Penthesilea

Sexual interests?

318 posts in this topic

I think this highlights the dangers of artificially creating the archetypes "homosexual" and "heterosexual". I believe that some homosexuals have a biological predisposition towards members of their sex, some are drawn towards same sex relationships for psychological reasons (I have read that some women who were sexually abused as children find comfort in relationships with other women because of the horrors they experienced at the hands of "men"), some are drawn towards homosexuality because of curiosity, etc. I have met a few "straight" males who, for some reason or another, had little forays or "crushes" on members of their own sex, and because of this became highly disturbed. Since our modern culture places sexual orientation as an essential attribute of one's self, these "forays" cause immense psychological problems because the person's own identity is seen to be in jeopardy. The person who is normally or biologically attracted to the opposite sex, but has an occasional "crush" or interest with a member of their own sex, thinks that he must automatically be lumped together with the person who was born with a predisposition to members of the same sex.

Yeah, I agree. I don't think sexuality is a binary, either-or thing. Rather, I think it's a continuum. There are plenty of women who I still find attractive, although I much prefer men. That's where the element of choice comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Roark's position, I would have left Dominique to her games.

So would most men I know because she had serious value conflicts.

Maybe I'm just not a typical guy, or I'm not "masculine", but in real life I expect a girl to show that she's interested, not try to make me chase after her.

The biggest problem most nice guys I know have is not that they lack masculinity or don't want to play games but that the gal is interested and is communicating her desires every way she can, and the guy misses all the signals.

Women have this odd way of expecting the guy to make a move even when she's the one with eyes on him.

It is not odd. It is necessary. If she makes the first move and he isn't interested, it is hopeless and there is nothing she can do. If he does respond, is it just for the easy sex and not because he values her as a person? Is he the kind of guy who does not, or is afraid, to pursue his values and waits to be given things?

I find it aggravating as hell. I'm bad enough at introducing myself, without all the missed opportunities I don't know about because some otherwise great girl was interested but didn't do anything about it because she thought that was my job. :D Maybe that's why I'm still single!

Maybe you just need some lessons on how women send signals plus more practice in communicating your own values and desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many ways to celebrate differences. Sex, for heterosexuals, is a celebration of differences. So exactly what does dominance mean, in fact, during the act? Getting thrown around the bed? Against the walls? Walking away with a bleeding lip (or other body part) from being bitten? Being tied up with handcuffs?

No, I mean the man clearly and physically shows his intention to take the woman.

What, to you, does sexual pleasure and enjoyment without dominance mean?

It might mean a man saying, "I'm not very interested in having sex with you but there's nothing good on TV tonight, so if you insist, what the hell?"

Certainly, a woman can be dominant during certain positions in sex while the man just lays back and enjoys what she's doing.

That's fine as long as that's what he wants. A man doesn't have to be on top to be on top.

In either case of who's dominant, I don't see that it is the dominance that is being enjoyed, it is the sex that is being enjoyed.

Quite true. My point is that a man deliberately and firmly taking physical control of his woman is one option that a lot of couples enjoy as an expression of their unique natures as a man and a woman.

If dominance is the primary issue, then why not when you're at work, or shopping at the store, or any other relationship with men?

Why not? I like it when a man holds a door open for me even if I happen to be his boss. I want him to recognize my professional abilities and my femininity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The biggest problem most nice guys I know have is not that they lack masculinity or don't want to play games but that the gal is interested and is communicating her desires every way she can, and the guy misses all the signals.

Maybe because the signals are often nonverbal and subtle by design? It doesn’t make sense to me. Guys are taught that if they want a girl, they need to go after her. Girls are taught that if they want a guy, they need to bat their eyelashes and hope he notices her. I don’t understand why the responsibility is entirely on the guy to make it happen. This is hell on someone like me who is shy. A girl can get away with that, she’ll still have her pick of dates. Yet it’s justice if a guy is shy and lonely because of it?

