« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
I’d like to clear up an issue that – going by the comments both here and on the Facebook page - a lot of guys are having.
A lot of guys seem to have hit a sort of information overload when it comes to worrying about coming across as creepy. They may have read about behaviors that often come off as creepy or articles like Schrodinger’s Rapist and inadvertently took away all the wrong lessons. They’ve become so overwhelmed by the worry that they’re going to come across as a creeper – and thus, destroy any chances of getting a date – that they tend to freeze up or become even more anxious about meeting new women than they had been before. Where they were nervous before, now they’re practically crippled by approach anxiety, assuming that to approach any woman without an engraved invitation is tantamount to creeper behavior.
The underlying issue here is a common one, especially amongst folks who are a little less experienced or adept at dating: they’re coming at it from the wrong mental model. They’re approaching dating as though it were safe-cracking or bomb-disposal; one teeny-tiny mistake and BOOM!! Everything is ruined foreverrrrrr.
Careful… careful… cut the wrong wire and the FriendZone detonator goes off…
In fact, dating – much like sex – is more akin to a musical performance; a jam session amongst friends or improv between jazz musicians. Yes, there will be times when you hit a discordant note or you fail to harmonize with your partner, but that doesn’t necessarily ruin the whole experience. As one professional musician has told me: if you start strong and finish strong, people will forgive the occasional wrong note.
In other words: it ain’t the mistake you make, it’s how you follow it up.
Unless the two of you are rocking out and you decide to finish your set by going all Pete Townsend and smash your guitar which would mean whipping out yourHELP THIS METAPHOR IS RAGING OUT OF CONTROL!
The key is learning to tell that you’ve made a mistake and learning how to avoid making them in the first place.
This is the process by which we achieve social calibration.
What Is Social Calibration?
The easiest way to describe social calibration is “the ability to correctly read and negotiate social situations”. Social calibration means being able to read social cues and respond to them appropriately. It means being able to make people react in the way that you want them to, whether it’s to put them at ease and make them comfortable or to make them excited or aroused. Someone who is socially well-calibrated is more at ease with dealing with people because he or she understands what to expect from them and how to interact and influence with them.
Side note: extroversion or introversion is an entirely different matter from social calibration. One can not deal well with large groups but still be socially successful in a one-on-one situation, just as one can be great at working a room but lousy when dealing with people on an individual basis.
It means being able to find an individual’s boundaries – the better to not cross them or to come as close as possible without going over them. It means knowing how to recover if you do end up causing offense or distress.
When you accidentally upset someone, how do you react? Do you smooth things over or do you try to explain why it’s not fair for them to be upset? Are you able to keep your head, apologize and explain your intent, or do you freak out and end up making things worse?
Social calibration also means knowing what works for you. One mistake I see people make on a regular basis is trying to imitate someone without regard to how well that person’s style or personality meshes with their own, not realizing that what works for one person doesn’t work for another. My friend Rubio from the second episode of the Dr. NerdLove podcast, for example, may be able to get away with using astoundingly offensive humor when flirting with a woman and make her not only laugh but appreciate him for being offensive because his use of humor is part of is personality. If I were to try to say something similar1 to a woman then I’d likely end up slapped or wearing her drink or both2. He is also incredibly well calibrated, socially; he knows exactly where the line is and just how close to it he can get without going over.
“Look, this is fascinating but can we do this later? I have some calibrations of my own to make.”
So how do we become more socially calibrated?
Understand The Context
Being able to read the context of a situation and understand how to adapt to it is an important part of proper social calibration and part of how we avoid awkwardness. It’s a means of displaying that, yes, we understand the implied social contract and are willing to follow it.
Context ultimately colors how we interpret everything; telling a raunchy joke at a rowdy bar is socially acceptable. Telling the exact same joke at a Catholic baptism, on the other hand, is not. Similarly, approaching a woman alone at night will be interpreted differently than if you approach the same woman in the same location and in the exact same manner at high noon instead.
The social context of a situation dictates the expectations of the participants and thus affects the rules of what’s socially acceptable; you can get away with being more overtly sexual in your flirting at a nightclub, for example, than you could at a coffeeshop. Similarly, many bars are considered locations where it is not only socially acceptable to meet people but an expected part of the social contract; if someone is at a bar that caters to a more socially active crowd – a DJ, open floorspace for mingling, mixed drink specials – it can generally be assumed that they are open to meeting new people.
On the other hand, a bookstore would require a different approach. Where a nightclub or a bar is a vibrant, high-energy location, bookstores are calm, soothing places.
Except for whenever Jonathan “Swivel Hips” Franzen is having a book-signing anyway.
Trying to approach a woman browsing the mystery section of Barnes and Noble the same way you would approach her when you see her ordering a Cosmo at a rowdy singles bar is going to get you some very odd looks at best and make her feel uncomfortable; it’s completely out of keeping with the accepted social context. In a club, you’re expected to be more energetic and outgoing. In a bookstore, maintaining that same level of energy would make you seem as though you did too much crank and just got done disassembling your stereo.
« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
Related posts:
Pages: 1 2
I just want to repeat something I've said elsewhere, which I think is one of the biggest misconceptions that makes guys anxious: the most important signs are not subtle. Yes, it can be hard to tell the difference between someone who's somewhat interested in what you're saying, and someone who's starting to get bored–*I* have trouble with that. But totally enthusiastic engagement in a conversation is hard to miss (and that's what you want to look for), as is real discomfort (which is what you really want to avoid). No one's going to think you're a "bad" person for being boring–they may think that if you ignore obvious discomfort.
If you have crossed someone's boundaries rather than just failed to totally engage them, you *will* notice if you're paying the slightest bit of attention. The person will physically withdraw–eyes averted, smile dropping, head or body turning away, voice going stiff or flat, possibly even extricating themselves from the conversation completely. The difference between just an awkward moment and getting creepy is whether you stop doing whatever crossed that boundary right away (and let them go without a fuss, if they really want to stop talking) or keep doing it (either because you weren't paying any attention, or because you don't want to believe you crossed a boundary and maybe you read that reaction wrong and let's see if it works this time…). That is, unless you've done something so over the top you've crossed several boundaries all at once, but I think common sense can tell you not to do those sorts of things unless you're really good at reading a situation and telling it'll be okay (like the friend with his raunchy jokes).
So there's no need to be terrified of accidentally being creepy, because if you do care about how the women you interact with feel, and you're paying attention not just to what you want to say and do but what they're saying and doing, you'll know if you're on the verge and be able to course-correct.
(And if someone calls you creepy simply because you bored them, or because you did one little thing they didn't like and then immediately stopped, that's their issue and you wouldn't have wanted to date them anyway.)
Thinking over some of the comments from Friday I think some people put approaching/starting a conversation in the wrong context. I see a lot of comments that seem to treat a conversation as kind of an "all or nothing" encounter, where you wow the woman (or man) and the two of you instantly start THE BEST RELATIONSHIP EVER(TM) or you come across as a creeper and are barred from ever talking to anyone of the opposite (or same) sex again. I feel like this comes in part from 1) fear and 2) a failure to appreciate the person they are trying to talk to as anything other than a potential sex partner.
I feel like the solution here is a shift in the guy's (or girl's, whoever is doing the approaching) attitude towards social interactions. I think a better framework for starting a conversation is 1) recognize that you are a person with social value and 2) treat the conversation as a check if the other person shares interests or values that would make the two of you enjoy talking to each other. Instead of going "I hope I can get this person interested in me" treat it as "I wonder if this person and I would enjoy talking about X" (x being a subject you enjoy talking about). This ties in with some previous posts and pointers about the importance of being passionate about something! The important part about this shift in "context" is that it stops treating potential partners as "someone I might get to touch naughty bits with" and instead as "someone I share meaningful interests with that would allow us to have cool conversations."
This leads to two important shifts 1) you're treating them as a person with interests not as something you want to drag back to your bedroom then forget about, which should reduce your chance of coming across as a dangerous sort and 2) if they aren't engaging actively in the conversation then you have no incentive to keep pushing (why would you work to keep up a conversation with someone who wasn't interesting to talk to?), which reduces the burden on you to figure out the cues they're sending.
/Real life example: My partner and I dated in high school and again in our late twenties after not talking to each other for over a decade. The first time we met it was our mutual love of fantasy authors that sparked our interest in each other. We had a lot of cool talks about what makes a good story, what we appreciate in an author, etc. Our relationship started because of how much we enjoyed talking to each other. When we reconnected in our twenties it was talking about online gaming (and about what books we'd read in the past ten years) and once again a relationship grew out of genuinely enjoying the experience of communicating with each other. In both cases we didn't go into things looking at each other as potential partners, but as people who were awesome to talk to. If she hadn't been interested in a relationship (either time) I wouldn't have felt like I was "Friend Zoned," I would have just been happy to have a cool friend.
I think part of the problem is that us guys tend to have guy friends that are "enough" (for lack of a better word) already. Unless you're a gay guy (and even then, depends on how many of them are straight or not), there's something that you can't get from guy friends that you can only get from a woman.
I'm not sure how to say this without it offending someone, so I'll just say it bluntly: friendships with the same sex and friendships with the opposite sex give you very, very different things, and the latter can be awkward (not even from a sex standpoint either) and something a lot of guys aren't interested in otherwise.
I would say friendships with the opposite sex CAN give you very different things. I am friends with some women where my relationship with them is more or less indistinguishable from my guy friends, and some where I am willing to…admit to more personal vulnerability than I would in front of most of my guy friends. The key there still being "most." I'm wavering on whether this is a real or artificial distinction. (By which I mean are friendships with persons of the opposite gender inherently different than with persons of the same gender, or is this a matter of individual perspective).
The problem I see with that attitude (my guy friends are enough, I don't need/want woman friends) is that it makes talking to a woman an event with only two possibilities. Either it leads to sex/a relationship or it was pointless. I have a hard time picturing that mental state, so feel free to correct me if I make an assumption that is wrong here, but that feels dehumanizing to me. That feels like it would require the guy to look at women only as potential partners instead of as people who have value as something other than a sexual/relationship accessory. I feel like that sends the message "The only value you could possibly have to me is if you're coming back to my room. Tonight," and I can't believe that is a message that most people would want broadcast at them.
Friendships work as long as you're not attracted to them or you can otherwise figure out a way to "disqualify" them. If you're not getting any and hanging around someone who you want to get it from but can't, you'll end up being an orbiter more than a friend.
[cont]
I'm kind of curious what you mean by the "very very different things" you'd get from a friendship with a woman, and what would be awkward if there was no tension around sex? When I'm chatting with a guy friend or acquaintance, I don't find I talk in a different way or about different things than with a woman (other than differences based on the individual's interests, where they exist). There are definitely some subtle differences–I'm less likely to playfully touch a casual guy friend than a casual woman friend, for example, to avoid giving the wrong impression–but those mainly come down to making sure I'm not coming across as indicating sexual interest. I certainly can enjoy a conversation about a shared interest with a guy I'm not romantically involved with just as much as with a woman. Are you saying you wouldn't?
Because–I can totally see that it can be awkward trying to be friends with someone you're romantically or sexually attracted to, if they don't feel the same way and you're not able to put those feelings aside. But in Orv's suggested approach, you don't even know the woman yet. Like he said, you'd think of it as seeing if you can just have an interesting conversation with her. Yes, maybe you'll feel attracted and she won't and you'll decide you can't be just friends with her. Or maybe after talking to her you'll find you enjoyed the conversation but couldn't see *her* as a romantic partner for whatever reason. If all you go in looking for is an enjoyable conversation, then your approach was still a success, and neither of those possibilities should make the conversation less enjoyable. They just affect how you proceed from there.
This is really hard to put into words. I'm gonna put aside some differences I used as examples above.
If I'm discussing a mutual interest with a guy (or a woman online, because auto-disqualified), it's just the interest and nothing else going into the dynamic, because I will never be attracted to them at all. It can be an enjoyable conversation, and I'll never think of it as anything else than that.
[cont]
They're as different as you make them; no more, no less.
I get what you're trying to say, but come on, things ARE different.
And I get what you're trying to say but no, they're really not. I (and I assume others) am quite capable of talking to women about mutual interests without constantly working the attraction/romance angle in my head. Sure I'll notice if a woman I'm talking to is physically attractive. I'll notice if a guy I'm talking to is a sharp dresser. That doesn't necessarily mean that I feel the need to act on that attraction.
Simple real example: right before I started going out with my current girlfriend, I was having regular coffee dates with a female friend of mine. We were both sort of history geeks although she was more into Old English and I was more into ancient Greek. Anyway, we really enjoyed each others' company and hung out a few times a month for six months or so and chatted with each other at a nightclub we both frequented roughly every week. The one time the possibility of dating did come up, she informed me that she had a long distance fiance and we went right back to what we'd been talking about because our shared interests were more important than using them to get something more out of it.
its as different as you make it. That's not to say there's anything wrong with making it different. Just understand that the difference is in your mind and its yours to keep or learn how to discard as you choose.
How do you do that?
Actually, nevermind, missed you saying "nightclub" in all that.
Hold on I think you may be dismissing what Johnny said a little too quickly. There is a skill required to just converse with someone while also pushing any sexual thoughts out of your head. There are times when I have been remarkably bad at that and when I failed I could feel myself being uncomfortable while talking. Just because some of Johnny's interactions happened at a nightclub doesn't make what Johnny said irrelevant (because ultimately that advice goes for any place where you might date, be it the comic shop, the library, a friend's house, the park, or wherever).
I found that I was able to push aside sexual thoughts I have during a conversation by 1) not focusing on it (which is kind of hard to do outright) and more importantly 2) practicing being in the flow of a conversation. Much of social interaction advice comes down to being willing to ebb and flow with a conversation, wherever it may take you. What that means is clearing your head of where you think the conversation "should" go and instead going with wherever it takes me. I've found that doing this allows me to keep my head clear and lets me dedicate more brain power on playing towards my skills.
You might ask "how in the world do you just go with it?" And honestly that is a completely fair question. I think you have to recognize that when you are trying to talk with other people out of the blue, you naturally will feel uncomfortable because you are putting yourself in a position of vulnerability. There are no two bones about that. But the skill comes in getting into conversations enough that you learn to deal with that feeling of being uncomfortable. Its kind of like public speaking, do it often enough and you eventually get used to the uncomfortable feeling to a point where it has no impact on you.
No, they're not. At least not for everyone. Your expectations about what they're supposed to be, on the other hand, are probably shaping all your interactions.
You don't know how crazy "not for everyone" drives me. "Not for everyone" is a minority that you don't stumble across regularly. Those barely count because of rarity.
That describes almost every single one of the many, many people in my life, so "rarity" is stretching it.
Examples, please.
I don't know anyone in my life who is a a walking stereotype of the type you described. Are you teenagers, because people often play with identities then and may be choosing to act out these roles – even then, I'm sure an individual will be a lot more complex once you talk to them.
Not a teenager, but nearly everyone I know is a walking stereotype.
