« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
One of the unfortunate side-effects about having these necessary conversations about creepy behavior are the socially inexperienced or somewhat shy who are already anxious about trying to introduce themselves to a strange woman who mean well but now are even more intimidated by the daunting prospect of trying to not be creepy by accident. What was already a potentially terrifying experience has become akin to walking through a social minefield where the merest misstep or error in judgement gets misinterpreted and results in word spreading through the Super Secret Women Hotline, all but guaranteeing that the poor bastard will end up dying alone and unloved, masturbating and crying at the same time.
“He did what?! Oh man, we need to warn everybody we know about him right away!”
Better to not approach women at all than face the possibility of being exiled from dating forever, no?
Unfortunately, this is one more example of why nerds have the worst superpower of all time: the ability to game out every possible worst-case scenario in living color and vivid surround sound, each time worse than the last. When we get so worked up over all of the potential mistakes we could make, each one deadlier than the one before it, we end up building up a fantasy world in our heads that bears almost no resemblance to the world we actually live in.
In reality: avoiding being creepy isn’t nearly as difficult as it may seem. I’ve written a lot about the basics you need when it comes to meeting women – so now the time has come to start putting it all together.
Call it Meeting Women 101.
A Working Definition of “Creepy”
Before we even get started, let’s get a functional definition of creepy behavior – at least as it applies to dating scenarios.
Creepy behavior means acting in such a way that it causes a woman’s Spidey-sense to start tingling – that is to say, acting or behaving in a manner that makes someone fundamentally uncomfortable or feel threatened. This may mean that the creepy person is pushing up against somebody’s boundaries – turning the conversation in an unwelcome discussion about sex, showing them obscene pictures, ignoring indications that their presence is unwanted – or that they’re acting in such a way that their behavior could be seen as a threat – such as backing someone up against a wall during a conversation or grabbing them by the arm.
This doesn’t necessarily cover all possible scenarios – and I’m sure there will be folks who will want to what-if this to death – but it’s close enough for government work.
Right Time, Right Place
Let’s get this out of the way right off the bat: going up and starting a conversation with someone you don’t know is not inherently creepy. This is how you get to know people.
That having been said, there is a time and a place for everything and there are times and locations where trying to strike up an acquaintance with a stranger is a bad idea.
If you’re looking to avoid being creepy by accident, one of the first things you need to consider is where you are and when you are. Different aspects of the social contract are in force depending on location and the time of day. Going up to someone on a bright, sunlit day in the park carries an entirely different implication than going up to her in the middle of the night in that same park. With the exception of in particular venues – bars and clubs, for example, or other places where approaching people and being approached is to be expected - most women are going to be much more on the defensive at night and much more prone to seeing being approached as potentially threatening.
At the same time, you also want to avoid making someone feel cornered or trapped. Meeting a woman at a hotel bar and flirting with her can feel like the most normal thing in the world. Meeting that same woman in a small, empty room and trying to flirt with her there can appear to be threatening – she has no way of getting away from you should she feel the need. She is much more likely to feel as though she’s in danger because’s she’s effectively trapped.
The most famous example of this the infamous ElevatorGate incident at the World Atheist Convention, where a man struck up a flirty, sexualized conversation with a woman in an elevator at 4 in the morning. The problem was less the conversation itself then where and when it took place. A conversation that might have been merely annoying and unwelcome in one locale – say, the convention hall – felt threatening and creepy in another – alone in the elevator in the middle of the night.
“So… looks like it’s just you and me, huh? Just the two of us. All alone. For the next twenty floors.”
As a general rule of thumb, you need to consider the social context. Certain behaviors are more acceptable in some places than in others. People expect different levels of physical contact at, say, a nightclub than at a bookstore or the gym. You want to remain socially relevant – the more your actions are incongruous to the situation, the more disconcerting and creepy you will appear to be.
When in doubt: maintain personal space whenever possible (just outside of arm’s length) until invited to close the gap and always make sure that the person you’re talking to has a way of exiting the situation without effort.
Read Her Body Language
Before you approach someone, make sure they’re in the mood to be approached in the first place.
People who are uninterested in talking to people – especially people they don’t know – will often make a point of signaling that they wish to be left alone through non-verbal means. They will make a point of closed-off body language - crossed arms, hunched posture, turning away from the general flow of traffic. They often will make approaching them or talking to them difficult by wearing headphones or sunglasses as a way of avoiding eye contact. Similarly, someone who is engrossed in a book, her laptop, her phone, an iPad or a sketchbook is likely not interested in talking to a random person at that moment. The mere act of writing/drawing/reading in public doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re interested in an extended conversation about what she’s talking about.
Some signs are, admittedly, easier to read than others.
Trying to engage someone who is making it as obvious as possible that she does not wish to be bothered is obnoxious at best. Forcing your attention upon her – such as by waving your hands in front of her face to get her attention or pulling off her headphones is obnoxious and creepy as fuck.
How can you tell someone is interested or at least not opposed to the idea? Her body language will be more open; she will have straighter posture and be more relaxed and spread out. She may be taking breaks from her book or laptop to look out the window and stare of into space. If she’s sketching, she may look up around the room, especially if she’s doing figure studies of the people around her or lean back to consider the drawing more. These are times when it would be more acceptable to ask “hey, may I see what you’re working on?”
Making The Approach
You’ve judged the location – she’s checking out book titles in the Mystery section of your local Barnes and Noble at 4 in the afternoon. You’ve judged the situation – she doesn’t seem to be in a hurry or particularly determined to ignore the world around her… looks like you’re good to go!
This is where people tend to vaporlock. What do you do? What do you say? Do you tap her on the shoulder? Clear your throat? When do you ask for her number?
Simmer down, Beavis. Don’t get so worked up that you can’t think straight. Your goal is to simply start and maintain a conversation; trying to think any further ahead is only going to make you freeze up.
The best thing you can do to help keep from seeming creepy is to approach from an angle where she can see you; you don’t want to startle her with your sudden presence after ninja-sneaking up behind her. Coming up and standing off to an angle – rather than facing her head on – can help avoid coming across as though you’re trying to corner her or cut off her avenues of escape. Keeping a respectable distance – out of arm’s reach is a good rule of thumb – start talking.
Like I’ve said before: your opening lines ultimately don’t matter. Of every woman I’ve met and went on to date and/or sleep with, almost none of them remembered what the first lines were out of my mouth. I have started conversations with everything from “Hi my name is…” to “You’re very tall. Sorry, I have a thing, I point out the obvious” to the infamous “Nice boots, want to fuck?”1 Spending more time thinking up what you’re going to say than the length of time it takes to physically approach her just lets your self-doubt try to sabotage your approach.
Now keep in mind: the fact that your opening line doesn’t matter doesn’t mean that you can say anything; you want to avoid making her uncomfortable. Being offensive or crude right off the bat is going to work against you and possibly even make you seem “off”. Jokes that are overtly sexual2 or that reference kidnapping or rape are out.
When in doubt: “Hey, you seem like you’re cool and I wanted to meet you” is always appropriate.
The False Time Constraint
One thing that I’ve used many times with great success is what’s known in PUA lingo as the “false time constraint”. As I would use it, it was an artificial limit on how long I could be talking to the person or people I approached. My usual phrasing was to pick a moment early on in the interaction and say “Hey, I’ve only got a little bit before I…” and then inserted an appropriate reason why I couldn’t stay: “I have to get back to my friends”, “I have to get back to work”, “I have to go meet up with some people…” before segueing into a question or a story. Did I have to leave? Sometimes yes, sometimes no… but I used it regularly regardless.
To start with, it reassured whomever I talked to that even if I were a crushing boor, she would only have to put up with me for a few minutes before I left her alone. It also had the benefit of giving her an escape clause; if I were overstaying my welcome and ignoring her subtler hints that I should leave, “Didn’t you say you had to go do something?” is a fairly unambiguous sign that it’s time to go.
It also meant that if things weren’t going well – I decided I wasn’t interested in her, I could tell that she wasn’t interested in me – I had an easy, socially acceptable out. “Hey, like I said, I gotta run, it was great meeting you!” If things were going well, but I could feel the interaction running out of steam – as many of them do – it was an opportunity to leave on an emotional high note rather than hanging in until all conversation (and attraction, for that matter) ran dry. Leaving on an emotional high note (leaving ‘em wanting more, as it were) made it much more likely that when I’d ask for their number, I’d get it… and that they’d pick up when I’d call.
Bantering, Flirting and Chemistry
I like antagonistic flirting; I enjoy the back and forth of giving playful shit to someone I’m interested in and the sting of a witty reposte. In a lot of ways, this is how I would pre-screen the women I would flirt with; if they weren’t the type to banter back and forth with me, the odds were good that we weren’t going to be a good match. The trick to decent banter is the tease – saying something mean while meaning something nice. Proper bantering means being willing to break out of your shell and be willing to treat the woman you’re interested in almost as though she were an annoying little sister rather than someone so cute you’re almost intimidated by her. You don’t want to be actively mean – after all, calling someone you just met a filthy pirate whore is more likely to get a drink thrown on you even if she were teasing you about your hair – but some playful needling can keep things interesting.
“It’s a good thing you’re cute, lady.”
Now admittedly, it can be difficult, especially if you tend to be more reserved and less demonstrative and if you’re new to flirting, it’s very easy to cross a line by accident. When you’re starting out, keep it friendly, the way that you might tease a friend. When in doubt, keep up a push-pull dynamic; follow a tease up with a compliment, or a compliment with a tease.
The area where you do have to be careful is sex. Trying to build sexual tension can be tricky and I don’t necessarily advise it for a relative beginner who’s just approached someone. This doesn’t mean that sex is completely off the table – some people will naturally have a sense of humor that runs toward the ribald or may be more sexual in general – but trying to push the topic when it’s not wanted is a bona-fide creeper move. If the person you’re flirting with seems like someone whom might be interested in the topic, it’s best to feel your way forward3 with a slightly more naughty joke than usual.
For example: in the Anatomy Lesson about how I met April, I joked “hey, I’ll show you mine if you show me yours” when she asked about my artwork. She laughed, which meant that I would feel more confident making another, more overtly sexual joke later – in this case, about calling her Reverse Cowgirl. Her initial response: “Is that the best you got?” could be taken as either a warning or a challenge; unless you’re exceptionally well socially calibrated, it’s safer to assume that you should back down. Her joke afterwards - about riding bareback – told me what I needed to know: yes, she’s cool with a certain level of sexual humor and is even willing to throw it back at me. It can be a risky move, but sometimes risk is rewarded and we learn more from our mistakes than we do our successes.
But What If You Screw up?
So let’s just say that something goes wrong. You moved in a little too close, touched her just a little too long or said something that sounded way less inappropriate in your head. You’ve accidentally started to creep her out… what do you do now?
Well that’s simple. You take a step back (sometimes literally) and apologize. “Hey, I’m sorry, that really came out wrong,” or “Woah, sorry about that, I totally didn’t mean to crowd you there,” or even “Hey, I think I may have started to creep you out a bit and I’m really sorry about that.”
Never underestimate the power of a sincere apology, especially when you’re still relatively uncalibrated, socially.
It’s a hard truth that we learn the most from when we make mistakes rather than when we succeed. Sometimes the best way to learn is to give yourself permission to fuck up, occasionally badly. It’s hard to avoid crossing a line if you don’t know where the line is, and there will be times that the only way you’ll find it is to stumble over it in the first place.
Sometimes an apology and a show of good faith on your part will be all it takes to salvage the situation. Sometimes there just isn’t anything you can do except to chalk the whole thing up to a learning experience and resolve not to make the same mistake twice.
The difference between someone being creepy and an honest mistake is how you handle it. A creeper isn’t going to notice (or, for that matter, care) that he’s made the person he’s talking to uncomfortable; in fact, some of the more predatory creepers will actively test women’s boundaries before escalating to even worse behavior. A good guy, will stop whatever it is he’s doing as soon as he’s aware of it and make a point of not doing it again.
Leave On A High Note
When things are going well, it can be tempting to want to stay for as long as you possibly can. At times when it’s not going well and the conversation is starting to peter out… well, it can be tempting to want to stay for longer too, in the hopes that if you just keep her talking long enough you can jump-start that spark that you had earlier on.
As a general rule, it’s better to leave sooner rather than later. Trying to stay in a conversation with someone well past it’s natural expiration date is not the sign of someone with high social intelligence and can come across as offputting, if not a little creepy. Leaving when things are going well on the other hand, means that the last impression that she’ll have of you is a positive one; you’ll be the guy they were having fun wish that she wishes had stuck around just a little longer instead of the dude who kept hanging around all night and wouldn’t leave her alone.
Once again, this is where the false time constraint I mentioned above comes in handy. You have to leave… but you’re having such a great time with her that you need to see her again. This is not when you ask for her number however. This is when you make plans. You say “Hey listen, I have to go do X but I would really like to see you again. There’s this pub quiz this Saturday at my favorite bar. You should come with me, I promise nothing but a good time and great conversation.” When she agrees, then you ask for her number.
