Do most women follow these outdated 'dating rules'?

[Ordinaryday]

I was just at the bookstore and I was browsing in the relationship section. I saw a title professing to offer the 'secrets to successful dating for women' and out of curiosity I flicked through it.

 

I was saddened and appalled by what I read in it. It offered ridiculous outdated advice such as 'NEVER make the first move, EVER' and 'NEVER speak to a guy first' and 'always appear disinterested on your first few dates' and 'always wait at least two hours before responding to his messages' and so on.

 

I looked for the date of publication, convinced that such outdated garbage must have been published in the 1950s, but nope... This book was PUBLISHED IN 2012!!!

 

This makes me so sad! For all the efforts that the women's rights and feminist movements did in the 60s and 70s to convince men that WOMEN ARE EQUAL TO THEM, yo still have outdated sexist tripe like this, playing t the mot outdated stereotypes about dating.

 

This is 2013, a WOMAN IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO A GUY FIRST and by God, EVEN MAKE THE FIRST MOVE IF SHE WANTS TO!!

 

And yet when I think of it several women I have dated have been like this and I just gave up on them... I am not going to jump through hoops for a woman who only seems half-heartedly interested in me. I just gave up on them and their mind games and when I told my friends about what happened, they sa that maybe she was interested but just playing 'hard to get'. If so, then it is her loss.

 

I am not going to go to miles of effort for a woman who seems to only begrudgingly be with me, and I have heard many guys say the same thing.

 

How, in 2013, on earth can women still be offered this outdated, offensive, steretypical tripe as 'dating rules'? And any women who follow it, well I take it you don't work and instead stay in the kitchen all day? Since you follow outdated models of advice for dating, I take it you also believe other outdated offensive crap like 'a woman's place is in the kitchen'?

 

Seriously.... Do women STILL adhere to this outdated garbage?

[Mrlonelyone]

 

Seriously.... Do women STILL adhere to this outdated garbage?

 

Yes. Most people believe in the stereotype that women are passive.

 

Dating books are based on the principle that the least interested person has the power. For a woman that means act like you could care less about the man.

[Ordinaryday]

Yes. Most people believe in the stereotype that women are passive.

 

Dating books are based on the principle that the least interested person has the power. For a woman that means act like you could care less about the man.

 

It's disgusting, outdated, stereotypical and offensive garbage! Ad I ink of so many girls like this - no wonder so many relationships fail.

 

The last girl I was with was not like this at all - she made it clear from moment one that she hated mind games, was always upfront, that she would never bulli***** me and that she would not be with me of I did any of those things. I absolutely loved her honesty, it was such a great change!

 

We ended up breaking up though, but for a different matter

[Woggle]

That rules stuff did so much damage to dating and relationships.

[Ordinaryday]

That rules stuff did so much damage to dating and relationships.

 

I have asked women out, and women have asked me out. I have made the first move, and women have made the first move on me. It's EQUALITY, a woman is allowed to, and most men like it when they do! I can say I HATE IT when women play mind games and my friends say the same thing.

 

How in 2012 can a book like this be published?

[Woggle]

I have asked women out, and women have asked me out. I have made the first move, and women have made the first move on me. It's EQUALITY, a woman is allowed to, and most men like it when they do! I can say I HATE IT when women play mind games and my friends say the same thing.

 

How in 2012 can a book like this be published?

 

Because some people have trouble finding what they want and they think playing stupid games is the answer to those problems. It's sort of the female version of PUA.

[sillyanswer]

Dating books are based on the principle that the least interested person has the power.

 

Dating books are based on the principle that there's one born every minute.

[Woggle]

In the past 15 years or so we have been flooded with dating books yet the state of relationships is just pathetic these days. It obviously is not doing very much good.

[Woggle]

Yes. Most people believe in the stereotype that women are passive.

 

Dating books are based on the principle that the least interested person has the power. For a woman that means act like you could care less about the man.

 

People will never find a quality person playing these games because quality people tend to reject this kind of thing.

[nerd]

I think the whole passive female role worked a lot better when women weren't a major part of the workforce, didn't have the right to vote, basically had very little way to survive without being married, didn't have contraceptive options, etc.

 

The world is changing but dating practices haven't caught up.

 

Whenever I say something like this, people tell me the world has always been changing. True, but it seems like it's been changing a lot more the past few decades...

 

then again, I guess life has always been unfair, and we just have to make the best of it.

[Buck Turgidson]

This is 2013, a WOMAN IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO A GUY FIRST and by God, EVEN MAKE THE FIRST MOVE IF SHE WANTS TO!!

