« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
A lot of guys, it seems, wish that dating had more in common with video games.
After all, with games, you ultimately know what to expect. The nature of the medium dictates that if you spend enough time paying attention, you will start to recognize certain patterns; once you’ve correctly identified these patterns, you can thus formulate a way to maximize your effort in order to achieve your goal, whether it’s to complete the raid, take out that bastard sniper across the map, overthrow Kefka, avoid being eaten by a grue or trying to find out whether you’re about to get cockblocked by a goddamn mushroom.
I’m more than half-convinced that nerds’ obsession with getting “unobtainable” women comes from this.
The point being that if meeting and attracting women was more like a game, you could eventually find a perfect way to get to the end1 whether it’s a specific pattern or a cheat code. Enter up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, start and you will suddenly be swimming through tail like Scrooge McDuck diving through his money-bin.
This is part of what makes the Pick-Up Artist community so attractive; many pick-up schools – especially the more routine-based ones – promise sex by flow-chart. Follow this pattern and everything will fall into place exactly as you want it to.
This all comes from a place of fear. Fear of rejection. Fear of being humiliated. Fear of that moment midway through talking to someone you are brain-meltingly attracted to and realizing “Oh shit, I don’t know what to say next!”
Why do we keep trying to find the “perfect moment” to approach someone we want to meet? Because we’re afraid and we want to put off facing that fear. Why do we keep looking for magical openers or silver bullets that will somehow make women magically be into us? Because we’re afraid that what we’re going to screw up and look like a stammering idiot.
Control – or the illusion of control – helps to assuage that fear. Treating approaching women like we’re assembling furniture from Ikea – follow the steps a through børk and don’t forget your allen wrench – gives us the feeling that it’s out of our hands; all we need to do is not deviate from the “plan”.
The problem, of course, is that women aren’t flat-pack furniture, every interaction is different and each magic bullet you find is just a placebo, an illusion… and ultimately a hinderance.
There is, however, value to having a plan.
Everything’s Going According To Plan
Back in the early days of my transformation, I used to be one of the folks who relied heavily on routines. It made things easy – mindless, even. Knowing exactly what I was going to say and when gave me a sense of confidence that made approaching women that much easier.
Or at least that’s what I told myself, anyway. In practice, i wasn’t having that much success. Trying to stick dogmatically to the way I thought things had to go meant I tended to give of the vibe of a performer rather than someone genuinely out to meet someone and make a connection – even if that connection was meaningless, no-strings-attached sex. It made me a more manipulative person and it also locked me into a fairly antagonistic mindset towards women – they were the “opponent” and by following the routines, I could break down their resistance and get what I wanted. Critically, it also meant that I was having the same conversations over and over again; the only way to keep things progressing the way I wanted was to ruthlessly drive the conversation in a specific direction. Whenever things didn’t go according to my carefully crafted routine… I was absolutely fucked. Suddenly, I was right back at the beginning, not knowing what to say and feeling my brain vaporlock as I tried to scramble for a way to get things back to where I wanted them to be.
“See? EVERYBODY loses their goddamn monkey-minds when things don’t go according to plan…”
Ultimately I gave up routines and moved to learning how to connect and build rapport with people instead of trying to treat getting sex as a push-button exercise. My structure, my flow-chart was a placebo, the verbal equivalent of Dumbo’s magic feather; it was just something that gave me the confidence to make a move rather than something that actually helped.
The better I got at connecting with women, the more I found a method of progressing through the interaction; less a formula or routine and more of a road map or template.
“Oh hey, so that’s where the clitoris is…”
As I said in the Reverse Cowgirl anatomy lesson, my successful approaches would follow the same pattern.
Having a basic structure and template to follow when you’re starting out gives you the flexibility to be yourself and still maintain the confidence of knowing what to say and when you should say it. It helps you relax; you aren’t as likely to have “Oh God NOW what do I do?” panic attacks when you quit treating trying to approach a woman like trying to bring the One Ring to Mount Doom – full of twists and turns and unpleasant surprises. It helps you put your focus on the areas that do you the most good – finding commonalities and building an emotional rapport – rather than on gimmicks and distractions like “demonstrations of higher value” or focusing on your opener or being clever.
So what does this map look like?
The Opening
This is where a lot of people get tripped up. They put too much importance on the start of the approach – spending too much time looking for an excuse to go up to someone or worry about finding the exact right things to say. They get hung up on the opener and end up not approaching the woman at all.
All the point of an opener is to get the conversation started. Your excuse for coming up to them is that you want to meet them and what you say really doesn’t matter as long as you have confidence – relaxed body language, a friendly smile, strong eye-contact, speaking slowly and clearly – and you transition into an actual conversational thread.
Some folks are more comfortable being indirect and use a situational opening – “Hey, what’s with all of the top-hats at this party? I’m suddenly feeling under dressed” or “Did you just see this crazy thing that happened outside?”. Others like to ask for an opinion: “Can guys still get away with earrings?” “Would you date a guy who’s still friends with his ex?” “Where’s the best place for Italian in this town?”
“No, no, you want to go up from there… right, like the prow of the boat.”
These can have their advantages; being indirect can help ensure at least a few minutes of a conversation and it’s much easier for someone who’s still a little unsure of himself get over that initial approach anxiety.
Personally, I’m a fan of being direct: “Hey, you seem like you’re a cool person and I wanted to meet you. Hi, my name’s….” or “You seem like you’re cool. Are you friendly?” It helps ensure that you have their full attention and establishes early on what your intentions are: you’re interested in them and want to get to know them. If you’re confident, you can even inject a little banter into the interaction: “I just wanted you to know: you are so… blocking my way to the bar,” (said deadpan followed with a big grin).
Segue To An Actual Conversation
However you started the interaction, you want to move to an actual conversational thread. This means you want to transition from whatever you said – especially if you were indirect and were asking for an opinion on something -to getting to know her.
There are a number of ways of doing this; if you’ve just gone in directly, you can simply introduce yourself. Depending on how she responded to asking for an opinion, you can pivot off of what she had to say: “Oh, wait, so men and women can’t be friends after they break up? I like to think that people are more complex than that. Sure, it hurts at first but if the relationship is strong…” You can ask a question that leads to a story: “Hey, have you ever done $THING? Oh check this out….”
You can use a simple phrasal transition: “Hey, you know, that reminds me.” You can use a cold-read as a way of making an observation about her and use that as a transition into an actual conversation.
Or you could just launch into just talking.
One exception: if you’re talking with someone in a group, the first thing you want to do after you’ve started the conversation is ask “So… how do you guys know each other?” You always, always want to establish relationships early on; after all, if the woman you’re interested in is dating someone in the group, it’s better to find out early on, rather than investing a lot of time and effort for no real return.
- by which we usually mean bangin’. [↩]
« Previous 1 2 View All Next »
Related posts:
Pages: 1 2
I can attest to the cheat codes not working, I recited the Konami Code in my wedding vows, burned through all 30 lives in just 6 months.
The substance of this article is good, but most of the specific examples of what to say – quite frankly – suck. DON'T open with "Would you date a guy who's still friends with his ex?" – even if the answer is yes, the fact that you're asking will make her hear "friends" and think "fuck-buddies" or "constantly in and out of a relationship" or "always thinking about." Telling her she is "so…blocking [your] way to the bar" will get her walking away from you, not chatting. And while it's great to take the conversation deeper, don't take one statement she makes about herself (e.g. being into archaeology and guitar) and rhapsodize about what you think that means about her. You'll probably be wrong, and she'll notice all the ways you're wrong much more than she'll notice what's right. The qualifying question idea is good, but it insinuates you have a right to know more about her – that she's obligated to defend herself and her opinions to you just because you asked. Many women will answer, but they're mentally categorizing you as one of those pushy guys who doesn't understand when he oversteps his boundaries.
You don't need a flashy opening line – you really can't go wrong with "I was trying to think of some excuse to come talk to you, but I couldn't come up with one and I didn't want that to keep me from getting to meet you. Hi, I'm [your name]." Match your answer length to hers – don't ramble on for half an hour when she gave you a one-sentence answer, but if she opens up about an idea, feel free to do the same.
I agree, especially about opinion openers. Asking about exes being friends or earrings might seem charming to someone who's never encountered it before, but when I went out drinking more often, I couldn't even count how many times I ran into, "Who lies more, men or women?"
At some point, it's just another pick up line, and it's one of the less charming versions of one. Asking a question that you don't actually care about the answer to and that you've asked a hundred times before just makes me assume that you have absolutely no interest in what I have to say, might not have much to say yourself, and will probably be pushy and hard to deal with if I try to engage in the conversation. I'd much rather deal with something direct, or a situational comment (a true one, not something made up!), or maybe a question about something relevant like the restaurants in town.
Same here. I find it much easier to talk to someone who starts the conversation with a comment about our situation or about something observable but not too personal about me (e.g., if I'm wearing clothing that suggests a particular interest, like a band shirt, mentioning you like that band too or asking if I've seen them in concert), than some random question. And that way you can know for sure you're starting off with a topic you both should be able to say a fair bit about, if she does want to talk.
Situational: Hey, did you catch the debate last night?
Oh, I'd be a total sucker for that one. Some people don't do politics, but since I enjoy the subject, that's probably one of the best ways to get me talking even if there's not an immediate physical attraction or if it's a night I don't think I want to meet anyone new.
I think the internet has made that one easy even for people that aren't into politics.
"No, I didn't! Did something happen about uh… binders. O_o?"
"Hey, didn't I see you in Mitt Romney's binder?"
I totally would have talked with anyone who made that joke.
I would totally laugh if a guy said the "blocking my way to the bar" think in the right tone.
"And while it's great to take the conversation deeper, don't take one statement she makes about herself (e.g. being into archaeology and guitar) and rhapsodize about what you think that means about her. You'll probably be wrong, and she'll notice all the ways you're wrong much more than she'll notice what's right."
I agree completely with this. One of my pet peeves is when people make an assumption about someone else and then act on it as if it is true. It generally reeks of stereotyping and/or arrogance (as in, "I am so sure I've got you figured out, I can make these kinds of statements about you.") Even when the assumption being made happens to be correct, it still bugs me that someone would say it.
So I would recommend following up with further questions rather than such blanket statements of "I bet you're the kind of person who…" Or at the very least, to tone down the implicit certainty of the statement by rephrasing it as a question, such as "So are you the kind of person who…? Or am I just totally off base?"
Yeah, I would say that asking questions instead is better. They'll open up the same themes without making annoying assumptions. "So did you get into archaeology because of X or Y? Oh, that's interesting because when I was a kid, I really liked Indiana Jones, but I guess as an adult blah blah…" My favorite thing to ask vegetarians is whether they're ideological vegetarians or just kinda don't like meat. I was really surprised to find out that most of the ones I've asked aren't really die-hard "meat is murder!" people. But then it leads into an in-depth conversation about animals and cruelty and death and compassion and ideology and religion and all SORTS of topics.
Definitely agree. I hate having to defend my beliefs**. I believe what I believe, and I won't hassle you if you don't hassle me. If you are a stranger, I REALLY won't like being put on the spot like that. I'd feel like I was failing some sort of quiz I never agreed to take, or that it was a trick question.
**I can have good-spirited debates, but I have to know you very well and trust you won't turn douche on me.
And THANK YOU, I am glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that one small sentence by the woman about her interests launched the man into a giant monologue of Hogging the Convo, with a heaping side helping of Baseless Assumptions. That would turn me off and after an evening of that I would feel like maybe he was some kind of narcissist trying to pelt me with words so I let my guard down.
I disagree. The opening lines the Doc suggests are flirtatious and entertaining. If some guy said this to me :
"I was trying to think of some excuse to come talk to you, but I couldn't come up with one and I didn't want that to keep me from getting to meet you. Hi, I'm [your name]."
I think it would weird me out because he was standing somewhere thinking about approaching me rather than talking to me.
Asking a question engages the person. I think all of this advice is good.
Ah, see! More proof that all women don't want all the same thing. I *would* be more attracted to the guy that said "I was trying to think of some excuse to come talk to you, but I couldn't come up with one and I didn't want that to keep me from getting to meet you. Hi, I'm [your name]." That is because to me, too-smooth openings and jokes make me think he's just feeding me lines and that I might be one of a long string of women he has rehearsed this on.
Neither preference is wrong. Variety is a beautiful thing!
THIS is it exactly – "Women" are not a giant homogeneous entity who all want and react to the same way to all the same things.
There are many strong commonalities among a group – for sure, but then there are areas where there's a lot more differences as well. And what is considered flirty and fun is definitely one of those areas.
While I have often strongly criticized articles on this site, recently there's been 2 that have actually provided **balanced** advice that matches up with what I see in the real world – and this is one of them –
"The Art of Social Calibration" http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/10/art-social-…
Different woman *DO* expect different things.
One woman will find jokes about Paris Hilton to be hilarious. The next will find them offensive. The next really won't care either way, but might wonder why you're a guy and so obsessed with Paris Hilton.
One woman will think your question of "Who would win in a fight – Batman or Superman?" is AWESOME!!! Another will think "Oh god, I'm not going to have to listen to a guy go one about superhero's for an hour am I?" (Much you like you might react if a girl starts talking about her obsession with Paris Hilton – or a guy talking about the last football game when you really could not possibly care less about football). Another girl won't care either way.
Some girls will find sexual banter to be super flirty, where other women would find it offputting and offensive. Some girls will only date you or sleep with you if you pursue them aggressively and right away, and if you get to know them they'll completely friend-zone you – other girls will be exactly the opposite, taking being to aggressive as a negative sign and only being interested in you romantically after they're comfortable with you and get to know you. And many girls will be somewhere in between.
I thought I was just particularly picky, so I wasn't going to say how none of the examples given are things that would make me want to talk to someone (particularly the one about blocking the way to the bar), but apparently other women feel the same way so there you go. However I will counteract my critique with an opener that is pure gold…
… wait for it…
…
Who would win in a fight – Batman or Superman?
It is magic, tried and tested.
I love your advice, but you need to make sure that guys know that the high-five test offers a lot of false negatives. That is, if a girl twines her fingers in yours like that, she almost definitely likes you; however, if she doesn't do the twining, that's because it's fucking weird as fuck.
This is actually really topical, because last night I went on a date with a guy I really liked and he offered me a high five. I high-fived back like a normal person because I didn't realize this was a thing.
I read that part and thought, "Oh, so THAT's why random guys I talk to high-five me." I've always been completely weirded out by it. High-fives are, to me, for moments of intense positive emotion, like when your team scores a touchdown. In lower-key situations, they seem flashy and fake to me.
Good point. This is just another one of the Doctor's creepy PUA tactics. Weird.
I think random guys did high-five me and I never figured out why. But I decided that it must be socially acceptable and also started high-five-ing people randomly.
There are folks who're just high-energy and/or just prone to being more expressive, including high-fives as a matter of course. Not all of 'em are dudes using the high-five test.They're also the ones who tend to offer fist bumps and other spontaneous gestures.
Yeah I can vouch that the high five test is WEIRD. I would never wrap my fingers into his after a high five – who does that?
Yeah, it's not just the impact but the release that gives you the nice loud, crisp high-five sound. I'm not sure how you'd wrap your fingers around the other person's.
A girl high fived me once and clasped my hand like that. Thought it was fucking weird. Turns out, she had a crush on me.
So, I guess it is sometimes a thing?
I'm thinking part of this depends on the person and situation. Example, I'm not used to a social group where giving high fives is a thing, unless we mean it jokingly. However, hugs to say hi and goodbye? Common across all genders…and I do hug someone differently if I'm into them – a longer hug, and I'm more likely to keep physical contact longer. So what I'm thinking is to take the example of the high five, and translate that to the specific group's norms? Or, say, a handshake – there's a different between a "hi nice to meet you" handshake and a warmer "I really like touching your hand" handshake.
Sometimes I think the advice here is somewhat specific to particular regions of the country??? I know women who've been like, "Ugh…he clearly doesn't like me since he only high-fived me." A decade later, it turns out this is a "thing." Count me as one who never knew this until today and never would have intertwined my hands because I assumed that he was blowing me off as a romantic interest.
I find it's more specific to highly extroverted people who live in the big city.
I'm in a field where a bunch of us move around a lot. Introverts who have lived on the frozen tundra move to southern hospitality (not even big city) and see more action the first time they sit in a coffee shop than they ever have in their whole life. People move from southern hospitality and totally freak out that they have gone out a few weeks on the frozen tundra and Don't Have Any Numbers. I thought it was a very odd thing to be upset about since I have only gotten a handful of numbers in my whole life despite hanging out at big city clubs regularly enough (but have hooked-up with and dated nevertheless) …until I moved to another region (not big city) where people actually approached others they didn't know and I had people approaching me all the time.
It's also worth mentioning that sometimes, the connection won't actually be there. Just because a lady is cute doesn't mean the connection will be there for you, and there is nothing saying the connection will be there for her. Be prepared for failure, because it's going to happen frequently. But it's okay, because you've invested, what, 5 minutes of your time? That's not so bad. If you walk away with a smile before things become awkward, nothing bad will come of it.
So true! I think your first point is particularly important–you're talking to the woman not just to try to get her interested in you, but also to find out how interested *you* are in her, beyond what you could observe from afar. I guess if you're just looking for something very casual, it doesn't matter as much, but if you're hoping to find a girlfriend and not just a fling, it'll be a lot more likely to work out, and you'll enjoy the relationship a lot more, if you're truly into her for more reasons than just her being cute and female.
Yeah — it's funny how much advice to men seems to assume that it's all about getting the woman to be interested in them. There's also the question of how to exit gracefully when you realize that the woman you've approached isn't all that interesting, actually, but that never seems to come up.
I totally agree. There is this whole vibe that guys see a gal and all he wants to do is get her interested in him…and apparently that is the point of the conversation. When I think the point of the conversation should be to find out if you two are interested in each other–you know equally, reciprocally.
