Man's Job to Pursue?

[zdheat]

The problems start after a guy says YES and we enter a relationship with them - those relationships do not work out, in our experience, and are horrible the whole time we're in them.

 

It swings both ways. Pursuing relationships with women can be just as equally bad for guys. Were expected to pursue while she passively holds onto the rejection card at all times. For every female horror story there is an equal male story that can be posted.

[norajane]

Maybe they don't work for you, but they work for us just fine

 

It's that kind of attitude that makes the relationship not work out - and gets you dumped. Just because a woman may have asked you out doesn't mean she's so into you she won't dump you if you turn out to be an ass while in the relationship.

 

It swings both ways. Pursuing relationships with women can be just as equally bad for guys. Were expected to pursue while she passively holds onto the rejection card at all times. For every female horror story there is an equal male story that can be posted.

 

Rejection can happen at any time, by either person, regardless of who does the initiating.

[movingonandon]

It's that kind of attitude that makes the relationship not work out - and gets you dumped. Just because a woman may have asked you out doesn't mean she's so into you she won't dump you if you turn out to be an ass while in the relationship.

 

You're missing the whole point here. If the girl is worth the investment, no sane guy would treat her bad. But if she's not worth it, he'd still keep her around (but for 6 months).

So, who pursues whom is pretty much irrelevant.

[CommitmentPhobe]

You're missing the whole point here. If the girl is worth the investment, no sane guy would treat her bad. But if she's not worth it, he'd still keep her around (but for 6 months).

So, who pursues whom is pretty much irrelevant.

 

Yeah who "pursues" is irrelevant if pursuit is your bag, I always thought it was two way traffic not one way persuasion, at least that's how it works for me.

 

Besides equality exists, so if you're a woman that thinks it's a mans job to pursue then it's your job to cook and clean, and forget about that promotion to the board cos that's a mans job too, and no you can't pick and choose because it makes you a hypocrite.

 

Gawd this site really makes you jaded if you listen to some of the opinions, think I'll stick to the pub.

[CommitmentPhobe]

It swings both ways. Pursuing relationships with women can be just as equally bad for guys. Were expected to pursue while she passively holds onto the rejection card at all times. For every female horror story there is an equal male story that can be posted.

 

Yeah exactly.

[Ruby Slippers]

Wait... you feel that even striking up conversation is too aggressive for women?

I have never done that. I don't consider it aggressive, but it is initiating contact, which I never do in the beginning. To me, it would feel totally backwards. If I am interested in a guy, I will make eye contact more than once, smile at him, and maybe put myself in closer proximity to him.

 

A few weeks ago at a club, my friend and I were commenting on this supercute guy who was standing by the bar near the dance floor, by himself. After I got myself a drink, I went over and stood near him. Then he immediately started talking to me.

 

The only other time I can remember doing anything close to initiating was at a swing dance class. The guys had to rotate partners every few minutes, and this guy rotated to me and said, "I've been wanting to dance with you all night." Then they turned on the music for the first time that night, and we found we were a perfect fit and had a lot of fun dancing together.

 

At the end, we were both smiling like crazy, and he said it was great, fun, etc. He seemed to be holding back and trying to find the right words for the next part, so on an impulse, I said, "Yeah, it really was! We should go out swing dancing sometime." He looked very happy (and a little bit shocked) and immediately asked for my number. This turned into a 3 1/2 year relationship. It's no coincidence that I was almost totally in control throughout the relationship (and he seemed to like it that way).

[norajane]

You're missing the whole point here. If the girl is worth the investment, no sane guy would treat her bad. But if she's not worth it, he'd still keep her around (but for 6 months).

So, who pursues whom is pretty much irrelevant.

 

If it were irrelevant, more women would pursue and we wouldn't have this thread.

 

The lesson I've learned, as have many other women who have asked guys out, is if I have to pursue him, he's not that interested and the relationship is crap even if he says yes. There's no point in getting invested in the relationship if I have to pursue him.

