. I try to change that with columns encouraging them to go ask women out.

Amy, first of, it's very likely that she is asked out. For example, when you mentioned Martian McFly's wife earlier, you initially said "HE had the balls to ask a gorgeous woman out when other men were intimidated." implying that he was the only man who asked her out. You then followed that up with "Oh, and sure, full-of-themselves assholes asked her out, but like me, she wasn't having any of that.", acknowledging that other men had indeed asked her out.

And this, in my experience, is fairly typical of women. When a woman says "I don't get asked out much" what she really means is "I don't get asked out much by the kind of guys I'm interested in and find attractive." OK, let me qualify the previous statements: women who aren't that attractive may actually not get asked out much.

Second, even though it's highly unlikely, let's say Sophia actually is not asked out at all. Even by full-of-themselves assholes. You know why that is? Undoubtedly because she's giving off snobby, I'm-too-good-for-you vibes (or something else of that nature.) If she acted approachable, flirting with guys, showing a clear interest in them, they'd approach her, chat with her and ask her out.

Another friend who is attractive and very friendly and French (but speaks perfect English and looks American) sold a book about how she could not get a date in Los Angeles.

If she could not get a date in Los Angeles (again, highly unlikely; what she probably means is "Monsieur Right didn't come along and sweep me off my feet) it's because she was giving off those snobby stay-away-from me vibes.

Getting looks from men and having men grow a set of balls and ask you out are two different things.

Of course there's a difference. And I'll readily agree that not all men who check out an attractive woman are going chat her up. But plenty of men will.

When it comes to putting yourself out there in dating, all but the most painfully shy men have more courage than the vast majority of women.

Dave, thanks for your response.

From what I've read, that isn't quite the story. The story tends to be more that if a woman approaches a man for a date, the man is likely to regard it as a couched sexual proposition. And if that isn't what the woman intended, someone is obviously going to wind up disappointed.

Perhaps men are likely to regard that as a CSP. But surely women are intelligent enough to find a way to convey to men, upfront, that's not what they are intending. And if the guy is only interested in sex and the woman isn't, she can just move on.

Their own study showed that of relationships where the first date was initiated by the woman, half made it past six months. However, they also mention another study which found that only 13% of such relationships made it past the third date. They mention that the other study was performed in 1981, and maybe things had changed since then, but they don't really dig into it.

Interesting. If their study was more recent, I'd put more stock in it.

They did state that in their own survey, 34% had asked a man out at least once, and almost none (less than 1%) had ever been turned down. They also said that 78% of men reported having been asked out at least once, which was an interesting disparity.

I'm more interested in, for example, how the men felt about women asking them out...especially if the women asking them out were people they were interested in and attracted to. I'm also curious about these women who asked men out. I'd like to know why they don't have the contempt and disdain that a woman like Amy does for a man who didn't ask them out but who they asked out.

"Plus, I'd be very curious to see a study of marriages that resulted from the man initiating the romance vs. ones where the woman did to see if there are any general differences"

I'd like to see that too. So far, I haven't come up with anything.

Thanks for looking. My seat-of-the-pants prediction: a study would find that marriages resulting from the woman initiating the romance would be just as happy (and possibly more so) as ones resulting from the reverse. Furthermore, I predict that the women in these marriages would be less likely to care if their husbands earned less money or had lower status jobs because they are less likely to be bound by rigid gender roles. I also predict that the men in these marriages would be more likely to share household chores, for the same reason.

She's a very good friend of mine, and if she were asked out, I'd know. She isn't approached, and she's beautiful, elegant, smart, warm, and fun. She's also one of the warmest and most welcoming people I know.

Maybe she's warm and welcoming with you, and her friends and coworkers but if she is not being asked out at all, and she is attractive, then, as I said before, she is giving off snobby, I'm-too-good-for-you vibes or she is doing something (besides being attractive) that is causing men to avoid her.

If painfully shy was at 0 and super aggressive at 10, I'm probably a shade under 5. Yet if I was meandering around the Galleria Borghese and noticed Elisabetta Canalis (who, in a crime against humanity...okay, a crime against my vision...got voted off Dancing with the Stars tonight) smiling at me and repeatedly making eye contact, I'd go over and talk to her. And if we had fun talking and if, during the course of the conversation she gave me another little sign, like briefly touching my arm when sighing about the beauty of Apollo and Daphne, I'd ask her out.

Capisca?

What you're trying to do is trying to "win" here -- as you have all along.

You have opinions and feel very strongly about them. So do I. You want to "win" just as much as I do.

Men need to grow a pair and ask women out. Women need to flirt to let men know they are open to be asked out. It's a dance, not a monologue.

In a response to Dave above, I mentioned the swing/contra/zydeco dances at our Folklife Festival where women ask men to dance just as freely as men ask women. Just because a woman asks a man to dance doesn't mean she sits there and holds forth with a monologue. They dance. They have fun together. You're putting way too much emphasis on how the dance starts instead of the dance itself.

Narcissistic cad-type men are not afraid to ask women out, but for a woman who wants a boyfriend and a decent guy to be with, these are not partner material.

I understand. But then an attractive woman who gets asked by them shouldn't be saying that she never gets asked out. She should say, instead: "I get asked out all the time, but not by the kind of men that I wish would ask me out." (She then might consider what kind of actions she could take that would encourage the kind of men she wishes would ask her out, to ask her out.)

I likewise was pursued by OJ, who I met in New York at an awards lunch I wrote and produced the videos for. Lucky me, I didn't consider him partner or even date material

I understand, but the fact that he wasn't your idea of a romantic partner doesn't mean that you weren't pursued by him. (And OJ...I wonder how his search for the "real killer" is going?)

Ack! I can't believe the time...it's 1:15 and I have to get up for work at 5:45! Damn you (playfully) Advice Goddess!!!

Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive (Daly & Wilson)

Yeah, I saw it. Green Eggs & Sperm with Tim Daly and Owen Wilson. Funny at times but I see why it was straight to video.

Amazing, Amy. According to some here, you've not only never studied relationships, you don't even know what your own friends are doing!

"You know why that is? Undoubtedly because she's giving off snobby, I'm-too-good-for-you vibes (or something else of that nature.) If she acted approachable, flirting with guys, showing a clear interest in them, they'd approach her, chat with her and ask her out."

You're getting warmer here. It's exactly as I - and Amy - have been saying.

My elegant girlfriends don't get asked out as often as my less elegant ones. But it's not because they're sending snobby, "I'm-too-good for you" vibes. It's simply because they have that lethal combination of beauty AND brains. They appear smart and sophisticated, which leads a lot of average-looking guys to assume they'd have to be especially charming and clever.

