Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Males Commonly Mistake Sexual Intent
seattle-pk writes "Males are apparently clueless when it comes to interpreting sexual intent from females, according to a recent study (PDF) from Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Men were found commonly to perceive more sexual intent in women's behavior than women were intending to convey. (A campus survey showed that 68% of college females had an experience where a male mistook signs of friendliness for affection.) However, the study also shows that men were quite likely to misperceive sexual interest as friendliness. 'Rather than seeing the world through sex-colored glasses, men seemed just to have blurry vision of sorts, overall,' according to the article. If you're a male who ever mistook the meaning of a barista's smile, looks like you're not alone."
Is this from the same study group that found males like beer?
"She slapped me, that means she wants my bod!"
Table-ized A.I.
women have blurry behavior
I blame geof's speakers.
The study actually just found that women are unclear about communicating their intentions to men.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
thanks for posting this info on /. we need all the education about the opposite sex that we need (never mind the mothers whose basements we hermits live in)
Nothing to do with deliberate ambiguity fostered by females then.
Deleted
Things sure were simpler when we were monkeys.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Beeing a geek doesn't make things any better, now does it...
Oh contraire! The girls should be more clear about what they intend to do. They normally say they just wanted to be friendly and are completly taken aback, when some guy understands their cryptic signs as encuragement to get together.
Why's this story in the "Humor" section? What's so funny about a 30-year old virgin?
Oh, wait..... HAW, HAW!
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
We're MEN... We need CLEAR signals. We've only got enough blood to fill any one of the two organs at a time and most of the time it isn't the brain. Give us a CLEAR yes. You want us to fully comprehend then wear a damned sign - until then? Well... *shrugs*
Bah... Screw it... Until then remember that we've got too many people on the planet already.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There may be some evolutionary advantage in over-interpreting signals. Even though you may be wrong most of the time, the few times you are right still gets you some bootie. (Although it barely offsets the broken leg from one of the error's boyfriends.)
Table-ized A.I.
What a wonderful example of our tax dollars at work.
Since humans are one of the few species that conceal ovulation I am wondering if this has a more genetic basis.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Men are clueless about womens' signals about sex. In other news, water is wet and fire is hot. Move along, nothing to see here.
Ambiguity is probably in women's interest. Just like ovulation being hidden from men, unusually in the animal world (which makes men compete sexually for women constantly, and not just at particular times).
Probably gives women greater power (or rather, it increases the statistical chance of the genes of a particular woman being successfully passed on, which is all natural cares about).
Azural - instrumentals
Researchers are so lazy, interviewing people on campus, just because they are there next to you, does not seem to be a very credible methodology. Students are probably not a representative sample of anything.
My little Linux and tech blog
I've had women practically throwing themselves at me, and I don't realize it until later.
I don't seem to have any problem giving off "the vibes" myself, but I'm blind and deaf to them when I'm on the receiving end it seems.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Wow, that's the most stupid piece of research I ever saw. Not only are they generalizing from a bunch of 20 year olds to "all guys", but the scientific measurement involves trying to derive clues from static photos. Given how much body language is related to motion, timing and so on I'm not really surprised that they found it hard. I'd be interested to know how strong this guys
Damn it, I thought she was just being polite :-(
I RTFA and it didn't test married couples, actually it looks like it just used pictures. I would like to see the test done with married couples in a real world environment, I for one know what my wife wants and when she wants it. Then again I don't think we're normal the whole married five years, two kids, still act like rutting teenagers most of the time.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
Anyone who's dated or flirted has dealt with women (I'm sure it works both ways) who feign sexual interest to achieve another outcome, or feigned disinterested friendliness when the opposite is true. I consider myself an expert as I've misread women in just about any way possible.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Mostly dark this morning turning brightly sunny then partly cloudy during the day with a slight threat of rain showers tonight. Temps will go from bitter cold early this morning to somewhat tolerable for about 5 minutes this afternoon before heading back to bitter cold again tonight.
Next week will see warming temperatures during the day, continued cold temperatures at night, and continued varying cycles of dark and light throughout the day.
That's the weather; I'm not Chevy Chase, but maybe you are.
Wow. Talk about interpreting the data to fit ones prejudices, instead of exploring all possibilities.
How about this take?: Women can't effectively communicate sexual intent (or lack) to men.
Or maybe we'll decide not to bow to such specious sexist chauvinism?: Study shows people are confused about sexuality. Women don't know how to ask for it, and the men don't know when they're asking. NAAAH!
It may seem trite, but communication is a two way street. Both the speaker and the listener are equally to blame for a failed communication, usually for not setting a clear set of assumptions upon which to base it. You know, language.
I would say that what this shows is that the language of sexual intent, especially primary (non-verbal) language, is sorely lacking. Have you seen the current youth "sexy dance?" They are seriously just out there having fun. Not a thing wrong with it. But if I did that with my wife, she'd know I want to "get down" later.
Don't get me wrong, they're hooking up too, but they're out there grinding like a bunch of feckless bunnies, and it doesn't necessarily mean anyone wants to have sex.
How could anyone not be confused? The only societal basis in the sexual dialogue we have any more is that misinterpretation is the only crime, and that only men misinterpret, because they're so bad at communication.
That's not a basis for relations between the sexes, that's absurd chauvinistic prejudice that makes your right hand seem considerably less risky.
So, in the age of sexy dancing, well past overtly sexualized clothing, trivialized sexual language, and a general dissolving of the entire courting process, how does one communicate, "Hey sailor, wanna fuck?" in a subtle and socially acceptable fashion?
That's not a question worth answering when you can just blame the man for being clueless.
Retitle: Study shows common prejudice that communications problems are always the man's fault. New study sets out to prove that the trivialization of sexual content in American society has left all parties thoroughly rudderless.
--
Toro
Unfortunately, the only thing this study proves is that the researchers had a very poor education.
.. and more specifically, "Young males taken exclusively from a highly mating oriented environment mistake social cues from young females taken exclusively from the same environment"
The correct conclusion is not that "males mistake social cues", it's "males mistake females' social cues"
There are no tests to see how well males understand cues from other males, therefore no statement can be made about men alone.. Similarly, no tests to see how well women understand cues from other women, and thus the same problem.
Absolutely no information can be derived from this research in relation the researchers' stated aims.
I know of a case back home where a known whore bag went home with 2 guys to have lots of drunken sex, bragged about it to everyone and when it was ill received the story turned into rape.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
... that women are useless at communicating non-verbally with men, as they persist in using signals that are in fact only understood by women.
(Just like women dress up and put on makeup to impress each other, not to communicate with men.)
Hey girls, if you want to tell a man something you need to use a language he can understand, not some incomprehensible private girlie language!
No, when I was a monkey I commonly mistook messages for grooming to be sexual advances too. Hey come on... her paws were all in my fur n' stuff.
Does a restraining order mean she's playing hard to get?
#If you're a male who ever mistook the meaning of a barista's smile, looks like you're not alone.
Did I understand this correctly?
Smiles have meanings? Why was I not informed of this? Someone is going to pay...
I'm surprised you people don't know your basic science. This is known as Dave's Law of Perpetual Male Sexual Optimism.
The law has been understood in general terms since the dawn of time, but did not gain wide acceptance in the scientific community until I provided the specific units and measuring system that allowed it to be quantified and reported.
The unit, known in research circles as the Beer Glass, allows for easy measurement and rigorous scientific analysis of the soon-to-be-disappointed male's iron-clad belief that he's going to get lucky at some point within the next three encounters with a particular female. It ranges from, "Hey, man, she likes me" at the low end of the spectrum to, "I am SO gonna get laid tonight" at the eight or nine BG level. The basic assumption is that unless a female actually drops puking to her knees at the sight of the male in question, he will assume that there is some level of interest. The question then becomes, "Would I do her?" That's where the measurement system kicks in and allows the male's level of optimism to be counted, charted and evaluated.
Significantly, no similar system has been developed for females, though some research in the "Girlfriend's Hot Boyfriend" area seems promising.