I would suggest that this is not true. If they all seem like a walking stereotype to you… the common element there is you. It sounds like you don't take the time/effort to get to know people beyond a really base and superficial level. The chance that literally every person you know is a walking stereotype is just so very tiny that it doesn't make sense for us to assume anything else.
I ask questions, but never get more than superficial/obvious answers or answers without much thought or description attached to them. There really isn't much going on that I couldn't figure out with some observation.
Wait, are you the same "anon" from the other article? Because that's almost verbatim.
Other article?
And if I'm doing it wrong, what kinds of questions am I supposed to ask to get things out of someone?
Conversation isn't an interrogation, or doesn't have to be. It can be a sharing of mutual interests. I guess I'm lucky to be interested in lots of things. I've talked to experts in art history, philosophy, old English and a host of other things because (as you'll see in plenty of articles here) they're passionate about what they study. That means we both get to enjoy what they're passionate about and I get to enjoy learning about something new. I may not know much art history but I can probably name an artist or two from any period, so its a good start. I've read exactly one old English book, Beowulf. I know Plato and Marcus Aurelius pretty well and have a passing familiarity. That's really all you need to get in a conversation about something that another person likes. They'll be happy to fill you in on the rest. But first you have to get to know someone well enough to find out what they enjoy, preferably what you both enjoy.
People are walking stereotypes if you only scratch the surface. I've been known to joke about how there are only a dozen geeks in the world, they just have thousands of names each. Go to any con and you'll have no problem finding The Neckbeard, The Otaku, The Squeaky Anime Girl etc. The fact that people outwardly fall into these categories at a passing glance or conversation is irrelevant. If you talk, really talk, share with these people, you'll find that each and every one of them has a story. For me personally, those stories are usually quite fascinating.
I shouldn't say "you have to" get to know someone, though. There are plenty of other ways to meet interesting people of either gender. Even meeting new people isn't really required. Since you're reading a dating advice site, though, its reasonable to assume you want to change in order to get better with other people, specifically members of the opposite sex. Its my experience that you won't be particularly successful until you can become interested in a person as a unique individual.
Perhaps that's because they aren't comfortable giving you deeper answers. Perhaps your belief that you already know everything that's going on is making your questions seem disingenuous or dismissive. I'm not there to see why people aren't giving you full answers, but the chance that every person you know is a walking stereotype is so much less likely than it being something on your end.
Examples of the people I know? I'm not going to give you names of people I know. That would be rude to them.
Why would I need names? Just examples are fine.
The thing is, only you control how you react to a situation. If you don't feel like that now and its a change you want to make, you can do it. It takes time and practice. Change is incremental but you can get better at it. If its not a change you want to make, that's fine too. The decision to put the work in really is all yours.
This is all in your head (and a lot of people's heads). Stereotypes and generalities have existed for centuries upon centuries that have dictated how inter-gender relations play out. They are only as important as you make them. I would say that until relatively recently, it was very difficult to break out of the stereotypes and still find relationship success, monetary success, even plain friendships success, and personal happiness all at the same time. However (and this could just be my self-importance bias playing out), I think society has been changing for awhile now, and it's on us (being the generation now starting to take over the 'adult' world) to dictate how things are going to be from here on out. The opportunity exists for society to change, because I think people (rightly) feel more empowered than ever before. Obviously, breaking away from these norms and these stereotypes is not only incredibly difficult, but is often met with huge amounts of opposition. That's why it hasn't happened, yet. But, we can be the authors of this change. We just have to believe in it.
Obviously, this is far more general than your specific situation. But, what I'm trying to say is that you've believed that things have been different, and it's always been that way. You can choose to believe that things are different, and they very well might be. We all take hundreds of thousands of things for granted every day, because we've simply believed it too be true for as long as we've known about it. Well, I challenge you to wrestle with your beliefs, at least for a little while. Fight back against your beliefs, and see if you can't change them. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe what you believe really is true. But give it a shot (and it has to be a legitimate, no holds barred shot), and things might be very different for you.
It's been my experience that the stereotypes and generalities are more true than not. Partiers/clubbers act a certain way and like certain things, nerds act a certain way and like certain things, gym rats act a certain way and like certain things etc. Exceptions don't disprove them. It's usually when people start aging and can't get away with what they used to be able to because of it that they start changing their tune.
You're stopping yourself before you even begin. Yes, stereotypes and generalities sometimes are true. But not always, and not as much as you think. More often, it's the motivations that make people similar. What causes people to choose a life that includes parties/clubs every weekend? What causes people to be nerds? To be gym rats? For none of those questions can you get vast majority type answer. Maybe a majority, but not as much as you're depicting it to be. You're also picking people's personalities, likes, dislikes, and traits without even giving them a chance. Now, maybe this isn't a problem you've had to deal with specifically, but this prejudice has plagued nerd culture for years, and still does. Among many other 'types' of people. The more you let the prejudice define others, the more you let it define yourself, without even realizing it. There are examples all around of men and women who can be friends, while attracted to one another, and not have it be an issue. You haven't yet learned, or tried?, to make that happen. It can be done, and you're standing behind excuses to say it isn't worth it.
We'll use the club as an example.
You go to the club regularly. You speak the "language." You're going to the club for the same reasons everyone else goes to the club. You may have other interests, but you're not there for them, and at heart you're a clubber.
Now say you're not a regular. You're the exception, but you went to the club because you wanted to do whatever you do at clubs. You definitely have other interests, but those don't matter because you're at the club, trying to speak the "language" because it's assumed everyone you see there regularly clubs. If you don't speak the language, you're not gonna have a good time because you're out of synch with everyone else. You figure out the language to get by, cool, but you're still only going as far as the club will take you.
Both aren't gonna lead you outside of the club too often if at all. You're in Rome, you do as the Romans do.
I'm sorry, what do you mean by "the language" of the clubs? What is this language? And what are the reasons that everyone else goes to the club? This is really confusing, don't people go out clubbing for a lot of different reasons? Since when do people who go clubbing assume that everyone else there regularly go clubbing? Why wouldn't you have a good time if you don't speak this language (I'm still not sure what you mean by 'language")?
To go dancing with attractive people (and maybe more later), get oiled up, go to a loud and happening place, maybe get into fights depending on the kind of club. The "language" means just doing all the right things to show that you're in the club, doing all the things clubs are there for. If I went to the club and stood in the corner, or I went into the club and didn't drink (or even have a fake gingerale on hand), I'd be "doing it wrong."
And why wouldn't you assume everyone you see always goes clubbing until proven otherwise?
Have you ever been clubbing or did you just watch a movie about it one time? Why are you making so many assumptions about people? Everything you just said is completely untrue. I used to go clubbing every couple of weekends, never once got into a fight, none of my friends ever got into a fight. I go to spend time with my friends and go dancing, not necessarily looking to dance with attractive people or to hook up. Plenty of times I don't even drink because I take medication where I'm not supposed to be, and rarely ever got told I was doing it wrong (the few times that I did, it was from overly persistent guys who kept trying to buy me drinks after I'd already said no). I'd always end up sitting in the corner half the night talking to people because half the time that's more fun than dancing anyway. Plenty of people who go clubbing are not regulars, and no one assumes that they are.
I live in a bad-economy/no-college town that tops out at 40k people. Is that the difference, then? Because your clubbing experiences sure don't match up with anything I know or the people I know know (dohohoho double knows).
Also I can tell already we're oil and water.
Maybe. I live in a big city and there's a huge variety of people who go clubbing and also a huge variety of clubs to choose from. It's not just the cast of Trainspotting hanging out. Do towns that small even have proper clubs?
"Proper" clubs, eh?
You appear to be incredibly set in your ways, and very little is going to change that. The only reason for you to interact with women in real life is (for you) to hopefully start dating/hooking up with them. The majority of my life, I had very similar feelings. Two things resulted – I was mostly unsuccessful in getting relationships, and I felt so much more pressure from each individual interaction with the opposite gender. After I realized that things didn't actually have to be that way, a lot of pressure was gone. Success has still been limited, but there is a much smaller time frame and other reasons to contribute to that. I really believe there is a lot more in life when you stop assuming you know everyone's story before you even talk to them. Generally, people will surprise you. Yes, some people fit the mold that stereotypes have built for them. But not always, and in a lot of situations, not most of the time.
Back to my original point – believing that people all have the same motivations and fit stereotypes hinders the evolution of society. Things stay the same as long as you continue to believe that they will. Or, more appropriately, things stay the same as long as everyone continues to believe that they will. Embrace change.
I haven't been surprised by someone in a long time. Set in my ways, yeah, I'll give you that. But it otherwise hasn't failed me in getting a read on what people I meet are all about.
I'm confused, then. You've never had a girlfriend (I'm pretty sure I read that in one of your comments), and you have issues with talking with women. So, rather than address the situation, you're going to leave it as it is? You've got it all figured out, so no amount of advice is going to help or change anything. Things just are as they are. The world has been defined for you, and there is absolutely no point in trying to change it. That's just a hopeless dream.
I hope, with every fiber of my being (and far beyond just the dating scene) that you're dead wrong. I'm pretty sure you are. And every other commenter on this article seems to believe you are, as well.
Also, from your comments, you seem quite dismissive, a bit overconfident/bordering on cocky, and to have a touch of superiority complex. No one here is telling you that you'll never be correct, only that you'll never be right all the time. Because you won't, and if you let people do it, they will surprise you. Your demeanor and vibe will color an interaction, and people will fit into the mold you've already placed because either 1) they are picking up on your social cues, and for one of a few different reasons aren't trying to change your opinion or 2) you're so biased already, that no matter what they do, it's been influenced by who they are in your mind. I would suggest just try going into an interaction with a new person with an open mind a few times, in a few different situations. See what happens, and then come back.
Confirmation bias.
Seriously. I'm calling it. You're this dude: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/what-makes-…
You just proved Becelec's point–you listed not one reason but four.
The (few) times I've gone to clubs, it was to dance in a social atmosphere. I have no interest in casual hook-ups or getting "oiled up"; I'd go early on when it wasn't too crowded yet because I don't enjoy it when it's really loud and busy; I avoid fights. Some other people go just to dance. Some go just to drink and socialize. Some go to look for hook-ups. Some go for a combination of more than one reason, but there are multiple reasons, and most people don't go for *all* of them.
I wouldn't assume everyone there goes clubbing because I'm there and I only go on rare occasions when I'm in the mood. And I've never felt, or had anyone try to make me feel like, I was "doing it wrong" because I wasn't drinking (or even pretending to), or because I stuck with whoever I came with, or any other reason. So I still have a good time.
Plus, you know, there's a lot of time in any given day/week/month. Clubbers don't spend all their time clubbing; they go to school and/or have jobs and it's highly unlikely they spend every single moment of free time at a club–most likely they have other interests too. Other interests that aren't the same as every other clubber because they're different people with different histories and personalities. Sure, there are probably some traits you're more likely to see in people who go clubbing regularly than people who don't, but that doesn't mean their whole personality is the same.
To give you an actual example from my own life: I'm a writer. I mainly socialize with other writers in the same genre. At this point I've talked with at least a hundred in person and more online. Even though we all spend a lot of our time writing, and not just writing but the same general type of story, I see a huge range of personalities and interests. Some people are outgoing, some introverted; some flaky and some organized; some whimsical and others more practical. And they're interested in a huge variety of other topics, depending on the person: from film to sports to travel. Finding out that someone writes in that genre tells me relatively little about whether I'll get along with them or how well; it tells me we'll have one common area of interest to talk about, which is a nice starting point, but that's about it.
If you're looking around at the groups you're in and feeling everyone's pretty much the same, you're not paying enough attention and not really getting to know them.
There's only so much you can do at the club. What you can do on the page has no limit. You can't sum up "writer" beyond someone putting words on a page. There is a very short list of why people are at a club. They may be people with wide-ranges of other interests outside of it, but they're in the club for that certain shortlist of reasons, they can get and do all that other stuff outside of it.
Regardless of whether or not writing (in a particular genre–which does limit you a fair bit) has more depth to it than clubbing, clubbing was just an example, remember? You said that *everyone* usually conforms to stereotypes. To quote: "It's been my experience that the stereotypes and generalities are more true than not. Partiers/clubbers act a certain way and like certain things, nerds act a certain way and like certain things, gym rats act a certain way and like certain things etc."
There are plenty of stereotypes about writers (that they're socially backwards, completely solitary, full of angst, heavy drinkers, to name a few), and relatively few of the writers I know fit those stereotypes. To use one of the other specific "types" of people you mentioned–how can you say "nerd" sums someone up? There are nerds who are big history buffs, nerds who are all about video games, nerds who live for math and engineering problems, nerds who focus on science fiction films and TV shows, etc. Telling me someone is a nerd tells me even less about whether I'll get along with them than if I know they're a writer, because I don't even know if I'll share *any* interests with them.
But I think we've ended up on a tangent. Didn't this all start with you trying to explain why you can't be friends with women? Because you think most women tend to be the same (and totally different from most men)? When we go back to that point, the point you were originally trying to make that people disagreed with you on, most of your later examples don't actually make any sense. How can it be true that nerds are totally different than clubbers and both from gym rats, but most women are the same, when there are tons of women clubbers and women nerds and women gym rats? How can most clubbers and nerds and gym rats be alike but most men and women be so different, when clubbers and nerds and gym rats include both me and women? And you can't even start to claim that women are all women for the "same reasons" considering that most women were born that way and didn't consciously choose their gender.
I also find it interesting that you're so willing to ascribe a limitlessness what writer might be like, but not to women. Are you unaware that a great many writers are women?
Also, I'm a clubber and a nerd, so colour me confused about which way I'm supposed to be acting…
I forgot to add, also a woman and a writer. THIS IS GETTING TOO MUCH!
Only the great writers are socially backwards, heavy drinkers etc.
A nerd is someone who will focus in on a subject to the point of neglecting things like social development. A gym rat is someone who wants to either look as good as possible on first glance (either for the opposite sex or even just for themselves) or they're looking to be impressive/intimidating.
They're all different than the male ones because I'll never want to date the male ones. My potential reactions (mental/emotional/biological) are way different. Hence, it's not the same. It has nothing to do with "WOMEN CAN'T WRITE/ONLY THE BEST AUTHORS ARE MALE" and everything to do with "this is not the same as it is with a guy."
(Female fiction writers tend paint you a portrait of a scene, describing anything that can give you a sensation or otherwise emotionally connect you to something. Male fiction writers will tend to tell you as much as they need you to know, and drone on with explanations if they really think you need to know it.)
Well, I'd disagree with you there. There are plenty of nerds who aren't socially undeveloped (who identify as nerds because they're passionate about one or more traditionally "nerdy" interest, but can socialize just fine too). And plenty of nerds who are capable of balancing their interests with other parts of life so nothing is "neglected." And you're making a huge assumption about why the nerds who are socially awkward are that way. (I'm socially awkward, but it's partly the personality I was born with, partly the models I had growing up–both of my parents are also socially awkward–and has very little to do with my nerdy interests, which I didn't really get into until my preteens, while I'd been socially awkward through my entire childhood. In fact, I think it's often the other way around–people who are socially awkward often get invested in activities that don't require other people because it lets them avoid being awkward.)
