Do most women follow these outdated 'dating rules'?

[todreaminblue]

it really depends on teh type of woman you are...if you are passive in nature then approaching a guy and making the first move seems alien like.....then its probably the case the type of guy you would relate to would be a more assertive guy.....a more assertive guy wouldn't have a problem making the first move and it would be a natural progression......

 

i prefer a quiet guy honestly with untapped inner strength......but the guys who approach me are more assertive.......and they are the ones i end up going out with,...because it isnt natural for me to approach first.....lol...was told by my grandfather for me to wait for the boy who had enough guts to come up to me....that if a guy truly liked me he would ask me regardless........that i wouldnt have to chase the right guy...it was a weird conversation .....i was young and my grandfather was terminal....wouldnt be aroudn to see who i was with.........so i wont chase and i have never really chased i ask once thats it for me.......i just wait....have ta listen to the guy who had all the traits that i adore.......because he only ever wanted the best .....and i do believe if a guy really cares about any woman...they move regardless of fear, passivity and others opinions on what is outdated or dated....they make a move because they cant not try.......deb

[Eggplant]

Feminism or no feminism, equality or no equality, people's dating behaviors and reactions to them are still influenced by millions of years of evolution, are they not?

 

While some old rules may no longer be relevant, I wouldn't completely disregard all age-old wisdom.

[Eggplant]

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.

I've seen this complaint on this site a lot. Would you help me understand it? If a woman wants an education and career, and she wants to wait to have sex until she feels ready, how is that "having it both ways?"

[Revolver]

For the most part if a man is interested in a woman he will go after her. Alot of women will say, "well what If he's shy?"

 

But do you really want to be with a man who doesn't have the balls to approach you?

[Ordinaryday]

For the most part if a man is interested in a woman he will go after her. Alot of women will say, "well what If he's shy?"

 

But do you really want to be with a man who doesn't have the balls to approach you?

 

Double standard, so in other words some women only want equality when it suits them!

[Kamille]

For the most part if a man is interested in a woman he will go after her. Alot of women will say, "well what If he's shy?"

 

But do you really want to be with a man who doesn't have the balls to approach you?

 

Yeah. Why the **** not? Having balls is not the only thing a man has to offer (pun intended). If I'm into a guy it's because he has other qualities that I find attractive. Hopefully he's a well-rounded person, with unique traits and adorable flaws.

[Els]

Actually, getting sex is very, very easy.

 

Except a vibrator is probably more satisfying than the majority of random sex encounters. Safer, too. :p

[ltjg45]

For the most part if a man is interested in a woman he will go after her. Alot of women will say, "well what If he's shy?"

 

But do you really want to be with a man who doesn't have the balls to approach you?

 

That depends. I may not be as interesting in the woman as she is into me if I don't approach.

 

It's the same thing if the genders was flipped in this case. I could very well approach women that just doesn't want me as badly as I want her.

 

So regardless of who approaches, one person in this apparently "doesn't have the balls to approach" the other.

 

How ironic.

 

Men is expected to do all of the chasing and take all of the rejection from women in the dating game and women is traditionally supposed to sit back and play the passive game despite the reasons why women want men to be aggressive is now invalid due to equal opportunities for both genders to go for the career that they want.

 

In fact, the only people that is taking the hit from this is the women that wants a traditional relationship since now they have to do some chasing themselves if they want to get a decent male by their side or hope the men they want actually approaches them.

 

Now, there is nothing I want from a woman other than companionship since I can get everything else by myself. Same thing with women. They don't need men either outside of companionship.

 

Both genders is finally equal. The old rules no longer have as much strength and the pressure to approach and chase only to get crushed is frankly gone now.

 

I prefer it that way.

Edited July 1, 2013 by ltjg45

[Eggplant]

You misunderstod it.

 

Women are modern in that they want to have great careers and be the breadwinner in the relationship and therefore have the financial upper hand in it.

 

But they are old fashioned in that they want the man to be the pursuer and initiate most if not all of the time, this gives the woman the emotional upper hand in that she is more "desired" than the man.

 

I don't know where you got the waiting for sex part.

 

I see -- you don't think the woman should be the "special" one when dating.