Just try not to do a little victory dance until after you’re out of eyesight.
- This was on a dare. I got slapped repeatedly, several “Go fuck yourself”s and a phone number. As a return on investment, I don’t recommend it. [↩]
- yes, including “nice boots, etc.” Don’t try this at home kids, I’m a professional. [↩]
- fnar [↩]
« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
Related posts:
Pages: 1 2
Under "Read Her Body Language", you emphasize that a man shouldn't approach a woman who is, "making it as obvious as possible that she does not wish to be bothered," but should rather approach a woman who is, "interested or at least not opposed to the idea". I certainly agree with your first point, but you're not quite right on the second.
Instead, a man shouldn't approach a woman unless she's making it as obvious as possible that she DOES wish to be approached. You also state that an uninterested woman, "will make a point of closed-off body language". That's not necessarily the case. A woman who doesn't want to be approached may very well have her thoughts elsewhere than the fact that she doesn't want to be approached. It's not her responsibility to actively ward off men from approaching her. It shouldn't be, at least. Unfortunately, she often does have to bear this responsibility, because of the men who insist on bothering her.
You might consider this the cold approach version of enthusiastic consent.
I disagree very strongly with this. Alberich, your approach is beyond cautious and and doesn't lead to any results. There are several things wrong with this your appraoch. First, there are a very few things that are this obvious. Practically nobody makes it really clear that they wish for a stranger to introduce themselves to them. There will usually be at least some ambiguity with non-verbal social cues. My opinion is if you like somebody and they aren't putting up any complete don't bother me signs than appraoch. Whats the worse that could happen? Positive social interaction requires active effort not reactive effort.
Your definition of creepy behavior is overbroad. Being social, striking up conversations, getting to know people, and taking social risks isn't creepy. Its normal. Creepy is hanging around a person you hope to notice you while doing nothing but breathing heavily or silently following them around without interacting with them or other more aggressive and threatening behavior. Simply going up and introducing yourself is not creepy.
"Alberich, your approach is beyond cautious and and doesn't lead to any results". Of course it leads to results. If she doesn't want to be approached, it leads to the result that she's looking for. It's a shame that you're not considering what her needs may be.
That said, your other example of creepy behaviour is right on the money. Don't do that either.
Alberich, I never said appraoch everybody. I said that if you think she is interested, take the risk. You have to use judgment, you can't approach everybody. The problem with what you want is that it rarely exists. There is no so thing as 100% of obvious interest, there is always some ambiguity. If like Thortok 2000 described, a woman obviously does not want to be appraoched than I won't. Anything else is fair game.
Well, personally speaking, if I'm reading or working or whatever in public, I absolutely do not want some dude interrupting me. Outside of that, though, I enjoy talking to strangers.
That said, I may be an outlier, because as much as I enjoy random chats with random people, I'd never give my number to some guy I didn't know. I get that this whole "approach" thing must work, since everyone's talking about it, but I can't imagine giving contact information to someone I've only met once. I've learned not to be weirded out when a stranger asks me, but it still seems strange to me.
But I don't think I'm an outlier in feeling that the default for someone who's absorbed in a book or their laptop is probably wanting to be left alone to read/work (given that they brought their book/laptop, they likely came to this place intending to read/work). I'd say reading their phone/newspaper/staring out the window is an indication they're more approachable.
That's the rule of thumb (besides body language) I use when I'm working in a coffee shop and need someone to watch my computer while I use the restroom — who am I clearly interrupting, versus who's just chilling?
You know, it is interesting…because I know all the dating tips from dudes to dudes is to ask for a wonan's number, never to give her yours…but I don't like doing that personally. Many of my female friends don't feel comfortable giving out their number to strangers, that is why I prefer giving my email/phone number to the woman instead…usually with enough info that she can reliably google me as well. This way if she wants more contact, she'll contact. If not, she won't. And I don't put her in an awkward situation or make her feel pressured. Now, I understand that many guys will say that many women won't contact you because of socialization…which makes me giving out my number even better…because I don't particularly want to date a person who can't ask someone out. I'll date an emancipated woman, or I won't date at all!
I consider myself emancipated, and have no problem asking people out, but I still wouldn't call the number of some random guy I just met, no matter how friendly, for non-business reasons. Again, I know people do it, but it seems bizarre to me. It's like making friends — I might have a conversation I really enjoy with a woman I meet in line at a coffee shop, but I wouldn't get her number and call her up to go out for coffee. The only context I can think of where that seems comfortable is getting their number and contacting them for business reasons.
Which is also totally fine by me! And exactly why I like to give my card out rather than asking for a number. If I had a great conversation with someone and we were really vibing and I gave him or her my contact info and she or he never contacted, I wouldn't be offended at all. That would just be an indication she or he didn't want further contact and I'll just enjoy the great conversation we had that one time and move on. Life is full of exciting conversations to have.
Considering how often women are harassed, I'd rather the woman have the choice of making further contact or not, rather than asking for her number–which can put her on the spot and make her feel uncomfortable…as the existence of rejection hotlines indicate.
Of course, exchanging contact info is something I do with people all the time as a professor when I'm at conferences, etc…and because my professional life and my personal life are very heavily intertwined handing out a card to another professor isn't exactly strictly business–especially if you are a professor not at my school (which is probably the case). The idea of: "you are really cool, we really love to talk about opera on 78s records of the 1920s…here's my card and we can talk more," is pretty natural to me–and generally quite platonic. Most people in my circle behave that way–men, women, and genderqueer people all. Generally, I also give people enough information about me in conversation that they can find me if they wish. Of course I'm not going to give my card out unless the other person and I are really vibing. I don't thrust it on random people.
Jessica, apropos Doc's suggestions above: would you agree to coffee later in the week with someone you just met, even if you didn't give them your phone number?
No. I go out to coffee with people I work with, friends of friends, professional contacts, etc. but not with strangers.
If I were interested in you, I would call you. I'm in the camp with the women who are not comfortable giving out personal information. I like to be the one to decide, do I want to contact this person or not? I have found guys don't like giving up that control, though.
"I disagree very strongly with this. Alberich, your approach is beyond cautious and and doesn't lead to any results."
Exactly.
I disagree less strongly than Lee. There's nothing wrong in my mind with making conversation with someone who isn't actively trying to shut out the world. if they're not really interested, they'll say so. A simple "no problem" with an optional "sorry for bothering you" will extract you with no hurt feelings. It'll probably be refreshing for those who do deal with creepers on a regular basis.
"Instead, a man shouldn't approach a woman unless she's making it as obvious as possible that she DOES wish to be approached."
I figured out what's logically wrong with the original idea here – aside from the fact that for a number of societal reasons women pretty much never send signals this strong.
How does she signal if she doesn't want to approach? Mostly through body language. But there's the problem – body language is a signal sent out to *everyone*, not just one other person. What happens to a woman who's attractive who sends out a wide signal that she wants to get approached? – she gets *mobbed*.
My dad had a story about how when he was single he joined a singles volleyball team. One day an unusually attractive woman came out to play. He said he didn't even talk to her because she was constantly surrounded by guys trying to talk to her. These guys weren't being jerks or anything – but he said that in general, it was mostly the least desirable guys who were making the most amount of effort. He didn't see himself as desperate, so he didn't feel like putting in the effort to fight through the throng to talk to her.
But if you're talking to someone, the signal you send to them is just sent to *them*. Not everyone in the whole group – just that person.
Requiring extremely open body language before approaching someone will never work because people who appear to be popular/attractive/etc get absolutely mobbed if they broadcast that signal. You need something that allows the woman to broadcast to the specific people she's interested in, which is extremely difficult with body language alone.
so you've said "(attractive) women can't make their body language approachable because they'll get mobbed" and if I'm understanding you right, the conclusion you draw from this is "therefore, it doesn't matter what kind of body language signals they're giving off, as long as they aren't staring at the floor, you should just approach them anyway, because you have no way of knowing if they'd make their body language open just for you but can't."
I find it a bit ironic that you start off mentioning logic because yours seems a bit jacked up to me. If a woman can't open up her body language without being mobbed, and she hasn't opened up her body language, it's because SHE DOESN'T WANT TO BE MOBBED. You are NOT the magical exception to this rule.
I'd also like to point out that women DO have a way of broadcasting more open body language to only one person, and that is called "eye contact and a smile."
I didn't make a point about whether I would talk to someone or not, my point was entirely that requiring as-open-as-humanly-possible body language wouldn't work – because the more attractive people will never, ever be able to do that without getting mobbed the instant they do it. It's not a signalling device that they can use.
You have to signal in some way that only sends a signal to that person. For the people I've seen be successful, that's done by saying something to her (if her body language isn't closed off), then gauging her reaction from that – if her body language and/or eye contact, or her tone, say she's definitely not interested in talking, nod or something and go back to whatever else you were doing.
No idea what I would say to your second paragraph, nobody exists in a world of "either I never talk to anyone, or I want to be mobbed". A lot of people enjoy talking to people, they just don't want to be mobbed either.
It's true that I kinda forgot about the eye contact and a smile thing, but that doesn't seem to reach the threshold of "as obvious as possible" that the original comment was trying to say was appropriate. I'm not sure if I would categorize it under "body language", but that's a semantic difference. Mostly it's just that girls (and often people) seem to be conditioned to not even do that much, even when they're interested in you.
Hi Alberich, I'm catching up on DNL archives and ran across your comment here. You may never read this but I want to wholeheartedly thank you for saying this, and say I think it's unfair how much shit you got for it.
I am a girl who HATES it when people come up to talk to me in a public setting that isn't a party, or some other overtly social setting. I hate when people talk to me on the bus, plane, at a cafe, etc. I'm a nice person, warm person, and I am social within my circles (work, friends, clubs, etc.). However, I do not have any interest in meeting strangers. This, I believe, goes to me being an introvert.
Please everyone watch this amazing video about how introverts function and how we are prejudiced against: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar1kEN_ZPNM&fe….
I make it immensely clear when I am open to socialization and when I'm not. Enthusiastic consent, yes – this should be the standard! Anyone who says it's hard to tell when someone is open to socializing is being silly. You know how I know? Because I can pick up on these queues in order to figure out who to avoid sitting next to on a public transport or in a coffee shop. People who are seeking social interaction are looking around, looking at everyone, trying to listen into people's conversations, leaning towards other people, straining to be included or find an opening to jump in. They don't have anything with them to do, or they do and it's obviously just for show because they aren't interacting with it at all. They will make eye contact, smile, move towards you. It is very easy to see who is out to have a chat with a stranger. Everyone else should be left alone until they make a move towards you.
I'm tired of the world thinking that you have to talk to everyone your remotely interested in or else you might be missing out on getting a girlfriend or getting laid, without any consideration for whether that person has any interest in speaking to anybody. I've been coupled for most of my dating years, so these efforts are doubly unnecessary, but even when I've been single, I find my dates at parties, through friends, through work. Settings where I am happy to socialize, and able to get to know someone without having to make a snap decision about seeing them again within a few minutes. Settings where I have a frame of reference about the person.
Lastly, I'll end my long tirade by saying that most men have no idea how exhausting it is to be a woman out in the world. You are expected to smile all the time, entertain every schmoe who walks up to you, express interest in them no matter who they are, tell them that you have a boyfriend if you do but not too quickly to offend them. You also have to be polite to other women that you don't want to talk to, sometimes women can be even more aggressive about this than men.
There's a million things a woman is subjected to in every day life that men will never experience. One of my girl friends, one of the sweetest people I've ever known, just told me this morning that a man she didn't know called her a CUNT, out loud, in public, because she was trying to disengage from a forced conversation with him. I know this article is intended to prevent this type of behavior, and I think it does a great job at that, but I think more people need to realize that some people just don't want to talk to anybody, and live feeling perpetually harassed because this is not a socially accepted norm, and that 99% of women have had horrible experiences with being forcibly engaged with someone in public.
I always use this simple indication…smile at her, if she smiles back thats a green light to chat… I don't bother with closed down, too many women out there
You're right, Al, but we can't be expected to know how complete strangers really feel about approaching them until we actually start a conversation.
I'm sorry I don't mean to derail the conversation but are you the same Xenu that was the head of the cult of Xenu guild in wow?
No, but I AM the galactic overlord that dumped a bunch of aliens into a volcano 75,000,000 years ago, and that's why your body is now infested with "body thetans." Sorry about that -.-
That's exactly my point, Xenu. Why should the default assumption be that all women do want us to start a conversation with them (unless they're being very actively obvious that they don't)? That perspective really doesn't appear reasonable and, to be honest, seems pretty creepy.
