NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?

Because they usually are?

Generally, bitter experience. I've had many a platonic male friend whom I thought was just being nice turn out to be trying to get something out of it. It's unfair for women to assume that all guys are like most of the guys they've encountered...but, well, it's rather understandable.

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?

Sure, guys can be nice and friendly, if they're gay. Otherwise, it's assumed that at some point they will at least think about having sex with us. And if you don't, why ... how dare you? Such an insult, I never! ;)

Are you asking this because of the one incident? You already said the woman in question was going through some turmoil, so she was probably on edge to begin with.

I do try to stay away from comenting on the way sex enters into so much of modern life, because doing that makes it enter into even more, but you must admit that there is this whole sub-culture of lust all around, as if you aren't a real man if you hitting on every woman who walks by.

Just keep on being polite and nice and it will pay off.

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?

my problem is that I get to the 'friends' point of the relationship and that's where it stays.

so yeah, I can compliment her till she's sick of it but she won't even think that I'm trying to get into her pants.

The Female Hive Mind is displeased with your question.

my problem is that I get to the 'friends' point of the relationship and that's where it stays.

so yeah, I can compliment her till she's sick of it but she won't even think that I'm trying to get into her pants.
Aaah, Assumed Gay Best Friend Syndrome. Sad times pour toi.

my problem is that I get to the 'friends' point of the relationship and that's where it stays.

so yeah, I can compliment her till she's sick of it but she won't even think that I'm trying to get into her pants.
Random idea:

Try being honest about your desires and intentions, instead of expecting her to read your mind and give you what you want without you asking for it. :D

Possibly because many guys are? We have to be on our guard around you.

And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?
I don't see how niceness and sexual desire are incompatible.

I've done the opposite of most women and not assumed guys want sex, and I wound up having a bunch of my friends flirt and hit on me several times, one even kissed me without provocation... though we were drunk and I did say he didn't have the guts to act on how he felt about a girl.

Now I got a wedding band, so there's no confusion! :)

No comment. We're screwed either way. If we're nice; they assume we're trying to sleep with them. If we're mean, they'll get someone to silently assassinate us.

My best choice: avoid said situation at all costs.

I've never actually experienced that. Then again, I generally don't compliment people.

Random idea:

Try being honest about your desires and intentions, instead of expecting her to read your mind and give you what you want without you asking for it. :D

... except, by the time I get the courage to try to take that next step... we're in friendsville... :p

Because they usually are?
Even if that's true, treating all men as if they are should be considered sexist behaviour.

It's analogous to assuming the black buyers at a sportscard convention are poorer than the white buyers, and if that's racist (I don't think it is, but the more widely held opinion here is that it is), then what you've described must therefore be sexist.

The two are perfectly analogous.

... except, by the time I get the courage to try to take that next step... we're in friendsville... :p
I've never understood that mindset.

Why would you date a person who wasn't your friend first? Why would being a friend do anything but improve your odds of dating somebody?

Frankly, if being a friend makes a person LESS likely to date you, then you're doing it wrong.

that will teach you! next time hopefully you would of learned that a morbid/crude joke about the situation is much more fun

yes I did do that when a friends mom had a heart attack *strikes to-do list*

so yeah, I can compliment her till she's sick of it but she won't even think that I'm trying to get into her pants.

go find someone else so she gets jealous and thinks shes in love with you

Now I got a wedding band, so there's no confusion! :)

"my perants just spent $40,000 on this wedding and they won't pay it all again" would be much more affective :p

my problem is that I get to the 'friends' point of the relationship and that's where it stays.

so yeah, I can compliment her till she's sick of it but she won't even think that I'm trying to get into her pants.

it's because you don't move fast enough, seriously if you don't ask a girl out in a certain amount of time then she assumes you aren't gonna*




*big unsourced generalization.

My advice to guys; be nice to girls. Otherwise every other girl on the planet will band together and try to kill you:sniper:

Even if that's true, treating all men as if they are should be considered sexist behaviour.

It's analogous to assuming the black buyers at a sportscard convention are poorer than the white buyers, and if that's racist (I don't think it is, but the more widely held opinion here is that it is), then what you've described must therefore be sexist.

True. Just like it's sexist to assume that all women do this, and to OP this thread asking all "ladies" why they do something, when of course many ladies DON'T do that and the OP is only generalizing based on sex.

If guys want girls to stop treating them in sexist ways, a good start would be for them to knock off their own sexist behavior and discourage other males from such behavior. Be the bigger men, so to speak, and let your good example encourage others to follow suit.

That's what I try to do, though I'm not always 100% successful. :D

Then again, perhaps this never happened to me because the image of me trying to get into a girl's pants is completely ludicrous, considering how oblivious I was. Well, how oblivious I looked. By the time I graduated high school I think people were beginning to figure out that I knew more and listened more than I let on. In retrospect, it was probably because of the time in health class when I correctly identified every single part of the female reproductive system because everyone else was too busy giggling to do so.

Well the problem for most women is they see media driven ideals, of them wearing skimpy clothing so some copy this. The smarter ones hate this and rebel against it. Some guys fall for this and are genuinly nasty, some aren't and get ignored.

The solution? Speak to them. Typically most girls will find love, typically a smaller percentage of men find love, but nick more women. Thus bias against men not in love. This could become very complicated.
And some women i know who are really smart do incredibly stupid stuff, some smart guys i know generally avoid stupid stuff, usually the dumb ones get all the attention. (to be honest i know little of this kind of psychology).
Best bet to speak to her and bitch at her, nice guys usually are ignored hence why so many are cruel.
I'm placing value judgements of what i know to general public which is not true, just my experiences, i could be wrong.
A good test for women to know what kind of man they're lover will be is see how he treats people like waiters, bar staff or the like, if he's nice he's probably nice, if he's cruel well back off. (i read this from a little guide sheet about domestic violence, it's a long story).

PS
Sorry if my circular arguments come to nothing but to be honest speaking to her generally helps.
Here have some of my luck instead of my strange comments, i've just read it and it doesn't make much sense to me either.

True. Just like it's sexist to assume that all women do this, and to OP this thread asking all "ladies" why they do something, when of course many ladies DON'T do that and the OP is only generalizing based on sex.

If guys want girls to stop treating them in sexist ways, a good start would be for them to knock off their own sexist behavior and discourage other males from such behavior. Be the bigger men, so to speak, and let your good example encourage others to follow suit.

That's what I try to do, though I'm not always 100% successful. :D


Did I say all women where this way? In fact, I said most, not all. With my experience, and it seems like the experience of most other guys on here, and even the admittance of several women on here, I think that I can reasonably assume that a good majority of women act like this. And I am not generalizing based on sex. I have never heard of a man getting all pissy because a girl comes up to him and says "well you look handsome". So quit with all the bullshit talk about sexism, because its not happening.

Wait. There are more women on Earth than men. Barring polygamous relationships, it is thus impossible for a higher percentage of women to find love than men, especially since homosexuality is more common in men than in women.

I've never understood that mindset.

Why would you date a person who wasn't your friend first? Why would being a friend do anything but improve your odds of dating somebody?

Frankly, if being a friend makes a person LESS likely to date you, then you're doing it wrong.

Me, because I am very shy. it takes me a while to 'come out of my shell'.

Possibly because many guys are? We have to be on our guard around you.

Why?

If a guy wants to get a girl in bed she could just....refuse, right?

because women are overly emotional and always take what men say a way it wasn't meant? I dunno

it's because you don't move fast enough, seriously if you don't ask a girl out in a certain amount of time then she assumes you aren't gonna*




*big unsourced generalization.

Agreed... what I need is a woman who is like me... and just as shy.

then we can be on the same time table. :p

Personally, I never assumed a guy was trying to get into my pants. If anything, I assumed (sometimes incorrectly) that he wasn't.

It probably has more to do with her past relationships with guys than with girls in general, or even with you.

I haven't had that happen to me, and I am very nice to women - I try to be a gentleman as much as possible. As a result, I have several female friends (no girlfriend yet, but that's another story).

Why would you date a person who wasn't your friend first? Why would being a friend do anything but improve your odds of dating somebody?


Just my thought. But still, I did once have this friend who, after we really got to know each other for some months, said something like 'why didn't you ask sooner?' when I asked for a date... It seems that a man she doesn't know well is more interesting to the average hive-minded woman than an 'established' friend. Judging from other posts here, it would seem that it's not just me turning out a bore after a while ;)

"First the gods created man and woman, then the gods created love for man and woman so that both are happy, then the gods created laughter to deal with love."

With an increasing amount of divorces women are gaining more independance from their male counterparts, Generally speaking people become married after their 30s or later, due to an increasing freedom gained by women to pursue their careers. In short Women as with men will become equally clueless as to how to make a stable relationship.

Also typically women will have far clearer defined "roles" in her social groups, to chat and have close relations with her friends women have shared "rituals" with make-up, beauty shopping, clothes shopping. With men this isn't the case often mens "roles" in a group are limited and generally don't have as close relations with friends mens "rituals" tend to be going to be pub, club, sport.
If we compare the "rituals" we can see womens are being generally "closer" social movements than men, thus women have better coping systems when dealing with stress or other issues, men tend to be more solitary.

lemme explain.
if you aren't a girls friend, and you are overly nice, or bestfriend like nice, then we assume you want to get in our pants
if a friend acts like that, they're being nice, though at age, most girls will have that in the back of their mind.
Girls like being friends with guys!!!!! My best friends are guys
girls like to go out with guys they know. My boyfriend started out as a good friend

Does that help?

I haven't had that happen to me, and I am very nice to women - I try to be a gentleman as much as possible. As a result, I have several female friends (no girlfriend yet, but that's another story).

I'm with you, brother.

It's annoying some days - I have this wierd inferiority complex that causes me to try and be overly nice in a desperate attempt to get conversations over and done with. Which is probably the reason I'm here at 12.15am typing this instead of getting trashed on shots and booze like most people my age :P

The Female Hive Mind is displeased with your question.

I lol'd.

one even kissed me without provocation... though we were drunk and I did say he didn't have the guts to act on how he felt about a girl.

Having a drunken discussion about intimate feelings and then daring someone to act is hardly "without provocation" in my book, sister. As long as you both had a good laugh out of it, though, it's all good.

I've never understood that mindset.

Why would you date a person who wasn't your friend first? Why would being a friend do anything but improve your odds of dating somebody?

Frankly, if being a friend makes a person LESS likely to date you, then you're doing it wrong.
Ditto that. One of my female friends is also one of my best friends. We also have consistantly stated that we would date eachother...we've just never actually done it.

I don't think I've ever dated someone I don't consider a good friend.

I lol'd.

I soiled myself and hid under the covers.


<.<
>.>


Was that out loud?

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?

Often it's not to do with what you say but how you say it and the circumstances in which you say it.

There's a thousand factors in setting someone, anyone, off, especially if they're feeling low already.

Was your statement related to her problem in anyway? If not, it might seem like a line over listening and relating to her problem.

I'll usually tell them to go fuck themselves, and say something regarding what is making them so upset in the first place just to make it worse. If you think you are free to be sexist because you are a woman, I'm not going to be nice to you at all. Me wanting in your pants has no correlation to how nice I am to you. Thankfully, chicks seem to figure this out rather quickly...

Because there are low-down, rotten guys who just want sex.

That's it. That's why women tend to not trust nice guys. End of story.

Because there are low-down, rotten guys who just want sex.

That's it. That's why women tend to not trust nice guys. End of story.

