# Women like men who take charge



## Strength (Aug 12, 2006)

They like men who take charge and take initiative. If she asks a guy what he wants to do for a date, she never wants him to say "I'm not really sure" or "I dunno, what do you wanna do?". The guy should be the one who leads at all times.

I've talked to many girls who all say that the guy should always initiate the first move (whether it be talking to them, or first kiss etc), and it is attractive for the guy to be in control. This isn't a bad thing. It might seem hard at first, but women usually like personality more than men, so if you add that with a personality that vibes with her, then it works to your favour.


----------



## person86 (Aug 10, 2006)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



Strength said:


> I've talked to many girls who all say that the guy should always initiate the first move (whether it be talking to them, or first kiss etc), and it is attractive for the guy to be in control. This isn't a bad thing.


Right. :lol


----------



## PGVan (May 22, 2004)

*re: Women like men who lead*

OK, so what is so bad about a girl making the first move? Why is that so unacceptable? This alpha male garbage where the man controls everything has gotta go. This is 2007 AD, not 2007 BC.

No offence, but pretty well all I've read from you on this topic are things guys in my position have heard a million ****ing times. What about the 1,000,001st time is going to change anything?


----------



## lightness (Mar 17, 2005)

id make more decisions if my girlfriend was ok with it lol.. she can be bossy  but i think girls like equal input you know ? although i do find myself initiating some things. when it comes to dates its pretty much equal.. would my girlfriend prefer it if i told her what we were gonna do all the time ? i dont think so.. its pretty much equal at the moment i dont think theirs some underlying need for a girl to be controlled by their man. 

what do girls think ?


----------



## pyramidsong (Apr 17, 2005)

*re: Women like men who lead*

I love it [/sarcasm] when people say "girls like" or "guys like" as if we're all completely defined by our gender and therefore want exactly the same things. Me, I don't mind making the first move, and while I certainly don't wish to control a romantic interest, macho posturing and "taking charge" (*snort*) holds no appeal to me. Some girls like that, sure, and good luck to them, but don't assume we all want the same thing simply because we have the same plumbing.


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

I think girls who say that are either too chicken **** themselves to make the first move or maybe they like for a guy to be in control so it could a semi-domination thing as well. Anyhow, it's a very general statement.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

*re: Women like men who lead*

i dont think its that much of a general statement. most women want the guy to make the first move. ask her out, pick a place, etc. once the relationsihp developes further, things change but the beginning is usually like that. ask your female family members or coworkers


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



pyramidsong said:


> I love it [/sarcasm] when people say "girls like" or "guys like" as if we're all completely defined by our gender and therefore want exactly the same things.


Women like your mom.


----------



## pyramidsong (Apr 17, 2005)

*re: Women like men who lead*

:lol

Thank you, Chuck, for that insightful and eloquent response.

And I don't have a "mom". I'm Australian. :b


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

Heh, you do get my point, though..? You do have a Napoleon Dynamite quote.


----------



## pyramidsong (Apr 17, 2005)

*re: Women like men who lead*

Ya, got it. "Your mom goes to college!"

Ah, Kip, that doyen of witty repartee. :lol


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



PGVan said:


> This is 2007 AD, not 2007 BC.


And you think nature cares?


----------



## NewWorldOrder (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Lyric Suite said:


> PGVan said:
> 
> 
> > This is 2007 AD, not 2007 BC.
> ...


Really. People get so up-in-arms when you make a general statement like this. If girls didn't like men who lead, I don't think SA guys would have such a problem finding mates.


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

*re: Women like men who lead*

I think attraction is determined by the distance from the point directly between your eyes to the tip of your nose. If you fall outside the 1.6 to 1.9 inch range, you're screwed (or not, I guess). Even if you have the preferred mid-face demensions, you can ruin your chances by swinging your arms too much when you walk. Swinging your arms while standing still isn't real attractive either, or so I've been told.


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Atticus said:


> Even if you have the preferred mid-face demensions, you can ruin your chances by swinging your arms too much when you walk.


But you have to make sure to swing your arms a _little_ when you walk, or else you'll just look like you're carrying invisible suitcases. That'd be weird :b


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



Strength said:


> They like men who take charge and take initiative. If she asks a guy what he wants to do for a date, she never wants him to say "I'm not really sure" or "I dunno, what do you wanna do?". The guy should be the one who leads at all times.


I don't think this is wholly accurate. If a guy asked me out, yet had no idea what he would like to do while on that date, I would wonder why he even bothered asking me. The best thing to do is to either come up with an idea when you ask her, or come up with several ideas and ask her which one sounds best to her. This isn't "leading" but it is saying, "I'm interested in you. Let's spend time together. Here's an idea on what to do during that time." It's more of a black mark on the guy's overall interest in me, not on his ability to "lead" in the relationship. If she asked you out, she should do the same thing.



NewWorldOrder said:


> If girls didn't like men who lead, I don't think SA guys would have such a problem finding mates.


SA guys have such a problem finding "mates" because they're not out trying to find mates, not because they aren't leaders. I am willing to venture that the SA guys who are actively out trying to find "mates" have relatively the same amount of success as the non-SA guys. I'm certain that the ones who are trying have a higher rate of success than those who aren't. Statements like this are just poorly disguised excuses.



PGVan said:


> OK, so what is so bad about a girl making the first move? Why is that so unacceptable? This alpha male garbage where the man controls everything has gotta go. This is 2007 AD, not 2007 BC.


I agree completely.



pyramidsong said:


> I love it [/sarcasm] when people say "girls like" or "guys like" as if we're all completely defined by our gender and therefore want exactly the same things.


I also think that people need to get away from this whole "girls like" "guys like" mentality. If you're interested in someone, that person is an individual, not a stock character in some movie.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Woody (Nov 16, 2003)

*re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> Strength said:
> 
> 
> > They like men who take charge and take initiative. If she asks a guy what he wants to do for a date, she never wants him to say "I'm not really sure" or "I dunno, what do you wanna do?". The guy should be the one who leads at all times.
> ...


What if the guy just wants to spend time with his gf and considers *what* they do as of secondary importance. I cherish the time that I have with my gf regardless of where we're at or what we're doing. I think it's more important to be in agreement rather than one taking the lead over the other.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Woody said:


> What if the guy just wants to spend time with his gf and considers *what* they do as of secondary importance. I cherish the time that I have with my gf regardless of where we're at or what we're doing. I think it's more important to be in agreement rather than one taking the lead over the other.


I was referring to when someone initially asks someone out. I know I've gone through periods where I was just happy to know he was on the other end of the phone, even if we were both completely silent.

I think that by the time you get to that point in a relationship and she's not happy with the situation and says something like, "We never go anywhere anymore" then there is nothing wrong with saying, "What would you like to do?" And she should suggest something. And if she doesn't, then the two of you can brainstorm together.

The original point about "a woman wanting the man to take the lead" doesn't apply at that point. I think anyone who gets into a relationship with someone that extends beyond the "getting to know you phase" will see that the "man taking the lead" is bunk. Relationships are give and take. If one person wanted the other person to do all the work, it's not a sign that they are behaving normally for their gender, but rather that they're just lazy.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> SA guys have such a problem finding "mates" because they're not out trying to find mates, not because they aren't leaders. I am willing to venture that the SA guys who are actively out trying to find "mates" have relatively the same amount of success as the non-SA guys. I'm certain that the ones who are trying have a higher rate of success than those who aren't. Statements like this are just poorly disguised excuses.


