Are Guys Really "Clueless" when it Comes to Reading Sexual Cues?
"Yes," says an article in LiveScience (thanks to the reader who emailed the link):
So men are a bunch of oblivious clowns--it's obvious this is what the staff writer, Jeanna Bryner (or her editor) thinks of men. Take a look at the title: "Clueless guys can't read women." But the editors don't have the last word: A number of the commenters disagree with the tone of the article (as do I). One disgusted guy writes in:
Another equally dismayed commenter states:
If you want to get a handle on where this particular writer, Ms. Bryner, is coming from, take a look at a couple other of her articles in LiveScience. Here's one entitled, Study Debunks Myth that Women Want Sex Less--note the positive title. If a study finds that men want sex, they are called clueless. Another article is entitled, Why Men Dominate Math and Science Fields where " a climate that is less than fully friendly to women remains, and its texture is often still so taken for granted that it tends to be invisible."
Of course, maybe it's not Ms. Bryner. Maybe it's the headline writers who think that every development has to be given an anti-male spin. Why would that be?
More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on, and a new study discovers why: Guys are clueless.
More precisely, they are somewhat oblivious to the emotional subtleties of non-verbal cues, according to a new study of college students.
"Young men just find it difficult to tell the difference between women who are being friendly and women who are interested in something more," said lead researcher Coreen Farris of Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
So men are a bunch of oblivious clowns--it's obvious this is what the staff writer, Jeanna Bryner (or her editor) thinks of men. Take a look at the title: "Clueless guys can't read women." But the editors don't have the last word: A number of the commenters disagree with the tone of the article (as do I). One disgusted guy writes in:
Nice anti-male gender stereotyping. "Men are clueless." That's the sort of thing we'd expect in a radical feminist blog. The suggestion is, men are flawed for their "insensitivity to women's subtle non-verbal cues."
Um, could it be that women pick up on details better than men? Women have more developed skills in social communication (while men have more developed skills in other important areas)?
The TONE of your article is nothing short of male bashing -- you obviously would not agree or you wouldn't have written it that. "Men are clueless."
Ugh!
Another equally dismayed commenter states:
Oh wow, yet another denegrating article/study about men (guised as science) written by a woman, gee what a surprise. Let me make sure I have this right, it's men fault for not reading subtle non-verbal clues by women who REFUSE TO BE CLEAR WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION and it's somehow a man's fault? anyone follow this logic? if you do, you're a woman.
If you want to get a handle on where this particular writer, Ms. Bryner, is coming from, take a look at a couple other of her articles in LiveScience. Here's one entitled, Study Debunks Myth that Women Want Sex Less--note the positive title. If a study finds that men want sex, they are called clueless. Another article is entitled, Why Men Dominate Math and Science Fields where " a climate that is less than fully friendly to women remains, and its texture is often still so taken for granted that it tends to be invisible."
Of course, maybe it's not Ms. Bryner. Maybe it's the headline writers who think that every development has to be given an anti-male spin. Why would that be?
posted by Helen at 9:46 AM
70 Comments:
Men are marginalised, we are never told by women, that they love us, Or if they do they seem to want us to do something. So as males we are lacking in the sense of love, so we must grab whatever we can. To a person who is lacking love or affection, a smile is affection.
In todays world, men are frequently the jokes by women, we are gagged and bound with societal expectations, we feel unloved, unwanted, so we reach out and grab the slightest hint of affection. Because we need love, we need to be wanted, but generally we are treated as nothing.
I may resemble that remark, not sure.
I have rarely assumed a woman being friendly as a sexual come on. I have always assumed it was someone being friendly. That's how I am. I will admit there have been a couple times I have mistaken that, and when discovering it to be the case, turned all kinds of red, apologized profusely, and excused myself. And if that person would wish to talk to me some more, she would have to initiate contact. Nearly as often,I have had conversations with a member of the opposite sex who have seemed to have more interest in me than I in her. It seems to happen at parties mostly, as opposed to more public places. I have talked to an individual for hours on end at friends' parties, and then never see her again, except by chance.
