"As I explain with some frequency, men evolved to pursue women and tend to devalue women who chase them."

Yes... you do say this with some frequency, but you have never offered a detailed or convincing explanation of the evolutionary mechanism that would lead to such a tendency.

Let's try a little thought experiment here to spell out once and for all why your reasoning here is seriously flawed.

Let's imagine ourselves back at the dawn of human history.

Let's imagine that we have 2 different men in this thought experiment. Man #1 who tends to devalue and reject the advances of women, and Man #2 who values and accepts the advances of women.

Man #1 pursues as many women as he can and rejects all women who pursue him.

Man #2 pursues as many women as he can and accepts the advances of all women who pursue him.

Who do you think will ultimately have more children?... Man #1 or Man #2?

It doesn't take a genius to notice that Man #2 is engaging in more mating opportunities, so all other things being equal (such as fertility) he will have more children.

This implies that men should evolve to not form a strong preference when it comes to pursuing or being pursued.

On the other hand... women WILL evolve a strong preference to be pursued on the basis that the competition between various suitors will enable her to select the best mate for the few children she will have over her lifetime.

You keep mixing up women's evolved preferences for men's evolved preferences.

Women have a tendency to prefer being pursued... that doesn't equate to a tendency for men to prefer to pursue.

Your argument is as silly as saying that men "tend to devalue" steak at the supermarket because of it's convenience and really prefer to be out on the plains trying to take down an aurochs with a spear.

Guess what... most men prefer to buy a steak at the store and have little desire to enter into a life or death struggle with a 700 Kg beast.

Men certainly evolved the capacity to pursue women for romantic relationships (just like they evolved the capacity to hunt for food). They do not however have an evolved tendency to "devalue" women who might romantically pursue them.

Any man foolish enough to have a "tendency" to reject or "devalue" women who pursued him back at the dawn of our species probably doesn't have many if any modern descendents. At the very least he was at an evolutionary disadvantage compared to men who displayed the opposite tendency.

It is time to stop projecting the evolved preferences of women onto men as if they are one and the same thing.

Artemis, your scenario is very seriously flawed. Man #2, as you dubbed him, who accepts the advances of women that pursue him is not likely to be the kind who also pursues women. They tend to be passive and wimpy when it comes to romantic pursuits, which is why they spend so much time alone on Saturday nights, trying to will the phone to ring.

Also, and I note that this is rather sexist of you, you seem to think that women's tendency to pursue men is as great as men's tendency to pursue women. That just isn't the case. Men are the traditional hunter/gatherers, and women are the traditional homemakers.

I'm not saying that some households don't reverse or have variations on this tradition, or that it's somehow "wrong" to do so. But it is atypical.

And it makes sense. Women are the ones who suffer increasingly diminished capacity when a child is on the way. (It always makes me laugh when a guy says, when speaking of himself and his S.O., "We're pregnant." No, dunce. She's pregnant. She's the one who has a fetus growing inside of her, with all the discomfort and limitations that come with it. You're still just as able to go out and kill bison as you were before your s.o. got pregnant.) And women also have the natural ability to feed babies.

Consequently, men evolved to be pursuers.

Females who aggressively pursue men just aren't that commonplace. And the men who depend upon women pursuing them are the ones who tend to die off.

And your supermarket argument is equally flawed. Most men might not have to go out and kill the steer to get the steak, but our society tends to look down on men who don't go out and earn the money to buy that steak in the first place.

And some people do go out and kill their own food. Wanna take a stab and guess which gender virtually monopolizes the hunter population?

So, Amy is very much in the right on this point, and your arguments are vastly flawed, for the reasons I just gave.

So, you can go milk a telephone pole, Artemis.

Patrick is right.

Why WOULDN'T "Caveman" avoid a woman who follows him around. She's gonna cramp his style. More providing and protecting ... less time to sleep and eat.

"Females who aggressively pursue men just aren't that commonplace. "

And (I wish there were some studies on this, but I haven't found any), I conjecture that a high percentage of the women who throw themselves at men are Cluster B's and high-conflict personalities. They pursue men not for a relationship, but to stir up shit, because, to them, a life without drama is not worth living. That is one reason I think a lot of men are not very attracted to women who come on to them.

Amy and Patrick and Dave nailed it. Why waste time on what should be, when reality shows you every day what is?

I regret not having been able to read a couple years of this column when I was in High School. Amy's too young! I'd guess I learned much of this in the following decade, one lesson at a time. Some of them were confusing (including this one), some hurt, but none were fatal.

http://www.livescience.com/45228-male-face-preference.html

Thought this was interesting, and totally on topic.

The most successful breeding men, basically will nail anything that looks vaguely female.

Artemis is not completely wrong but successfully mating has little to do with lasting relationships. One is not necessary for the other. Each is an independent variable.

@"It doesn't take a genius to notice that Man #2 is engaging in more mating opportunities, so all other things being equal (such as fertility) he will have more children."

The limiting constraints in human evolution have seldom been 'a lack of mating opportunities', so the driver has been for quality mates, not quantity. So the above might be true on an individual level, but 'the selfish gene' would rather evolve preferences that maximize the quality of offspring of the whole population. The typical women will meet thousands of men in her lifetime that want to have sex with her. She has to pick one that gives her decent quality offspring.

The Goddess writes: Men evolved to pursue women. In the few species where men make a greater parental investment, women are the pursuers.

Just curious, but what species would these be? Seahorses, maybe? (Male seahorses are the ones who get pregnant.)

Maybe the emperor penguins.

"you seem to think that women's tendency to pursue men is as great as men's tendency to pursue women."

I do not see such a claim in his post, Patrick. Your other well-expressed points aside, that particular one is straw man.

"I regret not having been able to read a couple years of this column when I was in High School. "

Same here! If I had had some of this advice about 30 years ago, I could have avoided hooking up with my Cluster B ex, and saved myself a lot of trouble.

The typical women will meet thousands of men in her lifetime that want to have sex with her. She has to pick one that gives her decent quality offspring.

Posted by: Lobster at May 14, 2014 6:56 AM

It has been my experience that many women do a damn poor job in that department, because unfortunately we are not living on the African savanna anymore.
The genes that are driving their mating choices, are selecting for traits that are not a good fit for a technological society.

But that is ok, because when civilization crashes world wide in the next hundred years, or so, Darwin's law will start operating on the selection process again.

Actually, Patrick, women are the traditional gatherers. Gathering DOES tend to take place closer to home, so your point about homemaking still stands, but gathering is traditionally a female activity.

Artemis, your analysis was interesting, but you're failing to differentiate between "mating with" and "having a committed relationship with"... the latter of which is what the LW seems to want. The guy DID take the opportunity to mate... but she doesn't want to leave it at that.

And ironically, after reading the last line of Amy's response, I look at the top of the screen and see an ad for Clorox. Kind of creepy, the way the interwebs follow us around.

Also being a single mother was harder "at the dawn of human history" than now, so it seems unlikely that those children would have survived at equal rates to children with a father who hung around. While Man #2 might have mated with more women it doesn't necessarily follow that he had more offspring that survived to reproduce, too.

Isab: The most successful breeding men, basically will nail anything that looks vaguely female.

Artemis is not completely wrong but successfully mating has little to do with lasting relationships. One is not necessary for the other. Each is an independent variable.

Artemis makes a very good point: that a male who is receptive to the advances of females in addition to pursuing females will most likely be more successful at mating and breeding.

However, Isab makes another very good point: fucking and relationships are different things. I don't think many men will turn down the offer of sex from a woman but that, of course, doesn't mean they'll want to date or marry the woman.

Amy: men . . . tend to devalue women who chase them.

I don't disagree with Amy's assertion here, but the key word is tend. Men many very well tend to not want to date or marry a woman who pursues them (or simply asks them out) but that doesn't mean that all (or even the vast majority of men) would reject a woman who does this, especially if she has most of the qualities they are looking for in a partner.