There are girls who are exactly the same, yet I (and most guys, in my experience) don't have a problem taking a compliment from a member of the female sex or instantly assume they just want sex

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?


women vary widely in personal experience and reactions. if you want to know why she made the assumption you should ask her.

There are girls who are exactly the same, yet I (and most guys, in my experience) don't have a problem taking a compliment from a member of the female sex or instantly assume they just want sex

But the world would be a much better place if they did ;)

I've never had a woman assume I was trying to get into her pants just because I was being nice. I must be doing something wrong.

And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?
Your biggest problem here? Trying to figure out women. Give it up son!! :D

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?

What was the compliment? "Nice boobs" ?

Your biggest problem here? Trying to figure out women. Give it up son!! :D

No kidding. :)

Why would you date a person who wasn't your friend first? Why would being a friend do anything but improve your odds of dating somebody?

Maybe because you're risking a potential friendship instead of an actual one? I don't really understand that either.

Your biggest problem here? Trying to figure out women. Give it up son!! :D

My mum told me a story about someone's wife trying to guilt him into to doing something or rather for her birthday (I think) by saying he should go play golf. Apparently he didn't take the hint and went to play golf anyway. I laughed.

No comment. We're screwed either way. If we're nice; they assume we're trying to sleep with them. If we're mean, they'll get someone to silently assassinate us.

My best choice: avoid said situation at all costs.

Yeah, all men should just admit that women are emotional and unstable and can't possibly understood...and just get sex from hookers. Anything else would be too difficult.

Your biggest problem here? Trying to figure out women. Give it up son!! :D

Us nerdy people have mathematically found out why. (http://mathproof.ytmnd.com/) DUNNN DUNNN DUNNN:eek:

Yeah, all men should just admit that women are emotional and unstable and can't possibly understood...and just get sex from hookers. Anything else would be too difficult.

Sounds reasonable enough :p

Maybe because you're risking a potential friendship instead of an actual one? I don't really understand that either.yeah, but if the relationship ends on bad terms, then the friendship might not have been that great. If you can't find it in yourself, and she in herself, to swallow the anger and move on, then you didn't care enough.
Or one of you really messed up bad.

The female always makes The Rules.
The Rules are subject to change without prior notification.
No male can possibly know all The Rules.
If the female suspects the male knows all The Rules, she must immediately change some or all of The Rules.
The female is never wrong.
If the female is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was the direct result of something the male did or said wrong.
If Rule 6 applies, the male must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.
The female may change her mind at any time.
The male must never change his mind without the expressed written consent of the female.
The female has every right to be angry and upset at any time.
The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset.
The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
The male is expected to mind read at all times.
The male who does not abide by The Rules cannot take the heat, lacks backbone, and is a wimp.
Any attempt to document The Rules could result in bodily harm.
If the female has PMS, all The Rules are null and void.
The female is ready when she is ready.
The male must be ready at all times.


I'm really surprised that no one posted this untill now...

here's a tip. In my experience "I don't want to risk our friendship"...is a lie. It's not true. Most rational people pursue relationships with people they know they are compatable with. "I just want to be friends" is, more often than not, a polite way of saying "I do not want to date you".

The most recent problem I had with a woman is that she left me breathless and tired after a very good makeout session.

I have such a rough life.

The most recent problem I had with a woman is that she left me breathless and tired after a very good makeout session.

I have such a rough life.

You have my sympath... oh sorry, I dropped my tiny violin... let me get my magnifying glass so I can look for it... :rolleyes: ;) :p :D

I have such a rough life.

*righteously abstains from making the obvious joke*

The most recent problem I had with a woman is that she left me breathless and tired after a very good makeout session.

I have such a rough life.

I definatly read that "breathless and tied"....:eek:

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped.
Either you were touching yourself again subconsciously, licking your eyebrows between sentences, or perhaps posting in your rather special way during exercise.
Or, Bobforbid, you mentioned me or any of the other cabal from NS. :eek:

I swear to god I'm not stalking you. I just keeping turning up at your topics.

Anyway. In my experience, the guys either... do want to get in my pants, or - this is just a possibility - but sometimes, though I don't think I've ever snapped at a guy for it, I want to believe that I am still attractive while I'm down or whatever, and so I read compliments as guys wanting me... just to assure myself that there *are* guys who still want me. Like I said, I don't think I've ever snapped at someone over it, because I wouldn't want my presumption to be *known*, but there have definitely been times where I told myself a guy was hitting on me when I was sad, just as a little confidence boost. Or if I think there's a chance he's hitting on me, I'll flirt right back, to see what happens, because I want to feel flirty and desired.

Because they usually are?

Indeed, it's a common strategy for trying to get a woman in bed, causing suspicion even when the motives are entirely innocent.

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants?

Because, for the most part, they are. Simple as that.
Are you seriously complaining about people suspecting others of having ulterior motives most of the time?

This thread is so heteronormative.

I couldn't say I've ever been in that situation, I'm pretty shit with situations where others are upset, I tend to not know what to do and end up doing nothing, and pretty shit when it comes to making my feelings known to people.

Are you seriously complaining about people suspecting others of having ulterior motives most of the time?

Having ulterior motives most of the time only works when nobody suspects anything :rolleyes:

The female always makes The Rules.
The Rules are subject to change without prior notification.
No male can possibly know all The Rules.
If the female suspects the male knows all The Rules, she must immediately change some or all of The Rules.
The female is never wrong.
If the female is wrong, it is due to a misunderstanding which was the direct result of something the male did or said wrong.
If Rule 6 applies, the male must apologize immediately for causing the misunderstanding.
The female may change her mind at any time.
The male must never change his mind without the expressed written consent of the female.
The female has every right to be angry and upset at any time.
The male must remain calm at all times, unless the female wants him to be angry or upset.
The female must under no circumstances let the male know whether or not she wants him to be angry or upset.
The male is expected to mind read at all times.
The male who does not abide by The Rules cannot take the heat, lacks backbone, and is a wimp.
Any attempt to document The Rules could result in bodily harm.
If the female has PMS, all The Rules are null and void.
The female is ready when she is ready.
The male must be ready at all times.


I'm really surprised that no one posted this untill now...

So you're ideal man is a manekin? Or made of metal that does nothing? lol or maybe some sort of puppet.:cool:

So you're ideal man is a manekin? Or made of metal that does nothing? lol or maybe some sort of puppet.:cool:

I'm fairly sure he doesn't have an ideal man.

Having ulterior motives most of the time only works when nobody suspects anything :rolleyes:

I don't see how that would stop people from having ulterior motives...

I don't see how that would stop people from having ulterior motives...
Its only an ulterior motive if other people don't know about it. When it is some ridiculous cliché like "men are only after one thing," then one is only fulfilling a cultural stereotype.

You have my sympath... oh sorry, I dropped my tiny violin... let me get my magnifying glass so I can look for it... :rolleyes: ;) :p :D

*righteously abstains from making the obvious joke*

Quite decent of you both, to be so kind. :)

I definatly read that "breathless and tied"....:eek:

Somehow, I am completely unsurprised that you would read it that way. ;)

women vary widely in personal experience and reactions. if you want to know why she made the assumption you should ask her.
You mean...talk? To a female? Like, interact with her as though she were an individual human with thoughts, emotions, and opinions of her own, rather than as if she were a member of the completely alien and utterly inhuman Female Hive Mind?

Now you're just talking crazy.

You mean...talk? To a female? Like, interact with her as though she were an individual human with thoughts, emotions, and opinions of her own, rather than as if she were a member of the completely alien and utterly inhuman Female Hive Mind?

Now you're just talking crazy.

what was i thinking!? i must have posted that late at night.

everyone knows that all women are alike so you can take a vaguely described situation where there is no way to judge what happened and we can tell exactly what went wrong.

*smacks self on forehead*

and men wonder why they cant understand women.

There are girls who are exactly the same, yet I (and most guys, in my experience) don't have a problem taking a compliment from a member of the female sex or instantly assume they just want sex

Of course not. Women aren't supposed to want sex. We're supposed to give in when a guy wants it.

"First the gods created man and woman, then the gods created love for man and woman so that both are happy, then the gods created laughter to deal with love."

With an increasing amount of divorces women are gaining more independance from their male counterparts, Generally speaking people become married after their 30s or later, due to an increasing freedom gained by women to pursue their careers. In short Women as with men will become equally clueless as to how to make a stable relationship.

So close, and yet so far...

It's not that women are suddenly becoming "clueless" about relationship, just like men aren't actually "clueless" about relationships. It's that, with increasing professional and economic equality, women are no longer as DEPENDENT on relationships.

If a woman has extremely limited economic options (as has been the case for most of my nation's history), she will often be willing to settle for a relationship she's not terribly thrilled about simply because she needs to for practical reasons. The less she NEEDS to settle, the less she will be WILLING to settle.

Men get to play the "clueless" card more often because men have, traditionally, not been dependent on relationships for their practical needs. Men have had professional and economic independence, and thus have enjoyed the luxury of playing dumb and leaving all emotional (and domestic) work to women, who had to settle for what they could get because they didn't have a choice.

Men aren't clueless, by and large, they're just human. Most humans prefer not to do chores, though they will if they have to. Most humans are happy if somebody else does their chores for them. This is true in relationships as it is everywhere else. If you can have all the perks of a relationship without actually having to do the work required to maintain it, well, that's a pretty sweet deal! Just like if you can live in a clean house without ever having to clean it yourself, that's a nice deal too.

Traditionally, men have been permitted--and even encouraged--to take that deal, and leave the bulk of the emotional "work" in a relationship to the woman. However, thanks to increasing independence, women are increasingly like to say "Screw that" and leave if they feel their partner isn't pulling his weight. Women are even getting to the point where they sometimes have the option of taking the deal themselves...and since women are (again) human beings, some of them take it.

Long story short:

Very few people are genuinely clueless about relationships. Most people who claim to be clueless are actually just lazy or thoughtless. This applies equally to both men and women. If you press them, and actually get them to think about things for one bloody minute, you'll find that they could have a clue if they wanted. It's that old rule of life, though: "The less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do." Playing dumb is a good way to get out of work in many situations.

and men wonder why they cant understand women.
Heh.

My reaction to the OP was similar. I constantly hear men bitch about how women expect men to be mind-readers, when the reality is that women will generally be happy to tell you what is on their mind if you, ya know, ASK THEM.

But instead, I see guys asking women who are total strangers to explain the actions of other women, as if our femaleness allows us some kind of magical psychic power to read the minds of other females.

Sorry, lads, but our ovarian mind-rays just don't work that way.

You mean...talk? To a female? Like, interact with her as though she were an individual human with thoughts, emotions, and opinions of her own, rather than as if she were a member of the completely alien and utterly inhuman Female Hive Mind?

Now you're just talking crazy.

Well she'll be all hormonal and emotional and, y'know, GIRLY if he asked her. Obviously the best solution is to ask a bunch of people who have never met her why she seems kind of touchy.

"my perants just spent $40,000 on this wedding and they won't pay it all again" would be much more affective :p

That amount is actually way more than was actually spent. Including the rings, and reception, somewhere between $3000-$4000, at the most, since we didn't have to pay to rent the venue, nor pay for chairs.

Of course, my parents didn't pay, the in-laws did... at least for most of it. My dad paid for the musicians.

...ovarian mind-rays...

I knew it! I was right to wear my tin foil hat in the presence of women.

