Women as a whole want different things, and often don’t know what they want from moment to moment. In my experience, most women prefer to be approached in public under some circumstances, and what those circumstances are differs wildly from woman to woman.
The thing is, there are signals - open body language, frequent glances around the room, etc.
The tougher bit for some folks is also seeing, and respecting, when they clearly want you to go away, AND not taking it personally. They may want someone to approach them, but for whatever reason not you. That’s perfectly OK, and says nothing about your general worth, just their interest at the moment.
Go, initiate contact, and if you’re getting one word replies, crossed arms/body facing away from you, refusal to meet eyes, inauthentic laughs, etc., exit cheerfully, move on with your day and let her move on with hers.
The biggest problem I’ve had women tell me about is not being approached, but guys not taking the hint if it’s not clicking and leaving them be. Be the guy who reads the situation, takes the hint if present and doesn’t get all fucked up about it, and you’ll probably end up talking to someone who does want to talk to you later.
Should note this is often just human stuff, and holds for a lot of guys as well with the caveat that they’re often, though not always, more direct.
They may want someone to approach them, but for whatever reason not you.
I remember in college being mildly devastated when a friend I had a thing for was talking about how she just wanted to meet someone that (superficially) seemed a lot like me, but then was not into me.
Of course, in retrospect I realized I’d done that to couple women without realizing what was happening.
Yeah, I’m autistic so reading behavioral cues more or less doesn’t work for me. It’s not impossible but my error rate is significantly higher than most people’s. I just focus on being friendly and honest. I always take an opportunity to be introduced to someone. I always take an opportunity to become closer to someone if they want that. I also focus on being pretty (I only attract bisexual women, lol)
In my perception, approaching women like the days of old (pre social media) is dead as a concept. There are two ways forward: women become more explicit about when they want to be approached, or they themselves do the approaching. It seems to me that the latter is the path they’ve chosen. Every woman I’ve ever dated has come to me and made it clear they want me in that way. Is this a good solution? Probably not. More people are single than ever but that is caused by a lot of factors, not just this social change.
There are reasons subtlety and body language evolved.
Some men don’t take direct “Not interested. Please leave me alone” well. They’ll call you a [slur, slur] and maybe get violent. But fake laughter and dead-ending the conversation has lead to safer outcomes.
So, yeah, it sucks people can’t be direct and honest, but it’s not just coming out of malice.
Also a lot of the time people don’t really know what they want, or want contradictory things.
It’s not acting like children. It’s acting like adults. Most adults use subtlety for a variety of reasons. Personal safety and letting someone down gently are just two that come to mind.
You can want everyone to have a standard API with nice json output, but that’s just not how humans are. Expecting it is folly.
If you don’t mind me asking, how is this reading minds? This is watching for behavioural cues, which lend some evidence of interest/disinterest. Men exhibit similar cues as well - think about the guy sitting at the bar, facing the interior with a grin looking about, versus the guy hunched over with a scowl counting the bubbles in his beer. Unless you’re moved by pathos to clink scowling guy’s glass, who seems more approachable?
Will admit there are folks who see a single behavioural cue and immediately jump to “They want to jump my bones”/“They wish me and my family were dead”, which is dumb. What I’m talking about is more “Oh, looks like they may be open to chat with someone, go say hi”, then noting if that impression stays or dissipates on fresh evidence. Again, the biggest problem I’ve heard of is people, but particularly women approached by men in a social setting, not wanting to tell the approaching party to fuck off (politely or otherwise) because of a perceived or real threat of violence. But this feeling often comes across pretty clearly in body language - if you’re a decent person, reading those cues and and exiting gracefully just makes sense.
Discounting non-verbal cues in IRL communication is silly. We give out a lot of information about how we’re feeling with our bodies to those paying attention. I’ll admit it can sound kinda creepy when writing it all out, but for some folks this is all intuitive. For other folks, thinking about this a bit helps with being more at ease in talking with new people, whether platonically or with an eye to something more.
This is going to come off terribly, but do you talk to many people IRL? There’s no game here, just humans being humans.
That said, perhaps not your preferred types of humans, which is perfectly fine. If anything, not engaging people the way I describe here could be a filter for the kind of people you prefer to interact with. Really isn’t anything wrong with that, though others may find it a bit constrictive.
If what you’re doing makes you happy and secure in your relationships with people, then more power to you!
That’s not reading minds though. What was being described are social skills you very likely already have, but are used to applying to non romantic interactions with men.
I have no idea how that is anything like saying common sense is common. That did not address what I said. Someone has failed in some aspect of this communication. Since it may have been me, I’ll try rephrasing.
