Why don't women make the first move? | Page 9 | INFJ Forum

Why don't women make the first move?

I think its safe to say that whether you're a man, or a woman or gender queer, modern culture is a clusterfuck and a lot of people are confused by their place in society. There's so many mixed messages out there, that nobody knows what to think, what to align with. Isms provide a quick and easy way to belong to a group because it suddenly give everyone a cause to focus on. While ism's of any kind are good in that they genuinely mean to empower a particular group, in a time of mass confusion, they also come with the inherent danger of a binary 'us vs. them' mindset.

Humans still haven't learn how to live with the Other. Who the Other is, of course, shifts with the times. Once upon a time, it was the Native Americans to the Whites. Or the Jews (and the gypsies and the Slavs) to the Germans. Then the Russians to the Americans. The Christian versus the Gays. And really, just a long list of group vs group that spans the entire history of our civilization. This is because there's no faster way to determine who you are than by making an enemy out of who you aren't.

Because of this tendency, people twist isms to suit their own needs. We see it in this thread. Man can't get a date. It's woman's fault with this whole feminism business. Women are treated as sex objects, it's the man's fault for creating and consuming media that portrays this message and rarrggggh patriarchy. A black man gets arrested by a white police man, it's an immediate example of institutionalized racism because whites are inherently prejudice because of culture. And while on one hand, it draws awareness to the problems in our society facing the minorities, on the other, rather than bridging the gap between groups, it always villifies and blames the Other and creates feelings of defensiveness and anger.

The kicker is, both sides are right. The issues the minorities face aren't imagined. The Othering the majority faces when someone pulls the gender or race or whatever card aren't imagined either.

Because the ism isn't the problem here. History shows this to us time and time again. The problem is people's attitudes and how they take advantage of the different privileges afforded to them by whatever is the social hot button right now. To isolate it and call it societal is to ignore the foundation on which those societal attitudes are based and that is the individual. Alienate enough men, enough women, enough blacks, enough whites, enough of the LBGQT community on the individual level and you're going to see those resentments leak into the culture that will, in turn, affect everybody like a toxin.

Personally, I think it's silly attacking the 'ism' because you're only going to come to blows about the philosophy and in many ways, strengthen the cause and justification in its implementation by showing such intense resistance to perfectly reasonable ideas, breeding more resentment and anger from the defending group. Instead, I think you'd have more luck pointing out the problems in its implementation because then you're FINALLY addressing the REAL problem, which is the psychological and social mechanism for othering and what breeds all these problems in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yatagarasu
The reasons are all discussed in the warren farrel talk!

men have been raised to see themselves as more expendable

Polls of men and women have shown that BOTH sexes think the death of a woman is worse than the death of a man

What this means is that men are perceived to have less value than women

Society farrel tells us has invested in the concept that men are less valuable than women because it has benefitted from men taking more risks through being fire fighters, soldiers, police, construction workers etc etc

But there is a cost here which is the self esteem of men. That has not been an issue until now because men and women were seperated in terms of their societal roles

But the game has changed now and women are now taking on the same societal role as men (working) but men are still expected to be more expendable

As men are pushed aside i think it leaves many feeling under valued

We see a raft of TV programmes of high powered career women eg ally mcbeal or sex and the city where the women are financially successful and are looking for a strong man but can't find one that is more successful than themeselves (women still want a strong man)

So as women climb the materialism tree they are placing higher and higher demands on men who are i think feeling more and more dispondant in a world that supports 'soft skills' rather than 'hard' skills; for example i heard in another online discussion that on dating sites there are only a fraction of the number of women than there are males and that the women all place lots of conditions ie ''if you don't have x, y or z (eg house, car etc) then don't even bother calling me!''

The bar has raised for men but their opportunities for improvement have gone down because now the job market is saturated with women and cheap foreign labour as well as men not to mention the encroachment of machines

I think farrell is right...the slow crisis that is creeping up on our society that many people haven't noticed yet is that of our young men

As farrel (and that female commentator that broken daniel posted) says men range from genius when they are positively nourished and encouraged to murderer and rapist at the other end of the spectrum whislt women tend to cluster around the median

What this means is that men often form the most constructive force in society if nourished but equally they often form the most destructive force in society when not nourished

The point i'm making is that we all as a society have something invested in making sure our young men are ok otherwise we are storing up problems...and i think we ARE storing up problems

There are issues over womens rights in other countries/cultures and they have their evolution to go through just as we have but we in the west interfere too much in the business of others when we should be taking a look at ourselves; our media demonises other countries and cultures and yet poverty is rife within our own borders and large numbers of the population are on anti-depressants...seriously who are we to judge anyone?

So i think 'feminism' needs to calm down a bit now in the west because if you compare women and mens pay for men and women who have not married or had kids women actually earn MORE! Also if you want to know the future then go into any university and have a peak into the door of the lecture halls and notice how many more women there are than men proportionately

The problem these days is not for women who in a soft skill economy are frankly advantaged the problem these days is for young men and i think we'd be stupid to ignore it

I agree with most of what you said here.

I do think that men need to gather together to fight for their rights but unfortunately too often in those that have there has been an undertone of misogyny which ends up tainting the group even though they have legitimate issues that need to be dealt with, and this leads to their issues not being taken seriously enough. I do think that is a serious problem. I believe a group of men is best equipped to fight for issues that concern more men in particular. It's the same as any group of women in my opinion, they are better equipped to fight for specific issues that effect women more, particularly relating to maternity and child care issues, but any time there is a tone of misandry in my mind they lose credibility. We need to weed out the 'tone' and 'attitude' that people of either sex take on as a mistaken way to fight for their rights and hone in on real legitimate issues for all people and issues that are specific to each gender. We need to really listen to the issues with an open spirit and not assume that if someone is fighting for the rights of whatever group in particular that they are automatically against the other group that has different needs and that everything they have to say is therefore invalid. I have mentioned this before but from my observation the need is even greater for women and for men to realize that they and their own gender is in some ways their own enemy. I do not believe that either men or women are persecuting the other sex at all, I think we harm ourselves by creating mental constructs of what men and women are and what we believe we should be and take on the idea that if people don't fall into our idea of what and who they are 'supposed' to be that they are therefore flawed. I think we should be listening to each other with an open non-judgemental spirit and encouraging each other to empower ourselves to be proud of who we are and not feel that we need to put down another group or people that aren't like us to make us feel better.
 
I think its safe to say that whether you're a man, or a woman or gender queer, modern culture is a clusterfuck and a lot of people are confused by their place in society. There's so many mixed messages out there. And ism's of any kind that are meant to empower a particular group frequently come with the inherent danger of a binary 'us vs. them' mindset. Humans still haven't learn how to live with the Other. Who the Other is, of course, shifts with the times. Once upon a time, it was the Native Americans to the Whites. Or the Jews (and the gypsies and the Slavs) to the Germans. Then the Russians to the Americans. The Christian versus the Gays. And really, just a long list of group vs group that spans the entire history of our civilization.

People twist these isms to suit their own needs. We see it in this thread. Man can't get a date. It's woman's fault with this whole feminism business. Women are treated as sex objects, it's the man's fault for creating and consuming media that portrays this message and rarrggggh patriarchy. A black man gets arrested by a white police man, it's an immediate example of institutionalized racism because whites are inherently prejudice because of culture. And while on one hand, it draws awareness to the problems in our society facing the minorities, on the other, rather than bridging the gap between groups, it always villifies and blames the Other and creates feelings of defensiveness and anger.

The kicker is, both sides are right. The issues the minorities face aren't imagined. The Othering the majority faces when someone pulls the gender or race or whatever card aren't imagined either.

