Ruby Slippers Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 As CommitmentPhobe says, this site really makes me jaded and perfectly decent girls in "real life" might suffer because of all the drama here Me, too. There are times when I think "Is this really the way people/men think?!!" and feel like the world sucks. Then I step away and realize that this forum does not represent the entire breadth of human worldview.
movingonandon Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 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. Ok, next question: given the opportunity to have sex with an average chick, would you? Yep, yep, this whole discussion began with the assumptions made by the both sides (or shall we say - by the "enemy camps" ) about the pursuit process. All I'm saying is that nomody should read too much into it. After some mutual interest is established, then it's time to clarify expectations and keep going or part ways. Let me give myself as an example here: I have no more than casual and shor term interest (at least for now...) in the girl I'm currently dating. In the initial "pursuit" stages, obviously I've done all the righ things, since she was ready to get naughty in pretty reasonable time. I did however informed her about my intentions before we had sex (though I didn't *have to*). So she mulled it over - and voila, casual dating. It is no insurance that somebody won't get hur in the end, but still, there's no deception or disrespect. I would have "pursued" in pretty much the same way a girl I saw as a longer term potential. That's why I'm so vocal against making such a big eal out of "the pursuit". We're adults, everybody should make up their mind with the information at hand, not with the assumptions peddled in the loveshack school of dating. It is real life. At different points in their lives, or even at different points througuout the year men can have completely different intentions when it comes to dating, and that's aok. I'm just tiring of hearing women speak with disdain of everything that's not a pathway to marriage. Hence, my abrupt responses. We do a lot of selection too. Sometimes commitment-minded woman is great, sometimes she's just an uiptight pain in the rear . So how about everybody relaxes a little. Heartbreak is always a possibility in any kind of relationship, but only a few people die from this As for the question: it depends. If I'm single and bored and don't mind the distraction - sure, why the hell not? Aw, who am I kidding - we'd titally get it on . If I'm in a relationship, (or "pursue one", baah) I wouldn't bother.
Kamille Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Ok. I get you and thanks for the nuances but: It is real life. At different points in their lives, or even at different points througuout the year men can have completely different intentions when it comes to dating, and that's aok. vs I'm just tiring of hearing women speak with disdain of everything that's not a pathway to marriage. Why would you grant different intentions at different points in their lives to men, but generalize that women always speak from a point of being marriage minded? As for the question: it depends. If I'm single and bored and don't mind the distraction - sure, why the hell not? Aw, who am I kidding - we'd titally get it on . If I'm in a relationship, (or "pursue one", baah) I wouldn't bother. See, in my case, it doesn't have to lead to marriage - but I'd rather **** someone who isn't ****ing me out of boredom. edit: in my case, I find the quality of the shags increases with the non-boredom of my partner.
movingonandon Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Ok. I get you and thanks for the nuances but: vs Why would you grant different intentions at different points in their lives to men, but generalize that women always speak from a point of being marriage minded? See, in my case, it doesn't have to lead to marriage - but I'd rather **** someone who isn't ****ing me out of boredom. That's the thing - not assuming anything, just reaing the posts here. Do a simple content analysis and I bet a hundred bucks that you'll see somewhat uni-dimensional view of relationships from most women here, while guys seem to be more "versatile". I didn't say anything, they did . As for the boredom issue. Here we go with the guilt again, albeit in disguise. Who cares what his motivations are for coming onto you? If you like him - go f*** him. If you don't like him - nobody's forcing you to do anything, duh . Now if your point is that in order to like somebody he "has" to have serious intentions, you're answering your own question. Peace, love, happiness, and lots of consensual sex to everybody
Kamille Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 That's the thing - not assuming anything, just reaing the posts here. Do a simple content analysis and I bet a hundred bucks that you'll see somewhat uni-dimensional view of relationships from most women here, while guys seem to be more "versatile". I didn't say anything, they did . As for the boredom issue. Here we go with the guilt again, albeit in disguise. Who cares what his motivations are for coming onto you? If you like him - go f*** him. If you don't like him - nobody's forcing you to do anything, duh . Now if your point is that in order to like somebody he "has" to have serious intentions, you're answering your own question. Peace, love, happiness, and lots of consensual sex to everybody :rolleyes: Love the use of smilies there movingonandon the guilt? ah i see, you're an SS transplant. just because I like to pick and select sexual partners based on my perception of their capacity to sexually please me it means I'm marriage-minded? please, if that was the case, I would be married and living in Rome with my ex who wanted nothing more. I think you're assuming all women are always marriage-minded. This is why you're 'lumping' women together on here but perceiving men as versatile. As to your example: aren't we talking about women pursuing men? Why is it all suddenly about a guy coming on to me? peace love a penis and lots of consensual pleasurable multi-orgasmic sex for all.