By contrast, my "hot mess" girlfriend, wobblying in her heels, with fake boobs spilling over, seems like a much easier mark. She's actually brilliant, but guys don't know that at first glance, so they're much more likely to approach.

However, half of them are married or plain assholes, so I spend a good portion of any night I'm out with her shooing them away.

Which is why we women KNOW whether our friends get asked out or not. How do you guys presume to know? It's rather absurd. Even if you see a guy approach a woman at a bar, you don't know that he's actually asking her on a date.

My hot girlfriend isn't usually being asked on dates either. The guys who swarm her aren't thinking "date"...more hoping she'll magically fall off her bar stool and into their beds.

It's quite rare for a guy to approach a beautiful, sophisticated-looking woman (ala Sophia) and ask her out on a date next Friday.

This also jives with my personal experience that I get hit on much more often in jeans and Ts, looking rather messy, than in a nice dress and jewelry.

I'm the same person, so the only difference is male perception. I look much more glamorous when I'm dressed up, which proves the point that glamorous women aren't considered as approachable. Certain men - the type A aggressive types - have the confidence to approach these women, but the majority of guys don't.

Y'alls a buncha goofy princesses.

> Men need to grow a pair and ask women out.

No, Jim is spot-on:

> what she really means is "I don't get asked out
> much by the kind of guys I'm interested in and
> find attractive."

There's a rich rainbow of behavioral options between being a pushy broad and being a frost bitch. We are each responsible for our own vibes, whether or not we think others are reading them correctly... And asserting that others don't read them correctly suggests an attitude problem right out of the gate.

'You don't have the BALLS!' is a very distinctive odor; it's not a scent that men are likely to confuse with 'I'm looking for a someone to meet at the Getty for coffee and a chat.'

I have to say, many of these comments remind me of "Cupid and Psyche":

"Meanwhile Psyche, for all her manifest beauty, reaped no profit from her charms. Everyone gazed at her, everyone praised her, ... They admired her heavenly beauty, of course, but as people admire an exquisitely finished statue."

Or, as more than one female celebrity has said: "If I'm so popular, why am I all alone?"

Didn't we just cover this in the other thread? "The poor, slender, bee-stung-lipped supermodel is weeping into her room service, alone in her suite at the Waldorf...."

What IS it about this narrative that's so pornographically alluring to women?

I'm too beautiful to touch... So I'm (indulgently, smugly) ALONE....

Heartbreak City! Elevation: None, Population: Goofball.

"Amazing, Amy. According to some here, you've not only never studied relationships, you don't even know what your own friends are doing!"

You know what smart women are usually the worst at?

Listening to something their friends and others tell them (people they trust) and believing that they are hearing an objective truth.

Most people color their stories to play to their audience. This is done for a variety of reasons, to elicit sympathy, support, to fit in, to invite further social discourse and to "talk something to death", which becomes a substitute for actually doing anything about a problem.
Spend several months as a criminal defense attorney, and you will realize that natural human tendency to bitch about everyone else and blame someone else for any problems in ubiquitous in the human race.
Most people hardly ever tell an objective truth. Their perceptions are too colored by their emotions and biases.

Honest to god true story, (so you can take it with a grain of salt), I am acquainted with a woman psychiatrist that I have socialized with in the past.

We were on our way to Starbucks one morning and we passed a Borders Bookstore. She proceeded to lecture me that Borders was a horrible place to work and she would never go there because they treated their employees so poorly.

How had she come to this conclusion? One of her "patients" worked for Borders and had told her repeatedly in a therapy sessions what a horrible place it was.

OK, this is a well educated Psychiatrist (MD) who had attended Harvard and the University of Colorado Medical school, and she had taken the statement of a psychiatric patient about Borders as an objective truth.

At this particular time, my son had worked part time for Borders, and loved it.

It never occurred to this well educated psychiatrist that one opinion, from someone who was mentally disturbed enough to seek psychiatric help, did not constitute a "fact" about Borders Book store and the way they treated their employees.

My daughter used to get very upset with me, when she came home from high school with some tale of total injustice one of her friends had related to her.
These stories usually involved an encounter with the police or the school administration. I would say how sad it was, if true.
She would then indignantly exclaim "Don't you believe me?" I would reply. "I believe you are telling me exactly what they told you, however, I have not heard the other side of the story to know how much was true, and how much was either made up or emotionally colored by their need to feel right and vindicated."

People who are naturally honest and forthright assume that their friends and relatives are the same way. This is their first mistake.

I'm sure Crid knows what I am getting at here, but I suspect many don't.

@Isabel: "Most people hardly ever tell an objective truth. Their perceptions are too colored by their emotions and biases."

I agree with this. Dostoyevsky said that we lie even in our private diaries that we have no expection anyone else will see, in order to preserve versions of ourselves we prefer to believe.

How come the women who see human nature for the dark and troubling force that it is only appear after a hunnert messages?

Also, do you have any middle-aged aunts in LA I can date?

Who are you referring to? Isabel, Lizzie or LS?

heh, well Isabell1130, one Douglas Adams suggested that the one thing a human could least afford to have was a good sense of perspective. Apparently it drives us crazy...

also, I'll second Crid's Q? only in Colorado.

SwissArmyD, Love to join you for coffee one of these days. (not a date :-)) You seem like a very level headed and kind person. I live about a hundred miles from Denver and am down there often. However, I am married and in spite of my age, and the fact that I am too fat, I seem to get asked out a lot. I'm not sure exactly why except shy engineer types seem to find women who can talk knowledgeably about guns and military history attractive. My email is my name above, at aol.com.

> Who are you referring to

The ones who see human nature clearly.

Yes, Crid, but you wouldn't even friend me on Facebook, much less accept a date with Isabel.

Look, at the risk of sounding arrogant, this is actually something only attractive women would know...about other attractive women as well as themselves. It's beyond the personal experience of most - certainly not most men - so it's really something that one must accept from the bee-stung supermodel or the elegant "Sophiaesque" beauty...or not. But if you refuse to accept it, at least acknowledge that you have no personal first-hand knowledge, and so perhaps you don't know at all what it's like for the beautiful woman sitting alone at a bar.

I get what you're saying, Isabel.

And I like it.

> perhaps you don't know at all what it's
> like for the beautiful woman sitting alone
> at a bar.

Tears streak my face with languid melancholy... They dampen my mustache with their insolent brine, and I taste them.

I think someone may have accidentally hit upon a strong point. The statement was that it was the "put together" women friends who did not get approached. When I hear the term "put together" I think unapproachable, harsh, maybe even mean - and certainly not fun or flirtatious. So it may be the case that while women think she is attractive & approachable, men don't perceive the same thing.

