# Asked out a stranger at the mall, got rejected, and it didn't suck!



## vicente (Nov 10, 2003)

Today I went to a mall and made it my goal to ask a stranger out. I wasn't hoping to land a date, but to gain more experience in dealing with "approach anxiety". In fact the mall is 100 miles from where I live and I'm not going back in the near future.

There was a stranger sitting on a bench with a parrot and I went up to her and asked her about the parrot. Then I said, "Hey you seem like an interesting person to talk to. Want to go for coffee sometime?" She said, "That's sweet of you but I have a boyfriend."

I was not crushed and overthinking the conversation afterwards! Maybe it helped that I wasn't particularly attracted to her.

I'm hoping that this one positive experience will make it a little easier for me to do this in the future, next time having even less of a reason to approach.

*TL;DR: Two triumphs: 1.) approaching a stranger without her showing initial interest 2.) not obsessing about being rejected or about any awkwardness in the conversation. #2 is arguably the bigger triumph.*


----------



## greyandgreenbean77 (Dec 23, 2013)

I liked reading this, made me smile . Dude, sometimes I wish I was a dude so I could do the asking out instead of waiting to be asked out. I'm one of those girls that refuses to ask out a guy lol.


----------



## Haillzz91 (Oct 26, 2013)

vicente said:


> Today I went to a mall and made it my goal to ask a stranger out. I wasn't hoping to land a date, but to gain more experience in dealing with "approach anxiety". In fact the mall is 100 miles from where I live and I'm not going back in the near future.
> 
> There was a stranger sitting on a bench with a parrot and I went up to her and asked her about the parrot. Then I said, "Hey you seem like an interesting person to talk to. Want to go for coffee sometime?" She said, "That's sweet of you but I have a boyfriend."
> 
> ...


That's awesome that you were able to do that. Good luck asking out future girls! Perhaps next time approach one you're attracted to


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

That's awesome. That's certainly a triumph. I'm attracted to this girl that was showing signs of attraction/interest in me for half of the day yesterday (and had in the past subtly) but now its like suddenly I'm just someone to have a conversation with. But I do have her number and text her and that but I'm overthinking that I'm not going to text her so as to not appear too dependent early on, or otherwise cue her off to early that I am indeed interested. I don't know to act like I don't like her, or to just keep talking to her like I have been up until this point. 

Congrats to you. Great job. My triumph was just getting a phone number. That's like the second time that's happened.... gosh, that's hard to believe.


----------



## vicente (Nov 10, 2003)

JD91 said:


> Dude, sometimes I wish I was a dude so I could do the asking out instead of waiting to be asked out. I'm one of those girls that refuses to ask out a guy lol.


Without social anxiety, it's better to be a dude than a chick, because you get to choose who you approach. When you're the chick you're stuck with choosing between the guys who actually ask you out.



ksevile said:


> That's awesome. That's certainly a triumph. I'm attracted to this girl that was showing signs of attraction/interest in me for half of the day yesterday (and had in the past subtly) but now its like suddenly I'm just someone to have a conversation with. But I do have her number and text her and that but I'm overthinking that I'm not going to text her so as to not appear too dependent early on, or otherwise cue her off to early that I am indeed interested. I don't know to act like I don't like her, or to just keep talking to her like I have been up until this point.
> 
> Congrats to you. Great job. My triumph was just getting a phone number. That's like the second time that's happened.... gosh, that's hard to believe.


Good job to you. I think you do need to show interest by communicating with her, just don't overdo it and appear needy. And don't agree to do any favors for her like helping her move until you two are officially together.


----------



## Genos (Dec 17, 2014)

Good for you! Honestly, you probably won't have much wi


----------



## Genos (Dec 17, 2014)

...wish I could edit posts right about now.
What I meant to say is you probably won't have much luck with complete strangers [unless we're talking about dating sites] Regardless though, what matters here is that you had the courage to do it in the first place and didn't get yourself down over the rejection. You also approached her very appropriately.


----------



## greyandgreenbean77 (Dec 23, 2013)

*LIKE*

QUOTE=Haillzz91;1077231329]That's awesome that you were able to do that. Good luck asking out future girls! Perhaps next time approach one you're attracted to [/QUOTE]


----------



## Jonatan (Dec 14, 2014)

vicente said:


> Without social anxiety, it's better to be a dude than a chick, because you get to choose who you approach. When you're the chick you're stuck with choosing between the guys who actually ask you out.





JD91 said:


> I liked reading this, made me smile . Dude, sometimes I wish I was a dude so I could do the asking out instead of waiting to be asked out. I'm one of those girls that refuses to ask out a guy lol.


What is it with this unwritten rule that women don't ask out men?!
it's utterly ridiculous! 
Why would a women be condemned to waiting for a guy to approach her?
screw customs, take charge of your own life!
Yes, it's true that in general a guy approaches the girl, but that's exactly why it's incredibly powerful when a girls turns things around and asks out a guy.

Don't use customs as an excuse, muster the courage to ask a guy out 
and I guarantee you will make his day!
Even if he isn't interested,for whatever reason, he will appreciate the gesture a lot.

Don't be the plaything of coincidence, take responsibility and make good things happen for yourself.


----------



## Lisa (Jul 8, 2006)

Way to go!


----------



## Lisa (Jul 8, 2006)

Jonatan said:


> What is it with this *unwritten rule that women don't ask out men*?!
> it's utterly ridiculous!
> Why would a women be *condemned to waiting for a guy to approach her*?
> screw customs, take charge of your own life!
> ...


A woman can ask a man out. I have tried it. Men tend to get a bit anxious though when they feel that you are being quite confident and dominant. And you are giving off vibes like that by asking a man out (!) The result is that they tend to not want to meet up with you. Or, they go on a date with you but they never get over the fact that you asked them out and will forever worry about you asking someone else out! Seriously. I have been there. Men can be quite insecure.

So the moral of the story is: Don't ask a man out. Wait for him to do it.


----------



## seeking777 (Oct 24, 2012)

@vicente good job man. Reading this type of stuff always encourages me. It shows us that rejection is not as bad as we think. It's not personal. And it actually boosts your confidence to try again because you know now that you can do actually what you were afraid of.

As for asking guys out, ugh that is so scary. I keep hearing guys say But I was encouraged by a comment a guy on this site made, he wrote that with guys probably not every single girl they pursue will reciprocate interest and that's okay. The same will apply to girls, some guys will reject you but other guys will return your interest. Makes sense to me.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

Jonatan said:


> What is it with this unwritten rule that women don't ask out men?!
> it's utterly ridiculous!
> Why would a women be condemned to waiting for a guy to approach her?
> screw customs, take charge of your own life!


It's not at all ridiculous. The vast majority of men hate it. They consider it desperate, too forward, and too masculine, and i've even seen several girls get made fun of publicly (sometimes even for months on end) for openly expressing interest in a guy.



Lisa said:


> So the moral of the story is: Don't ask a man out. Wait for him to do it.


Very true. Nobody I know would do this, and for very good reason.


----------



## vicente (Nov 10, 2003)

tbyrfan said:


> It's not at all ridiculous. The vast majority of men hate it. They consider it desperate, too forward, and too masculine, and i've even seen several girls get made fun of publicly (sometimes even for months on end) for openly expressing interest in a guy.
> 
> Very true. Nobody I know would do this, and for very good reason.


Unfortunately, tbyrfan is right. Most men don't like it and would likely not respect the woman if she did ask him out. The SAS board is not representative of the male population.

Aela, somebody did a study and found that half of the time women were approached by a random stranger, they gave the stranger their number. Whether it was a fake number or not is another question.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

I do not think there is any reason to hold such a stricture on "initiation of dating" and such. Further, I don't think its necessarily reasonable to assume the above (that is, a woman asking a man out) is desperate, in either a prescriptive or evaluative sense of the term. Of course, it could be argued that it might ultimately be much more dignified and weighty given the usual course of male-to-female entreating for dates/romance, but there is no reason that female-to-male initiation should be viewed in a negative light (unless of course, someone is willing to suggest that one course of action should be taken over another, as the public expectation, discourse, and decorum/etiquette might have it). I can concede some men might feel robbed of the sense of achievement that comes with "knowing" they were the initiators, but truthfully, we all might feel terribly flattered if they were to ask us--perhaps to the point of an unhesitatingly resounding yes--, especially if we already have a thing for the female in question. 