SoulSearch_CO Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 That makes me laugh! You think pursuing is supposed to be easy? What a few guys reject you and you give up? And of course being passive feels better and more natural. That's true about everything in life! RF *sigh* If you had read the entire thread, you would understand what I meant by my comment. When I was the pursuer, the guy didn't hold the same level of respect for me. THAT'S what I meant - not that pursuing was hard. Good heavens. I meant the actual result of the pursuit - not the endeavor itself. Again - it's not about being lazy, it's BIOLOGY. The relationship dynamics are much different when the woman takes the active role. I do also want to clarify because it seems like there's some confusion. I'm willing to show interest in a guy such as smiling, eye contact, friendly conversation (there's one guy in the town I work that I stop by to say "hi" to - I think he's really cute and sweet). But when it comes down to the actual PURSUIT such as the first phone call or asking out for the first date - no way, no how. I just don't believe that's the way it should work. It goes against my nature.
IrishCarBomb Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Again - it's not about being lazy, it's BIOLOGY. The relationship dynamics are much different when the woman takes the active role. The biology rationale doesn't work; men pathetically try to use the same logic to justify promiscuity and infidelity. Not saying your position is wrong, just that this is not a valid rationale.
Trialbyfire Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 I'm totally confused about this entire thread. If women want men to pursue them, do it. If men want women to pursue them, do it. There are no blanket ways, reasons and issues. It's either going to work for you or not and if it doesn't work for you, try something else. Sure, biologically women are pursued and men are the pursuers. On the otherhand, biologically speaking, we void where and when we feel like it but have since learned that it's more hygienic to use the toilet. Also, men, you're not victims here. You're either going to pursue the woman or not. No one's forcing you to. If your major concern is getting laid, then I guess you're going to find the way that gets you laid more often. This isn't a necessity. It's a want/desire. You can live without sex but you can't live without food or water.
SoulSearch_CO Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 The biology rationale doesn't work; men pathetically try to use the same logic to justify promiscuity and infidelity. Not saying your position is wrong, just that this is not a valid rationale. I disagree. The comparison you made (men using biology to explain promiscuity and infidelity vs. women using it to explain why they are the selectors) doesn't even make sense. One is socially acceptable and one is not. Not sure what your point is. As TBF put it, it's the same thing with voiding - it all comes down to what's socially acceptable and what's not. Besides - I agree with TBF - if it works for you, do it. I don't like being the pursuer, I've had negative results. I am turned on by being pursued. So the right type of men will find me - not the type that want me to be the man.
IrishCarBomb Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 The comparison you made (men using biology to explain promiscuity and infidelity vs. women using it to explain why they are the selectors) doesn't even make sense. One is socially acceptable and one is not. You've actually explained my point here. Claiming biology isn't correct because social standards, individual expectations, and many other facets come into play. It's overly simplistic and just off base. Assuming biology was the proper rationale for your claim, it would also justify the infidelity claim without regard to social standards. The generalizations and overreactions in this thread are getting out of hand. The only real point I can see is that each person can choose how they want to go about it, but they should be well aware of the consequences of their choice.
SoulSearch_CO Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 But my claim about biology doesn't hurt anyone. Yours does. Claiming biology as an excuse to hurt somebody (infidelity) IS B.S. Claiming biology for feeling a certain way (turned on at being pursued) is completely separate. But you may see it how you wish. Besides that - I never said that a woman COULDN'T pursue. It's just not my choice and I feel I have biology backing me up on this one, not to mention experience. Any woman is more than welcome to pursue - go for it. Gees. And any guy is more than welcome to sit back and be pursued by women - woohoo. I don't really care.