Because the ism isn't the problem here. History shows this to us time and time again. The problem is people's attitudes and how they take advantage of the different privileges afforded to them by whatever is the social hot button right now. To isolate it and call it societal is to ignore the foundation on which those societal attitudes are based and that is the individual. Alienate enough men, enough women, enough blacks, enough whites, enough of the LBGQT community on the individual level and you're going to see those resentments leak into the culture that will, in turn, affect everybody like a toxin.

Personally, I think it's silly attacking the 'ism' because you're only going to come to blows about the philosophy and in many ways, strengthen the cause and justification in its implementation by showing such intense resistance to the ideas, breeding more resentment and anger from the defending group. Instead, I think you'd have more luck pointing out the problems in its implementation because then you're FINALLY addressing the REAL problem, which is the psychological and social mechanism for othering and what breeds all these problems in the first place.

lol yeah i agree the modern world is a clusterfuck!

What i'm trying to say to people is that there is a body of literature out there created by marxists and if you read that literature you will find that there is a game plan to dismantle society which requires the process of fragmentation that you are setting out above

The marxists are predominantly from a certain ethnic group but i'll not go into that here...anyone who can look into matters objectively will rapidly be able to work out who is doing what regarding that

The marxist game plan is to demonise white males (anglo-saxon males NOT jewish males who are always portrayed as victims of history)

This is perfectly and clearly shown in the title of a book by marxist author michael moore called ''stupid white men''

Now as a student and idealistic follower of the 'new left' i went out when i was younger and eagerly bought up Moore's books and read them and watched all his documentaries until over time as I learned more about who was doing what in our world i realised that things were not actually how they were being presented in the mainstream media narrative or the marxist influenced literature and educational establishments

I no longer share the marxist vision of a strong state that controls all aspects of our lives as i see it as a vision of hell....a prison without bars

This battle of the -ims affects EVERY aspect of our society/culture and this can all be verified by reading the literature of the marxists who have set about waging a war of ideas on every front

I agree capitalism needs to change, i agree women and men should have equal say, i agree in racial equality i agree on gay rights but i also want to say to people please don't let the advocates of a centralised government claim sole ownership of these struggles because they are not doing it out of a desire to have equality for everyone they are doing it to create 2 classes...the workers and the ruling class and that is NOT equality

These people have also appropriated the word 'liberal' and claim themselves to be such but we need to take back ownership of all these things

It is ok to support all these struggles and at the same time believe that the people (men, women, black, white, gay, straight etc) should be involved in the decision making (decentralised power)

This is not a position you will hear about in the corporate (marxist) media because they do not want you to consider this to be an option; they want you to believe that you must either be a right wing freemarket capitalist (decentralised capitalism) or a marxist liberal (centralised socialism); this is because there is a very clever game being played here to control and steer people politically by controlling their perceptions of what is possible

There is a middle way
 
I agree with most of what you said here.

I do think that men need to gather together to fight for their rights but unfortunately too often in those that have there has been an undertone of misogyny which ends up tainting the group even though they have legitimate issues that need to be dealt with, and this leads to their issues not being taken seriously enough.

No men don't need to fight for their rights!

There's been too much fighting already

What we need is an informed populace who realise that men and women MUST co-exist harmoniously and that for one to suppress the other will have negative effects for both genders

We all have something invested in ensuring that the other gender is not cut out of the loop...stability

men need to support female rights and women need to support mens rights because if we want our partners to be happy and healthy then we need to ensure they have what is needed for that

I do think that is a serious problem. I believe a group of men is best equipped to fight for issues that concern more men in particular. It's the same as any group of women in my opinion, they are better equipped to fight for specific issues that effect women more, particularly relating to maternity and child care issues, but any time there is a tone of misandry in my mind they lose credibility. We need to weed out the 'tone' and 'attitude' that people of either sex take on as a mistaken way to fight for their rights and hone in on real legitimate issues for all people and issues that are specific to each gender. We need to really listen to the issues with an open spirit and not assume that if someone is fighting for the rights of whatever group in particular that they are automatically against the other group that has different needs and that everything they have to say is therefore invalid. I have mentioned this before but from my observation the need is even greater for women and for men to realize that they and their own gender is in some ways their own enemy. I do not believe that either men or women are persecuting the other sex at all, I think we harm ourselves by creating mental constructs of what men and women are and what we believe we should be and take on the idea that if people don't fall into our idea of what and who they are 'supposed' to be that they are therefore flawed. I think we should be listening to each other with an open non-judgemental spirit and encouraging each other to empower ourselves to be proud of who we are and not feel that we need to put down another group or people that aren't like us to make us feel better.

Everyone is connected....this is true on so many levels

If we drone bomb people in another country we create hate that comes back as blowback

if we pollute the seas it comes back as polluted sea food

If we suppress a gender it comes back as social problems

This is not about women fighting for womens rights or men fighting for mens rights...the real evolution is to realise that we are all sharing this space together and that the best way to make sure that we feel safe and secure is to make sure that our neighbour is also safe and secure (whoever they be)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quiet
they want you to believe that you must either be a right wing freemarket capitalist (decentralised capitalism) or a marxist liberal (centralised socialism); this is because there is a very clever game being played here to control and steer people politically by controlling their perceptions of what is possible

There is a middle way

You know what? I agree. I don't know if I agree with you about the purpose behind all this maneuvering and who is behind the maneuvering, but I do agree that there is some pretty fucked up social engineering going on that preys on people's universal needs for acceptance, belonging, security and purpose. It's easier to control people when they're confused and flailing around, looking for a foothold. That's when you can swoop in with a product, an idea, or a course of action that will sooth the anxiety within. I have no doubt in my mind that this is done deliberately. In a consumer culture, we no longer are the inventors, the creators, the hunters, the gatherers... we're simply, well, consumers. All we do is eat, digest and look around for the next meal. Kind of like animals behind bars, pushing buttons for food pellets or other pleasurable stimuli.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
You know what? I agree. I don't know if I agree with you about the purpose behind all this maneuvering and who is behind the maneuvering, but I do agree that there is some pretty fucked up social engineering going on that preys on people's universal needs for acceptance, belonging, security and purpose. It's easier to control people when they're confused and flailing around, looking for a foothold. That's when you can swoop in with a product, an idea, or a course of action that will sooth the anxiety within. I have no doubt in my mind that this is done deliberately. In a consumer culture, we no longer are the inventors, the creators, the hunters, the gatherers... we're simply, well, consumers. All we do is eat, digest and look around for the next meal. Kind of like animals behind bars, pushing buttons for food pellets or other pleasurable stimuli.

Totally!

We basically allowed ourselves to get bought off with comforts

We got soothed to sleep! They sung us a lullaby

The ultimate expression of this would be the matrix films where humanity just gives up all responsibility for thinking for itself and allows itself to be plugged into a giant grid which feeds the human and sustains it in a dream state

There is nowhere in the matrix films where we are told that the machines enslaved humanity...which means it is just as likely that humanity allowed it

We have given away more and more power away to government and in return they have given us treats; they bought cheap electrical goods from china to give to us which then built china into a powerful competitor, they printed lots of money and lent it out which has got everyone into massive debt and they designed goods in such a way that A. they would break after a short time ('inbuilt obsolescence') and B. they could not be repaired easily to encourage a throwaway culture which has required the use of lots of planetary resources

They have created lots of processed but fast food for example by cutting down the rainforests to plant soya to then feed cattle to make the burgers; the soil then gets destroyed after 10 years because it is not adapted to soya (becauses it's adapted to rainforest) and so they then clear more rainforest (which is the lungs of the earth)

There is a reckless and mindless approach going on here that has been fully bought into by the baby boomer generation that did not have to deal with any great crisis like their parents (world war 2) or their grandparents (world war 1)

