Why I don't ask more people out

[dougo]

A little while ago dictator555 wrote about dating (in a friends-locked post, but she gave me permission to quote):

[G]irls, at least most of the ones I know, like men to do the asking. Hey, did I say this was fair? No. But that's the way it is. I mean, dudes, we want equal rights but we still want you to make the first move. And that sucks for everyone, because obviously we only want the guys we like to hit on us. As you know, I hate to reject people. And men, I can see how you'd want to avoid rejection, because that sucks, too.

Rejection does kind of suck, but it's not the main reason I almost never ask people out. (I'm not going to speak for all men, because I think I'm in the minority here. But perhaps not as small a minority as one would think.) For me, it's more about not wanting to hit on someone who doesn't want to be hit on; I get really uncomfortable with the idea of making someone uncomfortable like that. It's worse when it's someone you're friends with, because it might really distort the friendship, or ruin it altogether. Even unsuccessfully hitting on a friend-of-a-friend, or anyone in your occasional social circle, could lead to a lot of awkwardness down the road. This is compounded by something else she wrote:

Say that since I've graduated from college I've met about 200 available men between the ages of 22-40. Of these, I've been attracted to exactly 4. That's not to say I haven't found others attractive in an objective sense, but I haven't subjectively been attracted to them. That's a 2% track record [...]

Those odds are pretty overwhelming: that's a 98% chance of rejection. I hate to think of those 196 times that someone has to politely decline, and I really don't want to be part of that burden. It seems safer to wait for someone to ask me out, or at least send unambiguous signals that it would be okay to be asked out.

Another difficulty is the differences in the mechanics of attraction. For her,

The bottleneck is in physical attraction. Chemistry. The rest isn't that hard. I mean, I like plenty of men enough that I would totally want to get with them if it were just the intellectual/emotional connection thing. No, the bottleneck is definitely physical attraction. I understand this is a problem for lots of women, so my frustration is tempered by solidarity.

For me, it's almost the opposite: there are plenty of women I'm physically attracted to, but the intellectual/emotional connection thing is vanishingly rare (basically zero so far, depending on your definition). There's an asymmetry here, though. I'm happy to have a casual physical relationship without having emotional chemistry, but if someone has an emotional connection without being physically attracted, there won't be any relationship at all.

Another asymmetry, of course, is that if a woman is physically attracted, it's pretty likely to coincide with an emotional attraction. So in those cases where there is a mutual physical attraction, she's likely to have stronger feelings for me than I do for her. In fact this has been the case in most of my relationships, and it's frustrating for both parties. So I would prefer to wait to ask someone out until I'm sure not only that she is physically attracted to me, but that she is not going to be emotionally attracted to me, or at least not more than I am to her. But I haven't figured out yet how to determine this. (Actually, this sort of leads into my thoughts about polyamory, but that's another whole essay.)

Comments

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

A lot of these coincide with my frustrations, especially the idea of not wanting to be a burden.

[jfb.livejournal.com]

I've said just the same thing about "uncomfortable with the idea of making someone uncomfortable". But on the rare occasions when I've gone ahead and asked someone out despite being unsure, it's mostly basically been welcomed. (One time she turned out to be engaged, but seemed to enjoy being asked.) So this may not be a useful concern.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure it's a double standard. There is a stigma against men who have a lot of casual sex, it's just more likely to come from women. That is, a man whom other men (stereotypically) regard positively as a "player" is regarded negatively by women as a "sleaze" (or even a "manslut"). (Actually, this goes for women too: a woman whom other women regard negatively as a "slut" is often regarded positively by men as someone who "puts out".) And the stigma against polyamory (which is surprisingly huge—see mshonle's derisive comments below) goes both ways as well. (Personally I've encountered more women who are open about their polyamory than men, but this may be because I read more dating profiles from women than men.)

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Derisive? All I'm saying is that it won't make you very happy.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

You said: As for not having strong feelings for people: You just need to find the right one. Jumping to the extremes of polyamory is not going to lead you to a happy life.