I wish this would happen more often, incidentally; however, my current dilemma seems to be a one-sided affair of my initiation which is not something I'm accumstomed to AT ALL, but it will be fun indeed pursuant to such. Moreover, the interplay among the various elements involved in attraction has always been to me, at best, trivial and downright esoteric/hard to understand and follow along with, and making sense of such a quaint phenomenon as attraction to me represents an inexplicable conundrum. Alas, I assert its not to be perfectly understood, but might be better served if merely enjoyed for "what it is". I say all that to say for me, attraction has always been something to be apprehended, but never really something intimately capable of being "mutually" realized. In analyzing each component of the attraction itself, when one breaks it down and sub-divides it as they see appropriate, one is left with something ultimately different than the "whole package" in its proper light of understanding.

Furthermore, some of the more circumstantial indicators have abounded among this the populace of this board bespeaking a great tendency indeed for the above approach to be taken, particularly within the more zany and debillitating sufferers of the disorder. As is often the case, there are an equal number of detractors to this dominant strain of view.


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

ksevile said:


> Alas, I assert its not to be perfectly understood, but might be better served if merely enjoyed for "what it is". I say all that to say for me, attraction has always been something to be apprehended, but never really something intimately capable of being "mutually" realized. In analyzing each component of the attraction itself, when one breaks it down and sub-divides it as they see appropriate, one is left with something ultimately different than the "whole package" in its proper light of understanding.
> 
> Furthermore, some of the more circumstantial indicators have abounded among this the populace of this board bespeaking a great tendency indeed for the above approach to be taken, particularly within the more zany and debillitating sufferers of the disorder. As is often the case, there are an equal number of detractors to this dominant strain of view.


So in that sense, the "thrill of the chase?", something apprehended but once caught, lost in the sea of what is to come? The idealized notion of roles, and "love" (for a lack of better word) in which most, play the parts.

Logically, I would say you are correct in your assumptions or possibly experiences, that it cannot be mutually realized. However, one could argue, that self-sacrifice in the sense of compromise could give a mutual respect, show of affection, and support towards the desired goal (in this case "love" if mutually felt by two parties of the opposite sex).

But then again, as you mentioned that may "sub-divide" the whole package, hence the individual from their solitary course of action. Behaviors and actions independent of the significant other, taken by the self, and thus enacted in a full course of the ego. However, through compromise that can be avoided. Which in a sense would not, be the "same person" without such sub-division of appropriate behaviors for the given role. One could also take each action in life and state the same though, whether within a relationship or not. Although the experiences of such should have a profound effect on the emotional state, as well as outlook of an individual concerning the opposite sex (in this case), and the contemporary form of boding rituals.

Though it would be the same person, at least in memories and experiences, but the path one would take on a divergent course would change one's perceptions totally. As any given action, that mutual exchange would have to be a principle within the underlying psychology of both individuals independent of the relationship itself. So in theory, abstractly two "spheres" of influence relating to individuals overlapping like a venn diagram. Though probably a rare possibility in the sense of a random occurrence of such individuals of opposite sex meeting, and happening to have those very thoughts of compromise for mutual benefit without any sub-division. Yet to retain that equal and opposing sense of individuality, thus "willpower" to resist the other in reaction, but respect the choices of the other, made within the confines of the self without stress from the external influence of the other. So in a sense, anticipating the needs, respecting the individual, and not overstepping the bounds, whilst advancing or maintaining the same sense of motion as one would display as an individual. Something which seems highly improbable !

And after all that, I realized that you meant, "sub-divides" as in the "parts" of the person in an idealized sense of the whole lol, rather than the individual being divided by the relationship. Sigh lol oh well I typed all that out anyway so, was an interesting thought haha.

Oh and OP, grats on your success for merit or rather for the sake of courage and sorry for this random comment^^


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I would say that that is a triumph - :boogie :boogie :boogie

Just don't ask the "first sight stranger".....give it a bit more time!


----------



## springseternal (Mar 10, 2014)

This is brilliant! I'm glad you acknowledge your achievements, I hope you're proud of yourself  you should be.

______________
My first SA video.. I hope this can help comfort some people.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

Zyriel said:


> So in that sense, the "thrill of the chase?", something apprehended but once caught, lost in the sea of what is to come? The idealized notion of roles, and "love" (for a lack of better word) in which most, play the parts.
> 
> Logically, I would say you are correct in your assumptions or possibly experiences, that it cannot be mutually realized. However, one could argue, that self-sacrifice in the sense of compromise could give a mutual respect, show of affection, and support towards the desired goal (in this case "love" if mutually felt by two parties of the opposite sex).
> 
> ...


Wonderfully said, Zyriel. I'm hoping a less extensive response won't consign to any disapprobation, on account that I'm under-qualified talking about this stuff, and as such, can only truly speculate and theorize (this is where I can do the least damage, as you correctly guessed it here--these are my assumptions and they only slightly border on "experience", with "experience" occupying a diminutively disproportionate amount to these assumptions). You essentially nailed the upshot of what I was attempting to portray here, albeit in a more well-put manner than I myself might be qualified for, and that was a fascinating read.

This philosophical approach to the minutiae of this dynamic involved is proving an interesting and worthwhile thing to ponder for myself. With all of this realized, I submit attraction (for me, at least, bearing this in mind) might not be as procrustean of an experience as I am apt to believe in, but as your loquacity makes clear, there is a certain amount of decided effort likely to be rewarded individually on a case-by-case basis. 

Furthermore, I feel that many people--in instances wherein they are needing either consolation about a prospective partner--vastly under-estimate the underpinnings and hybrid vigor amid the inherent individual differences of the view you have just expressed, and this is admittedly something I wished most would realize (and even if they did realize it, they need not make it known as this nascent crescendo of philosophy and theory of attraction is beginning to pleasantly suggest). Indeed, this "sub-division" could take a couple of other more precise forms, ranging from "sub-modules" to "sub-components", however one may see fit (incidentally, one could argue that attraction in the above view is now largely submodular and similarly analogous to the principles very underlying language structure/grammar, acquisition, and its production/generation and creation).


----------



## handsup (Jun 22, 2013)

That is some crazy sh*t homie congrats man!


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

ksevile said:


> Wonderfully said, Zyriel. I'm hoping a less extensive response won't consign to any disapprobation, on account that I'm under-qualified talking about this stuff, and as such, can only truly speculate and theorize (this is where I can do the least damage, as you correctly guessed it here--these are my assumptions and they only slightly border on "experience", with "experience" occupying a diminutively disproportionate amount to these assumptions). You essentially nailed the upshot of what I was attempting to portray here, albeit in a more well-put manner than I myself might be qualified for, and that was a fascinating read.
> 
> This philosophical approach to the minutiae of this dynamic involved is proving an interesting and worthwhile thing to ponder for myself. With all of this realized, I submit attraction (for me, at least, bearing this in mind) might not be as procrustean of an experience as I am apt to believe in, but as your loquacity makes clear, there is a certain amount of decided effort likely to be rewarded individually on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> Furthermore, I feel that many people--in instances wherein they are needing either consolation about a prospective partner--vastly under-estimate the underpinnings and hybrid vigor amid the inherent individual differences of the view you have just expressed, and this is admittedly something I wished most would realize (and even if they did realize it, they need not make it known as this nascent crescendo of philosophy and theory of attraction is beginning to pleasantly suggest). Indeed, this "sub-division" could take a couple of other more precise forms, ranging from "sub-modules" to "sub-components", however one may see fit (incidentally, one could argue that attraction in the above view is now largely submodular and similarly analogous to the principles very underlying language structure/grammar, acquisition, and its production/generation and creation).