Well she'll be all hormonal and emotional and, y'know, GIRLY if he asked her. Obviously the best solution is to ask a bunch of people who have never met her why she seems kind of touchy.

Makes perfect sense to me. Or just read you know, that EXCELLENT mars/venus book. It's so full of truthiness.

Makes perfect sense to me. Or just read you know, that EXCELLENT mars/venus book. It's so full of truthiness.

Ummm err except of course that men are from Earth, and Women are from umm Earth!

Ummm err except of course that men are from Earth, and Women are from umm Earth!

Don't mess with the truthiness (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3658/is_200101/ai_n8933054).

I've personally never encountered this, I'm surprised it's not a secular situation.
Was it a particularly paranoid friend or have you been known to have done something like this in the past?

Apparently this woman is a retard. I say punch her in the ovaries the next time you see her. Honestly, the excuse of looking out for yourself is kinda silly, as though you would completely lose control of the situation if you allow a guy to be nice to you. Personally I stay away from everyone's sob stories because I just don't have any sympathy and lack any skills at faking empathy, and just hate to do so anyway. In my opinion its best to stay away from whining little girls, and boys for that matter.

If shes willing to lash out at you and risk ruining what little friendship you had, because she feels the need to attack those who are nice to her, don't even bother with her anymore.

Apparently this woman is a retard. I say punch her in the ovaries the next time you see her. Honestly, the excuse of looking out for yourself is kinda silly, as though you would completely lose control of the situation if you allow a guy to be nice to you. Personally I stay away from everyone's sob stories because I just don't have any sympathy and lack any skills at faking empathy, and just hate to do so anyway. In my opinion its best to stay away from whining little girls, and boys for that matter.

If shes willing to lash out at you and risk ruining what little friendship you had, because she feels the need to attack those who are nice to her, don't even bother with her anymore.

Because, as we all know, violence against women solves everything!

Yeah, all men should just admit that women are emotional and unstable and can't possibly understood...

That's such bullshit. Women are all too easy to understand. The reason there's this idiotic stereotype about how men can never understand women is threefold.

1) Charade. Putting women on a pedestal. Ooh, they're so mysterious. I want to fuck them, therefore there must be more to their existence, some greater underlying meaning.

2) Sexism. The idea that women are somehow more complex.

3) Self-deprecating sexism. The idea that men are just too stupid to understand women.

The truth is of course that women are not more complex, and in fact are just as meaningless, stupid and simple as men.

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants?

Aren't you assuming an awful lot here? I mean, you're assuming that they're assuming, 'they' being ALL the women.

Just cos this one girl thinks you're trying to fuck her (which you probably are, even if you don't think you are) doesn't mean they all think you're trying to fuck them (which you are, even if you don't think you are).

Makes perfect sense to me. Or just read you know, that EXCELLENT mars/venus book. It's so full of truthiness.

i LOVE that book!

i read most of the first chapter before i threw it against the wall and began ranting about how stupid the author was!

its a must-read.

Aren't you assuming an awful lot here? I mean, you're assuming that they're assuming, 'they' being ALL the women.

Just cos this one girl thinks you're trying to fuck her (which you probably are, even if you don't think you are) doesn't mean they all think you're trying to fuck them (which you are, even if you don't think you are).

OK, you started out with a decent point: not to make stupid assumptions.

Then you took a big juicy shit all over your point by making a stupid assumption.

1-1 = 0.

Because, as we all know, violence against women solves everything!

If you read what I wrote it has nothing to do with women and everything to do with violence against idiots, I think its silly to restrict violence to just one sex, thank you very much. Quite a few women do deserve to be punched in the ovaries, of course many men deserve the same.

At any rate it seemed fairly obvious that wasn't serious, because its a felony or something to tell people to commit a crime.

That's such bullshit.
I am going way out on a limb, here, but I think she might just have been employing sarcasm in her post.

That's such bullshit. Women are all too easy to understand. The reason there's this idiotic stereotype about how men can never understand women is threefold.

1) Charade. Putting women on a pedestal. Ooh, they're so mysterious. I want to fuck them, therefore there must be more to their existence, some greater underlying meaning.

2) Sexism. The idea that women are somehow more complex.

3) Self-deprecating sexism. The idea that men are just too stupid to understand women.

The truth is of course that women are not more complex, and in fact are just as meaningless, stupid and simple as men.

I agree.

I want to have meaningless, stupid and simple sex with you.

Pass this paper back to me after you've circled either 'yes' or 'no', okay?

I am going way out on a limb, here, but I think she might just have been employing sarcasm in her post.

He's not attacking me as though I believe it, but the concept itself, which many men AND women do buy into.

i LOVE that book!

i read most of the first chapter before i threw it against the wall and began ranting about how stupid the author was!

its a must-read.

I didn't get through the first chapter before my copy hit the wall.

Yeah, read the critique I linked to after. It made me happy.

If you read what I wrote it has nothing to do with women and everything to do with violence against idiots, I think its silly to restrict violence to just one sex, thank you very much. Quite a few women do deserve to be punched in the ovaries, of course many men deserve the same.


And it's totally by chance that men have no ovaries to punch.

It's because women simply loathe sex.Unless they're pornstars.

Knotthole Glade;13305837']It's because women simply loathe sex.Unless they're pornstars.

I must be a pornstar then.

Where's my money!?

I point out that all of the relationship-advice threads I have seen on NS -- about ten or twenty, admittedly an impossibly tiny fraction of the whole -- include several people who advise that "when she breaks up, you can be there to comfort her and eventually succeed in getting with her". I therefore postulate that most males, whether consciously or not, actually are thinking that way. Alternately, if the female in question is accusing you, it's likely her experience that people who compliment her are trying to sleep with her.

In order to avoid propagating the mistaken impression that I am trying to sleep with anybody, I have adopted the strategy of avoiding compliments or, indeed, saying anything positive at all about anyone. Inexplicably, I have no friends in real life. :confused:

If you read what I wrote it has nothing to do with women and everything to do with violence against idiots...

The beauty of this 'logic', is that - should someone find your idea idiotic, you've already provided your approved method for us to take up our grievances with you... yes?

And it's totally by chance that men have no ovaries to punch.

You don't say! How unusual.

The beauty of this 'logic', is that - should someone find your idea idiotic, you've already provided your approved method for us to take up our grievances with you... yes?

PHB: "I've decided to take up management by physical intimidation. Now if anyone says something stupid, I'll just slap them."
Dilbert: "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
PHB: *slaps self repeatedly*
Dilbert [thinking]: Actually, maybe I should give it a chance.

Knotthole Glade;13305837']It's because women simply loathe sex.Unless they're pornstars.

Nonsense. Female porn stars don't enjoy sex. It's patently obvious that they're faking it, like all good women should - so that the man feels like he's doing a good job.

Nonsense. Female porn stars don't enjoy sex. It's patently obvious that they're faking it, like all good women should - so that the man feels like he's doing a good job.It is, after all, always about the man.

Nonsense. Female porn stars don't enjoy sex. It's patently obvious that they're faking it, like all good women should - so that the man feels like he's doing a good job.

Incidentally, that's what annoys me about a lot of porn.

And it's totally by chance that men have no ovaries to punch.

Yup, otherwise I'd punch their ovaries, but since they don't have any I'll just have to attack only women :rolleyes:

You guys are so funny, trying to take things so literally, even if they're fairly obvious that they're not intended to be. I actually purposefully left that little mistake in there just to illicit this exact response.

Makes perfect sense to me. Or just read you know, that EXCELLENT mars/venus book. It's so full of truthiness.

And I bet that it was witten by a man, because there is no way that any woman could write such a marvel with their tiny pea-sized brains.

The beauty of this 'logic', is that - should someone find your idea idiotic, you've already provided your approved method for us to take up our grievances with you... yes?

THATS CORRECT!!! I hope one day to battle all who so wish with no legal recourse. Of course you'd have to be a real idiot to disagree with me and then use exactly what you disagree with me on to justify attacking me.

It is, after all, always about the man.

Alotta Fagina: In Japan, men come first and women come second.

Austin Powers: Or sometimes not at all.

THATS CORRECT!!! I hope one day to battle all who so wish with no legal recourse. Of course you'd have to be a real idiot to disagree with me and then use exactly what you disagree with me on to justify attacking me.

So - if someone advocates murder, you'd have to be an idiot to use their advocation of murder to argue for a death-sentence?

A curious kind of 'logic'. You present an idea (which I, personally, found idiotic), that suggested all idiotic behaviour deserves recourse to violence... but then don't like it when your 'logic' is applied to your own idiocy?

So - if someone advocates murder, you'd have to be an idiot to use their advocation of murder to argue for a death-sentence?

A curious kind of 'logic'. You present an idea (which I, personally, found idiotic), that suggested all idiotic behaviour deserves recourse to violence... but then don't like it when your 'logic' is applied to your own idiocy?

To the first one, no, most advocates of the death penalty make a distinction on innocence and guilt, that is not all murder is equal- some deserve it and others don't, and the state is here to decide who. So you could logically argue that person A deserves to die because he is guilty of such and such offense (he advocates murder), while maintaining that murder (killing an innocent person in this case) is wrong and that is why Person A deserves to die.

secondly,
I love it when it is actually. I if you read my post I hope for the day when such can be done. It is however stupid for the person who disagrees with something to then advocate or practice it in general. Like if I said, "people should eat apples if they want a yummy treat" and then you replied "thats a stupid idea" but went right on to bite into a yummy apple, because you wanted a yummy treat.

Females have their own language and translating it is nearly impossible. What means yes one day can mean "Fuck off" the next. There's no way around it, not real tricks to learn to understand it, but there are subtle signs you can pick up on.

Despite popular belief, they aren't always looking for comfort. There are instances when they -look- like they do, but this is a trap. They are waiting for some unsuspecting fool to wander close enough and take the barb they need to throw to get something out of their system. It's really nothing personal.

The best advice I can give when attempting to be 'nice' to a distraught female is a) Ask what's wrong. You'll probably get an answer of 'nothing' and here's where it get's tricky. Sometimes 'Nothing' can mean 'something I really want to talk about but feel bad for unloading onto you' or 'something I really want to talk about but want you to put in some extra effort before I tell you' or 'fuck off'. You're best off in this situation to simply say, 'All right, let me know if I can do anything.' and leave it at that. Stay within communication distance, but don't press the issue. If there is no visable improvement in the female's condition, you might wish to inquire again in an hour or two. DO NOT ASK MORE THAN 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY! (unless you are familiar with the personality of the female and are confident and brave enough to exceed this)

... >.> Good luck! ^^;

I love it when it is actually. It is however stupid for the person who disagrees with something to then advocate or practice it in general. Like if I said, "people should eat apples if they want a yummy treat" and then you replied "thats a stupid idea" but went right on to bite into a yummy apple, because you wanted a yummy treat.

Or alternatively, nothing like that at all.

I didn't say I wanted to punch you in the ovaries. That was your idea. I merely pointed out that - if you honestly believe that that should be the reward for idiocy - you might want to look to your own ovaries. As it were.

Or alternatively, nothing like that at all.

I didn't say I wanted to punch you in the ovaries. That was your idea. I merely pointed out that - if you honestly believe that that should be the reward for idiocy - you might want to look to your own ovaries. As it were.

No, you implied that you'd want to use my own "logic" on me because it was an idiotic idea. And thats exactly what makes no sense, you weren't simply saying, "if thats your logic I hope you're a good fighter". You even used "us" which generally refers to "me and other people", indicating that you were considering this action.