If I read things correctly, pretty much everyone now agrees that these beautiful women are approached but the approachers are not what they desire (still some debate over whether they count). This seems like a form of the common problem of who you want doesn't want you, and those who want you, you don't want.

I suppose there is an extra piece in that you are told by society etc that you should have it easy and get what you want. I can somewhat relate to that. Right out of college I was told by everyone I would have my pick of women...handsome, great job, etc. Yet it never martialized. Many theories have been proposed but still I cannot say for sure. The most likely one seems like I was busy getting my career started and that I was not interested in starting popping out kids.

"How come the women who see human nature for the dark and troubling force that it is only appear after a hunnert messages?"

This reminded me of a scene in Synecdoche, New York. The wife is packing to leave the husband. He asks her "Have I disappointed you?" and she says "Everyone disappoints you when you get to know them."

Well, if we're being serious, I've heard it said that it's the specific weaknesses in a person's character that makes them specifically alluring... We're most attracted to each other's faults, however minimal or papered-over we imagine them to be.

I am more the milkmaid version rather than the fashion model type. I got asked out a lot more than some of my more beautiful friends. I think it was for three reasons.

1) I was approachable. I didn't look like to type to break a man's psyche into weeping pieces and walk upon his shattered remains.

2) I listen more than I talk.

3) I actually (gasp!) like men and enjoy talking to them.

(My fourth reason was that I have big boobs. Guys love women with real, big boobs.)

And do YOU have an aunt in LA?

Boobs aside, it's simple math. Most people are average looking. That's why it's called average. In any given room, or cocktail party (unless it's in Hollywood) where there's a beautiful woman, the vast majority of guys are going to be average-looking. Most of those will look at the beautiful woman and assess that she's out of their league and won't approach her. A handful of guys in the room will actually be in her league, looks-wise, but, of those, a few will be gay, a few married or otherwise taken, so maybe only one or two will approach her, if any.

By contrast, an average-looking woman is much more likely to be asked out because the average-looking guy believes he has a chance with her.

"I've heard it said that it's the specific weaknesses in a person's character that makes them specifically alluring..."

Perhaps the same traits that initially attract over time become the most aggravating. I heard that from a man who's been married 20 years.

> But, she's a wonderful, warm, very interesting,
> smart woman, and the antithesis of a snob.

NO.

(So why doesn't she introduce herself to someone?)

Vibes... vibes.

(And then I fixed myself a snack at thought about it some more.)

Put another way: People don't become "wonderful, warm, very interesting, [&] smart" by waiting for others to come up to them and say flattering things.

So, in other words, Crid, you're conceding that guys aren't going to approach her, so she should start pursuing men. That's our whole point! If a beautiful woman like that wants a date, she usually has to practically glue her eyelashes together flirting across the bar or take matters into her own hands and ask guys out.

And yet they don't.

> you're conceding that guys aren't going
> to approach her

...Perhaps not when she's putting out cuntly vibes, or not when she's otherwise much less preciously alluring than you describe her to be.

> or take matters into her own hands and
> ask guys out.

Nightmare scenario! Again, the salties flood my face and stain my collar...

...Or they would, if what you're saying weren't so transparently bogus.

And golly, you little gals are really cranked about this one. The Loneliness of Tragically Beautiful. Some princess narratives just won't go down.

(So to speak. Figure of speech. Y'know.)

Seriously, this is the bunkiest batch of gender pomposity seen on this blog since Brian whipped out his shiv.

A wise alien (Paul) once said "Sometimes you just have to roll the dice.".

After she says hello and talks to them, they have to do the man part and ask her out. -- Amy

If she actually conversing with guys and they are still not asking her out that is quite different. Seems like all the difficult part is done. I can only guess that is not coming across to the men as she does to Amy. Or perhaps these men are already taken or gay. Or maybe she says something that suggests she is not available.

Perhaps the same traits that initially attract over time become the most aggravating. - Lizzie

That is saying. From my perspective, it looks to be be commonly true.

There's quite a bit more I could say but I don't have time since I'm heading down to San Francisco tomorrow morning for Warren Hellman's 11th annual free autumn music bash in Golden Gate Park.

Bill Kirchen, The Mekons, Jolie Holland, Chris Isaak, Robert Plant, Hugh Laurie, Patty Griffin, Robyn Hitchcock, Steve Earle, Buddy Miller, Gomez, The Jayhawks and Emmylou Harris are just part of the stellar lineup he puts together.

Perhaps more when I return...

She's friendly but she's not going to throw herself at men. After she says hello and talks to them, they have to do the man part and ask her out.

Countless women have written letters to advice columnists with some variation of this complaint...

"What is it with guys??!! I'm a very friendly woman and guys always mistake that for me being interested in them. Why can't guys understand that just because you're friendly it doesn't mean you want to go out with them??!!"

> She's INTIMIDATING to them because
> they are weenies.

Then what does she want from them anyway?

This is just egotistical preening. Love is a marketplace, and she's haggling over prices, and nothing more. The expensive grapes couldn't have been that sweet, right? If she's lonely, she can make friends; and when she doesn't want to, she can mock the rodentia of her species who aren't manly enough to flatter her with their neediness in all her waking moments... Even when, she assures us, that flattery would get them nowhere... ("Friendly, but not....")

Weenies!, you say. Yet apparently, they make her fantasy life go.

She's INTIMIDATING to them because they are weenies.

Tell you what, Amy. You have your strongly held opinion and I have mine. But I'm not wedded to mine so how about if we meet in the middle? Let's agree that of all the times women want men to ask them out and the men don't, half the time it's because men are weenies, and half the time it's because the women are snobby or uninteresting.

Dooood... Once you see that human nature brings foolishness to to gender, you never have to concede anything!

Crid, we really should pause and consider how positively brutal it is out there for so many women, including Amy's friend. 49.5 percent of men are weenies and 49.5 percent are overly-aggressive full-of-themselves assholes, leaving only one percent who are smart, decent guys who have the balls to ask a woman out.

And now I really must go...

"Well, if we're being serious..."

Okay. Maybe Amy's friend should try internet dating. So many men complain that there are 10 men for every one woman on these sites and that all the attractive women are inundated with responses. If that's the case, being good-looking would gain her many responses just on photos alone. And if men are usually too intimidated, for whatever reason, to approach her in person, they would have the buffer of making the first overture via email.

That's what is great about internet dating. Guys will contact the beautiful women they ordinarily wouldn't approach in person.

Of course, they're usually casting a wide net. In 15 mins, they can "wink" at 50 of the most attractive females online. All they need is one to respond.