Also, another key word in Amy's assertion is chase. I'd say that men are probably more likely to be put off by a woman who "chases" them than by a woman who simply asks them out. If a woman simply asks a man out and, once they go out, they really hit it off, I don't believe that one act is going to overshadow everything else. I think Amy puts way too much emphasis on that one act as far as men are concerned, and this ties in with what Artemis said: "It is time to stop projecting the evolved preferences of women onto men as if they are one and the same thing."

Here's an example. Amy has, on numerous occasions, talked about how she met Gregg. They ended up chatting at (as I recall) a electronics or computer store, he asked her out for coffee (or ice cream), and they ended up going somewhere together once they left the store. Now, Amy has stressed that if Gregg had not asked her out, she would never ever ever ever have asked him out because (a) she would have assumed he wasn't interested or (b) if he was interested and didn't ask her out, he was a big ol' wimp with two tiny shriveled (or nonexistent) testicles.

So that's Amy's feeling and it fits perfectly into what Artemis said: "women WILL evolve a strong preference to be pursued."

But how about Gregg? What if Amy wasn't so violently opposed to asking a man out, and had asked him out for that coffee or ice cream? Would they still be together now after all this time? I would argue yes. I'd argue that once Gregg got to know her, her sense of humor and all the other things he likes about her, that her one simple act, asking him out, wouldn't have mattered one bit.

If anyone has any doubts that women are the choosy gender in humans, look no further than the human genome: approximately 50% of the craniofacial organization genes are on the X chromosome, itself only 5% of the genome. This allows women to select high-quality males more clearly since males are heterogametic. See J Med Genet 2004;41:425-432 and refs therein.

The reason men don't like women who chase them is because of the question of paternity.

If she is pursuing me, who else has she chased?

Now fucking them they don't mind, especially if some
schlump ends up raising his offspring.

I'm speaking in evolutionary terms of course. My favorite explanation comes from Cousin Dave.

There is just this nagging feeling that you get when a woman pursues a man.

And like I states here before homos generally operate like we would expect them to if we believe gender influenced your mating strategies.

JD the first impression is what seals the deal. Old school guys like Gregg are very picky, I've yet to meet one who wouldn't take great offense at being asked out.

I could be wrong, but I picture Gregg's personality is a lot like a mentor I had. I once saw a woman ask him out and he found it incredibly off putting.

"JD the first impression is what seals the deal"

Yes, and this explains both the disastrously high divorce rate in this country, and also how an unqualified empty suit like Barrack Obama became president of the US.

As JD said, I think people who do a bit more analysis of who they are with and why, have a better chance of long term success.

"Maybe the emperor penguins."

This type of classism is EXACTLY why Proletariat penguins now control the means of production.

Emporer, indeed.

"Emporer, indeed."

Spellcheck, dammit. Spellcheck.

It has been my experience that many women do a damn poor job in that department

You nailed that one, Isab; my wife is the poster child. Before me, she was married to or living with:
- a brilliant, charismatic entrepreneur whose net worth is now probably nine figures;
- a top executive whose family owns a large portion of the island of Kauai;
- two successful professionals;
- a high school dropout with an alcohol and drug habit which was passed down from father to son in his family for generations.

Guess which one she had a kid with. Hint: the kid has a tested IQ in the low 80's, and at age 27 has been in rehab five times.

Ppen: The reason men don't like women who chase them is because of the question of paternity. If she is pursuing me, who else has she chased?

One could also ask: if she said "yes" when I asked her out, how many other guys has she said "yes" to?

And like I states here before homos generally operate like we would expect them to if we believe gender influenced your mating strategies.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Do lesbians refuse to ask each other out?

Females who aggressively pursue men just aren't that commonplace. And the men who depend upon women pursuing them are the ones who tend to die off.

Patrick, you seem to placing men into only two camps: those who pursue women and those who "depend on women pursuing them." There's a third group: those who pursue women but also don't get freaked out or view a woman as a slut just because a she asks them out. (Amy seems to put men into only those two camps too. Every time I've talked about guys being receptive to a woman asking them out, she inevitably goes off on a rant about "men with no balls who won't ask a woman out.")

And your supermarket argument is equally flawed. Most men might not have to go out and kill the steer to get the steak, but our society tends to look down on men who don't go out and earn the money to buy that steak in the first place.

But Amy's "tend to devalue" assertion is about how the men feel, not about how society feels about the men.

And, regarding men and money, men tend to devalue money that they don't earn. This is why men who inherit money and men who win a lottery always give their money away.

Ppen: Old school guys like Gregg are very picky, I've yet to meet one who wouldn't take great offense at being asked out.

That's like saying: I've yet to meet a conservative evangelical Christian who didn't take great offense at the idea of same-sex marriage.

One would hardly expect a traditional guy to be open to non-traditional actions.

I'm not a traditional guy so when a woman asked me out, I wasn't offended in the least. She was smart, funny, very attractive and sexy. I was flattered. So, instead of me storming off in a huff, we ended up spending two years together, including a six week trip to Italy & France that I'll aways cherish (and the best sex I've ever had.)

I like to look at data rather than models. We can build models(or scenarios) in our heads that make perfect sense. But that doesn't mean they necessarily apply to reality. I think reality is usually far more complicated than any understanding of it we have. So where the rubber meets the road, the data, is where it's at. How often does a man accept an offer from a woman who asks him out? And how often does that date lead to long term romance vs. when the man pursued. What's the quality of those relationships? And what constitutes asking him out? And so on.

I like to look at data rather than models. We can build models(or scenarios) in our heads that make perfect sense. But that doesn't mean they necessarily apply to reality. I think reality is usually far more complicated than any understanding of it we have. So where the rubber meets the road, the data, is where it's at. How often does a man accept an offer from a woman who asks him out? And how often does that date lead to long term romance vs. when the man pursued. What's the quality of those relationships? And what constitutes asking him out? And so on.

Posted by: Dave at May 17, 2014 11:44 AM

You are asking to evaluate a lot of different variables. Social science isn't very scientific, and I think you might find that the majority of lasting relationships, did not follow the two strangers meeting and one asking the other 'out' model.

I met my husband at work. At what point does sitting together for coffee at the army snack bar convert into a date?

Does it matter who first sat down at the table with whom?

By the time a guy is 40, I would expect him to know how the game is played, and to be asking women out, but when you are talking about college age people, it is not so cut and dried.

@Isab: "It has been my experience that many women do a damn poor job in that department"

Indeed, a valid point, and echoes many of my own experiences.

Amy has the advice right. If he avoids you after sex he was never really interested. On the plus side, since she is a woman she doesn't have to worry about him charging her with rape.

As an aside, his 'booty call' will probably never be a wife either. This is classic she serves a physical need but is not mother-of-my-children material behavior.

As Isab said, I don't know of many stereotypical romances outside of high school. And even in high school it was often more complicated than guy asks girl out.

That said there has been a generational shift for college educated individuals. With most campuses having two women for every man bossy women get most of the dates. If a woman is not starting things and showing interest most of the men are already taken. I understand and accept Amy's argument why this is non-optimal. But given the high liability for men on campus and their relative scarcity this is what is.

I completely disagree with Ppen's paternity rational. There are cultural norms and when someone violates them they stand out as strange or desperate. Normal American dating behavior comes across as extremely aggressive and off-putting in England. While in Vietnam it comes off as prudish or disinterested. It is not a question of paternity and child liability but or normal/abnormal. Old school American men are more English in culture.

"Artemis, your scenario is very seriously flawed. Man #2, as you dubbed him, who accepts the advances of women that pursue him is not likely to be the kind who also pursues women. They tend to be passive and wimpy when it comes to romantic pursuits, which is why they spend so much time alone on Saturday nights, trying to will the phone to ring."

Patrick, have made a very serious claim that needs to be established as fact before you can just claim that there is a flaw in the scenario I have described.

There is no good scientific reason for us to assume that a man who is happy to accept the advances of women is somehow inept or unwilling to pursue women as well.

There is no good reason why we should assume that these two items are mutually exclusive.

This is an assumption you are making that needs to be supported.

It doesn't even take much effort to demonstrate unscientifically that your assumption appears to be without merit.

Extremely desirable men engage in romantic relationships with female groupies all the time and show no inability to pursue women in addition to having sex with the women who pursue them.