1. "You just need to find the right one" assumes that (a) I need to find the right one and (b) there's only one that is right. Perhaps this isn't derisive, but it's dismissive at best and bigoted at worst.
2. "Jumping to the extremes of polyamory" sounds like you consider polyamory to be "extreme" and a "jump". But maybe I'm misparsing this and you were only referring to some "extreme" radical subfaction of polyamory, though I'm having trouble imagining what that would be (and what would be wrong with it).
3. "not going to lead you to a happy life" is directly saying that polyamorists are not (and cannot) be happy. Again, maybe not derisive, but it's certainly judgemental.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Well, I know that some people identify themselves as "asexual," so I'm not going to claim you "need" to find anyone at all. (As for the asexual label, it's gotten a little out of hand. You have some 17 year old kids who just haven't dated yet suddenly thinking they are "asexual" just because they are both confused and despirately want to belong to some group.)

And I'm not implying only one person is right: there are probably thousands of "right" people for you.

[cai.livejournal.com]

I'm going to say ditto on hahathor's comments and reiterate that most of the time being asked out is really flattering. Even if it is a friend to whom I am not attracted, it's still flattering. Even if there's a moment of awkwardness, it doesn't last long. I think (and this goes for male or female), the awkwardness lasts longer in the mind of the rejected than the mind of the rejector. The few times I've asked guys out and they weren't interested, they were almost immediately cool with going back to the way things were, whereas I felt a little weird for a while. Of course, there were also the couple of guys who said no, but then somehow or another got affected by my suggestion and ended up changing their mind after hanging out for a little while. So, who knows?

I also think you're onto something about signals -- if I'm interested, I try to make it clear that I won't be offended by being asked out. But not everyone has the same signals, so I imagine it can get frustrating.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Signals have the same problem as explictly asking out: it's bad to send signals to someone who doesn't want to be sent signals. So it's really hard to send a signal that's both unambiguous and guaranteed not to cause discomfort.

[nosrednayduj]

but if someone has an emotional connection without being physically attracted, there won't be any relationship at all

I'm not so sure about this. My primary partner is not very physically attractive, and not "my type", but the emotional bond is sufficiently strong to overcome this. "Beauty is only skin deep", but really, ugly is only skin deep too, the saying isn't right on its second point.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

It's all about signals. You just have to send the right signals and watch for the right signals.

And hahathor is right: There's a way you can ask out people without being creepy. What you must do is present the date as an idea that you have, and not present it as some deep, emotional confession of something you've been keeping locked up. It's more of a "would you like to join me for dinner this Friday" than a "we have to talk, because I have something I need to tell you" kind of deal. If your friendship couldn't last past you being shot down and rejected then they were just a fair weather friend and you don't need them.

As for not having strong feelings for people: You just need to find the right one. Jumping to the extremes of polyamory is not going to lead you to a happy life.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Oh, I forgot to mention about signals: Women actually do ask out the guy. They just do it in a secret way that says "it's ok for you to ask me out about this right now." If you miss it, they'll drop the subject and move on. All they'll give you is just enough for you to know to ask them if you are confident. Guys who lack that confidence women aren't so interested in anyway.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Online dating seems to have fixed most of these problems. You get to know someone over email and IM first, then over the phone, and if you've seen enough pictures (not the single blurry picture, or that close-up-of-my-eye picture: a good sample of pictures, all in focus) and if you like everything, then you meet them in person. You can take it slow, but the rejection thing just doesn't exist.

If someone doesn't reply to your poke or whatever you can just assume they are being picky about something totally out of your control. One woman online once rejected me because I had a 9-5 job. It's kind of hard to take it personally.

Speaking of which, online dating is also perfect for picky people. If you only want to date, say, jewish, boardgame geek vegans, well, online is your best chance.

[in-parentheses.livejournal.com]

Agreed. When I was online dating, my rule was "meet as soon as possible." A photo and a well-written profile is enough to tell if it's worth a try, and an hour in the Diesel is enough to tell if there's anything there worth pursuing.

Not that I ended up finding anyone to date seriously that way, so...

[coolkit.livejournal.com]

And sometimes, they (women) ask point blank. Weird thing is, that I still don't know what works and what does not. Do men prefer signals or asked out? Being asked out may come across too aggressive. On the other hand signals can be misinterpreted and can be confusing. So, is this a lose-lose situation?

[coolkit.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a laundry machine. Question is do 'clothes' come out 'cleaner' or 'messier' than before with each [[lose]*[stumble]*[sorta-win]*]* string. :)

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I hadn't even thought of this. But in all cases I can recall, when a woman asked me out I thought it was too aggressive. The best mix is good signals, but where I still have to ask.

Me: "You should see that movie."
Them: "Oh, I don't want to see it alone."
Me: "Oh! Will you go with me?"