This is why women have to adopt closed off body language, while men don't have to under the same circumstances. I'm reminded of "THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS" from just last week. Blogger UnWinona shares her LA Metro experience – "Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes. The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows." Besides the fact that her closed off body language isn't even doing the job, she shouldn't be forced to adopt that posture anyway.
You aren't 'forced to adopt' closed off body language. It happens naturally without you realizing you're doing it most of the time. In fact, that's one of the things those who are approaching should work on is not giving off closed body language signals because even those who aren't specifically looking at body language are going to be weirded out by a grim-faced guy standing with his arms crossed. Even if they don't get creeped out, they're going to flag you as 'uninterested' and that'll make them lose interest in return.
There's nothing wrong with approaching someone who is not giving off "don't talk to me" signs. If the first thing they do upon noticing you trying to talk to them is instantly start giving off "don't talk to me signs" (they don't make eye contact, they hunch their shoulders, cross their arms, turn away slightly, feet point towards an exit instead of at you) or even easier if they specifically say to leave them alone, then yes, you bothered them, but not as much as you'd bother them if you ignored the "leave me alone."
I can't speak for the girl on the train reading a book but although I'm sure she wishes her closed off body language was easier to read, I bet someone who just backs off and leaves her alone (without having a psychotic episode about it like bicycle guy) really doesn't bother her all that much and she can put it out of her mind and get back to her book.
You can't learn how to approach women starting from no idea how to do it and expect that you're never going to creep a single one out ever. It's being able to recognize and acknowledge that you've done so, apologize for it and stop your creepy behavior (even if it means considering it a rejection and moving on) and then not repeat that behavior on your next approach, that will get you where you want to be in the long run.
"You aren't 'forced to adopt' closed off body language. It happens naturally without you realizing you're doing it most of the time." Of course not all "leave me alone" body language is conscious, but this is obviously incorrect in the case of UnWinona's commute. She is consciously saying "leave me alone" with her body language. I know that other women do the same from time to time.
"You can't learn how to approach women starting from no idea how to do it and expect that you're never going to creep a single one out ever." Why do you feel it's necessary to bother strangers when it's not clear that they've given their consent to be approached? Why does your desire to "learn" trump her right to be left alone? It's not her responsibility to actively dissuade you from approaching her.
They left their house. They've entered into a social contract whereby people who are trying to be polite and sociable may approach them at which point they can make more clear their desire to be left alone if they so have that desire.
This is normal social interaction, especially for certain times and places (not so much for others, like dark alleys at midnight.)
People are not automatically negative, they are automatically neutral. The default setting is not "Do not approach me", it is "I don't care if you approach me or not." (Again, this is assuming that the time and place is appropriate for approaching.) Unless body language indicates interest or disinterest, or the time and place are inappropriate for approaching, it is socially considered acceptable to assume that people are at this neutral "don't care" setting until they react either favorably or disfavorably to your approach.
Keep in mind that I have no interest in approaching anyone who doesn't want to be approached, but it is no "chore" to give off signals to say that you don't want to be approached, it is incumbent upon me as the approacher to either see those signals or react to them when you tell me (verbally or non-verbally) to leave you alone.
It's not my responsibility to actively read her mind if she refuses to, consciously or unconsciously, give off any signal that would communicate that she's not interested in being approached. It is my responsibility to read any and every signal she does give off, conscious or unconscious.
So again, if someone doesn't want to be approached, they have the choice to consciously or unconsciously give verbal or nonverbal signals telling people that, or they can go to times and places that are not indicative of approaching.
Exactly this.
Look, I hate street harassment. I hate being hit on by strangers or being stared at and all those things. But DNL isn’t talking about all that. He’s talking about striking up a conversation with a stranger, about respecting her boundaries, and MAYBE find an excuse to give or get her number to continue the conversation later. It’s about treating women as interesting PEOPLE you want to meet, and not as objects and conveying that with your words and body language.
Exactly this, too. If I'm approaching someone in public in the first place, its because something interested me about them. It could be someone reading a quantum physics book, someone with a cool shirt, an unusual tattoo or just someone 6'5" nearly backing up over top of me (true story, that one). If that person is also female, there may develop some attraction but its about the interesting person first and their gender later.
"They've entered into a social contract whereby people who are trying to be polite and sociable may approach them at which point they can make more clear their desire to be left alone if they so have that desire."
Nope. Nope. Maybe it's different in different parts of the country, but here in New York it is not assumed to be incumbent upon you to interact with random strangers when you exit your home.
There are certain locations where casual, polite conversation is assumed part of the social contract, but walking down the street, doing my grocery shopping, riding public transportation, or eating my lunch on a bench are not part of those, and I should be able to relax into my "automatically neutral" state without having to talk to strangers to whom I have given no signal of interest. Unless they're tourists who need directions.
Tourists who need directions, people asking what time it is, or someone starting a conversation and you indicate you don't want a conversation.
It could indeed be different in different parts of the country, and this goes back to proper times and places. Culture determines that as much as anything else.
Alberich, I'm really trying to understand you and failing miserably. How do you expect people to get to know other people for any reason if they never interact? And I mean this for everything, work, friendship, romance or any other reason why you might want to get to know another person. What do you consider consent to be appraoched?
@LeeEsq – I could be wrong, but I assume the point that Alberich is trying to make is that only people who give off 'interested in talking/approaching/being approached' signals should be approached and everyone else should be left alone. Sort of a "do not approach anyone unless indicated otherwise" setting.
Since that's just plain not how society works, especially in certain times and places where approaching is the norm, it's hard for anyone else to understand what Alberich is trying to say. I could be wrong myself.
Indeed. I think Alberich could be thinking about this in a consent model.
Consent is not the absence of a "no," but the presence of an enthusiastic "yes."
Similarly, approaching with the intent of taking up someone's time (rather than simply, "pardon me, what time is it?" "Thank you, goodbye") perhaps for hitting on purposes should be done not on the lack of super closed off body language, but on the presence of open and willing to engage body language.
Thanks, trooper6. Just saw your comment. You put that a whole lot more succinctly than I did.
Yes, a consent model is one thing, but by entering society, you consent to the common standards of societal interaction.
Imagine an extreme example: Someone walks outside and anyone who ever says one word in this person's direction gets shot and killed because this person has not consented to being spoken to. It's ludicrous.
Imagine there's a group of people in another country that has a custom of taking off their shoes when inside. You go to their country, walk inside, and they ask you to take your shoes off. You say "I didn't consent to take my shoes off" or even "I didn't consent to be asked to take my shoes off." If you don't consent, you don't go in that social setting.
Approaching people is similar. There are plenty of inappropriate times and places to approach someone, especially if the simple act of doing any approach at all is going to be creepy and threatening no matter what you do, such as this blog points out. But there are plenty of appropriate times and places too, and to extend the 'consent model' into places where approaching is expected is silly.
On the other hand, "talking to people" and "sex" are two very different things, with very different levels of emotional and physical effects. Sex can have serious emotional and physical consequences, while talking to someone usually won't. That is why you need enthusiastic consent for sex, but not for starting a conversation.
If you have sex without enthusiastic consent, you could cause serious trauma; if you try to start a conversation without enthusiastic consent (and you aren't a scary crazy person), the worst possible thing you could do is cause some temporary annoyance.
I said this further down, but here it is again: there's nothing wrong with talking to strangers, as long as you're polite and respectful.
What you aren't recognizing is that what you see as "talking to people" many women experience as "street harassment" — and that takes a psychic toll on them. In the most recent Captain Awkward many of them women find the constant harassment and attendant constant sense of fear on busses so upsetting that sometimes they'll spend the extra money on a taxi just get home.
Many of the women in that thread are expression that they *are* traumatized by what you just see as "talking to people"–because let's be up front, you aren't "talking to people" you are attempting to hit on women in an inappropriate location. And on a bus they are usually a) just trying to get somewhere and b) are cornered because they can't just get off the bus.
I recommend doing the "talking to people" in places other than: 1) the bus, 2) their place of business, 3) elevators, 4) on the street at night, etc.
Unless you are the type of guy that cares more about hitting on a woman than you do about that woman's ability to feel safe or not feel harassed. Which…will make you come off like a creeper. And women will then complain about you.
I have never had problems getting dates. And not once have I ever hit on a woman on a bus. Once my creeper roommate *wanted* me to hit on a woman on the bus, but he was a skeezy creeper who had no real idea how to interact with women and I ignored him.
Cannot agree more! There are appropriate and non-appropriate places to start a conversation with (or really, hit on, coz that's what it really is) a stranger. Pub = appropriate. Train = inappropriate. Bookshop = appropriate. Elevator = unbelievably inappropriate.
I really don't know a single woman who's enjoyed being hit on on a bus. But I know a hell of a lot of horror stories.
Thortok2000 is right – that's far from the point I'm trying to make. My fault for not being clearer. I'm sure I've said it in one of these responses that context is important. If the context is one in which talking to strangers is expected (bars, parties, classes, etc.), then I feel you've given tacit consent to be approached simply by being there. Of course, the withdrawal of that consent can be communicated through the use of body language. The default assumption, if body language doesn't clearly say otherwise, can be that approaching is acceptable. I think we're pretty much on the same page so far.
It looks like we differ, though, regarding the contexts where tacit consent has not been given. Here, I'd include public transportation, gyms, shopping malls (unless the approach is on the part of a salesperson), parks… Thortok2000, on the other hand considers consent to have been given as soon as you leave your house. The default assumption, if body language doesn't clearly say otherwise, is that approaching is not acceptable.
Re: tacit concent- in many cities, the default rule in public is: strangers don't talk. Ask directions/compliment someone's coat, then walk away = okay, anything beyond that – regardless of gender – seems odd.
It's not that it's instantly hostile or creepy, but it's a mild violation of the social contract. The other person now has the sense that it will be hard to politely extract themselves from the interaction. When it's a man doing this to a woman, she'll likely be on the lookout for danger signs – if this person doesn't follow the established norms, he may be someone who doesn't respect boundaries in general.
If you're not confident about your ability to read cues and are looking to practice meeting women, I'd suggest starting with places where the norm is for strangers to talk a little, like classes, games nights and other activities. You still need to be aware of their cues, but you're not starting with a negative impression just by virtue of where you're choosing to talk. Better for both parties!
It's totally a time and place thing. If the time and place is not appropriate, then tacit consent has not been given, you're correct.
There hasn't been a breakdown given by either of us as far as times and places where tacit consent is given and times and places where it isn't (the Doc would be better at that kind of list, I think). I think we're looking at the same thing from two different sides.
I'm saying that it's okay to approach people except for times and places where it isn't okay. You're saying it's not okay to approach people except for times and places where it is okay. We're saying the same thing two different ways.
That's not to say that if we were to do a breakdown, we'd probably disagree on several different times and places, since my default setting is neutral and your default setting is negative. But this is where practice, experience, skill, trial and error, and simply reading the body language of others helps.
Public transportation for instance. I'm on a train ride on a crowded train with plenty of people around. I'll turn to my neighbor of either gender and attempt conversation. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Maybe we chat the whole trip long, maybe he or she says "Sorry I'd just rather read my book." The same train, late at night, with only one or two people on it, and in bad lighting? Probably not a good time to approach people, even if it's just to ask what they're reading.
It just boils down to times and places.
I'm in the process of divorce and am looking at the prospect of dating for the first time in eleven years. I wasn't all that great at it when I was eleven years younger, and it's incredibly intimidating now that I'm eleven years older, heavier, grayer, and balder. It really does feel like there's a peanut gallery trying to convince me not ask women out, and I'm trying to sort out the truth from the rhetoric.
I get the impression that there are some men, perhaps 1% of men, not just PUAs but men more broadly interested in casual sex, who follow the strategy of approaching damn near every woman they wouldn't kick out of bed, looking for the 1% of women who will go straight to bed with them and largely pissing off the other 99% of women, and while these men are few in number, they make up the vast majority (let's call it 90%) of men who approach any given woman, and they really color women's perception of men. The one good thing about these guys is that the ones who do it right take no for an answer very quickly and move on to the next target; lingering is a waste of time.
My perception of the guy with the bike who approached UnWinona was that he was mentally unstable, and while education can help men in general sympathize with women in those situations, education isn't going to change the problem of women (not just women, really) having scary encounters with irate mentally ill people on mass transit; maybe there's a solution at a broader policy level, but for most of us, crazy people are effectively a force of nature, in rare cases as random and arbitrarily violent as Harvey Dent. "Don't be that guy" doesn't do much good when the real problem with that guy is that he's uncontrolled bipolar. "Understand that she can't tell you're not that guy" is a reasonable message, though.
I think one of the more common, less dramatic problems may come from the guys who are so insecure, so unsure of themselves that it takes an immense force of will for them to approach women. For them, the stakes are so high that they're visibly nervous and off-putting, and what's most creepy about them is often their low self-esteem, and the PC hordes piling on them, condemning them for their creepiness only make things worse. The fact that they're so emotionally invested in the asking, in contrast to the broad-net guys who approach dozens of women in a night, also makes it harder for them to accept rejection quickly and move on. The scary part for women is largely that it's difficult for women to tell Eeyore from Harvey Dent. Educating these men about when, where, and how to approach women (e.g. not in an elevator at 4AM, really, probably not in an elevator at any hour) is Good and Useful.