Thank you sir! I must say your response is very well written and quite in depth to the overall statement of the idea presented^^ I doubt I am qualified as well, seeing that "relationships" are often the bane of my existence lol. Not so much for the lack of attraction nor apprehension of such a desirable mate, but for the ability to "maintain" the status quo and further an established paradigm of behaviors in a said relationship. The emotional fuel, often taxing to the individual and in this case, myself lol, or my inability to "support" the other. In that sense, I must honestly acquiesce, without mercy upon thyself, that I am a dilettante in the emotion, event, or activity known as love. Or in contrast, with a fear of failure, to the idealized version of what one would deem as a stable, successful "relationship" with passionate fervor, towards the objective of "love". In one's own mind, the subjective view of charging forth into the bellows of the scorching fires of hell in a show of devotion through "self-sacrifice" to the object of one's affection. Which in reality is often times is misunderstood, nor felt as deeply, and thus a waste of time, energy, and effort on my part lol. The action or emotion, is only usually felt in a halfhearted manner by most individuals, often treated as a "pastime" activity or one spoken of, as a mere conversation topic, or simplistic game. Rather than one felt, on a profound level, causing a life changing experience from the depths of passion, transcending the corporeal, to the very edge of madness! Ergo, an all or nothing approach, so thus, I am not one really qualified to speak on such matters with successful "experience" either :b

That you are so right, it is a manner to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the individuals involved. I do agree, that very lack of vigor, or rather misplaced vigor, within the action itself. Or rather the momentum towards the event, instead of the underlying principles of which the theory, and philosophy of the emotion takes place. In that sense, the very motives of one's actions, and the end goal to one's desires. I guess that would be to a "live and let live" mentality, and thus to take life "as it comes". Although some do seem to have a set mind of "tradition", or established paradigm of thought related to gender roles in the overall view of a "relationship". In that sense, compromise could not take place, between two already decided roles, whether or not the individuals are aware of the dynamics taking place.

Hmm, you do make a valid point there as well! The analogies, grammar, and very linguistics themselves in a figurative term related to attraction, reproduction, and bonding have changed drastically in the course of time. In other fields, that would take a whole re-classification of modules and modes of understanding to set the components of the system into a workable order. Or in this case, a social system lol, as the modern generation seems to take a more primitive view on reproduction, or possibly a hypocritical idea towards "dating" which is regarded as "fun", thus "pleasure", yet takes a drastic change in accordance with societal principles, when offspring are beget. As the motherly instinct, often takes precedence over other roles in life, causing responsibility for the life of another. I wonder about the males though, such instinct never seems to take place, and often times must be "learned" through cultural factors, personal upbringing, experience, or self-awareness. An interesting thought, indeed !


----------



## vicente (Nov 10, 2003)

ksevile said:


> This philosophical approach to the minutiae of this dynamic involved is proving an interesting and worthwhile thing to ponder for myself. With all of this realized, I submit attraction (for me, at least, bearing this in mind) might not be as procrustean of an experience as I am apt to believe in, but as your loquacity makes clear, there is a certain amount of decided effort likely to be rewarded individually on a case-by-case basis.


Dude, you are overanalyzing. Getting dates and succeeding in relationships isn't like writing a term paper or doing a math problem. You succeed by going with the flow and NOT thinking while you're on a date. The more you think about male-female dynamics the more time you'll spend in your head when talking to women and the more likely you will end up being awkward.

Also, this is an internet forum, not a debate society. There is no reason to use words like "loquacity" and "procrustean". You're not getting any extra respect for using SAT words.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

vicente said:


> Dude, you are overanalyzing. Getting dates and succeeding in relationships isn't like writing a term paper or doing a math problem. You succeed by going with the flow and NOT thinking while you're on a date. The more you think about male-female dynamics the more time you'll spend in your head when talking to women and the more likely you will end up being awkward.
> 
> Also, this is an internet forum, not a debate society. There is no reason to use words like "loquacity" and "procrustean". You're not getting any extra respect for using SAT words.


You've confused "discourse" for "the best/most expedient approach to the given end".

If I'm corrrect the prescription at hand (at the time of the post(s)) is not necessarily a matter of "shoulds". Of course it's quite reasonable to assume that certain responses are more likely than others to be easily understood (and potentially better received, I suppose), but I further submit that it is not another's duty to impinge upon the freedom of expression allotted in a clime such as this one. Furthermore, language and debate are two aspects of parlance I'm particularly interested in, and while a more readily serviceable approach might entirely elide these altogether, the meta-analysis I've given might encourage something easily more recognizable in the future (if one is willing to ponder the views expressed in question without passing over them as we're all prone to do to one another at times). I could make the above more over-simple, but in doing so I would lose my fervent passion that makes these discussions so endlessly fascinating/marvelous to some of the more cerebrally-inclined thinkers (Zyriel, for instance--incidentally, the post you've decided to comment on was within my dialogue with him, which is why I subsumed it publicly, given the scant but unlikely chance that it might indeed add something to the public spark and parlance in the immediate future). Additionally, I can express my due sympathy for you on account of what you're lobbying for in this instance, given that it's something I'm not immune to falling into given natural happenstances and the right environment.

The topic at hand is just my passion! The post you incidentally replied to could be considered "analysis for the sake of analysis (or knowing, I suppose vis-a-vis a conceptual/theoretical model and framework--or perhaps, in the minds of some, having nothing "better to do", whatever that little glib statement truly means I've never considered too deeply)" and was not in any way intended to be a "debate", but merely the earlier mentioned engagement with a user expressing similar outlook/sentiments toward the subject/topic of interest, so I cannot entirely fault you for the well-founded perception that such verbosity might represent a hindrance to the more commonly fundamental and reciprocal modes of outlook enveloping about; however, it proves interesting and worthwhile for a couple of minds, as I had previously outlined. I'm a fairly autonomous being, and value such autonomy of language and speech, and I don't take privy toward your intimation that "respect" ought be a contributing factor/role here in this case. There are certainly more tried and tested ways of garnering respect out there for all of us, and while that's a basic guiding principle underlying all human interaction, it is in nowise disrespectful towards another. Moreover, the flexibility and fluidity of the English language is itself rather florid indeed, and while certain people's lexicon and diction might lend itself to the assertion that such verbiage should be abandoned altogether, I take it as an opportunity to instill the very curiosity in other's that sparked curiosity and exploration of the English language in the first place (a worthwhile endeavor for what its worth, I should note). Nevertheless, thank you for your suggestions, vincente.

Also, none of the above was intended to suggest that I held such a view that "thinking in your head" proves an effective means to the desired ends, so my apologies if that's what was gleaned (or even extrapolated). Not so. No indeed! Of course, it's better to be in the moment during such affairs, but that ought not to preclude one from analyzing the phenomenon in its component parts (especially if that's what you LOVE to do, as has been noted, and as I've taken opportunity here). Moreover, it would be absurd to suggest that the thoughts expressed here are what come to mind during romantic attraction/interaction. Of course not. Also, your choice of language is not so easily divorced/divided with what you're naturally endowed with, and something you're often hard-pressed to get away from. Further, I submit that the tendency to argue that others should use a certain language over another is quite dictatorial and even insulting in its basic tenets, and that's precisely the problem I have with it. It assumes that others around you know what might be best for you (but indeed, it is often not what might be best for you, but rather what they think might be best for you), and assaults us in the very condition of our humanity (and our integrity, perhaps--when viewed through the lens of obstructing freedom of expression), and one ought not have his thoughts delimited on account of what the majority might consider to be more "understandable" or acceptable, or even casual and appropriate (unless, of course, such turns into something tyrannical, which could be the case, but probably not something given the nature of the climate here at SAS).


----------



## greyandgreenbean77 (Dec 23, 2013)

Lol, my reason for not asking a guy out is not because I don't want them to think I'm desperate, I could careless about that. To be honest, and this is the uglier side of my personality :/, if I ask a guy out first that means I want him more than he wants me and I'm not interested in a guy that doesn't want me more than I want him. It's kinda like when it's your birthday and you tell everyone that it is, you'd rather they just remember and say happy birthday. It makes you feel special.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

JD91 said:


> Lol, my reason for not asking a guy out is not because I don't want them to think I'm desperate, I could careless about that. To be honest, and this is the uglier side of my personality :/, if I ask a guy out first that means I want him more than he wants me and I'm not interested in a guy that doesn't want me more than I want him. It's kinda like when it's your birthday and you tell everyone that it is, you'd rather they just remember and say happy birthday. It makes you feel special.


I do not think this is necessarily true. However, I can tell you I am probably biased towards liking girls more than they like me on account of the practical privation thereof I've lived with up until now, and while it's probably nothing that could be demonstrated apart from terms of admissions (e.g. one admitting liking one to a degree greater than vice versa, as you've coined), I am fairly confident in the fact that I've been the one wanting them more than they wanted me--it's just the principle of the fact of a phobic fear of the consequences that would conceivably result from rejection that is enough to keep me inert and rather passive, hoping it is just something that will "happen", which is curiously not the case (although this is what SA might lead you to expect, given the circumstances). Your comment may not necessarily hold true for each and every one of us.


