Since folks seem rather intent on going off-topic, I figured a post devoted to that purpose seems appropriate. Please continue any discussions from the old threads that weren’t relevant to those topics here. This will be a lightly moderated but I would ask folks to show at least some restraint.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Christian Blogs
Christian Masculinity Blogs
Edifying Reading
Feminine Blogs
Inactive/Archived/Private
Parenting/Families
Red Pill Christian Blogs
Red Pill Women
Secular Red Pill Blogs
Top Posts
Categories
- Alpha
- Alpha Widow
- APE
- Attraction
- Beta
- Blue Pill
- Christianity
- Churchianity
- Civilization
- Courtship
- Desire
- Fatherhood
- Femininity
- Feminism
- Fitness Test
- God
- Hypergamy
- LAMPS
- Marriage
- Marriage Market Place
- Masculinity
- Men
- Moral Agency
- Neo-Reaction
- Pair Bonding
- Parenting
- Polygamy
- Red Pill
- Reference
- Saturday Saints
- Selected Sunday Scriptures
- Serial Monogamy
- Sex
- Sexual Market Place
- Sexual Strategies
- Sin
- State of Nature
- Sunshine Mary
- Temptation
- The Church
- Tradition
- Uncategorized
- Women
Archives
- April 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
Meta
Donal Graeme · Wisdom cries out in the street… who shall listen?
Donal Graeme 
@Tru
Actually, women always make the first move.
Some Problems In Christian Dating
The better model is not to think of it in terms of “moves”, but
Women initiate, men respond
@ Tru
I’m not sure I get the distinction between bio-attraction and looks, but that might be cause I’m male.
Isn’t bio-attraction basically looks (both objective looks and your personal type)? It might be generally mutual whenever a woman is bio-into someone, but I doubt it works the other way around.
Nemesis,
“Bio-Attraction” is chemical mostly. Think pheromones and hormones. Stuff that you pick up by smell and other, less noticeable senses. It is very much below the radar, and so easy to miss. I didn’t integrate it into the LAMPS formula because of this. My suspicion is that it is stronger in women than in men, although I don’t know by how much.
Bio attraction is the funny valentine. You’ve never had an unusual crush on someone?
I look back to when I was a younger woman. Here’s the odd thing: I personally didn’t grow into myself until I was around 24 or 25. My bone-structure took an unusually long time to mature. Even so, a lot of people in young adulthood had a weird look to them, and they look different now. Ugly ducklings and reverse ugly ducklings aren’t uncommon. Bio-attraction probably plays a role in things, especially when you consider historically young wives.
I think Nem could be right that it’s a bigger player for women than it is for men. There’s very little about a man that would cause a woman to go, “WOW! Hold up! Look at that!” Men have bio-attraction AND looks, in terms of selection.
Tru
If I’m bio-into someone, they don’t even need game.
Is the reverse also true, though? Can someone with game cause you to be into them if you weren’t biologically attracted from the beginning?
@ballista
What you say about women making the first move…are you saying that is a good thing–that women initiate and men respond? Because that is totally backwards…if that carries into a marriage it will be femdom all the way…with her leading by initiating and the man sitting around waiting to respond(submit). I’ll agree that is the current dating set-up….that men are too timid to initiate but that needs to change to lead into a better foundation for marriage.
“Is the reverse also true, though? Can someone with game cause you to be into them if you weren’t biologically attracted from the beginning?”
Yes, but its a fake attraction or one on shaky grounds. I would call it societal attraction, because fabricated skills are applied to get the attractions. Its a temp fix, not the lasting one that bio-attraction is.
@ lgrobins
If you read English plays or even older works, it has always been that way. Women have always done most of the initiating, with men responding through courtship. The only exceptions were cads/casanovas/players, who were just as bad prospects then as they are today.
And the alternative, men pursuing with women being the choosers, will result in more of a femdom dynamic. It sets it up as women being the valued and choosy sex whom men must constantly seek to impress.
LGR:
No. A woman has to make the first move through showing IOIs. In that way, a man can know that she is attracted to him. Her sexual attraction for him is an absolute MUST or the relationship is dead before it starts. He needs her to show indicators that she’s interested in him before he invests anything. The reason is that her submission will be much easier if she is sexually attracted to him. Also, in today’s day and age, the only relationships that have any chance at all are the ones in which she is sexually attracted to him from the very beginning of the relationship.
Though that dynamic (she initiates, he responds) doesn’t carry over into the rest of the relationship, it’s essential for it to begin that way.