I'd agree that it is important to be out "trying" to meet someone in order to achieve one's objective of finding a partner. Certainly it is necessary to be out there looking in order to have the opportunities to meet someone just as it would be necessary to buy a lottery ticket in order to win the lottery. However, I don't agree that a person with SA will have relatively the same success at meeting someone as a person would without this disorder since obviously it is usually quite difficult for SA people (or are shy) to initiate conversation with strangers. On the other hand, those individuals who are outgoing can start up conversations with ease, thereby greatly enhancing their chances at developing relationships.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



free thinker said:


> I'd agree that it is important to be out "trying" to meet someone in order to achieve one's objective of finding a partner. Certainly it is necessary to be out there looking in order to have the opporunities to meet someone just as it would be necessary to buy a lottery ticket in order to win the lottery. However, I don't agree that a person with SA will have relatively the same success at meeting someone as someone without this disorder since obviously it is usually quite difficult for SA people (or are shy) to initiate conversation with strangers. On the other hand, those individuals who are outgoing can start up conversations with ease, thereby greatly enhancing their chances at developing relationships.


Having SA and going out there and trying means just that - trying. It doesn't mean going to the convenience store, picking out your lotto numbers and then walking away without buying the ticket. Trying doesn't mean that it's easy to start a conversation with a stranger (to use your example). It just means that someone starts a conversation with a stranger, whether it was easy or not. Maybe the non-SA person will find it easier to do, but that's beside the point. The fact that the person is doing it is what matters, SA or not.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Woody (Nov 16, 2003)

*re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > What if the guy just wants to spend time with his gf and considers what they do as of secondary importance. I cherish the time that I have with my gf regardless of where we're at or what we're doing. I think it's more important to be in agreement rather than one taking the lead over the other.
> ...


Yes, it makes more sense when you're talking about a first date. However, in some cases it doesn't even apply then either. On my first date with my gf she decided when we would meet and where we would go. I will admit though that I was visiting her and I was not familiar with the area. If it had been the other way around I suppose I would have been the one to make the decisions. The point being that I think the circumstances are far more important than the old gender roles in determining who takes the lead (makes the suggestions).


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> Maybe the non-SA person will find it easier to do, but that's beside the point.


I don't believe it's besides the point at all. In most things in life, there is a definite relationship between ease at doing something and success at doing it.


----------



## Razorblade Kiss (Oct 29, 2006)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



Strength said:


> They like men who take charge and take initiative. If she asks a guy what he wants to do for a date, she never wants him to say "I'm not really sure" or "I dunno, what do you wanna do?". The guy should be the one who leads at all times.
> 
> *I've talked to many girls who all say that the guy should always initiate the first move (whether it be talking to them, or first kiss etc), and it is attractive for the guy to be in control*. This isn't a bad thing. It might seem hard at first, but women usually like personality more than men, so if you add that with a personality that vibes with her, then it works to your favour.


Yeah, I admit it's a _major_ turn on when the guy makes the first move. I think I'm more of a submissive type and I like the guy to dominate. That doesn't mean I want him to control me and that doesn't mean there won't be times when I make a move, but when the guy initiates things, especially in the beginning, he's off to a great start with me.


----------



## GaryUranga (Apr 22, 2006)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



PGVan said:


> OK, so what is so bad about a girl making the first move? Why is that so unacceptable? This alpha male garbage where the man controls everything has gotta go. This is 2007 AD, not 2007 BC.
> 
> No offence, but pretty well all I've read from you on this topic are things guys in my position have heard a million ****ing times. What about the 1,000,001st time is going to change anything?


lol.. you forget that deep inside everyone of us theres still a million year old caveman, attarction is something you just feel, when guys see a hot girl the get that instant reaction of being attracted to that, same for girls, but for girls the best mating paartner would be the ALPHA male, girls feel attracted to the alpha male, beta males only get the leftovers, any girl would pick an alpha instead of a beta anytime, why? because the alpha makes her FEEL something.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Woody said:


> Yes, it makes more sense when you're talking about a first date. However, in some cases it doesn't even apply then either. On my first date with my gf she decided when we would meet and where we would go. I will admit though that I was visiting her and I was not familiar with the area. If it had been the other way around I suppose I would have been the one to make the decisions. The point being that I think the circumstances are far more important than the old gender roles in determining who takes the lead (makes the suggestions).


Well, then that's just further evidence that your girlfriend didn't mind that you didn't initially "take the lead" and that your "taking the lead" probably wouldn't have helped anyone, since you didn't know the area. :yes



> I don't believe it's besides the point at all. In most things in life, there is a definite relationship between ease at doing something and success at doing it.


Yes it is. Why should anyone care how easy something is for someone else to do? It's not helpful to compare how easy it is for you to ask someone out to how easy it is for someone else to do the same thing. The only thing that helps you is to go for it, whether it's easy for you or not. Screw how the non-SA person would do it.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## SusanStorm (Oct 27, 2006)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



pyramidsong said:


> I love it [/sarcasm] when people say "girls like" or "guys like" as if we're all completely defined by our gender and therefore want exactly the same things. quote]
> 
> :agree
> 
> ...


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> Yes it is. Why should anyone care *how easy something is for someone else to do? It's not helpful to compare how easy it is for you to ask someone out to how easy it is for someone else to do the same thing. *The only thing that helps you is to go for it, whether it's easy for you or not. Screw how the non-SA person would do it.


By suggesting we shouldn't make comparisons, are you now acknowledging that it is easier for non-SA people to meet others. Doesn't this contradict your earlier statement "I am willing to venture that the SA guys who are actively out trying to find "mates" have relatively the same amount of success as the non-SA guys?" But since there is a definite relationship between ease at doing something and success at doing it, it only makes sense that SA guys will not have the same amount of success as non-SA guys.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



free thinker said:


> By suggesting we shouldn't make comparisons, are you now acknowledging that it is easier for non-SA people to meet others.


Of course not. SA works on people in different ways. I don't have a hard time meeting new people. But I also know that some people do. I was speaking to those that do: Whether or not someone else does something more easily than they can has no direct bearing on their lives. What matters is what they do with their lives. Hence, trying.



> Doesn't this contradict your earlier statement "I am willing to venture that the SA guys who are actively out trying to find "mates" have relatively the same amount of success as the non-SA guys?" But since there is a definite relationship between ease at doing something and success at doing it, it only makes sense that SA guys will not have the same amount of success as non-SA guys.


If you want to show that there is a relationship between success and ease of doing something, you're going to have to prove it. You just can't keep repeating it and hoping that makes it true.

Someone could find it incredibly difficult to ask someone out. Someone could find it easy. They both ask out one person. The odds of getting an acceptance has nothing to do with how easy it was to ask. It has to do with the fact that they asked. Maybe the person who finds it easy has no problem asking out sixty women. But the person who finds it difficult is not incapable of asking out sixty women. It's just not a good experience for them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. That doesn't mean they _can't_ do it. It just means it's more likely that they _won't_ do it. And now we're back to my original point about people not trying. Trying is what matters, anxiety or not.

