# Common dating myths and women



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Alternate title: This Post is Long and I Don't Care.

I've noticed that there are a few common misconceptions involving women and dating. I'm hoping that maybe this thread can be helpful to some of the women here who struggle with dating, and maybe even eye-opening for some the people who perpetuate these myths.

The first dating myth is that it's much easier for us. Maybe that would be true if we lived in Cave Man times, and a man just had to club a woman over the head and drag her back to his cave. But real life dating is nowhere near as simplistic.

Flirting and dating are not one-sided events. Getting approached by a man doesn't translate to "Oh good, Prince Charming has arrived. My work here is done." The woman still needs to show that she reciprocates the man's interest, or else the situation won't go any further. Here's a story to show what I mean…

Last weekend I was at work, when I noticed a really good looking guy watching me from a distance. I've always been really shy and timid around attractive guys, so I instantly started feeling self conscious. I pretended not to see him, and tried to make myself look busy. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw him start to walk towards me. I silently started freaking out inside. Like I said, I get realllllly nervous around guys that I'm attracted to. So he walked up, smiling, and began trying to talk to me. He asked me a question, then lingered for a bit, continuing to smile at me. It was pretty obvious that he was interested in more than just a brief little chat, even to me, and I'm usually incredibly dense at picking up on the signs when a guy is interested.

If I didn't have SA, then I probably would have been able to smile back, maintain eye contact, and show him that I was interested too. But did I do that? No. Of course not. After I stuttered around awkwardly, I pretty much answered his question, abruptly ended the convo, then turned and walked quickly away.

Obviously, my body language and the fact that I damn near ran away from him gave him the impression that I was either a) not interested or b) a mega *****. I was kicking myself and feeling like I had missed an opportunity for the rest of the day.

Another similar experience happened to me at a bar a few years back, when a guy approached me and complimented me in a flirtatious way. Instead of flirting back, I just stared at the ground awkwardly and mumbled thank you, before he walked away with a confused and rejected look on his face.

Getting hit on only works if you are able to show that you are open to it. How can it be any easier for a woman if she is completely intimidated by men, and is therefore unable to show that she's open to their advances? People with SA often send out "do not approach" or "don't talk to me signals". A guy is not going to pursue a woman if she doesn't seem to reciprocate his interest.

On that note, another often repeated misconception is that if a woman is not getting hit on, the reason must obviously be that she is ugly. Again, that is NOT TRUE.

Think about it. People with SA (both men and women) often look very uncomfortable in social situations. We often have trouble smiling, or making eye contact. We sometimes seem closed off, angry, tense, and unapproachable.

Approaching a woman can be very intimidating, as I'm sure the men here already know. So what type of woman is a man more likely to approach? A woman who is smiling, seems friendly and open, or one who seems aloof and closed off?

I've read a lot of dating advice blogs for women, and the number one tip I see again and again is that if a woman wants to get approached by a man, she must smile, seem friendly, make eye contact, etc etc. But many women with SA have a hard time doing that. How can we get approached when our SA is causing us to send out "stay away" vibes to everyone in a 5 mile radius?

It doesn't matter how beautiful a woman is, if she seems unapproachable then guess what, she's not going to get hoards of men hitting on her.

My point is, dating is equally hard for both men and women with SA. To be told constantly that it's sooo easy for us, or that we must be ugly if we're not getting hit on all the time, is offensive, hurtful, and just plain not true. 

Ok that's my little rant for the day.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

I agree with all your points, except one:

Imagine if, knowing that otherwise you would likely be alone, you had to do most, if not all, the approaching. With SA. I think that is, indeed, more difficult.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

i was told that if i just keep staring at women they'll have no choice but to fall for me.


----------



## Miwo (Apr 14, 2009)

Regardless of SA, women get more opportunities. Guys are expected to make the first move. This is probably the biggest challenge for us guys with SA. You might have botched this encounter by coming across as strange, but I guarantee you will have more opportunities to just flirt back without needing to worry about initiating the conversation... even if you are sending "stay away" vibes from 5 miles


----------



## bobthebuilder (Jun 17, 2009)

au Lait said:


> I've read a lot of dating advice blogs for women, and the number one tip I see again and again is that if a woman wants to get approached by a man, she must smile, seem friendly, make eye contact, etc etc. But many women with SA have a hard time doing that. How can we get approached when our SA is causing us to send out "stay away" vibes to everyone in a 5 mile radius?
> 
> It doesn't matter how beautiful a woman is, if she seems unapproachable then guess what, she's not going to get hoards of men hitting on her.
> 
> ...


I generally stay away from such threads, because we can piss and moan all day long and society is going to change like magic. I acknowledge dating is difficult for both genders. But, based even on what you have said here, women in general do have it easier. Doesnt mean its super easy and they have no trouble at all. Its just a bit easier.

As you said yourself, the biggest suggestion for women to get a guy to hit on her (note how its about making the guy do the hardest part, approach and talk to a stranger, and directly indicate romantic interest) is to smile and make eye contact. It may not be easy for you to do, but you know how to do it, its not super difficult. You know what guys get for advice? Be confident. there are entire books written on being confident. Body language, tone of voice, choice of words, thats a lot to get working together. Then of course, we need to decide if your smile+eye contact is a , "hey come talk to me" or a "hey im friendly and like to smile". I suppose you could argue you get no attention from the guys you want, but you have the option of taking initiative. For guys, we have to accept we need to take initiative. If a girl does it, its a nice bonus.

Arguing tho is futile. The best advice for meeting your potential mate: do stuff you like to do, with other people. and then talk to them. its unlikely your going to walk down the street and meet the love of your life. More likely to meet them at school, work, church, mutual friends, clubs w/e.


----------



## helicon1 (Apr 15, 2005)

^^^^
I'd agree that the gender versus gender discussions don't tend to help (although I don't think that was the point of this thread), but disagree with you that women have it any easier. 

The difficulties manifest themselves in slightly different ways though. When a woman is approached they're being put on the spot. It's different for the approacher, as at least they have have the opportunity to work themselves up to it so to speak. No real time for that when someone initiates with you. Also, as the OP said appearing approachable and friendly is something both genders struggle with. So I disagree that smiling and making eye contact is "not super difficult". 

What you said about body language would apply in reverse as well. Do women have it any easier in telling if someone is hitting on them versus just being friendly?


----------



## Futures (Aug 27, 2005)

au Lait said:


> Last weekend I was at work, when I noticed a really good looking guy watching me from a distance. I've always been really shy and timid around attractive guys, so I instantly started feeling self conscious. I pretended not to see him, and tried to make myself look busy. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw him start to walk towards me. I silently started freaking out inside. Like I said, I get realllllly nervous around guys that I'm attracted to. *So he walked up, smiling, and began trying to talk to me*...
> 
> *Another similar experience* happened to me at a bar a few years back, when a guy approached me and complimented me in a flirtatious way...


I'm sorry, but in your post, you pretty much did in fact prove first hand that it is harder for men.

You see, if the roles were reversed and you were a man, you never would have gotten hit on the first place. That gives women a _huge_ advantage!

Failing to connect the dots after getting hit on...yes, indeed that can be a problem. But even that is less of a issue with women because guys are initially more motivated by looks, so they don't care if you're socially awkward (although it will probably become an issue down the line). Even you admitted that you were the one that walked away from him. If you would have stuck around, I bet he still would have asked for your number.

Now on the flipside, if a guy approaches a girl and he's all socially awkward with no confidence, he's going to get blown out of the water with no chance of getting her number.

I just don't see how some women can deny that getting more opportunities to begin with, that somehow is NOT an advantage.


----------



## Daktoria (Sep 21, 2010)

Meh, Futures got it.

With guys, you have to do all of the above plus initiate and sustain conversation. Unless you're metro or cosmo, flirting is work for guys, not instinctual. Most guys will come off as very crude and obnoxious to a woman by just releasing themselves. If a girl releases herself, guys will always enjoy it.


----------



## lonelygirl88 (Dec 25, 2009)

So true au Lait.
You sound JUST like me! Similar experiences here.


