From: rmcewen@bbn.com (Regis McEwen)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Request : Dating advice from women
Date: 6 Apr 1992 09:10:59 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Reply-To: rmcewen@bbn.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcb.bbn.com

In article <1992Apr5.172953.2458@otago.ac.nz>, guilford@otago.ac.nz writes:
>In article <ktsls1INNop4@news.bbn.com>, rmcewen@bbn.com (Regis McEwen) writes:
>
>> In article <m0lW8zm-00040TC@piglet.uucp> dmocsny@piglet.UUCP (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>
>>> In article <1992Mar31.225054.24623@adobe.com> J.K. writes:
>
>>> > I agree with the post about trying to make friends and not focusing on
>>> > finding a mate.
>
>>> If I were a woman, I would agree too.
>
>>> > If you're having trouble thinking of women as people - then do something
>>> > to enrich your perspective on women.  You cannot pretend to have respect
>>> > for women when you don't.
>
>>> I'm not sure, exactly, what this advice is about. Some of the men who
>>> seem to do best with women seem to display very little respect for them,
>>> in some ways at least. My hunch is that a man who has a *lot* of 
>>> respect for women will be very reluctant to bother them. Then he might 
>>> not bother enough women to find the one who isn't bothered.
>
>>> There is almost no way, after all, to express something as potentially
>>> threatening as sexual interest without bothering someone along the way.
>>> Or more likely, a lot of someones.
>
>> 	As usual, Dan, an astute preception and good advice.
>
>Is it?  It seems to me that it assumes that the "one who isn't bothered"
>is going to respond positively without regard to the manner in which
>approached.

	This is what one would expect from a person you approached "who isn't
	bothered".  You'd expect, at the very least, a "polite" decline from
	"one who isn't bothered" if they aren't interested -- they'd just see
	that you "bothered them" as part of being the initiator. Sort of "going
	with the teritory".

	I don't think that many people "respond positively without regard to
	the manner in which approached".  They'll certainly respond "positively"
        if being approached by that particular person "appeals" to them, which,
	of course, *may* include *how* they are approached.

	If you "bothered them" then your approach to them was effectively
	"inappropiate".

	And, of course, if they aren't "bothered" and are, in fact, interested
	after you've "bothered them", then your approach must have been
	"appropiate" to them.

>             It seems to me that the probability of being unbothered may
>depend on the approach taken.

	But you have a very limited influence, if any, on what another chooses
	to be (subjectively) "bothered" by.  (Did you mean "unbotheredsome"
	here?  If, you did, indeed, mean "unbothered", they you *do* have an
	extremely high probability of "being unbothered" depending on how *you*
	feel about your own approach).

>                               Perhaps some men are good at (let's call
>it) Strategy A, where we make direct inquiries right away

	I'm not sure what you mean by "direct inquires right away" here.
	Do you mean something along the lines of "Are you interested and
	available for a	possible relationship *NOW*" as "Strategy A" ?

>                                                           while other
>men succeed with Strategy B, where they invest more time (e.g. try and
>succeed to develop friendships, or somesuch) with each potential mate
>they encounter.

	I'm also not clear on your meaning with "Strategy B".  Is this "time
	[*you*] invested" for the purpose of determining whether or not you are
	interest in this "potential mate" as a friend or "somesuch"?  Or "time
	invested" for the purpose of convincing *her* to have a "friendship or
	somesuch" with *you* ? Or both?

	If you receive a negative response from "Strategy A" then you can *only*
	proceed to another strategy, perhaps, "Strategy B" or drop out of the
	running.  (I suppose you could try "Strategy A", or a modified version,
	again at a later date without trying "Strategy B" or whatever, if you
	felt you'd get a different result or "circumstances" changed).

	However, a positive response from "Strategy A" doesn't exclude "Strategy
	B"; in fact, in most cases, that's the next logical step; e.g.
	"investing" more time.

	And a "negative response" from "Strategy B" means that you end up with
	"somesuch".

	So, I'm not sure what you mean by "some men are good at [Strategy A or
	B].  Remember this is a *mutual* decision; you're "being good" means
	that she's "accepted" you as a "friend or somesuch" as well.  She
	already knows that *you're* interest somewhat, because *you* initiated.
	So, you only become "good" if she says "Yes!".

