Buddy Language
I have such a crush on my co-worker that I actually have to bite down on my lips to keep them from quivering while we talk. Although he seems to enjoy talking with me, he hasn't expressed any interest. I've tried avoiding him and denying my feelings, but I just start obsessing -- thinking he's shy, or we don't talk enough, or I get too nervous and he doesn't see the real me. Or, maybe he's shallow, and I'm not pretty enough, blah, blah, blah. Now, he's moving to a different company, and I feel like I'm losing out. I've been on this for a year, and I'm too scared to say "I like you. Do you like me?"
--Stuck
How amazing that the guy doesn't seem to know how you feel when you've been sending signals for an entire year -- telling him you're as hot for him as you are for the elderly receptionist and the paunchy Polish janitor with the exposed butt crack. Yes, who knew, "Take me right here and now on this desk!" can also be phrased "Bye, Mr. Raszewski, have a great weekend!"
Although you're utterly overwhelmed by the prospect of rejection, you seem to think it's easy for guys, that they just say to themselves, "Oh, look! It's human and wearing a bra. I think I'll ask it out!" Unless you're stunning -- in which case, all you have to do is exist in a guy's eyeline -- you need to let him know you're open for business; specifically, his. But, you don't just march up and blurt out "I like you. Do you like me?" -- which is about as alluring as "Drop by some afternoon so I can give you genital herpes."
Asking a guy out is another lousy idea. Men will tell you they're fine with it -- just as they're subconsciously knocking you from an 8 to a 3.6 for doing it. Because sex is more costly for a woman -- potentially leading to nine months of pregnancy, then a kid to drag around -- women evolved to be the choosier sex and men evolved to value choosy women, and to apply to be chosen. This isn't to say all the work should be left to men. It's your job to flirt with a guy, signaling that if he asked you out, you wouldn't scream "Rape!", fall on the floor laughing, or report him to Human Resources and have him demoted to crossing guard.
Instead of spending a year chewing on your lip, you could've spent a week or two smiling at the guy, making eye contact and looking away, playing with your hair, toying with objects around you, and touching his arm (female flirting moves recognized across cultures). Then it would've been his turn, perhaps to drop mention that he, too, is looking for a boyfriend. If only you'd signaled your interest, even inaction on his part would've been progress -- telling you to move on. Then again, maybe he would've asked you out, and maybe you would've found he's mean to the waitress and twirls his nose hair at the table. Yes, for all you know, you don't even like the guy -- the real guy, not the one you've turned into a rock star in your head. While you could finally give flirting with him a whirl, with the way you've built him up, your best bet is probably meeting new guys and practicing your body language -- those little pronunciation tricks that make the difference between "Ask me out" and "Ask me if I'm often constipated."
Asking a guy out is another lousy idea. Men will tell you they're fine with it -- just as they're subconsciously knocking you from an 8 to a 3.6 for doing it. Because sex is more costly for a woman -- potentially leading to nine months of pregnancy, then a kid to drag around -- women evolved to be the choosier sex and men evolved to value choosy women, and to apply to be chosen.
More pseudoscience. Choosiness for each gender varies according to time, place, culture, and situation. Didn't you see the study about speed dating? When the men sat at the tables and the women rotated, the men were choosier. When the women sat and the men rotated, the women were choosier.
Don't you know why penises are plunger-shaped? The head of the penis is designed to scoop out sperm that got there first.
And the more men a woman has sex with, the likelier it is that she'll get one who's not shooting blanks, and reproduction will take place.
Use common sense and think about what you just said. The entire evolutionary point of sex preferences is to facilitate reproduction. Of what reproductive benefit would it be for a *man* to value a woman who may or may not be into him over an (otherwise normal) woman who clearly is?
Men who think that way have self esteem issues and are neurotics, nothing more (wouldn't be a member of a club that would have me, etc.) You don't need to make up pseudo-biological explanations for it.
More to the point: Asking a man out is not a lousy idea. Pursuing a man after he's made it clear he's not interested is a bad idea.
But making the first move by asking a guy out is fine. My brother spent six years living together and madly in love with a woman who asked him out first.
My friend Bryan first started dating his girlfriend when he received an email from Myspace that she had invited him to join. Apparently she was trying to secretly look him up there, but accidentally sent him an invite instead. Then she sent him an embarassed email explaining the situation and asking him out. They're getting married in the spring.
disagree at September 1, 2009 7:24 PM
men evolved to value choosy women
As the above comment said, this doesn't pass the sniff test. How would it increase a man's reproductive success to reject a woman because she pursued him?
In my dating days, it didn't often happen that a woman asked me out, but the few times it did, I most certainly did not subconsciously devalue her--quite the contrary. In one case it led to a relationship that lasted a year.
I don't think a man drops a woman from 8 to 3.6 because she asks him out--rather, the woman who asks a man out is more likely to be a 3.6 in the first place. An 8 is too busy being asked herself.
Rex Little at September 2, 2009 1:29 AM
"Asking a guy out is another lousy idea. Men will tell you they're fine with it -- just as they're subconsciously knocking you from an 8 to a 3.6 for doing it."
Gotta agree with the first two commenters -- that doesn't sound right, although I don't remember ever discussing the issue with the guys I know.
Demographics may be an issue as well. Where I went to college, men outnumbered women by a ratio of about three to two. If a guy wanted a date, he needed to hustle! If the LW is in a work area where there are more women than men, she might be in a similar predicament. That notion kind of plays along with Disagree's comment about speed dating.
Oh, by the way, Disagree, regarding the second paragraph of your reply -- Oh, ick! I really, really, really didn't need to know that!
old rpm daddy at September 2, 2009 4:53 AM
The consensus with the bunch of guys that I work with here:
If she's hot, she's hot. If a hot chick approaches them she is still hot. If she is so-so they are still not interested. The Italian guy was the only one who went on to mention "but I do like to do the persuing".
"I don't think a man drops a woman from 8 to 3.6 because she asks him out--rather, the woman who asks a man out is more likely to be a 3.6 in the first place. An 8 is too busy being asked herself"
Yup - I would agree with that theory.
Karen at September 2, 2009 5:47 AM
Amy- Excellent response. Perfect!
David M. at September 2, 2009 6:15 AM
You guys would all find a lot of helpful information in a Richard Dawkins book. I loved The Selfish Gene. It makes an amazingly compelling case for all of the behavior that Amy is referring to. Evolutionary gender differences are real, even if they are generalizations.
Your anecdotal evidence does not a coherent theory make. I know a lady with a beard. Does that mean that the presumption that most men grow beards and most women do not, and that this is a biological sex difference that is out of awareness or control, is untrue?
If a woman who tries to ask as many guys out as possible, most people will think she is desparate and wierd or a slut, and if a man asks as many women out as possible, he's a stud or a player. Certainly if a hot woman asks an interested man out, he thinks, "sweet, that was easy!" But it's a quick jump to "she's easy!"
Women evolved to be choosy, because a cave woman mating with the wrong caveman meant starvation for her little cave baby, who she had just wasted nine months gestating, during which time she was unable to mate with anyone else. It is in her benefit to try to find a mate who will stick around and provide food and protection. Fast forward 10,000 years and here we are with the same wiring, but different environment. Just that now he's giving her a condo on the beach and a LV bag.
And men evolved to want to make the effort to mate with a choosy woman, becuase mating with a cave slut meant there was a very good chance that the little cave baby he's planning on investing his time and resources into nourishing and protecting is not his.
That is why men pursue and woo. Just because a wonderful woman asked out your cousin and they lived happily ever after, or your girlfriend likes to bring you flowers, doesn't mean that the overall behavioral tendencies of the sexes with regards to mating of our entire species have changed.
Great answer, Amy!
lindsayloo at September 2, 2009 6:29 AM
Great answer, and wholly inappropriate.
Men are often hesitant to put the moves on women at work for fear of the HR department.
What with draconian company policies, sexual harassment-by-proxy complaints, the awkwardness of maintaining an office romance, and the myriad problems should the relationship end badly, coworker dating is a bad idea.
Don't get your honey where you get your money.
brian at September 2, 2009 7:25 AM
Asking a guy out is another lousy idea. Men will tell you they're fine with it -- just as they're subconsciously knocking you from an 8 to a 3.6 for doing it.
There you go again. Stop telling women that! The ones I might like asking me out might be disuaded!
Several years ago there was a very attractive, older woman (in the age difference range that I prefer) who asked me out several times over the course of a year. Unfortunatly, the times she asked I was involved or traveling a lot. She was also asking at times I did not have the time to stop and exchange information. We worked in different divisions, etc. The only "work" we shared was same firm, same building.
I later regretted not getting her contact information, she moved on to another firm and so did I. Assuming we both moved on to other people too.
John Tagliaferro at September 2, 2009 7:28 AM
I'm with John - stop telling women that. You may be dissuading women from asking me out!
The flirting behavior you are describing is exactly the thing that oblivious men MISS entirely. Men don't see details - we see big pictures. I've had over a dozen conversations with women who told me that they had be interested in me, back when they were single. My response: Well, that might have been fun. Why didn't you SAY so?
Bill
Bill McNutt at September 2, 2009 7:39 AM
"Your anecdotal evidence does not a coherent theory make"
I did not claim to make a theory. Amy did. I am simply pointing out that it is not based on any scientific fact. Not even a statistical analysis of what men really think if a woman asks them out. So basically - the theory that men devalue a woman that asks them out is based on purely anecdotal evidence.
"I know a lady with a beard. Does that mean that the presumption that most men grow beards and most women do not, and that this is a biological sex difference that is out of awareness or control, is untrue? "
No. The underlying scientific research shows why she has a beard. It is hormanal rather than a biological sex difference. Only a severe lack of scientific fact would lead us to jump to a conclusion like the one you have suggested.
Suggesting that a woman could ask a man on a date is changing the "entire mating patterns" of our species is a little...dramatic to say the least. For centuries our species mated based of financial gain. 2 people were selected to marry based on the merging of assets. Mate selection is based on cultural evolution as well. This is something that cannot be discounted when formulating theories.
For example: The biological purpose of our organism is to reproduce itself and ensure the offspring survives and does well in it's environment. This is what we are born to want to do, from an evolutionary perspective. This is regulated by culture. Whereas once the way to satisfy this need to have an offspring survive was to have MANY children. This was because of high mortality rates. You had to have a bunch of kids in order for a few to survive and have more kids. In our culture we have great healthcare so it's better to have fewer children while investing more financial resources into their well being.
Karen at September 2, 2009 7:41 AM
lindsayloo has the right idea, but the good news is that now he's moving on to a new place and he is fair game! Go practice your flirting skills on him now, girl! In the name of networking exchange business cards with him before he leaves and give yourself clear shot at it!
Tori at September 2, 2009 7:42 AM
It takes assertiveness and confidence to ask someone else out. When I was dating, I didn't do the asking because asking me out was the first sign that he was assertive enough and confident enough to ask me out without peeing himself. If you're a man who values these qualities, then it's easy to see how a woman doing the asking would be appealing.