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> The first dating myth is that it's much easier for us. Maybe that would be true if we lived in Cave Man times, and a man just had to club a woman over the head and drag her back to his cave. But real life dating is nowhere near as simplistic.


hmmm.... this example would imply that is much easier for both... a female would just have to be clubbed and wake up with a husband and a concussion while the guy would just have to club one and take her home... skipping all the rejection or performance anxiety.

in a way it is much easier for females because females do not have to "impress" they guy, she just has to be willing, and thats it. while guys have to be a peacock and act stupid to try to get the females attention in hopes of getting with her. not only that, the guy has to do something different that will stand out from all of the other guys who have tried before. females are choosers and males approach.

i guess the ideal guy for a SA female is one who persists and make her feel comfortable enough that her SA is less than 30% (give or take, point being not making her run away)



> If I didn't have SA, then I probably would have been able to smile back, maintain eye contact, and show him that I was interested too. But did I do that? No. Of course not. After I stuttered around awkwardly, I pretty much answered his question, abruptly ended the convo, then turned and walked quickly away.


i don't believe this behavior is due to SA, it may be a branch of it though but not the whole cause. what i see here is low self confidence and maybe the lack of experience. also, maybe due to bad past relationship experiences. this may be a myth that you have - SA females can not have bf's - when it is not true. from what i've seen here in the forums anyway.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster (Jun 8, 2010)

> My point is, dating is equally hard for both men and women with


your post didn't really support this conclusion. i'm not going to argue it's more difficult for men, heck, maybe it's actually harder for women. but i don't think we can say it's equal with any real certainty.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

I agree with the dudes here in that they are generally expected to do most of the approaching, and thus actually finding a relationship is harder for them than us chickas.

Other than that though, I think both genders with SA can find dating very difficult.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

I think apart from the initial approaching situation it is certainly no easier for either gender, but certainly the emphasis for guys to make the initial move does add a bit more pressure on us. I know for me my fear is whether or not someone would find me physically attractive which is why I do not approach because of the fear they will not, but if someone approached me then that fear would already be disproven for that particular person and thus I would feel far more confident.


----------



## Knowla (Feb 23, 2010)

"The difficulties manifest themselves in slightly different ways though. When a woman is approached they're being put on the spot. It's different for the approacher, as at least they have have the opportunity to work themselves up to it so to speak. No real time for that when someone initiates with you. " 

^^ This

Also how about this: If guys only hit on girls that send the right signals, then, the woman initiates it BEFORE a guy even says anything to her. 

I do not agree with the idea that all relationships start with a guy initiating. Oftentimes it starts with a friendship or work situation or online dating site etc. etc. and the relationship is a mutual decision. 

Women still have to put themselves out there to even get the opportunity.

One vote for equally hard. Thank you au Lait.


----------



## popeet (Dec 8, 2005)

I agree with:

"The difficulties manifest themselves in slightly different ways though. When a woman is approached they're being put on the spot. " 

and

"If guys only hit on girls that send the right signals, then, the woman initiates it BEFORE a guy even says anything to her." 

But I admit, it can be nearly impossible to read some womens signals. We're so scary.


----------



## Futures (Aug 27, 2005)

helicon1 said:


> The difficulties manifest themselves in slightly different ways though. When a woman is approached they're being put on the spot.


Sorry, but I disagree on this too.

Women hold all the power in a situation like that because the burden is on the approacher (guy) to impress. If anyone is being put on the spot, it's the guy. He's the one that has to have the social skills to pull it off. If not, he gets rejected.

And that right there is the main thing that differentiates the haves between the have-nots in dating for men. The guys that have game and know how to effortlessly talk to women, they are the ones getting all the girls. And the rest of us that could never approach a female and win her over with our poor social ability are left out.

Since girls aren't expected to approach, they completely bypass that dating hurdle.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

Futures said:


> Since girls aren't expected to approach, they completely bypass that dating hurdle.


Agreed. We generally do bypass this hurdle. Just to point out though, once the guy does approach and realizes we are hella awkward, we are hit with our own special wall.

Men get the "oh damn, I have to approach this girl" hurdle. We get the "Oh damn, he approached me and now thinks I am a totally lame psychopath" hurdle. It's a special feeling when you can see in a guy's eyes he totally regrets walking up to you and starting a convo.


----------



## Magaly (Mar 8, 2010)

pumapunku said:


> in a way it is much easier for females because *females do not have to "impress" they guy, she just has to be willing, and thats it.* while guys have to be a peacock and act stupid to try to get the females attention in hopes of getting with her.


No, part of attracting a guy has to do with getting his attention, and holding his attention after he has approached you. "impressing" him I guess you could say. And I can be "willing" all I want but it's not going to get me anywhere with guys I like if I can't chill out and stop being such an awkward wreck when they talk to me. mini rant over.


----------



## Magaly (Mar 8, 2010)

Perfectionist said:


> Men get the "oh damn, I have to approach this girl" hurdle. We get the "Oh damn, he approached me and now thinks I am a totally lame psychopath" hurdle. It's a special feeling when you can see in a guy's eyes he totally regrets walking up to you and starting a convo.


heh...yeah...*cry*


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

****Thread Advisory****
Any belittling of people and I send out notifications.


----------



## woot (Aug 7, 2009)

I'm still going to stick with clubbing the girl...call me old fashioned


----------



## popeet (Dec 8, 2005)

Maybe I am a little different -- I do not respond to peacocking at all. Or being clubbed and/or dragged. I almost never liked the ones who came after me. I always picked who I wanted. When I was interested in a guy, I approached him first, I didn't wait. I got rejected a few times, too. That's not where my SA manifested. My SA increases as I spend more time with a person, owing to my winning personality. A breakup is more terrifying. 

I'm probably not addressing the original question. I don't think it is harder for the person who initiates. Sometimes it is much harder to be the one who is on the spot and the position of responding. 

Though I have to say that this:

"Oh damn, he approached me and now thinks I am a totally lame psychopath" hurdle. It's a special feeling when you can see in a guy's eyes he totally regrets walking up to you and starting a convo." 

Is a reality I totally understand. Especially when it plays out as an interaction that spans months and is called a "relationship."


----------



## LALoner (Dec 3, 2008)

Knowla said:


> "The difficulties manifest themselves in slightly different ways though. When a woman is approached they're being put on the spot. It's different for the approacher, as at least they have have the opportunity to work themselves up to it so to speak. No real time for that when someone initiates with you. "
> 
> ^^ This
> 
> ...


I think there have been studies about this, where most successful meetings between strangers started with the woman giving off a non verbal signal and the man then responding.

The way I look at it is like all this junk mail you get that says you've been pre-approved for something. The woman has to look at a man in a way that says he's been pre-approved and then the man has to apply for the position and not blow it.

I also think approachability is what makes men go crazy over certain average looking women like Zoe Deschanel. You look at her and don't see pain in your future.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

I do see and agree with a lot of the points here. However, it is 2010, and I do think that it's more accepted for women to approach men as well. I was only coming at things from the standard/stereotypical gender roles, since that seems to be the main source of the "women have it easier" mentality. The point I'm trying to raise is that getting approached is not always the easier option. At least it isn't for me, anyway. To me, the idea of hitting on someone is just as anxiety inducing as getting hit on.

I certainly believe that dating is hard for men, and I really didn't intend to start some huge gender debate with this.

I just feel that sometimes the troubles that women face are brushed off, since it's assumed that once a man tries to get with us, it's all candy and cake and a free ride from there.

Really, I think any missed opportunity is a missed opportunity. Regardless of whether or not it is missed because someone was too scared to approach someone else or too scared to respond to the one doing the approaching.

I have come across many people making the comments I referred to in my initial post, and I've seen and felt the direct impact of them. The idea that dating should be easier for women makes those of us who struggle feel defective. I haven't been on a date since my last relationship ended over a year ago. Given some of the things I've read (not in this thread but elsewhere), it makes me feel that I am either incredibly ugly or that there is something wrong with me.

