Nice article. I recently moved here and found it hard to find quality woman to meet. So I joined a dating site. Unfortuanly even though i'm good looking (enough) with some money in the bank and a great personality, the woman here are looking for Mr. Big from Sex in the City(a show I enjoy)

The problem is that we live in a fantasy world where we think our prince or the next better thing is going to walk through the door at any minute. Can I tell you I have a dozen gal-pals who are now in their 40's and late 40's who have spent the better part of 20 years waiting for the guy to arrive. Bad news is he's gone over the hang with the younger more aggressive girls. If you want to eat you must catch your own fish.

Um, Anon, that's not really what this column's about. True, Amy's advice is not to sit around waiting for a guy to come sweep you off your Louboutins, but neither is it "you must catch your own fish." Amy advises using certain techniques to make the guy feel safe in asking you on a date. But women shouldn't do the asking. Or the pursuing, for that matter. She should make it clear that she's into the guy and will say yes if he asks her out, but she should not become the aggressor. The only guy she'll get that way is the one who's too lazy or cowardly to talk to a woman.

So, as a man looking for a woman, you don't get a free pass in the dating world because you think women should "catch their own fish." That's just lazy.

Anon, are you sure you aren't the LW from the previous letter?

"So, as a man looking for a woman, you don't get a free pass in the dating world because you think women should "catch their own fish." That's just lazy."

If you look at the context of Anon's comment, he was clearly referring to women in the 40s, i.e. women who are past their peak years of being in demand. He was simply saying that women who have left their run a bit late will need to make more of an effort. He was not saying that women in general have to do all the work.

Of course, women who are younger and more attractive tend to be in high demand and short supply. They are a scarce commodity. As such, they don't have to make as much effort. They can afford to make men do the work, while doing the picking and choosing.

Anyway, keep up the criticism and self-righteous nagging. Those are really attractive qualities in a woman.

If you look at the context of Anon's comment

I did. That's why I posted what I did. I did agree with him that women shouldn't sit around and just wait for a man to walk in. I didn't have a problem with any of the part about the women in their forties realizing they shouldn't have waited around. That's sensible. The problem I had with the post was the last sentence.

He was not saying that women in general have to do all the work.

He's not saying they have to do all the work...just the part that entails "catching fish." I've fished before, and never once did the fish bite the hook and take off with me. No, the fisherman has to make the final move in order to get the fish. If we are using Anon's fishing analogy, it's up to the fish to be available before the fisherman puts the line out there. The fish bites the hook (telling the fisherman that it would be in his best interest to make a move), then the fisherman sets the hook and lands the fish. It's a whole dance, just like dating.

There's a whole world in between waiting for a man to sweep you off your feet and being so aggressive as to take over the role of the asker. That's where Amy's flirting advice comes in.

Anyway, keep up the criticism and self-righteous nagging. Those are really attractive qualities in a woman.

That amuses me. You must not have read any of my other posts on this site ever to think I'm self-righteous and nagging, or that this post fits that description. How is what I said really any different from what Amy said to the LW above? Do you think she's being self-righteous and nagging when she tells women not to ask men out or men to man up and ask out a woman?

Sometimes I watch movies from the first half of the 20th century, and think wistfully about how easy it used to be to tell the men and women apart from one another.

Anon, you seem to be talking about women raising their standards too high and getting left out because they never find the perfect guy - which is a fair enough point of discussion and possibly true in some places, but has absolutely nothing to do with the column. Amy doesn't say women should turn men down when they ask, and even says make it really obvious that they want to be asked out. That doesn't sound like what you're describing.

Anon, are you sure you aren't the LW from the previous letter?

NumberSix, you correctly called him on completely missing the point and your posts are always entertaining, but...that was a tiny bit bitchy maybe? not that there's anything wrong with that :)

Anyway, keep up the criticism and self-righteous nagging. Those are really attractive qualities in a woman.

That was totally uncalled for Nick S!

I think I know what Ms. Alkon is saying, and I am aware that anecdotal evidence is only "evidence", not data, so I discount everything I am about to say but...

When I think about the various masculine, with-it, professional, accomplished guys I know well who are married with kids and devoted to their families in that way many women want, their wives targeted them and essentially took them down like lionesses taking down gazelles.

In one instance, a buddy of mine literally met his future wife at a bar among friends, and she turned to her friend (not knowing my buddy at all) and said "that is the man I will marry." And that particular dude had plenty of options. She just made it happen through force of will and, well, her other charms.

I know, I know, my memories are just a dozen or so personal experiences, so they don't count as against a much larger sample set. Still. It is what I have seen work for gals.

In sum, women who waited for my buddies to notice and pursue them did not end up marrying them. The gals who focused on that goal, and went after it like a college diploma or other life goal did.

On second thought, that should not surprise me, but I guess it did the first time I realized it. Like Ms. Alkon, I would have thought that guys would be the ones proactively making such things occur. But in truth, the guys were too focused on achievements and advancement to spend a lot of time thinking about who to marry.

What "flirting" does is signal to the guy (me) that you are interested. It gives me the opportunity to get to know the flirtee a bit before the "asking out" phase. Now here is where it gets dicey, there are ladies out there who enjoy the power and control of this situation and think nothing of "shooting a guy down" in an embarrassing way to show off the "grrrl" power. When this type of woman is in her 20s she gets boatloads of attention and opportunities, then as the offers decline there is a resentment that builds and anger usually follows. "Why are there no good men out there?"

For the guys in our 20s, we tend to gravitate to the pretty ladies to ask out. Consequently there is a large amount of getting "shot down" and if you experience even a few walk-aways to loud giggling it will get you very twitchy on asking someone out, even if the signals are there. This sticks with you.

It's easy to blame the "wussy guy" as time goes on, but frankly ladies, if you see this behavior in your friends, let them know how uncool it is. You wouldn't go out with the guy who keeps sticking his hand into the fire for fun, and public embarrassment can feel worse than a burn at times.

If a gentleman catches your fancy and you are flirting it's OK to just do the big opening for the "ask out" with an "I could really go for a cup of good coffee right about now" or "I wish it was quieter so we could talk easier." Truthfully, the guys who are nervous on doing the ask out, usually are the ones who are looking for someone special to them, and they hope it's you, treat that hope kindly.

Just remember that it is a theory that "women evolved to be the harder-to-get sex and men co-evolved to expect to smooth-talk a woman into the bushes". There are species where it is the other way around - that the male does the preening in order to attract the female around. Then the female advances or not, depending on if she likes the male or not. My personal belief is that human sexuality is more difficult to define than any other animal mating pattern because it actually transcends evolution.

We really don't know how human mates were selected 1.8 million years ago. We can only theorize. If we look at human mating patterns during recorded history, we see that has been more about business and land transactions than anything else. Attraction and hard-to-get had nothing to do with it. Even when people began to mate and marry for "love", the selection process still had nothing to do with men asking women out. It was, actually, the other way around. Suitable men were invited as "gentleman callers" to the womans farm. From there the 2 were allowed to court. It wasn't until the opening of drive-ins and other "hang out" places that men took over the role of inviting women on dates. From that point on it was the economic viability of the man that drove the process of mating.

I suspect there is more truth to Spartee's thesis than most of us would acknowledge.

I don't exactly know how it was that my wife and I always seemed to end up sitting together when we went out for coffee after English class and walking back to the train station together afterward. I guess it was some inscrutable oriental plot to ensnare a naive young American lad abroad (I better stop lying, I might be struck by lightning) Actually, my Japanese is OK, so if the whole class was in on it, they were subtle.

I just remember this cute, funny girl sitting in the front of the class and somehow, months later, getting her to agree to marry me. Then, riding on a train out to the middle of nowhere to tell a couple of people who had survived the bombing of Hiroshima that I was going to marry their daughter.

She says her list was tall, blue eyed, and intelligent and I made the cut. Sometimes, I still think it is all a dream, but I don't want to wake up.

I've said this here before: I asked my husband out on the first date. We've been together for 20 years, happily married for fifteen.

I absolutely agree that most men aren't really happy about aggressive women. I certainly learned that, though I had a number of long-term boyfriends before asking my husband out. There was just one teeny little problem for me: I'm aggressive. Not mean, not unpleasant, just... aggressive. I'm conversationally aggressive, I'm sexually aggressive, it's just who I am.

I guess I just figured that if there was one man out there who *liked* aggressive women, that was the guy I needed to find. And that it would do me no good to pretend not to be aggressive, only to attract a man who didn't like aggressive women.

So I ask, truly and sincerely: Amy, and others, what do you suggest for women who are, indeed, constitutionally aggressive? Do you really think we ought to pretend to be someone else? What happens when Mr. "I Like To Take The Lead" discovers he's asked out a woman who is... well, aggressive?

Doesn't matter to me anymore, since my aggression landed me in a very happy marriage. But I'm curious what people would recommend.

There's nothing meek about flirting. You have to be pretty badass to do it effectively.

I'm trying to think whether I've actually 100% asked a guy out. I guess my method is more to flirt, make it obvious I'm interested, and then maybe after we've established a real connection and he's not moving in that direction, say something super suave and articulate like, "So I dunno, you wanna maybe do something sometime?" I guess that's technically asking out, but it allows him to say, "I'll have to ask my girlfriend," or "Well, work has been really busy, but maybe after the holidays," or, if he's not trying to elude my wily clutches, "Yeah, that would be great. Maybe dinner next week?" I guess it's a kind of hybrid strategy that allows me to hit on the shy nerdy boys I find attractive while still allowing them some plausible deniability that it was in fact he who did the asking. It's worked pretty darn well so far . . .

I agree that flirting by women is helpful, especially for older women. It signals that you're interested and approachable. Otherwise it's likely that a guy is going to assume that you have issues. Which isn't to say that all women have issues, but most single women past about 25 do. So a little friendly banter demonstrates that you don't hate men, aren't a complete basket case, aren't morbidly self absorbed etc..

Ltw, I did not intend the comment as bitchy, but upon rereading I can see how it could be read that way. I apologize, Anon, for the unintended bitchiness of that particular sentence. I just thought it was funny that he was talking about online dating coupled with the tone of his post. It sounded similar to the previous column.

I never minded when women made asked me out in the past.

"Barbies for adult males"

Is this a real thing?

I'll freely admit that I am a recovering wuss in this field. However, my experiences also include instances of what Agraitear mentions.

In my teens and early 20s I was very much the "guy waiting for girls to notice me." Wised up later on, started asking, dated a few women since. I'm still no expert at flirting or picking up on cues, but I'm learning.

Getting shot down though? Wow, have I ever. I've had women practically scream at me, all because I dared to talk to her. A few years ago at a gathering, one woman loudly complained about "no good men left." To several good men. None of whom wanted to ask her out...because we knew she liked to build guys up and knock them down.

So yes ladies, by all means flirt. Let us know you're interested. I'm happy to ask from there. But be sincere about it. Eventually, when you get shot down enough times, you stop caring.

The simple answer is that men are responding to evidence and incentive, rather than a sudden lack of masculinity.

Look at it this way, heterosexual men want to have sex with women, and they'll use whatever approach seems to work. This is true for men across the spectrum of masculinity. The fact that men are avoiding more traditional methods tells you that they now assume that these wont work. It's pretty simply.

So why is this? - because women keep telling men not to do what we'd been doing. The old way is apparently harassing and makes them uncomfortable. Unfortunately women don't seem to like the new way either. So we're stuck.

I think that a lot of guys get to the point where they assume that there really is no way to appeal to women, and they just give up. Also after years of these sorts of games, you kind of get sick of dealing with women.

I'm fortunate to have met a woman who knows what she wants and doesn't play games, but she's rare.

They aren't 'games' - it's a dance.

And the 'old way' as you put it Mike, has worked, and still works. The difference today (and for some time now) is that when the old school approach is used, and the object of desire is unhappy with your approach, she doesn't just tell you 'no thanks', but she brings the entire PC apparatus to bear on the poor slob, and he ends up believing that he did something wrong, rather than just not appealing to the PYT.

Feministas who have made men feel like there is something wrong with them by being male, and acting assertive, have much to answer for - from both genders.

So, we deal. That's what men do. Sure, it kinda sucks. But the good women out there waiting for a man to show up and sack up, have their own burden to bear too. They often have to wait a long time.

Pretty sad situation, really.

"Anyway, keep up the criticism and self-righteous nagging. Those are really attractive qualities in a woman.

That was totally uncalled for Nick S!"

This is a good illustration of the double standards that infect these kinds of arguments. It is okay for women to resort to the tactic of shaming men and attacking their masculinity (i.e. 'grow a pair' etc) to win an argument. But as soon as men direct the same tactics towards women, i.e attacking their femininity or suggesting they are somehow defective as women, then it is suddenly a low blow, "totally uncalled for!" etc.

Well, if we all believe in gender equality, then surely women are just as strong as men, and just as capable of taking it.

Also, if women get to decide what a real man is, men have just as much right to decide what a real woman should be, and shouldn't be backward about telling women if they are falling below the required standards.

Nick,

You have a point in saying that sometimes there is a double standard in that one gender can be criticized for something that people find it unacceptable to criticize the other gender for. For me, the issue with the examples you quoted from Amy's letter and NumberSix's response to you is that one was a general statement made (not in reference to a specific person) and the other was a personal attack on someone. The debate on whether or not some men should "grow a pair" or whether some women "nag" could be stimulating in and of itself (and possibly never-ending), but when you told a specific person "Anyway, keep up the criticism and self-righteous nagging. Those are really attractive qualities in a woman," it was perfectly reasonable - and expected - for that person to call you out on it.

As far as the topic goes, I've seen friend and family relationships in which the women did the pursuing and they are not relationships I'd like to emulate. I witness a distinct lack of respect from the men towards the women, and I believe it's because they didn't have to work for the prize. So even though it has taken me years to unlearn some of those habits (and I am still working on it), I agree with Amy that it is far better if the man does the pursuing (not that I devalue the posters who have had success the other way; I just think they are in the minority).

Women will flirt with guys they have no intention of going out with for the same reason that guys will get a woman's number with no intention of calling: its a quick and easy ego boost, and good practice for someone that you're actually interested in. You can either sulk and take it personally or just accept it as a part of the dating game and move on. (And I would argue that it's WORSE to never be flirted with/have someone ask for your number than it is to occasionally be thrown off by misleading signals).

In terms of the "women's movement"-or whatever you want to call it-making women unapproachable to men-I don't buy it. There's are still plenty of guys out there getting sex/dates/girlfriends, and whatever they're doing is working. It's more likely that the guys who have "given up" on the whole dating scene are the type of guys who wouldn't be getting dates anyway, but now they have a socially acceptable excuse to cop out. Plus they get to rationalize this opting-out as a combination of self-righteousness and altruism ("I don't talk to women in bars because I don't want to be harassing them, plus they might go all Gloria Steinem on me") when in reality its due to other factors like insecurity, unattractiveness, or a lack of social skills. Its like a 200 lb women proclaiming that she doesn't date because there are "no good men out there"-sure there are, they're just dating the pretty

Women will flirt with guys they have no intention of going out with for the same reason that guys will get a woman's number with no intention of calling: its a quick and easy ego boost, and good practice for someone that you're actually interested in. You can either sulk and take it personally or just accept it as a part of the dating game and move on. (And I would argue that it's WORSE to never be flirted with/have someone ask for your number than it is to occasionally be thrown off by misleading signals).

In terms of the "women's movement"-or whatever you want to call it-making women unapproachable to men-I don't buy it. There's are still plenty of guys out there getting sex/dates/girlfriends, and whatever they're doing is working. It's more likely that the guys who have "given up" on the whole dating scene are the type of guys who wouldn't be getting dates anyway, but now they have a socially acceptable excuse to cop out. Plus they get to rationalize this opting-out as a combination of self-righteousness and altruism ("I don't talk to women in bars because I don't want to be harassing them, plus they might go all Gloria Steinem on me") when in reality its due to other factors like insecurity, unattractiveness, or a lack of social skills. Its like a 200 lb women proclaiming that she doesn't date because there are "no good men out there"-sure there are, they're just dating the pretty

Do the thing with the eyes. It works, often.