It is not odd. It is necessary. If she makes the first move and he isn't interested, it is hopeless and there is nothing she can do. If he does respond, is it just for the easy sex and not because he values her as a person? Is he the kind of guy who does not, or is afraid, to pursue his values and waits to be given things?

All of this can be resolved if she talks to him. If she doesn’t, he may miss the subtle signals and she may think it’s because he’s not interested. Even if he does notice her signals and responds, how does that prove that he values her or that he is a value-driven person? I don’t get the purpose of the game-playing. Let me turn it around. Why, if a guy does not respond to the “signals” is this a sign that he wants everything delivered on a platter, whereas you don’t come to this conclusion of the woman who refuses to be assertive and always expects to be the one pursued?

Maybe you just need some lessons on how women send signals plus more practice in communicating your own values and desires.

That's clearly true, whatever the case may be. I may have to learn the game, but I still think it's childish and unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys are taught that if they want a girl, they need to go after her. Girls are taught that if they want a guy, they need to bat their eyelashes and hope he notices her. I don’t understand why the responsibility is entirely on the guy to make it happen. This is hell on someone like me who is shy. A girl can get away with that, she’ll still have her pick of dates. Yet it’s justice if a guy is shy and lonely because of it?
Look at it from the perspective of someone being pursued. If an attractive woman has many men asking her out, how much attention should she pay to someone who isn't even willing to talk to her? Is he unwilling because he isn't interested, or because he's afraid?

I don't accept the idea that shyness is a virtue or an inherent trait. It is a learned behavior that obstructs the pursuit of what one values. Get over it. You can't insist that the world grant you special favors just because you wish it -- and that's what shyness amounts to. It says: "I don't want to get hurt, so I won't take risks, and in the pursuit of some value there's risk, therefore I won't pursue it -- but I want it anyway, and it's unfair that I don't have it given to me."

Sometimes romance is very easy -- two people meet and instantly click and life is wonderful. (Yes, it does happen!) If that's not the case, then maybe it's time to move on to the next one... and there are MANY out there.

I don’t get the purpose of the game-playing. Let me turn it around. Why, if a guy does not respond to the “signals” is this a sign that he wants everything delivered on a platter, whereas you don’t come to this conclusion of the woman who refuses to be assertive and always expects to be the one pursued?
Maybe she needs to see that you are worth her time and effort. Being bold and assertive, taking the risk of being rejected by asking her first, is very masculine behavior -- and a turn-on for many women. She may not look twice at someone based on his appearance, but by asking her out she may give him a second look. And by getting that first date, he has a chance to find out more about her, and she about him.

Frankly, if you're interested, ask. If you get shot down, big deal. Find someone else to ask. And if the issue is not finding enough women to ask, then go to where the women are. I keep suggesting ballroom dancing because there is no end to the number of attractive women one can meet. Take some lessons, get down a few steps, and you're off. Women love a guy who can dance well. Dancing as a couple tells her you're fun to be around, you can take control and be comfortable with that, and you are a sexual being (as expressed in the closeness of a waltz or the erotic moves in latin dancing). It's also, for a guy who is shy, a chance to get used to spending time in the company of attractive women. It makes it much easier to ask women out when you are comfortable interacting with them. And you may find yourself being asked out by women, too.

My two cents, for whomever finds shyness an obstacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't accept the idea that shyness is a virtue or an inherent trait.

Neither do I.

It is a learned behavior that obstructs the pursuit of what one values.

Indeed.

Get over it.

It is ridiculously far from that simple.

You can't insist that the world grant you special favors just because you wish it -- and that's what shyness amounts to. It says: "I don't want to get hurt, so I won't take risks, and in the pursuit of some value there's risk, therefore I won't pursue it -- but I want it anyway, and it's unfair that I don't have it given to me."

As someone who is extremely shy in person,* I couldn't disagree more. That may be what some who are shy think, but it is most definitely not a characteristic of shyness itself. Frankly, I find the notion that it is rather insulting. I have never thought anything remotely like "I want it anyway, and it's unfair that I don't have it given to me." Nor do I think that bborg is saying anything like that.