[Ruby Slippers]

Besides equality exists, so if you're a woman that thinks it's a mans job to pursue then it's your job to cook and clean, and forget about that promotion to the board cos that's a mans job too, and no you can't pick and choose because it makes you a hypocrite.

Equality does not equal identical behavior. Equality does not mean ignoring simple biology (which would be impossible, even if we tried). Equality is about choice. Women have the choice to pursue, but most do not because we have learned it does not get us anywhere with men in the long run, that most men respond well to "winning" the woman and getting the "prize". That seems to be a huge part of the fun to most guys.

 

I would have no problem pursuing. I think it would be a fun and refreshing change for a while, and I think I'd be good at it. I also don't think I would have a problem with being rejected. When I first got started, maybe, but eventually I'd get my game on, think "his loss", and move on to the next hottie.

[movingonandon]

most men respond well to "winning" the woman and getting the "prize". That seems to be a huge part of the fun to most guys.

 

Nah, it's merely a social ritual, no different than saying hello. Most guys do not define themselves through whether or not they *win* a woman - they just keep doing it until they get one. So what you call "pursuit" is just a learned behavior and you're reading way too much into it.

 

That's why it refreshing to see a less uptight woman every once in a while that's not hung up on complicated relationships calculatoins, but just goes for whatever she likes.

[CommitmentPhobe]

Equality does not equal identical behavior. Equality does not mean ignoring simple biology (which would be impossible, even if we tried). Equality is about choice. Women have the choice to pursue, but most do not because we have learned it does not get us anywhere with men in the long run, that most men respond well to "winning" the woman and getting the "prize". That seems to be a huge part of the fun to most guys.

 

I would have no problem pursuing. I think it would be a fun and refreshing change for a while, and I think I'd be good at it. I also don't think I would have a problem with being rejected. When I first got started, maybe, but eventually I'd get my game on, think "his loss", and move on to the next hottie.

 

That's tradition not biology. Women didn't get very far in their careers either while the men were the breadwinners up until a while ago, and that wasn't biology either.

 

Younger women seem to certainly becoming more accustomed to the pursuit role these days. They are WAY more aggressive than they used to be.

 

I'm sure you'd be pretty good at it.

[Ruby Slippers]

Nah, it's merely a social ritual, no different than saying hello. Most guys do not define themselves through whether or not they *win* a woman - they just keep doing it until they get one. So what you call "pursuit" is just a learned behavior and you're reading way too much into it.

Well, most of the guys I have been with seriously have told me otherwise, and once we were in a committed relationship said that "landing me" made them feel like "the man" (not in those exact words, but that was the message). There is nothing wrong with this. I think it's cute as can be.

[Ruby Slippers]

That's tradition not biology. Women didn't get very far in their careers either while the men were the breadwinners up until a while ago, and that wasn't biology either.

And yet we never see threads from women complaining about men being too "career-oriented", whereas plenty of men have a problem with women prioritizing career and finances over a relationship and kids. I'm sure some of their discomfort with it stems from bucking tradition, but I think some of it is also the role reversal of the woman being the hunter/bringing home the bacon, rather than tending hearth and home and the kiddies.

[CommitmentPhobe]

And yet we never see threads from women complaining about men being too "career-oriented", whereas plenty of men have a problem with women prioritizing career and finances over a relationship and kids. I'm sure some of their discomfort with it stems from bucking tradition, but I think some of it is also the role reversal of the woman being the hunter/bringing home the bacon, rather than tending hearth and home and the kiddies.

 

Yes, it's probably some of both, but this does not negate the fact that there's no reason women can't be equal in this department if they're prepared to challenge the norm. They've just got to be prepared to take the same knockbacks and grief men do

[movingonandon]

Well, most of the guys I have been with seriously have told me otherwise, and once we were in a committed relationship said that "landing me" made them feel like "the man" (not in those exact words, but that was the message). There is nothing wrong with this. I think it's cute as can be.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, but let's slow down and quietly reflect on what this attitude means: so he got you, made him feel like da man. Extrapolate this: would he be less of a man if he didn't get you? Would his manhood decrease after you dump him (btw. why are you no longer together?)? etc.