Meeting someone new of the opposite sex is clumsy enough (for me at least)without getting it wrong. I never said I wasn't weird.
It can't all be anti-male this or anti-female that. Hopefully it will not last. Unfortunately for me, when the pendulum swings back in the other direction, it usually hits me in the head and knocks me out. So I miss my chance. Humor!
I'm always right up front. "I don't make any attempts to 'read in' meanings and I don't accept any. Now, let's talk." Weeds out very quickly.
I always mean to put, there are always exceptions, to everything i say. I can only put what i see as a male.
and i am married i have the love of my life. But i see this attitude in a lot of women.
If you love me buy me this. (especially around valentines day). Even if women would be consistant in their clues, or a radical thought. why not tell a man you like him or dont. and not rely on non verbal.
Speaking only for myself (as socially inept a male as you are likely to find), I think the biggest problem is that the penalty-for-male-being-wrong in interpreting and responding to cues is so hugely disproportionate to penalty-for-female-being-wrong that even when we get it right, we are afraid to act on the clue.
I could regale your for hours (for I am old) with tales of incidents where there is no doubt now, and little then that I did not respond "correctly" to cues.
"Even if women would be consistant in their clues, or a radical thought. why not tell a man you like him or dont. and not rely on non verbal."
------
Because women don't have to. Men chase after women (at least when everyone is young).
Women can then have "plausible deniability". If things don't turn out like they want, they can claim they meant the other interpretation. The one-foot-in, one-foot-out strategy is old and tested. It works.
Instead of complaining, men should look into countermeasures (yes, they exist).
No rocket science here.
P.S. If you start playing the game better than a game-playing woman, she will all of a sudden decide that you must hate women if you want to manipulate them like that. And she doesn't know WHAT you are talking about with manipulation, she would never do it.
With time, I've found that game-playing women are just not worth the time spent on them. But until you come to that conclusion, at least play the game well.
Sort of like the old saying, "A man chases a woman until she catches him."
Perhaps women manipulate men much more than men ever manipulate women.
It seems to be their best offense, and it always gets them free drinks in a bar.
I prefer wood working.
There are very good reasons women don't come right out and tell a man whether they like him or not. I googled "How to get a man's attention" and there were several direct hits. Wiki sort of had a middle-of-the-road answer so I will use it as an example.
If you want to get a man's attention, you must exude confidence and let him know that you possess a quality that is attractive to any man.
So lesson #1 is to act confident. I'm not so sure about this but let's move on.
Men like women who are approachable, so the best way to initially get his attention is to smileUh oh, now we are getting into some trouble. Many people smile at everyone. Does this mean all of us are interested in a romantic relationship with every man they meet?
Be sincerely interested in what he has to say if he talks to you Most people are usually sincerely interested in what anyone has to say. Does this mean everyone is romantically interested in everybody?
but don't appear too eager.
Now I am completely confused. Women are supposed to be interested, confident but not too interested or too confident. Women are supposed to operating in some eagerness gray area in order to get attention.
Always engage a man that you like by asking him a question about himself. Open up an invitation for you to share an experience with him and what his interests are if you want a date with him. Most people ask anyone questions about themselves, this is straight out of Dale Carnegie.
Give him a hint you would love to know more about (fill in the blank) and leave it open ended of him to invite you to learn more.So from what I am getting from above, I want a date with everyone with whom I want to know more about their favorite activity. Perhaps this is why men are so confused.
What the instructions and our culture is not saying to women is to walk up to a man and say, "I think you are hot and would like to start a romantic relationship." If a woman did that she would be labeled, "Aggressive". Our culture doesn't like aggressive women. Our culture has lots of nasty names for women that ask for what they want and subsequently get what they want. Now I've been using the above direct tactic for years and it works for me, but I really don't care who calls me what. The younger set these days doesn't seem to care either, and our aggressive younger gals seem to be very successful in the dating arena too. But I can see that if women are using all this bad magazine and Internet advice as to why men are so confused and not picking up what women want or don't want.
I'll happily let the rest of the population ponder those secret dating signals.
"Maybe it's the headline writers who think that every development has to be given an anti-male spin."