My point: Making the effort sometimes isn't the easiest thing in the world, but it's necessary to get what you want.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## PGVan (May 22, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



GaryUranga said:


> lol.. you forget that deep inside everyone of us theres still a million year old caveman, attarction is something you just feel, when guys see a hot girl the get that instant reaction of being attracted to that, same for girls, but for girls the best mating paartner would be the ALPHA male, girls feel attracted to the alpha male, beta males only get the leftovers, any girl would pick an alpha instead of a beta anytime, why? because the alpha makes her FEEL something.


Yup. Lets forget that we all have a mind of our own capable of better judgment.

We control our own nature. Using myself as an example, not considering my social anxiety, there is one girl working in the same mall I do, who I was immediately attracted to as soon as I saw her for the first time. However, until she quits smoking, I will have zero interest. She could throw herself at me, and I would reject her if she hadn't kicked the habit.


----------



## nesteroff (Nov 14, 2003)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



Strength said:


> They like men who take charge and take initiative. If she asks a guy what he wants to do for a date, she never wants him to say "I'm not really sure" or "I dunno, what do you wanna do?". The guy should be the one who leads at all times.
> 
> I've talked to many girls who all say that the guy should always initiate the first move (whether it be talking to them, or first kiss etc), and it is attractive for the guy to be in control. This isn't a bad thing. It might seem hard at first, but women usually like personality more than men, so if you add that with a personality that vibes with her, then it works to your favour.


I don't like this. My current boyfriend isn't a leader or controlling at all, and I prefer that so much more. He isn't pushy at all, and I'm so much happier with him than with exes who were constantly pushy control freaks that annoyed the hell out of me.

I think it's just a stereotype that men have to be leaders always in control. In reality, not all women like that.


----------



## Strength (Aug 12, 2006)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



PGVan said:


> OK, so what is so bad about a girl making the first move? Why is that so unacceptable?


I'm not saying I wanted it that way, just that most girls prefer a guy who is confident and takes charge.



> No offence, but pretty well all I've read from you on this topic are things guys in my position have heard a million ****ing times. What about the 1,000,001st time is going to change anything?


That's an interesting question, and my answer is I don't know. Would you rather someone write a post saying that a guy should strive to be insecure, shy, anxious in order to get a girlfriend?



> We control our own nature.


I don't think attraction is generallly a choice. Let's say from now on, I asked you to choose to NOT be attracted to girls who weigh less than you. Could you do it? I would think that's virtually impossible. I don't like girls who smoke either, because I want someone with a healthy lifestyle. But that's basically wired into my dna that I strive for an attractive, healthy, fertile woman. It's hard for me to say if that's really a choice, but for the sake of the next point let's say it is.



> I was immediately attracted to as soon as I saw her for the first time


This wasn't a choice right? Your attraction to her was embedded into you on a subconcious level. You didn't choose to be un-attracted to her until AFTER you found out she smoked. So look at it from a females perspective: a girl prefers a man who is confident. She doesn't choose this. But when she hangs out with a guy who takes charge, she becomes attracted. Now, if she hates cigarettes as much as you do, and she finds out the guy smokes, she might choose to leave him.

But what is so wrong with someone being confident? It sounds like you're blaming females for wanting a secure, confident male. It would be like a woman blaming a man for wanting a girl who is physically attractive. I wasn't trying to be mean on these posts, just was suprised why you got defensive over it, and wanted to explain it more.


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



GaryUranga said:


> lol.. you forget that deep inside everyone of us theres still a million year old caveman, attarction is something you just feel, when guys see a hot girl the get that instant reaction of being attracted to that, same for girls, but for girls the best mating paartner would be the ALPHA male, girls feel attracted to the alpha male, beta males only get the leftovers, any girl would pick an alpha instead of a beta anytime, w
> 
> hy? because the alpha makes her FEEL something.


Oh man.


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

I have SA, but I have this contact.. I have these little bits of experience with the real world. In this real world, women end up in long-term relationships with unconfident, non assertive, "loser" men just as much as they do the "alpha males"..... But maybe it's just where I live. 

Hypathia is onto something. Even I know that I have to expose myself to society a little more in order to increase my possibility, or at least try not to make a depressing, self-defeatest personal ad on the internet. 

I don't think any of the PUA, assertive male, be a manly man stuff is going to help anyone here. At least to me it's just comical.

Maybe I feel this way because I don't really care about having a g/f as much anymore... I dunno. Maybe I'm just a jaded guy that's destined to be nothing more than a leftover, eh?

**edit**

And just in case you didn't know... SAS guys aren't the only people on the planet that are lonely and not meeting anyone.


----------



## Razorblade Kiss (Oct 29, 2006)

*Re: Women like men who lead*



nesteroff said:


> Strength said:
> 
> 
> > They like men who take charge and take initiative. If she asks a guy what he wants to do for a date, she never wants him to say "I'm not really sure" or "I dunno, what do you wanna do?". The guy should be the one who leads at all times.
> ...


I wouldn't like a pushy, control freak either. I think strength is talking about the kind of guy who takes the initiative and there's nothing wrong with that, not someone who's overbearing.

I'm glad you found the kind of guy you like. That's a challenge in itself.


----------



## PGVan (May 22, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Strength said:


> But what is so wrong with someone being confident? It sounds like you're blaming females for wanting a secure, confident male. It would be like a woman blaming a man for wanting a girl who is physically attractive. I wasn't trying to be mean on these posts, just was suprised why you got defensive over it, and wanted to explain it more.


I'm not blaming females for anything, nor am I saying there is anything wrong with confidence. I just don't think the message needs to keep being sent that guys must make the first move. It is a prehistoric notion. Girls ARE allowed to make the first move.

If I'm blaming anybody or anything, it is society. At 23 years old without any experience at all with girls (combined with SA and other personal issues), I am either a pu$$y, simply not good enough, or I am gay.


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> Of course not. SA works on people in different ways. I don't have a hard time meeting new people. But I also know that some people do. I was speaking to those that do: Whether or not someone else does something more easily than they can has no direct bearing on their lives.


So when you say "of course not" are you saying that you don't accept the idea that most people suffering from social anxiety have more difficulty meeting others than do those who don't have the disorder? If so, this belief flies in the face of any of the social anxiety studies and polls I've read (including the ones I did here on SAS and for my psychology class) which conclude that most people with SA have much difficulty approaching members of the opposite sex with whom they have an interest.

Furthermore, by saying you aren't willing to acknowledge that it is easier for non-SA people to meet others you seem to be in conflict with one of your previous statements "Maybe the non-SA person will have it easier, but that's beside the point."

Since, as you have stated, you yourself don't have a problem approaching others, I'm wondering if you are really the best qualified to understand how difficult it is for those who are terrified of approaching strangers.



> If you want to show that there is a relationship between success and ease of doing something, you're going to have to prove it. You just can't keep repeating it and hoping that makes it true.


Why would I hope it to be true? I've got to wonder if you were able to keep a straight face as you wrote this statement since to me it seems like it is just a matter of common sense.

Here are some examples which should demonstrate the relationship between the ease of doing something and achieving success in that area. One example would be that students pursue careers in the disciplines which come easy to them. You don't find high school students who have difficulty with algebra becoming mathematicians, statisticians or math teachers do you? Similarly, you don't have students who have difficulty playing high school football becoming professional football players and certainly you would not find someone who can't sing with ease, do well in the American Idol contest.

