Why can't women simply say "I'm not interested." to men?

[Xantippe]

Does it really matter if they ‘enjoy’ the game or whether or not the like ‘messing’ with anybody? If you ask me, the ends are the same regardless. If they’re interested, you have to worship them as the superior sex and now must live the rest of your life owing it to that one decision.

If it’s a no, it all ‘sucks to be you.’ It’s not even recommended that you try your luck again because you’ll either come across as sexually deprived or just plain jinxed.

I am so sick of this system.

You know what stinks? Being a girl or woman and having NO interest from any male human and not being allowed to be overt about who you are interested in because having to do so would demonstrate that you are a trollishly unattractive and a total failure at being a woman.

That happens, too, but it’s invisible to you, because you don’t notice the women that aren’t interesting to you and how they feel about it.

(I went through literally my entire high school and college career without having any high school or college guy so much as take me out for an ice cream or coffee and had years of huge crushes. I did start dating LATE in my third year in college (like, a month before the end of spring term), but it was all off-campus men. As my parents had married in college and I was spending a lot of time with nice Christian boys to no effect, those years of nothing were very demoralizing. I’d have plenty of pointers for early 90s me now (if I weren’t concerned about changing the present and future), but at the time, it was agonizingly disappointing to feel like I’d been so GOOD and I was getting nothing. Years later, I realized that almost nobody else was dating, either.)

For the guys who would like women to initiate more, I suspect that (based on my experience of being ignored as a young woman), that the results of that would be just to add a new layer of rejection, misery and loneliness to already rejected, misery and lonely guys. If women asked just as much as men, you’d get to be rejected not only by the women you asked, but also (implicitly) by all the women that didn’t ask you.

 

[Xantippe]

All this talk of serial killers is making me scared about this chick who’s stalking me. If I don’t say the right thing will she go Lizzie Borden on me? She got my phone number without me giving it to her, can she get my key next?

Sigh, I wish I remembered that thing about horse girls, they’re usually all crazy, better to avoid.

I have some good news for you! Unllike men, women almost never harm or kill men that they are pining over.

Think about who female killers usually go after–their children, patients, and (this is the one that’s relevant to you) female rivals. Think Amy Fisher (she shot her lover’s wife) or the crazy diaper-wearing female astronaut

denverpost.com/sitemap/ci_5167528

(Lizzie Borden killed her dad and step-mom, but I believe there was a large financial motive, so it wasn’t strictly a crime of passion. After the murders, she was had a very fancy house and a lavish lifestyle.)

So, I suspect you’re totally safe. Any future girlfriend probably needs a warning, though, if this continues.

Now, imagine what your feelings would be if your stalker were 50 pounds heavier and 6 inches taller and male. That’s what the same situation looks like for the average woman.

 

[flyonthewall86]

You know what stinks? Being a girl or woman and having NO interest from any male human and not being allowed to be overt about who you are interested in because having to do so would demonstrate that you are a trollishly unattractive and a total failure at being a woman.

That happens, too, but it’s invisible to you, because you don’t notice the women that aren’t interesting to you and how they feel about it.

Well, maybe if they spoke up instead of being “flies on the wall” guys would know what they were missing. Also, if a woman is giving a vibe that she treats all men with suspicion can you blame men for not being interested in her? I mean seriously. If a woman held the world view that men are “out to take advantage her” how could she ever love a man? How could she ever truly appreciate masculinity which is the foundation of every man’s experience? The answer is she can’t and a guy can see it written all over her face. Same goes for the guys and the misguided notions that claim all women are evil.

I think you greatly underestimate the power of a woman’s words towards man. Such words can be inspiring at times…

(I went through literally my entire high school and college career without having any high school or college guy so much as take me out for an ice cream or coffee and had years of huge crushes. I did start dating LATE in my third year in college (like, a month before the end of spring term), but it was all off-campus men. As my parents had married in college and I was spending a lot of time with nice Christian boys to no effect, those years of nothing were very demoralizing. I’d have plenty of pointers for early 90s me now (if I weren’t concerned about changing the present and future), but at the time, it was agonizingly disappointing to feel like I’d been so GOOD and I was getting nothing. Years later, I realized that almost nobody else was dating, either.)

