Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never sought to discredit you -- where did I say your points have no merit? I myself certainly don't know everything, either -- however, I have read, and am familiar with Gilmartin's works and research. But I never meant to sound condescending. I simply answered some of your points, including the one where you had asked how male love-shys and gay males relate to each other (i.e., Gilmartin's hypothesis of the male love-shy as being comparable to a "male lesbian" concept -- not meant as a masculinized lesbian female, but as the "male equivalent" of a lesbian). I answered your question about the attractiveness factor.
I'm neither bitter nor angry -- I just wanted some feedback on my original post; that's all. One point that Gilmartin also makes in his book is that the love-shy male does not willingly "choose" to become love-shy (that is, it is not a conscious choice), but that it is the combination and product of several childhood environmental and psychological factors.
Also, I agree with you in that if someone, love-shy or not, has a conversation deficiency, there is always room for improvement. I have found that my own dating skills improved rather remarkably, in the past 30 or so dates I went to, over the course of the past year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by h886
It's typical that when someone wishes to discredit another speaker, they falsely assume that their points can have no merit, dismissing them as uniformed rather than acknowledging the possibility someone might disagree with them. I feel compelled to suggest that if this is how one conducts themselves around women, it would not be particularly appealing to most. All people enjoy conversation, most a lively debate. Few appreciate being condescended to. A speaker who assumes they know all while everyone around them is woefully uninformed will quickly find that few wish to interact with them in any way, shape or form past the first 30 seconds of conversation.
If you read back through my post to some of the points you might have accidentally overlooked, you will note that I did not say physical unattractiveness was the only possible cause. It's entirely possible for someone to be physically appealing to potential mates, but once they open their mouth, the way they present themselves becomes a turn-off.
Again, if one fails to successfully get the attention of women time after time, they are the variable that needs changed, not the women. Rather than becoming bitter and decreeing the hypocrisy of women liking certain traits better than others while complaining that no one will give them a chance, it would behoove them to examine how they come across to people and try to determine at what point they are losing their audience. Some of these things can be learned. Poor conversationalists can practice. Men who lack interests the opposite sex can relate to can develop new interests and potentially find common ground.
I think you can simplify this by realizing that the love-shy female also exists and has a lower chance of finding a partner. People who don't put themselves out there are just gonna have a lower success rate for lack of trying. If you are shy in love you are probably shy in other aspects of your life too, i.e. platonic friendships. I don't think you can compare relationships with gay men to relationships with straight love-shy men because the woman isn't seeking romance with the gay man.
In his book, Gilmartin doesn't rule out the existence of female love-shys -- at the same time though, the reason he focused almost exclusively on male love-shys was, in his research he was operating on the assumption that female love-shys would not encounter anywhere near as much difficulty in finding and attracting a mate, due to common contemporary male/female romance and relationship rules of engagement, if you will. If I remember correctly, I think the example Gilmartin used was that many men will be attracted to a girl, shy or not, b/c in our society, men are typically the "pursuers" and women the "pursued". But it doesn't work quite that way, in reverse, since women are less likely to pursue a shy / love-shy man.
ETA: Shockley discusses female love-shys in his work, AFAIK, but I have not yet had an opportunity to read his book.
Last edited by Phoenix2017; 02-18-2011 at 04:55 PM..
Reason: Corrected typo
In his book, Gilmartin doesn't rule out the existence of female love-shys -- at the same time though, the reason he focused almost exclusively on male love-shys was, in his research he was operating on the assumption that female love-shys would not encounter anywhere near as much difficulty in finding and attracting a mate, due to common contemporary male/female romance and relationship rules of engagement, if you will. If I remember correctly, I think the example Gilmartin used was that many men will be attracted to a girl, shy or not, b/c in our society, men are typically the "pursuers" and women the "pursued". But it doesn't work quite that way, in reverse, since women are less likely to pursue a shy / love-shy man.
ETA: Shockley discusses female love-shys in his work, AFAIK, but I have not yet had an opportunity to read his book.
The relationship rules between genders really aren't that different in real life. There are many dominant females who seek out the solitary, shy males. The love-shy girl isn't usually flamboyantly dressed to attract, and wouldn't be seen at any common meeting places, so the attention of most males would not fall on her. Imagine a girl who walks with her head down, plainly dressed, glasses, makes no eye contact, others can barely hear her speak. She might even be a little defensive. No guy is gonna try more than once to speak to her. I speak from experience.
The women are not looking to these men for the same purpose. What one looks for in a friend is not exactly the same as the qualifications (ones that go beyond mere friendship) that one requires of a mate. If the love-shy male were equally appealing to the woman in terms of friendship and having interests in common AND was willing to not pursue her romantically and cloud the issue, I suspect those friendships would easily take root.
The problem is that these men who are unappealing to many members of the opposite sex are seeking to rationalize and blame women for not being attracted to them rather than working to improve on the areas where they are lacking. If the man is painfully shy, he needs to practice his conversation skills. If the man is physically unappealing, he needs to work to make the package as presentable as possible. If he is uninteresting because he only enjoys sitting at home perusing his coin collection, he needs to pursue other hobbies so that he can participate in an interesting conversation.
It is no different for women. Additionally, I would question how many of these gay males have personalities close to the straight love-shy men you speak of. Chances are they have little in common, or if they do have much in common, then maybe these love-shy men should look to these women as friends rather than potential partners.