Demonizing them, on the other hand, is not. Some of the rhetoric of reading body language almost implies that one should let the women do the asking. "If she's not ripping her clothes off as soon as you enter the room, that's an unverbal no, and you should leave her alone." Maybe for really, really hot men that works (frankly, I'm skeptical), but it's patently unrealistic for most men, and I'm inclined to ignore that advice. You say, "Let’s get this out of the way right off the bat: going up and starting a conversation with someone you don’t know is not inherently creepy." I think that's solid advice, and it would help if more people echoed it. Others seem to disagree, presumably out of sympathy for women who are hounded by the 1% who are doing 90% of the approaching. They'll call me entitled, they'll condemn me for my male privilege, but I'm going to approach women once in a while. Yeah, some women are sick of being approached by men, but there's only so far I'm willing to go to sympathize. If a woman gets upset with me for being the 50th guy to approach her in an evening, and she's the only woman I've approached that evening, and I'm not otherwise doing anything egregious, my perspective is that she's upset with the wrong guy.
The main thing to keep in mind, though, is the closed off body language.
If the girl is wearing a shirt that says "Don't talk to me" and holding up a sign with three-inch high letters that says "Don't talk to me" and is blaring their headphones so loud you can hear it from six feet away and reading a book and has her back turned to the crowd, and you're the 50th guy to approach her that evening, it doesn't matter if she's the first one you approached, you still approached the wrong girl.
As long as you're watching for signs that a woman doesn't want to be approached (not to mention proper time and place like the Doc said), and you don't approach those women, and only approach the 'neutral or interested' women (in the proper times and places), then the rest of your post is fine. But without that clarification that you respect the idea that women can and do show when they're not interested in being approached, then yes, your post does indicate entitlement, because you sound like you're going to approach women no matter what they do to try to stop you.
You make some truly excellent points, OldBrownSquirrel. I'll clarify that I wasn't referring to the UnWinona's shocking situation with the biker. I genuinely hope and believe that the vast majority of Doctor NerdLove's readership knows not to engage in such horrifying behaviour. I was referring to her daily experience of being bothered by strangers wanting to talk and the resulting necessity of consciously exhibiting "leave me alone" body language.
If you're approaching her in a context where approaching strangers is expected (bars, clubs, parties, etc.), then an argument could be made that by being there she's given tacit consent to be approached. By being there, you've given tacit consent to being approached, too, but I'm in no way suggesting that only women should approach. If the context isn't one of those, then don't approach unless she's being very obvious that she'd be open to it.
"Yeah, some women are sick of being approached by men, but there's only so far I'm willing to go to sympathize." Having this attitude makes you part of the problem, just like those, "1% who are doing 90% of the approaching."
There are many other ways to meet a partner than by bothering strangers.
"Having this attitude makes you part of the problem"
This is the sort of demonizing I was describing. I think it's counter-productive. It does nothing to help the women who are approached by the 1%; those guys will keep on approaching women by the dozen so long as they can find the 1% of women who respond positively. At best, it makes some foolish men never approach women, which provides only slight improvement for those women. At worst, it breeds self-loathing and misogyny from men who become bitter over such attitudes as you're displaying. I generally think of myself as a feminist, but some of the feminist rhetoric is just so dehumanizing towards men that it alienates people and does far more harm than good.
It's really, really easy to demonize people. It helps you feel good about yourself. It helps you feel morally superior. That doesn't mean you should do it. There are many other ways to help women than by demonizing socially awkward men.
Somewhere, a woman is tired of being approached by men. Does that mean I'm never going to approach another woman? No. I'll do my best to be conscious of setting, body language, whether she's wearing a ring, etc., and I'll leave her alone as soon as I get a clear leave-me-alone vibe from her. If I'm part of the problem, I'm a vanishingly small part of the problem. And every once in a while, a woman responds positively. That's what makes approaching women defensible: some of them actually do want to be approached. Maybe even by me.
Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
"It does nothing to help the women who are approached by the 1%" No, it doesn't help them, except by preventing you from making the 1% a bigger number by becoming part of it. Instead of going through contortions to rationalize how that's ok in your case because you're not like those other guys, maybe we should come up with some workable strategies to improve their behaviour.
"There are many other ways to help women than by demonizing socially awkward men." I absolutely agree with this. I don't intend to demonize socially awkward men. I also don't intend to excuse men who insist on bothering women who aren't interested in meeting them.
"If I'm part of the problem, I'm a vanishingly small part of the problem." Every individual that's part of the problem feels that way, until they decide to do something about it.
OldBrownSquirrel – I just wanted to say I think you really described the situation exactly, and your post is awesome.
"Somewhere, a woman is tired of being approached by men"
I just wanted to add – I know for sure that somewhere, a woman is tired of *only* being approach by skeezy men – or drunk men – and wishes that when a guy says something to her she could expect there was a decent chance he was a normal guy.
Somewhere, a woman wishes that that interesting looking guy on the other side of the bus would say something to her, rather than it always being the weirdos who talk to her.
And it seems like pretty much everywhere, there's a large segment of women who would like to be able to be social with people they see out in public, but always be able to exit the conversation when they wanted and never have to fear for their safety.
Have you considered that maybe there are women out there who want to be approached but, for whatever reason (shyness/introversion, ignorance, old habit, whatever), do not display the "I want to be approached" signals that you are harping on about, instead displaying what they (but not you) consider to be "I want to be approached" signals? Oh, and they happen to not like going to any of these designated places of approach you talked about, but do like to go to other places you don't consider to be places for approaching women. Also, for whatever reason (shyness, socialization, whatever), they don't approach men.
If we played by your rules, these women would be shit out of luck despite doing nothing wrong or bad. Who are you to deny them the relationships that they wish for? Who are you to decide what the rules are for anyone other than yourself, let alone all of society?
Not to mention, contrary to your final statement, the only ways for two people to meet each other all involve one of them approaching the other (with or without third party assistance, with or without even any kind of planning). Now, I'm not entirely sure that bothering someone and approaching them are the same thing, but judging from your comments, you seem to think they are. And if (read: if) they are, then I guess bothering is actually a good thing.
What "problem" are you referring to here? The problem that sometimes strangers talk to you when you'd rather they didn't? I have that problem too. So does everybody. It hardly mandates a cultural shift, it's mildly annoying at worst. And it's an inevitable side-effect of the occasions when these conversations will turn out to be fun or interesting.
Its kind of a cost-benefit, isn't it. How many two minute awkward conversations that you get out of quickly are worth enduring for one lasting friendship made the same way? That's not a rhetorical question.
I'd certainly be happier if no one ever struck up a conversation with me on the bus but that's because I have yet to meet anyone there that I'm interested in talking to past my stop. I seem to get a lot more of the borderline schizophrenics and religious pamphleteers than I do gamers and thespians. At the bookstore, though, pretty much anyone who strikes up a conversation has something to share that I want to hear.
Exactly! And if you really don't want to talk to someone, there's myriad ways of politely telling them so, or making an excuse. Any reasonable person will get the message.
The problem is that, when a total stranger approaches me, I don't know if they're a "reasonable person".
I'm no stunning beauty, and I certainly don't send out approach-me signals, but I can think of SO MANY interactions I've had with strangers approaching me. While in some cases I noticed warning signs from the dodgy ones fairly early on, there were others that seemed quite normal right up until the moment they suddenly weren't. Usually, when I said "no" to them in some way, whether that was declining to give my contact details or whatever.
The cost-benefit analysis of a woman being approached by a stranger isn't just the choice between awkward conversation and friendship. I've been physically assaulted more than once, threatened with rape multiple times and had people try to follow me home before. And I have never, ever been brazen enough to go for more than the most polite refusal I can manage.
Dr NerdLove's advice isn't just about making women feel comfortable. It's about signalling to the women you approach that you are safe.
My other half of near-enough a decade approached me as a complete stranger, when I was alone in a new and strange place. But outside of that very broad description, he did a LOT of things that explicitly signalled that he was safe, that he would respect my boundaries and that he didn't expect anything from me.
Doing it this way WORKS. And it helps women and men, too. If all the genuine, decent, fun men out there can learn a few simple techniques to signal their safety, it'll make the minority of creepy ones that much easier to spot early on, which will make women feel safer in general, and have the knock-on effect of making us more open to meeting random strangers, in turn heaping even more benefits on the majority of men who ARE cool.
Bunny, I think this is possibly the ** very best ** post I've seen in the comments here.
This is exactly what I've seen in the real world – if you read to much "angry woman" stuff, you'll come to believe that no woman likes being approached ever, it's a horrific experience talking to people, etc etc.
But when I started digging into how it was actually working with women that I befriended, yes – they always had stories where they were approach, but didn't want to be, or had strong negative experiences with it.
But they also had stories – often involving their husband / fiance / boyfriend / ex-boyfriend, where they were approached and dated the guy.
Then I looked back and realized – half the girls I dated I had approached. My first girlfriend I talked to because I ran into her on a dark street – well, in front of my dorm.
Second girl I ran into in the hallway of my dorm and invited her to grab supper at the caf – found out later she was actually looking for someone else, but decided to have dinner with me when I asked. Third and fourth girls I met through friends of friends, but with all but one of them I made the first physical move (and even with her, I had broached the topic of dating several times before that).
The bottom line is that women expect that no matter much they like you, for the most part (with a few wonderful exceptions) you're expected to make the approach and first move on them – whether "approach" just means talking to a girl in your group, or inviting her over to watch a movie, or talking to someone you run into on the street who responds in a friendly manner.
Maybe that's an American thing. I think perhaps women are a lot more forward in other countries, or at least where I live. Most of the girls I know are pretty forward when they like someone, and very comfortable with making the first move. So am I actually.
What country do you live in? I think I want to move there, lol…but I am genuinely curious about the country. I live in the US, in the midwest to make matters worse.
From my experiences (as a woman now living in the UK but born elsewhere and well-travelled), I get the impression that it is slightly more normal for women to approach men (and share the cost of dates and drinks) in the UK and Ireland than it is in most of the US and Australia. I also find that Dutch, German and Scandinavian women are much more likely to approach and insist on sharing the costs – in fact, they may find it a bit creepy if a man insists on paying. Women from these places seem also more quick to shut down a conversation they are not interested in or be very blunt if they feel it necessary.
My impression is that it equates to places where there is more economic and political equality for women.
The cost-benefit analysis of a woman being approached by a stranger isn't just the choice between awkward conversation and friendship. I've been physically assaulted more than once, threatened with rape multiple times and had people try to follow me home before.
Yeah, the awkward conversation vs lasting friend thing was more male oriented. I can totally understand why women would get tired of being approached at all on public transit. Your post is a great example of the good, the bad, the rule and the exception.
"The scary part for women is largely that it's difficult for women to tell Eeyore from Harvey Dent."
It is clear no one wants to date Harvey Dent. But here's the thing, no one wants to date Eeyore either. Eeyores, men or women, who are so insecure, are usually not yet emotionally ready to date because they haven't worked on themselves enough. People with low self-esteem a d crippling insecurity tend to be clingy, emotional vampires who suck the life out of you. If you girl/boyfriend relies on you for their self esteem, that is unhealthy.
When I was younger, I dated a few Eeyore girl's…totally unhealthy…the worst…I'll never do that again. I know many women who feel the same way.
You don't want to date a psycho.
But you don't want to date a co-dependent drag with no self esteem. That is not attractive.
I think if you are a person who thinks they are so terrible and no one will ever love them, rather than just working on you pick-up techniques, go get some therapy.
Most people want to be in a relationship with someone fun and interesting who makes them happy. They don't want to be someone's therapist.
That is also creepy.
I also dated on Eeyoreish woman. It was a very emotional draining experience and her indecsiveness made everything much more difficult than necessary.
Yeah. Who wants that? Insecure emotional vampires are the worst.
I was actually going to use the phrase emotional vampire but decided against because consensus is that vampires are sexy and desirable. Generally, I like my blood in my body than outside it so I differ.
Me too. I refuse to date people who staff blood banks and blood donations on general principle.
"But you don't want to date a co-dependent drag with no self esteem. That is not attractive. "
Honest question: Why not? If the co-dependence runs both ways, don't you think it could work out well? Sure, she'd be unhappy if you hung out with other girls, but you'd never do that. Same thing vice-versa.
You'd both be clingy to each other, and both depend on each other for self-esteem. The only way I can see it failing is if one of the two partners leaves, but someone who is totally dependent seems unlikely to do that.
Why not? Because being codependent is not healthy, and codependent relationships are not healthy, and wanting to date someone who has low-selfesteen so they won't every leave you is creepy as all get out.