Glad you shared this…I now understand the context of your POV although I still disagree with your assertions that men need to do the asking first. Sometimes we put too much emphasis on looking to others to validate us instead of looking to God to validate us.

I have some good news for you! Unllike men, women almost never harm or kill men that they are pining over.

Again with the uncharitable vagueness. You make it sound like every guy out there pining away has his murder weapon picked out just in case. Yes, a small minority of men do this. It doesn’t matter is 90% of these kinds of murders are caused by men if less than 1% of men overall are murderers.

Let look at a little reason by the numbers here (statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/). In 2012 there were about 15,000 murders. Lets assume all of those murders were by men and lets assume they were all related to a dude pining away. There are 150,000,000 men in the country. So lets divide 15,000/150,000,000 = 0.01%!!! Worst case scenario 0.01% of men are murderers!! So the 99.99% of men are invisible and only the 0.01% get to dictate some women’s world view?

 

[Sarcelle]

Well, maybe if they spoke up instead of being “flies on the wall” guys would know what they were missing. Also, if a woman is giving a vibe that she treats all men with suspicion can you blame men for not being interested in her? I mean seriously. If a woman held the world view that men are “out to take advantage her” how could she ever love a man? How could she ever truly appreciate masculinity which is the foundation of every man’s experience? The answer is she can’t and a guy can see it written all over her face. Same goes for the guys and the misguided notions that claim all women are evil.

I think you greatly underestimate the power of a woman’s words towards man. Such words can be inspiring at times…

Glad you shared this…I now understand the context of your POV although I still disagree with your assertions that men need to do the asking first. Sometimes we put too much emphasis on looking to others to validate us instead of looking to God to validate us.

Again with the uncharitable vagueness. You make it sound like every guy out there pining away has his murder weapon picked out just in case. Yes, a small minority of men do this. It doesn’t matter is 90% of these kinds of murders are caused by men if less than 1% of men overall are murderers.

Let look at a little reason by the numbers here (statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/). In 2012 there were about 15,000 murders. Lets assume all of those murders were by men and lets assume they were all related to a dude pining away. There are 150,000,000 men in the country. So lets divide 15,000/150,000,000 = 0.01%!!! Worst case scenario 0.01% of men are murderers!! So the 99.99% of men are invisible and only the 0.01% get to dictate some women’s world view?

Why do you assume that women who are ignored by men do not speak up or that they treat men with suspicion? Women get friend zoned by men just as often as the other way around.

Let’s face it. Relationships between men and women are complicated but it really, really helps if both sides take the time to take a deep breath and regard members of the opposite sex as worthy of dignity. Also, easier said than done, if members of the opposite sex has done you wrong, forgive them. It does not do any good to harbor bitterness to all members of the opposite sex. The only loser will be you.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is key to remember. Women don’t do this because they enjoy playing games, or want to mess with you, or anything like that. Women are indirect because women are socialized that indirectness is what politeness looks like. They’re not doing it to lead you on or anything.

That is what I mean. For most women, it never crosses their mind that bluntly telling you they are not interested is even on the table. A pronouncement like that is not all that far removed from needing to call the police or get a restraining order. There is not a shred of “let’s still be friends” in it. It would be “Get Lost, Already.”

 

[EasterJoy]

You’d be surprised at how many circles of women I know ultimately act like a Queen All regardless of what they say, believe, or even what kind of personality they have.