This suggests that men can and do engage in both behaviors simultaneously without any problems.

Odds are the the same men you talk about who "try to will the phone to ring" aren't extremely successful when they pursue women either.

I will say it again, there is no good evolutionary reason for men to have a tendency to "devalue" or "reject" women who pursue them romantically.

If a man would reject a women who pursues him, she is precisely the kind of women he would never choose to pursue in the first place.

Men don't make their choice in romantic partners on the basis of who pursues who, they make they choice based upon other factors.

Women on the other hand DO make their choice in romantic partners on the basis of who pursues who.

You are mixing up the preferences of women for the preferences of men.

Men pursue women because women expect to be pursued and have a preference for men who pursue them.

Men don't pursue women because of some innate preference on their part to pursue them.

Most men would be quite happy if a beautiful woman showed up on their door step and expressed romantic interest in them... they certainly wouldn't have an evolved "tendency" to slam the door in her face or "devalue" her.

Isab Says:

"Artemis is not completely wrong but successfully mating has little to do with lasting relationships. One is not necessary for the other. Each is an independent variable."

It isn't just that I'm "not completely wrong".

It is that the weight of scientific evidence is on my side.

There is zero compelling evolutionary reason why a man would "prefer" to expend significant effort in the pursuit of a romantic relationship over being pursued.

Men pursue women because women prefer to be pursued.

It is as simple as that.

It isn't about men's tendencies or preferences in this case.

It is about the constraints imposed by women due to their preferences and tendencies.

Men simply aren't going to be "put off" if an attractive, pleasant, fun, and intelligent women pursues him.

All of the arguments thus far have been akin to what Cousin Dave has said:

"I conjecture that a high percentage of the women who throw themselves at men are Cluster B's and high-conflict personalities."

Which is basically saying that men are going to tend to "devalue" women with personality disorders or who cause fights and conflict.

To which I must point out that if a man pursues such a woman, he is going to "devalue" her as well... because a woman who is "high-conflict" simply is not a desirable long-term romantic partner.

People here keep mixing up and packaging together variables that are actually separate issues.

If the women who pursue men tend to have personality disorders then men will tend to reject them... but they are being rejected on the basis of their poor personality traits and not the fact that they pursued.

Amy Says:

"Here it is: A single sex act can cost a woman enormously, in having a baby to drag around and feed, so women evolved to be the choosier sex.

Men evolved to pursue women. In the few species where men make a greater parental investment, women are the pursuers.

I get, Artemis, that you are blind to this explanation and will continue to say I have yet to explain it in further posts. Yawnies!"

It isn't that I am "blind" to this explanation.

It is that you seem to be unaware of how incoherent it is.

On the one hand you argue that women "evolved to be the choosier sex".

Therefore you conclude that men evolved to be picky and hence reject women who choose them.

In a species where women are pickier than men, it makes no sense why a man would reject a woman who pursues him from an evolutionary perspective.

This is especially true back in very early days of our species when there weren't 7 billion of us and life spans were less than 30 years.

Men who evolved a preference that caused them to reject women who pursued them would have had extremely strong selection pressures against them.

When you exist in a small nomadic tribe and have a life span of ~25 years you take any mating opportunity that comes your way regardless of if you pursued or were pursued.

Men pursue because women are choosey... not because men have an evolved preference to pursue.

Amy,

Again your argument is incoherent.

"No, men reject women who CHASE them, because women who are worth something don't have to chase, just choose."

You are literally arguing that because women are choosey, men are the ones who prefer to jump through hoops.

This does not many ANY sense from an evolutionary perspective.

No animal prefers to make things more difficult for itself.

This is as incoherent as suggesting that because men evolved the spatial reasoning and physical capability of tracking and hunting large game that they have a tendency to "reject" steaks from the supermarket and prefer to go out running on the plains in 90+ degree heat instead of staying in the comfort of their own home, relaxing on the couch having a meal.

You are literally suggesting that men enjoy cock blocking themselves on principle... because you know... women are the choosey ones.

If men are so picky as to arbitrarily reject a woman who pursues him romantically who he would have otherwise been interested in, you aren't standing on very firm ground that women are the choosey gender.

It isn't men who prefer to pursue... it is women who prefer to be pursued and men by and large attempt to meet the preferences of women.

You can pretend all you like that a woman who refuses to pursue men is somehow giving men what they want and doing them a favor... but that is delusional.

Most men simply aren't going to place much stock in it.

I forgot this part:

"They might have sex with them and then dump them but those women tend to be devalued."

What does this even mean?

A man might just as easily pursue a woman, have sex with her, and then dump her.

Does that mean she was "devalued" as well?

The word "devalue" is a rather odd choice in this case because it suggests that the woman doing the pursuing has some value level that is diminished by the very act of her pursuing the man.

I've got news for you... if a man has sex with a woman and dumps her... he never valued her much to begin with and it wouldn't matter if he pursued her or she pursued him.

A man places value on women for traits other than who does the pursuing.

That is a very important trait to women... but it by and large doesn't matter to men.

I am reminded of the complaints women sometimes make that men aren't attracted to them because of their high-powered career.

That is something women value in a mate... men don't care about that.

You are projecting your own value preferences onto men.

That you value men who pursue you doesn't imply men devalue women who pursue them.

Evolutionary considerations suggest that men should have no significant preference over who pursues who (at least in terms of mate value).

Artemis is right here Amy. Men in general aren't bothered by being pursued. There are many cultures both historic and current where women pursued men. The vast majority of women don't like to pursue. So if she has a reasonable choice she won't. So when women start to pursue they are usually low quality/status.

Amy is right that sex without a prior relationship is not in a woman's interest. Men have an addictive need for sex. So when it is offered they will often take it irrespective of quality. A junkie needs his fix. But if there is no relationship prior to sex he will want to move on to the next option. Women who are desperate will offer sex to try and start a relationship but it just doesn't work that way.

Also significant in this discussion, men do not value genetic ties. And Women are very concerned with genetic parentage. Adopted children are often not fully accepted by grandmothers and aunts. And female adopted children are often concerned with their biological parentage. Men couldn't care less. They worry about shared culture and time. Just because he fathered a child on some random woman most men don't feel any responsibility or paternity with that child. They are a stranger. But a child he spends time raising and parenting is his irrespective of biologic parentage. A child can be both (genetic and cultural) which causes some people to confuse the issue. But there are significant differences in what makes a person consider a child theirs. As much as a woman loves the child from her body a man loves the child he raised.

Amy Says:

"Men are not "bothered" by being pursued. Quite the contrary. They just are likely to devalue women who do this."

Men are not going to increase the value or decrease the value of a prospective mate purely on the basis of who pursued who.

It really doesn't matter to the vast majority of men.

You are projecting your own value system onto men and failing to recognize the inherent differences between men and women.

Just because YOU devalue a woman who pursues a man does not mean the man she pursued has devalued her.

If a man is at all interested in a woman, the fact that she pursued him will not change that fact.

By the same token, if a man is not at all interested in a woman, the fact that she pursued him will not change that fact either.

There is precisely zero evolutionary basis for men changing the mate value of a prospective partner on the basis of who pursued who.

There is an evolutionary basis for women changing the mate value of a prospective partner based upon who pursued who.

Please stop mixing up your inherent preferences for that of men... they aren't the same thing.

"I spend my days reading anthropology, psychology, and ev psych books and journals."

Alright Amy, I will make this very easy for you.

Please provide me with the best citation you have of a scholarly publication (i.e. a peer reviewed article in a reputable scientific journal) that demonstrates that men "tend to devalue" women who pursue them and that will put this discussion to a rest once and for all (assuming the article actually supports your claim).

I do not have a "block" that prevents me from reasoning.

Instead it is that I also read the scientific literature on a very regular basis, have studied this subject fairly intensely and have never come across an article that validates your "devalue" hypothesis.

You have said it yourself... many women who approach men are of low mate value to begin with... so maybe it isn't that men are "devaluing" them and rather that they are honestly assessing their actual value on the dating market.