THIS. Also, living with the deep-down conviction that your partner is only with you because they're as desperate as you are for someone – anyone – to love them, and that if either of you felt on stronger footing or liked yourselves better, you probably wouldn't be together… that sounds miserable to me. That's a relationship based on being needed (and not needed for yourself, just needed because you are A Person to fill that space), not on being wanted.
As for someone who's totally dependent on you being unlikely to leave you, well, even that is not guaranteed. People change over time; they can find new sources of self-esteem or work at being emotionally healthier. A good relationship weathers those changes, and even welcomes them. A codependent relationship either falls apart or acts to suppress that kind of emotional growth.
"But you don't want to date a co-dependent drag with no self esteem. That is not attractive."
"Honest question: Why not?"
I think you have kind of an interesting though, if you're *both* co-dependent and needy.
I think the problem there happens when the other person starts to expect you to fulfill needs that you cannot fulfill, or that make it difficult to function. Like the person who's need for confirmation is so great that you can never, ever actually fulfill it. Or the person who flies into a rage/deep depression because you didn't text them back within 45 seconds of them sending you a text – no one wants to date them because that need can never be fulfilled.
But on the other hand, I feel like I see a lot of women (here I mean women that I've known who remain perpetually single) take it to far the other way – I find it understandable to not want to date an Eeyore, but their need for non-neediness means they never find a relationship that lasts long term, because relationships need a certain amount of neediness (like – one "needs" the person they're dating to continue to like like and desire them) to keep the 2 people from just drifting apart.
I read a book once called "more sex is safer sex". The less lurid analysis of the headline went something like this:
People who want sex but aren't having it are the ones who are most likely to be respectful and safe (male and female both). The ones who will hit on anything and/or don't respect boundaries are already getting sex. So if people as a whole are having more sex, its because the safe, boundary respecting types are getting more which pushes down the average danger of any given encounter.
I mention this because its much the same when it comes to meeting people. The ones least likely to be asshats are the ones least likely to initiate in the first place. The creeps are already creeping out whoever they want. So the more good men (and women) who break out of their shells and start a conversation with people who interest them, the lower the chance that someone initiating conversation with you is a creep. It also makes it easier to pick out and deal with creeps. Everyone wins.
Here is an example from my life on how to approach a person in bookstore. Around the time 50 Shades of Grey became a big phenomena, I was killing time in a bookstore before lessons at my dance studio. One pretty young women commented to another one with dismay that all her non-reading friends were into 50 Shades of Grey. Obviously her taste in literature ran into the high literary tradition. I quipped something like "Why? There is much better erotica out there." The women agreed and we had a brief but pleseant conversation. I had to go and was interested in somebody else at the time so nothing went further but it could have if I wanted it to. Nothing bad happen, they didn't think I was a creep. Just a brief but pleseant encounter.
In an elevator you are literally feet away from a button that will call the authorities and mostly likely under video surveillance.
And that may help with an assault/murder conviction, but is cold consolation if the situation turns out to be actually threatening. It's not like Chief O'Brian is on call to beam Lt.. Tasha Yar or Commander Worf directly to your car to administer some Enterprise-style justice.
If you are referring to the call button, those buttons don't call the authorities. I would know, since my part of my old job included answering elevator calls by people who butt-dialed or got stuck in their elevators. Unless there was actively someone screaming their lungs out, chances are we wouldn't even hear a struggle. Some people at my old job wouldn't even pick up the elevator phone unless it rang twice– showing that someone was actually stuck and not just mooshing around against the number pad, but that could be potentially disastrous for someone struggling to get out of a bad situation. And because of the small, enclosed space of an elevator, it would also be hilariously easy to pin a smaller person down against any of the other walls and prevent them from accessing that button.
Aaand continued!
Video surveillance is all great and well, but it only helps after the fact. There was a video I saw recently of a vidcam in an elevator with a man standing with a little girl with a martial arts outfit in an elevator. At one moment, the man reaches out to try and pin the girl against the wall and (I assume to assault her), and then she BEATS HIM DOWN and chases him out of the elevator. It's hilarious– but if you think about what could have potentially happened, also kind of sickening.
You're also feet away from a button that will stop the car between floors with no way out. Which one do you think you and your elevator mate are considering (for different reasons) if he's invading your personal space and being creepy?
And not all elevators have one of those, at least not one that's manned…
"But What If You Screw Up?" – "Sometimes there just isn’t anything you can do except to chalk the whole thing up to a learning experience and resolve not to make the same mistake twice."
It's so kind of these women to have furnished you with such a learning experience, at the expense of feeling uncomfortable or threatened. Too bad they may not have chosen to provide that learning experience.
So men are supposed to get it right 100% of the time including the very first time? Man, I know some things that I'd love to have that kind of success rate in! And I'm not even referring to anything to do with dating, relationships, sex, women or anything related to those things!
Nothing creates a lasting impression like a bad impression. If you crap out at a job interview then they'll probably never hire you but if you can realize your mistakes as to why you fouled up and be a better person in the next job interview in another business then hey presto.
But socializing is how people learn to socialize. Failing to socialize well causes bad feelings, but the choice is either keep practicing or hole up in your room for the rest of your life.
This is life. People will always be saying and doing things that offend or make other people unhappy and uncomfortable. People generally don't choose to be made uncomfortable, unhappy, or threatened but nobody can avoid it, and at some point everyone will be the person doing the offending, or the person being offended. The only appropriate course of action here is to apologize, to think about what you may have done to make someone else unhappy, and resolve not to do it again, just as the Doctor said. Those who don't make a learning experience out of it are only going to make the same mistakes again and again.
Alberich, if you are a man than this sort of false chivalry is sexist and pointless. It is sexist because it assumes that women are delicate flowers who will simply die if a man interprets the signs wrong and tries to talk to them for a little while. Usually, these things end fast if the woman wants and everybody goes on with their life. It is pointless because you are treating temporally social interaction as a serious crime that begins with an r. You do not need a person's consent to say hello and strike a conversation. If they decline than you stop but you can seize the initiative.
Regardless of your gender identity, you need to have a more realistic notion of how social skills work.
It's not false chivalry at all. I suppose one problem with the points that I've made so far is that I've pretty much been talking about men approaching women – because this is the perspective of Doctor NerdLove's article. I feel precisely the same way about women approaching men in contexts where it can make men feel uncomfortable. Or men approaching men. Or women approaching women.
OK, so in this world where you leave your house, are out of your home for 8+ hours and do not get approached by anyone at all for anything at all (not even for business reasons) during this entire time, are there actually any human beings within a 100-mile radius other than yourself? And has the lack of socializing made you go insane yet, or does the human brain work differently in your world so that you don't need to socialize with anyone at all ever?
Calm down a little, I think what Al is saying is talking to people in a social setting is a lot like target pratice. You can get really good right off the bat and head shot a running moose and 100 meters, or you can start off really bad and need to spend a few hundred hours at the target range till you can actually hit a target and just because we bomb doesn't mean we should quit trying.
Is that about right?
That's not the impression I've been getting. I've been getting the impression that we're not allowed to bomb in the first place or spend any time at the target range.
That's definitely part of it, psychsage.
With respect to this particular thread, I was also concerned that Doctor NerdLove may be giving permission, in a way, to behave badly and simply excuse yourself by claiming it's a learning experience.
Robert, I know that you know that you're ignoring all my comments about context.
And so far you've ignored what I said in another comment about those who want to be approached but give off a different set of signals to the supposed standard "I want to be approached" signals. Those kinds of people are a reason why your context is flawed and should therefore be disregarded.
I must have missed the part were DNL say 'act like an ass as its ok its a learning experience'
Lets put it out there YOU are the one saying this, not NDL. Anyone that claims to someone "I acted like that for learning experience' is an arsehole and this is not what DNL says you should be acting like.
Yes you will stuff up accidently but if your doing it on purpose (as you are sayig) then that's just creepy behaviour and goes against the entire point of the article.
"The Simple Man" – I would disagree with you, I think you're mistaking people who use the "learning experience" thing as an excuse that they don't really mean, vs people who are simply genuinely trying to learn social skills. If you want to learn anything, you're going to have to have some leeway to make mistakes. It's your responsibility to learn from them and not continually repeat them, and your responsibility to make those mistakes don't have permanent negative consequences before taking the risk. But if you want to learn anything, you have to be willing to make some mistakes.
You might feel differently, but personally I would then say that at a certain point you're just being nieve – everyone, especially women, usually social stuff as a learning experience, and it's both impractical and unfair to claim that men must be perfect in being social while women have free range to experiment – hang around women for a while and you'll find that they use their interactions with other women as just as much of a "learning experience" as anything.
I think its more like "IF you act like an ass, apologize, walk away and learn from it so you don't do it again." This happens all the time between people. its why we have manners, courtesy and etiquette: both to avoid gaffes in the first place and to smooth them over with a minimum of pain on either side.
So this is all good advice, but I'm not sure I'd call it "meeting women 101". Meeting women 101 would be: take a class, join a club, meet some friends of friends, go to a meetup event, or even, go to a social bar. Get to know some women in a social context and then ask them out is what I would recommend for someone new to dating.
Picking up a girl at a bookstore? It can be flattering from the girls perspective, and even lead to some fun times, but the boyfriends I've had that I've really liked I've not met in the approach random stranger context. I feel like this is setting up socially awkward guys to fail instead of helping them.
This.
I think I'm fairly representative of most women (heck, probably most humans) when I say that if we're classmates, or in a club together, or have mutual friends, you're already somewhat pre-screened and I already know you, so you don't have to "approach" me. Plus, there's way less pressure in getting to know someone when you're already doing something together than when it's a formal date.
Personally, I never have and never will give my number to a stranger who approaches me. With some guy I know from my class, or work, or — even better — because we have friends in common, on the other hand, I'm usually happy to hand over my contact info.
I second this to and I'm a man. Most of the women I've asked out or dated, I've known for sometime before hand or because I was communicating with them online. The exception were dates set up by third parties. Picking up a woman or man, depending on your preference, in a bookstore is pretty much the same as doing it in bar. It really only works for a very specific personality type on both ends. Bars are only different in that you need to be more flashy and outgoing than you would in a bookstore.
Its also a very advanced technique that I'd recommend for people with some experience at approaching women. For newbees, I'd suggest online or if you want real person contact, a class of some sort. See who you get along with in the class and ask for their email or out at the end of the class.
I was going to third this but I realized if we changed the book store example to "comic shop" or "game shop" (RPG, not video), it wouldn't be entirely accurate. In both of those cases, though, the stores in question were basically geek community centers. So even then I was asking out someone I'd already known for a time. Shared activities make for a great bonding experience.
On the other hand, if you have a shared interest, its easy to turn that into shared activities. Some of my favorite first dates weren't dates so much as meeting up, taking the train to DC and doing the Smithsonian.
I'm with this. I really don't understand cold approaches. Not saying I don't think people should do them if they want to, if that's your thing. I just really don't get how they ever work or lead to anything. It always seems to me like something that (a cold approach leading to something more) only happens in movies, like guys walking away from explosions without looking at them. You know, not real life. In real life it either starts awkward right off the bat or it gets awkward really quickly, as soon as the conversation turns to the guy having an ulterior motive for talking to you.
Out of all of my friends I've only known one to ever actually go out on a date with a guy she met off the street, and it was the most awkward, horrible date of her life because they just didn't know anything about each other at all and the original interest between them had been based on looks alone (and he turned out to be a massive douche).
Pretty much everyone I know who's in a relationship (including everyone I've ever been with) met through mutual friends or interests.
I'm not saying that I think no one should be approach anyone or that it's wrong, it's just something I've never actually witnessed as successful. Hence why I think it might be a bit difficult for people who are just starting out.
I wonder if this is about changing paradigms? I.e this happens less now in the Internet age than in the past? My mom and my dad met through a cold opening…he walked into her regular bar and she thought he was hot, walked up to him, put her hand on his…knee…and said something saucy. They were together for over 30 years until she died.
I'm 40, and was in a lot of spaces where cold (or lukewarm) openings was just what you did, and it was generally considered good to date outside the friend pool and never considered good to date coworkers. But I was also tending to same-sex spaces back in the day where dating was just easier because there wasn't the baggage of thinking of sex as something that one person took from someone who was giving something up.
I dated a guy for nearly a year after a cold approach. My girlfriend and I were having coffee, and laughing with one another. We were actually talking about him because we thought he was attractive. (Not conventionally attractive so get the perfect prep boy out of your head.)
He noticed us looking at him, and at some point came over and said, "I couldn't help overhearing you talking about (blank). It sounds like an interesting discussion. Do you mind if I join in?"
And we said "No, not at all." We had an entertaining discussion, move from coffee to the bar down the street, and I'm not sure how we ended up contacting one another, but we ended up dating not long after that.