_____

*For example, if I should ever manage to go an OCON and encounter any FORUM members, odds are they'll never know it's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I guess we are high-jacking this thread.

I do not think that Ed meant to imply that shyness is easy to get over. I understood his statements to mean, stop using it as an excuse and come up with a solution. Let us look at the facts, the average person lives to be around 80 years of age. You only have one life, there is no such thing as a rehersal life, so get to living, or die without achieving one's goals. In this context there are only two types of people, those that put themselves out on the limb and those that do not. Those that do can get hurt, but they can also achieve the reward/value. Those that do not put themselves on a limb cannot get hurt, but will also never know the feeling/emotion that comes from the achievement of the reward/value. Let your values motivate you to taking that first step toward achieving your goals, building confidence and overcoming shyness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bborg,

This is not just a social convention (I wish it was - it would have been much easier to change). Women have learned through experience what what is and is not effective in dating. And our rather passive position is often very frustrating. In every other aspect of life women these days are actively pursuing their values and yet in the case of this particular one, often the most important one for us, we can't. And this is truly can't. It just does not work (99.999...% of the time) - men are less attracted (in the long run - they may go for it as a temporary thing - making her Ms. Right Now and never in their mind Ms. Right) and I would even go as far as saying that often (not always) this has nothing to do with particular qualities of a woman.

You can't blame women for not doing something which has such a low success rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: get over it.

It is ridiculously far from that simple.

Shyness is a psychological state driven by fear of lack of acceptance or fear of a negative opinion and the more you value and respect someone (or are attracted to them in case of romance) the more it may manifest itself (because you care more). It is that fear you have to work on (part of it maybe working on self acceptance) if you want to overcome shyness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed, if you will reread my posts you will see that I am not making excuses for my shyness. It is also a very personal issue which I am not offering for discussion, and which is no one's business but my own.

I am frustrated that while I am expected to exercise independence and courage, which I certainly agree with, the woman is not expected to do anything at all except be pretty and wait for me to make my move. I can accept this as a social fact, but I do not understand defending it as the way things should be.

~Sophia~, I understand what you are saying, but I think if being more assertive does not work for a woman this is not a reflection of how women should act but rather a reflection of how women are perceived by most men. Frankly, I do not find a woman desirable who will not pursue her romantic values anymore than I would expect her to find a man desirable who does not pursue his. I do not regard is as "masculine" to be assertive anymore than I regard passiveness to be "feminine". We all should pursue our values if we actually want to achieve them, and that is not something that is different for men and women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who is extremely shy in person,* I couldn't disagree more. That may be what some who are shy think, but it is most definitely not a characteristic of shyness itself. Frankly, I find the notion that it is rather insulting. I have never thought anything remotely like "I want it anyway, and it's unfair that I don't have it given to me." Nor do I think that bborg is saying anything like that.

No, it's not. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two quick notes before I disappear for the day:

Get over it.

It is ridiculously far from that simple.

I didn't say otherwise, only that it is necessary to deal with that problem. There are books out there with suggestions for how to solve it. But if you want to be shy, I can't help you.
You can't insist that the world grant you special favors just because you wish it -- and that's what shyness amounts to. It says: "I don't want to get hurt, so I won't take risks, and in the pursuit of some value there's risk, therefore I won't pursue it -- but I want it anyway, and it's unfair that I don't have it given to me."

As someone who is extremely shy in person,* I couldn't disagree more. That may be what some who are shy think, but it is most definitely not a characteristic of shyness itself. Frankly, I find the notion that it is rather insulting. I have never thought anything remotely like "I want it anyway, and it's unfair that I don't have it given to me." Nor do I think that bborg is saying anything like that.

I stand by what I wrote. I think such a notion is implicit in the notion of being shy, and being willing to accept it. I used to be very shy, but I worked at it and am far better off.