I hope this helps to put things in the proper perspective.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
With most of them, you'd need the Star Trek Universal Translator to make any sense of it. I refuse to correspond with any woman whose profile is longer than the US Constitution.
I've worked for a karaoke bar called the 7 Bamboo since 2001. Here's some video clips of the mayhem.
.com, NT3.51 days) I used to see women use the very same techniques at work to size new hires up, or get guys to help them on projects, or whatever. I think this is pre-programmed into us from our primate ancestors (ever see female chimps in heat with the swollen red asses? How about the bonobo chimps trading sex for food, etc.)
http://uncutvideo.aol.com/users/sevenbamboovideo
Here's a statement from a guy that deals with both sexes at the core of thier honest drunkness when it comes to getting what they want. In this case, it mostly happens when our playlist is so full we cannot take anymore requests.
Guys will typically flash cash, or they'll do a intimidation display (beating thier chest) to get what they want. Girls on the other hand will flirt, pout, or use some other form of sexual display.
So when a slobbering drunk girl is pouting at me, bent over the booth, cleavage showing, saying "PLEASE MR KARAOKE MAN! LET ME HAVE ONE MORE SONG!" You mean to tell me as a male i'm misreading what she's trying to communicate?
She's trying to tell me "I'll fuck your brains out of this world if you let me sing." 99% of the women will pretend this is thier offer, but never deliver. (Yes, there's a small maybe even less than 1% that would deliver. (Cue up the "TOQER PLZ INTRO ME jokes now)
Just because a woman has no intent on fullfilling the message she's projecting, it doesn't diminish the fact that she *IS* trying to get that message across. It could be cleavage, it could me smiling and acting all cute, it could be putting thier arm around you, women have a lot of body language things they can do to convey it.
Not all men can tell the difference either. In fact, I'd say the majority can't. It's not fair to lump all us men together as one chauvenist mass though because women are trying to decieve us. Who's worse? The dumb man that can't tell the difference, or the salacious seductructress using her false (read lying) sexual messages?
And maybe I just don't know WTF i'm talking about because I have a skewed view of the world based on where I work, but I did work in desktop support in corporate enviroments for many years prior (think netware, early
My wife is a very paranoid lady when it comes to other women. I think deep down inside all women know that all other women use sexual body cues in the same way. I used to think my wife was nuts when she would be all jealous of other girls standing around me, but after 14 years of her giving me cues I can sort of spot what's going on now too.
I believe a lot of this behavior is going to end at my generation. We didn't have this tharn intarnet in the 70's when I was born. I believe that the net, womens sufferage, and globalization has lead to a balancing out of the genders (at least here in the US) We are really on the verge of having a woman president, and that says a lot for how much gender roles have changed in this country. A lot of men (like me) had to take what jobs they could in 2001 between the layoffs and 9/11. I'm not the breadwinner in my household anymore, and i'm OK with that.
I look forward to it. It's got to be better than the message tradition beliefs and pop culture has tried to teach us. Western Christianity has typically conveyed that the man is in a dominant role, and the woman is a sexual toy/servant/baby launcher. I think the best balance is a true partnership, but so many women, men are running around ignorantly trying to assert thier gender role that they don't learn that till many years down the road.
There's also another side to this and that's the pop culture aspect. How many of you have watch Margeret Cho and Andrew Dice Clay?
I've known girls that follow Cho like she's Jesus, and guys follow ADC like he's uhh I dunno, Jesus? I'm sure other folks have seen the same. People a
What exactly is subtle about showing up all dressed in white and telling you in front of witnesses "I do"?
Get your wife on here and let her tell how well you read her subtle hints early on, or did she have to knock you out and drag you back to her cave before you caught on that maybe this girl liked you.
Oh, and since you had sex, hand in your slashdot account on the way out. Traitor!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well, I think barista's smile is not defined in many cultures (even in many european cultures, I didn't know such thing exists). So these studies may not be applicable to all cultures.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Years later I realized that a couple of women were hitting on me and being the idiot nerd that I am, I didn't "get it." DOH!!!
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Interesting this. I'd recommend reading the paper, it's just 21 pages long, and the discussion / results section is pretty easily read.
The findings are basically that men have problems catching the subtle signs that distinguish sexual intent from plain friendly intent, in both directions. I assume then, that men capable of reading the sign better will be more successful (as seen by our current ideals), both in making more friends and getting sex.
I think from personal experience in other situations that if you are relaxed, not stressed and feel comfortable, you are capable of catching on to a wider spectrum of subtleties and details. Experience also matters a great deal. Translating this into socializing, it underlines the importance of experience, feeling secure, comfortable and stress-less on social occasions. My friends who are nice people in combination with honestly and deeply having no social inhibitions, posses all these qualities. Subsequently, they tend to both make new friends and get laid at a high rate.
Is that the author, repeatedly uses her own writings through hotlinks,
to bolster her story.
I find this self aggrandizing and flawed.
Because I wrote THIS article, and I link to it to provide evidence,
therefore I am an expert. Psychobabble at it's finest.
I quote the Live Science article: "More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on" .
/. summary: Men were found commonly to perceive more sexual intent in women's behavior than women were intending to convey.
Well, actually the study (see findings table, last page of the PDF) shows that 79.9 percent of guys correctly identified friendliness and only 12.1pct mistook it for sexual interest. Sadness and rejection were also correctly interpreted most of the times (and almost never mistaken for sexual interest).
And now I quote the
Wrong again: sexual interest is the only intent that just less than half of the male sample correctly interpreted, with almost 40% of them mistaking it for friendliness.
So it seems that we don't do too bad after all. Of course, this doesn't fly too well with the typical "horny males think all girls 'want some' " stereotypes.
Now, I'd be willing to see the results of the same research, applied to girls. My anecdotal evidence indicates that girls fare even worse than guys at interpreting "sexual interest" signals. My "sexual interest" signals consistently get ignored (maybe I'm just too shy) or, even worse, mistaken for an invitation to be friends and tell me their ex-boyfriend stories (when this happens: run!). I also find that a non-trivial number of girls mistakes friendliness for sexual interest (usually the same ones who think of themselves as hot and intersting).
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Men have a tendency to solve problems & women have a tendency to relate their feelings. When a woman relates her being 'sad' to a man, the man will attempt to solve the 'problem' so that the woman does not feel 'sad'. But the woman did not want to solve the problem, because it was not a problem to begin with. She was merely expressing her feelings. If the woman told the man that she is happy, it will usually provoke a shallow response of 'that's nice' etc. Because men do not communicate their feelings much. On the other hand, when a man tells a woman that he has solved a problem, the woman will try to be happy for the man and encourage him, much like it is done with children. If the man tells the woman he did not solve the problem, she will once again apply sympathy/empathy to the matter. Both scenarios are over simplistic, but they do hold some truth. Men need/want technical help or appreciation for not solving or solving a problem, that gives them a sense of achievement or failure. Once a woman applies sympathy/empathy she compound's the man's dilemma. If he cannot solve a problem, he feels belittled by the sympathy shown. If he can solve the problem, he feels his achievement is not appreciated by the emotional approach of encouragement. Women need men to listen & relate to their feelings. A man might feel as though a woman is discussing trivialities with him, as the subject holds not importance or problems to solve. But the importance is listening and by way of listening, communicating with the woman. Women will get frustrated by this reaction as they are simply puzzled by why men are not listening to them. This of course being due to men's natural tendency to solve problems. Of course women can solve problems as good as any man, and men can be sympathetic and empathic as emotionally as any woman. But out natural tendencies are based on averages. The average man is not sympathetic or empathic to a refined degree as a woman, simply put, in cave man times (and we still carry those genes) men hunted, fought, killed. It is hard to be very sympathetic and empathic when you must kill or be ruthless. Times have changed though. Mass communication in the form of the internet has now put communication at a higher priority. Many men feel lost with all this social networking going around. Because their brains are not meant for such intensive communication. After all, men interpret female voices with their musical centers in the brain rather than centers designed for speech! As there are more females than males, the number of men raised by women is higher, this is also because of court rulings favoring the mother in early ages. (and rightly so) In fact I recall an article in scientific american by a female psychiatrist that has deduced that women are unrealistically expecting men to essentially behave in a more female friendly fashion. Men are not women, they never will be, nor will women be men...it is simply unreasonable to expect them to behave in a 100% compatible way. Men and women do not have any defects in their brains, they are simply different. Perhaps men and women were never meant to live together for extended periods of time. Perhaps the reason we have so many problems is that our approach is completely wrong. Maybe men and women should meet briefly when needed & generally stay the f*** away from each other.