I really hope that this doesn't end in some kind of flame war, that really wasn't my intent. I've seen many women acting so hard on themselves due to these dating myths (or ideas or whatever you want to call them), and I was hoping that maybe this thread would be helpful and uplifting somehow, as well as allow some healthy dialogue for better understanding.

Really not trying to knock men at all, just giving examples of how it's not exactly a walk in the park for us ladies either.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

Magaly said:


> No, part of attracting a guy has to do with getting his attention, and holding his attention after he has approached you. "impressing" him I guess you could say. And I can be "willing" all I want but it's not going to get me anywhere with guys I like if I can't chill out and stop being such an awkward wreck when they talk to me. mini rant over.


To be blunt, I think you're overanalyzing your role in a typical relationship-initiating interaction as a female. In general, I honestly don't believe most men look for girls who go out of their way to "impress" us. It's the other way around, far more often. I know the idea that you girls just have to "sit there and look pretty" is often taken as insulting -- and indeed, it's an oversimplification -- but from experience, there sure seems to be some truth to the underlying idea.

The only thing posts from women in this thread have taught me is something I essentially already knew: that dating is also very difficult for them if they exhibit *severe* SA. In other words, being unable simply to converse with a man who approaches without having a major breakdown or freakout. Very few would dispute this.

Here's the important distinction: I see a *lot* of men on this site with moderate SA who are absolutely SOL in the dating department. I think there are two major reasons for this. The first, that we typically must do the approaching, has already been covered well. The second (and more frustrating, IMO) is that on average, girls are more likely to judge a guy negatively for shyness and passivity than guys are a girl. There have been a lot of polls on this subject over the couple years I've been here, and they've always shown this to be the case, sometimes by a substantial margin. Perhaps an alternate way of phrasing it is: shyness is not necessarily an attractive trait in anyone, but it's much more "feminine" than "masculine," if you're forced to choose one or the other.

So to sum up:

Girl with severe SA = SOL
Guy with severe SA = SOL

Girl with moderate SA = quite often OK, though not always*
Guy with moderate SA = SOL

*in terms of getting dates and getting into relationships. Obviously, SA-related difficulties could well arise once in a relationship.

It may be a myth that SA presents no difficulty for women in terms of dating. But it's quite difficult to argue the SA threshold for which one is essentially out of the game isn't substantially different between genders.


----------



## MrShyAndTimid (Jun 28, 2010)

OP - I can see where you're coming from. But I can easily see where the guys are coming from, simply because I'm a guy myself.

However, I don't think it's necessarily easier for one side or another. *It's just "different".* I've been in the same situation, where a girl has shown interest. Batted her eye and showed me a smile, yet it completely shut me down. It made me blush, avoid direct eye contact and make me uncomfortably shy. Then I've also been on the other side where I would run into the "office crush". Exchange smiles and eye contact and feel rejected that I can't even say hi or somehow initiate a simple conversation with her.

Being on the side without SA is what I assume would be easier.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Coming from a guy who has NEVER EVER gotten ANY kind of interest, experience, or friendships with the opposite sex I can safely say it IS harder for men.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> Coming from a guy who has NEVER EVER gotten ANY kind of interest, experience, or friendships with the opposite sex I can safely say it IS harder for men.


what? no you can't. you can safely say it's been hard _for you_.


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> The point I'm trying to raise is that getting approached is not always the easier option. At least it isn't for me, anyway. To me, the idea of hitting on someone is just as anxiety inducing as getting hit on.


this got me wondering, so you did you manage to be in a relationship a year ago?

so you approached him first...



> I just feel that sometimes the troubles that women face are brushed off, since it's assumed that once a man tries to get with us, it's all candy and cake and a free ride from there.


the mistake that i see a lot of the females do is either they expect too much from the guy and they complain when the guy does not come through... they end up unsatisfied. key word here is "too much".

another big mistake that i see females make is that when ever they get in a relationship, they give it their all. in other words, they drop almost everything... therefore, suffocating the guy and making him loose interest. then the female feels rejected and cannot figure it out why that is if she is giving him her all.



> Really, I think any missed opportunity is a missed opportunity. Regardless of whether or not it is missed because someone was too scared to approach someone else or too scared to respond to the one doing the approaching.


depends how one sees it. your experience about the guy does not look to me to be a missed opportunity. yeah, things got awkward but does not mean it's the end of it all. if you really want to get with this guy, you can turn things around by giving him signals. if him approaching you was due to attraction and not just to ask to borrow a stapler, then you already hav his attention, all you have to do is to be willing and let him know that you are willing. so i would not call that experience a missed opportunity.

an actual missed opportunity would be if you met him abroad and would never see him again.


----------



## lanzman (Jun 14, 2004)

I'd have to say EVERY woman I have ever approached had expected me pursue and/or impress them to make it go anywhere. And very rarely did any ever show CLEAR signs of interest to make it easier for me to know whether to purse them, or not. So, as a shy guy, neither situation would give me the confidence to purse anything further. So, in MY experience, it just seems more difficult for the guy, and a lot of women sure don't make it any easier for them. Hence, most shy men are SOL in the realm of pursing women and dating. I think they only way we have a chance is, either being setup by family/friends, or just some sheer dumb luck.


----------



## Johnny_Genome (Nov 11, 2003)

I think a lot of focus gets placed on random 'approaching'; but I just don't think this is really the way most people meet in modern society. In fact, I can't think of a single long-term couple I know who has met in the last 10 years where the guy simply randomly approached a women.

I know random approaches do work occasionally, but I really think things like expanding your social circle of friends, partaking in activities you enjoy with others of similar interests, getting to know those already around you, and thereby getting to know those around them etc. are all much better ways of meeting someone IMO.


----------



## AliBaba (Nov 16, 2005)

Johnny_Genome said:


> In fact, I can't think of a single long-term couple I know who has met in the last 10 years where the guy simply randomly approached a women.


Neither can I now that you mention it. Where exactly is all this anecdotal "approaching" and "retreating" occurring? Do you guys(gals) spend a lot of time in bars? I've seen a couple office scenarios mentioned. I've personally sworn off office relationships. Work is difficult enough as it is without dating those you work with.



Johnny_Genome said:


> I really think things like expanding your social circle of friends, partaking in activities you enjoy with others of similar interests, getting to know those already around you, and thereby getting to know those around them etc. are all much better ways of meeting someone IMO.


I'll take this a step further & *GUESS *that a ridiculously high percentage of long term relationships begin with third party introductions. Once again, I have no data to back this up, nor will I be looking for any.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster (Jun 8, 2010)

to the above two posters, the men having to "approach" isn't limited to random encounters. i'm not sure where you got that idea. even if you meet someone through something, at some point one person has to make some type of move to escalate things to a romantic relationship vs the friend/acquaintance. knowing how and when to do this, can be very difficult for people with severe SA. 

i'm not really trying to get involved in the whole "it's harder for men" debate but if i had to guess, i would say that in our society, it is more often expected that the man will make the first move.


----------



## ambergris (Oct 15, 2010)

How about this: some women don't get approached at all. We're giving off 'keep away' signals because of the SA. Or we're overweight. Or we have bad teeth. Or we in some other way do not match up to anyone's idea of what a 'hot girl' is meant to look like.

Now, obviously if you're unattractive that's kind of a killer whatever gender you are, but society gives men a lot more leeway in this regard than women. Ugly men can attract women by being rich, or clever, or successful, or funny, or kind. Since western society as a whole still fails to value these attributes in women, ugly women can only get men by being sexually available. That's it. And if you are failing to present as sexually available because a) you're ugly and b) you're shy, then you are every bit as screwed as the man over there who is too scared to talk to women at all.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

ambergris said:


> How about this: some women don't get approached at all. We're giving off 'keep away' signals because of the SA. Or we're overweight. Or we have bad teeth. Or we in some other way do not match up to anyone's idea of what a 'hot girl' is meant to look like.
> 
> Now, obviously if you're unattractive that's kind of a killer whatever gender you are, but society gives men a lot more leeway in this regard than women. Ugly men can attract women by being rich, or clever, or successful, or funny, or kind. Since western society as a whole still fails to value these attributes in women, ugly women can only get men by being sexually available. That's it. And if you are failing to present as sexually available because a) you're ugly and b) you're shy, then you are every bit as screwed as the man over there who is too scared to talk to women at all.