It's like I tell my students when they ask me advice on applying to doctoral programs. You don't want to go into the application process thinking: here are some schools! I hope they take me! Please take me and like me! I want to go to grad school so badly! ANYONE WHO IS VAGUELY HOT TAKE ME!
That way lies only badness.
Instead you need to go into the process thinking…let me find out if this grad program might be good for who I am and what I want to do. Let me get to know the grad program and see if it is right for me, in the process, let me put my best foot forward so the grad program can see if I am right for it. If I think the fit isn't right for me, I won't attend that school, even if they accept me. What I'm trying to say is, Yale is a really prestigious school, but you should not go there if you want to do New Musicology.
I think one of the reasons why so many guys here are so…well…problematic…is that they see all of there interactions with women as one where they have no power, agency, nothing to offer, no standards, no boundaries…they can only hope some woman will look kindly upon them…so how can they ever talk to a woman? This then becomes "women have all the power because they are passive." Which is mind boggling really. If you've ever been at a dance where you aren't by custom allowed to ask anyone to dance, but have to wait to be asked, and then you spend the night being a wallflower while leads peruse the line deciding who they want to pick, you'll see that being the passive one is not a power position. So much of the PUA stuff seems to be about "women have this power, how can I get power over her instead." Let's stop it with the unhealthy non-consensual power imbalances and hierarchical thinking shall we?
Anyway, if these fellas had some empathy with women and saw them as equals and as human beings, if these guys didn't have such crippling lack of self esteem, if they approached conversations in healthier ways, I think talking to women would go a lot easier.
Let's say I see a person who I find attractive–well, more like, I initially find possibly attractive. Do I go up to him or her thinking: "I must find some way to get them interested in me…how do I do that? Oh woe is me!!!" No. Because I don't know if I even like this person yet! I don't know what they think about politics. I don't know what they think about sex, or religion, or gender roles, or Battlestar Galactica, or video games. I don't know if this person is an emotional vampire or a smoker or has cats or thinks Cosmo gives good relationship advice…I don't know *anything* about them. I need to know something more about that person before I find out if I even want to be acquaintances with them or friends with them let alone date them!
There is no power imbalance. I see us both as equals…and really this is just a person I want to find a bit more about. In the process of finding out a bit more about this person, I learn a bit if I want to know more…or not. Or if s/he wants to know or not.
There has been a woman who many people find super hot out there coming into my orbit recently. I've had a couple really good conversations with her. I still don't know if I'm interested in talking to her further and letting her into my life in general. Because I haven't been able to get a full read on her yet and there are a couple of yellow flags flying when I have talked to her. And I have no idea what she's thinking–she may not want to have much to do with me.
There is just too much desperation and unhealthy ways of viewing interpersonal relations and women here…and that will not get a person into a good relationship.
I mean, it isn't helpful to use all these moves and get into a relationship with basically a stranger and find out that they are a serial killer only after you accidentally make your way into their basement because you've seen the whole opening encounter as some game you had to win rather than an opportunity to figure out who this person even is.
you had me at "overthrow Kefka" <3
I'm old-school like an old fool.
I still hear that laugh…
also: about the "me too" thing, a story about how my parents met. They were introduced to each other at a new year's eve party and while dancing they got to talking. She mentions she has three children from a previous marriage, he says me too. She says it's two boys and a girl, he says me too. Graduated in 1953? Me too. From Poly High? Me too. At this point she calls him on BS and walks away. He chases after her, shows her pictures of his kids and his high school ring: Polytechnic High, class of 53. She shows him hers: Palo Alto High. She though he said "Pally" the school's nickname. They laughed. There was a second date. Obviously.
So it's okay at times to get caught up in the "me too" but be damn sure you can back it up.
hooray for Palo Alto, and by that I mean I'm originally from San Jose and miss home so whenever anyone says anything about a place in CA that is anywhere near San Jose I get excited.
Throughout this entire article, all I could think of "Doc's also describing how to put together a good Pro Wrestling match." It's almost bizarre how similar the two are. Not the specifics obviously, but just the outline and the general feel of things.
this is just too much info to take in. i have no idea how to generate the kind of three-paragraph answers to whatever the woman happens to be feeding me, and top it off with a playful joke which is somehow supposed to be generated mid-conversation. i have no idea where this is supposed to come from., and all im hearing is "in order to jump the shark pit, just get on the bike and rev up the engine". its making me none the wiser, and im taking away nothing from the article.
its making me so depressed that even when im looking for help, im no closer to understanding how to talk to women. its unbearable because i want to have sex already!!!
What DNL's getting at is there isn't a magic formula for "how to talk to women". Women are people. You talk to them the same way you do to any other person you want to spend time with–why asking them about themselves, showing you're listening by commenting on what they've said in a thoughtful way, and sharing your own related thoughts and experiences.
If all you're looking for is sex, this is going to be difficult, because you won't actually be interested in what the women you're talking to have to say, and that will probably come across in your words and body language. You can either decide you do want to make a personal and emotional connection with your potential sexual partners, and start teaching yourself how to see women as individual human beings who can offer a lot more than just sex, or you can decide you really do just want sex, in which case the "casual encounters" type sections of dating websites is probably your best bet.
when i go to a bar, all the women are provocatively dressed. when im out on the street, at work or any other place where there are women, theyll wear short skirts with stockings or tight pants with high heels. everywhere you turn its women showing skin or wearing tight outfits along with shoes that make their butts protrude and their back arch.
how is a guy supposed to not think about sex? its impossible, because its everywhere.
Even if you live in some interesting place where every woman wears tight skimpy clothing all the time, I didn't say you can't think about sex. I said if *all* you're looking for is sex, things will be difficult. Surely there's room in your mind to want sex but also enjoy conversations and so on?
women are everywhere, and in my opinion at least a couple of them in any given place will dress very sexy. i dont understand how a man is supposed to talk to a woman like that and not want to do more than have sex. its not like we can somehow turn off our sex drive and want to get to know her instead. its impossible in my opinion, because all the brain shouts is "i want to sleep with this woman no matter what the cost"
Well, maybe some other guys here can weigh in and back me up on this, but I'm pretty sure most men are capable of both wanting to have sex with a woman and enjoying getting to know her at the same time. If all you can think when talking to a woman is that you want to sleep with her no matter what, when you don't even know anything about her yet, and you can't control that or suppress it enough to let a single other thought in, that's a problem. Honestly, if it really is that bad for you, I think you should talk to a professional. That's an obsession, not a normal way of thinking.
well, of course i can maintain a civil conversation, but im of course completely unable to care about someones personality if all i want to do is sleep with them…
I maintain what I said in the comment before this. It is not normal to be so consumed by a desire for sex that you're incapable of caring about anything else about the person you're talking to (which would include "enjoying getting to know her"). And as I said even earlier, if all you want is someone to sleep with, regardless of their personality, you will have much better luck with dating sites that have casual encounters sections where you can find women who are also not looking for a deep emotional connection, than randomly approaching women you see around you.
well i appreciate the input but why must there always be deep emotional connections all the time? seems a bit exaggerated to me..
There doesn't. There are plenty of people who are looking only for casual sexual partners. I think the trouble that some people run into is that people looking for casual sex have traits they want in their partners, just like people looking for relationships or semi-casual dating do. Sometimes the traits that make it easy to find casual sex* are actually harder to develop than those that make it possible to find relationships of at least a month or two.
*I'd say it's some combination of the following: being attractive, being fit, dressing well, being charming (either in a pick up artist way or a more holistic way), hanging out with people who are open to casual sex, hanging out with people who drink a good bit, having a reputation as a skilled sex partner, having a reputation for being resectful and non-judgmental and discreet, and I'm sure there are some others I'm not thinking of. You don't need all of them and which ones matter will depend on the crowd we're talking about, but it's best to have something to offer in at least a couple of those categories.
that makes sense. thanks.
Well, I suppose I should have left out the "deep" part. Usually when people are talking to each other in social situations, they're trying to form at least a slight emotional connection, not just going through the motions toward some other end goal. But my whole point was that there *doesn't* have to be a emotional connection–and people who aren't looking for an emotional connection have specific avenues for finding partners, that don't require them to fake an interest in conversing. So what's the problem?
what are those avenues?
As I've said, more than once, there are sections on many online dating websites specifically for people looking for no-strings-attached sex. I know, for example, there was a section like that on Lavalife, the main dating site I used back when I was dating. There are probably also dating websites devoted to that subject. They shouldn't be hard to find if you're looking.
I believe another commenter farther down had some suggestions about finding social groups who are up for casual sex, including a link with tips.
I think many women who are like casual sex, which includes me on occasion, will often still want a conversation first. There is more to fun sex than admiring your partner's body – I don't mind trying to please them, but I like to know that the other person can communicate enough to please me. Also, I want to speak to them long enough to know they are not creepy and can respect limits. (Just because I agreed to sex doesn't mean I agreed to everything they want to do sexually, also, I don't want there to be problems afterwards). I think if phalanxformation has problems talking to women casual sex will not be an easier option than dating and I agree that with eselle28 that it can be harder.
I tend to agree too, and I've said to him in another part of this thread that he can't expect not to communicate at all and still have much chance of having sexual relations with anyone. I was just trying to get us out of the whole "why should I have to form an emotional connection with someone to get sex" line of reasoning by pointing out you don't necessarily have to. Which isn't to say you can ignore your partner's wants and desires when it comes to the sex, of course!
There's a WIDE area of the spectrum between "views other only as an outlet for one's own needs" and "has a deep emotional connection with other." That area is what we refer to as "respect" and "empathy."
No, it doesn't always have to be deep. But there must at least be the understanding that you're not threatening, you respect boundaries and you're not trying to hurt the other person. Which is basically, you know, friendliness.
You don't have to care about all of her hobbies or cute cat stories, but you at LEAST have to care about her physical and emotional well-being. You don't WANT the person you're trying to sleep with to be hurt or terrified or crying or fighting to get away from you. You want her to be happy and attracted to you also! You want her to feel safe and respected, and that DOES mean a little bit caring about what she's like and what she has to say!
just because i feel a desire to have sex with her it doesnt mean that i wont care about her safety or pleasure. im not a monster just because i have a sex drive…
Yeah, but how does FantasySexPartner know that? Unless she tries to get a feel about what you are like through a conversation.
well thats why i want to learn how to talk to them… but apparently its not enough because i must also be interested in her as a person… and thats what i find hard because i dont care about her personality if shes hot..
It is not your sexdrive that is causing the red flags, it is your misogyny. That you say you have never found a woman interesting. That you say that you can never understand anything a woman says and you think that is a fault in women. It is that you say that you don't want to even talk to a woman you are having sex with. That you say that if you are attracted to a woman, you can not think of anything at all other than wanting to have sex with her.
You don't seem to even like women at all. Certainly, you don't seem to respect them. That is why many of us doubt you'd care about a woman's safety or pleasure.
#1 i never said i never found a woman interesting. i said that ive found FEW women interesting… big difference there…
#2 yes i cant understand what women are saying… but i never said that its anyones fault.. things are the way they are and thats just that….
#3 i never said i dont want to even talk to a woman… i said that i have no interest in learning about her personality and that i dont understand how im expected to do this when all i want to do is sleep with her hot body…
#4 explained in #3 and i dont think its very strange
#5 i dont respect women? why not? because i want to have sex with them when they are hot?? ok… sorry about that then but i respectfully disagree with you…
Of course you don't come across like you respect women, because all you care about is the hot bod and having sex with that hot bod–you don't care about the actual woman.
If a woman said that all she cared about men was how much money they made and getting that money, that she didn't care about his ideas or hobbies or feelings or penis or whatever, all she saw a man as was wallet on legs…we'd say that clearly that woman didn't respect men and she was creepy.
You are doing the same thing.
You are disrespectful because you want to have sex with women regardless of everything else. Nothing else is important to you once you deem a woman attractive. If we changed this up a little bit, and said that people have this one specific opinion of you simply because your voice has a certain tone and pitch, would you feel respected? If your voice was the only thing that was important to people, and once they heard your voice, nothing else about you would be as important, is this a favorable position for you?
It's incredibly hard to compare being attracted to someone physically to other things because physical attraction is something that can be made without someone ever opening their mouth or expressing who they are as a person. I really don't think it's fair, healthy, or intelligent to judge anyone based solely on their looks. Would you want someone to do as much to you?
Let's frame this differently, if you don't care about anything other than putting part of your body inside part of their body, then unless they 1) find you inherently attractive and desirable and 2) are at that exact moment looking for a casual sexual encounter, why would they ever want to have anything to do with you? You bring nothing to the table except a desire to use them for your own satisfaction. Contrast this to all of the people out there who bring everything to the table that you bring AND on top of that would also provide interesting conversation and a meaningful (for any agreed upon value of meaningful) relationship.
In economic terms you're offering to pay very little to obtain something that other purchasers put MUCH higher value on. Why would anyone (who wasn't desperate to sell RIGHT NOW) do business with you?
Every guy I know above the age of 30 is capable of feeling attraction toward and still having interest in someone as a human being.
And I second Mel. If it's as severe as you make out, it sounds like a compulsion and you should see a professional about it.
Every time your brain shouts that, I would advise "it" to try and imagine sex with someone you haven't met very well and don't know. Try to picture realistically how that would go. Because realistically it would go -awkwardly-. If you can't even say "Hi, I like you," imagine trying to ask them how they want sex to go?
Alternatively, imagine if an unattractive, physically threatening woman decided she wants to sleep with YOU "no matter what the cost!" … You would probably fight her off … "no matter what the cost".
These thought experiments are really trying to encourage your brain to realize that you don't actually WANT "whatever the cost" sex. You want mutually enjoyable, non-awkward sex. It encourages your brain to think that being friends with women as a worthwhile investment and not just hoops that women/society/thisannoyingwebsite is making you jump through.
i dont really disagree with you but… when i say "whatever the cost" im not talking about doing something awful or illegal. im just saying that my brain thinks about the act of sex, and nothing else.
like i said somewhere else, sexual arrousal is an immediate need and learning about someones personality is not exactly top priority when someone dressing provocatively makes you very arroused.
I think there's a fairly unhealthy dichotomy between knowing a person and knowing her sexually. I know people like to think that when people have sex they temporarily lose all higher brain function as they are possessed by animalistic passions, but at least in my experience, that's not really the case. People are still thinking and feeling things, even when they're inside each other, and the experience is a lot more satisfying when there things are engaged. I'm not saying that there must be a Deep Emotional Connection in order to have good sex (though it helps), but having a friendly repartee helps keep the pressure low, the comfort levels high, and the sex fantastic.
I guess what I'm saying is that the sex you crave so badly isn't just a physical thing. Seriously, if all you want is physical release, your hand serves just fine (in fact, you can probably give yourself a better handjob than most women). Once you get past this aura of mystique that is built around sex, you'll find that it's actually pretty boring. It's no wonder that the guys you know lose interest in women after they get it off if they're not looking for anything more than physical release. When you get down to it, when you get down to it, bodies don't have all that much to offer (though I think a baseline level of attractiveness is necessary). The rest you get from being intimate with another person.
i dont really think that sex is going to be a mysterious and awesome thing and im not saying that its impossible to control ones actions despite sexual urges…. but i do think men are hardwired to want to have sex with women…
i can imagine sex with an emotional connection being good… but i think a lot of guys are just mostly looking for sexual release with a woman and thats how i feel too…
i think saying that a body doesnt have much to offer is… well… like saying talking to someone doesnt offer much because you could just as well read a book… its not the same and we are hardwired to do certain things…
The point I'm trying to make is that we guys aren't just hardwired to have intercourse; we also have a innate desire for intimacy and interpersonal connection. You seem to be viewing these things as contrary to your sex drive, rather than complimentary, which may be the root of your trouble. The Doc's advice is about building a friendly repartee and an atmosphere of simultaneous comfort and excitement between you and your lady love– flirting, in a word. This isn't a trial that you endure to get her into the bedroom; you're creating something that you take with you to the bedroom. Flirting can be a lot of fun, and this is doubly so if you're attracted to the person.
what im trying to say is that very few women come across to me as interesting, but i would like to sleep with most attractive ones…. so how am i supposed to build an emotional connection with someone i just want to sleep with?
so yes i would say that flirting and conversation is a trial to get into someones pants.. because i fail to see how i would enjoy the interaction in itself..
If you stop viewing it as a trial, it will stop being a trial. You can enjoy the interaction if you genuinely attempt to get to know the person. Whether or not you want to generalize all guys as being purely sex-driven beings (by the way, I don't think a single guy here has agreed that they feel the same as you on this matter), I am certain that most guys do not feel as crippled by conversation with an attractive woman as you do. So you can work beyond that part of your psyche. It's going to take effort, but it can be done. It may take professional help, but it can be done. That is, assuming you actually want to do it. If you truly don't care about the emotional side, why don't you get a prostitute? I don't mean that insultingly, but it does seem strange that if all you care about is sex like it is a thing, then why not purchase it like it is a thing?
well i dont want to buy a prostitute for 3 reasons.. first ive heard that it has a negative psychological and emotional impact on them, and so it would be harmful… second, i expect the woman im with to enjoy the sex as well, otherwise theres no point.. third, i think its unfair that i should have to pay money for sex because it would be an exploitation of my sexuality…
So, if you don't think it would be fair for you to have to pay for sex, but you also don't seem to think it's fair for you to have to talk with a woman and pay attention to her personality before she might want to have sex with you… what do you think would be fair? Do you really think *any* guy has random women walking up to him saying, "Hey, I don't know you at all, but let's have sex"? The vast, vast majority of men who have sex either made a personal/emotional connection first (perhaps in some cases faked, but still, an effort was made), or paid for it in some way (either directly or through things like buying lots of gifts/taking out to fancy dinners/etc. in a sugar daddy type scenario).