This is a pretty interesting conversation.

Since the topic has become flirting, I felt a strong need to put in my two cents from a man's perspective in hopes that it my two cents might find purchase with any of the women reading this -- you know, for the good of all mankind.

Some women may feel a sense of rejection when their flirting falls flat. Don't. Allow me to let you in on a little secret. Many of us men are complete and total idiots when it comes to picking up on signals. We become wise about five minutes after it is too late. We have a familiar inner dialogue that involves phrases like, "Jesus, what was I thinking? That woman was really pouring it on." and, "How the hell didn't I go for that?" Don't forget, "Man am I an idiot!"

I had this dialogue with myself as recently as a few days ago. It happens a lot. I never seem to learn. I am a complete moron as far as women are concerned. It's not a lack of manliness or "sack" as Amy and others suggest. I'm just not in tune to it.

But as soon as men direct the same tactics towards women, i.e attacking their femininity or suggesting they are somehow defective as women, then it is suddenly a low blow, "totally uncalled for!" etc.

No Nick, I just thought that "self-righteous nagging" was an unfair characterisation of what NumberSix said. No double standard - she was a little bit critical but given that Anon had missed the point that's fair, but I thought you went over the top in your response.

Also, if women get to decide what a real man is, men have just as much right to decide what a real woman should be, and shouldn't be backward about telling women if they are falling below the required standards.

Yep, you could do that, and you might find dates hard to come by. How do you get "women get to decide what a real man is" from a LW and response encouraging women to flirt and signal interest to make it as easy as possible? When it's a woman who is actually saying something about men needing to pander to women's ideals I'll be the first on your side.

Ltw, I did not intend the comment as bitchy, but upon rereading I can see how it could be read that way.

I wasn't that serious NumberSix - I thought it was funny too.

If the guy gets blown off, he has his answer.

And if he gets blown, he has a different answer...

NickS, I'll agree with Meg and tell you you're right about the gender double standard when it comes to criticism. I was rereading a column of Amy's where a few women were in a bar for a girls' night out and an obnoxious drunk guy hit on one of them (I think he asked her bra size, too). She proceeded to slap him across the face and go on a tirade about men not respecting women. She said that the last thing they wanted was male attention since it was a girls' night. Right. You dress up, go to a bar, and are offended when a drunk guy hits on you. And you think it's okay to smack a stranger for talking to you in a way you don't like (or would like if he'd been cuter). Not okay, ladies. It's just as unacceptable for women to hit men as it is for men to hit women. But the girl-power movement likes to tell us that we're liberated when we do it. Drives me up the wall.

I'll also agree with Meg and say that I responded the way I did to your last sentence because it was an uncalled-for personal attack on me, whereas my post was basically boiling down a few points of Amy's original column. I apologized to Anon (if he's still reading) for the last sentence because Ltw pointed out that it came off as bitchy, and I intended it more nudge-nudge lighthearted funny (sometimes I just shouldn't try for funny).

I don't get all weepy and defensive just because someone says bad things about me, but I do write back. That's not being offended by criticism, that's standing up for myself. You're allowed to say whatever you'd like about me or anyone else on this site, but don't expect us to sit back and take it without responding.

Many of us men are complete and total idiots when it comes to picking up on signals.

That's a good point, JohnQ. I've heard this from many of my male friends. Amy says up there to "flirt beyond what seems reasonable," and that sounds like good advice because women are more tuned in to the subtle. There's an episode of "Home Improvement" where Tim swears Jill never told him about going to the opera one night and Jill swears she told him three times. It turns out she had circled the date on the calendar and mentioned he should get his tux drycleaned or something. She did everything but actually talk to him about their plans. Men don't tend to be as good at getting subtle hints like that and will swear you never said anything. It's the same with flirting. You may have to go overboard for you in order for the guy to get your signals.

I wasn't that serious NumberSix - I thought it was funny too.

Damn it, you posted while I was typing the last entry! I intended it to be more lighthearted than it came off, I think. It's hard to convey tone in this medium. Many is the time I've typed something in an email or on this site and ended up deleting it because it read meaner than it sounded in my head. I just don't want anyone to think I'm snarking when I'm not. Because sometimes I am.

Well, since we're talking about flirting...
this gem achieves a rare balance of sweet and hot that puts to shame many nude love scenes in current entertainment.

Wow, she was quite the babe back then! Dean was great at flirting with the guests-- charming and funny, but not creepy.

I love Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant in An Affair to Remember. No, I don't go full-on Sleepless in Seattle weepy at that movie, but it is one of my favorites because of the two stars. They're so playful together, and she gives as good as she gets. Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn also had that playful/flirty thing going, even when they were arguing.

You know, Marina, maybe watching classic romantic comedies would be good for men and women who don't get the whole flirting thing. I love trying to emulate those women: flirty and teasing, but always classy.

I blame the sexual revolution of the 1960's for taking the fun out of flirting. And now, all bets are off. We have become immune to subtlety and nuance, and even things like this fail to titillate.

I, too, am a huge fan of Cary Grant. An Affair to Remember is one of my favorite romance movies for exactly the reasons you mention, Number Six. It would be a great idea to have adolescents watch the classic romantic comedies as they are maturing into men and women.

I always thought of Lost In Translation as the modern update to those movies - in the "let's see how awkward we can make this" sense.

NumberSix, I probably owe you an apology. I agree that my previous comment was excessively harsh, and your original comment didn't really warrant it. Especially when you explain what you were trying to achieve with your original comment.

I realize that I can be abrasive at times, although I am slowly mellowing as I get older. I also sometimes get the male equivalent of PMT, where due to hormonal imbalances I will go off at people for no good reason whatsoever :-)

That said, I will try to offer up a feeble excuse for my original quip. When a woman says a man is lazy for not doing things the way she would have it, it sometimes comes across as being nagging and whining. It's a bit like saying 'take the garbage out' in a horse voice.

As Marc Rudov points out, when men hear a hint of what sounds like a woman nagging, it often triggers Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms. Men will become alarmed at the slightest hint of nagging. As someone who has been a victim of nagging in the past, I have tried to get on with my life, and see myself as a survivor rather than a victim. I have managed to find a girl who has a sweet, soothing voice, and who wouldn't know how to nag if she tried. It's been a long, slow process of healing, but my troubled soul is gradually learning to trust again. Sometimes I will wake up startled in the middle of the night from a nightmare about a nagging, whining woman. My girlfriend will hold me and let me know that it is going to be okay.

"Always amazed at how personally people take advice. Men should "grow a pair" unless their idea of a great sex life is staying home masturbating until they die"

This is the kind of argument that I would normally expect to get from some juvenile feminist. Whenever you nail them on their BS, they invariably resort to some predictable ad hominem put-down like 'you are just unhappy and insecure because you have a small penis, can't get laid, etc.'. Trust me Amy, you are not doing yourself any favors with this kind of argument. Most of your readers expect better. Although, to be honest, I am kind of flattered that you are forced to scrape the rhetorical barrel with me. Normally, you don't miss a trick and can come up with something more witty and original. It's not every guy who can boast they got the better of Amy Alkon.

I don't know why anyone would take personally the notion that they cannot disagree with you without being a wanker and having no balls. But hey, I guess I'm just a typical modern man who likes to drag my emotions into everything :-)

That said, I know it is unwise to insult one's host. And I am normally nothing if not prudent. So stay tuned for some serious grovelling and mea culpa. Did I mention how nice you look in your picture? :-)

Nick S, guys who want dates increasingly sit around staring at girls for two years hoping to date them -- this is not getting them dates. The alternatives, like them or not: "growing a pair" and asking women out or masturbating until they die.

What people who read me expect from me is honesty.

This has nothing to do with you, and is referring to the quote at the end of the question. Scroll back up.

At some point, you got all sniffly about "male shaming" because I used this term. If you need to grow a pair, do it. Otherwise, stop boohooing about it.

> The alternatives, like them or not: "growing a
> pair" and asking women out or masturbating until
> they die.

Or both - it's called marriage :)

> If you need to grow a pair, do it.

The problem with this advice is that, although it's correct, it doesn't really help people who struggle with this.

Hi.
I am single guy who is going to become the female equivalent of a cat woman, but living under more hygienic and comfortable circumstances.
Here I am, if you want to go out with me ask, but I am done being the asker and generally playing being treated like a schlemiel.
A polite invitation now gets a snarky reply, usually loudly broad-casted to cause max humiliation.
The rare acceptances were followed by awful outings.
To start there is a lot of pressure to go someplace real expensive and trendy, but generally lousy for a quiet first time conversation. If that hurdle is passed, there are still complaints throughout diner about the place not up to the finer standards she expects on a date.
Then there is the grilling about my ability to provide the type of life she wants to become accustomed to, a declaration that she expects to quit work and be luxuriously supported so she can achieve her goal of being a full time multiple mother, and that any man who does not acede immdiately to these demands is a total loser.
Needless to say I feel just a tad objectified for being evaluated as not a potential partner but as a resource to be ruthlessly exploited and then undoubtedly discarded once she has racked up enough time and kids for a good divorce settlement. Anger is the usual response to my reciprocal request for personal financial information.
One good way to abort a souring evening is to state no "marriage without videotaped reading of a pre-nuptual contract", "no kids unless she brings 250K per kid in addition to a vested pension plan into the marriage."
Would asking in return about the size of the dowry she brings with her, her domestic engineering abilities, level of financial responsibility and her past sex life, be out of line in light of the questioning I have been subjected to?
And the evening usually ends being expensive and thankless.
The unmarried women I meet who are age appropriate (40s+)are hard bitten, jaded, and have an inflated sense of self worth.
The ones in sales and marketing, which is a polite term for corporate prostitute", are the worst by far.
I have yet to meet one who has not consumed all her income stream and spent herself into a deep hole. I would be impressed if one of these S&M women paid for her food or covered her entertainment costs, instead of treating me like her corporate charge card. Never happens.
There are many nice women with useful productive jobs and decent personalities, BUT they have all been partnered with someone for a long time.
I fall into Ms Alkon's definition of dating wuss, but I got fed up with playing a sucker's game. I'd gladly accept an invitation and split costs, and xchange financial statements over dessert, but I am not playing the game as it is currently done.

Fred

Fred, the nice women with useful productive jobs and decent personalities are not all paired up. You might want to look in different places than you have in the past. Also, I find it hilarious that you are complaining about jaded women. Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind.

Fred,
Has it occurred to you to stop asking out the same kind of woman? You are clearly following a pattern and that pattern is not working for you.

Spartee, I liked your post!

I too went after my now-husband like a "lioness taking down a gazelle", which is a great analogy, by the way.

Now, my particular gazelle had been gazing at me for quite some time, as it turns out... but just didn't have the courage to ask me out. He's fairly shy and didn't realize what a catch he was. (Ex-wife was not very nice to him.)

I did take an appropriate amount of time (4 months) to get to know him and to find out what a great guy he was, but once I realized that I was going to have a very long wait if I planned on waiting for him to ask me out... well, I just took him down like the cute gazelle that he was. ;) What I mean is, I asked him out, he said yes, and we've been together ever since (15 years).

So although I see Amy's point in her post -- after all, not all men are like my husband (which is shame, for many reasons) -- I do think there is the possibility of it all ending happily ever after-ish when the woman makes the first main move.

When a woman says a man is lazy for not doing things the way she would have it, it sometimes comes across as being nagging and whining. It's a bit like saying 'take the garbage out' in a horse voice.

I hate nagging. I don't do it. It's annoying and ultimately counterproductive. The advice to men to get off their asses and actually ask women out isn't nagging. It's not telling a man to do things the way I want just because I want it that way. As Amy's pointed out many times, it's not just what women want (in fact, many don't, as evidenced by the feminists who speak against it), it's what works. Like I said earlier, a woman who takes over the role of the asker will likely just end up with a man who wasn't ballsy enough to actually ask her on a date.

A lot of those women think they're being proactive and liberated by asking out the man, but a lot of them grow to resent him because he lacks assertiveness in other situations, too. We talked on another thread about "nice guys" (as opposed to regular nice guys, which are great). Many women claim to want them, and will ask them out because they're supposedly so sensitive to the women's needs (though this is just a cowardly ploy for faux intimacy), but they end up resenting the men for not being more man-like.

Has it occurred to you to stop asking out the same kind of woman?

Good point, Ingrid. This reminds me of an episode of "Two and a Half Men" where lothario Charlie asks wimpy Alan which the women in the bar he is immediately drawn to. Cut to a shot of several women looking at him flirtatiously. He picks the one who looks at him with disgust and turns away. Moral of the story: sometimes you shouldn't ask out the women you're drawn to. Your immediate attraction to them may be a symptom of your own issues. Kind of like the women attracted to the "bad boys."

I think if you've had bad luck with the same type of potential partner (men or women), then it's worth it to start looking outside of that comfort zone. Fred, it seems you may be comfortable asking out those kinds of women you've gone out with, no matter how strongly you claim to dislike them. The repeated pattern indicates this may be so. Maybe you and other men who say things like this are subconsciously afraid of the rejection they might get if they ask out a better class of woman? It's easier to get rejected by someone you don't really like anyway. It'd hurt more to be rejected by a nicer, less mercenary woman. So I say branch out a little and find yourself a sweeter kind of woman to ask on a date. You might have better luck and lose some of that jadedness.

"Men should "grow a pair" unless their idea of a great sex life is staying home masturbating until they die, and women shouldn't pick-pick-pick at men, because it's horrible for men, and makes for horrible relationships. Find a guy you basically accept and basically let him be unless he's driving on the wrong side of the road and you're about to die."

+1

Find a guy you basically accept and basically let him be unless he's driving on the wrong side of the road and you're about to die.

How did I miss this sentence before? That's an A+ right there.

On the pick-pick-pick front, I like NickS's description of nagging PTSD. It sounds funny, but it's actually true, in a sense. That is likely the very reason all those husbands who supposedly don't listen act that way. They hear the beginnings of a nag and just shut down for self-protection.

We should start a fund or something.

"> The alternatives, like them or not: "growing a
> pair" and asking women out or masturbating until
> they die.

Or both - it's called marriage :)" - Snoopy

Amen Snoopy. To say that men face a choice between either doing things Amy's way or staying at home masturbating is a perfect illustration of a false choice and a false mutual exclusivity. As if there aren't plenty of guys with wives or girlfriends who refuse sex all the time, and there aren't single men playing the field and sowing their wild oats.

That is not to deny that being married or in a long-term relationship doesn't offer other forms of fulfillment that being single can't provide. But if your main objective is to get laid, it is hardly your best bet.

Amy, if your advice is for men to "grow a pair" by hitting on women for casual sex, then I'll second that.

But to say that men should "grow a pair" by pursuing traditional dating, buying women stuff, etc., then this is just a lame attempt to shame men into continuing to do what women want. As such, it's the polar opposite of growing a pair. I'm not sure how being shamed into pandering to women is a sign of strong manhood.

I have many friends who are somewhat traditionalist chivalrists in their approach to relationships with women. And invariably they have been put through the mincer. Two of them have been falsely accused of being involved in child pornography and pedophilia. Both have been subjected to harassment, destruction of property, denied access to their children etc. Maybe these are atypical or slightly extreme cases. But they do illustrate what I suspect is a trend.

When men do the traditional gentlemanly thing, i.e asking women out, paying for dates, etc., it doesn't get interpreted by women as being strong and manly. It often gets interpreted as supplication and pandering. Any man in today's society who is prepared to run the gamut of anti-male laws, policies and prejudices and bend over backwards to pander to women's idea of romance is effectively telegraphing a message that they are so needy and desperate for female approval that they will do anything and risk anything in order to get it. And on some level women interpret it this way. It's not surprising that such men attract predatory women into their lives.