In person, they have to walk up to that one beauty and run the risk that she'll say no. This is, for the most part, something average-looking guys won't do. Amy's Alopecia friend is the exception which paid off, and that's all she's saying. She's trying to help guys, not cry for beautiful women.

Cling to your daydreams, OK? Dig in with your nails, clutch with all your might, and never ever let go. Squeeze them with all the will and ferocity your brittle little spirit can muster... And when their lumpen, lifeless husks breathe no more, hang on to them anyway. 'Cause those puppy carcasses are yours, baybee.

(Is that like the biggest big finish of all time, or what??!?!)

Yeah, right. Why would I, a happily married woman, daydream about her gorgeous friends not being asked out? It's no skin off my back - just happens to be true.

If anybody's daydreaming, it's you - a man, convinced that beautiful women must all have full dance cards and be asked out all the time, unless they're bitchy. For some reason, it's important to you to believe this, though it defies both logic and mathmatics.

It's like the geek who must believe that the popular people never experience any problems. Of course, nobody is suggesting that the homecoming queen has it worse than the mousy, zit-filled wallflower. All we're saying is that beauty poses it's own unique set of challenges - one being convincing guys that you're approachable, won't immediately shoot them down, and may even say yes to a date if they dare ask.

> Why would I, a happily married woman, daydream
> about her gorgeous friends not being asked out?

What, yer askin' me?

Well, I think it's 'cause you're crazy as a loon. Like no one I've ever known, you love to dress the narcissism and resentments of earliest life in adult clothes.

> convincing guys that you're approachable, won't
> immediately shoot them down, and may even say yes
> to a date if they dare ask.

Attachment isn't the sincere concern of one so desperate to have their desirability demonstrated in public. And that's what we're talking about here, isn't it? Consider the settings mentioned on this thread: It's always a bar or a party or some other arena. Women are famously competitive about such things, whereas masculine contests are forgotten 15 minutes after the final whistle. Feminine alliances in these matters are conditional and often backhanded. It's a safe bet that none of you regard the sisters for whom you weep so theatrically as more attractive than yourselves in any meaningful way.

You're just too horny for this to be real, for it to be a genuine and remarkable irony (rather than a petty resentment).

It ain't.

"her gorgeous friends"

"It's a safe bet that none of you regard the sisters for whom you weep so theatrically as more attractive than yourselves in any meaningful way."

That's ridiculous. I have many friends who are far more attractive than me. Why is it so hard for you to believe this? Take a look at Amy. Why on earth would she be so shallow or competitive that she'd refuse to hang out with other attractive females?

And, her being around them, and actually knowing them, gives her a better perspective on this than any you might possibly have.

The parties and bars thing I don't get. You're jealous I get invited to parties and bars? I live in Margaritaville. It's always 5:00 here. :)

"Look, at the risk of sounding arrogant, this is actually something only attractive women would know."

lovelysoul, I'm a newcomer to this blog but I've spent some time reading old threads that you've posted in. I'm wondering what it is that you so severely lack in your daily life that leads you to do such horribly off-putting things like proclaim yourself to be a trophy wife, boast about how attractive you are or post your real-life name so we can look you up on Facebook and gauge your looks. Goodness, who does that?

I grew up in a household where humility is seen as a virtue. I'd like to believe that in some circles, it's still regarded as a virtue. But I've honestly never come across any person, online or in real life, that displays your hubris when you don't amount to much more than a deluded blowhard. How you are tolerated on this blog by the regular posters, I'll never know. 

"Gorgeous and wonderful person" isn't the same as "Sophia Loren". That's not a slam to Nancy, Catherine, or anyone else on the planet, stunning and formidable as they are... So why do you push the narrative to that extreme?

I have a theory! Would you like to hear it? Great! Because I've been hoping to share it with you for about the last 20 exchanges. It goes like this:

Young feminine beauty is unique. A beautiful young woman is, as Carolla put it, a celebrity of the animal kingdom. It doesn't matter that she's never done anything notable, or spent time with anyone notable, or even made plans to do anything special, or is completely unknown. When she walks into a room, everyone knows who she is: She's the beautiful young woman. Other women fidget. Gay men sniff.

And straight men are intoxicated. This drunkenness is seen in all faiths, ages, colors, and all measures of competence, intellect and decency. Duzzun madder. When a guys sees a truly beautiful young woman, he feels things that he doesn't feel for other people, no matter how soberly he conducts himself. Beauties have powers that others don't have. They get more patience, more support, more admiration for kindness (real or imagined), etc.

Some women resent this truth: Masculine beauty doesn't work that way. The best looking men in the world don't carry that power. Men don't dream of coasting into the good life behind high cheekbones, though beautiful women often do exactly that.

Pisser! Some people want everything in the world to be even-steven, with obvious and predictable symmetry. But human nature doesn't worry about being convenient.

(Another example from a completely different part of life—— A person who tortures animals will almost always torture people eventually. It would be convenient if people who are nice to animals were therefore more likely to be nice to people... But it's not true. History is full of tyrants who adored their horses, or their dogs, or their chinchilla.)

Someone who demands symmetry is going to insist that the impact of feminine beauty doesn't exist:

It's weakened by something... anything... Aha! I have it! The timidity of men! Yeah... That's the ticket!

Because I *know* a beautiful woman... She's beautiful on the *inside*... And she's lonely! Isn't that ironic?

Well, no.

> How you are tolerated on this blog by the
> regular posters, I'll never know.

We slap her around whenever we want. It's kind of a sicko thang, but we can't resist. Right, guys?

Chorus? Is this thing on? Can you hear me in the back?

I'm blunt, Beau. I'm unflinchingly honest about my own life and things I've been through. I posted my identity and my photo because some here seemed to want to believe that I wasn't being honest, or live some sad existence. I wanted everyone to know that I live the live I represent that I live.

None of them will do the same - except NicoleK who has friended me on Facebook. People either back up their words, or they're the blow hards.

Many here, including Amy, frequently agree with my viewpoints. I'm not going to pretend to be ugly when it's relevant to the discussion, as it is here. We're talking about attractive women, so I was merely questioning how anyone other than those who are attractive can know whether or not guys approach such women.

You may disagree, as you're free to, but it was a valid observation to this discussion, where mostly guys are arguing that attractive women must be asked out all the time.

In some nearby parallel universe of the Star Trek variety, this is relevant to our discussion.

> guys are arguing that attractive women must
> be asked out all the time.