Or maybe it's editorial policy at that publication. That would be easy to believe -- and consistent with the policies of a great many "news" outlets in our time.
In this day and age, the safest target to deride is a white male. Preferably a Christian white male, but the gender-war feminists will take what they can get.
Well, as someone who's studied body language, it's not very hard to read women.
If she smiles and shows you the palms of her hands, with a wave or brush of her hair, she likes you. Interestingly, this is a learned behavior unique to Western women; Eastern women do not do this. The reason why she smiles is because she wants to show she's friendly, that she won't bite. The reason why she shows you the palms of her hands is because she wants to show she's not carrying a weapon, that she won't hurt you.
Big Hint, guys. If she does not smile and show you the palms of her hands, do not approach her. You will regret it. Western women are mean.
Do not listen to anything she says. Words are meaningless, and the language of love is unspoken. Listen instead to the tone of her voice. Is she nervous, scared, excited, apprehensive? Respond accordingly.
If she touches your arm, she's interested. If she touches your leg, she's interested tonight.
Do not push it. Just let it happen. Above all things, be totally casual and self-confident.
Women are not so hard to figure out.
Feminists, on the other hand, like the author of this story, whose only intent is to denigrate men, like a bad sit-com rerun are so predictably boring. Don't even bother to approach them, even if she does smile and show you the palms of her hands. Her attitude reveals her to be the soulless shell of a woman she is, not worth the waste of any man's time, attention or money.
What sucks is when you look back at the women you met who were giving you the non-verbal signals that they were interested and you were too inexperienced to pick up on them. D'oh! Maybe that's another reason why older men are more successful with younger women.
True story: I was shopping in a local pharmacy approx 10 years ago. A guy brushed up against me as he was reaching for something on the shelf in front of me, while asking about the bottle of shampoo in my hand. I gave him a normal non-commital reply. He took off pretty quickly. A light went off in my head 20 minutes later: He'd been interested in me and was looking for a response! I was amused and told my girlfriend about it when I got home. It's hard enough catching signals from the opposite sex, let alone your own.
"The reason why she shows you the palms of her hands is because she wants to show she's not carrying a weapon, that she won't hurt you."
----
Yeah, that's probably what it means.
If she raises the palms in a slow sweeping motion, it means: "I do not have an AK-47 to shoot you with. I come in peace."
If she scratches the front of her thigh, she is saying, "I may have genital lice."
So cham, what kind of table saw do you have?
"D'oh! Maybe that's another reason why older men are more successful with younger women."
----
That, and the fact that older men have more money, sometimes lots and lots more money.
I don't own a table saw, I have a circular saw and a sawzall.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm sure the author of that article was anti-male. But I'm sure the author if THIS article is NOT.
http://www.t-nation.com/article/most_recent/atomic_dog_oh_yeah_she_wants_me
Says pretty much the same thing.
Well, as some who believes that a traditional, classical liberal arts education is the best possible education, I suggest you guys read up on the Maenades. They were an all female cult of Bacchus, the god of wine.
These girls would get together and drink themselves into a frenzy, then go out looking for a male victim. When they found one, they would gang rape him and proceed to rip his body apart with their hands and teeth, and eat him raw.
Western girls are mean. They always have been, always will be.
If she doesn't smile and show you the palms of her hands, do not approach her. She may or may not be carrying a weapon, but then her teeth and hands are weapons. If she does not invite your approach, then stay away from her or fear for your life.
The salient point is this. Men do not chase women. Boys do. Boy chases girl until girl catches him. Men are far too concerned with establishing themselves to waste time and money chasing women.
Men do, however, attract women. The key is in knowing how to respond once her attraction is revealed.
Women select men, not the other way around.
Holy crap, cham. You do understand that Wikianswers is just crap collected by any damn person that wants to post?
"I think you are hot and would like to start a romantic relationship."
If either sex said that, they'd be labeled aggressive. What's your point?
Wanna have a straight-forward relationship with a man? Be a tad more intelligent and straight-forward. "I think you're interesting. Cup of coffee?"
Ooh. Hard. Take another look at that page, cham. Before someone wipes out the last sentence.