The beauty of this 'logic', is that - should someone find your idea idiotic, you've already provided your approved method for us to take up our grievances with you... yes?

Of course my only point was that if you're truly against a way of doing things then its idiotic to do them too, to which you replied that I didn't like my own logic applied to me. which made nonsense, see below:


A curious kind of 'logic'. You present an idea (which I, personally, found idiotic), that suggested all idiotic behaviour deserves recourse to violence... but then don't like it when your 'logic' is applied to your own idiocy?

Now you're trying to weasel out of your own mistake by saying thats not what I said, wah!!!

Females have their own language and translating it is nearly impossible. What means yes one day can mean "Fuck off" the next. There's no way around it, not real tricks to learn to understand it, but there are subtle signs you can pick up on.

Despite popular belief, they aren't always looking for comfort. There are instances when they -look- like they do, but this is a trap. They are waiting for some unsuspecting fool to wander close enough and take the barb they need to throw to get something out of their system. It's really nothing personal.

The best advice I can give when attempting to be 'nice' to a distraught female is a) Ask what's wrong. You'll probably get an answer of 'nothing' and here's where it get's tricky. Sometimes 'Nothing' can mean 'something I really want to talk about but feel bad for unloading onto you' or 'something I really want to talk about but want you to put in some extra effort before I tell you' or 'fuck off'. You're best off in this situation to simply say, 'All right, let me know if I can do anything.' and leave it at that. Stay within communication distance, but don't press the issue. If there is no visable improvement in the female's condition, you might wish to inquire again in an hour or two. DO NOT ASK MORE THAN 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY! (unless you are familiar with the personality of the female and are confident and brave enough to exceed this)

... >.> Good luck! ^^;

This post made me laugh rather a lot.

No, you implied that you'd want to use my own "logic" on me because it was an idiotic idea. And thats exactly what makes no sense, you weren't simply saying, "if thats your logic I hope you're a good fighter". You even used "us" which generally refers to "me and other people", indicating that you were considering this action.

Of course my only point was that if you're truly against a way of doing things then its idiotic to do them too, to which you replied that I didn't like my own logic applied to me. which made nonsense, see below:

Now you're trying to weasel out of your own mistake by saying thats not what I said, wah!!!


Please allow me to respond to your post with all the respect it deserves.

...

Okay. I'm done, now.

So close, and yet so far...

It's not that women are suddenly becoming "clueless" about relationship, just like men aren't actually "clueless" about relationships. It's that, with increasing professional and economic equality, women are no longer as DEPENDENT on relationships.

What do you mean "by dependant on relationships"?

If a woman has extremely limited economic options (as has been the case for most of my nation's history), she will often be willing to settle for a relationship she's not terribly thrilled about simply because she needs to for practical reasons. The less she NEEDS to settle, the less she will be WILLING to settle.

This seems to be true, but i'm not sure what you mean by "the less she needs to settle, the less she will be willing to settle". Are you implying that all women won't settle ever? what time do they settle?

Men get to play the "clueless" card more often because men have, traditionally, not been dependent on relationships for their practical needs. Men have had professional and economic independence, and thus have enjoyed the luxury of playing dumb and leaving all emotional (and domestic) work to women, who had to settle for what they could get because they didn't have a choice.

Okay fair enough, but you're generalising just a little bit. You fail to acknowledge that not all men are the same, that even in different situations they would copy each other, that society rules them, which yes you're accepting the wider forces you fail to admit individual differences.

Men aren't clueless, by and large, they're just human. Most humans prefer not to do chores, though they will if they have to. Most humans are happy if somebody else does their chores for them. This is true in relationships as it is everywhere else. If you can have all the perks of a relationship without actually having to do the work required to maintain it, well, that's a pretty sweet deal! Just like if you can live in a clean house without ever having to clean it yourself, that's a nice deal too.

This is where it gets awkward, you contradicted yourself, you said "men get to play the clueless card" then later say "men aren't clueless, by and large", and men often worked while their wife did domestic chores which was certainly unfair. But nowadays this balance is changing, you don't seem to accept that women and men equal out the domestic chores and work in some situations, admitted traditional roles are adopted more in Lower class society, but in Middle classes it's a more equal relationship.

Traditionally, men have been permitted--and even encouraged--to take that deal, and leave the bulk of the emotional "work" in a relationship to the woman. However, thanks to increasing independence, women are increasingly like to say "Screw that" and leave if they feel their partner isn't pulling his weight. Women are even getting to the point where they sometimes have the option of taking the deal themselves...and since women are (again) human beings, some of them take it.

"traditionally" but what about now?

Long story short:

Very few people are genuinely clueless about relationships. Most people who claim to be clueless are actually just lazy or thoughtless. This applies equally to both men and women. If you press them, and actually get them to think about things for one bloody minute, you'll find that they could have a clue if they wanted. It's that old rule of life, though: "The less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do." Playing dumb is a good way to get out of work in many situations.

what do you mean by "the less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do." Who does this apply to? the dumb people? how do you measure dumb? by intelligence? by actions?

You seem to punish me in great detail for one sentance of my post, in fact one word "clueless". I admit my one sentance probably didn't do both sexes justice, and you're correct to point out my flaw but you seem to speak in rhetoric i can't understand.
Your argument is a good one, but inductive and you make a few assumptions about how people work as i've mentioned above.
The same can't be said for the rest of the thread, which seems to flame itself apart.

Please allow me to respond to your post with all the respect it deserves.

...

Okay. I'm done, now.

wow, you so burned me, showed me how wrong I am by not responding damn that really hurt my pride. I've seen you post alot of stupid stuff. I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually just a bad person, trying to warp people's words, maybe you just don't understand...

Or maybe you're so fragile you can't admit one mistake to a stranger over the internet because it will indicate to everyone that you didn't think correctly, if even only for a moment?

<SNIP> I have adopted the strategy of avoiding compliments or, indeed, saying anything positive at all about anyone. Inexplicably, I have no friends in real life. :confused:

LOL

wow, you so burned me, showed me how wrong I am by not responding damn that really hurt my pride.


Not at all. I refused to indulge your silliness any further. You made an idiotic post, the logic of which was self-defeating, and you've tried to pretend it was something other than it is since that point.

Well, okay. Whatever floats your boat. Knock yourself out, but it's no longer worth my time.

Threatening violence to women because you don't understand them? I'll stand by that as 'idiotic'.

I've seen you post alot of stupid stuff. I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually just a bad person,


Stupid stuff AND a bad person? Dude, you cut me to the quick. What about 'badly dressed'? Why waste a cheap shot, after all.

I'm curious though... if you want to avoid derailing the thread further, feel free to TG me some of my 'stupid stuff'. I'd be genuinely interested in seeing my perceived stupidity.

trying to warp people's words, maybe you just don't understand...


I'm trying to warp your words?

Nice try. You said women should be hit, because you can't udnerstand them. You blame their 'idiocy', like that would excuse the matter.

Pointing out that your own premise is pretty dumb is hardly 'trying to warp' your words.


Or maybe you're so fragile you can't admit one mistake to a stranger over the internet because it will indicate to everyone that you didn't think correctly, if even only for a moment?

That'll be it. I care so much about what you think, that the idea you might not approve of me is going to cost me sleep tonight.

Or maybe - your comment was just REALLY ill-advised.

I've never understood that mindset.

Why would you date a person who wasn't your friend first? Why would being a friend do anything but improve your odds of dating somebody?

Frankly, if being a friend makes a person LESS likely to date you, then you're doing it wrong.

I think that's an excuse girls use when they like the guy as a friend. Always liked the guy as a friend. Want to keep the guy as a friend. And want to give a definate "no" answer in the least hurtful way.

Somehow, I am completely unsurprised that you would read it that way. ;)

I'll take that as a compliment.


HOTRODIA IS TRYING TO GET INTO MY PANTS!

I think that's an excuse girls use when they like the guy as a friend. Always liked the guy as a friend. Want to keep the guy as a friend. And want to give a definate "no" answer in the least hurtful way.

Yeah, I admit to being guilty of that. I've used "I just think of you as a friend" to mean, "You're a nice guy, but I don't find you remotely attractive as a partner. Please abandon all hope that I will ever do so, because I really won't." The one time I tried just saying the latter, the poor guy - who was really quite nice, if totally and completely wrong for me - was horribly hurt and didn't speak to me for months, and I felt like utter crap for viciously not wanting to date him.

(I do think, though, that "it's too late, now I just think of you as a friend" is an awfully silly excuse. I've never dated a guy who hasn't been my friend first. In fact, I don't believe I've ever even been more than very faintly attracted to any guy who isn't a friend.)

<snip>
Or maybe - your comment was just REALLY ill-advised.

I don't know why you feel the need to side step things, prove me wrong or admit I'm right... You keep moving the topic to different things from the original argument, I honestly don't know what TG is or how to go about sending you one, but really its getting silly, and its not from my end. You can't even read one sentence without getting something wrong. Like this one:
----
Originally Posted by Lackadaisical1 View Post
Or maybe you're so fragile you can't admit one mistake to a stranger over the internet because it will indicate to everyone that you didn't think correctly, if even only for a moment?
That'll be it. I care so much about what you think, that the idea you might not approve of me is going to cost me sleep tonight.

----
I didn't say you were afraid of my disapproval, just that you were afraid of everyone as a group thinking you're foolish, which is probably why you want to move this to TG despite the fact that we've hijacked the thread for the past 10 posts or so. I hate people like you.

or this one:


Threatening violence to women because you don't understand them? I'll stand by that as 'idiotic'.

When did I even say the word understanding or even imply it? I also never threatened a woman with violence at least not in this thread. Plus the fact that wasn't even what we were arguing about, which I'll note was whether or not attacking someone who thinks violence is ok in a disagreement or not would be idiotic for a person who thinks violence is not the way to solve arguments.

I'll take that as a compliment.


HOTRODIA IS TRYING TO GET INTO MY PANTS!

Rather unsuccessfully, I might add. They're a bit small and tight and made of leather. That just isn't working well for me.

Rather unsuccessfully, I might add. They're a bit small and tight and made of leather. That just isn't working well for me.

but they make me feel pretty. :(

Might I suggest some Crisco?

Yeah, I admit to being guilty of that. I've used "I just think of you as a friend" to mean, "You're a nice guy, but I don't find you remotely attractive as a partner. Please abandon all hope that I will ever do so, because I really won't." The one time I tried just saying the latter, the poor guy - who was really quite nice, if totally and completely wrong for me - was horribly hurt and didn't speak to me for months, and I felt like utter crap for viciously not wanting to date him.

(I do think, though, that "it's too late, now I just think of you as a friend" is an awfully silly excuse. I've never dated a guy who hasn't been my friend first. In fact, I don't believe I've ever even been more than very faintly attracted to any guy who isn't a friend.)

It is a silly excuse, I guess that's why I always figured everyone knew what that was code for. Or, at least I thought that until I read this thread.

It's kind of like death by morphine vs death by electric chair.

I usually tailor that speech so it's not exactly a lie, but I totally avoid telling someone I don't find them attractive. I think that's just mean.

Yup, otherwise I'd punch their ovaries, but since they don't have any I'll just have to attack only women :rolleyes:

You guys are so funny, trying to take things so literally, even if they're fairly obvious that they're not intended to be. I actually purposefully left that little mistake in there just to illicit this exact response.

Suuuuure you did.

Cuz you're clever like that.

I'll take that as a compliment.


HOTRODIA IS TRYING TO GET INTO MY PANTS!