	Do you (really) mean by "some men are good at..." that "some men are
	(more) *comfortable* with "Strategy A or B" ?

>Perhaps also DM is good at A, which is why he extols its virtues....

	It's not clear to me what you mean by "Strategy A" here, so I'm not
	sure what you mean by Dan is "good at it".

	But keep in mind that you've deleted the steps that Dan ennumerated as
	the *preliminary* steps he takes in attempting to increase his chances
	and to prepare himself -- this is *very* important, especially since it
	will determine if he proceeds or at which point he stops.  That doesn't
	make him "good" (as I stated above), its just makes him prepared.

	And most importantly, he said: "That is why a man needs to prepare
	himself *IN ADVANCE* for hitting on women. He has to understand the
	woman's fears, and be prepared to allay them".  So, this doesn't
	*exclude* "Strategy B".
>
>Perhaps also men who are good at A are finding women who respond to that
>approach, and simply not connecting with other women.

	Again, does "good at" mean comfortable?  I agree that those men would
	probably then proceed with that women rather that seek out "other
	[types of] women".  As, Kenn Barry would say, "Nothing succeeds like
	success".

	And what do you mean by "simply not connecting with other women"? I'm
	sure they are not rejecting "out of hand" all those "other women" as
	"friends or somesuch"?  Or did you really mean that the purpose of this
	"time investment" was really not as "friends" per se.  (We're not
	talking about what *might* happen in the future, but rather your
	motivations for being this "friend".  Is it with the hope of being
	more?  And, if it never becomes "more than friends", would you then
	consider "Strategy B" "good"?).

	Remeber, the purpose of both "Strategy A" and "B", is to get some type
	of response, "negative" or "positive" and then to decide how to
	proceed.  "Strategy B-first" type women (might) give you some type of
	response in "the future" (providing, of course, it's clear to them what 
	you are looking for a response to, or indeed, if you are looking for
	*any* type of "response"), while a "Strategy A" type women would give
	you more of an immediate response. (Which doesn't have to be permanent,
	BTW, even if it's "positive", but I look at that change of response
	as being done in the "B" phase).

	But "positive" "Strategy A" *leads* to "Strategy B"; its a continuium.
	(Remember your vague "somesuch"?  Is this a "negative only" thing?)

	If I'm understanding what you mean by "Strategy A and B", if a women
	does respond "positive" to "Strategy A" which *leads* to "Strategy B",
	then doesn't that mean she responds to both?  (Leaving aside for
	the momment the "men who are good a A" part).

	I'm not sure if one could tell a "Strategy A-first-*ONLY*" type
	women, other than trying "Strategy A first. So, I don't see how an
	"A-first" women wouldn't respond the same to a "B-first" approach.
	If she's interested in something more than "friends and somesuch",
	she'll "let" you know.

>
>I'm not suggesting that one way is better than the other -- anyone can
>see ways in which A may be the more honest approach than B -- I'm just
>suggesting that there are probably different strategies that "work."

	It's only "better", in the sense of the indivisual woman, if you
	receive the type of response you want.  Seldom does a strategy "work"
	that is ridgid and not adaptable to different people and situations.

>I'm also not suggesting that these are always "strategies," but can be
>thought of more as "the way people are or act."

	This is only semantics; it could very well be (become) an unconscience
	thing, over time.  (I try to stay away from debates on whether people
	"are" or are "acting".  Since I can't get into their thoughts, I have
	to make my own (admittedly error-prone) interpretations based on their
	actions, *as **I** see them* -- subject to change, of course.  After
	all, if they are "acting" a certain way ALL the time, is it "the way
	they are" or is it "acting"?)
>
>Disclaimer: I'm lousy at both A and B, which is why I read soc.singles
>from time to time....

	I think that Dan is giving some good, "real world" advice here.

	And I think the "best" advice is to keep trying different things and
	take note of what "works" and improve upon that to personal taste.

	Good luck.

>Bill Guilford

Newsgroups: soc.singles