----------



## Trafalgar Law (Sep 7, 2014)

That's really good bro and dont worry about being rejected, You'll soon overcome it 

You're like some of the people here who are struggling to talk to girls, except you've got a set of BALLs for asking a stranger out so I salute you and good job son.


----------



## hypestyle (Nov 12, 2003)

ksevile said:


> Wonderfully said, Zyriel. I'm hoping a less extensive response won't consign to any disapprobation, on account that I'm under-qualified talking about this stuff, and as such, can only truly speculate and theorize (this is where I can do the least damage, as you correctly guessed it here--these are my assumptions and they only slightly border on "experience", with "experience" occupying a diminutively disproportionate amount to these assumptions). You essentially nailed the upshot of what I was attempting to portray here, albeit in a more well-put manner than I myself might be qualified for, and that was a fascinating read.
> 
> This philosophical approach to the minutiae of this dynamic involved is proving an interesting and worthwhile thing to ponder for myself. With all of this realized, I submit attraction (for me, at least, bearing this in mind) might not be as procrustean of an experience as I am apt to believe in, but as your loquacity makes clear, there is a certain amount of decided effort likely to be rewarded individually on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> Furthermore, I feel that many people--in instances wherein they are needing either consolation about a prospective partner--vastly under-estimate the underpinnings and hybrid vigor amid the inherent individual differences of the view you have just expressed, and this is admittedly something I wished most would realize (and even if they did realize it, they need not make it known as this nascent crescendo of philosophy and theory of attraction is beginning to pleasantly suggest). Indeed, this "sub-division" could take a couple of other more precise forms, ranging from "sub-modules" to "sub-components", however one may see fit (incidentally, one could argue that attraction in the above view is now largely submodular and similarly analogous to the principles very underlying language structure/grammar, acquisition, and its production/generation and creation).


can both of you simplify for the laypeople here? I suspect it's not your intention but it comes across as obtusely academic..

To the OP, kudos: I'm still not comfortable with my career/personal circumstances, or else I might be convinced to try striking up some conversations.


----------



## Zack (Apr 20, 2013)

vicente said:


> Today I went to a mall and made it my goal to ask a stranger out. I wasn't hoping to land a date, but to gain more experience in dealing with "approach anxiety". In fact the mall is 100 miles from where I live and I'm not going back in the near future.
> 
> There was a stranger sitting on a bench with a parrot and I went up to her and asked her about the parrot. Then I said, "Hey you seem like an interesting person to talk to. Want to go for coffee sometime?" She said, "That's sweet of you but I have a boyfriend."
> 
> ...


There is something wrong with that comment in the context of this post.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Aug 10, 2014)

You did awesome! :clap :clap


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

vicente said:


> Today I went to a mall and made it my goal to ask a stranger out. I wasn't hoping to land a date, but to gain more experience in dealing with "approach anxiety". In fact the mall is 100 miles from where I live and I'm not going back in the near future.
> 
> There was a stranger sitting on a bench with a parrot and I went up to her and asked her about the parrot. Then I said, "Hey you seem like an interesting person to talk to. Want to go for coffee sometime?" She said, "That's sweet of you but I have a boyfriend."
> 
> ...


well, who would have thought it? LOL. to ask a woman out who you arent really attracted to .... to get experience or practice at approaching!. its actually a good idea. I never thought of it what way before !.

But I suppose when the woman you are really attracted to..... there will be more at steak.... so the situation here may be a bit different. But what you did was probably useful and good. for future .

Would I do this...? hmm.... well.. I dont know. maybe i would. ... If I wasn't attracted to her at all, and I asked what if she said yes? hmm.... then I'd feel a bit of a fraud then if I didnt really have interest i her.. So your idea may differ between different people.

but what you did was a positive step regardless i think, at least with regards to approaching a stranger.


----------



## KILOBRAVO (Sep 17, 2011)

Jonatan said:


> *What is it with this unwritten rule that women don't ask out men?!
> it's utterly ridiculous! *
> *Why would a women be condemned to waiting for a guy to approach her?
> screw customs, take charge of your own life!*
> ...


agree 1000% :clap because as I mentioned somewhere else on here. ..... just HOW many relationships NEVER got started because she likes his looks but never did anything about it. never approached, never said anything? it cant always be up to him..... because he doesn't always notice. !!


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

hypestyle said:


> can both of you simplify for the laypeople here? I suspect it's not your intention but it comes across as obtusely academic..
> 
> To the OP, kudos: I'm still not comfortable with my career/personal circumstances, or else I might be convinced to try striking up some conversations.


It's just a dialogue comprising an analysis of the elements involved in attraction and nothing more. Of course, its avowed that no broadly defined "social consensus" has been pinpointed yet in alignment with these views, but its interesting food for thought, notwithstanding its abstrusity. Basically, it was/is mine/our attempt at analyzing and delineating the aforesaid elements involved in the attraction dynamic, and in my view, pretty much encapsulates the underlying, unspoken/tacit acknowledgements that make the game of love so engrossing (and taxing for some of us with social anxiety, for sure, as has been widely acknowledged by now). It's just an analysis of what attraction seems to be about behind the scenes that many fail to bring to the surface (you could further say, beyond the scope of the average folk--but that would appear elitist if framed that way, I'm afraid). And nothing more. Treat them as an ordinary collection of statements, as counterintuitive as that may be/seem (and not the veiled spiritual insight such things might seem to present themselves as).

I should point out, once realized, it doesn't truly serve a pragmatic/practically applicable purpose, hence why its primarily an abstraction framed around the principles involved in attraction. The pragmatist may be disappointed, I should caution--although that does seem to be the prevailing sentiment expressed in this particular sub-forum.


----------



## DistraughtOwl (Mar 1, 2014)

Jonatan said:


> What is it with this unwritten rule that women don't ask out men?!
> it's utterly ridiculous!
> Why would a women be condemned to waiting for a guy to approach her?
> screw customs, take charge of your own life!
> ...


A lot of women moan about it being so hard and that's perfectly fine but they then expect us guys to do it! If us social anxiety riddled guys are expected to make moves then you women need to muster up the courage to ask out a guy too. It's not fair.

Approaching isn't easy for no one but always sitting around and waiting for the other sex to make a move is not the way to go. Each sex should be making the same effort as the other.


----------



## DistraughtOwl (Mar 1, 2014)

Lisa said:


> A woman can ask a man out. I have tried it. Men tend to get a bit anxious though when they feel that you are being quite confident and dominant. And you are giving off vibes like that by asking a man out (!) The result is that they tend to not want to meet up with you. Or, they go on a date with you but they never get over the fact that you asked them out and will forever worry about you asking someone else out! Seriously. I have been there. Men can be quite insecure.
> 
> So the moral of the story is: Don't ask a man out. Wait for him to do it.


The moral of the story? That guy wasn't worth your time and you can't let a few bad experiences turn you off from the idea. A lot of guys would appreciate a woman making the first move if you're genuine about it. If not they are ignorant in my opinion.

You think us guys don't have bad experiences when asking out girls? We get turned down and looked at like freaks all the time for making a move. But you know what? It's better to know for sure than to sit always wondering what would happen if you actually approached someone.

There's just as many guys in this world afraid to approach women as there are women to approach men. You women need to understand this. The dating game is difficult enough as it is. Putting all the work on one sex just makes it that much harder.

The moral of the story is you women need to stop being so lazy and anxious about the outcome and actually approach guys. Stop sitting on your asses waiting for the guy to make the move all the time please.


----------



## DistraughtOwl (Mar 1, 2014)

JD91 said:


> Lol, my reason for not asking a guy out is not because I don't want them to think I'm desperate, I could careless about that. To be honest, and this is the uglier side of my personality :/, if I ask a guy out first that means I want him more than he wants me and I'm not interested in a guy that doesn't want me more than I want him. It's kinda like when it's your birthday and you tell everyone that it is, you'd rather they just remember and say happy birthday. It makes you feel special.


So you're assuming if a guy doesn't make the first move that he isn't interested in you or as much as you are in him? Maybe he... I don't know.. HAD SOCIAL ANXIETY?

Are we to assume that the women isn't as interested in us as we are her if she doesn't make the first move as well? So then why should we make the first move again? Maybe neither sex should just never make the first move lol.

It seems most women have a lot of misconceptions and dumb excuses for not approaching as I've noticed in this thread.

