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.
That's the conclusion Jade reached when a couple of the guys said they have to carry the conversation most of the time. That seems very unusual, so she concluded they tend to go for passive women. Seems reasonable.
Edit: It's not unusual at all. Other than the women who clearly advertise themselves as the opposite (online or in real life), there is a definite majority of passive behavior in the women I encounter vs. the opposite)
It could just as easily imply that, "most women are passive". Neither are automatically correct by themselves, yet both could be drawn from that statement, which is why we mustn't run to draw conclusions. If, by random selection, one finds themselves having to carry conversation:
a) they could be selecting passive people
b) a greater-than-average percent of the demographic they pursue happens to BE passive
Since we don't know who is going to be passive until we get to know them, I'd submit that B is more likely than A (especially since the assumption in a requires a certain amount of "luck", so to speak, to randomly happen to pick out passive people more often than not). But even in the case of A...that's what one has to deal with by nature of being passive. Just like shy men, by nature of being shy, are going to have fewer dates. Passivity within a social structure simply doesn't work unless you happen to pair up with someone who LIKES it, and complements it accordingly.
Edit: It's not unusual at all. Other than the women who clearly advertise themselves as the opposite (online or in real life), there is a definite majority of passive behavior in the women I encounter vs. the opposite)
It could just as easily imply that, "most women are passive". Neither are automatically correct by themselves, yet both could be drawn from that statement, which is why we mustn't run to draw conclusions. If, by random selection, one finds themselves having to carry conversation:
a) they could be selecting passive people
b) a greater-than-average percent of the demographic they pursue happens to BE passive
Since we don't know who is going to be passive until we get to know them, I'd submit that B is more likely than A (especially since the assumption in a requires a certain amount of "luck", so to speak, to randomly happen to pick out passive people more often than not). But even in the case of A...that's what one has to deal with by nature of being passive. Just like shy men, by nature of being shy, are going to have fewer dates. Passivity within a social structure simply doesn't work unless you happen to pair up with someone who LIKES it, and complements it accordingly.
You have a point in the context of OLD. One tends to be in a position of buying a pig in a poke, so to speak, unless one can screen before going on a date by having a few phone conversations. Women almost as commonly complain about men who monopolize the conversation. It's not that they tend to pick domineering or narcissistic men; they just don't have a chance to find out what they're looking at until they meet someone in person. That's where going about meeting people via real-life networking and mingling has an advantage. Unless you're doing cold approaches, you have a chance to observe before you decide to make a move.
You have a point in the context of OLD. One tends to be in a position of buying a pig in a poke, so to speak, unless one can screen before going on a date by having a few phone conversations. Women almost as commonly complain about men who monopolize the conversation. It's not that they tend to pick domineering or narcissistic men; they just don't have a chance to find out what they're looking at until they meet someone in person. That's where going about meeting people via real-life networking and mingling has an advantage. Unless you're doing cold approaches, you have a chance to observe before you decide to make a move.
But if we're going to be adding clarifications (real life networking vs cold approaches, etc), then the demographics change, and it goes back to what JJ said about being "drawn to passive women". Neither I (nor Timberline, from the tone of his post, though he can correct me if I'm wrong) are drawn to passive women. In any environment where I have the luxury of determining a woman's level of passiveness beforehand, I typically won't pursue a passive woman. That's common sense: I don't like passive women, so if I (for whatever reason) know they're passive, then I won't pursue them.
However, I do a LOT of pursuing. For an average dude, it can be a LOT of work to land a quality date. That means RL networking, OLD, cold approaches, setups, you name it. And when you blend all those things together, I maintain my position....I have to do a LOT of the "leading". I'd even go so far as to say "most".
If I were going limit my experience to exclusively RL networking (as you mention, an environment better suited to determining one's passiveness beforehand), I'd be near-dateless. And I date as a hobby; I'm not looking for "the one". Sure, I could sit back and wait for the aggressive women to ask me out, but the result would be the same.....no dates.
That's the conclusion Jade reached when a couple of the guys said they have to carry the conversation most of the time. That seems very unusual, so she concluded they tend to go for passive women. Seems reasonable.
Look around here. Even some of the more assertive seeming and independent women like to play a more passive role in dating and courtship. It feels right to them. That's all good as far as I'm concerned because it generally lines up well with the more active role I and many men like to play, until it becomes too much. I'll address "too much" below, but the idea that only passive women act passively in dating stuff doesn't match my experience at all.
As for "too much" in another thread where door opening was discussed, I said that I'll open doors ad infinitum, unless it becomes an expectation. It has to be something I give and not something I feel is expected. I can't say exactly when this role playing mood gets outdone, but I know it when it happens.
In another example, I'm quite confident in my writing. I have no fear that someone might catch me making an error, and not because I don't make any, since I do, but because I know I'm a good but fallible writer and I'm confident of that. So I don't think I have a dog in this fight, but the idea that someone would get all officious and critique a simple effort to show appreciation for her or something she wrote because that message of appreciation contains a spelling error or a sentence lacked tense agreement, is an example of where the man's role feels less like traditional courtship and more like supplication. No thanks. And obviously, men playing grammar Nazi sucks just as much, but I see that far less often among men.
Like the poor fvcker who got a call back because he can spell and punctuate. Probably made his otherwise paleolithic day.
This is the message I received today: "bi" Initial message and yes, that is the extent of it.
I got one last week that said "wideset beautiful eyes" Again, initial message. I am cursed with my father's squinty eyes so I'm not sure if he meant his or mine.