MonicaP at September 2, 2009 7:54 AM
I agree with Amy, good answer as usual. As for anecdotal evidence, well I have a female friend who had a very storied past. She would go to a bar, find a guy she liked (and/or sometimes a girl) and flat out ask him about his plans for the evening. While even though in the end she was usually successful, she was turned down quite a bit for the reasons specified earlier. She wasn't looking for Mr Right, she was looking for Mr. Tonight.
When men want to settle down, they don't want the woman who may have had a storied past, they want the woman who seems very choosy in terms of who she opens shop for. When a guy is looking for cheap thrills; the reverse is true (unless he pays for it).
Amax at September 2, 2009 8:06 AM
"It takes assertiveness and confidence to ask someone else out. When I was dating, I didn't do the asking because asking me out was the first sign that he was assertive enough and confident enough to ask me out without peeing himself. If you're a man who values these qualities, then it's easy to see how a woman doing the asking would be appealing."
Possibly, but men usually take it as an emasculating, a switching of roles that takes some men out of their comfort zone. The vast majority of guys who would rather be pursued than do the pursuing are usually the guys who aren't confidant enough to pursue in the first place.
Amax at September 2, 2009 8:08 AM
Ugh, sorry bad spelling and horrible grammer on my part. I mean to say the vast majority of the guys I know follow my previous post's pattern. And that some men take a woman pursuing them as an emasculating move.
Amax at September 2, 2009 8:10 AM
"The vast majority of guys who would rather be pursued than do the pursuing are usually the guys who aren't confidant enough to pursue in the first place."
Which makes the role reversal ideal. Everybody gets laid!
MonicaP at September 2, 2009 8:34 AM
Don't you know why penises are plunger-shaped? The head of the penis is designed to scoop out sperm that got there first.
Normal penises aren't plunger shaped. And if you're referring to the mushroom shape at the head, that's due to circumcision. Uncircumcised penises don't have any feature that could be construed to indicate that they're meant to scoop out sperm.
Malamoor at September 2, 2009 8:52 AM
I agree with MonicaP. I want a man who has the confidence in himself to ask me out, but I also want to feel that he thinks I'm worth the risk of a possible rejection. I spent a very long year in a flirtation with someone. Hints were dropped by both of us and I waited...and waited...and waited. He played games trying to get me to make the first move and I refused. If we were to be together I wanted it because he thought I was worth asking and not because one of us were tricked or played the game better.
He finally fessed up his feelings and asked me out but only after I met someone who actually thought I was worth dinner and a movie. I'm glad now that he didn't have the nerve to ask me out because who wants a man who cannot overcome his fear of rejection and tried to trick the woman into asking him out. Not me! And now, he is stuck with a woman who did trick him, not just into a date, but an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy!
Kristen at September 2, 2009 9:03 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1665947">comment from KristenMy boyfriend Gregg isn't Mr. Extrovert, and I could tell that when I met him, and I really, really respected him for asking me out. Of course, I flirted with him to let him know I was interested. He not only asked me out, after we'd spent a few hours having sodas at the Farmer's Market (near the Apple store where we met), he walked me to my car, grabbed me and kissed me. This is how men are supposed to be, but the feminist movement has told men to behave like big pussies, and the men who might wimp out use that as an excuse to do it. And then they wonder why they can't get a girlfriend they aren't renting by the hour.
Amy Alkon at September 2, 2009 9:11 AM
"Which makes the role reversal ideal. Everybody gets laid!"
I had no clue that lack of confidence was attractive to ladies.
Amax at September 2, 2009 9:41 AM
I had no clue that lack of confidence was attractive to ladies.
Not to me. But it can be a selling point for women looking for men they can control.
MonicaP at September 2, 2009 9:43 AM
Personally I'd have been flattered if a woman asked me out back when I was going out with people. If they were of interest to me, I'd have said yes, if not, I'd have said no politely. Oh who am I kidding, back then the crack of dawn woulda looked good to me...
I recall once a gay fellow tried to chat me up at a bar. Had I not been in a hurry (I was waiting for the fiance at the time) I'd have asked him what made me look worth going after. I found it rather a ego boost that I was still interesting enough to make a play for.
Vinnie Bartilucci at September 2, 2009 9:46 AM
Amax: I had no clue that lack of confidence was attractive to ladies.
MonicaP: Not to me. But it can be a selling point for women looking for men they can control.
Me: Now *that* sounds like loads of fun - for both parties. Man resents being controlled, and starts to push back, woman eventually turns into a shrew because husband won't do what she wants or says.
. . . pretty much the description of about two thirds of the marriages out there IMO.
railmeat at September 2, 2009 9:48 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1665957">comment from railmeatI would never have a man I could push around. I'd have contempt for him. In seven years, however, I've never said a mean word to my man's man boyfriend, and he's always very sweet to me.
Amy Alkon at September 2, 2009 9:52 AM
". . . pretty much the description of about two thirds of the marriages out there IMO"
I whole heartedly agree
Amax at September 2, 2009 10:26 AM
I would never have a man I could push around. I'd have contempt for him. In seven years, however, I've never said a mean word to my man's man boyfriend, and he's always very sweet to me.
It can be done safely. Try using safewords, you know, red, yellow, green?
John Tagliaferro at September 2, 2009 10:50 AM
I'm going to toss something out here, and for the moment I'll leave it without further comment, so everyone else can have a shot at it: I've always thought that I was the absolute world's worst at telling when a woman was interested in me. However, thinking back on it now, I'm beginning to think that maybe it wasn't all me. Surely you'd think I would have picked up a clue along the line somewhere, but I never did. So here's my conjecture:
Young women these days (for the past three decades or so) are really poor at flirting. Discuss.
Cousin Dave at September 2, 2009 10:55 AM
"Young women these days (for the past three decades or so) are really poor at flirting".
Yup. Completely agree.
Frankly, most guys *and* women are deeply messed up in terms of the 'mating role' (the ones that work best most of the time) that they could be playing. No one teaches these things (Although Ms Alkon is making a good go of it) and there are powerful forces that have made even TALKING about such things taboo.
Lots of unhappiness, for both sexes, follows.
railmeat at September 2, 2009 11:08 AM
Young women these days (for the past three decades or so) are really poor at flirting.
I'm sure lots of people will blame feminism for this, but there's the larger issue: People today seem to be generally poor at subtle communication, including body language. Electronic communication has hurt our ability to understand what isn't being said in words. People seem to be more socially awkward, as well.
Changes in gender roles also plays a part, I think. No one is sure who should be doing the asking, so no one does.
MonicaP at September 2, 2009 11:13 AM
"Young women these days (for the past three decades or so) are really poor at flirting."
Well, I wasn't. I guess I can see it, though. I think it's easier to be flirty when you're cute, since you're getting more attention, anyway.
ahw at September 2, 2009 1:10 PM
Monica, I'll have to go think about that. The reason I say that is because I think the problem existed before the Internet did. But of course, telephone and radio have been around for a while. And even though TV is visual, I know that body cues don't necessarily come across the same way on television as they do in person.
And yes, I do think feminism had something to do with it. I would be prepared to listen to an argument that 1930s-1950s prudishness had something to do with it too.
Cousin Dave at September 2, 2009 1:18 PM
Jeez, effing Louise, ask the guy out. No biggie anymore. "I like you, do you like me?" is fine. Trust me, I'm a guy.
You know how you make a guy happy? Order pizza in, and have sex all night. Done deal, he loves you.
If you tremble when you see him, that's pretty cool. If I ever meet a woman who trembles for me, I'll take her to some tropical locale and screw her really hard for a week. Maybe marry her.
Tell him you'd like to go to a ballgame with him, or to a museum exhibit. He must be a real dope not to notice anything, though....
i-holier-than-thou at September 2, 2009 1:23 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666014">comment from i-holier-than-thouDon't ask the guy out -- for the reason I state in the column. Yes, there are women who've asked men out and had it turn out okay, but it's a risk and I state why. You want a man who wants you enough to put himself out for you and ask you out. If he doesn't want you that much, why would you want him? (And I say that as somebody with a boyfriend who's shy, but who was into me enough to get beyond that and ask me out.)
There's a great book dissecting how this works, and why -- Sexual Choice A Woman's Decision: Why and How Women choose the Men They Do as Sexual Partners, by Heather Trexler Remoff -- and she lays out what I know, that mating and dating is a dance. You play your part and he plays his. You don't start taking over all the parts. It just doesn't work as well that way. You end up setting up a dynamic in a relationship, if any, where the man never wants you as much as he would've if he feels he pursued you and won you. And again, your job as a woman? To signal men you like to let them know you'll be into it if they asked you out. Yes, everybody's got a role here.
Amy Alkon at September 2, 2009 1:30 PM
Sorry, this is tangential, but...
Going back to the question of the shape of the penis: Isn't the head of any penis mushroom-shaped? I was under the impression that the difference between circumsized and un- is that the head of an uncircumsized penis is covered by a fold of skin when flaccid. When erect, don't they look pretty much the same, except the uncirumsized penis would have looser skin along the shaft? Or did I misunderstand an illustration in my childhood? Lol... (Not experienced with the uncircumsized penis, obviously.)
Mizireni at September 2, 2009 1:51 PM
I completely agree with Amy on this one.
It is the precise reason I don't ask men out. It's not because I can't, it's because I won't. If he is man enough AND interested - he'll ask. Asking men out is the furthest thing from my mind. You can give me all the science or psychology behind it - but for me, it's just plain awkward.
I've come to realize that this is probably because I prefer men who are not complete pussies. Had I asked some guy out - the fact that he liked me or was interested is irrelevent. I've changed a dynamic that can never be re-righted.
A man who can't ask me out if he is interested probably wouldn't be a very good match for me personality wise. And one way or another I would become resentful and irritable about it.
Feebie at September 2, 2009 2:13 PM
Another excellent answer, Amy. You should include this in your next book, and it should be among your "greatest hits."
Have to admit, as your answer began, I feared that you were going to go the "You go girl! Ask that man out ASAP!" route. But you don't stoop to what passes for advice these days in other quarters, and sure enough, you did not disappoint.
I have several male friends who are very nervous around me--always dropping indirect hints, etc. They tend to be passive in their careers and friendships too. To echo what MonicaP put it so well--the lack of courage is symptomatic of a greater lack.
a reader at September 2, 2009 2:40 PM
Isn't the head of any penis mushroom-shaped?
Yes. But this is only apparent for an uncircumcised penis when it's happy. Sorry if my description was confusing.
In any case no penises look like plungers.
Malamoor at September 2, 2009 2:41 PM
P.S. to Rex Little and Karen: doesn't this insightful statement undermine the rest of each of your answers?
I don't think a man drops a woman from 8 to 3.6 because she asks him out--rather, the woman who asks a man out is more likely to be a 3.6 in the first place. An 8 is too busy being asked herself"
You may be flattered if a woman asks him out, but he will wonder why she has to go that route--a truly "hot" woman would be so sought after that she wouldn't have to make a move. In his comment, John Tagliaferro indicates that he would welcome women asking him out, but when one did, he turned her down multiple times. If he was really into her, he would have jumped at the chance--or more like, asked *her* out in the first place. I have a theory that men say that they like women to ask them out because they think that hot women will be all over them if the norms changed. I suspect that it wouldn't work that way. Amy is 100% on this.
a reader at September 2, 2009 3:12 PM
About looking like a plunger ... . There's a reason the coy euphemism 'hunt the sausage' came into play. Seek out uncircumcised penis and discuss ;-).
antoniaB at September 2, 2009 3:32 PM
Aw gee, Amy, why spend years researching this stuff when somebody can just step in here and whip out what they saw in a bar as "fact"?