Completely agree. Exceptionally unattractive and/or exceptionally shy women really are in just as bad shape as anyone else. But the number of women who fall into this category is much smaller than the number of men who are completely screwed. The bar is simply set higher for us, overall.

Obviously, that doesn't make things any easier for the women who _do_ fall into that category, though.


----------



## nothing to fear (Mar 23, 2005)

Futures said:


> Sorry, but I disagree on this too.
> 
> Women hold all the power in a situation like that because the burden is on the approacher (guy) to impress. If anyone is being put on the spot, it's the guy. He's the one that has to have the social skills to pull it off. If not, he gets rejected.


I've never felt I have held all the power - or much at all - when I've been approached. Most that have approached don't seem to understand the meaning of "Sorry, I'm not interested", "No thanks", "Sorry but I'd rather not talk right now", or anything along those lines. While there's always awkwardness and anxiety when anyone talks to me, in those situations it's pretty extreme as I also fear for my safety. I'm rarely approached but because of those situations I'm a lot more scared to leave the house and I avoid as much as possible certain settings that are more unsafe than others. 
(In the past couple months there have been a string of sexual assaults in the same area that took place from 3-7pm, in broad daylight! Usually here they'll take place when it's dark so that makes me even more terrified... ****.)


----------



## Johnny_Genome (Nov 11, 2003)

Recipe For Disaster said:


> to the above two posters, the men having to "approach" isn't limited to random encounters. i'm not sure where you got that idea. even if you meet someone through something, at some point one person has to make some type of move to escalate things to a romantic relationship vs the friend/acquaintance. knowing how and when to do this, can be very difficult for people with severe SA.
> 
> i'm not really trying to get involved in the whole "it's harder for men" debate but if i had to guess, i would say that in our society, it is more often expected that the man will make the first move.


When most people talk about "approaching" people here, they seem to be referring to approaching someone blindly -- meaning without any foreknowledge of what the other person thinks of them.

This is much different IMO, than hanging out with someone (alone or in a group) a few times where you can get a sense of your feelings/compatibilities with that person. I've never been "approached" by a girl, but I've had girls I was friendly with tell me their about feelings for me.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

A myth? Kissing can cause pregnancy. Well, it can, but there's more to it. :lol


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

MrShyAndTimid said:


> However, I don't think it's necessarily easier for one side or another. *It's just "different".* I've been in the same situation, where a girl has shown interest. Batted her eye and showed me a smile, yet it completely shut me down. It made me blush, avoid direct eye contact and make me uncomfortably shy. Then I've also been on the other side where I would run into the "office crush". Exchange smiles and eye contact and feel rejected that I can't even say hi or somehow initiate a simple conversation with her.
> 
> Being on the side without SA is what I assume would be easier.


I agree with everything you said here completely. Especially the last part about being on the side without SA.



pumapunku said:


> this got me wondering, so you did you manage to be in a relationship a year ago?
> 
> so you approached him first...


I initiated contact with some of the guys I've dated, while some of them initiated contact with me. As for the relationship that ended a year ago, you're correct. That happened to be one of the ones where I made the first move (this was before my SA got to be as bad as it is now).



pumapunku said:


> the mistake that i see a lot of the females do is either they expect too much from the guy and they complain when the guy does not come through... they end up unsatisfied. key word here is "too much".
> 
> another big mistake that i see females make is that when ever they get in a relationship, they give it their all. in other words, they drop almost everything... therefore, suffocating the guy and making him loose interest. then the female feels rejected and cannot figure it out why that is if she is giving him her all.


Well, I'm not really trying to start a "men do this but women do that" debate, because in my experience a lot of the so-called gender specific traits can show up with either gender. Such as the two examples you mentioned. I've seen men make those same mistakes as well.

IDK, I feel like I haven't really been very articulate as far as getting across my point with making this thread. I never intended to start some sort of comparison between the genders. I really just wanted to draw attention to the fact that I don't think it's right or fair to make comments which end up belittling or minimizing the issues that women face when it comes to dating.

It's kind of like this...let's take gender out of the equation completely. Say you were trying to paint a portrait, and you just could not get it right for the life you. Every time you tried, you ended up messing up in some way. But everyone around you keeps saying things like "Painting is so easy!" and "Even mildly intelligent people can paint a decent portrait!" But if you continued to struggle while constantly hearing these comments, wouldn't you start to feel pretty bad about yourself after awhile?

That's kind of like how some women feel when they hear various comments like the ones that I mentioned in my first post.

(Ok, that was probably the lamest analogy ever. And by probably I mean definitely. But I just got off work and I'm incredibly tired so cut me some slack. :b )


----------



## Recipe For Disaster (Jun 8, 2010)

Johnny_Genome said:


> When most people talk about "approaching" people here, they seem to be referring to approaching someone blindly -- meaning without any foreknowledge of what the other person thinks of them.
> 
> This is much different IMO, than hanging out with someone (alone or in a group) a few times where you can get a sense of your feelings/compatibilities with that person. I've never been "approached" by a girl, but I've had girls I was friendly with tell me their about feelings for me.


i don't know that they are referring to approach someone blindly. like you said (was it you who said that?) most couples didn't meet that way. i thought that the larger point was that, it is more often the male who makes the first move toward escalating the relationship to a romantic one. not always, but more than 50% of the time definitely.


----------



## Daktoria (Sep 21, 2010)

au Lait said:


> I do see and agree with a lot of the points here. However, it is 2010, and I do think that it's more accepted for women to approach men as well. I was only coming at things from the standard/stereotypical gender roles, since that seems to be the main source of the "women have it easier" mentality. The point I'm trying to raise is that getting approached is not always the easier option. At least it isn't for me, anyway. To me, the idea of hitting on someone is just as anxiety inducing as getting hit on.


Well yea, but most guys will invite getting hit on and gender role redefinition is not as dominant and straightforward as you're portraying. When a guy implodes, it's because he's nervous. He doesn't know how to reverberate impression without coming across as crude. If a girl comes across as crude, guys will enjoy it. If a guy comes across as crude, girls will become doubtful. Not only that, but guys are expected to let girls have it both ways as well because that's what it is to be a man, sucking it up. If a girl wants to redefine her gender role, that's acceptable. If a man wants to redefine his gender role, he takes a huge risk always getting stuck in the friends zone if not totally taken for granted as weak. Bohemian Bourgeois metro sophistication is not default masculinity, and it is not default feminine desire.

I mean all of this just makes evolutionary sense as a matter of specialization of labor. Men are constructed to be active providers, women are constructed to be reserved nurturers. There are waves, but waves are not the norm, and the norm is how you define easiness in a population versus population comparison. Are there hard women and soft men, yes, but again, those are deviations from the norm, and those are deviations that are accommodated because of obstacles. Maybe there's a history of abandonment. Maybe there has been dysfunctionality. Maybe there's a lack of trusting culture. Whatever. Furthermore, we shouldn't take gender role redefinition for granted in a developed society because our lives depend on menial productivity elsewhere. Gender roles are no where close to as redefined in the developing and undeveloped world. If you play around with that, well ****, you're going to really screw over the entire economy unless you replace labor intense processes with capital intense processes, but that's really not compatible with the notion of equality, is it? You'd be killing jobs and supplanting native culture...

...or we could just tax ourselves and redistribute wealth, but remind me, why did we pursue wealth in the first place again? Why did we pursue development? Did we develop ourselves so other cultures, other values, other people could thrive and use our resources, or did we develop so we could thrive and use our resources? When you remove control from the productivity equation, the will to live gets removed as well. Don't take things for granted. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. They'll charge you a higher price (unless of course you want to use the government to force them not to, but who's the bully now?).

Could things change? Maybe, but for starters, you'd have to get rid of humor in society, and that's not happening because people like humor in general nevermind as an attractive characteristic. You have to get rid of drama and betrayal and deception and mystery and fashion... and all those other things people, ESPECIALLY women, find to be attractive in the first place. You have to remove the incentive for people to compete, and likewise, you have to remove the desire for people to be worshiped.