The thing that pisses me off about my friends is that, despite being put through hell, they still seem to have an attitude of moral superiority because they have always tried to do the decent gentlemanly thing, despite their exes being such vipers. It's like hey, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So let's just pat ourselves on the back for the good intentions, and not worry about the hell it has led to.

As the old saying goes, it is better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If men are going to be vilified and discriminated against, we might as well have a bit of fun adapting to our roles as designated villains.

@ Fred- I don't get why men complain about the cost of expensive first dates. Aren't you the one asking the woman out and choosing the venue? Pick a place in your price range that you'd want to go to anyway, preferably coffee or drinks or a casual restaurant so you don't have to sit through 3 courses if things go badly. If your suggestion isn't good enough for her, then you have your answer right there. No need to sit through painful dates with golddiggers and shallow bitches when you can screen those women out right from the get-go.

When men do the traditional gentlemanly thing, i.e asking women out, paying for dates, etc., it doesn't get interpreted by women as being strong and manly. It often gets interpreted as supplication and pandering. Any man in today's society who is prepared to run the gamut of anti-male laws, policies and prejudices and bend over backwards to pander to women's idea of romance is effectively telegraphing a message that they are so needy and desperate for female approval that they will do anything and risk anything in order to get it.

I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to this argument. Not so much the paying for dates - hell, I pay for lunch as a reflex with friends even when I don't expect anything in return - but more the sense of "I'm interested but you need to try harder" that comes from some women. If I hear "well, we'll see what happens, who knows" one more time I'll scream! Translation - "I'm sticking you on the shelf to see if someone better comes along".

I'm not going to change much though, apart from maybe toughening up a bit when it's clear they just want an ersatz boyfriend between relationships. One of the advantages of being open and giving is that the people you do meet and get along with are really worth it. I wouldn't swap the villain role for that. As tempting as it might be.

As the old saying goes, it is better to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

I think you meant "You may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb".

The point being that once you've crossed the point of no return there is nothing to stop you from going further.

But from your comment you had the gist of it down, so ignore my pedantry.

Disney and Porn have ruined everything for men and woman. Woman wonder where Prince Charming is and men can't understand why woman aren't insatiable nympho's with perfect bodies. Sad but true.

Though not stated in the article this is a perfect article why men who are a$$holes and jerks get the hot woman while nice guys get sh!t on by today's modern woman. I love woman, respect woman but know that to get what you want, be an alpha male along with woman's attention and respect you have to be either rich, famous, powerful or an a$$hole. Ever notice on those prison lockup shows the convict always has a hot woman that he's had kid with waiting for him on the outside. Now why do you think that is boys and girls?

Max - Amy has actually covered that pretty amply, if you go back and read her archived columns. What "alpha males" have that betas (and omegas and whatever else) lack is confidence. The "assholes," as you refer to them, have enough self-assurance to hit on every attractive woman who crosses their path. Meanwhile, Mr. Omega curls up in the fetal position in a dark corner of the bar, hoping that the woman he's drooling over will somehow magically approach his pussified self.

Anyway, you need not be a jerk or an asshole or a felon to date hot women. What you DO need is some kind of status, usually a reasonable level of fitness, and the courage to approach them. My girlfriend is very hot - she turns heads everywhere we go - and I am sort of average looking (definitely not the "alpha male" type). But I have the other stuff, plus I had the guts to ask her out.

@max- I don't think that women like assholes per say; I think women like wealthy/attractive/powerful/high status men, and often these men behave like assholes simply because they can. If you think about it, most of the behaviors that get a guy labelled as an asshole-cheating, pursuing multiple women, not calling after sex, etc-are nothing more than you'd expect from a guy who knows he can get any woman that she wants. (Women who know they're in high demand behave the same way, and men react accordingly. Men don't date shallow, high-maintenance women because they really value those traits; rather they put up with those traits because the woman is usually really hot).

And there ARE wealthy/attractive/high-status men who don't behave like assholes and probably don't get as many women, but its by choice and the quality of the women they get involved with and the relationship they form is higher and ultimately more meaningful. Its the equivalent of the high school quarterback who dates the homecoming queen for three years, as opposed to sleeping with the entire cheerleading squad.

I feel compelled to interject a few points here. This is because this is a topic that I have a keen interest in and because I feel as though some valid points are being cast aside too quickly.

Point #1 – Shaming Language
Using shamming language can be a very effective method of modifying people’s behavior. This is especially true when women attempt to shame men into acting in accordance with their expectations.

Choosing to use language such as “grow a pair” can only be interpreted as a way to try and shame a man into behaving a certain way, there is no other valid interpretation. When we extend the paraphrased version to mean what it actually means, it becomes “grow a pair of testes” which can be further translated into “don’t be a eunuch” or “don’t act like a woman”.

What is the purpose of choosing such language if not to shame a man into altering his “unmanly” behavior? It certainly isn’t language chosen for its encouraging qualities.

If one wanted to say the same thing without shaming someone they could have instead said “be courageous”. As such, the choice of these particular words seems purposeful when alternative phraseology was available to convey the same thought.

I find it odd Amy, that you would feel the need to find fault with Nick’s interpretation of that language as shaming when so far as I can tell that is the only correct interpretation available. If that is not what you meant to convey that is fine, but Nick’s interpretation of it is not faulty. I also find it odd that someone who is on record for advocating the use of shaming tactics to alter people’s behavior would suddenly become defensive when someone notices that such a tactic is being employed.

I have literally watched videos of you promoting your book where you explicitly state that you think we as a society need to bring back public shaming in order to get people to behave in certain fashions.

Taking all of this into account it is my opinion that the phrase was used as a shaming tactic which is perfectly in line with other shaming strategies that you advocate across a wide variety of social situations.

Point #2 – Do men have to ask women out in order for relationships to thrive?
I think the short answer here is a definitive “no” as evidenced by the fact that there are relationships which exist that are thriving where the woman has asked out the man first.

That being said, the question we asked wasn’t necessarily the correct one in order to get at the answer we are really interested in, so let’s instead ask a better question:

“Should men ask out women in order to have the greatest probability of a thriving relationship?”

This is a more subtle question, and hence requires much more information to properly address, more information than is currently available within the scientific literature. Additionally, we haven’t specifically defined what constitutes a “thriving relationship” which may differ dramatically from person to person as well as between men and women.

Depending upon how we define a “thriving relationship” the answer to this question might very well change. Maybe to achieve some relationship goals it is better for men to ask out women, to achieve other relationship goals it is better for women to ask out men, and for other relationship goals it might not matter who does the asking.

Ultimately I can think of no scientific study which has looked into this in sufficient detail to draw any conclusions. So as far as I can tell, the discussion here revolves mostly around people making unstated assumptions about what men and women want out of relationships and then applying those assumptions universally. This sort of hypothesizing can be very tricky as it is open to many fallacious lines of reasoning that while psychologically appealing are often inaccurate or incomplete.

For example, one assumption that Amy seems to be working with is that women want a guy who is assertive, confident, and manly enough to take the risk of asking her out. Stated in the context of my question above, what Amy is essentially saying is that there is a very low probability of a relationship thriving if the woman is not immediately convinced that the guy she gets involved with is assertive, confident, and manly. As a result, if a guy doesn’t do the initial asking, the relationship is probably doomed to failure.

While I can see the appeal of this rationalization as it justifies certain behaviors women like to see, I am not actually convinced that this explanation satisfactorily portrays what is really going on. After all, if relationships with men who are not naturally assertive, confident, and manly are probably doomed to failure, then what use is it to “bully” men who aren’t naturally this way into acting this way by telling them they are “Wussy” and insulting their manhood until they do as they are told?

If relationships with unassertive men are doomed, then no amount of acting will cause relationships with those men to thrive. Not to mention that any man who lacks the confidence to stick to his guns simply because someone calls them “wussy” or a “pansy” or tells them to “grow a pair” doesn’t suddenly become confident and manly by virtue of backing down and altering how they behave, does it?

I would actually assert that any man who instantly backs down and changes how he behaves simply because someone tells them to “grow a pair” is less manly than the guy who stands their ground and argues for what they believe in.

Put more succinctly, it is impossible to bully or shame a person who lacks confidence into someone who has confidence. You can’t build someone up by making fun of them. What you can achieve by shaming and ridiculing someone however is breaking down a person who lacks confidence and remolding them into someone who behaves how you want them to.

Point #3 – Why is it that women want men to ask them out?
Now that I have established the weaknesses within the foundation upon which the “asking a woman out demonstrates that you are confident” argument is constructed I will present what I believe to be the real reason why men generally have to do the asking in order to establish relationships for themselves (thriving or otherwise).

What it really boils down to are differences in risk aversion between men and women. Generally speaking, women are more apt to avoid situations which present risk than are men. This is well established within the scientific literature and has been shown to be true across a multitude of cultures and scenarios.

It is the reason why women are less likely than men to work in fields that present serious physical threats, why women are less likely than men to gamble, why women are less likely than men to negotiate with their boss for raises, and why women are less likely than men to start their own businesses.

Put simply, if we take all men and all women and place them on a “risk aversion” scale, men will tend to cluster at the less averse end, and women at the more averse end. While there may be a collection of women who are not very risk averse, and a collection of men who are very risk averse, the general trends will still hold true for large sample sizes.

So how does this relate to dating? Well asking someone out on a date always presents the risk of rejection. This means that on average there will be more men available who are willing to take that risk than there are women willing to take that risk.

It is merely by virtue of the existence of an abundant supply of men willing to take the risk of asking women out on a date that women in general do not need to do the asking themselves, including the minority of women who are not so risk averse as to avoid doing the asking.

The situation for women ultimately boils down to the following: Why risk rejection by asking a man for a date when it isn’t necessary to do so in order to date a man?

This ultimately translates into a problem for men who are risk averse as unlike their female counterparts who can rely upon an ample supply of risk taking men to do the asking, there is no abundance of risk taking women to relieve them of this task.

Interestingly, when the supply of risk taking men is removed from the equation, women can and do ask for dates in the context of lesbian relationships without major problems and still develop healthy relationships. It must be stressed here that they do so out of necessity, not because they suddenly become risk takers when it comes to other women. If lesbian women want to date, they cannot sit around and wait like heterosexual women can as the supply and demand paradigm is completely shifted. Similarly, gay men can be risk averse and still get dates as the abundance of risk taking gay men would alter the supply and demand paradigm here as well.

All of this is born out within the scientific literature where studies of so-called “love shyness” show that love shy heterosexual women appear to marry at the same rate as their non-love shy equivalents. By comparison, love shy heterosexual men are nearly always unmarried well into advanced ages while non-love shy men marry at rates higher than those of love shy and non-love shy women (which makes statistical sense since this single pool of men is pulling randomly from both pools of women).

In conclusion, the reason why men should ask women out on dates isn’t because women prefer men who ask over men who do not. It isn’t because they need to “grow a pair” or “be a man”. It isn’t because by not asking a man demonstrates a lack of confidence. It is simply because the market forces at play in the dating scene place extra pressure upon men to ask and reduced pressure on women to ask. If a man doesn’t ask, a woman generally isn’t going to step up to the plate and ask him, it is simply easier and less risky for her to wait for some other guy to take on that risk and to place herself in the position of accepting or rejecting.

If the general trends of risk aversion were to change amongst men and women then all of this would change as well. However, that is unlikely to happen any time in the near future.

So I guess after all of this discussion, the real answer as to why men should ask women out on dates is simply because they don’t really have any other choice given the market forces at play.

Kara, feel free to write a proposal and try to find an agent the next time you're compelled to write a book.

There's much that's wrong above, but I have no desire to respond. Much of the corrections you'll find in my past columns -- and this one.

PS Anybody who finds "Oh, grow some balls" to be (sniffle, sniffle, boohoo) "shaming language" needs to take that advice.

I am so glad I am married.

"That's exactly the boohoo is me self-pitying attitude that will not get you chicks."

"PS Women who like assholes and jerks are women with low self-worth."

That is too funny. As if blaming women's problems on low self-esteem is not a self-pitying, boohoo, woe is me approach to life.

So men can't point out that women often make poor choices in relationships without being guilty of whining and self-pity. But women get to blame all their ills on low self-esteem without being labeled the same.

Blaming problems on low self-esteem is the most lame kind of pop psychology. And it's usually wrong. For every person you meet who suffers from low self-esteem, you will meet more people who have an inflated view of their own abilities and sense of worth.

Claiming that women are only attracted to assholes because of low self-worth is generally wrong also, in my experience. Indeed, the women I know who have had bad relationships with abusive men (including my own mother) are generally the exact opposite of that. They are often aggressive, narcissistic and have an inflated sense of entitlement. It is often the most aggressive women who only respect a man if he is a bigger jerk than she is. But more generally, people who are attracted to bullies are often bullies who only respect those who are superior emotional bullies to themselves.

But women get to blame all their ills on low self-esteem without being labeled the same.

Saying that someone's problems are the result of low self-esteem is not self-pity. It's not even regular pity. Otherwise any licensed therapist would be accused of pitying his patients. Low self-esteem is the root of many women's problems with dating losers and assholes. They pick men that are bad for them because they think they don't deserve any better. Where's the pity in that? Read any of Amy's columns dealing with this subject. She tells all those women to stop dating and do something to make themselves into actual people instead of trying to complete themselves with men. Again, no pity, just practical advice.

Blaming problems on low self-esteem is the most lame kind of pop psychology.
Claiming that women are only attracted to assholes because of low self-worth is generally wrong also, in my experience.

Read my above paragraph. People seek out the partners they think they deserve. A woman with a good sense of self-worth (either low or really high masking the low) won't date a guy who's a jerk. That aggressiveness and entitlement you claim those women you know have is probably due to their low self-esteem, you know. Emotionally healthy people don't get into or stay in relationships with people that are bad for them. Women, especially, go for the assholes precisely because assholes will treat them badly, therefore validating their already low opinion of themselves. Women who mask their self-esteem problems with aggressiveness will find a man who is a bigger jerk than her so he will treat her worse than she treats him. They're seeking out, consciously or not, someone who will treat them badly because they feel they don't deserve any better. So those women you describe actually do have low self-esteem.

Blaming problems on low self-esteem is only lame if you use it as a cop-out. Saying "Oh, I get into these relationships because I have low self-esteem" and then continuing to repeat the pattern because you can comfort yourself with your unhealthy emotions (and thereby taking control away from yourself) is lame. Using your knowledge of your low self-esteem to work on yourself as a person before getting into any more relationships with people who are bad for your health is wonderful.

I've been saying this on this site a lot lately, but it's about motives, Nick. it's all about motives.

NumberSix, I'm sorry, but I just about went to sleep reading through that.

You really need to realize that not everything on Oprah or something you read in the latest bullshit pop psychology tome is the gospel truth.

Again, it can't have escaped your attention that Amy doesn't wheel out the same excuses for men, i.e. that men don't pursue relationships with women because they have low self-esteem or think they aren't good enough.

No, only women are allowed to wallow in 'oh noes! I have low self-esteem. I'm a poor little dear. Woe is me!'.

If you haven't been introduced before, pot meet kettle.

If you haven't been introduced before, pot meet kettle.

Nick, when have I ever said I "excuse" anyone's behavior? Read any of my posts on any column or blog item and you'll see that's not true. In fact, you'll see me arguing with people that use the things you mention to excuse their own behavior, or that of others, in order to keep repeating that behavior. A certain argument with lovelysoul about a woman browbeating her husband into having kids comes to mind. And one with irlandes about feminism and it's soooo haaaard for men, so he doesn't do anything about it.