Radwaste at September 2, 2009 3:57 PM
"Instead of spending a year chewing on your lip, you could've spent a week or two smiling at the guy, making eye contact and looking away, playing with your hair, toying with objects around you, and touching his arm (female flirting moves recognized across cultures). Then it would've been his turn, perhaps to drop mention that he, too, is looking for a boyfriend."
Hmm. Maybe that is the problem. Text as in original.
PS All these answers you are getting are from women. They are projecting what they want...not what a guy wants.
Listen, a guy wants to come home and find three gorgeous nude women cooking dinner, fluffing pillows and turning on the hot-tub jets. That's a male fantasy.
Female fantasies are the "solutions" you are getting here from Amy & Co. Somehow you are supposed to wait, or have three suitors battle it out for your favors while you select the best genes....a fantasy. A bold, handsome man asks you out, kisses you hard on a first date--and he is actually the one you love. Nice, if it happens...
In real life, the intelligently aggressive woman gets her share of the pie and way more. How many times have I seen good-looking smart women get the best jobs and guys simultaneously, just by sleeping around a bit? They did more than flirt, let me tell you. They pursued, they made the male fantasies come true.
Okay, so you want the guy, then make the guy fantasy come true. He will fall for you, or dump you after using you, but at least you will know.
The male fantasy: Rent a good movie (the guy's taste, whether Kurosawa or Groundhog Day), get that pizza, invite him over, and really go at it--go at it like you can't wait for him anymore, and you are abandoning caution to the wind.
Good luck.
Or you could twittle your thumbs, and watch this guy disappear forever.
i-holier-than-thou at September 2, 2009 4:58 PM
A lot of these sociobiological arguments are simplistic and don't really show the full picture. Just because you have read the latest pop science tome doesn't give you the keys to the universe.
Just because a certain behavior may have been encouraged through evolution and natural selection does not mean it is still appropriate today. Behaviors that may have served a survival purpose in the past often become redundant or maladaptive when society changes.
Historically, it no doubt made sense for men to pursue women in order to have someone to reproduce their genes and carry on their line. But in today's society, where men have second class status in much of the legal system and are at greater risk of losing everything (possession, contact with children, even personal freedom) on their whim of their spouse, it makes no sense for a man to devote too much time and effort to securing a life partner.
Indeed, any man who devotes too much time and resources to courting a woman might as well be holding up a giant sign saying: "I have such low self-esteem that I am prepared to risk all that, because I am nothing without a woman's love".
Nick S at September 2, 2009 6:42 PM
I think Amy is right that Stuck should one way or another signal interest somewhat if she's really hot for this man.
Brian advises, "... coworker dating is a bad idea. Don't get your honey where you get your money." In general, this is a right on yet it seems to work OK for some people. Also Stuck should set herself up for the possibility that she and he are in fact, very mismatched. Also, in my opinion women shouldn't flirt in the workplace just to see if a man will show interest and shore up their ego. These things have a way of being very disruptive in a work setting, trust me.
Amy said, "He not only asked me out, after we'd spent a few hours having sodas at the Farmer's Market (near the Apple store where we met), he walked me to my car, grabbed me and kissed me. This is how men are supposed to be, but the feminist movement has told men to behave like big pussies, "
I tend to agree, I think the women's lib has ended up confusing both men and women. Sure women don't want men to behave boorishly, but they seem to respect boldness in a man. I also think it puts a man on the proper footing when he takes the initiative, should something start to bud. Rejection ends up being good for a man, and perhaps it puts a woman on notice that he's not going to settle for a relationship lacking reciprocity. But the kind of boldness Amy referred has to be done carefully by a man lest he end up not knowing her as well as he should. Beware of psycho women.
Cousin Dave said, "Young women these days (for the past three decades or so) are really poor at flirting. Discuss." I'm not sure but the prevalence of online dating and gradual falloff of the importance of other venues for men and women to interact has made the dating game harder for all. I've had terrible luck with online dating to the point where I've decided for now it's not worth doing. (And haven't had a relationship with a woman in a while, too.)
Iconoclast at September 2, 2009 7:23 PM
In response to the comment above from "a reader": no, I don't believe so. Sure, some men will think the way you describe, but for others, their opinion of a woman will be what it is whether or not she asks them out. In my case, on those few occasions where a woman asked me, it improved my opinion of her.
This is definitely a YMMV situation; one size does NOT fit all. For sure, if you're a woman like Amy or Feebie or Kristen who's turned off to a man if she has to ask him, don't ask. And there are some men with whom it might work out better if you flirt a little harder and wait for him to ask you. (Or someone else might get his attention while you're waiting.) But in general, I'd say that if the woman is comfortable with the idea and is interested in a guy, she should ask.
Rex Little at September 2, 2009 7:25 PM
> women evolved to be the choosier
> sex and men evolved to value
> choosy women
You say crazy shit sometimes, Amy.
"But this is science!" We have studies!
Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at September 2, 2009 8:46 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666069">comment from Crid [CridComment @ gmail]So, let's try the converse -- men evolved to value sluts...because they love the notion of bringing home the bacon for a kid who's passing on the neighbor's genes.
Why do you think both men and women vilify promiscuous women, and in a way they don't vilify men who are players? A woman whose man sleeps with another woman may choose to invest in any child from that event. A man whose woman sleeps around may end up carrying a child from some other dude.
Amy Alkon at September 2, 2009 9:04 PM
No doubt that men (with exception, but not many) value women who don't sleep around. But don't conflate asking a man out with promiscuity. A woman can be choosy and still do the choosing.
Rex Little at September 2, 2009 9:28 PM
"Or you could twittle your thumbs, and watch this guy disappear forever. "
Ohhh nooooo! What will we do then!!!???
Why do you assume that if we don't do the asking out we are somehow benchwarmers missing out on all the fun? Dating a man I know I won't get along with takes too much energy and is a waste of both his time and mine. Besides, it's disingenuous too.
If I am flirting, and he ain't biting - he's either 1) not interested in me; or 2)he's a wuss. Simple.
Feebie at September 2, 2009 9:43 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666078">comment from Rex LittleA woman can be choosy and still do the choosing.
Women do the choosing by flirting with men they like and with their veto power when they aren't interested.
Because it's possible to ask a man out doesn't mean it's wise to do so.
I don't "conflate" women asking men out with promiscuity. Women do it because they don't understand male psychology or sexuality, or because they don't care whether a man ever sees them again, or because they're too brainwashed by feminism or just dense to know that asking men out is a risky and poor strategy (sets up the wrong balance in the relationship). Sorry, but men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and what you're doing, Rex, is conflating equal rights with sameness.
Amy Alkon at September 2, 2009 11:57 PM
Where did valuing sluts come into this? A man being into a woman who is attracted to HIM, and only him, is not the same thing as a man being into a slut, who is after any and all men.
As for a man not asking a woman out, why do you assume it's just because he's a weak wimp, or not interested?
Some men have other things on their minds such as their careers, goals, and things going on in their lives. Their minds are not on dating and they are pleasantly surprised when a woman expresses interest.
Asking men out is a risky and poor strategy only when it comes to those men who have a psychological problem with it. And that's not all men or even most.
This Heather Remoff received her PhD in 1980. Has she published *anything* in a scholarly journal since? Or is the sum of her scholarship one 25 year old pop-psychology book?
disagree at September 3, 2009 12:27 AM
"This is how men are supposed to be, but the feminist movement has told men to behave like big pussies, and the men who might wimp out use that as an excuse to do it. And then they wonder why they can't get a girlfriend they aren't renting by the hour.
Posted by: Amy Alkon September 2, 2009 9:11 AM"
While this is very true, the game or the pursuit no longer really interests me now that I'm in my early 30s. For me, women are going to have to be the ones to step up, take the risk, and show they want to fix things. Men made the effort to change and got burned for it. Women bought it, broke it, now they can fix it. So no, a woman asking me out in most circumstances doesnt turn me off. Women expecting me to be Svengali the mind reader does.
As for dating at work, the only reason the LW should ask the guy out now is that he's leaving the company. Anyone, but especially men who fishes off the company pier in this PC culture is an idiot.
Sio at September 3, 2009 12:59 AM
what you're doing, Rex, is conflating equal rights with sameness.
Huh? You're going to have to connect those dots for me, Amy, because I don't see how I'm doing that at all. What I am saying is that men are not all the same as each other, nor are women. For some women, like yourself and the other commenters I named above, asking a man out would be a very bad idea, for reasons that you and they explained quite well. But that doesn't mean it's never a good idea for any woman. What would be the wrong balance in your relationship might be just fine in someone else's.
One thing I forgot to mention earlier: the LW might have put her own finger on her problem when she said ". . .maybe he's shallow, and I'm not pretty enough. . .". Except of course he's not shallow--he's just a typical guy.
Rex Little at September 3, 2009 1:25 AM
Wow, if I was getting signals like that from someone in my office, I'd tell her to buzz off or report her to HR. These days it is too easy to be reported for sexual harassment. Paranoid? You bet. ALWAYS keep your love life and your work separated. We have finally come to this after years of feminist whining about harassment in the work place. Why lose your job for a piece of ass?
And generally speaking, I agree with the writers above: women are horrible at flirting now. Or, maybe we're just too much in a hurry to get back to our porn to notice...
mike at September 3, 2009 5:04 AM
If she asks a man out she's putting him in the position of having to pay for the date, which he may or may not enjoy. She'd have to say it's dutch or she'll pay.
But since feminist domination of law and media there's little in dating for most men anyhow. Only the trouble and expense remain, whether he asks or she asks.
What's the ultimate point? Marriage is a liability for men, having no up side, and getting there is a minefield of potential lawsuits and accusations false and rarely valid.
Hiring women is the best thing to do since you know how much it'll cost up front and she'll behave herself if you do since prostitution is illegal. There's no doubt you'll get what you want and of course when you're finished you aren't even expected to call her the next day. (The payment, as we all know, is so she'll shut up and leave.)
At work and elsewhere a man is safest being polite, not too funny or entertaining, well groomed but not a showoff, superficial and evasive.
If you don't like this, discuss it with a feminist.
DCM at September 3, 2009 5:17 AM
wait, whoever said order in pizza and have sex with all night is the way to get a man to love you was dishing out some horrible advice. that's the way to have a one-night stand and give somebody free pizza.
anyway having been in this situation several times, mostly because i'm a bad flirter (it feels fake and totally uncomfortable), what about the LW just casually--i.e., not date-like--suggesting they go out for coffee or whatever? then they can both get to know each other in a non-awkward (read: date) setting, and if she still likes him THEN she can start the flirting (probably easier to do not at work) and see how he responds.
the last time i had this i ended up just telling the guy how i felt (i was pretty sure, after two years, that he had similar feelings), and now we're together. it took a long time of building up the nerve to do it though.
anonymous at September 3, 2009 5:33 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666099">comment from anonymous"what about the LW just casually--i.e., not date-like--suggesting they go out for coffee or whatever? then they can both get to know each other in a non-awkward (read: date) setting, and if she still likes him THEN she can start the flirting (probably easier to do not at work) and see how he responds."