Let me clarify. There are some not-so-nice women who make it a point to show that yes, they are on the top of the pyramid and they are the Queen Bee and they do get to decide who is “in,” who is “out,” and what place each one shall occupy. Even they, however, only give that All That treatment to those they are banishing from the social circle. You don’t do that unless you don’t want any social contact with the person or the person’s circle. If they just want you just a little farther out–because hey, maybe they don’t want you but they do want your friend to show some interest–they use more diplomatic methods to shoulder you into “your” place. Oh, and there are only so many Queen Bees out there. That is why they are Queen Bees.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, maybe if they spoke up instead of being “flies on the wall” guys would know what they were missing.

**I was making the point that being the non-initiating sex is not actually as big a perk as Lost Wanderer thought it was. Lost Wanderer was painting the picture of men as pitiful supplicants to women, and women cruelly rejecting them, or accepting them, and then cruelly demanding eternal cringing tribute for being so kind as to accept their tributes.

Needless to say, that does not reflect the life that most women experience.
**

Glad you shared this…I now understand the context of your POV although I still disagree with your assertions that men need to do the asking first. Sometimes we put too much emphasis on looking to others to validate us instead of looking to God to validate us.

Eh, did you not see what I wrote elsewhere about me being very assertive with my future husband? Around the time I started graduate school after a couple years working overseas, I went to a Catholic book group, heard a good-looking guy say some smart things about the book the group was reading, I went up to him after the book group, shared a quote with him that fit with something he had said during the discussion and then we found ourselves dating. I think he asked me out first and called me first, and then I made good and sure to enthusiastically reciprocate. And I did go in first for a kiss. Within three months, we were engaged, and around the end of the school year we were married. My husband tells me that I was the one that proposed, and come to think of it, I guess I did. Apparently, I asked him if he was serious about me and I later asked if he thought we should get married, and he said yes. So I guess I did propose. But I didn’t realize at the time that I was proposing–I thought I was just doing heavy hinting.

**So, I would be the last person to encourage wallflowering, and as I’ve said previously, I would encourage women that are getting no attention to be more assertive. I think it’s usually a good rule, if something you’re doing doesn’t work, to do something different. However, what I have been arguing vigorously against you is that the fact that a woman is not initiating does not mean that she is necessarily lazy or entitled or indifferent. There are many, many other more charitable explanations–culture, upbringing, inexperience, shyness, a belief that she isn’t allowed to initiate, fear of looking promiscuous, fear of looking unfeminine, fear that her initial forwardness will be treated as a standing invitation to take physical liberties with her, a lack of sexual chemistry with men that don’t initiate, etc. **

Again with the uncharitable vagueness. You make it sound like every guy out there pining away has his murder weapon picked out just in case. Yes, a small minority of men do this. It doesn’t matter is 90% of these kinds of murders are caused by men if less than 1% of men overall are murderers.

**
Here is the classic Schrodinger’s Rapist post:

kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/**

It’s a good read–I suggest reading the whole thing.

Let look at a little reason by the numbers here (statista.com/statistics/195331/number-of-murders-in-the-us-by-state/). In 2012 there were about 15,000 murders. Lets assume all of those murders were by men and lets assume they were all related to a dude pining away. There are 150,000,000 men in the country. So lets divide 15,000/150,000,000 = 0.01%!!! Worst case scenario 0.01% of men are murderers!! So the 99.99% of men are invisible and only the 0.01% get to dictate some women’s world view?

Again, read the Schrodinger’s Rapist post.

Here are a few quotes, just to get you started:

“When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s Rapist. You may or may not be a man who would commit rape. I won’t know for sure unless you start sexually assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.”

“To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some women, particularly women who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable.”

“The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.”

“So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when she’s tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps her right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override her rights.
For women, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.”

 

[EasterJoy]

You know what stinks? Being a girl or woman and having NO interest from any male human and not being allowed to be overt about who you are interested in because having to do so would demonstrate that you are a trollishly unattractive and a total failure at being a woman…

The Sister Zone. They love you–maybe even trust you more than any of the women they actually date–but they aren’t going to fall in love with you. This happens to a lot of women who are more upfront with their male acquaintances. If you don’t play within the same social constructs as the other women, some men will assume you aren’t interested in attracting them. They see you as a sister, or that you see them as a brother, and might even fear that you’d see a bid at romance as something almost incestuous, which would make them feel like a total idiot.