@ lgr
Women making the first “move” is natural. However, their move is a passive one. They adjust their body language, give off IOIs, and basically invite a man to approach. A man approaching a woman without getting those is either approaching a woman who has already screened against him, and is thus likely to fail, or he is making a cold approach. Cold approaches are also very difficult, and unlikely to succeed.
Keep in mind that this was the normal way of “doing things” for a long time. Remember, women are the gatekeepers.
Nemesis:
I think that looks, body type, and bio-attraction are far, far more important for both men and women than women are willing to admit. I think looks and bio-attraction are more important for women than previously thought. I really am coming around to the notion that if a woman is not bio-attracted from the very start, he should walk away, nay, RUN away, and not invest anything.
Just look at the way Elspeth talks about SAM in the comboxes and at her blog. Just remember the way SSM used to talk about HHG at her old blog. These women are so sexually attracted to their husbands that they can barely see straight. What’s more, they can’t fathom that most marriages are NOT like that. They just can’t see how any woman would marry a man that she doesn’t want to sex up five times a day.
THAT is the kind of attraction a man should be going for. And that’s rare. I still can’t get these women to believe me on that score.
“Women making the first “move” is natural. However, their move is a passive one. They adjust their body language, give off IOIs, and basically invite a man to approach. ***
“Keep in mind that this was the normal way of “doing things” for a long time. Remember, women are the gatekeepers.”
Women still do this, and it still is the normal way of doing things. What’s different now is that women have been given more sexual power. Those “first moves” are all directed at the hottest men, who then select the women they want. Those “first moves” can be essentially anything they want, with no societal sanction. They can be passive. They can also be active, overt and even aggressive. And so the top men receive all these IOIs, and the lower 80% of men receive nothing.
@ jack: I actually like a lot about you. I’m not as critical as I appear. I just want to make sure I’m safe. I’m inwardly very attached to people, even if I haven’t known them for my entire life. My reactions should be viewed with that premise in mind. I think better of people than I let-on.
I believe that you’re telling the truth, in this instance. It all adds-up, when I read between the lines.
There was a mistake, a while back, with diagnosing a learning disability for ADD, so I struggle with hormones and chemical balance now, thanks to ADD meds. Everyone has their thing. Sometimes, I’m a little more emotional than others. Please bear in mind that I can get really scared when you try to mess with me like. I’m empathetic to where you’re at, but you probably don’t realize that it can be pretty terrifying to me when you do that.
It’s not who I am, but sometimes my fight or flight response will flare-up, or sadness will flare-up. It’s the same thing as people who have eczema flare-ups. It’s just there sometimes. There’s probably a treatment for it, but I have to figure-out what that is. Like, right now, I’m just fine. It’s weird.
@ Donal,
Just curious how much you apply all this theory in the field?
Are you all talking about flirting then? And is there ever a point then where the man takes over with first moves once a baseline is established?
@Hank:
Not if you’re bio-repulsed by someone. Otherwise, it’s pretty typical for a woman to be indifferent at first, and then like someone later-on. Strong bio-attraction is quite rare: I can count the times it’s happened to me on two hands. Generally speaking, men are attracted to a woman first, and then win them over by getting to know them. Women are the opposite: we aren’t attracted at first, and then get won-over. The exceptions are bio-attraction, physical attractiveness, and pre-selection.
This too. Our Id does not differentiate between dating, bf/gf, and marriage. It merely sees a pattern leading up to copulation. It’s not going to change once you get married.
@Deti: Again, effective IOIs sent by women are a result of friendliness and contentment.
Women are not aware that they are sending these IOIs. No just, “whoops, I was wearing a short skirt!” unaware, but literally 0% aware. Women tend to see men as sexually neutral creatures. Looking at a man does not tend to arouse me. The way I view most men is the way that you’d view “Where’s Waldo?” or Mr. Rogers: non-sexual. So, when I’m being friendly, it looks like flirting *to them*, but to me, I’m just going, “Hi, Waldo!”
My sending an IOI does not mean that I’ve (at least consciously) thought of a guy sexually at all. It’s also not really something I do.
Eye-contact often means something to me, and something to the guy, but it doesn’t tend to lead anywhere. So, it’s not a good IOI, in my opinion. It’s one of those signs of attraction that someone on here said you sprinkle in with general friendliness.
“Are you all talking about flirting then? ”
More or less. Flirting is encompassed within this. There’s more to it, though.
“And is there ever a point then where the man takes over with first moves once a baseline is established?”
