I don't believe LS's dating "rules" work in the real world for most women

[harmfulsweetz]

I wonder what everyone's definition of a passive man is and how to recognize one in the early dating stages.

 

All men that I still considered passive have called/texted asking for dates. However, some didn't have specific plans and I had to come up with ideas on what to do most of the time (they would just call up and say want to catch up on Sat? for example). Then also subtle things like I would have to move things along from one venue to another or they would just sit there forever.

 

Then there is also pursuing if I did something that could be considered iffy. Say I cancel because I am sick. The guy doesn't ring again and waits for me to contact him. Is that passive? Then there are guys who pursue even if you have indirectly blown them off multiple times. Are they assertive or just stalkerish?

 

It's confusing...

 

For me, a passive man lets you make all of the decisions, i.e he may phone you up and suggest a date, but you'll be left making the plans of where to go, what time, etc.

 

I think any man that is interested in a woman, they will call her/text her etc, and if a man doesn't do those things at all, they aren't bothered. That isn't passive behaviour, that's a blow off right there even if he responds to your texts/answers your calls. I was in contact with this guy I really liked, at first he would text me loads too, initiating contact and such, but soon, I noticed I was doing all of the contacting, and he was just responding. I don't think of him as being passive, I think of him as being 'not interested.'

[VertexSquared]

I am too lazy to read this whole thread -- only replying to the first post. Sorry if I am repeating anything that's been hammered to death already.

 

1) Always let a guy do all the pursuing at first. He must initiate all/most contact. If he is slow in responding, wishy washy or shows signs of flaking at the beginning, dump.

In general I'd agree with this, but only to a limited extent. If a girl isn't really making any efforts to contact me back, I lose interest. While I don't mind taking charge, I don't want to take charge all the time. One of the things I value in a woman is intellect, and intellect rarely shines when it's only used to follow someone else's word. I like making decisions WITH someone, as opposed to just making decisions on my own and dragging someone along for the ride.

 

2) Don't ever enter a casual relationship with a guy because it won't turn into anything more. A relationship that starts as a hookup has no potential.

Sure. I think it's always a bad idea to try to change someone's mind through sex alone. If you want a casual relationship, don't enter a serious relationship off the bat. If you want a serious relationship, then don't start off casual. A relationship only really "morphs" when it's natural/mutual. If one person is already ahead of the other by miles, don't expect to see any catchup occurring anytime soon.

 

3) If you're not going on proper dates at first, and you start by hanging out more casually your relationship is going nowhere.

Depends on many things. If you want to avoid the friendzone, then don't treat her/him as a friend. Show interest if you're interested.

 

4) If you have sex with a guy before the 4/5th date, he will not take you seriously.

Also depends. I think the #-of-dates metric is a personalized thing that we can't really share amongst others. Some people need to have sex earlier on, while others need to wait. I don't know what it all averages out to, but I think your best bet is to judge the situation on its merits. Have sex when it's natural to do so.

[musemaj11]

It seems to me that women are far far far more obsessed with rules than men.

 

A woman can be crushing to death on a guy and she knows he likes her but she would rather sit back and risk losing him just because she has to follow the rules.

 

I mean damn. Learn to take risks to get what you want.

[harmfulsweetz]

It seems to me that women are far far far more obsessed with rules than men.

 

A woman can be crushing to death on a guy and she knows he likes her but she would rather sit back and risk losing him just because she has to follow the rules.

 

I mean damn. Learn to take risks to get what you want.

 

Exactly, I've had this happen too much to think it's worth it. I'd rather take a chance on something to get where I want to be, than not do it and lose the chance to, simply because I wanted to follow some rules.

[flying]

It seems to me that women are far far far more obsessed with rules than men.

 

A woman can be crushing to death on a guy and she knows he likes her but she would rather sit back and risk losing him just because she has to follow the rules.

 

I mean damn. Learn to take risks to get what you want.

 

I tend to agree that defining rules in this way is a waste of time...but I do think it's human nature to look for guidelines as a way to avoid feeling hurt, rejected, etc. I mean, that's what PUA stuff is all about too, and lord knows there's a huge market for that. It's just what people do. Self-esteem and experience help you more than anything else, of course - and give you the perspective to be able to take those risks...but we're all weak and fearful from time to time, and sometimes we just want someone to tell us if we're on the right or wrong track so we can stop second-guessing ourselves. Of course, the problem is that there really is no one right or wrong track that's universally applicable. Despite the best efforts of LS at times to define such a thing.