You're also assuming that every guy that may be interested in you will always notice or pay attention to you at all times. Do you honestly think you're that special? Women need to get out of the "If he doesn't approach he doesn't like me" mentality.

And honestly there are situations where we don't have the time to really scout the area for girls who might be eyeing us across street. Let alone approach them.


----------



## HenDoggy (Jul 26, 2014)

vicente said:


> Today I went to a mall and made it my goal to ask a stranger out. I wasn't hoping to land a date, but to gain more experience in dealing with "approach anxiety". In fact the mall is 100 miles from where I live and I'm not going back in the near future.
> 
> There was a stranger sitting on a bench with a parrot and I went up to her and asked her about the parrot. Then I said, "Hey you seem like an interesting person to talk to. Want to go for coffee sometime?" She said, "That's sweet of you but I have a boyfriend."
> 
> ...


Great Job! I really need to work on my approach anxiety as well. Hopefully I'll have the courage like you the next time I'm out in public.


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

Awesome effort! The best thing about the date rejection is you get to feel victorious about trying *without* all the extra anxiety that comes with actually having to go out with them.


----------



## stinky (Oct 24, 2009)

tbyrfan said:


> It's not at all ridiculous. The vast majority of men hate it. They consider it desperate, too forward, and too masculine, and i've even seen several girls get made fun of publicly (sometimes even for months on end) for openly expressing interest in a guy.
> 
> Very true. Nobody I know would do this, and for very good reason.


Sorry I saw this and just had to correct it. Not sure who the "vast majority" of men are, but in my area and country (US), guys would prefer women who make the first move. Women who do that get the guy more often. First move doesn't equal saying "I want to have sex", but more just walking up and saying Hi or just maintaining eye contact with the guy. That girl will get more attention than the girl who lets the guy assume incorrectly that she's not interested.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

stinky said:


> Sorry I saw this and just had to correct it. Not sure who the "vast majority" of men are, but in my area and country (US), guys would prefer women who make the first move. Women who do that get the guy more often. First move doesn't equal saying "I want to have sex", but more just walking up and saying Hi or just maintaining eye contact with the guy. That girl will get more attention than the girl who lets the guy assume incorrectly that she's not interested.


Sorry, but that isn't true at all.


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

stinky said:


> Sorry I saw this and just had to correct it. Not sure who the "vast majority" of men are, but in my area and country (US), guys would prefer women who make the first move. Women who do that get the guy more often. First move doesn't equal saying "I want to have sex", but more just walking up and saying Hi or just maintaining eye contact with the guy. That girl will get more attention than the girl who lets the guy assume incorrectly that she's not interested.


:agree 
SA or not, I can't imagine most guys NOT liking a woman who shows interest and makes the first move. There's a lot of pressure wondering if the woman will reciprocate when we do it. Plus, most men are also basically lazy.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

BlueDay said:


> :agree
> SA or not, I can't imagine most guys NOT liking a woman who shows interest and makes the first move. There's a lot of pressure wondering if the woman will reciprocate when we do it. Plus, most men are also basically lazy.


I can honestly say I have never known one single guy who would like it. Guys on this site are extremely biased due to them having social anxiety, so of course they're going to say that it's okay for women to show interest. That being said, even the shyest guys prefer to make the first move in the end, and would be severely turned off if it actually happened to them.


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

tbyrfan said:


> I can honestly say I have never known one single guy who would like it. Guys on this site are extremely biased due to them having social anxiety, so of course they're going to say that it's okay for women to show interest. That being said, even the shyest guys prefer to make the first move in the end, and would be severely turned off if it actually happened to them.


I'm not sure how you've concluded that the guys you've known makes it a universal fact, but whatever. We agree to disagree.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

BlueDay said:


> I'm not sure how you've concluded that the guys you've known makes it a universal fact, but whatever. We agree to disagree.


Not only those I know, but the guys my friends and family know, and everything i've ever seen and heard of outside of a handful of internet posters supports the fact that men don't want women to make the first move. It's just the facts.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

tbyrfan said:


> Not only those I know, but the guys my friends and family know, and everything i've ever seen and heard of outside of a handful of internet posters supports the fact that men don't want women to make the first move. It's just the facts.


Hiding behind a statement of purely subjective experience unfortunately remains incapable of being properly labelled as a "fact". Moreover, presenting evidence that only seems to account in whole for your own experience does naturally tend to carry its own inefficacy, on account of the sweeping under-estimation of the views of others that is evidently going on here. This is precisely the hallmark of blind ignorance--something of which you're perhaps not entirely to blame for given our essential heuristics (hence why you're not the only offender I'm looking at here). At best, all we can garner from framing the issue inevitably a million different ways as is commonly done is either an answer sufficiently grounded in collectivist reasoning but insufficiently grounded in individualistic concern, and vice versa (as you've or at least slightly different from the inverse--that is, an answer grounded in your very own individual reasoning touting previously vaunted and underpinned on the celebration that the very notion itself is consensual). But this is the inherent difficulty in drawing boundary lines given the nature of the discussion here, which is why I see it as grossly incalculable to present and cite one's very own views (indeed, those grounded in their _experience_, mind you before I quote) as factual. I'm pressed with difficulty in deciding if that in itself is more counter-intuitive, or counter-factual (to be tongue in cheek for its own sake, .

Furthermore, you appear to be lobbying a little too much from some of your own biases, all the while apparently blindly ignorant of the vibrant world of individual differences that is naturally replete with all sorts of shreds of differentiation throughout (and yes, such differentiation boasts equally strong claims with equally convincing superficial credence for their own claims as you've done here, which is why I'm not singling you out--after all, _I've never known one single guy who would like it_, but hoping you'll see that the other side of the coin can indeed present itself when the opportunity comes with equally dynamic cogency). Incidentally, I myself have a very difficult time thinking that an individual as well-spoken and perhaps thoughtful as you appear to present yourself could possibly be so myopic, but stranger things have happened. There are obviously more effective ways of advocating your specific position on a particular issue than an attribution bias masquerading in your own words as "just the facts" (Of course, they're so much more, which is why the latter part takes the initial claims of your very own subjective experience into an eventually inclusive, all-encompassing and enveloping subterfuge boldly presented as facts, and not much more).

Your line of reasoning as "just the facts" also tacitly implies (although perhaps not entirely intentional on your part) that you believe those who believe anything to the contrary, and whether intentional or not, the implication may come off as a little too direct/hostile for your detractors (if you intend on keeping them around for discussion, that is). If not that, it at least appears quite broadly dismissive of anyone disagreeing with you that has the clout to do so.

Take heart. Look around you, tbyrfan. You'll be quite surprised at what you might see around you behind this factual veneer you've conceived. Or maybe not, I cannot tell.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

ksevile said:


> Hiding behind a statement of purely subjective experience unfortunately remains incapable of being properly labelled as a "fact". Moreover, presenting evidence that only seems to account in whole for your own experience does naturally tend to carry its own inefficacy, on account of the sweeping under-estimation of the views of others that is evidently going on here. This is precisely the hallmark of blind ignorance--something of which you're perhaps not entirely to blame for given our essential heuristics (hence why you're not the only offender I'm looking at here). At best, all we can garner from framing the issue inevitably a million different ways as is commonly done is either an answer sufficiently grounded in collectivist reasoning but insufficiently grounded in individualistic concern, and vice versa (as you've or at least slightly different from the inverse--that is, an answer grounded in your very own individual reasoning touting previously vaunted and underpinned on the celebration that the very notion itself is consensual). But this is the inherent difficulty in drawing boundary lines given the nature of the discussion here, which is why I see it as grossly incalculable to present and cite one's very own views (indeed, those grounded in their _experience_, mind you before I quote) as factual. I'm pressed with difficulty in deciding if that in itself is more counter-intuitive, or counter-factual (to be tongue in cheek for its own sake, .
> 
> Furthermore, you appear to be lobbying a little too much from some of your own biases, all the while apparently blindly ignorant of the vibrant world of individual differences that is naturally replete with all sorts of shreds of differentiation throughout (and yes, such differentiation boasts equally strong claims with equally convincing superficial credence for their own claims as you've done here, which is why I'm not singling you out--after all, _I've never known one single guy who would like it_, but hoping you'll see that the other side of the coin can indeed present itself when the opportunity comes with equally dynamic cogency). Incidentally, I myself have a very difficult time thinking that an individual as well-spoken and perhaps thoughtful as you appear to present yourself could possibly be so myopic, but stranger things have happened. There are obviously more effective ways of advocating your specific position on a particular issue than an attribution bias masquerading in your own words as "just the facts" (Of course, they're so much more, which is why the latter part takes the initial claims of your very own subjective experience into an eventually inclusive, all-encompassing and enveloping subterfuge boldly presented as facts, and not much more).
> 
> ...