Also, there are lots of gym rats who aren't doing it for their looks but to feel fit and healthy, to train for a particular sport, to burn off stress, etc. Again, coming back to the point that there are lots of reasons for someone to do something, and they reflect very different parts of that person's personality. (Someone who goes to the gym regularly to have muscles to show off is probably going to have a rather different personality from someone who just needs a way to work out their stress.)
I never suggested you were trying to say women couldn't be good writers–not sure where you got that from. I hope your random explanation of how men and women write differently is a joke like the first line in this comment, because otherwise you obviously don't read very much. (I haven't noticed this supposed trend in classic or modern literature.)
So now you're saying that the reason you don't want to be friends (or even have friendly conversations?) with women is because of your reactions to them, because you can't help letting their female-ness affect how you think and feel about them, not because of anything inherent to them? Because what you said to start this whole convoluted discussion was this: "friendships with the same sex and friendships with the opposite sex give you very, very different things". If you recognize that it's not about most women "giving" you something different, but about you looking at all of them as different then men, then it's something *you* can control. If you want to be able to interact with women without giving off the vibe that you don't see them as interesting as people, only as potential romantic/sexual partners, then you need to teach yourself some new reactions. Which is what people here have been offering suggestions for doing. If you're unhappy with how things are going with women you're meeting, then obviously something you're doing isn't working, so maybe you should consider trying some of those suggestions. And if you are happy, then maybe you should try making your own suggestions of what works instead of just telling other people that their suggestions aren't useful.
"I also find it interesting that you're so willing to ascribe a limitlessness what writer might be like, but not to women. Are you unaware that a great many writers are women?" That is what gave the impression.
I already gave examples (problem solving vs emotional support, or social vs competion) of things make it different that being friends with a guy. And yeah, things like being attracted to them too. If the interactions weren't different, this site wouldn't even need to exist. But they are different from interacting with men. I never have to worry about clapping a guy on the back the wrong time to give the wrong impression etc etc. Sorry, but it IS different. Guys and gals aren't the same.
And aren't you supposed to let them know what you're looking for? Act like a friend, you'll only be a friend (which works really really well, from what I've seen).
Well, I don't know why it gave you that impression, because my point was that you were saying writers could be all sorts of ways, but women are mainly the same, which doesn't make sense when you remember that many writers are women. Quality of writing was never mentioned. The fact that you somehow made a leap to assuming I was accusing you of thinking women writers can't be good writers just demonstrates that you aren't as good at reading people's motivations as you think, and that you read motivations into other people that aren't actually there.
Anyway, you're arguing from two different sides here. I think everyone here can agree that relations between men and women have additional complexities because factors like romantic and sexual attraction are more likely to come into play. No one has argued with you about that; we have just offered suggestions of how to stop that from negatively affecting your interactions with women.
Where most of the commenters disagree with you is your insistence that there's something inherently different about most women from most men. You're going to see some common patterns, because we get socialized differently. But I've known lots of women who were/are competitive, who love logical problem solving, etc. I see a lot more variety than sameness, in both men and women. If you looked past your initial assumptions more and kept an open mind, I suspect you'd start to see it too.
And finally, another example of you misreading what someone was expressing. *No one* said to treat women you approach like a friend. The suggestion was to approach women initially only looking to see if you can have an interesting conversation with them. In no way does that mean "make them your friend", unless you think interesting conversations have no place in romance?
You do need to let people know what you're looking for, but not in the first five minutes you're talking to them. I'm pretty sure you can get through a single decently long conversation with someone, and then decide you'd like to get their phone number/ask them out, without them feeling you've misled them about your intentions. Frankly, a woman's a lot more likely to agree to further contact if she feels you took a little time to actually find out what she's about before asking, rather than asking when you don't really know her at all (which will make her feel you'd ask any woman, or that it's only based on her looks). That's all the suggestion was. Talk to the person a little just for the possible enjoyment of the conversation before making it a goal to date them. If you enjoy the conversation and then ask her out, and she says no, oh well. You still had an interesting conversation! Doesn't mean now you have to be buddies.
Speaking as a professional editor who's worked for multiple publishers, you are quite simply wrong. I'd wager I could give you 10 samples from male writers, and 10 from female, and your accuracy rate at identifying the gender of the writer would be, within the margin of error, 50% (the same as guessing).
I'd take this challenge.
And if I could post text that you couldn't google (i.e. hadn't already been published) and wouldn't put my job at risk (i.e. hasn't been published yet), I'd happily give it to you. We did it internally, however, and everyone failed (the highest score was 13/20 correct, which I remember since it was mine). And these were professionals. Your assumptions are shaped by what you expect, not by reality.
Good (fiction) writers, regardless of gender, can make you connect emotionally with what you're reading. If they can't, they're not good writers. Same with explaining concepts/giving background information.
Way beyond caring if I put my foot in my mouth or not, measuring myself against a pro eye would be fun as hell. Too bad we can't.
Well you've clearly already decided that you know every person in the world and what goes on in their heads, so why bother leaving your house at all?
Already don't leave it that often anyway
This is probably best for everyone.
Would you care to tell us what exactly it is you hope to gain by commenting here? I don't think you've actually asked for advice with any specific issue–you've just shown up telling people they're wrong about things they said (which initially were not even directed at you, just general advice) and expounding your beliefs, most of which have little to nothing to do with the topic of the article. I'm starting to get the feeling this is some weird sort of trolling and you find it funny that people are bothering to argue with you.
So what is it you want? Why are you commenting on an advice blog if you're not looking for advice and have none to give?
I would say he's a troll…but he's too persistent for that. But then again, kids these days don't know what real trolling is.
Let's not conflate being obstinate or disagreeing with me or other commenters with being a troll.A troll is someone who comes in to talk shit and pick fights for the lulz. I've had very, very few trolls.Now, I've had couple of assholes (and again: disagreeing with me or other readers doesn't make one an asshole), but that's a different story altogether.Some folks don't want to take my advice. That's all well and good – there's a reason why it's called 'advice' and not 'binding arbitration'. Some folks would rather argue about my advice than try it out. Also fine – that's their decision. Personally my question is usually “how's that working out for you?” but again, ya makes ya choices.I'm all in favor of discussion and debate. Let's just not confuse disagreement with being an ass or a troll.And keep it civil, ya'll (general ya'll, not anyone in particular).
Let's not conflate being obstinate or disagreeing with me or other commenters with being a troll.A troll is someone who comes in to talk shit and pick fights for the lulz. I've had very, very few trolls.Now, I've had couple of assholes (and again: disagreeing with me or other readers doesn't make one an asshole), but that's a different story altogether.Some folks don't want to take my advice. That's all well and good – there's a reason why it's called 'advice' and not 'binding arbitration'. Some folks would rather argue about my advice than try it out. Also fine – that's their decision. Personally my question is usually “how's that working out for you?” but again, ya makes ya choices.I'm all in favor of discussion and debate. Let's just not confuse disagreement with being an ass or a troll.And keep it civil, ya'll (general ya'll, not anyone in particular).
Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest there was anything trolling about disagreement or stubbornness. I was just starting to get the impression that maybe Anonymoose *is* to some extent just saying things he knows will get people arguing so he can be amused by their attempts to convince him otherwise… He seemed to be conversing seriously at first, but over time his comments have gotten a lot more flippant and even outright joking even though the people he's responding to are still being quite serious.
But I still wouldn't assume that means he's jerking anyone around–I'm just hoping he could let us know what he *is* here for so we can focus on that. Right now this conversation seems like a whole lot of barely-related tangents that are going around in circles and just making people frustrated.
Combination of having a bad day and having people seemingly believing the worst at everything I say. (The NHL crack, for instance, was meant as "I get what you're saying, I'm sorry, here's a lol you probably understand" and the reaction obviously wasn't the same).
I am having a lot of problems letting go of old thought-patterns and habits (I was one of those kids who would react hugely to anything, I had to hit the other extreme to feel "safe", a habit that to this date has gotten me nowhere). I want the advice to be real and the truth but at the same time… it just doesn't see to match up with what I see or hear about from people I know. Or even "hey, that seems cool" and then girls will start refuting things in topics. Or "you have to be an interesting person (welp, too late or that I guess) or "you have to have a passion" on and on and on.
It's overwhelming. especially without evidence I can see with my own eyes. And yeah, I get pretty shitty when I'm overwhelmed. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry Moosie. It seems that you are, in fact, genuine and sincere. It's just when a thread drags on for like 200 replies and no one convinces the other party it's all just noise from then on innit.
If I thought twice a bit more, it wouldn't have gone 200 replies.
I appreciate you taking the time to think about this and answer honestly. A lot of us have problematic thought patterns and habits, and get frustrated when we're not finding advice that quite seems to fit, so no one's going to hold that against you if you're at least trying to have an open discussion. I totally understand feeling like you have to vent.
Suggestions for getting more what you want here in future: I think you'll probably get the most helpful advice if you present a problem you're having, say what you want to accomplish and what you've already tried that hasn't worked, and then ask for people's thoughts. It's easiest for people to try to address your concerns in a useful way if they know both where you're coming from and what your specific goals are (developing confidence? Being "interesting"? Approaching women? Getting first dates? Getting later dates? Etc.). And the discussion also tends to stay more constructive if, when you get some advice that doesn't fit your experience, you ask questions about that for clarification rather than outright rejecting it (which gets people feeling defensive). You don't have to take advice you don't agree with, of course.
About people believing the worst, I think you just have to realize that some of the topics being raised here, like stereotypes based on gender and interests, are sensitive areas for a lot of people who've been negatively affected by those issues, and so being playful about it when they're not is going to come off as disrespectful not matter how kindly you mean it. When people are hurt or offended and you didn't mean to cause that, a clear and straight-forward apology is almost always going to come across better than an attempt at humor.
I hope we have more productive and less frustrating discussions (for everyone, including you) in future!
I would just HIGHLY recommend practicing something that I guarantee will improve your sociability, but your life in general (after all, humans evolved to be a social animal.) Try entering EVERY social situation (with male, female, "gym rat", "clubber", what have you) with this attitude: "This person is a human being above any label that they have given themselves or other people have given them. I know very little about what they like to do, or how they like to do it. I will listen to their story before I decide who and what they are."
To me, this is a definition of respect, and makes interacting with people more informative, interesting, and productive. Good luck, 'Moose.
I'm gonna start telling myself that before and while I'm in public.
Actually, I feel like being new to a club automatically gives you a conversation starter. "Hey, what drinks are good here?" Something like that. "I'm new to the club scene, what's this place like?" "Hey, do people get into fights around here a lot? Those guys [point] totally look like they're about to swing at each other." "I've never been here before; is it usually this loud?" Stuff.
This one has a lot of sinister tricks.
I'm going to have to remember these the next time I'm at the club. I'm not terribly uncomfortable starting conversations when I go to the bar, but once I get past the initial phase, I can normally make the rest of the conversation go right from there.
Except "partiers/clubbers" and "gym rats" are groups of people that are defined by what they do. If I am a gym rat, that means by definition that there are certain things I prioritize.
Defining people by their gender rather than what they choose to do is extremely different.
I don't know many guys who have creeper spidey senses. Gender plays a role in everything.
That's a survival skill you learn, not part of your personality or indicative of reason for liking/disliking things. I grew up in an area with a lot of snow, so I know not to slam on the brakes on slippery surfaces. That has nothing to do with why I watch sports, or play games, or read particular books.
Just think of it as an adventure.
You can think of something as an adventure and still take reasonable precautions. A person can love driving and still know they should wear their seatbelt.
A lot of people have more sides to them than is immediately apparant. I'm a bookworm/nerd/introvert, but I've taken some classes where everyone thought I was a loudmouthed, friendly party animal, just b/c the mood in that class brought it out in me. I know someone who seems like a wild partier – and I felt kind of wary of her at first, b/c I don't really relate to partiers – but is also a schmoopy romantic into books and videogames and is actually very shy. I know someone who was an academics-focused drama nerd in high school and now spends time at the gym for fun, and a science geek who's now a professional dancer and loves performing. Some people who seem like extroverts have had to practise it – some people who like clubbing go home and take a few days of alone-time to recover b/c they're introverts.
It's true there are some people who are exactly what they present themselves as (or at least that's the only side of them you'll ever see), but a lot of the coolest, most interesting people don't really fit that well into one box, even if they're trying to fit themselves into one.
Very much this; about half my friends are suprised to know I can be very social and outgoing and the other half are shocked to know that what comes more naturally to me is quiet alone time. It makes it interesting for me to meet people, it really stands out to me when someone can have a conversation with me without making assumptions. "Oh you used to be on a Rocky Horror cast, you must always be wild and crazy." "Oh, you spend a lot of your time at home reading and gaming, you must never get out of the house." (Teasing is one thing, actually assuming is something else.) At different points in my life and different situations, I'll react differently. I'm still *me* but *me* is more complicated than just one thing or just another.
I feel very, very sad for you if you think there is nothing worthwhile in having female friends. You're shutting youself out to half the world's population, and also the opportunity to see things from a different point of view than your own. Not to mention it's going to make it a lot harder for you to even establish a relationship with a woman with an attitude like that.
I do have female friends. Just not IRL. I can already get that perspective with none of the complications.
Are you saying that pretty much any woman you talk to in real life you end up having feelings for? I have friends like that (I call them crush-whores) and they pretty much always end up having problems trying to find a relationship because they come across as fickle and a bit desperate. People usually don't want to be in a relationship with someone who is attracted to just about everyone.
I'd say most of the ones I talked to regularly, which wasn't a very large number as it was, including those I didn't want to develop feelings for.
Thinking of exceptions, there was a bizarre semester way back in middle school where I sat behind one of the popular girls (she was freakishly beautiful) and the class make-up had no other girls from her clique and maybe one guy, so she had to socialize with people outside her circle or die of boredom. Never felt a thing for her or thought of her in "that" way, and I'm not even sure how or why that happened. There was another exception, but she was a spiked-collar/coloured-hair kind of person, I can't get into that no matter what.
That is kind of a problem. I know, because I've been there. When I was in middle school and most of high school, I tended to crush at least a little on almost any guy I could carry on a good conversation with, because I didn't get much attention from guys, so any positive feedback was exciting.
What that meant was, I got into a relationship with the first guy I met who wanted to date me. And it was a really unhealthy relationship for a lot of reasons, not least of which was that we weren't really all that compatible. The initial high of "someone actually likes me!" only lasts so long before you start to realize you maybe don't enjoy spending time with that person quite so much now that you've spent a bunch of time with them. And by then you may be so entrenched in the relationship it's hard to let yourself acknowledge that. (Speaking from experience. Took me four years.)