 

For me, this sounds like need for approval. I have no incentive to put down a guy I don't and never will know, but sounds like a weakness and therefore - bad relationship news to me.

 

For me, "langing" a woman or no makes no difference whatsoever about how I feel about myself. It doesn't mean that i won't appreciate her for whatever she has to offer, but that's different and conditional only on her character, not on who did "the pursuit". That's the reason why I'm saying that the ritual of pursuit is just that - a ritual. Has no particularly deep meaning, but brings some order in the wilderness...

[Kamille]

Yes, it's probably some of both, but this does not negate the fact that there's no reason women can't be equal in this department if they're prepared to challenge the norm. They've just got to be prepared to take the same knockbacks and grief men do

 

Baaah! Except we don't get rejected immediately! Allow me to generalize: girl hits on guy. Guy isn't generally interested in her, might not even think she's pretty, but hey, she happens to have a vagina. He's got nothing to lose by seeing where it takes him. Most guy's I've approached have been more then willing to see where it went, but then, yeah, it never lead anywhere because hitting on guys= easy commitment-free sex in their mind. I could wax poetics about how unfair that is, and blame all men for the state of the thing, but I don't. Instead, I chose to conform to the rules and have invested myself in the very comfortable zone of letting men approach me first.

 

Now, I do think there's another problem in this discussion: men aren't completely devoid of power at the beginning of a relationship. If you guys think that just because you approach a girl she has all the power, no wonder you have problems!

 

scenario 1)

Guy approaches girl, pursues her, she's somewhat interested: he thinks, I have to do everything in my power to convince her I'm worth it. Loses all the power.

 

scenario 2)

Guy approaches girl, she's somewhat interested: he thinks, well I think it's worth getting to know her to see if we're compatible. Power balance is maintained.

 

Guess which one is bound to yield better results?

[tincanman99]

Baaah! Except we don't get rejected immediately! Allow me to generalize: girl hits on guy. Guy isn't generally interested in her, might not even think she's pretty, but hey, she happens to have a vagina. He's got nothing to lose by seeing where it takes him. Most guy's I've approached have been more then willing to see where it went, but then, yeah, it never lead anywhere because hitting on guys= easy commitment-free sex in their mind. I could wax poetics about how unfair that is, and blame all men for the state of the thing, but I don't. Instead, I chose to conform to the rules and have invested myself in the very comfortable zone of letting men approach me first.

 

Now, I do think there's another problem in this discussion: men aren't completely devoid of power at the beginning of a relationship. If you guys think that just because you approach a girl she has all the power, no wonder you have problems!

 

scenario 1)

Guy approaches girl, pursues her, she's somewhat interested: he thinks, I have to do everything in my power to convince her I'm worth it. Loses all the power.

 

scenario 2)

Guy approaches girl, she's somewhat interested: he thinks, well I think it's worth getting to know her to see if we're compatible. Power balance is maintained.

 

Guess which one is bound to yield better results?

 

In your scenario 1 the guy would labeled as needy and desperate. Which is the automatic turnoff, correct? But what if he is not needy and desperate and JUST WANTS YOU. Is there something wrong with being wanted? I agree it shifts the power balance to her because she is doing the choosing. Or am I wrong about this?

 

In scenario 2 the guy is saying he is indifferent and does not care if it works out but will just test the waters to see if you are compatible. I guess theoretically either one could reject for whatever reason. But I bet in most cases even than the woman does the rejecting and not the guy. I could be wrong of course (its been known to happen).

 

I keep reading that men have a need to win a woman because you are a "prize" to be sought. I am not sure this is accurate for every guy.

 

Personally I have never viewed getting a woman as a prize (maybe this is a mistake on my part and I am not competitive enough). I view it more as she wants to go out with me or not? No prize awarded .

 

I keep reading, that I will only want him if he wants me. Well that goes both ways doesnt it? Would a guy want a woman that does not want him?