The Thesaurus usage is strong in this one. Your florid language isn't masking your insults - nice try.

I'm not denying that there is an infinitesimally small number of men who like when women approach. Some do like it, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence - and clearly not just from subjective experience - that the vast majority don't. Nobody is speaking in absolutes.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Honestly, if she's already attached, I wouldn't take that as a personal rejection. Still, well done on overcoming your fear and getting something positive out of it.

P.S. I'm pretty sure if someone approached me out of interest and it went well, I'd be forever grateful to her. No idea whatsoever why I'd want to show interest first. That **** is freaking scary. It's called social anxiety, you've probably never heard of it.


----------



## stinky (Oct 24, 2009)

tbyrfan said:


> Sorry, but that isn't true at all.


Oh rly? I don't understand. For guys who are quieter, less confident or whatever, I personally know at least 5+ guys whose girlfriends "found" them. By asking them out. A couple got married. I don't think I hallucinated that. I've talked to guys who were good-looking and a girl came up and talked to them. They engaged back and told me later that this was "hot".

Maybe from your perspective, you get rejected 1/2 the time and this makes it "not true at all". Or you are approaching guys who could be models. But understand, from a guys perspective, (of my not so good looks, nerdiness, poor social skills), I probably get rejected more than 9/10 times when talking to a girl. This just happened to my friend yesterday. He literally approached 5 girls at a bar and each girl slowly turned away/stopped talking to him within 1 minute. So any girl coming and talking to a average/less than average guy will get 100% attention (even if they are ugly/fat/whatever)!

I'm not trying to start a gender war. There are adv/disadvantages to everything, and specific situations this won't be true. But in general, a girl starting a convo with a guy or acting interested in a guy will have a MUCH higher chance than if she does nothing/plays hard to get or some crap like that.

If you don't believe this, try it on 10 guys and see what happens.

Please don't stop other girls from doing this.


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

stinky said:


> But in general, a girl starting a convo with a guy or acting interested in a guy will have a MUCH higher chance than if she does nothing/plays hard to get or some crap like that.
> 
> If you don't believe this, try it on 10 guys and see what happens.
> 
> Please don't stop other girls from doing this.


 Amen! :yes


----------



## greyandgreenbean77 (Dec 23, 2013)

BlueDay said:


> :agree
> SA or not, I can't imagine most guys NOT liking a woman who shows interest and makes the first move. There's a lot of pressure wondering if the woman will reciprocate when we do it. Plus, most men are also basically lazy.


Some guys are cocky though and put women on blast cause they think they're comedians, black men are notorious for doing this. Also, I personally can't stand passive guys, ie lazy/ want the woman to show interest first, I'm sure many women like aggressive guys more unless they come off creepy.


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

JD91 said:


> Some guys are cocky though and put women on blast cause they think they're comedians, black men are notorious for doing this. Also, I personally can't stand passive guys, ie lazy/ want the woman to show interest first, I'm sure many women like aggressive guys more unless they come off creepy.


Sure, it's a big world. Billions of people with billions of preferences hooking up in billions of ways.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

tbyrfan said:


> The Thesaurus usage is strong in this one. Your florid language isn't masking your insults - nice try.
> 
> I'm not denying that there is an infinitesimally small number of men who like when women approach. Some do like it, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence - and clearly not just from subjective experience - that the vast majority don't. Nobody is speaking in absolutes.


It's primarily the _use_ of language that contributes to that effect.

I wasn't insulting you, incidentally. If I insulted you, you would know it. But I didn't. I was just pointing out some of the flaws in your lines of reasoning (lines of reasoning which, by the way, are surprisingly easy to turn against you, given the proper circumstances). Also, thesaurus usage, when it in fact does occur (unfortunately it hasn't here. You'll have to forgive me, or not), is impossible to prove, and not much more, and however little or great in your view the book is employed remains largely inconsequential to the issue at stake/hand, and in nowise detracts from one's own argument. Nice try, but you'll need to keep in mind more adequate practice is necessary for future instances wherein you don the pariah's mask much too early in discussions of a non-circumspect nature (should you be around--given the relentless tone of your posts, and your faith in your opinions as "just the facts" I'm sure you'll be around much longer than some of us, although you won't truly "win" many encounters/skirmishes with your foes, if that is indeed what you intend to accomplish).

Broad statements intended to broadly dismiss the views of another on the grounds that "they're just the facts" are the hallmark of insincerity, even more apparent that you don't care to honestly look your opponents in the face and confront their very own views expressed. Look your detractors in the face if you expect to be met with prudence and propriety, but the implication you've given here is something that cannot be erased from your opponent's minds (If it has spawned already is another thing). But maybe the easiest and most comfortable recourse, however poorly adopted it makes you difference in your view is apparent given your earlier statements, although there are probably more effective weapons/sides to take and meddle with. Give yourself a pat on the back though (or not), as you've undoubtedly made a concerted effort here.

I know exactly what you are trying to say, but there are much better ways at framing your position that are likely to garner the support you intend. Furthermore, the apparent impasse with which you speak also says something about your opponents, although something very tacit indeed (hint: That you truly don't expect them to be so amorphous and coy in their positions as to alter their own beliefs after being presented with the "facts" anymore than you believe the _framing_ of your argument here is not one indeed underscored with a characteristic bent of generalization and ornate hostility broadly aimed at your opponents).


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

stinky said:


> Oh rly? I don't understand. For guys who are quieter, less confident or whatever, I personally know at least 5+ guys whose girlfriends "found" them. By asking them out. A couple got married. I don't think I hallucinated that. I've talked to guys who were good-looking and a girl came up and talked to them. They engaged back and told me later that this was "hot".
> 
> Maybe from your perspective, you get rejected 1/2 the time and this makes it "not true at all". Or you are approaching guys who could be models. But understand, from a guys perspective, (of my not so good looks, nerdiness, poor social skills), I probably get rejected more than 9/10 times when talking to a girl. This just happened to my friend yesterday. He literally approached 5 girls at a bar and each girl slowly turned away/stopped talking to him within 1 minute. So any girl coming and talking to a average/less than average guy will get 100% attention (even if they are ugly/fat/whatever)!
> 
> ...


I don't know any successful couples in which the woman made the first move. If guys go out with girls who make the first move, I have heard that they are almost always doing it because they were trying to be nice, so they aren't really interested and put zero effort into the relationship.

I don't personally approach guys and I never have, but I have seen girls who approached guys get publicly humiliated and shut down, or they get into relationships where the guy just isn't interested and doesn't care. I've also heard male friends and classmates talk about women, and they have mentioned liking "the chase" and being turned off by women approaching them, calling them "desperate" and "clingy". My boyfriend who I am in a happy, 2-year relationship with, approached me first. If a girl does nothing, it's far more likely that the men who approach her will actually be interested in her.

As an ugly woman myself, I remember many instances of trying to be friendly to guys (including those I wasn't interested in) and being mercilessly ridiculed for it or simply blown off. So yes, girls will get attention from guys they talk to, but if they are unattractive, that attention will be extremely negative. If I tried this on 10 guys, I already know what the response will be - either public humiliation which probably includes being called ugly, laughter, being blown off, or in the worst case scenario being the butt of a joke with his friends for months.

Girls can feel free to approach, but the results likely won't be very good. If the guy is interested, 9 times out of 10 he will make the first move. That's just the way it is, whether people like it or not.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

ksevile said:


> I wasn't insulting you, incidentally. If I insulted you, you would know it. But I didn't. I was just pointing out some of the flaws in your lines of reasoning (lines of reasoning which, by the way, are surprisingly easy to turn against you, given the proper circumstances).


