Damned if I do, damned if I don't!

[Star Gazer]

Ooooooooh well if you are saying he did all the pursing and then suddenly stopped as I am now understanding it, then he got your vibe.

He saw that you weren't all that into him the last time you were out and he got your vibe. Ok so it's not that the guy likes to be pursued and does not make the effort and waits for you he was just leaving the ball in your court because he sensed that you weren't all that into him. THAT'S a different story than what it seems in the opening post.

 

We've been going back and forth over nothing then! :laugh:

 

You're right that he picked up on my vibe. I was quite overt in telling him it was too much, too fast.

 

That said, the same rule goes for Dave as it has for many other guys I've dated, as well as at least two who have stated as much on this thread. After a certain point, many guys will pull back/pause a minute to see if the gal will chase him back... He was doing the very same thing.

 

It's not gonna work though. I won't be chasing him, only texting him when I'm bored. (I'm so mean.)

[johan]

I do. I do. Like I said, I call/text/email (one form of communication) once. If I don't get a response, or a warm/receptive response, I move on. If I get a welcome response, I tread lightly until I feel him out. I really like the tennis match analogy...that's how I handle things.

 

Same here, actually. Occasionally I will barge through even negative signals and take what I want. But mostly I test and watch for positive "go-ahead" signals. Also I expect the girl to be doing some of the same.

[Tomcat33]

I can't even believe you have been discussing this for 20 pages and NO one asked what I did. This changes everything then Star c'mon that is SO unfair

 

 

So, I hadn't heard from the guy I wasn't all that into (Dave) in almost a week. I got home from a business trip last night and was exhausted so I stayed in. I became incredibly bored, so I texted him hello. He responded immediately, and said he was surprised to hear from me. Why? He said, "Well, I figured if you were into me, you'd call me. I didn't want to push the issue."

 

By Dave's rules, if a girl is into a guy, SHE contacts HIM

 

Is NOT the same as what we have been debating the guy should not confuse you in terms of what men want OF COURSE he wanted you to make the next move, you went out with him HE was into you and you were not into him. Any smart guy would pull away and let you lead at that point especially after you told him you were not all that interested!! SO that is a completely different thing than a guy you meet where you have no idea how he feels or he how you feel!

[Star Gazer]

I can't even believe you have been discussing this for 20 pages and NO one asked what I did. This changes everything then Star c'mon that is SO unfair

 

 

 

 

Is NOT the same as what we have been debating the guy should not confuse you in terms of what men want OF COURSE he wanted you to make the next move, you went out with him HE was into you and you were not into him. Any smart guy would pull away and let you lead at that point especially after you told him you were not all that interested!! SO that is a completely different thing than a guy you meet where you have no idea how he feels or he how you feel!

 

In all fairness, Dave was simply an example. Another guy said the very same thing to me today as well. I wrote to him something like, "Hey stranger, how was your week?" and he wrote back telling me that he thought I was no longer interested because he hadn't heard from me since Monday. We had gone out on two dates as well. I told him he could have called me as well, and he responded by saying that he wanted to see if I was as interested as he was. So... same deal.

 

Interestingly enough, both of these guys are guys I'm not really interested in. So their intuition was spot on.

[djhall]

Listen that's ridiculous. When people get married why don't they take into account certain realities of today's society? Given that infidelity is rampant and so is divorce why not factor those into the marital vows, like you are allowed to have a sexual encounter after X amount of years and if divorce is enevitable so let's sign a waver that we will have to stay married no matter what for X amount or years before we even entertain a D.

People don't enter into something as traditional as marraige with modernised vows they do it that same way it has always been done. we are together until death do us part for better or worse for sickness or in poor. END OF STORY.

 

So the courting process is also the same regardless of what is going on around us. It doesn't work the other way around.

 

If women are going to pursue men then we should also pay for the dates, make all the plans and take MEN out instead of the other way around, why not break all the rules then. Men can just sit around and get spiffed up and wait for women to come and take them out.

 

The man might as well wear the push-up bra and the skirt. I mean why do women have to wear skirts and not the man? If we should adapt EVERYTHING to modern times!?!?

 

Why don't you wear a skirt Djhall?