No -- flirting signals are implied, not direct, and allow both parties an out. Asking him for coffee is asking for a date. Bad idea.
"the last time i had this i ended up just telling the guy how i felt (i was pretty sure, after two years, that he had similar feelings), and now we're together. it took a long time of building up the nerve to do it though."
Because you did a completely dumb and lazy thing -- just spewed on a guy -- and now you're together doesn't mean it's a good thing. Either the guy wasn't that into you but you hit on him and he figured, "Okay, I'll take it," or you're with a man who is a wimp or didn't care enough for you to ask you out. What kind of man isn't man enough to brave 10 seconds of feeling foolish to ask a girl out and potentially have her say no?
Two years, and the guy couldn't squeak out an invitation to a drink? That man sure would be disqualified in my book for anything other than a passing hello as I was on my way to be with a guy I was having sex with.
And yes, there's a danger in dating somebody from the workplace. Man or woman.
I'm fine with prostitution, or any exchange of services for money that consenting adults want to make, and advised an old boyfriend to see escorts instead of fooling women into thinking he wants a relationship and ending up with nightmares banging on his door at 3am, saying "Why don't you love me." It's more moral by far to see a hooker.
No, Rex, it doesn't mean it's never a good idea for a woman. A woman who is so needy that she will take a man rather than do what it takes to make sure a man really wants her is free to ask men out. She should just be very clear on why she's doing it, and what the risks and consequences are.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 6:12 AM
Amy, it is kind of funny that you chide men for fooling women into thinking they want a relationship when they are really just after an easy shag.
Newsflash: if you leave it up to men to take the initiative, don't be too surprised if men take the initiative in order to get what they want, not what the woman wants. As my folks were fond of saying, if someone comes knocking on your door it means they want something from you, not that they want to do something for you.
It is also reassuring to know that men who are confident and get what they want are assholes, while men who are reluctant to take the initiative are wimps.
As a man, it is quite liberating to know you will always be wrong. That way you don't need to worry about doing the right thing.
Nick S at September 3, 2009 6:49 AM
Why do you think both men and women vilify promiscuous women, and in a way they don't vilify men who are players? A woman whose man sleeps with another woman may choose to invest in any child from that event. A man whose woman sleeps around may end up carrying a child from some other dude.
Why does this spot-on comment aways remind me of the immortal words "I don't do that all the time" being spoken by various women right after our fist time having sex together?
Might want to put the word out, Amy, when guys hear that they believe just the opposite.
John Tagliaferro at September 3, 2009 6:52 AM
"I'm fine with prostitution, or any exchange of services for money that consenting adults want to make, and advised an old boyfriend to see escorts instead of fooling women into thinking he wants a relationship and ending up with nightmares banging on his door at 3am, saying "Why don't you love me." It's more moral by far to see a hooker."
What would be more moral still is if the legal system actually started dealing properly with these kinds of maladjusted, vindictive women instead of aiding and abetting their destructiveness. It would also be good if our culture generally taught these women to fucking grow up and accept that you don't always get what you want in life.
Nick S at September 3, 2009 7:07 AM
I've had terrible luck with online dating to the point where I've decided for now it's not worth doing. (And haven't had a relationship with a woman in a while, too.)
I've said this a few times, but online dating is a great way to practice dating. I'm engaged to someone I met through Match.com, but, apart from that, it helped me practice my dating "skills" on people I would never see again if it didn't work out. This was especially useful after not dating for 10 years.
MonicaP at September 3, 2009 7:16 AM
As for men fooling women into bed by pretending to be interested in a relationship, I have always believed that the price you pay for only hearing what you want to hear is that you make it easier for others to manipulate you.
The old saying 'a fool and his money are easily parted' could just as easily be 'a fool and her legs are easily parted'.
P.S. I'm road-testing my wicked sense of humor here before trying it out when picking up chicks!
Nick S at September 3, 2009 7:18 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666111">comment from Nick SAs for men fooling women into bed by pretending to be interested in a relationship, I have always believed that the price you pay for only hearing what you want to hear is that you make it easier for others to manipulate you
Absolutely. A terrific book those prone to this behavior should read: The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 7:36 AM
"I'm fine with prostitution, or any exchange of services for money that consenting adults want to make, and advised an old boyfriend to see escorts instead of fooling women into thinking he wants a relationship and ending up with nightmares banging on his door at 3am, saying "Why don't you love me." It's more moral by far to see a hooker."
I knew all I had to do is read long enough to feel better about myself!
I don't get the banging-on-door onese any more, but I live in a high-rise with decent security. I do get the 3 AM drunk dials sometimes. Plus, the most recent pest has been e-mailng me monthly since May.
John Tagliaferro at September 3, 2009 7:37 AM
Amy is right -in general-.
I've met a few guys who are kind of exceptions. These are hyper-successful nerdy guys I'd meet in my grad student days. Harvard and MIT boys who were so focused on studies that they never developped the social skills to use around women. Possibly borderline Asperger's. Great guys, but shy with the ladies. They needed encouragement.
It was a balance, because they still needed to feel like the man. In situations like that, they CAN be asked out, but extra effort is needed to make them feel manly... ie, gazing up at them with doe-eyes, doing childish things like walking on the wall and having them hold your hand so you won't fall (not that you would), etc. You gotta compensate.
NicoleK at September 3, 2009 8:19 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666121">comment from NicoleKMy boyfriend is a smart, geeky, shy guy, and that's the kind of guy I'm most attracted to. What guys like that need is not to be asked out but for you to flirt your ass off to the point where it's obvious that they should ask you out. If they aren't interested enough/man enough after you've flirted your ass off, they aren't interested (or aren't interested enough) or need work -- walk on.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 8:23 AM
If they grew up in the 80's, it's more likely that they were never given a chance to develop social skills because they were completely shut out of every social circle but their own.
That's the case with most of the nerds I know, anyhow.
brian at September 3, 2009 8:26 AM
...."possibly Aspberger's"...WTF??????
So, nicole, you think that men must have some sort of mental issue if they are not interested in you???? Aspberger's is in the spectrum of Autistic behavior...do you have ANY idea what you are saying????
mike at September 3, 2009 9:20 AM
my mistake...that would be Asperger's
I think I was trying to say "burger" because its lunch time.
mike at September 3, 2009 9:21 AM
Hiring women is the best thing to do since you know how much it'll cost up front and she'll behave herself if you do since prostitution is illegal. There's no doubt you'll get what you want and of course when you're finished you aren't even expected to call her the next day. (The payment, as we all know, is so she'll shut up and leave.)
Wow Amy, your prostitution column was spot on. I can't imagine why any woman would be turned off by a man who uses prostitutes or why she would be afraid there was something wrong with him or his personality. They don't have any psychological problems or hatred of women at all!
wow at September 3, 2009 9:31 AM
Flirting is an art. I don't think either men or women are very good at flirting to start out with. Back in the sixth grade, the boys expressed interest by stealing our pencils or dousing us with water or even "snapping" our bras. And girls flirted back by giggling and squealing, such missives as "Stop it!" It gets subtler and more fun in adulthood. Although back in sixth grade, getting doused with water was pretty fun too. Ideally before anyone is doing any asking out, I think there should be lots of flirting by both parties. I prefer it when the guy does the asking, but after we have been flirting for a while.
There is a guy at my school who I think is pretty much amazing, and I've been smiling and making and breaking eye-contact. And the last time I tried it, he winked at me. He then asked me to be in his group for a school project. Didn't hear from him all summer though so I don't know yet if anything will come of it. But the journey is at least half the fun.
Lily at September 3, 2009 9:32 AM
"It is also reassuring to know that men who are confident and get what they want are assholes, while men who are reluctant to take the initiative are wimps."
You are getting assholes confused with Men (and yes, this is capitalized on purpose). Assholes probably will ask you out too (over wimps) however, careful study of how he treats others while you are out on a few dates (wait staff, valets, old ladies etc) is a good way to determine if you have an asshole, or a Man.
Feebie at September 3, 2009 11:52 AM
Not at all, Mike, you misunderstand me. I'm saying there are some brilliant, great guys who do not have the social skills to ask women (any woman, not just me) out. Some of them (not all) have mild Asperger's, which, as you point out, is on the Autism spectrum. I met several "Aspies" in my 20s. They are still awesome guys who would make a good husband, but need to be given a little bit of help.
Generally, from what I've seen with these guys, is once they have one initial relationship with a woman, its fine. But it's that initial first relationship they have trouble landing. Some of them end up marrying the first relationship, others move on to other relationships.
I've met a lot of guys at various Boston-area grad schools in sciencey and researchy fields like computers, biomedical researchy, microbiology, etc. who have awful dating skills and shyness issues, but who are awesome guys and make great husbands when they finally do meet someone. A lot of these guys needed the woman to take the first step.
It has nothing to do with whether or not they were interested in -me-. They were interested in women... just didn't know how to go about getting one.
These guys are rather the exception, though. And as I stated, it's delicate, because the woman still has to be careful that he doesn't feel emasculated. But there are ways of making up for it.
NicoleK at September 3, 2009 12:04 PM
Amy, your guy was older, though... I'm talking about guys who are in their mid 20s to early 30s, who are still virgins. They need the initial experience.
Once they get the initial experience, they tend to catch on fast and become great boys to their current girlfriend or future ones.
NicoleK at September 3, 2009 12:07 PM
I'm not saying that all sciencey guys are like this, either. Most aren't. I've just met quite a few who fit the bill.
NicoleK at September 3, 2009 12:12 PM
This is how men are supposed to be, but the feminist movement has told men to behave like big pussies, and the men who might wimp out use that as an excuse to do it.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 2, 2009 9:11 AM
-------------------
In the past -(aka traditional America) A guy could make a move like Gregg and, god forbid he miscalculated, the worst he would receive is a slap in the chops and some public ridicule. Today a woman could charge him with assault, and it could be on his record.
David M. at September 3, 2009 12:16 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Mike on the aspergers argument. I had a room mate who had aspergers and her issues went well beyond being a little socially awkward. She was self-destructive to the point of suicidal ideations, would watch the same five minutes of a tv show over and over for hours and once shared with me a sexual fantasy about our 40-year-old dean. Plus gazing up doe-eyed at man actually diagnosed with aspergers would do nothing since a classic symtom is inability to read nonverbal cues.
Lily at September 3, 2009 12:36 PM
I think some people are making too much of a fuss over the Asperger's line. NicoleK did say "possibly borderline Asperger's."
MonicaP at September 3, 2009 1:25 PM
er, Lily, just so's you know Asperger's is part of a spectrum that goes all the way from quirk to profound Autism... so traits are variable. Additionally there can, as with anyone, be other issues that a person deals with that feed into Aspy behavior.
It isn't the one that looks up doe-eyed who is going to lead.
SwissArmyD at September 3, 2009 1:38 PM
Also, my understanding is that females with aspurgers are pretty rare (same with autism).