He's going to have to get in line.

but they make me feel pretty. :(

Might I suggest some Crisco?

Well now you made me think of food, so I'm hungry. Sigh. I should run out and get some groceries now.

Generally, bitter experience. I've had many a platonic male friend whom I thought was just being nice turn out to be trying to get something out of it. It's unfair for women to assume that all guys are like most of the guys they've encountered...but, well, it's rather understandable.

No more "understandable" than assuming all black people are alike.

No more "understandable" than assuming all black people are alike.

Wait.

What?

Next you'll be trying to tell me that Jews aren't part of some sort of Zionist hive mind.

*scoffs*

He's going to have to get in line.
I blame the leather pants. *nod*

Well now you made me think of food, so I'm hungry. Sigh. I should run out and get some groceries now.
ditto that. As well as getting to the gym. I'm full of sloth today.

*wonders what sloth might taste like*
Wait.

What?

Next you'll be trying to tell me that Jews aren't part of some sort of Zionist hive mind.

*scoffs*
No, no hive mind. Plot to take over the world by controling the money and media, yes. But no hive mind. Yet.

I'm somewhat curious why it is that every single guy I befriend tries to get in my pants when I'm also single. Like, just because I'm friends with someone doesn't mean I want to date them.

No, no hive mind. Plot to take over the world by controling the money and media, yes. But no hive mind. Yet.

Ugh. You sound like this idiot First Nations guy I'm arguing with about the fucking 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'.

I'm somewhat curious why it is that every single guy I befriend tries to get in my pants when I'm also single. Like, just because I'm friends with someone doesn't mean I want to date them.

Because they're attracted to you?

I personally am a huge flirt, but it is rare that I am actually trying to get into my female friends pants.

Females have their own language and translating it is nearly impossible. What means yes one day can mean "Fuck off" the next. There's no way around it, not real tricks to learn to understand it, but there are subtle signs you can pick up on.

Bullshit.


The best advice I can give when attempting to be 'nice' to a distraught female is a) Ask what's wrong. You'll probably get an answer of 'nothing' and here's where it get's tricky. Sometimes 'Nothing' can mean 'something I really want to talk about but feel bad for unloading onto you' or 'something I really want to talk about but want you to put in some extra effort before I tell you' or 'fuck off'. You're best off in this situation to simply say, 'All right, let me know if I can do anything.' and leave it at that. Stay within communication distance, but don't press the issue. If there is no visable improvement in the female's condition, you might wish to inquire again in an hour or two. DO NOT ASK MORE THAN 3 TIMES IN ONE DAY! (unless you are familiar with the personality of the female and are confident and brave enough to exceed this)

Follow this advice only if you are interested in having boring relationships with losers.

Because they're attracted to you?

I personally am a huge flirt, but it is rare that I am actually trying to get into my female friends pants.
No, this often involves actual attempts.

I dunno, usually I would just like to befriend a guy, not deal with finding a nice way to reject him.

Bullshit.


Follow this advice only if you are interested in having boring relationships with losers.

*applauds*

No, this often involves actual attempts.

I dunno, usually I would just like to befriend a guy, not deal with finding a nice way to reject him.

Then they're attracted to you. Or drunk and horny. Or a mix of the two.

Then they're attracted to you. Or drunk and horny. Or a mix of the two.
Yeah, but it happens a fair bit that I'm not attracted to them and this creates awkward situations with hurt feelings and all this.

What do you mean "by dependant on relationships"?

For a large chunk of the history of my culture, women literally were not permitted to own property, hold employment, or participate in government. The only way they could "have" any of those things would be by getting married to a male who might (or might not) decide to listen to the woman's opinions sometimes.


This seems to be true, but i'm not sure what you mean by "the less she needs to settle, the less she will be willing to settle". Are you implying that all women won't settle ever? what time do they settle?

I don't see where your confusion is.

A person who has few options will take what they can get. They will usually be prepared to settle for less than they want or think they should get, because they know they can't do better.

A person who has many options will be much more likely to hold out for a better deal.


Okay fair enough, but you're generalising just a little bit. You fail to acknowledge that not all men are the same,

No, actually, I specifically said (repeatedly) that HUMAN BEINGS work this way. Men are also human beings.


that even in different situations they would copy each other, that society rules them, which yes you're accepting the wider forces you fail to admit individual differences.

No, I don't "fail to admit individual differences." I was speaking in general, discussing a general trend, and I made that very clear.


This is where it gets awkward, you contradicted yourself, you said "men get to play the clueless card" then later say "men aren't clueless, by and large", and men often worked while their wife did domestic chores which was certainly unfair.

That's not a contradiction. Men aren't actually clueless, they just had the luxury of PLAYING clueless and pretending like they were too stupid to figure out how to talk to a woman like she was a person. Kind of like how men could say, "Gee whiz, I'm just a poor male who can't possibly figure out how to scrub a toilet! But you women are so good at that sort of thing. It would probably be best for you to just take care of that, since I'd just botch the job!"


But nowadays this balance is changing, you don't seem to accept that women and men equal out the domestic chores and work in some situations, admitted traditional roles are adopted more in Lower class society, but in Middle classes it's a more equal relationship.

...

Yeah, you just didn't read my post. Because, see, that was my whole point. But nice try.


what do you mean by "the less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do." Who does this apply to? the dumb people? how do you measure dumb? by intelligence? by actions?

What on Earth are you on about?


You seem to punish me in great detail for one sentance of my post, in fact one word "clueless". I admit my one sentance probably didn't do both sexes justice, and you're correct to point out my flaw but you seem to speak in rhetoric i can't understand.

It's not punishment to have somebody clarify a topic for you. Learning is not punishment.


Your argument is a good one, but inductive and you make a few assumptions about how people work as i've mentioned above.

You misread my post to the point where you completely missed my central point. I think you should probably read it more carefully before you pass judgment on my argument. At least figure out what my argument was before you critique it. :D

No more "understandable" than assuming all black people are alike.

Are you really claiming to find that response impossible to understand? Given that I specifically said that it was unfair, I'm puzzled as to what else you could be criticizing. And, frankly, it is understandable that someone who had been mugged by dozens of young black men in alleyways would be nervous about going down alleyways with young black men. That doesn't make it right. It's not fair or nice that, after lots and lots of "nice" guys turn out to be jerks who just want to screw you, you start assuming that actual nice guys are also horny jerks - but it's a pretty natural and understandable response.

Yeah, but it happens a fair bit that I'm not attracted to them and this creates awkward situations with hurt feelings and all this.

it happens. Happened to me several times...ended with the girl running off crying and me feeling like a prick.
*shrug*

There's no nice way to deal with it. The relationship doesn't change when you decide to date someone, it changes when they say something or act on the feeling. It will hang over the friendship for a while, then fade back. Do I know that several of my friends like me? Definatly. Is it awkward when they decide to tell me, and I have to gently tell them "I'd rather kiss my dog after he's licked his crotch for an hour"? Yeah. But I don't treat them differently after that conversation, so the awkwardness goes away.

it happens. Happened to me several times...ended with the girl running off crying and me feeling like a prick.
*shrug*

There's no nice way to deal with it. The relationship doesn't change when you decide to date someone, it changes when they say something or act on the feeling. It will hang over the friendship for a while, then fade back. Do I know that several of my friends like me? Definatly. Is it awkward when they decide to tell me, and I have to gently tell them "I'd rather kiss my dog after he's licked his crotch for an hour"? Yeah. But I don't treat them differently after that conversation, so the awkwardness goes away.
Man, I guess I was a weird kid, because my friends and I were always hooking up in various combinations, and it never changed much of anything.

Hell, I remember a rave (yes, a rave, I'm that old) where a friend and I were chilling together and then she looked over and said, "Hey, have we ever hooked up?" And I replied, "Don't think so." And she says, "Huh. That's odd. Wonder how I managed to skip you?" And it was only half joking. :P

Yeah, we were all a bunch of teen sluts, we were. *wistful*

Man, I guess I was a weird kid, because my friends and I were always hooking up in various combinations, and it never changed much of anything.

Hell, I remember a rave (yes, a rave, I'm that old) where a friend and I were chilling together and then she looked over and said, "Hey, have we ever hooked up?" And I replied, "Don't think so." And she says, "Huh. That's odd. Wonder how I managed to skip you?" And it was only half joking. :P

Yeah, we were all a bunch of teen sluts, we were. *wistful*

Yeah that's how I did it too. I didn't sleep with um....like....maybe four of my friends? The rest I shagged. Ditto with lawboy recently actually, there hasn't been any weirdness once we both realised the other person wasn't expecting more than an occasional shag, and not really even that.

Man, I guess I was a weird kid, because my friends and I were always hooking up in various combinations, and it never changed much of anything.

Hell, I remember a rave (yes, a rave, I'm that old) where a friend and I were chilling together and then she looked over and said, "Hey, have we ever hooked up?" And I replied, "Don't think so." And she says, "Huh. That's odd. Wonder how I managed to skip you?" And it was only half joking. :P

Yeah, we were all a bunch of teen sluts, we were. *wistful*
Haha...I generally did the same...there were precious few friends who I considered "unattractive", and then a second group of "I would date you/hook up with you if it wern't for this circumstance".

the one where the girl ran away crying was 3 nights before I left for college, and one week after she had dumped one of my best friends...and rather than saying "I like you", she decided to just go in for a kiss. With him sitting within arms reach. Bad idea.

Casual hookups/friends with benefits are always fun tho :)

snip

Stop talking, you're ruining my plans:eek:, maybe i missed you're point but you didn't understand my criticisms.
It's not worth arguing over, i can't be bothered.
I suppose it's fair to say that if all people are different you can't really say what other people will do.
And by the way learning your way really is a punishment for me, how can you not say that whole post was slagging off one of my sentances?
Do you know what it's like? growing up with 3 sisters? an absolute nightmare, and when i try to make my point the only one who listens is some mad person. (no offence meant, i suppose it's more a compliment really)

It is a silly excuse, I guess that's why I always figured everyone knew what that was code for. Or, at least I thought that until I read this thread.

The sad truth is that the people who don't know what it means are those that, for the very reasons they don't understand that, are the ones who most often hear it.

That's not a contradiction. Men aren't actually clueless, they just had the luxury of PLAYING clueless and pretending like they were too stupid to figure out how to talk to a woman like she was a person. Kind of like how men could say, "Gee whiz, I'm just a poor male who can't possibly figure out how to scrub a toilet! But you women are so good at that sort of thing. It would probably be best for you to just take care of that, since I'd just botch the job!"

Meh, I take issue with this. By and large, men have been, and still generally are, expected to be the instigators of a relationship. Even in societies where the marriages are pre-arranged, the male is still often accorded the role of initiating the courtship. Though the richer segments of society may have done it differently, though I still think it's safe to argue that men are given the role of initiator of the relationship even if the field is a bit different, the majority of any society expects a man to be able to read, act on and, to some degree or another, control the emotions in a relationship.

I mean, while I agree with much of the rest of yours posts in this thread, this argument that men have been able to act "clueless" is just, well, wrong. Maybe it's because of how we're wired as animals, or maybe it's due to carryovers from unimaginably old social norms within early human tribal societies, it doesn't matter. I'm not debating cause, I'm simply pointing out a misapprehension of how courtship is and has been for the vast majority of the human populace. I mean, honestly, limiting the scope to today's time if you think that men aren't generally expected to initiate courtship, then you live in a completely different world than the rest of us.