Amy Says:

"Yawnies, Artemis. I don't know whether a journal article exactly says it and I don't care to go look for it."

Because this idea about men "devaluing" women who pursue them is a hypothesis of your own creation without any substantive basis in the scientific literature.

You are literally pulling a pet idea out of your own ass then then hiding behind claims like "I spend my days reading anthropology, psychology, and ev psych books and journals." to lend it credibility.

That you may be a fan of a topic and enjoy reading about it doesn't permit you to suddenly portray your own unsubstantiated notions as if they were equivalent to scientific fact.

I am telling you that your idea regarding men "devaluing" women who pursue them simply doesn't have any basis in reality.

Men aren't going to by an large place arbitrary romantic barriers in their way just for the hell of it.

If a man is interested in a woman he isn't going to make things *more* difficult for himself by creating new hurdles to jump over than the woman he is interested in didn't place there.

Only a seriously insecure man is going to assume that something is wrong with a woman he would have otherwise been interested in simply on the basis that she approached him first.

What sort of guy thinks to himself "well I thought she was smart, beautiful, and interesting a moment ago... but she pursued me so something must be seriously wrong with her... I think I'll reject her"?

Men who think that way have something seriously wrong with them.

Men with confidence will instead conclude that any woman who approached him did so on the basis that she recognized his high quality.

The idea about "devaluing" has zero merit and no scientific evidence supporting it.

"Men, due to the fact that sex is likely to cost them little, are the unchoosy sex."

Therefore you draw the conclusion that men in all their "unchoosyness" will arbitrarily reject women who pursue them.

This is why your argument doesn’t make one lick of sense.

I agree with you that men are biologically predisposed to be the less choosy gender… so why are you making them out to be so damn finicky about who pursues who? That is a pretty nitpicky thing to outright reject someone over if they aren’t all that choosy.

It is akin to suggesting you are not a picky eater... but will only eat home grown, pesticide free, organic, unprocessed ingredients… but your not picky.

By the way, I will look into "Trivers on parental investment" tonight and report back on my findings.

Is this the citation you are refering to by any chance?

“Parental investment and sexual selection
R Trivers - 1972”

That is a pretty ancient document so far as social science is concerned. Is this really the best you have? It is over 40 years old. You might as well be citing Freud to support a psychological argument you happen to be making.

You really don’t have anything more recent?… like within the last decade? You do realize that social science has advanced significantly over the course of the last half century and this particular document is not necessarily the best source for reliable information.

In any case, I will give it a chance and peruse the document tonight to see if anything in there supports your idea that men “tend to devalue” women who pursue them. Needless to say, I do not have high hopes that anything remotely like that will be in there, but I am open to being wrong.

Yeah... so I read through "Parental investment and sexual selection R Trivers - 1972" from start to finish and as I suspected it doesn't even touch upon human courtship behaviors or male preferences at all.

I suspected this would be the case based upon the year of publication.

Articles from that era dealt primarily with animal mating criteria which are a bit more direct than things like who approaches who in a romantic context.

It doesn't even touch upon the subject of male tendencies to reject at all.

In fact, here is this little gem from very early on in the text:

"male reproductive success was severely limited by ability to attract or arouse females. The 21 per cent who failed to reproduce showed no disinterest in trying to copulate, only an inability to be accepted."

Therefore Amy concludes that since the main reproductive challenge for males is to attract females and be accepted by them... that males who manage to attract women will select against themselves and reject them on principle.

That is utter nonsense.

Please keep in mind that this was the article chosen by you as the best example of why men have a "tendency to devalue and reject" women who pursue them.

Nothing in this article supports that idea at all.

On the contrary, this article suggests men shouldn't discriminate at all on the basis of how they managed to attract a woman... he'll just be happy she was attracted at all.

Of course this is an over simplification, but articles from 40 years ago don't take into account various nuances that have been recognized and documented by more modern social science.

Amy Says:

"I'm really not willing to give a moment's thought to finding a bunch of things for you to wrap your big block head around."

Right... you make a claim about human behavior.

I ask for evidence to back up that claim.

You provide a reference which doesn't even remotely support what you are saying... and I'm the one who is being stubborn.

Get real.

What kind of a skeptic are you if you can't be counted on to support your claims?

We both know the reason you can't be bothered to "give a moment's thought" to actually supporting this claim with hard evidence is because no such evidence exists.

This is a pet notion of your own creation with no scientific backing whatsoever.

Then you keep hiding behind the claim that you read a lot.

Well who cares... that you like to read doesn't mean that any fantasy you concoct about human behavior suddenly becomes substantiated scientific fact.

It isn't that I'm unwilling to alter my position... it is that you adamantly refuse to provide even the most limited form of backing to this half-baked idea that men have an incentive to reject women who pursue them.

They don't.

"You ruin comments section after comments section with your boring and wrong assertions."

On the contrary... you ruin the sections by dancing around the issue and failing to actually engage in the conversation.

We wouldn't be having this discussion repeatedly if you even once provided real backing that supported this idea of yours.

Instead you constantly deflect and avoid really examining your claim.

That you even presented "Parental investment and sexual selection R Trivers - 1972" as a reference in this case is just another example.

You thought tossing out some academic source... any academic source would somehow bolster your argument.

You didn't care that this particular article says nothing even remotely related to male sexual selection preferences with regard to courtship behaviors in humans.

That is intellectual laziness of the highest order.

Quit wasting everyones time and either put up, or shut up about this whole "men tend to devalue and reject women who pursue them" nonsense.

"Men co-evolved to expect to have to pursue -- and woo -- women."

Your claim isn't that men expect to pursue.

Your claim is that men PREFER to pursue... and that on the basis of that preference they will reject women who happen to pursue them.

That is the part that is nonsense.

There is no evolutionary reason why men should have a significant aversion to being pursued even if they generally expect to have to do the pursuing.

Men pursue because they generally have to... not because of some deeply ingrained desire to pursue that makes them tend to reject women who express interest in them first.

"Because men evolved to EXPECT TO HAVE TO PURSUE WOMEN, they tend to devalue women who pursue them.

Considering that for the last several tens of thousands of years, marriages have been mostly arranged between family groups, and men have more frequently acquired women by killing their husbands and fathers in battle, and appropriating the women of losing side.....

How exactly have men evolved to pursue women, by being a glib conversationalist, and chatting them up at the local Starbucks?

What you define as pursuit, has absolutely no relationship to the way men historically have acquired both wives, and children. (And also nothing to do with evolution)

Oh, yawn.

"Here. Buss and Schmitt on men's and women's differing sexual strategies.

http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~rakison/bussandschmitt.pdf"

A sexual strategy is not a relationship strategy. A sexual strategy gets you laid once or more. It does not keep a mate around to raise the offspring.

Why do you continue to confuse two very different things?

The article you linked to, has nothing about men tending to devalue women who pursue them, let alone, defining pursuit.

People who have values, value people, and their relationships with them, even in the absence of sex.

As I have said before, modern American dating behavior is a very poor model for judging a million years of human mating and relationship strategies. It is like looking at the weather in Miami, for the last ten years, and using it as a model for the climate in Anchorage during the last ice age.

The mere fact that both are on the ocean, isn't enough to make a valid comparison .

"Not reading both of these -- boring and don't have time to waste.

You really, really, really don't get it."

If you refuse to read what I have written you have absolutely zero basis on which to assess what I do "get" and what I do not "get".

Believe me, I understand this particular subject extremely well.

I actually read the scientific literature on this subject.

Your claim about men "tending to reject" women who pursue them has no scientific basis whatsoever.

That is a notion you have concocted... it is an Amy original.

It isn't a scientific claim... it is your opinion.

Unfortunately for you, the scientific literature suggests that your opinion in this case is wrong.

Just to be abundantly clear when it comes to the science.

There is nothing wrong with parental investment theory.

There is also nothing wrong with differing/competing sexual strategies amongst men and women.

The problem is the following claim:

"men reject women who CHASE them, because women who are worth something don't have to chase, just choose."

There is ZERO scientific support for this idea.

There is no reason why a man should have a biological incentive to reject a woman simple on the basis that she expressed romantic interest in him first.