You really need to realize that not everything on Oprah or something you read in the latest bullshit pop psychology tome is the gospel truth.

I don't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil and I don't put much stock in trend psychology. I do put stock in actual psychology, which is what I was referring to in my post. And what Amy refers to in her columns. I'm sorry if you don't believe it, but that doesn't make it untrue. If you'd read a little and think a little rather than just spouting back that I'm all "woe is me," you might learn something.

I agree that many women do go all "woe is me" when faced with their problems. If you'd actually read my post above, you'd find that I agreed with that up there. I never said anything different. I just happen to hate it when women say that and don't do anything about it. Realizing what your true motives are in relationships is great, but you have to actually use that information for it to be of any value.

Again, it can't have escaped your attention that Amy doesn't wheel out the same excuses for men,

And it can't have escaped your attention that men and women are different. First of all, Amy doesn't "excuse" anyone (and if you'd read, you might know that, too-- she's way harsh). Second, Amy doesn't give the low self-esteem advice to men as often because men don't tend to act that way. Men with low self esteem will sometimes find themselves a good old nagging wife, or they'll turn into the "nice guys" that we don't like around here. But, on a larger scale, men don't enter into relationships trying to complete themselves as women do. Men don't define themselves through their relationships (except when it comes to status) as much as women do.

So, to recap, I don't think women are "allowed to wallow" in self-pity. I hate that. And I'm not sure where you're getting that I've ever "excused" anyone's behavior. I don't do that. I'll try to explain and find motives for behavior, but that's useless unless the person is willing to work. Excuses are meaningless.

Yay! Book recommendations! I like when you recommend things, Amy, because, like you said, you don't care where the wisdom comes from. I said above that I don't much care if it's trendy psychology, but if it's actual psychology.

I have to ask, why do we need to skip part two of The Road Less Traveled?

Thanks, Amy!

NumberSix, I'm not suggesting that you are the worst offender when it comes to the type of argument I am objecting to. You aren't. But you occasionally lapse into those kinds of arguments. Though you don't do it as much as others here. That's all.

I didn't think you watch Oprah and Dr Phil (and I understand that accusing someone of watching these shows is a pretty cruel and hurtful thing to say). But the problem is that the kind of pop psychology that Oprah and Dr Phil peddle has infected the whole of society to such an extent that some of it often trickles down to unsuspecting victims. Oprahfication is a virus. You may have unwittingly caught a minor strain. That's all.

The main reasons that women often fall for jerks and end up in abusive relationships have little to do with low self-esteem.

Women are more attracted to aggressive males because evolution and natural selection encouraged this for their own survival. Because women are physically weaker and more in need of protection in nature, it made sense for women to align themselves with aggressive males to increase their chances of survival.

Also, in more primitive times whenever a tribe was conquered by another tribe, the men in the conquered tribe would be killed while the women would be absorbed into the invading tribe. That goes a long way to explaining why men often have a stronger negative reaction to aggressive males. For men, confronting aggressive males is a matter of survival. For women, acquiescing to aggressive males offered a better chance of survival. Indeed, men have a deep instinct to snuff out whether every man they meet is friend or foe.

But on a more basic level, women are attracted to men with higher status, resources etc. Women assume that an aggressive man is of higher status, or at the very least shows promise of being able to achieve more.

Also, women tend to be more risk-averse and submissive than men. For that reason, women are more likely to acquiesce to those who are seen to have power. Or at least, are less likely to take as many risks in order to challenge an existing power structure or individual who is seen to have power.

All of these things have fuck all to do with low self-esteem. Indeed, they are all largely self-interested, self-preserving patterns of behavior.

To say that women fall for jerks and end up in abusive relationships due to low self-esteem is pop psychology nonsense. And it is a complete cop out, because it encourages such women to feel sorry for themselves instead of taking responsibility for their own poor choices and primitive behavior patterns.

"Sorry, missed this tripe.

I don't "wheel out excuses" for anybody.

Again, in every letter I get, I analyze the problem and call it like I see it, based on analysis of the person's behavior and the research, reading, thinking, and reasoning I do."

You are nit-picking over trivial details, such as the form of words I use, because you can't deal with the broader issue.

Maybe saying that you "wheel out excuses" wasn't the best way of describing how you tend to approach these things. But it doesn't change the substance of what I wrote, that it is silly to blame women's problems, but not men's, on low self-esteem.

You call things as you see them. That's good. I do the same. I call a spade a spade, a shovel a shovel. And I call pop psychology BS pop psychology BS!

Amy, you keep consoling yourself with the notion that I'm such an oversensitive soul, and that you have cut me to the core of my being with your catty high school jibes.

You know, if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that you have really got the better of me, you go right on believing that. I wouldn't want you to get low self-esteem and fall into the arms of some nasty man.

Seriously, I am just about rolling on the floor laughing at the moment in contemplation of your repeated lame attempts to make me feel inadequate or bluff me into thinking that I don't know what I'm talking about or that you are really more confident of your own position. Surprisingly, not everyone takes themselves that seriously and I am glad that I can see the funny side of this. Thankyou for bringing joy into my life :-)

I'm a big boy, and if you need to have a hissy or just let off steam, I can take it and still be okay. You need not be so concerned about my feelings.

And no, you're not the worst misandrist by a long shot. Most of the time you are quite reasonable on these issues. But it's understandable that you feel uncomfortable when certain chivalrous advantages are under attack. That's okay. I can live with that.

NumberSix,

If we were all in the same room having this conversation, I would totally ask you out right now.

Amy, the whole point of this thread is that you and NumberSix want everyone to believe that you are only advising men of what is best for them when you tell them to ask women out etc.

It is obvious that the only reason women give such advice is that they want men to continue doing the old routine of romancing women, buying them flowers, taking them out etc. I get that. I know that a lot of women are raised to have those kinds of expectations, and believe they are entitled to that kind of treatment. And it's more than understandable that women don't react well to the idea that men should forget it and that women really aren't worth the trouble. I completely get that. That is why you got all hissy with me when I tried to explain to you why my friends who have always done the old-fashioned gentlemanly thing have been put through the mincer.

What I object to is the assumption that us men are too stupid to see what the real agenda is, and to expect us to believe that you are really only looking out for us.

"NumberSix is exactly the kind of woman men should go for. Reasonable, rational, very smart, sense of humor...and more."

If you knew as much about evolution and natural selection as you claim, you would surely know that women are attracted to men who are more intelligent than they are. Any woman who is either intelligent, or is not that intelligent but thinks she is intelligent, is a bad choice.

One of the reasons I am with my current girlfriend is that from the time we met, she always complimented me on how smart I am and sought my counsel on her studies and the like. And she doesn't take herself too seriously when I mock her for being a bit ditzy. I tell you, there is nothing quite like having your ego stroked and your dick stroked at the same time to melt even the most jaded heart.

She is Asian too, which is a big plus. Asian women are usually more feminine, nurturing and have strong family values.

Amy, you seem to believe that anyone who has any kind of academic credentials is incapable of personal bias that might infect their research or claims.

This is the same nonsense you get from the global warming crowd. Hey, scientists agree with us. We must be right. They couldn't have any other vested interests or ideological bias. Whatever.

Given how PC and feminized many academic disciplines are, I am not surprised that the sort of evolutionary claims I might make probably won't make it to your conference.

If anyone wants to understand the issues, particularly how evolution has entrenched various psychological biases against males and in favor of females, try reading Steve Moxon's The Woman Racket.

Wow.

"Advice for women, on how to get a girly man (metrosexual) to grow a pair, AFTER you've completely emasculated him through Feminazi routines"

THAT is how this article should be titled.

Women are idiots. you want it both ways. A strong man to "take care of business" and a sensitive man to look after your needs.

Look Ladies. pull your head out of your Asses. Be realistic. The guys go to jail these days because of your incessant false allegations of rape (remember the Duke Lacrosse team???)
They watch as you take half of everything they've worked their asses off for, so you can piss it away with another guy because they were out working for it and you got lonely and decided to take up with someone else.
Why SHOULD they date you when they know the eventual response is either going to be embarrassed in front of God and everybody, or else eventually you're going to wreck their world because you can't keep it in your pants while they secure a comfortable life for you.
Either get with the program, be a woman and stop trying to figure out who does what to whom, or buy those cats!!

And before some jackass makes a comment about how I'm not grammatically correct, let me save you the trouble.

I may not write in the most eloquent manner, but that doesn't mean I'm not dead on balls accurate!

he's your BOYFRIEND?? for SEVEN YEARS??

how long are you going to date the guy? till you're 80?
If YOU are such a great catch (and the way you have described your relationship, The guy would have already asked to marry you...I call bullshit! something's not adding up!) then why hasn't he asked you to marry him?

things that make you go hmmmmmm

I just got through reading this whole exchange. Nick S, sounds like you need to take Amy's advice and read several of her old columns. You aren't the only one who is upset with her over her "insensitive language." Feminists often decry Amy because she picks on fat women by telling them that they need to lose weight in order to be attractive to men. Please, tell us how much your Asian girlfriend weighs.

The comment about your girlfriend is revealing. You need a woman who will tell you how smart you are while touching Mr. Winky AND will tolerate your insults. This, and the need to keep arguing with Amy no matter how silly you look, just screams "INSECURITIES GALORE!" to everyone who reads the entire thread.

How about those PTSD-like symptoms that Mark Rudov describes from being nagged too much? (Does anyone take Mark Rudov seriously anymore? And what an insult to real survivors of PTSD. Seriously. Both you and Rudov should be shipped to a war zone and learn about real PTSD.) Amy is right. You lack in the sack department with your whining. GROW A PAIR! And while you're at it, take out the damned trash.

Re Kara's comment: I don't know of any blog or column, anywhere, that needs a 25+ paragraph comment. My eyes glazed over after about 5 paragraphs. Kara, it's called economy of words.

Oh please indeed, Amy.

Towerclimber, you are the idiot. If you read her columns and knew anything about Amy, you'd know why she and her boyfriend don't get married. In fact, it would invalidate your whole argument.

I remember the Duke LaCrosse team. As I recall, that was not date rape but the words of a drug addled stripper being used by an overzealous, unscrupulous MALE prosecutor. Very poor example, Towerclimber. And are you insinuating that only women cheat? Men are always faithful? Who is the idiot here?

We "take half of everything they've worked their asses off for"? Where? In what universe? I've been married before. I've had boyfriends. I'm lucky if I can find a man who can support himself, let alone me. My divorces were uncontested--all I wanted was my car and my belongings. Why did I leave? Because I hated it when my ex-husbands decided to "retire" in their 20's and 30's.

I have to laugh at guys like you, Fred, Nick, and that piece of work Mark Rudov. You go for the selfish hotties and wonder why you get burned. A decent, caring plain Jane isn't good enough for you. I finally found a man who was mature enough to see past my plain looks and find my true worth. I cook special dinners and desserts for my guy. I take care of him during illness (i.e. changing dressings on wounds, dealing with stomach viruses, all of the ugly stuff). Towerclimber, you deserve what you get.

Amy, I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you.

Look hon, here's the thing I've learned from being married.

You're going to fight. At SOME point in time, someone's gonna cut heads.
If you haven't had a knock down drag out argument once or twice (and I mean argument, not fistfight) then you don't really know the person.
I love my wife with everything I've got. (and guess what? she's a plush girl, so all of you women who think that skinny is the way to go? Don't...all kinds of guys like all kinds of girls!)
She's smarter than I am, nicer than I am..a lot more things that I'm not. She's all the GOOD parts of me.

Thing is, we don't see eye to eye sometimes. If you haven't caught your man in a bad mood even one time?? something's up with that.
I'm not calling him Dexter or anything..but that's just NOT human nature.

"I don't believe in marriage, nor do I believe in living together (of course, I don't want kids)"

Thank God we don't have to depend on you to save the human race then, huh?

The rest of that diatribe just made me laugh.
When your "relationship" ends, you will have nothing to show for it.

You may as well stick your finger in a glass of water and then marvel at the hole you leave behind when you pull it back out.

Rozita, Khalil Gebron once said "you choose your joys and sorrows long before you experience them".
Your response about the men you've divorced says quite a bit about YOU!

With every post where a man has explained why he is reluctant to ask women out, YOU girls find fault with him. Wisdom would dictate that you be quiet and listen (after all, he IS the guy) but that's not what you want. You just want a license to bitch at guys.

Anyhow, this was the first time I ever read this column. I thought you'd at least like to hear how it feels to ask a girl out from a man's perspective.
Apparently I was wrong..and this time it cost me nothing.

Carry on,

THE MARRIED GUY!

This is one of the reasons the Muslims will take over the world. While we're dithering, they're dicking.

Nick, I think I'm done having this argument with you, because you're not arguing with me. You're arguing with some woman you've made up and given my handle. I have no idea where you're getting some of your ideas about how I behave. I've dated guys smarter than I am and I've dated guys that probably weren't. You know why I've had both? Because I'm not a mean person. I don't use my intelligence to make other people feel bad, and I appreciate when a guy I'm with does the same for me. I love to learn and I ask questions to that end, but I don't need someone condescending to me or patronizing me because he's smarter. Thus, I don't do the same. And I find that the people I choose to surround myself with have more expertise in some areas than others. Everybody learns from each other and we all have a good time.

So, Nick, unless you'd like to address things I've actually said, instead of saying I "trot out" bullshit psychology and that I'm too dumb to know that I got it from Oprah, I'm done.

Oh, and JonQ: thanks.

"The comment about your girlfriend is revealing. You need a woman who will tell you how smart you are while touching Mr. Winky AND will tolerate your insults. This, and the need to keep arguing with Amy no matter how silly you look, just screams "INSECURITIES GALORE!" to everyone who reads the entire thread." - Rozita

Ah, that comment was me showing my self-deprecating sense of humor. Do you really suppose that someone who is that insecure and narcissistic would be so candid in talking about it?

I know that internet forums tend to be full of people with no sense of humor. Everything has to be taken seriously. Everything has to be used as more ammunition in some fight to the death.

This really is so boring. I wish some people would get a life, and get a sense of humor.

Wisdom dictates that you only listen to people who have wisdom. Your comments here don't reflect that you're among them. (My favorite, that my "boyfriend and I don't know each other because we don't have knock-down-drag-out fights.) Yeah, keep it up, Socrates!"
You DON'T know him..why would you care to? You have nothing invested in your relationship that you don't care to lose. There's no reason for you to.
You spend lots of time with him, hell you even make it look good..you slept on a hard floor one night.
and him? what will he have? a legacy for the future?
no
See? you've invested nothing that you can't afford to lose.
and give me a break. alimony payments? why would you worry so much if ya love him sooo much and he's so perfect?

How can you be so quick to give advice when you don't have to take the consequences of that advice?
and when guys try to relate what its like, you ridicule them??

nah, your advice is horse shit, just like your description of your "relationship".

but hey, if it works for you? who am I to criticize you for the smell?

:)

"I remember the Duke LaCrosse team. As I recall, that was not date rape but the words of a drug addled stripper being used by an overzealous, unscrupulous MALE prosecutor. Very poor example, Towerclimber" - Rozita

Oh, fuck me dead with a fish fork. Here we go. No, it is never women's fault that they lie about stuff like this. Women are always helpless victims, pawns being manipulated by some evil man.

At least Amy doesn't resort to shit this bad, so we really should be grateful for small mercies.

It's a complete fucking mystery as to why men are more reluctant to ask women out nowadays, when we are constantly confronted by this kind of crap.

"This is one of the reasons the Muslims will take over the world. While we're dithering, they're dicking."

Nah, don't worry about that. If society is ever over-run with Muslim fundamentalists, women can just get them to do as they are told by mocking them with jibes like "grow a pair" :-)

'Mohammed, don't be such a soft cock. When are you going to ask out one of these infidel whores?'. They love that kind of good-natured teasing.