Well, as long as people believe, appeal, and tolerate hierarchy in general, that's not happening.

You should note that a lot of guys are nervous because of lack of confidence. A lot of guys didn't have masculine influence/develop masculine character growing up, so if you hit on a guy who doesn't act like a man, there's a high likelihood he doesn't know what that internally means even if he acknowledges external signs. There are a lot of chumps out there who get lucky enough to stumble across someone with exactly the same nervous chemistry as themselves. They are the exception, not the norm because hey, nervous people bumping into nervous people is not exactly the greatest likelihood of events. Also, a lot of nervous to nervous relationships do not have much experience, and they do not breakup easily because they're afraid of having to go through the gauntlet of losing commitment, playing the field, and committing again.

Ultimately, the point is that women have higher standards than men, and men are more willing to compete than women...

...and coincidentally, there are a lot of men who are discouraged from being productive because they see all of the above. They're intelligent, and after being exposed to masculine influences, they see that people are willing to take things for granted and that they won't have control over their own productivity. They become disillusioned, and the result is they just don't care anymore because the cost-benefit of problem solving is not there...

...but there are other men who will do it, and they'll do it because it sustains hierarchy, it lets them relish in politically correct conniving humor. They don't care about value depreciation. They just care about being hedonists.

There are waves to this as well, and not only that, but the waves confirm the norm. For example, there are racial, religious, and sexually oriented minorities who become discouraged from assimilating because they don't see themselves as having control over their own futures.

Well, that's the point. This isn't a matter of demographics. This is a matter of personalities because just as much as you have Blacks, Jews, gays, and whoever else discouraged from being productive and relationally competitive, you have regular old white guys discouraged as well. Everyone doesn't come from a privileged background. Even if you trace our heritage back to Europe, Europe was not a place where everyone was king. No, you had social and economic hierarchy there too. People left Europe for America just as much for opportunity.

Now maybe you don't like melting pot/assimilationist ideology, but that just proves the point about competition and hierarchy made earlier. A coherent society cannot have it both ways. Either you get rid of those things which are deemed attractive, or you have organic dysfunctionality. That's the choice. Mixing the two establishes a political game where the charismatically ambitious ruin life for everyone else even if they don't notice it because everyone else becomes willing to sacrifice liberty for security...

...which begs to wonder why they deserve to be treated as dignified cognitive beings in the first place. Not only that, but the charismatically ambitious political class realizes this, and they exploit it, making outsiders' lives more and more miserable just so insiders can relish in being worshiped and be lazy on sustaining themselves.

It's rational, but immoral, and over the long run, stupid as well because such a society will inevitably fall apart from the lack of will for economic sustenance, but hey, as Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead." How could the charismatically ambitious even care? If they did, they'd be cast out and lose their political influence.


----------



## Johnny_Genome (Nov 11, 2003)

Recipe For Disaster said:


> i don't know that they are referring to approach someone blindly. like you said (was it you who said that?) most couples didn't meet that way. i thought that the larger point was that, it is more often the male who makes the first move toward escalating the relationship to a romantic one. not always, but more than 50% of the time definitely.


My point is simple. "Approaching" has become the key word in all these discussions on which "gender has it harder", which I think are unhelpful, useless arguments. Although you may interpret it as meaning "escalating the relationship", I believe most people here interpret it as the traditional meaning of "approaching someone you don't know about a date". That word is used as fuel for an argument, and I'm simply pointing out that the main point of these arguments is flawed and has little to do with how couples meet in the real world.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

LOL!!


----------



## AliBaba (Nov 16, 2005)

Daktoria said:


> Well yea, but most guys will invite getting hit on and gender role redefinition is not as dominant and straightforward as you're portraying. When a guy implodes, it's because he's nervous. He doesn't know how to reverberate impression without coming across as crude. If a girl comes across as crude, guys will enjoy it. If a guy comes across as crude, girls will become doubtful. Not only that, but guys are expected to let girls have it both ways as well because that's what it is to be a man, sucking it up. If a girl wants to redefine her gender role, that's acceptable. If a man wants to redefine his gender role, he takes a huge risk always getting stuck in the friends zone if not totally taken for granted as weak. Bohemian Bourgeois metro sophistication is not default masculinity, and it is not default feminine desire.
> 
> I mean all of this just makes evolutionary sense as a matter of specialization of labor. Men are constructed to be active providers, women are constructed to be reserved nurturers. There are waves, but waves are not the norm, and the norm is how you define easiness in a population versus population comparison. Are there hard women and soft men, yes, but again, those are deviations from the norm, and those are deviations that are accommodated because of obstacles. Maybe there's a history of abandonment. Maybe there has been dysfunctionality. Maybe there's a lack of trusting culture. Whatever. Furthermore, we shouldn't take gender role redefinition for granted in a developed society because our lives depend on menial productivity elsewhere. Gender roles are no where close to as redefined in the developing and undeveloped world. If you play around with that, well ****, you're going to really screw over the entire economy unless you replace labor intense processes with capital intense processes, but that's really not compatible with the notion of equality, is it? You'd be killing jobs and supplanting native culture...
> 
> ...


This is like the "Mein Kampf" of the SAS Relationship Forum.


----------



## ivankaramazov (Aug 22, 2009)

damn hedonists...


----------



## Daktoria (Sep 21, 2010)

That's... an understatement.

I mean if you ever talk to a girl like this, there is pretty much zero chance of hooking up unless you are the ultimate master of the tease. Again, the competition. 

I just hope that it shows I'm being honest. My goal isn't to get attention, but to have a dignified, unemotional conversation about these values. Granted it's unlikely, but I mean you gotta shoot the **** enough times before you find some that doesn't stink. If you want to talk objectively, then talk objectively. Don't be melodramatic, just put it out there.


----------



## Daktoria (Sep 21, 2010)

I think that's another thing about men though.

A real man... there comes a point when you realize you want more out of life than just hooking up and companionship. It's the matter of establishment, not just independence, but respectful values. You want your life to mean something independently of what others think of you.

To a degree, there are some sympathies with feminism about that because a lot of feminists want women to be able to be independent as well, but the problem arrives when you have this postmodern, positive feminism that demands reparations from people who didn't do anything wrong and were likely wronged themselves.

I mean that really just ****s everything over economically wise, and as a man, you eventually get annoyed with the antics because everyone with a voice thinks they always have to have a say. Too many cooks spoil the broth. It's frustrating, and coercive, to deal with adults who act like children. You'll hear this a lot when you talk to older men (45+) who can't stand being around little girls, and they really pity generation Y and generation X's men because they're being discouraged from growing up all the time by consumerism. Many of us get lazy, but a lot of us get discouraged wondering wtf we should bother making a difference because we won't have control over what we could achieve. We can only dream what the government wants us to achieve, what's politically correct to achieve. That completely impedes ingenuity because half of making the effort is caring about what you're pushing yourself toward. If you can't care about what you want, then it doesn't matter.

I mean granted they'll say little girls are adorable too, but it's... different. It has to do with the whole sucking it up thing which again goes to show how men have it harder.


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

maybe i'm just dense, but i have no idea what dakto is going on about or how he came to his conclusion.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

I think men probably have it harder because they are expected to be the ones to "take charge" and make the first move, etc. I did a lot of online dating so I asked out quite a few men myself, however.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> LOL!!


We're not all like that lol


----------



## velvet1 (Aug 11, 2010)

The thing is just not about connecting anymore, it's that pressure to impress and to me it makes me nervous. Its not anymore lets hang out as friends, its just lets go and have a date. I guess guys nowadays guys seem to be afraid of being thrown into the friendship zone because they seem attach to the outcome. 

To me its really nerve racking when a guy hits on me, it is only when a guy comes off as easy going that I open up easily/flirt. He ain't trying to impress me or anything, his just giving a conversation. I know when a guy is hitting on me and when a guy is simply engaging. It rarely happens though, which is unfortunate :|.