Mischaracterization. We dismiss your argument that "gorgeous" women (of unspecified age) are "often" lonely because men are too "intimidated" to "lay their ego on the line", incessantly peppering them –in profoundly public settings– with perfectly calibrated offers which they can haughtily dismiss or accept.

I never said they were "often" lonely, Crid. Men do ultimately take the chance and ask them out. Often, it will be the less attractive guy who ends up nabbing the beauty.

Geeze, how many supermodels are with average or below average looking men? It's quite common.

“She's not some egomaniac.”

Reading what she posts here, and on many other threads, suggests not egomania so much, but most certainly other keen afflictions of character – humility being among them.

As I mentioned before, I spent many weekends reading over your old threads, Amy. One of things I noticed about lovelysoul was her assertion about her looks when attractiveness was simply not germane to the discussion. Again, who does that? Only someone with intense inadequacies trumpets themselves - unsolicited - online in this manner.

Make that *deficiencies* of character.

"Reading what she posts here, and on many other threads, suggests not egomania so much, but most certainly other keen afflictions of character – humility being among them."

Humility is an affliction of character?

Beau, some of what I write is tongue and cheek, such as my being a "trophy wife". That's not how I ever saw myself, but I was aware that it's the impression people had of me - being young, blond, and married to an older, wealthy man. In reality, I was working hard and running businesses, not shopping all day.

So, I have personal experience being misperceived due to my looks, which is why I relate to this topic. But I don't think I mention my looks often, unless it's been relevant or in response to some personal insult.

You remind me of Jen Wading, just attacking me out of nowhere for nothing I've even said to you. You came on to the other thread earlier today and I ignored you, which must've bothered you enough to come here and throw insults. In fact, I suspect you may not be "Beau" but someone else.

> My classier looking attractive girlfriends
> don't often get approached
_____________

> how many supermodels are with average or below
> average looking men? It's quite common

But irrelevant if the problem isn't real.

Barring grotesque disfigurement, there's company out there for anyone who wants it...

Although maybe there aren't enough clever, wealthy, handsome poets walking around to flatter bored women. But that's a different problem.

I said they weren't "often approached", not "often lonely", as in that they never found partners, which is what I assume you mean. Of course, they find partners - either because someone with balls approaches them, or they decide to do the pursuing.

"Beau, some of what I write is tongue and cheek, such as my being a "trophy wife"."

If it truly is the case that you were writing tongue-in-cheek, then I retract my words. Please be aware that tongue-in-cheek simply doesn't translate well in written form. Conceit is something I've difficulty tolerating in any form and my initial impression of you has been that of an attention-seeking individual. I'll take you at face value for what you present now, as that was what I did while reading old threads.

As far as attacking you out of nowhere, I did nothing of the sort. You made an incredibly offensive statement about most women reveling in gossip. You don't get to characterize the bulk of women in that manner simply because you enjoy engaging in immoral conduct yourself.

"You don't get to characterize the bulk of women in that manner simply because you enjoy engaging in immoral conduct yourself"

This just proves how you are misinterpreting my comments. I said "Lets face it, ladies, a lot of women" revel in this behind-someone's-back gossip. I didn't say me. In fact, I find it abhorent that some women will sit there and discuss another woman's husband, his "cheating", and the state of his family, without first going to the wife to get her input. They discuss it all behind her back, deeming her too fragile to weigh in, though she might actually be able to clear the whole thing up if he was indeed the target of a smear campaign.

You didn't say "me, but that was the implication as I read your statement. When I begin a sentence with, "Let's face it..." what follows is usually of a confessional nature. My interpretation was your assumption that most women, like yourself, enjoy gossip.

For what it's worth, in that same thread, you had also responded to another poster's anecdote with a "So what?" It's little writing tics like that, which upon reading, had further led me to conclude you were offensive. Perhaps not your intent, but for me, it translated as such. In conversation, an individual uttering those two words generally demonstrates a lack of regard.

> someone with balls approaches them, or they
> decide to do the pursuing.

So dozens of messages later, that's it, right? These thundering beauties either want to mock those who aren't interested as too timid to appreciate their excellence... ("Balls!" "Balls!" It's always about "Balls!") Or they want to sigh heavily, like a teenager carrying out the trash a day too late, at having to take part in forging the relationships which they actually want.

Neither explanation flatters these women.

Y'know, at 52, there's a lot of weirdness that I just don't care about too personally... Not like I would as a participant in today's rockin' dating scene. (That certainly includes ugly facets of masculine nature, but those aren't under discussion in this thread. When that's the topic, I'll promise to cut off a slice of the comments.)

But there's continuing amazement at the robotic nature of that weirdness... How women so often move through mundane pairing and parenting with egocentric narratives that are a gazillion years old. Yet they think their experience is a novel expression of very personal choices.

It's a continuum.

In the best case, you get gifted comediennes like this twitterer. So far as I can tell, she's a typical Hollywood proto-starlet, moving through a single's life while she waits to be cast in her own sitcom. Meanwhile she struggles with her eagerness to start a family with shameless good humor. For those who don't share all those impulses, her jokes are enlightening and amusing:

MrsRupertPupkin lauren caltagirone
I bet I'm single because God's punishing me for all the things I've ruined with superglue.
27 Sep

MrsRupertPupkin lauren caltagirone
This cute guy I met just texted that he wants to "hang out" tonight, but he lives in the Valley, & I made him up.
25 Sep

MrsRupertPupkin lauren caltagirone
I'm SO ready for lunch or to be a Mommy.
7 Sep

MrsRupertPupkin lauren caltagirone
They gave us champagne at work today. I'm so lonely. JK! That was the champagne talking. I'm going to die alone. That was me.
7 Sep

MrsRupertPupkin lauren caltagirone
Vacation boyfriends sure do like eye-contact.
27 May

I swear to God on a stack of Bibles that as I began pasting these into this comment, I didn't remember this last one from those I'd saved... These was just meant to be an example of feminine humility. Girlfriend is far too sharp to be taken in by bullshit, even her own:

MrsRupertPupkin lauren caltagirone Clearly, I'm too "intimidating" to "hire" or "date" or "love." 20 May

Funny, warm, and humble about the unthinking viciousness within the character of each of us. She understands that Momma Nature sits in the Big Chair. (And Google says this kid's cute.

On the other end of the continuum, we get:

> I'm blunt, Beau. I'm unflinchingly honest

Or maybe honesty means different things to different people.

Balls!

Beau, if you're truly new here, you should know that we try to debate the topics, not resort to personal insults. We don't always succeed - things do get heated, and sometimes people attack each other on personal grounds, but we try to keep it clean.

I find it strange that you came to two different threads, where you weren't even involved (much or at all) in the conversation, to attack me personally for things I supposedly said 100 threads ago!