Feebie at September 3, 2009 1:49 PM
No Monica, it is not making too much of a fuss. If someone makes a statement like that they better be able to back it up...her statement about Asperger's is like me saying "She won't have sex with me, she must be frigid"
Nicole, have you ever met anyone who has a clinical diagnosis of Asperger's? Are you a Physician who is able to make that kind of diagnosis? If not, how then can you make a ridiculous statement like you made? Is this some type of entitled ability you have to make a bold diagnosis like this to explain how some men ignore you? What the hell?
mike at September 3, 2009 2:21 PM
wow: I don't hate women, I just don't want to put up with their egotistical crap. If they were considrate, polite, pleasant, and good natured it might not be so.
Today's women are so full of feminism and its lies -- and those lies are supported by all the mechanisms of social control -- that there's not only no reason to put up with them but trying to do so is legally dangerous.
This handicaps women seriously. Only about 10% of women are smart enough to be interesting beyond the incredible power of their physical appeal. Most of them are dumb as broom handles and about as fascinating except for Ts & As. A secret, ladies: no male over 14 who is sane really believes women are mysterious and inexplicable. Forget the feminism and make yourselves pleasant company and you can cut back on the flirting.
DCM at September 3, 2009 2:24 PM
Aspergers is rare (e.g. 2 to 3 individuals per thousand), and people with high IQ's and aspergers are extremely rare. Most have low to normal IQ's. The notion that 'Aspies' typically have high IQ's is a pervasive myth. And you're not likely to meet them at Harvard or MIT. Even if they are intelligent, they aren't suited to the rigors of school work.
Nicole I think that you'd met a bunch of nerdy guys who'd diagnosed themselves as having aspergers. This is a popular thing to do in certain communities. It's become an inside joke - anybody who thinks that they're brilliant but is really incompetent claims to have aspergers.
You should try to find someone who really does have aspergers and hang out with them for a while. I think that you'll be surprised.
Marko at September 3, 2009 2:34 PM
Sounds like Nicole fell for the old 'excellent driver' routine.
JLS at September 3, 2009 2:47 PM
Marko, you are falling into your own trap by overgeneralisation. I have a kid with Asp, have dealt for years with groups that serve them and so forth. IQ is a relative thing and quite out of favor for measuring reality. Knowing a great number of 130+ people that can't tie their shoes, what difference does it even make? For a person that can single focus on a topic for hours without moving, there are Aspies that are uniquely suited to "The rigors of schoolwork"...
So, just what is your beef? Sure Nic is generalizing a lot, and some of these traits we are talking here are pervasive in groups of people that have no ASD at all, so why don't you take the ball and run with it, instead of getting all bent out of shape over nothing.
SwissArmyD at September 3, 2009 3:01 PM
130+ is a great predictor for entry into MIT or Harvard. Do you know of any kids with aspergers who've gotten through either of these institutions?
I'm not bashing people with aspergers, I'm casting doubt on Nicole's weird romanticization of it.
Marko at September 3, 2009 3:27 PM
Yes, MIT with 140+ and not only Aspy but OCD as well. MIT + post doc at Cal Tech. AND a girl to boot.
She eventually found a guy that was willing to deal with all of it, too.
I dunno that I'd call that weird romanticization or just humanization. Doesn't matter how out of norm you are, the drive to find a partner is strong even if you don't know what to do...
SwissArmyD at September 3, 2009 4:04 PM
NOT THE POINT
Yes, some of the people were clinically diagnosed, or at least said they were. I didn't hack into the hospital records to find out. And I also met an OCD female Aspie from MIT as well, SwissArmy! She was a PhD Candidate.
Marko may be right, maybe they were all lying for whatever reason, I don't know or care.
Mike, where did I say anything about them not wanting to sleep with me so they had to have Asperger's? I have no idea whether they wanted to sleep with me or not. Nor do I particularly care.
The point isn't whether or not they have Asperger's. Some do, some don't.
*******
THE POINT
The point is some guys have horrible social skills. Amy said that guys who don't ask girls out either don't like the girl in question or have something wrong with them. In the case of these guys, they have something wrong with them... poor social/dating skills.
What I'm saying is I don't think we need to toss them all aside because they're nerdy or odd ducks. Yeah, maybe they "need work", but a lot of these dorky guys who "need work" end up being great husbands and boyfriends to a lot of women who took a chance on them.
The fact that a guy is shy doesn't mean he's a loser who isn't worth dating.
I've known several guys with poor social skills who someone asked out, who ended up having great relationships.
Also, one thing to consider, is that everyone isn't a 10. Most 3s end up paired up somehow or other. Not everyone can aim for a 10. That's just reality. I know a whole lot of unattractive couples that seem happy. (Of course, perhaps, as with their medical diagnosises, they are faking it).
All of this is NOT TO SAY that IN GENERAL one should not wait for the guy to do the asking. One should. With most guys, that is much better. It's the 30-year-old virgins that it ain't gonna work with.
I just don't think you should discount these guys just because they're dorky. That's all I'm saying.
NicoleK at September 3, 2009 5:23 PM
"The fact that a guy is shy doesn't mean he's a loser who isn't worth dating." NicoleK
I definitely agree with this. My mom made the first move with my dad -inviting him to a girl-ask-boy event at their school. She let him take the lead after that though and he had been following her around a bit, even before she asked him. But anyway, they have been happily married now for almost 30 years.
I think I was reacting the leap in logic of shy and smart = mental disorder. I then played fast and loose with sarcasm and anecdotal evidence. So I'm sorry. I re-read your post and you did say "possibly borderline aspergers" which I somehow didn't catch the first time.
I certainly was not trying to say that people with aspergers don't deserve love. I know that at least with my room mate, she was capable of forming friendships and romantic relationships and while I knew her had a tight group of friends and an active dating life. She just would struggle with understanding nonverbal cues and told me she could tell enough to know she was missing a lot. She did also have compounding diagnoses of depression and ocd. I did a little bit of research on it to try and understand her better, but I'm sure there is a lot more I don't know. Living with her was incredibly frustrating but could be refreshing at times due to how freely she spoke her mind. I like people who just come out and say what they think and feel like she did. I just had to be careful what I said as she would take things very literally and got offended easily. She had certain areas that she excelled in and others that she struggled in. She would often get distracted on random self-imposed tasks. Cleaning our window for example could take half the day. School and classes were a big struggle for her, as she would tend to get caught up in small details and miss bigger things (like showing up for midterms).
Lily at September 3, 2009 6:23 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666223">comment from Lily"The fact that a guy is shy doesn't mean he's a loser who isn't worth dating."
No, only if he's too shy to ask.
Because some people have made this work doesn't mean it's a wise strategy.
Do you think that guy gets a job that way? Waits for an employer to find him in a fast food restaurant and say, "Why, you look like a smart young man in need of employment! Would you like to be hired?"
Again, my boyfriend's shy. I don't take him to parties if I can help it because he hates talking to strangers, and I like him to be happy. But, he was man enough and liked me enough to say, "Fuck the shyness, I'm asking her out." Same with the husband of a friend of mine. Great guy. Shy. She was worth it to him to ask out.
If a guy can't man up to the degree where he can deal with 10 seconds of feeling foolish upon getting rejected, why would you want him? Dating is a microcosm of the relationship. My boyfriend will do what needs to be done in any situation. He's a great guy and the best person I know. Had he not asked me out, he would have been a cute guy I flirted with in the Apple store once, seven years ago, and rightly so.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 6:35 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666224">comment from Amy AlkonPS And one reason so many guys are wimpy these days (besides the fact that feminism has enabled them) is that so many women will take over when the guys are ball-less wimps and ask them out.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 6:37 PM
Amy Alkon said, "I don't "conflate" women asking men out with promiscuity. Women do it because they don't understand male psychology or sexuality, or because they don't care whether a man ever sees them again, or because they're too brainwashed by feminism or just dense to know that asking men out is a risky and poor strategy (sets up the wrong balance in the relationship)."
I don't agree, I think a lot of women do it because they see a guy there's interested in and are afraid another woman will get to him first. I think women are more competitive with each other about men than vice-versa.
And while it doesn't describe Stuck's situation, some women are so full of libido that it makes sense for them to make the first move to see where it might go. No one's ever been given a choice about their libido, they're born with in.
--
David M. said, "In the past -(aka traditional America) A guy could make a move like Gregg and, god forbid he miscalculated, the worst he would receive is a slap in the chops and some public ridicule. Today a woman could charge him with assault, and it could be on his record."
That might've been true for most of the '90s, but I think the chances are really low now in most parts of the U.S., even though remnants of PC remain. In general, prosecutors hate to take on cases where the evidence is weak. I guess there could also be civil suit, but even with the more lenient standard of "preponderance of evidence" in civil courts, it's a weak case to make, and chances are a judge - even a female judge - wouldn't go for it.
Iconoclast at September 3, 2009 6:57 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666228">comment from IconoclastI think a lot of women do it because they see a guy there's interested in and are afraid another woman will get to him first.
No, because they're impulsive and impatient and brainwashed by feminism. They could also tackle the guy -- another bad strategy.
This just doesn't make sense - your assessment I quoted above. So, two women see a cute guy in a bar and one shoves the other out of the way and asks him out? Sorry, doesn't happen in real life.
Any guy who talks to me for more than a minute usually senses that I'm not like other women. I won't prosecute you, etc., for being a man. I'll be thrilled to bits. It's a woman's job to send the signals, the man's to pick them up and do something with them. Nobody is supposed to take the other person's job or all the jobs. It's a dance. Or should be.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 7:03 PM
David M. said, "In the past -(aka traditional America) A guy could make a move like Gregg and, god forbid he miscalculated, the worst he would receive is a slap in the chops and some public ridicule. Today a woman could charge him with assault, and it could be on his record."
That might've been true for most of the '90s, but I think the chances are really low now in most parts of the U.S., even though remnants of PC remain. In general, prosecutors hate to take on cases where the evidence is weak. I guess there could also be civil suit, but even with the more lenient standard of "preponderance of evidence" in civil courts, it's a weak case to make, and chances are a judge - even a female judge - wouldn't go for it.
-----------------------------------------------------
It's simply not worth risking prison time anymore for false rape charges. As a lot of men in my age group or younger have figured out, it's better to find a meaningful relationship (or even dates) in other countries where it's safe to be a straight male.
American men are the most sought after group in the world anyway, from what my traveling friends tell me. I have only seen a little of this myself.
Finding relationships with women in other countries is most likely why they passed the IMBRA a while back. God forbid american men would forsake american women in their quest for the significant other. It's also amazing at how badly they are stereotyped by the feminist controlled mainstream media for going the extra mile(s) to achieve this.
Another sign of tyranny-denial of the right to free association.
SM777 at September 3, 2009 7:24 PM
No, they passed it to cut down on green-card fraud. Making it more difficult for legitimate wives/husbands to be brought over was just a happy side effect so far as the complainers were concerned.
Amy - is there some manual for how to tell if a woman's flirting with you? Because either no woman has ever flirted with me, or I'm just too dumb to read the signs.
brian at September 3, 2009 7:29 PM
"I don't agree, I think a lot of women do it because they see a guy there's interested in and are afraid another woman will get to him first. I think women are more competitive with each other about men than vice-versa."