You say you want the woman you're with to enjoy the sex as well. Are you aware that most women do not get a lot of physical enjoyment out of having a guy rut into her any old way? Many women find it difficult or even impossible to have an orgasm during straight-forward PIV sex even with a very skilled and attentive partner.
If all you're thinking about when you're with an attractive woman is how *you* want to get off, it's unlikely you're going to be paying enough attention to her responses and signals to make sure she's having a good time too. And even if you think you would still be able to pay attention to her interests and preferences when it comes to sex, talking with and showing an interest in a woman as a person is one of the ways you demonstrate to someone that you'll be attentive to her pleasure too. If when you're talking with a woman, you're showing that you consider her an incomprehensible and uninteresting person you aren't going to put any effort into getting to know, of course she's going to assume you won't put any effort into getting to know her needs in bed either. You haven't given her any reason to believe otherwise.
I'm asking this honestly–you're talking a lot about why you want to have sex with women, but why should women want to have sex with you? What are you going to offer them that they can't get from other guys who *are* interested in them as people too (or going to pay for their attention, in other cases)? If the answer is "nothing", I don't think you should be surprised that you're having trouble finding sexual partners.
if its true what youre saying then… whats even in it for me as a guy? because what youre describing sounds like prostitution.
The fact that your parnters expect something from you – whether that be physical attraction, sexual skill, or an emotional connection – doesn't mean you've somehow been conned into "paying for it." It just means that women don't go around dispensing sex as a matter of charity. They're motivated by their own pleasure and fulfillment, just as you are.
yes and if what mel says is true then im getting the short end of the stick.
I said the woman would want to get something enjoyable out of the interaction too. How does both of you getting equal enjoyment mean you getting the short end of the stick? Is it only fair if you're getting more out of it than the woman is? How does that make sense?
Not really. You're getting an extra way to attract partners. There are other ways – being very attractive, being known as a skilled and giving sexual partner. I know men who are able to find sex with desirable people quite easily because they have these traits.
If, like most of us, you're fairly ordinary-looking and will need someone to be understanding as you learn how to be a good sex partner, it doesn't hurt if you can develop some other traits that make being with you a desirable thing. This is especially true if you would prefer that your partners be reasonably desirable women.
If you're willing to settle for nothing in a partner beyond an appropriate set of sex organs, you will be able to find that if you look in the right places.
What do you mean, what's in it for you as a guy? You've said you desperately want to have sex. I'm saying most women aren't going to want to have sex with you unless she's getting something out of it too–whether that something is an emotional connection or friendly company or physical pleasure or monetary reimbursement. What *you're* getting is the sex. How is saying that women aren't going to want to have sex simply for *your* pleasure you getting the short end of the stick? Why shouldn't they prefer to have sex with guys who would make the experience more enjoyable for them? If you had to opportunity to have sex with a woman who was only kind of attractive, and another woman who was stunning, wouldn't you pick the one who "offered" more?
This is how all social relationships work. Do you hang out with friends whose company doesn't give you any enjoyment? I would imagine not. That doesn't mean they're "paying" you for your friendship by being an enjoyable friend. There are billions of people in the world; we decide who we want to spend time with (whether friendly, romantic, or sexual) based on how much we're enjoying those interactions on one level or another.
the point im making is that it sucks that sex cant be a natural and relaxed thing that both parties can enjoy… no.. im supposed to pay for it by giving the woman more than what im getting in return…
in other words… shes getting what im getting… and THEN some, on my expense.. that really sucks!
Again, how is the woman getting more out of it than you are? You want to have sex to feel good and have an orgasm. She wants the sex to feel good and result in an orgasm too. These things are equal. Yes, you need to do more than just say "let's have sex" to demonstrate that you can provide good sex, but she needs to do that too, doesn't she? You don't want to have sex with every woman you see, just the ones you find attractive. Most women who look good did have to work at that, so they've still put in an effort to demonstrate their attractiveness.
well, im expected to learn to communicate with her on HER terms, approach her and experience the pain of rejection countless times, make her attracted through conversation, manage my non-verbal cues like tone of voice and posture, and be witty and quick on my feet to name a few….
on top of that?? i spend 3 hours at the gym every 3rd or 4th day, and i wear nice clothes too… something that more and more guys are doing these days..
these arent exactly qualities that men are born with… and i really dont think its fair on my end!!
I started typing something about the ways in which all people, regardless of gender or orientation, need to change and invest effort in dating and the risks we all take.
But I don't think that's really going to help here. This is the way the world is. Your choice lies in how you respond to it. From this discussion, I honestly think you may be happier using a sex worker. Other choices are to try to adjust, even though it doesn't feel fair, or to accept that obtaining sex requires things you aren't willing to do. But arguing about why things aren't fair isn't going to change people's individual social reactions to you.
well i think its totally messed up that women get to dictate all the conditions of how sex and dating should happen… theres no way whatsoever for men to have any preferences or demands…
this is why i hate this god damn interaction with women!!!!
There are plenty of dating and sexual conventions that are dictated by men's preferences. I'm judged more harshly than you are for having many sexual partners. It's unlikely that as I age, I'll be able to pursue relatively young sex partners. It's more difficult for me to compensate for flaws in appearance with social status or wealth. And so on. Many of those things aren't fair either, but spending all my time resenting them would make it very difficult for me to date indeed.
But, again, it's not very useful to sit around arguing with people who aren't in your local dating pool that the women you do know aren't behaving fairly.
its true that women are judged for having sexual partners, but there are so many avenues that women could use that are 100% secret and where men would sleep with you at the drop of a hat… especially online..
i think the age thing is a myth. there are boatloads of desperate guys out there willing to sleep with anyone… and even if you take the desperate ones away i dont think guys consider a woman under 40 or even 45 unattractive enough to not have sex with her… hence the terms MILF or cougar…
i really fail to see how a woman couldnt get sex… unless shes severely unattactive in which case i sympathize, but i dont consider myself a severely unattractive guy so i dont think i should be in such an unfair position…..
Note that I said dating as well as sex. And I'd point to the fact that women over the age of 45 both exist and enjoy both relationships and sex.
And I refer again to the point about whether it's worth it to be so angry that the world isn't how you'd like it to be, and that gender relations don't perfectly cater to your needs (and they are yours, not those of all men). Like some others, I think you'd do best to talk about these things with someone who has a therapeutic background.
This is all because the only thing you require from a woman is that she is attractive (which, by the way, requires way more effort than you are giving women credit for). If you redefine the requirements for wanting sex, then suddenly the exchange isn't unequal.
You need to look inward for issues first, not instantly cast blame outwards.
i fail to see how most women put more effort into looking good than i do.. and thats not even counting what i have to do on a social level…
First, you completely ignored what I said about your requirements.
Second – women don't have to go to the gym, do their makeup, do their hair, buy nice clothes, or eat healthy to look attractive? And, on top of all that, they need to get a job to afford everything. I dunno, seems about the same as what you do to be physically attractive. The reason you find imbalance is because you're only concerned about physical attractiveness. I don't take issue with women having to do less work because they have to impress me beyond their looks.
go to the gym? i dont know a SINGLE WOMAN who does that. all the women at work go for like 3 weeks, then peter out because they cant keep it up… this is what every single woman i know does…
whenever i go to the gym, theres 80% guys and… 15% staff lol.. maybe 5% women when there are aerobics classes and stuff, but thats not often compared to how many guys that hang out there, pumping iron….
as for the clothes? thats a womans thing… men dont require women to have nice clothes AT ALL… and even so, women arent the ones who have to spend money on expensive clothes. thats what GUYS have to do in order to signal power or wealth, or at least to try to get an upper hand over other guys (which i guess is how women think as well, regarding the competition)..
eating healthy? well, thats something everyone try to do i think… same thing with jobs…
the way i see it, guys have to do all the things that women do (minus the makeup, but i think guys make up for that with gym time), and ON TOP of that the guys also have to do all the work socially and take most of the hard blows of rejection…
even when i try to look at this from a big perspective.. i fail to see how most normal-looking women do more than merely… exist… at least in terms of what men find attractive in a girl…
I've met very few people in my life who suffer from confirmation bias as badly as you. I know women who spend tons of time at the gym. Maybe I should've said exercise instead of go to the gym. I live in a city, so I see people running/biking all the time. I see as many women as I do men. How the fuck do women stay thin if they aren't doing anything?
As for clothes, women still need to buy them. And have you ever looked at female price tags? Do you often find yourself going dumb with arousal over women dressed in loose fitting sweat suits?
You simply refuse to see anything other than your view. Do you admit that this is true? Every time someone has proposed something different than how you believe, you've disagreed. And, in this example, you've disagreed with extraordinary claims (which also happen to be false). I wasn't arguing women do more work. I was arguing they do the same amount of work.
And the social aspects and rejection aspects you were talking about? Those exist because people care about more than physical attributes. If you cared about more than physical attributes, women would be in the exact same position as you.
#1 women can stay thin by eating healthy. as can men. you dont need to do anything but maintain a calory intake that is in line with what is expected of your size and gender….
now MEN on the other hand are expected to be muscular. thats why its so unfair. women just need to eat healthy , which is easy to do since it doesnt require any more time from you, but building a toned body takes YEARS of dedication, and at least 5 hours per week. thats a LOT OF TIME!!
#2 yes i would become arroused by a woman in a loose fitting sweat suit, as long as she was cute/hot/attractive. and yes, ive seen the pricetag on womens clothes. they cost about 1/10th of the price of the clothes im expected to buy..
pleae explain the rejection existing because of physical attributes though.. im pretty curious to understand how you mean!
You know, I don't really know what women expect physically from a man (probably because I'm not a woman). I do know that all women do not expect muscular men, though. Because that word would not be used to describe me, and yet women have found me attractive. Just a miracle, I guess.
Also, do you not see women exercising? Does this never happen where you live? You skipped over that part, but I'm kinda curious to get an answer.
Where are you buying such incredibly expensive clothes? I suppose I've never done a thorough research of the price of men's clothes vs. women's clothes, so I shouldn't have said women's are more expensive. But, for certain, prices are similar.
I'm not sure what your last paragraph means. In my last paragraph above, I said 'social aspects and rejection aspects' – rejection there refers to you saying men have to deal with rejection and women don't. And I just keep returning to the fact that your standards are ridiculously simple (and, in my opinion, low). If you cared about anything other than physical attributes, then women wouldn't have it so much easier than you do.
as far as i know women inherently tend to prefer a lean/well-toned man, but not too muscular… however since we celebrate male power so much, girls do tend to swoon over even muscular guys and washboard abs. in either case, guys cant get away with merely eating healthy, something that most girls can.
and yes i do see women exercising, but honestly for every 10 guys i meet who are into getting a good body, i meet 1 girl who does the same…. like whenever i hit the gym theres always 20 good-looking guys pumping iron, and only 1 or 2 girls who are just as dedicated as the guys are (not in strength-building, but other body-toning exercises)…
the same goes for just about any other sports-related class ive taken.. the gender ratio has always been like…. 80% guys and 20% women…
im not saying that this is indicative of women not exerising at all, but i do think that when it comes to the time-consuming aspects of looking good, the pressure is definitely on the guys…
also, i buy mid to high end clothes i guess, but no luxury stuff… i dont want to mention any prices because i want to be sensitive to people who maybe cant afford a lot of nice stuff… but the way i see it girls clothes cost a couple of 10s while guys clothes cost at least 100…
and yeah i guess its true that rejection exists because of an imbalance in the sexual marketplace between men and women… somehow ive always felt this but never really put it in words!!
Many, many guys get away with merely eating healthy. Maybe the women you're looking to sleep won't accept a guy like that, but that doesn't mean a pretty hefty chunk of the population does not exercise regularly and still manages to get dates.
I can't help you with your confirmation bias. You want to see more men working out/exercising, so you do. You want to see guys clothes as more expensive, so you do. I don't have the numbers to back my position up, so I'll just let that drop.
But I never said there was an imbalance in the sexual marketplace between men and women. Frankly, I don't know what you mean by that (so maybe I did say without realizing? I don't think so, though). What I was saying is this:
You feel like women have to do less work to impress you. This is a true statement, because to impress you, all they have to do is be physically attractive. On the other hand, you have to do more to impress women because women are concerned about things like personality. If you are concerned about things like personality, then women have to do just as much to impress you as you have to do to impress them.
It isn't the women's fault that they can't read your mind to know if you'd be a respectful and skilled sexual partner without you having to display that through your words. And it isn't their fault that your only standard for what makes a good sexual partner is "looks attractive" and they need more than that to feel safe and comfortable.
Even leaving out emotions and safety completely… *you* might get physical enjoyment out of getting it on with any woman within a certain range of attractiveness, but as I pointed out before, most woman *can't* get the same amount of physical enjoyment out of any random sexual encounter. This is also not their fault; women's bodies are built in a way that makes orgasm more complicated than for most men. They can't control that. Believe me, if we could, I bet many women would love to be able to come more easily!
So a woman can't just look at your muscles and clothes and know you could satisfy her in bed. She needs more information than that. You getting upset at women for that doesn't make any more sense than if women got upset at men for "making" them have to worry about getting pregnant. It's physiological, not something people are doing on purpose to make life difficult for you.
so even if i do manage to get the woman in bed through words….. i also need to work harder for her than she has to do for me THERE as WELL?!?
the ratio of effort between men and women just seems so unbalanced… and thats why i once again ask, whats in it for men……
it freakin sucks being tormented by your god damn male libido and at the same time knowing that youre never going to be able to get off with a woman unless you put in WAY more work than she is going to do for you…
and it makes me feel like a god damn pathetic slave
i hate being a guy so GOD DAMN MUCH!!!!!!!
Would you rather be a woman? Would you really rather face possibly having to struggle to ever have an orgasm at all? Having to worry that the condom might break or your pills not be totally effective and now you're pregnant? Having to worry that this guy might be one of those who takes a "no" to mean "try harder" or "make me"?
Women do *not* have it so easy, and you talking as if we do is really offensive. I don't see any point in continuing to try to help you since you're obviously too busy wallowing in the misery of the male libido to consider any perspectives other than your own.
as a man, id probably worry just as much about the condom or the pill.
yes, struggling to have an orgasm would probably suck but honestly….. try being a guy for a day. you have no idea what its like…
Beforehand, I apologize for yelling.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A WOMAN! HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BERATE SOMEONE FOR ASSUMING WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A GUY, WHEN YOU ARE ASSUMING WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE A WOMAN!?
Okay. Deep breath.
You're also reducing everything it is to be a man or woman down to obtaining sex. Which, from these continued discussions, seems to be the only thing that is important to you. But, I dunno, probably somewhere around 99% of other people care about things other than sex. And in most regards (employment and safety being the big two) men have it way easier than women.
I am a guy who has had troubles getting girlfriends. I am well aware of the issues that come with being a guy. But never would I ever want to be a female (aside from the scientific standpoint, because that would be enlightening) because I am well aware that shit is pretty easy for me.
The only reason you feel this exchange is unequal is because you don't enjoy emotional connections with women. For people who do, both people are giving and receiving that as well as giving and receiving physical pleasure.
As people have mentioned elsewhere, there are also people (including women) who are happy to have sex without that kind of connection…but they're going to be using other criteria for judging their partners, many of which are considered "shallow" or are hard to develop. It may be best for you to try to find sex in that manner, though it's a tougher road than learning to find women who don't bore you.
to me it seems like men only pretend to be invested in women because they are shamed if they only want sex, and so women rarely see the truth of men until its too late…
so im not so sure that im the only man who considers it an unequal exchange…
Speaking as a man I would have to disagree with that. While I agree sexual chemistry is important in a relationship I wouldn't even call it the most important thing.
You're absolutely not the only man who considers it an unequal exchange. But there are women who consider it unfair for themselves, as well.
Also, you need to stop thinking that your belief is true for all men. There are approximately 120 million married couples in the United States, so very nearly 60 million men in marriages. Let's get crazy and say only one sixth of those men are with their wives because they got to know them first. 10 million men would seriously take issue with you saying that men only pretend to be interested in women. And, I dunno, about 145? million men would really take issue with that attitude if it was their sister/daughter/mother/cousin/aunt/friend who was being played.
I'm seriously low balling that first number of 10 million. Millions of men do not see the world the same way you do. Arguably billions of men do not see the world the same way you do. Now, numbers don't make them right, so I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong because so many others disagree. But I'm trying to prove to you that your viewpoint isn't the only one that exists, and that other viewpoints aren't so small that they should be ignored.
i still dont understand how the married couples argument has any relevancy…. can you explain exactly what it is in my comments that make you think a marriage somehow counters what im saying….. ;p
You said men only pretend to be interested in women to get in their pants. You've also said elsewhere that marriage only happens because men have had sex with a woman and then find out she has a cool personality. So I'm arguing that 1/6th of married men thought their wives had a cool personality before sleeping with them. I'm not trying to say your viewpoint doesn't exist elsewhere, I'm trying to get you to stop marginalizing other viewpoints to the point where they aren't a concern.
well, i mean that the man probably thinks about sex primarily and the womans personality secondarily.. but of course, a man will never get to sleep with a woman immediately, and so he has to go through the social charades in order to get with her, and in the process he might discover that he likes her or has something in common with her…
because since a man is not allowed to express his sexual intentions with a woman, its not really obvious what a man thinks… ;p
I'm arguing that 1/6th of men DO NOT count the personality secondary. That they count it just as important as (and probably far more important than) sex. And then I just extrapolated the numbers to show that that means 10 million men disagree with you.
There are actual men here telling you that they don't see a woman's personality as "secondary" to having sex with her. There are no actual men agreeing with you that they only care about sex and it doesn't matter to them what a woman's personality is. Are you trying to say the guys commenting here are lying? If this way of thinking is anywhere near as common as you claim, why are there no other men who feel this way amount the many commenters on this blog?