[Kamille]

There's perhaps a lot of confusion over vocabulary here as well as with the goals of the purported approaches or rejections. Do you want to get to know someone (for a potential relationship) or do you want to score with someone? I think most women posting on here are saying we like being pursued because this allows us to weed out men who want to be with us just for sex. I feel there's ambiguity as to what some of the guys are saying. Is the point of pursuing to have sex, or is it getting to know somebody?

 

In your scenario 1 the guy would labeled as needy and desperate. Which is the automatic turnoff, correct? But what if he is not needy and desperate and JUST WANTS YOU. Is there something wrong with being wanted? I agree it shifts the power balance to her because she is doing the choosing. Or am I wrong about this?

 

Note 1: I didn't say he would be labelled as needy and desperate, but I think he would be making himself overly vulnerable to a complete stranger.

 

Why would he want me so bad if he hardly knows me? Or is it purely sexual desire we're talking about? In which case, since a fling isn't what (most) of the women here are after, yes we're likely to do some screening(ie expect a pursuit). And why would a guy, upon approaching a girl lose sight of his own needs, wants and desires just because he WANTS a girl he hardly knows? Isn't that asking for trouble? (Unless, of course, all he wants is to bed her).

 

In scenario 2 the guy is saying he is indifferent and does not care if it works out but will just test the waters to see if you are compatible. I guess theoretically either one could reject for whatever reason.

 

My apologies, in scenario 2, in no way is the guy signaling he was indifferent. He'd be interested, but interested in getting to know the person (before jumping to the Want Her stage). He wants things to work out for the best for both him and the girl, and yeah, maybe that will mean he'll be the one to decide he doesn't want to continue chasing her at one point. But I don't see how that makes him a calcullating unromantic strategists. I think that makes him a human recognizing women as fellow humans in the dating world.

 

 

 

 

I keep reading, that I will only want him if he wants me. Well that goes both ways doesnt it? Would a guy want a woman that does not want him?

 

I agree there. But for me the wanting each other part is not a given upon first meeting a person. It comes after, once you've gotten to know each other.

[Charles1978]

It all comes down to this... girls, if a guy shows interest in you and you like him... meet him half-way. Don't sit back and make the guy pursue just because you think that is the natural order of things. If you both like eachother, you should both pursue, and meet in the middle. Makes for the best relationships, IMO.

[movingonandon]

Baaah! Except we don't get rejected immediately! Allow me to generalize: girl hits on guy. Guy isn't generally interested in her, might not even think she's pretty, but hey, she happens to have a vagina. He's got nothing to lose by seeing where it takes him. Most guy's I've approached have been more then willing to see where it went, but then, yeah, it never lead anywhere because hitting on guys= easy commitment-free sex in their mind. I could wax poetics about how unfair that is, and blame all men for the state of the thing, but I don't. Instead, I chose to conform to the rules and have invested myself in the very comfortable zone of letting men approach me first.

 

Now, I do think there's another problem in this discussion: men aren't completely devoid of power at the beginning of a relationship. If you guys think that just because you approach a girl she has all the power, no wonder you have problems!

 

scenario 1)

Guy approaches girl, pursues her, she's somewhat interested: he thinks, I have to do everything in my power to convince her I'm worth it. Loses all the power.

 

scenario 2)

Guy approaches girl, she's somewhat interested: he thinks, well I think it's worth getting to know her to see if we're compatible. Power balance is maintained.

 

Guess which one is bound to yield better results?

 

 

Um, two comments

1) What is so horrible and "unfair" about commitment-free sex??? Somebody is concerned about the power balance here, and it's not the guy. Just because you have vaginas, doesn't mean that we owe you something (anything at all) to get in there .

 

Moreover, if anything is "unfair", it is to assume tha t just because you were the first to approach a guy, this inevitably means that he will only be interested in jacking off onto you. guess what, guys have options too, and we don't latch onto each and every girl that happens to be around. So its only fairt to make the effort every once in a while or else miss on some actual opportunities. Which apparently the anglo-saxon sexual guilt makes you comfortable with :)

 

As CommitmentPhobe says, this site really makes me jaded and perfectly decent girls in "real life" might suffer because of all the drama here

 

2) Scenario 2 is right on.