Of course, Western societies are largely fucked. Any society that goes out of its way to alienate and marginalize much of its male population will have a shortage of people willing to defend it in times of crisis. When order breaks down, brute force rules. That basically means whichever side has the most young men on its side. But western countries have aging populations, and much of the young men have little stake in society and nothing to fight for.

But at least it will be easier to look the other way when you remember how much crap we had to put up with from our own womenfolk.

I always wonder how old the guys who claim that 'women only like assholes' are, or if they've dated since college. There's some truth to this for younger women, but it's really not something that I've encountered often with adult women. If anything women seem to get more conservative as they get older and want 'safe' guys. This is why you see so many milquetoast guys with cute wives in the suburbs. The women I meet typically just want the house and kids w/ a stable high earning husband. They'd probably see an aggressive guy as too risky and potentially abusive.

But I did go on a date a while ago where the woman, who was in her early thirties, told me that she likes 'tough guys'. I'd thought that she was being ironic, but she wasn't. That comment, along with a few other suspicious remarks, told me that it would be best to cut things off. Basically she wanted an upper middle class tough guy who'd support her like her friends husbands supported them. She wasn't a bad person, but something tells me that she's going to be one of these women who's still single at 40 and complaining that all men want are young hot women.

Lame defenses from a couple of lame men

Towerclimber, my response about the men in my life says that I'm not a golddigger, that's for sure! In your first post, you excoriated women who " watch as you take half of everything they've worked their asses off for, so you can piss it away with another guy because they were out working for it and you got lonely and decided to take up with someone else." Did I find fault with them? Yes. If you had a daughter, would you want her to marry a man who wanted to stay home, drink beer and screw around on her? Get real.

Nick S: I agree, the average narcissistic and insecure guy wouldn't post the stuff about his ego and his dick. But coming from you, it was believable. As for Towerclimber's Duke example: let's remember that the case never would have gone to trial in another jurisdiction. Mike Nifong was running for office, he was very crooked and wanted to further his career on the backs of these men. Nifong lost his law license and was found guilty of criminal contempt. A good prosecutor wouldn't have crucified those kids on the word of a lying POS. I never, ever said that the stripper was not at fault; I was just pointing out that the Duke LaCrosse case is a poor example.

Please, buy a nice sterling silver fish fork right after you take out the trash.

Rozita, you're kidding right? never would have gone to trial???

guys go to trial every stinkin day because of that crap..I read not too long ago about a guy who served 4 years in jail before the woman decided to tell the truth!
there's so many instances of guys going to jail for false accusations that it's practically an unspoken rule among guys.
a rape case is a prosecutors wet dream! As ANY man what he honestly expects will happen if a woman accuses him of rape.
He'll tell you that he'd probably go to jail for something he didn't do.

The long and short of it is this. If a girl thinks you're cute, she'll cut you slack..IF....if she doesn't, or she's drunk and feeling mean, or it's that time of the month, or she just feels like it, she'll be cruel when it's unwarranted.

and all the excuses in the world can't hide that.

Now you want it the other way..but the risks are WAY too high for any man with half a brain.

so Amy and Rozilla, If you buy something, you expect to get it..trouble is no different. So why are ya cryin?

Sometimes I watch movies from the first half of the 20th century, and think wistfully about how easy it used to be to tell the men and women apart from one another.

Posted by: Marina at June 9, 2010 2:04 AM

That was before American women started castrating their men and their sons.

Seriously, who raises the children? Women. So, who has the input into the way they turn out?

Add in subtly dissing men in popular entertainment, portraying women beating men up, portraying the genders slightly switching roles as a reflection of feminism memes, high profile sexual harassment suits, etc.

I'm sure there are other things as well.

Men let it happen to. They abandoned their sons. They bought into extreme feminist bullshit ( I'm not against feminism, just the extreme WMST type of stuff ).

Men have an innate desire to garner women's approval and that has, unconsciously, by both men and women, been used to change things. Some things for the better, some things for the worse.

One of the reverse is that young women can't always expect American men to be the ones to do the initiating.

American men need to start relearning to be driven by what suits them first and what women approve of second/what is safe second.

Doesn't matter to me anymore, since my aggression landed me in a very happy marriage. But I'm curious what people would recommend.
Posted by: Dana at June 9, 2010 7:15 AM

I think you are right. Hiding your natural disposition just would have hooked you up with someone you would not have been happy with. Your disposition would have had to come out sooner or later.

Having said that, you are an outlier ( nothing wrong with that, I know a number of assertive women whose company I love ).

Most people are skewed towards the man being assertive and IMHO the way some men have been raised have suppressed-dulled that in a way where it doesn't work for men and women.

There's nothing meek about flirting. You have to be pretty badass to do it effectively.
Posted by: MonicaP at June 9, 2010 7:36 AM

I couldn't agree more. It takes guts to approach a stranger, whether you do it in a more direct way like a guy or you do it in a more flirtatious way.

So why is this? - because women keep telling men not to do what we'd been doing. The old way is apparently harassing and makes them uncomfortable. Unfortunately women don't seem to like the new way either.
Posted by: Mike at June 9, 2010 1:14 PM

What women say they want, what they think they want and what they actually want aren't always the same thing.

Many women freak at that statement and you are partially right. They tell guys not to think like that and dismiss the evidence of their own experience.

I think part of being a guy is ignoring stuff like that, deciding how things work for yourself and accepting that you are going to have to get static before hooking up with someone nice.

Point #1 – Shaming Language
Using shamming language can be a very effective method of modifying people’s behavior. This is especially true when women attempt to shame men into acting in accordance with their expectations.

It depends on the situation. It can work sometimes. Other times being shamed can just beat a person down further.

I don't think "grow a pair" written to no one individual in particular is particularly shaming.

I'm sure if Amy was sincerely trying to help a personal friend she would say the same thing by gauge her language to how s/he would be likely to respond.

Here, on a blog, to a general audience the situation is different. It is her shtick to loud, raw, obvious etc.

I don't think that Amy's trying to deliberately shame anyone either.

But I'm noticing more and more incidents, in public and on the web, where guys are reacting negatively to this sort of thing, and they're calling out the women who do try to shame men. Sometimes the reaction is overboard. Women aren't accustomed to being called on their treatment of men, so suddenly being hit with a very angry response must be unnerving.

I do think that it's beome necessary to criticize this sort of behavior by women though. It's gotten to a point, in the US at least, where women are doing genuine harm to men and boys by being so reflexively critical and condemnatory of males. But it's not something that I think most women are aware of, though moms of boys seem to get it. Women tend to be complainers by nature, it's how they get what they want, and the current anti-masculine zeitgeist only exacerbates this tendency. I'd bet that if you did a study where you monitored women's communication about men that over 75% of their statements would be negative. Women seem to have become conditions to only view men in a negative light. There's definately the assumption that women are innately superior.

Mark B;

I agree with you 100% on both points 1 & 2.

Amy isn't trying to shame anyone. She is trying to tell them what the real deal is while being entertaining while doing so.

I also agree with you that American women, extreme feminists and regular wp,em, are often blind to their own hypocrisies in regard to relations between the sexes. Looking at Amy's columns I think she would agree.

The other week I was watching a CNN piece about fewer men and more women going to college for high wage earning jobs. The anchor went on to read viewer emails. One email was from a woman who wrote "I'll tell you when this is, Jack. It is because women are smarter and now we are getting a chance to prove it".

People sort of chuckled and moved on.

Can you imagine the reaction if the email was from a man and stated that women are just not as intelligent as men? Even in jest?

very spirited postings to a simple letter. men should "man up". women should "bitch down".

i'm in my early 50s, female, and very happy with my current situation. i get hit on, get stared at, get asked out. if all i want is sex - i do the asking.

in my long life i have come to accept a harsh truth: i have bigger balls than most men i meet. far too many of them DO stare. they DO act passive-aggressive. maybe it is because so many women are so convinced "equal" means being equally wrong. many women scare the hell out of most men. sometimes it's the woman's fault - sometimes the man is just a wuss. rejection is not the end of the world. i always tell the young guys i work with: "take a shot. ask. or you'll never know what could have been."

i thought that all amy is trying to do is show us what WORKS. hey - i may not like the chemicals in a perm - but if i want the curls i use 'em. i may not like the "dance" - but if don't learn the steps i can't get out on the floor. but - that's just one old(er) lady's opinion.

I'm just wondering why guys like Nick S and towerclimber are even contributing to a blog like this one. It seems that they'd find a better fit if they participated in a pro-marriage, pro-propagation blog where phrases like "leaving a legacy" and "saving the human race" (by cranking out more humans? Ever heard of over-population depleting all the resources on which said population needs for continued survival?) are swallowed whole without thinking about what they really mean.

A blog is fundamentally defined by the host/ess' beliefs which provide a starting point from which discussion is launched. Here, on Amy's blog, the basic bottom line is NOT that paper-sanctioned-insututionalized-marriage is the only way to partner, and that not every couple should or wants to pop out 2.3 children and live together. That's what is refreshing about Amy's perspective and it is the reason most of us read her regularly and respect her advice. If you fundamentally disagree with that stance, why come here to argue?

Nick you look like a pussy arguing with Amy. Amy this is your website so why are you arguing with Nick instead of 86'ing him?

Max, you are obviously a man of deep wisdom and insight. I am so sad that I can't compete with you on an intellectual level.

Of course, this is Amy's site and she is welcome to ban me or anyone else if she chooses. No doubt the reason she doesn't ban more people is that:

1) sites like this are attractive and successful in part because of the robust, combative nature of many of the discussions. Excessive censoring and enforced civility would kill that off
2) banning people instead of arguing with them would smack of intellectual cowardice

If you actually had a clue about anything, instead of just sitting there flapping out your back passage, you would understand this.

Of course, banning people who are excessively abusive, spammers, those attempting to hijack the site, group troll raids etc. is entirely necessary for any site to function.

I'm surprised I haven't seen more mention of on-line dating (match.com, etc.). I'm a 57 y/o law enforcement professional who is contemplating returning to the "dating" scene in about a year and a half.

I won't bore anyone with too many explicit details of the deterioration of my marriage other than to say that her expectations of what it should have been hinged largely on the fact that she didn't attain the lifestyle to which she wanted to become accustomed. I don't know if she figured I would/could make much more money over time - I NEVER overstated my means - or that it was just one of the many things she used as an excuse for her behaviors, which I will address shortly. She works as well, quite successfully, and is a professional in her own right. We had agreed early on that our resources, pooled together, would get us to where we wanted to go. As it happened, not so much, at least, not to where SHE wanted to go....

It became apparent to me that she was an alcoholic, which she effectively shielded from me during our courtship and early into the marriage. I stuck with it, mainly because of the kids. She brought her three, and we had one of our own. The last, my son, is still at home and will be a senior in high school in the fall. In a year he will graduate and then go off to college. At that point, I'm out. I've tried begging, pleading, praying, everything including an intervention to no avail. She suffers from depression which fuels her addiction, creating a vicious circle. Its not that she can't help herself. She WILL not. She tried therapy years ago but dropped it when she had to deal with some life issues I was not privy to. Rather than do the heavy lifting, it was so much easier to retreat to the bottle. I love her, but I can't spend the rest of my life with a woman who doesn't care about anything but her next drink.

ANYWAY, I can't abide the bar scene. Never could. It seemed there were just too many people desperate to hook up, and even though I won't deny some successful relationships come from that origin, it doesn't appeal to me if only due to the fact of the alcohol. Women my age, or close to it, are even past the "cougar" stage and don't hang in bars regardless.

I volunteer occasionally. I could change churches. My job isn't conducive to meeting singles as a rule - the circumstances preclude flirting (for what its worth, I've been told I'm good at it, for a guy, and I enjoy it) to a greater degree. Its my understanding that if one is truthful about oneself, and the "match" is as well, the process of weeding out the poorer matches with a dating service is accelerated, increasing the chances of finding a compatible person with less of the associated crap. I don't mind the "dance," but I wouldn't mind cutting out some of the inevitable poor matches along the way. Am I asking too much? Am I totally way off topic? BTW, no one has ever said I need to grow a pair.

Amy,

Unlike you I am not primarily in the business of writing for entertainment value, I am primarily in the business of writing for intellectual value. As a result I have little desire to get books published, I’d much rather publish papers.

The differences between publishing a book and publishing a paper are numerous but can be distilled down to the following: books are published primarily for their entertainment value which in principle should translate directly into profit for the publishing company, whereas papers are published primarily for the quality of the research and the intellectual merit of the subject matter.

Put more simply, successful books need to be entertaining but do not have to be accurate whereas successful papers need to be accurate but do not have to be entertaining.

This is why I strive for accuracy in what I have to say over its entertainment value. I stand by everything I said previously as it is fully supported by sound reasoning and the evidence we have available to us within the scientific literature.

If you still feel that my interpretation of what is going on within the dating environment is faulty and that you have the correct understanding then it would stand to reason that your interpretation will fit the available data and mine will not.

That being said I am curious what you would predict in the following two situations given your present understanding of the science of attraction:

Amongst people seeking a romantic partner

Will a woman find a man more desirable if she approaches him or if she is approached by him?
Will a man find a woman more desirable if he approaches her or if he is approached by her?

I await your response with interest.

Amy,

None of the issues I brought to the table have been addressed and you know it. I think you are just using diversionary tactics at this point, you basically just keep saying you have addressed issues that neither you nor anyone else here has actually addressed.

If you can point me to where anyone in this entire conversation has mentioned and rebutted the points I brought up regarding risk aversion differences between the genders and the resulting market forces within the dating scene I will gladly stand corrected. However a search of the thread for the word "risk" seems to bear out my claim that no one has even attempted to rebut this argument.

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on the following two situations:

Amongst people seeking a romantic partner

Will a woman find a man more desirable if she approaches him or if she is approached by him?
Will a man find a woman more desirable if he approaches her or if he is approached by her?

At this point I don't really expect that you will answer this though as you seem resistant to taking the risk of being wrong on your own web site. I guess it's just easier to spend an entire weekend having petty arguments with people about your personal life.

Unlike you I am not primarily in the business of writing for entertainment value, I am primarily in the business of writing for intellectual value.

This is why I strive for accuracy in what I have to say over its entertainment value.

In light of this new information, I have to tell you, Amy, that I've been terribly misled in my time on this site. All that research you've reported and linked to in your columns and blog items has turned out to be for entertainment purposes only. You never told me I couldn't get intellectual stimulation with the entertainment you provide. The sense of betrayal I feel at this is astounding.

Kara, in response to your doubly-stated questions, I have to say I find it hard to believe that you can't find an answer anywhere on this site. Because I know for a fact it's been covered many times. Amy and others have stated many times that men like to be the pursuers and tend to devalue women who make it too easy for them. And while many women claim to like it when they themselves are the pursuers, they also tend to devalue the men they pursue who couldn't work up the nerve to ask. In point of fact, I mentioned that myself in this very thread.

Your condescension is truly amusing in light of the fact that the questions you're asking are what the entire column at the top of the page is about.

Amy,

Something tells me that the reason you keep avoiding answering my questions is either because you are afraid of taking a definite stance and being proven wrong, or that you are aware that the most up to date research on the subject of dating shows definitively that your perspective is incorrect.

Anyway, enough of trying to discuss this with you as it is painfully obvious that you want to avoid the facts at all costs and instead dodge and deflect. I will simply make the information available to everyone so they can read it for themselves and form their own opinion:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/10/1290.full

Oh... and NumberSix, when you say the following:

"Your condescension is truly amusing in light of the fact that the questions you're asking are what the entire column at the top of the page is about."

The entire point of asking these questions was to have Amy take a firm stance that could not be denied or modified later; I already know what her position is. These are the questions addressed by this paper and the data shows with a high degree of confidence that the perspective that Amy supports is flat out wrong.