Not the programming language, of course! Smalltalk with a girl you like, and if she really likes you, the conversation will go on without any embarrassing pauses. Smalltalk allows us to relax and let ourselves be, and any underlying feelings usually surface.
There are some subtle clues to as if a girl likes you; for example, if, after a long conversation, she starts to touch you. Or if she turns her body towards you while she speaks.
Of course none of the above guarantee 100% that a girl likes you. But it's a good start.
Remember some general principles: be clean, be gentle and polite, show interest in your partner, be sincere.
Also remember that one of the most important feelings for women is the feeling of security: try to make them feel relatively secure; women have a wide spectrum of feelings but they are usually reluctant to show them until they feel nice and welcomed to the person they speak to.
Finally, also remember that for women, sex is more a psychological operation than a physical one. Sex is not the same for the two sexes. Women are mentally and emotionally aroused before physically aroused, so try to care for them!!!
Maybe women are a lot more self involved and are a little more full of themselves? Nah they wouldn't say that, then they wouldn't get laid!
The barista is smiling to get more tips and sell more drinks, and that's all. Don't trust any interest from an employee on the clock in any way.
stuff |
Things sure were simpler when we were monkeys.
Yeah, nowadays if you fling poo at people they think you are crazy. Ah...those were the days.
"Overall, women categorized more images correctly than men did." What gender determined the 'correct' interpretation of the images?
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
I read through the study, and their methodology seems decidedly
odd. They collected photos of women, then asked men and other
women to rate them as conveying "sadness", "friendliness",
"sexual interest", or "rejection". However, as far as I can
tell, the "ground truth" here is what the women whose photos
were taken were asked, in a laboratory (i.e. non-social)
environment, to convey. So, the study could simply be finding
that women are better at picking up what emotions other women
are articially aping than men are, not that they're actually
better at detecting real sexual interest in a social (dating,
courting) environment.
.... as it will probably confuse me even more..... especialy if women read it.
25 years ago I had the good fortune to be introduced to Psychology by a professor who was a colleague of ground-breaking folks like B.F. Skinner, John B. Watson (remember "little Albert"?), etc. and I remember he used to joke that Psychology was the study of the psychology of undergraduates.
Obviously that's not technically correct, but there's more than a kernel of truth to it since Psychology researchers rarely have much funding available but a steady supply of fresh subjects is often freely available by requiring participation in one research study as part of the Psych 101 class.
This was a study of 280 Indiana undergrads only. Other possible findings from the study of young Indiana men: 1) men think blowing up foreigners is 'real cool!'; 2) men reached puberty within past 10 years; 3) men are white with crewcuts and often run around screaming; 4) men do not remember any American president before Bush jr. and he is like, old - you know.; 5) men never held hands with a girl, but each have 14 zettabytes of pron; 6) all men know about feminism is from the Bush administration, video games, and the bible with the carpenter guy in it - and nothing in-between; and 7) men speak only English, and not well.
There are a lot of books out there on how to improve your dating life. A lot of those books are even written with geeks in mind, not that description ever fit me or anyone who reads slashdot......*cough* *cough* :).
Be warned, most of these books are poorly written and the web sites where even the good books are sold are styled in a way where it looks like snake oil is being sold.
However, there is a lot of good stuff out there that actually works.
I highly recommend:
1. Renting a copy of the movie "The Tao Of Steve". It is based on the true story of an obese underachiever who develops a method to get all of the dates he wants despite his disadvantages.
2. Read "Without Embarrassment" by Mike Pilinski. Don't buy it from Amazon, it is overpriced by $30 there. Go to the author's web site. The web site is done poorly and looks like snake oil. Don't let that fool you. Pilinski was one of us, and his book is one of the good ones. You can get the book as an ebook or printed on demand. You have to look around on the site a bit to find the later option.
If you want to read more after this I would start with the "The Game" by Neil Strauss. The author is a professional writer and it shows. Despite the size the book will read like it is only 100 pages. It is very captivating and the book is an excellent overview of the "PUA Community" ( Pickup Artist Community ). This is very valuable, because even the good authors have bogus looking web sites that make it hard to get a good idea of what their products are like.
This wikipedia page also serves as a good overview. Most of the "literature" on this subject falls into about 4 sets of approaches with many, MANY copycats. This page will give you the bottom line -- without having to read a lot of marketing crap -- on each prominent system. I recommend watching the movie and reading "Without Embarrassment" first though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_Community
It pays biologically for men to err on the side of trying to get laid, for women it's better to err on the side of caution.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This is Slashdot, you insensitive clod!
FORM: Family, Occupation, Recreation, Money. When ladies talk to you they are only trying to assess your worth. Wealth of an individual can sometimes change with time and circumstance. So ladies put those they believe might become wealthy in the "friends" category, if they do become wealthy they simply pretend they were interested all along.
...if women talked a little less? I think we might, just might, start listening (& hence start paying attention to what they're saying) then
Regardless of who is at fault (sender or receiver) there is an obvious dating advantage to any male who can better interpret intent. According to the study they created a dataset of 280 pictures and the intent that a majority of women associated with it.
Five points to anyone who gets a hold of the dataset and turns it into a training course for dating men.
Some people like to kiss, some people like to hug...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Always marry an ugly girl, that's the only kind. She'll never ever leave you, and if she does you won't mind. Let's not forget, ugly girls need lovin', too! But then again, discussing sex with women on slashdot is like discussing Ubuntu with your grandmother... neither party knows what the hell is going on...
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
People from different cultures might be extra careful, or they might simply blunder forth. There was a great livejournal entry about a westerners experience in Japan:
http://supacat.livejournal.com/111072.html
but the user has since protected it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Should clear communication be the aim? There are advantages to ambiguity. There is caution and deniability, there is the benefit of getting attention without any commitment, there is avoiding the counterproductive effect of showing too much interest (it makes you less interesting).
It's also possible to draw a distinction between an ambiguous and a vague signal: an ambiguous signal can trigger an idea without actually confirming it, like "don't think of an elephant" activating the idea of the elephant in your head. With a vague signal you may not even think of an elephant. So is there value in sending vague signals? Maybe "don't think of an elephant" is often too direct so that you can only send vague signals instead.
Then there is the difference between misinterpreting a signal and hope. If men are getting hopeful based on just a friendly signal, it doesn't mean they misinterpreted the signal.
Is it the girl doing the lapdance in the bar. She does NOT want to have sex. However if your girlfriend or wife is doing it, it can be sexual intent. Or it could be she just wants a new dress.
When told my jeans were fitting nicely, was she coming on, or was she polite?
When somebody invided me to here house did she wanted to do the nasty, or did she wanted to talk?
Often things can mean two things, or like Freud said it sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So what you're telling me is that we have no idea what women want.
Take you long to figure that one out, Captain Obvious?
"Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
I usually interpret my girlfriend's signals to mean she is not interested in having sex. Could I just be mistaken here?
But consider this:
Women will often flirt with a man just for attention. I've met women who simply didn't even know what they were doing was interpreted as flirting. And when I confronted them with this observation, they gave this crazymaking attitude like "I don't even know what you're talking about. I was just being friendly." Yeah, right.
Philipino women are a great example of behavior that can easily be mistaken for flirting. I've never been more confounded by any other culture. The world "no" just isn't in their immediate vocabulary.
Women from American culture can flirt just out of anger. Anyone remember that song, "I know What Boys Like" by the Waitresses? That song spelled it out loud and clear.Women were tired of feeling as if they were being oppressed by men. So they used their power against the men.