In all the time I've been here, there's only been a couple of people who have exhibited that much irrational animosity towards me personally.

I suspect you're not a new poster. I think you're posting by a different name.

And if you're so sensitive that you'd be offended by someone asking, "So what?" in reference to consequences SOMEONE ELSE detailed in their argument, then you really don't belong here.

Crid confronts me using far worse language on a regular basis.

Lovelysoul, I admitted to misinterpreting a comment you made in the other thread. I'd like to move on from that. In my last post, I mentioned that your tone of writing simply didn't read well with me. It's unfortunate you choose not to take me at face value for my statement. However, let me just make this point with you --- You told me that you write tongue-in-cheek. I took that at face value and withdrew what I said. If I'd continued to insist that you meant something entirely different, we would continue this back and forth, in an endless and fruitless fashion. I'm not interested in doing that. It's your prerogative if you persist in insisting me to be someone else when I've already admitted to simply not caring for your writing style. If you refuse to accept that at face value (as I have done in an effort to move forward), then nothing more need be said between us on this subject.

One point I will concede of yours is that I haven't joined into the discussion at hand. In regards to this topic, I find it interesting to observe that it seems to be currently split into two camps -- men on one side, women on the other. Who is to say that either sex is absolutely incorrect when it comes to this topic? Who has the right to gauge that? I know that Amy is a fan of evolutionary psychology. Generally speaking, I'll note that it's useful to have tools such as evolutionary psychology to create an overall frame within which to understand male and female behavior, but with a caveat. I liken evolutionary psychology to a Monet painting: a cohesive picture that's best when viewed from afar, and when viewed up close, is comprised of many differently colored brushstrokes that seemingly don't connect.

I'll illustrate a personal example: My oldest son's girlfriend asked him out when they were in high school. They have been dating exclusively and steadily since. They are both in their last year of graduate school and upon graduation, they intend to become engaged. His is an extremely mellow personality, while hers is much bolder in nature. He loves that part of her personality and I know that she loves how laidback he is. Perhaps a more aggressive male would have been turned off by her forwardness, if you are to completely believe that women should never ask men out. However, they seem to me to be quite happily paired off together and their relationship works for them. 

So how do you effectively measure two people such as this? How do they fit into this dating paradigm that women should never ask men out? That's the difficulty I have when an absolutist position is taken to categorize the spectrum of human behavior into a paint-by-numbers exercise.

Back from a wonderful three days of music in one of my favorite cities. The Devil Makes Three, a trio from Santa Cruz, was the best surprise and Gomez, from England, put on my favorite show, which was nice since they were one of the closing acts on Sunday evening. The weather was beautiful: warm and sunny, much better than last year. And the eye candy -- long-legged California girls in shorts, with more than a few also rockin' cowboy boots -- was tres magnifique. The only downbeat bit was rain on Monday, when I planned to walk around the Mission district, mainly to check out the murals, but I still had fun, finding a riot of colorful murals in an alley and a great taqueria on Valencia St.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

My elegant girlfriends don't get asked out as often as my less elegant ones. But it's not because they're sending snobby, "I'm-too-good for you" vibes. It's simply because they have that lethal combination of beauty AND brains. They appear smart and sophisticated, which leads a lot of average-looking guys to assume they'd have to be especially charming and clever.

I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, lovelysoul. Average-looking guys most likely do have to be exceptionally charming and clever (in addition to being upper middle class and the all-important tall) in order to be accepted by a very attractive woman. There shouldn't be any reason, however, for these women to not be approached by equally (or nearly-equally) very attractive men. Unless, of course, the women are sending out those "don't-approach-me vibes."

Which is why we women KNOW whether our friends get asked out or not. How do you guys presume to know? It's rather absurd. Even if you see a guy approach a woman at a bar, you don't know that he's actually asking her on a date.

Fair point. When I observe a guy going up to an attractive woman, I don't know that's he actually going to ask her out on a "date." But if he enjoys talking with her and he gets the impression she enjoys talking with him, then he will almost certainly want to see her again which will mean he'll ask for her phone number (or email address) and then he'll ask her out later.

Also, how, exactly, do you women "KNOW" whether your friends get asked out or not, if you're not with them 24/7, or monitoring their emails and phone calls? What people tell others, even those they are close to, is not always reality.

*

You know what smart women are usually the worst at? Listening to something their friends and others tell them (people they trust) and believing that they are hearing an objective truth. Most people color their stories to play to their audience. . . . Most people hardly ever tell an objective truth. Their perceptions are too colored by their emotions and biases.

Touché, Isabel!

Lovelysoul: In any given room, or cocktail party (unless it's in Hollywood) where there's a beautiful woman, the vast majority of guys are going to be average-looking. Most of those will look at the beautiful woman and assess that she's out of their league and won't approach her.

While she is looking at all of them and assessing that they are not in her league. And they pick up on that.

*

Amy: This (the comment about the average looking) is the problem for my friend. She looks like somebody who wouldn't be interested in "the average guy." But, she's a wonderful, warm, very interesting, smart woman, and the antithesis of a snob. She wants a smart, decent guy who's got some interesting thoughts rolling around his head. She lives in LA but the guy doesn't have to be rich or drive a Ferrari.

Maybe not "rich" but I bet she still has an income/wealth litmus test that a guy has to pass. I suspect she "looks like somebody who wouldn't be interested in 'the average guy'" because she likely would not be interested in 'the average guy.' I suspect she would not be content with an average "smart, decent guy who's got some interesting thoughts rolling around his head." I bet her "must-haves" in a guy are greater (or different) than you think they are, or what she tells you (please refer to Isabel's astute observation above.)

Crid: Young feminine beauty is unique. A beautiful young woman is, as Carolla put it, a celebrity of the animal kingdom. . . When she walks into a room, everyone knows who she is: She's the beautiful young woman. . . . And straight men are intoxicated. . . Some women resent this truth: Masculine beauty doesn't work that way. The best looking men in the world don't carry that power.

I agree with you that feminine beauty is more powerful than its masculine counterpart, but it's not as if masculine beauty lacks power over women. Women can be intoxicated by male looks too; just look at old footage of women going hysterical over Elvis or The Beatles. Granted, some of that adoration was because these men were famous -- women are attracted to status in the opposite sex far more than men are -- but Elvis and The Beatles wouldn't have gotten that kind of frenzied female response if they'd been homely or just average-looking.

A very handsome man walking into a room may not turn female heads like a very beautiful woman would do with men, but he will definitely get a lot of attention from women.