Romance is a complicated thing, and always has been. Maybe even more so in a co-ed world, though, because it isn’t really co-ed.

 

[Xantippe]

The Sister Zone. They love you–maybe even trust you more than any of the women they actually date–but they aren’t going to fall in love with you. This happens to a lot of women who are more upfront with their male acquaintances. If you don’t play within the same social constructs as the other women, some men will assume you aren’t interested in attracting them. They see you as a sister, or that you see them as a brother, and might even fear that you’d see a bid at romance as something almost incestuous, which would make them feel like a total idiot.

Romance is a complicated thing, and always has been. Maybe even more so in a co-ed world, though, because it isn’t really co-ed.

That’s a brilliant term!

 

[Xantippe]

To expand on the “Schrodinger’s Rapist,” piece, my personal rape comfort level is 0%. I have no interest in endangering my personal safety just to make some strange man (or even an acquaintance) feel comfortable. When I feel and know that I am safe (which is 98-99.5% of the time), I can be charming and I can be sweet and good at making people feel comfortable and at home, but I feel absolutely no obligation to endanger myself because some guy wants to make me feel guilty about hurting his feelings by not trusting him with my life.

I’m heading into middle age now, so I’m presumably safer and safer from all of the unpleasant nonconsensual things that some men do to women they find sexually attractive, but it’s taken a long time to get to the level of worldly experience and knowledge that I have today, and I didn’t have a fraction of it during the most dangerous years of my life as a young single woman. So, a lot of this information (from The Gift of Fear and the Schrodinger’s Rapist essay) is wasted on me today, but I am going to try to remember to talk to all of my kids (girls and boy) about these issues when the time comes.

 

[EasterJoy]

To expand on the “Schrodinger’s Rapist,” piece, my personal rape comfort level is 0%. I have no interest in endangering my personal safety just to make some strange man (or even an acquaintance) feel comfortable. When I feel and know that I am safe (which is 98-99.5% of the time), I can be charming and I can be sweet and good at making people feel comfortable and at home, but I feel absolutely no obligation to endanger myself because some guy wants to make me feel guilty about hurting his feelings by not trusting him with my life.

I’m heading into middle age now, so I’m presumably safer and safer from all of the unpleasant nonconsensual things that some men do to women they find sexually attractive, but it’s taken a long time to get to the level of worldly experience and knowledge that I have today, and I didn’t have a fraction of it during the most dangerous years of my life as a young single woman. So, a lot of this information (from The Gift of Fear and the Schrodinger’s Rapist essay) is wasted on me today, but I am going to try to remember to talk to all of my kids (girls and boy) about these issues when the time comes.

The problem is that psychopaths know how to be charming and that many rapists actually start on vulnerable easily-overpowered people like children and old ladies instead of starting with prostitutes.

Guys have to remember that most rapes are acquaintance rapes, there are sexual offenses that women find extremely traumatic that fall well short of the worst sorts of violation–no victim ever said, “whew! I am so relieved it was just sex abuse and didn’t meet the criminal definition of a rape…what a lucky near-miss that was!!”–and there is a reason that there used to be such strict social taboos keeping men over the age of about ten years old away from other men’s wives and daughters.

Gain a position of trust, and it doesn’t take much to violate a woman–not much time, not much strength, and surprisingly little in the way of privacy. It just takes chutzpah and being willing to believe they’ll accept your word over hers or at least equally with hers concerning how “complicit” she was. Who pays? She does–and the “payments” never stop.

There was once a rapist roaming the Berkeley-Oakland area who was abducting guys and dragging them into alleys in order to sexually violate them. The guys I worked with “got the picture” really fast. They were freaked out that they couldn’t just stroll around alone at night anywhere they wanted! The women all said, “Welcome to our world, boys!”