*among the many commenters
Dude, you are speaking for those who you do not represent. Your perspective is not every man's truth, certainly not mine.
Talking to women, actively listening to what they are saying, and treating them as individuals who are worth engaging with is *not* a "charade." That is some myopic shit, man. I don't doubt that there are plenty of dudes who share your misguided, uninformed opinions on relationships and wish they didn't have to bother talking to women in order to sleep with them, but I can assure you that you guys are in the minority.
if im not right, then why is the sexual exploitation of women so wide-spread? why does the worlds oldest profession cater mostly to men… and why do gay men have more sex than lesbians?
I already explained the prostitution thing in a post you've chosen to ignore. Indeed, you ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world view. That is fine if your world view is working for you, but it doesn't seem to be. So I suggest you start to work on trying to get a more positive world view. Since you will not listen to us, then you might really want to talk to a therapeutic professional.
And also? There are many lesbians who have lots and lots of sex…and gay men who don't. Stereotypes are not truth.
it wasnt my intention to ignore anything.. please consider that ive gotten a lot of responses… ill look for your prostitution response again
Much like all of your other baseless generalities, do you have any evidence claiming that gay men have more sex than lesbians? It's high time you start kindly citing your sources.
And even if it's true, what does that matter? How does any of that relate to your issues? So because prostitution exists and sexual objectification of women is rampant in our culture, you shouldn't have to–heaven forbid–talk to women in order to sleep with them?
Again, you and your friends are not indicative of men as a whole.
Oh, and to address this whole "natural" idea, since you're so hung up on your ideas of biology and how the different sexes are "programmed"–in most of the natural world, including our closest animal relatives, sex involves males having to do quite a lot to prove their worthiness to the females they want to attract. They have to show off their strength and/or ability to provide and/or attractiveness, and only the ones who make a good show of it find a mate. In many species, only one or a few very impressive males get all the female attention and the others have to accept that.
This is because the "natural" biological purpose of sex is to produce offspring. So if we're talking about "nature" and biology, the most "natural" reason for a woman to have sex with a man is she thinks he'd stick around, protect, and provide well for any kids she has. So you're lucky humans approach sex in a way very different from how "nature" and biology theoretically intend, and that many woman enjoy it for its own sake and not your abilities as a father. If sex was more "natural" you'd be having an even harder time of it!
i meant natural in the sense of sex occuring spontaneously as per the natural course of a woman and man hanging out… not natural in the sense of belonging to the nature of evolution…
but now that you mention it, i fail to see how humans treat sex differently from animals because girls only seem interested in sleeping with men who meet the requirements you mentioned…
all the emotional triggers, like showing vulnerability, being emotionally invested, having power or financial resources, or taking an interest in the woman, all seem to be signs that read "im invested in you and can be a good father to your child"..
which once again makes me feel that the role of a man is to give give give to a woman only for the sake of getting the chance to get off every now and then…
and really that totally, totally sucks!!
1) You have a strange definition of "natural". My point was it isn't "natural" for sex to spontaneously occur simply because a random man and woman are hanging out. You're saying that it's a natural thing to happen doesn't make it natural.
2) The only requirement I mentioned if you want to have sex with a woman who also is only interested in sex (not a relationship) is that you can make sure she enjoys the sex too. That has nothing to do with being a good father, or giving her more than you expect to get from her. I'm still not seeing how this is unequal for you.
because women seem to require a lot of cues from a man in order to find him attractive.. hes supposed to pay attention to her in different ways or do things for her, and those things seem to be biologically motivated, just like in the animal kingdom…
please see my response in the thread above for more clarification…
I don't think women "require" more from a man to find him attractive; it's just most of them "require" more than finding him attractive before they'll get into bed with him. See my response in the thread above for one reason, that is women can't be as sure of getting physical pleasure from a random encounter as men can (explained more in the other comment). Another reason is that how attractive a man is doesn't tell a woman if he's safe–women have to worry about the possibility of assault or rape a lot more than men do, because it happens a lot more often to women.
I'm sorry you think this is unfair, but many women feel it's unfair that they have trouble having orgasms even having sex with guys they are really attractive to, and that they have to worry about their physical safety while looking for fun consensual sex. In some ways, women have it easier, but in other ways, men do.
One thing I keep coming back to whenever the "safety" thing is brought up:Women do flock to obviously dangerous men like moths to flame, though. "Bad boys" obviously are not offering safety, so it alomst seems like safety is only important when she's not strongly attracted to you.
Women don't flock to "obviously dangerous" men. There's a difference between a guy who's a "bad boy" and hard to get a commitment from, who might jerk you around or make you feel bad emotionally over time (and even there, only some women are attracted to that type) and a guy who's going to assault or rape you. Not all women are totally concerned about their emotional "safety" when interacting with men; some enjoy the thrill of not knowing what to expect. But very few women will keep interacting with a guy who talks or acts in a way that makes them feel physically threatened. And they can't know if a guy's going to make them feel physically threatened if he won't even have a conversation before expecting sex to happen (in fact, a guy expecting someone to have sex with him before they've exchanged more than a few words in itself can come off as physically threatening).
But why on earth would this man and woman be hanging out in the first place, if the only reason they might want to spend time with each other would be to have sex?
From what you've posted, your approach to sex is: Step 1 – See attractive person, Step 2 – Be aroused, Step 3 – Want sex. For myself, there is a step in there that is missing, and it comes between being aroused and wanting sex. I want to actually know the person before I want to have sex with them. I'm not going to want to have sex with every random pair of nice boobs that walks by for two reasons: 1) Women are more than their physical features. It's simply not enough for me to find someone attractive because there is a brain there, and if that brain does things I don't like/find attractive, the rest of the body, no matter what it looks like, isn't going to make up for it. 2) There are a lot of nice boobs, so I think if I had that attitude, I'd find myself in your situation.
I truly believe that once you do experience sex, you'll realize that it isn't just about physical beauty. If you're serious about wanting to please your partner, how are you going to know what she wants if you can't communicate with her? I think it's great that you do want to please your partner, but you really have to ask yourself that question.
Also, I don't think there is anything saying that a prostitute can't enjoy herself/himself. But I don't disagree with your first point at all; from your other comments, it didn't seem like that would be your top concern.
Oh, also, the fact you are missing the step about wanting to know a person is why people would accuse you of being misogynistic. Seeing women as a pair of boobs with a warm place for your vagina kinda goes against the whole egalitarian view point. And even if you're not actually seeing women that way, it is 100% how your comments make me feel.
why does it go against an egalitarian point of view?
i know tons of women who are friends with guys because they have some kind of quality they like… i know tons of women who date guys for money… i know tons of guys who are friends with other guys because it brings them financial opportunities…..
are you going to say that everyone in this world but me are making 100% altruistic friendship bonds?
what about how women are attracted to the dark triad behaviors of men?? or powerful men?? or bad boys..
im pretty sure that everyone here has made friends with someone or have wanted to be with someone in one way or another simply because of whatever quality they bring to their life….
so i dont understand how you can say that im misogynist just because i happen to want to have physical sex with every woman i find physically attractive…
its in the nature of most men! why else would prostitution be so widespread?
The egalitarian point of view would be viewing everyone as equals. You view attractive women as an object that arouses you. That is how it goes against said viewpoint.
I guess you're trying to equate your desire to solely have sex with attractive women with people being friends with other people because of a certain quality they bring to the first person's life. Well, those things aren't equal, because sex isn't equal to friendship. It's seriously different.
You're misogynist because no matter how many times you say you are, you're ultimately not concerned with how women feel. You want to have sex because you are horny. Your words (aside from the post below) haven't expressed that you're interested in helping the woman have a good time along with you. You also aren't attaching any kind of significance to individual women when you find them attractive. You want to have sex with all attractive women. All women in said group are interchangeable. Maybe you want to have sex with some more than others because you find them more attractive, but the ONLY quality important to you is their physical attributes. You're reducing a (possibly very large?) group of women to one single thing. On top of that, once those women are in that group for you, everything else about them, like their personality, hobbies, interests, concerns, etc, is secondary to you. Your primary concern is to have sex.
I don't want anyone to look at me and be concerned with only one aspect of my being. I am a complete human, and wish to be judged as such. That is how you're misogynistic. You are judging these women on one aspect. That's not fair to them, and, though you seem to disagree, it's not fair to you.
so… people making friends for selfish purposes somehow make them better human beings than i am for wanting to have sex with attractive women on the basis of being physically attractive…?!
does not compute…..
being misogynist means that you hate women.. i dont hate women… but do i want to have sex with the hot ones when i see them? yes… and i still dont think thats wrong..
as for giving the women pleasure in return, i fail to see how this would be a problem… once youre in bed with someone you want that person to enjoy themselves.. so you talk to them and make sure they get what they want too… whats the problem??
so yes, when i see a hot woman, i want to have sex with her.. i see her slender body, arched back, high heels, voluptuous thighs.. and i want nothing more but to have her in bed…
does she have feelings and emotions? yes.
do i care that she does not come under harm? yes.
am i interested in her personality before ive had sex with her? no.
does this mean i hate her?
HELL NO!!!!!
so stop calling me a misogynist. you apparently dont know what the word means…
I said the things aren't equal. I didn't say anyone was better or worse.
Read the first two sentences in this article. Specifically the last part of the second sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
well i disagree with feminist theory that sexual objectification has anything to do with misogyny because if that was the case then sexual objectification would make women misandrist as well….
i mean come on… we all objectify each other in one way or another… thats what we do as ego-driven human beings.. we want to get off whether its sexually, socially or financially, and we wont hesitate to use others if we see that they can help us get there…
its part of human nature to see how others could benefit you in helping your needs be met.
I would not want to live with your view on the world. Because the way you described things, just there? That's sounds fucking awful. I don't deny that some/many people are like that. But I know other people exist who don't subscribe to that thought, so I search them out and spend my time with them. And, really, it's not that hard to find them. If you stop being so concerned with physical attributes, I imagine it will be a lot easier to find other people who aren't concerned with them either.
Also, I have no answer to your disagreement that sexual objectification isn't misogynistic. I'm gonna say it again: once you have deemed a woman sexually attractive, all other aspects of her person are not important to you. You want to have sex with her, no matter what else. Do you just disagree that that could be unfair to the woman? Do you think women want to be sexually objectified?
what is unfair? that her sexual value has a high appeal? how is that any worse than someone being valued for their intelligence, or any other attribute or quality…
now whats really unfair, is that some people get to enjoy these benefits while others dont. thats unfair.
this is exactly why im saying that human beings are inherently egocentric.. we kiss up to people who we believe has high value to us.. be it people with leadership qualities, money, power or social influence.. thats how we work, whether we like to admit it or not, and im very, very certain that every person who has ever commented here is guilty of this in one way or another.
You care about sexual appeal, and nothing else is important. That is unfair. It would be just as bad if someone cared about intelligence while not caring about anything else. That can be just as harmful. Isolating one aspect of a complete person and removing the rest is not a good way for society, and the individuals inside of it, to operate.
What benefits do some people enjoy? Good looks? Sure, it sucks that some people are conventionally attractive and others are conventionally unattractive. You want to know what fixes that? NOT measuring people solely based upon their looks.
In general, yes, people do interact with those who have high value (for the many definitions of value). That doesn't mean that things need to be a one way street. And it definitely doesn't mean that anyone needs to kiss up to anyone. At times in my life, yes, I have been guilty of giving too much attention/leeway/whatever to someone whom I placed value upon. But I don't do that now. I actively make an effort to not do that, actually. You don't have to live like that, either. You can break away from your ideas.
Frankly, though, my suggestions that you change at all have fallen completely on deaf ears (blind eyes). I don't know why you're so resistant to change. You came here expressing difficulty at achieving what you want (to have sex). So many different methods to achieve that have been offered to you, along with many questions asked of you, some hatred thrown upon you, and even a little concern given.
Why are none of the answers satisfactory to you? Is there any answer that is satisfactory to you? If you really want a change to happen, it is a hell of a lot easier to change yourself than it is to demand society change for you.
"now whats really unfair, is that some people get to enjoy these benefits while others dont. thats unfair."
That has to be one of the most horrific, scary-ass things I've read on here. Dude, you are seriously messed up.
This is not a universal way of seeing the world or interacting with the world. Moreover, the general anger you are casting about in this thread shows you are not in a good emotional space. I think you really should seek out therapy to work through your issues with not only women, but also your views of men and society in general. I think with some good therapy, you might be able to be a happier person.
well its sweet of you to care.
I am very sincere in this matter. I am worried about you and your future tenter personal relations. You seem to be in pain, and frustrated with women and life. I don't want you to either turn to the dark side and hurt women in your increasing frustration (which often happens to all genders) or get yourself involved with a dangerous woman sho messes you up badly because you can't read signs. I hope you talk to someone, because I'd hate to see you go down a really bad road.
and by the way the picture of the woman pretending to be a table…. eh.. lets just say it made things worse for me… ;p
i dont understand why everyone is making the assumption that i wont be interested in making any kind of verbal communication whatsoever just because im not interested in a hot womans personality.
so to answer your question about how im going to know what she wants? well, i simply ask her.
and again… im not making sex out to be something magical.. im sure it will feel no different from what ive already experienced with the added bonus of perhaps some sounds and smells… but that still doesnt change that my brain wants me to impregnate a woman and not the palm of my hand..
This is a self fulfilling prophecy, you know. If you view flirting as an ordeal that one must pass through in order to achieve the sex, of course it's going to be hard to enjoy it. But use your imagination a little. I have a hard time believing you can't imagine yourself enjoying any interactions with the majority of women that don't involve a penis hitting a vagina. Generally speaking, if you're joking around with a cute woman, touching her, flirting with her, you're having fun. Your brain is wired to enjoy this sort of interaction just as much as it is hardwired to enjoy getting off.
I get that attractive women can be intimidating, and it can be incredibly frustrating to be regularly attracted to people who you just can't seem to build chemistry with. Believe me, that's that story of my life. Being uncomfortable and out of your element makes it a lot harder to enjoy these things, and I expect feeling the need to SLEEP WITH THIS PERSON doesn't help much. But the trick is to just cool it and make it your goal to enjoy the moment with a girl, rather than viewing it as a "sex or nothing" bargain.
You do realize that not all men are heterosexual, right? So not all men are "hardwired" to want to have sex with women.
Also, perhaps you don't realize this, but you can have sex with someone and also have an emotional connection. Crazy, I know! I just hope you grow up some before some poor woman has to suffer through a bad sexual encounter with you. How do I know it will be bad? Because you do not respect women as human. You are completely self-centered. You seem to have no empathy or ability to pay attention to people beside yourself. That is a bunch of indications you well not be good in bed.
Uh… I know it's fun to insult people on the internet, but do you really think this is helpful? Phalanxformation may not be a model feminist, but that's true for most people.
Interacting with women can be understandably difficult and frustrating, especially if you're a guy who primarily hangs out with guys, and doubly so if they're of the "get in, get out, get off" school of thought when it comes to women.
Lots of people here have been trying to say helpful things to him, including DNL. Links to other articles, advice on how to work on his problem (therapy, meditation, etc). He doesn't care at all. He dismisses it all, continuously refusing to acknowledge half the human population as human.
To be honest, for the madness to go for this long, I suspect he may be doing all of this on purpose (trolling). If not, if he's truly like this…that's simply pathetic.
im not trolling.
and its pretty arrogant to say "weve given him good advice".. who says your advice is always relevant or correct.. or that youre not missing something that ive already explained before?
if youd care to look around, ive actually responded to some advice with a "thanks ill do that", and to others with counter arguments… nobody is 100% correct all of the time, including you…
true, true, you may have responded that way… but the reason so many people keep at you on certain points is that they're probably the biggest ones holding you back -"where the greater malady is fixed, the lesser is scarce felt" and all that. And you're digging in your heels, so people are getting ticked – the girls for being painted as a shallow and flighty non-understandable other species and the guys for also being painted as shallow, unemotional and perma-horny.
I'm not trying to insult him, I'm trying to warn him. If he doesn't care about women at all, besides just wanting to have sex with them. If he finds nothing about women interesting. If he sees them as a separate species that he could just never understand. If he can think about nothing else but his own libido when in the presence of his flaring libido, then he is not going to be good in bed. All of those things are a recipe for someone who may get themselves off, but who will be a disaster for their partner…which, if that gets around, will negatively impact his ability to have casual sex…because why would any woman want to have casual sex with someone who isn't going to give them pleasure?
And you can't give women pleasure if you can't be attentive to what is going on with them. Good sex, good sex for both partners, is a conversation. And sometimes the conversation is often very subtle. Sometimes your partner will tell you everything you should be doing and when to do it, but my experience is that a large amount of the time you need to have a lot of sensitivity and emotional awareness…to notice a subtle quickness of breath, to get a sense of when you should change up your rhythm…when you should definitely keep doing exactly what you are doing right now, when you should tease, when deliver.
Mind-blowing good sex is not something that happens when you have sex at some woman. If you only think "get in, get out, get off" then the quality of sex is going to be limited, and it will generally just be bad for the woman in question.
Since sex is a form of conversation, a form of dance…phalanxformation's inability to empathize with women is going to be a real disadvantage for him and any sexual partner he gets.
We have tried to explain why his mind set is not going to work for him he doesn't care about changing it and denies that it even is changeable…which means the biggest concern I have now is the women he might have sex with.
And I have to say, his complete objectification of and inability to understand communication from women makes me very nervous…because that can lead to sexual assault very easily. Elsewhere on this thread he said he'd never rape a woman, that he isn't a monster…and I believe that he believes that he'd never intentionally assault a woman. But, assault or traumatization doesn't only come in the form of someone violently attacking a woman who is yelling no. Some women freeze up…and people who have no emotional connection and "can't understand" women can very easily miss when women freeze up and are trying to communicate non-verbally that they are not consenting, or that a boundary has been crossed.