Unfortunately, I'm not sure exactly how to break yourself of that, because from what I recall the attraction didn't feel more or less "real" depending on how compatible the guy was–I'm not sure you could tell when you're really excited about a woman as an individual and when you're just excited because it seems to be going somewhere with anyone, in order to ignore the latter. What broke it for me was having that bad relationship (which left me feeling no relationship was better than one that wasn't great, and an aversion to several qualities I wanted to avoid). Maybe someone else will have a less traumatic suggestion.
I know not to trust it for the most part. I just don't like feeling it when it does happen because it's hard to logic the sucker down.
Here is a problem that I worry about too. I am sure I am going to fall desperately for the first woman who shows me any attention. I have never received a compliment on being attractive. No one has ever told me I am handsome or desirable or anything like that. I cannot even comprehend the idea of being desired. I'm sure I'll come off as desperate because I am. I go to sleep dreaming of a woman that will love me and want to be with me. As in, I fall asleep holding a nice big pillow dreaming that some day there will be a woman who loves me and wants to be with me. Obviously this is a big catch 22 because how do I get someone to desire me while being achingly desperate to know I am desirable since that is not an attractive trait and how do I stop being so achingly desperate without having experienced what it is like to be desired or liked? It is something I yearn for so strongly that I feel physical pain every day because of it. Do you not expect the man who has never had a drink of water to drink deeply at the first source he finds?
Ok, so try talking to women as practice – you'll get better at hiding your nerves. Maybe try talking to women you don't find physically attractive or your type but are still interesting if talking to a woman you really fancy is too much to start with. And don't worry if you get crushes on them – past high school most people find someone fancying them flattering, as long as you are prepared to back off if they are not reciprocating your interest.
Probably you might work on your self-esteem in non-sexualised ways – working on your talents or learning new skills. Music, art and cooking are good areas that aren't heavily male dominated, but anything that you are passionate about works. That will help you recognise that you are attractive and desirable, without the need for lots of external reassurance. You come across as a sweet shy guy as opposed to a supercilious shy guy, which is lucky for you as a lot of women find that attractive.
How do I star conversations with these women? I can't imagine just going up to a woman and saying hello. I don't want to come off as a guy just trying to get in her pants. I also dont want to be creepy. I don't know if they will find me fancying them flattering since I'm not a very desirable person. I take things very personally so when things don't go well I take it as a rejection of my whole self worth which sends me into a deep depression. Not exactly a good thing. I just want to be loved, haha.
I have trouble separating my self esteem from my total romantic failure. I have talents and I am passionate about many things, but I don't see it as making me desirable. In a sense, I feel even worse because I see it as a situation where I have all these positive things but it still isn't enough to make up for my ugliness. It is a very unfortunate reality.
Going up and saying hello is how most conversations start.These may help <a href="http://:http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/09/dating-101-meet-women-without-creepy/:http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/09/dating-101-meet-women-without-creepy/<br />http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/07/fear-hold-you-back/
If you're having trouble with depression and overwhelming anxiety, then you should probably get professional help to get you on the right track mentally before you worry about dating. You won't be able to have a healthy relationship with your self esteem is so tied to getting approval.
But I'll also add–the fact that no one has told you you're physically attractive or desirable doesn't mean you're undesirable or ugly or a total romantic failure. For one thing, people don't generally go around telling random strangers how attractive they are. It sounds like you're not really interacting with women at all, given that you're scared to even say hello, so you haven't given anyone a chance to compliment you.
And even with people you do interact with, it's often only the people who really stand out who get the compliments. That doesn't mean everyone else is ugly or undesirable, just to as noticable. I went through most of my school years without a single guy telling me I was attractive or desirable (and in fact having a couple guys make fun of me for having a crush on them). But I could look in the mirror and see that while I wasn't a supermodel, I was far from repulsive. Something was clearly not working, but I couldn't see what, so there was no point in assuming it was something inherent about me. And then as I got older and into wider social circles, it turned out there were some guys who found me attractive. Just not as many as if I were supermodel pretty, or more outgoing and flirty, or whatever. There's nothing wrong with being an acquired taste. It means the people who do appreciate you, will appreciate you for everything about you, not just the immediately noticable parts.
If you're hesitant about talking to strangers, you might want to get some practice talking to women in more structured settings. "Join a club or take a class" is hackneyed advice, but it will provide you with a setting where there are lots of obvious topics to talk to women about. This isn't an instant ticket to finding a partner, but it might start to lessen that feeling that getting a woman's attention is something rare and infrequent.
Honestly, very few people are actually so ugly that their appearance is actually an obstacle to finding people to date, except in the sense that it makes them more insecure, which can make things hard. Sure, being good-looking gives you a bonus, but the range of things people can find attractive when they click with someone personality-wise is huge.
Not to mention that for almost any 'type', or 'ugly' physical feature, there's some people out there who find it ACTIVELY attractive! I've heard people talking about how sexy they find crooked or missing teeth, giant honking noses, skinny gawky shoulders,fat thighs, big adam's apples, you name it.
Chances are, your appearance isn't actually something you need to make up for at all. Drive it like you stole it, buddy!
Sure, there are people who are going to be attracted to some conventionally unattractive features, but in many cases, the number of people with that attraction is dwarfed by the number of people with that feature. I think the reason there are so many single obese women, to cite one obvious example, is that there are just many more obese women than there are men looking to date obese women, and it doesn't help those women that they're trained by society to wait for men to ask them out. For my part, I'm a short, fat, hairy, balding, graying man, a physical type which is widely held to be synonymous with "creep." The number of men who match that description is enormous. The number of women who are attracted to that type is nowhere near the supply; there seem to be plenty of men who are less short, less fat, etc. and most women will go for them. When I was younger, I was merely short and hairy, and I had trouble enough. Now, I'm pretty much the dregs, physically, and I suspect it's time for me to stop trying to play a younger man's game and give up.
I've met far more awesome short, fat, hairy, balding, graying men than I have creeps by that description! The ones that seemed creepy were generally approaching women way younger than them (which pings a lot of womens' creep radar for a number of reasons) and doing other creep-ish things.
For sure, it's probably not the physical description the majority of people would give when asked what appearance they're attracted to, but that doesn't mean that it disqualifies you from having people find you attractive – it just means that it's going to have to start out being based a lot more on your personality and actions and if you and the person you're interested in click socially. For a lot of people, attraction is something that can develops!
Here's the thing: someone telling you you're attractive won't make you feel desireable if you feel bad about yourself. It feels like it will, but it doesn't. You're putting all this importance on a woman who will love you – and I really do think that some day a woman will love you – but no matter how much she loves you, she's not going to bring you gift-wrapped self-esteem, and you'll be disappointed.
Lots of people who haven't had many relationships seem to think that they provide a lot of things that they don't actually provide. If you feel unattractive or desperately lonely or like there's no one you can talk to, a relationship WILL NOT fix that.
You're scared that being datable is the only way to get the confidence to make you dateable. It's not. Get comfortable doing your own thing and work on forming different kinds of relationships that can fill your different needs. That way you're not pinning so much on a romantic relationship.
enail, what you're saying makes sense and is probably true generally speaking. But sometimes a little validation goes a long way. My experience, which I'll grant is probably not typical, is this: I didn't have my first real relationship until I was 24. Prior to that, part of me knew that I was worth something and that I had a lot to offer in a relationship, but getting no validation was depressing. And getting that first girlfriend really did make a huge difference. Even though the relationship ended up being relatively short-lived, my newly-acquired confidence stuck around – I knew that if I could have a smart and attractive girl fall in love with me once, then it would happen again, and it would be just a matter of being patient until the next opportunity came along. Which it did!
From what you've said here, I don't see anything unhealthy about the way you approached relationships. The key thing is that even though it was depressing for you not to see women being into you, you still knew you were worth something and had a lot of offer. It's totally normal to feel bad about not finding the sort of connection you want, and totally normal to feel more confident once you've seen it can happen. It only becomes a problem when you don't believe in your own worth at all, and start feeling the *only* way you can know you're a worthwhile and appealing human being is if a member of the opposite sex expresses an attraction to you.
You said that way better than I could, so I'm just going to say ditto.
this is my biggest problem, right here, you hit nail on the head.
I think this is especially hard for guys b/c they're not encouraged to share feelings &physical affection with platonic friends, so it feels like the only way to get those needs filled is with a romantic partner.
Plug for feminism: It's important for guys too b/c feminism generally wants to break down these kinds of gender-based restrictions. No one should have to be Stiff-Upper-Lip-Manly-Man any more than they should have to be Hysterical-Delicate-Flower-Woman! It's not good for men to not be able to express their feelings or ask for support or comfort any more than it's good for women to be expected to manage their boyfriends' and husbands' feelings for them. Everyone feels lonely and resentful!
See here's the thing, most of the guys I know who don't talk to a lot of women are the ones who end up falling for every woman that they DO talk to. I know this from being on the receiving end, and it's really annoying coz it's obvious that they don't actually even know me, they just think that they like me because I'm the first girl they've ever met who's obsessed with zombies and Batman and for some reason this shocks them because all girls like the colour pink and watch the Kardashians. Which they would know is not true if they were talking with more women!
Oh it is a vicious cycle…
Please use the line "Don't hit on me, silly boys!"
I will sense it and laugh heartily.
I totally agree–and have suggested this approach to guys who have trouble with approach anxiety here in the past. You're so much more likely to come off as pleasantly friendly, to enjoy the conversation yourself, and to feel okay about it if you and the woman don't hit it off, if you go into it not already hoping things for the future but just curious to see how the conversation goes in the moment.
I think this is a great article. I'm still working on my social calibration at conferences. I'm usually there for work and I have this pressure to be a good representation of my work. I find in conversations I have a running dialog in my head that goes something like, "Listen, listen, okay comment, no wait, the conversation has moved on. Don't but in, wait for your moment, work closer to the center of the circle. Don't just jump in there you dork! Subtle! Be funny! Aaaarrrrgggghhhh! Get me out of here, I need a drink."
Being aware of your social calibration is exhausting. I feel for you guys. Mel is right though, little flub ups here or there, even more than one in a conversation are nothing. Not letting a woman go because you need to fix it, is the biggest mistake you can make.
It's akin to fishing, and after a long day with no bites, you finally have one on the line, but you pull too hard and the line snaps. What do you do? You reel in and set another hook for another fish. You do not jump head-first into the stream determined to catch that damn fish with your bare hands like a f'in grizzly bear.
That doesn't work out well and you scare the rest of the fish away.
"Being aware of your social calibration is exhausting. I feel for you guys"
Couldn't have said it better myself. It's one of the most annoying things that go through my mind. I found out that BALANCE is the key (just like in almost any other aspect of life): I remember having the most fun and being the most charming and all when I'm NOT over-thinking about my social behavior. I mean I do keep a basic awareness to other peoples non-verbal responses to me but in general I try not to think about it and simply try and enjoy the moment – so far, it has brought me the best results. I am still struggling with "letting go" of the over-thinking of things, but slowly yet surely it is starting to prove itself.
P.S. As a big mass effect fan, I simply adored that Garrus image – he is my favorite character in the game (except maybe for Shepard himself). To all of you out there that aren't familiar to this game series – well you're in luck because Bioware is releasing soon a trilogy pack with all 3 games that will cost 60$. Nuff' said (I am in no way affiliated with Bioware/EA nor do I work/worked for them, this is NOT a shameless commercial for them, just a fan wanting to spread some gaming love): http://www.masseffect.com/about/trilogy/
The good thing about social calibration is that after a while it becomes second nature to you. It's like playing guitar; you struggle at first and the hand positions and the chords feel weird and you have to think about them but with time and practice it becomes muscle memory.
Balance is definitely key! I also think it's good to get to know your personal strengths and weaknesses when it comes to socializing, and play to them. E.g., I get nervous about talking to anyone I don't know, but I get comfortable much more quickly one-on-one. So if I'm at a group social event where I don't really know anyone, I usually look for someone who's not currently talking to anyone to go over and introduce myself to, rather than trying to join a group conversation. I also feel much more comfortable with a few familiar faces around, so I find it's much more effective for me to go to group events involving the same approximate set of people over and over, getting to know a few people a little better each time until I know them all somewhat well, rather than going to all different unrelated social events and being surrounded by total strangers each time.
If you can set yourself up to be in a less anxiety-provoking position in the first place, it's much easier to talk with people without getting uptight or over-thinking.
Mmm. Mel I think I'm fairly similar to you. Once the ball gets rolling, I'm fairly comfortable, relatively speaking. But approaching say, a group of giggling women (most of my demographic), is fairly intimidating. But I feel if I can impress them with my opening approach and convince them I'm not a creeper, I can be myself and comfortably banter and what not.
Can I please pre-empt all the people who are going to whine about how unfair it is that women are so complicated and why can't they just say what they mean etc, by saying that it can be nerve-wracking for women to work out what men want. I've completely misread conversations at times – sometimes seeing interest that wasn't there, and sometimes not noticing interest until things got uncomfortable, and like practically every woman I've been turned down a time or two. Gay men don't find relationships super-easy either, even when women aren't involved at all. Love and sex can be difficult for everyone, but well worth it in the long run.
Yeah cause grindr totally does not exist
Also cruise bars, 'saunas' among other things your argument is pathetically invalid
Those things exist. There are also gay men who have a difficult time finding partners there, because of their appearance or their social skills or both. It's not a magic ticket to casual sex. And when dating comes into the picture, it doesn't look any easier than it is for straight people.
The big difference is that women tend to err on the side of NOT continuing the conversation, whereas men tend to err on the side of "might as well keep talking." It's part of that male privilege thing again – women have different consequences for getting it wrong. If you think a guy's a creeper and he's not, then you miss out on a potential relationship. (Which sucks, but it's not like there aren't other guys out there.) On the other hand, if you fail to notice the creeper cues, you can end up raped or worse – and everyone will blame you, the victim, because you "should have known." Is it any wonder women tend to be cautious? Men, on the other hand, really have nothing to lose – if that ambiguous social cue turned out to be a "yes" and you stick around, you may get something out of it. And if it was a "no," then she thinks you're a creeper – but if nothing was going to happen anyway that's no big loss, right?
It can sort of work the other way too, though, which I think was the point. Most women don't have to worry about coming off as creepy, sure (I think because most guys are likely to exit the conversation before they get anywhere close to that uncomfortable, whereas women are more likely to hang in there out of politeness). But I have "pursued" guys and later felt embarrassed because while at the time I thought they might be interested, and so kept coming around and chatting with them and that sort of thing on different occasions, after a while I figured out based on their long-term behavior that they clearly weren't interested in me even as a friend. I felt like I'd made kind of a fool of myself at best, or been an annoyance at worst, especially in the one case when I found out for sure that *my* interest had been obvious to other people.
Plenty of women have trouble with social calibration and reading the more subtle social signals (like the difference between mild interest and polite boredom) in others. It's not that women are so mysterious and subtle–all human beings use subtle social signals to avoid being rude in various situations. I think it's important to recognize that social calibration is a general socially awkward person problem rather than specifically a guys approaching women problem (although it's put in that context here, given that the blog is about guys and dating), simply to avoid encouraging the "women as the other” idea that causes a lot of these problems in the first place.