 

Is it really all that rediculous? I seem to remember there were times when getting a divorce meant a partner had to prove fault, the faulted partner lost almost everything, and both partners carried a stigma that made re-marriage to anyone other than a person with limited prospects of their own highly unlikely. Now, if you want a divorce, there is no fault, there is no blame, there is no stigma, you just split the stuff equally and marry someone else. Are we really that far from vowing "until one of us departs" instead of "until death do us part?" I'm not saying that is good, but I am saying that like it or not it is happening all around you.

 

As for women asking men out and taking them on dates the woman plans and pays for, it was never the case that a woman paid for anything. Now that women are starting to achieve employment and earning equality with men, the idea of "going dutch" while dating is hardly even controversial anymore. Do you really think that this won't also be common in say, 25 years? Heck, I've had women take me out on a date they asked for, planned for, and paid for on a few occasions, and I'm never going to be considered for any list of the hottest guys in America!

 

I don't wear a skirt for the same reason women didn't wear pants 100 years ago... too many people would react too negatively. I might wear a skirt in 50 years for the same reason women wear pants now... it works and no one cares anymore. I don't particularly care one way or the other on that subject, because my masculinity isn't tied to a particular kind of clothing. If I'm a man in pants, I'd still be a man in a skirt.

[Star Gazer]

I didn't get to finish... but TC, again, Dave was just the most recent example. He's been just one of quite a few to test me, just as much as we test them, by waiting for the other to make contact. *shrug*

 

In these situations, if someone doesn't act, there will be an impasse.

[Ariadne]

Well,

 

And since it's Sunday and I have a bunch of things to do but I don't feel like it... I went and looked it up.

 

The idea that it's the female's choice was even studied by Charles Darwin.

 

Yet, men think that they can choose whatever women they like, pursue her, and make her love them.

 

-----------------

 

Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, in a sense completed the work he had begun in The Origin of Species in 1859. It had two main themes: the first, implied but never bluntly stated in The Origin, was that the human species had evolved from ape-like ancestors. The second was the proposal of a second, supplementary mechanism of evolutionary change, based not on natural but sexual selection. Why, Darwin had wondered, were the males and females of many species so strikingly different, and why in particular did the males often sport such seemingly improbable, and certainly unwieldy features as the peacock's tail, the turkey's wattles, or the stag's antlers?

 

Darwin proposed that the evolution of such features was driven by female choice from among a range of possible mates. He speculated that she chose on the basis of what passed for beautiful, or at least could be regarded as an extravagant sign of male virility and power (evolutionary psychologists claim that younger women's alleged preference for sex with older men wearing Rolex watches is similarly genetically driven). Female choice thus results in selection for ever more dramatic male addenda, only limited by the physiological and hence genetic cost of carrying them.

 

The book notoriously put apes in our family tree and made the races one family, diversified by 'sexual selection' - Darwin's provocative theory that female choice among competing males leads to diverging racial characteristics.

 

Darwin’s provocative theory that female choice among competing males leads to diverging racial characteristics. Named by Sigmund Freud as ‘one of the ten most significant books’ ever written, Darwin’s Descent of Man continues to shape the way we think about what it is that makes us uniquely human.

[djhall]

On a first date??? You just might get arrested for that.

Woah, woah, woah! I must have missed the first date context... I thought that was mentioned as part of what "traditional" men wanted in a female partner or some such. I saw no context of first dates when I said that.

[Tomcat33]

I don't wear a skirt for the same reason women didn't wear pants 100 years ago... too many people would react too negatively. I might wear a skirt in 50 years for the same reason women wear pants now... it works and no one cares anymore. I don't particularly care one way or the other on that subject, because my masculinity isn't tied to a particular kind of clothing. If I'm a man in pants, I'd still be a man in a skirt.

 

 

Or is it because people might think you are trying to be a woman?

If you were to walk down the street wearing heels and a skirt people might just think you are trying to be something you are not. Correct?

 

Why? Why that gender difference? Why do we distincly HAVE to LOOK different?

 

Well for starters it's easier to tell us apart when fully clothed, it's easier to maintian an identity it splits the identity of the population down by 50% 50 being male 50 being female. It creates an orderly fashion in which we conduct ourselves in public places like say bathrooms.

So it DOES make sense that genders maintain a distinct seperate appearance.

 

So the roles of the genders in dating also create a better more balanced overall appeal to how we relate, it's when we start to tamper with each of the roles that we end up in some chaotic mess of confusion where no one knows who is what anymore.