There are many reasons for this. If an activity is accomplished with ease, it may because it comes naturally to you. Because it is easy for you, you are more likely to enjoy it and do it well, hence you gain confidence in your ability to do this activity. In other words, you become successful at doing it. On the other hand, for those who lack the ease when doing something, it becomes a tedious chore where they lose interest and confidence in their ability to do it. Usually that person will then avoid the activity as much as possible. Achieving success in that activity would become extremely difficult. This is why we don't see 350lb. football linemen choosing careers in ballet or taking on gymnastics as a sport.



> Someone could find it incredibly difficult to ask someone out. Someone could find it easy. They both ask out one person. The odds of getting an acceptance has nothing to do with how easy it was to ask. It has to do with the fact that they asked.


You seem to be forgetting that the person with social anxiety is nervous and lacks confidence (and possibly lacks a smile and humor due to the nervousness) which will likely be noticed by the person being addressed. Certainly, there is a chance that this person being addressed will not care about the nervousness and lack of confidence but there is also a good chance that they will. This is why the odds of acceptance are much better for someone who speaks with ease and confidence than are the odds for those individuals who lack these qualities.


----------



## Your Lover Scrub Ducky (Jul 26, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*

i think it should be fairly balanced. i dont really have a problem "leading" but i dont wanna have to do it ALL the time. it would be nice if she made some decisions too, you know. better than some mindless follower.



GaryUranga said:


> lol.. you forget that deep inside everyone of us theres still a million year old caveman,


you mean the same cavemen that lived back when to find a mate all he had to do was grab a suitable female by her hair and drag her back to his cave?

ridiculous! times have changed! that is just so...actually...that would be kinda hot.

*looks around for suitable female*

:b


----------



## Failure (Feb 4, 2007)

*re: Women like men who lead*

*MOST* women like a guy who can take the initiative and lead. Some don't but the majority do. Expecially women with out SA. They want a guy who has social skills and can smooth talk, be funny, or interesting. It is instinct to go for the alpha male, and men who act confident show that they are superior and women are usually attracted to that quality.

Well it's not really proof but it's a bit of evidence.

I've had friends earlier in life who wern't the best looking guys, a bit overweight but not a huge ammount, and they could get almost any girl they wanted. They were very outgoing, wouldn't be afraid to approach anyone, talked with confidence, wern't nervous and always had somthing funny to say. They could get girls who were way beter looking then them.

It's more rare but there are guys like me who are good looking but have the social skills of a dead skunk who was **** on by homelessman. When i was over seas i was able to have plenty of one night stands with women. All they'd say was 'soldier boy' in broken english and smile and i didn't have to say anything back, just would smile and go with them. Now if it were only that easy here.

Since im expected to be able to communicate i fail hard where women can speak english. I can't continue a conversation beyond 2 minutes with someone i don't know, and that's stretching it. I'm not confident in my personality because well i can't connect with people worth a damn. So i can't approach women and lose out.

But i'm a bit of an extreeme case. For some guys like me meeting people is very hard. To give an example. I was a marksman, I was able to shoot and think clearly with out an ounce of panic in situations where peoples lives were at stake. sadly i felt no anxiety or nervousness or hesitation when i had to kill men, even children who were armed. All i felt was recoil. Yet i can't approach someone and talk for more then 2 minutes with out running out of things to say. For most men it's the other way. In battle they would panic and fail. Yet i'm the otherway, i have no fear when i was in battle but i do in conversation.

Now i go to work, drink, and play computer games and work out. I do the same thing every day and have no wish to do anything else. The difficulty of approaching people has very much had a direct bearing on my life.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

BeNice said:


> I have SA, but I have this contact.. I have these little bits of experience with the real world. In this real world, women end up in long-term relationships with unconfident, non assertive, "loser" men _just as much_ as they do the "alpha males"..... But maybe it's just where I live.


Personal anecdotes cannot be used as reliable data. This is like people arguing there's nothing negative with Islam because they know this really swell muslim guy. It doesn't work that way. My own personal experience tells me that women will ALWAYS end up with either confident, assertive guys, or successful ones. This isn't difficult, most people ARE confident to a degree. Shy guys are in the minory. The only real constant is that women will never, ever date 'losers'. Which version of the 'real world' is most accurate, and why?


----------



## emptybottle (Jan 3, 2005)

*re: Women like men who lead*

^^ Always?? That's extreme... There are different degrees of shyness and unconfidence (that a word?). Guys who are too shy to EVER initiate conversation with women and sit around waiting to be asked out are of course more likely to never get dates. But I see plenty of guys who are shy and aren't super confident get girlfriends. Getting dates doesn't come as easily for them, yeah, but they don't stay alone forever. And the guys are more likely to be sensitive, which many women (not saying all) find very endearing... If you're the type of shy and unconfident guy who hates himself, has this negative attitude, and sees himself as a loser, then THAT's what will turn women off.


----------



## Woody (Nov 16, 2003)

*re: Women like men who lead*

:agree 
I've always been shy, quiet, and lacked confidence in a lot of important areas. I went for decades without even trying. As a result I went for decades without a date or a girlfriend. Then about two years ago I decided to try, just a little bit. And I got the girl of my dreams.

I'm not saying all you have to do is try and you will get what you want. What I'm saying is if you don't try then will you never get what you want.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



emptybottle said:


> ^^ Always?? That's extreme...


What i meant, of course, if they were given the choice. Unattractive people for instance end up settling for each other, that doesn't change anything...


----------



## emptybottle (Jan 3, 2005)

*re: Women like men who lead*

^^ That's awesome, Woody. Good for you!


----------



## SebFontain (Jan 27, 2004)

:stu


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



free thinker said:


> So when you say "of course not" are you saying that you don't accept the idea that most people suffering from social anxiety have more difficulty meeting others than do those who don't have the disorder? If so, this belief flies in the face of any of the social anxiety studies and polls I've read (including the ones I did here on SAS and for my psychology class) which conclude that most people with SA have much difficulty approaching members of the opposite sex with whom they have an interest.


Yes, but if you follow this pattern, then you are falling into the trap of generalization. You shouldn't say "A person with SA will behave in this way." Everything I've read about SA has a variety of gauges for determining whether someone has SA, from talking on the phone, being in groups, meeting strangers, having people watch you write things down, blah blah blah. I'm sure I don't need to repeat them all here. A person with SA could have difficulty approaching people they're interested in romantically/sexually. They might not. They might be like me and have their SA kick in when speaking to authority figures. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.



> Furthermore, by saying you aren't willing to acknowledge that it is easier for non-SA people to meet others you seem to be in conflict with one of your previous statements "Maybe the non-SA person will have it easier, but that's beside the point."


I said "maybe." Again you are generalizing. You are thinking "An SA person behaves this way. A non-SA person behaves in another way." SA people can behave in the same way as non-SA people, they just may experience anxiety while they engage in those behaviors. Anxiety does not speak to their ability to carry something out. It just speaks to their mental and emotional state while they engage in those behaviors.



> Since, as you have stated, you yourself don't have a problem approaching others, I'm wondering if you are really the best qualified to understand how difficult it is for those who are terrified of approaching strangers.


Why? Do you think I've never had anxiety about something before? I know how the anxiety feels. I'm on this board. I've got SA too. It just manifests itself in different ways. I deal with it the same way everyone else does. Sometimes I avoid situations. Sometimes I work through them. Working through them works best in the end, because after it's over, I did what I needed to do. That's the whole point of trying and the whole point of my post.