Meh, I take issue with this. By and large, men have been, and still generally are, expected to be the instigators of a relationship. Even in societies where the marriages are pre-arranged, the male is still often accorded the role of initiating the courtship. Though the richer segments of society may have done it differently, though I still think it's safe to argue that men are given the role of initiator of the relationship even if the field is a bit different, the majority of any society expects a man to be able to read, act on and, to some degree or another, control the emotions in a relationship.

There is a point to this. I think it's largely unfair and grossly inaccurate to portray relationships in the past as the ability for men to "shunt off" relationship possibilities ot the women. Rather society has defined roles different for different genders Men certainly had responsibilities, both as the "bread winner", the instigator of the relationship, and others.

Now while it's true, society has evolved and women can take a more assertive chance, I wonder if this level of empowerment has had equal levels of success in making them take the impotus for pursuing their own responsibilities in forming relationships. By and large men are still considered the ones who instigate them.

Meh, I take issue with this. By and large, men have been, and still generally are, expected to be the instigators of a relationship. Even in societies where the marriages are pre-arranged, the male is still often accorded the role of initiating the courtship. Though the richer segments of society may have done it differently, though I still think it's safe to argue that men are given the role of initiator of the relationship even if the field is a bit different, the majority of any society expects a man to be able to read, act on and, to some degree or another, control the emotions in a relationship.

Generally true. Also a completely different subject from what I'm talking about.


I mean, while I agree with much of the rest of yours posts in this thread, this argument that men have been able to act "clueless" is just, well, wrong.

Unfortunately, it's been the case in my culture for generations. I don't know about yours, though, and I certainly don't presume to speak about cultures I've not been a part of.


Maybe it's because of how we're wired as animals, or maybe it's due to carryovers from unimaginably old social norms within early human tribal societies, it doesn't matter. I'm not debating cause, I'm simply pointing out a misapprehension of how courtship is and has been for the vast majority of the human populace.

Actually, in my culture courtship itself is largely "idiot-proofed" specifically because men are portrayed as being emotionally stupid. Traditional courtship involves a set of very simple rules that a male follows in order to announce his interest in a female. Flowers. Chocolates. Diamonds. He buys dinner, she puts out. Etc. The traditional model is about a set of gender stereotypes and simple roles.

One of the key elements is the assumption that women have these confusing feminine emotions that men just can't possibly understand, but they try to placate the gals with some roses or something.

Hell, try watching American TV around Valentine's Day. At least 50% of the adds will flat-out state, "You're a man, and you haven't the least idea how those crazy womenfolks work. But you can buy her this necklace/trinket/card/chocolate and it will make up for all your charmingly idiotic male behavior!"

Personally, I think it's insulting toward both men and women, but then again I also think roses smell like shit.

I mean, honestly, limiting the scope to today's time if you think that men aren't generally expected to initiate courtship, then you live in a completely different world than the rest of us.
The fact that males have been expected to initiate courtship does precisely zilch to contradict what I was saying.

There is a point to this. I think it's largely unfair and grossly inaccurate to portray relationships in the past as the ability for men to "shunt off" relationship possibilities ot the women.

That certainly has been a part of hetero relationships in my culture for a very long time. It's still a part of some today, just much less frequently.

Of course not all relationships work that way or have worked that way in the past.


Rather society has defined roles different for different genders Men certainly had responsibilities, both as the "bread winner", the instigator of the relationship, and others.

...and women's responsibilities were the domestic and emotional labor of the relationship. That's what the prevailing culture said, anyhow.

I think folks are missing my point. I am not saying that men are bad or that men are stupid or that men are lazy. I'm saying that the increasing independence of women puts them in a better bargaining position, and makes them more likely to stick to their guns in relationships instead of settling for a lousy relationship because they don't have a choice. I'm saying that, back in the day, women were more likely to settle for relationships with jerks because they didn't have a choice, but with greater independence comes a greater freedom to tell the jerks to stuff it and go find a better mate. That's a good thing for everybody (except the jerks, and they can stuff it) because it means that women are able to be more assertive and can choose relationships with people they genuinely like instead of simply sticking around because they are financially dependent.

If you're a guy who kinda sorta wants to have a girl actually LIKE you, rather than stay with you because she needs your money, then this change is a good thing for YOU!


Now while it's true, society has evolved and women can take a more assertive chance, I wonder if this level of empowerment has had equal levels of success in making them take the impotus for pursuing their own responsibilities in forming relationships.

It has.


By and large men are still considered the ones who instigate them.
By whom?

Maybe it's a generational thing, but my peers and I never really saw things that way. Girls have always been just as likely as guys to make the first move in my experience. Most people I know consider it old-fashioned for somebody to expect the guy to always make the first move. Just like we consider it old fashioned for the guy to assume he's paying for the meal or whatever. We know it's how things used to work, but nobody actually does things that way any more.

because women are overly emotional and always take what men say a way it wasn't meant? I dunno

Hey not all of them {women} are overly emotional, and they dont ALL take what men say wrong, I think yoou've had some really bad interactions. just try to be more in touch with what your saying

Honestly? It is neither bitter expirience nor any sort of halfway reasonable assumption. You see, perhaps this is simply my pessimism talking, but my theory for such situations is that rather women, especially most modern women, subconsciously at the very least, wish for control, are part of that control comes in part from the assumption they know what your motives are. When you are genuinely being a nice, they know they cannot accurately assume what your motive is. So to be "safe" they naturally assume the worst, that you have some selfish ulterior motive in mind, and hence you get the snapping you experienced. Personally I would have no problem with expressing how that would offend me to them, but don't just take it. Otherwise what else can they do but assume they are right?

((The previous post was admittedly made based on a generalization, however accurate. Do not assume this applies to yourself if you are the type of person I obviously wouldn't be talking about))

Maybe it's a generational thing, but my peers and I never really saw things that way. Girls have always been just as likely as guys to make the first move in my experience. Most people I know consider it old-fashioned for somebody to expect the guy to always make the first move. Just like we consider it old fashioned for the guy to assume he's paying for the meal or whatever. We know it's how things used to work, but nobody actually does things that way any more.

I think this is a good place to also note that, if someone happens to fit a given "traditional" gender role, that is (a) not necessarily a problem and (b) not indicative of the entire gender.

I've never been the one to "make the first move", with guys or girls. Whether it's an insecurity thing or not, that's just never been the way I do things. I happen to be female. This doesn't mean that all women are that way (as evidenced by the fact that I have had experiences with other women, if nothing else).

Unfortunately, it's been the case in my culture for generations. I don't know about yours, though, and I certainly don't presume to speak about cultures I've not been a part of.
What culture, exactly, are you from? I'm curious because I've never encountered any culture (with the exception of perhaps some very small and isolated tribal cultures) in which women instigate the relationship.Actually, in my culture courtship itself is largely "idiot-proofed" specifically because men are portrayed as being emotionally stupid. Traditional courtship involves a set of very simple rules that a male follows in order to announce his interest in a female. Flowers. Chocolates. Diamonds. He buys dinner, she puts out. Etc. The traditional model is about a set of gender stereotypes and simple roles.

One of the key elements is the assumption that women have these confusing feminine emotions that men just can't possibly understand, but they try to placate the gals with some roses or something.

Hell, try watching American TV around Valentine's Day. At least 50% of the adds will flat-out state, "You're a man, and you haven't the least idea how those crazy womenfolks work. But you can buy her this necklace/trinket/card/chocolate and it will make up for all your charmingly idiotic male behavior!"I would say that that's a gross over-simplification of the normal American courtship. Generally a man has to be able to gauge whether or not he, as has been mentioned in this thread, is at a just friends state of intimacy or a relationship state. Even sex isn't really a valid indicator, usually, because for many people today it has about as emotional an impact as a backrub does. However, women more often than not expect men to catch small signs, physical and verbal, that are to imply receptivity to a man's advances but, at the same time, no such thing is generally expected of men. Like you said, we're speaking in generalities here, so this obviously doesn't describe every single woman in America but most will fall into such a description to some degree or another.

To say buying a woman chocolates, a Valentine's card and some flowers constitutes courtship is just silly. And even if it did, notice how it is up to the man to do such a thing rather than the impetus being upon the woman. Women do not ask men out on dates, usually. Women do not usually go in for the first kiss. Women, generally, have a large and more intimate social backing to help them determine intentions as well as "probe" to social waters. Women rarely initiate the very large moves in a relationship such as moving in together, marriage proposals, etc. The reason those "you're a man and those crazy vagina-folk are completely alien to our comprehension of the universe" advetisement tactics work is because, to a degree, there is so much social pressure upon the male to be the catalyst in romantic situations that the double-think and over-analysis that entails creates this false myth of alienness about the female sex for men. The examples you point out seem to support my statement that men are generally expected to carry the burden of emotional risk taking in a relationship (perhaps because of the cultural idea that men are less emotional than women).

Personally, I think it's insulting toward both men and women, but then again I also think roses smell like shit.

The fact that males have been expected to initiate courtship does precisely zilch to contradict what I was saying.

And I agree, it is insulting. But I dislike things that try to circumvent a human being's intellectual capacity and simply strive for emotional resonance thanks to weird cultural norms that fly completely in the face of reason.

The fact that males have been expected to noy only initiate courtship but also lead it at the correct pace seems to directly counter this idea of the clueless male being acceptable. Men are portrayed as clueless when they are failing at courtship rituals, not when they are making successful use of the system. The clueless male is a thing of comedic belittlement rather than an acceptable model to look towards. And remember, men are expected to trigger the big steps in the relationship, as well. But, in the contemporary setting, while men have kept reign over this position as relationship leader, women are finding it easier to leave the relationship should they feel the man has misjudged the correct pace and so there is actually greater pressure, in my opinion, upon the man to somehow magically guess the right pace of such things. To make a normative statement about it, I think that while it's wonderful that women have more social freedom, it's an unfortunate side effect that the less desirable roles men possess are not spread out more equally among the genders.

Personally, I think it's insulting toward both men and women, but then again I also think roses smell like shit.
OMG I thought I was the only one...but not shit, cuz shit smells like shit, not like roses. But yeah. I can't stand the smell of roses. It's cloying and smells like decay. I can stand pretty much any other kind of flower smell, just not roses! They are pretty enough, but they make me think something is rotting.

What culture, exactly, are you from? I'm curious because I've never encountered any culture (with the exception of perhaps some very small and isolated tribal cultures) in which women instigate the relationship.
Oh what a load of shit.

I made the first move at least as often, if not more often than the guy ever did. As did my other female friends. You know, back in the late 80s even. (yes we were precocious)

It's still more TRADITIONAL in the mainstream sense (living in Canada here) for the man to initiate the relationship, but that has mostly shifted to 'popping the question', not just getting hooked up.

Neither through high school, nor University, nor at work, nor at University again have I run into the situation of men being the ones who alone, initiate relationships. Couples split the bill, or take turns paying. That's just normal. So my question to you is...what the fuck culture are YOU from?

Oh what a load of shit.

I made the first move at least as often, if not more often than the guy ever did. As did my other female friends. You know, back in the late 80s even. (yes we were precocious)

It's still more TRADITIONAL in the mainstream sense (living in Canada here) for the man to initiate the relationship, but that has mostly shifted to 'popping the question', not just getting hooked up.

Neither through high school, nor University, nor at work, nor at University again have I run into the situation of men being the ones who alone, initiate relationships. Couples split the bill, or take turns paying. That's just normal. So my question to you is...what the fuck culture are YOU from?

