What if men stopped pursuing?

[El Brujo]

Would women A) just accept it and choose to be alone, or B) change their behavior and start pursuing men instead?

 

There's a site named HerWay dot com which operates on the premise that women are allofasudden going to change their behavior and start pursuing men. That would be bad news for a lot of PUAs, but good news for the guys like me who are more laid back.

 

When I went to that Meetup potluck for singles a couple of weeks ago, the organizer hit the bull's-eye when he told me that judging from the way he saw me hanging back in the crowd, I need a more assertive type of woman to hit on me. Guess what? He was right---I never was turned on by submissive women. There was one woman there who expressed her wish for a "mail-order husband", but all the other guests probably thought she was desperate. Not Me!

 

There's a lot of talk about women wanting to have the same rights as men, but it looks like that equality doesn't apply to dating and relationships as long as female behavior doesn't change. I'm not trying to be sexist, I'm just pointing out something we all accept even though it's sexist.

 

Unfortunately for singles who still want to play by the old rules, it looks like things are changing whether certain people like it or not... playing hard-to-get has pretty much died out, now I hear a lot of people saying that going on a date is becoming more like a job interview, with questions shot at them like bullets about what they want in a relationship. Not that that's a bad thing (at least to me, Mister Logical), but it gives us no room to be charmingly stoopid.

 

So... would you be willing to bite the bullet and go with the new rules, or try to push back and hold out as long as you can?

Edited December 14, 2011 by El Brujo

[jobaba]

Answer...

 

It would completely shift the axis of power that is squarely in the woman's favor now.

 

There'd be a lot less older male virgins because women who like such shyer guys would have approached them. Subsequently, the number of older female virgins would rise.

 

Good looking males would be less valued as women would hit on more average looking men in attempt to 'get laid for the night'. Because of course, the average woman wouldn't have as many options anymore if she had to put in just as much work.

 

Women would use PUA tactics focusing on the insecurities of a man's height and penis size.

 

Lastly, there'd be a crapload of bitter women on here on LS complaining about how all men are shallow and just want short rich girls.

[Oxy Moronovich]

When you ignore women, that's when they show interest. Then they show their interest loud and clear. Sometimes they'll actually be easier to get into bed. Unfortunately, our hormones don't allow us to be patient. So many dudes would break the "no pursue" rule.

 

Two examples of women showing interest when I don't pursue:

 

1. Two days ago I was at the Volkswagon dealership, getting my car checked up. I was in the waiting room with a bunch of people. Another woman kept glancing at me. I didn't have that much interest. I saw another woman I knew from school and went over to talk to her. While I was talking to my classmate, the first woman came up and sat right at our table. There were at least half a dozen other free tables. Then she started chatting with me and I exchanged numbers when we parted.

 

2. Two months ago, I was at a party. When I get drunk, I become the happy "wanna be everyone's friend" type of drunk. I was telling jokes, dancing like it was my birthday, and chatting up everyone. One chick I had never even seen before started hanging out with me all night. When I went to take a piss, she offered to hold my penis because I was too drunk. I passed out before having sex, but when I woke up, she was sleeping right next to me.

 

Those are just two examples showing how not pursuing women made women want me more and be more direct. Women are attention addicts. It's a physiological need they have. That's why women are so competitive with one another.

[ditzchic]

If I see something I like I have no problem approaching. I'll break the ice but I'm not going to "chase". I mean I can only do so much before I think the guy just isn't interested or isn't my "type". I like my men more beta but not complete total wusses afraid to make any kind of move.

 

Assertive women have the world at their feet. They have the guys who are willing to chase them and they are willing to go see what's up with someone who seems shy but cute. You can't expect them to waste too much time chasing down one dude when all those other options are available.

[carhill]

It'll never happen. There will always be some guy or group of guys thinking with their dicks.

 

FWIW, I haven't actively pursued anyone, save for about two months of dating about two years ago, in the nearly three years since my exW and I split up and, other than a few emotional vampires, haven't any substantive contact with or from women in that time period. My cat and I have lived a quiet and fulfilling life. Good day from LAX. Live anywhere near there, OP?

[somedude81]

It would be much worse for the average man than it is now.

 

Women seem to have a very narrow view of what they consider attractive. So if women did the asking out, you'd have something like ten girls all asking out the same guy and of course he would say yes to all but the ugliest of them.

 

Average and below guys will be completely ignored by women. At least now, average guys can ask out a ton of women and maybe get lucky. But if women were the pursers, the guys would never get lucky.

 

There would be a lot of unsatisfied angry men and violence, especially towards women would go way up.

Edited December 14, 2011 by somedude81

[jobaba]

It would be much worse for the average man than it is now.