I didn't mean any of this as an insult, and don't believe it is. I'm being blunt. I've been there, and am trying to be clear and concise in my point. I see otherwise good people frustrated by things like this, and I get frustrated myself because the power to deal with the issue is entirely in your hands.

One last emphasis: if a shy person is looking for romance, he has an extra handicap. One solution is to deal with the shyness problem first, then try again with romantic pursuits. But I find it very hard to imagine finding a successful romance while hiding behind the concept of shyness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed, if you will reread my posts you will see that I am not making excuses for my shyness. It is also a very personal issue which I am not offering for discussion, and which is no one's business but my own.
Fair enough. I respect that, and hope that my comments are not taken personally. I mean them to apply to anyone dealing with shyness. I don't think the issue is really about the "game" of dating and romance, so much as it is about shyness; I've heard the argument and complaint before and used it myself. If I can change, anyone can.

And I agree 100% with Sophia and RayK on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just does not work (99.999...% of the time) - men are less attracted (in the long run - they may go for it as a temporary thing - making her Ms. Right Now and never in their mind Ms. Right) and I would even go as far as saying that often (not always) this has nothing to do with particular qualities of a woman.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you expand on this?

Are you saying that men are less attracted to a girl who tries to achieve her value, versus a girl who lets the men flock to her? The only reason I can see for such an attitude is because it may insinuate that she is just looking for easy sex. But if this is clearly not the case (a man will know after a little while whether this is something she is likely to do or not), why would he be less attracted? Perhaps I am idealizing here, but I want a woman who thinks of her man as the highest value. If she is not the type who typically asks someone out, but asked me out, I would take it as an enormous compliment.

In fact, the only reason I can think of that this would not work is that the girl might not think the guy is a value-seeker, and perhaps that she has assumed the dominant role in the relationship.

I have only had one relationship, so I don't know too much from experience. However, in my relationship, the girl did indeed ask me out. Basically, we were friends, and then she read Atlas Shrugged, realized I was "John Galt" (her words, not mine) and then asked me out. Now, it didn't work out for a number of reasons (primarily, she thought she wasn't good enough for me and had "nothing to offer me"), but it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she asked me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Sophia~, I understand what you are saying, but I think if being more assertive does not work for a woman this is not a reflection of how women should act but rather a reflection of how women are perceived by most men.

I don't think that this is a question of assertiveness because confidence is very attractive to both sexes. It is a matter of who is doing the pursuing. Most men, I find, are more romantically attracted when a woman is not pursuing them but rather positively responding to their pursuit of her.

Frankly, I do not find a woman desirable who will not pursue her romantic values anymore than I would expect her to find a man desirable who does not pursue his.

We do pursue our romantic values just in a different way - the way we find it being effective. We send signals and move on if there is no response. Then we repeat next time we encounter someone we like. That is not doing nothing.

I would argue with you that you are in a better position most of the time. You have a much better chance of the other person getting to know you better which works to your benefit (even if she did not notice you at first - she may find herself liking you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that this is a question of assertiveness because confidence is very attractive to both sexes. It is a matter of who is doing the pursuing. Most men, I find, are more romantically attracted when a woman is not pursuing them but rather positively responding to their pursuit of her.

I'm not really talking about the entire courting, only how it starts. Is it necessary or productive that the guy always is the one to initiate contact? My main point is, why is it cowardice if a man wants a woman but does not ask her out, but for a woman to do this is considered the proper way? I see this as holding women to a lower moral standard. We are supposed to assertively and actively pursue a romantic value, while a woman is not.

We do pursue our romantic values just in a different way - the way we find it being effective. We send signals and move on if there is no response. Then we repeat next time we encounter someone we like. That is not doing nothing.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like doing nothing. I also consider it rather insulting to expect a guy to interpret these signals and judging him to be lacking when he doesn't, when you could be more clear. If a guy tried to same tactic, we would not say that the girl was "clueless", we'd say the guy should have been more direct. I don't understand the basis for the double-standard. We may just have to agree to disagree.