If he rejects her it is for other reasons... not because she expressed her interest in him.

This is where you have things utterly wrong, which suggests you don't really understand the articles you say you read so often.

Parental investment theory is fine... differing sexual strategies are fine... your unsupported idea is not fine.

"Um, exactly wrong. My opinion is BASED on the science on this."

Then please provide the citation that actually supports your claim that men tend to "devalue and reject" woman who pursue them.

This really shouldn't be that difficult if your claim has tangible scientific backing.

Instead what I think is going on is the following.

Your opinion is "bases on the science" in much the same way that a made for tv movie is "based upon real life events".

Your opinion is a distortion of the science that alters the plot to fit a story that you want to tell.

That is how made for tv movies work... the details are changed, modified, and distorted to fit a story the script writer believes will sell better than reality.

That is what you are doing.

You are distorting the science to fit a story you want to tell... but then claim it is "based" on the science.

There is a sure fire way for me to never bring up this subject again.

Provide a citation for a scholarly article published in a peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal that actually states that "men tend to devalue and reject women who pursue them"... or something to that effect and I will never ask you about it ever again.

What is more, if you can provide such a citation I'll even held defend your claim in the future.

The problem you have is that no such citation exists... which is why you keep smoke screening with other articles that say nothing about such a tendency or biological incentive for men to reject women in this way simply because the woman pursued him.

Isab: I think you might find that the majority of lasting relationships, did not follow the two strangers meeting and one asking the other 'out' model.

That's possible, but I think that, in most cases, someone makes the first move. Take internet dating, for example, I think a lot of relationships begin that way now and someone, I believe, is always the first one to make contact.

I met my husband at work. At what point does sitting together for coffee at the army snack bar convert into a date?

Does it matter who first sat down at the table with whom?

Well, I don't think it does. I also don't think it matters (to most men) who does the asking for a first date. I think that what matters is how the man and woman get along, how interested they are in each other, and how attracted they are to each other. I think that who-asked-whom is a minor thing compared to that.

But Amy obviously believes otherwise. She believes if a woman simply asks a man out for a cup of coffee, he will "tend to devalue" her.

Cousin Dave: I like to look at data rather than models. We can build models(or scenarios) in our heads that make perfect sense. But that doesn't mean they necessarily apply to reality. I think reality is usually far more complicated than any understanding of it we have. So where the rubber meets the road, the data, is where it's at. How often does a man accept an offer from a woman who asks him out? And how often does that date lead to long term romance vs. when the man pursued. What's the quality of those relationships? And what constitutes asking him out? And so on.

I couldn't agree more, Dave. Those are all very good questions and I don't recall Amy ever providing answers to any of them. I don't recall her providing data which substantiate her claim that "men tend to devalue women who puruse them (or even simply ask them out)."

Amy: No, men reject women who CHASE them, because women who are worth something don't have to chase, just choose.

I agree that women who are desirable don't have to ask a man out because there is never a shortage of men willing to ask out a desirable woman (as I mentioned about two years ago when we discussed this, your two "attractive" female friends -- including the French one -- who allegedly "don't get asked out by men" are either (1) lying, (2) not counting guys who ask them out but who they're not interested in, (3) giving off strong don't-approach-me vibes, or (4) actually not attractive/desirable.)

But it doesn't logically follow that a woman who asks a man out isn't desirable. And a man with a more-evolved brain understands this.

Your argument is equivalent to saying: a man who is wealthy doesn't have to work; therefore, any man who works isn't wealthy.

The first part is true, but the second part doesn't logically follow from the first.

JD Says:

"Your argument is equivalent to saying: a man who is wealthy doesn't have to work; therefore, any man who works isn't wealthy."

Thank you for putting together such a perfect analogy.

You have really hit the nail on the head here.

High mate value women certainly don't "have" to pursue men in order to have a men beating a path to their door... but there is no reason at all those same men would slam the door in her face if she approached them first.

There is another very serious flaw in Amy's thought process on this subject which hasn't yet been discussed.

It has to do with the following statement:

"Low-value, wimpy men will take you because they can't get women on their own or have few choices."

Is Amy honestly under the impression that women who approach men for dates are actively seeking "low-value, wimpy men" who can't manage to get women on their own???

If a woman decides to pursue a man the odds are that she would make that decision on the basis that he is desirable... that he is of high mate value.

Women never chase after low-value men... but high-value men are chased after all the time... they are chased after constantly in fact.

Ultra-high status men have no shortage of women essentially throwing themselves at them on a constant basis. They can have their pick.

Women aren't going to pursue a man they don't see value in.

Hence her supposition that only "low-value" men will accept women who pursue them is non-cogent.

Low-value men never get the option to accept or reject the advances of women.

Amy: No, they probably won't. They'll likely fuck her and then dump her.

Newsflash: men who pursue women do this all the time.

A man is going to fuck a woman and then dump her for one of two reasons: he doesn't want a relationship with any woman, or he wants a relationship, but the woman he just fuck & dumped wasn't the right woman.

If we take only guys who actually want a relationship, I'll concede that some of those men may fuck & dump a woman who comes onto them, even if they find her smart, funny, interesting, attractive and sexy. But I think those guys are a minority (and I also think they're not as highly-evolved.) I think that most guys who meet a woman and find her smart, funny, interesting, attractive and sexy (or whatever qualities they want in a mate), are not going to dump her simply because she took the initiative.

I don't have any vested interest in my position. If you could ever offer any actual evidence that most men will dump a woman who comes onto them, even if she has all (or most) of the qualities they want in a mate, then I'll gladly say "you win." But, as Cousin Dave said above, let's see the data. Let's see the data instead of seeing only speculation and conjecture. The questions he asked, all good ones, were: How often does a man accept an offer from a woman who asks him out? And how often does that date lead to long term romance vs. when the man pursued. What's the quality of those relationships? And what constitutes asking him out?

In contrast, I think you do have a vested interest in your position. You repeatedly heap scorn and contempt on men who hesitate to ask a woman out which, to me, signifies that you have a traditional view of how dating should work. I agree with Artemis said:
You are projecting your own value preferences onto men.

"No, they probably won't. They'll likely fuck her and then dump her."

This is another claim for which you have presented zero evidence.

There is no reason to believe that if a highly desirable woman happens to initiate contact with a man she is interested in (i.e. pursues him).

That this action will result in a dramatic increase in his desire to have sex with her once and never talk to her again.

Furthermore, a significant fraction of highly-desirable men who pursue women ALSO "fuck her and then dump her".

You have not demonstrated a difference in this behavior based upon who pursues who.

That is the relevant measurement here.

It is about correlating the variables.

You have failed to do this time and time again.

Furthermore you have not provided scientific evidence that your claim is supported.

It is pure conjecture on your part that you are trying to pass off as having the same degree of certainty as other claims that actually have robust scientific support.

You could try to run a study to actually establish this... others would run a study to try and establish this.

The results of such a study could also demonstrate that your idea is utterly wrong.

Men who pursue women "fuck and dump" them all the time... and yet the way you talk this is only a "likely" scenario if a woman happens to strike up a conversation with the guy first.

I am calling bullshit.

"Women may pursue losers without realizing they are losers."

How utterly insulting this is to women. You are basically asserting that they don’t have the slightest clue what they are attracted to… but you know what they are attracted to.

Seriously... who are you to go around telling women that even though they have decided that a particular guy they have met is worth while and that they feel is a catch... that unless he happens to meet your personal criteria for a good mate, that he is actually a loser.

You are literally saying that any man who YOU wouldn’t be attracted to is a loser that no woman should bother with.

Do you honestly not comprehend that when a man or woman chooses to pursue another person for a romantic relationship that they have decided that that person is worth pursuing irrespective of your personal feelings on how attractive you find them?

What you are essentially doing here is criticizing people who like vanilla ice cream because you happen to prefer chocolate.

These are matters of taste Amy.

The same goes for romantic attraction.

Just because for the simple and seemingly insignificant act of who approaches who first is a deal breaker for you doesn't imply that most other people feel that way (but I know... you'll just claim that even though they tell you otherwise you really know best).