 

Women seem to have a very narrow view of what they consider attractive. So if women did the asking out, you'd have something like ten girls all asking out the same guy and of course he would say yes to all but the ugliest of them.

 

Average and below guys will be completely ignored by women. At least now, average guys can ask out a ton of women and maybe get lucky. But if women were the pursers, the guys would never get lucky.

 

There would be a lot of unsatisfied angry men and violence, especially towards women would go way up.

 

Innn-teresting POV. Personally I think women have a narrow view of what they find attractive because they have a number of men pursuing them or asking them out: options in other words. Thus, only the top percentage do they consider really good looking or attractive.

 

If women needed to pursue too, media portrayals would change and I think women's standards would go down.

[somedude81]

Innn-teresting POV. Personally I think women have a narrow view of what they find attractive because they have a number of men pursuing them or asking them out: options in other words. Thus, only the top percentage do they consider really good looking or attractive.

 

If women needed to pursue too, media portrayals would change and I think women's standards would go down.

The reason women's standards are so high now, is because they can get just about anybody they want within reason. If women became the pursuers, that wouldn't change at all.

 

If a man had many suitors, he would gladly accept them all. That's different from how when woman had many suitors, she would traditionally only choose one.

 

As long as women are willing to share a guy, things will always be in the favor of the most desired males.

[neowulf]

As long as women are willing to share a guy, things will always be in the favor of the most desired males.

 

Bingo. Interestingly, you see this exact pattern play out with primates.

 

There is *one* Alpha male and he mates with *all* the women.

He effectively has a harem.

 

Honestly, monogamy doesn't make the least sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

What is *does* to is lessen the amount of aggression between completing males for mates.

 

Once a man is married, he's removed himself from the pool of available mates, thus forcing women to consider other mates she previously may have ignored.

 

If one man was able to take as many wives as he wanted, average men would be forced to "fight" for the right to mate. Both men and women would also be forced to pair with sub-optimal partners.

 

That or average men would be forced into raising the offspring of the "Alpha male" as their own, in exchange for a chance at sex and companionship.

[verhrzn]

Bingo. Interestingly, you see this exact pattern play out with primates.

 

There is *one* Alpha male and he mates with *all* the women.

He effectively has a harem.

 

Honestly, monogamy doesn't make the least sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

What is *does* to is lessen the amount of aggression between completing males for mates.

 

Once a man is married, he's removed himself from the pool of available mates, thus forcing women to consider other mates she previously may have ignored.

 

If one man was able to take as many wives as he wanted, average men would be forced to "fight" for the right to mate. Both men and women would also be forced to pair with sub-optimal partners.

 

That or average men would be forced into raising the offspring of the "Alpha male" as their own, in exchange for a chance at sex and companionship.

 

There's actually quite a bit of anthropological study behind this theory. Strange as it may seem at first glance, monogamy actually benefits the "average" male.

 

A perfect modern example is the fundamentalist Mormon compounds, in which older (and richer/more powerful) men marry multiple women, particularly young girls. To prevent competition, they drive out the younger men... There are tons of "orphaned" Mormon boys who live on the streets. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism))

 

Women pursuing men, instead of the other way around, might shift the power balance to men, but it'd shift to a very few select men. For example, right now, with men pursuing, unattractive or ugly girls are ignored. If the power dynamic switched... it'd just be unattractive or ugly males instead.

[El Brujo]

Good day from LAX. Live anywhere near there, OP?

 

Yes, on the west side just down the hill from LAX. You know... the little desert in the middle of the big oasis.

 

Bingo. Interestingly, you see this exact pattern play out with primates.

 

That's my point.

 

The inventors of online dating probably didn't realize it at the time, but their invention screwed around with some long-established social dynamics.

[verhrzn]

Come to think of it, the other sex valuing polyamory is actually beneficial to the "lesser" attractive mates. Once of the reason men and women are so picky about their partners is because of our monogamous system... once they're tied to this person, that's it. So the person better satisfy them emotionally, sexually, intellectually, etc.

 

If one man takes many wives/lovers, then he might not be so stringent that the girl is ugly, because he has 6 other beautiful women to also have sex with. She may be a great conversationalist, and that's all he needs. So, while she doesn't get an "equal partner," she at least gets to experience some joys of marriage.

 

So, if a wide-spread social level, men weren't so insistant on a woman being monogamous (she could have multiple lovers), she actually might be more willing to sleep with/marry a "lesser" guy, because she isn't looking at him to satisfy all her needs.

[somedude81]

Monogamy definitely benefits the lesser men simply because it limits the top men to only one woman. Basically eliminating the harem that top men would otherwise have.