Please, stop saying that guys only do the first move. It's so untrue because I've seen females hit on guys that were initially quiet, and they start to open up. Then I start to wonder what I did wrong because they're shy around me but with her they're not.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Haydsmom2007 said:


> We're not all like that lol


actually it is


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> actually it is


actually it is what? True? It is true generally but I don't ever plan on getting married and then just sitting around looking pretty.


----------



## MichaelWesten (Jan 27, 2010)




----------



## iAmCodeMonkey (May 23, 2010)

Daktoria said:


> Meh, Futures got it.
> 
> With guys, you have to do all of the above plus initiate and sustain conversation. Unless you're metro or cosmo, flirting is work for guys, not instinctual. Most guys will come off as very crude and obnoxious to a woman by just releasing themselves. If a girl releases herself, guys will always enjoy it.


Pretty much covers it. Thread over.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Everything gets easier the more your exposed to it and learn how to cope with it, so if that means approaching for men, then OK. If that means sending signals for women, then OK. In a way they can have both the same intensity of fear involved depending on the person and/or experience. However, this doesn't exclude the fact that the man has to go through many more obstacles (generally).

Still, the world does revolve around looks, and the prettier you are (guy or girl) the more likely your opportunities are easier with less rejection or resistance, but that is if all things are equal unrelated to a shyness factor. Now, if a woman is less attractive she may have to adopt an aggressive approach like most men, but every sex has it's own challenges.

On the subject of approaching, each sex can achieve this. A lot of women will argue it is "uncomfortable" for men to be approached? Let's assume this is generally the case. In this instance, I figure the only reason a man would feel more awkward over a woman being approached is because of the frequency in which it occurs, which goes back to my first paragraph stating that it is new territory. For example, if I was used to being approached by women I'd most likely be less "uncomfortable" about it. If the roles were switched in that a woman had to do most of the approaching, then the men would likely assume that it is unnatural to approach a woman. That is why I support women to do whatever it is they want to do and not to be confound to what seems like the "norm". Biology does state, however, that humans, like other species, follow a "natural" order of mating based upon who has more investment in the long-run; therefore, the woman will be more choosy and the males will compete, which explains the natural progression of dating rituals (I forgot the specific term). Still, women often do approach men regardless of their attraction level. People are intelligent enough to rationalize for different bases of attraction (what may be attractive to one person may not for another, etc).


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

stranger25 said:


> LOL!!


I especially like how the guy can't even use proper grammar in his own video title. A+

I'm not gonna reply to the content of the vid itself b/c I can already tell by the poorly worded title that it has nothing to do with the actual point of this thread. Sorry.

So um yeah. Did anyone read the last reply that I wrote? I really wasn't trying to start a "which gender has it harder" debate.

IDRK how I can communicate that any more than I already have...Each side has it's own unique struggles, that's something that I've never denied. *I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the marginalization of the issues that women face in the dating world is stinky and wrong and hurtful.* I guess maybe it's my fault, since I used wording in my first post that may have hinted that I was trying to make some kind of comparison. But I really wasn't. Not even a little. I'm serious.


----------



## Lonely Hobbit (Aug 31, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> LOL!!


Yeah, guys have to do all the work.



fingertips said:


> maybe i'm just dense, but i have no idea what dakto is going on about or how he came to his conclusion.


Daktoria's posts make perfect sense.



Haydsmom2007 said:


> actually it is what? True? It is true generally but I don't ever plan on getting married and then just sitting around looking pretty.


If you're a good wife you will also cook and clean.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

au Lait said:


> So um yeah. Did anyone read the last reply that I wrote? I really wasn't trying to start a "which gender has it harder" debate.
> 
> IDRK how I can communicate that any more than I already have...Each side has it's own unique struggles, that's something that I've never denied. *I was trying to draw attention to the fact that the marginalization of the issues that women face in the dating world is stinky and wrong and hurtful.* I guess maybe it's my fault, since I used wording in my first post that may have hinted that I was trying to make some kind of comparison. But I really wasn't. Not even a little. I'm serious.


As I see it, there are two separate issues here.

The first is whether or not men really do have it worse in the dating game. In your original post, you explicitly stated that both genders have it "equally hard" in that respect. Hence, the gender war that ensued.

As a man, no matter how long and hard I think about it and how reasoned I try to be, I always come to the same conclusion: being a male with SA in American society is simply more of a disadvantage *WRT dating* than being a female with SA. The degree to which this is true is debatable -- but honestly, the idea that it is to *some* degree seems fairly obvious. As I said, I've spent time trying to see both sides -- but at the end of the day, being told that it's "equally hard" for women is annoying at best and offensive at worst. (Fortunately, I'm not the type to get offended, so no worries with me ).

The second issue, which it seems you intended to be the focus of this thread, is whether or not discussing the discrepancies between hardships each gender faces is polite or constructive. On this, I will concede that the legions of disillusioned SAS guys who rant on a daily basis about our lot in life fail to accomplish anything -- and indeed, we're probably just making some women feel even worse about themselves. There's definitely some truth to the line you bolded.

At the end of the day, humans are selfish creatures concerned first and foremost with their own well-being, and this "men have it worse" phenomenon is simply a reflection of that fact. The tactful thing would be for us to suck it up and stop making women who can't get a date feel worthless, but the frustration is just too much sometimes. In particular, try to imagine that you'd come to SAS and discovered that about a 5x higher percentage of the men here had relationship experience than women -- and that your observations in everyday life confirmed this discrepancy. To top it off, imagine a significantly higher percentage of SAS men are saying "I want an outgoing girl to balance my anxiety out" and "confident girls are attractive" than vice-versa. Would it not frustrate you to the point of the occasional outburst? I'm not excusing the behavior, but merely explaining it.


----------



## disarmonia mundi (Jan 12, 2010)

It's probably been said previously, but men have to approach AND not **** up... the former of which is more difficult for many. 

Even if you're a woman and you do **** up, it often doesn't matter to us (me) if you're half-way okay looking.

You're fighting an up, up hill battle here, just admit that SA men have a harder time dating. :roll

And why, yes, I am bitter and frustrated.


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> ugly women can only get men by being sexually available.


somebody lied to you.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Thank you, *anomalous*, for your thoughtful response.

I see now exactly how my words sparked the idea that this thread was intended as a gender debate. And I apologize for that. I should have edited my original post better and phrased it differently.

The concept that really gets me is the notion that all women have to do is get gussied up, stand around at a bar, and men will come flocking towards us like bees to honey. As if we're just static objects that have no control over what's going on around us, and that our SA has no effect whatsoever on our interactions with the rest of the world.

I have seen many guys here say things like "If a woman is halfway decent looking, she'll have no trouble finding a boyfriend at all." The obvious implication being that if a woman is having difficulty finding a bf, she must be less than decent. It bothers me that it never occurred to those people that SA could be the reason that a woman is not getting opportunities.
To me, comments like those are more than just people pointing out the discrepancies between the hardships that each gender faces. My thinking is, if a comment can easily be misconstrued in a way that is really hurtful to other people, then why even say it at all?

And then on the flip side, when guys talk about how they have trouble getting a date, the reason they give is almost always because they're too shy to approach women. Men are able to blame SA. But with women, it's assumed that the defect is us, rather than the disorder. I don't believe that's right.

I think that due to the way our society is structured, the onus generally does fall on the man to make the first move, so I can see how it's harder for them in that respect. But then again, on the women's side, if she's not even getting approached at all, and is too shy to do the approaching herself due to SA, she is in just as bad a place as the men, right?


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

disarmonia mundi said:


> It's probably been said previously, but men have to approach AND not **** up... the former of which is more difficult for many.
> 
> Even if you're a woman and you do **** up, it often doesn't matter to us (me) if you're half-way okay looking.
> 
> ...


chillax...pointing out the difficulties that single women face should in no way be demeaning to, or detract from, the struggles that you face as a man. There's no need for anyone to get defensive.

I don't see anything wrong with women having a chance to vent their dating frustrations without a million men saying stuff that is basically equivalent to "deal with it, b/c you have it easier than us, so nothing gives you the right to feel sad and frustrated too."