Oh, good LORD.
...a lot of INSECURE women do this (or like Amy said - the brainwashed bunch). It's a sign of desperation. I would NEVER compete with another woman over a man. Ever, never, ever! She wants him, she can have him - I don't care how handsome he is.
I am so embarrassingly unfamiliar with the science behind this so I'll leave that to Amy.
It's kinda like that damn flower bouquet ritual at weddings- where the bride tosses up the wilted, crusty batch of day old flowers woman to temporarily LOOSE THEIR NUTS OVER and get into cat fights for no apparently sane reason. Very, very unflattering. (And ladies, if you are going to do this type of shit - PLEASE for the love of PETE - WEAR YOUR GOOD PANTIES).
If I am ever frog-marched into one of those damn things I am usually in the quite corner watching the vicious, knee-scrapping-scuffle in safety and scanning the room for eye contact with some sexy eligible Man to flirt with after the shit-parade has ceased.
Feebie at September 3, 2009 7:57 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666247">comment from FeebieI would NEVER compete with another woman over a man. Ever, never, ever!
Me neither. Unless a man wants me, I'm outta there. If he's not sure, bye-bye!
Women make a huge mistake (as do men, conversely) by being with somebody who's not that into them.
I dated a comedian for a while -- until I realized he preferred women with small breasts and boyish bodies. That's not me. Broke up with him. Yes, over that. Somebody has to be apeshit attracted to you for you to have a good relationship. Gregg is and vice versa.
I love this story he told me. We were in first class on a plane, but we had upgrades (he flies a lot) and we couldn't sit together. I was a few seats in front of him. When we got off the plane, he told me that he noticed this woman going up to the bathroom, and he thought to himself (and yes, he talks this way - works for a crime novelist and he's kind of a guy out of another time...when men were men, etc.)...anyway, he thought to himself, "There's a woman with a pert can." And then, he said, he realized "Wait! She's mine!"
If the guy isn't turning his head when you come into the room all dressed up to go out, you're not dressing right or you're with the wrong guy.
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 8:57 PM
"feminism has enabled them"
"they're too brainwashed by feminism"
"they're impulsive and impatient and brainwashed by feminism."
Amy, the ONLY reason you are allowed to wear pants, vote, support yourself, have your name on your own lease, and write on this website without your father or husband's permission is because of feminism
You want to spit on feminists? That's your right. But don't have the hypocrisy to help yourself to all the rights and freedoms that you would have never had without THEM facing ridicule, violence, threats, ostracism, and decades of a long, hard slog.
I hope from now on you wear skirts only and ask your dad's permission whenever you want to post something on this site.
issueswithfeminism at September 3, 2009 9:09 PM
>> I realized he preferred women with small breasts and boyish bodies.
I had one of those too, when the heroine chic was popular. I had a boyfriend (of about 3 months) with me and caught him looking at another skin-and-bones tall woman when we were out at a bar after my college graduation ceremony. (I wasn't threatened - usually, if I find her attractive - I am looking too. But I was horrified by his taste). And THEN I over heard him talking to one of his friends about her - in great detail.
So I got up, went to the bathroom - and she just happened to be there. I told her that there was a friend of mine sitting over yonder (described what he was wearing) who thought she was gorgeous!
I left and took a taxi home. Not worth my time.
PS. I love your airplane story.
Feebie at September 3, 2009 9:16 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666250">comment from issueswithfeminismAmy, the ONLY reason you are allowed to wear pants, vote, support yourself, have your name on your own lease, and write on this website without your father or husband's permission is because of feminism
I'm very grateful to the women who were for equal rights -- not equal rights under the guise of special rights, as too many who call themselves feminists today are. Consequently, I do not call myself a feminist. I'm for fair treatment for all people, and if I feel you're being treated unfairly (look up "paternity fraud," just for starters), I will speak out on your behalf...even if you don't have a vagina!
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 9:18 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666251">comment from FeebieFeebie, you're so wise. And thanks, re: the airplane story!
Amy Alkon at September 3, 2009 9:19 PM
>>No, they passed it to cut down on green-card fraud. Making it more difficult for legitimate wives/husbands to be brought over was just a happy side effect so far as the complainers were concerned.
WTF? Actually, current laws support more green card fraud. All an imported wife has to do is get through the marriage ceremony, get her papers filed,and go to the correct lawyer, and file an affidavit that her husband hit her or makes her afraid, and she can divorce him without waiting the traditional two years, but still gets her residency.
IMBRA does nothing at all to cut down on green card fraud nor was it intended to. It was based on the hoax that men who seek foreign wives are very violent, controlling, dangerous individuals.
DV among men who marry FW is lower than among those who marry AW.
irlandes at September 3, 2009 9:20 PM
That might've been true for most of the '90s, but I think the chances are really low now in most parts of the U.S., even though remnants of PC remain.
This is a very good point. I happen to work and socialize with people who retain a 90's gender ethic. The women are generally impossible to deal with. They're like a bunch of angry adolescents. But what's apparent is that their attitudes towards men are very dated. Younger women I encounter are much more congenial, and women my age that I encounter in other social settings tend to be so as well.
I think that a lot of single men in their 30's and 40's are scarred by their experiences dealing with women when they were younger. The 90's really were a horrible time for gender relations. The breed of feminism prominent in that period was viciously and aggressively bigoted. But that time has passed.
Jack at September 3, 2009 9:42 PM
"Didn't you see the study about speed dating? When the men sat at the tables and the women rotated, the men were choosier. When the women sat and the men rotated, the women were choosier."
While I don't know about the study, you've proved Amy's point, because *real life* is a *helluva lot* more like the latter than the former. Even a half-decently-attractive woman can easily get multiple mating opportunities during one single day, most days a week. For the average man, it's more like once every several months at best.
"And the more men a woman has sex with, the likelier it is that she'll get one who's not shooting blanks, and reproduction will take place."
Sure, that makes a lot of sense - *if* the woman is ugly and desperate.
In real life, the majority of women have so many decent, perfectly fertile male choices to pick from, and the chances of reproduction relatively high from even a small number of encounters with a small percentage of the choices they're offered, that women can simple *afford* to be much, much choosier. A woman who, as *you* describe, mates with as many males as possible (whatever low-quality comes along) as fast as possible gives her offspring an obvious genetic *disadvantage* over a woman who waits for a good quality choice, as the former will have low-quality offspring. It's logical that when an animal can be very choosy about who it breeds with, it helps improve the quality of the offspring, and hence being choosy when lots of choice is available is a *far* more useful trait than picking the first low-quality male to come along despite lots of choice.
"Of what reproductive benefit would it be for a *man* to value a woman who may or may not be into him"
Simple and obvious - mate quality. When we pick a mate, we're practicing a very rudimentary form of genetic engineering.
Even the act of men competing for high-quality mates allows high-quality females to make better choices, thereby improving the genes of the species as a whole (ever heard of the selfish gene?)
"How would it increase a man's reproductive success to reject a woman because she pursued him?"
Something oft-forgotten is that men and women are not separate species, but share the same genes; a man's genes basically contain all encoding for producing females, and vice versa. Thus a desire to pass on any trait that also increases the reproductive success of a man's potential daughters and granddaughters, effectively increases the 'reproductive success' of the man's *genes*; men would thus be genetically inclined to choose traits in females that improve *her* reproductive success even if they're expressed in females only (since, by proxy, those traits will be passed to his own daughters etc.).
This can be viewed a lot more simply though; a choosier women is likely to be a better mate choice.
Lobster at September 3, 2009 11:18 PM
"The flirting behavior you are describing is exactly the thing that oblivious men MISS entirely." ... "I've had over a dozen conversations with women who told me that they had be interested in me, back when they were single."
This is very true, I've had the same experience. I kick myself now when I think of how many opportunities I missed when I was younger, that are either obvious to me now looking back, or, in many cases, I've had confirmed by the women themselves. (Fortunately I don't think any of them would necessarily have made for great long-term relationships, but certainly I could've been having a lot more fun over the years than I did.) I even didn't realize it once after one girl tried to kiss me on the lips ... don't ask me how that's possible.
Lobster at September 3, 2009 11:33 PM
"Amy, the ONLY reason you are allowed to wear pants, vote, support yourself, have your name on your own lease, and write on this website without your father or husband's permission is because of feminism"
Oh, so that means that feminism is perfect, or that nobody is allowed to point out if it's also had *some* negative effects? Errr ... no, funnily enough that makes absolutely no sense at all.
Lobster at September 3, 2009 11:38 PM
Oh, joy! Another Drive-By Douchebag!
Mostly lies. The only part that the initial feminists had anything to do with was the "vote" part. Modern feminists have given us such wonders as reversible consent, drive-by paternity, and sexual harassment-by-proxy.
Name one piece of violence that Steinem and her cohort (the whores who hijacked the term 'feminism' and turned it into an attack movement that sought to destroy men rather than elevate women) ever faced.
I hope you die in a fire.
brian at September 4, 2009 4:45 AM
Getting back to the original letter, I think the operative phrase the writer used was "I've been on this for a year..."
Seriously, the guy noticed... but he isn't attracted to her. She's not his type. Or he's seeing someone else. Or whatever. The LW has to face up to the fact that this guy isn't going to be The One Who Got Away. Instead, he'll be the One Who Won't Remember She Existed.
This is one area where men have the advantage (or at least a lot more useful experience.) We get rejected every single day, usually more than once. So we -eventually- learn to shrug it off our back and move on. That's what the LW should do.
kevin_m at September 4, 2009 5:47 AM
Brainless bitch says "Amy, the ONLY reason you are allowed to wear pants, vote, support yourself, have your name on your own lease, and write on this website without your father or husband's permission is because of feminism"
Even if that were true, it is like saying that because a Republican administration abolished slavery anyone today who opposes slavery must vote Republican. Common sense dictates that there ought to be a statute of limitations on how long any group can continue to take credit for past achievements if the policies they pursue today are not sound.
I bet you're the sort of person who likes to milk every last thing you have ever done for anyone else. You'll get into an argument and say: 'remember back in 1982 when I went and picked you up when you were stuck in the rain!'.
Moreover, the argument that if it wasn't for feminism women would still be stuck where they were in the nineteenth century is nonsense, because it assumes that political developments are the sole determinant of social change and progress while ignoring scientific and economic developments that also contribute.
Nick S at September 4, 2009 6:44 AM
"Amy, the ONLY reason you are allowed to wear pants, vote, support yourself, have your name on your own lease, and write on this website without your father or husband's permission is because of feminism"
Actually, the only reason Amy is able to write on this website is because men invented computers, the internet, birth control and every other fucking piece of technological and scientific development that has made life easier and allowed the likes of you to spout this kind of ignorant nonsense without dealing with the harsher realities of life.
Nick S at September 4, 2009 6:52 AM
Even if that were true,
Actually none of it is. Women voted, wore pants (shorts and bathing suits even!), supported themselves through commerce and employmnet, entered into contractual agreements, owned and leased land, wrote texts et al well before the advent of Feminism.