Taramere Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 The stereotype of women waiting to be pursued suits my temperament, as I'm not exactly one of life's go-getters when it comes to romance and sex. On the other hand, as someone else said - there are consequences to that. Primarily that it limits my options, as a woman. Limits them to the kind of men who are confident about pursuing shy women, but who aren't necessarily men I'm temperamentally compatible with. There seems to be some settled view now that alpha men pursue women while beta men are too lacking in confidence to do so....but how valid is that? What exactly constitutes an "alpha" male? The same man can be an "alpha" in some situations and a beta in others....and it mostly depends on whether he's in his comfort zone. To classify a man as alpha or beta according to his interactions with women and how confidently he pursues them is quite narrow minded. It also exposes the women who subscribe to that perspective to confidence tricksters, predators and manipulators. Who's to say that an aura of "impressive" super-confidence isn't just a smokescreen concealing a void? As women, if we sit and wait passively for the most confident men to demonstrate an interest in us, I think we're potentially giving out the message "just develop a good line in bullsh*t and bravado. The smoke and mirrors of (possibly completely unmerited) confidence are all you need to get us. No need for any real, genuine qualities." There are men who are alphas in terms of their intelligence, but who happen to be very shy with women. Shyness often goes with the kind of intelligence and sensitivity that make people more interesting in the long term. I can think of men I've encountered who are physically very strong, but who still blush when a woman smiles at them. I don't think they're betas. I think they can be very charming....but naturally it's less easy to get to know men like that. If a woman wants the more genuine but somewhat reticent man, she may well have to put herself out there a bit more than the old stereotypes and rules encourage us to. The old fairytale of a wonderful prince battling through the forest to get his passively waiting princess is very nice to read in fairytales, but expecting life (and a man) to lay out that kind of one way, easily travelled road to romance and happiness is a little rose-tinted.
OpenBook Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 The stereotype of women waiting to be pursued suits my temperament, as I'm not exactly one of life's go-getters when it comes to romance and sex. On the other hand, as someone else said - there are consequences to that. Primarily that it limits my options, as a woman. Limits them to the kind of men who are confident about pursuing shy women, but who aren't necessarily men I'm temperamentally compatible with. Ah, but the passive role does NOT mean we have no control over who approaches us. It all depends on how we appear and behave. What "vibes" we're silently sending out. At least, this is what I've read about and witnessed (albeit rarely) in women who don't appear to have to lift a finger to draw all kinds of attention from all kinds of men. And if you figure out what she's doing, let me know.:laugh:
BlueHarvest Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 And exactly how long does everyone here expect the role of "chasing" to last before an established relationship is formed? How long did most people "chase" their "love interest" before the relationship become more personal?
OpenBook Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 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? The answer to that question is a resounding YES!! This is one of the fundamental differences between male and female, IMO. If a guy is attracted to a girl, her indifference to him drives him crazy. He keeps trying. He WANTS to keep trying! On the other hand, it's been my observation that females don't tend to hang around if they sense that they're not wanted or desired. There are exceptions, but this is generally the case.
Kamille Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 And exactly how long does everyone here expect the role of "chasing" to last before an established relationship is formed? How long did most people "chase" their "love interest" before the relationship become more personal? My rule is to follow the lead, when I'm interested. If he calls me once, I'm allowed to call once. If he initiates a date, I will bring up a potential plan and offer to set it up. If he writes an email, I answer and wait for response before answering again. This "lead" thing usually turns into a personal relationship all on its own, where both partners feel safe communicating with the other when they need too. Could be anywhere from 2 weeks to three months. I think I'm a bit more proactive then some other women here. Dating rules website set the bar at 2-1 for initiating contact (for every two times guy contacts, you contact once). But if, guy or girl, you find yourself constantly initiating plans, then this might mean the person is still unsure about you. Pull back and see if they get in touch with you. If they're interested, they will.
Taramere Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Ah, but the passive role does NOT mean we have no control over who approaches us. It all depends on how we appear and behave. What "vibes" we're silently sending out. At least, this is what I've read about and witnessed (albeit rarely) in women who don't appear to have to lift a finger to draw all kinds of attention from all kinds of men. And if you figure out what she's doing, let me know.:laugh: Well, I'd put my best friend in that category.....and actually, she and I have just been discussing this. I'm seeing her later today, so I'll pick her brains some more and get back to you! She was urging me to start carrying myself like an attractive woman who knows she's attractive. To steer clear of people who are confidence sappers (a category PUAs fall into). She's very open and friendly with men, and I can see how she's far more approachable than I am. She'll make eye contact and initiate conversations. I don't do that, because it was so drummed into me from a young age that I shouldn't "chase" men...and I interpreted that as meaning I shouldn't do anything at all that could possibly be perceived by a man as a sign that I might be interested in him. I bet I'm not the only one. For women who think along those lines, the "be passive, let the man pursue...." message is quite destructive and very disempowering. I think women like us benefit more from being told "forget other people's rules and start listening to your instincts. Flirt more with men. Not just the ones who initiate flirtation with you. Initiate flirtation with the shyer men. Be a little more proactive." And maybe the confidence doing that gives a woman helps with those vibes that make her more approachable.
