What is the main reason why guys have to do the approaching?

Post Reply New Topic

Here what I like to know is. why do some of these women have to put down men they don't want to date.
If a man is shy and too nervous to approach a woman, why is he consider a bad person by alot of women.

They are likely yo put men down in order to prevent possible douche bags from continue their attempt.

Well where have women like you been?

Seems a bit unfair that anyone should have to be put outside their comfort zone. I feel relationships should be natural, and doing something you detest doesn't seem like a very good start to one at all.

I do care about the differences. I'm obviously not gonna want to date EVERY woman that comes around, but the vast majority of them have good qualities that make them girlfriend material. That is all I was trying to say. I don't see why that is so bad or why that somehow means that we just care about sex.

Meanwhile, most women I've met (notice that I said women I'VE MET) have been hyper-picky over crazy things like hairstyle, their eyes being the "wrong" color, and so on and so forth. There are guys like this as well, true, but for guys like me who aren't so uber-picky it can be a pain in the ass to be rejected or looked over for insignificant reasons. For example, I normally would never even attempt to date a woman who has kids, but the last woman I really liked had a 2-year-old daughter, and I would have been willing to help take care of her if the woman hadn't screwed me over completely. I know, preferences and all that, but sometimes people of both sexes go way too far with it.

Yes, it's a good thing my now GF flat out told me she wanted to sleep with me because I simply cannot get subtle hints and had no idea she was into me at all. As well every time I was 'sure' a girl liked me and I imitated I was dead wrong. Most men, AS or NT will no doubt agree with me that they appreciate if a women initiates or shows direct interest: I know I do!

I have heard this so many times from men and women, but moreso women - they claim to want a partner, but have such high "standards" on who they will date that I doubt any human being will ever measure up. Meanwhile, they aren't exactly super-rich hot-bodies geniuses either!

I often hear things like "I wouldn't date a man who is unemployed" or "I wouldn't date a man who earns less than I do". What's wrong with earning your own rich lifestyle? Good luck, girls - trophy wives have very short shelf-lives and have to be extraordinarily beautiful to even be in the running in the first place!

I know people do have preferences for certain types of appearance etc, but one thing I have found in common among most of my married/coupled acquaintances is that their partner isn't one of their usual type. And often they didn't fancy them on first meeting, it was after getting to know them that those feelings came. It seems like slow & steady does win the race!

Dealbreakers are one thing - I can understand people who don't want to date drug users, don't want a long-distance thing, aren't interested in babydaddies with five kids by different women who he never visits or pays maintenance for, don't want someone who never washes and lives in squalor... but that is more like seeing how your lifestyles will mesh and whether a relationship is possible, it isn't on the same level as rejecting someone for a superficial reason before you have even spoken to them.

Both awesome, thoughtful posts!

Standards are one thing, but they need to be flexible and realistic - rejecting a "potential" because of some trivial detail is shooting yourself in the foot each time you do!

Probably for the same reason that men judge women by their sexuality and put down women that they woudn't like to date (or women that they would like to date, but who won't date them). For example, I constantly hear about how Hillary Clinton isn't worth anything as a human being because she's not gorgeous; likewise Janet Reno, Roseanne Barr, etc. Men say really horrible things about those women based entirely on their looks.

wrt. men earning less:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... wives.html

Last edited by LKL on 06 Nov 2012, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ever feel like this until a woman calls you?[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOmIr4TR9lU[/youtube]

Yeah that not nice either. yeah men can be jerks too. But don't forget women also put down women too.

What a terrible article:
Christin Munsch, of Cornell University in New York State, said: 'At one end of the spectrum, making less money than a female partner may threaten men's gender identity by calling into question the traditional notion of men as breadwinners.
'At the other end, men who make a lot more money than their partners may be in jobs that offer more opportunities for cheating like long work hours, travel and higher incomes that make it easier to conceal.'

So if a man makes too much, he'll be cheating scum. If he makes too little, he'll be cheating scum. I suppose that's to be expected of the site's "femail" section.
[edited for brevity and 75% less negativity! Yay!]

Frankly - I'm baffled... if the roles were reversed it would be considered "hate crime"... that what concerns me.

You realize the Daily Mail is the newsprint equivalent of an internet troll, right?
There are bigger problems with that article anyway. For one, self-reported data on people's sex lives is bound to be unreliable.



I didn't see anything rising to the level of a crime.
Which crime were you thinking of?

Good point... it was more some of the other articles I was going to quote from the same site... it was just too negative though so I edited it and pulled 'em all. The "hate crime" was all the man-bashing going on in those articles... but that's allowed. Flip things around and bash women? Prepare for annihilation!

Let me make this clear - neither gender should be bashing or dominating the other! That's what I've got against many of these feminist sites!

It didn't claim either man de facto "will be" anything- do you have a problem with the methodology involved?

btw women you can approach men too or at least go up to a man and say ''hi, how are you''
It easy. If I can do it, so can you ladies.

Hate crimes only include acts which are already crimes where the motive was hate for the victim's race, sex, et cetera. Hate crime statutes just make that motive an aggravating factor in sentencing. That's why I said nothing on that page rose to the level of a crime. (I don't see a civil cause of action either, but that's another story).
So I think "annihilation" is a bit of a stretch. You might see some controversy in certain circles, but when hasn't there been some controversy in some circles?



The Daily Mail thrives off manufactured outrage. It's not worth batting an eye over.