Crid: So dozens of messages later, that's it, right? These thundering beauties either want to mock those who aren't interested as too timid to appreciate their excellence... ("Balls!" "Balls!" It's always about "Balls!") Or they want to sigh heavily, like a teenager carrying out the trash a day too late, at having to take part in forging the relationships which they actually want.

Neither explanation flatters these women.

I continue to maintain that if an attractive woman makes the effort to extend herself partway to a man -- by making eye contact with and smiling at him, using body language, or perhaps even striking up a conversation with him -- he'll do his part and respond. But if she just sits there like an aloof little princess, then a lot of guys won't bother.

lovelysoul: Geeze, how many supermodels are with average or below average looking men? It's quite common.

I'd say it's quite likely that most/many of these average or below-average-looking men are wealthy (e.g. Aristotle Onassis) or have some high status (e.g. Henry Kissinger.)

Perhaps a more aggressive male would have been turned off by her forwardness, if you are to completely believe that women should never ask men out. However, they seem to me to be quite happily paired off together and their relationship works for them.

So how do you effectively measure two people such as this? How do they fit into this dating paradigm that women should never ask men out? That's the difficulty I have when an absolutist position is taken to categorize the spectrum of human behavior into a paint-by-numbers exercise.

Beau, this is precisely how Amy & I differ on this topic: her position is absolutist -- a woman should never ask a man out -- while mine is not. I agree with her that some men don't like it, and perhaps the majority of men don't like it, but I maintain that many men are fine with it.

If I was an advice columnist and a woman wrote saying that she was thinking about asking a man out who seemed interested in her, I'd tell her to go for it, while reminding her that it won't necessarily go anywhere and that if she really likes him but he decides to end it, it's probably because he's just not that into her, not because he couldn't handle the fact that she asked him out.

Jim, the assumptions you make about someone you've never met are just stunning -- and wrong.

It's a perfectly reasonable assumption, Amy. I didn't say your friend likely has an upper class or upper middle class income/wealth litmus test. I just said she likely has an income/wealth litmus test (just like you, and many other women, have a height litmus test.)

You want to be right...

Sigh. You "want to be right" just as much as I do so it's silly to throw that at me.

By the way, when my friend and I were bars in San Francisco in the evening after our days of music, I'd be watching people while he was watching sports. Every attractive woman (and there were a lot of them) that I saw come in to one these places ended up being approached by a guy.

Me: Beau, this is precisely how Amy & I differ on this topic: her position is absolutist -- a woman should never ask a man out -- while mine is not.

You: Best that you don't try to state my position because you do it badly.

Au contraire, mon amy. In a comment to one of your letters, you had written: "Women should not pursue men, even in small ways." That's an absolutist position. In fact the "even in small ways" makes it a very absolutist one.

Women can ask men out if they want, but they should understand the potential or even likely negative consequences of doing so.

Cool. Glad you feel differently now.

Elvis was attractive; the Beatles were not. Both were/are famous.

The female hysteria over The Beatles was not just because they were famous. Ringo was the only Beatle who wasn't (conventionally) attractive and even he had female fans who thought he was cute.

Henry Kissinger looks like a giant wart with legs. He does okay.

I couldn't agree more. But attractive women dated him because he had status.

"Power is the greatest aphrodisiac," Kissinger famously said, and he famously proved the truth of that epigram. In the years before his marriage he was seen with a parade of babes on his arm, including Jill St. John, Candice Bergen, Samantha Eggar, Shirley MacLaine, Marlo Thomas and, yes, Zsa Zsa Gabor -- Roger Ebert, in his review of The Trials of Henry Kissinger

Marlo Thomas...I had a huge crush on her when I was young. Gorgeous eyes.

It's not that women don't like attractive men. They do. Very much so. It's just that women are drawn to power/wealth/status in a partner much more than men are so they are willing to trade down on male looks in exchange for power/wealth/status.

This is a person you don't know and have never seen. For all you know, she could be into taking poor poets under her wing.

Fair point. And for all you know, I could be George Clooney.

Re: San Francisco, that's what it was like before men had their balls snipped off by feminism.

It's not just San Francisco. Whenever I go out in Seattle, I'm always observing people and I never see attractive women sitting (or standing) forlornly by themselves.

My dad has balls and so does my boyfriend.

So does Pete Schweddy. And his are edible.

All men have balls, Amy. It's women who don't have them.

My mom was on a date with somebody else when my dad took her aside and asked her out and asked for her number.

And you think just hitting on a woman when she's on a date with another man is ballsy? Hah! That's wimpy compared to what my dad did. My mom was on a date with an author at a fancy restaurant when my dad spotted her, walked up to them and said "this is my woman!", clocked the guy with a sharp right, and then led my mom out of the restaurant, punching out a couple other guys when they tried to stop him.

Amy, since you keep harping on men for not having balls, I'm merely pointing out that men have them and women don't. If we leave aside pathologically-shy men, then even the shyest men have demonstrated more courage and risk-taking in dating than the majority of women ever will.

I have to laugh because you remind me so much of a former girlfriend. Whenever we'd argue about something, she'd inevitably say "you just have to be right." When I pointed out to her that she wanted to win the argument, that she believed she was right, just as much as I did, she'd get all pissy. As I've said before, you have your strongly held opinions and I have mine. To throw "you want to be right" at me when you feel the same way is, as I said above, silly. You are (or should be) above that.

I have a friend who looks like Sophia Loren and who is not asked out, and it's actually pretty common. Another friend who is attractive and very friendly and French (but speaks perfect English and looks American) sold a book about how she could not get a date in Los Angeles. American men, especially, have become weenies.

OK, let's go over this one more time...

First of all, I'm saying it's extremely unlikely (although not completely out of the realm of possibility) that Sophia is "not asked out" or that Mme. Français "could not get a date in Los Angeles" if they are indeed attractive women (and I believe you on that point.) Again, I refer you to Isabel's astute observation above:

Most people color their stories to play to their audience. This is done for a variety of reasons, to elicit sympathy, support, to fit in, to invite further social discourse and to "talk something to death", which becomes a substitute for actually doing anything about a problem.

Second, if their stories are not colored; if Sophia is in fact "not asked out" and if Mme. Français in fact "could not get a date in Los Angeles" then I maintain they are doing something wrong, they're not making an attempt to connect with men, or their attitude and body language is very off-putting. You, of course, continue to insist that these women (and other attractive women like them) act all warm and friendly and flirtatious with men but that the men are just a big bunch of weenies.

If you want to continue to believe that, fine. It's your friends who are lamenting not being asked out, not mine (every attractive woman I've known has never had a problem meeting men.) I happen to feel that my suggestion, that they consider what they could do to better connect with men, would ultimately result in them meeting more men than your "weenies/no balls" bashing.