Goodness gracious, most people don't place so much stock in something that trivial.

Furthermore, maybe people who do place so much stock in something that trivial aren't good romantic matches for people who don't.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in a relationship with someone quite so persnickety.

Thank you for putting together such a perfect analogy.

Thanks Artemis.

Women never chase after low-value men... but high-value men are chased after all the time... they are chased after constantly in fact.

Women aren't going to pursue a man they don't see value in.

Low-value men never get the option to accept or reject the advances of women.

There are two different "value" concepts here. One is a man's "value" as women in general see it. That would, of course be: successful/powerful/famous, wealthy, handsome, tall. The other is a man's "value" as an individual woman sees it.

I agree with you that a woman isn't going to pursue a man she doesn't see value in, but a man she sees value in could be "low-value" to women in general.

JD Says:

"I agree with you that a woman isn't going to pursue a man she doesn't see value in, but a man she sees value in could be "low-value" to women in general."

To a certain extent this is what I actually meant.

Please see my post at May 24, 2014 10:12 AM which sort of touches on this idea.

What I feel is happening here is that sometimes someone will write a letter to Amy about a guy she is attracted to and finds to be valuable and worth pursuing only for Amy to spend her response trying to convince the LW what a loser the guy is that she wants to be in a relationship with.

This all amounts to projection.

Amy understands what Amy is attracted to... and then presumes everyone else *should* be attracted to the same things.

There is a failure to acknowledges things like individual preference and the heterogeneous nature of these preferences across the population.

Certainly there are generalizations that have been well established in the scientific literature when it comes to attraction. Some of these include the following:

1 - Women tend to prefer tall men (at least taller than she is)

2 - Men tend to prefer women within a certain waist/hip ratio.

3 - Women tend to prefer men with wealth/power/status/prestige.

4 - Men and Women alike tend to prefer partners that appear physically healthy and symmetrical.

These trends have been documented and established but exceptions do exist on an individual basis.

That being said, no preference on the part of men to be attracted to women who utterly refuse to pursue them in any way has ever been documented.

Furthermore, there is no biological or evolutionary incentive for men to have such a preference.

I am not sure if Amy understand that her personal preference for a romantic partner don't apply to men in general, or to specific women who express a different set of preferences.

Women write to Amy telling her they like vanilla ice cream and instead of acknowledging their preferences she spends her time responding to them explaining how they don't actually like vanilla, but prefer chocolate just like Amy.

I think you are right... this behavior suggests a vested interest in her position.

Artemis,

As I'm sure you realize, neither of us is ever going to convince Amy that men may welcome a woman who comes onto them (if she has qualities they want.) Although she may have done it somewhere, I've never seen her concede that someone else has a point, or that something she fervently believes may not be true.

My perception of how Amy responds to a woman who says she is considering asking a guy out (or asking him for his phone number) is slightly different than yours. I don't see Amy as trying to convince the woman that the guy is a loser. What I do see is Amy telling the woman that taking any initiative is futile because "men tend to devalue women" who come on to them.

What I would tell a woman like this is different. I'd tell her that the guy may be a very traditional type who doesn't like a women taking the initiative, or he may just sleep with her and dump her (while reminding her that any guy who asks her out could just sleep with her and dump her.) But I'd also tell her that if she feels like going for it, do it. Do something different, take a risk, go outside the typical female box. I'd say that I know a female advice columnist who steadfastly believes that "men tend to devalue women" who come on to them but that, even if this is true, not all men are like this and that the man she's interested in may be one of those men.

Basically, Amy wants these women to play it safe. I'd encourage them to take a chance and go for it.

...no preference on the part of men to be attracted to women who utterly refuse to pursue them in any way has ever been documented.

Well, it's either never been documented or it's been documented but never presented here (I suspect it's the former.)

I think we slightly differ here. I feel that some men are in the "me-big-hunter-must-hunt-women-me-not-like-women-who-hunt-big-hunter" camp. But I think they're a minority.

I've enjoyed reading your comments on this thread. I think you've made a lot of excellent points. I'm off to get some rare Seattle sunshine...

"It's just true. I pay my bills based, to a great degree, in letters from women chasing losers and not able to see this."

And for every woman that writes to you, there are several hundred thousand that don't.

The women that write to you are self selecting for having chased men past the point where a smart and confident woman would have cut her losses, and moved on

To draw any scientific conclusions about man woman relationships, all those women who don't write to you, need to be included in your data set.

They haven't been, so what you are left with is a anecdotes, not data.

"Data set"? Please. Look around you. See how life works."

I know how life works, and I also know how science works.

Science requires data sets, that haven't been cherry picked to draw valid conclusions.

You aren't doing science, you are leaping to conclusions, based on your own personal biases,

Dressing an opinion up, in scientific sounding jumbo jumbo doesn't make it science, and dismissing your critics as idiots, only works at cocktail parties (and not too well there, if it is attended by real scientists, who seem to be in extremely short supply these days)

http://www.amazon.com/A-Beginners-Guide-Scientific-Method/dp/1111305552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1401021966&sr=8-1&keywords=The+scientific+method

A publication to help you get started doing real research.

That which is pricey and hard to get, we value.

That which is all over us and easy to get, we don't.

By this reasoning, women don't value men.

Keep arguing against that. It makes no practical sense but it seems to give a few of you reason to keep living.

and

I'm sorry that I can't think of a book to help you be less of a condescending bitch.

Amy, for someone who rails against people being rude, you're often incredibly rude to people here just because they happen to disagree with you. Please stick to debating the ideas and knock off the ad hominem attacks. Thank you.

You're arguing for what, Isab -- that women should chase men?

I can't speak for what Isab is arguing, but I would argue what I said above: that, if an individual woman was considering asking a man out, I'd encourage her to go for it (while reminding her that, just as when a man asks a woman out, there's no assurance the invitiation will be accepted and no assurance that, if they do go out, a relationship is going to grow out of it.)

As I said above, your advice to a woman considering this is to always tell her to play it safe, remain inside the female box. My advice would be to encourage her to take a risk, to step outside of that box. But, you're the advice columnist, so women get your advice. And I'm not saying it's bad advice. I'm sure every one of those women eventually goes on to meet some other guy they really like. I'm just saying it's safe advice.

Artemis, you wait for women to throw themselves at you instead of growing a pair and asking women out (this is, I'd guess what this is really about)...

You're seriously fixated on this idea that just because a guy argues that it may not be true that "men devalue women" who ask them out, that he does not ask women out himself.

Your view of men is very simplistic, very black and white. You seem to see men in only two camps: those who ask women out (and would only fuck and dump a woman is she asks them out) and those who never ask women out but, instead, "wait for women to throw themselves at" them (and who would also only fuck and dump women who ask them out.) For some peculiar reason, you seem to want to deny the existence of men who ask women out but would also be welcoming to a woman asking them out.

Not all men are traditionalists who get their boxers in a wad because a woman asks them out for a cup of coffee and not all men have the me-big-hunter-must-hunt-women-me-not-like-women-who-hunt-big-hunter or me-big-hunter-only-fuck-and-dump-women-who-hunt-me-even-if-me-think-they-are-great mentality.

"You're arguing for what, Isab -- that women should chase men?"

They already do, and many of them are quite successful at it.

And they do it, by showing men that they like, that they are receptive to spending time with them, not by following some dating formula.

I think you are just too hung up, on formal dating as a method of courtship.

When I was growing up, there were many occasions when it was considered appropriate to ask a man or a boy to go somewhere with you, in the hopes that you might hit it off, and the next invitation would be from him.
Although I hate to admit this, I was in a sorority in College. We had many sorority functions where the women were expected to bring a date.

The only way to do this, was by asking some guy to come with you. I usually asked friends. Unfortunately too few of the men I went to college with were mind readers, who you could send brain waves to, to induce them to ask you to a party that your organization was holding, and they would never know about otherwise.

My understanding is, sororities have pretty much functioned this way, since they were established in the 1800s.

I got asked out quite a bit while I was in college, and after but it was mostly men whom I did not consider to be husband material, either because they were encumbered by baggage from previous relationships, or they had deal breaking issues that were evident on the first few dates.