[PJKino]

First, no, I'm not. Second, none of your post is responsive to mine.

 

 

 

Uh, duh. That's exactly what I'm saying. If his personality is not one I want, why would I date him, let alone chase after him??

 

 

 

I don't need to pull a woe-is-me card. My plan works for me. Every. Single. Time. I'm not a woe-is-me person. I'm not a damsel in distress. Not am I rigid. I apply my standards to the men I date. I realize many men won't meet my standards, including passive pansies.

 

 

 

There is no "fault" here. WTF are YOU making this about "fault"? I'm simply applying standards to locate compatible men. I like assertive men, and look for assertive personality traits. It's not a passive man's "fault" that I'm not attracted to him, but it absolutely is a matter of compatibility.

 

And I don't know WTF you're talking about "game." I don't do games.

 

Why does a passive man have to be a "pansy" because he doesnt fit into your small ideal of how a man should act?

 

If you dont like passive Men fine but to call them names shows lack of class..

[musemaj11]

I tend to agree that defining rules in this way is a waste of time...but I do think it's human nature to look for guidelines as a way to avoid feeling hurt, rejected, etc. I mean, that's what PUA stuff is all about too, and lord knows there's a huge market for that. It's just what people do. Self-esteem and experience help you more than anything else, of course - and give you the perspective to be able to take those risks...but we're all weak and fearful from time to time, and sometimes we just want someone to tell us if we're on the right or wrong track so we can stop second-guessing ourselves. Of course, the problem is that there really is no one right or wrong track that's universally applicable. Despite the best efforts of LS at times to define such a thing.

To me dating is like job hunting in a sense.

 

Being called to an interview and not getting hired hurts!

 

But if you wanna get a job then you need to keep doing that especially if its a job that you really want.

 

Personally though, I think the reason women are more bound by rules is because due to ages of social conditioning women in general tend to be naturally more subservient than men. I mean after hundreds of thousands of years of human history, only in the past 50 years women started to say 'Enough' to being put in their place and being told what to do. Sad. LOL

Edited November 22, 2010 by musemaj11

[threebyfate]

I wonder what everyone's definition of a passive man is and how to recognize one in the early dating stages.

 

All men that I still considered passive have called/texted asking for dates. However, some didn't have specific plans and I had to come up with ideas on what to do most of the time (they would just call up and say want to catch up on Sat? for example). Then also subtle things like I would have to move things along from one venue to another or they would just sit there forever.

 

Then there is also pursuing if I did something that could be considered iffy. Say I cancel because I am sick. The guy doesn't ring again and waits for me to contact him. Is that passive? Then there are guys who pursue even if you have indirectly blown them off multiple times. Are they assertive or just stalkerish?

 

It's confusing...

It's patterns of behaviour that define people, not single instances. Passiveness or assertiveness will usually permeate other parts of their lives.

 

As far as the guys who won't take no when you've been definitive in your rejection, this smacks of a lack of respect and any kind of human sensitivity for your boundaries which doesn't bode well, IMO.

[flying]

Personally though, I think the reason women are more bound by rules is because due to ages of social conditioning women in general tend to be naturally more subservient than men. I mean after hundreds of thousands of years of human history, only in the past 50 years women started to say 'Enough' to being put in their place and being told what to do. Sad. LOL

 

Well, this is an interesting thought...but my observation, at least from reading LS and other dating-related websites is that men are equally likely to overanalyze. I mean, not to call another poster out, but look at The Fourth Planet's long posts - those exist exclusively to provide rigid "guidelines" to men. And, as I pointed out, PUA stuff is the same thing - guys pay big bucks for someone to tell them how they're supposed to act around women. I think it works both ways.

 

It may be, however, that there are more such relationship rules/advice books/websites/videos/etc. around for guys these days, as roles evolve - which is related to what you pointed out. An interesting thought.

Edited November 22, 2010 by flying

[SteveC80]

To me dating is like job hunting in a sense.

 

Being called to an interview and not getting hired hurts!

 

But if you wanna get a job then you need to keep doing that especially if its a job that you really want.