Guy who does not know these women and has never seen them decides he knows all. Meanwhile, Gregg, my boyfriend, has seen what I described go on and was astonished. But, hey, your imagination is where it's at.

Amy, since countless attractive women do get approached, chatted up, and asked out by men, it's not as if there's some epidemic of men who are too afraid to talk to attractive women. The difference between attractive women who do get approached by men and those who do not is that the former probably make more of an effort to connect with men. Your friends probably aren't willing to do that. If they aren't, that's fine. They just shouldn't then turn around and lament that they can't meet men, or can't get a date.

For example, Lizzie suggested above: "Maybe Amy's friend should try internet dating." Mme. Could-Not-Get-A-Date-In-Los-Angeles Français could easily get a date in Los Angeles (or any other city in the country) if she posted an online profile that was interesting and accompanied by a photo. But, rather than do that, she rather write and peddle a book lamenting that she "can't" get a date.

I admit I'm wrong all the time. Publicly, in boldface, as I did on my blog, in an apology note to the radio station (confessing I was wrong), and to the woman who wrote me when I erred in something I said about Joe Wilson.

Whether you admit you're wrong on other issues is irrelevant. You want to be right on this issue (while throwing "you want to be right" at me.) That's what's relevant.

I'm an advice columnist who studies these issues daily -- seven days a week, for years -- and I've supported my contentions here over and over, and you're a guy who's had some issues with women who, from that, and people-watching in a bar, knows all.

Nonsense. You haven't "supported" anything on this issue. All you're doing is asserting something. You're asserting that the reason your friends (allegedly) can't get dates is because "men are weenies" and that's all you're doing.

A former girlfriend of mine has a friend who is gorgeous. She's part Cherokee: raven hair, brown eyes, killer cheekbones, beautiful smile, olive skin, great body. She loves the same kind of music I do so I often see her at clubs. She always ends up talking to one or more guys during the evening. You know why? Because she's friendly and very approachable. Attractive women who act this way don't "intimidate" men. They attract men.

I had fun discussing this with my co-workers this week. Every single one, male and female alike, thought it was stretching the limits of credibility to claim that an attractive woman who was making an effort to be friendly to men could not get a date. The women tended think along the same lines as something I believe I said earlier: that attractive women like your friends get dates, or get asked out on dates, but they're not with Prince Charming so they don't count.

Amy,

(Your words are in ###black###.)

###Sigh…I call myself a "personist." I'm not a feminist and am, in fact, more of a supporter of men's rights than all but a few women are.### I think you're right. I guess I assumed all women are feminist, but after looking through some of your writing, I agree that you aren't. So I guess your beliefs about initiation do not show the usual hypocrisy. However, I can still disagree with them for other reasons.

###What you fail to understand -- as, actually, many feminists do -- is that men and women are not biologically or psychologically the same.### I understand. But you can say the same about me and my neighbor Frank, and you and the Sophia Loren look-alike, and Gandhi and the Pope, and Hillary Clinton and Jodi Arias, and Hitler and Genghis Khan. We are all different. But we should have consistent traditions, rules, and laws about how everyone is to behave. I would think a "personist" would agree that we need to treat everyone the same. Otherwise, we would be in the impossible situation of having individual rules for each individual. So both women and men should be able to initiate equally. Your position that only men should initiate ignores the men who aren't suited for it and the women who are. I suppose my position that men and women should share initiation exactly equally also ignores individual differences. Neither one of us accounts for individual differences. But I think my position comes closer than yours.

###And actually, when women pursue men, it often gets them into relationships with men who just use them.### Apparently, you have no qualms about the far more prevalent problem of women just using the men who pursue them. These problems would at least be equally distributed if men and women initiated about the same amounts. And if both men and women see how it feels to be used, this behavior is more likely to stop.

You referred several times to the Sophia Loren look-alike and other beautiful women who cannot get the right men to initiate to them. ###Oh, and sure, full-of-themselves assholes asked her out, but like me, she wasn't having any of that.### I do not understand how this contributes to your position. Why wouldn't it be so much better if these women could initiate with the guys they want to, rather than waiting around for Mr Right to do it while enduring "full of themselves assholes?"

I have read Remoff and Buss. (I may have Evolution of Desire in a box somewhere.) However it has been decades, and I don't remember details. If you have page numbers handy of the important passages, I would appreciate knowing them.

I gather that the basis of your biological argument is that sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive. ###Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive (Daly & Wilson) and everything follows from there. Got it?...As a woman, you take a risk in approaching a man because he is likely to devalue you (because his genes are well aware that sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive, per Daly and Wilson)### First of all, I think you have that backwards. If sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive, than I would think women and their genes would be far more likely to devalue men, than the other way around. The current media fad of women as angels/men as scum certainly confirms this interpretation. I do not think a "personist" would advocate anyone devaluing anyone else, but that seems to be the result of your biological argument.

But biology is not destiny. Humans have many genetic traits that we try to reduce and eliminate even though some humans have benefitted from them. Murder, violence, rape, robbery, and sickle-cell anemia quickly come to mind. (If I remember correctly, people with only one sickle-cell gene do not develop sickle-cell anemia but do have added resistance to malaria.) Just because you (and women) benefit from men initiating, doesn't mean it is good for modern society.

You seem to want men to initiate to prove their manliness. ###Because he asked me out, I feel wanted and feel he's manly...they have to do the man part and ask her out.### But then you so often see men who initiate as ###full of themselves assholes,...Narcissistic cad-type men,...homeless guy lying in his own urine,...narcissistic scumbag.### I believe there is a connection here. Being insensitive enough to ignore rejection tends to make one a scumbag as well as manly. Sure, there may be a few exceptions---guys who are manly but not scumbags, but only a few. Women's requirement that men initiate turns men into manly scumbags who are then rejected. This is another ridiculous no-win contradiction women put on men. Men have to stop falling for this nonsense. This contradiction makes me think the real reason that you want men to initiate is because you are too cowardly to do it yourself. You cannot face the risk of rejection so you are coming up with any lame excuse you can to try and get men to do the initiating, including shaming their manhood. If true, this is pathetic.

Besides, if women initiated too, they could show how they want it done.

Is it any wonder that some women who won't initiate continue to hook-up with the narcissistic scumbags who are more likely to initiate? I would guess these scumbags are also more likely than shy non-initiators to beat women. Maybe domestic violence would be reduced if women initiated.

I think I've come up with some strong counter-arguments to your positions. Equal initiating is the "personist" thing to do. But I doubt that you will change your position on initiation. Maybe you will surprise me.