Do you talk to people you are not romantically interested in sometimes? Are you able to generally guess whether they would be receptive to interacting or not? Could you conceivably guess if a person waiting in a waiting room might be open to chat, versus wants to be left alone?
The point I was driving at is people often behave as though interacting with those they are sexually attracted to is different. While it can be in some ways, the way you can identify whether someone you’re not sexually attracted to would like to interact can be used with those you are sexually attracted to as well. It’s not mind reading.
If you cannot do these things with people you are not sexually attracted to either, that’s a skill that can be developed, and the issue is not an inability to read women’s (I’m guessing) minds.
Women are human individuals and not a single-minded monolith.
What women universally don’t want is to feel threatened, creeped out or objectified. It is perfectly possible to talk to someone without doing any of these. Though it gets a lot easier when you view them as humans.
When & who it is/is not appropriate to approach is a totally separate issue from what I’m talking about.
I think the problem has more to do with the expectations of meeting people via dating apps vs organically irl, especially through common interests/activities.
Also, let’s be real, regulating Capitalism does not work (look around).
Also, let’s be real, regulating Capitalism does not work (look around).
*looks around*
It seems to work fine around me. I peeked at your profile to confirm my assumption that you’re American, and it seems I’m correct. I’d say it’s partly a cultural issue in your country. The whole rugged individualism thing leads to a whole lot of anti-regulation sentiment. In my country even the ultraconservative “let’s throw the gays in the oven and deport all black people to Africa” party isn’t considering privatizing healthcare or education. The classical liberals are considering this, but this is where having a sane election system comes in. Since neither the conservatives nor the socdems agree, it’s pretty hard for them to enact anything even if they do win an election, because “winning” an election usually means like ~30-40% of parliament seats and the ruling coalition is always a minimum of 2 parties, often 3. Plus the president’s one and only power is that he can tell them to fuck off if a law seems unreasonable.
We currently have people from 6 parties in parliament, plus some people who were either thrown out of their party, or left it willingly.
We’re pretty good at making noise if we don’t like something, and while a lot of people complain about our MPs and ministers getting paid so much, it means they can live well enough without taking bribes. Party donations have limits that can get people into actual trouble if exceeded, and individual campaign donations aren’t a thing. Political corruption gets the party fined and potentially individuals punished too. Even in municipal government corruption cases. There was a case that took several years, where a businessman approached a politician in the same party as the capital city’s mayor, implying that if the mayor were to reduce certain legal costs on the department store his company was building, the party would receive a major donation - which it then did. The party got fined nearly 10x what they made from this deal, and two people received probationary sentences. This party, formerly a major player, can now barely afford their next election campaign. The company that owns the future department store has been fined more than once for not getting it done as fast as promised - because it’s in a prominent location along the promenade.
We have tons of consumer protection laws too. Plus a government entity for consumer protection so you don’t have to hire a lawyer and go to court to get your justice in a lot of cases. Similar for employment rights, etc. Fire someone without a paper trail to prove their incompetence or malice? You’ll be paying them a hefty severance.
There’s a big gap between what you’re describing and the USA. We pretty regularly see fines that are a fraction of what the crime earned, if it’s prosecuted at all. We also have an utterly insane far right wing party and a spineless right party.
We should break up match group. It’s not a whole ass monopoly, but it has such a big market share it doesn’t really need to compete much. So it offers garbage, makes a lot of money because there aren’t a lot of other like options (and people don’t realize the apps are all owned by Match)
There’s a big gap between what you’re describing and the USA. We pretty regularly see fines that are a fraction of what the crime earned, if it’s prosecuted at all. We also have an utterly insane far right wing party and a spineless right party.
Yeah, that’s my point. It’s not that capitalism can’t be regulated, it’s that the US can’t regulate capitalism sufficiently enough.
We should break up match group. It’s not a whole ass monopoly, but it has such a big market share it doesn’t really need to compete much. So it offers garbage, makes a lot of money because there aren’t a lot of other like options (and people don’t realize the apps are all owned by Match)
Agreed. So many monopolies out there that people barely realize are monopolies because a parent company owns a bunch of different “competing” brands rather than running everything under one brand name. Match Group is one of them.
Women do not want to be approached in public.
We’re better off regulating dating apps and predatory buisness practices, because people prefer to use apps.
Women as a whole want different things, and often don’t know what they want from moment to moment. In my experience, most women prefer to be approached in public under some circumstances, and what those circumstances are differs wildly from woman to woman.
women ought to have a signal that they are open to being approached, like a PvP flag or something
The thing is, there are signals - open body language, frequent glances around the room, etc.