 

Personally though, I think the reason women are more bound by rules is because due to ages of social conditioning women in general tend to be naturally more subservient than men. I mean after hundreds of thousands of years of human history, only in the past 50 years women started to say 'Enough' to being put in their place and being told what to do. Sad. LOL

 

Women dont want to be equal in a sense that they want to be submissive and be told where to go and what to do

 

They want to look up to their man at the leader and superior who makes the decisons in a relaitonship

 

This is all in a womens nature to be submissive,look at some of the posts they get mad when a Man asks thme their input on a date and where they want to go

[Star Gazer]

Ah I see. So when things don't work out with you and a guy it's because they weren't assertive enough. Nevermind, I take back saying you always blame the guy. You are just into assertive guys, and those guys clearly aren't assertive. Right, gotchya. Not anything you did. Not your fault. And you aren't blaming them by saying they just aren't assertive enough. I can see how you are taking some accountability here.

 

Again, your post totally doesn't respond to anything I said!

 

If it doesn't work out between me and a guy, it's for ONE reason: we're not compatible. That could be for any number of reasons. At the end of the day, it's because I'm not what he's looking for, or he's not what I'm looking for, or a combination of the two. There's no "fault" in either direction unless someone does something bad (e.g., cheating), and even then it's still a compatibility issue.

 

Further, you clearly haven't followed my history here on LS, because if there's anything I have a tendency to do, it's to take the responsibility/blame on myself.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Women dont want to be equal in a sense that they want to be submissive and be told where to go and what to do

 

They want to look up to their man at the leader and superior who makes the decisons in a relaitonship

 

This is all in a womens nature to be submissive,look at some of the posts they get mad when a Man asks thme their input on a date and where they want to go

 

Oh, SteveC80, you towering hunk of manly manness! You understand the very essence of womanhood!

 

Still waiting for that picture of you ...

[Mad Max]

When I was very interested. I tried the playing it cool, sitting back and letting him do the chase, he didn't. I found out later through friends that he really liked me but wasn't sure of my interest levels, and so he ended up dating someone else.

 

 

That's the point I've been making all along. Men can get away with acting aloof, women can't.

[Mad Max]

Oh, SteveC80, you towering hunk of manly manness! You understand the very essence of womanhood!

 

Still waiting for that picture of you ...

 

 

Still waiting for a pic of Green as well.

[harmfulsweetz]

That's the point I've been making all along. Men can get away with acting aloof, women can't.

 

Exactly. A woman needs to show a man that they are interested in him, so that he will know to pursue if he wants to. There's nothing wrong with a woman taking initiative and making the first move, or for the 'chase' to be equal.

 

If women take the approach of sitting back and letting the man come to them, it won't happen often. Men are just like women-they fear rejection too, and they question interest levels. Which is why I always make it clear now when I'm interested.

[Star Gazer]

That's the point I've been making all along. Men can get away with acting aloof, women can't.

 

Do you EVER ask women out? You can't pursue a woman or ask her out and be aloof.

[harmfulsweetz]

Do you EVER ask women out? You can't pursue a woman or ask her out and be aloof.

 

I read his point as: in the beginning stages, women must show their interest in order for a guy to pursue them. I may be wrong but that is how I saw it.

[sumdude]

See, I've missed out on some really good, quality guys because I didn't make my interest known or clear. Maybe the guy fit into the passive category, but I actually believe he just didn't want to look like a fool for making a move on a girl he didn't know was interested. When I was very interested. I tried the playing it cool, sitting back and letting him do the chase, he didn't. I found out later through friends that he really liked me but wasn't sure of my interest levels, and so he ended up dating someone else. I ended up really regretting not making a move on him considering how obvious he made it that he liked me (kissing my forehead, cuddling me, talking only to me in a big group, offering me his jacket because I was cold etc) and I vow, that I won't make the same mistake, even if the guy ends up labelled as 'passive'.

 

We could be all day discussing the actions of a passive/assertive man but it all boils down to interest levels. There is no written rule that says men must always chase/pursue the woman, or he is a passive pansie! People should do what works for them, and not strive to put labels on every single action someone does/doesn't do.

 

The next time I meet a really great, quality guy, one that I spark with and connect with, I'm not going to worry about who does the approach and makes the move. I'm just going to do it because quite frankly, the rules don't always work for me. And I want an assertive man, but I feel a guy that lays back and doesn't do ANY chasing/pursuing signifies more a level of no interest than his being passive.

 

Sounds like a very healthy approach to me.

[harmfulsweetz]

Sounds like a very healthy approach to me.

 

:bunny:

[musemaj11]

Well, this is an interesting thought...but my observation, at least from reading LS and other dating-related websites is that men are equally likely to overanalyze. I mean, not to call another poster out, but look at The Fourth Planet's long posts - those exist exclusively to provide rigid "guidelines" to men. And, as I pointed out, PUA stuff is the same thing - guys pay big bucks for someone to tell them how they're supposed to act around women. I think it works both ways.