Agreed. At least half (probably more) of the relationships I've been in have been initiated by the female.

I think this is a good place to also note that, if someone happens to fit a given "traditional" gender role, that is (a) not necessarily a problem and (b) not indicative of the entire gender.

I've never been the one to "make the first move", with guys or girls. Whether it's an insecurity thing or not, that's just never been the way I do things. I happen to be female. This doesn't mean that all women are that way (as evidenced by the fact that I have had experiences with other women, if nothing else).
Also very true.

There are people, male or female, who are shy or introverted. Just like there are people who are extroverts.

If somebody is quiet or shy or seems reluctant to make the first move, I don't blame their genitals for it. If somebody is an asshole who can't take a hint, I don't blame their genitals for it. And I certainly don't blame anybody whose genitals happen to be of a shape that is somewhat similar to the person who is currently causing me problems.

Why is it that, for the most part, when a guy is nice to a gal, such as complimenting her, or helping her through a tough time, that girl automatically assumes the guy wants to get into her pants? For example, I was talking with this girl who was having a rough time, and she was feeling low and such, and I complimented her, to try and boost her ego, to make her feel good, and then she snapped. Said something like she was disgusted that I was trying to get with her, which came as a surprise to me, as I wasn't.

Any other guys have these problems? If so, how do you handle it?
And ladies, why do you assume that if we are nice to you, that we want to have sex or something? Can't guys just be nice and friendly?

It depends on how egotistical they are. There is a somewhat egotistical girl I know of. She is semi-lonely and I would attempt to be friends with her, but she would take it the wrong way. If I just say "hi" she turns her nose-up.

The only guy who seems to be able relate to her without her thinking he is hitting-on her is over fifty, and this kid is twelve.

I don't see how niceness and sexual desire are incompatible.

They are not. But women sometimes assume the former implies an attempt to fulfill the latter. Ergo, men appear callous and...hmmm.

What culture, exactly, are you from? I'm curious because I've never encountered any culture (with the exception of perhaps some very small and isolated tribal cultures) in which women instigate the relationship.

You really, really need to get out more. :D


I would say that that's a gross over-simplification of the normal American courtship.

I didn't say normal. I said traditional. Veeeeerrry different.


Generally a man has to be able to gauge whether or not he, as has been mentioned in this thread, is at a just friends state of intimacy or a relationship state. Even sex isn't really a valid indicator, usually, because for many people today it has about as emotional an impact as a backrub does.

Again, I said "traditional." And, again, my entire point was that much of tradition is going out the window because of the economic and social changes that have given rise to improved gender equity.

I'm actually starting to get a bit annoyed. Please at least have the courtesy to read what I post before you respond to it.


However, women more often than not expect men to catch small signs, physical and verbal, that are to imply receptivity to a man's advances but, at the same time, no such thing is generally expected of men.

Bunk.


Like you said, we're speaking in generalities here, so this obviously doesn't describe every single woman in America but most will fall into such a description to some degree or another.

Bunk.


To say buying a woman chocolates, a Valentine's card and some flowers constitutes courtship is just silly.

Read my post again please.


And even if it did, notice how it is up to the man to do such a thing rather than the impetus being upon the woman.

Read my post again please.


Women do not ask men out on dates, usually. Women do not usually go in for the first kiss. Women, generally, have a large and more intimate social backing to help them determine intentions as well as "probe" to social waters. Women rarely initiate the very large moves in a relationship such as moving in together, marriage proposals, etc. The reason those "you're a man and those crazy vagina-folk are completely alien to our comprehension of the universe" advetisement tactics work is because, to a degree, there is so much social pressure upon the male to be the catalyst in romantic situations that the double-think and over-analysis that entails creates this false myth of alienness about the female sex for men.

Read my post again please.


The examples you point out seem to support my statement that men are generally expected to carry the burden of emotional risk taking in a relationship (perhaps because of the cultural idea that men are less emotional than women).

If you want to argue about something different from what I am talking about, that's fine. But you might want to stop pretending like you're arguing with me, since I'm not talking about that.

Whether or not men bear the majority of the "emotional risk taking" in relationships is an entirely different subject.

I was talking about the PRAGMATIC dependency that females have--unquestionably--been limited by, what with all the "not being able to vote or hold property" stuff that went down for centuries. I was talking about how even economic and legal footing allows women increasing mobility and freedom in choosing when (and if!) they enter into/remain in relationships.

If you want to argue that men had it equally tough because their feelings might get hurt if they asked a gal out and she said no, then I'd be more than willing to laugh my ass off at that argument, but it really wasn't what I was talking about at all.


And I agree, it is insulting. But I dislike things that try to circumvent a human being's intellectual capacity and simply strive for emotional resonance thanks to weird cultural norms that fly completely in the face of reason.

Then why the fuck are you arguing with me? Moreover, why are you wasting so much time denying that said weird cultural norms 1) exist and 2) have had a major (and annoying) impact on our social interactions?

Denial accomplishes nothing.


The fact that males have been expected to noy only initiate courtship but also lead it at the correct pace seems to directly counter this idea of the clueless male being acceptable.

No, it really doesn't.


Men are portrayed as clueless when they are failing at courtship rituals, not when they are making successful use of the system.

Wrong. Watch TV sometime, and you'll notice a large number of physically unappealing clumsy oafs ending up with supermodel wives who shake their heads and chuckle fondly as Hubby burns dinner. Go to the movies if you want to see the endlessly-repeated image of a man (!!!) trying to CHANGE A DIAPER with hilarious results! (Men can't change diapers!) Note how many times males are portrayed as being unable to care for themselves in the most fundamental ways (say, doing laundry, washing dishes, cooking anything ever), and how many times these males are already in relationships with attractive and attentive females.

Look, I'm not saying I like this. And I'm not saying I'm the only person who dislikes it. My entire point is that this crap is going out of style! But it's still around, and it's positively SOAKED pop culture for decades.


The clueless male is a thing of comedic belittlement rather than an acceptable model to look towards.

The existence of the one does not rule out the other. It's like I was saying earlier: the less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do.

The Image: Men are idiots!
The Con: Men are portrayed as idiots. That's rather insulting!
The Pro: If men are idiots, then a woman should be grateful if her man is able to pick up his own socks. She should gush with praise if he manages to vacuum without falling down or setting something on fire. The bar has been lowered, hooray!


And remember, men are expected to trigger the big steps in the relationship, as well.

Traditionally, yes. Not so much these days.


But, in the contemporary setting, while men have kept reign over this position as relationship leader, women are finding it easier to leave the relationship should they feel the man has misjudged the correct pace and so there is actually greater pressure, in my opinion, upon the man to somehow magically guess the right pace of such things.

Sure, he could "magically guess." Or he could, you know, talk to his partner, or behave like their relationship is one between equals.

Any guy who bitches about how hard it is to "magically guess" what his partner wants needs to grow up before he makes any "big steps" in his relationship.


To make a normative statement about it, I think that while it's wonderful that women have more social freedom, it's an unfortunate side effect that the less desirable roles men possess are not spread out more equally among the genders.
Instead of trying to drag women down by pinning more shit on them, how about you join us feminists over here? We're trying to get rid of bullshit gender role crap that hurts both men and women.

We're actually very nice. And feminists have better sex. Fact. :D

You mean...talk? To a female? Like, interact with her as though she were an individual human with thoughts, emotions, and opinions of her own, rather than as if she were a member of the completely alien and utterly inhuman Female Hive Mind?

Now you're just talking crazy.

I am truly sorry to say this Bottle, but talking to a female as if she were human makes about as much sense as...talking to a male as if he were human.

OMG I thought I was the only one...but not shit, cuz shit smells like shit, not like roses. But yeah. I can't stand the smell of roses. It's cloying and smells like decay. I can stand pretty much any other kind of flower smell, just not roses! They are pretty enough, but they make me think something is rotting.
It's kind of a pity, because I think roses are kind of cool looking, but I just can't stand the smell.

I also dislike long walks on the beach and candle-lit dinners for two. Romance is dead, and one of these days they're gonna match the bullets to my gun. ;)

Bullshit.

The only bullshit thing about that was it being a generalisation, and only being applied to females.

*goes off on a tangential rant about how much time and blood would be saved if people would just say what they mean, instead of leaving the other person to decipher it, especially considering that we very often get it wrong when it's all spelled out anyway*

It's kind of a pity, because I think roses are kind of cool looking, but I just can't stand the smell.

I also dislike long walks on the beach and candle-lit dinners for two. Romance is dead, and one of these days they're gonna match the bullets to my gun. ;)

I hate receiving flowers, totally hate it. I told hubby that once and he thought I was kidding or trying to hint, so he sent me 4 dozen roses, which at first was kinda neat because I hadn't ever gotten roses except for that time I won homecoming queen and they gave me some, but then after about a day I was like "what the hell?!" they were just sitting there......staring at me.....smelling.......eww. So, anyway, now I get tissue paper roses in the top of the gift bag containing something I actually want (like a video game or DVD)

I hate receiving flowers, totally hate it. I told hubby that once and he thought I was kidding or trying to hint, so he sent me 4 dozen roses, which at first was kinda neat because I hadn't ever gotten roses except for that time I won homecoming queen and they gave me some, but then after about a day I was like "what the hell?!" they were just sitting there......staring at me.....smelling.......eww. So, anyway, now I get tissue paper roses in the top of the gift bag containing something I actually want (like a video game or DVD)

Makes more sense to me. :) Personally, I really like receiving a flower, preferably one the person giving it to me picked themselves. That's all sweet and romantic and stuff. Several dozen flowers, though, always just kind of smacks of, "I spent a lot of money, so now can I get laid?"

Makes more sense to me. :) Personally, I really like receiving a flower, preferably one the person giving it to me picked themselves. That's all sweet and romantic and stuff. Several dozen flowers, though, always just kind of smacks of, "I spent a lot of money, so now can I get laid?"

meh. I don't really like flowers, they aren't good for much. Friday is my birthday and my kids opted to get me a counter top herb garden instead of flowers, which is so much better, it's got cilantro and basil and green onions, and useful things, and it's sooo pretty.

meh. I don't really like flowers, they aren't good for much. Friday is my birthday and my kids opted to get me a counter top herb garden instead of flowers, which is so much better, it's got cilantro and basil and green onions, and useful things, and it's sooo pretty.

That is better!

And I agree that flowers are sort of pointless - as far as I'm concerned, their main use is to let the recipient go, "Aww, you thought of me, now I feel loved," and then stick them in a vase and ignore them. I like that whole "feeling loved" part, but it works even better when your loved one brings, say, chocolate (or herbs!); then you can feel loved and have tasty things. :)

And I agree that flowers are sort of pointless

Well, they are critical to the reproductive process of certain plants.

However, why one would want to put plant genitals on display is an entirely different question...

Hot, sexy sexy words

Dear god Bottle, you're making me fall in love over the internet.

Oh BTW, hello, my name is Reasonstanople. Would you like to trample an old lady's rose garden with me?

However, why one would want to put plant genitals on display is an entirely different question...

We put human genitals on display... ;)

Ah, flowers. Because nothing is a better representation of one's love than something that collapses into a dead, rotten putrescence in a handful of days.

Ah, flowers. Because nothing is a better representation of one's love than something that collapses into a dead, rotten putrescence in a handful of days.

Nope.
Rather accurate as well.
Woe.
/melodrama

You lost me at "women".

By whom?