I ask people to have cups of coffee all the time. But that doesn't necessarily mean I want a romantic relationship with them. I'm convinced the best way is to be as straight forward as possible. But if you want to fool with cups of coffee be my guest.
Cham,
You have a sawzall!!!??
I love you!
Just don't tell my wife, okay! :)
cham --
You want romantic relationships with people you don't know? Ehhh. Me? I'd rather get to know them first. Once you tell them you want to screw, you've pointed the relationship in a direction that can't be undone.
"The salient point is this. Men do not chase women. Boys do. Boy chases girl until girl catches him. Men are far too concerned with establishing themselves to waste time and money chasing women.
Men do, however, attract women. The key is in knowing how to respond once her attraction is revealed.
Women select men, not the other way around."
Bravo! Men, we have too many important things to do to waste time thinking about what women think of us. Let he make her interest known without ambiguity. If she won't there's always another woman WHO WILL.
Olig:
I didn't say I didn't know them. And you notice I haven't told anyone I wanted to screw. After I have carefully selected a dateable man, and that is after inquiring if he is available for dating as in not in a relationship or married, then I inquire about a potential romantic relationship. This means I don't wish to be friends with benefits and I don't want to be buddies and we will be dating, as in dinners and going out to events. Sex right away is not necessarily part of it. This works really well as there is absolutely no confusion. Where do you get this screw idea?
Two points: There is a large body of literature on using "the system" to get laid. It is a fairly complex, totally manipulative, and relationally bankrupt approach to reading and sending social cues with the sole and express purpose of gettin some. Some guys even tape themselves using the system and sell it to system neophytes. It is pretty accurate psychologically, and works if you can stand the whole premise.
Secondly, there are two types of errors you can make in reading romantic signals. You can make the mistake of thinking that a woman is interested in you when she is in fact not, or you can think that a woman is not interested in you when she in fact is. Men make more of the former and less of the latter. This insures that they get laid more.
Who is clueless now?
Trey
Cham sez:
"After I have carefully selected a dateable man, and that is after inquiring if he is available for dating as in not in a relationship or married, then I inquire about a potential romantic relationship. This means I don't wish to be friends with benefits and I don't want to be buddies and we will be dating, as in dinners and going out to events."
--
Does the stalkee have any say, or will he just be paying for the dinners and events?
You realize, don't you, that women wouldn't have this entitlement attitude if sex didn't exist. You think he's after your sharp insight?
Jg:
I guess you can always wait for a woman to show you her palms in order to express interest. Good luck with that.
That was Gawainsghost, Cham.
My only role in that was mocking it.
You know, cham, with your saws and my saws and other wood working devices, we could definitely get the sawdust a-flyin' with the reckless abandon!
It's not about getting laid. A tequila shot and a lie to the face will do that for you in any bar. But I wouldn't recommend going that route.
It's about knowing women and understanding the signals she's sending you. More importantly, it's about not exposing yourself to tremendous liability. When you play with women, you're playing with fire.
What would I do if an attractive woman smiled and waved at me? Well, I certainly wouldn't be afraid to walk over to her and introduce myself. If she were agreeable, I'd ask her out for coffee or a light lunch. On that date I'd simply talk to her, pay careful attention to the signals she's sending, gauge her interest, and proceed from there. Simple. If she were truly interested in a long-term relationship, she would let me know over a series of casual dates.
However, if she did not smile and wave at me, I certainly wouldn't intrude on her and interrupt what she's doing, just to make a clumsy pass at her. Only a boy would do that, and he'd deserve to get shot down in flames. That could be construed as harrassment or stalking, and, if it occurred in the workplace, grounds for a career-ending lawsuit.
With time, I've found that game-playing women are just not worth the time spent on them. But until you come to that conclusion, at least play the game well.
The single thing that attracted me the most to the woman who became my wife was that she didn't play any of the bullshit games. It was so refreshing to just be honest with one another. We were married less than a year after we met and that was 25 years ago. I regularly give thanks that I didn't marry some of the women I dated before meeting her and for my good fortune.