That generation has taken all the easy credit, bought all the cheap goods, eaten all the fast food and in its gluttony has stopped paying any attention to what the ruling class are upto with the economy or culture or health, education, foreign policy etc

The 'nanny state' has arisen which is nursing people from cradle to grave by making sure they have basic necessities but in doing so it has robbed humanity of its creativity, innovation and most importantly its free thinking (thinking for itself)

Nowadays people seem content to let career politicans who have never had a proper job outside of politics decide the shape of our communities; it's like we don't believe in our own ability to government ourselves anymore

The game of the corporatocracy is to get us as dependent on it as possible and we have gained comforts in that process but lost our privacy, lost or freedoms and have relinquished our capacity to think critically for ourselves! This has left people with a sense of malaise...of unsatisfied unfulfillment (lots of existential crises....''oh what am i doing here?'', ''What's the point of it all?'' etc)...it's cos we're not thinking for ourselves and as a result we don't feel VITAL

We are now at a cross-roads where we either fully give into that de-humanising process or re-assert our basic humanity; with the collapse of the fiat currency crunch time is on the way!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Quiet
You ever notice that men and women shift into traditional male and female roles as they get older even if they used to believe in modern day feminism? Like life does not give a shit about your views. If you are a woman who just had a baby and holding a newborn; the last thing she wants is to do is go out and put bacon on the table; instead she needs the support and care from her partner and provider to contribute and support. Yes women can do it all if need be and i've seen it all over but at a great cost.

I highly disagree. Every woman is different. Both of my sides are pretty traditional. Most of the women in my family went back to work after a month or two (and because its a law in NY to have at least 2-3 months off for maternity leave). Only one of my aunts was a housewife. In fact, my ENFP aunt was pregnant with twins and built her first house WHILE pregnant and she went back to work shortly after her twins were born. She's a corporate lawyer and her husband was a firefighter. This was in the late 80s too. Even after her husband has retired, she still continues to work although she does not need to (She's very passionate about her work). This goes for some other women in my family.

Not every woman out there wants a man to bear everything for her. What works for one woman may not work for another.

As for women just having a baby.... they just went through a traumatic and painful experience. Of COURSE they wouldn't want to physically work! But that does not mean that some women do not feel passionate about their career or contributing to the household and do not want to continue working. I was raised by a single mother who did the same thing. I could never imagine not working in my older age and contributing to my household, whether I was married or not.
 
I understand what you mean. I never thought I was actually capable of truly loving someone. I think because I put expectations on the feeling of love, not what it actually was. Now that I experience it my understanding of love and connection is VERY different. It is much different than I ever thought it would be looking from the outside in.

Love is actually quite practical and pragmatic which was the biggest surprise. There's not really anything flowery about it. It's like a warm cup of delicious soup or a nice coffee lol. It's familiarity and warmth and security and assurance. It's the absolute furthest thing away from infatuation.

Who would have thought.

agree, I think too often the messages we learn about love growing up give us a very skewed and romanticized image which makes us think we should match our understanding of love to these images in media or what we've been told are best ways to view and think about love. It's amazing how different something is and how much more relaxed it can be when you're not expecting it to compare to the supposed ideal.
 
I think women are conditioned to be passive about relationships. A lady has men flock to her, she does not go after men. It was/is considered "wanting", if she did. But I think that's changing, although very slowly.


I've made the first move twice, and I've been denied once.
An experience to learn from, but if you really want something, you gotta go for it. :)
 
I highly disagree. Every woman is different. Both of my sides are pretty traditional. Most of the women in my family went back to work after a month or two (and because its a law in NY to have at least 2-3 months off for maternity leave). Only one of my aunts was a housewife. In fact, my ENFP aunt was pregnant with twins and built her first house WHILE pregnant and she went back to work shortly after her twins were born. She's a corporate lawyer and her husband was a firefighter. This was in the late 80s too. Even after her husband has retired, she still continues to work although she does not need to (She's very passionate about her work). This goes for some other women in my family.

Not every woman out there wants a man to bear everything for her. What works for one woman may not work for another.

As for women just having a baby.... they just went through a traumatic and painful experience. Of COURSE they wouldn't want to physically work! But that does not mean that some women do not feel passionate about their career or contributing to the household and do not want to continue working. I was raised by a single mother who did the same thing. I could never imagine not working in my older age and contributing to my household, whether I was married or not.

That's great the females in your family were headstrong breadwinners. I was also raised by a single mother with no other family support. My argument was not for house wives; more for gender roles becoming more traditional as we age. Traditional does not necessarlly mean housewive vs. career women. There is a price to pay to do everything and it can be done and i have seen it; but it is hard. It's much harder to be a single mom than being married and supported by a partner. For me it is not a question whether women can do it or rise up to the challenge when called; but more that it is still healthy to be supported by a partner through the ups and downs of life. Believe me I have seen my mom do it all and she is strong for it. But she suffered as well with her stubborness to want to do everything by herself.. But yea it is a personal choice for every women how much independence they desire and how much support they need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
My argument was not for house wives; more for gender roles becoming more traditional as we age. Traditional does not necessarlly mean housewive vs. career women. There is a price to pay to do everything and it can be done and i have seen it; but it is hard. It's much harder to be a single mom than being married and supported by a partner. For me it is not a question whether women can do it or rise up to the challenge when called; but more that it is still healthy to be supported by a partner through the ups and downs of life. Believe me I have seen my mom do it all and she is strong for it. But she suffered as well with her stubborness to want to do everything by herself.. But yea it is a personal choice for every women how much independence they desire and how much support they need.

Then what was your argument for? 'Cause your post came across contradictory to me and dismissive of feminism. Feminism is defined as the equality of male and female. It's about giving equal opportunity to females AND males, despite "gender roles", so they and have equal footing in society... especially in the workforce.

So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say since gender roles is a different avenue of context. What do you mean by "traditional"? 'Because the idea of traditional no longer exists today (at least not in NYC culture). Some men take on the "female" duties of the house when they're married. Some married couples split the duties of the house. Some females take on the typical "female" duties. It's how the family personally operates and what the couple values/agrees to do.
 
I have made the first move on many occasions. I can't recall a single time it turned out well. To be fair, it didn't always work out the other way around. Cases of misread levels of attraction & intention, I suppose.
 
Yeah i've done my fair share of the nightclub scene and witnessed all the scenes you've outlined

It does seem to be the case with the breakdown of community that people are now very disconnected and many people in western countries seem to have to get drunk before they are comfortable approaching strangers

That was certainly an interesting aspect of the ecstacy scene that the invisible barrier with strangers broke down and you'd find yourself talking with the most random people and totally tuning in on the same level...unfortunately it was artificially induced and however real it felt at the time it wore off and the defences would come back up again

There is a gap in our society for a healthy community based gathering of some sort where people can come together in a relaxed way and meet

Pubs and clubs are fulfilling that purpose but it all fuelled with alcohol which is one of the most degraded drugs on the planet!

Concerning concepts of male and female...i think some things are cultural creations but some are simply biological; neuroscience is telling us that men and women are fundamentally different

I really don;t see that as a bad thing as long as the appreciation is always there. If the universal man and the universal woman connect through all the cultural bullshit i think its a beautiful thing

men and women are different and i don't think that needs to be a bad thing as long as the respect and appreciation is there

The problem has come though that certain people (marxists) who have an agenda of destroying capitalist society through covert means want to breakdown the nuclear family as they perceived this to be the basic building block of capitalist society (they want children to be raised by the state!). To achieve this they are trying to create antagonism between men and women and the marxist feminists are stoking the fires

Some people say that there are feminist extremists who take things too far but they fail to realise that it is happening through design!