This data presents a serious problem for her interpretation, but it presents no problem for mine based upon risk aversion and market forces. In science when we have two competing theories and one of them explains more data than the other, we must invariably toss the less successful theory out.

Kara, how much more of a definite stance could there be?

The entire point of asking these questions was to have Amy take a firm stance that could not be denied or modified later;

Amy's stance has been all over this site and this thread. There is a record of every instance.

You must sign in to read the article at the link you provided, but I found the abstract for the article on another site. Here's a quote: The mere act of physically approaching a potential romantic partner (vs. being approached), a behavior that is more characteristic of men than of women, increases one's attraction to that partner.

That makes sense in terms of pure initial attraction. Who doesn't want to feel validated like that? But in the mid- to long-term (i.e., anything longer than an initial meeting or a speed-dating event), what Amy and I and others have been saying tends to be true. Men (especially men nowadays who have been beaten into submission by the uberfeminists) will say they like being approached by women. They may have sex with those women. They may even date those women. But, like I said before, they tend to devalue women who make themselves too easy to get. And approaching is at the far end of the scale of easy. Conversely, the women who do the approaching say they like to be the initiators. But they, too, will tend to devalue the men who didn't have the nerve to approach them. That doesn't mean that they'll scoff and send the men on their way immediately. That devaluation usually doesn't come right after the initial approach. Is this where you were confused on Amy's stance? The devaluation tends to take place over an amount of time, provided they actually date as opposed to just sex. Because the type of initiating tends to be indicative of how the partners will act in an actual relationship. Men who can't be bothered to ask a woman out will likely be one of those "nice guys" we don't like around here. And women who do the asking will likely be one of those women who must assert control over the relationship (and just as likely come to resent that fact).

I haven't read the full article, but I can't think that this one alone will throw out the evolutionary psychology that we've been talking about on this site. Initial approaches aren't relationships. And speed-dating events can't mimic the relationship that develops between a man too afraid to ask a woman out and a woman who's too desperate to flirt her ass off to get the man to approach her. Never mind the fact that people who are at speed-dating events tend to be people who either haven't had much luck in more organic social situations, or are taking a more pragmatic approach to dating anyway. Like I said, I could only find the abstract, but there is such a thing as selection bias. If you're so inclined, please explain how this isn't the case in this situation.

There are tons and tons of papers in the psychology world. Many of them take opposing sides on theories, each claiming that their data states that their views are correct. Doesn't make it so.

In short, I don't see where the two theories are mutually exclusive.

NumberSix,

First I want to thank you for responding to me in a thoughtful and friendly way. That makes it much easier to discuss the issues I have been trying to bring to light which was all I was really trying to originally do. I'm really not looking to fight or argue with anyone, but I do like to discuss things.

Second, you bring up an interesting point here that I think warrants a more complete response:

"Amy's stance has been all over this site and this thread. There is a record of every instance."

While I said that the goal was to have Amy take a "firm stance", that really isn't the whole story. I was fairly certain that I knew what Amy's position on this issue was, but at the same time she had just gotten done arguing with Nick about how he kept telling her what she thought and that she didn't appreciate it. Here is a quote:

"Once again, I love finding out what I REALLY think from your comments."

So while I was fairly certain I knew what Amy thought on this issue, I wasn't overly enthusiastic about telling her what she thought only to end up opening a can of worms. Needless to say, this is why I got somewhat irritated when actually asking her what she thought was met with a snarky response.

It kind of felt like to me at that point like I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't.

As for the article, I am glad that you at least read the abstract, it wouldn't really be reasonable for me to expect everyone to spend $20 or $30 to read every study out there on this subject. I am fortunate in that I receive free access to these publications which is why it frustrates me sometimes when people will claim that the research supports something they are saying when I know that the story is a bit more complicated and that sometimes different valid interpretations exist.

What I would like to point out here is that I don't generally have a problem with people saying that two theories are not mutually exclusive (so long as they aren't). I also don't have a problem with people leaving room open for multiple valid interpretations of the data that is available to us.

What I do have a problem with is presenting an alternative perspective that is fully consistent with the published data and being told this:

"There's much that's wrong above, but I have no desire to respond."

Only to present a scholarly article which is more in line with my interpretation and then get a back peddling response like:

"There are tons and tons of papers in the psychology world. Many of them take opposing sides on theories, each claiming that their data states that their views are correct. Doesn't make it so."

Where was all this talk about opposing sides on theories and different data and different valid interpretations of that data the other day when I was flat out told that my comments were "wrong" and that I could locate the "corrections" on this website?

I mean, doesn't it seem a little convenient that when I stated my position I was told that I was absolutely wrong, so wrong in fact that my comments didn't even warrant discussion. It was as if I had showed up declaring the Earth was flat and Amy just didn't have time to deal with such lunacy.

Yet when I back up my position with scientific literature and show the prevailing position here to be less than fully successful at explaining this set of data, all of a sudden this issue has become more nuanced and the subject of some controversy within the literature with a multitude of valid interpretations.

As for selection bias, what sort of selection bias are you looking for here? Are you worried about the possibility that the collection of individuals who engage in speed dating events are not representative of the general population? Are you concerned that the sample only represents certain age groups?

If so I can look for these particular issues and it might be something to keep in mind. If you are looking for other issues thought it would be helpful to know what you are trying to find.

As we both know all studies have their strengths and weaknesses, so I have no problem exploring what these may be. At the same time I feel compelled to stress that many of the evolutionary psychology papers that address these issues suffer from problems as well. In particular they suffer from problems of self reporting. In other words, people are asked to rank things they are attracted to but it is well known that what people think they are attracted to and the kinds of mates they prefer are not always one and the same.

Ultimately we want to know the kinds of relationships people choose, not the kinds of relationships people think they would choose.

I only point this out because finding potential weaknesses within speed dating studies does not eliminate the inherent weaknesses of self reporting studies. As a result neither can act as the "gold standard", they must all be taken together to form a more complete picture of what is really going on.

Kara, your motivation here is clearly to hear yourself speak. Those aren't my words you're quoting above (not all of them are, in the parts of your vast waves of verbiage above that I skimmed). My work is based in research (and numerous studies) not mere speculation, and I sure know the difference of good studies from bad, and why you look at more than one study on an issue, but I'm not going to engage in the boring homework assignment of reading the vast comments you write.

Again, if you want to write a book, this isn't the place.

And again, reading instead of typing will garner you the answers you seek. In this column and others I've written.

Kara, I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. You say you want Amy to take a "firm stance." She's done that. All over this site and on this very thread and in the column at the top of this page. She said to Nick that he was telling her what she thought because he was incorrect. He was telling me the same thing, which is why I said I was stopping my side of the argument unless he could start addressing the things I'd actually said, as opposed to the things the imaginary NumberSix was saying.

Amy is not required to restate her position every time someone asks. Her position is, like I said, all over this website, so what are you trying to accomplish here? It is my feeling that you're trying to make yourself look like the mature, hard-done-by poster by claiming you have a simple, unanswered question for Amy. Well, your question has been answered multiple times, yet you keep restating it. The only answer you need is that you need to actually read the column above and its subsequent comments. No one owes you an answer that has been restated time and time again just because you ask for it.

I mean, doesn't it seem a little convenient that when I stated my position I was told that I was absolutely wrong, so wrong in fact that my comments didn't even warrant discussion...Yet when I back up my position with scientific literature and show the prevailing position here to be less than fully successful at explaining this set of data, all of a sudden this issue has become more nuanced and the subject of some controversy within the literature with a multitude of valid interpretations.

Kara, you're combining Amy's original responses to you with my most recent ones and claiming they're making up some sort of conspiracy against you. I have to tell you, I didn't feel I needed to respond to your original post beyond what Amy said, for the same reason I gave Nick the other day. Why waste time arguing against every single point someone makes? I didn't respond to you this time because I was cowed by your data; I responded because you were getting annoying. This discussion hasn't "all of a sudden" become anything. I addressed the article you kept harping on because I thought if someone did you might stop harping. I was wrong.

I'm going to second what Amy said above and ask you to read whatever you can find on this site before you ask your questions yet again. They've been answered and the answers aren't at all hard to find. Go to the columns page, scroll all the way down, and start reading. At the very least, read the column on which you are posting your comments.

And before you start claiming that you're being done wrong in the comments section, I'll point out that I haven't ever seen Amy tell someone to simply read the column when the question is asked in a sincere way. She will explain and clarify in the comments if someone isn't getting it; it's only when someone starts doing what you and Nick have been doing that she gets testy, so you might want to think about that.

Huh ... guess I walked in late and missed all the drama.

First, towerclimber advises men not to get married, because marriage is bad for men. Those evil wimmins will take half of your stuff and piss it away with another guy! They're all scheming to embarrass you in front of God and everybody and they'll wreck your world!

And then Amy's like, Oh, well, I'm not trying to get married. My boyfriend and I have been together for seven years, are perfectly happy with everything just the way it is, and see no reason to change it.

So we get treated to:

he's your BOYFRIEND?? for SEVEN YEARS??
how long are you going to date the guy? till you're 80?
If YOU are such a great catch (and the way you have described your relationship, The guy would have already asked to marry you...I call bullshit! something's not adding up!) then why hasn't he asked you to marry him?

Maybe her boyfriend has been taking YOUR advice, corncob! He thinks she's going to wreck his world!

And then the eyeroll-inducing towerclimber goes on for paragraphs about how horrible Amy is for not wanting to get married. No legacy for the future! No saving the human race! Nothing to show for the relationship after it ends!

You may as well stick your finger in a glass of water and then marvel at the hole you leave behind when you pull it back out.

As though it's so self-evident that her glass of water should be a slushie instead.

It makes me think of a little brat who walks up to another kid and says, 'I'm not giving you any of my chocolate ice cream!' And the second kid shows that he has strawberry ice cream and says, 'Oh, I don't want your chocolate ice cream, I already have the kind I like best.' And this totally PISSES OFF the kid with the chocolate ice cream.

Nothing to show for the relationship after it ends!

I think that was my favorite part, too, Pirate Jo. As if we must have the resulting legal paperwork for the erstwhile relationship to have been worth anything. To prove to other people that we had something of value, mind you. Maybe towerclimber and people of his ilk could come up with some sort of evaluation program in which we get a series of badges for each stage of the relationship achieved. "No, I had a happy relationship! See, we got to the 'not quite living together but keeping stuff at the other's house' badge. It's green!"

Someone smart on here a while back (can't remember who, or even the thread, though I think it was something about having kids or not) said that some people need others to follow their paths so their choices are validated externally. That someone either needs to say that what they're doing is great, or someone needs to be secretly jealous for their choice to have value. I like your ice cream analogy.

Throughout most (emphasis "most") of the animal kingdom, males are seeders and females are breeders. By exercising selectivity, females greatly benefit the gene pool. if males were permitted to copulate at will, the ecosystem would collapse under the burden of unsustainable numbers.

Stay aloof and be particular, noble females!

Kara, please! Less writing and more reading. Pay special attention to Amy, of course, and to Number Six.

Number Six, I love reading your comments.

As if we must have the resulting legal paperwork for the erstwhile relationship to have been worth anything. To prove to other people that we had something of value, mind you.

Right, and the "other people" in this instance would be ... lawyers. The wedding industry gets you coming, and the lawyers get you going. But at least you have something to show for it! Or at least the wedding and divorce industries do. YOU, on the other hand, could have had, like, a boat or something, for what all that nonsense cost.

What struck me as odd was that this same person was advising against marriage from the very beginning. Weird. You'd think it would be refreshing for a guy like that to encounter a woman who didn't give a fig about getting married. He's probably just pissed because Amy's not dating HIM! Then he goes on to say that he's married. What EVAH.

Aww, you guys! I'm feeling quite loved right now. Pirate Jo, I wish you'd been here to parse the idiocy from the beginning. I'd forgotten about some of those gems until you brought it back up.

"She said to Nick that he was telling her what she thought because he was incorrect. He was telling me the same thing, which is why I said I was stopping my side of the argument unless he could start addressing the things I'd actually said, as opposed to the things the imaginary NumberSix was saying."

NumberSix, please point out where I misrepresented you or attributed views to you that you don't hold? What we were arguing over was this claim that women fall for jerks and end up in bad relationships primarily due to low self-esteem. Unless I'm mistaken, and you never said anything like that, and I merely had a dream that NumberSix wrote that, then no-one has been misrepresented.

I assume what you are objecting to is my claim that your views smack of a slightly Oprahfied, pop psychology interpretation of things. If you don't like that, fine. But you can't say I have misrepresented you. There is a big difference between defining an opponent's approach in a way they don't like, and blatantly misrepresenting their views (i.e. the latter is a basic issues of facts, the former is inherently more subjective). Indeed, genuine debate would be impossible if one could never define an opponent in certain pejorative ways that they would prefer one didn't. And it really doesn't take much awareness and intellectual honesty to appreciate this distinction.

Although having said that, your kind of doe-eyed innocence, faux condescension, take-the-high-road, reasonable-to-a-fault posture is sort of cute and endearing in a way. If you are good-looking and charming enough, I bet you can pull this off well in everyday life to get what you want.

As I say, you are hardly the worst offender when it comes to this kind of sophistry. You are just a teensy, weensy bit naughty, that's all.

NumberSix, please point out where I misrepresented you or attributed views to you that you don't hold?

Sure!

Amy, the whole point of this thread is that you and NumberSix want everyone to believe that you are only advising men of what is best for them when you tell them to ask women out etc.

It is obvious that the only reason women give such advice is that they want men to continue doing the old routine of romancing women, buying them flowers, taking them out etc

What I object to is the assumption that us men are too stupid to see what the real agenda is, and to expect us to believe that you are really only looking out for us.

And my personal favorite, where you started backing off yet still insisting I don't know what I'm talking about:

But you occasionally lapse into those kinds of arguments.

And that's just what you've said about me. That's not even what you've said about the real content of my posts.

But it continues in your most recent post:

Although having said that, your kind of doe-eyed innocence, faux condescension, take-the-high-road, reasonable-to-a-fault posture is sort of cute and endearing in a way.

Who the hell is this woman you're talking about? Can any of the other posters on here describe me as doe-eyed and innocent? Really, guys, I'm asking. Can any of you second that emotion?

And how is it a fault to be reasonable? I'm not playing at it, I really am reasonable, and your saying it such a way doesn't make it a fault. I didn't post the last answer to you in order to take the high road. I have absolutely no problem arguing with anyone, provided the person I'm arguing with has an accurate representation of my stance, which you don't. I've clarified and clarified, but it didn't seem to make a difference. It would be useless to keep arguing the psychology with you since you either can't see or refuse to see what I'm actually saying. If you start, then I'd be happy to continue the discussion.

"With every post where a man has explained why he is reluctant to ask women out, YOU girls find fault with him."
As well they should. If a man does not pursue women, he will not GET women. Duh. He can have all the reasons in the world not to do it.
But the result is the same, he will not GET women he does not ask out.
------------
Kara, the questions you've asked have already been answered in NUMEROUS columns. Just go back through and read a few of them.
Why should webster retype the dictionary when you can read what is already there???
-----------

Oh goodness, where to begin with all of this nonsense.

First of all Amy, my motivation here is hardly to hear myself speak, it is to interject some intellectual scrutiny into what I can now only describe as a dogmatic belief system with only tenuous ties to real science. While you may be accurate in describing your work as being “based in research (and numerous studies)”, the best way to really describe it is by saying that your work is based on science in much the same way that a made for TV movie is based on real life events.

The writers of made for tv movies take events that have actually happened and dramatize them to the point that they can’t really be considered to reflect reality anymore. They edit out events that do not fit the story they want to tell and alter other events to make for a more compelling and entertaining show. You do the exact same thing with research, you edit out the studies that do not agree with your perspective and insert conclusions where there is no clear conclusions have been drawn by the scientific community. Then you say that you “sure know the difference of good studies from bad”, but the best I can tell is that “good” studies are the ones that fit within the framework of your preconceived notions of male/female relations, and “bad” studies are the ones that contradict that preexisting framework.