I see nothing wrong with going with what has been tried tested and proven to work.

 

Men pursuing women works.

[vonerik012]

Tomcat yes..

 

So in other words all 3 men she talked about were pursuers... Obviously they might quit if no interest is returned at all. And it is far different than calling after a first date, or initiating contact etc.. That was my point this entire time.

 

Exactly... Why any of the roles need to be changed, I have no idea..if you are pursuing, or not pursuing, but still putting men fundamentally off in another way, none of it will work.

[Tomcat33]

In all fairness, Dave was simply an example. Another guy said the very same thing to me today as well. I wrote to him something like, "Hey stranger, how was your week?" and he wrote back telling me that he thought I was no longer interested because he hadn't heard from me since Monday. We had gone out on two dates as well. I told him he could have called me as well, and he responded by saying that he wanted to see if I was as interested as he was. So... same deal.

 

 

 

Again you are giving an example of a guy you went on two dates with already, of course after two dates you can contact him. I WOULD!

 

I thought you were talking about the initial first date. Give me an example of some guy whom you met out somewhere and exchanged numbers and he said to you "oh you never called I thought you were interested?"

 

That doesn't happen sorry, and I'll tell you why, because if you exchanged #s and he was interested he would call you otherwise if he runs into you he is not going to say "why didn't you call" no guy would wait around solely for you to make the first move, no cool guy does which essence means every guy! If you both met out and exchanged numbers the guy is not going to be super intersted waiting for you to call, he just calls if he is intersted.

[vonerik012]

Tomcat, my point this entire time..

 

I also used the who would call after a first date example.. If the man is interested he will call. So the female calling is a NON issue.

[Tomcat33]

Tomcat, my point this entire time..

 

I also used the who would call after a first date example.. If the man is interested he will call. So the female calling is a NON issue.

 

Sorry I didn't understand that?

[djhall]

Or is it because people might think you are trying to be a woman?

If you were to walk down the street wearing heels and a skirt people might just think you are trying to be something you are not. Correct?

 

Why? Why that gender difference? Why do we distincly HAVE to LOOK different?

 

Well for starters it's easier to tell us apart when fully clothed, it's easier to maintian an identity it splits the identity of the population down by 50% 50 being male 50 being female. It creates an orderly fashion in which we conduct ourselves in public places like say bathrooms.

So it DOES make sense that genders maintain a distinct seperate appearance.

 

So the roles of the genders in dating also create a better more balanced overall appeal to how we relate, it's when we start to tamper with each of the roles that we end up in some chaotic mess of confusion where no one knows who is what anymore.

I see nothing wrong with going with what has been tried tested and proven to work.

 

Men pursuing women works.

Sure... but just because something is generally the case doesn't mean it is a good thing or it necessarily works.

 

As a woman, if you were to reach the top of success in your carreer, people might think you were trying to be a man, because women who aspire to be presidents, senators, and CEOs are masculine bitches. It creates an orderly balance when men are more successful and make more money than women, when men are dominant and women are submissive, when the man makes the decisions and the woman knows her place. When we start mucking around with the normal order of things, we end up with a mess of confusion were no one knows who is what anymore, we have a woman who thinks she can be president like she was a man, and men don't know how to react to her anymore.

 

I see nothing wrong with going with what has been tried tested and proven to work.

 

Men in control works.

 

Sometimes change is good, even when the change itself is difficult and disruptive. The fact that something has always been a certain way is virtually irrelevant in considering whether it should stay that way.

[Star Gazer]

Again you are giving an example of a guy you went on two dates with already, of course after two dates you can contact him. I WOULD!

 

I thought you were talking about the initial first date. Give me an example of some guy whom you met out somewhere and exchanged numbers and he said to you "oh you never called I thought you were interested?"

 

That doesn't happen sorry, and I'll tell you why, because if you exchanged #s and he was interested he would call you otherwise if he runs into you he is not going to say "why didn't you call" no guy would wait around solely for you to make the first move, no cool guy does which essence means every guy! If you both met out and exchanged numbers the guy is not going to be super intersted waiting for you to call, he just calls if he is intersted.

 

No. If you read the entire thread, I was referring to ANY chasing/pursuit on my part...whether that be BEFORE a date has even happened, after a date, after a couple dates, whatever. I'll do as I please WHEN I please and the right guy for me will like it. So far, I have at least one - again, no, not Dave! - who does.

