Maybe women should be the initiators

[zekko]

This is something I've been thinking about lately. If women are really only interested in the top 20% of guys, maybe they should be the ones who approach and initiate. That way they can only pick the guys they want, and everybody else can quit wasting their time.

 

[Nordic_identity]

Women communicate covertly and men communicating overtly should be remembered here.

Women do initiate a lot of contact but it's in such a covert and subtle manner that a lot of men don't pick up on it.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

This is something I've been thinking about lately. If women are really only interested in the top 20% of guys, maybe they should be the ones who approach and initiate. That way they can only pick the guys they want, and everybody else can quit wasting their time.

Certain online dating websites are setup this way.

 

[zekko]

If every guy just allowed women to initiate, there would be very few rejections.

Ha, I had a feeling you might pop in and say women already are the initiators. But that's what I'm saying, if girls were responsible for initiating, there wouldn't be so many rejections.

I'm sure we've heard about women who were interested in a certain guy, but were too prideful to ask him out. They have an attitude like "I'm an attractive woman, I'm not so pathetic that I need to ask a guy out, men seek my attention". Gender roles expect the men to do the heavy lifting, women's ideas of initiating are more subtle (as Nordic_identity noted).

Women do initiate a lot of contact but it's in such a covert and subtle manner that a lot of men don't pick up on it.

For sure. That was a big problem for me early on, I was completely clueless. Even now I can look back on certain situations and wonder what the heck I was thinking, because everything was set up for me, all I had to do was reach out and take it. Another problem I had was trying to attract a woman when she was already attracted, all I had to do was seal the deal. But then I wouldn't so I'd end up blowing it.

 

[Nordic_identity]

Ha, I had a feeling you might pop in and say women already are the initiators. But that's what I'm saying, if girls were responsible for initiating, there wouldn't be so many rejections.

I'm sure we've heard about women who were interested in a certain guy, but were too prideful to ask him out. They have an attitude like "I'm an attractive woman, I'm not so pathetic that I need to ask a guy out, men seek my attention". Gender roles expect the men to do the heavy lifting, women's ideas of initiating are more subtle (as Nordic_identity noted).


For sure. That was a big problem for me early on, I was completely clueless. Even now I can look back on certain situations and wonder what the heck I was thinking, because everything was set up for me, all I had to do was reach out and take it. Another problem I had was trying to attract a woman when she was already attracted, all I had to do was seal the deal. But then I wouldn't so I'd end up blowing it.

I have a few buddies that have the same issues. They just don't pick up on the covert cues.

We were at a bar a few weekends ago and these two girls (solid 6.5ers) asked if they needed to move so we could sit down behind this table in an outdoor roof top area of the bar. My friend quickly said no and he moved us back into the indoor area. I told him that those girls just gave us a softball initiative and neither one of my two friends believed me. I said all we have to do is reapproach them and initiate conversation and they'll be talking to us for the rest of the night.

My friend was intrigued and we went back out to where they were seated. We struck up a conversation and talked for the rest of the night. Long story short, I was the only one that left with a number and kissed the girl on the cheek haha.

 

[oldmanofthesea]

I do agree that in many cases, women actually ARE the initiators, but I will also say that I’ve slept with a lot of women who did not initiate - I initiated with them without any indicators. I would like to say that the women who gave some IOI to me first had higher IL than the ones who didn’t but I have not seen any correlation there, personally. I have experienced both high and low IL from women in each circumstance. There are also many women who would NEVER initiate in any way, not even subtle queues.

 

[samspade]

I do agree that in many cases, women actually ARE the initiators, but I will also say that I’ve slept with a lot of women who did not initiate - I initiated with them without any indicators. I would like to say that the women who gave some IOI to me first had higher IL than the ones who didn’t but I have not seen any correlation there, personally. I have experienced both high and low IL from women in each circumstance. There are also many women who would NEVER initiate in any way, not even subtle queues.

Same.

It's especially true if women see you as high value. They're less likely to initiate.

 

[samspade]

Yep women don't initiate in a high value situation...

@stringpuller : If there's a significant gap (e.g. average girl : celebrity, or very ugly and/or fat girl : attractive guy) a woman will take her shot with abandon, because she can always rationalize it away as "it was never going to happen anyway." If you're an above average dude who's ever been approached by a super fatty or post-wall woman in a bar, you've probably seen this...they go for broke because it's a long shot and they don't lose face by being rejected.

Beyond the extremes of the spectrum, women will often shrink in the moment if they perceive a man as having higher value than her. That is, they won't offer the obvious IOIs you read about on Sosuave because they're afraid to put themselves out there and get shot down. If he seems more attainable, they might.

This isn't a hard and fast rule mind you. It's something I've become attuned to more recently (and another poster apprised me of it some time ago). Sosuave posters are always talking about going for the girls who send obvious IOIs. I recommend not leaving a good chick on the table because you're just looking for cues. Those are helpful but they don't tell the whole story. Everything is an IOI until she says no.

Really what it's made me realize is whoever is the "initiator" is irrelevant. Either way, you'll never know til you open your mouth and say hello.

PS: What the Beatles, Elvis et. al do teach us is to be awesome at something, pursue a mission with gusto and thy cup will runneth over. Maybe not to their extent but enough.

 

[Who Dares Win]

I dont honestly know based of my experience that are often conflicting with each other.

I do agree that women usually sends indirect indications that become less indirect if the guy doesnt get them but at the same time I experienced girls who didnt send any invitation but were responsive to approaches.