> Here are some examples which should demonstrate the relationship between the ease of doing something and achieving success in that area. One example would be that students pursue careers in the disciplines which come easy to them. You don't find high school students who have difficulty with algebra becoming mathematicians, statisticians or math teachers do you? Similarly, you don't have students who have difficulty playing high school football becoming professional football players and certainly you would not find someone who can't sing with ease, do well in the American Idol contest.


Yes, ease of doing something will make the end result easier to obtain, but that doesn't mean that someone is more likely to try it than someone else. I would say that the determining factor would be the desire to accomplish something. A person who can't sing could take lessons and then be able to participate in American Idol. If you really wanted to be a mathematician, but were struggling with Algebra, then you would just work extra hard at Algebra, until you figured it out. (Example, I had entertained the dream of being an astronomer since I was six years old. When I was in tenth grade, I got put into a geometry class with a really bad teacher who couldn't control the class. I failed two tests. Astronomers need math much more advanced than geometry. I didn't curl up and die and say, "Oh, there goes my dream. I'll just work at McDonald's for the rest of my life. It's easier, after all." Instead, I went to my counselor and said that math was important and that the teacher's style wasn't working for me. She switched me into another class that very day and I worked hard and brought my F up to the first A+ the new teacher had given in seven years. I did this, because I TRIED, even though the situation was difficult.)



> There are many reasons for this. If an activity is accomplished with ease, it may because it comes naturally to you. Because it is easy for you, you are more likely to enjoy it and do it well, hence you gain confidence in your ability to do this activity. In other words, you become successful at doing it. On the other hand, for those who lack the ease when doing something, it becomes a tedious chore where they lose interest and confidence in their ability to do it. Usually that person will then avoid the activity as much as possible. Achieving success in that activity would become extremely difficult. This is why we don't see 350lb. football linemen choosing careers in ballet or taking on gymnastics as a sport.


I thought 350lb. football linemen routinely took ballet lessons, because it taught them the grace to be able to maneuver on the field. Again, everything you're talking about is related to desire. That lineman wanted to be a lineman, so he did his best to TRY to be a lineman. He bulked up to 350 lbs. If he'd wanted to go into ballet, he would have engaged in a very different fitness regimen.

Furthermore, people can become successful at things that don't come naturally to them. They do this by working at it. TRYING. I can't stress that enough. Many successful people got that way by engaging in behaviors that don't come naturally to anyone. For example, I doubt anyone would be born with the natural ability to do complicated calculus questions. No, they take years and years of math classes before they can even begin to understand calculus. And you don't get that kind of ability without TRYING.



> You seem to be forgetting that the person with social anxiety is nervous and lacks confidence (and possibly lacks a smile and humor due to the nervousness) which will likely be noticed by the person being addressed. Certainly, there is a chance that this person being addressed will not care about the nervousness and lack of confidence but there is also a good chance that they will. This is why the odds of acceptance are much better for someone who speaks with ease and confidence than are the odds for those individuals who lack these qualities.


This isn't necessarily true. I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of people who ask a complete stranger out on a date will be nervous in the process. The person being asked should consider that nervousness normal, maybe even a little cute or flattering. ("Oh, he's tongue tied when he's talking to me! He must think I'm really special!") And if the person being asked doesn't think that being nervous is a good thing and judged the asker based on that, then I don't think that person is someone the asker should spend their time worrying about anyway. (And yes, maybe the asker had worshiped that person from afar for a while before getting up the courage to ask and they think that the askee was too nice to be so judgmental, but I would just chalk that up to the askee showing their true colors.) But hey, at least the asker got in some practice, even though it didn't work out. They'll be able to evaluate what they did so that they could try to refine it when they asked the next person out.

Furthermore, people could act like a situation is easy and seem confident in the situation while on the inside feel like the anxiety is completely overwhelming.

But you won't know any of this, if you don't TRY.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Prodigal Son (Dec 11, 2005)

Certain physical limitations to linemen though, you usually have to have some natural ability and naturally large. Not everybody can bulk up to 300+ and well over 6 feet tall...just saying...most people who become lineman are naturally large, they don't just suddenly decide to get big and eat 5,000 calories a day so they can play right tackle.


----------



## whiteclouds (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: Women like men who lead*

I like confident men, who take action.

Lots of people (especially passive-types) tend to confuse assertiveness with aggressiveness. Just because a man is confident in himself, it doesn't mean he's a controlling jerk to women. Stating your opinion (like where you want to go), is much different than _demanding_ it.

Confidence is considered sexy in both genders, actually.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Prodigal Son said:


> Certain physical limitations to linemen though, you usually have to have some natural ability and naturally large. Not everybody can bulk up to 300+ and well over 6 feet tall...just saying...most people who become lineman are naturally large, they don't just suddenly decide to get big and eat 5,000 calories a day so they can play right tackle.


Then that's a bad example, because there are no physical requirements to asking someone out on a date. :yes

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

Lyric Suite said:


> My own personal experience tells me that women will ALWAYS end up with either confident, assertive guys, or successful ones. This isn't difficult, most people ARE confident to a degree. Shy guys are in the minory. The only real constant is that women will never, ever date 'losers'. Which version of the 'real world' is most accurate, and why?


I really am not one to go out and generalize about the sexes. Maybe that is why these kinds of threads are kind of weird to me.

As far as "losers" go, I don't really take that term seriously. I don't know if I made that obvious or not. But, if I did, I'm talking about, for instance, a guy I knew of that barely worked, lived in the house of his girlfriend's parents. His job was dealing with the goose population here by having a dog chase them away, and he wouldn't even get out of his car the whole time, but instead had trained the dog to come with a blank gun shot most of the time. Dealt drugs out of his house, beat people up, etc. My "loser" example. This has little to do with the topic, but it goes to show that women, at least, will go for (and love) many types of men. I've seen guys with just as bad. I've also seen relationships that resulted from a shy male being introduced/setup with a girl. Of course, this is just my personal experience.

As far as women ending up with successful, confident, assertive guys, I guess maybe they do. Maybe my issue is I don't really live in this world of PUA literature, as it doesn't appeal to me. Maybe I lack confidence and social skills, but it's not so bad that I can't ever see myself having a g/f, and I do in fact think that I can find a girl that likes me, and do in deed have a potential relationship, but I guess I have other worries in life... I think I am 1/3/ shy, 1/3 jaded about relationships from what I've seen, and 1/3 have other priorities/worries in life.


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

Hypatia said:


> Then that's a bad example, because there are no physical requirements to asking someone out on a date.


Does this even make sense to the latest discussion? The example I gave of the football player had nothing to do with dating. I gave examples of individuals who succeed at an activity because it comes easy to them due to their innate abilities, which had absolutely nothing to do with dating.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

free thinker said:


> Hypatia said:
> 
> 
> > Then that's a bad example, because there are no physical requirements to asking someone out on a date.
> ...


I am a bit confused, then, as to why you would make that point if it's not related to the discussion at hand, especially since it can be so easily shown to be false.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who lead*



Hypatia said:


> Yes, but if you follow this pattern, then you are falling into the trap of generalization. You shouldn't say "A person with SA will behave in this way." Everything I've read about SA has a variety of gauges for determining whether someone has SA, from talking on the phone, being in groups, meeting strangers, having people watch you write things down, blah blah blah. I'm sure I don't need to repeat them all here. A person with SA could have difficulty approaching people they're interested in romantically/sexually. They might not. They might be like me and have their SA kick in when speaking to authority figures. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.