OpenBook Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 For women who think along those lines, the "be passive, let the man pursue...." message is quite destructive and very disempowering. I think women like us benefit more from being told "forget other people's rules and start listening to your instincts. Flirt more with men. Not just the ones who initiate flirtation with you. Initiate flirtation with the shyer men. Be a little more proactive." Well, I've always had better luck when I went into a social function with the sole purpose of having a good time, and didn't care who approached me (or not). So you may be onto something there!! But I can't fake the "I could care less" approach to the opposite sex - I have to actually NOT care about it, in order for it to work. Which is an odd conundrum. When you stop giving a sh*t, that's when men come out of the woodwork. I totally don't get that. I'll look forward to seeing your BFF's take on all this!
Taramere Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Well, I've always had better luck when I went into a social function with the sole purpose of having a good time, and didn't care who approached me (or not). So you may be onto something there!! But I can't fake the "I could care less" approach to the opposite sex - I have to actually NOT care about it, in order for it to work. Which is an odd conundrum. When you stop giving a sh*t, that's when men come out of the woodwork. I totally don't get that. I'll look forward to seeing your BFF's take on all this! For me it isn't a case of faking disinterest. It's more that when I was growing up I was taught to feel shame and embarrassment if I was in any way obvious about my interest in someone. The benefits of having an older brother who kept an eagle eye out for any indicators of me having crushes on his buddies. Which, of course, I did. Dysfunctional as that shame may be, it's not easy to simply throw it off. So it's less a case of faking disinterest, more a case of being inhibited (maybe by a combination of temperament and conditioning) from demonstrating interest. This is where I can sympathise with guys who find it difficult to approach women because they're afraid of looking creepy. I think that sense of shame about being "found out" in fancying members of the opposite sex, ridiculous though it might be, is more common well into adulthood than people like to admit. I also think that talk of playing it cool and feigning disinterest might sometimes be a way for people to rationalise that sense of embarrassment (which is tied up with pride). It's not cool to be embarrassed and inhibited, but it might be perceived as cool to hide it all behind a veil of indifference - which eventually becomes an intrinsic part of who you are. So for me, "feign disinterest....play hard to get" would be terrible advice that was tantamount to saying "it's fine to be shy and inhibited around men. Keep doing that. It's working out great for you!" Yet avoiding showing interest in men and focusing on regarding men as the rightful pursuers seems like the most common advice I hear given to women on here. I feel trapped by it.... but in keeping with the spirit of LS I have to take responsibility for feeling that way, and perhaps make a conscious decision to stop willingly stepping into that trap. I will PM you if my BFF has anything particularly enlightening to say on this matter!
movingonandon Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 The stereotype of women waiting to be pursued suits my temperament, as I'm not exactly one of life's go-getters when it comes to romance and sex. On the other hand, as someone else said - there are consequences to that. Primarily that it limits my options, as a woman. Limits them to the kind of men who are confident about pursuing shy women, but who aren't necessarily men I'm temperamentally compatible with. There seems to be some settled view now that alpha men pursue women while beta men are too lacking in confidence to do so....but how valid is that? What exactly constitutes an "alpha" male? The same man can be an "alpha" in some situations and a beta in others....and it mostly depends on whether he's in his comfort zone. To classify a man as alpha or beta according to his interactions with women and how confidently he pursues them is quite narrow minded. It also exposes the women who subscribe to that perspective to confidence tricksters, predators and manipulators. Who's to say that an aura of "impressive" super-confidence isn't just a smokescreen concealing a void? As women, if we sit and wait passively for the most confident men to demonstrate an interest in us, I think we're potentially giving out the message "just develop a good line in bullsh*t and bravado. The smoke and mirrors of (possibly completely unmerited) confidence are all you need to get us. No need for any real, genuine qualities." There are men who are alphas in terms of their intelligence, but who happen to be very shy with women. Shyness often goes with the kind of intelligence and sensitivity that make people more interesting in the long term. I can think of men I've encountered who are physically very strong, but who still blush when a woman smiles at them. I don't think they're betas. I think they can be very charming....but naturally it's less easy to get to know men like that. If a woman wants the more genuine but somewhat reticent man, she may well have to put herself out there a bit more than the old stereotypes and rules encourage us to. The old fairytale of a wonderful prince battling through the forest to get his passively waiting princess is very nice to read in fairytales, but expecting life (and a man) to lay out that kind of one