 

Even better would be laws that require marriage by a certain age and harsh penalties for cheating.

 

Odds are that if I lived in a culture like that, I'd be married and with kids right now...

[El Brujo]

Monogamy definitely benefits the lesser men simply because it limits the top men to only one woman. Basically eliminating the harem that top men would otherwise have.

 

Even better would be laws that require marriage by a certain age and harsh penalties for cheating.

 

Odds are that if I lived in a culture like that, I'd be married and with kids right now...

 

Better yet would be laws that make human clones legal to adopt. Bet there'd be damn few women snubbing men then.

[Elysian Powder]

Monogamy definitely benefits the lesser men simply because it limits the top men to only one woman. Basically eliminating the harem that top men would otherwise have.

 

I'm not limited to only one woman, and I've slept with plenty of married women while having a handful or more, of sex offers at all times, from single women.

 

Monogamy only benefits the Alphas and women. It enables women to sex-up Men like me and then, to marry the omega males like you .

[fortyninethousand322]

I'm not limited to only one woman, and I've slept with plenty of married women while having a handful or more, of sex offers at all times, from single women.

 

Monogamy only benefits the Alphas and women. It enables women to sex-up Men like me and then, to marry the omega males like you .

 

In which case for the omega male, sex usually ends being a once a month or once every six months type of situation. Because she's "tired".

[somedude81]

I'm not limited to only one woman, and I've slept with plenty of married women while having a handful or more, of sex offers at all times, from single women.

 

Monogamy only benefits the Alphas and women. It enables women to sex-up Men like me and then, to marry the omega males like you .

Are you married?

 

Whether you are or not, the second part of my post would be the perfect way to deal with men like you.

 

It's the true realization of monogamy. Forcing men to only have one woman.

[Elysian Powder]

In which case for the omega male, sex usually ends being a once a month or once every six months type of situation. Because she's "tired".

 

And the omega male has his financial security destroyed by her as soon as she's entitled to alimony. Child-support helps her out too. Sex's only free for the Alpha male and the beta male eats my left-overs; omegas have to pay in gold for the crumbs of the beta male.

 

Solution?

 

Chemical Castration .

[fortyninethousand322]

And the omega male has his financial security destroyed by her as soon as she's entitled to alimony. Child-support helps her out too. Sex's only free for the Alpha male and the beta male eats my left-overs; omegas have to pay in gold for the crumbs of the beta male.

 

Solution?

 

Chemical Castration .

 

Yeah, I mostly figured that. Such is the way of nature right?

[Elysian Powder]

Are you married?

 

Whether you are or not, the second part of my post would be the perfect way to deal with men like you.

 

It's the true realization of monogamy. Forcing men to only have one woman.

 

My grandpas are both married since their 20's and they've always cheated on my grandmas;my grandmas have always known of It and accepted this because Alpha males are too extremely rare and important to let them go or to punish them.

 

monogamy is only enforceable in low value males due to women's disdain for low value males.

[somedude81]

"Alpha" males important. Now that's funny.

[Elysian Powder]

"Alpha" males important. Now that's funny.

 

to women. that's all that matters in life.

[lululucy]

"Alpha" males important. Now that's funny.

 

This thread in general is damn funny.

[Elysian Powder]

This thread in general is damn funny.

 

As if men would stop being pussy-beggars, right.

[kaylan]

Bingo. Interestingly, you see this exact pattern play out with primates.

 

There is *one* Alpha male and he mates with *all* the women.

He effectively has a harem.

 

Honestly, monogamy doesn't make the least sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

What is *does* to is lessen the amount of aggression between completing males for mates.

 

Once a man is married, he's removed himself from the pool of available mates, thus forcing women to consider other mates she previously may have ignored.

 

If one man was able to take as many wives as he wanted, average men would be forced to "fight" for the right to mate. Both men and women would also be forced to pair with sub-optimal partners.

 

That or average men would be forced into raising the offspring of the "Alpha male" as their own, in exchange for a chance at sex and companionship.

First off people need to stop with this crap. WE ARE NOT MONKEYS.

 

WE ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO WILD ANIMALS.

 

Monogamy works if you want to use evolutionary theories. Diversity is best for a species....so tell me, how one male having sex with all the females is better than many males having sex with many females?

 

All this crap about alpha and betas and sub optimals is hogwash. This is NOT prehistoric wild cave man times. There are MANY things that give a man value in this world outside of the typical "being the biggest and strongest" in the wild alpha bs. A man can be alpha with his musical skills, or money, or style, or the way he speaks.

 

Humans have superior cognitive thought which makes us so complex, so you cannot break down our mating habits and try to compare them to wild animals.

 

Jeezus