I need to hear from the females of this forum.

[88chaz88]

I hope you are only talking about women in the 'general public' kind of way. I don't think it applies to women INFJ's or maybe it just never applied to me.

Any female who says they aren't turned on by general dickishness is lying through their teeth.

 

[the]

Any female who says they aren't turned on by general dickishness is lying through their teeth.

u r correct

 

[thirtiesgirl]

First off, Barnabas, most of "us females" like to be referred to as women. Using terms like "you females" or "the females" makes us feel like you're referring to us as a species, not as actual people. And for this woman, that's not ok. The term "women" shows respect for our humanity, and I'd appreciate it if you and other guys who are tempted to use the term "females" when describing women would think twice before doing so. And I'll try to remember, when referring to you men out there, to not use the term "all you males." Ok?

To answer your question, unless you've experienced what it's like to be a girl growing into a woman in western society, I don't think you can really understand the depth of how "not good enough" women and girls are told to feel about themselves on a near constant basis. Our hair has to be the right texture, as does our skin; our teeth must be straight - but not too straight!, and white - but not too white!, and we must be tan - but not too tan! Our bodies must conform to a certain shape and weight, as must our attitudes and personalities. We shouldn't be "too aggressive," but shouldn't be doormats either, and we should try to be educated, but not too smart and scare away potential boyfriends. We should try to have good senses of humor, but not be too raunchy or too funny, lest again, we scare away the potential boyfriend. We should be successful, but not too successful lest we trample on the tender egos of (again) the potential boyfriends who are potentially supposed to feel like they "should be" earning more than we do.

You see where I'm going with this? I'm sure you do. Boys growing into men are often subject to the same kind of mixed messages women receive... just not as many, and not as constantly. In fact, by my estimation, cut that number in half. And then you'll begin to understand just the tip of the iceberg of low self-esteem and self-hatred that so many young girls and women are conditioned to accept.

With that in mind, I think you'll begin to understand why many women date jerky, asshole men, and, to take it a step further, continue to maintain relationships with them even after the guy has proven himself to be a world class asshole jerk. As _Skoffin_ illustrated, a lot of times, we're not aware of the depths of the guy's assholery when we first begin dating him. Some guys have learned to be very adept at hiding it. I'm testament to this fact, having dated my share of guys who I thought were fairly good guys, only to discover after spending some time with them that they really weren't. What I chose to do next was completely up to me. I could stay and allow my feelings of low self-esteem to take over, or I could have enough confidence in myself to stop dating the guy and look for someone better. Having done a lot of work on myself to help me see beyond the social conditioning I've been indoctrinated with from an early age (as all girls are), I'm usually able to rely on my confidence and move on to try and find someone better. Not every woman is that strong, though, and some of them choose to stay.

That said, I'd like to address _dicember's_ assessment of himself as a "good" or "nice guy," and add to _Reon's_ explanation. I won't do it myself, but rely on this wonderful blog post written by the sharp women at Heartless Bitches International, which can be found here. I suggest that every guy who terms himself a "nice guy" should read this post. It will give you a clear window into what most intelligent women think of your behavior, should you be one of those "nice guys" who engages in the pitfalls described in this blog entry.

I'll also include another blog post written by Phaedra Starling, a guest blogger on Kate Harding's Shapely Prose blog, which you can find here. I believe it's another valuable post for the self-termed "nice guys" to read.

I don't share these things to minimize the feelings of anyone who might think of or refer to himself as a "nice guy," but to let you know that most nice guys truly don't need to advertise the fact to a woman of any intelligence by continuing to insist that you're a "nice guy," "I don't mean you any harm," etc, etc, ad infinitum. What will prove that fact to us far more than any words you say in repetitive, annoying fashion, are your actions. If you're truly a nice guy, you'll leave women alone in a public place unless we're clearly giving you signals to approach us. You won't get upset if you do approach us and we turn you down, continuing to insist angrily that you're a "nice guy," and we have no right to be offended when you approach us for some simple conversation. To paraphrase the Shapely Prose blog post, if you can't accept our "no" in a public situation like that, who's to say how you'll act towards us when we're alone?

