Why DO males take the responsibility for initiating?

Post Reply New Topic

If all men simultaneously decided to no longer initiate, then women would start initiating [and I am using "initiate" in I think the same sense as you meaning asking somebody on a date, asking somebody to be a boyfriend, asking somebody to marry them]. This does actually happen en masse on specific formalized events in the U.S. called Sadie Hawkins Dances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Hawkins_Day



So women (or girls, since it's usually a highschool event) do initiate when there is a specified social expectation to do so. But why does it only happen in this formalized event and at no other time? I suspect it's because of the necessity for it to be all men simultaneously. For the formalized event of Sadie Hawkins Dance, it is a spoken rule that no men (boys) will ask any girls out. This rule is followed by all participants. But outside of that singular event, there is no social way to get all men to simultaneously conform to this new rule. For that single event it's accepted possibly because it's a one-time event. For an actual social change, it would require all men to stand down and passively wait for women to initiate.

A far more likely scenario is that some men would stand down, but many others would say, "great, more for me" and step up their own inititiating to fill the void. It's not something that can be done by men singularly. It has to be done simultaneously and uniformly. Otherwise it's just some men getting nowhere while other men take advantage of the lack of competition. Without an event to formalize it, the current system self-perpetuates because no man wants to be the one who stands down and loses out.

Have you ever read Lysistrata by Aristophenes? 2500 years ago he understood the need for any such social action to be simultaneous and uniform in order to succeed. He was talking about women witholding sex from all men simultaneously and uniformly in order to stop war ("no sex until you stop the war" more or less) but the principle is the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata



If even a few people don't go along with the sudden change, it all falls apart. The PUAs would have a field day with that. If a significant chunk of men agreed to not initiate, the PUAs would swoop in and initiate at double pace. And they would be very succesful indeed. And it wouldn't be just the PUAs. Any man who decided to not go along would have an easier time if it. In fact, a subsegment of men convincing a different subsegment of men to cease initiating would be a succesful strategy....for the ones who pretended to go along but then initiated anyway and took advantage of the near vacuum.

I think part of the answer to this is that a lot of men, particularly those who are attractive or "skilled" with women, DO like that system. They get a certain thrill out of being the pursuer and taking the initiative. Women are obviously fine with it, since it is in their favor. I once had an experience where a woman took all the initiative in asking me out, setting things up, and even offering to pay...it was so much easier and enjoyable than when I have to manage it all!

However, with many, if not most, on this forum, we can put in similar amounts of effort as those guys mentioned above, but only wind up with lots of rejection in the end. So, we come to internet forums and debate with each other over why the system is how it is.

I do wonder sometimes though, if women are simply more comfortable being single/alone than men are. I think that they are, because most women have far more close friends than their male counterparts do, so they have a stronger social support network. Men often rely on their partners alone for similar emotional support. Even with my closest male friends it was extremely taboo to talk about any overly personal or emotional issues. Also, you will often hear women saying things like "I'm strong and independent, I don't need a man!"...but when's the last time you heard a man say that?

I'm going to have another crack at this. I've given a caveat before that I'm from the UK, and a lot of your dating rituals in the US just seem f*****g weird. I can't think of a woman I've known who wouldn't make a move to talk to a man she liked (though the shyer ones may prefer the man to).

I disagree. I have in mind here two people who know each other, and each seems to like the other in a more-than-friend way. Indeed, we'll assume each has said such to their friends. I think in this situation, either may be expected to make some sort of move, and aware that that is so.



Really? Assuming he otherwise struck me as a sound fellow ("I think maybe it's the way you are clearly never actually interested in what anyone else is saying, and are well known for always talking down to women"), I'd ask him what he wanted a partner for, what he was looking for, what he would want his ideal partner to look for in him, what he thinks a woman might see in him - get an idea of where he was coming from. Then I'd ask him if there was anyone he knew who had caught his eye, and if he thought he had caught hers. Where he went that he might meet someone, did he have an interest in online dating, and so on. I think I would raise an eyebrow or three at his not asking anyone out - but I would expect such from men and women.




Yes, I can. I've overheard a few of such conversations - basically, "oh, just tell him, ffs!".