I have nothing against a cold approach, so long as a guy would have behaved respectfully if we had said, "Actually, we're enjoying some friend time, thanks." And left us alone.
Well I am glad to hear that there are such things as successful ones! The only cold approaches I've experienced have been pretty creep-tastic episodes that have left me pretty much very unenthused by the whole experience.
Disclaimer: this is in regards to cold approaches outside of club/pubs/parties etc where it is expected that random strangers talk to each other. Fair share of those have also been creep-tastic, but plenty have also been quite normal/pleasant.
I think the key is, the initial tone, and also the willingness to back off quickly and respectfully if turned down.
Notice in this successful attempt, the initial tone was friendly, reasonable NOT SEXUAL, and respectful. Also, we were giving him some pretty clear body language signals that said we had noticed him and found him interesting, and he picked up on those. But when he did pick up on them, he didn't assume either one of us was a "sure thing." Instead, we had a human conversation about something that interested all of us at the time.
I believe it was courses we had taken on Shakespeare for those who are curious.
I agree with the basic premise that the *best* place to meet someone – especially if you're socially awkward (partially just because you actually get feedback, and partially because your group provides a situation where someone doesn't have to make a 2 second judgement call on you) is in a regular group.
That being said, I feel that one mention of a bookstore doesn't change that the majority this article applies to just as well to getting to know someone in your social group as well. It's not easy to bridge the gap between someone you kinda know in your social group and actually getting to know them, either.
"Meeting women 101 would be: take a class, join a club, meet some friends of friends, go to a meetup event, or even, go to a social bar."
And with respect – I have tried all of these things, and I have found this to be stereotypical advice that often does not work. At least when I tried it. Women often will not show up to taking a class (like I said, post-college), joining a club, or going to a meetup event unless they're already dating someone. I'm just saying this based on my own experience when I tried doing these things myself. I'm pretty sure the above advice does apply to going to a social bar, but that's a bar environment.
"but the boyfriends I've had that I've really liked I've not met in the approach random stranger context"
I really agree with you…but based on my own experience, it's wasn't terribly easy to find that social context in college, and it's very difficult to find it post college – and when you do the women often only join when they have a boyfriend and need something else to do with their time. It's certainly not 100%, and I'm not saying others couldn't have different experiences, but that's been my experience.
"Women often will not show up to taking a class (like I said, post-college), joining a club, or going to a meetup event unless they're already dating someone."
Honestly can say that I've never heard of this phenomenon. Wouldn't it work the other way around? Like, you have plenty of free time when you're single so you tend to take on a lot more activities than when you're in a relationship and you're spending all of your free time with your SO?
I was doing all sorts of classes and activities when I was single, now that I'm in a relationship I barely have time for anything besides the gym.
This idea that single people don't take classes is bizarre. Are you sure they aren't just telling you that they have boyfriends to be polite?
"Honestly can say that I've never heard of this phenomenon. Wouldn't it work the other way around? Like, you have plenty of free time when you're single so you tend to take on a lot more activities than when you're in a relationship and you're spending all of your free time with your SO? "
I would agree that you would think so, but that wasn't my experience. Seemed like women were jumpy about doing anything when they were single without a group of friends, so if their friends weren't taking classes (which they usually weren't) neither were they.
Like I said, the only for-sure claim I'm making was that that was my experience.
"I was doing all sorts of classes and activities when I was single, now that I'm in a relationship I barely have time for anything besides the gym."
Yeah, it makes sense, I just didn't find it to be the case…
"This idea that single people don't take classes is bizarre. Are you sure they aren't just telling you that they have boyfriends to be polite?"
For most of them I was able to friend them on facebook where they had a relationship status, and for a few of them I hung out with them outside of class and met their boyfriend / fiance / husband, so unless they hired an actor as cover…lol
I live in the upper midwest – maybe that has something to do with it. And like I said, I said post-college classes, not college courses…
Well shit, the only theory I have for that is it must be something about the area where you live. Coz I've done all sorts of classes/activities (not college stuff, but all sorts of things like music theory classes/swing dancing/theatre/writing/French classes/etc) and I've always found them to have more single people than not. I do know the kind of women who are very reluctant to try anything new without a group of friends, but they're usually in the minority and most of them grow out of it eventually.
Wait, are you the same person from before? My apologies if you are – WHERE DO YOU LIVE? I HAVE TO KNOW!
I would love for what you're saying to be my experience here…LOVE IT…:-)
I'm in Australia, so it's probably a bit far for you to move to take some classes lol.
I would be open to the line "Hey you seem like you’re cool and I wanted to meet you" only if it were followed up with something else, like a question. Not that it's creepy to say that without a follow-up, it's just…incomplete.
Him: Hey you seem like you’re cool and I wanted to meet you
Me: Oh, cool. I'm Jessica. Nice to meet you
…..
and then what? We met and you're the one who started talking to me. What do you want to talk about? Why do you think I look cool?
Example:
Hey Jessica, you seemed cool and I wanted to meet you because I'm enjoying your posts. Its nice to have someone willing to share a woman's perspective on Doc's ideas. What drew you to Doc's blog in the first place?
I've definitely had a few guys who physically took out my earphones (mostly before I was even aware of them) to chat me up…instant anger.
That's unquestionably a personal space red line. I'd be upset if anyone tried that with me.
I've been lucky enough not to have that happen to me, but I HAVE had guys wave in front of my face and do everything else in their power (including yelling "HE-LLO!!!! I'M TRYING TO TALK TO YOU!") to get my attention while I had headphones on. Ugh, unreal
But…but…what's wrong with a tap on the shoulder? That's what shoulders are for!
I was taught very strictly do not touch people, except for handshakes or if they're family and they're ok with it.
What did we learn in kindergarten? Keep your hands to yourself.
Don't touch people without their consent unless it is a matter of real importance (they are about to get hit by a bus, they dropped their wallet, etc)…not, "I want to hit on you but you are ignoring me."
I have to admit…I have never before encountered anyone personally offended by physical contact. I always interpreted the kindergarten thing as "stop annoying him/her" or "stop hitting him/her!", not "You must get someone's attention through non-physical means."
How does one use mass transit (or even go somewhere crowded)without coming in physical contact with other people, anyway? And how am I supposed to get somebody's attention when their headphones are so loud I can't hear myself think?
Oh, me! Me! I hate unnecessary physical contact from strangers! I think a lot of people do.
I think the rule is no intentional touching, as little as possible unintentional. No one likes being squished together on the subway, but we all know it can't be helped. But everyone's supposed to do their best to avoid it when possible – you don't touch someone's hand on the pole (*snicker*) if there's room to comfortably leave a gap between yours and theirs, you don't stand right beside someone on the elevator if there's room for the two of you to spread out.
Of course, people with headphones so loud everyone has to listen are being rude themselves, and if you have to get their attention, you might have to be a little invasive – but they're giving a pretty clear message that they DON'T WANT to give their attention, so unless they're causing you real discomfort (or have dropped their wallet etc.), I think it's still rude to bug them.
I find it very offensive when people I don't know, or don't know well, touch me. But I don't generally use mass transit. I am friendly, and frequently strike up conversations with strangers, but that doesn't translate to tolerating their touching me. I put up with it from elderly old ladies who don't know better.
There are plenty of ways to get people's attention without touching them, and if I can't, I just tolerate the noise.
If they have their headphones on, they don't want to talk to you. These days that's pretty much what headphones are for. If my iPod isn't working, or I have a headache or something, I will still put headphones on and just tuck the end of the cable into my t-shirt, so that I still look like I'm listening to something so that people leave me alone and don't talk to me. So if someone taps me on the shoulder while I'm wearing headphones, and it's to start a conversation and not just ask "Do you know where this street is?" or something, I'm going to be REALLY pissed off.
I have to agree with everyone else. Unless you need to get my attention because I dropped something or I'm about to be hit by a car or the train is on fire or SOMETHING, then don't touch me if I don't know you. Especially don't touch me if you're doing it to interrupt me just so you can start a conversation with me. At the least, it's very rude. I'm obviously pretty absorbed in my book or my music or my conversation (yes, I've had guys insert themselves in private conversations I was having with friends.) Your desire to chat me up does not entitle you to my attention.
Physical contact is intimate, and real in a way that talking to someone is not. If you touch someone you're disrupting the little envelope that separates and cocoons them from the outside world.
Sometimes, that means you better have a good reason before you touch someone.
But since some of flirting is pushing the envelope and seeing whether someone finds that exciting-arousing as opposed to angering-arousing, it can be useful in the right context. It's just till you actually build up credit with someone you're probably diving headlong into the latter camp, unless it's someone whose envelope is seriously attenuated.
thats funny, def a WRONG move but funny
You know, reducing the number of incidents of discomfort does matter but it is not the only thing that matters. Yet it's all you seem to give a crap about, at the expense of those whose methods are perfectly harmless yet do not fit in your system.
And the reason I don't call out the Doctor for imposing his rules on society is because he's not the one making the rules. He's just (re-)stating them and sometimes proposing guidelines (that's guidelines, not set-in-stone rules).
"And the reason I don't call out the Doctor for imposing his rules on society is because he's not the one making the rules. He's just (re-)stating them and sometimes proposing guidelines (that's guidelines, not set-in-stone rules)."
+1
"Have you considered that maybe there are women out there who want to be approached but, for whatever reason (shyness/introversion, ignorance, old habit, whatever), do not display the "I want to be approached" signals that you are harping on about, instead displaying what they (but not you) consider to be "I want to be approached" signals?"
So, you're proposing that more men should hit on these women in contexts where socializing is not expected. Do you think that's likely to bring them out of their shells?
"And the reason I don't call out the Doctor for imposing his rules on society is because he's not the one making the rules. He's just (re-)stating them and sometimes proposing guidelines (that's guidelines, not set-in-stone rules)."
I fail to see any difference, in that sense, between the guidelines that the Doctor proposes and the refinements that I propose.
"As a general rule of thumb, you need to consider the social context."
This is exactly the point of the Doctor's on which I'm expanding. He lays out several situations that he considers creepy. I'm adding several more that he hadn't necessarily considered to be creepy. I think they are, by the Doctor's own definition of the word.
I'm not proposing set-in-stone rules any more than the Doctor is. That's ridiculous. If you want to be creepy, then be creepy. Just know that you're being creepy and that it's not good for other people.
From what I've seen, your definition of social context is only bars and clubs and you think any socializing outside of those two places is creepy, so anyone who doesn't like going to bars and clubs (man or woman) is still shit out of luck. Add some more places for those kinds of people to your definition, then you might have a better case. Until then, your refinement is doing more harm than good.
Contrary to what you seem to be saying, unwanted approach does not automatically equal creepy. An unwanted approach can be creepy, or it can be not creepy, and for the majority the deciding factor is not "did it happen in a bar or club" or "did it mildly annoy the approached".
"From what I've seen, your definition of social context is only bars and clubs and you think any socializing outside of those two places is creepy, so anyone who doesn't like going to bars and clubs (man or woman) is still shit out of luck."
Demonstrably incorrect. I explicitly included bars, clubs, parties and classes as contexts in which socializing is expected. I explicitly excluded public transportation, gyms, shopping malls (unless the approach is on the part of a salesperson) and parks. There are, of course, other contexts where either paradigm would apply. Would you care to volunteer other contexts? We can discuss those.
I don't recall you ever putting classes on either list and I'm not convinced that you've put parks on the correct list. Still, this is an improvement on your previous version. Where would you put, say, libraries and concerts?
Am I the only one who finds it annoying that half the articles on this blog are on "how not to be creepy?" Seriously, this one silly issue has been discussed to death, it's time to move on.
Yeah, If you read the last 20 topics you might get the impression that this is a website specifically aimed at creepers
.
Except that it is one of the main reasons dudes aren't getting dates…because they are coming off creepy. And this site is about getting nerds dates in an ethical way. So dealing with the myriad ways in which dudes ruin their chances by being creeptastic is going to have to come up frequently.
Let's be honest here, the reason the dudes who read this site aren't getting dates isn't because they're coming off as creepy, it's because they're afraid to make any sort of move at all.
I halfway hear what you're saying, the thing is why aren't they afraid to make any sort of move at all?
And a lot of the time it's *because* they're afraid of it coming off as creepy.
There isn't one reason why people are having problems getting dates. Some are too intimidated to make a move. Others are doing things wrong and want to figure out what it is and how to fix it. Still others have no idea where to start. My readership is wide; it contains multitudes.
Except that, trust me, plenty of guys do the things Dr. NerdLove is warning against. It does not win them dates.
At least the above article finally admits that it's about context – whether it's situation, or whether the girl is digging you, or whether the girl likes to flirt in the way that you do.