This guy is in an unhealthy mental space and we are trying to help him, but he refuses to recognize that this mindset he has is not "biologically programmed" to be this way.
i never downplayed the importance of an emotional connection.. but i think guys tend to separate sex from emotions…
i mean why else would there be so much prostitution catering to men? why else do guys travel to third world countries and exploit cheap prostitutes for sex?
its a physical thing
No it is both a physical and emotional thing… A guy gets physical need of sex and then gets the emotional need that yes he feels like a man and has self worth etc.
Just becasuse there is no deep emotional connection between the two people does not mean there is no emotional response on the individual level.
Why is there so much prostitution catered towards men rather than women? This is a complex question that has a lot of components. One reason why women didn't historically have lots of prostititutesis because historically most women did have their own income, they were the property of their fathers or husbands. Women with lots of their own money in the past (mostly nobility) did indeed have a history of picking up gigolos. The lack of reliable and available birth control also reduced women's ability to use male prostitutes safely without negative consequences.
But at the turn of the century, it was all the rage for women to go to doctors, and pay them money, to use newly invented vibrators to help them get physical release and treat them for "hysteria." So women do also have physical sexual needs.
But, I have to say that many men go to prostitutes not for "physical release." There are many reasons why men go or have gone to prostitutes. Sometimes they go because they want to feel power and ownership over women. Sometimes they go to prostitutes because they have some virgin-whore complex going on whereby they don't want to have sex with their wife because that would sully their wife if their eyes, so they want to have sex, which they see as shameful, with someone they don't respect. Some people go to prostitutes because they are ashamed of thier own sexuality.
And you would be surprised how many men go to prostitutes for an emotional connection rather than a physical one. If you read the writings of prostitutes (not sex slaves) they often discuss how many men come to them and just want to be held and comforted, how many men go to prostititutes to express a vulnerability that they think would make their wifely friends think they were weak if they expressed it openly. A lot of prostitutes end up functioning very often like therapists for men who feel like seeing an actual therapist is weakness.
And you have no idea how often it is that the guy gets an emotional connection to the sex worker or customer service woman…it is so often, it is a cliche. All those guys who want to buy the prostitute out of service so he can save and marry her. All of the guys I've known who've fallen for the Hooters waitress or stripper, who think they have some deep emotional connection…when the woman is just being paid to be nice to you.
Men crave intimacy just as much as women do.
Women want to have sex just as much as men do.
We just happen to currently live in a society that shames men for expressing feelings and shames women for expressing sexual desires.
But it isn't biological programming. And you can fight against the limiting stereotypes that are unhealthy for men and women…but you have to want to. And it doesn't look like you do…which brings up the question, why are you here? Because Dr. Nerdlove is all about getting nerds to get love by making themselves better and more emancipated people. You don't seem to want to emancipate yourself.
Um, the same way that I manage to hold myself back when I talk to sexy men and women? Hell, I'm married, not dead, plus I am bi. Bisexual people do it. Lesbians manage to do it. I just don't buy this bullshit Boner Werewolf thing (certain) het men try to sell me on.
Reference: http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-myth-o…
And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying that WANTING to have sex is bad. Sometimes I want to have sex too, but I manage to keep those thoughts to myself and act normal in social situations. But to let it effect your behavior where it's now impossible to talk to your preferred gender and you're getting anxiety and crossing boundaries or totally frozen up maybe you creep them out and you are just. so. desperate!
This whole idea of yours that you can't think about anything besides sex while talking to a beautiful woman is a) not universally true and b) not safe. You need to work on getting control of this.
The idea that this is biological or natural for men to be so sex-focused that rational thought is gone is a social construction…not truth. At the turn of the century medical people and society believed that real manliness was about being in control of one's sex drive and emotions. That men were fundamentally rational beings who weren't emotional and the healthy man would easily be able to suppress the sex drive–and indeed should do so. What you think of as impossible was a standard expectation for (middle class) men in the 1910s.
I'm going to talk about when I was 18-24. I had a lot of sex, all the time. This was easy because I was in the Army and that was normalized behavior. Yet I was always in control of myself and my desires and behavior. As were most of by peer group. Because we had to be.
When I was in the Army I was engaging in what were perceived as same-sex relationships…many of my buddies were gay men and lesbians. If we hit on the wrong people, we could be murdered or put in jail. Whenever I came across someone attractive I had to figure out that person's personality and stability and sexuality before I could even begin to start concentrating on sex. If that person did not share my sexuality? No go. If that person would be up for sex with me…but might have jealousy or stability issues, I needed to know so that I did not engage…I knew too many people who ended up put in prison because a spurned lover told their company commander they were queer. I had to try and figure out if that person were an undercover cop trying to trick me into revealing my sexuality so I could be arrested. And you know what? We all were able to do that, despite our strong sex drives. Even after I left the Army and didn't have to worry about death or jail with every sexual or romantic encounter, I still payed attention to details. Why? If all you are thinking is "I want to sleep with this woman no matter what the cost" you are at risk for:
-sexually transmitted diseases–because you aren't interested in finding out about history sexual or otherwise
-getting someone or getting yourself pregnant–if you are engaging in act where that is possible
-having a one-night stand with someone who turns out to be an obsessive stalker
-having a one-night stand with someone who turns out to be married and with a violent, jealous partner
-having a one-night stand with someone who is actually just a criminal who is going to roll you and take your wallet.
I mean, you need to be able to keep thinking even when attracted to someone or you are opening yourself up to some real danger/bad time. And I'm going to tell you something…most of the guys I know are able to do that. Some *choose* not to, but they are young (early 20s), privileged, and have no sense of mortality, consequences, or even what good sex actually is.
Here's a tip, the sort of "my sex drive above all" focus you've got going on is selfish and privileged, and is going to telegraph that you are not a good person to have sex with, let alone date. Back in my prime, I was very much in demand because I got a reputation for being really good at sex. This is because I thought about things other than my own sex drive, because I was interested in my partner. I had lots of options because I can pay attention…and you know what I learned though all that sex? There are a lot of "hot" people who are not good in bed and not worth my time. The goal is not to have any sort of sex, the goal is to have great and satisfying sex for all involved, and to achieve good sex with someone, you have to be able to think about more than just "sex! boobs! pecs!" And good sex takes effort and concentration; if I'm going to be spending all night having sexy time with someone, I want to make sure we have really good chemistry, that the experience is going to be a good one. And that involves using the head on top of your shoulders.
This whole "I can't think about anything but sex if I can see a woman's legs" is broadcasting a) you are a potential victim or predator, b) you probably wouldn't be good in bed so why have sex with you? Are you a thinking person or someone who is a victim of your own libido…and therefore who can be taken advantage of by any predator in a short skirt (or whatever it is you find hot)? If you really are a mindless sex beast, get some help, because you are in danger for a lot of potential badness beyond just bad sex.
i dont agree with the risks you are presenting. stds? use a condom. pregnancy? use a condom. the woman is an obsessive stalker? report her to the authorities. someone has a jealous partner? i can defend myself. and i will again report him to the authorities. if the woman is a criminal out to get my wallet? well… i can always buy a new one. ;p
im not about to stop enjoying life and worry about possible risks in doing something that is completely natural.. and having sex with a stranger is natural in my opinion…
regarding your mention of the cultural influences of sex drives.. well… i read somewhere that studies have shown that societies that forbid premarital sex have more crime and violence and that there have been correlations between lack of sex and aggressive behavior and lack of empathy…. so im not so sure that what you are describing is very natural…
i also read a study stating that most women would not enjoy being propositioned for sex by a man as it would be deemed an unattractive trait in a male, while males had the complete opposite opinion at the prospect of being propositioned by a woman…
also, the constant talk of women who complain that men only want to get in their pants… or the constant urging of guys to not just think with their penis but also try to get to know the woman…
to me, everything points to men wanting pure physical sex, where an emotional connection is a welcome bonus..
You did not read my post very carefully. You described not being able to think about anything but sex when talking to someone you find attractive…so much so that you can't get to know someone. If you loose all reason when talking to someone then that means you lose all ability to find out if the person you are talking to is dangerous. And you know what? Lots of guys still have that ability. If you don't have that ability, you need to cultivate it.
If you have no ability to think with your mind when talking to a hot person, then you probably aren't even thinking about condoms…because you can think of nothing but sex…and since you are so big on "biological programming"–condoms aren't natrual…so you are cruising towards all sorts of badness with your inaccurate claims that no man can have anything in his brain other than sex any time he's in the proximity of a hot person.
Next. Can you site your studies?
Next again, there is currently the idea that men only want to gets in women's pants and women only want emotional connections…but those are a) stereotypes, b) social constructs, c) have not been universal over time and place.
What you think of as natural has not always been thought of that way. Because it isn't natural, it is a construct. It is also self-indulgent and immature.
Here is a quote illustrating this by scholar Jason Crouthamel in his article, Crouthamel, Jason. “Male Sexuality and Psychological Trauma: Soldiers and Sexual Disorder in World War I and Weimar Germany.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 17, no. 1 (January 2008).
"Before the war [World War 1] Germany's middle class asserted a carefully defined notion of the male sexual ideal. The bourgeois male was imagined to be a pillar of rational sexual order who resisted the temptations of "irrational" instincts. The male body, it was believed, was under control of the brain and reason rather than the sexual organs and passions, which dominated in women and were responsible for feminine hysteria. Male sexuality was idealized as rational and orderly, characterized by a strong will that maintained sexual restraint. In a larger Victorian context the middle-class imagination cherished an image of stoic emotional self-control in which men could not only resist sexual temptation but also restrain themselves from complaining about or even reflecting on personal needs. Through restraint and self-control men could protect themselves from the irrational and "feminine" passions that threatened to erode their natural selves." (64-65)
You talk to women like you talk to anyone else. We're just people, not a separate species.
i dont think thats true. women seem to talk in a completely different style. when i talk to guys, its very topic-oriented and factual, like when discussing politics, martial arts or a funny tv show. but when i talk to women, they just say stuff that seems to come out of nowhere, jumping really fast from conversation to conversation and even saying stuff that feels completely arbitrary and out of line with the topic. their talking style is so different and i dont know how to do that. i cant talk to women at all.
Maybe you're just not talking to women whose interests and personalities align well with yours? I don't find talking to my male acquaintances and friends noticeably different from talking to my female acquaintances and friends–there's a lot more variation within each gender than there is on comparing each gender as a whole to each other, in my experience. I've talked about politics, martial arts (I'm learning kung fu), and TV shows with people of both genders, no problem, no real differences.
But I'm mostly talking to people in situations focused on my interests–I go to writer meet-ups, conventions, my kung fu classes, etc.–and so we always have a lot of common ground to discuss. If you're having trouble with conversations in general, it might be easier if instead of trying to meet random women in bars/coffee shops/wherever, you go to social events around your interests and chat people up there.
I've seen those two conversational styles depending on personality type and sometimes subject matter (people discussing serious topics tend to focus a bit more, while people who are making small talk or discussing personal experiences may jump around a bit).
Like Mel, said, you might want to see if you have the same observation when you're talking with women who have the same topical interests as you do – or if that's not a reasonable possibility, think of conversations with female coworkers or classmates. I'd also suggest that even if you still see those differences (I don't, but your acquaintences might be different than mine), you should still think of talking to women as talking to people, even if those people have a slightly different conversational style than you do.
well i cant just go after a hypothetical soulmate. i need to be able to get along with women in general, like coworkers, friends of friends and so on. otherwise im never going to meet any women at all.
as for social skills, i dont have trouble with people in general, only with women. i just think the talking style of most women is so different, whereas the discussion style of men is more focused around a specific topic where everyone takes turns adding facts, jokes or opinions.
example:
me: do they even make family guy episodes anymore?
guy 2: i dont know. i heard the creator is making a movie now or something.
guy 3: yeah, he's doing the voicing too. you can kind of discern a peter griffin when you hear it.
with women its more like:
me: so what are you doing this weekend?
girl 1: my boyfriend's coming home from a long trip, so we're just.. you know?
girl 2: yeah. mine's been home for a week, but he hasn't gotten any sleep. we've got a little guest in our house who's been making a lot of noise.
girl 3: well my cousin recently got a dog, but they had to put it down because it wasn't showing a healthy behavior, whatever that means.
girl 4: awww, thats so sad.
and so on.
i can't even follow these conversations because to me, they feel completely arbitrary, and on top of that they're going at 5000mph so i don't even have a chance to generate an appropriate response to the first statement before five more girls have strayed too far off from what i wanted to respond to.
i just feel like i have nothing at all to say to women because i can't even follow what they're saying…
I'd definitely agree that you should practice talking to all different kinds of people. I just don't think you should rely too much on rigid stereotypes. People vary a great deal and you will meet women who talk like you do. I also don't think that you should make someone who has a different style too much of an other – it can also be very different to talk to, say, a very elderly person or to a person who only has a limited knowledge of your native language. That doesn't mean there aren't some common things you can do to succeed in all of those conversations.
I'll get to your examples in a second.
i AM practicing talking to all different kinds of people. thats what im saying. im talking to poeple all the time, and what i find is that when i talk to women, i cant seem to communicate with them because they have a different style of talking…
From the example you describe below, it sounds like you're thinking of large, all-female groups. That's not the only way women communicate – if I decided to form an opinion of how men speak based on how large groups of them talk, I'd assume none of you guys were comprehensible either!
I think you might find some more commonalities if you focused on talking to one or two women at a time, or watched how women talked in mixed gender groups. Focusing on how we seem like a different species might be tempting, but it isn't going to be very helpful.
im just giving you my account of the women i meet and try to talk to. im not trying to make women out to be this or that.
besides, how am i supposed to talk to women one on one? theyre always in groups…
I've talked about handling groups before <a href="http://:http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/08/group-dynamics/:http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/08/group-dynamics/<br />They're not nearly as intimidating as you think; in fact, once you get used to it, they're no big deal.
Well, all I can say is I've had tons of conversations like your first one with fellow women. And I don't think there's anything wrong with sharing only occasional polite small talk with women you don't have much in common with, and saving the more in-depth conversations for women who share your interests. (I do this too! I rarely get into extended conversations with my co-workers at my day job–male and female–because we have so little in common other than the workplace.) It's not about only looking for a soul mate. It's just choosing to socialize with people you have things in common with.
And really, your two examples *are* more about topic than talking style. There are lots of women out there who'd be happy to talk about Family Guy.
the second example isnt very topic-oriented. theyre jumping around making random statements at a very high speed with very vague connections between each statement. its very hard to follow, and i dont understand how im supposed to communicate with them.
its the same thing when talking to girls in a bar, or in a circle of friends, or at work. theyre talking at 2000mph about random things and i dont understand where its all coming from.
I don't think that's what was going on. In the first example, everyone was ok talking about Family Guy. In the second, no one but you really seemed that interested in talking about weekends, the second two girls wanted to complain about their boyfriends' busy work and travel schedules (or were maybe just going out of their way to announce they had boyfriends), and the third girl seemed to be trying to change the subject to something more neutral.
That would be a good cue to say something amusing about dogs. Maybe the conversation (if this is an example based on life) would stay there.
that's not how the conversation happened. the lines i gave you were just the beginning. they kept going like this, at high speed, just making random statements with vague connections. everybody was very much into it.
and again, its not just this one instance, i find that this is how conversations always tend to be when there are groups of women that i have to interact with…
All I can say is that this isn't some sort of genetic female trait. There are women who talk in other ways. We're not a different species. I promise.
If every group of women you do meet is like that, you may want to either try to meet women in a wider variety of places (even if you want practice talking to everyone, there's no reason you can't both explore the bar scene and some other venue) or try taking a more forceful role in the conversation and setting the subject matter yourself.
i dont understand why nobody can give me help and everyone just says there are no differences between guys and girls. of course there are differences… i think men and women behave very differently!
It seems that most people here disagree with you. (And, yes, I still do. Haven't you had female friends, classmates, coworkers or teachers who could talk in an understandable fashion?)
That being said, you've gotten several suggestions on how to deal with the problem: DNL linked to his post on how to talk to groups, multiple people have suggested looking for different types of women to talk to or trying to meet women in different places, another commenter suggested that you figure out if someone is talking about ideas or emotions and react accordingly.
yes it seems everyone disagrees. i think its weird because if women talked in the same way as guys did, then i would have no issue talking to them. thats all i can say…
and as for the suggestions…. the group talk thing? its even crazier than this article… again, i dont understand how im supposed to walk up to a group of girls in a bar and start entertaining them, making up jokes on the spot, finding out how everyone knows each other and then turning the convo around to the person im interested in, getting them all to like me, telling some story…. its crazy! theres no way to possibly do all of this, all the while processing all the new information and planning the next step and coming up with things to say to keep the conversation going forward. sensory overload!!!
as for meeting women in different places? im meeting women everywhere.. thats what ive been doing all along.
also, i dont understand the ideas and emotions thing. if someone could elaborate then that would be great.
I'm a little curious: do you often meet new men, or are you talking about starting conversations with guys who are your friends, classmates, or coworkers?
As for meeting women, could you give some more details about which places you're mostly meeting them? I think I might have some suggestions for places where people are likely to be interested in talking about particular topics for a sustained period of time, or where you're likely to meet women who aren't in big groups.
Anonymoose would be best on that last bit, since it was his point. And I do think you're being a bit defeatist about DNL's suggestions. Things might be challenging, but that doesn't mean they're impossible.
hm well i meet as many men as i meet women i think. the places i tend to meet women in would be school, bars, work, through friends and through my taekwondo class. so really it should be quite a mixed batch.
also… i appreciate suggestions on places to meet the kind of women you described, but the way i see it it wouldnt solve the problem. it would just take me away from the general population and place me in some niched subcommunity containing a very narrow kind of woman… so really the problem would still be there.. except it would be hidden away..