A true nice guy would take the hint and move on. A guy who continues to insist that he's "just a nice guy" after we've turned him down is just as much of a world class asshole as a guy who won't take no for an answer.

[/RANT]

 

[thirtiesgirl]

Any female who says they aren't turned on by general dickishness is lying through their teeth.

I dare you to test me.

 

[Jack]

opcorn:

 

[Faye]

I don't share these things to minimize the feelings of anyone who might think of or refer to himself as a "nice guy," but to let you know that most nice guys truly don't need to advertise the fact to a woman of any intelligence by continuing to insist that you're a "nice guy," "I don't mean you any harm," etc, etc, ad infinitum. What will prove that fact to us far more than any words you say in repetitive, annoying fashion, are your actions. If you're truly a nice guy, you'll leave women alone in a public place unless we're clearly giving you signals to approach us. You won't get upset if you do approach us and we turn you down, continuing to insist angrily that you're a "nice guy," and we have no right to be offended when you approach us for some simple conversation. To paraphrase the Shapely Prose blog post, if you can't accept our "no" in a public situation like that, who's to say how you'll act towards us when we're alone?

A true nice guy would take the hint and move on. A guy who continues to insist that he's "just a nice guy" after we've turned him down is just as much of a world class asshole as a guy who won't take no for an answer.

[/RANT]

If we may disregard the "nice guy" archetype for a minute, I would just like to say that the same men who are "jerks" be it whether they are self-professed "nice guys" or regular "jerks" are the same men whom women agree to date and enter relationships with.

If you wait for a woman to invite you to talk, that invitation will never come. Most women talk to other women primarily, and they wont be happy to talk to men unless those men either come on strong or they get to know them. If a man gets to know a woman and becomes friends with her, more often than not he is automatically disqualifying himself from being her boyfriend. Jerks, even the "nice guy" jerks have who have more self-confidence than they have respect for women are more successful at relationships even if it is only because that is what society and most women expect.



I've even been told that women are attracted to men who act stupid because that is demonstrating to women that the man has more testosterone, and by this action he is demonstrating to the woman that he has good genes because they can withstand the toxicity of the testosterone. In other words, I've been told that women are biologically attracted to stupid men. The person who told me this had a PH.D. in psychology and taught social psychology (it is supposedly empirically based, but I have no idea what study). I may have also heard it from a Ph.D. biologist but I can't remember.

Anyway, based on my experience, I'm starting to believe it even though I don't want to. If we accept the position that confidence is sexy, then over-confidence is overly sexy- or that is what we're taught to believe.

In any case, the bottom line is that if you aren't somewhat of a jerk and douche, you have to be lucky to get a date. You get to watch people date because chances are no woman you like is ever going to ask you. And it does take a tinge of egotism to just straight up come on to a girl like they do in the movies. If nothing else, the fact that these men make themselves so obnoxiously available make them easier than other men who might not seem as interested.

 

[Gaze]

So, what definition of "nice" are we working with?

 

[thirtiesgirl]

If we may disregard the "nice guy" archetype for a minute, I would just like to say that the same men who are "jerks" be it whether they are self-professed "nice guys" or regular "jerks" are the same men whom women agree to date and enter relationships with.

I don't disagree with you. If I had a good friend who was dating a jerk, I counsel her to think about what she's getting out of the relationship and if her answers come up lacking, maybe it's time to think about getting out. I don't waste time with guys who behave that way myself, and I have several women friends who don't either.

If you wait for a woman to invite you to talk, that invitation will never come. Most women talk to other women primarily, and they wont be happy to talk to men unless those men either come on strong or they get to know them. If a man gets to know a woman and becomes friends with her, more often than not he is automatically disqualifying himself from being her boyfriend. Jerks, even the "nice guy" jerks have who have more self-confidence than they have respect for women are more successful at relationships even if it is only because that is what society and most women expect.

You're obviously not adept at reading womens' signals. If you were, you'd be able to tell when a woman is suggesting by her body language that it's ok to approach her. I'll quote from Phaedra Starling's blog entry, since she makes it so patently clear:

Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women

 

[gloomy-optimist]

This entire debate is relative. Arguing will be fruitless.