way, easily travelled road to romance and happiness is a little rose-tinted. Marry me ! Now that's out of the way, things seem to be even more nuanced than men being 'alpha' in some respects and not necessarily in approaching women --> the exact same man can be bold and hott one day, and pretty aloof and even seeminly shy the other day. That's not a speculation. I'm like that, and a couple of guys I know. Why? It could be anything at all, and most likely a random reason, such as mood, work stress, or laziness in that particfular moment. Men are people too, you know? :laugh:, not a pick up machines that have nothing else on their mind ather than be on the top of their game at all times. So, with all the "let them do all the pursuit" advice peddled here, if you catch somebody on an "off day", then... nothing will happen. Not because he isn't alpha enough, but simply because he wasn't "in the zone" at that particular moment. But a non-uptight woman can quickly snap him back "in the zone", with the simple and apparently under-appreciated act of classy agression
Author fivefive Posted December 17, 2008 Author Posted December 17, 2008 movingonandon, you took the words out of my mouth. many "alpha" men will seem to have off days. I am exactly like this, being so "alpha" and outgoing, flirty and completely confident one day, then the next seemingly shy for no reason. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that your confidence does not seem to be reciprocated back to you by the woman you're actively pursuing. They will give you mixed messages; being interested one day, then completely ignore you the next.
CommitmentPhobe Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 movingonandon, you took the words out of my mouth. many "alpha" men will seem to have off days. I am exactly like this, being so "alpha" and outgoing, flirty and completely confident one day, then the next seemingly shy for no reason. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that your confidence does not seem to be reciprocated back to you by the woman you're actively pursuing. They will give you mixed messages; being interested one day, then completely ignore you the next. Agree too, and in some situations you are going to be the "alpha" and others you aren't... Plus all guys I know, somtimes we can do no wrong and sometimes we can do no right, it goes in phases. Oh and for women, sometimes they'll see a side of you and be uninterested, next minute they see you in a different light and can't get enough. Who knows how all this works, not worth trying to figure out.
sumdude Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 OK, the biology angle is actually quite powerful. It's all about sex (as if we didn't know) and procreation. For millions of years of evolution of Homo Sapiens before the invention of reliable birth control one sexual act was a small investment for the male and a potentially HUGE investment for the female. The mating act occurs and quite possibly the male is gone happily along his way to the next while the female could have 9 months and the rest of her life to carry and raise the offspring. Possibly she didn't even get the opportunity to enjoy the act if the male was weak in the mating skills department. So naturally, in order to ensure the best possible scenario for strong healthy offspring a female will choose the best mate. The males will have to compete by showing their wares, how good a nest they build, how much food they can hunt etc etc... The 'winning' male is the provider and protector who will stick around and help raise the children. Of course the female may also have other ..ahem... sources of quality genetic material available that the provider doesn't necessarily know about. In this scenario... The most successful males spread their genetic material as far and wide as possible with the least investment. Hence an alpha male has resources and power (food and protection) he is also most likely to father many children with many females. The most successful females get the best genetic material available with the least amount of risk to themselves and the offspring. Which would mean mating with and keeping the alpha male (while possibly having others on the side, which of course the alpha male doesn't want). So all the mating rituals of different cultures were created to ensure the best possible option for the continuation of the species. Enter the birth control pill.... all the rules have changed. It's been the most powerful instrument of social change I can think of. But it's only been around a tiny tiny fraction of time in our history. So a lot of the old programming be it instinctual or socially taught is still around. Gender roles are getting a bit confusing. A female can experience and enjoy sex without the looming investment of a lifetime to children. Women can now raise children alone, though most prefer not to. Divorce is far less damaging to offspring than in the past. etc etc OK enough of the dry science stuff.. but it makes total sense. Funny how things change ... 'cougars' go after what they want. They've been through all the other things and just wanna have some fun.
Taramere Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Marry me ! I'm afraid I can't tomorrow, as I'm busy. If you'd asked yesterday, I could have slotted in a wedding today. Hang on though. It's Wednesday today, right? That's okay then. I can marry you on Saturday.
Jake Barnes Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 I'm afraid I can't tomorrow, as I'm busy. If you'd asked yesterday, I could have slotted in a wedding today. Hang on though. It's Wednesday today, right? That's okay then. I can marry you on Saturday. :mad:
Recommended Posts