Just as a thought: I'm not saying you should put yourself in some strange niche community. I'm suggesting taking some opportunities to talk with women in a way that seems less confusing or intimidating. The women you talk to in Group for the Advancement of Whatever Hobby You Enjoy don't have to be girlfriends or sex partners. They might just be practice getting comfortable with communicating with women.
Do you not have the opportunity to talk to women one-on-one (or in mixed gender groups) at taekwondo or work? Again, I'm not saying in a romantic or sexual way, just as an opportunity to get to know more women and become more comfortable with them.
the thing is that i do try to talk to women everywhere (i try to treat everyone equally and approach them in the same way really) but i find that women are either very reserved, inhibited and not really as fun, outgoing or buddy-buddy as guys tend to be, OR they ARE outgoing, but everything they say is completely arbitrary and random.
like for example, this one time i was out at a bar with a couple of guy friends. conversation was great, we had lots of fun, then one of the guys got a call from a group of female friends of his who came over to meet us…
as soon as the women came and integrated with our group, i couldnt even follow the conversation anymore!!! they just started blabbering and blabbering in the weirdest manner ive ever heard. nothing made any sense, everything they said seemed completely arbitrary and random, and it was impossible for me to participate in ANY way.
and worst of all, the complete disregard they showed by just plowing on with their conversation and not paying any attention to anyone but themselves and their blabbering!!!!
its so annoying and makes me think im never gonna be able to figure girls out…..
so yes as you can see regardless of context i have a problem talking to women. its just.. different.
id say that the biggest difference between men and women as i personally perceive it, is that men are very calm, linear, friendly and inclusive. you never feel left out. but with women, they are either very reserved (not friendly or inclusive) or they are friendly, but very arbitrary and non-linear in their conversation. its a mess!
Has it occurred to you that maybe your problem with understanding women is not because the women are harder to understand than men, but because as you've indicated in another thread, you can't manage to think about anything other than sex while talking to them? Constantly thinking "I must sleep with this person" is going to make listening to them and following their line of conversation rather difficult.
well im not really turning the sex thing into an issue because i assume that if i can understand how to talk to women then sex will come naturally.
No, it won't. Most women will still pick up on if you're only pretending to be interested in the conversation and actually only see them as a sexual object, and be extremely turned off by it.
well im not sexually attracted to all women. i mean more in a general sense that if i learn to talk to all women, then opportunities for sex will probably come along in some way sooner or later, because id be interacting with a lot more women in general.
I don't understand what you mean. If the entire time you're talking to a woman, your brain is shouting about sex (as you indicated earlier), then it's already an issue. The problem is not that you need to understand how to talk to women to get sex; the problem is that you're so preoccupied with sex, it's stopping you from being able to talk properly with women.
Anyone will have trouble following conversations and thinking of engaging things to say if they're completely distracted by something else.
sorry i just realized i did not clarify.
i separate the sex thing from the communication thing because the communication issue includes women im not sexually attracted to.
so i figure that solving the communication issue is top priority, and getting laid is the second one. ;p
Okay, that makes sense, although I still don't think all women communicate in some very strange and different way than men.
Going back to your original example, have you tried to talk to women about specific things you like, like a TV show or whatever? If you talk to a woman who watches Family Guy about Family Guy, how is the way she talks about it different from the way the guys in your example talk about it?
yes actually i have done this, but most women i talk to are mostly into girly stuff like fashion blog, girly tv shows, girly books like twilight or 50 shades of grey, reality shows, reading gossip or cosmo, and of course getting dressed on a friday night and going out dancing.
i used to be under the impression that i only met the "wrong" girls and needed to talk to other kinds of girls… so i started going out of my way to meet more diverse women such as highly educated ones or blue collar working women, but even they didnt really seem much different (save for one or two girls i met.. but what are the odds that id fall in love with someone from such a small sample group…)
the only women ive met who have had cool interests have been over 50… and i feel it wouldnt be fair to my kids if their mom couldnt attend graduation because she was at the elderly home…. LOL. ;P
so…. i guess its a problem divided into two parts… first its the talking style of women… and second its the interests and hobbies of most girls i come across..
in both of those cases i cant seem to relate.
also these are MY experiences. im not making any claims about how certain groups of people are…. so lets not get into a long discussion about that..
Well, you obviously still aren't talking to a diverse enough group of women. I know many women who are into video games, comic books, sports, science fiction, and all sorts of other traditionally "male" interests, many of whom never look at fashion blogs or read gossip mags or watch reality TV. If you haven't been able to find women with any interests other than the ones you listed, then either you live in a very homogenous area with a small population, so there just isn't much variety nearby, or you haven't been looking that hard.
I don't know what exactly you would want to talk to women about, but I doubt your interests are so obscure you can't find women who share them. Into literary fiction? Join a mixed-gender book club or take a literary theory course. Into genre stories like SF or mysteries? Go to the conventions around those topics. Into comedy? Go to stand-up comedy and improv shows. etc. There will be girls around, and especially if they're there without a boyfriend or husband, they'll be there because they are actually interested.
I think you'll find that a lot of your communication problems with women are not because of them being women but because of them having interests that you don't understand or care about which are making up the bulk of their conversation. When you run into a female Family Guy fan, I assure you, she could have the exact same conversation with you as the example you used with your guy friends.
I'm with Mel – if the only women you're coming across all like the same exact *girly* things then you need to expand your horizons a little more. Honestly I'm having trouble seeing how the majority of women you meet can all like the same thing – in just the small cross-section that is my workplace there's only about 5 women who are into the things you've listed above, out of 24 women who range in age from 20-35.
Also, I bet a lot of those women who like those girly things like other things as well, and in some cases the reasons that they like those things might things you could actually related to, not just for stereotypical girly reasons that only girls could ever understand – you can read fashion blogs b/c you have no fashion sense and need to learn how to dress professionally for your new job, b/c you're an artist and need to keep your illustrations current, b/c you like analysing the way broad social trends express themselves through fashion, etc…
Personally, I didn't enjoy Twilight, but since I'm interested in kids' lit and fantasy, I might enjoy talking about it b/c I'm interested in what its popularity means for book trends, how it connects with its literary forebears, or why questionable pop culture aimed at teenage girls is treated with greater derision than questionable stuff aimed at other people.
The key words there are "I think". You're asking us to help you decipher the strange communication style of all womenkind, when most of us don't actually think women do communicate so differently from men (and certainly not all women communicate the same way, all the time). How can we help you fix a problem that we don't even see? None of us has a magical formula that will allow you to immediately understand these conversations you say you can't.
As Eselle said, several of us have given you suggestions for how to have more satisfying conversations with women. Why don't you try those out and see whether they help or not, before complaining that we're not helping?
Maybe you're just not noticing the connections? The statements you listed above as one you had trouble parsing do have a focus — it's just one that's implied rather than stated directly (difficulty sleeping because of others with whom you share your home (boyfriend, guest, dog)). Women who know each other don't need to spell out the shared context of their conversations. But that's true of men, too. Men who know each other have a lot of implied history that's referenced in their conversations (in-jokes, teasing about something that happened last time they got together).
That said, women tend to be more verbally adept than men. There's a higher societal tolerance for young boys resolving disputes physically than there is for girls (it's changing, but for adult women it was definitely true while we were growing up), which means girls learn to use words both as weapons and for peacemaking earlier than boys, and the parts of the brain used in verbal processing are significantly larger (in some cases almost 25% larger) in women than in men (see, for example: http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/mente/eisntein….
So it's not that those conversational jumps you're referring to are random; it's likely that the connections between them are implied rather than directly stated, as the women engaging in the conversation are likely able to process them more efficiently than the average man is able to. You may have to pay closer attention to notice or infer the connections.
Think of it this way (and yes, these are very broad generalizations, but I'm trying to give you a conceptual framework):
Men's conversation resembles technical writing: everything is spelled out plainly. The conversation takes place in the literal meaning of the stated text.
Women's conversation resembles literature: there is shared context, and the connections between things are intended to be inferred rather than stated directly. The conversation takes place between the lines as well as in what's directly stated.
true as that may be.. i have a hard time seeing how arbitrarily making statements that are only vaguely connected to previous ones can be considered good conversation…. like yes i understand how the girls i was in a convo with made the associations that led them to making the statements they did… but really what am i expected to contribute with when theyre just throwing out random stuff without keeping to a topic?? its not a very good way of making conversation in my humble opinion..
I wouldn't exactly call your opinion 'humble'.
Given how you talk about these women, it's also possible that they can tell how little you think of them and don't really want to engage with you, and they're purposely making their conversation impenetrable to you, talking faster so you don't have much chance to jump in and referencing things that their social circle knows about and you don't. You can't participate in a conversation if the other parties don't want to converse with you, even if they don't want to say that directly.
Hmm. I don't know that this is an entirely fair comparison.
In the guys example you open the conversation with a specific topic, "Family Guy". The other guys are clearly familiar with the show and Seth McFarlane enough to talk about it.
In the girls example you open with a very generic get-the-ball-rolling question "Any plans for the weekend"? That's the kind of question you ask when you don't know enough about the other person to open with a specific topic. The point of a question like that is to create a fast moving conversation until you strike on a topic that everyone can talk about.
Perhaps your problem in talking to men versus talking to women is that you are addressing men with specific questions and women with general questions? Maybe next time, try opening the conversation with your female classmates or friends with something specific, like "I hate to admit this, but I'm really digging Ke$ha's new song. Have you heard it?" or whatever your topic of interest is. And make a mental note if somebody mentions something of interest to you but you don't have a chance to ask her about it at the time; you can use it to start a conversation a few days later.
Lol – "digging Ke$ha's new song".
Well.. we don't know how old the ladies he's around and are talking to are. He can't afford to be too leery of pop music, even if it is terrible. Could make for a good opener as Saraha said.
Love it or hate it, it'll get people talking.
I don't think you've chosen examples that are terribly fair, or very useful in learning how to interact with new people. I'm going to start with a potshot at you guys: at least among my male friends, that Family Guy conversation would include at least a dozen quotes from the show. It's not like men always exchange information in a linear manner.
As for your second example, there are absolutely groups of women who talk like that. But what you're observing is a group of friends who are catching up with each other, and you're hearing several conversations going on at once. Add in that other people's gossip is always hard to understand, and of course it's confusing to an outsider. How do you participate in that? You don't. People who are talking to each other like that aren't looking to meet new people, at least not right then.
If you pay attention to a pair of women talking to each other, or to women who are establishing connections with each other, I think you'll hear much more linear conversations and conversations about topics that a third party could easily chime in about.
Right. The dog might be coming out of nowhere for you, but who knows, maybe they've talked about it before? And there's three of them. Perhaps the 3rd woman sensed a natural break in the flow of the conversation between the first two (skilled people can tell when a conversation thread has run its course) and decided it was a good time to interject her story?
My point is, it's really not as nonsensical as you think.
Oh and I meant to add, sometimes, when you are in a group of intense-type people, you take whatever break you can to get a word in. My whole family is like that, and if you want to tell your story you better TELL it, or the conversation will carry away without you! I'm sure outsiders would be flummoxed at how often and abruptly we switch topics!
You know, I initially read that conversation as being gossip and cross-talk and generally not all that welcoming to a new person. The second time around, it just looks like a group that was trying to find a subject they all wanted to talk about. No one had any interesting weekend plans to share, Girl 1 and Girl 2 started talking about their boyfriends, and then Girl 3 pounced on Girl's 2's dog reference to change the topic to dogs.* So now the conversation is about dogs, which isn't the worst topic for a new guy approaching a group to talk about.
*And who knows why she did that. Maybe she's feeling insecure about being single. Maybe she's just heard enough of her friends complaining about their relationships to last a lifetime. Heck, maybe she's interested in phalanxformation and wanted to steer things back in a more guy-friendly direction.
I think you really have to figure out if you're dealing with an emotional-leaning person or a logical-leaning person, and figure out if the topic of conversation is more "shop-talk" or not. I have a more extroverted male friend who mostly jumps around in conversations like you described the females doing, but get him talking about computer OSes or hardware and it'll turn into shop-talk.
I'm more of a logical-thinking/shop-talk-first person myself, so it's kinda tricky finding much to say when the arbitrary stuff comes up. I find I take too much time thinking about my responses when there really isn't much needed because it's just inoffensive small-talk. Blurt what comes to mind and roll with it.
All I've taken away from your comments is that you hold many sexist beliefs – first bet on why no one wants to sleep with you.
In what context was the second situation? Just coz that to me sounds like something my friends and I do when we're out at a bar trying to catch up and and a guy approaches and tries to butt in on our conversation with a boring, generic question. We'll immediately bring out a line about our "boyfriends" so he gets the hint we're taken/not interested and then start talking really fast and confusingly so that he gets bored and hopefully wanders off to try someone else. It's probably not the nicest way to deal with someone but when you constantly have guys walking up and interrupting your conversation it can make things a little more entertaining.
you sound like an awful person to treat people like that.
Well, no, but thanks for the judgement there. We're not in the slightest bit nasty about it, it's just a good way to make a guy lose interest really fast. When you're in a small group of only women at a bar/club trying to have a conversation it gets incredibly frustrating when guys come and interrupt every ten minutes. It's that sense of entitlement that gets brought up here a lot – we can't continue our conversation with each other because some stranger has decided he wants to interrupt with a generic, uninteresting line. So we acknowledge him but then continue our conversation, but more veiled because we don't know the person who is now listening in on it uninvited. Unless he's got something to contribute that's relevant to the conversation at hand or sounds interesting to us, why should we have to interrupt our conversation to suit him? Especially when it keeps happening every ten minutes?
This happens all the time, in non romantic situations, too. This type of mild social shunning is very normal and common. You may not like being on the receiving end of it, but truthfully, established groups of friends aren't always open to strangers just butting into a full-speed conversation. Someone random just piping in with no precedent is *awkward*.
The way to do it is to sit and listen for a while, non conspicuously. Listen to what they are interested in. If the group breaks up a bit (a couple women go to the bathroom, etc.) you can try to take advantage of the lull and talk to the couple of people remaining. Try to say something relevant to what they had been discussing, ie., "Hey I heard you talking about (movie), my buddies and I saw that last weekend and it was indeed awesome (or terrible!)" If they give a lukewarm response and turn backs to you, well, they aren't interested. But in my experience, most people are pretty friendly if you keep things Not Weird.
And sometimes it's going to take a lot of encounters. If you frequent a bar or nightclub, there are bound to be regulars. A lot of the pick up advice emphasizes getting a woman home TONIGHT NOW. Why not take the pressure off? Next time you see them, say hi and maybe throw in a comment pertinent to your last conversation. Try to remember DETAILS about them, if you have some: "Hey, how'd everything end up going with your brother?" You're making your face memorable AND building a reputation there as a cool, friendly guy. Even if a particular group of women is one you are ultimately not interested in, you may meet their friends! Friends of friends!
Even I, a very awkward nerdy woman, was able to get my face known around the clubs in my town, by men and women both. I don't club anymore, but I still keep contact with a couple people from those days. And it didn't happen all in one night!
Very fine line between being entitled and just butting in, and knowing you have to make an approach in some way if you want to start a possible romantic relationship. The current societal rules suck for everyone.
You have to make an approach in some way, but there's no reason you have to make that approach with a group of women who are clearly already quite engaged in their own conversation. There are tons of ways you can approach women that don't involve interrupting them. Which is why, as Tosca suggests, if you are going to approach a group, it works best if you make it not so much an interruption, but adding to their conversation during a lull or gradually developing familiarity over time.
Would you push your way into a circle of guys you don't know in the middle of their own conversation and expect them to automatically include you?
True, guess I was thinking of a different kind of situation.
pot, kettle, black.
also the situation was one where we were a group of friends mixed with friends of friends.
I'm sorry, but did you just say "….i dont have trouble with people in general, only with women." People in general who aren't women. In other words people who are men. I'm guessing people who are not men might have a hard time talking to someone who doesn't actually regard them as people. But as "not-men"
That has more to do with personality type (I talk to a lot of ADHD guys who can't stay on a subject) than gender.
"i dont think thats true. women seem to talk in a completely different style. when i talk to guys, its very topic-oriented and factual, like when discussing politics, martial arts or a funny tv show. "
Can you give me an example of this? Because, uh, I've never actually seen that. In my experience (which is not to be taken as The Way Things Are, it's just MY experience), my dude friends are a lot more likely to spout random fandom quotes, private jokes and yes, even gossip a bit! There's a big chunk of my lady friends who are extremely practical-minded: they talk about work, their kids, what they did over the weekend.
So I'm with everyone else. This seems to be a personality thing, not anything divided by gender.
"Factual"
Perhaps you have some assumptions about women's speech that put them off. "Factual" is a loaded word that jumped out at me, kind of like "objective" and "rational". If a woman talks and all you hear is UNfactual, gobbledegook nonsense, and it is ALL women, maybe you need to change your attitude. And even if the women you know are talking stereotypically, mile a minute, about connections and emotions and such, this does not mean what they are saying isn't "factual".
Now it's time I put up or shut up: I can definitely do the dry, topic-oriented, Hank Hill small talk. My husband is all about this, due to his extremely nerdy and introverted personality. And I like people who cut to the chase, and mean what they say. In that sense, I am very practical.
But I also love to get really indepth and passionate about some things, and really dig down and analyze people's opinions (but I DON'T grill them on it, that's off-putting). When I am really connecting with someone, I want to get into all the abstracts and theories and yes, I can switch gears all over the place. But I'm not being unfactual, or irrational.
And to prove it isn't a gender thing: while my husband sometimes complains he can't keep up with me when I get like this, my brother is able to keep up and more so. In fact, he's my favorite person to bounce ideas off of.