I would argue with you that you are in a better position most of the time. You have a much better chance of the other person getting to know you better which works to your benefit (even if she did not notice you at first - she may find herself liking you).

In a better position doing what? I didn't understand what this was in reference to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you want to be shy, I can't help you.

I'm going to interpret "But if you want to be shy" as "But if a person wants to be shy." If I interpret it the other way, what I post will be removed by the moderator.

I think such a notion is implicit in the notion of being shy, and being willing to accept it.

It may be part of using shyness as an excuse (i.e. "being willing to accept it"), but I know (not "think") that it is not part of shyness per se.

One last emphasis: if a shy person is looking for romance, he has an extra handicap. One solution is to deal with the shyness problem first, then try again with romantic pursuits. But I find it very hard to imagine finding a successful romance while hiding behind the concept of shyness.

I agree, if one is "hiding behind...shyness." But that has nothing to do with the nature and causes of shyness itself. It is unjust to shy people, who have often quite complex psychological reasons for their shyness, to suggest otherwise.

At this point I will bow ouf of this particular discussion, before I say something I'll regret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you expand on this?

I do not have the benefit of male introspection so I can't give you an answer for why that is. If I had to speculate I would say that perhaps a woman appears as less of a challenge (less effort needed). This may not be something which is identified by them explicitly but has an effect, psychologically, on their attraction. Some type of effort vs. value evaluation? That is my best guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you expand on this?

I do not have the benefit of male introspection so I can't give you an answer for why that is. If I had to speculate I would say that perhaps a woman appears as less of a challenge (less effort needed). This may not be something which is identified by them explicitly but has an effect, psychologically, on their attraction. Some type of effort vs. value evaluation? That is my best guess.

Or maybe they just like their women dependent and subservient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, but it does sound like doing nothing.

There are books which can help you identify that "nothing".

I would argue with you that you are in a better position most of the time. You have a much better chance of the other person getting to know you better which works to your benefit (even if she did not notice you at first - she may find herself liking you).

In a better position doing what? I didn't understand what this was in reference to.

You can ask a woman who has not been sending you any signals; someone who perhaps did not notice you or considered you as a romantic potential at all. And it can still work out well. If fact it often does.

If a woman is not noticed (and chosen) - nothing happens. (She can ask and there maybe a date - but it almost never works out.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do pursue our romantic values just in a different way - the way we find it being effective. We send signals and move on if there is no response. Then we repeat next time we encounter someone we like. That is not doing nothing.

I'm sorry, but it does sound like doing nothing. I also consider it rather insulting to expect a guy to interpret these signals and judging him to be lacking when he doesn't, when you could be more clear. If a guy tried to same tactic, we would not say that the girl was "clueless", we'd say the guy should have been more direct. I don't understand the basis for the double-standard. We may just have to agree to disagree.

I concur with bborg on this. I have been expected to be a mind reader too many times to put up with it any more. The moment I detect that expectation in a woman, I move on. Signals are fine, but they'd better be clear because life's too short to waste my time on "decipher me."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are books which can help you identify that "nothing".

Are there any you would recommend?

You can ask a woman who has not been sending you any signals; someone who perhaps did not notice you or considered you as a romantic potential at all. And it can still work out well. If fact it often does.

If a woman is not noticed (and chosen) - nothing happens. (She can ask and there maybe a date - but it almost never works out.)

I'm not saying I would limit to women who showed an interest in me. I just think it's silly and counterproductive that you have to read books to identify the signals when they are interested. Maybe most people think it's fun, but I think it's frustrating and annoying (if you haven't gathered that already!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and judging him to be lacking when he doesn't, when you could be more clear.
.

Women do not judge him to be lacking if he does not respond. They judge him to be not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and judging him to be lacking when he doesn't, when you could be more clear.
.

Women do not judge him to be lacking if he does not respond. They judge him to be not interested.

Which may often be incorrect, if he didn't understand the signals. If you want to find out if a guy is interested, wouldn't talking to him be a better way to determine that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites