From: kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle)
Subject: Re: The Second Move
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 22:58:49 GMT

>kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>No, the problem is that women like Angelwing ask or expect _men_ to
>>assume.

intrigue@milton.u.washington.edu (Angelwing) writes:
>Women like Angelwing don't have any trouble getting dates.
I'm sure that's true. (After all, as soc.singles readers are fully
aware, all _any_ woman needs to do to get dates is exist. :-))

>No matter how much you whine about this, it's NOT GOING TO CHANGE!!  Not
>in your lifetime it isn't.  
I don't have any illusions that it will. I also don't have any
illusions about there being justice in the world. If there were, women
like Angelwing would only get dates with jerks.

>Teri Miller has been good enough to at least respond to this and say that
>giving guys signals and expecting them to react is bullshit.  That's okay
>- I mean, in a way it *is* a chicken way to run things.  
Glad you realise it. Teri does have the right idea.

>But that's the way things are, mostly.  Sure, things are changing,
>but very slowly.  
But you seem to prefer your rules. If enough women are like this,
nothing will change. But if you continue to do things this way, then
perhaps men will not bother to change either.

>it seems that your choice is to wait until a woman approaches you and hope
>she's the type you would care to date, 
That's exactly what you have chosen to do. Has it led to relationships
that are as good, on average, as those you might have had if you had
chosen men who were the type you would care to date? I think not, but
of course I can't prove things about possibilities.

>or learn to read body language. What's so hard? I really don't get it.  
No, you really don't get it. Here's an example you should recognise:

>He obviously liked me.  He asked me out.  I was astonished because I
>hadn't been giving him "available" vibes and I was married.  So I
>turned him down, of course.

He read your body language and decided you were available. Were you
giving him "available" vibes? You claim not. He would probably claim
you did. Is communication happening? I think not.

>Angelwing - It is all so obvious.
Not so obvious to the guy who took your advice, read your body
language and discovered that your mind didn't agree with the message
your body language had been successfully "communicating."

Let me restate my original point: If women claim to be agressive, and
then when asked what "aggressive" means, say things like "just being
around, just smiling at the right time or arranging to be at the same
restaurant at lunch ..." then by my understanding of what it means to
be agreesive they are NOT aggressive. I am not saying that asking
people out is difficult, or that rejection is painful, or any such thing.
I'm saying that many women who claim to be "aggressive" are not,  by any
reasonable definition of the word, aggressive.
-- 
"The truffle is not an outright aphrodisiac, but it may in certain
 circumstances make women more affectionate and men more amiable."
                                                ...Brillat-Savarin

Xref: sparky soc.singles:10607 soc.women:8707 soc.men:8127