But if you take out the context, guys get dates all the date doing the "behavior" that mentioned in many of the articles – and they get dates, get laid, etc by talking to girls in elevators, following her out to her car at night – one definition of creepy is *exactly* doing sexually suggestive things to someone who is not at all interested – but doing sexually or romantically suggestive things towards someone who is interested in you is exactly how you move things along. Otherwise she ends up going "Well, I liked him, but he never made a move on me, so he must not like me, I'm going to move on to someone else".
For any number of guys who do the things in a bad way mentioned in the articles, there is a far greater multitude of guys frozen up with fear of being creepy (because the *majority* of guys do actually care about women's feelings in not creeping them out), so they don't approach for fear of being creepy.
I just agree with the other poster – there's far more guys not getting anywhere because of fear of being creepy than their are guys not getting anywhere because they're actually creeping the girl out.
I would have agreed with you on several of the last article, but this article seems to actually genuinely try to say "here's how to meet someone, without coming off as creepy" as opposed to the other articles which seemed like one-sided "omg omg someone was creepy never ever do ever" or "omg guys and nerds are horrible" which was how I was feeling about the previous articles.
If you look at all the articles about creepy behavior/creepers, you'll see the number of comments is consistently in the triple digits. So long as articles with the word "creepy" bring in the traffic, that's what he's gonna keep writing about.
It's the subject that 1.) Garners the most interest and attention, and 2.) Some readers *continue* to not get through their skulls.
Plus all of the people complaining about how they're afraid to approach women for fear of being called “creepy”.
See all the hundreds of comments from readers of this blog trying to justify being creepy and you'll see why it comes up so often.
It seems to me that if a girl wants to be cold approached by you, her body language will let you know.
The more attractive or successful looking you are, the more likely she'll want you to cold approach her.
"It seems to me that if a girl wants to be cold approached by you, her body language will let you know."
Give it a shot – trying it. Girls who's body language is the most open – in my experience – are either trying to sell you something at the mall, or they're very *not* single (they seem to relax because they care a lot less about their body language after they're dating someone). A lot of women seem to be worried about appearing "to available", plus there's the "I want to be approached, but not by everyone here" kind of thing, etc etc.
"The more attractive or successful looking you are, the more likely she'll want you to cold approach her."
This is somewhat true, in my opinion. If you appear attractive it's more likely they'd be interested in talking to you. Also, attractive looking people are less likely to be unwilling to go away if they're not wanted (less likely). And one has to figure out what it means to be an attractive guy – a lot of times it's looking interesting, and interesting looking people might be more likely to have something interesting to say.
For all those guys arguing that approaching women on the bus is totally legit, read the thread on this very topic over at Captain Awkward. Read the responses by the women. Pay attention to how they say they feel when dudes chat them up on the bus, and how often it happens.
http://captainawkward.com/2012/09/15/conversation…
Then perhaps think, that if your goal is to get a date with someone…hitting on people on the bus is probably not going to be effective.
It doesn't matter if you as the dude think you should be able to hit on people who don't want to talk to you and not be called a creeper. What matters is that many women experience your being friendly as street harassment, and that is not going to get you a date.
So if you are looking for effective strategies on how to get dates…hitting on women on the bus is not one. Move on to more effective means to interact.
Great link, Trooper6. I think a particularly appropriate sentiment on Captain Awkward's part is:
"I’m okay with you missing out on talking to a potential “prospect.” I’m okay if you feel weird and like maybe you shouldn’t talk to women on the bus or the train ever. I’m okay with you being worried that if you do you’ll be accidentally creepy. Can you spread that anxiety around to the general population? It might make the world a better place."
Yup. It just might.
"Then perhaps think, that if your goal is to get a date with someone…hitting on people on the bus is probably not going to be effective. "
You're right, it's probably not going to be effective. On the other hand, someone could argue that there's still a chance that it might be effective from time to time, so I should try anyway. The point is, that bothering people in contexts where socializing is not expected is not ok (unless body language says explicitly otherwise). Doing that makes people feel uncomfortable or threatened, i.e. it's being creepy.
The kind of people who feel nervous about talking to people on public transportation and the kind of people who freak out when a girl won't respond to them are never, ever going to be the same people. The shy, socially awkward guys will continue to not talk to anyone, and the creepers will continue to creep.
There's nothing wrong with talking to strangers, as long as you aren't a dick about it. Maybe if more polite, respectful guys approached women in polite, respectful ways, women wouldn't have to be constantly on their guard in public?
Look I think it really just comes down to the fact that public transportation is just not an appropriate place to hit on a stranger. No one's saying you are not allowed to hit on anyone ever, just think about what you're doing and where you are. Pretty much every woman on here and on every other site discussing this topic of being approached on public transport absolutely HATES it. With a burning fiery passion. I haven't seen a single one say that they enjoyed it or that it led to something more. Every single one has said it's annoying at best and terrifying at worst. So why bother with something where the chances of it being a positive interaction are just so miniscule (and the chance of bothering someone is highly likely) when you have so many other perfectly acceptable places to approach people to choose from?
"I haven't seen a single one say that they enjoyed it or that it led to something more"
Actually, that's not technically true. There was a girl in the last month who said a guy handed her a note with his phone number on it, and she was flattered and would have followed up if she hadn't been dating someone then already.
Well, if we're getting technical, then technically it IS true, because I haven't seen that. Was it on a bus? Did he sit down and talk to her or just give her the note and walk away? Because if it's the latter I don't think that's so bad because he isn't cornering her in and leaving her with no way to leave the conversation, because they are not having a conversation.
One person saying they didn't mind a public transport approach vs. ridiculous amounts of women saying that they hate it, it makes a lot more sense to just not do it, doesn't it? Seeing as the majority of people don't like it, why bother doing something that is more likely to upset someone than not, especially when there is so little chance of any gain?
I just really don't understand why we're arguing about this. Public transport does not give the woman an option of leaving, so why put her in that position just because you feel you have the right to approach coz you heard that one woman one time didn't mind it?
Plenty of women are saying that it makes them incredibly uncomfortable and/or scared. Why do that to them? Save your approaches for somewhere that they are more likely to be comfortable and hence you're more likely to be successful.
Reading that site is like watching Law and Order, then coming to the conclusion that 50% of rich people are rapists or murders, because 50% of the rich people on the show are rapists or murders.
What I mean is that that article draws in women who have complaints. Nothing wrong with that, but it's nowhere near a balanced view of what women think – it's a series of complaints. It's like writing a blog entry about how much you hate it when your car breaks down, then when everyone who comments writes stories about how their car breaks down, you jump to the conclusion that everyone's car breaks down all the time, and people hate cars.
I'm not saying a bus is a great place to hit on women, but you're not going to get any of the "here's how I met someone interesting" perspectives either. And the other thing is that you're not noticing the important parts of the story either –
1. Most of the guys she mentions she seems to be pointing out that they're much older than her, or there's a weird vibe to them
2. They won't go away
3. There is tiny but existent chance they might pose a threat to her safety
Pinging someone by saying "is that a good book" then if they respond with a short, clipped answer saying "cool" and going back to whatever you were doing is entirely different than refusing to back down.
There are a few people who just don't want anyone to talk to them, ever, but most of the girls I've known didn't start out feeling like they didn't want anyone to talk to them ever – they *learned* it because it almost only the really weird people who talked to them, or after repeated experiences of people who wouldn't go away, or who became aggressive – etc etc. Or they've read so many stories about it they've developed a complex about it – sometimes that complex is accurate.
I've known a lot of girls who say they wish they could just meet interesting people out in real life, they just don't like actually doing it because it seems like it's just the weirdos who want to talk to them.
P.S. This was supposed to be a reply to the previous post – not sure what happened.
That article draws in women who have complaints? Every woman has complaints in this area, Mr. Rivers. You seem to not know women well, or you would have heard about this problem before now. Why not ask some women of your acquaintance if these things have ever happened to them, and how they felt about it? You might be surprised by the answers.
I'd respond with something, but I don't see where you addressed much that I wrote, you just attempted to claim that I was saying something I clearly wasn't (that women don't have complaints). What was that called – a strawman argument – I can't quite remember…either way what you're claiming I said is simply not what I said.
All right, for the sake of clarity then:
You claim that the article suffers from confirmation bias, that it draws women who do have complaints while those who do not have complaints don't post. Do you have any additional support for your confirmation bias hypothesis, such as a counter example from another article or anecdotal evidence from female friends who ride public transportation?
Sure, I have anecdotal evidence from a couple of women I knew who got into it a few years ago – they hadn't been riding public transportation, but there was this idea going around that one of the thing that public transportation is that it could help with the social isolation that we often feel – where we're surrounded by people but feel alone as people are often afraid to talk to each other.
They really, really wanted to love public transportation, so they started taking it. And – found that they never met anyone interesting on the bus, ever, unless it was a local college kind of bus. And they all ended up with that attitude that they didn't really want anyone to talk to them on the bus – it was just that despite starting out thinking it would be awesome, the only people who talked to them were mostly creepy weirdos.
I also specifically have an ex girlfriend who graduated from college and was taking public transportation for a while. She was fairly clear to me that she'd love to meet a "cute boy" on the bus – but again, the only people who talked to her were creepy weirdos, or people where it was fine but they mostly just weren't interesting.
Another poster above wrote this – she didn't mention where it happened, so probably wasn't public transportation, but it wasn't a familiar situation either –
"My other half of near-enough a decade approached me as a complete stranger, when I was alone in a new and strange place. But outside of that very broad description, he did a LOT of things that explicitly signalled that he was safe, that he would respect my boundaries and that he didn't expect anything from me. "
I personally was in a situation where the group I was in chatted with a couple on the bus. It was cool. We got to the end of the ride and realized all of us had mistakenly taken the bus the wrong direction, and there weren't any more buses running. Because we had chatted, we figured this out and were able to save money by all sharing a cab back to the other end of town.
I appreciate your logical response to my post, that's my own anecdotal evidence. Just to be clear – me pointing out that there are also some other opinions does not discount or invalidate the original opinions. Just that there are other opinions out there.
And that it's often important to note the context behind the majority of these complaints – often if you pay attention it's "I'm so tired of being approached by sketchy guys, guys who won't politely go away if I don't feel like talking to them, or the minority but important group that makes me wonder if I'll be unsafe".
Rereading my post I wanted to further clarify – when I wrote "Just that there are other opinions out there" what I more specifically mean is that these differening opinions don't contradict. One can have both opinions simultaneously – that they're sick of being approached by sketchy weirdos, or feeling like they cannot quickly and easily turn someone down if they don't feel like talking to them, and that they hate that they have to keep in mind their own safety. And also simultaneously feel like it would be fun to occasionally have interesting conversations with normal people from time to time.
Ok just as someone who has constantly been riding public transportation my whole life, as I do not drive and back in my school days I got two and from school by train, I find it absolutely hilarious when people who do not regularly have to take public transportation describe it as 'fun'. People with high ideals about public transport are the ones who do not have to catch it. The ones who catch it realise that every time you get on that bus/train it is a gamble as to whether you're going to have unremarkable or a nightmare trip. Those friends of yours – once they started catching it, they realised riding the bus wasn't all it's cracked up to be, was it?
And Bunny didn't meet her SO on public transport. So none of this anecdotal evidence really backs up the argument that Captain Awkward's article isn't an accurate representation of general opinion. The overwhelming majority of women do not like being hit on on public transport. There is pretty much no way for it to be a pleasant experience. So let's all just not, and stick to more appropriate scenarios.
"Those friends of yours – once they started catching it, they realised riding the bus wasn't all it's cracked up to be, was it?"
Yeah, that's exactly what happened. But my point was that it wasn't that someone said something that caused the problem – it was that the people who did it were always sketchy, wouldn't easily go away, etc etc. It wasn't something that was inherent in being talked to, they weren't "traumatized" because someone said "hey, how's it going" (positive response) "we're on our way to swing dancing, have you ever gone swing dancing?". They grew to hate it because it was so often people who were trying to trap them in a conversation, or worse.
"And Bunny didn't meet her SO on public transport."
No, she didn't say where exactly she met them.
"So none of this anecdotal evidence really backs up the argument that Captain Awkward's article isn't an accurate representation of general opinion."
If you don't see it – I'm really not trying to be rude here – I doubt a further back and forth will lead to light on the disagreement.
I doubt it either. I'm not trying to be rude either but your answers make me feel like banging my head on the desk in frustration. So I'm going to stop before I start actually doing that.
What makes you think that you are sufficiently acquainted with what 'women' (who are not Borg, by the way) think to know whether Captain Awkward's site is a balanced view of it?
Especially as you admit yourself that most of the women ('girls'? Really?) you know have learned to be wary of strangers talking to them.
'Sometimes that complex is accurate' – it's nice that they have you to validate their life experiences and decisions for them. Life experiences, I might add, that you haven't shared and therefore have no real way of knowing whether the judgment of those with such 'complexes' is in the main as faulty as you seem to be assuming.