 

Not really. Even in 2013. Not if she wants to remain acceptable to mainstream society. On this board alone, threads are frequently spawned debating whether such women should be referred to as "sluts" or "whores." While it would be nice if women could feel comfortable being so forward with what they want without being labelled, it simply isn't true. Ask women.

 

From this article:

"Women want sex, and in particular, they want sex with people who really want them. But socially, many straight men still find it a turnoff when women are sexual aggressors. Which means that, for women, aggressively pursuing the thing they want actually leads to them not getting it. I suspect this is the source of much sexual dissatisfaction of the modern single lady, who's so horny she's running across the street to Walgreens to buy more batteries twice a week, but is unable to pick up men despite social conventions that men are "easy" to bed and women have to be coaxed into casual sex. The thing women are told they can access any time is, maddeningly, often just out of reach."

[SuperGeek]

I disagree with the article. It is 2013. I've seen more women hitting on men and having casual sex than ever before. If a girl wants casual sex it's pretty damn easy for them to get it these days. I'd say it would take probably 5-10 minutes for a woman to find casual sex in today's society, especially if she's got lots of guy friends hanging around.

 

Not really. Even in 2013. Not if she wants to remain acceptable to mainstream society. On this board alone, threads are frequently spawned debating whether such women should be referred to as "sluts" or "whores." While it would be nice if women could feel comfortable being so forward with what they want without being labelled, it simply isn't true. Ask women.

 

From this article:

"Women want sex, and in particular, they want sex with people who really want them. But socially, many straight men still find it a turnoff when women are sexual aggressors. Which means that, for women, aggressively pursuing the thing they want actually leads to them not getting it. I suspect this is the source of much sexual dissatisfaction of the modern single lady, who's so horny she's running across the street to Walgreens to buy more batteries twice a week, but is unable to pick up men despite social conventions that men are "easy" to bed and women have to be coaxed into casual sex. The thing women are told they can access any time is, maddeningly, often just out of reach."

[Kamille]

If you play the game, you get the game.

 

Which is why I'm more interested in getting to know men nowadays, all while trusting my own capacity to take care of myself. I'm figuring out that this means dating men who make me feel accepted and safe.

 

I feel like a lot of women (friends or posters here) approach dating with a combination of urgency and fear. They need to be in a relationship ASAP, need the guy to come on strong from the first moment he sets eyes on her. This accelerated pace creates anxiety. It leads them to be on the look out for red flags - often dismissing guys before even really getting to know them. I don't fully get it. (I have historically dated men from my social circles, whom I had known for some time before we decided to become an item).

 

That said, I'd rather rush to Walgreens for more batteries than sleep with someone who didn't make me feel like a million bucks.

[Revolver]

Most women have massive egos and handle rejection worse then guys. So that's why alot of women won't put themselves out there to get rejected or turned down unless its a top notch guy in their eyes.

[Drseussgrrl]

What dating book tells you to act "uninterested"?

 

Do you have the name of this book?

[soccerrprp]

I was just at the bookstore and I was browsing in the relationship section. I saw a title professing to offer the 'secrets to successful dating for women' and out of curiosity I flicked through it.

 

I was saddened and appalled by what I read in it. It offered ridiculous outdated advice such as 'NEVER make the first move, EVER' and 'NEVER speak to a guy first' and 'always appear disinterested on your first few dates' and 'always wait at least two hours before responding to his messages' and so on.

 

I looked for the date of publication, convinced that such outdated garbage must have been published in the 1950s, but nope... This book was PUBLISHED IN 2012!!!

 

This makes me so sad! For all the efforts that the women's rights and feminist movements did in the 60s and 70s to convince men that WOMEN ARE EQUAL TO THEM, yo still have outdated sexist tripe like this, playing t the mot outdated stereotypes about dating.

 

This is 2013, a WOMAN IS ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO A GUY FIRST and by God, EVEN MAKE THE FIRST MOVE IF SHE WANTS TO!!

 

And yet when I think of it several women I have dated have been like this and I just gave up on them... I am not going to jump through hoops for a woman who only seems half-heartedly interested in me. I just gave up on them and their mind games and when I told my friends about what happened, they sa that maybe she was interested but just playing 'hard to get'. If so, then it is her loss.

 

I am not going to go to miles of effort for a woman who seems to only begrudgingly be with me, and I have heard many guys say the same thing.