 

But wait -- when a relationship goes south, almost always, the one who comes out worse is the woman. After years of investment, the man may move onto the next pretty thing and dust himself off and be on his way. He doesn't have the same bio clock, and age doesn't decrease his ability to attract a mate in the same way. Meanwhile it's the woman who has lost years of her fertility and chance to find a life-long partner. Or worse, she does get pregnant, but with the wrong man. And now her body is forever changed and let's face it -- it's harder for a woman with children to find a new man than for a man with children to find a new woman. And women are programmed emotionally to take relationship failures VERY hard. Ever seen a woman scorned? That's a biological reaction. Extreme pain.

 

Women carry babies to term. This doesn't mean women have the upper hand. But in exchange for the risk and reproductive investment, what is needed on the man's end is commitment. And that gets demonstrated by the wooing process. In fact, I would argue that if the woman cannot hope for the man to woo her and treat her as special, then the man definitely has the upper hand. She must take the greater risk for the same price as he, in your scenario. Because what is being exchanged in the dating game sure as h*ll is not equal, and no liberation movement can change that.

[Woggle]

If women want men to commit give us something worth committing to and make it worth our while. These games are not going to change the fact that many men just think it is not worth the risk.

[Southern Cal Dude]

But wait -- when a relationship goes south, almost always, the one who comes out worse is the woman.

 

 

Absolutely not true.

[Woggle]

Absolutely not true.

 

I am sure the divorced guy living in a dump and drinking away his pain didn't come out too good.

[Eggplant]

If women want men to commit give us something worth committing to and make it worth our while. These games are not going to change the fact that many men just think it is not worth the risk.

 

The "games" are usually just advice for women to chill out and not do what they want to do instinctively and pour out their heart immediately and go full-force emotionally intimate, which might freak a guy out.

 

Also, the "games" are designed to weed out men who are not up to taking the risk, not change their mind at all. It's a numbers game, and you have to not waste time on somebody who won't commit.

 

What, out of curiosity, would be worth committing to? And if you saw that in a woman, would you pursue her then?

[Eggplant]

I am sure the divorced guy living in a dump and drinking away his pain didn't come out too good.

 

I didn't mean that men don't experience trauma, or to down-play the pain that men feel from heartbreak.

[Southern Cal Dude]

Also, the "games" are designed to weed out men who are not up to taking the risk, not change their mind at all. It's a numbers game, and you have to not waste time on somebody who won't commit.

 

 

The only ones it weeds out are the good ones. Players take it as a challenge and the losers have no other options so they'll play along.

[Eggplant]

The only ones it weeds out are the good ones. Players take it as a challenge and the losers have no other options so they'll play along.

 

I'll agree that overt "games" are a bad idea.

 

But one purpose of the "rules" is simply to keep women from impulsively trying to get too close too soon emotionally. Just as men want immediate physical intimacy, women want emotional intimacy FAST. I know, it's a generalization and not always true. But usually it is. It's simply good boundaries and manners to keep the stage of the relationship in perspective. If I acted as my hormones would have me, I would throw myself at the guy as soon as I felt emotionally connected, which happen more readily for women. ... And that would probably freak a poor guy out.

 

Players, by the way, totally lose interest when the woman keeps her cool. They don't have time to invest lots of energy and brain power on women they don't care about.

 

As far as the "losers" you speak of go, one thing they have going for them is that they want the woman more than the other ones who won't be bothered to "play games." What good does that other non-"loser" do me if he doesn't want me? Also, and this notion might be controversial, I think the most stable long-term relationships are those in which the man is marrying up.

[Southern Cal Dude]

But one purpose of the "rules" is simply to keep women from impulsively trying to get too close too soon emotionally.

 

 

Rule #1 in life- there are no rules.

 

 

Players, by the way, totally lose interest when the woman keeps her cool. They don't have time to invest lots of energy and brain power on women they don't care about.

 

 

Keeping her cool isn't what makes him lose interest. She can keep it cool, decide that she still wants to sleep with him, and he'll bail. She can also keep her cool, not put out, and he'll still bail.

 

 

As far as the "losers" you speak of go, one thing they have going for them is that they want the woman more than the other ones who won't be bothered to "play games." What good does that other non-"loser" do me if he doesn't want me? Also, and this notion might be controversial, I think the most stable long-term relationships are those in which the man is marrying up.