Well, not to mention that there's no such thing as people who are driven by logic versus people who are driven by emotion. Everyone's logical about some things and emotional about others (despite the stereotypes, men, for example, tend to be highly emotional investors, while women are less emotional about particular stocks, which is why women have a higher average return on their investments). People who *think* they're being logical about things are actually the most likely to be making emotionally-driven decisions and trying later to justify them with logic. (For example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10950526/ns/technolog… people who are more financially-educated are more likely to fall for investment schemes; most people who join cults are of above-average intelligence, etc.)
There are, however, people who express their emotions more openly/dramatically, and people who show less emotion. This difference, however, has no correlation with their logic/decision-making skills. It's merely a function of how much they express.
I totally agree.
I've always been geeky and unpopular, but I can say without a doubt that the ONE thing that really helped me get social skills and empathy was to see Logic vs. Emotion as the false dichotomy it is. I fall on the more logical, less demonstrative end (for a woman socialized in America). But as soon as I stopped 1) squelching down my "inferior" emotions and 2) seeing more emotional people as weaker and less logical did I start to really be happy.
I went through that too! *random high-five!*
Just make sure our fingers don't intertwine, cuz that's SRS BSNS!
These are not spirit fingers…THESE…are spirit fingers….and these, are gold.
Oh and about the stock thing: my genius IQ dad has wasted tons of money in his life on failed investments and business ideas (the biggest of which is sinking the equivalent of a modest annual income in foreign property that has yet to pay off and might not ever). But one of the privileges men enjoy is the ability to fail without making it all about their gender. I doubt my mom would have gotten as much leeway from everyone if she had done this, in fact, I can think of a few relatives who use even her very normal failures as a mark against women. For example, she failed at being a real estate agent, and multiple people told me they weren't surprised, because women just weren't cut out for the cutthroat real estate environment.
http://xkcd.com/385/
Relax. Doctor Nerdlove's posts, partly because of his aspirational writing style, makes it seem that you need to be as witty as Oscar Wilde, as charming as Cary Grant, and as handsome as whoever to even have a remote chance of getting a women. In my more self-pitying moments I feel this way myself. Look at all the couples around you, most men aren't even close to the above. The best way to talk to women is to talk to women without much of an ulterior motive. Having an ulterior motive, dates or sex, usually only works for a very specific type of man with a very specific type of women, basically both have to have a rather high level of sex appeal and an amorous nature. Most humans aren't like that. Most romantic releationships, esepcially outside of high school and college, don't really form that fast and take time.
Continuing on my point and related to the Doctor's point a lot of us with not so good dating lives thing that the men who could go into bars and pick up a woman and take her back to his place for sex are operating on some sort of video game cheat code. These type of instant seducations are not really that common. Most women are not really going to want to follow a strange man back to his place for sex even if he is oozing in charisma and charm, that doesn't mean he's a safe or trustworthy. In the rare instances when things like this happens its usually because both the man and woman possess a really unusual amount of sex appeal and even then heavy alcohol usage might be involved.
I think on the flip side, there are communities of people that DO get together just to have sex in a casual-but-not-flippant, pre-negotiated, careful and safe way? So all the comment-ers who don't want to make playful banter and just want to bang, damnit! could look into one of those instead. Especially if they haven't gotten laid in a long time or ever.
However, even in one of those, be warned that you may have to meet up and have a friendly chat to show that you're not threatening and also negotiate boundaries and things like that. You can't really ever completely skip the human element. But in this case, it might be more logical and to-the-point and will still help you with all women in the long run.
I don't know if this is especially good advise. I'm not really sure how these communities feel about people who never had sex or haven't had sex in a long time. I'm pretty sure, but might be wrong, that many of the women in these communities do not want to spend too much time giving men experience.
I also think that these communities are catered towards people with a rather specific personality and quit a bit of confidence. This personality isn't that common among the readers of this blog even the successful ones. I certainly don't think that I'd be a good fit in these communities.
Well, I feel like there is a little bit of miscommunication when the Doctor is telling people how to establish a relationship with a girl that may or may not turn sexual. And the feedback is "I don't want to spend time thinking of witty banter if it may or may not lead to sex; I just want sex!" Or "at what point and after how many approaches does this get me laid?" Because the answer is really "that's not the point." So I'm trying to fill that gap and … uh, empower the people who do want JUST want to get laid to go through the more probable getting-laid channels? So that they don't have to feel like they're jumping through hoops for it? I am not sure. But I also think people from these communities might be more equipped to handle people who have this mindset in the background in a way that's safe for everyone? I just think that a person who's saying "when does the sex happen" on THIS website should maybe start looking into … specifically the sex websites and getting a handle on how THEY work. And not, you know, the bar scene.
I agree with you here. DNL is more of a relationship blog, and not strictly a sex blog (though obviously it does come up).
Unfortunately, women aren't generally as keen for casual sex because there is still a lot of slut stigma attached to it. Not to mention safety concerns. I'm sure if the slut stigma vanished and women were assured bodily safety in all sexual encounters, the number of women willing to have open NSA sex would be just as much as men.
Well, if you don't have experience and want to get involved in one of those communities, there's some advice here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/10…
Thank you! I feel like trying to convince everyone to make friends with women they meet when they really just want sex isn't gonna fix their mindset.
Well, as I've said elsewhere, I personally don't feel any desire for physical intimacy with anyone I don't already have pretty strong emotional intimacy with, so it's pretty hypothetical for me. But that said, I firmly believe that one can be an ethical, respectful, one-night-stander (just as one can be ethical and respectful with anyone else that one will only encounter once in one's life), and Dan Savage has a lot of good advice for how to do that.
Yep – there are quite a few people here with the "I just want sex – talking first is to much to expect" mindset, and they aren't shifting. But I also don't think there is any realistic advice to give them. Most women won't sleep with someone who won't even talk to them, even at a swingers party.
Sometimes it's as simple as a social group, though. I suppose that doesn't help much as advice, but just as something to think about. I know one story does not create Truth, but my social group when I used to live in a larger city was very much ok with casual sex as long as it was respectful. And just to give background, this was not a group of "omg attractive" or rich or anything else. If I had to nail the group down I'd say geek/goth/theater/tabletop and video gaming with a helping of computer and lit types. All mixed to varying degrees. But the group dynamic (and this was a large group) supported monogamous relationships, poly relationships, and casual sex between friends. For that group, that was a key though. Not many were really into "oh random guy/girl walked up to me and just wants sex." But "random guy/girl has been talking to me, we click well, and I feel I can trust them enough to swap bodily fluids"…..depending on the person and situation, it was game on. I see what you're saying, I'm just offering the idea that not all groups are the same.
*Reads first paragraph
Damnit now I want to play Super Mario Brothers
I prefer the D.E.N.N.I.S. system.
The what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZuOKUrwoys
Thanks for the informative video. Now for my response to that system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNjQecyjE8&t=…
i meant to say and not just want to have sex
how can it be a compulsion? every guy i know thinks like this..
Really? Every guy you know is incapable of caring about women's personalities? Not just doesn't care, but *can't*?
Do any of them have girlfriends? If so, perhaps you could ask them how they managed it. If they don't, then clearly they have the same problem you do. Because there are lots of guys who do manage to have relationships that include more than sex, so it's obviously not something all or even most guys experience.
Phalanx, do you masturbate a lot?
Yes, this is relevant.
i dont really feel comfortable discussing that but i dont think im any worse than other guys, from what i understand.
Understood.
hmm…. most guys i know, including myself, mostly only care about sex when they meet girls they are attracted to. i know a lot of guys who have gone out on a date with women, slept with them, and immediately stopped caring about them afterwards once they got their release. like going from 100 to 0 in a split second.
im not very experienced with women but i can relate, because when i see a woman wearing a sexy outfit, all i care about is sleeping with her. i can maintain a civil conversation, but sex would be the only thing on my mind.
i guess the friends i have who have had or have girlfriends just kept having sex with them and eventually formed an emotional bond as well? or they took a liking to each other after having sex. or maybe they werent so attracted to the girls that they couldnt control their thoughts?
in either case, i just dont understand how a guy is supposed to suppress his sexual urges and instead focus on a woman's personality if he is really attracted to her. the sex drive is just so strong.
Just for reference, could you give us an idea of your age group?
between 22-28, but mostly around 22.
I think that on the 22 end of things, this may be because your friends are a little young. If your friends who are 28 are on the same page when it comes to women, they're on the far end of the curve.
Sex drives are a difficult thing to control, but it's something that I think it's worth working on. That's not an anti-sex sentiment – sex has its place and is underemphasized by many people and institutions – but I do think it's worth it to try to set aside those feelings and just get used to dealing with women as being people. Trying to make connections with women you don't want to date or have sex with might be worth thinking about as you move toward that – you could get more familiar with the basic idea of talking to someone who's not a guy without being distracted.
Sex can intensify an emotional bond, but every guy I know that's in a relationship felt more for his girlfriend than sexual attraction when he first started dating her.
ok well im not gonna argue against that. i can only speak for myself and my personal experiences and you can only do the same…
Exactly! So stop with the whole, "Isn't this what all/most guys go through?" bullshit, mmkay?
That may or may not be true. First, it may be true if you're only hanging around with young guys. Adolescent brains (and as the brain keeps evolving and changing well into your 20s, I'm using the term to refer to people in their teens and 20s) are still developing their impulse-control centers, and yes, one of the hallmarks of adolescence is obsessive focus/investment in things. You'll note I said "above the age of 30." Maybe the people you're hanging around with are especially strong examples of that.
More likely, however, is that the guys you're hanging around with are extremely invested in a stereotypical view of masculinity. Horny all the time! Don't care about women's opinions! Just want to ****! All the time!
I've had friends who told me that when they were younger, they were afraid to admit to their friends that they were friends with a girl that they didn't want to sleep with, because their male friends would tease them about being gay. It was largely a lack of confidence thing.
If you honestly can't view a woman nonsexually, it's a serious problem. It's not universal to guys.
Either way, though, you're going to have to deal with women your entire life. If you ever want a partner, let alone a family, you're going to have to learn to view women (or one woman, at least) both as the objects of your desire, as well as your close and respected friends. You will, most likely, have a female boss at some point, and you're going to have to learn to think of her nonsexually in order to respect her and be professional. If you have female direct reports, you will sure as hell need to learn to view them nonsexually if you don't want to get sued. If you ever have a daughter, you're going to have to learn to view women through a nonsexual lens to be a good parent to her.
More to the point, if you want to have sex, you need to figure out some things for yourself, and get over your sense of entitlement. ("I can see skin! That woman is ASKING me to think of her sexually!") That's awfully close to the idea that women owe you sex because you find them sexy.
Even if all you want is casual sex, you need to ask yourself why you're worth having sex with. What are you bringing to the table? Why should a woman sleep with you, as opposed to any other guy out there? Being able to hold an entertaining conversation is a major form of advertisement in the context of that question; it indicates that you're fun.
most of my friends are age 22-28 so its really in the middle it seems… :p
no none is macho if thats what youre implying. none of us are like that. we're normal people like anyone else and nobody is trying to live up to any crazy ideals or anything.
and like i said, i can hold a civil conversation so having a female boss or a daughter is not going to be a problem.
but when you say view a woman nonsexually, i assume you mean a woman im attracted to, then i honestly dont see how im supposed to do that.
mens sexuality is triggered by visual cues… so everywhere we turn there will be women triggering it… i read somewhere that no matter where a very attractive girl goes, all the men around her will wonder what it would be like to have sex with her. i couldnt agree more with that, because i think i speak for most guys when i say that when they see a really attractive girl all they want to do is sleep with her.
also "that woman is asking me to think of her sexually". dont even talk to me like that. you have no right to imply that i think like a rapist just because i have a normal male sexuality. thats so wrong!!
I'm not implying you're a rapist. Thinking of someone sexually is not the same as forcing them to have sex with you, just as hating someone is not the same as murdering them. There's a difference between thoughts and actions, and even with thoughts, there's a spectrum between "she's showing a lot of skin, so clearly she wants to be ogled," and "She owes me sex!" But I do think they're on the same spectrum.
As far as visual cues, though, every single male friend I've ever talked to about this — and we've talked about it a lot — admits to desire when they see an attractive woman. The difference — and what I think is prompting people here to suggest that you might want to speak to a professional — is that it's not ALL they're able to think about.
What will you do if your boss is a very attractive woman?
i never said that women are asking for it or that they owe me sex… i think its wrong to accuse me of that because thats how rapists think.
about your male friends, i obviously cant argue against them and they are entitled to express their experiences. i just have a very hard time relating to the idea of somehow suppressing ones sexual urges in order to care about someones personality. i mean sexual urges are throbbing, urgent and an immediate need. you see someone you desire and you want to sleep with them. if a woman is particularly attractive, then as a man, youre going to go crazy, stumbling over words, making a fool of yourself in front of her because all you want to do is sleep with her.
if i had to work for a very attractive woman, i would quit my job because i would find it very painful going to work and constantly have to get arroused when i want to focus on work. in fact, this has already happened many times, and i wish i could work in an all-men environment because of it… but of course thats not a possibility.
its just very distracting doing paperwork and then suddenly having some woman with make up, perfect hair, a tight button up shirt tucked into a tight skirt with stockings and high heels approach me to talk about something work-related.
its like having porn in front of my eyes and its emotionally painful having to deal with the constant arrousal and not being able to focus on work.
See, this is why I and other people have suggested you may need professional help. It is *definitely* not normal (or healthy) for you to be so unable to suppress your sexual urges that you can't concentrate at work if you have an attractive female coworker or employer, because of emotional and physical distress. That is going to make many parts of your life difficult, not just finding a sexual partner, and it's something you should discuss with a therapist or other specialist to help you work through it and find strategies to address it.
how do you know men arent tormented by their sexuality and that its just me?
Because as you say, there are attractive women all over the place, and yet most men are still able to continue doing their jobs and fulfilling their other responsibilities in spite of whatever attraction they feel. How many men do you know who'd quit a job rather than have to work with an attractive woman? If it happened all that frequently, there'd hardly be any men left in the workforce! They'd all be quitting or getting fired over not doing their work properly.
Also, while I've seen lots of guys comment on DNL's posts talking about frustration over not finding a girlfriend or sexual partner, you're the first I can remember who's mentioned such incredible distress and torment over feelings of sexual attraction. I'm not suggesting that you need help as an insult–it honestly sounds to me that you're having a lot more trouble with this than the average guy, and that means you may need extra help working through the problem.
If going to see someone like a therapist might help you, is there a reason you'd avoid doing so? People go to professionals for extra help with emotional and social difficulties all the time. It doesn't mean anything awful about you if you do.
well, im also able to continue doing my job. that doesnt mean it doesnt frustrate me on the inside, so im not so sure that other guys dont feel the same way.
i guess the reason why im not that interested in seeing a therapist is because i dont feel that different from most guys. every guy i know is mostly only interested in sex, and the ones that manage to sleep with women stop caring entirely about them after the deed, unless the girl in question happens to have an emotional appeal afterwards.
it also seems like a lot of women complain that men only use them for sex instead of caring about them, so it really feels quite normal to me for a man to feel this way.
Meditate every day for a 20+ mins (concentrate on one thing, a candle flame or your breathing or something like that, and kick out any stray thoughts that come up) and don't touch your dick for a month or three. Learn how to kick out and control the frustration and sex-drive. I know exactly what you mean about wanting sex bad to the point of focusing on only it, but it actually kills other things about yourself when you focus in on that so much.
If this really was the case, then how do you explain the legions of happily married/attached men?
"A lot" of women may complain, but then I would tell them that perhaps they were seeking the wrong men.
i dont understand the happily married men thing.
Then I feel sorry for you. I'm not trying to be a condescending asshole. I'm being honest.
no i mean i dont understand what point youre trying to make by referring to happily married men. ;p
By your logic, men would never want to be happily married or attached, and they would *never* be monogamous. They would only be interested in endless conquests. You said this is how all men are.
But it doesn't jive with the fact that a lot of men (people) are in pretty good relationships for at least a few long years at a time. Men as a whole are not *only* interested in masturbating with a woman's body then dumping her for the next hottie. If they were, our society would look a lot different.
well, i actually think that sex is the primary incentive behind why men even bother going through all the trouble trying to get with women.. and i think that if a woman has a good personality too, then theres a reason to stick around.
All I can go by is what you say here. Earlier you were saying that you'd quit your job because it would be so painful to deal with having an attractive female boss, and that several times you've had to deal with attractive colleagues who made it "emotionally painful having to deal with the constant arrousal and not being able to focus on work." If you can in fact focus on work despite having attractive women around, and you wouldn't find it so distressing working under a particularly attractive women you'd have to quit, then no, you're not necessarily so different from some other guys. (Obviously not *every* other guy feels this way, as several of us here have reported knowing plenty of guys who don't.)
sorry i read my comment again and realized that it wasnt clear enough.
what i meant was that i have already had to work with attractive coworkers and bosses, and its extremely frustrating and prevents me from enjoying working there. it makes me feel like i want to be in a workplace where there are only men.
however, i have yet to quit a job because of this as i need the income, but still, i would really want to be able to, and have been on the verge of doing so a couple of times.
Just because 100% of the guys you hang out with are a certain way, doesn't mean 100% (or even 90%) of all guys are that way. That's biased sampling.
Also, just because 100% of the guys you hang out with are a certain way, doesn't mean it's right to be that way. That's appeal to popularity.
arent guys evolutionary wired to find women physically attractive? isnt it commonly known that mens sexuality is more easily triggered than womens? havent most studies shown that men think about sex more often? why does prostitution cater mostly to men? why are men always the ones seeking sex…?
seems to me like guys want to have sex pretty much a lot…
Because you're not actually looking at the people outside of your tiny little group. There are guys outside of your tiny little group who actually aren't interested in sex. Incidentally, one of those guys is called Robert.