Well, yes. She has to show she’s interested. She has to say, in effect, nonverbally, “I am interested in you. I find you sexually attractive. I want to be alone with you. I trust you.”
That has to happen FIRST. She has to give him that FIRST. He has to take it from there.
The problem is that many men don’t pick up on those signals, for a couple of reasons: (1) they haven’t been taught or trained what to look for; or (2) they are told that if they respond under certain circumstances, they are guilty of sexual harassment or sexual assault or rape.
“Just look at the way Elspeth talks about SAM in the comboxes and at her blog.”
She did it here too above…some remark about him being “seriously handsome”. Its like OK OK we get it…your husband is HAWT!
“ Generally speaking, men are attracted to a woman first, and then win them over by getting to know them. Women are the opposite: we aren’t attracted at first, and then get won-over. The exceptions are bio-attraction, physical attractiveness, and pre-selection.”
I agree that this is the way most men and women are getting together. The problem is that it doesn’t work to keep most marriages and relationships together.
If I were doing this now, there’s no way I’d invest any amount of work in trying to “win over” a woman who isn’t sexually attracted to me right out of the gate. Too much work, risks vastly outweigh potential return on investment, and it’s probably not going to work. Ain’t worth it.
I’ve had both kinds of relationships – ones where I “won over” (heh, as if) the woman, and ones where the sexual attraction was there from the get go. The best ones, the ones that actually worked, were the ones in which she was sexually attracted to me from the very start. In the ones where I did all the work to “win over” a woman who wasn’t attracted, I didn’t really “win” her. I just exhausted myself, proving myself and qualifying myself over and over again, and I failed. So a man having to “win over” a woman isn’t really “winning her over”. He’s just getting on the hamsterwheel, constantly asking her “is this good enough? Is this good enough? How about this? How about now? Good enough now?”
No. Thank. You. I’ll pass.
LGR:
I’m actually glad for Elspeth and don’t wish her ill in that regard at all.
It’s just that women who are sexually attracted to their husbands are quite myopic about it. They presume that all marriages must be like that. They can’t fathom a marriage that isn’t like that. They can’t understand a woman actually walking down an aisle and saying “I do” to a man she isn’t cross-eyed with sexual juices for. But unfortunately, that happens all the time, because women want to get married, they want kids, they want that “dream”, and they want a man, some man, any man, to finance it.
@ lgrobins
Yes, in mainstream secular dating the man is responsible for initiating the first date, the first kiss, the first sexual intercourse, and for proposing marriage. Of course, for the religious folks waiting till marriage, there is no need for the first sexual intercourse to actually be initiated. But all of the rest still applies. The woman shows the first signs of interest and keeps showing interest until the first date, and then she simply shows continued interest by enthusiastically participating in the first kiss, reciprocating his courtship with gestures such as baked goods, and saying “yes” to the proposal.
LGR:
And women lie to themselves. They tell themselves they are sexually attracted to the 43rd guy they’ve dated and/or had sex with, because, well, she wouldn’t have sex with him if she weren’t sexually attracted to him. I mean, she likes him well enough; he’s not repulsive. He’s nice to her. He’s kind to her. He buys her $100 steak dinners every so often, and takes her to movies, and buys her drinks and nights out.
And, you know, the sex is OK, as long as it’s once a week (no more than that) and missionary position only with a towel under her hips so there’s no wet spot and she can get up right away to expel the icky semen he just ejaculated into her and she doesn’t have to give him BJs because, um, well, BJs are kinda gross, and only sluts do that, and she’s not a slut (anymore), and she doesn’t want him to think she’s a slut, because he’s a Nice Guy and he treats her like the queen she knows she isn’t and doesn’t really deserve, but she wants that treatment because she is (wants to be) a Nice Girl (now). And it’s Nice Sex.
So, hey, she MUST be sexually attracted to him. Right? Right?
“I’d invest any amount of work in trying to “win over” a woman who isn’t sexually attracted to me right out of the gate.”
It almost never happens right away. It’s only happened to me a few times. You have to give it at least a month. You have to remember that women are, by and large, NOT visually turned-on. You’re thinking in terms of someone who is visually turned-on, or a man. The factors that I may find attractive aren’t readily apparent. There isn’t enough information right away to tell me whether or not I’m attracted to someone.
@ deti:
Which is why for men:
1. Getting ripped
2. Good fashion sense
3. Style of hair/facial hair if any
4. How you carry yourself
Are important before women ever talk to you. The more attractive you are at the start the easier it will be. AKA first impressions.