Another good signal is not playing games; e.g., actually looking interested when the other person walks in the room.

[coolkit.livejournal.com]

hmmmm....

So, if I may tweak that conversation to:

Me: "Have you seen any movies recently? Would you like see that movie?"
Them: ". Sure"

Would that be too aggressive by the "them" for the following scenarios, if you plug in:
a) if Me = Woman, Them = Man
b) if Me = Man, Them = Woman

(I am probably beating a dead horse to the ground!)

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

If "Me = Woman" then it's perhaps less aggressive than seemingly desperate. But if the "Them" is totally into the "Me" then all is good and it's going to be great.

But being too forward can scare a guy off. Guys want to feel special, like the woman they are asking out is very selective and won't just jump in the lap of the first attractive guy to enter the room.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

But being too forward can scare a guy off. Guys want to feel special, like the woman they are asking out is very selective

I think you're confusing "forward" with "undiscerning". A woman can ask someone out without asking everyone out.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

True. If the guy is able to *know* that the woman hasn't asked out a lot of men, then he won't be as scared off by it. But getting that kind of knowledge implies there are many interactions and it's a small group.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I'd imagine you could kind of tell if someone is asking you out solely because she asks everyone out. (I've never actually met such a woman, though, so it's all hypothetical.) But I think I also doubt your point about women who ask everyone out: if you genuinely like someone, and she asks you out, wouldn't you still say yes regardless of how selective she is? And the converse, if you really don't like someone, are you going to say yes when she asks you out simply because she's never asked anyone else out before?

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Signals send information. Some information is more welcome than others. So, of course there is some guy/gal won't mind someone who is very forward.

Game theory has crept into evolutionary biology, and it's certainly a part of human relationships. You might understandably not like that, just as you don't like to ask people out.

[coolkit.livejournal.com]

"If "Me = Woman" then it's perhaps less aggressive than seemingly desperate".

OR can it be that:

Gals want to feel special too, like the man they are asking out is very selective and won't just pull the first attractive woman to enter the room to his lap. :)

Interestingly enough, I think it is very flattering either to ask or be asked. (Signals Suck! rather I suck at reading signals). Maybe because I think the recipient should be sensitive to fact that it took some courage to do the asking. And 'Asker' should be aware that it is not the end of the world if rejected.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

It varies, by person and by situation, but in general I greatly prefer straight talk to signals.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

In some situations straight talk is too much, and signals are enough.

For example, suppose Bob is interested in Alice. When he sees Alice in a social situation, maybe he'll bring up the topic of relationships. Suppose somehow the topic gets to be about "types" and Alice says "Oh, so and so is really not my type". That's a signal to Bob to ask Alice what her type is. If Alice replies with a type-quality that Bob has, that should be a signal to Bob to court Alice further.

It feels good to be wanted, and by "putting in deposits" everyday toward a relationship you are sending the signal "I really like you, and I will put in a lot of time and effort to court you." Alternatively, "straight talk" would cut away the weeks or months of polite courting and just go straight to "I want to jump your bones." Eh, maybe some people would be in to that. But wouldn't you rather *know* that someone thinks you're worth it, rather than taking their word for it?

What you may deem as inefficient (all of those weeks! what wasted effort!) is vitally important. It takes longer, but the quality of information is drastically different. After all, signals that can't easily be faked are far stronger than those that can.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I disagree with pretty much all of this. Diff'rent strokes...

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. That point was kind of a tangent anyway, I'm not sure where I was going with it.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

Say that since I've graduated from college I've met about 200 available men between the ages of 22-40. Of these, I've been attracted to exactly 4. That's not to say I haven't found others attractive in an objective sense, but I haven't subjectively been attracted to them. That's a 2% track record [...]</>

Okay, so she said she's attracted to only 2% of the available men in her age range that she meets. That's not at the same thing as you having a 2% chance of success at asking her out. She didn't say how many men had asked her out, and how many of those she was attracted to. It could be that all four she was attracted to were in fact the only four who asked her out, or it could be a total miss, with all the unattractive ones asking her out and none of the attractive ones. I'd suspect, though, that people she found attractive were more likely to be people who found her attractive, so that 2% should not be taken as a guide to one's chances. I know I meet plenty of people in whom I am entirely uninterested and who would probably also not be interested in me, but the people who do express interest in me are generally much more like me in attitudes, tastes, etc. than average, so have better chances than average of my being interested back.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

Sorry about typoing the close italic tag; the first bit was quoted, the second paragraph was me.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

I wish I had statistics from my own life to compare, but I don't think I track that sort of thing at all accurately. I would say that for the first five years or so of my sexual awareness, the success rate for asking me out was about 90% (due to not many asking, and those being fairly compatible, plus my being flattered by their attention). Since then, more people have been interested, and I've been more selective (partly due to a larger pool to choose from, and partly due to not being all that interested in further complicating my life).