If what you're describing is generally accurate - and I recognise the expectation at the same time as knowing it is not in any way a given - it's simply The Done Thing. It's a social ritual. Why it came to be isn't all that important - cultural norms and rituals have a habit of breaking from their origin (when was the last time you shook someone's hand with the intention of making sure they didn't have a weapon?), but still persist, such that if we don't know the reason we concoct all sorts of silliness to try and explain it - or they may simply take on new meanings. I gave my thinking earlier - ideas can be slow to change, and there is still an expectation of women to be passive, and to be prizes; to be objects, not subjects. Certainly you can read that all over this sub-forum.

It can be very, very hard to change social rituals. For though all may agree it's a stupid state of affairs, someone still has to go first. The person who does so may face quite some opprobrium, particularly when it's a woman.



I can think of men and women who do great at being single, and men and women who are apparently pathologically incapable of being so.

I don't know if there's an explanation that will satisfy you. It's not some fixed and immutable law, but the chances of it suddenly changing are pretty small, unless you count a woman approaching you as such a change, in which case it is perfectly possible.

Well I can certainly see why you're single.

I'm male and a gray asexual. I sometimes feel offended when women complain about men primarily wanting sex, or feeling entitled to have sex. There are plenty of men out there that desire companionship and deep emotional connection. Unfortunately, our sh***y society doesn't provide many avenues for satisfying connection outside of marriage and "relationships" . I mean, lets face it, for men "platonic" relationships have severe constraints. Men are usually not allowed to hug, touch, or hold hands with others of any gender without it being considered odd. Living with a partner is considered odd if you're not having sex. Plenty of men pursue relationships because they are genuinely lonely, not because they are sexually frustrated or feel stigmatized for being a "virgin" (I can't think of a more stupid concept). Not all men are shallow as*holes.

you're right, those kinds of generalisations can be applied either way and they are hurtful and inaccurate. there are more than just a few "exceptions", as FMX called them, there is an entire complex spectrum of human behaviour that is not for the most part strictly dictated by binary concepts such as gender. society as a whole needs to recognise how much black-and-white thinking in regards to gender issues and relationships impacts all of our lives negatively so that things can change. human beings are complicated, so human interaction is bound to be as well--you can't reduce human behaviour down to such false dichotomies and expect it to make sense seen from that false perspective. that's just not the whole picture, it's only a narrow slice of it.

and i think it's unfair how much boys/men are restricted in the kind of platonic gestures and expressions of affection that you mentioned--i think it's wrong to discourage boys/men from what should be considered perfectly normal and healthy behaviour that we wouldn't question in girls/women.

which is why i don't play their game anymore and ignore them then they start comeing to me but im not interested anyway because i dont catch on to their ques and simply they are just being nice that is is but oh well.

You look absolutely ridiculous.

Yeah it is probably rare for women to actually ask out men at least in the states. When I asked other women for advice on online dating they told me NOT to send the first message but send some signals by visiting their profile or rating them high or whatever then wait for them to message me.
But other posters (Hopper and leafplant) have said that in England it is mostly women who do the initiating and all the work to keep the relationship going. (But I get the impression that it mostly applies to the middle class.) It would be interesting to find out why.

I wouldn't say so. It's just that what women desire are not governed by physical needs, so they can go without it longer.

Really? Why?

^ Relationship & Companionship needs =/= Sexual needs and sex drive.

Saying that, it doesn't make sense why women wouldn't initiate; unless women have zero or lower companionship/relationship desire too.

If the initiation thing by men is all about sex then they would simply pay that $100-300 for an escort, a model-like looking too, and do the stuff, it wouldn't be much more costly than the total costs of required dates until scoring sex with someone.

No Yuzu, there are other reasons for this gender bias in relationship initiation but sex drive is not one of them, especially if we are talking long terms.

Wish I knew this years ago. That's probably my problem in a nutshell (I am in Canada). I used to get women visit my profile repeatedly but I wouldn't bother with them because if they were interested they would have sent a message or so I believed. I actually went in last night and messaged a girl that was a 97% match on OKCupid and kept visiting my profile. Curious to see what her response is: in the past it's usually been silence or a match closure. No wonder so many Aspies are single!

That's what I was trying to say.
Sexual needs > companionship needs for men.
Sexual needs < companionship needs for women.