Those are just two of the reasons that I've found for the confusion on the part of the women. I know why I've been confused before: I was single. Now that I'm married, that confusion is pretty much gone. I know where I stand with my wife.
It takes two to tango. It's not just that men have blurry vision. Women have fuzzy behavior, too.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
and then ask innocently, "What?"
And it works because men can't figure out the mixed signals. Not until they're too old to make use of it, anyway.
I remember that one show from Home Improvement when Tim held up the stop sign, saying "STOP". With the other side having the female way of saying it, reading "If you really cared for me, you'd know what to do now". I found it funny because it's just plain true.
/., my hopes are still there): TELL US, in no uncertain terms, what you want. We're notoriously bad at guessing. We do care for your feelings and needs, but we don't guess them. A man is not constantly trying to find out what's wrong, the way a man works, for him everything is running fine as long as there's nobody complaining. No complaint, no change. We do subscribe to the "never change a running system" theory of thinking. Don't try to poke into a system (or relationship for that matter) without good reason. And some ambigious sigh is no good reason.
We are men. We enjoy a direct, blunt and honest way of talking. Wanna have sex? Then say so. Don't? Works for me either. But don't be surprised that we act it! What this study shows is that we can't "read" women. Ok, we can't. Big news. We're used to saying what we want, and also to being told what is expected from us. The best joke is always a woman complaining that in her relationship, they always do what he wants, be it sexually or otherwise. Guess what: He said what he wants! She was sitting there, waiting for him to guess her interests and desires.
Dear women (in case there are any on
Grab your man and tell him what you want, dammit! Be blunt. We need that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think it is only normal in a Darwinian way. Women seem to prefer creating an mysterious image, and this evolutionary enhancement adds to this without any effort from the male side.
Me thinks it has more to do with conditioned willingness and education level then biological differences. End a particular type of grooming children and it will vanish (heh, rather then exploit it out the ying-yang).
God gave us two heads to think with so we would be smarter the women but he forgot to give use enough blood to use them both at the same time.
If that isn't understood, very bad things can happen.
...you have two pieces. This must be one of the most obvious conclusions ever. A case where anecdotal evidence matches up with a scientific conclusion?! What is this world coming to?
The great thing about being a man is that we have 2 heads. Unfortunately, we only have enough blood to operate one at a time.
...is a well trained monkey and never does anything on his own initiative.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
This is not new reasearch at all. My Psyc 101 prof had this same discussion with us years ago. Basically like in most other aspects of life we interpret events they we want to do it.
:-) )
The human brain takes a diverse and complex set of inputs and forces a linear and seemingly, at least to itself, rational interpetation of those inputs. Most of the time our brains are similar enough that we write a fairly similar story as they next guy/gal given similar input. It also helps that a major input is social elements from our shared culture which go along way to shaping those stories. We do however remain individuals.
This entire study pretty much comes down to a few scenerios.
1. Guy meets girl, guy has no sexual interest in girl(rare indeed
2. Girl (is/is not) sexualy interested and acts in some favorable way toward guy beyound basic social expectations of politeness.
3. Guy's brain attempts to make since of these inputs(it must because that is what brains do) its biased by other expectaions/desires and decides that she must want to be friends, and the story gets writen.
Or
1. Guy meets girl, guy is attracted to girl.
2. Girl (is/is not) sexualy interested and acts in some favorable way toward guy beyound basic social expectations of politeness.
3. Guy's brain attempts to make since of these inputs(it must because that is what brains do) its biased by other expectaions/desires and decides that she must want to be his girl friend or at least screw and the story gets writen.
Now this is by no means scientific but I have a fair number female friends(hmm maybe some really just want sex have to check on that later) and from my observation of them and their strings of looser guys they seems behave just like men do. Conversations with them confirm this, sometimes I think if I have to listen to one more of these "so does that mean he is interested in me" conversations I might have kill them.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
In the time it would take to do the study, the women would change their minds 4 times making the results invalid...
Joey: Same kind of thing happened to me! Woman pizza-delivery guy comes over, gives me the pizza, takes the money, and leaves!
Chandler: What? No, "Nice apartment, I bet the bedrooms are huge?"
Joey: No! Nothing!
Chandler: You know what? We have to turn off the porn.
This puts it in quite simple context. Laugh, it's a joke. And this is lameness filter filler.
Clear communication is king/queen. My wife is Vietnamese, I'm hard of hearing. Perfect match. If she says something and I don't hear it, I say, "What?" She doesn't mind repeating herself because it's practice in a foreign language.
But she is absolutely clear about what she wants 99% of the time. That one percent requires clarification. To me, that is what makes love worth getting into.
For those of you who are still in the dark, check out an interesting book called "Getting the Love You Want", by Harville Hendrix. It is the best book I've ever read about relationships for the following reasons:
1. Gives the best description of the physiological basis for why men and women do mean things to each other in relationships.
2. Gives a clear path towards the love in a relationship by describing how to change the stimulus/response process between each partner to each other without manipulation.
Many of the other books I've read are really a set of rules for "understanding" the other person so that you can "control" the other person without letting him/her know about it. Maybe I'm not that good at selecting books, but that has been my observation.
And then there are 12-step meetings since for many people, this can be a problem that cannot be solved by the unaided will.
Take what you like from this message and leave the rest.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
I notice the article (and most of the replies here) never mentioned once that MEN do 99% of asking out, approaching, facing rejection, etc. No wonder men don't know what women like them or not - the women are too gutless to even TALK to us.
This is why people go out and get drunk on weekends when they are hoping to meet a member of the opposite sex. The men are doing it because they know that if they want a chance in hell of scoring, THEY will have to be the one who does all the risk taking. The women are doing it nowadays becuase they dream of being as courageous as men HAVE to be, and they also think it makes men more likely to approach THEM, if they're drunk (or completely paralytic).
In other words - women are the ones who need to change. Women are the ones who happily date men who beat them up, complain about it, and stay 'stuck on stupid', refusing to leave. "But I LOVE him", comes the plaintiff cry...
As Angry Harry once said - "If MOST women WANTED nice, kind men, then that's what MOST men would become, OVERNIGHT."
So screw you women - your world is rapidly turning into a dysgenic hell hole, where your children will live in REAL poverty, because you'd literally rather DIE than date a nice, intelligent man.
Just ask any women why they don't ask men out, and watch them shit themselves with fear.
Being the geeky son of an even geekier Dad, my momma often took it upon herself to wack me about the side of the head with a clue bat about young women I would encounter. I remember this one time we were in the Walgreens (why I remember this episode, I don't know, maybe I need to prove to myself I wasn't raised totally stupid). A friendly enough woman clerk checks us out, and as we walk out, Momma does the stage whisper to tell her child he is an idiot to tell me that this young woman was doing everything short of giving out her home phone number.
I responded in my own stage whisper a) I may not have been totally clued in on the signals given, but b) this young lady is earning minimum wage running a checkout counter in a Walgreens -- I thought you had more higher aspirations for the station in life you expect from a daughter-in-law.
Yeah, yeah, I know what you are all thinking, that my momma took a lot of back-talk from her adult son, and what kind of elitist thinks that a woman who happens to work a counter is to be looked down upon for a date. OK, the lady was pretty enough, friendly enough, hot enough, and I was available enough, but how about if I was pushing 30 at the time and the clerk in question was still in high school?
Men are supposed to be mind readers about when women are interested or not interested in them, and it is all very funny that men are geeks or oafs when they are interested in a woman who is not turned on by them and even bigger geeks and oafs when they fail to pick on when a woman is hot of them. Big deal, sometimes a man has selection criterea, even if they are as stupidly pragmatic as non-jailbait.
I can totally vouch that this is true, at least from my own experience. I'm a long time /. member (UID in the 20,000s), and am posting anonymously so as to not toot my own horn. I'm older, and married now, but when I was dating, I never had any friends who were girls/women - the only girls/women I knew were either 1) old girlfriends who I didn't talk to anymore, and 2) girls/women that I was trying to chat up for dates/sex. Probably dated well over 200 women in 20 years, with a success rate(i.e. sex) of about 30%(Hey playing in a band helps a lot!).