These are common claims from Feminists, but what they do is cherry pick discriminatory laws that had existed in some country and then claim that it was enforced everywhere. Also many of these laws applied to men of a similar social/economic status as well. For instance it was common for land owners to be treated differently under commercial law.
Even the issue of suffrage in the US isn't clear cut. Women could vote in many states prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
steve money at September 4, 2009 7:08 AM
I gotta agree with the poster who said the early bird get the worm. If you see a hot prospect of the opposite sex and wait...you will wait, and wait, and wait and wait...
Believe you me, the others are not waiting...Man or woman, you see something worth pursuing, then pursue! Don't listen to some pinch-faced old biddies extolling the virtues of passivity for women, or suggesting that flouncing your hair and giggling will work. While you are hopefully flouncing, some other girl is making eye contact--with bedroom eyes, no less. Guess which girl get the guy. Duh. You will be the loser.
There could be many reasons a guy hesitates...workplace lawsuits, existing relationships, possibly he thinks you are like someone he didn't like...and shyness. BTW, shy guys are not necessarily "ball-less wimps."
I have known guys to enter bar fights, play football, even rodeo guys--but they are shy. A guy can run a business empire and become not sure how to ask a woman out. That's very normal.
Sometimes shyness is an indicator of how much a guy really likes you...if you are just so-so in his mind, then he asks you out easily, as the risk of rejection is not very high. But being rejected by that one young hottie-smartie--ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Time for drink.
(Conversely, some true cads lack any shyness whatsoever--and have not the fortitude to get through a vocational training course)
In my experience, aggressive women lead fuller, more varied and successful lives than wallflowers, in all regards. When my daughter comes of age, I will advise her to pursue the smartest guys she can, and nail one.
I can't believe we are having this conversation in the United States--this seems like a conversation for the Mideast or somewhere, where women (hopefully) are just being liberated.
And what is normal or natural? Having kids is "normal" but Amy says she is happier without them. Okay. Sociobiology answers, except when it doesn't.
By the same reasoning, asking a guy out will make some woman happier, rather than playing tiddlywinks or tweetybirding around all day.
i-holier-than-thou at September 4, 2009 11:34 AM
Good grief!! Dude! Are you for real? That's the advice you plan on giving your daughter?? To charge out and nail what she (in her infinite wisdom) will evaluate as a smart guy?
Wow.
Please stop breeding.
Thanks.
railmeat at September 4, 2009 11:43 AM
I hope you die in a fire.
Brian:
I was going to address what you said until that line. Since you can't have an adult conversation (one where people civilly, rationally disagree with each other) without these hysterical outbursts of emotion, I'm not going to bother.
anonymous at September 4, 2009 12:26 PM
Nick S:
"men invented computers, the internet, birth control and every other fucking piece of technological and scientific development that has made life easier and allowed the likes of you to spout this kind of ignorant nonsense without dealing with the harsher realities of life."
Men invented computers. A woman invented the the compiler. In times when only men were admitted to universities (or even allowed an education, or even taught to read, period), they were the ones who created most inventions.
The more education has been opened up to women, the more women have created inventions and contributed to science. This is common sense. These days, there are millions of women pushing forward science on all fronts.
anonymous at September 4, 2009 12:36 PM
anonymous:
If completely dismantling your pack of bullshit is an "hysterical outburst of emotion" then you'd best barricade yourself in the bedroom and avoid contact with real humans.
There was nothing rational in your post to disagree with. It was simply untrue. One does not disagree with falsehood, one states the truth and moves on.
By the time I got fed up enough with your self-righteous bullshit, I had already determined you were a douchebag incapable of rational discourse.
What other possible reason could you come up with to spew such weapons-grade idiocy?
Oh, and if you think women were little wallflowers until the 20th century, you might wanna look up one Marie Curie.
brian at September 4, 2009 1:14 PM
You really are hysterical. Find your smelling salts.
anonymous at September 4, 2009 1:33 PM
Geez, get your meds refilled already, it's Friday, maybe a glass of wine would help?
On the column topic, only recently (last few years) have I learned to properly interpret flirtation. And still it is more art than science. I have many women friends and colleagues, and after that nasty divorce, these women (we're all mostly in our mid forties) have helped me tremendously in understanding the dating world. And how to act, and how to flirt, and how to interpret signals. It's like my own little army of Advice Goddesses. I still get a little nervous approaching women, but it's a good nervous, not a bad one. One of those things that makes you happy to be alive. I think it's fun not knowing whether you're about to set sail or crash and burn.
So given that, I think the LW should just go for it, the guy is leaving anyway. Just ask him out for a drink and to exchange contact information. Then do that hair twirlin' googoo eye flirtin' shit, and see if he takes the bait.
sterling at September 4, 2009 1:52 PM
Show me anything hysterical in what I've written here.
Then compare it with the attack drivel that our "anonymous" first posted under the name "issueswithfeminism".
Then you tell me who occupies the high ground here.
brian at September 4, 2009 3:29 PM
anonymous did Brian - pointing to you saying
I hope you die in a fire.
Maybe when you've had a good night's sleep you'll see that you didn't exactly come across as cogent. Wishing someone dead is generally not considered rationally putting forth your ideas. You really are quite emotional at the moment.
antoniaB at September 4, 2009 4:51 PM
Speaking of bad flirting skills, a woman I met about one month ago shows up on Wednesday nights at a place I frequent. I go there to talk about my books to the bartender, who proofreads my books and gives me ideas.
Anyway, nut girl decided two weeks ago to have a fit about my not saying hello to her when I arrived in the bar. I was there three hours before her, editing and writing a book, while she walked past me not saying hello (which was fine by me).
Last week, flake launched the same thing, not saying hello to her when I got there long before her, then had to snatch my cowboy hat from my head, that I snatched back wanting to deck her dumb 30-something butt, but I stayed reserved and said something like get lost, without profanity.
I am NOT "all that", I have no idea what the issue is with these nuts and I need to find out what signal I am giving them that draws them to me.
That aside, pulling anybody's clothes is not flirting, it is bordering assault. Touching int the workplace is probably bad too, but ladies, that hair twirling and brief eye contact Amy mentioned is pure gold. Work is not the best place, but it is a place.
John Tagliaferro at September 4, 2009 6:20 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666416">comment from i-holier-than-thouMan or woman, you see something worth pursuing, then pursue!
What works for women is soft pursuit. Flirting, not the direct approach.
As for having children, we didn't have to evolve to want to because there was no birth control in the Pleistocene. We have a sex drive, most of us, unless there's low T, etc. (Testosterone.) All you had to do is want to have sex, and you had children, if you were a young, fertile, healthy woman. Once you had them, you did what you could to take care of them. If I lived at another time (like Emilie du Chatelet, who died in childbirth at 41), and I got pregnant, I would have risen to the occasion. These days, I'm very, very, very careful about birth control, and I have children who are friends -- like a little girl neighbor who's 5, and who hugs me multiple times when I see her and her brother. That's enough for me.
Amy Alkon at September 4, 2009 6:35 PM
Name one piece of violence that Steinem and her cohort (the whores who hijacked the term 'feminism' and turned it into an attack movement that sought to destroy men rather than elevate women) ever faced.
Well, when she was being paid as a reporter she claimed to be threatened by a Playboy Club manager to lose weight, or something, while she pretended to work for Playboy. Does that count?
John Tagliaferro at September 4, 2009 6:37 PM
antoniaB:
Whether or not I'm emotional at the moment (I am, but it's none of your concern) that's the response I would have used.
Any time someone spouts that level of stupid, I encourage them to try for a darwin award. I want the stupids to off themselves. Maybe if enough of them die we won't get a second term of Obama.
Not only did I come across as cogent, I consider my response quite reserved given the insult he dealt to Amy.
In short, your response is full of fail.
brian at September 4, 2009 7:00 PM
Hardly. I'd consider what Henry VIII's wives put up with to be threats.
"Lose weight or be fired" from a job where appearance is the only qualification doesn't rise to the level of insult, never mind harassment or violence.
brian at September 4, 2009 7:02 PM
Brian, if a comment on an internet blog affects you so much that you literally and truly wish for a person's death, you need to seek psychiatric help ASAP.
Not to mention your idea that you should determine whether another person deserves to live or not. Don't tell me, you're part of the Obama health care team.
Whatever at September 5, 2009 1:23 AM
God, seriously is reading comprehention really gotten that bad?
He didnt wish for death, he hoped for it.
Quite frankly given the bullshit lies our namechanging cowardldy friend was spewing I agreed with brian.
Stupid people should die, it makes the world a better place.
anonymous, or issueswithfeminisim is a classic exampl of why toasted coming with labels warning people not to take baths with them, and why people who buy rubber duckies for their childens bath time are warned that they are not to be used as a flotation device in the event of drowning.
Last time I bought a package of mothballs the individual packets inside the box were stamped with the words DO NOT EAT.
As if anyone dumb enough to eat something that smelled like that was worthy of life.
AS I said stupid people should die, and anonymous is stupid as shown by the shit she tried to pass off as golden nuggets of historical truth
lujlp at September 5, 2009 1:58 AM
Amy,
Where does 'grooming' of her partner come in on the flirting scale? Messing with the guy's hair, squeezing crud out of his skin, etc?
John Tagliaferro at September 5, 2009 2:21 AM
Lujlp -
Thanks for the backup.
Whatever:
I am done tolerating douchebags, both in meatspace and cyberspace. Stupids have been making my life a living hell for 30+ years, and I'm finally fighting back.
brian at September 5, 2009 4:15 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666459">comment from John TagliaferroAmy, Where does 'grooming' of her partner come in on the flirting scale? Messing with the guy's hair, squeezing crud out of his skin, etc?
Eeeeuw. In hairier primates, you groom critters you know. It's a form of social exchange.
Amy Alkon at September 5, 2009 6:13 AM
Amy,
If I haven't mentioned already, I like your really cute new picture at the top of the page.
JT
John Tagliaferro at September 5, 2009 7:33 AM
Eeeeuw. In hairier primates, you groom critters you know. It's a form of social exchange.
Makes sense. When you were writing about the universal flirting signs my brain went off to when women seem to be getting actually serious about me. I finally began suppressing my "ew" when I noticed how down-right giddy they get when they get "pimple duty" permission.
John Tagliaferro at September 5, 2009 7:37 AM
Stupids have been making my life a living hell for 30+ years, and I'm finally fighting back.
Oh so now we get to the root of it. Your life being a living hell is SOCIETY's fault. Other people's fault. Nothing to do with your or your choices.
Carry on with blaming others for your woes and the idea you should decide who deserves to live or not. You fit in GREAT with this new presidency.
P.S. If you think a comment on a blog "makes your life hell", you have had an easier life than Paris Hilton. Hope you never find out what true hardship is.
Whatever at September 5, 2009 10:44 AM
And this is what I'm talking about. You make up an elaborate straw-brian of your own design, ascribe to it whatever traits you want to attack, and go at it.
Nowhere did I say that blog posts make my life hell.
I said that stupids did.
And I'm through being polite to stupids, douchebags, and deliberate liars.