 

[EasterJoy]

Remember that Ann Rule, the author of The Stranger Beside Me, actually knew Ted Bundy. She knew him, thought of him as a good-looking, intelligent, charming, and well-spoken guy, and she wouldn’t have picked him as a serial killer. Bundy, meanwhile, cleverly chose his victims from among those women who had no one who could identify him as being among those his victims would have known.

This is why many of us don’t let guys who seem just great get into our lives without having some connections with their friends and their world. It is like giving your credit card to someone who makes a pitch during a cold-call over the phone. It just isn’t a smart thing to do.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s a brilliant term!

It is a great thing to be, too, as long as you can find that one guy for the relationship that leads to marriage. With everyone else, being in the Sister Zone is *exactly *where you want to be! The problem comes when the guys who have you in their sister zone really don’t want you to find “some guy.” (They’re all hoping you’ll become a nun, and nobody will get you.)

This is in contrast to women, who will sometimes make it their business to find a deserving girlfriend for the guys in their “brother zone.” I don’t think guys ever do that!

 

[flyonthewall86]

To expand on the “Schrodinger’s Rapist,” piece, my personal rape comfort level is 0%. I have no interest in endangering my personal safety just to make some strange man (or even an acquaintance) feel comfortable. When I feel and know that I am safe (which is 98-99.5% of the time), I can be charming and I can be sweet and good at making people feel comfortable and at home, but I feel absolutely no obligation to endanger myself because some guy wants to make me feel guilty about hurting his feelings by not trusting him with my life.

I’m heading into middle age now, so I’m presumably safer and safer from all of the unpleasant nonconsensual things that some men do to women they find sexually attractive, but it’s taken a long time to get to the level of worldly experience and knowledge that I have today, and I didn’t have a fraction of it during the most dangerous years of my life as a young single woman. So, a lot of this information (from The Gift of Fear and the Schrodinger’s Rapist essay) is wasted on me today, but I am going to try to remember to talk to all of my kids (girls and boy) about these issues when the time comes.

If your comfort level is 0 then the only way to solve that problem is to stay in the house, board it up, have a mote dug, and stick an alligator in it.

Seriously men could say the same about women (vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/) if your standard is 0%. Life has risks. That doesn’t justify being sexist, prejudiced, racist, or bigoted. Then there is as I’ve said before, the inherent and real risk men face when they say “I do.” Being thrown out of your own house and expected to pay half those bills plus the bills of your new dwelling all the while being a 2nd hand parent is tantamount to financial and emotional rape. Still, I wouldn’t run around advising men to be suspicious that every woman that wants to date them might do that to them. A man will never know for sure whether he will face financial and emotional ruin at the hands of his wife before they get married.

Tell me though, is it fair to extend your logic against men for men to use against women regarding marriage? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander no? Simple yes or no answer.

Also, no where in any of my posts did I say you need to oblige complete strangers. Most people don’t just ask random people out on dates.

The problem is that psychopaths know how to be charming and that many rapists actually start on vulnerable easily-overpowered people like children and old ladies instead of starting with prostitutes.

Guys have to remember that most rapes are acquaintance rapes, there are sexual offenses that women find extremely traumatic that fall well short of the worst sorts of violation–no victim ever said, “whew! I am so relieved it was just sex abuse and didn’t meet the criminal definition of a rape…what a lucky near-miss that was!!”–and there is a reason that there used to be such strict social taboos keeping men over the age of about ten years old away from other men’s wives and daughters.

Gain a position of trust, and it doesn’t take much to violate a woman–not much time, not much strength, and surprisingly little in the way of privacy. It just takes chutzpah and being willing to believe they’ll accept your word over hers or at least equally with hers concerning how “complicit” she was. Who pays? She does–and the “payments” never stop.

There was once a rapist roaming the Berkeley-Oakland area who was abducting guys and dragging them into alleys in order to sexually violate them. The guys I worked with “got the picture” really fast. They were freaked out that they couldn’t just stroll around alone at night anywhere they wanted! The women all said, “Welcome to our world, boys!”