I don't mean all of this to be cruel, but if no one wants to buy the goods you're selling, you need to think about improving the product, rather than continuing to blame the consumer for not wanting it. Women are not all evil witches who won't give a guy a chance any more than all men are egotistical maniacs who only wish for a submissive partner. If you are being rejected by the opposite sex time and time again, it's time to look in the mirror and see what needs work.
The relationship rules between genders really aren't that different in real life. There are many dominant females who seek out the solitary, shy males. The love-shy girl isn't usually flamboyantly dressed to attract, and wouldn't be seen at any common meeting places, so the attention of most males would not fall on her. Imagine a girl who walks with her head down, plainly dressed, glasses, makes no eye contact, others can barely hear her speak. She might even be a little defensive. No guy is gonna try more than once to speak to her. I speak from experience.
Fascinating -- Gilmartin's work covered very little on the topic of female love-shyness. Shockley apparently covered that subject in much greater depth in his 2009 book...I will have to check that out, as I admit I don't know much at all, about how female love-shys operate or differ from love-shy males.
I wanted to ask something that's been on my mind for a while now: in modern/comtemporary Western society, most straight adult women are overwhelmingly supportive and accepting of gay men, and their lifestyle. This is continually and culturally re-inforced in popular society constantly, where you commonly see movies/TV shows with gay men and straight women befriending each other very closely, all the time in recent years.
Research from Gilmartin and Shockley has shown that women typically overwhelmingly reject the love-shy male (please see Love-shyness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for further info; IMO though, the previous version of the wikipedia article was a little better than one currently shown). Psychologist Gilmartin estimates that love-shyness will prevent 1.5%, or about 1.7 million, American males from ever marrying. It just struck me as rather unusual, how many women may be (and legitimately so) very sympathethic and understanding to the plight and social challenges faced by gay males, but be indifferent to, or share little or no empathy at all, for the straight male love-shy. (I have read Gilmartin's books and research on love-shyness, and based on my own life experiences, believe I am and/or was a love shy male also -- in fact, my very second C-D post was asking for advice on how to deal with earlier love-shyness.)
Gilmartin, the original researcher on love-shyness, classified in his book and also referenced here, the seven criteria of love-shyness as follows (previously available in the former version of the associated wikipedia article; no longer currently available now, so I'm copying and pasting them, from my previous C-D post, from when they were actually present):
Any thoughts or comments please?
I don't find "love-shy" the least bit appealing. I'm not sure what you consider "empathy"...but it certainly isn't the same as finding someone appealing. I can have empathy for some gay dude that is messed up, and I can have empathy for a straight dude that is equally messed up. However, neither one is a person that I would find romantically appealing.
I think you can simplify this by realizing that the love-shy female also exists and has a lower chance of finding a partner. People who don't put themselves out there are just gonna have a lower success rate for lack of trying. If you are shy in love you are probably shy in other aspects of your life too, i.e. platonic friendships. I don't think you can compare relationships with gay men to relationships with straight love-shy men because the woman isn't seeking romance with the gay man.
Update to previous reply, quoting from the love-shyness wikipedia article:
Quote:
"According to Gilmartin, people of all ages, all races, all sexual orientations, and all genders can be love-shy. However, in Gilmartin's opinion, the negative effects of love-shyness manifest themselves primarily in heterosexual men"
I think you can simplify this by realizing that the love-shy female also exists and has a lower chance of finding a partner. People who don't put themselves out there are just gonna have a lower success rate for lack of trying. If you are shy in love you are probably shy in other aspects of your life too, i.e. platonic friendships. I don't think you can compare relationships with gay men to relationships with straight love-shy men because the woman isn't seeking romance with the gay man.
Referencing bolded section above: you're right; that's certainly true. However, women also tend to be much more socially-accepting of gay men, while at the same time, indifferent to love-shy men. In other words, most girls are still "nice", to gay guys. The same does not tend to be true though, for straight male love-shys.
I don't find "love-shy" the least bit appealing. I'm not sure what you consider "empathy"...but it certainly isn't the same as finding someone appealing. I can have empathy for some gay dude that is messed up, and I can have empathy for a straight dude that is equally messed up. However, neither one is a person that I would find romantically appealing.
Fair enough; a valid point. As I indicated in a newer post above though, a lot of gals, even if they are not romantically attracted to a gay guy, can still be really "nice" or "friendly" and "supportive", to him. But for straight love-shy guy? Rarely so -- and that's what I don't get. Male love-shys, simply don't have the kind of female support network, as gay males.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I myself certainly don't know everything, either -- however, I have read, and am familiar with Gilmartin's works and research. But I never meant to sound condescending. I simply answered some of your points, including the one where you had asked how male love-shys and gay males relate to each other (i.e., Gilmartin's hypothesis of the male love-shy as being comparable to a "male lesbian" concept -- not meant as a masculinized lesbian female, but as the "male equivalent" of a lesbian). I answered your question about the attractiveness factor.
Fascinating -- Gilmartin's work covered very little on the topic of female love-shyness. Shockley apparently covered that subject in much greater depth in his 2009 book...I will have to check that out, as I admit I don't know much at all, about how female love-shys operate or differ from love-shy males.