Being a "till death do us part" kind of guy, should I survive her, I doubt I'll marry again or even date seriously. I really have very little patience for bullshit and none for manipulation.
cham --
Reread your post and must admit, I misread the first time. My apologies.
One thing I insist on the dating thing is equal pay. Either halfsies or every other. That way, we're both whores.
I've read the article, and I have noticed something (in this and others): Feminists (and some non-feminist women) complain that, in many areas, the default POV is that of a heterosexual man. But, somehow, for relationships, the default view is that of a heterosexual woman. Thus, because women are generally better at perceiving non-verbal cues, and because the default setting WRT relationships is the female mode, men are "incompetent" or "clueless".
For all the hue and cry over having to perceive history, philosophy, literature, etc from different viewpoints, I'd like to see some concern taken that maybe, on occasion, relationships/love/sex ought to be considered from a male viewpoint too.
garou --
I don't necessarily agree that women are better at perceiving non-verbal cues. Female cues, perhaps. But, I've found that women try like hell to read in things that simply aren't there, projecting female cues on the men when they just don't apply.
Women spend a lot of time on reading social cues and such. A lot of energy too.
Men generally don't, and spend more time on average on things like sports, hobbies, etc.
Men who are adept and reading women's responses and manipulating them do well romantically, far more, than most men.
Women generally are uninterested in the hard sciences and engineering. It's not considered "sexy" though Medicine is.
You can see lots of soap operas set in Hospitals, etc. Hunky Doctors and "Hot" doctors (female) etc. Wish fulfillment of status, power, romance etc.
Now try and imagine that in your typical engineering, computer science firm. A bunch of nerdy, not very physically attractive or high status, worrying about abstruse technical issues nobody but them care about (unlike life-death hospital decisions).
Women are not unwise to worry about status. A pretty woman can find her way regardless of status, but a son requires status above all else.
When women can do this, its better for all men to refuse to see the cues, Its not worth it to do anything that a woman doesnt say up front.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=550509&in_page_id=1770
Amanda Lang, 21, seduced Phillip Trowell as he celebrated the end of a training course at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.
The former call centre worker took the soldier back to her flat on the base and the pair had consensual sex.
Hours later, Mr Trowell, 21, flew out to Cyprus to rejoin the rest of his regiment. He was arrested there a short time later when Lang went to police.
***
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=550208&in_page_id=1770
A study by scientists at Indiana University tested 280 undergraduates of both genders on their ability to spot social signals.
They were shown photographs of women and asked to categorise them as friendly, sexually interested, sad or rejecting.
The male students were far less accurate than the females at interpreting the body language, and were particularly baffled by the difference between flirty and friendly gestures.
When shown images of women making advances, men tended to misread the sexual cues as friendliness. At the same time they mistook photos of women merely being friendly for sexual interest.
The researchers also found that women overestimate men's ability to pick up on sexual signals.
When shown images of women making advances, men tended to misread the sexual cues as friendliness. At the same time they mistook photos of women merely being friendly for sexual interest.
The researchers also found that women overestimate men's ability to pick up on sexual signals.
In basic communications theory, every message as a sender, a receiver, and the content. It sounds to me that all of the blame for men being unable to read women's signals is being placed on the receiver. Isn't it reasonable to consider that perhaps women aren't good at sending messages men can easily understand? Since the sender controls the content, if the message isn't understood, it's at least partially if not totally her fault.
When preparing a presentation, you have to consider the audience. You wouldn't prepare a presentation for high school students at a level appropriate for graduate students. They simply wouldn't understand and it would be the presenter's fault.
When shown images of women making advances, men tended to misread the sexual cues as friendliness. At the same time they mistook photos of women merely being friendly for sexual interest.
The researchers also found that women overestimate men's ability to pick up on sexual signals.
In basic communications theory, every message as a sender, a receiver, and the content. It sounds to me that all of the blame for men being unable to read women's signals is being placed on the receiver. Isn't it reasonable to consider that perhaps women aren't good at sending messages men can easily understand? Since the sender controls the content, if the message isn't understood, it's at least partially if not totally her fault.