I did not marry any of these men, and I have no failed marriages in my past.

I believe that most failed relationships are a result of both women and men thinking with their reproductive organs, as opposed to their brains.

Hot sex, is a very poor metric for picking a spouse. Sun Myung Moon had a higher success rate.

I think you are just too hung up, on formal dating as a method of courtship.

That's my feeling as well, Isab.

As I always say, it's a risky strategy -- one that tends to lead to being fucked for a while and then dumped.

Yeah, there's a risk that the woman will get fucked and then dumped. But that risk also exists when a man asks a woman out. Men ask women out all the time just because they only want to fuck them. The question is: is the risk significantly greater when a woman asks a man out? And, since you seem to feel that it is, where's the evidence to support your belief?

If there's sexual opportunity, a man will take it -- which doesn't mean he's actually interested in a relationship with the woman who asked him out.

Very true. I think all of us would agree on that. Neither Artermis nor Isab nor I are saying that if a woman asks a man out, she has (or should have) some guarantee of a happily-ever-after relationship. But this can also be stated as: If there's sexual opportunity, a man will take it -- which doesn't mean he's actually interested in a relationship with the woman he asks out.

Artemis, be a pussy all day

Again with the rudeness. Apparently it's wrong for other people to be rude to you but perfectly acceptable for you to be rude to others.

Hot sex, is a very poor metric for picking a spouse.

True. Unfortunately.

Amy: What works: Women flirt with a man to let him know they are interested. Man picks up -- does his part -- asks the woman out.

Isab, this is what I find so interesting. As I wrote above: Amy has, on numerous occasions, talked about how she met Gregg. They ended up chatting at (as I recall) a electronics or computer store, he asked her out for coffee (or ice cream), and they ended up going somewhere together once they left the store.

As I also recall they began chatting because she began flirting with him by asking him some questions. And, per what she said above, it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to initiate things, as long as she does it only by flirting and doesn't step over the HUGE RED LINE and -- quelle horreur! -- ask him out.

So let's take another couple, Jennifer and Ryan. Jennifer is just like Amy and Ryan is just like Gregg, with one exception (which we'll get to shortly.) They also end up in the same computer/electronics store. Jennifer notices Ryan, thinks he's attractive and starts flirting with him by asking him some questions. Ryan is thinking to himself "this girl is cute and seems pretty sharp. I'm going to ask her if she wants to get a cup of coffee when we're finished chatting." But Jennifer, because she doesn't have any hangups about asking a guy out, preempts Ryan by interjecting, "Say...I've really enjoyed talking with you so far. I really appreciate your advice about that laptop. Would you like to go grab a cup of coffee when we're done here and have some non-tech talk?" And Ryan replies, "Sure, that'd be great. Thanks for asking."

So Ryan was going to ask Jennifer out, which means, per Amy, he's an actual man and not a man-shaped slab of Jell-O. He wasn't afraid to ask her out; he's just as manly as Gregg. Jennifer just beat him to the punch.

Now, according to Amy, Ryan is much more likely to fuck and dump Jennifer than Gregg was to just fuck and dump Amy, all by virture of one simple act: Jennifer asked Ryan out for a cup of coffee while Amy waited for Greg to ask her.

Does this seem reasonable? Sure doesn't to me.

Does this seem reasonable? Sure doesn't to me.

Posted by: JD at May 25, 2014 6:18 PM

It doesn't to me either. I saw my husband for the first time in a parking lot in front of the Fort Sill officer's club. I was with a classmate of his, who had asked me to attend a required function with him, for our class at the club.

First time we went anywhere together, it was Taco Bell, Dutch treat. It was a friends thing, not a date. I had no sense that we were 'dating'

Our first real date, he took me to a Jethro Tull concert. His choice, and his idea. He loved Jethro Tull.

Trust me, men who want a sweet little dependent wife, who waits around for some guy to say the magic date formula words, will probably not find themselves dating and marrying a fellow officer in the US Army.

On the other hand, my brother in law, was married to a woman he met at a party. She literally chased him from the west coast of the US, all the way to Germany, and back to North Carolina, where seven years later, he finally gave up, and married her.
(I think he was unlikely to meet any more suitable women with her holding onto him with one hand, and fending off any other eligible women with the other hand.)

We all shook our heads, and assumed it would probably end badly, because no one thought they were well suited for each other.

After ten years of marriage, and two kids, she was the one who wanted a divorce, because, and I quote, "they weren't close anymore". Apparently the eight year old and six year old weren't reason enough for her to stay married to a totally decent guy.

We found out later that apparently she demanded that he quit his very good job in Minnesota, and move back to the west coast, where he would be unemployed. because she wanted to be closer to her mother,
When he refused, she initiated the divorce.

He tried to talk her out of it because he put the kids interests first, but she was hell bent.

When she finally found out, that the state of Minnesota wasn't going to let her move back to the West coast with the two kids and make my BIL send her most of his income, she tried to back out of the divorce she had asked for. Too late.

He has done much better the second time around and has a wonderful girlfriend, who appreciates him. while the x wife is extremely bitter about living in Minnesota, and blames everyone but herself for her unhappiness.

It doesn't to me either.

Thanks Isab.

It was a friends thing, not a date. I had no sense that we were 'dating' Our first real date, he took me to a Jethro Tull concert. His choice, and his idea. He loved Jethro Tull.

So he must have invited you to the concert. But I'd bet if you had preempted him and asked him to see a concert (or do something) else, it wouldn't have bothered him or made him "devalue" you. By the way, your husband has excellent taste in music; I loved Jethro Tull too. Jethro Tull and The Moody Blues were my two favorite bands in my teens & twenties. Ian Anderson was a superb musician and songwriter and a wonderful showman. Did you become a fan too?

On the other hand, my brother in law, was married to a woman he met at a party. She literally chased him from the west coast of the US, all the way to Germany, and back to North Carolina, where seven years later, he finally gave up, and married her.

What? He didn't follow the script and just fuck her and then dump her?

Glad your brother-in-law has a girlfriend that he really likes, and who appreciates him. He's still in Minnesota, I presume? I'm originally from Minnesota, from St. Paul. I moved to Seattle right after graduating from college. I'll be back there in late June; one of my nieces is getting married.

"What? He didn't follow the script and just fuck her and then dump her?"

No, because like my husband, he has values and a brain, that tend to trump what his dick is telling him.

Evolutionary biology is all very well and good as an explanation of human mating preferences, but when you let your bio urges govern your relationships, you might as well be a Chimpanzee.

Yes, I was very attracted to Jethro Tull, and I recognized that the underlying melodies for his music were Scottish Irish folk tunes. I am a big traditional bluegrass fan for the same reason.
That concert in Norman Oklahoma was probably the most fabulous concert. I have ever attended. We went again in Frankfurt Germany a few years later, and the acoustics were such, that it was not nearly as good.

My husband and his siblings were raised in Prior Lake.

Amy Says:

"Artemis, you wait for women to throw themselves at you instead of growing a pair and asking women out (this is, I'd guess what this is really about) and Isab, you throw yourself at a man, and you see how that works for you in the long term."

First off, I want to be clear that I have been quite careful in all my time here never to reveal whether or not I am a man or a woman... or whether or not I am heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc...

I do this for the very specific reason that you have an unfortunate habit of going after the person presenting the idea instead of going after the idea in and of itself.

You are living in a delusion where you cannot possibly fathom the existence of a human being who might disagree with you based purely upon the merits of your argument as opposed to them trying to justify their own life choices.

My objection to your stated position is that it lacks proper evidentiary support and that it does not make sense within the context of well-documented scientific studies.

This is why I keep asking you for actual evidence... actual citations.

Which time and time again you adamantly refuse to share.

Your argument has no foundation and yet you insist that the problem is with the people who oppose your position and not that they may have a legitimate point.

This is why you would never make it as a legitimate scientific scholar.

They have to answer criticisms with data... failure to do is a valid reason to reject their claims.