And men's sexual needs are a lot stronger (because it's a physical needs) than women's companionship needs.
Also, it's easier for men to find women who seem to be able to satisfy their (sexual) needs than for women to find someone who fits their companionship needs.

Yes, that's what some wealthy men who have low moral standards do. Not to mention those men who go on sex tours in countries where they can buy sex cheaper and more easily. But most men don't want to sink that low and rather try to get sex legitimately. (I want to believe) And men also like the challenge I think.

I wouldn't deny that there are other reasons. For example, women are hesitant to initiate because they are afraid that men would think they are desperate. But I still believe sex drive is the biggest reason.

Women want the feeling of security; which is what a man's confidence can provide, if he has no confidence then the illusion isn't there. Someone that initiates needs to be somewhat confidant, or at least more so than a man that doesn't initiate.

I will say that this sort of selection was necessary for humanity to survive up to this point. Men needed to have killer instincts in order to protect the farm/tribe/village, a man's confidence is a reflection of this mentality, women choose the killer male because the killer male will protect her.

However, society is LOONG passed this need, and yet, men still need to be the ones to risk rejection.

It isn't quite fair if you ask me.

But it' not something that's not going away because it has power at it's root, you're not going to be able to tell some 18 year old not to run off with the bad boy 'killer male' because like all humans, we are OBSESSED with power.

But a sad truth here is that by choosing the killer male, a woman divorses herself from the sort of male that can provide for her emotional needs, killer males need to eliminate tender parts of themselves very early on in order to prepare themselves for a life of violence, the teasing in the school yard, the hazing -- it's all preparing them for war, which requires mental fortifications...this distances the male from providing for a womans emotional needs, which is accessed through tenderness and empathy.

It's incredibly sad and depressing, we're so passed the tribal stages of humanity, lets evolve for petes sake.

Just to clarfy - I wouldn't say it is mostly women. I would say, not accounting for shyness or such, any woman I can think of that I've known well enough to know such a thing about would gladly approach a man if she was interested in him.

Most of these have been working class women. I could write an awful lot on the class perspectives of sex and gender in the UK. Luckily, I'm far too hayfevery.

I would draw a distinction between being romantically interested in someone you already know - be it a friend, or friend-of-friend, or colleague, or other member of a particular gathering group you attend (drama, book, sport, religious etc) - and cold approaching a complete stranger. I see the former as equal - man or woman, you test the water, see if they're also interested, ask friends etc. In the latter, I think there is a sort of social convention/expectation that men approach - enough that it can be raised and complained about or used as a trope in jokes etc - but also that it's not really heeded. Does that make sense? A woman may play the cards often played against her and wait for the man to approach, because it saves her the possibility of rejection, but if she's up to it, she can just be more direct.

It's incredibly sad and depressing that you insist on seeing things like this.

But, for sake of argument, I'll accept your paradigm - that men approach, and women don't. So, a man has to make the approach and possibly be rejected. Whereas the woman gets all dolled up, goes out, and no-one notices or approaches her. That, too, is rejection. It sucks either way.

"But surely someone will approach her. That's something!"

The equal of you approaching a woman you like is a woman being approached by a man she likes, not being approached by any man.

Do you think every man approaches each and every woman he sees in such situations? Do you do that? Do you even think of doing so? Do you approach the ones you find unnattractive, even repulsive, the ones you have no interest in? I doubt it. I doubt you even notice them. Then why consider the inverse true of the woman? She was approached by someone she finds unattractive and does not want anything to do with. Wow. Lucky her.

If you seriously think such a thing makes the woman - indeed, all women - 'lucky', that they have the better deal; if you think that a woman can always f**k a guy who has a home so that she doesn't end up homeless is a 'safety-net', you need some sort of help. That is not a good way to be looking at the world.

That's true but it can be solved by appereance changes, there are plenty of stories by women confirm that:
http://www.quora.com/Physical-Appearanc ... attractive

A lot of them felt invisible before the change.


Do you know Kirsten Lindsmith, that girl on the WP Homepage? She had a very similar experience as those stories on the Quora page, her dating life was zero (because boys assumed she's lesbian) when she was wearing tomboyish-looking things but it significantly improved after appearance changes.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/article425.html