When preparing a presentation, you have to consider the audience. You wouldn't prepare a presentation for high school students at a level appropriate for graduate students. They simply wouldn't understand and it would be the presenter's fault.
Garou wrote: "Thus, because women are generally better at perceiving non-verbal cues,"
I believe that the research supports your position. That is why women are often used as screeners at customs checkpoints, they have good social radar.
Of course, this data refers to women and men as a group, not individual differences.
Trey
larry j --
Correct. One of the primary tenants of writing is -- if someone doesn't understand what you wrote, you rewrite it. The writer is 100% responsible for ensuring communication.
Much like the 'obtuse' joke some make and then whine that others 'just don't get it', the furtive clue is made furtively on purpose. He just didn't get it. No -- you didn't deliver it properly.
It's kind of funny, really. A couple of women in my vanpool on Wednesday were commenting how clueless guys were about missing come-ons.
Of course, this is the same trio of sages who one week nodded wisely about how men don't take care of themselves properly and see a doctor, then the next went on about what big babies we are about any little sniffle.
I believe I see a pattern.
(I first said couple, then trio. Yeah, I know. There's really 3, even after I've had my coffee.)
I am really clueless when it comes to reading sexual cues. I mean, when I first saw this blog I thought the Doc was coming on to me because she was smiling at me. Then I realized it was just a picture of the Doc and so she was probably coming on to the photographer instead. Boy, did I feel stupid.
"In todays world, men are frequently the jokes by women, we are gagged and bound with societal expectations, we feel unloved, unwanted, so we reach out and grab the slightest hint of affection. Because we need love, we need to be wanted, but generally we are treated as nothing.
10:46 AM, March 30, 2008"
Actually we are gagged by laws not societal pressure. How many conservative men conform to societal pressure? Most push back men push back. Frankly I think we have just gotten tired of the nagging and told the back seat drivers to take a stab at it and we'll just pick up the pieces after the wreck. My only complaint is what is the cost. There are many capable women such as Dr. Helen, but I think we men need to stop coddling the women child and start forcing her to be the responsible adult.
Oligonicella said...
garou --
...women try like hell to read in things that simply aren't there, projecting female cues on the men when they just don't apply.
9:50 PM, March 30, 2008
Absolutely. Many times a particular woman accused me of hiding things and trying to trick her into something when the thought had never even entered my mind. I learned later that she was just projecting. I almost always said exactly what I meant, while she almost never did.
Secular Blasphemy argues that that's the way the game's played.
Ah, but the secret soccer dad, is to realize there is no game.
It took me a minute or two to realize you were joking.
Olig - Very funny and I hope it has been successful for you!
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a girl on the internet back when I was a teenager. We were both in a chatroom and I was flirting with another girl. My friend got upset, I guess because she thought of me as more than a friend. Anyways, her approach was to just stop talking and I noticed something was wrong. Afterwards I was talking to her and said I can't read your mind, you have to let me know what is wrong.
GawainsGhost: The Maenades were fictional, right? Even so, it makes you wonder if there were a lot of mean women at the time that inspired these stories.
There's a secret in the palm thing? I always thought it meant wax on, wax off.
I had a lady of the night approach me in Alaska when working on the pipeline many years ago. She said she'd do anything I wanted for 200 bucks. I said "anything?" She said, "anything big boy." So I handed her my address, gave her 200 hundred bucks and said, "Paint my house!"
"This reminds me of a conversation I had with a girl on the internet back when I was a teenager."
--
The Internet wasn't even a gleam in Al Gore's eye back when I was a teenager.
(Well ... it was an expanding ArpaNet, but not much else).
Bugs,
You are such a comic.
You know the insane part? I've been married for 22 years and still can't read my wife's clues half the time. (A problem on those days when I need assistance from a little pill or when I thought I saw a signal and used one of those VERY expensive buggers.)
To be fair, women can be real bitches to each other. Even today, if a teenage girl is too forward with guys, she's accused of being a slut.
Joe:
Um, I'm female and can't "read" clues either, male or female. What are we, operating in some sort of telepathic extrasensory communication arena? If one wants something then they should say so. Ridiculous.