Psychopaths like these teachers (huffingtonpost.com/news/teacher-sex/)? I can posit another theory for those “social taboos.” People way back when really cared about their family legacy (i.e. wealth and property) and who it was going to get passed onto. Since that acquired wealth was mostly at the hands of dad he wasn’t going to pass it onto just anybody especially if he was a dignitary. As a result, daddy’s little girl was locked in a bell tower until an acceptable suitor came along to prevent her from tarnishing the family name. Once upon a time people actually cared about their namesakes.

After reading this thread, I am really thankful to have a wife that doesn’t go around with a chip on her shoulder against all men. I don’t know how a guy could find any joy in marrying a woman that looks at men like potential criminals. If men did the same to women we’d be called sexist, chauvinist, etc. I guess “do unto others” only applies to some Christians…

It is a great thing to be, too, as long as you can find that one guy for the relationship that leads to marriage. With everyone else, being in the Sister Zone is *exactly *where you want to be! The problem comes when the guys who have you in their sister zone really don’t want you to find “some guy.” (They’re all hoping you’ll become a nun, and nobody will get you.)

This is in contrast to women, who will sometimes make it their business to find a deserving girlfriend for the guys in their “brother zone.” I don’t think guys ever do that!

Where on Earth did you get this from? You think guys have some conspiracy going on to make nuns out you? I’ve heard it all now…I really have.

And, FYI, none of the women that put me in the “brother zone” ever offered or tried to find me anybody. There goes that theory out the door.

 

[Xantippe]

Remember that Ann Rule, the author of The Stranger Beside Me, actually knew Ted Bundy. She knew him, thought of him as a good-looking, intelligent, charming, and well-spoken guy, and she wouldn’t have picked him as a serial killer. Bundy, meanwhile, cleverly chose his victims from among those women who had no one who could identify him as being among those his victims would have known.

This is why many of us don’t let guys who seem just great get into our lives without having some connections with their friends and their world. It is like giving your credit card to someone who makes a pitch during a cold-call over the phone. It just isn’t a smart thing to do.

Ted Bundy is a very interesting example.

I was just reading the Wikipedia entry earlier for this thread, and his name came up during the investigation, but he was initially discarded because the police believed that this law student with no prior criminal record couldn’t possibly be the prolific serial rapist and killer they were looking for. I guess that was early days in the understanding of serial killers.

“King County police, finally armed with a detailed description of their suspect as well as his car, posted fliers throughout the Seattle area. A composite sketch was printed in regional newspapers and broadcast on local television stations. Elizabeth Kloepfer, Ann Rule, a DES employee, and a UW psychology professor all recognized the profile, the sketch, and the car, and reported Ted Bundy as a possible suspect; but detectives—who were receiving up to 200 tips per day—thought it unlikely that a clean-cut law student with no adult criminal record could be the perpetrator.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

 

[DarkLight]

Here’s the thing with the “potential criminal” line:

On some level, we all treat strange people as potential criminals. Think about it this way. You have a smartphone and someone comes up to you. They say, hey, I just need to make a quick phone call, could you lend me your phone? Now, you don’t know anything about this person. Like as not they’re an honest person, but there’s still a decent chance that they’re going to take off running with your phone.

This is, strictly speaking, treating the other person like a potential criminal. It’s also part of life - there are thieves out there and you don’t have any way to know the person in front of you isn’t a thief.

Now, fair or not, the way society is structured women are taught to worry about sexual assault, and men are not. Some of that’s reality; some of that’s perception. It should also be noted that women face a lot of pushback if they do violate the rules that are set out (such as walking alone at night or agreeing to meet a strange man), while men are more likely to be ridiculed for taking precautions. That means most women think about the possibility of sexual assault, while most men don’t.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Here’s the thing with the “potential criminal” line:

On some level, we all treat strange people as potential criminals. Think about it this way. You have a smartphone and someone comes up to you. They say, hey, I just need to make a quick phone call, could you lend me your phone? Now, you don’t know anything about this person. Like as not they’re an honest person, but there’s still a decent chance that they’re going to take off running with your phone.