[dougo.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course. I thought about adding qualifiers and delineating the assumptions behind the probability calculation but I didn't want to get sidetracked from the point I was trying to make. But I kind of undermined my point by being sloppy. I need to think about this some more.

[coolkit.livejournal.com]

I distil two items from your post:
(a) Rejection and
(b) Differences in opinion on levels of attraction.

(a) Rejection does suck. It is hard on both the giver and receiver (I like to think). But, what if you were _not_ rejected, and also _not_ accepted. Where does that leave you? And far more importantly, how do you know that you have read the signals correctly as meant by the sender? (NOTE: When I say 'you' I don't mean you, but applied to anyone). I think it keeps you in shades of gray, some days more white than black, swinging like a pendulum, not knowing what to do, to ask or not to ask. It boils down to deciphering signals. I rather have it handed down cold (but then that is me), rather then try to decipher signals (I am terrible at understanding signals, perhaps that comes from not growing up in this (USA) culture). Signals are weird in that (again according to me), they can be grossly misinterpreted and may convey the exact opposite to what you are trying (read: hoping) to communicate in the first place. So one way or the other, friendships get distorted.

(b) The Mechanics of Attraction. This one is so loaded with individual opinions, experience and temperament, that there is no right or wrong; it is what you believe in. Your last paragraph rather confused me. Perhaps it is because of what I believe in. I believe that physical attraction in some level is emotional. I agree that it is not a full subset of emotional attraction, but I don't see how you can be physically attracted to someone without being emotionally involved/invested in it at some level. And how does one gauge the level of emotional attraction when you are not in a relationship? Wouldn't you then be for ever gauging and not asking! Even when you are in a relationship where you know there is physical attraction, level of emotional engagement changes. So, where does that leave you? Constantly deciding who is more emotionally attracted or who is not? The jury is still out on this one.

Sorry, if this was long.

So, why I don't ask more people out? It is not due to the pain of rejection and I respect differences of opinion..... it is because of knowing the suffering of _not_ knowing.

[dkuznick.livejournal.com]

Now I'm dying to know what exactly prompted this post. ;-)

FWIW, I totally wanted to set you up with J's sister a long time ago. But that was before I found out what a gamephobe she is. ;-) She's married now anyway. ;-) I do know a friend of J's who is single, VERY cute, and likes games; heck I'd ask her out if I wasn't married. :-)

But seriously, I'd be happy to talk to you about this sometime. I was SO like this for a very long time. I can't promise I'll have any brilliant insights though. :-)

And I agree with what people are saying (especially the WOMEN): Don't worry about making someone you know feel awkward (as long as you are not creepy about it). If you like them, ask them. If there are long-term negative side-effects, they probably weren't that good of a friend to begin with. And if you don't really know them, who cares? You have absolutely nothing to lose.

PS Are you liking my Red Sparowes CD? :-)

[dougo.livejournal.com]

What prompted this post was dictator555's post, which seemed to make some minor assumptions about guys and rejection that I wanted to correct.

I think I like the Red Sparowes, but somehow after it's over I can never remember anything about the album. Seriously, it goes in one ear and out the other. I think I'll need to make a point of paying attention next time I listen.

[dkuznick.livejournal.com]

WRT, Red Sparowes, it certainly that kind of music that can be actively or passively listened to. I definitely don't remember much but I know I liked it. :-)

[jtemperance.livejournal.com]

Men often overestimate the potential negative consequences of these things. As people mentioned above, women often consider it flattering, even if they say no.

Sometimes you hear a woman talking about how someone was interested in her, and she turned him down, but you can tell she secretly enjoys bringing up the subject anyway because it confirms her attractiveness.

The potentially worst thing that could happen is to be socially stigmatized by someone you asked out. This is the thing that many men are most afraid of. However, if you asked a woman out and she responded by spreading negative gossip about you, you would have learned something valuable about her character. She definitely wasn't worth your attention in the first place.