[Tomcat33]

Sure... but just because something is generally the case doesn't mean it is a good thing or it necessarily works.

 

As a woman, if you were to reach the top of success in your carreer, people might think you were trying to be a man, because women who aspire to be presidents, senators, and CEOs are masculine bitches. It creates an orderly balance when men are more successful and make more money than women, when men are dominant and women are submissive, when the man makes the decisions and the woman knows her place. When we start mucking around with the normal order of things, we end up with a mess of confusion were no one knows who is what anymore, we have a woman who thinks she can be president like she was a man, and men don't know how to react to her anymore.

 

I see nothing wrong with going with what has been tried tested and proven to work.

 

Men in control works.

 

Sometimes change is good, even when the change itself is difficult and disruptive. The fact that something has always been a certain way is virtually irrelevant in considering whether it should stay that way.

 

Actually it is funny you should say that I have done some research on this matter and in fact there are studies that say that women that reach the top of the corporate ladder and have made it in presidnetial roles are hormonally inclined towards being more masculine, they have higher levels of testosterone!

 

Feel free to look that up.

[Tomcat33]

No. If you read the entire thread, I was referring to ANY chasing/pursuit on my part...whether that be BEFORE a date has even happened, after a date, after a couple dates, whatever. I'll do as I please WHEN I please and the right guy for me will like it. So far, I have at least one - again, no, not Dave! - who does.

 

Sorry hun not reading the entire thread, usually my pattern is I read the first two pages and get the gest of where the convo is headed and the last two. That is pretty much where I jumped in. Granted I obvioulsy missed a lot in the middle, but technicaly the opening post or the idea in it should pretty much stand in its own. Of course in more posts you can give more background to support the OP but when you have to read more so that it totally changes the OP then that's different.

 

 

The OP alone seems like you are saying that a guy wants the woman to make the first move there is no background on how many times you have already dated.

[vonerik012]

Thats basically what happened. The first post is about making initial or the first few contacts, with little background info.

 

Then some guy said he likes the woman to show some effort.

 

Then SG said "SEE I AM RIGHT" The overall idea of the thread changed many times.

 

In the end.. Flirt with a guy you like, and he should take the bait if he is interested. Let him call you after the first date.

 

Of course, you are free to do as you wish...

[johan]

The current score is Star Gazer:79 posts to Vonerik's 55.

 

That is the current count of posts of the highest two posters on this interminable thread.

[djhall]

Actually it is funny you should say that I have done some research on this matter and in fact there are studies that say that women that reach the top of the corporate ladder and have made it in presidnetial roles are hormonally inclined towards being more masculine, they have higher levels of testosterone!

 

Feel free to look that up.

Tomcat, I'm really not trying to be difficult when I say, so? That is a problem why? Why is this bad?

 

I suspect part of the problem is that I don't subscribe to descriptive ethics or arguments to any substantial degree. The argument, "Most people xxx. Therefore, xxxx is good or xxx is the way things should be." is a non sequitur... the second statement has no logical or factual support from the first statement. You might as well say, "Cats are felines. Grass should be green." Okay, and your point is? I'm not trying to be difficult when someone says something like, "If SG asks a man out of a first date she is acting manly," or "If I wear a dress people might think I want to be a woman," and I reply along the lines of, "So? And that is a bad thing why?" I honestly mean that. Why should I, as a thinking, logical, rational entity, find a reason to oppose, object to, be offended by that? Typically the best argument I see is, there isn't anything wrong with it, but it is likely to be counter productive. Of course, that changes the argument. Saying, "Most people xxxx. If you want most people to agree with you, you should xxxx as well." really makes no value judgment or takes any position on how things should be, it just makes an observation about practicallity.

 

If SG wants to attract men who want to pursue and don't want to be pursued, pursuing them is likely to be a counter productive strategy. That is very different from saying it should be that way or that men should pursue and women should not.

[Star Gazer]

Granted I obvioulsy missed a lot in the middle, but technicaly the opening post or the idea in it should pretty much stand in its own. Of course in more posts you can give more background to support the OP but when you have to read more so that it totally changes the OP then that's different.

 

Well, excuse me for not creating an OP to your liking. I always read an entire thread before responding, particularly when asking questions.

 

The OP alone seems like you are saying that a guy wants the woman to make the first move there is no background on how many times you have already dated.