Being friends with girls doesn't get you anywhere - because that means you are on the back burner for her, as she is working on, or dating some other guy. Girls who are friends are a waste of time, if you are serious about trying to get laid, or have a steady girlfriend.
Heh - also agree with the parent posters tactic of being "friends" with the ugly chick , so as to get into her better looking friends pants. That can work out well sometimes.
...missed that one.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Then there is that result from anthropology (sorry, can't find it right now -- I think it was reported in some British newspaper) that says that women mate with the alpha male and then find a nice guy to marry to raise the resulting children.
In almost ANY communications scenario in which a message is being received but misinterpreted, it must be the job of the sender to clarify the message. The receiver does not know what is wrong, and therefore has no way to force it make sense. The sender, on the other hand, can often perceive what is wrong, and correct the sending.
It doesn't matter who you blame, the fact is that as a practical matter, nobody can clear this up but the sender of the signals. So before women go complaining that their signals are misunderstood, they should make some effort to make sure their signals are unmistakable!
Funny, I've never mistaken "Wanna ball" to mean "Let's just be friends."
Article.
The whole article is on the first page, but the comments are spread across five (the same article appears on all of them). I'll leave finding those as an exercise for the reader.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
but how about if I was pushing 30 at the time and the clerk in question was still in high school?
;P
By 30, maybe she's hoping that's what you were after, instead of being gay?
I usually tell women I know, 'we men have the emotional capacity of a brick.' It is there, but it sure takes a ling time for it to soak in. Throughout my life I can sometimes look back months or years past and finally have a clue about the meaning of some situation, I was totally lost during the moment though.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
A typical conversation with my wife goes something like this:
... that she was making a fresh pot of coffee.
Her: "That girl was flirting with you."
Me: "What girl?"
"The waitress, (receptionist, librarian, whatever). She was openly blatantly flirting."
"I think she was just being polite."
"No, She wasn't. She was openly blatantly flirting with you and you're too stupid to see it."
Ok, now let me recount the conversation with the waitress that led my wife to this conclusion.
Me: "Miss, could I please have some more coffee?"
Waitress: "Sure, I'm making a fresh pot. It'll be ready in just a minute."
Me: "Thank You."
Now maybe my wife is seeing something I'm not. But I think when she said she was making a fresh pot of coffee, that what she really meant was
This is another case of blaming the user for confusing interfaces,
and another case of blaming hardware for a software problem.
The very nature of this article is a tautology. The study concludes that men just don't get it but fails to illustrate the accurate meaning of the expressions. Men are shown pictures of women and asked to describe what their expression tells them. But none of these women were asked "What were you thinking when I took this picture?" to establish fact. So basically the study really says "We didn't mean what you thought we meant AND we're not going to tell you what we REALLY meant in order to maintain all the power." Sounds to me like women are Schrödinger's cat come to life. To the outside male observer, a women is simultaneously interested and not interested. "Looking at the cakes is like looking into the Future. Until you've tasted it, what do you really know. And then, of course, it's too late. (long pause. takes bite.) Too late."
... a team of Indiana U. researchers has found that when people say "the check is in the mail," it generally isn't.
Really. Is there anything in this study that any stripper or any bouncer doesn't know by their second day on the job ?
and I think I'm exactly the opposite, not noticing any signs of interest.
I'm lazy and had already read it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
That's not a rhetorical question--the answer to it contains useful information.
I met this girl a while back...
We really liked each other, and talked about lots of different things.
The conversation got to sex, and she wasn't offended talking about it (hey some people are)--We found that we liked the same sort of things.
We made out on the couch that evening, but I didn't visit her in her bedroom (we were at her folks' house for Christmas).
Next day, she told me she was disappointed; she wanted me to (next evening we did).
Continuing to follow this policy of saying what you mean works really, really well for both of us; we've been married for 7 years.
Doing this is very simple!
All you need is to know what you want.
And to say that respectfully to someone else--and be prepared to accept the answer "no".
Simple does not equal easy!
My experience has been this sort of direct communication is really difficult when I'm trying to do something I really shouldn't (good indication that I'm full of BS).
With my wife, it's always been as easy as breathing (a good indication this is a good idea).
I also have a very simple test to identify true love.
A friend of mine explained that all three of a set of easily observable indicators will be present IFF true love.
Again, this test is consistent with my experience, and for most of the happily married people I've asked.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Funny story. I'm a guy, and a barista smiled at me. That was 2 months ago. Now she's my girlfriend.
its very simple girls
if you want to be our friend, walk up to us and shake our hand
if u want to fuck, walk up to us and shake our penis
So wouldn't it be equivalent to say that women are bad at sending clear signals? And the article states that women are communicators, so surely with this extra ability, the onus is on them to get the messages right?
All that I knew was that a woman was singing it and that had an influence on attitudes at my school. To what extent, I don't know. It was certainly enough to reinforce my cynical thinking at the time.
Thanks for that interesting bit of trivia.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
It seemed strange to explicitly link to an article that was no longer there, unless the intention was to use the Google cache- but this was never mentioned (and if that were the case, why not simply link to the cache?)
Anyway, the article was interesting, so I guess I should thank you anyway! Honestly, I'd always assumed that the corpse-like passivity of the girls in those godawful Japanese porn flicks were an exaggerated fantasy of Japanese men, just like (e.g.) American porn videos reflect fantasy more than reality. If Japanese girls are really like that in bed... ugh. What a bore!
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
"There are women on Slashdot!"
It's a Kilt!
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
If you look at the study itself, not the obscenely biased news article. You would see it shows that men and women both have near 50% chance of seeing a womans sexual intent as sexual, with women about 7% better then men. That 7% shows up in.. you guessed it, being just friends. Being just friends is about 70% for men 77% for women. So barring its appearance in the news, this study shows that women are confusing, across the board, 60% success rate for other women is not very good. True moral of the story seems to be then, women, step up your game, you need to be more overtly sexual.
The friends ladder is where a woman puts guys that she considers "just friends". More to the point where she puts guys who don't get to have sex with her.
The problem arises because a woman never lets a guy know which ladder he is on. Obviously there is a huge difference, or gap between these two ladders.
You can't take the sky from me...
In this case, unreasonable expectations probably play a huge part: Since the advent of modern [reliable] birth control in the past century, first womens' roles in society have been changing and our whole society will continue to change IMHO tremendously in unstudied and unexpected ways. Under this flux [noise], miscommunication must be expected.
Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you!
You can't take the sky from me...
Go for my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you! Who's to say she's single, and who's to say she's on her own?
Girls like that don't sleep alone.
(Alright here's the thing, here's the thing)
That girl is flawless, and I know I'm not the first one to think that.
And since I'm not the first, I sure won't be the last!
I'd spend my whole life looking behind my back, I just don't think I'm up to that...
You can't take the sky from me...
It's the flowers and the bees: Flowers sit there, looking pretty and smelling good. The bees have to find them, approach them, and do everything active in the relationship.
You can't take the sky from me...
News at 11.
God I wish I could get paid for stating the obvious.
You can't take the sky from me...
I wrote the comment with the idea that the link existed and then didn't feel like throwing it away when I found out it was broken. Tracking down a cached copy didn't really occur to me. If I had given more consideration to the fact that it was protected to avoid further attention I probably would have thrown the comment away.
It is pretty crazy to consider the degree of acculturation involved though. Two people doing whatever it is that makes them happy, and the others reaction is visceral disgust.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
This site is by a self described nerd who decided to break out of it and get a social life. It is free. The articles are very good. He had one point that stuck in my head. He wrote that the ability to get intensely interested in something can make someone very successful. He added that what keeps nerds being nerds ( aside from fear ) is that they choose to get interested in things nobody else cares about like. He recommend keeping those interests, but making room for new ones that will bring you into contact with people and give you something to talk about with them:
http://www.succeedsocially.com/
...I will expose our great secret (I borrowed this from someone, so if anybody knows the source):
We group things into three catagories:
1 - I can eat/drink it
2 - I can fuck it
3 - It exists
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
In after virgins . . . hundreds of them.