Accepting rejection

[jdarnold.livejournal.com]

I gotta agree with DK, in that any relationship that can't stand the strain of a simple "no thanks" when asked out on a date probably wasn't that much of a relationship to begin with. Esp. as mentioned if it stops at one No, and isn't pushy or demanding. Personally, I probably waited too long on a few occasions, but it worked out in the end.

Of course, us married guys have all the answers - ha!

[wrog]

I will readily admit that, even with the screaming baby in the next room, I do not miss being single.

Timing matters. People talk about "chemistry" but a lot of times it's really things happening in one's life that get one into a particular frame of mind, whether it be a receptive one or otherwise. And, unfortunately, that's often going to be the determining factor in how one responds to an ask-out or makes one of the various little tiny decisions that one makes in the course pursuing someone, or not as the case may be.

There's a window of opportunity, and sometimes it's very narrow, measurable in days, hours, or even minutes. Catch them at the right time and you win, otherwise you lose. It may be worth waiting or you may be completely wasting your time.

The hard part is understanding that it's not necessarily anything against you. There's all sorts of other shit going on that you inherently can't know or do anything about.

[classicaljunkie.livejournal.com]

I don't really have anything that hasn't already been said, but I thought I would share my 2 cents.

First, I'd much rather be asked out by a friend than a total stranger who has known me 10 minutes. Its definitely flattering I think because it comes from someone you already know and like.

Is there such a thing as unambiguous signals? Signals are just hard in general and speaking for myself I don't think I know how to send anything but "back away" signals, which is not necessarily what I want to do all the time.

But I do agree with wanting to play it safe. Its much easier to hope that the other person is willing to put themselves out there instead of asking yourself.

[anyeone.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I don't think my views are similar to that of the average female, so take anything I say as a stray datapoint.

When I was single I had a policy that if any guy had the nerve to ask me out, I would go out on at least one date with him. That said, only a couple times did I ever have to follow this policy because most of my "dating" came organically from friendships, in the manner of "one moment we're friends, the next we're making out on the sofa".

When I was younger I was shyer about showing my attraction to someone than I was as I got older. Why I thought being cagey was smart I don't know, I think it was mainly insecurity and a regression to the junior high "don't let him know you like him" kind of thinking. It was rather silly though and led to a lot of confusion on both sides.

The single moment that sold me on my husband was on our second meeting when he said "and I am interested in you, by the way." Took all the guessing out of the equation and it was such a relief.

Now, since I'm married obviously the dynamics between me and other men is very different than it would be were I single. However, I was not lobotomized upon marriage and I do still have attractions to other men, and some other men are still attracted to me. I think they don't hide it as much now as they might have when I was single because they know I'm "safe" and will likely just be flattered, and won't actually demand things like Attention and Relationship out of them. In all but one case the men in question were very respectful of my married state in the way they let me know they were attracted, i.e. they didn't actually expect to get anywhere with me.

Now about the chemistry thing. I've come to the conclusion that chemistry requires reciprocation. Without it, it is wishful thinking. You probably know what I'm talking about. I can look at Man X who never noticed I exist and think he is very physically attractive, but there isn't a quasi-magnetic force drawing us together that people around us notice. However, if Man Y finds me attractive and it is mutual, the interactions between us of their own accord have a sort of spark, purely in a platonic sense, but one that shows how much we appreciate each other's company and are "attracted" to each other. It's very hard to explain without going into vivid and unnecessary details but I have one male friend in particular who people frequently assume is my husband because of the "tangible" chemistry between us when we are together. In reality, we are good friends but have never had any sort of physical relationship.

What this has to do with you? I just think if you are interacting with more mature women (i.e. late twenties and older) they are more likely to not hide whether they have an attraction for you and if you suspect it is there, it probably is. So you would probably be safe in asking one of these women out if you were so inclined. You would be in less secure territory asking someone out who hadn't given any indication that they particularly enjoyed your company.

However, I do still favor the organic approach to relationships. If there is someone you enjoy spending time with, spend time with them. If you're meant to get physical, it will happen, and at that time you can evaluate whether each of your intentions is purely physical or whether there is more to be explored.

As far as polyamory goes, I've never tried it but I can see it would have both advantages and disadvantages, and if I thought for one second that my husband would be open to it it might be an interesting discussion ;)

Sorry for the rambling. I love talking about this type of thing though.