Chances are better what they really want is to put a virus on your phone in the event you use it for financial transactions. Safer to refuse all requests goes for men too. Funny you mention this, I had a request the other day and I refused it. The other guy didn’t stick around. If an emergency, you can do the calling yourself and put it on speaker if necessary, just don’t ever let the phone out of your hands.

This is, strictly speaking, treating the other person like a potential criminal. It’s also part of life - there are thieves out there and you don’t have any way to know the person in front of you isn’t a thief.

Now, fair or not, the way society is structured women are taught to worry about sexual assault, and men are not. Some of that’s reality; some of that’s perception. It should also be noted that women face a lot of pushback if they do violate the rules that are set out (such as walking alone at night or agreeing to meet a strange man), while men are more likely to be ridiculed for taking precautions. That means most women think about the possibility of sexual assault, while most men don’t.

Allow me to rephrase that last paragraph so it reads from the typical not-hot single man’s point of view:

Now, fair or not, the way society is structured men are now learning to worry about divorce, regardless of whether they go to church or not. Some of that’s reality; some of that’s perception. It should also be noted that men face a lot of pushback if they do speak against the conventions society sets out (such as cite female-initiated divorce statistics, support Ephesians 5 as written or refuse to marry single mothers), while women are more likely to be ridiculed for wanting to be stay at home mothers, rather they are constantly told they can “have it all”. That means most men think about the possibility of divorce, while most women try to tell men their worries are without merit.

See what I did there?

And one wonders why dating and courtship are such difficult and hotly debated subjects from the non-hot people’s point of view, regardless of sex. There’s a vast gulf between the genuinely good people of both sexes because society sets them against each other and has been doing it for a couple of generations now.

 

[Xantippe]

If your comfort level is 0 then the only way to solve that problem is to stay in the house, board it up, have a mote dug, and stick an alligator in it.

**Nah, what I mean is that I stay places and with people where I feel comfortable and safe.

As soon as my Gift-of-Fear-ometer starts pinging, I’m moving quickly out of the situation that is causing it to ping. And as I said, 98-99.5% of the time, I feel perfectly safe.

That’s what I mean by a comfort level of zero.
**

Seriously men could say the same about women (vocativ.com/underworld/crime/hard-truth-girl-guy-rape/) if your standard is 0%. Life has risks. That doesn’t justify being sexist, prejudiced, racist, or bigoted. Then there is as I’ve said before, the inherent and real risk men face when they say “I do.” Being thrown out of your own house and expected to pay half those bills plus the bills of your new dwelling all the while being a 2nd hand parent is tantamount to financial and emotional rape.

**And likewise, pregnancy and childbirth is dangerous and traumatic and can cause permanent functional (not just cosmetic) damage to a woman’s body, some of which can endanger marriages. Furthermore, postpartum depression is common. Parenthood is often the entry point to poverty for women and becoming a mother nukes women’s earning ability.

And if one has a special needs child, there will be a lifelong commitment, with isolation and very little help, as well as even more severely impaired earning potential.

Rolling the dice and becoming a mother is a very, very dangerous activity in material terms, and yet women do it every day.

But I would not encourage anyone to do it lightly.

(By the way, it’s very** tacky to compare financial losses to rape.)

Still, I wouldn’t run around advising men to be suspicious that every woman that wants to date them might do that to them. A man will never know for sure whether he will face financial and emotional ruin at the hands of his wife before they get married.

Tell me though, is it fair to extend your logic against men for men to use against women regarding marriage? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander no? Simple yes or no answer.