Years ago I was a reporter and once covered a scientific conference. One of the sociological reports studied world-wide attraction between sexes. Universally, men seek: Youth, status and (unless culturally overridden) lighter skin than their own. Universally, women seek status. Status within the society can be more shrunken heads, more money, more wisdom, more intelligence, whatever the society values. Hope that helps, guys. Personally, being a geek female, I seek intelligence. I could care less about the money or looks. I am very happily married to a short, bearded astrophysist. One other comment - Some women feel that they cannot be friendly around men without being misinterpreted. I am an exuberant female who like to hug. This is not a come-on. It is "I like you as a friend, and your comments/behavior caused me to feel good. Thanks" Some guys cannot comprehend this thinking.
I would go further still: analysis should not be limited to the assumption that this is nothing but a mere attempt to communicate. Courtship rituals are a sieve meant to filter out the lesser fit potential mates. If a man can't jump over that first hurdle by showing that he's tuned-in to subtleties, then it's a success of the sieve as much as it is a failure to communicate -- and that success has much higher consequences than does the failure to "hook up".
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
There is a popular belief that friendship is possible between opposite sexes.
Load of bullocks. There is no such thing as "friendship" between a man and a woman.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Is a woman talking to you? :(
|
<Y> <N> --> End.
|
Is she really a woman?
|
<Y> <N> --> End.
|
Does she weigh less than 200 lbs?
|
<Y> <N> --> would your friends find out? --> <Y> (next line) or <N> (do her!)
|
Are you gay?
|
<N> <Y> --> End.
|
Do you have a penis?
|
<Y> <N> --> Sorry to hear that.
|
Do her!
When it comes to communication between sexes - I prefer the straightforward blunt angle. So if she says she wants to go for coffee, it means.. she wants to go for coffee.
Men are oblivious to these types of subtle cues because they are just that, subtle.
Trying to talk to someone, hearing what they say, understanding what they are saying, reading their body language, hearing their intonations in their voice, understanding what they are trying to say overall, and concluding that they want to do horrible things to you in the dark - it's just too much.
Not all of us can multi-task like this.
---
The other possibility is we catch everything right and just don't care
Maybe I'm using the word "feminism" incorrectly, but what the hell. You can deduce the definition approximately from reading the post.
In this case I actually don't like the feministic tone of thie article. Why is the conclusion "when are unable to read women's subtle signals" rather than "women give misleading signals? Those things always seem to play out in the direction that men are stupid jerks and women are so much smarter. What if there simply IS no difference between a friendly smile and a sexual gestures? What if the difference IS only in the mind of the woman who failed to convey her actual intent? This study was conducted as a questionnare, right with "70% of women REPORTING" that there had been cases that men failed to interpret her her signals.
Well, ok, there was also that image recognition thing. But the bulk of my argument is still valid. But it would be natural to assume that women are more capable to understand each other than men are to understand them.
It's always clueless guys, never clueless women. I maintain that they ARE 50% (approximately) of the population. And if most men are cluless, most women are probably too. In my little, frustrated summary of this whole thing, "it just isn't fair god damn it!". I'm tired of being called simple, stupid, unable to read social cues, clueless, etc.
Actually I might just take up the practice of identifying EVERY positive gesture from a woman as sexual. I would become a total pig, of course - but that is to be expected.
This study has been performed a million times over. Get yourself some bisexual friends and see what they say. Ask some bisexual men and some bisexual women whether they think its easier to figure out men or women. I already know what they'll say...
I know it's a bit much to ask you to read the linked study, but this was in the first paragraph:
"Men consistently rate female targets as intending to convey a
greater degree of sexual interest than do women who rate the same targets--a finding that has
been remarkably consistent across studies ranging from those using still photographs and video
vignettes to those using live, unscripted interactions (e.g., Abbey, 1982; Abbey & Melby, 1986;
Shotland & Craig, 1988). This gender difference in ratings of sexual intent is stable, is readily
replicable, and has a medium effect size (Farris et al., 2008).
The effect is not confined to the lab. In a large survey of university women, 67% reported
that they had experienced an incident in which a male acquaintance misperceived their
friendliness to be an indication of sexual interest, and 26% reported that such an event had
occurred within the past month (Abbey, 1987; see also Haselton, 2003)."
So, yes, women can read other women's signals just fine.
Now factor in one idiot regularly repeating his mistake and you come out with...
Some men sometimes misread signals enough for women to notice but, by and large, it doesn't happen that often, from that many of them, to the point where a full third of women can't even think of a time where any man has ever done it with them.
Not exactly a compelling argument.
Honestly, if anything, I'd expect more women to have had at least one experience... one idiot in a nightclub should really be pushing that number higher. Still wouldn't say anything about men in general but I'd find it much more likely.
By the same logic:
Near 100% of male drivers have had an experience of a woman driver cutting them up because she was talking on the phone. Clearly all women are dangerous drivers. Or, alternatively, a few stupid/selfish women drivers have affected enough people that a skewed perception is given.
Now factor in the statistic looks at college aged women and was paid for by an alcohol concern group with a vested interest and you come out with: Suprisingly low numbers of women can report men misreading signals even when we deliberately targeted drunk ones, despite our best efforts.
But, much like "Study shows n% of people have experienced threatening behavior from Muslims" and 1930s/40s style "Negroes found to have limited mental capacity, can't fly planes." It's not so much good science as it is sensationalist headlines that they know will grab the attention of both the people who want proof of what their bigotted beliefs already tell them and the attention of those it gets angry... both ways, those who publish it get more readers and attention.
I wonder if the organizers of this study realize that, with a little recoding, they have a salable product on their hands: a flirting training tool for guy geeks!
In reading the study didn't you find yourself wanting to see those images of women signaling sexual interest versus those that were simply being friendly, to see if you too could tell the difference, and if not, to learn how? And now that I think of it, why isn't there a Flirting for Dummies book? This market seems ripe for exploitation (err... make that "development").
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
"Fuck Me" for sex.
And some other ones that I can't really remember.
In other news, researchers discover 'no' means no.
The "barista's smile" is probably because of the class action lawsuit they won.
I don't think we misread as much as we think. I think women change their mind a lot. I have had girl-friends (as in girls who are friends) who would change behaviour every time. One evening they would be very close to me, use language that indicate some sort of 'other than being just friends' intent. But the next day, although still being friendly, the 'looks' and 'signals' would have disappeared. What changed? I didn't... Have you never felt an attraction to someone for one night? Only to wonder the next day what compelled you? Maybe women need to confess to their inability to makes choices (or sense). :)
...a nice, clear signal.
And frontal nudity after 10 p.m.
You didn't mention what else went on in the interaction. Was she twirling around in a short skirt? Winking? Jiggling her tits at you?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...just stupid user interfaces. This is the #1 rule when designing a user interface. If people are doing the wrong thing more often then not, it isn't because they're stupid, it's because you didn't create the user interface correctly.
Taking responsibility for one's inability to convey information is a common problem, and this is a prime example of it. If men mis-understand what women are trying to convey 68% of the time, then who is at fault? You think that men aren't trying their darndest to eek every bit of comprehension they can get out of women's coy smiles? Well, maybe some really aren't, but most of us are desperate for a clue.
Here's an interesting study that I'd like to see: Figure out how much overlap there is between what women do when they're just friendly vs. what women do when they're really interested. There's a huge gray area there, and it varies heavily between one person and the next. You can't see something clearly if it's presenting you with a blurry image.
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Don't be friendly with guys you don't at least have some interest in banging! Especially single guys that aren't currently seeing anyone.
Sure, that'll probably ruffle a few feminazi feathers, but get over it. There's no reason a woman should get free reign over actions that would otherwise be treated as sexual harrassment if the roles were reversed. If you want to go around playfully kissing your girlfriends on the cheek for doing something nice, be my guest, but don't for one minute try to suggest you actually believe that action to a guy means the same thing. It's manipulative and dishonest to play the hapless victim whenever a guy gets the "intent" you're feigning with him wrong.