[Kamille]

Um, two comments

1) What is so horrible and "unfair" about commitment-free sex??? Somebody is concerned about the power balance here, and it's not the guy. Just because you have vaginas, doesn't mean that we owe you something (anything at all) to get in there .

 

As CommitmentPhobe says, this site really makes me jaded and perfectly decent girls in "real life" might suffer because of all the drama here

 

2) Scenario 2 is right on.

 

nowhere did I say that commitment-free sex was horrible or unfair. I drink the Koolaid when a juicy glass comes my way. What I meant was unfair is the fact that when I've pursued men, they made assumptions about me, my sexuality and my potential as gf because of that. And the fact that I lose gf potential based on perceptions of my sexuality. But perceptions of one-night-stands have been covered aplenty on LS, so I don't think it's necessary to have a do-over here.

 

But tell me guys? What are you looking for when you "pursue" a woman? What's the goal generally? Is it getting to know someone, sex, a relationship, all of the above, other?

 

And bad news. Yes, to get into my vagina, you owe me some respect. I decide who gets there. Is access to vagina what the whole "who pursues who" frustration is about?

[OpenBook]

Just because you have vaginas, doesn't mean that we owe you something (anything at all) to get in there .

 

No, of course you don't owe us anything. You just have to work your @ss off to gain entrance to it. It's our JOB - we're The Gatekeepers. You gotta talk to The Boss first, honey. ;) :D:D:D:D

[carhill]

Is it getting to know someone, sex, a relationship, all of the above

 

Affirmative; always has been, always will be. Plenty of other guys out there who only need their noodle moistened. Enjoy

[movingonandon]

nowhere did I say that commitment-free sex was horrible or unfair. I drink the Koolaid when a juicy glass comes my way. What I meant was unfair is the fact that when I've pursued men, they made assumptions about me, my sexuality and my potential as gf because of that. And the fact that I lose gf potential based on perceptions of my sexuality. But perceptions of one-night-stands have been covered aplenty on LS, so I don't think it's necessary to have a do-over here.

 

But tell me guys? What are you looking for when you "pursue" a woman? What's the goal generally? Is it getting to know someone, sex, a relationship, all of the above, other?

 

And bad news. Yes, to get into my vagina, you owe me some respect. I decide who gets there. Is access to vagina what the whole "who pursues who" frustration is about?

 

Everybody deserves respect, so it's a moot point.

The point is that the "i'm the one doing the choosing" stuff is often exagerated to the point of delusion. That private part doesn't hold nearly as much power as its generally adorable owners would like to believe it does .

As for pursuing a woman - it can be for any one or all of the reasons you list. Or anything else, such as boredom. To expect that guys have one particular reason in mind when going after women is dumb, immature, or both. Whatever the motivation, the process - in the initial stages - is pretty formulaic... Hence, once again, the irrelevance of focusing on who is doing 'the pursuit.'

[Kamille]

Everybody deserves respect, so it's a moot point.

The point is that the "i'm the one doing the choosing" stuff is often exagerated to the point of delusion. That private part doesn't hold nearly as much power as its generally adorable owners would like to believe it does .

 

I chose who I have sex with as do you. So when it comes to where you insert your penis, the decision is all yours. Which is why I'm glad to hear you're a discerning man when it comes to vaginas. After all, I'm not the one who brought up the topic of the value of vaginas giving women attitudes. You did.

 

As for pursuing a woman - it can be for any one or all of the reasons you list. Or anything else, such as boredom. To expect that guys have one particular reason in mind when going after women is dumb, immature, or both. Whatever the motivation, the process - in the initial stages - is pretty formulaic... Hence, once again, the irrelevance of focusing on who is doing 'the pursuit.'

 

Ok, next question: given the opportunity to have sex with an average chick, would you?

[inloveforeverwithyou]

I think that it is the man's job to pursure thewomen. Sometimes this can be difficult, obviously, but it's a must. Even though sometimes the women will come to you, that is rare. Most of the time you will have to approach and keep trying with them