Arousal is just the precursor to sexual activity. And you are saying, on this thread, that you are so crippled by arousal you couldn't even stand an attractive woman boss. This is a problem and it should not be so all-consuming.
i would be able to behave myself, act normal and perform as expected of me, but at the same time i would feel like a starved man being teased by a walking roast chicken, and its a very, very draining and frustrating feeling.
im guessing that most men would feel this way..
"im guessing that most men would feel this way."
Your guess would be incorrect. I am married to a man who doesn't. I am the sex initiator in our relationship. I have the crushes, the sexy dreams, etc. He doesn't. He doesn't even masturbate or watch pornography. I am friends with many more men besides who don't feel that way as well. You probably don't believe me, but seriously.
*You* feel that way. Ok, fine, own it, great.
The reason I have a problem with you assigning these traits to All Men is because it makes it easier for you to never do any self reflection and really view attractive women as people (and not just as a means to sex). And *worse*, it erases the very real sexual desires of women.
When you convince yourself that women are so alien from you, you widen the gulf between you and torpedo any chance of mutual understanding.
well how do you know your man doesnt fantasize about new sexual conquests? how do you know he is telling you exactly what he feels….
i dont really think a woman can use their guy friends as examples because… well… i have a feeling those guy friends arent exactly likely to admit something like what im talking about..
Like I said, you can believe me or not. And I'm sure he does have thoughts, but that isn't what we are talking about here. We're talking about thoughts becoming so all consuming that human connection between men and women is impossible (for you, apparently). If my husband has thoughts, he has still been able to enjoy a satisfying monogamous relationship with me for 16 years. He's not always looking over the fence for greener grass. He considers me his best friend (even with my pesky, incomprehensible vagina! Who'd of thunk?) He hasn't cheated on me, and we've been together pretty much since high school.
And this part is going to sound mean, but I think you won't believe me because men like you are so invested in thinking all men think like you that you can avoid how empty your life is. My husband himself could come of here and tell you all of this too, and you'd think he was lying or deluded or frightened of his wife. I've been in an awesome marriage for 10 years (together for 16), while you have never had sex or a relationship (at least, that is what I glean from your comments). So seriously, WHO do you think has more to teach you about relationships? Someone like me (or the many other commenters who also have experience), or your own, baseless beliefs never practiced in a real life relationship scenario?
i dont think that both of our claims are mutually exclusive… i never claimed that men cannot be in a monogamous relationship. im saying that i find it hard to want to get to know someones personality when id be much more interested in spending time in bed with them.
if a female walks past me in stockings and high heels, im not exactly going to think "oh id love to explore that beautiful brain of yours.."
how could i?
No, not really.First thing you need to keep in mind: libido and sexual desire is a continuum. Some people have very high libidos. Some have next to none – witness the asexual community, for example.From the sounds of it, you're young. Young dudes are horny and it tapers off as you age; once you get past 30 or so, testosterone production tends to go down.But again: a continuum. Some folks are randy bastards up until the day they die. Others aren't.Don't mistake your experience for a universal one. Even in your group of friends, you're dealing with what's essentially an echo-chamber; you're reinforcing your views because you're a small group of dudes who feel similarly. Some of 'em may have it worse. Others may not be as bad but go along to get along. Others may be mistaking being horny for being at the mercy of their boners or have impulse control.You sound a lot like someone with a lot of pent-up frustration and feeling like you have no outlet.My advice: start by getting a Fleshlight.I'm being totally serious here. It's a way of getting what you want – sexual release, more or less at will and about as realistic-feeling as you're going to get – without breaking laws, jerking yourself raw or doing something (or someone) you'll regret in the name of getting your dick dunked.Take the edge off and see if that helps you concentrate and not seeing every woman like a starving hobo watching a bunch of ambulatory ham hocks walking around.There's nothing wrong with wanting sex. There IS a problem, however, if you're so caught up in it that it's starting to negatively affect your life. But I'm kind of doubting you're quite there yet.
i dont want a plastic toy. i want a womans body.
and in regards to young peoples horniness… well.. that only confirms what im feeling…
and yes i know that there are asexuals and men with low sex drives… but seriously… are you really going to say that most men arent interested in temporary sexual conquests consisting of the mere physical act of ejaculating inside a hot woman ??
At least a plastic toy actually *is* an object.
yes but im not biologically programmed to enjoy having sex with it and its therefor not a good substitute for a woman.
1) You aren't biologically programmed to wear clothes or eat cooked food or take antibiotics, yet I'm pretty sure you do those things and enjoy them quite a lot.
2) You aren't a computer or a non-thinking animal. Biology is not destiny. You have a brain and an imagination, you should use it.
3) Our genetics have changed quite a bit from the cave man days. So you can't rely on that as an excuse.
4) You are "biologically programmed" to enjoy having your prostate stimulated, does that mean you enjoy having your girlfriend do you with a strap-on all the time?
It is said that one of the most important sex organs is the brain. You should think about using it.
“biologically programmed”You keep using those words. I do no think they mean what you think they mean.
Doesn't this lead to temporary satisfaction but then a "why did I do that?" kind of feeling afterwards?
Also known as The Walk of Shame. I know that feel QUITE well.
This talk about how women are so fundamentally different in their conversations than men is a veiled accusation that women are shallow and flighty, especially "hot" women. Let me share a story:
One of my best friends is a "hot" woman. She is thin and gorgeous, always dressed to kill. Her hair and makeup always looks good. She is a terrible speller and in conversation, she does not sound "educated".
Our most recent conversation was a very heavy philosophical one about the nature of god and the universe. She is an amazing person.
My point is, when you see someone on the surface it is so easy to let stereotypes dictate how you treat the person. The Old Me, many years ago, would probably have written her off as shallow and bitchy before I even gave her a chance. I would have felt superior to her, and with no evidence at all except my own preconceived notions. People can surprise you in so many ways.
Do not judge a group of women on their one or two conversations they might be having with their friends, or on their looks.
well, an impression is an impression, whether you come off as uneducated, creepy, dangerous or vapid. im pretty sure most people are willing to try to look past a mistake or two, but nobody's really entitled to have others look past whatever bad vibes they're sending out. in my humble opinion, that's up to them to fix.
also, if you were referring to my comments about how im finding that women tend to communicate in a different style when i try to interact with them, then i think its a bit of a stretch to say that its really just a veiled attempt at shaming them for being shallow. i didnt even say anything about shallowness, intelligence or looks.
No, you did not come out and say that, but by framing their conversations as so alien that you cannot comprehend them, you're implying that the way they talk/what they talk about is not worth trying to understand. That is rather insulting.
We're not going to click with everybody. There are men and women I find a chore to talk to. But, and this is important, I chalk that up to individual personality clashes, NOT as something intrinsic to their entire gender.
Everytime I read something that implies men and women are alien species to each other, I feel like I should call my brother and thank him for being him; and then thank my mom for always telling us it was bc we're different people, not just bc gender. He and I do sometimes respond to things differently; but I've never felt he (and thus males) are this mystery I can never understand. And I've found that sometimes the way he responds to things helps me to learn better responses to my own life! And vice versa, or so I've been told. Sidenote, ironically my mom is the MOST logical minded person I know. To the point where it's frusterating sometimes, as much as I love her. She's an electrical engineer and approaches *everything* with problem solving, This is a good thing so far as I learned that type of thinking early on….a bad thing when I'm hoping for an emotional response…or when I myself go all problem-solving on someone who just needs a shoulder to cry on.
You are allowed to have your opinions, of course. But you are here for help on how to talk to women. You have stated that women (especially the ones you are attracted to) are so different from you that you can't relate. You have stated that you don't *wish* to relate if (possible) sex is on the tables.
To quote that douchebag Dr. Phil, would you rather be right, or happy? If you dig in your heels and hold fast to your prejudices, you can expect very little to change in your life. It's not that I am advocating **loving* people who turn you off. It's that I'm suggesting you open up your mind a little and see where it takes you.
Edit: Oops. That was supposed to be a reply to phalanxformation.
"You seem cool. Are you friendly?" Yes! What a great line. Can girls pull it off? (We can, right? Especially in that red dress. Yes….)
Just the cut the subtlety. Directness is your best friend when dealing with guys, IMHO.
All right. Solid advice. I dunno if I personally agree with the idea of a 'plan', but to some it may work.
I've said somewhere before that I can talk to women (and people in general) with no problems or no ulterior motive. My real issue is I that I have trouble approaching the women/girls I'm attracted to. That's my problem. I'm more or less worried about coming off as a creeper if I do approach — screw rejection, I'm over that trivial nuance. But, for example, I'll see someone I find attractive and I'll wanna say something but I'll end up not doing/saying anything and keep minding my own business because I'm scared of coming off as a creeper.
I can ask strangers for directions, ask homeless folks how they're doing, etc. But why can't I talk to the women/girls I'm attracted to? Believe me, when I say this, I do want a meaningful relationship. This isn't even about sex anymore or at all, this is about connecting with somebody on a deeper level. Sex, if I were to get it at all, would simply be a bonus in the grand scheme of things. It's incredibly frustrating when the only one who's holding you back is yourself for some weird fucking reason.
If I want a girl so bad, then *why* the fuck am I holding myself back when apparently it's acceptable to approach someone?
*facepalm*
Sorry, if I sound like a little emo jackass right now. I just needed to really let that out. It's 2AM currently so I may not sound too coherent, so, I offer thee a thousand apologies.
"If I want a girl so bad, then *why* the fuck am I holding myself back when apparently it's acceptable to approach someone?"
In what context are you contemplating approaching someone, but reconsider due to concerns that it would be creepy? There are many contexts in which it's not acceptable to approach strangers you find attractive. It's likely that you're doing the right thing. Follow those instincts and don't be creepy.
Typically, during the day in well lit places I wanna do the approaching. At the grocery store, my college's computer lab/library, the public library, SeaWorld, etc. Okay maybe not SeaWorld
But I understand the idea of time & since I'm not 21 yet.
You'll probably get a much better response (and so have fewer reasons to be nervous) approaching women you don't know in environments where socializing is more expected: meet-ups, conventions, parties, clubs, classes, possibly coffee shops, maybe stores that lend themselves more to browsing than focused shopping–bookshops rather than the grocery store, for example–and of course bars once you're old enough. A woman in a grocery store most likely is already occupied with something non-social (finding and buying her groceries); a woman in a computer lab or library is probably there to work. Unless they start a conversation with you, or make really overt signals like looking at you with a big smile, there's a very high chance you're interrupting them if you approach them, which puts you off on the wrong foot right away.
On the Grocery Store:
I think I've seen approach signs there before. You catch eachother's eye, and then she goes from looking like she knows where to go to get what she's looking for to what looks like aimlessly browsing (almost like staring off into space or looking at the product without looking at it, vs. concentrated scanning where you know they're looking for something specific) in your general area.
Of course I could just have it wrong and they could be having zone-out moments, but there was a definitely a shift in "vibe."
Oh, for sure, there are women in grocery stores open to being approached.
But since The Mikey's main difficulty is anxiety over whether his approach will be intrusive, and he doesn't seem confident in his ability to read body language to know if it will be, I think in that sort of setting he's likely to get a lot of negative responses which will just leave him feeling more anxious. Better to start practicing approaches in more social environments where the chances are a lot higher the woman around are open to talking to strangers.
You don't sound like a jackass and your frustration is understandable. I think you got some suggestions for trying to overcome your anxiety from commenters in an earlier post. Have you tried any of those out, and how has it gone?
Also, if you look at the Social Calibration post for a few days back, there's a lot of discussion there about being more confident reading social signals so you don't worry about coming off as creepy, and Orv in particular has some great concrete advice, mostly early on in the main comment thread. You might find some of that more helpful than this post to your specific concerns.
Uhhhh not yet, no, sorry. I'm still trying to figure out how to get over myself in the approach arena when I am confident in everything else I do.
I am gonna look at that thread again though I need to.
You don't sound like a jackass to me either. At least you are self-aware about it.
I'm a woman and this was totally my MO before I was married. I'd smolder in a corner and I would NEVER in a MILLION YEARS approach. I had American socialization to back me up in that I was not expected to be the aggressor, but I don't think a lot of guys appreciate that it's really hard. At least, under these rules*, guys can DO something about it. Approach, get date, or get shot down. Rejection sucks but at least you can get an answer. Women are told to sit there and somehow psychically will him to notice her. Bolder women can put on the charm and flirt but us shy gals would rather DIE than embarrass ourselves with awkward flirting!
Of course, those rules are BS, and if I ever found myself single again, I'd *have* to break out of my comfort zone if I want to meet people and get up the nerve to approach. There is NO other way. I have lots of experience with the Psychic Projection method and it has NEVER worked.
My frustration with some guys is (not YOU The Mikey, this is just general) that they ask for advice on how to approach, but they keep shooting back with BUT I CAN'T. They'll make up any reason and insist they are Forever Alone. Lots of people will chime in with all kinds of helpful advice, but they are recalcitrant to the very end. They want a guaranteed, no-hurt-feelings method of approaching, which, while understandable (no one wants to be rejected), does not exist. (A smaller segment just wants an excuse to blame women, to which I think, maybe you should be single a while? You don't *have* to date women if you actually don't *like* them.)
*seriously, fuck those rules.
For the record, I'm 'Murrican too, from a Mexican family (yet I dont look Hispanic), and I dont ever recall my upbringing in regards to girls. Like any kid growing up I thought girls were icky and I wasn't afraid, but then I woke up and grew up a little one day and started liking girls. See, Im not as afraid of rejection since I've experienced it before and didnt let it affect me.
I get your frustration too, because I have the same problems except it's with myself. However I dont insist on being forever alone (god i hate that meme >:I), what I *am* afraid of though is never actually feeling reciprocated love. That, is scary; missing out on a basic human emotion. And I KNOW there is no guarantee of success, but I dont blame women why would I when I haven't even gotten close to a woman (physically or emotionally). I'm just afraid.
I sympathize so much. It's so annoying feeling like I'm a perfectly friendly, sociable person up to and until I decide that to "approach" somebody. Talking to girls? No problem, that's a lot of fun. Hitting on them? Kill me now.
Unless Brucey gets his hands on some kryptonite, which he has before and did indeed defeat Superman (synthetic kryptonite, it's been done!). Batman can kick anyone's ass. Trust me, I got an entire pub debating this once. It was a very good night.
Grr, I know I'm being nerdbaited but…Every time Batman has won against Superman, Supes has been limited; recovering from a nuclear blast, mind controlled by Poison Ivy, something.Superman is like the Flash: if he was written as using his powers to their fullest extent, he'd be boring. Being able to move at supersonic speed is a game-breaker all by itself. Combine that with flight, telescopic vision and heat-vision and you've got someone who can vaporize his opponent from miles away, well out of the effective safe range for kryptonite.
Modern/pre-52 Batman's infamous paranoia and meticulous preperation will win him a few fights at least. He had at least two contingency plans for taking Supes down that worked. Not to mention examples like The Dark Knight Returns where he preyed on Superman's remaining values to get him in a position to take him down.
New 52 Superman might be mean enough to win easily.
Rember: in The Dark Knight Returns, Superman wasn't at full strength. He'd only just started recovering from getting hit with a nuke and Bruce STILL only fought him to a standstill.Ok goddamn it, I'm starting a thread for this over on the Facebook page.
Oh god – what have I done?!!!
Tugged on Superman's cape.
Becelec- you did this:
http://youtu.be/n7O4izi1fQE
Since the Superman went evil arc, Batman always has a chunk of kryptonite on hand just in case. So Bats would totally win.
I've never, ever been in your position. I know it's a semi-common theme in movies for guys to stammer over their words and act stupid when a hot woman comes simply because a hot woman comes by, but that's never happened to me (I've been awkward and not good with my words, but it's not an issue of my boner trying to talk for me). So I can't sympathize nor really empathize with you, because that thought is really foreign for me. (As a side note, by no mean do I have a low sex drive, and I'm certainly not asexual.)
When I'm talking to anyone I think is attractive, that thought is still there. But attraction alone isn't enough for me to turn into MUST GET CLOTHES OFF mode. I work at a restaurant with a very attractive and young server. And, while the idea of having sex with her is nice, I have absolutely no idea what it would be really like. In fact, some of her actions have hinted towards it not being that great. The truth is, you don't actually know what it's like to sleep with a woman. And, even once you lose your virginity, you won't know what it's like to sleep with any new woman. I think you've romanticized and built up the idea of sex to something beyond what it really is. As much as you might want to say that men are hardwired to focus on looks and sex and all that jazz, a lot of it comes from society and from our own personal experiences. If you attempted to suppress those thoughts, eventually they would go away. It might take some practice and time, but it can be done. I think once you do experience sex, and once you experience sex that has severe (good) emotional attachments, the difference will become clear to you.
Also, I am fairly certain it is not a majority of guys that think the same as you. Absolutely there are some, of course, but it isn't the majority. So don't use that as an excuse for not changing. If you don't want to change for other reasons, fine, but don't stand behind the guise of being in a majority.
Hey Doctor, have you heard the pettit project's song 99 Lives? it reminds me of some of the things you address (not just because of the cheat code.
in order to be attractive to them i mean..
i meant to type please. ;p
iPad spelling errors!
Interpersonal relations
And
Dangerous woman who messes you up
okay… i couldnt have been more wrong..
really put myself out there and tried to meet as MANY women as possible…
what i noticed is that they are different, but beneath that layer of socialization.. well.. there's really an amazing side to them that was never apparent to me before…
i am currently seeing a girl and even though she looks very good.. im not even thinking about the sex..
ive never felt this way before and im so sorry if i upset someone… i honestly did not know it could be this way…
my god i even think i dont even want to have sex with her right now.. i want to get to know her instead… hahaha!!!
she is wonderful!! and pleasant…
i meant beneath that layer of social conditioning….
and she is so nice to me..