Why DO males take the responsibility for initiating?

Post Reply New Topic

Wow, seriously? You had guys say to you "well, I wanted to go out with you, but now that you're asking me out... NO!" ? If so, I still have much to learn about just how messed up people can be!



Yes! I struggle to respect anyone (male or female) who thinks that this is how things should be or even "OK". It seems that many people do, but when I say so, people tell me I'm cynical. At least I'm not the only one!

I utterly resent this attitude and I reject this system. I will not be a woman's "employee". If that means I remain single all my life - so be it. My self-respect is far more valuable to me than sex. I also resent and reject the (closely related) idea that women "give" sex and men "get" sex.

That sounds really stupid and hard to believe, those guys were lying.

Their identity is based around getting as many women as possible to engage sexually with them. People tend to do what is necessary to keep their self-identity intact. Their 'success' rate is another matter. I mean, this is all self-reported by people whose identity is based around getting as many women as possible to sleep with them. They may not be the most reliable of narrators.

They're not a big thing in the UK, though my sister-in-law was the lucky target of one such PUA. By all accounts they weren't a very happy ten minutes for him.



Not only are you wrong, you're contradicting yourself all over the shop.

Here's something to consider: no human being is more natural in their behaviour than any other human being. Do you suppose there are 'unnatural' squid? 'Unnatural' squirrels? 'Unnatural' horses? Bees? Cats? Orangutans? No. No animal can step outside its nature - it is always within that nature. Where people like you have a very abstracted, monistic, simplistic idea of human nature/behaviour, you end up getting very confused and slipping into all sorts of dualisms and contradictions when trying to impose such a 'nature' on the human behaviour as actually lived and expressed because of all the non- and contra-instances of that 'nature'. It is folly to insist that people should - both prescriptively and descriptively - behave according to your theory when you are having to insist such in the first place because they aren't.

If you were right, it would be impossible to 'confuse'. If you were right, 'feminists, homosexuals and other groups' could not exist.

The fault is not in people's refusal to conform to your theory, it is in your theory.



Many men do want sex, and many women do want love. As many men want love, and many women want sex. And a whole bunch of other stuff, too.

Many women enjoy sex for the pleasure of it. They go out, and seek it for its own end. Many men also do this, but many others don't. They certainly like sex, but prefer it to be part of a committed relationship. And of course, some people don't have much interest in sex at all.

In my generation, "nice women" did not initiate a relationship. "Nice girls" didn't call boys. It's pretty deeply ingrained in our society, although I'm happy to say that I'm seeing this slowly changing, but a lot of men my age still buy into this crap. They were also brought up that women are merely property; therefore they are not supposed to have opinions. An opinionated woman could be big trouble!

Trust me, their response upon me approaching them was so shocked and horrified, you'd have thought I had emasculated them on the spot. Their mothers probably beat into them the same ideology I had beaten into me, so they were genuinely appalled at my "behavior."

I didn't ask them why. But I went against their advice and messaged men I liked anyway. And all the men I met in person were the ones I sent the first messages to (except one).
None of them worked out but it was more efficient than just waiting for my type of men to message me.


Right. It's not like men don't have a choice. They can choose not to make the first move and wait just like you.
Men like you are called "Herbivore men" in Japan.
(Wikipedia)

It just isn't true. Most women want sex. Most women are MUCH more sexual than me. I hate it when I mention I might be asexual people think "it's okay to be single your entire life". F*** that. They can't comprehend that I could want a soul-mate that goes beyond typical "platonic" boundaries (i.e. no touching, no cuddling). I'm even willing to have sex if someone wants it, though I might need some medical help. People are so STUPID in their binary thinking.

Not sure what your point it.

Most men want both sex and a relationship. Most women ditto.
But male sexuality is more aggressive. Men not in relationships still want sex.
Women occasionally are like that too. But a woman who wants no strings attached sex can find it as easily as an employer who wants to pay money for doing nothing can find an employee willing take his money for doing nothing-very easily.

Conversely - a man seeking no strings attached sex from a woman is like a worker seeking an employer willing to give him money for doing nothing. Not quite so easy a thing to find.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FES_b0coXFQ[/youtube]

Men want sex,women want love?????????
What is love?A box of crappy chocolates?
I don't get it.To me love is the same feeling I get when I see something beautiful,and it's free.

do you have any evidence to back this statement up, or is it just your own baseless supposition?

I'm not sure I have a point, really. Yet I persist.

Women not in relationships still want sex - far more common than you suppose, I think.

I don't think it's quite that like that. Plenty of men and women up and down the land find themselves a one night stand. If there is a gap, I don't think it's anything like you describe. As I've said much further upthread, there's a lot of women a lot of men wouldn't even think of sleeping with. This idea that all men are constantly up for sex with any woman is nonsense. Displayed social behaviour doesn't necessarily translate to private desire. There's how men and women at large are supposed to act, as according to their society and culture, and there's how they as individuals would like to act if they felt free from such societal demands and constraints.

One of the reasons this topic question can be asked and make a sort of sense, get an 'oh, yeah, why is that?' of recognition from a lot of people, is because of the social rule that women are supposed to be passive and men active. We know this because we are told it time and again, explicitly and implicitly. We're often told it's how we naturally are, yet we need to be reminded of it constantly lest we forget our nature. If we weren't told, we might forget, and then all kinds of hell might break loose.

If a man breaks out of that supposed role, well, no biggie. Is there a visual difference between a man just out for a pleasant evening and a man deliberately not approaching a woman? Not really. And if the woman breaks out of the role? Is there a visual difference between a woman waiting to be approached, and approaching a man or three or eight through the evening? God, yes. In the latter case, she's obviously a slut - she was talking to that one fella, and now she's talking to me. Jesus Christ she's giving it away. And no man wants a slut, because that means she'll go with anyone, which means the man she goes with isn't special. And being not-special, being 'just anyone', is no ego boost, is it?

So, women do initiate. Quite a lot. Yet the received wisdom, the social rule, is that they don't. The received wisdom is wrong, the social rule broken time and time again. Yet it, like me, persists. It might be fruitful to consider why that's so.

Last edited by Hopper on 17 Apr 2014, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That kind of garbage is harmful to men and women.

Interesting! I'm not sure I can identify with that description, but...



I doubt I've ever been the primary cause of a single woman's woes!



(I thought I'd replied to this earlier, but apparently not.) An interesting piece of info, Janissy! I've never heard of this before.

Of course, I wasn't really suggesting that all the men in the world go on a "sex strike" (or even a "relationship strike"). It was just a thought experiment to try to figure out how much women actually want relationships with men: do they not initiate only because they currently don't have to or because they really don't care enough to do it (even if they had to). According to you it's the former.

By the way, the fact that sex strikes by women actually seem to work strengthens the argument that the majority of men are, indeed slaves to their sexual desires. I don't know what saddens me more: the fact that women would attempt a sex strike or the fact that men would allow it to succeed.

^^This.

There are no doubt still some men my age who might be offended by a woman doing the initiating, but those are the kind of men who most likely aren't my "type" anyway.

LOL!

Young ladies make tons of money as streetwalkers selling themselves to male clients.

Young men also make money as streetwalkers- selling themselves to male homosexual clients.

But young men do not make money as streetwalkers selling themselves to women driving by in cars. There are no male only brothels for heterosexual women clients. If there are where do I apply to work for one?


When primitive tribes fight wars- women are part of the spoils. You dont see women waging wars- slaughtering all of the women in the next tribe to steal the men.

^I feel like wanting to eat mammoth meat.

Oh wait, you're confusing me, there are no mammoths anymore.

That can be a good business idea for a niche market.