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

disarmonia mundi said:


> It's probably been said previously, but *men have to approach AND not **** up... the former of which is more difficult for many.*
> 
> Even if you're a woman and you do **** up, it often doesn't matter to us (me) if you're half-way okay looking.
> 
> ...


...and women have to be approached by men they aren't interested in. They have to be approached by men they are interested in, and not **** up...the former of which is difficult for many.
And, a lot of them have to worry about not being approached at all, and feeling like they aren't allowed to approach a man if they aren't being approached.

Each sex has problems and they're equally bad because it's the worst they can experience.
Saying one sex has it better/worse is silly to me because it's an individual thing anyways.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

the cheat said:


> ...and women have to be approached by men they aren't interested in. They have to be approached by men they are interested in, and not **** up...the former of which is difficult for many.
> And, a lot of them have to worry about not being approached at all, and feeling like they aren't allowed to approach a man if they aren't being approached.
> 
> Each sex has problems and they're equally bad because it's the worst they can experience.
> Saying one sex has it better/worse is silly to me because it's an individual thing anyways.


^This x1,000! :clap I agree completely!


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

The problem I have with this is that unattractive men are automatically considered 'creepy.' What about unattractive women? Guys don't really notice them, but they don't link a personality type to their appearance.

It's for this reason that I think there's a bias against unattractive or average men. We have to _work harder _than the good looking guys, and even then, we're measured on things like height, weight, hair color, and other things that are out of our control. Whereas a girl can just slap on makeup, and she goes from unattractive to beautiful.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

WintersTale said:


> The problem I have with this is that unattractive men are automatically considered 'creepy.' What about unattractive women? Guys don't really notice them, but they don't link a personality type to their appearance.
> 
> It's for this reason that I think there's a bias against unattractive or average men. We have to _work harder _than the good looking guys, and even then, we're measured on things like height, weight, hair color, and other things that are out of our control. Whereas a girl can just slap on makeup, and she goes from unattractive to beautiful.


Unattractive men are considered creepy by who? You? And how do you know everyone agrees with you on what makes a man unattractive and/or creepy?
There is no such thing as an "attractive man"...only "an attractive man, in my opinion". And even if a large majority of people might agree with your opinion, does not make it real or true. You're making so many broad generalizations about millions of different people.

You can't change your weight, hair color, etc? Why not? You can't watch what you eat, work out, and dye your hair or get a haircut?


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> ...and women have to be approached by men they aren't interested in. They have to be approached by men they are interested in, and not **** up...*the former of which is difficult for many.*
> And, a lot of them have to worry about not being approached at all, and feeling like they aren't allowed to approach a man if they aren't being approached.
> 
> Each sex has problems and they're equally bad because it's the worst they can experience.
> Saying one sex has it better/worse is silly to me because it's an individual thing anyways.


so what is harder here? to be rejected infinitely due to looks or to be approached by men (or women) they aren't interested in?

i know i'm not that good looking but i have experienced the power of attraction. some females who find me attractive for whatever reason treat me different than say others who the females believe are less attractive. this treating me differently is something good. if this female happens to be my boss, she will not fire me if she needed to lay off some people... she would fire others first. if i was in an argument against someone else, these females would take my side regardless if i was right or wrong. lets say if i was wrong, still, they would twist words to make me look right.

so in the world of dating, beauty will always triumph no matter what others will try to say. that's why we find babies cute = attraction. attraction is stronger than no attraction. attraction = beauty.

so if a female is being approached more often than not, i cannot swallow the notion that it is harder for such person than a person who is never approached.

if this does not make sense give me a minute to edit cus i'm buzzing. 

for some reason i feel like you are throwing a lot of things together here with out explaining why?... like this 


> And, a lot of them have to worry about not being approached at all, and feeling like they aren't allowed to approach a man if they aren't being approached.


yeah a lot of them worry about not being approached but who worries more... the ones who have never been approached at all... or rarely... or the one's who are always approached but just recently haven't?

it is obvious that good looks = evolution. those who get the ugly gene have to work harder... and i know harder = harder.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that you make it sound like this hasn't been figured out! if a hot female does not approach you... you know not even to waste your time with a hot female. or if you approached a hot female and she didn't give you the light of day, sure you would feel to lower your expectations.

sounds like you are stating the obvious.


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> Unattractive men are considered creepy by who? You? And how do you know everyone agrees with you on what makes a man unattractive and/or creepy?
> *There is no such thing as an "attractive man"...only "an attractive man, in my opinion". And even if a large majority of people might agree with your opinion, does not make it real or true.* You're making so many broad generalizations about millions of different people.
> 
> You can't change your weight, hair color, etc? Why not? You can't watch what you eat, work out, and dye your hair or get a haircut?


what?


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

My point was that neither sex has it hard*er*. Each has it equally hard, overall. 
The fact that men have to do the approaching makes it difficult for us. But that has no impact on the difficulties women experience, because it's unique. Our experiences as men aren't easier or harder than what women experience(speaking in general, of course)...they're just different.
It's like if I stuck my hand into a fire and you stuck your foot into a fire, and we're arguing about which of us has it worse. They're both painful and hard to deal with.

Men have to initiate, women have to reciprocate...both are extremely difficult to do when you have low self-esteem and anxiety problems.



pumapunku said:


> so what is harder here? to be rejected infinitely due to looks or to be approached by men (or women) they aren't interested in?
> 
> i know i'm not that good looking but i have experienced the power of attraction. some females who find me attractive for whatever reason treat me different than say others who the females believe are less attractive. this treating me differently is something good. if this female happens to be my boss, she will not fire me if she needed to lay off some people... she would fire others first. if i was in an argument against someone else, these females would take my side regardless if i was right or wrong. lets say if i was wrong, still, they would twist words to make me look right.
> 
> ...


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

pumapunku said:


> what?


...what?
There is no such thing as an "attractive man". It's only an opinion, and even if it's an opinion shared by many doesn't make it true. You could name a famous "attractive man" and I would bet my life that there is a large number of women world-wide who would find him unattractive.
To say that women find unattractive men "creepy" is to assume they share the same definition of "unattractive" and "creepy".


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> My point was that neither sex has it harder. Each has it equally hard, overall.


i got your main point already what you fail to realize is that definitions are backed up by proof. i cannot say that aliens exists and expect to be believed by everyone? just by those who feel they have seen aliens or believe in them but not by the majority.

when you say neither sex do mean people who have lung cancer with people who don't? or people who got hit by a drunk driver and became paralyzed with others who were just in a car accident and just got bruises?

by your statement neither has it harder... than what is the definition of harder?



> The fact that men have to do the approaching makes it difficult for us. But that has no impact on the difficulties women experience, because it's unique. Our experiences as men aren't easier or harder than what women experience(speaking in general, of course)...they're just different.
> It's like if I stuck my hand into a fire and you stuck your foot into a fire, and we're arguing about which of us has it worse. They're both painful and hard to deal with.
> 
> Men have to initiate, women have to reciprocate...both are extremely difficult to do when you have low self-esteem and anxiety problems.


i think i know what you are trying to say but you are leaving a lot of details out of the equation. you should know that beautiful female get fat headed... these beautiful females get spoiled and approached by a lot of guys. so eventually they become "different" than females who are considered "ugly" by the media. once this occurs, they are no longer in the same page. so your theory does not apply to all. the beautiful female may feel like she is putting her foot in the fire for something small like not getting botox while the ugly female putting her foot in the fire might bejust talking to a guy. i just can see that as being the same.


----------



## Haydsmom2007 (Oct 16, 2009)

Socially Anxious said:


> Daktoria's posts make perfect sense.
> 
> If you're a good wife you will also cook and clean.


awwwwwww man, burrnn.