The aim is to make women disrespect and compete with men and i feel that part of how they are doing that is by encouraging women to be like men by telling women that they are exactly the same as men; the scientific evidence says otherwise so we are seeing one gender going off the rails and it is throwing off the entire dynamic

Men too are coming under attack from these forces who are trying to feminise men and we are seeing the 'metrosexual' appear in greater numbers and men wearing makeup and so on; there is also gender bending chemicals (PCB's) being put into babies plastic bottles and into the water supply through various plastics and these chemicals are lowering male sperm counts and literally hormonally changing the male of the species

Anyway, we are dfferent and we should celebrate that...diversity is strength and variety is the spice of life.

This will be a controversial post...and some of it may seem like its going on a bizarre tangent...but bear with me if you will...or not...

Diversity is strength and variety is the spice of life! I couldn't agree with this more. Differences between all of us should be celebrated, while the core knowledge of our underlying Oneness remains constant.

I understand what you are saying about men and women being different. Clearly we are, but to what extent is complicated. Obviously men and women have different roles in the process of reproduction. Essentially, a woman has the physical capacity to be a mother, and a man has the physical capacity to be a father. But two women together, and two men together can also successfully raise a happy and balanced child together, doing the 'mothering' and the 'fathering.

Did you know that men technically have milk ducts and can breastfeed in some circumstances?
Some animals can change their sex to what is appropriate given the environmental conditions.
Animals and humans are surprising adaptable and fluid in what we can do with our bodies. According my anatomy and physiology professor (who disagrees with my beliefs lol) humans even have the dormant and unused capacity that would allow us to change colour, similar to a chameleon!

I understand that science says men and women have different psychological circuits, hormone concentrations and brain chemistry. To a certain extent, this is because of inherent nature.
But I believe that cultural conditioning and personal beliefs have much more to do with this than most people realise. Some people, including many in the mainstream scientific community believe that our body chemistry and make up, concentrations of hormones, neurotransmitters and organic substances are what dictate they way we perceive, think, experience, look and act. I believe it happens in the reverse, and has a constant feedback loop. What we believe, accept, think, and value shapes our eyes, our perception. This state of perception is reflected in the body, because they body is intimately connected with perception. We use our bodies to perceive, understand, respond and engage. The body responds perfectly and automatically....magically...to mirror our beliefs. The body is the soul made flesh, crouched in creaturehood...as Seth would say.

So when scientists do tests on men and womens chemistry the results will reflect these differences.
But research has also found that girls that play more 'boys games' growing up have better visio-spatial ability than girls that dont.
Boys enculturalised in more emotionaly open cultures are better at processing emotions and communicating than men that arent.
And there are always 'outliers' in tests that simply do not fit into the 'average' cultural mould.

Our bodies and the world around us are a physical manifestation of the inner consciousness. Consciousness effects form. Form effects consciousness, but the real change occurs on the level of inner consciousness.

In the 'merkabah' thread dmt..divine magical trip...dubbed the spirit molecule... has been discussed. Dmt is present in life forms and can be extracted through a process of acidification and alkalising, and then ingested or smoked aka wattle or grass crystals. But we already have dmt in our bodies, and we produce/activate higher concentrations of dmt when we meditate and go into trance...basically modify our level of consciousness. Drugs like cannabis, ecstasy, speed, cocaine, magic mushrooms are similar in that they activate certain states that are, in certain terms, natural, and can be accessed through other means of physical reality. Lsd is a different kettle of fish, in that it is not naturally present in the body, and is extremely powerful, and essentially foreign to the body. While acid can be one amazingly brilliant trip, it can also be very dangerous and destructive-unravelling cellular consciousness and ego if it is used incorrectly or abused.

Substances produced by the sickness industry such as SSRIs can temporarily and unnaturally alter the bodies chemical balance. When we feel depressed and out of balance, this is physically reflected in the bodies physical chemical balance. We feel pain and discomfort so we can recognise and address the problems we experience. All healing takes place on the inner level, of consciousness. While it is possible to medicate someone to suppress or reverse their symptoms, this does not actually heal the issue, but simply hides it, and can make it worse because the person feels even more disconnected from the inner truth and reality of their being. The body will often react against being medicated, as it recognises that its pain warning system has been violated, and its natural innate healing processes has been not only blocked, but rejected. Some doctors think that people get sick because their bodies are out of whack, but the bodies are not out whack, the body is in perfect sync with the person's conscious perception, beliefs, and experience. The body is behaving exactly as it should, and the real issue is that the person's perception, beliefs and experiences are not 'right' for that individual and out of balance...creating a dis-ease state in the body.

People are attracted to certain types of food because of their perceptions and beliefs. No food is good or bad. Junk food doesnt make people sick and fat. But their reasons for consuming it does. The person's low energy vibration will attract sustenance derived from similar low vibration matter. They eat junk food because of their beliefs about their inner state and physical body. People with healthy inner states are attracted to high vibration, high nutrient food. We are what we eat, literally. The more you love your body, the more you want to take good care of it. Sometimes people go on diets because they hate themselves, rather than because they love themselves, and this is manifested physically. Some people obsess over their food, counting and analysing, worrying and measuring...and this leads them to have a painful relationship with food which is then manifested physically in the body. Other people believe they are healthy and invincible, and so it doesnt matter what they eat, they are still healthy

Our conscious experience on Earth is layered, filtered, and enriched with many different archetypes, such as man, woman, mother, father, all the cards in the Tarot deck, and so many more culturally recognised schematic 'shapes'.
Jung, Myer Briggs, Socionics, and many others have recognised 16 basic processing archetypes. I dont think any of these sources have nailed it, some far from it lol, but I believe that there are 16 basic processing archetypes because I have seem them. Different types have different 'shape' consciousness, and this is reflected in the physical manifestation.

All these different chosen archetypes manifest in a myriad fluid ways on Earth. No two people are exactly alike, all are unique, fascinating, innately creative and glorious. The women archetype can be experienced in an infinite number of ways, even by the same person. It can even be experienced by a man! The infj archetype can be manifested in billions of ways, as it is shaped and filtered and changed by personal choice, culture, environment, desires, and intention. And it is exciting to see these variations...to see how another person chooses to manifest a shared archetype...its so fascinating and brilliant!

There is a lot of fluidity to our experience here. We dont necessarily physically incarnate here on Earth to experience fluidity, but more to live in here in defined and structured terms. Hence the relevance and importance of archetypes. We make up rules and conditions to serve our purpose. In dreams and deep states of consciousness, we can go anywhere, be anything, simply Be, I AM...there is not time, no space., just I AM. ..everything is possible. On Earth, we have made certain rules to help ground us to this game we play here. Just like when we play a ball game, we normally agree to certain rules and conditions before we play, so we can be on the same page and get what we want out of it. We make video games more exciting by creating new settings, scenarios, scenes, themes, character development...a part of the pleasure is derived because of the structured nature of the experience. We like to see how much we can do within certain parameters, how far we can bend and reach and transform and transcend illusions.

But many of the rules are not 'real', and many of the rules change all the time. There are certain Universal Laws that cannot possibly be violated, but much of everything else is fair game and limited to only what you are prepared to accept, believe, desire, and imagine.

So why not relax and have fun with the possibilities? Be open and accepting of all emotions as they come and go, experience things and let them come and go accordingly to our purpose?

On the weekend I went to see a burlesque show. There were women and men there of all ages, shapes, sizes, backgrounds, and purposes. There were people doing all kinds of acts- some that were traditional, funny, weird, disturbing, sexy, clever etc. There were men and women performing together, and performing alone. There were women dressed as men, and men dressed as women, and men and women dressed as animals, and in once case- hello kitty...lol! I really enjoy going to these events, there is something fresh and thrilling watching a bunch of people, mostly amateurs and some professional, getting up and giving something a go. There is a relaxed attitude towards body shape, gender, sex, and cultural roles. Just people doing things to entertain themselves and other people....just having an experience and exploring some of the creative potential of their personality and humanity.