Just to let you guys know beforehand.

But yeah -- nice guys can be referred to as confident, well-meaning guys with charisma and inner strength. Or, they can be the type of guy that clings, going to all sorts of lengths to hold on to someone (because they don't want to be alone), and end up unappreciated.

Let's face it, guys. Confidence is attractive. Dicks can be confident. "Nice guys" can be spineless. A middle ground is usually actually what most women are looking for.

 

[middle1]

Any female who says they aren't turned on by general dickishness is lying through their teeth.

I do agree with this. For me its almost a must have turn on.

I wouldn't say I fall for anyone or date anyone because I feel worthless. Hell, if I could've picked who I fell in love with then life would've been alot simpler.

 

[acd]

Nobody goes after jag offs intentionally.
It is an unintentional thing the occurs because of low self-esteem or inexperience..

You either figure it out and get over it eventually or not.
I kind of think that the people we draw to us and have relationships with are a reflection of our inner state.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Any female who says they aren't turned on by general dickishness is lying through their teeth.

The only reason I like general dickishness is because that gives me a right to be a dick back. And I definitely do have a pretty sarcastic streak.

However, generally speaking, dickishness turns me off of relationships. I'm going to be honest and say I would consider actually using a douchebag in a relationship sense, but I wouldn't go after them seriously.

 

[Matariki]

He got one responce, one young lady replied "Because we don't feel like were good enough".

Does this ring true for any of our female members? explain?

Nope, and I still don't understand why other females might think this. They feel like they have to be martyr and save somebody. For some reason they keep feeding themselves the message "Oh, he will change." or "He didn't use to be like this, but I believe he can change, I can save him." :doh:

Why? :noidea:

Maybe they feel through sacrificing themselves they will feel appreciated and worth something.

 

[Faye]

You're obviously not adept at reading womens' signals. If you were, you'd be able to tell when a woman is suggesting by her body language that it's ok to approach her. I'll quote from Phaedra Starling's blog entry, since she makes it so patently clear:

Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women

 

[Tamagochi]

You're obviously not adept at reading womens' signals. If you were, you'd be able to tell when a woman is suggesting by her body language that it's ok to approach her.

In theory it looks good. In practice however if a woman displays her availability in such a way then she most probably relate to the "damaged" category in one way or another. Because if she has the goods then she already has a long list of candidates who would like to get intimate. So unless you're really hot you gonna get no signs from her.

 

[thirtiesgirl]

Well excuse me! I'll start by saying first that if you attempt to discover how I act in person by what I write on these forums, you will not succeed.

I don't need to determine it. It's obvious by your generalization that "all women" expect to be approached first and won't make the first move. Rather than take my word that there are women out there who will approach you, and that it might just be your own generalizations that are keeping you from properly reading women's signals, you choose to second guess me. I think I might know something about the way women think since I am, after all, a woman. I'm also a tad bit older than you and have a bit more experience in the dating scene. But rather than trust my experience, you choose to lead with the headstrong attitude of youth. More power to you. I hope you learn much from your failures.

The whole quoted passage is annoying because it presumes I'm yet another moronic jerk, and it is out of touch with reality otherwise. Memorizing Beowulf? An assassin? Please.

Ah, now I see where the problem lies when it comes to meeting women. You seem to have misplaced your sense of humor.

Well, it is a good thing that women are never in a group of friends *Sarcasm*. Especially at parties.....

You're obviously going to the wrong parties. And again, you're generalizing. There's that attitude again that "all women" behave in this or that way. Perhaps if you open your mind a little and realize that no, "all women" do not behave in one specific way, you might just be open to meeting someone who is receptive to you. She'll obviously have to have no sense of humor, though. I don't think it would work out if she did.

When I say that women will not invite you to talk, what I mean is that the man is expected to take the initiative.

This is a cultural construct and again, another generalization. Yes, it's true that many women expect a guy to take initiative because they like to uphold the cultural construct. But there are just as many women willing to buck that trend and go after what they want.