Frankly, the same is true for women who want to be attractive to men as well.
@lgrobins You got good responses to what you wrote to me. If it helps, think of it like fishing. Odds are going to be very rare (*) that just putting a hook out is going to get a fish. You got to offer some bait – something attractive to give the fish a reason to strike. As I illustrated in that linked post and one other, a woman can’t just show up and expect men to jump all over her. She needs to offer a reason for them to approach her to talk.
(*) in all the times I went fishing, once I did get fish without setting bait because there were flies all along the water, so all it took was me dipping the hook. While exceedingly rare, it’s not at all impossible to get strikes without bait.
Tru:
Nope. Wrong wrong wrong. You said immediate visceral attraction has happened to you enough times that you needed to count it on both hands. That’s maybe 7 or 8 times it’s happened to you. That’s enough times to get one or two of them interested enough to get to a first date, or even a second, I’d think.
And no, I don’t have to give it at least a month. In today’s day and age, I’m not sure I’d give it more than a day or two. Too much time, too many resources expended with no or very little return, too much risk.
A woman has more than enough info in the first couple of hours to determine if visceral sexual attraction is there. If it’s not there in the first couple of hours, it ain’t ever gonna be there. If what you’re saying is correct, Tru, then no woman would ever sex up a guy in a bar bathroom or have a one night stand, and those things happen all the time, everywhere.
Deti, a relationship where comfort>attraction is a relationship where comfort>attraction. I’m talking about attraction. There is absolutely nothing about most men that would cause me to be attracted at first sight. Even with some guys, they seem like my “type” at first, but then you date them and they’re boring.
I wish no ill either, I just chuckle everytime I see it. Its become comical and just their personality.
@ lgrobins
I rely more on observations than “field experimentation.” Once you know what to look for, you can see it all the time. I have several friends who married their high-school sweethearts, and in both instances that model was followed. Looking at other relationships, I have seen it as well.
It isn’t necessarily flirting. That is far more active, although it can happen if the woman is especially aggressive. Mostly it is sending out IOIs, and seeming approachable to the man in question. Open body language versus closed body language. That kind of thing.
And yes, the point is definitely there where the man takes over. That is what IOIs are for- an invitation for the man to take over the interaction.
Deti, I don’t know… I never got the whole bathroom sex ONS thing. Maybe it’s a virgin thing.
“That’s enough times to get one or two of them interested enough to get to a first date, or even a second, I’d think.”
It usually happens with awkward people at awkward times. So, my friend’s dad, an Indian immigrant, etc. It’s just entirely random. I also don’t feel comfortable giving a stranger my number and meeting him for coffee. I don’t know if he’s an axe-murder. I should probably be less cautious, but at the same time, you go out with enough guys, your risk of dying increases.
I think it’s random. My biggest heartthrob took me at least a month or two to like and years to get over. You never know with people. You might meet someone who’s really attractive now, and then be over it later.
“a relationship where comfort>attraction is a relationship where comfort>attraction.”
Uh. Yeah. I get that. Relationships where there is more comfort than attraction are ones in which the woman wears the pants, she loses what little attraction is there, the sex dries up, she gets unhaaaappy, and the relationship ultimately fails. That describes about 50% to 70% of all the marriages in the entire nation.
“I’m talking about attraction.”
Yes, so am I. I’m very familiar with the concept. I’m not sure you are, though. “Attraction” means visceral, sexual attraction. A hard pull, a hard draw, you feel for the man. Like Elspeth constantly describes about SAM. Like Sunshine Mary used to describe about her husband HHG (a man who was attractive enough to have extramarital sexual affairs with 30 different women during their marriage). A draw that makes a woman turned on, she wants to have sex with him. She is not simply “willing” to have sex with him. She WANTS to have sex with him. She WANTS to have his children. She wants to get naked with him, wants him. Desires him. Shows the IOIs like stroking her neck, twirling her hair, smiling, tipping her head downward and looking at him with upcast eyes, squaring her body up to his, opening her body up to him.
That’s attraction.
“There is absolutely nothing about most men that would cause me to be attracted at first sight. Even with some guys, they seem like my “type” at first, but then you date them and they’re boring.”
I agree with this. I agree that you will not be viscerally sexually attracted to most men. If it isn’t there in the first couple of hours, it will never be there.