*You* may be different in that *you* don't fear approaching someone of interest but for the vast majority of people here at SAS and for people with social anxiety generally, this is simply not the case. I did a check of the survey I did here a while back and the single most feared situation out of all of the most feared social anxiety situations was "trying to meet someone." On a scale from 0 to 3, with 3 representing extreme fear, the average result was a 2.92. To put that another way, if 90% of the 36 people who did the survey rated it the highest at a 3(extreme), and only 10% rated it a 2(strong), the total would have been a 2.90. In other words, it is safe to say that virtually every person who responded to the survey had at least a very strong fear of meeting a person of interest. In comparison, when the survey was given to my psychology class these individuals rated the situation of meeting someone of interest at a low 1.24.

It should be noted that included in this class average were seven individuals who claimed to have social anxiety which more than likely raised this result from being an even lower average. Furthermore, and of great significance to our current discussion, there was no other situation in the entire survey where the results demonstrated such huge disparity between people with social anxiety and those without. I'll include the document with the surveys at the bottom of the post so you can see for yourself.



> I said "maybe." Again you are generalizing. You are thinking "An SA person behaves this way. A non-SA person behaves in another way." SA people can behave in the same way as non-SA people, they just may experience anxiety while they engage in those behaviors. Anxiety does not speak to their ability to carry something out. It just speaks to their mental and emotional state while they engage in those behaviors.


Technically, you said "maybe" but the way the statement reads, it is more like an acceptance that a non-SA person has it easier. You may be unwilling to acknowledge this fact, but nevertheless, the survey spells it out quite clearly.



> Why? Do you think I've never had anxiety about something before? I know how the anxiety feels. I'm on this board. I've got SA too. It just manifests itself in different ways. I deal with it the same way everyone else does. Sometimes I avoid situations. Sometimes I work through them. Working through them works best in the end, because after it's over, I did what I needed to do.


There's anxiety and then there's the extreme fear that so many people with SA suffer from. Most people in society have no idea how intense this anxiety is. As an example, I joined a Toastmasters club a while back and tried my best to explain to them the extreme fear associated with social anxiety but they never really got it. They could only relate it to themselves and thought "oh, I used to get nervous giving speeches so it must be like that." Well it's not like that at all. People with serious social anxiety often live in terror; they can't sleep, can't eat, have diarrhea, and need to be medicated and so on.



> Yes, ease of doing something will make the end result easier to obtain, but that doesn't mean that someone is more likely to try it than someone else.


Oh, I think it does. If it comes easy to you, you can smell success. Doing something with ease makes the activity fun and enjoyable and builds confidence which adds to the enjoyment. Furthermore, if it doesn't come easy to you it is a struggle, a task with a much greater risk of failure. It only makes sense that given those two scenarios that people with the least challenges ahead will start down the path and succeed.



> I would say that the determining factor would be the desire to accomplish something.


I'd say desire (which would include passion and commitment) are very important. However, there are also those individuals who have the necessary desire but don't have the adequate ability to reach their goal. One can try all they want but if they don't have the intelligence, the athletic ability, or any of the basic requirements to succeed then their chances are slim to none.



> A person who can't sing could take lessons and then be able to participate in American Idol.


Anyone can participate in American Idol but how far would that person get in the competition? If you don't have a natural talent for singing there is little chance for stardom.



> If you really wanted to be a mathematician, but were struggling with Algebra, then you would just work extra hard at Algebra, until you figured it out.


I've talked to a lot of math students over the years and there is no way in hell that some of these individuals would become good at math let alone become mathematicians. Anyway, who would want to be a mathematician if they weren't good at it? Math becomes a dread if you don't do it well.



> (Example, I had entertained the dream of being an astronomer since I was six years old. When I was in tenth grade, I got put into a geometry class with a really bad teacher who couldn't control the class. I failed two tests. Astronomers need math much more advanced than geometry. I didn't curl up and die and say, "Oh, there goes my dream. I'll just work at McDonald's for the rest of my life. It's easier, after all." Instead, I went to my counselor and said that math was important and that the teacher's style wasn't working for me. She switched me into another class that very day and I worked hard and brought my F up to the first A+ the new teacher had given in seven years. I did this, because I TRIED, even though the situation was difficult.)


I'd agree that short term success is possible for those who do not come by things easily so long as they work hard at it and have the basic ability. However, just the fact that you didn't achieve your dream of becoming an astronomer suggests to me that the difficulty you were having with geometry at such an early stage of your schooling convinced you to change career paths. If math doesn't come easily to someone, they will never get through all the advanced math and physics courses that are required for an astronomer.

I knew a woman who wanted a career in a related physical science field, planetary geology, but unfortunately for her she just couldn't do well in algebra, no matter how much she tried. I could see that because of her lack of math ability, she would never be able to do the calculus and physics that would be necessary for her to reach her goal.

Below is a link to an article which talks about the importance of following a career path which is in line with one's natural abilities. To these counseling agencies there seems to be little doubt that choosing a career that comes naturally to you is the most important thing a person can do to be successful. Otherwise, like the example they use, you are like a duck out of water.

http://www.rockportinstitute.com/career ... reinfo.php
HAVE A CAREER THAT FITS YOUR NATURAL TALENTS, INNATE ABILITIES AND PERSONALITY 
Take a duck and drop it into a pond. Even if it was raised in the desert and has no swimming experience, it will be instantly at home in its new environment. In a matter of minutes it will happily be doing what ducks do to make a living and exhibiting perfect natural mastery. That's because ducks are designed for the pond environment they inhabit. They have an ideal set of talents and the perfect personality for their job. 
One major difference between Human beings and all the other creatures is that all the individuals of most other species are pretty much alike. There are small differences between individuals, but, essentially, each giraffe is pretty much like all the others. On the other hand, every person is a unique individual, different in many ways from his or her fellows. We are different from the other people around us not only in personality, temperament and interests but in our innate talents as well. Each of us has already been dealt a very specific hand of talent/ability cards by our genetic inheritance that gives us a knack for playing a fairly narrow range of roles in the working world with natural ease and mastery. 
When you see someone wind surfing gracefully, like a dancer in a high wind, moving quickly and powerfully across the sea, you are viewing the result of extensive training and a commitment to improve a body that was born with a special gift for balance and agility. People who were born with less coordinated bodies are rarely the ones out there in the stronger winds. It is more difficult for them to master the skills and usually not as much fun as it is for someone with natural talent. This is equally true with regard to the mental and physical talents we all use in our work. 


> I doubt anyone would be born with the natural ability to do complicated calculus questions. No, they take years and years of math classes before they can even begin to understand calculus. And you don't get that kind of ability without TRYING.


Obviously, one needs to learn other more basic math first before taking on calculus. But those individuals who are good at math have an innate ability to do it well. Those who struggle with math early on will inevitably struggle or fail later on with calculus and they will not be, nor would they want to be, a person using calculus or any other more advanced math in their career.



> This isn't necessarily true. I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of people who ask a complete stranger out on a date will be nervous in the process. The person being asked should consider that nervousness normal, maybe even a little cute or flattering. ("Oh, he's tongue tied when he's talking to me! He must think I'm really special


Once again you are talking about a different degree of nervousness. You're talking apples and oranges here. A few butterflies in the stomach are much different than being sick to one's stomach. From what I'm reading, I don't think you truly understand the severity of the anxiety that so many people with SA go through.