I'm curious about how this concept of social calibration and gauging interest extends to an online context, where body language and vocal intonations aren't there to help you read the cues. Because one problem I've had on dating sites is that, when I'm exchanging messages with a guy I'm interested in and they continue to reply, I tend to assume that, because it's a dating site and the conversation is still active, that they are clearly interested and the online interaction will eventually lead to something. But sometimes, they'll continue to reply just out of politeness and a sense of obligation or because they like having a friendly chat, but aren't interested in actually meeting up. If the guy doesn't come out and directly say that he's not interested, I usually cannot tell and end up with a bit of a rude awakening when he eventually says it or if he just stops replying down the road.
I know that this happens to guys on dating sites as well. After the most common complaint I hear from men about how women on dating sites don't reply to their first messages, the next one I hear is that they start to talk and everything seems to be going well, and then suddenly, they stop talking.
It can be especially frustrating in the online dating world, because a conversation like this can go on over the span of days or weeks before any closure is reached.
So are there any particular signs, expressed purely through text and messaging patterns, that might be signals of disinterest in the context of online dating? Or is it damn near impossible to tell, without the vocal cues and body language of in-person conversation, what one's true intentions and feelings may be?
The two signs that I think are most concrete are if the other person's responses get progressively shorter (their first message to you is three paragraphs, the third down to two, the sixth only one) and/or if the other person stops saying things that encourage further conversation–particularly, if they stop asking questions.
Also, specific to dating sites (the previous points could apply to any online getting-to-know-you), if you exchange more than a few messages and they haven't yet suggested meeting up or at least talking on the phone. If a guy's enthusiastic about you, he'll usually want to make that connection more concrete early on. Other than one guy who turned out to be not a pleasant person anyway, I don't think I ever had a guy suggest meeting up if we got past 3-4 emails back and forth and he hadn't yet.
But it is really hard to tell, and I had guys randomly stop replying to me too. To be honest, I don't think it always is that they weren't having a perfectly good conversation with you, but that they've gotten more serious with someone else and just cut off most/all of their other dating site communication in general.
I actually prefer exchanging quite a fair number of messages (long, substantive messages, for that matter) with someone before meeting them in person, though. This is a comfort level thing and is also related to my strong introversion; I want to get to know a guy at least reasonably well before meeting him offline, because I'm not interested in constantly going out with new people. Quality over quantity. So I don't necessarily want a guy asking me out only a few messages in. I do, however, like a progression of talking through emails, to talking on instant messenger and/or Skype, to then meeting in person. Really helps to build that comfort and get to know someone better.
But I've had a few guys who WERE interested in me not ask to meet up until kind of a while later, and I think this is because I often talk to guys who are at a bit of a distance. (There aren't a whole lot of guys who are my type showing up on the site in the city where I live, but I'm about 40 miles from a nice college town full of smart, nerdy grad students who often catch my interest.) I think when there's distance involved, the guy is going to be more wary and take his time before meeting in person, because the extra time and effort of driving for a date means it needs to be someone who has good potential.
On the other hand, I've had guys who lived far away who either weren't interested in long-distance dating or didn't have a car with whom I had lengthy email discussions before I discovered that there was no interest from them in meeting because of the distance. Presumably, they knew this going in, but didn't bother to say anything until a while later. Whether this is just a sign that they were initially interested but then changed their minds and were now just making excuses, I do not know.
That totally makes sense–I live in a very big city and was always talking to guys who lived here, so meeting up was never difficult or time-consuming, and it was pretty usual to meet up early on.
In your case, I wonder if you could just ask a guy upfront–maybe not right away, but after a couple of promising emails–where he stands on the distance thing? Just say something like, "I just wanted to make sure you know I live [wherever], because I know it's kind of far from you. It's been an issue before, so I figure I should check right off the bat." Or however you'd word it. It seems to me that's a reasonable thing to check before you get too involved in a conversation with someone. I wouldn't be surprised if some guys aren't even really thinking about the distance until they get to the point where they realize they would like to meet you–oh, wait, she lives where!?
I live in a cluster of three smallish towns that are all about 2 hours from each other, and I definitely agree that everyone is more cautious when they know that a first date will involve some driving. A bad date is one thing. A bad date followed by a long drive home is just depressing!
Guys who forget to mention that they don't have cars are pretty inexcusable, and I'm not sure how you'd even deal with that. I've never run into that, since almost everyone in this area has a vehicle of some sort. I have had some guys admit that they'd thought some more about the logistics and decided that they didn't think the distance would be workable, even if we got along well. I also suspect that some people are willing to try dating someone who lives a ways away if they seem almost perfect, but who aren't willing to deal with it if they have another attractive local option. At this point, I tend to wait until I feel comfortable meeting and then suggest that I drive to them. It's a hassle for me, but I'm a fairly good first date and generally my date is generally willing to come see me for a second date.
My brother also has a theory that a lot of people use online dating as a source of romantic validatation rather than as a way to meet people. The exchanges are for building confidence and using that confidence to launch relationships with people they knew in the real world. There were at two times this happened to me and I felt used.
Having a somewhat optimistic view of human nature, I'm inclined to believe that the majority of people who do that don't do it consciously. I.e., they go into online dating honestly thinking they want to try it because they're finding it too hard in person, but once they start getting attention they find the confidence to go after someone in person after all. I highly doubt many people actually think to themselves "I'm going to go on this dating site just so that I can see how many people want to date me and then feel more awesome". Especially since, if they don't have the confidence to go after someone they already know and like in person, they're obviously not very confident at all, so they probably wouldn't feel at all certain they would get a good response online.
It does seem unfair for someone to be putting themselves out there as looking for a relationship when they're already hung up on someone, though, I agree. People can be selfish!
Oh, that's an interesting topic. I've been on both sides of this sort of interaction, and I'd be interested in hearing what some of the guys here think. These are some things I think I unintentionally do when I'm not that into it.
- Not replying to messages very promptly even though I've been logging on the site. I do this when I want to keep up contact with several guys I'm writing, but am strongly interested in one of them and have trouble directing attention away from him.
- Only replying to messages very late at night. I've done this to a couple of guys who I've found really compelling, but who also had at least one trait that I found very off-putting or an outright dealbreaker. Basically, I only thought it was a good idea to write the person when I'd had a few drinks.
- With every response, my comments get shorter and I ask fewer questions. This usually means that I wasn't that interested to begin with and nothing that's happened since has changed my mind, or that while I liked the profile, I'm not really digging the person behind it.
its interesting to me, I think there is 3 stages for you, or for women
1)ignore
2) reciprocate, but discover through exchanged messages that you are not really interested after all, which is kind of what your last paragraph indicates
3) keep exchanging, leads to meet up.
When i first started online dating, I thought if a girl thinks you are cute, you think the same, boom, meet up. But I am learning now it doesnt work like that, at least not for me, and for alot of other people. I usually get such short replies, so I can't really read what the girl is thinking on the other side, but I guess short replies would entail less interest?
I'd say that those three possible outcomes are the way it worked for me too. And yeah, I think most people want to exchange at least a few messages before they get to the meeting up part. Mostly because it takes a lot more time and energy to meet someone in person than to message them, and most of us feel worse turning someone down after we've actually met them, so people want to make sure there's a good chance of hitting it off first. After all, most of us are looking for more in a romantic partner than just looks!
You've said before that you make a point of commenting on things in a woman's profile when you message her. Could you give a couple examples of the sorts of things you'd say? If you're getting short replies, it could be lack of interest, but the way you're messaging can influence that too.
I think, like the others have mentioned, that the best signs are messages that get shorter and shorter, and not being timely in replying. I'd also look for textual signs of impatience — not asking questions, ignoring things you've said in your messages, etc.
I think men are much more likely to pull out of a conversation rudely. Some men take really badly to being approached, probably because they are used to controlling the situation. I've had guys that I've tried to start a light conversation with at a bar (while waiting to buy drinks for my group) say "aren't interested", or even worse "you aren't going to get a drink out of me" as a response to a perfectly innocuous opening statement.
I should just say this doesn't happen often – most people are nicer than that. Its burned into my brain because I found it particularly hurtful, despite knowing both times it was probably just another case of some people are arseholes. I do think men are more likely to see me starting a conversation as initiating sexual moves, and to therefore pull away abruptly if they aren't interested, whereas women will often make awkward conversation for a while because they don't want to misinterpret things A particularly geek-girl hangup here – they don't want to be so vain that they are misinterpreting things, because if some guy was actually just making random conversation and I thought he was hitting on me, well I would have been putting myself above my station as an unattractive geek and everyone will laugh at me harder.
im so sorry that happened to you, that guy is a jerk. Because I read this, I'm not going ever burn a girl who approaches me at a bar, even if I am not interested.
I think i'll admit one time i did, but it was a drunk waitress who kept interrupting a business conversation i was having with someone. But i never would just act mean like that. That's a messed up thing to say.
For the second case, they might have been burned when a woman pretended to be interested solely for the purpose of getting free drinks out of him.
I think that a lot of men realize that heterosexual dating is a higher stakes game for women than men, at least on an abstract level. The frustration comes with knowing that they won't do anything bad but are still met with hesitancy. A few weeks ago I had a date arranged with a woman I met online. A few hours before the date she texted me with alternate plan for that night, I agreed. Than literally as I was about to leave my apartment to meet her, she cancelled. While I understoood her fears and apprehension, the entire incident made me rather angry. It was too late to come up with an alternative plan and I spent that Saturday feeling like I've come this close to getting something I wanted but having it yanked away by cruel fate like the Trix's Rabbit. A lot of men, including myself find the dual mandate of chemistry building and safety not that easy to maintain.
How do you know the woman cancelled because of fears? Isn't it possible she's just a flaky person who isn't good at keeping plans? I've had female friends and acquaintances flake out on me in a similar way, and while it is very frustrating, it obviously had to nothing to do with gender dynamics, considering I'm also female.
I think if you're jerked around or honestly treated unfairly by someone (e.g., like someone agreeing to meet up and then canceling at the last minute), it's totally reasonable to be annoyed by that. But you should be annoyed at the individual person who did that, not women in general. Most women are able to only agree to dates they actually want to go on and don't have unrealistic expectations of what they need to feel safe, so even if she outright said she cancelled because she got scared, it's obviously an individual issue not "women problem."
The fact that the woman in question made a comment about how her friends seem to be gone in the text cancelling the date seems to suggest some sort of apprehension or fear rather than flakiness. She certainly seemed to want to have people she knew around when she first met me.
Well, I'd still say that's a personal problem, not a woman problem. If she wanted to have her friends there, then she should have gotten organized enough to let you know that from the beginning and make sure they'd be there. So I'd still say the problem is mainly flakiness/lack of planning ability. And most women aren't that cautious, so even the need to have friends there is a personal thing–I've certainly never seen any advice aimed at women suggesting they bring their friends along on dates.
Another couple of things to remember about failed approaches:
1. In five minutes, that girl will probably not remember you, especially if you are out at a club. She's probably had a lot of interactions that night, and you are just one of them. I'm not trying to say that you're forgettable; I'm just saying that if you approach and fail, she's not going to be storing your name and face in her brain, and thinking later on, "Gosh, he was such a loser!" You don't need to worry about that.
2. If she DOES remember you, chances are it won't be in a totally negative way. For example, I was once approached by a guy who I could tell was going through the process that the Doc talks about in this article. He made a lot of mistakes, but he wasn't creepy. Because I could tell that he'd worked up a good bit of courage to approach me, I interacted with him for a little while, to help give him the courage to approach other women in the future. Did he get anywhere with me? No. But I hope he continued to approach other women, and that he got better at it. He also made the right move of not trying to keep interacting once I disengaged from the conversation.
I've found the biggest problem is that I'll remember it.
I know what that feels like when you remember bad/painful/awkward situation in detail and your brain will make you relive it over and over and feel horrible. But you kinda need to realize that, after a few passes, it stops being useful and just makes you feel bad. So it is good to go over your approaches and think of very practical things. What you could have said/could say next time. Maybe you should have left earlier? Note those down for next time, and then just force yourself to stop thinking about it. Force yourself to think about something else. And next time your brain decides to bring it up again, tell your brain "I have already been over this and noted down all of those things. No more useful facts can be derived here," and then again force yourself to think of something else. After a while, your brain will get better at like … picking out all the facts and letting it go. Sometimes your brain might try to piece together what she must have been thinking and what (s)he now thinks of you, etc etc, and then it helps to again really firmly remind yourself that you have NO IDEA what the person was thinking and it's not helpful to think about it. And then force your thoughts away again. Think instead of fluffy bunnies. Then what you have to do that day. Then the last time you got a haircut, etc.
Agreed.
I remember the guys who got physically coercive. The rest, I can't remember unless it was really recent. Even the creepy ones. So even if you screw up and come across as mildly creepy, Cat is right that most women are unlikely to remember unless you're the only person they talked to all night.
how very kind of you to help that guy learn like that, and thanks this helps me even more than the article did
This is a great article. For guys who are a little intimidated by the process of learning social calibration, I'd add that you can get partial credit for not being a creeper simply by respecting more explicit, often verbal, refusals.
If a woman answers your question with a one word response and turns back to what she's doing, or if she immediately states that she has a boyfriend or is just waiting for her friends, disengage and find someone else to talk to. If she excuses herself from the conversation and goes to anther part of the room, don't follow her (if she wants to spend more time with you, she'll eventually work her way back over to where you are). If she flinches or steps back when you touch her, stop touching her and stop to evaluate whether she looks like she even wants to be talking to you. If she rarely returns your calls or texts or if she's always busy when you want to hang out, that's a cue to dial things back severely, not one that you should try harder to get her attention. And if you do make a mistake grave enough to warrant an explicit, "Leave me alone!" don't go into defensive mode. Quickly apologize and disengage.
Obviously the goal is to get to a point where most people perceive you positively and these things don't happen very often. But while you're figuring out the basics, you're going to make some mistakes. The good news is that if you start with the basics, your flubs are unlikely to be very memorable or to go too far into offensive territory. That gives you some leeway while you learn more subtle social cues.
HELP THIS METAPHOR IS RAGING OUT OF CONTROL! –hahahahaha! That was brilliant, thank you for the laugh. Best caption ever.
As for "being enough", it's usually centered around activities guys do together that girls do for different reasons or whatnot. Watching sports (guys will cheer for the team, girls will latch on to a player they really like/are attracted to and cheer for his team), playing video games (guys will play to compete with eachother and improve skills, girls will play to be social with other people and maybe even for the attention), Or even other interactions. Guys have a problem that they go to another guy for, they'll problem solve and figure out how to fix it. Girls want emotional support more than problem solving. I've ran into the latter a number of times with online female friends (which is a great disqualifier, by the way, I can't get into someone I can't touch or see and who lives thousands of miles away) and every time I knew what they were looking for and every time I had no idea how to give it to them, I just knew how to fix it.
[cont2]
Wow, stereotypes much? I cheer for my football team. I play video games to win. ("For the attention"? ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME?)