Perhaps you need to check the meaning of "insult", then, because that's what you were doing and just did in your most recent post. You come across as extremely condescending and, while doing so, are proving absolutely no point of your own. My lines of reasoning are based on an extremely large amount of evidence from myself and many, many other people of both genders. It's possible that you live in a country or region of a country that is unusual in that women approaching is considered socially acceptable, but the point is that not every part of the world is like that. Men are hardwired to want to chase women, and women are hardwired to try and attract them. Predictably, behavior that goes against the natural order of things is not going to be looked upon favorably by a lot of people. On top of that, many men might say that they want women to make the first move, but they're either leaving out the key detail that she has to be practically perfect-looking or that they would be incredibly turned off if it actually happened to them. Perhaps this will be socially acceptable, say, in 50-100 years, but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

tbyrfan said:


> Girls can feel free to approach, but the results likely won't be very good. If the guy is interested, 9 times out of 10 he will make the first move. That's just the way it is, whether people like it or not.


NINE times out of ten? Really? You'd have to run a hell of an experiment to conclude that.....If you wanted to propose it as "fact" that is, which you seem to want to do.


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

BlueDay said:


> NINE times out of ten? Really? You'd have to run a hell of an experiment to conclude that.....If you wanted to propose it as "fact" that is, which you seem to want to do.


I must say I have definitely seen and/or heard of girls approach guys many more than 10 times, and I haven't heard a single success story. :stu Even the most painfully shy guys i've known still made the first move on girls they liked.


----------



## slowlyimproving (Jan 2, 2014)

Lisa said:


> A woman can ask a man out. I have tried it. Men tend to get a bit anxious though when they feel that you are being quite confident and dominant. And you are giving off vibes like that by asking a man out (!) The result is that they tend to not want to meet up with you. Or, they go on a date with you but they never get over the fact that you asked them out and will forever worry about you asking someone else out! Seriously. I have been there. Men can be quite insecure.
> 
> So the moral of the story is: Don't ask a man out. Wait for him to do it.


Do you want to go out sometime?


----------



## greyandgreenbean77 (Dec 23, 2013)

^ LOL I'm entertained :haha


----------



## BlueDay (May 6, 2014)

JD91 said:


> ^ LOL I'm entertained :haha


Me too! I hope she says yes!


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

JD91 said:


> Some guys are cocky though and put women on blast cause they think they're comedians, black men are notorious for doing this. Also, I personally can't stand passive guys, ie lazy/ want the woman to show interest first, I'm sure many women like aggressive guys more unless they come off creepy.


That's so true! Women often don't know what they want honestly lol neither do men. They take opinions of books, magazines, shows, peers, family, etc. to "decide" on what is for "them" lol. Like "Contemporary living for the modern woman", "Fashion for men, impress her this New Year", "Give her the anniversary, she will want" lmfao! And for creepy, indeed ~








tbyrfan said:


> Perhaps you need to check the meaning of "insult", then, because that's what you were doing and just did in your most recent post. You come across as extremely condescending and, while doing so, are proving absolutely no point of your own. *My lines of reasoning are based on an extremely large amount of evidence from myself and many, many other people of both genders. *It's possible that you live in a country or region of a country that is unusual in that women approaching is considered socially acceptable, but the point is that not every part of the world is like that. Men are hardwired to want to chase women, and women are hardwired to try and attract them. Predictably, behavior that goes against the natural order of things is not going to be looked upon favorably by a lot of people. On top of that, many men might say that they want women to make the first move, but they're either leaving out the key detail that she has to be practically perfect-looking or that they would be incredibly turned off if it actually happened to them. Perhaps this will be socially acceptable, say, in 50-100 years, but I wouldn't count on it.


!!!! Ohhh that is fascinating! In most of your decisions, or rather opinions do you tend to look for observations? Or do you gather multiple sources of information independent of the self and first hand accounts?

Just curious lol sorry caught my attention^^



tbyrfan said:


> I must say I have definitely seen and/or heard of girls approach guys many more than 10 times, and I haven't heard a single success story. :stu Even the most painfully shy guys i've known still made the first move on girls they liked.


Men often like to feel "dominant" as you put it in your other post lol. It's the "thrill of the hunt" but it's also a social-cultural phenomenon in the "pick-up" culture that has developed. A zero sum game, where males pit themselves against each other to share their "advice" on how to "be a man" in this era lol. Which they often charge for or write books on, thinking themselves "experts" at the psychology of the opposing sex lol. In which the females often take part as well, so they tend to understand this, and seek to break them off from the "groups" they congregate in lol. And that usually gives them a sense of self-pride by "winning" through pick-up lines, vague small talk, and buying drinks through a false sense of flattery lol. It's all quite interesting to see how mating rituals change over time.

It is also annoying too sometimes. There seriously needs to be designated areas for such behavior and actions lol. But then again the world might be extremely dull if there was. It's like a server without World PvP lol, although would be safer or more comfortable for people not wanting to participate in such. (Not PvP lol pick-up culture, the perpetual "game" lmao).


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

Zyriel said:


> !!!! Ohhh that is fascinating! In most of your decisions, or rather opinions do you tend to look for observations? Or do you gather multiple sources of information independent of the self and first hand accounts?
> 
> Just curious lol sorry caught my attention^^


I definitely gather it independent of myself. I hear about this stuff all the time because people often bring up the topic of dating. I've heard it from my friends, I hear it at work, I read about it...it's everywhere, basically.


----------



## Zyriel (May 20, 2011)

tbyrfan said:


> I definitely gather it independent of myself. I hear about this stuff all the time because people often bring up the topic of dating. I've heard it from my friends, I hear it at work, I read about it...it's everywhere, basically.


I see, thank you for the response! Oh I didn't mean it as offensively or critiquing your methods of inquiry or methodology, so sorry if it was taken as such lol. Just that statement in itself evidence based reasoning, got me wondering about something totally independent of this topic or your opinion^^


----------



## vicente (Nov 10, 2003)

tbyrfan said:


> Men are hardwired to want to chase women, and women are hardwired to try and attract them.


I have to call out your sexism here. While I agree that most men don't want women to make the first move, this is certainly not true with guys with SA. The guys here (including myself) who would prefer to have women ask us out are not lying. I can't speak for all guys with SA, but it is certainly not a "hardwired" desire for me to chase women. This is true even when I know a girl likes me and/or I'm tipsy and less anxious. Does that make me transgender?


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

vicente said:


> I have to call out your sexism here. While I agree that most men don't want women to make the first move, this is certainly not true with guys with SA. The guys here (including myself) who would prefer to have women ask us out are not lying. I can't speak for all guys with SA, but it is certainly not a "hardwired" desire for me to chase women. This is true even when I know a girl likes me and/or I'm tipsy and less anxious. Does that make me transgender?


I don't see how that's sexist at all. I never said that all men or women are the same - I only said that most tend to be a certain way because men traditionally prefer to be "hunters". Obviously guys with SA tend to be more likely to think that it's okay for women to approach, but I also know many shy guys who would absolutely hate it. Even still, many of these guys will say it's okay, but if it really happened to them they would likely think differently. This quote sums it up well:



> As Hugo Schwyzer, a senior professor of gender and women's studies at Pasadena College in California, says: 'Men often say that they have no problem with an aggressive woman, until they actually meet one-and find themselves confused. What might seem flattering and relieving in theory becomes discombobulating in practice, as some men (by no means all) flounder without &#8230; a clear-cut role. Many men claim that it is burdensome to have to risk rejection by always taking the initiative-but many discover that they feel equally burdened rather than liberated by having to let go of the culturally familiar role as dominant partner.'


----------



## vicente (Nov 10, 2003)

tbyrfan said:


> I don't see how that's sexist at all. I never said that all men or women are the same - I only said that *most tend to be a certain way* because men traditionally prefer to be "hunters". Obviously guys with SA tend to be more likely to think that it's okay for women to approach, but I also know many shy guys who would absolutely hate it. Even still, many of these guys will say it's okay, but if it really happened to them they would likely think differently.


Okay but when you use the word "hardwired", you're basically saying that all men are naturally one way. Very different from saying that "most tend to be a certain way".

You're right in that many guys will say that they think it's okay for women to approach when in reality they would hate it. Similar to how most guys will say that they would be happy having sex on the first date but if it happened, many wouldn't want to have a second date. Guys like this don't know what they want :yes

Hugo Schwyzer might be right, but many (but not all) male SA sufferers do not find being the dominant partner to be a "familiar role"


----------



## S a m (Jan 5, 2015)

That's pretty f'ing cool man. I constantly wish I had enough nerve to do that! Just thinking about it makes me feel a little uneasy haha.