The two biggest cases I can name are the first one where two girls came inside the smoking room of the club and one of them gave me a very brief but intense look and moved her friend exactly next to me and my friend, in that case I noticed it so I had what I had to do and it was green light since second one.

An other time I saw a girl I liked and approached her directly and straight, she didnt even notice me before I opened...it was not a green light from second one like the other case but it worked in the end.

Other times I had girls giving me what seemed to be strong signal only to find out that they were not, they had no interest at all.

In very few cases I had girls making open statement, direct ones but that usually happened after I miss all the other less direct ones.

Anyway I agree with Zekko if I got correctly what he means, if it was girls to make the first step in a clear to all way there wouldnt be as many rejections as guys litteraly take whatever they can get usually.

The problem is that there would still be rejections and girl are fragile as fvck when it happens to them since their main self evaluation tool is how desired they are.

 

[death_wish. .]

this is why i always let women come to me , its just easier that way and alot less time wasted, im pretty sure we can all remember times when we were too caught up runnin around with our boys, playing sports , drinkin beers whatever and ***** seems to just fall in our laps, it seems like when you dont want a ***** , they just come to you,
i dont usually get alot of choosing signals , but the funny thing is ...its usually DROP DEAD GORGEOUS CHICKS whenever i do....i'll them catch staring , or even they will flip their hair out at me like this very sexy latin milf in the store the other day. another crossfit hottie (latin/white mix nice thighs big tits wearing tank top and leggings) i caught literally starng me down.
at this point its just having social skills to carry you on through , so i don't disagree with cold approaching or initiating simply just for that fact alone

 

[Hamurabimbi]

Old saying: ‘A man chases a woman until she catches him.’

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Old saying: ‘A man chases a woman until she catches him.’

She traps all of his energy and them submits him.

 

[zekko]

I do agree that women usually sends indirect indications that become less indirect if the guy doesnt get them but at the same time I experienced girls who didnt send any invitation but were responsive to approaches.

I guess that means that you were in their 20% after all, or that they were settling, or that they didn't think you were in their 20% but you convinced them that you were. Despite what people say here, I do believe girls can be converted, they can come around to you. There's the old saying about a girl knowing within the first five seconds if she would bang you. That's probably generally true, but I don't think it's always true.

That goes along with the old PUA idea that while a woman's SMV is constant, a guy's is always changing.

i dont usually get alot of choosing signals , but the funny thing is ...its usually DROP DEAD GORGEOUS CHICKS whenever i do.

Maybe it's because very attractive women know they are very attractive. They know they have high SMV and are not likely to be rejected. There's another old line you see in movies, where the guy tells the girl she's not his type. And she says "I'm every guy's type". There's some confidence in her sexuality there, but it also speaks to how women's attractiveness works. A sexy female is almost universally appealing to men.

 

[zekko]

So yes, women ARE the true seducers. But it also takes a long time for some of them to get comfortable with you.

Also, sometimes it might take them awhile to notice you. This happens with guys too. Sometimes you can be around someone for awhile and then all of a sudden it's like a light comes on: "Hey, she's pretty hot".

 

[samspade]

A sexy female is almost universally appealing to men.

Perhaps. For me, "sexy" has to encompass more than her looks. Her personality is a big part of her sexiness and it's also how she has to qualify herself to me. Pretty women are a dime a dozen.

I posted this recently on another thread, so I'm repeating myself here. But I remember Rollo dismissing personality by saying "you're not fukking her personality." That's half true. She's got to be physically attractive, but to a large degree I am fukking her personality. If it were just about hot looks we'd all rent high price call girls. (And I like the "cute" types more than the bombshells, generally, but variety is always good lol.)

 

[zekko]

For me, "sexy" has to encompass more than her looks. Her personality is a big part of her sexiness and it's also how she has to qualify herself to me. Pretty women are a dime a dozen.

Maybe that's why women don't seem to appreciate comments about their beauty, they know pretty women are common. Which is odd to say, since obviously pretty women are a valuable commodity, just look at the dating market. But women of a certain age are commonly beautiful, it's what girls are.

I posted this recently on another thread, so I'm repeating myself here. But I remember Rollo dismissing personality by saying "you're not fukking her personality." That's half true. She's got to be physically attractive, but to a large degree I am fukking her personality. If it were just about hot looks we'd all rent high price call girls.

I remember Rollo saying that. He was saying personality was not an attraction factor. That's debatable, but I resolved it by looking at personality as part of the filtering process. Looks open the door, but then you filter what you let into your house. She may be pretty, but if she's a crack wh0re I'm probably not going to be interested. There's more to life than the boner test.

 

[BadBoy89]

All a man has to do is show his sexual interest and let the woman decide what she wants to do. If the woman thinks he can be of use to her, she will give in, but will delay it as long as possible. Its up to the man to decide how long he wants to wait.

The ONLY thing that matters to a man is a girls LOOKS. This site is about how to pick up attractive girls, not 4/10’s or fat women. You don’t need sosuave to game those girls.

 

[bat soup]

This is something I've been thinking about lately. If women are really only interested in the top 20% of guys, maybe they should be the ones who approach and initiate. That way they can only pick the guys they want, and everybody else can quit wasting their time.

It's unrealistic to expect women to do any hard work.

 

[Georgepithyou]

In a perfect world that would be the case

 

[samspade]

The ONLY thing that matters to a man is a girls LOOKS.

That's not my experience. Pretty girls are everywhere. Being physically attractive is nothing more than a good start, but she'll have to qualify herself in other ways, for me anyway.