There are so many ways that creativity can be manifested in life, why not appreciate and enjoy the expression?

At different times in this Earth's story, the roles of men and women have been reversed, and we have had all kinds of different cultural approaches to community and family and sex.

Last year I engaged in the process of the alchemical marriage. I found the God and the Goddess...The Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine, and integrated them Lovingly within. Basically, I experienced that these two forces were intimately and beautifully symbiotically One. The Divine Masculine and The Divine Feminine or whatever anyone else wants to call them, is present in each and everyone of us, and is reflected in all of nature and earthly creation. Everywhere in nature, the spirit of these energies can be seen...the process and drive of creativity....seeding, pregnancy, birth, and life..forces coming together and moving apart....dancing....the forces of aggression and passivity, each within the other, each contributing to the greater Gestalt Whole.

I did Mother and Father healing, and released past issues I had with my parents, and with my concept of these archetypes. The Mother and The Father archetypes are representative of the God and Goddess. As we heal our issues with our Mother and Father, we heal our attitude towards the Divine Source of creation that allows us to manifest here physically on Earth.

After that process, I felt...whole...and I trusted Life, the Divinity within, the integrity of my being, and the Earth. It became much easier to manifest my desires rather than my fears, because my intentions had a new force and clarity.

I just wanted to clarify here...i dont believe that all people have to experience motherhood or fatherhood to be happy, or live a full and rich life. Personally, I think that it might be easier if less people bred. When I was younger, I used to think many people were 'breeders', and I most assuredly was not. I had more exciting and wonderful things to do, and I wanted to remain independent and free, and I never thought I would be a good mum. Obviously that changed when I became a mother, and I experienced how truly rich and rewarding it was. But there are many ways to express our creativity and being on this planet, and parenthood many not be one of them for many people. It doesn't make any woman or man less or any more than others.

I understand that different people on this planet have different agendas and intentions that they try to manifest.
I do understand that there are groups of people that are manifesting the 'fuck wit' archetype and trying to play nasty power games and control populations. I understand that they have a nasty vision for the world, and that they use manipulation to achieve their goals.
I love them anyway, and it doesn't matter what they do. Regardless of what perception prison they are in, or what fear based vibration are caught up in, they are our brothers and sisters, they are us, and they carry the Light of Source within.
People have free will, if they choose to accept it. If we want to change the direction of the world, we have to change our own direction. Create more of what you want, think and focus on the things that you want. Why focus on a vision that we would rather not manifest? Focus instead on the vision of what we want to manifest. People are enculturalised by 'those' fear based web because they are caught up in an inner state of fear. Pointing out more demons in their closet isn't going to help people that are frightened. Shining a torch in their closet to show them there's nothing to be frightened of will help them. Empowering people by helping them recognise their inherent self worth, treating them with kindness, empathy, compassion, as the powerful and beautiful child of God that they are...these things help. We need more Love, Love is the only answer.


What sort of world do you want to live in? What is your vision of utopia? What kind of community do you think would work well? What kind of family structure do you think would be good? How do you think things like family responsibilities could be distributed?

Sorry for these really longs posts, I'll stop here.
 
Gender and Personality: Differences in Date Initiation Preferences- Eric Shumaker
EricShumaker'sThesis-1-editedPDFTitle: EricShumaker'sThesis-1-editedPDF
File: EricShumakersThesis-1-editedPDF.pdf
Size: 197 kB
Palms sweaty, heart racing, body trembling, and butterflies in your stomach. What does this describe? Think back to the first time you asked out someone you liked. These uncomfortable symptoms may be reminiscent of your first experience with attempting to initiate a date. How could gender and personality factors play a role in the way heterosexual humans initiate dating behaviors with the opposite sex? What sort of unique interpersonal communication behaviors do people utilize in initiating a date?

One of the top concerns of college students has always been interactions with the opposite sex and dating (Martinson & Zerface, 1990). A survey of college students by McEwan (1983), pressing personal concerns, indicated that 16% view the area of dating as the chief concern in their life over things such as grades and finances. Although this is not a large percentage, it is important to research interpersonal dating and find effective solutions for those struggling with dating-related anxiety. As sex roles and culture continually change, Muehlenhard and McFall (1981) proposed that men and women are often left confused on how to initiate and arrange first dates. Research in this area has the potential to assist social skills trainers, dating coaches, and counselors with how to give effective solutions to those clients struggling in this area of their lives. This research expansion will aid those that lack social skills known to assist in dating to help them better understand how they should approach someone they are attracted to.

Past Research

Clark, Shaver, and Abrahams (1999) surveyed 301 undergrads on their strategies for date initiation. The most commonly reported were: talking in person (and over the phone), touching the partner, and asking directly. On the other hand, joking, game playing, and dressing up were the least frequently used. The survey also asked students to reveal their most common goals for initiating the date and the large majority reported they were seeking love and intimacy – and most commonly used direct strategies to reach that goal. However, a small portion of the sample (1/5) sought solely sexual intimacy and used indirect or manipulative strategies to reach that goal. When looking at specific gender differences in date-initiation strategies, men were most likely to initiate a relationship using direct tactics and more confident and motivated to do so. Both sexes described men as taking a very active role in the date-initiation. Like so, not surprisingly, women reported taking a less direct approach to relationship initiation than did men. Women were less direct, less motivated, and less likely to initiate a relationship with a particular available partner than were men. They also reported being more concerned about the risk of an unsuccessful initiation attempt.

Although men still tend to initiate dates more than women, date initiation by women is still fairly common. In a study of college-aged female date initiators by Mongeau, Hale, Johnson, and Hillis (1993) it was found that 90% of men had been asked out on a date by a woman and a shocking 83% of those for a first date. Most men reported accepting these dates initiated by women. The men also reported the woman’s assertiveness as a positive thing. In Mongeau & Carey’s (1996) follow-up study, they found what sort of personality characteristics men perceive in women who initiate dates. They most frequently saw woman-initiators as liberal, open, active, and extroverted. An odd finding, however, was that those men saw the initiating women as less physically attractive than their non-initiating counterparts. Additionally, men had higher sexual expectations on female-initiated dates; however it was found that these dates actually had less intimacy and sexual activity. The authors hypothesized that this unrealistic inflation of sexual expectancy was because the women-initiators were perceived as more open, liberal, and extroverted.

Men’s reactions to date initiation approaches by women has also been studied. Muehlenhard and McFall (1981) identified the “initiation-preference factor” examining whether males preferred females to ask them on a date directly, hint indirectly at it, or wait to be asked.

They also developed the construct of the “liking factor”– meaning males should subjectively categorize the hypothetical females in the experiment as one that they wanted to date, liked as a person, held an indifferent view towards, or simply disliked. Results of Muehlenhard and McFall (1981), as well as Muehlenhard and Miller’s (1988) experiment, indicate that the level of like or dislike towards a prospective mate is very influential on what dating initiation method they prefer. If a man liked and had an interest in dating a woman, either asking or hinting was found to be effective. If he felt indifferent and/or liked her as a person, asking seemed to be more effective than hinting. For women he disliked, no initiation method was useful. The authors also found that the more a man liked a woman, the more pleased he would be in the long run that she had asked or hinted at him and the less pleased he would be if she waited. If the man does not indicate any liking or attraction towards the woman, then chances of getting a date with him are slim no matter the initiation method. Therefore, the authors concluded that the old stereotype that men prefer women that play “hard-to-get” or passively wait for them to take action was discredited. Overall, if a woman takes the initiative in initiating a date, the man will accept if he likes her and will not accept if he does not like her, independent of whether he generally prefers women to ask or hint. Thus, if she wants to date him and is willing to face rejection, she has virtually nothing to lose by taking the initiative.