So when you talk about not knowing if attraction is there for at least a month, what you’re really talking about is not attraction. It’s COMFORT. What you’re actually talking about is that you feel at ease with him, comfortable with him. That’s all well and good. But it is NOT sexual attraction. It is NOT visceral. It is NOT something that a man should risk his entire life on. It might be advantageous for YOU. It is not advantageous for him. It’s too risky and too expensive for him.
@ Donal: aaaand an IOI is open-body language, whether you’re conscious of the IOI or not. Because usually, we’re not. ^_^
“I don’t know… I never got the whole bathroom sex ONS thing. Maybe it’s a virgin thing.”
**rolls eyes** Jeez. You’re trolling now.
“You got to offer some bait – something attractive to give the fish a reason to strike. As I illustrated in that linked post and one other, a woman can’t just show up and expect men to jump all over her. She needs to offer a reason for them to approach her to talk.”
Then I wouldn’t call that initiating. Its just being attractive. This who flirting but its not flirting thing is just as elusive as the bio attraction thing…that is trying to find a way to describe it.
I have no idea why I continually try to explain this stuff to women, when men are the ones who need to get it.
Carry on. I give up.
@lgrobins It is initiating. I don’t bait the hook and cast it, I get no fish. That’s absolutely guaranteed. If I want fish, I got to go to the body of water and cast the hook. I’m initiating by performing the action looking for a strike of a fish.
This is really the state of a number of women (especially Christian women). They don’t do anything to get approached by men, and in fact do things that keep them from getting approached, yet wonder why men don’t like them.
“I rely more on observations than “field experimentation.”
This is a mistake. Everyone pontificates online thinking they know everything, but few put all these theories in practice.
I say this not to be difficult, but because I learned the hard way. I had a lot of beliefs about being a mom and having children, snobby beliefs, that were entirely proved wrong in practice, in the field of real life.
I didn’t think Laura was trying to be derisive. I know that I can be over the top when discussing my husband and I don’t mind being reminded how I come across from time to time. It really is just my personality. One that I have decided not to try and hide anymore but I could stand to dial it back a bit sometimes..
I’m not bothered that anyone finds it funny. It’s better that what my daughter thinks: “I’m glad you and Dad are into each other but you’re kind of disgusting”. Yep, I just did it again.
To the issue of women signaling interest, I agree that a woman usually does little things to signal that she can be approached. However, all too often the rhetoric offered by you Deti (and others) sounds like a woman needs to be doing a lot more than that. I agree with Laura that it smacks of the woman setting a tone of initiation and leadership that will be a problem in a marriage relationship. Femdom, I believe she called it.
‘You have to remember that women are, by and large, NOT visually turned-on.”
Uh, yes, actually they are. Women have been describing that visual “turn on” right here on this very thread. I’ve also seen women get turned on by a man’s looks. I’ve seen it happen in person, up close and personal. I’ve heard and read women describe getting visually turned on.
This is a mistake. Everyone pontificates online thinking they know everything, but few put all these theories in practice.
I say this not to be difficult, but because I learned the hard way. I had a lot of beliefs about being a mom and having children, snobby beliefs, that were entirely proved wrong in practice, in the field of real life.
I couldn’t have said this any better myself. There is no amount of reading or observation that can fully prepare you for the real thing.
Better check out now before someone assumes LGR is my new best friend or something. ‘Night all.
“ However, all too often the rhetoric offered by you Deti (and others) sounds like a woman needs to be doing a lot more than that. I agree with Laura that it smacks of the woman setting a tone of initiation and leadership that will be a problem in a marriage relationship. Femdom, I believe she called it.”
We’ve had this discussion before, and I stand by my position. A woman does need to be doing more than flirting. She does need to be doing more than sending out IOIs. She needs to send out IOIs that even an idiot wouldn’t miss. She meets a guy she’s interested in, she needs to bang him over the head with IOIs. And she needs to be asking out men she’s interested in. She needs to bear some of the searching costs and risks. She needs to be much, much more forward today. She needs to be making it very, very clear that her interest is there, it’s unmistakable, that she’s not going to nuke the guy, that she’s not going to accuse him of sexual harassment or rape, and she’s going to say “yes” if he asks her out.
I know you don’t like it. But this is the world we live in now. It’s just the way it is. If women aren’t more proactive, they will miss out. They will miss good men. They will end up alone, or desperate and seeking a man, any man, when they’re 29.
“Shows the IOIs like stroking her neck, twirling her hair, smiling, tipping her head downward and looking at him with upcast eyes, squaring her body up to his, opening her body up to him.”