Yeah, we must be clueless.
Example: ex-girlfriend spots me in strip-mall parking lot, honks her horn, pull up and gets out; she proceeds to be all hugs and kisses and walks with me arm in arm to the supermarket; she accompanies me as I shop even after she gets her items; once back outside she looks at a couple pieces of my artwork and gives me a good-bye kiss. She doesn't respond to cell phone text message I send the next day.
You're right I am clueless: these are just misread signals of her being friendly.
njartist:
Either it's her just being friendly, or she wants to make double damn sure you are fully aware of what you're missing out on these days. If the latter, it seems to have worked, eh?
On njartist's ex-girlfriend:
She wanted attention. And she got it.
Sometimes flaky behavior of women just boils down to a desire for attention.
Peregrine John - Are you the owner and driver of the van?
JG - I'm not quite 25, but I've been on here since 1995.
I am as bad as most men, if not worse, in this area, despite having read fairly extensively. I am with the woman I am with likely because she was the one woman worse at this sort of stuff than I am, and so mistook my passive aggressive pursuit as mere friendship, and so didn't have her normal defenses up at the beginning of our relationship.
What is interesting to me is to go out with women not as dates, but as friends. I help keep them safe, and they can point out the women showing interest in me. It seems to work fairly well.
Finally, I think that part of the passive aggressive way that females often seem to go after males in our society is a result of Girl World peer pressure. Many males react positively to females acting available. So, why do they have to be so subtle about showing interest in males? My suggestion is that comes from peer pressure from other females trying to keep their competitors from racing to the bottom.
I would like to chime in on this. There is an article I read that spelled out something the writer called rape-o.
Have you ever been in a bar and a woman seems to give off all the right signs? You chat with her, pay attention, buy drinks, ect. However, once you make a move she acts all surpised and tells you that she didn't mean it THAT way???
This is what some refer to as rape-o. Long or short of it is that it is the woman's way of re-assuring herself she is desirable. She gives off all the signs she usually would to see if she can reel in a man. It isn't done for long term, just so she knows men are still interested.
Many men have been through this. Sometimes it's not that we can't tell, it's that women are not serious about the signals. This just confuses us further.
At least, those are my thoughts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@mirwalk
It's being mislead, but it has to be painted by feminist writers as "men being clueless."
Contrast that with a man courting a woman, giving her the signs, getting her in bed, then saying "I thought we were just having fun? I don't want a relationship." Of course, when men mislead women they are (correctly) labeled pigs. When women mislead men, the men are labeled clueless.
br549:
She was being flaky. I am not the one who broke up.
A features writer at a major metropolitan daily recently told they were instructed to write more women's stories -- struggling newspapers need to snag more female readers. The thinking is, men read the sports and don't pay attention to the features.
To begin with, women smile at strangers more than men do. I don't know if it's innate or learned behavior but it's reality. It has nothing to do with sexual or romantic desire. I do a lot of cycling and staying safe in traffic means that you have to catch a lot of drivers' eyes so that you know they see you. Men will make a slight head nod acknowledging the contact, women, however, will often smile.
As for being clueless, I've solved the problem of misinterpreting non-verbal cues by looking at the facts and recognizing that there's a 100% chance she's not interested in me. I've never had a problem with falsely assuming a woman is interested in me. A smile is just a smile, nothing more. I assume that there is no interest and that way there are no misunderstandings. There's no problem with false-negatives because there are no false negatives. Women simply don't find me attractive. Assuming otherwise would just mean grief for all involved.
Women are only interested in me when they need something from me, usually some kind of technical expertise. They need my expertise, but I have no illusion that they want me.
This isn't just my perception. It's a professional opinion. My shrink told me that I give off a vibe that most women find repellent.
A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520視訊做愛聊天室plus論壇sex520免費影片avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
18成人免費18成人免費18成人影城18成人影城18成人影城18成人影城18成人影城18成人影像18成人影像18成人影像18成人影像18成人影像7x7美媚色色網7x7美媚色色網7x7美媚色色網淫窟淫窟淫窟
Post a Comment
<< Home