At this point, I think it is accurate to say that the two areas of disagreement we've focused on throughout this thread have been argued successfully. First, the survey alone suggests that since there is such a significant difference in the anxiety levels between those with social anxiety and those without, that it is highly unlikely that those suffering from SA will have the same degree of success meeting others than those without social anxiety.

Secondly, that although there are other important additional factors to achieving success such as a strong desire to succeed, there is a definite relationship between the ease of doing something and success at doing it. Although the saying, "we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" may exaggerate the point, it is however very apropos in demonstrating the importance of taking advantage of those innate qualities that allow things to come easy to us in order for us to best succeed.


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

Hypatia said:


> I am a bit confused, then, as to why you would make that point if it's not related to the discussion at hand, especially since it can be so easily shown to be false.


It was the discussion at hand. The point was to demonstrate why football linemen are more suitable playing football than they are choosing careers as a ballet dancer or taking up gymnastics as a sport. The point showed why choosing a career that comes easily to you is the best choice. Prodigal Son with his explanation further clarified this for you. Not everything we've discussed so far in this thread pertains to dating someone, now does it?


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Look, I don't think I can explain myself any more clearly than I already have. Other people in the thread got my point. Why are you having such a hard time. 

Your last post ranges from rambling incoherences, deliberate attempts to deflect from the original issue, to downright belittling comments.

Frankly, I give up. It's clear to me that you aren't in a place in your life right now where you want to confront your anxiety and instead are content to let it rule your life. That's not my problem.

But I still stand by my original comment that people who don't try to overcome their obstacles will never have the success that they want in their lives. Every post you've made in this thread has done nothing BUT prove my original point that SA people are trapped in a pattern of thinking that prevents them from getting better. Convenient excuses might make you feel better in the short term, but do nothing to help you with your social anxiety issues. Even in your last post, you've shown how you make excuses so that you don't have to leave the happy comfort zone of your negative thought patterns. For example, you do realize you said that someone who got the highest math grades given out in her school in a seven year time period didn't have sufficient mathematical ability, don't you? Don't you see how illogical that is? (And for the record, my change in my major had less to do with my intellectual ability than it did with my ability to deal with other aspects of my life at that time. Yet you chose to fill in the blanks with something you thought would support your current thought patterns.)

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

free thinker said:


> Hypatia said:
> 
> 
> > I am a bit confused, then, as to why you would make that point if it's not related to the discussion at hand, especially since it can be so easily shown to be false.
> ...


In a way, it does. It's about putting forth the effort towards being able to accomplish something positive and not letting anxiety rule your life. Why would you make up examples that aren't relevant to the point at hand? Anxiety isn't something that limits someone in the sense that it is a natural state that can't be overcome. It's an emotional, mental, and physical condition that can be managed and dealt with in a variety of ways.

Hell, there was a guy at a local high school a few years ago that was one of the stars of the school football team and he didn't have any legs. He wasn't missing one leg, but both of them. And he didn't use artificial limbs. You could say that a guy like him wouldn't have an easy time playing football, so why should he even bother. But he WANTED to play football, so he put in some effort, TRIED, and made the football team.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



Hypatia said:


> Look, I don't think I can explain myself any more clearly than I already have. Other people in the thread got my point. Why are you having such a hard time.


I'll start by saying that this is not "The Coping with Social Anxiety" forum. This *is* a controversial forum one intended for heated debate.

I got your point long ago about "trying" and firmly agreed with it in my first post. If all you wanted to state was for people to "try" why did you continue to debate for so long. I disagreed with some of your earlier assertions and you disagreed with some of mine. In my latest response to yours, I produced some strong evidence to support my position. However, now faced with this evidence you appear unwilling to accept or debate it. Instead you resort to accusations and making this about my SA situation something you know nothing about and something which I've never discussed at all in this thread. 


> Your last post ranges from rambling incoherences, deliberate attempts to deflect from the original issue, to downright belittling comments.


Where are the rambling incoherences? Any of the comments that I made were not meant to belittle you but were based on what I've observed in your writings. If this is incorrect assessment then you should be able to explain why. Everything I posted in this thread has been pertinent to the discussion.

I'll post any additional comments at a later time.


----------



## Failure (Feb 4, 2007)

Hypatia said:


> free thinker said:
> 
> 
> > Hypatia said:
> ...


Explain to me how you play football in a wheelchair? I don't exactly believe this.


----------



## BeNice (Jan 2, 2004)

So, if I play football, women will like me? :lol j/k. This thread has gone into outer space.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

Failure said:


> Explain to me how you play football in a wheelchair? I don't exactly believe this.


Why would I make this up? Really. :roll

Do a Google search for Colonel White High School and Bobby Martin. He doesn't use a wheelchair. He made national news a few years ago when a ref at a game ejected him for not wearing knee pads or cleats. Seriously. Colonel White is my boyfriend's alma matter. I would not make this up.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## Woody (Nov 16, 2003)

Hypatia said:


> Frankly, I give up.


Welcome to the club. :lol

But really, I think both of you have made some good points. I was born with SA (selective mutism as a child). Could I have achieved more of what I wanted if I had not been born with this? Of course. Could I have achieved what I have if I had not tried. Of course not.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



free thinker said:


> I'll start by saying that this is not "The Coping with Social Anxiety" forum. This *is* a controversial forum one intended for heated debate.


Actually, this is the RELATIONSHIP forum - not so much intended for heated debate as it is for mature, adult topics - controversial only because the subject matter isn't really appropriate for kiddies. S&C is for controversial discussion, as it says on the main page of the forum.



> I got your point long ago about "trying" and firmly agreed with it in my first post. If all you wanted to state was for people to "try" why did you continue to debate for so long. I disagreed with some of your earlier assertions and you disagreed with some of mine. In my latest response to yours, I produced some strong evidence to support my position. However, now faced with this evidence you appear unwilling to accept or debate it. Instead you resort to accusations and making this about my SA situation something you know nothing about and something which I've never discussed at all in this thread.


Actually, you made this personal. You made this about my SA situation. You were the one who first distorted my words by claiming that I was unable to fully comment on how anxiety could affect someone in this situation. Because I said that I had no problem meeting strangers, you made sweeping generalizations about how I could possibly view the situation. You can't claim that I can't comment on your situation when you were the one who had no problem commenting on mine. You'll notice that I didn't use the word "you" until you brought both of us into the debate.



> Where are the rambling incoherences? Any of the comments that I made were not meant to belittle you but were based on what I've observed in your writings. If this is incorrect assessment then you should be able to explain why. Everything I posted in this thread has been pertinent to the discussion.


I have already explained why several posts ago. My reference to "rambling incoherences" was related to your repeating of information that I had previously shown was irrelevant and not related to the discussion. I also consider this statement to be a rambling incoherence:


> Technically, you said "maybe" but the way the statement reads, it is more like an acceptance that a non-SA person has it easier. You may be unwilling to acknowledge this fact, but nevertheless, the survey spells it out quite clearly.


Your statement makes no sense because you said "the way the statement reads." You meant, of course, the way _you_ read the statement, not how the statement actually reads. You acknowledge that the "maybe" changes the meaning (especially after I pointed it out), but still reverted to how you chose to interpret the sentence, whether that was actually how it was written or not. Truthfully, it was after this statement when I gave up, because I didn't think you would actually try to figure out what I meant anymore.