If people want to show up here and start spewing lies in support of their personal attacks on the host, they can expect a plaintext beatdown from me. I'm not going to be polite, I'm not going to debate. I'm simply going to call them out and tear them apart.
And for your information, my life's is how it is because I spent too long falsely believing that the only options that existed were the ones dictated by the stupids that run everything. I've since learned that "Fuck off and die" is an appropriate answer to just about any point of authority. I've learned that there are always options that the stupids don't want people to have, but they are there for those willing to take them.
I've made it my life's work to destroy stupids wherever I encounter them.
brian at September 5, 2009 11:25 AM
Amy,
No wonder you don't desire any children. You have a whole kindergarten right here picking on Brian!
Suki at September 5, 2009 11:48 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666506">comment from SukiAmy, No wonder you don't desire any children. You have a whole kindergarten right here picking on Brian!
That's hilarious, Suki. PS Just spotted an e-mail from you in my spam folder. Will get to it. Working on the column now, then book proofs! Crazy weekend!
Amy Alkon at September 5, 2009 1:45 PM
What's wrong with this picture?
On the one hand, a while back, a gaggle of women come over to attack Amy calling her all sorts of names and Amy, you quite rightly, call them out saying there should be civil disagreements not just ad hominem attacks. Several times you've called someone up a tone of disagreement. I really enjoy that there's very little name-calling on this blog.
Some of us point out that Brian saying a poster should burn to death is at the very least not cordial disagreement. We're told that apparently this is acting like being in Kindergarten and picking on him, which Amy thinks is hilarious.
One of the great things about this blog is that it's thoughtful and not just name-calling. Amy I don't understand your response. You don't call Brian on his name-calling . Your sole comment about a thread where some of us are concerned that Brian posts that he wants someone to die in a fire is not a comment about civil discourse on the blog. Your sole comment about Brian wanting someone to die in a fire is in response to Suki's post that we're picking on Brian and acting like we're in Kindergarten. You think this post is hysterical.
Amy, by not commenting on Brian's post directly but then saying Suki's post is hysterical you seem to endorse Brian's sentiment that someone should die in a fire. This response also seems to endorse the fact that those of us who expressed a concern are 'picking on Brian'. I thought you didn't endorse these sorts of ad hominem personal attacks.
antoniaB at September 5, 2009 2:25 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2009/09/buddy-language.html#comment-1666508">comment from antoniaBAntonia, when I'm crazy-busy (like now) I read the comments in my blog software, which doesn't display a whole thread on particular entry, but all the comments left on my site in order of the time that they were left. I didn't read all the comments on that entry -- don't really know what's been going on, just had a vague idea a lot of people were mad at Brian.
FYI, I've had a tremendous amount happening with my book. I got the Psych Today proof on Friday morning, have to make corrections, I just got the page proofs of my book back, worked on them until midnight, have issues with my cover and back cover that need to be corrected, woke up at 5 a.m. to work on my column, and I'm still working on my column now (with my editorial assistant). I love my blog and all the discussion that goes on here (otherwise, I sure wouldn't be doing it for close to free), and if I could, I'd be right in there in every discussion. Sometimes, however, like today, that would require cloning.
I read Suki's lone comment because it was at the top of the pile when my assistant went off to get a piece of cheese (and I snuck over to blogland for a moment) and thought it was funny.
I'm not the playground monitor here -- if you have a problem with what somebody says, call them on it. I'd be thrilled if you did -- this is a free speech zone, and you're free to tell somebody when they're being a jerk.
Ad hominem attacks happen. Again, I'm not the mommy here. Speak up when you think somebody's in the wrong. Crid frequently ends up reaming those in the wrong because he's so smart and good at pulling out hypocrisies. That's how you win here - and how you show up somebody you think is being a jerk.
Amy Alkon at September 5, 2009 2:31 PM
Amy,
The mail is not important. One of your awesome posts made our blog that nobody comments on. Should help your Google results.
Thanks for giggling at the comment, that was the intent ;)
Suki
PS, I finally cracked the code on the "Remember personal info" thingie: Use Chrome and let it remember field entries.
Suki at September 5, 2009 3:15 PM
Sometimes Asperger's Syndrome is a misdiagnosis of simple CPD. CPD is Crappy Personality Disorder. There should be a 25K charity run for this terrible affliction...
jon at September 5, 2009 3:20 PM
Antonia -
First, I don't think you have the first clue what's going on here.
Some random douchebag comes along, spouts a bunch of bullshit, and then finishes off with:
anonymous/issueswithfeminism:
Can you honestly say that there is any useful retort to that? There's two options - ignore it and hope the stupid goes away, or whack that motherfucker upside the head with a 2x4 as a warning that they aren't going to get away with that shit.
You seem to be just fine with allowing someone to rewrite history for the purposes of being able to level an insult. I am not.
And I'm highly amused at both your and "anonymous" inability to recognize a rhetorical flourish for what it is.
Like I said - I'm only interested in engaging reasonable and honest people in debate. Liars will be cut down mercilessly.
ESR's site is broken or I'd link to his article on calling sheep out on their fallacies.
brian at September 5, 2009 4:00 PM
Oh jolly good Brian. You must have had a good night's sleep! Spewing venom just does your point no favors. This is much better. Keep up the good work.
antoniaB at September 5, 2009 4:21 PM
Tell ya what, antonia. Stuff your righteous indignation. why don't you give a little shit to the schmuck that started the whole thing.
brian at September 5, 2009 4:27 PM
I am not so much of a contrarian to be disagreeing with the people attacking Brian just to agree with them.
You folks need to relax.
Suki at September 5, 2009 4:37 PM
Brian, nobody needs to hear your sob stories about how hard everyone else has made your life. Grow up.
Amy just said, as she has plenty of times in the past, that she welcomes disagreement and this a free-speech zone.
If you think others aren't entitled to the same free speech as you are, and should DIE if you don't like what they say, and that it's appropriate for you to smack people in the head with two by fours and destroy them, just because you think they are, as you so eloquently put it, "stupid," you really do need to see a shrink before you harm someone.
anonymous at September 5, 2009 7:44 PM
I have a better idea, asshole. How about you don't come in here and spew stupid bullshit about how women never had any rights until Gloria Steinem made it legal for women to wear slacks and then tell Amy that she better lay off attacking feminists or go back to wearing dresses and asking her father's permission to post on her blog.
It was you, not me, who began the whole "stifling free expression" thing.
I don't need a shrink. You need a brain.
brian at September 5, 2009 9:20 PM
And a lighter
lujlp at September 5, 2009 10:00 PM
The link I promised you. ESR fixed his site.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1029
brian at September 6, 2009 9:38 AM
Some feminists get all mad at women, including me, for wearing dresses. I think they just have legs that match their beer bellies and they don't want competition.
Suki at September 6, 2009 11:45 AM
Wow! Have not read in a few days! Where would Amy's blog be without the humorous, obnoxious, and anger-ridden passive aggressive comments from the feminists? Just ignore them folks, they will go away once the sun comes up!!!!
mike at September 6, 2009 9:05 PM
Amy,
Gave you Facebook props. I wish I could have a pretty portrait like that.
Suki
Suki at September 6, 2009 9:45 PM
I guess "anonymous" was never interested in a frank exchange of ideas, just the rewriting of history to score a cheap shot at our gracious host.
Either that or she died in a fire.
brian at September 8, 2009 8:59 AM
Feebie said "I've come to realize that this is probably because I prefer men who are not complete pussies. Had I asked some guy out - the fact that he liked me or was interested is irrelevent. I've changed a dynamic that can never be re-righted."
Yep,thing is I have a really strong personality and I'm looking for a man who is as strong mentally/emotionally as I am. If I take charge then I will forever be in charge. Well, the forever of a couple days to couple weeks it takes for me to lose all respect for this man who lets me wear the pants.
I want a man who treats me like a woman and lets me be the woman. And treating someone like a real woman does include treating them with respect and valuing their input.
kjm at September 8, 2009 12:06 PM
I wouldn't find a woman who played such safe and deniable little "flirt" games to have the courage and character worthy of a second look, let alone a date. I'm looking for a partner, not a play it safe follower. YMMV
Medic at September 8, 2009 9:21 PM
Karen writes:
Karen, I had to laugh at this. You, being a womman, asked men in the workplace their thoughts on women who ask men out.
And you -- well and truly beyond naively -- accepted their answers as gospel.
And you truly haven't the slightest idea of just how many variables could have (and probably did) confound your results.
I doubt there's space enough on this webpage to tell you how far off-base you are, but let's start with the factors you overlooked.
1) You work with these guys. Since they are not dating you, their line of reasoning is to answer your questions diplomatically. In other words, there's a strong possibility that they'll tell you what they think you want to hear. Especially when the woman they work with is aggressive enough to ply information about their personal tastes, which are, after all, none of her business.
If a woman at my workplace asked me a question like that, I would beg off the discussion. Not the place and not the person to discuss this with. She can go survey strangers on the street.
2)How many guys do you work with? Millions? Your sample group is waaaaaay too small.
3)You assume that (what they say are) their beliefs are what they do in practice. I'm sure they would like to think of themselves as so broadminded that a woman asking them out wouldn't be a huge turn off...but I wonder how many of them have actually dated a woman who asked them out.
"Why, of course, I'm fine with a woman asking me out!"
"Hi! Want to get together for a movie?"
"No, thanks...(you pushy bitch)."
Patrick at September 13, 2009 4:49 AM
Disagree, is your post intended to be ironic? You accuse Amy of posting pseudoscience yet you follow with the most bizarre-sounding psychobabble I've read on Amy's blog in a long time.
Penises are not plunger-shaped. Any plunger shaped penis is one for Ripley's. (Trust me on this one. I've seen more of them than you ever will. I can go into men's locker rooms, after all.) And they are not designed to scoop out anything, especially when you consider that the penis in its natural form (uncircumcised) is actually quite streamlined.
Patrick at September 13, 2009 4:57 AM
I find the pop science here to be hilarious. Particularly the "cavemen want choosy women because then they won't accidentally raise a kid that's not their own" thing.
What's even more wonderful is the people pushing the pseudoscience telling the others that they need to do more research.
I see all these people claiming that what men actually want - that is to say, as much sex as they can possibly get - is just false, and instead they want to fulfil bizarre learned gender roles.
"But you don't understaaand! All of these men claiming to know what they want are deluding themselves!"
Sure thing.
I saw one person claim that when they asked men out, they knew it was 'just wrong' because it felt awkward.
Welcome to asking people out. Takes guts. And believe it or not, a lot of men find passive women who aren't willing to make the first move just as unattractive as the reverse. But since gender roles like this are so enforced, many a go-getting, confident women might be completely missed because they're holding back and trying not to come off as a 'slut'.
Though, to be honest, I think most of the women who claim not to ask men out for such reasons are really just making excuses for not wanting to do the asking out - something which is almost always a little nerve-wracking regardless of who does it.
Dogs at October 10, 2009 3:27 AM
I found your web site and it really is fantastic for my situation. It has awesome and practical articles. I examined most of them and got a lot from them. In my opinion, you are doing an incredible work. Keep on! I would like to appreciate you for making such a great blog.
Delphine Loew at October 10, 2010 1:57 PM
Leave a comment