----------



## pumapunku (Oct 29, 2010)

> There is no such thing as an "attractive man". It's only an opinion, *and even if it's an opinion shared by many doesn't make it true.* You could name a famous "attractive man" and I would bet my life that there is a large number of women world-wide who would find him unattractive.
> To say that women find unattractive men "creepy" is to assume they share the same definition of "unattractive" and "creepy".


c'mon man, we all know what attractive is in a man or woman.

regarding women finding unattractive men "creepy" it is true. would you not find a female yo don't find attractive creepy if she was coming on to you? don't tell me that you will go out with an 80 year old female!

if you are tying to impress au lait, then never mind...


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

pumapunku said:


> i got your main point already what you fail to realize is that definitions are backed up by proof. i cannot say that aliens exists and expect to be believed by everyone? just by those who feel they have seen aliens or believe in them but not by the majority.


I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no definition of what is attractive. 
Let's say there's a man(or even a woman) you consider attractive...and I don't think he/she is attractive...is one of us wrong? The comment I was responding to made a huge generalization, as tends to happen in these types of threads. "Unattractive men are considered creepy by women"...to say that is assuming that all women agree on what "attractive" and "creepy" mean, when that's not the case at all.



> when you say neither sex do mean people who have lung cancer with people who don't? or people who got hit by a drunk driver and became paralyzed with others who were just in a car accident and just got bruises?


When I say neither sex has it harder than the other, what I'm saying is that to a woman, the worst case scenario for her is that she either doesn't get approached by men, or only gets approached by men who are "bad" for her...and to say that's "easier" than what men have to deal with is wrong. The truth is, it isn't easy(or easier) for either sex to start a relationship.



> by your statement neither has it harder... than what is the definition of harder?


What makes you think it's harder to approach a woman than it is to be approached by a man?
I don't get it...put yourself into a womans shoes, and imagine yourself getting hit on by some guy you have no interest in. Imagine the anxiety you'd feel.



> i think i know what you are trying to say but you are leaving a lot of details out of the equation. *you should know that beautiful female get fat headed*... these beautiful females get spoiled and approached by a lot of guys. so eventually they become "different" than females who are considered "ugly" by the media. once this occurs, they are no longer in the same page. so your theory does not apply to all. the beautiful female may feel like she is putting her foot in the fire for something small like not getting botox while the ugly female putting her foot in the fire might bejust talking to a guy. i just can see that as being the same.


Read that again. You just said all beautiful women get a huge ego from being hit on constantly. 
That's such a huge generalization that I don't even know what to say to be honest. What can I say?



pumapunku said:


> c'mon man, we all know what attractive is in a man or woman.
> 
> regarding women finding unattractive men "creepy" it is true. would you not find a female yo don't find attractive creepy if she was coming on to you? don't tell me that you will go out with an 80 year old female!
> 
> if you are tying to impress au lait, then never mind...


Why do you think that we'd have the same opinion on what we consider an attractive person?
You don't think we'd disagree at all?
If a woman I find unattractive was hitting on me, I'd be uncomfortable yes...but why would I find her creepy? I'd probably be flattered but uninterested.
An 80 year old woman hitting on me is a pretty far-fetched example to use, don't you think?
If a 25 year old woman who I found unattractive was flirting with me, I wouldn't find her creepy unless she actually was...and that's an individual thing, it would have nothing to do with her "attractiveness".

Impress au lait? I don't need to impress anyone. I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. People know me. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.


----------



## Same Difference (Aug 26, 2010)

Has anyone thought about starting a dating dictionary of sorts, perhaps titled _What Women Really Mean_?

Here are a few examples:

"I see you as a friend" = I don't want to have sex with you.

"Creepy" = Looking at her funny, hitting on her, coming onto her too hard, touching her, or a combination of the above. It should be noted, however, that creepiness depends on the man's physical attractiveness and status in the social pyramid. The above things can be seen as creepy only if the man is physically unattractive and/or socially unpopular/awkward/inept. Otherwise, they're welcomed attention.

"I'm just looking for a nice guy!" = I'm looking for a guy who will dominate me and pull me by the pigtails in bed, but still treat me like a lady in public.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

WintersTale said:


> The problem I have with this is that unattractive men are automatically considered 'creepy.' What about unattractive women? Guys don't really notice them, but they don't link a personality type to their appearance.
> 
> It's for this reason that I think there's a bias against unattractive or average men. We have to _work harder _than the good looking guys, and even then, we're measured on things like height, weight, hair color, and other things that are out of our control. Whereas a girl can just slap on makeup, and she goes from unattractive to beautiful.


I'm confused...are you trying to say that there isn't a huge emphasis on physical appearance when it comes to women? Because that is incorrect.

There is such a ridiculously HUGE emphasis on appearance for women in our society. The media conditions women to believe from a young age that we have little to offer the world but our looks.

Women can get called things like "Butterface", and various other nasty slang terms if we are less than perfect looking. There are whole competitions that focus on rating women based on their appearance (aka beauty pageants).

Jessica Simpson puts on a few pounds and it's treated by the media like the biggest tragedy of the year. I can't remember the last time anyone made a big deal about a male celebrity putting on weight.

As for "ugly" men being considered "creepy", I disagree. To me, a man is creepy by what he does, not what he looks like. There are always going to be shallow people of both genders. But to say that physical appearance affects men more than women when it comes to dating is extremely false.

And makeup can only do so much...lol it's not a miracle in a bottle. It can't change a woman's bone structure. It's mainly just used to enhance what's already there.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

pumapunku said:


> if you are tying to impress au lait, then never mind...


Right, because anyone here who agrees with me is obviously only doing so to "impress" me...

Thanks for totally invalidating any and all of my opinions.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

the cheat said:


> There is no such thing as an "attractive man". It's only an opinion, and even if it's an opinion shared by many doesn't make it true. You could name a famous "attractive man" and I would bet my life that there is a large number of women world-wide who would find him unattractive.


This is a great point.

One example I can think of off the top of my head would be George Clooney. A lot of people consider him to be attractive, and I'm pretty sure he was voted "the Sexiest Man Alive" by People magazine (or some other magazine..I can't remember which one right now). But I personally don't find him that attractive. I'm sure there are other women who feel the same. Beauty is highly subjective.


----------



## seafolly (Jun 17, 2010)

au Lait said:


> This is a great point.
> 
> One example I can think of off the top of my head would be George Clooney. A lot of people consider him to be attractive, and I'm pretty sure he was voted "the Sexiest Man Alive" by People magazine (or some other magazine..I can't remember which one right now). But I personally don't find him that attractive. I'm sure there are other women who feel the same. Beauty is highly subjective.


I second that point. And I also agree about Clooney! No offense, Mr. Clooney.  Let me see here...Orlando Bloom, Brad Pitt, the Twilight dude, Robert Downey Jr., um, struggling to think of male celebrities but I agree, I don't get the hype.


----------



## MichaelWesten (Jan 27, 2010)

seafolly said:


> I second that point. And I also agree about Clooney! No offense, Mr. Clooney.  Let me see here...Orlando Bloom, Brad Pitt, the Twilight dude, Robert Downey Jr., um, struggling to think of male celebrities but I agree, I don't get the hype.


Are you kidding? Brad Pitt is a dreamboat :heart


----------



## seafolly (Jun 17, 2010)

MichaelWesten said:


> Are you kidding? Brad Pitt is a dreamboat :heart


I won't stand in your way then. ;D

A few guy friends were sharing their "lists" one evening and asked for mine. It a) took me a really, really long time to think of even two and b) they were dumbfounded at the results. "So basically you just like normal looking men. Okaaay..."


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

au Lait said:


> This is a great point.
> 
> One example I can think of off the top of my head would be George Clooney. A lot of people consider him to be attractive, and I'm pretty sure he was voted "the Sexiest Man Alive" by People magazine (or some other magazine..I can't remember which one right now). But I personally don't find him that attractive. I'm sure there are other women who feel the same. Beauty is highly subjective.





seafolly said:


> I second that point. And I also agree about Clooney! No offense, Mr. Clooney.  Let me see here...Orlando Bloom, Brad Pitt, the Twilight dude, Robert Downey Jr., um, struggling to think of male celebrities but I agree, I don't get the hype.


You two are just agreeing with my point to impress me. :b


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

*It's equally difficult in different ways.*


----------