 

It may be, however, that there are more such relationship rules/advice books/websites/videos/etc. around for guys these days, as roles evolve - which is related to what you pointed out. An interesting thought.

Except male dating rules are designed to give men power while female dating rules are mostly confining in nature.

 

If dating rules for men teach them to be completely passive, no man is going to follow them. I know Im not. If I see an attractive girl who makes me go nuts inside everytime I see her and I feel I might have a chance with her, Im going to try those chances no matter what the rules say.

Edited November 23, 2010 by musemaj11

[Disillusioned]

The reason the 'rules' don't work, is because there are no rules!

 

Bull-oney!

Most singles are trying to push back by using the old rules. But the old rules don't work because technology has outpaced our thinking. If you think the man should always make the first move, you need to stop living in the 1950s and open your eyes.

[northern_sky]

I'm glad my thread generated a lot of discussion. Unfortunately, I was on moderated status so unable to join in until now.

 

I feel like a number of people didn't totally get what I was trying to say. Maybe it was a lack of clarity in my writing. It seems like the discussion became more about which gender's responsibility it was to take more initiative, which wasn't the purpose of my OP.

[flying]

Except male dating rules are designed to give men power while female dating rules are mostly confining in nature.

 

If dating rules for men teach them to be completely passive, no man is going to follow them. I know Im not. If I see an attractive girl who makes me go nuts inside everytime I see her and I feel I might have a chance with her, Im going to try those chances no matter what the rules say.

 

I'd say that all relationship "rules" purport to achieve the same goal, for men and women: to attain the upper hand in the relationship. Someone else pointed out on another thread around here somewhere that whoever cares least tends to be the one in power. That is what dating "rules" are all about, is it not? Appearing to care least, or seeking to care least. Thus, it is about gaining the upper hand and thereby avoiding being hurt.

 

It's futile, of course. But we all seek to do it.

 

Whether a mature person is able to step outside of those "rules" and not seek the upper hand is another question entirely. But the whole point of looking for some external rules is this: To avoid rejection/hurt.

 

Anyway, I do think that men are advised to be more passive quite often by these dating gurus. Hence the advice to, for example, wait a certain number of days before calling a woman, so as not to appear too eager. Visit any PUA site and the vast majority of the advice boils down to not appearing too eager, too invested, too involved with any one woman. In other words, pull back. Let her come to you. Etc. If that's not a call to be "passive" as a way to increase interest, just like common advice for the ladies, I don't know what is.

Edited November 23, 2010 by flying

[Mad Max]

The person that said there are no rules is right on the money. People would be much happier if they stopped abiding by "rules". And if those "rules" happen to be in paperback, it's a bunch of BS.

[flying]

I'm glad my thread generated a lot of discussion. Unfortunately, I was on moderated status so unable to join in until now.

 

I feel like a number of people didn't totally get what I was trying to say. Maybe it was a lack of clarity in my writing. It seems like the discussion became more about which gender's responsibility it was to take more initiative, which wasn't the purpose of my OP.

 

Hi sky, I apologize for helping hijack your thread.

 

But I guess in a way I did mean it as a response to you as well - I do think that the problem with following such rules is that they tend to take over natural response. People - whether following LS rules, The Rules or PUA rules - can't act naturally when their heads are full of what they're not supposed to be doing and how to increase interest level and how will I describe this on LS tomorrow. I think this goes for both genders.

 

It just seems that if you spend too much time wondering what the rules are and debating with yourself about which ones work best, then the trouble becomes that you're just following the letter but not the spirit of them. At heart, they make sense: have perspective, have your own life, don't project your desires too much onto a brand-new not yet solid relationship, keep an open mind.

 

All of that stuff is reasonable and makes sense. But if you get too stiff about it, you lose sight of what it really means. Which is just, try to have some perspective when you meet someone new - it's so alluring to be caught up in the newness and excitement, and it can be equivalently hurtful to feel rejected by a stranger. But the real power lies in understanding that so much of that emotion and hopefulness and despair and rejection is your own creation, until you actually get to know someone. Which means you can control it, whether or not you want to.

 

To create a real, honest-to-God connection with someone, you just first have to push that stuff inside your head aside for a bit and focus on the fact that there's another human being in front of you, and figure out who he (or she) is.