I’ll have to remember to do this. I’m often tense around the person I like, so this doesn’t happen.
There’s kind of like a scale wherein I go:
1. Not attracted. Won’t be. “Friendship on Fire,” no thanks.
2. This has a lot of promise; I’m curious
3. I’m attracted to this person
4. I’m insanely attracted to this person, make it stop! Does not need game.
The guy I really liked that took me a month was in category four: category fours are also bio-attractive guys. Category threes have been guys that I’ve pretty quickly been attracted to or guys that I wasn’t attracted to right away. Category two guys are guys who I think are cute or guys who I don’t know enough about. Category one guys are guys I’ve stopped dating or guys I can tell I do not like right away.
Most men I’m meeting at this stage in my life are in categories one and two. So, it’s a good idea for me to consider guys in category two. There’s a reason they aren’t in the one pile right now. They might get put in the three pile later. They probably won’t be put in the four pile, but you never know. The four pile is a unicorn.
For perspective, I find Benedict Cumberbatch extremely attractive. I can’t shut up about him! He’s in the *three* pile. I don’t think any male celebrity is more attractive than him.
Mr. and Mrs. Darcy are attracted in a level three way.
Level four would be count of Monte Cristo or Romeo and Juliette or Corpse Bride any story wherein the character never got over someone.
I’m open to level two going to level three. I’d need at least 3 or 4 to get married. Most people settle for two, which I wouldn’t. But you have to date twos to see if it would work, because there aren’t enough threes or fours.
*You have to be open to the two becoming a three.
TRu:
So, basically, you’re saying a man should be open to betting his life on “this has a lot of promise, I’m curious”?
That’s a bet I’d advise any man not to take — at least not today. That’s a bet that might have paid off 50 or 60 years ago, but not today. I’ve known lots of men who bet their lives on “has a lot of promise” and lost. They’re here now, picking up the pieces of their shattered lives or desperately trying to keep what’s left of them together.
Deti, I’ve scared away guys I was very attracted to with your advice. So. No. It doesn’t work. Time and time again, it doesn’t work. You can’t ask them out, unless the context is they have no way of asking you out (like they’re at work). It seems like a good idea, but it’s never worked for me. I don’t know if you’ve ever seriously considered a woman who’s asked you out, but… that’s that. I can’t afford to do that anymore.
ballista: “This is really the state of a number of women (especially Christian women). They don’t do anything to get approached by men, and in fact do things that keep them from getting approached, yet wonder why men don’t like them.”
That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time
Deti, it’s not betting his life at all. We don’t exclusively date anymore. That what “relationships” are for. You have to get to know a lot of people through dating. Just don’t talk about who else you’re seeing, because it’s offensive.
Dating tends to be less formal nowadays. It’s entirely affordable for a young man to see two girls at once. A coffee date here, a stroll here, a lunch date here. And women offer to go Dutch. It’s no big deal.
@ lgrobins
With all due respect, it is you who are mistaken here. And about several things, it would seem.
First off, I said I rely on observations more, not observations only. Huge difference there.
Second, parenting strategies, or even how to be a good mother/wife, have next to nothing in common with what we are talking about here. We are talking about the Dance of Attraction/Courtship here.
I have observed, through reading the stories of others and watching others, and have experienced what I am talking about here.
Women set the first move, by determining their approachability. This can be very general, by simply adopting open body language. Or it can be specific, by throwing IOIs at certain men. Or the reverse can take place, by them throwing IODs (indicators of disinterest) at men. I’ve seen both. And I’ve experienced both.
You know the phrase “cold shoulder?” Yeah, totally got that before. I know from experience that approaching women with closed body language doesn’t work. And that the opposite is the case with women with open body language.
There are two things going on here, I think. First, you associate “initiate” from women with “initiate” from men. They aren’t the same, or at least, they don’t have to be. While both men and women can copy each others moves, they shouldn’t. Tends not to work out well. Rather, each has a separate script they should use.
Second, I think you are adopting your position because it fits in with a preexisting bias you have. While I understand your starting point, and agree that we should be careful of “topping from the bottom” (or whatever its called), this isn’t what is going on here.
Women need to indicate that they’re generically open to a hypothetical guy. The guy makes a move. The woman responds with flirting or not. If the response is favorable, and the guy is still interested, guy proceeds to ask the woman out.
That’s the basic idea, not perfect.
@ Elspeth
I find your comment hilarious because your story, based on what I recall, would seem to support this theory.
[DG: Edited because it sounded odd]