I've met and heard and seen more of the opposite than not. Get mad because you're legit not like that all you want, but it's seemingly more common than it isn't.
So, you ask girls who are playing video games why they're doing it, and the vast majority of them say "for the attention"?
How exactly does one go about getting attention from playing a video game? I sit in a dark room by myself when playing, not sure how anyone is going to notice me there.
Seriously. This is the "fake geek girls" conversation all over again. Let's make girls' enjoyment of geek interests all about men. Like geek men are such a prize that women who didn't already share their interests would fake it just to gain their attention. *headdesk*
I think that is less about them being girls and more about nerd tendencies to make it all about them, to judge people by whether they're sufficiently nerdy. I've heard similar sentements about the imagined "dudebros" who "only" play Call of Duty, Madden, and Halo. Pay no attention to Skyrim's massive success, that was all us Real Geeks, they say. Don't like game X? You're not a real gamer, they say.
Female geeks can get just as catty when it comes to, say, fanfiction, and which fictional character one thinks will hook up with another fictional character as opposed to a third fictional character. Even if all involved are heterosexual males. Especially if all involved are heterosexual males.
Actions, not words. You can tell who plays fucking games and who's playing for attention. Girls who play games play fucking games, girls who play games for attention will make sure you know they play games and that they are a girl, and will usually be playing male-dominated games.
I'm even front and center watching a guy in the middle of a divorce because he ended up with such a girl and she got bored of his (lack of) attention, responded by getting into streaming herself playing video games for it, and boom, bad bad ending.
But how could you possibly "know" that most women play video games for attention, if the ones who don't generally don't make sure you know they play. That means you have *no idea* how many women play video games for themselves, so the number can easily be much higher than women playing for attention.
THIS CLOSE to being a Megaforce quote!
THIS CLOSE to being a Megaforce quote!
Did I read this right? Your friend wasn't paying sufficient attention to his spouse, so she decided to get into online gaming herself and be social there? And it's the fault of the woman? They aren't getting a divorce because she started playing online. They're getting a divorce because he wasn't holding up his end of the bargain, and she eventually had enough of it. Often, when one is in a relationship where one is being ignored, it takes being social and reminding oneself "oh yeah, I'm worthy of attention!" before one has the courage to leave.
Steaming is where she plays video games on camera, often with articles of clothing removed.
And their relationship was always like that, even before they got married. She's the type who just wanted to be married because it's a life-step, not because they were particularly right for eachother. The only thing I really blame him for is his lack of observation (I saw this coming years ago), but he never changed his tune or his habits throughout the entire relationship, from start to finish.
How's he supposed to hold up his end of the bargain when he was doing everything he always did when the bargain was first struck?
That argument reads like "How was he supposed to stop being a crappy husband when he was always a crappy husband?" with the suggestion that it is ALL HER FAULT that he was a crappy husband. Now I don't know your friends but I feel like you're assuming an awful lot with "she's the type who just wanted to be married because it's a life-step." I feel like a lot of your troubles are coming from assuming you know everything about everyone… maybe this is an area you should be working on?
Not suggesting there weren't problems from both sides there, but you're referencing an incredibly specific situation as support for the assertion that women generally play games for attention. Not only are you referencing this specific situation as evidence of that universal assertion you are drawing conclusions from a situation where you were an outsider and using those as your proof for your assertion.
I actually do know her. Quite well. I know what I'm talking about in this situation, and there's a reason I knew this was going to happen years ago.
And it's just a personal example of something I've heard more of than the opposite.
So… you've heard of more women taking their clothes off on camera while playing video games than of women just playing games because they like to play games? Really?
Seriously?!!!!
Maybe if you actually had a few real life lady friends, you might realise how ridiculous that assumption is.
Or who play just to socialize and not compete, or who play just to let guys know they're playing etc etc.
So people who play to compete are more legit than people who play to socialise? FFS guys do that all the time! My boyfriend goes to his friend's house to play video games AND socialise – I prefer playing 1P games on my own, it irritates me when I have to talk to anyone while I'm playing something.
But hey, I must be texting all my guy friends just to let them know I'm a GIRL playing a VIDEO GAME!
Where the fuck do you get this shit from? It's just pathetic.
Ok, number one: why do you have to compete to be a "real" gamer? Not that girls can't or don't compete (we do), but why does competition have to be a thing? And what kind of competition are we talking here? There are games whose entire mechanic is built around non-competition (Journey comes to mind off the top of my head) and there are games where you play only single player (as in, almost every single game not played in LAN or online prior to this era of consoles). This smacks of elitism (you don't meet this criterion, ergo you do not belong here).
and number two: most girls don't let guys know they're playing because they wanna draw attention to themselves. Most girls let guys know they play games because they happen to interact with guys who happen to play the same games that they do thus revealing that they are a girl who games (the horror, the horror! I share an interest with a cootie machine!!!). Or they come across guys complaining how there are no good/girl gamers and the girl will speak up to try and defend herself and the millions of other girls who like playing video games BECAUSE GIRLS THINK VIDEO GAMES ARE FUN, not because they totally want to get the attention of some loser nerd they think it's fun to torture(????).
ugh – really getting sick of this "there are no girl gamers and if there are, we shall drive them off" attitude.
I didn't even catch that. It's a very good point! If he was being totally inattentive to her, THAT'S why she's leaving him, not the video games!
I'm sorry, what's a "fucking game" as opposed to an attention-getting game? And I prefer male-dominated games, and have zero desire for attention from male players, unless the attention is, y'know, PLAYING THE GAME. The same is true for every female gamer I know.
And I see. You know a girl who took revenge on her husband by filming herself playing video games, so therefore gamer girls are doing it for the attention. I know a man who went to a baseball game with some women to get revenge on his wife. I guess men don't genuinely like baseball.
It's an example. I've heard of and seen more of that behaviour than I have of girls just playing games (i DO know some of them too, ya know)
And it never occurred to you that maybe you hear of and see more attention-getting behavior than girls playing games for their own interest because, oh, it's behavior specifically directed at getting people's attention? Why would you be hearing about or seeing the girls who are playing on their own solely for their own enjoyment (other than the ones you know personally)?
You notice the people making the most noise because they're making noise, not because they represent the majority.
I would like to refer you back to Mel's comment above. This is a no brainer. Of course you would have seen this behaviour more because it is something that you actually see, unlike girls who just play video games without an audience. It's like saying all girls masturbate for attention. Sure you might be able to see some girl going "look at me! I'm masturbating! throw your attention this way!" on the internet, but the majority are doing it in the privacy of their own homes without a goddamn audience there. Your logic is astounding.
I can't resist mentioning – in my group of gaming friends I have trouble thinking of a single guy who hasn't streamed at least one game, if not more. Quite a few do weekly streams. Now, I could chalk that up to my own social group but if you jump on twitch or youtube or blip; how many guys have LPs posted? I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk but reading your comment makes me "OMG, all those guys must just want attention!!!" Now I did read down, but I'm not addressing the state of her clothing while streaming or the rest of it bc I don't know the people involved well enough to justify commenting. But streaming in *general* is done by many many male gamers and I don't think I've ever heard them accused of just wanting the attention; even when they deliberately say, colored their hair or did other attention-getting things *while* playing and streaming. I find that worth thinking about.
I refuse to connect my games to any sort of Internet and only play by myself, because I DO NOT want the “attention” of guys while gaming. It’s too scary for me.
As a rabid Tampa Bay Lightning fan, and a woman, I resent that. But seriously, you act like your random observations are a rule for all women (or men) everywhere.
I offer Roberto Luongo as a peace offering.
Right, because women only like sports because they connect with individual athletes. They don't like teams for their own sake. Even your peace offering is stereotypical.
I'm going to assume you're not familiar with the NHL. Roberto Luongo is a good goalie who's all but ran himself off of my favourite team (Vancouver Canucks) because he just can't win the big game, can't make the big save, and he's finally been upstaged by a younger goalie. Most Canucks fans want him gone. Helena's team, the Tampa Bay Lightning, don't have a proven goaltender. Luongo has a no-trade clause in his contract (which is a ridiculously-sized contract in itself) and he wants to play in Florida (who have a young goalie of their own) but may have to settle for Tampa (assuming the size of his contract doesn't price him out). The joke is that we've been waiting all summer and now fall for him to be traded, but it hasn't happened yet, so take him as a peace offering instead.
No worries, I got it. And you can keep Lu. Dominant in the regular season and choke artist in the playoffs is NOT what the Bolts need.
Of course, it's not like we'll have a season anyway.
It is definitely dehumanizing, buuuut at the same time these aren't necessarily things guys look for or want out of their friends.
[Disclaimer: I know there are always exceptions and I'm sure everyone has some or may even be one, but that turns a discussion circular.]
I think you are treating a lot of generalities/stereotypes as universal rules. I think the attitude that the only reason to associate with a member of the opposite gender (assuming you're a heterosexual) is for sex or a relationship is a huge limiting factor. I think it reflects an attitude, from a heterosexual guy, that the only thing women are good for is sex. When you limit yourself to the belief that a person has nothing to offer but sex how can you communicate with them? What do you do with your partner (assuming you get one. General you not specific you) when you aren't having sex? If spending time with them has no value because you don't enjoy doing any activities with them then isn't a relationship completely unsustainable? I've been in relationships where my partner and I have had plenty of sexual chemistry but not enough in common to enjoy spending non-sex time together and they were horrible. (Similarly relationships where you really enjoy each other's company but are not sexually compatible are horrible.)
Generalities and stereotypes are generalities and stereotypes for a reason… and I find when you're including exceptions and such, discussions go nowhere because everyone is trying to one-up themselves with exceptions.
I'll say in my own experience (never had a g/f), being friends with girls who I'm attracted to doesn't end well because I am attracted to them. Yeah, they may have other cool qualities and such, but at the end of the day, that only reinforces attraction that's not being returned. Being friends with girls who I'm not attracted to has been dangerous too, because then their cool qualities actually end up making them attractive. I imagine for a lot guys reading this blog and not just myself, the thought of being in yet another "friendzone" situation isn't desireable, so we're more likely to just cut and run if they don't show any interest, not going through THAT again.
I imagine it's different when you're attached and things are going well, you don't have to think about others as even partner material, but how are you supposed to shut it down if you're single?
Let me turn this around then… what makes you attracted to a woman? What makes you "interested" in her? To me, being physically attracted but not emotionally attracted makes me disinterested in a relationship… that is to say, she could be absolutely stunning, but if I wouldn't enjoy spending time with her I don't feel any motivation to pursue a relationship.
I think the way you "shut it down" is by having a clear standard of what you want in a partner. When your standard is "anyone I find attractive," that's a shitty standard. Think about what, specifically you want in a partner and don't "settle." When you're thinking about what you want, it should mostly include personality characteristics/traits. For instance I need someone who's smart, who knows when to not take me seriously (because I tend to have a dry sense of humor), who appreciates at least some of my nerdy interests. If they don't have those things I'm not interested in a relationship, regardless of whether or not I find them attractive.
You mention being friends with girls you aren't initially attracted to because you can become attracted to the cool things you like about them and wanting to avoid being "friend zoned." If you were friends before you were attracted to them… and they still have the qualities that made you friends…why is it bad if they don't reciprocate your attraction? You're still friends… the whole "friend zone" concept treats women as though they have no value outside of being your partner. I think the answer there is you need to accept that they aren't attracted to you and go back to just being friends. Does it suck that they don't reciprocate your attraction? Sure it does, but they're still the same person that you became friends with, so it isn't like you're losing anything, is it? Most of the negative connotation from "friend zone" comes from a failure on the guy's part to either set boundaries, or a stream of constant attempts to "prove their worth" that make them angrier and angrier when their friend doesn't start being interested in them. If you are attracted to a woman you are friends with, and she doesn't return the attraction you don't have to follow them around like a puppy dog hoping for crumbs of affection. You don't have to treat them like "THE ONE" and keep trying to convince them that ONLY YOU, THEIR FRIEND are right for them. Just go back to treating them like a friend. That might mean an awkward conversation or two where you have to be like "hey, it sucks that your boyfriend hurt your feelings, but given how I feel about you, I don't think I'm a good person to have this talk with," but most of the horrors of the "friend zone" are self inflicted.
Isn't that limiting? I have friends with a lot of different personality types and traits that I get along with. I can list off a bunch of personality traits that I'm for sure not interested in (or don't want to be interested in…) but I can also see how a lot of conflicting or opposite traits that can work.
@Friendzone: I think we've been using it in different ways. I don't mean oneitis or "if I hang around long enough, they'll change their mind", I just mean that once that threshold is crossed and nothing's going to happen, there's no going back and hanging around will only make things worse because it'll be in the back of both people's minds every time they do something together. And as I said before, I have friends where this is 100% never going to happen.
Yes it is limiting, but it is limiting so it can be useful as an answer to your question about shutting down the attraction. I don't want to suggest you only look for the "perfect" partner, but having standards is important and will help eliminate people who are attractive but a poor fit for a relationship. In the application there are always trade offs, but having a starting point makes it easier to decide what you can and can't live without, and to make a better judgment on whether you would enjoy being in a relationship with that person, or just enjoy being in bed with them.
I agree I've been assuming a broader definition of Friendzone. To address the definition that you're using I would argue that "hanging around will only make things worse" isn't how it has to be. Definitely at first it will be in the back of both people's minds, but if you enjoy being friends with them, and you are able to avoid being bitter that they aren't interested in more, then after a while you mostly move beyond it. If you really aren't comfortable moving beyond it that's fine, I'm not suggesting you "have to" stay friends with anyone, but I am challenging the assertion that any attempt to be friends with a member of the gender you're attracted to is doomed end in either disaster or a relationship.
Fair enough and Fair enough.
Have you ever had a female friend who you were attracted to and was fun to be around but you KNEW she treated her boyfriends really badly? That's a good reason to keep being friends with someone you're attracted to but not dating them, for example.
Way agreed.
I'm getting minused for agreeing with something that's getting plussed.
If I could post a picture of Loki right now, I would.
One thing I like to do on this blog is come in, see people who are getting downrated, and try to figure out why they're getting downrated and then explain it to them. I've also noted that it is not so much what their opinion is, in that how it is presented (although opinions which involve things like misogyny and such tend to be something nobody likes.)
It's basically social calibration of another sort. And much like in school, I learn fastest when teaching others, which is why I do this.
The reason I bring this up is you kind of remind me of me before I made a few realizations, corrected a few issues, and started doing this 'watch what mistakes others make' thing. The whole "I'm just giving my honest opinion, why am I being downrated?" flustered feeling is very familiar to me.
In your case, the reason you are getting downrated is that you're more close-minded than you think you are. You feel like you're putting yourself out there for advice and feedback but you come across as seeking confirmation/validation of opinions you already have. You believe in stereotypes and generalities to the point that "exceptions don't disprove them" which basically means nothing disproves them which means nothing can change your mind about them.