Isab Says:

"You aren't doing science, you are leaping to conclusions, based on your own personal biases,

Dressing an opinion up, in scientific sounding jumbo jumbo doesn't make it science, and dismissing your critics as idiots, only works at cocktail parties (and not too well there, if it is attended by real scientists, who seem to be in extremely short supply these days)"

I could not have said it better myself.

On this subject I will point out that I am actually a published scientific author with articles in a wide variety of journals (including Nature sub-journals).

I have an article under review now that I recently had to respond with a rebuttal letter addressing each and every one of their points.

A fantastic way to get a manuscript rejected is to tell the reviewer that they "don't get it" or suggest that something is wrong with them for asking the questions they asked.

The way to get your work accepted within the scientific literature is to offer cogent, well articulated counter arguments, or to present additional data which satisfies their questions.

As much as Amy says she reads the scientific literature I don't think she actually fathoms the rigor that is necessary to get your ideas published.

She has made a claim that is either correct or wrong... I suspect it is wrong just as you and JD do... we have presented our various criticisms, and instead of demonstrating why she is right, Amy resorts to using every dirty trick in the book to avoid actually answering the questions.

It really shouldn't be this difficult if she had any data to support what she has been saying.

Amy Says:

"I've shown where my conclusions come from -- to the degree that I even care to post any more responses to Artemis, to whom I've explained this on numerous posts."

You have presented no evidence.

The two articles you referenced say absolutely nothing about men "tending to devalue and reject" woman who pursue them.

There is nothing in those articles even remotely like that.

If this is where your conclusions are coming from then you are pulling them out of your ass.

Your position in this case is no stronger than the quacks who read certain passages in the bible and then declare they know the exact date the world is going to end.

That is the kind of support your claim has (i.e. none at all).

"Anyone who thinks women who throw themselves at men will do well is an idiot or self-deluded."

This is a straw man argument.

No one is asserting that anyone who "throws themselves" at anyone is going to do well in the romance department.

This is as true for men who "throw themselves" at women as it is for women who "throw themselves" at men.

Desperation is unattractive no matter who you are.

JD Says:

"Now, according to Amy, Ryan is much more likely to fuck and dump Jennifer than Gregg was to just fuck and dump Amy, all by virture of one simple act: Jennifer asked Ryan out for a cup of coffee while Amy waited for Greg to ask her."

You are forgetting an incredibly important and interesting part of the story.

In this same tale, Amy and Greg apparently had sex extremely quickly (as in during that same initial date or very soon thereafter).

Now the reason this is interesting is that it has actually been documented in the scientific literature that engaging in sex that early on is a sure way to signal to a potential partner that you are promiscuous and hence not necessarily good long term relationship material.

So on the one hand we have Amy carefully filtering out any man who can't manage to ask her out on the basis that it doesn't work "in the long term" only to then sleep with men who do ask her out even though that tactic is known to destroy long term relationship prospects.

The strategy is completely incoherent if the goal is a long term relationship.

If one doesn't care enough to forgo early sex in a relationship to establish the best chances for a long term relationship (something which has actually been demonstrated in the scientific literature to matter)... then one shouldn't care who asks who out on the basis of long term relationship building.

It simply makes no sense in that context.

The only context in which it makes sense is as a strategy for an extremely risk averse individual who can't take the emotional toll of being rejected.

That type of person doesn't necessarily care if a relationship ends up being long or short term... they just can't take being turned down.

If a guy asks you out there is a good chance he won't reject sex.

If a guy doesn't ask you out then it is unclear whether or not he is interested so making the first move has the potential for rejection.

My take on that is this... if a woman is a risk averse coward who can't muster the courage to risk rejection by approaching a man first then she is free to wait for a guy to ask her out. If she is attractive she will still have many romantic options.

That being said, this still has nothing to do with the preferences of men, and doesn't suggest that men "tend to devalue and reject" women who pursue them.

When recounting the story of when Amy met Gregg, you are leaving out what she said was key. He kissed her without asking permission. She also says any man who asks permission to kiss a woman is not a man and should be rejected. She once again assumes what she believes is what all rational people believe.

Amy's conduct on this thread is why I haven't been here in a long time. She forms an opinion, and when someone disagrees with her, she turns into a total jerk, much like she claims to teach you how to effectively deal with.

Several years ago, she decreed a certain thing, and a woman researcher who was studying that exact issue tried to talk to her. Amy finally told her if she didn't stop disagreeing she would be banned. So much for Amy and science and good manners.

Amy says she studies these things, and thus cannot be wrong. Very funny.

Don't get me wrong. Amy has a lot of talent and does a lot of good for many people. But, she has the capacity to be a total jerk herself the minute someone takes a stand against her.

And, I finally got tired of that. I came back after quite a long time just out of curiosity. Well, I found out! No change.

In this case, though Artemis merely wanted to see the studies, and Amy clearly has nothing.

If one doesn't care enough to forgo early sex in a relationship to establish the best chances for a long term relationship (something which has actually been demonstrated in the scientific literature to matter)... then one shouldn't care who asks who out on the basis of long term relationship building.

It simply makes no sense in that context.

The only context in which it makes sense is as a strategy for an extremely risk averse individual who can't take the emotional toll of being rejected.

Artemis, I agree that is a context in which it makes sense. But I don't think it is the only context. Another way it makes sense is if Amy is focused primarily on what she defines as the behavior of a "real man." When you look at it that way, I think it makes perfect sense for her to refuse to ask a man out, yet sleep with him very soon.

If a guy doesn't ask you out then it is unclear whether or not he is interested so making the first move has the potential for rejection.

Absolutely. The person making the first move is the one putting themself out there.

Amy doesn't strike me as the type of woman who would refuse to ask a man out because she is afraid of rejection but I'm sure a lot of women are that way. In our local alternative weekly, there's a "I Saw You..." page where people post brief ads mentioning someone they saw and were interested in but didn't approach (typically because they were afraid of rejection.) About half the ads are from women. When I was discussing this issue about ten years ago with a group of Seattleites, prompted by an article about dating in The Seattle Times, most of the women admitted that there were times they wanted to make the first move on a guy but they didn't because they were too afraid of being turned down.

Amy has a lot of talent and does a lot of good for many people. But, she has the capacity to be a total jerk herself the minute someone takes a stand against her.

Anonymous, agreed and agreed. You'd think someone who frequently rails against rudeness would refrain from acting that way but I suppose it can be rather easy to not see in yourself what you dislike in others.

JD Says:

"Artemis, I agree that is a context in which it makes sense. But I don't think it is the only context. Another way it makes sense is if Amy is focused primarily on what she defines as the behavior of a "real man." When you look at it that way, I think it makes perfect sense for her to refuse to ask a man out, yet sleep with him very soon."

I agree with you JD to a certain extent... but the issue becomes more murky when Amy also says things like this when she defends her position:

"and Isab, you throw yourself at a man, and you see how that works for you in the long term."

and this:

"High value men, generally, will maybe have sex with you once but then dump you."

Amy doesn't defend her position on the basis that the only men worth dating are those who Amy is attracted to and would define as "real men".

That kind of a defense would immediately be seen as a subjective assessment that isn't necessarily applicable to all women.

Instead Amy defends her position on the basis that if you don't follow her advice you will end up with a wimpy loser or used and abused by a series of high-value men who will most likely dump you after a quick romp.

Amy argues that by definition, relationships which form in any way other than the one she approves of are "unsuccessful".

It is tautological really.

The way she has set things up, if you are in a relationship with a wimp you are unsuccessful... and if you are in a relationship with a guy who has sex with you and dumps you then you are unsuccessful.

That would be all well and good except she goes one step further and defines the wimp as the guy who sticks around... and the high-value guy as the one who ditches you.

She excludes from the list of reasonable possibilities a high value guy who stays for the long term. The very fact that he stays is the evidence necessary to classify him as a loser apparently... because if he was *really* high value he would have dumped her due to the fact that she pursued him.

Her entire argument is circular.

Why did they stick around for the long term?... Because they were losers.

What makes them losers?... they stuck around for the long term.

There are so many holes in her argument that I barely know where to begin.

Love you Artremis. You can't debate Amy. She thinks she knows everything.