Ultimately this can’t be called basing your work on research, it is called cherry picking the research which tells you what you want to hear and ignoring the rest. Interestingly enough you are not alone in doing this sort of thing, young earth creationists also do this.

As for your other points, I never claimed or implied that everything I wrote was a response to you, so you shouldn’t be confused when I quote you for one portion and numbersix for another portion. I also cannot help but find it absolutely hilarious that you would suggest that the problem in our communication here is that I haven’t read enough of what you have written when you outright admit that you haven’t read what I wrote.

How on earth can you assess the validity of my claims or assume that I haven’t read your work when you haven’t even looked at my points? The assumptions you have made amount to class A nonsense and nothing more.

The problem isn’t that I have failed to read your work, the problem is that I have ALSO read the scientific literature and as such I am fully aware of where your statements deviate from actual science. Your other readers who jump in to defend your opinions more than likely haven’t read a real scientific article in their life yet they assume you are telling them how it is. I simply know better.

Now a response to NumberSix, Rozita, and Robert,

I can’t help but see interesting similarities in the positions you have taken here in defending Amy’s perspective and the position a religious fundamentalist might take when defending the bible.

You assume with zero evidence that the problem here is simply that I do not understand Amy’s position, or that I haven’t read enough of what she has written. Just as a religious fundamentalist might tell someone who brings up a valid point which undermines their belief system that the problem is simply that they haven’t read the bible enough or have a flawed understanding of the bible because they aren’t a believer.

Let me attempt to put you each at ease (even though I doubt you will believe me), not only have I read Amy’s positions on the relevant issues, but I also understand them. In fact it is because I have read her work that I say that the scientific literature is not always in accord with what she tells people.

Sometimes the scientific literature agrees with what Amy has to say while other times it does not. I can read Amy’s columns until I am blue in the face and it will not change the simple fact that some of what she has to say contradicts what scientists have come to know about human interactions.

While you may not want to consider it, the problem may not be that I haven’t read enough of what Amy has to say on these subjects, the problem may be that none of you have read enough of what the peer reviewed scientific literature has to say.

Can any of you honestly say that you have a good understanding of the source material? Have any of you actually read the evolutionary psychology papers that you claim to support? Have you done a comprehensive literature review on the subject which is necessary for anyone to have a real understanding of the science relating to these issues?

I strongly suspect that none of you have for the simple reason that wouldn’t at least one of you have caught sight of the broken link on Amy’s website? All of you who claim to be ardent supporters of the claims made by evolutionary psychologists have apparently not even bothered to click on the link to David Buss’ website that has been here for over 4 years. This link has been broken since the day it was added to this site and no one in all of that time has so much as notified Amy that the link to one of her favorite scientists doesn’t function properly. Given that reality it really doesn’t add much weight to your position that I am the one who needs to do more reading.

Perhaps even more disturbing is that when I offer legitimate scientific criticism of Amy’s points, people like Rozita tell me that I need to read more and to pay special attention to what Amy has to say and people like Robert assert that disagreeing with Amy on scientific matters is akin to disagreeing with the dictionary on the definition of words. Here is a news flash, Amy is not and never has been a scientific expert. If someone needs to learn more about the science they need to read more of what scientists have to say. Scientists are the relevant authority on science just as the dictionary is the relevant authority on word definitions.

I can only surmise that the issue here is that when Amy reports back to her readers on scientific issues they simply assume that she has reported the science to them completely and accurately. As a result you see no distinction between what Amy has to say on scientific topics and what an actual expert would have to say. This is a flawed belief system on many levels, but the principle flaw is that on occasion she will ignore science in favor of her own personal beliefs.

Now before you go getting up in arms over this assertion, I can prove it. Please watch the following youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM41MvgkxaM

You will note that beginning at time 8:05 Amy makes the assertion that men and women can just enter into sexual relationships with no expectations beyond sex. Soon after Dr. Drew (someone with credentials that would classify him as an actual expert) begins to explain to her that it isn’t quite that simple because men and women respond differently to a hormone known as oxytocin which results in women forming more emotional bonds during sex than men.

One would think that Amy would happily defer to an individual who is a medical professional and an assistant clinical Professor of Psychiatry on this issue, but no. Instead she proceeded to “correct” him by telling him she believed that “we can overcome our biology” and as a result the difference in our biological responses that Dr. Drew was talking about were essentially irrelevant.

Now to anyone who reads this site this should be very surprising as Amy is a big proponent of saying that men and women are “hardwired” to behave in certain ways. Apparently this only seems to hold when she likes what they are “hardwired” to do, but she also believes that “we can overcome our biology” when she doesn’t like what science tells us men and women are “hardwired” to do.

Said more simply, Amy picks and chooses the science she reports to her readers based upon what she already believes to be true. She continues to advocate this position that women can just have no strings attached sex in a similar vein to men even though she is fully aware that the science doesn’t agree with her position. She simply has no problem discarding the information being given to her by an expert based upon a huge body of scientific evidence when the conclusions don’t fit with what she wants to believe.

Like I said before, the problem isn’t that I haven’t read enough of that Amy has to say, the problem is more likely to be that none of you have read what the scientific community has to say on these issues and instead rely upon this site as your “bible” for all matters scientific. That is a poor choice on your part when you can instead choose to educate yourself using the primary source material.

Amy,

I could list literally dozens and dozens of studies which conflict with your stated opinions.

I am limited to one link per post so that that that I have only offered one link to one paper thus far is a shady criticism on your part.

Or am I to post here over 100 times in order to link all the studies which contradict what you tell people?

As a matter of fact, some of Dr. Buss' papers assert things in direct contention with your positions.

Shall I post one of those?

Your other readers who jump in to defend your opinions more than likely haven’t read a real scientific article in their life yet they assume you are telling them how it is. I simply know better.

I'm assuming at least part of that's directed at me, so I'll feel free to respond. And that response is: Kara, are you freaking serious?

How can you think that anyone here just takes everything Amy says as gospel? We're smarter than that. If anything, the problem lies in the other direction: some have taken it upon themselves to avowedly disagree with pretty much anything Amy or most everyone else here says.

We're not sheep, we're not sycophants, and we're not stupid.

You're working under the assumption that you are the only one that reads science. That's just plain wrong, and any small amount of reading comments on this site would tell you that.

They edit out events that do not fit the story they want to tell and alter other events to make for a more compelling and entertaining show.

This is amusing in light of the fact that you claim Amy's wrong on male/female relations because of the one study you cite. I, personally, didn't find the results of that study all that revolutionary.

conclusions where there is no clear conclusions have been drawn by the scientific community.

Maybe you should try clicking on the words highlighted in pink on some of these columns and blog items. Or just looking up the studies and names in the columns (because there are always attributions in the columns).

Kara, I have to tell you that you remind me of that new freshman in a psychology class. You know, the one that thinks she knows better than everyone else and must demonstrate. The one that feels sorry for the rest of the poor, brainwashed students who have the temerity to agree with other scientific findings. The one who feels she is intellectually superior but won't accept the validity of any argument that isn't hers. Because if you'll look around on this site, you'll see that most of us can agree with people on some things and disagree on others. I even agree with some of what NickS was saying earlier, and we've certainly had a battle of words on this thread.

Look, I applaud you for reading scientific studies. Good for you. Take a moment to bask. Now get over yourself.

NumberSix,

No offense, but when legitimate critcism is offered to a point and the response from some readers is essentially "if you only read more of what she has said you would understand" then yes, those readers are sheep

If you fall into that category then you are a sheep, if you do not fall into that category then you aren't a sheep. It is that simple.

You really seem to be more comfortable making conversations personal rather than discussing the relevant facts and issues.

As for being "intellectually superior" I haven't made any such declaration. You are infering that because I am bringing facts to the table that you can't really argue against.

I will absolutely accept valid arguments and counterpoints, the problem is that neither you, nor Amy, nor Rozita, nor Robert made any.

All you keep talking about is me as a person, none of you are addressing the issues or the facts I have brought up.

I mean, it isn't really a counterpoint to say "you wrote too much" or "you need to read more of what Amy says".

Then instead of addressing the paper I brought up, both you and Amy simply dismiss it because I only cited one.

Exactly how many do I have to cite before you have to address the content of those papers?

I can’t help but see interesting similarities in the positions you have taken here in defending Amy’s perspective and the position a religious fundamentalist might take when defending the bible.

Not to come off as a religious fundamentalist, but, sweet Jesus! Why do you keep insisting that we defend Amy's position because we don't know better? Do you think you are the only intellectually enlightened one in a sea of sycophants?

You assume with zero evidence that the problem here is simply that I do not understand Amy’s position, or that I haven’t read enough of what she has written.

I can't speak for the others, but that certainly isn't true in my case. I didn't assume you hadn't read Amy's stuff because it undermines my position on her writings; I assumed you hadn't read (or read and refused to acknowledge) because you repeatedly asked questions that had been asked and answered already. Several people told you, yet you kept asking. In fact, you told me that you kept asking because you wanted Amy to state a position that couldn't be modified later.

it will not change the simple fact that some of what she has to say contradicts what scientists have come to know about human interactions.

That's science, babe. It evolves with new information. Amy tends to post on her blog when new studies have findings that either contradict or amend what was previously known. It's about progress toward understanding.

If someone needs to learn more about the science they need to read more of what scientists have to say

What do you think we do here, Kara? You really think that all of us say to ourselves, "Oh, great! Amy's posted on psychology! Now we know what to think!" Like I said above, we're smart people on the whole. We know how to think for ourselves. Your saying we don't just because we agree with Amy on things is beyond arrogant.

She continues to advocate this position that women can just have no strings attached sex in a similar vein to men even though she is fully aware that the science doesn’t agree with her position.

Well, gee whiz, I guess I'd been interpreting that wrong all along. I thought it meant that women can, not that they always will. It is decidedly more complicated for women because of the oxytocin (which Amy has addressed on here before as the "cuddle chemical"), but they can have no-strings-attached sex. It's all about recognizing your biology and your motives, then making decisions based on how they relate to what you want to get out of a situation. That's really what most of Amy's columns are about, in my opinion. I'm a big believer in recognizing one's motives.

What are your motives, Kara?

NumberSix,

"That's science, babe. It evolves with new information. Amy tends to post on her blog when new studies have findings that either contradict or amend what was previously known. It's about progress toward understanding."

Why are you acting like you are telling me something I don't already know?

Aren't you forgetting that I am the one who is bringing new scientific discoveries to the table for discussion and instead of meeting with "oh... that is interesting" I am getting huge resistance because the studies show something that conflicts with the prevailing opinion on this blog. Maybe it is time for the people here to start amending their understanding instead of shooting the messenger.

I'm going to cut to the chase as taking this conversation to a personal level seems like a huge waste of my time.

How many papers do I need to cite that conflict with some of the contentions Amy makes before someone here has to materially address those studies instead of simply brushing them off without so much as reading them in full?

both you and Amy simply dismiss it because I only cited one.

I didn't dismiss your study. I listed my criticisms of the study, Kara. And not really even the criticisms about the study, but criticisms about how you think the study contradict's Amy's position. I offered my critique of the facts. One of the facts being that you thought the one study would cause everyone to cower and change their opinions.

No offense, but when legitimate critcism is offered to a point and the response from some readers is essentially "if you only read more of what she has said you would understand" then yes, those readers are sheep

Not so. I came to that conclusion all by my lonesome. And so did the others, I'm guessing. No one here chimes in like a yes-man when Amy posts something. Like I said earlier, we're smart and we know how to think. Agreeing with Amy doesn't mean that isn't true, no matter how much you want it to be. It is possible for people on this site to arrive at the same conclusion without having our hands held.

You are infering that because I am bringing facts to the table that you can't really argue against.

The facts you brought to the table were about initial meetings in a speed-dating situation and how approach decided attraction. I posted my critique of that when you posted the study, which I then looked up all by myself, because that's how I like to do things. So why do you keep insisting that I didn't? The other "facts" you've brought have been to say that we're wrong because we don't agree with you. You just used a lot more words than that.

As for being "intellectually superior" I haven't made any such declaration.

Except for when you said that those of us who have been disagreeing with you likely haven't read a scientific paper in our lives and that you know better than us not to accept everything we're told by our apparent Christ-like figure.

Aren't you forgetting that I am the one who is bringing new scientific discoveries to the table for discussion and instead of meeting with "oh... that is interesting" I am getting huge resistance because the studies show something that conflicts with the prevailing opinion on this blog.

And aren't you forgetting that I've been saying that it's not why you've been getting resistance?

Why are you acting like you are telling me something I don't already know?

Because you're acting like it's something you don't already know.

I am limited to one link per post so that that that I have only offered one link to one paper thus far is a shady criticism on your part.

Well, then, would you stop asking so petulantly how may studies you have to cite before we take them seriously and cite already? Because I'll read them. I went back and read all your posts and found only the one citation. You assert a lot of things in your first post, but there is no citation of any of the studies you say you've read. If you want us to talk about the studies, you have to say which ones. You don't even have to link, I'll look them up on my own if you give me names and titles.

And, yes, I did know that David Buss' link is broken over there on the side of the page. I just look up the stuff myself.

NumberSix,

I'll simply say this to save us some time. I combined my response to you, Rozita, and Robert. Some of what was written was more geared toward them than to you. I would hope that you could see why that might be, but I was trying to save myself some time by just making one response.

As for this part of what you say here:

"Except for when you said that those of us who have been disagreeing with you likely haven't read a scientific paper in our lives and that you know better than us not to accept everything we're told by our apparent Christ-like figure."

I don't really think this is a fair assessment of what I was getting at. Nowhere did I sit there and say I was smarter than anyone. What I have said is that I have probably read more of the scientific literature on this subject than you, Rozita, and Robert.

That isn't the same as being "intellectually superior".

You stated before that all you could read was the abstract of the paper I suggested. That doesn't exactly suggest that you are often willing to shell out the money to read the articles.

So why don't we cut the bs here and let me simply ask you one question directly. What evolutionary psychology articles have you read more than just the abstracts of?

Now if you want to conflate my assertion that I've probably read more of the science than you with me saying I'm smarter than you, that is really your baggage. It has nothing to do with what i've actually said.

There are tons of brilliant people who don't read scientific articles. They are very smart, but they are also unaware of new developments in the field.

Being smart doesn't suddenly make someone knowledgable about subjects they haven't read about in detail.

Come to think of it, I think it is more fair to say that someone who hasn't read much about a subject but claims to know more than someone who has is the one who is declaring themselves to be "intellectually superior".

NumberSix,

You havn't offered a good reason why my contentions have gotten resistance. From my very first post in this thread Amy unilaterally declared me to be "wrong", told me that I wrote a "book", and didn't address a single thing I said.

All the while nothing I said was factually in error.

One of my main contentions in my original post actually requires a citation from your side by the way. However your side of the debate keeps playing the tune of "we don't have to cite anything, it's already been written".

Let me spell out that contention very directly so that it can't be confused:

There exists no study which has concluded that relationships which begin by the woman asking out the man fail more often than relationships which begin by the man asking out the woman.

I can't very well cite a study which claims that another study doesn't exist.

A key feature of Amy's perspective, and the point of view shared by many here is that scientific studies have concluded that relationships work out better when men ask out women. My question to you or anyone else for that matter is what is this study because I have never seen it.

And yet you're still not citing any more studies. Like I said, I'll look them up myself if you provide me the names of the ones you're referring to.

I think it is more fair to say that someone who hasn't read much about a subject but claims to know more than someone who has is the one who is declaring themselves to be "intellectually superior".