 

 

And those are the guys who get friendzoned. The last part I'll agree with to an extent. Studies have shown the most successful relationships are where both parties are even in attractiveness or the woman is a bit higher. Relationships where the man is more attractiveness, are less successful. But I'm also going by looks. If a man marries up in terms of income or social standing, then I completely disagree with your notion.

[Eggplant]

Rule #1 in life- there are no rules.

What about statistical patterns? Likelihoods? Probabilities? Oh screw it. It's just chaos.

 

Keeping her cool isn't what makes him lose interest. She can keep it cool, decide that she still wants to sleep with him, and he'll bail. She can also keep her cool, not put out, and he'll still bail.

Player will bail regardless. I prefer the latter scenario.

 

And those are the guys who get friendzoned.

And that's because she doesn't feel chemistry. Ideally a woman wants a man crazy about her to invest and take risks who she is also passionate about too. It's hard to find, which is why it's a numbers game, which is why you can't waste time.

 

The last part I'll agree with to an extent. Studies have shown the most successful relationships are where both parties are even in attractiveness or the woman is a bit higher. Relationships where the man is more attractiveness, are less successful. But I'm also going by looks. If a man marries up in terms of income or social standing, then I completely disagree with your notion.

I've heard that statistically, the relationship is most solid when the woman is at least 5 years younger, more attractive, and with a higher IQ. THEN he'll commit .

[Southern Cal Dude]

What about statistical patterns? Likelihoods? Probabilities? Oh screw it. It's just chaos.

 

 

Life isn't a math equation. When it comes to getting what you want and what you're attracted to, probabilities are meaningless.

 

 

And that's because she doesn't feel chemistry. Ideally a woman wants a man crazy about her to invest and take risks who she is also passionate about too. It's hard to find, which is why it's a numbers game, which is why you can't waste time.

 

 

Investing goes both ways. The one with the most power is the one who cares less.

 

 

I've heard that statistically, the relationship is most solid when the woman is at least 5 years younger, more attractive, and with a higher IQ. THEN he'll commit .

 

 

Since I'm at the high end of the attractiveness scale, I guess I'm screwed.

[Els]

I see -- you don't think the woman should be the "special" one when dating.

 

But wait -- when a relationship goes south, almost always, the one who comes out worse is the woman. After years of investment, the man may move onto the next pretty thing and dust himself off and be on his way. He doesn't have the same bio clock, and age doesn't decrease his ability to attract a mate in the same way. Meanwhile it's the woman who has lost years of her fertility and chance to find a life-long partner. Or worse, she does get pregnant, but with the wrong man. And now her body is forever changed and let's face it -- it's harder for a woman with children to find a new man than for a man with children to find a new woman. And women are programmed emotionally to take relationship failures VERY hard. Ever seen a woman scorned? That's a biological reaction. Extreme pain.

 

Women carry babies to term. This doesn't mean women have the upper hand. But in exchange for the risk and reproductive investment, what is needed on the man's end is commitment. And that gets demonstrated by the wooing process. In fact, I would argue that if the woman cannot hope for the man to woo her and treat her as special, then the man definitely has the upper hand. She must take the greater risk for the same price as he, in your scenario. Because what is being exchanged in the dating game sure as h*ll is not equal, and no liberation movement can change that.

 

Some people here are going to argue with you about this til the cows come home - but IMO, you should do what you feel is best for yourself. If this is what you feel is best, then so be it. The same goes for men who feel they don't want to commit before having sex, for whatever reason. As long as there is no deception going on, people have the right to do whatever they want.

 

The issue I have with 'rules' is that some people think that their ideas are so supreme that anyone who doesn't follow the same path is doomed to failure... and worse yet, some people are sucked in by that! Hence you have adults following arbitrary 'rules' without giving thought to rhyme or reason.

 

In your case, that doesn't seem to be so, as you have reasons for what you do, even if not everyone agrees with them.

[Eggplant]

Life isn't a math equation. When it comes to getting what you want and what you're attracted to, probabilities are meaningless.

It's not rigid, but some order can be made out of chaos.

 

 

 

Investing goes both ways. The one with the most power is the one who cares less.