Also, defensiveness plays a major role in people downrating you. You feel like you're having a debate and conversation and that you can agree to points if people convince you they're right, but most people don't like going into conversations under the provision that they have to 'prove' their arguments in order to help the person they're talking to.
Being able to say "thank you" and open-mindedly consider advice you internally disagree with instead of publicly question the advice as having merit or pick apart what you see as the flaws in it will go a long way to prevent your comments from being downrated. And, if you truly just "shut up and think about what they said" (for lack of a better expression), the advice might actually help. It did for me.
Instead of picking out what you don't like about the advice and disagreeing with it and therefore choosing not to accept the advice at all, try picking out what you agree with, figuring out what they're trying to say (even if you don't feel they presented the advice correctly/perfectly), and 'testing' the advice before assuming it's right or wrong.
Ultimately, instead of being defensive, remember the old truism of "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." In my opinion, taking all this advice into consideration will stop you from getting downrated and/or lead to helping the advice you get lead to improvements in your life.
Good luck.
I know why I was/am getting downrated, that one just made me lol.
And now the downrating for what I was commenting on is gone.
Thortok2000 you get props from me. You're post is insightful and very helpful I think for those who find themselves in Anonymoose's position. I think many in our nerd culture are more close minded than they objectively will admit to.
Also let me say I'm a big fan of the learn one, do one, teach one method of learning a skill.
Your post is full of win and awesome. The only thing I'd add is "assume good intent until proven otherwise."
Thank you for this reply. This is insightfull. While my posts here have not been 'thumbed down', I can definitely see how this advice is usefull in my day to day life. I have the tendency to quite verbally disagree with friends in arguments about dating. My internal validation to support this behaviour is that I should be honest and verbalize any complaints I have about a certain stance. I realize now that that might come across as ungrateful to their advise. I have to somehow alter this behaviour.
No, sometimes generalities and stereotypes come up because they're the way society *thinks* a particular group should behave, not because they're based in reality.
And you shut it down by not viewing sex as the only thing you actually want from women. If that's all you want, then all the other good qualities are ancillary to that and worth nothing by themselves. If you value other people as actual people, then spending time with someone you like is valuable for itself, not because it might lead to sleeping with them.
You can't tell me that first impressions don't create a stereotype or a generality to go off of, and something that can make or break if you even talk to them or not.
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of guys who've gotten laid that don't subscribe to that at all.
Sure, some guys who are horrible people with a shallow, dismissive view of women get laid. That doesn't mean you should be one.
Definitely agreed. But it does seem to happen anyways and seemingly without people valuing and such.
I'm confused as to how whether it's possible to be misogynist and get laid is germane to this conversation.
Because it flies in the face of most of the advice I've gotten from here.
Anyone can get laid. Really. If someone only cares about getting laid and has no limits whatever on who, how or the context, they can get laid. If you hate women, and therefore you don't care which ones you fuck because we are all the same, you have a lot of potential partners. Or you can specially select for vulnerable women that other men are wary of. This site does tend to be for people who are looking for something a bit less horrible and self-destructive from their sex/love lives, so yes, you will not see people offering that advice.
I don't think Dr. Nerdlove has ever said that his advice is the only way to attract women. Just from experience, I've seen these strategies work for guys who don't really talk to women like people or in some cases, like them very much:
1. Being very attractive, wealthy or high status.
2. Being part of a social group that contains lots of women and where casual sex is common.
3. Pick up artist strategies.
4. Very low standards.
5. Locking down someone who has low self esteem, often very early in life.
6. Dating women who share your views on gender.
I think the theory of this site is that you wouldn't be here if 1 or 2 worked for you, that 3-5 are all harmful in their own ways, and that 6 isn't going to work for a lot of self-identified nerds since few of the women in their social groups fit the description and those who do will expect other things from their partners that might be even tougher to provide.
I don't think anyone's implying that you should have to approach women being equally interested in friendship and romance, just that it's good to have more than one definition of success. If you evaluate every conversation with an attractive woman that doesn't end in getting her phone number (or a kiss, or sex, or whatever else) as a failure, it's easy to come off as desperate or pushy.
But the alternative definition of success isn't being lifelong platonic buddies. Other definitions of success might be having an interesting discussion* or feeling like you've improved your comfort approaching someone new or reading social cues.
*And, yes, I acknowledge that you feel men and women talk about things in different way and don't always see eye to eye. I'm still assuming that you find some conversations with women to be interesting – otherwise, I think you'll find barriers to dating beyond the approach.
If I'm discussing a mutual interest with a girl I'm attracted to, there will always be something else going on in my head(s). The conversation may be enjoyable, but there's something else I want to enjoy too, and much more than this conversation. If I'm not physically attracted to a girl, this mutual interest and how she talks about it can actually be something that "makes up for it" (I don't know how it is for other guys, but I've found the right/wrong personality can boost/cancel out physical attractiveness). The dynamic is always going to be there even if I haven't said a word to someone.
Personally, I don't want that kind of dynamic with friends. Or I want to figure out how to shut it down as effectively as being online does it.
This is probably sort of delicate… why is the "something else you want to enjoy too" rated as "much more than the conversation"? This comes across as putting too much value on "something else" (I'm assuming the something else is sex?) and not enough value on the interaction. That was really the point of mine (and Mel's, I think) comment about the context for the interaction. When the context is "Must get sex, conversation/friendship unimportant" that creates a lot of problems, the most obvious of which is that you can't have a conversation with anyone you're attracted to without being disappointed you aren't having sex.
The challenge here is that it can be very difficult (especially for guys in a certain age range) to adjust their way of thinking about those situations. The temptation is to treat it as a "this is just how those situations are/ I can't change my reaction to her not being interested," but I don't think that's true. I think it is a lot of hard work, and possibly some years of experience to help create perspective, but figuring out how to make that mental shift is a huge help. The most "successful" guy I knew in college, as far as having a large number of women attracted to him, was a guy who was genuinely happy "just being friends." His genuine appreciation of each individual, and what made them an individual, was the number one reason I heard from women about why they found him so attractive.
Have friends, don't have sex. That's probably the basest way to put it. There's no gaps in my interests that I can't share with another person I already know. Sure, there's cool people out there, but I'm in no great hurry to find more because things are pretty well covered and more friends = a lot more work keeping them.
How extroverted was this friend of yours too, by the way? If he talked to everyone, everywhere all the time, that's not too helpful of an example in my case, it's just not something I do.
At the time the college dorm we lived in was on the far side of the campus from all of the other dorms, and our dorm was overwhelmingly made up of freshman so this was a situation where there were a lot of people who were all getting to know each other at the same time. I don't remember him ever going out of his way to meet new people or really put himself out there, but it was an environment where a lot of us were all getting to know each other at once. He was really good at showing interest to new people who introduced themselves. He was a good active listener and a genuinely nice person, while also having a very good self image. He was good at flirting and flattering without expecting anything in return. All of those are skills that are learnable when they aren't innate.
Ah, college. Never did go.
So obviously part of the success came from having an environment where being introduced to new women/having new women introduce themselves, but I think the specific traits remain attractive whatever the setting. It is a matter of treating someone you meet as a person, not as a potential sex partner, appreciating what makes them unique and interesting, and being able to present yourself as a person who is interesting. To circle it back to my original point I'm asserting that it is far more attractive to be approached as a person, rather than to be approached as a potential sex partner, and that requires the person doing the approaching to do so with an attitude that outcomes other than having sex with the person they are approaching are successful outcomes.
Are you looking for anyting besides sex when you interact with women you find attractive? I do understand not actively looking to make new friends, but the attitude that additional people in your life are going to add little value and lots of work can make dating and meeting women quite difficult.
It leads to a different attitude about dating, and women can often pick up on it. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll run – after all, women like sex too – but it does mean that those who aren't highly attracted to you based on more superficial criteria will choose to end the conversation early, before you've had a chance to show off positive aspects of your personality.
I'd again say that I don't think you need to be actively recruiting female friends, but I do think it might help you if you tried to adopt a more open mindset about adding new people to your life.
You said what I was trying to say much more clearly than I did!
It feels like lots of work, because new people do expect a certain amount of attention and activity and I tend to be more of a "recoup at home" kind of person. I realize that this is a horrible thing to say, but I do feel like I'm putting in more much effort than I get in return just to maintain things as they are with people I know, mostly because I'm an introverted person. Adding more of that is a pretty daunting prospect, especially if there's no "gap" that I necessarily need to fill with them. I don't want it to be a "value" thing, but when your energy is limited, picking and choosing is almost a necessity. If I gonna get wiped out, I need to know it's worth it.
So do you actually want to date? And if you do, is there anything you feel a girlfriend could add to your life besides sex?
If the answers to those questions is yes, I think there's just a certain amount of bucking up you'll need to do. Lots of people dislike and are exhausted by dating (I'm certainly in that category) but put up with it because they want relationships. If you do think it's worth it, I think it's also worth it to try to adopt the attitude people are talking about. It might not feel natural at first, but I think it may help and that it may eventually start to feel more natural.
If the answer to either question is no, then it may not be very worthwhile for you to try to date in the conventional sense of the word, at least not at this point.
Yes and yes.
I'm not sure how "putting up with it" gives off any kind of good vibe, nevermind figuring out how to do everything else.
So what do you feel a girlfriend would add, that isn't either sexual or already covered by your friendships?
I'm admittedly a believer in fake it 'til you make it. Like I said, I'm not all that fond of early stage dating myself. I'm also introverted, and I find it to be nerve-wracking and emotionally taxing. But before I go out to socialize, I try to remind myself to be interested in other people, ask them questions about themselves, to enjoy the moment instead of putting too much weight in what could come of things, and so on. It's not always entirely natural-feeling, but it's gotten much moreso over the years.
I'm gonna assume an ideal situation where things have mostly gone well when I start listing things off.
- A perspective on anything. There are always things I won't tell specific people, so there really isn't one person who I feel I can tell absolutely anything to.
- An honest try at interests we don't necessarily share. Maybe it's just my friends, but most of them are pretty set in their ways, and it takes quite a sell-job to introduce them to anything out of their realm of experience, even when I'm 100% certain they will like it.
- Actually one requirement now that I think about it (from what Orv mentioned above) is that she would need to be able to put her thoughts and opinions into words and not just "I liked it" "I hated it" "that's just the way things are" etc. I need to know, specifically, why.
- Breaking the rules because you said nothing sexual but there's a mood-reading and trust requirement to doing vicious things to eachother in the bedroom (creativity is cool too) and still coming out at the end feeling better than you went in.
That seems like both a healthy and a reasonable list of things you'd like to find in a romantic relationship.
I think all I can say in response is that you may be able to find the second and to some extent the third item on the list from people who aren't your romantic partners. I think it might make approaching women a little easier if you remind yourself that you might have just run into someone who, unlike your friends, likes both gaming AND postmodern literature, unlike your current friends who all seem to like either one or the other. That doesn't mean you need to cultivate a tense friendship, just that you might be able to have a fun 20-minute conversation with someone who has a unique take on things. (And if she doesn't like either of those things and also doesn't share any of your other interests, you've learned she's perhaps not a good partner for you and there's little lost.)
I totally sympathize with you here, because I find social situations tiring too. Something that might help: it works best if you aren't just putting up with the discomfort, but finding a new way of looking at the situation that makes it at least somewhat more pleasant.
This is something I heard years back when I was in therapy for depression and anxiety, and it's the thing that most stuck with me: anxiety is all about how you look at a situation. Anxious people are anxious because when they get not a situation where they're not sure the exact right things to do, and see it as a problem, a risk of failure, a struggle. Non-anxious people in the same situation don't get anxious because instead of seeing it as a problem, they think of it as an adventure. Who knows what might happen? Let's explore this and find out! Even if they make a mistake, well, they learned something from that, it's all part of the adventure.
I try to do that now with social situations. Think of it as an adventure, a chance to experience something new and possibly exciting. It doesn't work perfectly, but I think it's helped me enjoy certain situations a lot ore than I used to.
Skimming over my comment, realized it should say "when they get into a situation" not "when they get not a situation". My iPad typing skills, they are not superb.
But like I said, it isn't about having to be friends with that woman if she doesn't want to date you. It's about enjoying a pleasant conversation in that moment. Surely there have been times when you've ended up talking to someone (male or female) you *know* you'll probably never see again (e.g., when in a place in town you don't usually go, when traveling), and that conversation was still an enjoyable way to pass the time? If you go in just looking for that–to see how it goes–that's when the pressure comes off.
As to the attraction part, again, no one's saying you have to become friends with this woman. But you can appreciate being in the presence of someone you find attractive even if you don't get to actually get physical with her, no? You don't avoid watching movies with actresses who appeal to you because it's too frustrating knowing you'll never sleep with them, presumably. You're able to enjoy the feeling of seeing someone you find attractive just for that in itself. So if you're just having what you know could easily be a one time conversation, look at feeling attracted to the woman as a bonus bit of enjoyment added to that conversation–you get to talk about things you like and you get to admire her eyes (or whatever).
That doesn't mean you can't want to ask her out or ask for her number. But it works best if you take that off the table–you're not allowing yourself to do anything other than talk and see how she responds for the first ten minutes, or twenty, or whatever measure comes most naturally. Then, if it lasts that long and now you've had a decent length of conversation, you can re-evaluate and decide whether you both seem to be enthusiastic that it's worth trying for more than that one conversation. Like I said, it takes the pressure off that initial getting-to-know-you, which means you'll come off more relaxed and confident, and you won't give signals that you only care about getting something from her (her number, a date).
I'm thinking that maybe if you can't focus on person interaction because you're thinking about sex, it might be worth pursuing casual sex first before jumping into dating again? Because then it will just start feeling like "something else to do with a friend" and not "something you want more than having a friend". However, do be warned that casual sex requires some of these skills as well.
Thats bizarrely sensible.
I worded that wrong, I just meant that people who club are already predisposed to not making it a big deal because there's always someone else dancing around the corner.
And oddly enough, I can pull off public speaking pretty easily.
I had to one up that, I love public speaking but am really bad at one on one conversation. I also see your point about bars.
I added the club bit after everything else to make it clear that we saw each other regularly. Everything I said about conversation really referred to our coffee dates. I guess my real point was that she was an interesting person first, then a potential romantic partner for a flash in the pan. Since we'd connected on the "just two people" level first, it really wasn't hard to switch gears back to that. Really, it was probably the perfect example of an awkward moment and a quick recovery that didn't become creepy. It may seem weird to you but to me it seems weird that I'd toss away all the platonic fun we had just because she wasn't available for more. It wasn't a friendzone thing because we both made a move at one time or another (by the time she broke up with her fiance I was dating someone pretty seriously). Its just that I enjoy her company and can talk about hyperintellectual geekery with her.
Schrodinger's Rapist, without exagerration, tells men that women are fully justified in assuming every single strange man is a potential rapist until proven otherwise. It's more "wrong" lessons than right ones. Just about the only worthwhile point is that "women may be wary of strangers for X reasons and you should keep that in mind when you talk to them", but you have to dig really deep to get to that, far past the condescension dripping from every sentence.