In many of the examples that you gave, the man has already taken initiative or is considering doing so. At the very least, culturally, he is presumed to be doing so. If you analyze the language you used, the presumption is that the woman is the one either conveying or not conveying interest while the man is the one approaching her. That is especially true in the blog post. The actor/acted upon relationship goes along with the cultural assumption of the subordination of women.

You're not a careful reader. Not once in the examples I quoted does Ms. Starling indicate that the guy has any other intention aside from approaching a woman to talk. What she's sharing in her blog piece is what goes on in a woman's head when a guy approaches to talk. Again, rather than taking her at face value and realizing that, as a woman, she just might have some insight into what we're thinking when a guy we don't know approaches us (i.e., that any unfamiliar guy could be a potential danger to us), you're second guessing and not giving a woman the benefit of the doubt. Starling and I am telling you: take us at face value. You might just learn something and have better relationships with women if you do. It might make it much easier to find that elusive "One."

 

[Jack]

I'm curious, why is women approaching men good but men approaching women bad?

Men are violent and evil?

 

[Reon]

Well excuse me! I'll start by saying first that if you attempt to discover how I act in person by what I write on these forums, you will not succeed.

Second, I can read the body language of women (at least to a degree), but women don't necessarily use body language consistently. Assuming such is equivalent to assuming that women are "intuitive" or "submissive" or other nonsense. The blog you quoted is written by a person living in television land because in most places where they have subways the character of the subway car is agregarious, so you do not talk to anyone on them. If you do have to talk, you are formal. The only time anyone I didn't know talked to me was when a few young men tried to hustle me for M & Ms. *This is not a result of my attitude; that is how it is on the subways that I use. In different scenarios, i.e. city buses in other cities, I have spoken to women there. For me, it is not a problem to tell when someone wants to speak to you. The whole quoted passage is annoying because it presumes I'm yet another moronic jerk, and it is out of touch with reality otherwise. Memorizing Beowulf? An assassin? Please.*

Maybe you present a image that gives off the vibe that you don't want to be talked too? I find that women tend to be somewhat inconsistent in body language, but that's not a thing that's only applied to women....I mean....body language includes such a wide range of concepts, as in posture, tone of voice, proximity, and all that! Not even trained psychologists can pick up on EVERY piece of body language and interpret it correctly, that's why your examine the main overall theme. A suggestive touch on the arm might mean nothing to a woman who's just touchy but yet keeps a distance from you. Just a few thoughts. Also, I've been on a few subways myself and the opposite seems to be true, some people tend to want to talk on the sub way. Makes the time pass by quicker.

Well, it is a good thing that women are never in a group of friends *Sarcasm*. Especially at parties.....

Ehrm. If the girl is interested in you, that shouldn't really stop you? I mean, they'll either leave the pack or make obvious contact inviting you over. If you don't want to go over, that's your "fault" It's an expectation, but it's also your chance. If they don't leave the party, they aren't in the mood. Hence the "pack"

I don't have a problem with talking to women; I talk to women all the time. That is the problem. You have to do more than talk. You have to show interest fairly early. Why are you assuming that I am the problem anyway? Even once you decide to show interest, there are problems, the biggest one being that I am looking for a relationship, not a hook-up. If you need a breakdown, I can give you one.

You have to show interest fairly early? Eh...not really. What a "woman" likes depends I guess. It's not actually all that hard to switch from the friend zone to the relationship zone, you have to show adequate sexual interest I guess

When I say that women will not invite you to talk, what I mean is that the man is expected to take the initiative. In many of the examples that you gave, the man has already taken initiative or is considering doing so. At the very least, culturally, he is presumed to be doing so. If you analyze the language you used, the presumption is that the woman is the one either conveying or not conveying interest while the man is the one approaching her. That is especially true in the blog post. The actor/acted upon relationship goes along with the cultural assumption of the subordination of women.

So we have unfair double standards?....You have a game plan, you "know" what's supposed to happen, I don't really what's wrong with going after something you want. Double standard, yes, but there's a lot in life. You profit off of some, sometimes you don't. And...y'know...some women go after what they want.