 

That's not what my OP says at all.

[Star Gazer]

The current score is Star Gazer:79 posts to Vonerik's 55.

 

That is the current count of posts of the highest two posters on this interminable thread.

 

That's the count, but clearly not the SCORE. Vonerik is engaging in a losing battle. He has yet to contribute anything meaningful to this thread other than personal, snide attacks and rambling, incoherent arguments.

[Citizen Erased]

That's the count, but clearly not the SCORE. Vonerik is engaging in a losing battle. He has yet to contribute anything meaningful to this thread other than personal, snide attacks and rambling, incoherent arguments.

 

KMT in disguise?

[Tomcat33]

Tomcat, I'm really not trying to be difficult when I say, so? That is a problem why? Why is this bad?

 

I suspect part of the problem is that I don't subscribe to descriptive ethics or arguments to any substantial degree. The argument, "Most people xxx. Therefore, xxxx is good or xxx is the way things should be." is a non sequitur... the second statement has no logical or factual support from the first statement. You might as well say, "Cats are felines. Grass should be green." Okay, and your point is? I'm not trying to be difficult when someone says something like, "If SG asks a man out of a first date she is acting manly," or "If I wear a dress people might think I want to be a woman," and I reply along the lines of, "So? And that is a bad thing why?" I honestly mean that. Why should I, as a thinking, logical, rational entity, find a reason to oppose, object to, be offended by that? Typically the best argument I see is, there isn't anything wrong with it, but it is likely to be counter productive. Of course, that changes the argument. Saying, "Most people xxxx. If you want most people to agree with you, you should xxxx as well." really makes no value judgment or takes any position on how things should be, it just makes an observation about practicallity.

 

 

 

That's fine you don't have to preempt your post with "im not trying to be difficult" I can handle and opposing view and won't take it as if you are attacking ME, we just have opppsing views no big deal DJhall.

 

The reason I gave you the example of women in power who are hormonally more inclined to be like men is not because "cats are felines the grass is green" you don't see the point fine but don't undermine what I was trying to say with some petty comment, let's have an intelligen discussion rather than an immature one cool?

 

It is NO conicindence that only certain types of women make it to these types of roles it is not because women are not as smart as men but moreson because men function better in these types of roles because they are less emotional and less "attached" So stating that peice of information was to illustrate that yes certain women do make it to those roles but perhaps men are still better cut out for it and the women that do make it are more "like men".

 

Why don't you wear a skirt around the street then if you have no problem with that? Instead of shorts wear a skirt if you really don't care what people think then please why don't you wear a skirt instead of shorts?

 

I think the dating dance works well with men taking leadership roles in the beginning stages because women hold the court when it comes to sex, if we strip men of this little power which is to also select women to court and pursue them we finish by emasculating the male gender completely and stripping it of all power. And what good does that do us as a whole? I don't want to be a man, I don't know how many women REALLY do! Men don't hold the power in sex, WE do, let men hold the power in selecting women.

 

Look it comes from the animal kingdom a female lion does not go out looking to mate with a male lion she puts out the signs and the male takes charge. It's insitilled in us from our animal past so why are we trying to go against that?

 

If SG wants to attract men who want to pursue and don't want to be pursued, pursuing them is likely to be a counter productive strategy. That is very different from saying it should be that way or that men should pursue and women should not

 

You are saying the same thing, I am you just want to guise it under the pretext that she should do it for her own sake and for the "types" of men she choosed. The reality is that more often than not men will not want to be pursued unless they are interested and even so it can kill the attraction for them. For long term appeal, for sex anything goes of course...

[vonerik012]

Here is the main point you are missing, and why YOU are losing the battle in your dating life.

 

Women are born with a mystique, a feminine way, that if tapped into can attain any man. Didn't Cleopatra use her feminine wiles to take over much of the world?

 

Anyway... My point is, men are basically simple, and often times dumb. We do not possess this feminine quality that you are born with. We are not as intuitive, insightful, mysterious, alluring. Thus, WE HAVE TO ask women out, get rejected, chase etc. Like idiots.

 

If you want to, GO AHEAD and lower yourself to this low manly form of courtship. It will most likely not be successful, and at the same time you are completely ignoring and suppressing your innate beautiful feminine side of real power in exchange for playing a mans game, that most men will not relate to.