thread: 2006-04-08 : That certain zing

On 2006-04-08, Charles S wrote:

It's always seemed to me that most people (both men and women) are pretty bad about figuring out who's attracted to them.

On the other hand, to the extent that male sexuality is constructed as predatory (or pursuit based, if you prefer a less loaded term), it makes sense that men get little training in recognizing active interest by women. Within the standard model, women are only supposed to show interest in response to a male approach, so men are suppose to only notice interest if it is in response to their approach. Even then, interest from women is something that is supposed to be earned, not present from the begining, so recognizing active interest is not as important as persistance.

Dumb just doesn't start to cover it.

The really sad thing is the degree to which recognizing the fucked-up-ness of all that does not provide an out to the training. Men who hate the predatory model are still stuck with having been trained in it.


This makes lpl go "Men win"
The standard model, where men initiate advances, statistically works out in favor of men.

This makes BL go "Huh?"
You must be making some pretty strange statistical assumptions. If we assume that couple only hooks up if both of them are attracted to each other, and that a man will approach any woman he's attracted to, it's totally even. This is clearly an idealized model, but I can't figure out a way to break symmetry without assuming that a women would agree to date a man she isn't attracted to, in which case it seems like a lose case for the man, not a win.

This makes EP go "Cat and Girl!"
Me love Cat and Girl!

This makes lpl go "Worthless Google!"
I can't seem to locate the reference I had in mind; the search terms are way too common. :-( But Charles' comment just below has a pretty good summary of how male-initiated mating behooves patriarchy.

This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":