----------



## The Sorrow (Aug 29, 2012)

Lol, I know some guys who would love if a girl asked them out and they don't have high standards. But most guys I know are physics scientists and are antisocial nerds(like me, but I am worse).


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

tbyrfan said:


> Perhaps you need to check the meaning of "insult", then, because that's what you were doing and just did in your most recent post. You come across as extremely condescending and, while doing so, are proving absolutely no point of your own. My lines of reasoning are based on an extremely large amount of evidence from myself and many, many other people of both genders. It's possible that you live in a country or region of a country that is unusual in that women approaching is considered socially acceptable, but the point is that not every part of the world is like that. Men are hardwired to want to chase women, and women are hardwired to try and attract them. Predictably, behavior that goes against the natural order of things is not going to be looked upon favorably by a lot of people. On top of that, many men might say that they want women to make the first move, but they're either leaving out the key detail that she has to be practically perfect-looking or that they would be incredibly turned off if it actually happened to them. Perhaps this will be socially acceptable, say, in 50-100 years, but I wouldn't count on it.


None of the above has anything to do with whether or not your initial contention is true or not (in other words, whether there is any factual grounding as you've remarked aside from your own experience i.e. if any statistical or otherwise academic support could be mustered that you might hope would underpin the grounds necessary for a factual rendering, but I'm truly not sure what could substantiate such, with the aforementioned perceived insolence you've been called out for). While "the facts" may be true in your own experience, they fail to account for any shred of individual differentiation arising from the inherent individual differences in individuals and their own individuality (a view, incidentally, which can be comfortably subsumed within your primary outlook expressed here, and also the view I was haranguing you over). I wasn't in contention with the versimilitude of your remark, incidentally; however, what was in question was the recouse levyed against those who, I can assume in your view, might not be as fortunate as to hold or share any of your very own stringent viewpoints (after all, they're factual, right? Of course, as you've indicated). Thus, its not necessarily _your _views (I fail to cite it to you on account that you've previously been so kind as to extend the genial support of your colleagues, and the greater representatives of the Internet). Of course not. Instead, its the recourse they masquerade themselves under as you've presented them to your wider audience.

Should you succeed, we might be better served (but, as the inherent corrolary to this would have it, this is truly not as stultifying to the greater part of your contention in the minds of others as for myself, alas).


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

ksevile said:


> None of the above has anything to do with whether or not your initial contention is true or not (in other words, whether there is any factual grounding as you've remarked aside from your own experience i.e. if any statistical or otherwise academic support could be mustered that you might hope would underpin the grounds necessary for a factual rendering, but I'm truly not sure what could substantiate such, with the aforementioned perceived insolence you've been called out for). While "the facts" may be true in your own experience, they fail to account for any shred of individual differentiation arising from the inherent individual differences in individuals and their own individuality (a view, incidentally, which can be comfortably subsumed within your primary outlook expressed here, and also the view I was haranguing you over). I wasn't in contention with the versimilitude of your remark, incidentally; however, what was in question was the recouse levyed against those who, I can assume in your view, might not be as fortunate as to hold or share any of your very own stringent viewpoints (after all, they're factual, right? Of course, as you've indicated). Thus, its not necessarily _your _views (I fail to cite it to you on account that you've previously been so kind as to extend the genial support of your colleagues, and the greater representatives of the Internet). Of course not. Instead, its the recourse they masquerade themselves under as you've presented them to your wider audience.
> 
> Should you succeed, we might be better served (but, as the inherent corrolary to this would have it, this is truly not as stultifying to the greater part of your contention in the minds of others as for myself, alas).


The only thing you're succeeding at doing is sounding condescending and pretentious. Here's a tip: Attempting to mask insults with poorly constructed sentences generated using a Thesaurus isn't adding weight to your statements.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

If you're going to distill the gist of my argument down to that (e.g. that some form of "success" has indeed occurred here in my view, which I might be more inclined to believe if I were more hopeful in this case, or in the event that you have a cogent defense to provide besides the approach you've habitually fallen into here) then you've largely missed the point (as this is avowedly not my motivation for engaging you), but perhaps this unfortunate result has been surreptitiously predetermined beforehand, I'm afraid. As aforesaid, no thesaurus employed here, nevertheless, for you it appears to be your primary means of recourse against myself (hence, why you're "missing the point", or something or other along such lines). If success is what you intend to accomplish on your own end instead, I'm afraid you won't truly "win" many encounters.

I'm not insulting you, or attacking you, but you've served my purposes very well, and so I thank you for your participation, as this was more or less the response I expected in this instance. If you feel you've been wronged (or perhaps you may not feel that way, I'm not entirely convinced of either position currently, but I feel the affirmation may hold weight given your brazen insistence on it thus far which has ignored my points to you), please feel free to cite the perceived wrongdoing (in other words, look your opponent in the face, rather than attempting to circumvent their argument on grounds that you're being attacked or even as you've done here i.e. that their use of language nullifies their analysis of your very own argument on further grounds that they're masquerading insults at you and are hence not worthy of your own superficial consideration--of course, its nowhere near as complex as this, but it may serve your purposes quite well to read between the lines given the scant opportunity as it may be here).

For a start, go back and read that little post of yours, or try to have a thought experiment in the future wherein you treat my discourse as an collection of statements for what they are at face value, and not through a misguidedly slighted appeal for ad hominem victimization through 'veiled' insults as you've patterned here (and "insults... condescending and pretentious... poorly constructed sentences...").


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

ksevile said:


> If you're going to distill the gist of my argument down to that (e.g. that some form of "success" has indeed occurred here, which I might believe if I were more hopeful in this case) then you've largely missed the point, but perhaps this has been surreptitiously predetermined beforehand, I'm afraid. As aforesaid, no thesaurus employed here, nevertheless, for you it appears to be your primary means of recourse against myself (hence, why you're "missing the point", or something or other along such lines).
> 
> I'm not insulting you, or attacking you, but you've served my purposes very well, and so I thank you for your participation, as this was more or less the response I expected in this instance. If you feel you've been wrong, please feel free to cite the perceived wrongdoing (in other words, look your opponent in the face, rather than attempting to circumvent their argument on grounds that you're being attacked or that their use of language nullifies their analysis of your very own argument--of course, its nowhere near as complex as this, but it may serve your purposes well to read between the lines).
> 
> For a start, go back and read that little post of yours, or try to have a thought experiment in the future where you treat my discourse as an ordinary collection of statements for what they are, and not through a slighted appeal for ad hominem of 'veiled' insults as you've patterned here.


Yup, you sound absolutely ridiculous. I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding to this drivel, as you are simply parroting the same few statements using different words without making a point. Yawn.


----------



## ksevile (Jan 18, 2014)

You've helped me drive my point home better than I myself could have hoped to do then, in that case. I'm quite pleased when I have the privilege of anticipating an accurate and dead-on self-fulfilling prophecy of my opponent's before it ever unfolds, especially "without making a point."

Your continued participation betrays your apparent present lack of concern ("yawn").


----------



## tbyrfan (Feb 24, 2011)

The ego is large in this one.


----------



## Wagnerian (Aug 5, 2014)

tbyrfan said:


> I don't see how that's sexist at all. I never said that all men or women are the same - I only said that most tend to be a certain way because men traditionally prefer to be "hunters". Obviously guys with SA tend to be more likely to think that it's okay for women to approach, but I also know many shy guys who would absolutely hate it. Even still, many of these guys will say it's okay, but if it really happened to them they would likely think differently. This quote sums it up well:


Just wanna say it could be overwhelmingly socialization that makes men prefer to be 'hunters'.....you used the word 'hardwired' which implies the opposite. I know people are all into reasoning something like "x is a trait or behavior that would be naturally selected in this particular circumstance therefore we must have evolved to be that way" - but this is almost never anything more than a guess based on a few presumptions that are used simply to validate the speculating individual's preconceived idea about how the world works.

As far as I know, no one has subjected a set of individuals from birth to the same exact life-circumstance, thereby isolating the variables that would have to be controlled in order to determine nature vs. nurture.


----------



## sajs (Jan 3, 2015)

Haillzz91 said:


> That's awesome that you were able to do that. Good luck asking out future girls! Perhaps next time approach one you're attracted to


Do u want to go out ? lol.


----------



## Hermiter (Dec 15, 2013)

great job! animal people are good to talk to


----------