I don't claim to know more because I don't know what you know. You won't tell me. I told you what my criticisms were of the one study you've cited. Those were based on the abstract because they had to do with my not finding it relevant to the argument we were having. No, I'm not willing to shell out the money for every article. But I've read a good many in journals and textbooks in my classes. I'm not defending every article I've ever read to you. I can't even remember every psychology article I've read. Most recently, the ones I've read have been linked to from this site. You're the one asking how many articles you have to cite and then not citing any.

And I'm not even claiming to know more about psychology than you. I don't know what you know except that you don't agree with what Amy has to say. Or what any of us have to say. My issue was with how you dismissed Amy's research and then asked repeated questions that were answered in the column on this page.

Actually, what got me to post in response to you was where you accused Amy of just writing for entertainment value while sacrificing the research. Because one can't be right and entertaining at the same time.

That isn't the same as being "intellectually superior".

Except where you say you know better and that we're blindly following Amy. I'll say it again: I'm not saying I'm smarter than you or that I have more knowledge than you. I'm saying that I'm a smart person and I am able to decipher the studies you say you've read but won't cite. And if I don't understand something, I have no problem asking for clarification. I like to discuss things, because that means I learn things. I haven't yet learned anything from you except that you disagree with those that agree with Amy. Please fix that if you want.

However your side of the debate keeps playing the tune of "we don't have to cite anything, it's already been written".

That's because you kept asking what Amy's position was on the results when men ask out women vs. when women ask out men. That's in the column we're currently posting comments on. I, for one, wasn't saying that I didn't have to cite a study I was referring to. You were asking about Amy's position and her research, which has been documented. There's even a link in the column to a book by an anthropologist on why women choose the sexual partners that they do.

I do think Amy was a wee bit harsh in her first response to you. In tone, not content. Where I had issue with what you said in that first post was that you were questioning the position and research of a person who posts a column every week plus numerous blog items, and most of them have citations and links. If you were questioning some random person on the thread, that would be different. But I have to agree with Robert (and myself, I guess) in that Amy, as the originator of all the columns and blog items, is under no obligation to cite every time someone asks, because it's been done before. Before I ever posted on this site, I went back and read every column on it. Thus, I was familiar with Amy's position and research before I started, meaning I didn't have to question it on the threads.

I think that's where your trouble started, Kara. I have no problem with disagreement. I know for a fact that Amy doesn't. She welcomes it. Look on other threads for disagreement between her and Crid. Never once does she say the things to him that she said to you.

NumberSix,

You keep demanding more studies when you haven't even read the one I cited before. This is especially interesting because all you read was the abstract and you already started theorizing on what was wrong with the publication.

You come across as having serious bias when you offer criticisms of a paper you haven't read and then dismiss its conclusions because there is only one paper.

It makes it appear like you are looking for excuses to discount papers which don't have the conclusions you want to see. If that isn’t the case I look forward to what you have to say with regard to the next study I cite.

This other study also calls into question some of the perspectives promoted here. We'll see if you actually read this one or merely find the abstract somewhere and then tell me this one doesn't count either for some unknown reason.

The study is as follows:

Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?

Journal of personality and social psychology [0022-3514] Eastwick yr:2008 vol:94 iss:2 pg:245

What this study concludes is that while men and women will predict that they want certain things in a potential mate, there is little to no correlation of these predictions to the actual choices made when presented with real life options. As a result it casts doubt on real life relevance of previous studies whose conclusions are based upon self reporting of what people want in a mate when it is essentially all on paper.

NumberSix,

If you acknowledge that Amy was "harsh" in tone based upon nothing. Then you can also acknowledge that her initial interaction set the stage for the subsequent interactions from her fans.

I didn't come here to have an argument. I came here to share perspective and information. That perspective and information was rejected instantly without any discussion. That is what I am talking about when I say there is "resistance" to people amending their scientific opinions here. I think that is a fair assessment.

As for me asking for Amy’s position on the results of when men ask out women vs. when women ask out men, I already knew what her perspective was. Not only did I know her perspective, but I knew it was wrong.

Given what has been written time and time again on this site the prediction would be that women would find men more desirable if the men approached them as opposed to being the assertive party and approaching them. What has been written here is that men like to pursue and women like to be pursued. The results of this study contradict this simple interpretation as the women in the study were more likely to say yes to dates with men when they did the approaching and reported a greater romantic desire for those men as compared with when men did the approaching.

There really is no way to wriggle out of the problem that this study creates for the perspective promoted here. One must invariably amend their position in light of the new evidence. I am still waiting for this to happen.

“Where I had issue with what you said in that first post was that you were questioning the position and research of a person who posts a column every week plus numerous blog items, and most of them have citations and links. If you were questioning some random person on the thread, that would be different.”

You say this but you take issue with comments which might construe the readers here of being sheep-like?... unbelievable
Look, I don’t question what someone promotes as science unless I know what the hell I am talking about. What I will say is this. There are things that Amy says which are well supported by science. There are also things that Amy says which not only aren’t supported by science, but they actually contradict the relevant literature. Exactly how do you or any other casual reader go about determining which parts of what she has written are which? As far as I can tell you all simply assume that it is ALL backed up by science, so when even one of her contentions is called into question suddenly the burden of proof is on the person questioning her.

“Before I ever posted on this site, I went back and read every column on it. Thus, I was familiar with Amy's position and research before I started, meaning I didn't have to question it on the threads.”

In other words, you read what Amy had to say, you read the sources Amy linked to, and then just assumed that was all there was to know on the subject?

My contention is that if you were very familiar with the scientific literature, you would read and understand Amy’s positions and then realize that they weren’t all in agreement with the science.

The trouble didn’t start because I was unfamiliar with Amy’s position. The trouble started because apparently Amy gets pissed off when someone calls her out on fudging the science a little and instead presents an alternative that is fully consistent with what is known.

I’m still waiting for the citation for the study which shows that relationships work better when men ask women out versus when women ask men out. My contention is that it doesn’t exist on this cite or anywhere else. As such telling me to look for it is a fools errand. You might as well be taking me on a snipe hunt.

I'll say this though. The absolute quickest way to shut me up and make me look like I don't know what I am talking about is to produce the study which comes to this conclusion.

Here is another study which supports the contenion I made in my original post regarding gender based difference in risk-taking. This is particularly relevant because that is what most of my argument is based upon:

Gender differences in revealed risk taking: evidence from mutual fund investors

Economics Letters
Volume 76, Issue 2, July 2002, Pages 151-158

What has been written here is that men like to pursue and women like to be pursued.

No, it's not.

It's that overt pursuit by women of men is an unsuccessful strategy, and women need to be patient and flirt to let men know they're interested.

It's that men tend to devalue women who pursue them.

Many men HATE to pursue and that's drawn out here in numerous columns. They're afraid of rejection, wimpy, etc.

See, Kara, I spotted that as I came to the entry here online instead of looking at it in my software, but you're what, age 21? What is it about you that leads you to spend hours of your time engaging an advice columnist in a book-length pissing contest I refuse to participate in in the way you're trying to bully me into?

If you're such an important scientist, what are you doing here posting lies and distortions like this one I caught in passing just above?

If you'd just said that without trying to assert your "superiority" by writing a book, I would have knocked it down immediately. But, I have better things to do now -- like write my column for this week, post Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference.

Your rudeness in posting at such length as you do -- in addition to pretending you have the science when you simply drop names and a single study here and there and distort what I say and then say "Hah!" like an immature 14-year-old -- really says everything about you.

Gender differences in revealed risk taking: evidence from mutual fund investors

Oh, how annoying. We're not talking about mutual funds. We're talking about men and women and dating.

Then there's this study you referenced ("Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?"), which is not about the topic at hand (pursuit), either: "http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/EastwickFinkel2008_JPSP.pdf"

I shouldn't be answering these. You're just a little girl who wants attention, and my time is worth something, and I've got to stop giving it to you, even in a minimal way.

I didn't read your original post, which surely was off-topic, if this is what you were referencing there, because your post was rudely long.

Notice context, Kara. This is a blog. If you want to write a book, write a proposal and try to get an agent. If you continue to lie about and distort my views and methodology or write book length posts, I'll ban you. You're making my comments section unreadable and sucking my time with ridiculous unrelated bullshit like these studies above and I'm not going to have that.

PS Are you a student of Finkel or Eastwick's, little girl?

You say this but you take issue with comments which might construe the readers here of being sheep-like?... unbelievable

Um, yes...not really sure what your argument is there. I've haven't been defending Amy because I'm a sheep, and saying that it's presumptuous to continually ask the position of someone whose position has been stated numerous times all over this site is not sheep-like. There is ample evidence of Amy's position, but that's not even why you were asking. You already told me you wanted her to say it somewhere that it couldn't be changed later, whatever that means. And that leads me to this:

In other words, you read what Amy had to say, you read the sources Amy linked to, and then just assumed that was all there was to know on the subject?

Reading comprehension alert. I was saying there that I knew Amy's position before I ever started posting (so I wouldn't have to ask, see?) and you construe that as my taking everything she says as being all there is to know on the subject? Unbelievable, indeed. Why are you putting forth such effort into trying to make me out to be an idiot follower?

I'm going to warn everyone here that I'm about to double post, and the next one may be long. I want to address the first study Kara finally provided us with, and I'd like to do it in a separate post.

Yes, I read the Eastwick study, Kara, even though you so petulantly said I wouldn't, and, if I did, I'd dismiss it like you think I did the first one. I'll say again that I didn't dismiss it or say it didn't count for "unknown reasons;" I gave reasons, you just didn't like them.

Again, I'd like to apologize for the long post, but I've included direct quotes from the study in question.

You say I'm biased because you think I dismissed the first study for "unknown reasons." I didn't dismiss, I listed my reasons, and you just didn't like them. Onto the next paper, Eastwick & Finkel. The results and conclusions:

The study's results show that, in their group of 163 college students, there were no discernible sex differences in the importance of "physically attractive" and "earning potential." Though it also said that men were more likely than women "to initiate correspondence/hanging out with matches they found physically attractive."

physically attractive was a better predictor
of romantic interest for men (compared with women) at low rather than high levels of partner-specific attachment anxiety

earning prospects was a better predictor of
romantic interest for women (compared with men) at low rather than high levels of partner-specific attachment anxiety When the men and women aren't anxious about the people they're with, they perform more to the predicted standards.

participants’ stated mate preferences might
overweight (or underweight) factors that seem like plausible (or implausible) reasons for liking one particular romantic partner more than another. People are more likely to say they don't like someone because it seems better to have a tangible reason that fits with the preferences they've already stated

In the present study, we found suggestive
evidence that traditional sex differences in relationship initiation emerged for participants reporting low (compared with high) levels of one indicator of such affect: partnerspecific
attachment anxiety. A man who's not anxious will initiate; a woman who's not anxious will not initiate.

It does suggest that men may be more eager than women to obtain the contact information of a physically attractive other, but as illustrated by our range of dependent variables, exchanging contact information is merely one step on the road to relationship initiation i.e., flirting, ladies, to get the guy to want to approach you.

I found this study interesting, and was actually a bit surprised that it hasn't been done before (with actual dates as opposed to solely stated preferences in mates). But I don't think there's conclusive evidence that renders earlier research void. And neither do those performing the study:

It would be a tremendous stretch from the current data to suggest that physical attractiveness or earning prospects are never associated with sex-differentiated romantic interest in actual dating partners. [F]irm conclusions await replication across diverse samples. They address the biggest problem I had with this study: it involved only freshmen, sophomores, and juniors at Northwestern University. The average age of a participant was 19.6. I'm not at all surprised that "earning prospects" wasn't as big a deal for these women as I think it would be for a 35-year-old accountant.

It may be that the characteristics that are considered necessities (as opposed to luxuries) in a mate are especially sex differentiated. It said that it was possible that all of the men in the study were above the acceptable threshold for earnings because they all attend a medium-sized, reputable university. Thus, the present
data show that men and women do not differ in their earning prospects preference once this threshold is met but cannot establish whether there are sex differences in the threshold itself

The final conclusion:

Although the present report casts some doubt on the notion that mate preferences serve the function of mate selection, this extant research on ideals suggests that mate preferences may instead serve the function of mate retention Like I said earlier, the issue may not be with initial approach. A woman in a bar may be fine with asking out the man she wants. But that doesn't mean that his lack of initiative in asking her out won't translate to other aspects of his life and that she won't come to resent him for it. Vice versa for the women (controlling or too-aggressive behavior). Like you and the study say, what people say they want may differ greatly from what they actually want. So a man may say he wants a woman to initiate, but that doesn't mean it's actually true.

Oh Dear Lord!

Just for kicks I came back here to see how this ended up. Kara, back on June 12, I commented:

I don't know of any blog or column, anywhere, that needs a 25+ paragraph comment. My eyes glazed over after about 5 paragraphs. Kara, it's called economy of words.

I skimmed the above and saw that you were still at it with these needlessly long comments. I had to look a third time before I realized that you had even addressed me before I dismissed this column for good.

Even if you are making a good point, it is lost because you insist on dragging out whatever it is that you're trying to say. Who has time for this? Why say in 25 words what you can say in 10? In other words, CUT TO THE CHASE!

Take this paragraph for example. You wrote:

"The problem isn’t that I have failed to read your work, the problem is that I have ALSO read the scientific literature and as such I am fully aware of where your statements deviate from actual science. Your other readers who jump in to defend your opinions more than likely haven’t read a real scientific article in their life yet they assume you are telling them how it is. I simply know better."

Here it is in Cut-To-The-Chase Speak™!

"It isn't that I haven't read your work. It's that I have ALSO read the scientific literature, so I know where your statements deviate from science. Your defenders probably have never read a real scientific article; they trust that you're correct. But I know better."

This saves time and might garner you a few more readers--hey, maybe even a supporter or two.

Kara, give this up. Get some sun and fresh air, and then start your own column and blog with your full name and credentials.

Amy said: "Find a guy you basically accept and basically let him be unless he's driving on the wrong side of the road and you're about to die."

I learned that from:

1. My mom

2. Observing my friend's failed marriages.

I have never tried to "change" my husband and he's never tried to "change" me.

I married him because of who he is, not who I want him to be.

this is a good column. it is important for women to be strong, confident, and dictate their own lives-not waiting around for someone to shine the light on them. But when it comes to the asking out business, men have had it way too easy lately. What happened to the classic mr. nice guy? Gone it seems. They don't really think sitting around for a woman to come by is gonna get them anything but what they want just for the night.
-timbap_ajs

I know I am late top this discussion. I loved Pedictably Irrational and am now looking forward to the new book. People really should listen to Amy!

I lived in the USA with my family, i have been married for fifteen years and just four years ago my husband started having an affair with a lady he met hear in Chicago and this led our divorce on the 1st of March 2013. Ever since he broke up with me because of this woman i have not been my self for each time i remember how we both started and lived together before he left me, each time i cried because no man has ever made me happy the way he did and as time goes on i realized i could no longer hold my self, i needed my man back and fast at all cost, i don't want to loose him to the other woman and i just had to try other perfect means and soon i was able to get some information on a site with the help of a lady who shared a glorious testimony about the good work of A man named Priest Ajigar and according to her she said Priest Ajigar brought her husband back after two years he left her and there was so many persons on the site who also said good things About Priest Ajigar Spell, right now i was so happy i have found the Great Priest Ajigar i knew he was my hope of getting my husband back, so i was able to contact him through Ajigar's email(priestajigarspells@live.com) drooped by the lady and i Priest Ajigar he told me to give him five days and exactly five days after my husband called me on the cell phone and said he would like to see me and our Son, i was surprised because before then he never cared or even Pick my calls i was happy now because i knew it has started working and just there after some days he left the other lady and we are together once again as one family. So i advice if you are looking for a possible way to get your husband back, get your love back or ex boyfriend back just contact Priest Ajigar (priestajigarspells@live.com) he is good at this and he is the solution to your problems.