I also found this comment problematic:


> There's anxiety and then there's the extreme fear that so many people with SA suffer from. Most people in society have no idea how intense this anxiety is. As an example, I joined a Toastmasters club a while back and tried my best to explain to them the extreme fear associated with social anxiety but they never really got it. They could only relate it to themselves and thought "oh, I used to get nervous giving speeches so it must be like that." Well it's not like that at all. People with serious social anxiety often live in terror; they can't sleep, can't eat, have diarrhea, and need to be medicated and so on.


You wrote this after I explained how I deal with SA. I don't understand why you would feel the need to have to explain this to me. Because I deal with SA in a certain way, you think that I must really not understand the anxiety? You think I somehow can't relate to someone else who has the exact same disorder that I do? Yes, I've gone to therapy and it is a lot better than what it used to be, but that doesn't mean that I haven't been there. And by offering how I chose to deal with my problems does not mean I don't understand - quite the contrary, in fact.

Another:


> Oh, I think it does. If it comes easy to you, you can smell success. Doing something with ease makes the activity fun and enjoyable and builds confidence which adds to the enjoyment. Furthermore, if it doesn't come easy to you it is a struggle, a task with a much greater risk of failure. It only makes sense that given those two scenarios that people with the least challenges ahead will start down the path and succeed.


No, it doesn't make sense, and I've already explained why. I considered this a "rambling incoherence" because it was like replying to a broken record.



> Anyone can participate in American Idol but how far would that person get in the competition? If you don't have a natural talent for singing there is little chance for stardom.


Here is an example of you deflecting the issue. You said that the person could compete successfully on AI. I said that singing lessons would help someone be more successful, even if the natural talent weren't there. Furthermore, you seem to think that a person who starts from a disadvantage (no natural singing ability) could not overcome that obstacle to succeed, which makes absolutely no sense. I'd already suggested how that person could overcome the obstacle, so I don't understand why you repeated the same thing.

The article you posted was, IMO, bogus. I mean, I can't believe that a biologist wouldn't be rolling on the floor with laughter after reading this gem: "One major difference between Human beings and all the other creatures is that all the individuals of most other species are pretty much alike. There are small differences between individuals, but, essentially, each giraffe is pretty much like all the others. On the other hand, every person is a unique individual, different in many ways from his or her fellows. We are different from the other people around us not only in personality, temperament and interests but in our innate talents as well. Each of us has already been dealt a very specific hand of talent/ability cards by our genetic inheritance that gives us a knack for playing a fairly narrow range of roles in the working world with natural ease and mastery." I am also extremely skeptical of anything that says something like windsurfing is an innate skill. Yes, I see the point about someone with good coordination being able to catch on _faster_. But I don't think that simply being uncoordinated would stop someone from going windsurfing if all of their friends were going windsurfing. I'm the most uncoordinated person alive, but I would still go, probably making jokes the whole time about how I kept falling over. And I'm willing to be by the end of the day, I'd be a better windsurfer than when I started.

That article is hardly a scientific study of natural ability to success. If you get to the end, you'll notice that the website is trying to sell you something. But they've hardly done nothing to demonstrate that they're right. They've just demonstrated that they want your money.



> I'd agree that short term success is possible for those who do not come by things easily so long as they work hard at it and have the basic ability. However, just the fact that you didn't achieve your dream of becoming an astronomer suggests to me that the difficulty you were having with geometry at such an early stage of your schooling convinced you to change career paths. If math doesn't come easily to someone, they will never get through all the advanced math and physics courses that are required for an astronomer.


This makes no sense, because your filling in the blanks of information that you don't have with details that support your theory with no way of knowing how accurate they are or not.



> Once again you are talking about a different degree of nervousness. You're talking apples and oranges here. A few butterflies in the stomach are much different than being sick to one's stomach. From what I'm reading, I don't think you truly understand the severity of the anxiety that so many people with SA go through.


Again, I don't need to "justify" the fact that I have SA or to what extent. This is when I realized that you weren't looking at the situation as objectively as you seemed to be trying. _There was no reason to bring my SA into it here._ My point wasn't about *how* nervous/anxiety ridden the asker was, but how that nervousness/anxiety would be perceived by the person being asked out. *THEY* wouldn't see any difference. *THEY* wouldn't think, "Oh, there has to be something really wrong with him! What a freak! What he's doing isn't normal!" They would see the anxiety as part of the normal nervousness involved with asking someone on a date.

To conclude: Ease of doing something has nothing do with whether or not someone can perform a task successfully. Natural ability _ultimately_ has nothing to do with how well someone can perform a task such as asking someone on a date. Furthermore, lack of natural ability does not necessarily have to inhibit someone from doing something so long as they have the desire to do it and commit themselves to putting in the effort necessary.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## whiteclouds (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



Hypatia said:


> I still stand by my original comment that people who don't try to overcome their obstacles will never have the success that they want in their lives.


 :agree Lots of times, fear prevents us from trying. When we don't try, we have a 100% chance of failure.

Yes, some people have natural abilities, but that's only half the story. They practice a lot, and they don't let failures dissuade them from trying again.

Michael Jordan has natural talent, but he didn't come out of the womb, shooting hoops. He practiced a lot over the years and perfected his skill. He didn't quit after he lost a game or made a mistake. He kept on trying. He makes basketball look easy, but he'll tell you firsthand that it's not.

You can say that of any great athlete, musician, artist, dancer, etc. Natural talent only gets you so far. Success is earned through practice, commitment, and dedication. That's true, whether it's in sports or in the dating scene.


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



Woody said:


> Hypatia said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I give up.
> ...


Yes, the club of the defeated. :b jk


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



free thinker said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Hypatia said:
> ...


If you concede defeat through duress, I'll concede defeat through duress. I'm tired of tearing your arguments to bits. :b

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



Hypatia said:


> free thinker said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...


What a joke! Name one point that you have made that rejects the points I've made. And I'm still waiting to hear an legitimate argument from you to support your notion that ease of doing something doesn't lead to success. And as far as the other issue that SA people can do as well with their meeting skills as non-SA people, well what a preposterous joke.


----------



## Kelly (Dec 12, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



free thinker said:


> What a joke! Name one point that you have made that rejects the points I've made. And I'm still waiting to hear an legitimate argument from you to support your notion that ease of doing something doesn't lead to success. And as far as the other issue that SA people can do as well with their meeting skills as non-SA people, well what a preposterous joke.


Wait a second, are you serious?? Everything I've said has shown that everything you've said doesn't hold water and isn't based in a realistic assessment of the situation.

The fact that you can still say that my argument is a preposterous joke without offering any real, valid evidence to refute it is ludicrous.

Have a nice day,
Kelly


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

*Re: re: Women like men who take charge*



Hypatia said:


> Everything I've said has shown that everything you've said doesn't hold water and isn't based in a realistic assessment of the situation.


Everything really. Would you like to put some money on that.

I'm still waiting for a reply to the survey results.

I'm going to call it a night before this cherished thread gets locked. I'll respond to the rest of your weak comments later.

Have a nice sleep,
Kelly.


----------



## MidnightBlu (Jun 11, 2006)

Well I like it when a guy takes charge because it shows me that he CARES and that he likes me. Honestly I'm pretty tired of taking charge. I've been doing that 99% of the time.


----------