One area of date initiation preferences that has not been researched is personality factors. Costa and McCrae (1992) described extroversion as possessing the qualities of “gregariousness, warmth, assertiveness, activity, intimacy, excitement seeking, and positive affect”. Eysenck’s (1981) theory of extroversion suggests that extroverts are chronically under-aroused (in comparison with introverts). Because of this, they seek the stimulation and pleasure that social situations bring. Recent studies also confirm the belief that positive affect and higher levels of self-esteem are associated with extroversion (Swickert, Hittner, Kitos, & Cox-Fuenzalida, 2004). On the contrary, introverts have a tendency to initiate less and generally withdraw from social situations, tend to be more shy and reserved, and are more inwardly-focused (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Date initiation is, in and of itself, an assertive communicative act designed to provide a context where the couple can get to know each other better and increase the intimacy of their relationship. So although introverts may have a strong desire to date, I predict their fear of social situations may prevent them from meetings and interacting with potential dating partners.

Theoretical Framework

Much previous research on date initiation has lacked a strong theoretical framework to explain the phenomenon. I seek to apply several human communication theories that may explain how and why people initiate dates the way they do. First, Berger (1975) developed the uncertainty reduction theory which states that the driving force in initial encounters is obtaining information about the other person to get to know him/her better and ultimately to reduce uncertainty. We are uncomfortable with uncertainty and will therefore be motivated to gain information so as to better predict and explain our partner’s behavior. Berger argued that we have to get to know a person better if we want to “reduce uncertainty, increase predictability, and create order in our world.” As others tell us about themselves, we feel more confident in our ability to predict how they think and act and as a result we feel more comfortable in the interaction. People can reduce uncertainty using a number of different strategies. One is the interactive strategy in which we ask questions directly in face-to-face communication. This method offers the most direct way of acquiring information but also furnish the most face threat. It could violate social norms, appear pushy, or offend the target person within conversation.

Another theory, derived from Uncertainty Reduction Theory, is Predicted Outcome Value Theory which also focuses on initial interaction. Sunnarank (1986) said that people are not driven by a need to reduce uncertainty in all cases. Instead, whether we seek more information depends on whether outcome values are positive or negative. “Outcome values” relate to our predictions about how rewarding or unrewarding future interactions with a particular person would be. When outcome values are positive we are motivated to seek information and when they are negative we will decrease communication and stop seeking information.

Deborah Tannen claims, in her best-selling book You Just Don’t Understand, that men’s verbal communication is often more direct or overt than women’s. That is, men are more willing and more likely to initiate relationships than women, often by verbally requesting dates.

Psychological masculinity and femininity, usually viewed as results of sex-role socialization, have been shown to be more powerful predictors than biological sex of the use of direct and indirect communication acts.

The Current Study

This study seeks to further test previous findings in order to understand which dating initiation strategies men and women, as well as extroverts and introverts, prefer to use or have used on them. Although evidence suggests more males are developing an increased positive stance towards women initiating and paying for dates (Allgeier, 1981), prior research has focused exclusively on researching men’s dating initiation preferences as information for single women to use. This study will clarify the already published literature on men’s initiation preferences and add new constructs of women’s preferences, as well as introvert and extrovert preferences. The concepts and theories utilized in this unique communication phenomenon shall draw from the current scholarly research in Interpersonal Communication, Relational Communication, and Gender Communication. Interpersonal Communication scholars study the dynamics of how people interact face-to-face. Relational Communication also serves as a good source of research on how and why we form relationships with others. The study of these particular acts of human communication will better help us understand how dating initiation between individuals occurs. Many of the feminist perspectives taught in Gender Communication will also be taken into consideration; it is important to note the differences in how women and men communicate with each other, as well as how masculinity and femininity in society may affect the formation of relationships.

In the context of this experiment, sex shall refer to one’s biological make-up of male or female. Levels of extroversion will be defined as one’s outgoingness and enjoyment of social situations. Finally, preference of “dating initiation tactic” shall be gauged using Muehlenhard and Miller’s (1988) Dating-Initiation Questionnaire, including six actions from three categories: a) ask directly, b) hint indirectly, and c) take no action and wait. The six actions are: 1) asking him/her to a party, 2) asking him/her to have lunch, 3) asking him/her to a concert, 4) hinting there will be a movie on campus to see, 5) hinting that he/she has no plans for the weekend, and 6) waiting for him/her to ask.

Hypothesis

Three major questions and hypotheses shall be examined in this research: First, I predict that Muehlenhard and McFall’s (1981) findings that men like to be asked on a date directly or indirectly will still hold true with today’s student population (Hypothesis 1). Secondly, I predict

that since women have previously reported using indirect means of date initiation they will prefer indirect tactics most (Hypothesis 2). Women may see more negative outcomes resulting from initiating a date directly and might be less motivated to reduce uncertainty in the situation. From previous data by Buss & Plomin (1984) it can be inferred that introverts may place more importance on their dating-initiation outcome, be less likely to take a chance, and may see more realistic chances of negative consequences arising. Thus, they may be more inclined to use and prefer indirect means of approaching a potential partner to “play it safe”. On the other hand, extroverts with an outgoing and self-confident nature might be less inclined to see negative consequences resulting and see taking a risky chance as more positive and beneficial. So finally, I predict that extroverts are more likely to be assertive and be direct in their initiation approaches than extroverts (Hypothesis 3).

Method

This research utilized a questionnaire self-completed by each participant. The survey first requested demographic information: age, gender, year in school, and ethnicity (see Appendix A). The survey included a twenty item extroversion test from the Psychologist World’s website to assess whether participants possessed an extroverted or introverted personality type (also see Appendix A). Sample items from the survey included: “I am skilled at handling social situations” – indicating an extroverted attitude, and “I avoid contact with others” – indicating an introverted attitude. Participants ranked each statement on a 5 point Likert scale (ranging from 1 indicating a very inaccurate self-description to 5 indicating a very accurate self-description).

In the final section of the survey, participants indicated what type of dating-initiation preference they favored with a hypothetical person of the opposite sex that they liked and wanted to date, as well as which type of initiation they preferred to have used on them by an opposite sex person asking them out on a date. Participants selected, for each hypothetical scenario respectively, whether they preferred the following dating initiation scenarios: 1) You/they ask directly, 2) You/they hint indirectly about a date, and 3) You/they take no action and wait. Participants also indicated whether they thought a female initiating a date was socially acceptable, levels of nervousness/uncertainty in initiating dates, and past experience and success in dating initiation.

Participants completed the survey in two communication studies classes on the campus of Kansas State University. Sixteen males and twenty-two females completed the survey and were debriefed and thanked (see Appendix B). The average age of participants was 20.5 and the majority (88%) was Caucasian. Forty-six percent of participants were currently in a dating relationship and 47% reported having initiated a date previously.

Results

This experiment consisted of a 2 (Sex – between) X 2 (Extroversion – between) between-subjects factorial design that was used to assess participant’s dating initiation preferences for both how participants prefer to be asked on a date and how they prefer to ask a prospective partner themselves. Levels of extroversion were established by a median split between the high and low levels of extroversion scores obtained.

The first hypothesis indicated that when men were being asked by a prospective dating partner on a date, they would prefer direct or indirect methods of being asked over having the partner wait for them to take the initiative. A Chi-Squared analysis of the survey data revealed a significant difference in observed and expected frequency in how males prefer to be asked by a prospective partner, x2 (1, N = 14) = 14, p < .001, confirming previous research findings that men prefer a prospective dating partner to use direct or indirect approaches rather than wait for the

woman to take action. Refer to Table 1 for the observed versus expected frequencies and the residual of the data set. Thus, hypothesis one was supported.