Maybe it's a generational thing, but my peers and I never really saw things that way. Girls have always been just as likely as guys to make the first move in my experience. Most people I know consider it old-fashioned for somebody to expect the guy to always make the first move. Just like we consider it old fashioned for the guy to assume he's paying for the meal or whatever. We know it's how things used to work, but nobody actually does things that way any more.

Ahh Bottle, as a scientist you should surely know your friends is hardly an adequate representative sample. My experience have been different than yours,a nd I think I only have maybe one or two years on you.

counter-argument stuffWe seem to be operating under different understandings of the terminology here. Tradition and norm, in this sense, are synonymous as far as I'm concerned. If the traditional ritual isn't the normal ritual then why even mention it as being an affective thing? People tend to fall into the traditional norm, by and large, thus it being considered a contemporary tradition. I don't deny that norms, and thus traditions are changing, which is good, but that doesn't change the fact that things are a certain way as an empirical observation. I'm arguing with your observation of clueless though it appears I misunderstood what you meant by clueless. I took clueless to mean men do not understand how to communicate with women, not clueless as a technical sense in the general duties a relationship entails. But, as you said, we are debating two different things then if by clueless you mean simply from a day-to-day basis. However, I'm going to say that what you call bunk in my response I'll just say I disagree. Maybe some really industrious person can find studies that support one side or the other, it doesn't really matter, though.

But, anyway, I submit that I may have misunderstood the exact nature of this "cluelessness". It being a thread about reading signals, I was under the impression that was the type of cluelessness you were talking about rather than being ignorant of diaper changing. And to that I still contend that the man unable to read subtle non-verbalized signals is, well, the "right" way to be. But, like you said, we seem to be talking about completely different things.

I am curious as to how you perceive anything I posted to be somehow counter to feminist ideals, though. None of it had any normative value except for the last statement, in which all I said was that it is unfortunate that the expectations and roles of a relationship aren't normally, or traditionally, spread out in an egalitarian manner. How this puts me in conflict with feminism, I don't quite understand.

Anyway, this isn't as thorough a reply as I'd have liked to make but it covered the biggies that it needed to, as far as I know. I have Russian to teach myself, though. Probably part of that needing to get out more issue. :(

What culture, exactly, are you from? I'm curious because I've never encountered any culture (with the exception of perhaps some very small and isolated tribal cultures) in which women instigate the relationship.

I've been the 'hunted', at least as often as the 'hunter', and I'm a dude. I've lived everywhere from cities of more than 10 million people, to 'cities' of 100 people. I'm not sure which culture you think you are talking about, but the split almost everywhere I've been seems to be close to 50/50.

Although, that could just be because I'm so damn pretty.

Of course not. Women aren't supposed to want sex. We're supposed to give in when a guy wants it.
nah i kinda like the chase, makes it better when you do have it
you know not just cheap worthless crap, anyone could do that

Because, as we all know, violence against women solves everything!

violence solves everything!

I must be a pornstar then.

Where's my money!?
sooo thats how i know you *throws money at Neeisika*, well come on the camera rolling

I don't know why you feel the need to side step things, prove me wrong or admit I'm right...


I don't. I've tackled you head on since you spouted your original idiocy.

You keep moving the topic to different things from the original argument,


The original topic of debate has nothing to do with your hijack. You started in on punching women in the overies. If we are having an 'argument' (I think you flatetr your contribution, to be honest), then it is over the idiocy of your opening gambit.

I honestly don't know what TG is or how to go about sending you one,


You go to the otehr person's nation page, and type a message in the little box at the bottom. It means 'telegram'.

but really its getting silly, and its not from my end.


This, obviously, is going to vary with relative perspectives.

You can't even read one sentence without getting something wrong. Like this one:
----


----
I didn't say you were afraid of my disapproval, just that you were afraid of everyone as a group thinking you're foolish,


And I didn't say you did say I was... blah blah... As for people thinking I'm foolish, I have bigger concerns, to be honest. My opinions on thi forum are not expressed to make friends or salve consciences. In your case, my opinion is that your comments about punching women in the ovaries are ridiculously stupid. If someone finds that foolish, I think this expresses more about them, than about me.

which is probably why you want to move this to TG despite the fact that we've hijacked the thread for the past 10 posts or so.


Whatever helps, my friend. I'm bored with your little hijack. Your opening comment was worth pointing out for being either incredibly naive, or just dumb - but the rest of your little diatribe is, frankly, more work than it's worth. And it's not that much work.

I hate people like you.


Dearly beloved... the Lord told us to love one another. You're twisting my mellow, man.

When did I even say the word understanding or even imply it? I also never threatened a woman with violence at least not in this thread.


No? You meant 'punch in the ovaries' as a euphemism for 'lick them with kittens?'

Plus the fact that wasn't even what we were arguing about,


We weren't arguing. You were making ridiculous statments, and I was calling them idiotic. There is no argument there, only in your attempts to justify yourself.

which I'll note was whether or not attacking someone who thinks violence is ok in a disagreement or not would be idiotic for a person who thinks violence is not the way to solve arguments.

Not at all. The initial contact was your now-legendary statement about punching ovaries.

LOL

i know i choked on my hot chocalte when i read it

He's going to have to get in line.

me first! :fluffle:

This post made me laugh rather a lot.

me too

Ahh Bottle, as a scientist you should surely know your friends is hardly an adequate representative sample.

I do. Which is why I'm not limiting my sample to my friends.

I've been the 'hunted', at least as often as the 'hunter', and I'm a dude. I've lived everywhere from cities of more than 10 million people, to 'cities' of 100 people. I'm not sure which culture you think you are talking about, but the split almost everywhere I've been seems to be close to 50/50.

Yep.

I've also been both "hunter" and "hunted" at different times, and have both pursued and been pursued by men as well as women.

Ahh Bottle, as a scientist you should surely know your friends is hardly an adequate representative sample. My experience have been different than yours,a nd I think I only have maybe one or two years on you.

Then you hang out with poopy-heads. There's really no other explanation. :P

Then you hang out with poopy-heads. There's really no other explanation. :P
On the contrary, there is another explanation, and one which I'm sorely tempted to choose...

The other explanation is that I'm simply too damn sexy for my own good, and my very presence in a room is sufficient to fling everyone--male and female alike--into a mating frenzy. This would explain why I've pretty consistently found that females are equally likely to pursue males as vice versa, while Neo (lacking my undoubtedly overpowering erotic pheromones) has not.

Yep.

I've also been both "hunter" and "hunted" at different times, and have both pursued and been pursued by men as well as women.

Why was my associated mental image for this post a mockup of bottle walking into a club with a crossbow and a net?

Why was my associated mental image for this post a mockup of bottle walking into a club with a crossbow and a net?
Not entirely an inaccurate picture. Back in my bar-hopping days, I was fond of reminding my friends, "Tonight we hunt the deadliest game of all: MAN."

;)

Ah, flowers. Because nothing is a better representation of one's love than something that collapses into a dead, rotten putrescence in a handful of days.

IronChef Foicite: well, there's a lot of reasons
IronChef Foicite: i mean, roses only last like a couple weeks
IronChef Foicite: and that's if you leave them in water
IronChef Foicite: and they really only exist to be pretty
IronChef Foicite: so that's like saying
IronChef Foicite: "my love for you is transitory and based solely on your appearance"
IronChef Foicite: but a potato!
IronChef Foicite: potatos last for fucking ever, man
IronChef Foicite: in fact, not only will they not rot, they actually grow shit even if you just leave them in the sack
IronChef Foicite: that part alone makes it a good symbol
IronChef Foicite: but there's more!
IronChef Foicite: there are so many ways to enjoy a potato! you can even make a battery with it!
IronChef Foicite: and that's like saying "i have many ways in which I show my love for you"
IronChef Foicite: and potatos may be ugly, but they're still awesome
IronChef Foicite: so that's like saying "it doesn't matter at all what you look like, I'll still love you"

:D

Not entirely an inaccurate picture. Back in my bar-hopping days, I was fond of reminding my friends, "Tonight we hunt the deadliest game of all: MAN."

;)

It's a common misconception. We're really not all that deadly *puppy eyes*

It's a common misconception. We're really not all that deadly *puppy eyes*

Shh! How can we attract our prey if you let them in on our ruse?

So you're ideal man is a manekin? Or made of metal that does nothing? lol or maybe some sort of puppet.:cool:

yep... my Ideal man is a mannequin, that way, between the two of us, I'd stand a better chance of getting the ladies...


I hope it's enough of a chance.

*pictures Bottle with a club and net*

so... where will you be going then?

I hate receiving flowers, totally hate it. I told hubby that once and he thought I was kidding or trying to hint, so he sent me 4 dozen roses, which at first was kinda neat because I hadn't ever gotten roses except for that time I won homecoming queen and they gave me some, but then after about a day I was like "what the hell?!" they were just sitting there......staring at me.....smelling.......eww. So, anyway, now I get tissue paper roses in the top of the gift bag containing something I actually want (like a video game or DVD)

... I consider flowers to be a 'spur of the moment' thing or as you said, the decorative part of the real gift.

Why would I give my sweetheart something that's dying? now a pottled plant that flowers... (like a pointsetta) is different.

One of my female friends recived a gift from a mutual aquaintance... he got her a nice jewelled bracelet. When he got up to go to the kitchen, I overheard her comment to another friend "He really doesn't know me at all."

after that, I always try to make the gift either something that "fits" the person or something that they can make good use of.

dunno... to paranoid on the gift giving?

... I consider flowers to be a 'spur of the moment' thing or as you said, the decorative part of the real gift.

Why would I give my sweetheart something that's dying? now a pottled plant that flowers... (like a pointsetta) is different.

One of my female friends recived a gift from a mutual aquaintance... he got her a nice jewelled bracelet. When he got up to go to the kitchen, I overheard her comment to another friend "He really doesn't know me at all."

after that, I always try to make the gift either something that "fits" the person or something that they can make good use of.

dunno... to paranoid on the gift giving?

he brought me a beautiful orchid one day, it was nice, even though it died, but, it was a very pretty flower and I had been having a rough day. Spur of the moment is good, tons of flowers for "look what I can do!" not good.

I think giving any kind of flowers is just lame, and don't respect women who think higher of a man for giving flowers.

So yeah, I don't respect any women at all. Because of flowers. Well, fuck 'em both!

(insert Geordie accent here)
Day four in the Nation states forum, and tensions are runny high, women don't like men and men don't like women, so we've set them a task that actually involves, speaking to each other, instead of pointing out the others mistakes.
Day five one of the housemates went AWOL with a chainsaw escaping from the compo-i mean house, as the next task involves debating the death penalty, currently the ones arguing for it will suffer death to see if it's an effective deterrant.
Day six the housemates are distraught, that some have had to die, but we explained patiently that it was for the "greater good".
Day seven some of the housemates have risen from the dead, clearly the death penalty has affected their thinking,as they have now mauled all the camera crews and ahhhhh.....save me!.....sa................me...................

I soiled myself and hid under the covers.


<.<
>.>


Was that out loud?

Yeah, pretty much.

On the contrary, there is another explanation, and one which I'm sorely tempted to choose...

The other explanation is that I'm simply too damn sexy for my own good, and my very presence in a room is sufficient to fling everyone--male and female alike--into a mating frenzy. This would explain why I've pretty consistently found that females are equally likely to pursue males as vice versa, while Neo (lacking my undoubtedly overpowering erotic pheromones) has not.

Yeah - this is a possibility I long ago had to come to terms with... :)