**Nobody should marry somebody they barely know, just as nobody should be trustful about the intentions of somebody they barely know. Surely the one thing is a subset or an a fortiori example of the other. Just as we don’t accept rides from or visit the homes of near strangers, we don’t marry near strangers. **

Also, no where in any of my posts did I say you need to oblige complete strangers. Most people don’t just ask random people out on dates.

**???

Chevalier’s examples have been almost all about interactions with near strangers and how unfriendly women are with people that are trying to help them.

That’s what we’ve been discussing the last few pages.
**

People way back when really cared about their family legacy (i.e. wealth and property) and who it was going to get passed onto. Since that acquired wealth was mostly at the hands of dad he wasn’t going to pass it onto just anybody especially if he was a dignitary. As a result, daddy’s little girl was locked in a bell tower until an acceptable suitor came along to prevent her from tarnishing the family name.

**When was this time of which you speak?

I can’t say that this scenario sounds very familiar. My understanding is that 100 years ago and earlier, families depended heavily on the fly-straight-or-you’ll-die-a-tubercular-syphilitic-street-prostitute or we’ll-pretend-you’re-dead-if-you-shame-us method for keeping their daughters on the straight and narrow.
**

After reading this thread, I am really thankful to have a wife that doesn’t go around with a chip on her shoulder against all men. I don’t know how a guy could find any joy in marrying a woman that looks at men like potential criminals. If men did the same to women we’d be called sexist, chauvinist, etc. I guess “do unto others” only applies to some Christians…

**I suppose when you leave your house for a vacation you leave it unlocked and your car sits in the grocery store parking lot with the key in the ignition.

Yep.**

 

[Xantippe]

Chances are better what they really want is to put a virus on your phone in the event you use it for financial transactions. Safer to refuse all requests goes for men too. Funny you mention this, I had a request the other day and I refused it. The other guy didn’t stick around. If an emergency, you can do the calling yourself and put it on speaker if necessary, just don’t ever let the phone out of your hands.

**Just think of women’s bodies as smartphones.

Prudent women try to keep them well away from men that we don’t know very, very well.

And if you care about female chastity and winding up with a prudent and careful wife, you ought to actually prefer women that are cautious about men.
**

Allow me to rephrase that last paragraph so it reads from the typical not-hot single man’s point of view:

See what I did there?

And one wonders why dating and courtship are such difficult and hotly debated subjects from the non-hot people’s point of view, regardless of sex. There’s a vast gulf between the genuinely good people of both sexes because society sets them against each other and has been doing it for a couple of generations now.

You think sensible women don’t worry at all about divorce or bad marriages?

Why, in that case, do so many women bother about college, higher education, and careers and marry and have children in their later 20s or even 30s? It’s almost as if a lot of women are concerned about the risk of divorce and want to make sure that they marry a man that they can actually have a lifelong marriage with and have a good shot of raising a healthy family with.

If women don’t worry about divorce and divorce is so lucrative for women, why don’t we all just get married as soon as we’re legal and just keep getting married and divorced, collecting “cash and prizes” the whole time? (I have to mention here that I got my first serious marriage proposal when I was 19. I didn’t take him up on it, but he must have offered several dozen times.)

Also, come to think of it, I have to mention that to me one of the most mind-blowing things about your guys at Dalrock is how paranoid they are about divorce, but at the same time how much enthusiasm they have for stuff that is demonstrably very high-risk for divorce, namely young brides, little education for women, short courtships and short engagements. It’s like they’ve never read any of the social science regarding divorce, other than the stuff on partner count.

 

[pianistclare]

36 pages and the only thing that is perfectly clear is that men still have many great misconceptions about what women think and feel, while still maintaining a big chip on their shoulders. It’s no wonder people are still single.
My hubs has been reading this thread and just shakes his head. :coffeeread:
He’s like: These guys are not for real, are they? They’re just making this stuff up, right?

Here’s a couple more “ridiculous” statements:
Women who are not interested must be hateful awful people.
Meanwhile, the sainted guys sit around waiting for Jennifer Anniston to fall in their laps.
Right.
Good luck with that.