This is exactly why I don't trust women enough to bother dating them... they screw you coming and going... with no actual "screwing" in the process.
8==8 Bones 8==8
You should be modded up. Your comments are on the mark.
There are many books that discuss this. Here's a favorite:
http://www.amazon.com/Sperm-Wars-Infidelity-Conflict-Bedroom/dp/1560258489/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206911964&sr=8-3
If you read that book, it will change your life. You begin to understand love, marriage and emotion around sex are related to sex and that both women and men are very cold and calculating (unconsciously) about who they have sex with, who they make babies with, and who they live with.
None of this is conscious, and all of this is necessary to produce organisms that will survive and reproduce.
Women are the most nuances and coldest in their calculations because they have to be. It's nothing personal, and it benefits us as a race.
Most people don't get it, you do.
Anyway, the book I pointed to should be required reading for every man and to a lesser extent women. It helps you understand yourself better as well as understand the opposite sex: how and why they act the way they do.
Anyway, well done.
Although nonintuitive for many male slashdot readers, the process of flirting and getting a woman interested in you sexually is essentially algorithmic. Women have it much more difficult, in some sense, because getting men to do what they want romantically is anything but procedural. Women are generally quite tolerant and can find interest in just about any man, but men can easily self-destruct that potential interest. The key for a man is to not ruin things prematurely. A few hints for men: somewhat contrary to the baseline of this study in TFA, friendliness of any kind from a woman is, essentially, flirting at an unconscious level and indicates potential for sexual interest. But there is a time window of opportunity. Once there is friendliness established after a single interaction, you basically have a limited chance before you are tagged as a 'friend'. Once a 'friend' it is difficult to be seen any other way. After a friendly interaction, preferably in real time, just follow this procedure: establish eye contact, instigate chit chat, listen, smile, redirect conversation towards her by asking friendly questions about her (only talk about yourself, briefly, when asked and then redirect), add the right mix of gentle aloofness (no desperation) and confident, assertive, interest, and then, of course, get contact info after that first interaction. If she says, 'no', you move on. If she gives you contact info, get in touch with her 2-3 days later and make simple accommodating plans (lunch, coffee, dinner, movie, etc.). If she says 'yes' to a date she is generally interested in you. Keep in mind that, although apparently self-evident, she will not necessarily interpret the fact that you instigated a date as evidence for your interest in her. You must demonstrate your interest on the first couple dates by following the above procedure again. Unless she jumps you, go for a simple kiss at the end of the first or second date if things go well. On about the third date, you have now established her definite sexual interest in you and the real relationship begins. If, as a man, you walk away from a friendly interaction where you didn't take action and are reacting, thinking, and interpreting signals too much after the first 20 minutes, you are probably going about it in the wrong way.
I can tell.
gb2/b/
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Flirt. Do it often, do it always. Do it with the intention of making friends of girls. Ask them to set you up. Friends like this are priceless. Plus, you become a nicer guy.
BTW - if they don't want to set you up, then you made one of three probable mistakes:
1. Lesbians will help you, but not the hard core ones. The hard core ones' girlfriends will most probably help you, for a lot of reasons.
2. She was interested in you and you blew it. Take it as the opportunity to learn recovery techniques.
3. You're still a dweeb. Keep fishing - it's a BIG ocean and practice does make perfect so long as you're not bent on always practicing the same thing. There's nothing wrong with being a dweeb if you like yourself and you're a decent person. (But try harder anyway, boookay?)
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
As Slashdot is the bastion of male nerdiness what I've read in this topic doesn't surprise me at all. I have seen all sorts of cliche ideas, theories, rules and similar, about men and women.
It really isn't that complicated, here is the only thing you need to consider.
Yourself.
Don't take into account your average income, her rating of attractiveness, what the dynamic between you and her is, some strategy out of a book or the rate of continental drift.
Chief Wigum is the only guide you need... "If it feels good, do it!"
You're attracted to that girl and you really want to grab her arse? Do it! If she doesn't go for it, she wasn't going to anyway, or she was going make you put in so much work to get here you would have lost interest by then.
You want to talk to her about something? Do it!
Just do it!
(Full disclosure: I am a representative of Nike)
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
What is to say I wasn't a guy who wanted to marry a woman doctor? Tried really hard, even went out with the reason you have to a take a lukewarm shower because of regulations limiting water heater temperatures to 120 degrees so kids don't get scalded -- I was too "defense lawyer" oriented for her sensibilities.
I am dead serious. Down here, you are more likely to not EVER imagine that some TOTAL hottie like wants to jump your bones FOR REAL . . . In Tropical Colombia, the mujeres chase YOU!
SARAVA!
Not all women are like this. Some are quite well adjusted and clear, just as is the case for men. There are a ton of wafflegirls out there. The reason its women is because the evolutionary role of women is "selector", and for men it's "initiator". So to initiate you've already made a choice. To select, you can be in "making a choice" mode for as long as you want. Hence, men are more clear in general.
General rule: Whatever you think is wrong.
OK ... that was great ... now that I've learned everything I can about women from the Slashdot crowd, it's off to Cosmo Girl to soak up as much knowledge as I can about cosmology ...
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The single never wrong method of seeing if a girl is sexually interested in you is her eyes:
1. probably not interested signs:
a. Head straight, not tilted.
b. Eyes looking into yours, away about 30% of the time.
c. Closed posture (arms or legs folded).
2. Probably interested:
a. Her eyes are always looking at you, but then they wander from your left eye to your right eye.
b. Eye contact is generally slightly longer than normal. She will blink less often, but when she does, she'll probably blink a couple of times.
c. The returning eyes. If far away, you make eye contact, she'll look away and back.
3. I wanna FUCK
a. Touching... if a girl touches you, anywhere, repeatedly, especially for an extended time, she's probably open, but this is not foolproof
b. FOOLPROOF: if a girl looks at your eyes back and forth, and then your lips... if a girl EVER Looks at your lips in a conversation, as long as you stay friendly, calm, and confident, you can sleep with her... tonight.
I'm a salesman in a mall. Decent looking guy, nothing extraordinary. But I have good taste in dress, amateur actor (so I know how to convey friendliness and confidence), and I get usually at least one 7+ giving me her number, PER DAY. I know how to read body language. It works to get sales. And as soon as I read interest in her, I up the ante, FAST. First thing is hand holding... if you have the confidence to take her hand, it's very easy to up from there. From there, shoulder, then hair, then face, once she's allowing you to touch her face. You've got her.
You'd be right if it was _scientific_. It's not. It just purports to be.
So, men misinterpret friendliless for sexual attraction and then they mistake sexual interest for friendliness. I don't think that this problem is only on the males' shoulders. Women should try to be more clear.
Don't try to get my number if you're looking for another "friend", don't play coy if you're trying to get to know me. I'm currently not even on the market, but when I was I didn't have time for school yard games.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Why is everything always men's fault, huh?
... who knows? You might actually think it's pretty hot. If not, that's cool too, but then don't dress like sluts or go to bars and then be appalled by guys hitting on you. If you're wearing low rider jeans or high cut tshirts, you're sending an implicit signal that you want it, whether that's the right the signal or not. If that's not what you want, then maybe you're the one who needs to learn more about non-verbal communication.
Lets see: female author, female researcher, talking about studying men's reactions to images of females. And if the men get the "wrong" interpretation (IOW, not the woman's interpretation) well then they must be wrong by definition, right? Yeah, that sounds like very scientific research, no bias there at all. The whole article just screams feminine bias. The study is set up to show what it concludes in the first place. TFA doesn't say who decided the "correct" responses. Would it happen to have been a woman? ORLY?? How convenient.
WT fuck is with the article headline? Clueless Guys Can't Read Women
Allow me to spin that around the other way: Bitchy women show traits of dishonesty and all-around deception, and lack the ability to say what they mean and mean what they say
Why is my headline any more or less valid? Why is it that if there's a communication problem, then it must be men failing to pick up on women's bullshit cues. Couldn't it be that women don't understand us either, or that neither of us understand each other, and we both have things to learn?