I have also received a message in the past that started with "Hi and thank you for reading my CL ad." On OKC. From a guy who's profile I had not viewed.
So, yes, the one I am going to respond to is the "poor fvcker" who used full sentences and that indicated he read my profile when the other three examples are typical of the rare messages I do receive. I feel those are "I'm just going to blast a bunch of women and see what sticks" rather than an actual expression of interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homina12
Look around here. Even some of the more assertive seeming and independent women like to play a more passive role in dating and courtship. It feels right to them.
Some of us are what used to be called "traditional", it's true.
In my experience with dating in this area, men do NOT want the strong woman who can take care of herself. If you're too independent, it's a red flag. I been told I'm too independent by male co-workers over very simple things like carrying stuff to my car instead of asking for help and that's probably part of the reason I'm single - because I don't act helpless. Yet, when it comes to other things around the office, they've told me I'm the only one they jump up and help because they respect I don't just sit there and expect them to do it for me.
I have at least three friends in the same boat: too independent because they are used to having to fend for themselves. They're also very comfortable in their skin and happy with their lives. On the flip side, I have a good friend men fall over themselves to get to because she's got very porcelain skin and she looks fragile - I've had a couple of guy friends tell me they wanted to pursue her until they realized she's actually a strong, independent woman and they lost interest.
I've had a couple of guy friends tell me they wanted to pursue her until they realized she's actually a strong, independent woman and they lost interest.
This, along with reading that a woman is "sarcastic", are turn offs. It's usually code for difficult or hard-to-handle. Not always, but enough to create an association.
I don't understand why a woman would write that she's "strong and independent" - what if men wrote "weak and dependent"? Why write anything in a profile that has to do with strength or lack thereof? Not directed at you or your friend, just more curiosity on this issue.
I would just leave strength or no strength off a profile altogether.
This is the message I received today: "bi" Initial message and yes, that is the extent of it.
I got one last week that said "wideset beautiful eyes" Again, initial message. I am cursed with my father's squinty eyes so I'm not sure if he meant his or mine.
I have also received a message in the past that started with "Hi and thank you for reading my CL ad." On OKC. From a guy who's profile I had not viewed.
So, yes, the one I am going to respond to is the "poor fvcker" who used full sentences and that indicated he read my profile when the other three examples are typical of the rare messages I do receive. I feel those are "I'm just going to blast a bunch of women and see what sticks" rather than an actual expression of interest.
Some of us are what used to be called "traditional", it's true.
In my experience with dating in this area, men do NOT want the strong woman who can take care of herself. If you're too independent, it's a red flag. I been told I'm too independent by male co-workers over very simple things like carrying stuff to my car instead of asking for help and that's probably part of the reason I'm single - because I don't act helpless. Yet, when it comes to other things around the office, they've told me I'm the only one they jump up and help because they respect I don't just sit there and expect them to do it for me.
I have at least three friends in the same boat: too independent because they are used to having to fend for themselves. They're also very comfortable in their skin and happy with their lives. On the flip side, I have a good friend men fall over themselves to get to because she's got very porcelain skin and she looks fragile - I've had a couple of guy friends tell me they wanted to pursue her until they realized she's actually a strong, independent woman and they lost interest.
In the same sense that I think men should only go so far in "adapting" to what are or what they believe are women's expectations, are you "adapting" too much and risking attracting men who are wrong for you? What I read sounds like more than being perhaps superficially traditional.
Some of us are what used to be called "traditional", it's true.
In my experience with dating in this area, men do NOT want the strong woman who can take care of herself. If you're too independent, it's a red flag. I been told I'm too independent by male co-workers over very simple things like carrying stuff to my car instead of asking for help and that's probably part of the reason I'm single - because I don't act helpless. Yet, when it comes to other things around the office, they've told me I'm the only one they jump up and help because they respect I don't just sit there and expect them to do it for me.
I have at least three friends in the same boat: too independent because they are used to having to fend for themselves. They're also very comfortable in their skin and happy with their lives. On the flip side, I have a good friend men fall over themselves to get to because she's got very porcelain skin and she looks fragile - I've had a couple of guy friends tell me they wanted to pursue her until they realized she's actually a strong, independent woman and they lost interest.
This sounds very strange, NWGirl. Especially for Portland. Guys who are put off simply because a woman carries her own stuff to her car?? I've never known any guys to even notice stuff like that. except in Russia, where they'll immediate jump in and take your stuff without even asking. Very old-fashioned over there. But come to think of it, when I did my first year of university in Oregon (and quickly transferred out), some of the male students would get hysterical if a woman opened a door for them, if the guy was carrying stuff, or if she simply held the door open out of politeness. They read into it that she was making a big statement, rather than just trying to be helpful.
So....maybe Oregon's a bit different from the rest of the West Coast, idk.
Hell, I'm the one who asked my husband out in the first place. Had I not pursued, it's highly unlikely we would have ended up together, as he was on the precipice of going on a dating hiatus, and I'd likely just have moved on to somebody else.
This, along with reading that a woman is "sarcastic", are turn offs. It's usually code for difficult or hard-to-handle. Not always, but enough to create an association.
I don't understand why a woman would write that she's "strong and independent" - what if men wrote "weak and dependent"? Why write anything in a profile that has to do with strength or lack thereof? Not directed at you or your friend, just more curiosity on this issue.
I would just leave strength or no strength off a profile altogether.
She's not talking about profiles, though. She's talking about being ostracized just because she carried her stuff to her car, lol! It's so crazy, it makes me laugh and kind of sad little laugh. *sigh*
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.