The tougher bit for some folks is also seeing, and respecting, when they clearly want you to go away, AND not taking it personally. They may want someone to approach them, but for whatever reason not you. That’s perfectly OK, and says nothing about your general worth, just their interest at the moment.
Go, initiate contact, and if you’re getting one word replies, crossed arms/body facing away from you, refusal to meet eyes, inauthentic laughs, etc., exit cheerfully, move on with your day and let her move on with hers.
The biggest problem I’ve had women tell me about is not being approached, but guys not taking the hint if it’s not clicking and leaving them be. Be the guy who reads the situation, takes the hint if present and doesn’t get all fucked up about it, and you’ll probably end up talking to someone who does want to talk to you later.
Should note this is often just human stuff, and holds for a lot of guys as well with the caveat that they’re often, though not always, more direct.
I remember in college being mildly devastated when a friend I had a thing for was talking about how she just wanted to meet someone that (superficially) seemed a lot like me, but then was not into me.
Of course, in retrospect I realized I’d done that to couple women without realizing what was happening.
Yeah, I’m autistic so reading behavioral cues more or less doesn’t work for me. It’s not impossible but my error rate is significantly higher than most people’s. I just focus on being friendly and honest. I always take an opportunity to be introduced to someone. I always take an opportunity to become closer to someone if they want that. I also focus on being pretty (I only attract bisexual women, lol)
In my perception, approaching women like the days of old (pre social media) is dead as a concept. There are two ways forward: women become more explicit about when they want to be approached, or they themselves do the approaching. It seems to me that the latter is the path they’ve chosen. Every woman I’ve ever dated has come to me and made it clear they want me in that way. Is this a good solution? Probably not. More people are single than ever but that is caused by a lot of factors, not just this social change.
Reading minds isn’t a “signal”
I’m sorry but if men and women want equality in their relationships then women need to stop this middle-school behavior.
There are reasons subtlety and body language evolved.
Some men don’t take direct “Not interested. Please leave me alone” well. They’ll call you a [slur, slur] and maybe get violent. But fake laughter and dead-ending the conversation has lead to safer outcomes.
So, yeah, it sucks people can’t be direct and honest, but it’s not just coming out of malice.
Also a lot of the time people don’t really know what they want, or want contradictory things.
I understand the excuses people make to not act like mature adults.
I’m sorry if men were rude to you, them acting like children doesn’t give you a pass.
It’s not acting like children. It’s acting like adults. Most adults use subtlety for a variety of reasons. Personal safety and letting someone down gently are just two that come to mind.
You can want everyone to have a standard API with nice json output, but that’s just not how humans are. Expecting it is folly.
Giving peolple the wrong “hints” because they are completely subjective is a childish thing to do in place of communication.
If you don’t mind me asking, how is this reading minds? This is watching for behavioural cues, which lend some evidence of interest/disinterest. Men exhibit similar cues as well - think about the guy sitting at the bar, facing the interior with a grin looking about, versus the guy hunched over with a scowl counting the bubbles in his beer. Unless you’re moved by pathos to clink scowling guy’s glass, who seems more approachable?
Will admit there are folks who see a single behavioural cue and immediately jump to “They want to jump my bones”/“They wish me and my family were dead”, which is dumb. What I’m talking about is more “Oh, looks like they may be open to chat with someone, go say hi”, then noting if that impression stays or dissipates on fresh evidence. Again, the biggest problem I’ve heard of is people, but particularly women approached by men in a social setting, not wanting to tell the approaching party to fuck off (politely or otherwise) because of a perceived or real threat of violence. But this feeling often comes across pretty clearly in body language - if you’re a decent person, reading those cues and and exiting gracefully just makes sense.
Discounting non-verbal cues in IRL communication is silly. We give out a lot of information about how we’re feeling with our bodies to those paying attention. I’ll admit it can sound kinda creepy when writing it all out, but for some folks this is all intuitive. For other folks, thinking about this a bit helps with being more at ease in talking with new people, whether platonically or with an eye to something more.
Adults use their words to communicate.
Children play games.
This is going to come off terribly, but do you talk to many people IRL? There’s no game here, just humans being humans.
That said, perhaps not your preferred types of humans, which is perfectly fine. If anything, not engaging people the way I describe here could be a filter for the kind of people you prefer to interact with. Really isn’t anything wrong with that, though others may find it a bit constrictive.
If what you’re doing makes you happy and secure in your relationships with people, then more power to you!
No why the fuck would I talk to random people?
And yes, charades is a game, it’s not flirting.
People don’t want to be approached in public unless they are boomers or older.
That’s not reading minds though. What was being described are social skills you very likely already have, but are used to applying to non romantic interactions with men.