Do I have a problem taking initiative? Not necessarily, but I do have a problem with many of the assumptions that go with it. It is going to be difficult for us to understand each other though because we are using different settings mentally. Rather than the stranger in a bar or on a subway world, I'm thinking more along the lines of the cute girl across the room in a setting that has been socially constructed along the sociological variables (race/ethnicity to some extent but mostly Socio-economic status). It is in these settings that most people meet their significant others (i.e. a club at college, a church, maybe a workplace), and I am hoping to find someone in one of these settings before resorting to the bar scene (*cringe*). If you study who people marry, you'll find that it is largely pre-determined.

I agree. Most interaction goes down in this situation for the very reason you stated, sociological variables. Some people do meet the love of their lives at the movies, randomly. Even flirting is largely done in a class room/club environment, it's much easier to do it with the relevant information that matters to both people.

In theory it looks good. In practice however if a woman displays her availability in such a way then she most probably relate to the "damaged" category in one way or another. Because if she has the goods then she already has a long list of candidates who would like to get intimate. So unless you're really hot you gonna get no signs from her.

I don't agree. A woman does not have to be damaged to display her availability, unless making eye contact and showing a smile means someone is damaged...

Edit:

I've even been told that women are attracted to men who act stupid because that is demonstrating to women that the man has more testosterone, and by this action he is demonstrating to the woman that he has good genes because they can withstand the toxicity of the testosterone. In other words, I've been told that women are biologically attracted to stupid men. The person who told me this had a PH.D. in psychology and taught social psychology (it is supposedly empirically based, but I have no idea what study). I may have also heard it from a Ph.D. biologist but I can't remember.

Hmm. That's interesting. First off, I really doubt that high testosterone == stupidity. It encourages recklessness, yes, but acting in a reckless manner doesn't actually equal stupid. Also, wouldn't it be a sign of bad genes then because that shows that the men is, eventually, going to suffer from the results of the high testosterone (Such as liver damage) and his own 'stupidity' will eventually kill him. So...that makes him more datable, but not long term ideal? Oh, credentials, credentials...

 

[thirtiesgirl]

In theory it looks good. In practice however if a woman displays her availability in such a way then she most probably relate to the "damaged" category in one way or another. Because if she has the goods then she already has a long list of candidates who would like to get intimate. So unless you're really hot you gonna get no signs from her.

Whew! Talk about sweeping generalizations! So if a woman shows a guy that she's available... by doing what? Wearing a short skirt? Wearing a revealing blouse? Smiling at him? ...that means she's "damaged"? And following on the heels of that generalization, another - that if a woman is attractive, or "has the goods" as you put it, therefore she automatically must have a long line of men interested in her?

So the fact that I've gone out to clubs in bondage gear and/or corsets that highlight my breasts and cleavage means I must obviously be "damaged" in some mental or emotional way? Is that what you're trying to say? Never mind that I'm comparatively emotionally healthy, have no personality or anxiety disorders, and don't suffer from major depression. I'm apparently supposed to be "damaged" because I sometimes choose to dress in a way that might indicate that I'm "available" to men.

And the fact that I know several women who fall within the media-standard definition of "hot," have proportional, socially acceptable body shapes, are trim, athletic and curvy, and have long hair... that means these women are supposed to have men lining up to have sex with them? Never mind that most men avoid these women at all costs because they're the meanest people on the planet. Most of the guys in my social circle know these women and would agree that, while they're definitely physically attractive, they should be avoided like the plague. ...So, no, guys aren't lining up to have sex with women just because they fall within the media-standard definition of "hot," even if they have long hair and wear a short skirt.

Your viewpoint of women is very limiting and, dare I say, sexist. I'm trying to keep a good sense of humor about it, which leads me to believe that the only reason you wrote this stuff is because the patriarchy made you do it. It's the only excuse I'll believe. I can't imagine that I'm reading this kind of crap on an internet forum in 2010. :der:

 

[thirtiesgirl]

I'm curious, why is women approaching men good but men approaching women bad?

Men are violent and evil?

Read the blog post on Shrodinger's Rapist (the link I posted above) and maybe you'll begin to get it.