A lot of the problems with such articles is that they clearly convey the impression that any man who does any Wrong Thing is worthless and scum to be scraped off one's shoe. Imagine being told dating is like a test where getting even one question wrong means you not only fail the test but are clearly a horrible person. It's no wonder people may get the wrong idea. PUAs tend to give the impression of openess, adaptability, and eventual success. There's a reason they're so popular.
Personally, I try and approach talking to girls as a lesson; I'm trying to learn about her. I can also relate what she's doing to my similar experiences, but that tends to happen automatically. When I say I'm interested, I mean I'm interested.
Great article, BTW.
Did you actually read Schrodinger's Rapist?? The important points are in bold – not really hard to get the takeaway messages.
We women _are_ fully justified in assuming that every strange man is a potential threat until proven otherwise. Your job is to demonstrate that you are not a threat. The faster you do this, the sooner we women will drop the threat priority on you. Failing to respect boundaries (for example, telling women that assuming every man is a potential threat is the "wrong" lesson) increases that threat priority level.
The condescension in the beginning of that article? That's the same condescension men habitually throw at _us_ when we shut them down because they crossed a line somewhere. "I'm a good guy – I deserve a chance!" – No, you're a guy who crossed one or more boundaries, refused to acknowledge your violation and now are DEMANDING that we accept you despite your violation. That's the same tack that rapists take. Threat level goes waaaay up. Don't like it? Too bad. We must protect ourselves, especially if you will not. Swallow your pride, apologise and move on. I strongly recommend you go back and read the whole article, and accept it, despite it's apparent condescension – because it's being more blunt and honest than actually condescending.
The funny thing is, I'd bet that most guys see any strange guy who's bigger and stronger or otherwise intimidating that randomly starts talking to them, especially in a non-social context, as a potential threat too (not of sexual violence, generally, but of trying to scam them out of something or looking to prove something by pushing them around or whatever). I also suspect most guys feel totally justified in shutting down a conversation with a stranger if they don't feel like talking to them for whatever reason, without worrying about whether it'll make the other person feel "worthless" or like they did something "wrong". It shouldn't even matter why a woman decides not to continue interacting with any given guy. That's her decision; she's making it for herself, not to make a statement about the other person's worth as a human being.
Also I think there's some confusion about what "potential" means. It means the person *could be* a threat, not that they are. I don't know any woman who goes around thinking all men *are* threats. We just don't know if any given guy is one until we interact with him. No sure why this is so unreasonable. I guess we're supposed to be psychic and just "know" whether a guy has good intentions and reasonable expectations, whether he respects us as people or feels entitled to our attention? It seems to me it's much more fair that we judge people's intentions by their behavior, not by attempted psychic readings. And if a guy's behavior suggestions intentions he doesn't have, then that's on him. Again, we're not going to shut down the conversation to tell a guy he's a bad person, we're doing it for ourselves, because we want to be in conversations where we feel at ease. Why should a stranger's self esteem be more important to a woman than her own comfort?
I don't think the Schrodinger's Rapist article has that tone.
Quite a few of the comments on it may have the "Yes, we're judging you, because male sexuality is innately predatory and perverted." overtone (as though third-wave feminism never happened).
But the article itself is very clearly "We're just being wary, because it's better to be safe than sorry."
Why on earth would I NOT be justified in assuming there's a chance that a strange man is a rapist? If rape happens (especially at the level that it does in our society), I am perfectly justified in assuming that it is possible that I will one day meet a man who will try (successfully or not) to rape me. If there was a statistic that 1 in 6 (low estimate) men will be attacked and severely maimed by squirrels in their life, wouldn't you eye every squirrel askance, at least until you're SURE that they aren't a evil attack squirrel?
If there's one thing you take away from this article, it's all about Context, Context, CONTEXT.
Understanding the concept of context, how you say something and where you say it, will save your ass sooooo much from then on out. Some people read articles like NL's and go "Huh? I gotta do this SPECFICIALLY to get better at dating? But what about _______ and ________ and _________? Then this advice wouldn't help."
And I've always answered that no advice column anywhere is a One Size Fits All solution; you just gotta figure out where to apply said advice given the context of the situation you find yourself in.
So I'm glad you finally made that a keypoint in an article, Doc. Keep up the good work.
Aren't you married?
That doesn't change anything. Because he's married, he can still find other people very attractive. He could even act on those attractions if he so chose! And hell, his wife might even let him and/or participate! Though I'm not sure if DNL's marriage is open or polyamorous, those types of relationships are out there.
I know I'm monogamous with my husband, but we both find other people attractive all the time. We'll even talk about it, and what we find attractive about those other people (though admittedly, these conversations are easier when talking about strangers on the street or public figures than friends, but I know he finds some of our friends hot. I certainly do.)
It's an easy as hell disqualifier, assuming a marriage is going well.
It's not a disqualifier for everyone (cheaters, open or polyamorous relationships, etc.) But I don't know a single married/serious relationship person who didn't have crushes outside of those relationships. Part of being in society is dealing with those crushes and for a lot of us it's to learn how to move on. We all have crushes that will not be reciprocated. But learning how to deal with them takes practice. Just starting out, dropping out of contact is an acceptable step. But to have healthy friendships with those of your preferred gender, eventually you'll have to just get over it. If that wasn't the case, bi and pansexual people would have no friends.
What worked for me was finding something I DIDN'T like about the person in question. Something that will be a deal breaker in a long term relationship but not necessarily in a friendship. Smoking, illicit drugs, or excessive drinking are easy ones. Maybe they have a one track mind, or has different opinion than you on something. I don't know. Just find something small that annoys you and blow it up in your head until you lose that attraction. Just make sure you don't blow it up so much that it overshadows your friendship.
There are other methods, but this one works really well for me.
You've never been in a serious romantic relationship. I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how they function. I can only base this on my own experience and that of my friends, but from what I've seen, even people in happy, stable, functional relationships regularly have to deal with being attracted to other people.
You say “have to deal with” as though it were a curse or a problem instead of just being a part of being a human. Monogamy just means not having sex with other people, not that you suddenly stop WANTING to.
I don't think it's at all a curse. just part of being a sexual being. Like all attraction, sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's a troubling temptation, and sometimes it just is.
I used the "deal with" language only because I do think those feelings need to be…I'm trying to think of the word. Managed? Acknowledged? Some combination of those two concepts?
See? Just because someone's in a relationship doesn't mean they stop noticing that other people are attractive. Or even have brief thoughts of "I wonder what it would be like…" It's just that you don't act on them. You say "I find X attractive and fun. And we're great friends." Fullstop.
Something I had to learn early as a bi person (but apparently the rest of the world sometimes never does) is how to be friends with people I'm attracted to. A lot of it is acknowledging your feelings, and then immediately reminding yourself that it won't ever happen. "Yes, she's wonderful. She's also straight. So hands off." Then, you learn to reverse it "She's straight. She's also wonderful. Let's turn that into friendship." And just shutting down the sexual response.
…I wonder if part of the problem isn't that women are taught to do that last one from an early age, while men have their sexual response validated and played do by our culture at large.
I'm seeing an idea come up a lot that I think deserves it's own comment thread here.
Yes, guys, women and men supporting women often bring up rape culture and how to approach without seeming like a threat and that sort of thing. The reason we bring this up is because so many men are asking why they might not be successful approaching women and how they can do better, and we're trying to help. Creepy and entitled behavior is one major reason women may not respond well, it seems to be the one men are least likely to already understand, and it's one of the easiest things to fix, so it comes up a lot. But it's not the only reason women may turn you down or decide they're not interested. It's not even the only *major* reason.
If you go up to a woman you don't know and strike up a conversation, and she indicates (directly or through body language) that she doesn't want to talk/keep talking, that isn't her telling you you've done something wrong, or you're a bad person, or she thinks you're a creep. All it means is she doesn't feel like talking. Maybe you did do something that creeped her out, sure, but it could also be that she's just not in the mood to talk to anyone, or she's trying to focus on something else, or you remind her of someone she dislikes, or she already has a boyfriend and it seems easier to her to just avoid the conversation in case that's what you're looking for, or you brought up a topic that's a personal dealbreaker for her, or simply weren't sporty/artsy/cheerful/whatever enough to grab her specific interest.
Unfortunately, it's difficult for anyone to suggest solutions to most of those problems. We can't tell you how to read a woman's mind to know what all the subtleties of her mood and her personal preferences and dealbreakers are (although DNL does have some good articles on the sorts of general preferences that seem to be most common across women). We *can* tell you have to avoid the most problematic behaviors that a significant number of men engage in without realizing–like interrupting a woman when she's clearly otherwise occupied, continuing to pursue her when she's shown she's not interested, etc.–the things that tend to come off as creepy or threatening.
If you read about those behaviors and you look at your own behavior honestly, and you see that you're not imposing on people or acting entitled or pushing past obvious boundaries, then there's no reason you should assume when a woman doesn't respond positively to you, that it's because she's unfairly mistaken you for a creep or a rapist. Most likely it's one of the many other reasons I mentioned, which are perfectly valid, just much more varied across individual woman and so much more difficult to pinpoint in any specific case. And it doesn't really matter why she didn't respond positively. She's not interested, for some reason or another, that (as long as you weren't behaving overtly disrespectfully) is probably no reflection on you as a person but rather her own individual tastes and mindset. Just like you get to decide which women you're interested in based on *your* own individual tastes and mindset, which doesn't mean most of the women you're not interested in are horrible people.
You can't do anything about another person's preferences. If she doesn't feel you're right for her, then she's not right for you, so it all works out. You're best off accepting that and then going out and talking to other women, to find the ones who do appreciate what you offer as a person.
This this so much this! I'm married and monogamous, so I shut down guys all the time when I'm out with my girlfriends. I usually do it politely (unless your the 80th guy that night. Sorry, thems the breaks) and don't get rude unless he doesn't leave me alone. The only times I rejected a guy initially for creepiness if he either touched me or physically separated me from my friends before saying even one word to me. Everyone else is because I just wasn't 1) interested in leading a guy on and 2) I rather gossip with my girlfriends.
I think PUA may have quite a bit to answer for in perpetuating this kind of obtrusive behaviour with the concept of "shit tests" and "bitch shields" and how to pass them by "ploughing". I guess it's comforting to be told that every woman who rejects you is actually just playing hard-to-get. And whilst there surely are some women who really are doing just that, I can't imagine it's that common.
Yeah, I think it's fairly common for women to hold back showing just how interested we are, because we don't want to seem too forward or over-eager, but most of us make an effort show we *are* interested if we're interested because, you know, we want the conversation to continue. But I agree, I'm sure there's a huge appeal to thinking a rejection isn't really a rejection, so I understand why some guys might let themselves be convinced.
Ah. I tend to auto-disqualify anyone I know who's attached, figured it worked the same way the other way around.
I look for things like earbuds and sunglasses too. That's always a "don't wanna talk."
I see a minus, is that just an attitude in this comments section, or should I be talking to people wearing sunglasses?
Earbuds/headphones/books, fair enough. But I'd hazard a guess that sunglasses are more likely to mean "The sun's in my eyes." than "I don't want to interact with anyone."
Hrm. They do hide the eyes, so I'm always figuring it means "don't talk to me." It at least hard to see if there's an invitation. Any more thoughts and opinions or experience on this?
I only wear sunglasses to keep the sun out of my eyes, never to indicate I don't want to be talked to. But yeah, it does make it harder to tell if a stranger seems open to talking. I think if you're in an already social situation (like a backyard or beach party) and the person's other body language seems open, you're probably fine.
The eyes are important, but they're not the ONLY sign. Body language and the level of her response to you – is she giving you longer, more involved answers to your questions or is she giving you mono-syllables – will clue you in.
This is gold. But there's still an issue that needs addressing…
If you do enough networking, you will inevitably occasionally run into people who unreasonably judge you as having done something socially unacceptable either because of their own prejudices, insecurities or out of malice.
On one hand, you don't want to take the judgement of these people to heart. But on the other hand, you mustn't just dismiss people's boundaries, or you'll turn into a creepy dickhead.
But it's sometimes very difficult to know whether you're dealing with someone like this, or whether you were genuinely out-of-line.
Here are a few strategies I think could be helpful…
• Be aware of cognitive biases, don't let the negative experiences outweigh the positive ones. If something you do offends someone, make sure you are also aware of any times you may have done the same thing and got a positive reaction. There's also the "Once is an anomaly, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern." adage.
• Look at their other personality traits, do they give the impression of being judgemental, misanthropic or shallow in other ways? (If so, you probably don't want to know them anyway.) Or do they seem to act irrationally and have personal issues surrounding their self-esteem or sexuality? If so, it's probably just not a good idea to try and flirt with them.
• Ask people who you can get a valued, honest opinion from: "Did I/Do I act in a weird/awkward/creepy/unacceptable way?"
So, I have a question from a comment at the end of the "Embrace Congruence" section
He says, "Don't where a banker outfit and tell the girl that you like Harley's" and what not. Well, if you look at my wardrobe of shirts, you will quickly notice 2 things; 1) I really like Modest Mouse and 2) There is a strange mix of both American Eagle/Aeropostle shirts and Rock Band shirts (i.e. Tool, Korn, Disturbed, etc.). Also, all my shoes have the "skater shoe" flat bottom look. So sometimes I'm feeling bright and wearing my A.E. stuff, but I run into a girl, and I draw the conversation to music (which I fucking love) and I rattle off my favorite bands: 1) Modest Mouse, 2) Tool, 3) Stuck in the Sound, 4) Korn, 5) Disturbed, and 6) Circa Survive. Now, the girl will be thoroughly confused, most likely knowing that some are hard rock bands, or simply don't know what the others are and assume they're metal bands also.
You said make sure you're attuned with your identity. I'm quite the mixed up fellow, as I play Magic: the Gathering like a religion, and scream every time the Packers lose. I like old rap, but ain't afraid to scream to some metal. So maybe my clothing matches my mixed up personality, but how do I keep that from offing the women, if it really does matter that much.
That was actually something I disagreed with DNL on. I think it's more important to dress for the situation than in a way that indicates your hobbies. At a happy hour immediately after work hours, I'd expect to see people wearing business suits, even the ones who are hard core Harley riders. But a business suit at a Harley convention or during a ride would seem a bit out of place (and in the latter case, may ruin your suit!)
I think also it depends a lot on who's doing the approaching. A guy wearing a suit isn't necessarily going to catch the attention of a woman looking for a Harley-rider. But he can go up to a woman admiring a motorcycle on the street, or wearing something that suggests she shares that hobby, and make a comment that immediately establishes his enthusiasm. If a shared interest is important to you, you just need to be making it clear from the start–either in your appearance, or early in your approach (how early depending on just how incongruent that interest is with how you look, I suppose!).
I LOVE MODEST MOUSE!!!!!! Aaah you make me happy.
Thanks DNL. I can't help feeling that this is partly inspired by a reply I posted on an article about creepiness. I guess I need to get better at social calibration.