This is like saying common sense is common.
It isn’t. And we can’t expect people to know everything so sometimes we have to use words.
I have no idea how that is anything like saying common sense is common. That did not address what I said. Someone has failed in some aspect of this communication. Since it may have been me, I’ll try rephrasing.
Do you talk to people you are not romantically interested in sometimes? Are you able to generally guess whether they would be receptive to interacting or not? Could you conceivably guess if a person waiting in a waiting room might be open to chat, versus wants to be left alone?
The point I was driving at is people often behave as though interacting with those they are sexually attracted to is different. While it can be in some ways, the way you can identify whether someone you’re not sexually attracted to would like to interact can be used with those you are sexually attracted to as well. It’s not mind reading.
If you cannot do these things with people you are not sexually attracted to either, that’s a skill that can be developed, and the issue is not an inability to read women’s (I’m guessing) minds.
Nah these are child games and should be left in middle school.
Tell me how you feel I’m not a fucking mind reader.
Women are human individuals and not a single-minded monolith.
What women universally don’t want is to feel threatened, creeped out or objectified. It is perfectly possible to talk to someone without doing any of these. Though it gets a lot easier when you view them as humans.
I said elsewhere that writing a good profile is a skill many people have neither the aptitude nor training for, and thus fuck it all up.
Talking to strangers in public? Also a skill, and I’d say a much more difficult one with much higher stakes.
I’ve known charismatic sensitive people that can read a scene and chat up people. That’s an outlier. Most people are bad at all of that.
also, remember the “man or bear? Definitely the bear” thing from a while ago? Still a thing.
deleted by creator
I missed the part where the person your responding to said in public?
Go to meetups, the climbing gym, run clubs, volunteering, language class, literally anywhere you meet people
When & who it is/is not appropriate to approach is a totally separate issue from what I’m talking about.
I think the problem has more to do with the expectations of meeting people via dating apps vs organically irl, especially through common interests/activities.
Also, let’s be real, regulating Capitalism does not work (look around).
*looks around*
It seems to work fine around me. I peeked at your profile to confirm my assumption that you’re American, and it seems I’m correct. I’d say it’s partly a cultural issue in your country. The whole rugged individualism thing leads to a whole lot of anti-regulation sentiment. In my country even the ultraconservative “let’s throw the gays in the oven and deport all black people to Africa” party isn’t considering privatizing healthcare or education. The classical liberals are considering this, but this is where having a sane election system comes in. Since neither the conservatives nor the socdems agree, it’s pretty hard for them to enact anything even if they do win an election, because “winning” an election usually means like ~30-40% of parliament seats and the ruling coalition is always a minimum of 2 parties, often 3. Plus the president’s one and only power is that he can tell them to fuck off if a law seems unreasonable.
We currently have people from 6 parties in parliament, plus some people who were either thrown out of their party, or left it willingly.
We’re pretty good at making noise if we don’t like something, and while a lot of people complain about our MPs and ministers getting paid so much, it means they can live well enough without taking bribes. Party donations have limits that can get people into actual trouble if exceeded, and individual campaign donations aren’t a thing. Political corruption gets the party fined and potentially individuals punished too. Even in municipal government corruption cases. There was a case that took several years, where a businessman approached a politician in the same party as the capital city’s mayor, implying that if the mayor were to reduce certain legal costs on the department store his company was building, the party would receive a major donation - which it then did. The party got fined nearly 10x what they made from this deal, and two people received probationary sentences. This party, formerly a major player, can now barely afford their next election campaign. The company that owns the future department store has been fined more than once for not getting it done as fast as promised - because it’s in a prominent location along the promenade.
We have tons of consumer protection laws too. Plus a government entity for consumer protection so you don’t have to hire a lawyer and go to court to get your justice in a lot of cases. Similar for employment rights, etc. Fire someone without a paper trail to prove their incompetence or malice? You’ll be paying them a hefty severance.
There’s a big gap between what you’re describing and the USA. We pretty regularly see fines that are a fraction of what the crime earned, if it’s prosecuted at all. We also have an utterly insane far right wing party and a spineless right party.
We should break up match group. It’s not a whole ass monopoly, but it has such a big market share it doesn’t really need to compete much. So it offers garbage, makes a lot of money because there aren’t a lot of other like options (and people don’t realize the apps are all owned by Match)
Yeah, that’s my point. It’s not that capitalism can’t be regulated, it’s that the US can’t regulate capitalism sufficiently enough.
Agreed. So many monopolies out there that people barely realize are monopolies because a parent company owns a bunch of different “competing” brands rather than running everything under one brand name. Match Group is one of them.
Take a class.