Nope, inconceivable. If there's a communication disconnect, it must be that men are inherently defective and need to be reprogammed.
Check this out, it solidified so many of my opinions on the attitudes of female superiority in American culture: Rantings of a Single Male
Yes, of course men are sexual beasts, but that's how it's supposed to be. If you ladies would just let us be what we're evolved to be,
And guys, ffs, stop being pussies, man up, and flat out refuse to apologize for having testicles.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
Don't misunderestimate yourself: Why people think that rivals are better looking than they really are http://nomadlife.org/2006/11/dont-misunderestimate-yourself.aspx
(pirated from The Economist, November 2006)
Conclusion: In order to avoid hurt feelings, cute girls should never smile.
It is likely that the researches have mistakenly assumed that women say what they actually believe.
When (fe)males get social programming instead of natural. Both males and females look at movies and "learn" how to express themselves, or to understand others. Nature is forgotten, and then all are asking themselves why simple tests fail. Some things we knew thousands of years ago, we find difficult now. Because commerce replaced them with brand new things we need to know and appreciate.
http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
... my buddy, who got a hamburger with a phone number written on the top bun with ketchup, was able to interpret the signal successfully. (I'm told it took three tries to get it right, though, because the resolution of smeared ketchup leaves a little to be desired.)
I asked his wife once what possessed her to do that. "I know we're supposed to play games and all but, frankly, there were six people in line behind him. A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do."
I asked why she didn't just write it on a napkin.
"Please, I work in a fast food restaraunt. We might as well not give them to you."
OK, so there might be a bit of a point there.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Clarification, when I said "crashlanding on the shores of girlfriendland" I mean her treating you like a girlfriend and telling you her ex-boyfriend misery stories.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raisins_(South_Park_episode)
With the first link, the chain is forged.
that this was probably a study done by women. There should have been a companion study "Do women confused courtesy/kindness as sexual overtures?" And of course we have all worked with "that woman" that thinks that every man in the office is trying to fondle her in the elevator (even the men who are into other men).
Let's just go back and read the results table on page 21, shall we?
Women identified friendliness as friendliness almost 9 times out of 10.
Yeah women, well done! But guess what,
Men identified friendliness as friendliness about 8 times out of 10.
Yes, women did better, but just a little better. Nevertheless, TFA chose to reinforce the stereotype that men are (a) sex hounds and/or (b) clueless by reporting that 68% of women report having been misinterpreted at some time in their lives. A cumulative statistic like that says nothing about the error rate of the median guy. For one thing, all those errors could have been produced by a small subset of really clueless guys. For another thing, no matter how good the guys are at this, a woman will experience an error if she interacts with enough guys.
In fact, given the women's error rate reported, if a guy is friendly towards 12-13 women in his life, there's a 68% chance that one of them will mistake it for sexual interest. Of course, women only have to be friendly towards about 9 guys to have a 68% chance of that.
Try this for a headline: Men Get it Right the Vast Majority of the Time. Or, if you must be negative, stick to the facts: Men Mistake Friendliness For Attraction ~40% More Often Than Women.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I have found that when I am dating someone, there are a lot more females that are interested. When I am single those very same people may give mt the time of day but that is about it. I asked a few to see if I was reading their signals wrong. They said I wasn't. When I was dating someone they wanted to know if they could 'get' me. When I am single they know they can 'get' me. They wanted the challenge of taking me away from another woman. I was shocked, surprised, and confused all at the same time at that. They did give me bonus points for not cheating.
CDs cost too much! Down with the RIAA! I only use 8-tracks you inensitive clod!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
As for your second comment, I don't know if it was aimed at me. If this uber-passive thing what makes the Japanese happy (that's a big "if"), then fine; it just doesn't remotely appeal to me personally. Remind me not to get too excited about all those cute Japanese girls throwing themselves at me (*ahem*... and even if it was true, they'd more likely be chucking stones at me after what I said about them!)
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
My Ex-Wife (she left me) used to tell me all the time that Girls were flirting w/ me. I didn't believe her. Then when she left... (and thank god) I was like a new man. At first, troubled, drinking heavily, and all of the sudden BAM! a girl smiled at me, and I realized that the world was my oyster. (no pearl necklace jokes intended)
Unfortunately I did get too close to a co-worker and have a difficult time to this day being alone w/her due to URST.
Then a second bang happend, my current wife struck me over the head with a glass full of Black Butte Porter. His name is Joe. JUST KIDDING (about the Joe part, I knew if I didn't throw this in there, someone would joke about it being a man...)
Now I am with a hot 6' tall brunette who knows I don't take shit, but will open the car door / carry groceries etc...
She treats me often to what I need in return, Likes wine AND beer, Doesn't like that I drive fast but doesn't try to prevent it. Lets me play vids & encourages me to try new ideas / hobbies etc...
Now if I could only get her into turbo chargers and NOS I would be a happy man.
"Hi, let's fuck"?
To give all of you a good start on understanding the body language of women, I'll give some pointers. I'm by no means a casanova, player, or predator, but I've had alot of feminine influence in life. I'm a guy, and I was raised in a house with 4 women. My father wasn't the epitome of macho, so I ended up learning alot about the female psyche. It can be a blessing or a curse, if I act on my knowledge, I'm forever in the friend zone (until they hear about how much money I make, go figure). If I'm particularly struck by a certain woman that hasn't had a chance to put me in her friend zone, I'll strike.
Women act on their attractions in different ways. I'll sum them up in two categories. Investigative attraction, and hormonal attraction. Investigative meaning she likes what she sees but she needs to know a little more. Hormonal meaning she's looking to trick her body into thinking she's fulfilled her genetic prerogative, or actually fulfilling it.
Signs of investigative attraction can be just as likely a part of finding a sexual partner for the night, when they're horny they're still going to pick the best they can get. But know that until you see the hormonal signs of attraction, it would be best to be verbal and clarify if you're getting mixed signals. Don't be blunt, be at least a little circuitous when asking, the verbal game is half of the fun for her.
Sex for a woman is very mental, and somewhat physical. Yeah, the physical part is important, but in order for it to be fun she has to be mentally turned on. She wants to feel sexy, she wants to know that she's blowing your mind, she wants very much to be a goddess that's blessing a man with her body. The verbal cues and hints can be very subtle, she wants answers that let her know more and more how much she turns you on. I'd get into the reasons, but then I'd start bestowing the curse of knowing. Knowing the body language, however, can be a great help. It doesn't take much to pick up on them, and it can help alot to muster up the courage to start talking to her if you know she's already at least curious about you. With that little prelude, on to the signs. I won't give them all because, quite frankly, there's too many. I'll also be leaving out many of the very obvious (touching, smiling, etc.) because there's too much coincidence involved with them.
Sure signs of investigative attraction:
Preening. Sweeping her hair, readjusting her jewelry, clothing, etc.. She's adjusting her appearance to bring attention to what she thinks are her best features.In open or private discussion, frequent preening is a good sign of attraction. She needs to be making alot of eye contact with or talking directly to you while doing this, however.
The looking game. If you keeping thinking that a girl was looking at you, and she looks away right as you look at her, she is. Trust your instincts, men have a sixth sense, we can tell when people are looking at us directly. We look at the person instinctively. Women have it to an extent, but men are downright uncanny at it. When a girl does this, she's testing your assertiveness. She's laying down the bait, she wants to see if you have the balls to bite. Women want MEN, afterall. This doesn't mean hoo-haw macho mean mugging, but having the balls to approach a woman often proves that you are at least willing to go after something you want. Being able to muster the initiative to go and strike a conversation is a universally good trait.
Removal of clothing (shut up, perverts). Women often wear extra layers of clothing to keep warm or accesorize. Sweaters, hoodies, jackets, scarves, etc.. This is a subtle one (yeah yeah, even for women), you have to know her a little while first. If she normally keeps them on when carrying on for a normal day, even while indoors, then pay attention to them. If she starts taking them off (leaving her "regular" outfit, jeans and a t-shirt or whatnot) when talking with you, she's more comfortable with you. Subconsciously she's removing barriers between you two. This is an extr
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last