The second hypothesis predicted that when females ask a prospective male on a date, they would prefer to use indirect means to express their interest or simply wait for them to take action. These two initiation types were predicted by hypothesis two as preferred methods for females, rather than a direct approach. A Chi-Squared analysis showed a significant difference in observed and expected frequency in how females preferred to initiate a date, x2 (1, N = 22) = 16.2, p < .001, indicating support for hypothesis two. Refer to Table 2 for the observed versus expected frequencies and the residual of the data set.

In the final hypothesis it was predicted that extroverts would prefer to use direct means of initiating a date with a prospective partner more than introverts. It was found that extroverts (M = 2.65, SD = .49) did indeed prefer to use direct means more than introverts (M = 2.13, SD =.81). The difference between these two personality types was tested using an independent group t-test which was shown to be significant, t (36) = -2.26, p = .031. Refer to Figure 1 for a graphical display of means between introverts and extroverts. The results of this t-test indicate the final hypothesis was supported.

Another noteworthy, significant finding was that 29 of the 36 participants (83%) thought that female date initiation is socially acceptable. However, among both classes, females felt more uncertain about initiating a date t (36) = 3.66, p = .036. There were a number of other findings where compared means varied but not to a significant level (p was not less than .05). Introverts felt more nervous and uncertain when initiating dates, had fewer initiation experiences, and had been single longer. Men had a higher success rate when analyzing the number of successful initiation attempts (72% vs. 61%). In the Public Speaking class, with each respondent less than 20 years old, individuals reported being single longer and more uncertain in initiating a date.

Discussion

The findings of this experiment supported all three predicted hypotheses. Hypothesis one that suggested that when a man has an interest in a female with whom he would like to date, he would prefer if she used direct or indirect means of asking him which supports Muehlenhard and McFall’s (1981) previous findings. Novel to this study was hypothesis two, predicting that when a woman would like to ask a prospective male on a date, she would prefer to utilize indirect means of asking or simply wait for him to take action. Hypothesis two predicted that females would not like to be direct in their approaches, which the data supported. Perhaps from sex-role socialization, as discussed by Deborah Tannen, women have a nature to take a secondary or background role when it comes to dating and rely on men to do the approaching and other relationship related tasks. Also, we could infer from Predicted Outcome Value Theory that women may see that by subtly hinting interest to a potential male dating partner, or waiting for him to take action, results in the most possible positive gain for her.

Finally, the third hypothesis subject to examination in this study looked at the personality factor of extroversion and how this trait affected participants dating initiation preferences. It was found that extroverted participants preferred to use more direct approaches of asking for dates more often than introverts. Eysenck’s (1981) theory of extroversion suggests that extroverts are very often under-aroused and seek the stimulation that social situations bring. In addition, the quality of extroversion was described Costa and McCrae (1992) as being assertive, outgoing, and excitement seeking. Introverts were described by Buss and Plomin (1984) as those people that withdraw from and initiate less social situations. Thus, we can deduct from previous research and these findings that extroverts will want to reduce their uncertainty more and will likely be more inclined to see assertive social behavior (such as asking someone directly on a date) as potentially more positive and rewarding than introverts might.

As with any research, there are several limitations pertaining to this study that must be addressed. First, there was a small sample size consisting only of undergraduate students. It may be hard to generalize the results to other populations. Secondly, responses were based on “hypothetical scenarios”. How one might initiate a date in real-life scenarios may be different. Other major limitations of this study include the validity of the survey instruments and the statistics used for data analysis. The survey participants completed consisted of only “Yes” or “No” options for each of the three dating initiation preference options given (Direct, Indirect, or Wait). A better statistical analysis and interpretation could have been preformed if participants only selected one approach that they prefer to use and of which they would prefer a prospective partner use when asking them. The survey also could have been set up so that participants ranked each possible initiation option on a Likert scale, making the dependent variable continuous and easier to analyze statistically. Additionally, the survey could have included more or different extroversion and introversion questions to better determine exactly which personality type the participant fell into. Since a 50% median split had to be used to divide the two personality types because of low introversion personality-type numbers, the data represented more “moderately extroverted” individuals versus “moderately introverted” individuals. Finally, the survey instrument could have better defined exactly what a direct, indirect, or waiting approach meant, including more specific examples of each.

The implications of these research findings are vast. Previous research by Muehlenhard

and McFall (1981) and Muehlenhard and Miller (1988) only focused on male’s dating initiation preferences by females. This prior research was conducted in order to aid females that were struggling to get or initiate dates with men. This research expanded upon those findings and found significant effects regarding how women actually prefer to initiate dates and whether extroverts or introverts prefer direct means of dating initiation. Several groups of people in the real world can benefit from these research findings. Counselors, therapists, and dating coaches can use this data in giving their clients struggling to approach others in their lives for a date or relationship. The general population reading this can benefit from the findings as well. Readers may want to conduct an extroversion test themselves to see where their personality lies to determine how they should interact and approach those of both the same and opposite personality types. Those that are more introverted in nature or lack social skills may benefit from these research findings to help them gauge how to interact with others in their lives both romantically and socially.

Future research could also address several other aspects of this subject. Sex and personality differences have the potential to be examined in further depth. Are the differences in men and women’s preferences due to sex-role socialization or actual biological differences? Researchers could also examine the nonverbal communication aspects of a date request. Finally, future research should address howimportant dating initiation approaches actually are to individuals. Could future research showthat once two people are happily on a date, the importance of who initiated the date becomes null?

Appendix A
Please fill out the following information about yourself:
Age: _____
Gender: Male Female
Ethnicity: Caucasian African-American Latino Asian Pacific Islander Other:_______
Year in School: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 5th year/other
Please rank the following characteristics about yourself on the following scale:

1 = Very Inaccurate, 2 = Moderately Inaccurate, 3 = Neither Inaccurate or Accurate, 4 = Moderately Accurate, 5 = Very Accurate

I avoid contact with others.

1 2 3 4 5
I make friends easily.
1 2 3 4 5
I cheer people up.
1 2 3 4 5
I know how to captivate people.
1 2 3 4 5
I don’t talk a lot.
1 2 3 4 5
I would describe my experiences as somewhat dull.

1 2 3 4 5

I talk to a lot of different people at parties.

1 2 3 4 5

I am skilled in handling social situations.

1 2 3 4 5
I am hard to get to know.
1 2 3 4 5
I don’t mind being the center of attention.

1 2 3 4 5
I retreat from others.
1 2 3 4 5
I don’t like to draw attention to myself.

1 2 3 4 5
I keep in the background.
1 2 3 4 5
I feel comfortable around people.
1 2 3 4 5
I have little to say.
1 2 3 4 5
I am the life of the party.
1 2 3 4 5
I find it difficult to approach others.

1 2 3 4 5
I warm up quickly to others.
1 2 3 4 5
I keep others at a distance.
1 2 3 4 5
I start conversations.
1 2 3 4 5
Imagine you were to ask someone you like of the opposite sex on a date. Would you prefer to: (circle one)

1) Ask them directly (for example: ask them to a party, lunch, concert, etc.)

YES NO

2) Hint indirectly at them (for example: hint that there is a movie on campus to see, mention you have no plans for the weekend, etc.)

YES NO

3) Take no action and wait for them to possibly ask.

YES NO

Imagine someone that you like of the opposite sex that you want to date but has not yet asked you out. Which method of asking would you prefer they: (circle one)

1) Ask you directly (for example: ask you to a party, lunch, concert, etc.)

YES NO

2) Hint indirectly at you (for example: hint that there is a movie on campus to see, mention they have no plans for the weekend, etc.)

YES NO

3) Take no action and wait for you to ask.

YES NO

Do you think it is socially acceptable for a woman to ask a man out on a date?

