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

[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...