It's the woman who really invests and who ultimately therefore has less power. Which is why traditionally, once the woman married and had babies, all her ducks were in the basket of her husband. So the men had all the power, because she absolutely was dependent on the relationship working. Look at the infidelity boards. Women are far more ready to take cheating husbands back than husbands take back wives. Why? Because of that very power dynamic. This dynamic has been altered due to women's liberation and ability to have a career (thankfully), although some part of it remains true -- once a woman has her babies with a certain man and is no longer young enough to have more babies, she has given her EVERYTHING to this man. Ultimately, the one who takes the bigger jump and leap of faith is therefore the woman. That's why the wooing stage and demonstration of commitment first by the male is (was) customary.

 

Since I'm at the high end of the attractiveness scale, I guess I'm screwed.

Yeah -- that must really suck.

[Ryan R.]

And why wouldn't it work the other way round? Do I really want to be with a woman who doesn't have the balls to approach me?

 

That's the clincher - women don't have balls. Literally.

 

I still think it weird if women do a majority of the heavy lifting when it comes to the initial attraction phase. I would find it very odd if a woman asked me out on a date, paid for both of us, and even engaged to me. I've never seen women as "passive" but rather "receptive". Women seem to be more receptive and open to things than men are. This is something I've noticed in my interactions with both sexes.

 

So I hope you work up the nerve to ask a girl out, it would probably do you some good.

 

I see -- you don't think the woman should be the "special" one when dating.

 

But wait -- when a relationship goes south, almost always, the one who comes out worse is the woman. After years of investment, the man may move onto the next pretty thing and dust himself off and be on his way. He doesn't have the same bio clock, and age doesn't decrease his ability to attract a mate in the same way. Meanwhile it's the woman who has lost years of her fertility and chance to find a life-long partner. Or worse, she does get pregnant, but with the wrong man. And now her body is forever changed and let's face it -- it's harder for a woman with children to find a new man than for a man with children to find a new woman. And women are programmed emotionally to take relationship failures VERY hard. Ever seen a woman scorned? That's a biological reaction. Extreme pain.

 

Women carry babies to term. This doesn't mean women have the upper hand. But in exchange for the risk and reproductive investment, what is needed on the man's end is commitment. And that gets demonstrated by the wooing process. In fact, I would argue that if the woman cannot hope for the man to woo her and treat her as special, then the man definitely has the upper hand. She must take the greater risk for the same price as he, in your scenario. Because what is being exchanged in the dating game sure as h*ll is not equal, and no liberation movement can change that.

 

 

Hm... I don't know about that. There are some women out there who men would jump at the chance to be with even if they had children. Also, due to current alimony and divorce laws, the man will inevitably end up worse (financially) more so than the woman. If a woman calls off divorce (which is 50%+ of cases), chances are she's already flew the coop emotionally. When this happens, men often get blindsided by divorce.

 

But I see where you're coming from.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Ryan R.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Double standard, so in other words some women only want equality when it suits them!

 

Choosing to ask men out or to not has nothing to do with equality.

 

If a woman wants to date men who do the asking, then her dating pool will be confined to men who will make the first move. What's the problem with that? If that's the type of man she likes, and you are offended by that, such a woman and you would be poorly suited to bother at all with each other.

 

Same goes for Mr. Turk and the rest of you fellows who are all outraged about women who enjoy being asked out by men. Don't like asking women out? Don't ask them out!

 

As for the book - who cares. If you want to find published material to get your underpants all scrunched up over, you can find it on any subject under the sun. Sure, it's 2013. But you can still buy books teaching you how to live like the pioneers. And how to date old fashioned-style. Big deal.

[Ryan R.]

When I used to read pickup "literature", a lot of the topics covered feigning disinterest or being uninterested in order to gain a supposed upper hand. It seems that in dating, whoever has the lowest emotional investment wins or has more power in a relationship. Obviously you don't want to act like a kid going to Disney World the first time, but if you act like a robot, then how can the girl know you really like her? I've never understood that. If both parties act disinterested but really like each other, someone's got to give in some time or else there will be no relationship.

 

Also, I would like to add that I realize as a man, I will probably have to ask out the first girl I date. I am still trying to get the fortitude to do so. I simply do not have the physical attractiveness necessary to attract women like magnets and make them fall in love with me at first sight. If I don't ask out women, my potential dating pool shrinks significantly.

[Eggplant]

And it's almost always the woman who initiates the break up

I didn't know that. That said, the person who actually does the breaking up isn't always necessarily the one who truly left the relationship. In the case of infidelity, for example, the betrayed partner might initiate the break-up, but it can be argued that the cheater was really the one to leave.