My guess, speaking as a woman who encounters inappropriate comments from men oretty much anytime I go out in public, is that it's not. I hope you don't invalidate their own judgments relating to personal safety issues to them directly in the same dismissive way you have here,
Again, I'd respond with something more in depth, except that you mostly just seem to be trying to claim I wrote things that I didn't, so there's little point – you even took something I wrote out of context to pretend that I wrote something different.
I am not 'trying to claim' you wrote things you didn't, so you can take that chip right off your shoulder. I am reading the things you *did* write and being utterly bemused by the way you start in on the Captain being 'unbalanced' but ending up acknowledging that getting skeevy comments from creepy people that you don't want to talk to, can't get rid of, and feel unsafe around really is a majority experience.
Since the majority of people who read your comment seem to have made exactly the same 'misinterpretation', you might want to consider wheer the problem isn't with our reading but with your writing. So: what exactly is the point you were trying to make?
Also, I note that this is the second time you have ignored commenters' concerns about your attitude to women and their experiences. Again, if multiple people are reading something into your post, you may want to consider whether that has something to do with what you are writing.
"I am not 'trying to claim' you wrote things you didn't, so you can take that chip right off your shoulder"
I find it hard to imagine how that would be the case when you misquoted something I wrote so obviously to try to give the impression that I said something very different than I said.
"I am reading the things you *did* write and being utterly bemused by the way you start in on the Captain being 'unbalanced' but ending up acknowledging that getting skeevy comments from creepy people that you don't want to talk to, can't get rid of, and feel unsafe around really is a majority experience. "
That's what "unbalanced" means. It doesn't say "it's wrong", it says "it's wrong to see this as a balanced view of the whole picture".
"Since the majority of people who read your comment seem to have made exactly the same 'misinterpretation', you might want to consider wheer the problem isn't with our reading but with your writing."
In my opinion it's simply a factor of the internet and commenting – people who understand and agree often do not comment. People who misunderstand or disagree comment back.
"So: what exactly is the point you were trying to make? "
That saying "hey, how's it going" to someone in public does not lead to them having that stream of hate that's in that article – that kind of stream of hate comes from repeated experiences with people who 1. are clearly inappropriate (people twice her age) 2. won't easily go away 3. might pose a danger. Learn to not do *those* things rather than going through life feeling like you're going to traumatize someone simply because you said "hey".
"Also, I note that this is the second time you have ignored commenters' concerns"
Both times I read back through my comment, and both times could not find a way that my comment could be interpreted in the way claimed without someone wanting to read it differently. After a while, it becomes clear that a lot of people skim what's write what they want you to have said so they can tell you you're wrong.
I think you missed one important point:
none of them took the hint and moved on without getting offended. It can be difficult to describe in text how you know someone isn't seeing you as a person,. how you're just there for their benefit, but its easy to spot pretty quickly.
As a side note: I'm sure anyone who had actually read Master And Commander could have had a perfectly good discussion about the book and gotten off at their own stop without it being an issue.
I don't understand – what you're saying here *IS* pretty much what I was saying in my post. I totally agree 100%.
To quote myself –
I'm a little confused – where do you think we differ? Because I really think I'm saying pretty much the same thing you are.
Remember this part of the good doctor's article?
"At the same time, you also want to avoid making someone feel cornered or trapped. Meeting a woman at a hotel bar and flirting with her can feel like the most normal thing in the world. Meeting that same woman in a small, empty room and trying to flirt with her there can appear to be threatening – she has no way of getting away from you should she feel the need. She is much more likely to feel as though she’s in danger because’s she’s effectively trapped."
Well, on a bus, you're automatically trapped. So no, I don't think it's ever a good idea to hit on someone on a bus.
I've actually had mixed experiences with guys on public transport. Mostly bad, but some good (and one great, but that was a guy my father's age saving me from a real creeper who grabbed me, so irrelevant). One of the best happened once I got off the metro. The guy actually did used a line similar to "is that a good book" once we both got off the metro car. I was still reading as I was walking down the platform, Miles Vorkosigan has that effect on me, what can I say. He must have been watching me a while because he made some comment about my reading for a while. He never got too close, I never felt threatened and honestly, despite the fact that I might have felt a bit trapped while we were on the metro car and I had no possible way out of the situation, once on the outside with a definite possibility of getting away (especially since I was meeting someone), it was a really great encounter.
On the What If You Screw Up part: I'd say an apology should be curt and brief and address the behaviour, not you or her as a person. "Whoops, that was over the line" when you make a joke that doesn't fall right or "Sorry, that was a tad inappropriate" when physical contact makes her flinch. "Sorry, I'm being creepy" or "I didn't mean to scare you" too easily triggers the smooth-over reflexes or worse, make it sound like you're hanging onto her every reaction, methinks.
You know, I have no problem being approached, as long as it's not in an enclosed space. AKA, I can leave at any time. Key word there: Any! With public transit, I'm effectively trapped. There's often a few minutes between stops, getting off screws up my commute (especially if I'm on a bus that only runs every half-hour) and I have NO guarantee that Person won't follow me off. Bookstore, library, museum, social event, on the street, at a cafe, all fair game as far as I'm concerned as long as you're polite about it. I've made approaches in all these places. (The library: a clearly exaggerated "I was after that book!" said with a twinkly smile and a "no, no, you take it, I'll put in a request to get it after you" followup, or offering librarian-esque advice to someone who is clearly lost)
The key to making even an interruption pleasant is to follow with "sorry to bother you, I hope you have a good day/night" and then move on.
…maybe I'm less bothered by being approached at random because a) I do it too, and b) most of the people who approach me are polite when I shut them down.
Thanks so much for telling people not to try to pick up women who are obviously busy with books, iPads, et cetera.
For my job I have to take long subway and actual-train rides, and play a lot of iPad games to pass the time. I have thus learned a new phrase in Subway Guy Speak: "Cool game" means, "Stop playing that game and talk to me." It is beyond annoying, especially with the social pressure to be nice or else be called a bitch.
If you genuinely want to talk about the book someone's reading, that shows. If you're just using it as a springboard to something else, that shows too, very clearly. Some other commenter suggested that if you mention an attractive subway rider's book and she doesn't engage, you should take that as a sign and back off–but in my experience, guys don't do that. They keep talking. Since I was 15 I've been dealing with random guys who refuse to understand that if I'm reading a book, it's because I want to READ A BOOK.
Or, think of it this way: I live in New York, which is extremely crowded. People have very little personal space. Part of being a good New
Yorker, regardless of gender, is letting people be–especially on public transportation, where we already have to put up with a lot of crap. Don't get lumped in with the guy proselytizing loudly against pornography or the girl with her $500 headphones around her neck, pumping music for the whole car to hear. Don't make yourself another annoyance.
And if I do get annoyed, please don't explain to me why I'm wrong to be annoyed. That is a situation where no one wins.
I talk to girls on occasion that I think are cute, and I always gauge their response. If they reciprocate, I continue. If they don't, I stop talking and go on.
That's 100% of my interactions. No one ever reciprocates, or ever gives 'signs' they want to be approached. 100%.
the advice about gauge who wants to be approached b4 continuing to talk has helped me with one single thing – cutting things off in a brief appropriate manner. That's it. It has lead to zero, zero progress in meeting more girls. I don't know why its construed as dating advice, when its more like 'here's how to be a competent human being advice.' It no way shape or form makes the opposite sex more likely to date you (and NOT that this is my expectation, I just don't understand why its considered dating advice – dating advice in my head is things that help you with getting the opposite sex to reciprocate, whereas this is about how not to offend, and keep things as they were before you start talking to a girl you have never met)
Suggestions about the etiquette and morals of dating still count as dating advice, though. Most dating advice for women mentions that if you've been on a few dates with a man and decide you don't wish to see him anymore, you should call or text him to let him know rather than ceasing all communication and waiting for him to figure it out. Doing that doesn't get me more dates. It's not like the men who I say I'm not interested in go around spreading word of my forthrightness to their friends, who decide based on that to ask me out. It's just something that saves me a little bit of a hassle and that makes the dating scene a lot more pleasant for the people I interact with.
Advice on how not to be a creep is kind of like that. It's obviously not going to improve your chances, since women aren't going to fall all over you because they saw you didn't pester that poor girl wearing headphones, but it saves you a little time and makes the women's lives easier.
After seeing these statements, from both men and women, is there now any doubt at all that men should not be approaching women at all?
Well, not unless you are one or more of a) very good-looking, b) obviously high-status, or c) a skilled gamesman. I can’t escape the feeling that anyone reading this kind of thing (yes, I include myself) is beyond being able to profit from it in the first place.
Unfortunately, not all the salmon make it upstream. Just go to Plan G (H, I, J, whatever).
I would be okay with men not approaching women ever.
It that supposed to be a joke, or a blanket statement about men? What a stupid comment. There's millions of guys who never approach to begin with, and they probably read this statement, and think yup I'm correct in keeping myself isolated.
I can't speak for BiSian, but I took that comment seriously and have seen other people make similar comments seriously.
Personally, I think most men can figure out how to approach women without being creepy with some practice and some extra awareness. But the guys who fret about how it's too much effort? The ones who claim that they can't possibly learn all these complicated social rules? Yeah, I'm fine with them just not approaching anyone anymore. They'll just have to date women who they know well or wait for women to approach them or do without dating. And if way more men than I think fall into these categories, I'm still fine with them not approaching.
Helping the people who keep themselves isolated find partners isn't the highest priority for everyone. Some people think it's more important that people don't get creeped on.
Look at the context johnny. The whiners I was responding to were making sweeping statements about women's shallowness and "true" sexual preferences. Also inserting "alpha" ad nauseum (I've never been able to get a definition of "alpha" that doesn't break down to 'men that women are attracted to for some reason, but those mean women aren't attract to ME'–what a shock!) I just didn't want to deal with their self-pitying.
BUT…I was actually being serious. Like eselle said, a little extra awareness and practice goes a long way towards not creeping out someone. It's not that complicated. And these poor poor men who can't possibly understand all these tricky social rules? Well they seem to do okay in other areas of their life and interpersonal relations (bosses, cops, clerks, bartenders, etc) because they have learned the rules.
If you can't do that / don't want to? Fine, don't approach women. I am perfectly okay with that.
Also, just had a thought about why this whole topic grates on my nerves.
I'm a teacher in my work life. I get paid to help people learn and improve their skills. I get paid to be kind and patient with their mistakes and to find the best possible way to motivate my students to learn the concepts that they need to know. I get paid to deal with the same annoying mistakes day in and day out, to teach the same basic concept again and again and again…
But see, I do not get paid to teach awkward/introverted/shy men how to approach women! I am not obligated to encourage random dudes in the best way to conduct their romantic search. I am obligated to encourage my students. I am not obligated to teach men when they make a mistake, and creep me out, with a detailed explanation and taking care to not hurt their feelings. I save that for my students.
In short dudes, don't assume that every woman is delighted to be your teacher.
To head off some of the whiners, that isn't to say that I'm going to be rude and nasty to anyone who dares bother me. This isn't an accusation directed at all, or even most men (apparently I always need to add this caveat) But women are not your cheerleaders and teachers.
The basics are pretty simple.
1. Don't approach women from behind or in dark alleys or in small confined spaces.
2. Women who have headphones on or who are reading intensely don't want to talk to people, so don't talk to them.
3. If you start talking to a woman and she gives you short, one-word replies, she's not interested in carrying on the conversation.
4. If a woman excuses herself and walks away, don't follow her.
Following those rules won't necessarily turn you into a charmer, but they'll steer you away from some of the creepiest behavior. If you don't think you can manage those things, then yes, you should move onto Plan G (presumably dating people you already know or dating on the internet).
Actually I agree. A true Alpha's reputation precedes him. In other words, he can be minding his own business and a woman will chum up to him. It's similar to employment – sometimes a person is so wonderfully uniquely skilled that they get unsolicited lucrative offers from employers (even when they're actively employed). Heck women don't care if a men is already in a relationship as they'll happily snipe other womens' men.
http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2009/10/new-scientist-s…
today it is definitely very hard to connect with the right woman, especially when they are very nasty to us men when we will try to start a normal conversation with the one that we would really like to meet. women have certainly changed over the years, and many of us men do get cursed at by them which makes me wonder if many of them are gay to begin with.
I am at university and I have been approaching girls but mostly in class.
Today, there was this ultra cute blonde lying down on the lawns about 10 meters from me. After conquering a painful 15 minute anxiety attack I went up and talked to her and had a great conversation. She did not feel creeped out and we had fun talking. I just wanted to talk and had no goal of getting her number/Facebook when I saw her. I should have asked for a contact but did not yet it was cool, she was sweet.
It is easier if you are near them anyway and approach them in a light-hearted, relaxed and friendly manner while smiling. Since, I approached another cute and friendly girl while working for charity (I was not trying to pickup, yet she was friendly to offer me her homemade snacks), I have realized that if you approach very calmly and nicely, women do act friendly and responsive.