 

How, in 2013, on earth can women still be offered this outdated, offensive, steretypical tripe as 'dating rules'? And any women who follow it, well I take it you don't work and instead stay in the kitchen all day? Since you follow outdated models of advice for dating, I take it you also believe other outdated offensive crap like 'a woman's place is in the kitchen'?

 

Seriously.... Do women STILL adhere to this outdated garbage?

 

Is there something wrong with me?! Am I living in another reality or dimension? I just don't meet women like the stereotypes so many speak of or such books describe.

 

Eh.....I'll just remain happy in my own world.

[Kamille]

Is there something wrong with me?! Am I living in another reality or dimension? I just don't meet women like the stereotypes so many speak of or such books describe.

 

Eh.....I'll just remain happy in my own world.

 

So perhaps it's time to change your location from planning to leave Tx?

[soccerrprp]

So perhaps it's time to change your location from planning to leave Tx?

 

Lol! Kamille, ironically, TX has little or nothing to do with the quality of women I have dated. It's pretty amazing, but almost all of the ladies I've met were either not originally from TX or spent an appreciable time of their lives elsewhere to return for one reason or another.

 

So, I must admit, dating "typical" or provincial TX women has not been as rosey. We would have very little in common anyway.

 

I find the area where I live to be in conflict with my beliefs for the most part. But, it has its merits. Not many, but some. Who knows, when and if I find someone here, perhaps my perspective will change.

Edited June 30, 2013 by soccerrprp

[Els]

Eh, if any adult wants to let a book written by another human being dictate black-and-white 'rules' for how they choose to conduct themselves in interpersonal relationships, without giving any thought as to the merit of the advice... the problem lies with them. Not really with the author of the book, who more than likely is just out to make a quick buck (and probably succeeded).

 

It's not exactly a gender-specific issue either. Honestly, have you seen half of the garbage being spouted at men containing arbitrary rules about how to be 'successful' with women? Same crap, different name... A name quite commonly used around LS, in fact.

[crude]

It's called wanting to have it both ways. When it suits her, she wants equality, and when it doesn't, she's an old fashioned girl.

[phineas]

The "rules" LOL!

 

Last night a woman I know as friends "accidentally" texted me about going to see some live music. Then 10 mins later said "oops, that was meant for my XXXXX but if we go you are welcome to come."

 

Her friend is a woman & her name is nowhere even close to mine. in fact we don't even have a common letter in our names. LOL! Plus she knew I didn't have my kids this weekend. so I know it was no accident.

 

Boggles my mind how a beautiful woman who is approached by every male in the place with a heartbeat (except when she stands next to me.) is afraid of just asking me to hang out one-on-one even as just friends.

 

I actually friendzoned her because when we met she was only separated (for 5yrs) and going through the divorce. didn't want any part of that.

But that is going to be finalized this summer.

 

So who knows.

[irc333]

Yes. Most people believe in the stereotype that women are passive.

 

Dating books are based on the principle that the least interested person has the power. For a woman that means act like you could care less about the man.

 

Yet there are so called "relationship experts" that state "you should wait X amount of days before calling" a woman.

 

Funny how the rules in that book you flicked through apparently a book counters it..for men, with the exact SAME rules.

 

Then BOTH genders NEVER wind up getting together. LOL!

 

Thus the income for authors keep on flowing!! :laugh:

[Els]

Yet there are so called "relationship experts" that state "you should wait X amount of days before calling" a woman.

 

Funny how the rules in that book you flicked through apparently a book counters it..for men, with the exact SAME rules.

 

Then BOTH genders NEVER wind up getting together. LOL!

 

Thus the income for authors keep on flowing!! :laugh:

 

:laugh:

 

Brilliant, ain't it?

[shexy]

I don't follow those outdated stupid rules....sadly though I think a lot of women still do. Its probably what their mothers or grandmothers told them to do, and for some reason they believed it would work. And it does work for a lot of women, unfortunately.

 

I personally hate dating/relationship game playing....it's just immature and silly.

[phineas]

Yet there are so called "relationship experts" that state "you should wait X amount of days before calling" a woman.

 

Funny how the rules in that book you flicked through apparently a book counters it..for men, with the exact SAME rules.

 

Then BOTH genders NEVER wind up getting together. LOL!

 

Thus the income for authors keep on flowing!! :laugh:

 

Yep. It's all about who can show the least amount of interest so you don't seem "desperate". So retarded.

I personally just go for it. she either wants to or she doesn't. If she doesn't I forget about her and move on.

she has my number.

 

I've tried doing the "she's playing hard to get thing" and honestly those women are cray cray.