YES NO

Are you currently in a dating relationship or married?

YES NO

Ø If Yes, who originally initiated the first date?

I DID MY PARTNER DID

Ø If No, how long have you been single (in months)?

Consider the most recent time that you went out on a first date with a particular person. In your opinion, what do you think are the top three most important reasons or motivations you had for going out on that date? (Check 3)

______ To have fun

______ To reduce uncertainty/get to know the other person better

______ For sex

______ For companionship (i.e., friendship)

______ For intimacy

______ To escalate the relationship further

______ Other: _____________

Please think back to the last time you actually asked someone out on a date (if applicable):

Ø How nervous did you feel? (1= Not at all, 7= Very nervous)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How uncertain did you feel about how they might react? (1= No uncertainty, 7= Very uncertain)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
In the past year, please approximate how many times have you asked someone out? _______
How many of those were successful in getting a first date? _______
How many of those escalated into a long-term relationship (more than 6 months)? _______

Please describe your best experience with dating initiation. Specifically, how did you or they ask and what happened? Describe any specific interpersonal communication behaviors (verbal or nonverbal) that occurred.

Did you later develop a long-term relationship (more than 6 months) with him/her?

Please describe your worst experience with dating initiation. What happened?

How did you view that person afterwards? More Negatively, Positively, or the Same?

Appendix B

Debriefing

Thank you for participating in these studies today. Many benefits will come from your participation in these studies.

The purpose of this research project was to determine how men, women, introverts, and extroverts prefer to be asked on a date as well as how they prefer to ask someone else on a date. A limited amount of research has been done on this subject and results from your participation will provide important findings to the scientific community as well as assist college counselors and support groups with those struggling in how to initiate dates with prospective partners.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this research, or are interested in learning more about the finished results, please feel free to contact me (Eric Shumaker, ericshu@ksu.edu) anytime.

Thanks again!

Table 1

Dating Initiation Preferences of Males When Being Asked by a Prospective Dating Partner:

Number Number
Observed Expected Residual
Direct or Indirect Approach 14 7 7
Wait 0 7 -7
Dependent Variable: Preferred approach by a female.

Table 2

Dating Initiation Preferences for Women When Asking a Prospective Dating Partner for a Date:

Number Number
Observed Expected Residual
Indirect Approach or Wait 22 11 9.5
Direct Approach 1 11 -9.5
Dependent Variable: Preferred approach to use when asking.

Figure 1. Mean Differences of Introvert and Extrovert Preferences Toward Using a Direct Initiation Approach On a Prospective Dating Partner:

Approaches Another
Direct
Towards
for
Preference
3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Introverts Extroverts

Personality Type

Works Cited

Allgeier, A. (1981). The influence of androgynous identification on heterosexual relations. Sex Roles, 7, 321-330.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668-678.

Eysenck, H. J. (1981) A model for personality. New York: Springer-Verlag. Martinson, W. D., & Zerface, J. P. (1970). Comparison of individual counseling and a

social program with nondaters. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17(1), 36-40.

McEwan, K. L. (1983). Perhaps it’s time to leave minimal daters alone. The Behavior Therapist, pp. 100-101.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & McFall, R. M. (1981). Dating initiation from a woman’s perspective. Behavior Therapy, 12(5), 682-691.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Miller, E. N. (1988). Traditional and nontraditional men’s responses to women’s dating initiation. Behavior Modification, 12(3), 385-403.

Swickert, R., Hittner, J. B., Kitos, N., & Cox-Fuenzalida, L. (2004). Direct or indirect, that is the question: A re-evaluation of extraversion’s influence on self-esteem.

Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 207-217.

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., Piliavin, J., & Schmidt, L. (1973). “Playing hard to get”: Understanding an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 113-121.

my hunch is that men don't like it and don't consider female initiators as serious relationship candidates
 
I am pretty indifferent to any particular gender having to initiate, but I do have to say that initiating was always one of the most anxiety inducing actions ever, other than public speaking. To initiate is to bear it all. Your infatuations are no longer secret and there is no turning back from letting her know you're interested. All of those expectations of a reciprocated romance can come crashing down in an instance. Like that time in the fourth grade, when I was attracted to a girl in my grade named Holly. I thought she was so beautiful and my heart raced every time I was around her. I decided to call her at home and ask her out. I tried a couple of different numbers in the phone book until I called the correct one and with each number I tried I would dial the number, stop, and hang up before finally following through with it. Oh my god, I was so nervous. I thought everything went well after I talked to her. She sounded sweet and giggly on the phone, but when I approached her at school to ask her if she would go out with me, she turned and walked away from me. She was probably embarrassed and I felt so defeated.

It would always happen the same way with other crushes, I would fall hard for the girl, build up the courage to ask them out and was always rejected in the end. So, I learned to wait to see if the girl I was interested in would show some sign of being interested in me. This took a lot more time, but was more comforting for me in that it felt I was building a relationship with them first and would get to know them better this way. This seemed to work much better for me as a long term and my relationships felt more real and grounded in reality.

I've always liked it when a woman does some initiating, but not in a very dominating way, just in mutual, "I like you too" kind of way.
 
my hunch is that men don't like it and don't consider female initiators as serious relationship candidates

But the same can be said for the opposite. There are a lot of men who initiate with women that don't take things seriously, either.
 
my hunch is that men don't like it and don't consider female initiators as serious relationship candidates

Maybe I'm just oversimplifying it but any guy that would think less of a woman for asking them out is best avoided any way.
I'd have no problem with it (well I'd be embarrassed and start to panic but no more than I would if it was me asking her out). What I would have a problem with is being with someone who expects me to initiate everything. I don't care if I'm the 'hunter' or the 'aggressor' as long as we like each other, we're both comfortable and having a good time and I don't really care who starts that but whoever it is obviously did something right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
But also do you see my point that there might be lots of nice guys out there who are a bit reserved and might be a good find for many women but they won't get the opportunity if the woman doesn't make the move because the guy is reserved and won't push himself forward

what is the point in encouraging a forum filled with introverted women to go against their nature? Are you trying to change them or are you attempting to persuade folks on a larger issue?

The equality of individuals rests not on their individual strengths or weaknesses but in the way they get treated by society. If you want to argue that men and women are already treated equally then do it by pointing out how the various systems treat them equally. If you want to argue that one is privileged over the other than talk directly to those privileges. (i.e. health care spending) but the nature of this argument is counter productive and just a bit insidious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: La Sagna
Then what was your argument for? 'Cause your post came across contradictory to me and dismissive of feminism. Feminism is defined as the equality of male and female. It's about giving equal opportunity to females AND males, despite "gender roles", so they and have equal footing in society... especially in the workforce.

So I'm not really sure what you're trying to say since gender roles is a different avenue of context. What do you mean by "traditional"? 'Because the idea of traditional no longer exists today (at least not in NYC culture). Some men take on the "female" duties of the house when they're married. Some married couples split the duties of the house. Some females take on the typical "female" duties. It's how the family personally operates and what the couple values/agrees to do.

My argument is that modern feminism is not the answer to modern relationships. if it was; then divorce rates would be much lower. Relationships between the sexes would not be so strained and difficult. I do dismiss modern feminism because it is an over hyped push for females to be "equal" when in reality the sexes will never be equal because the sexes were not meant to be equal but complimentary. As a result of modern feminism; females confuse the need for their own independence with the need to compete with the male; which is counterproductive. Competing with the male counterpart is not "female empowerment" but a dire strategy used by society to break families apart and keep the sexes in competition mode so they never learn to work together harmoniously.

Just because the man decided to do the dishes or stay at home does not mean it is "equal". The power dynamics within the relationship will always exist and the man will always have the evolutionary drive to be the head of the household and wear the pants in the relationship. But of course modern feminists are not cool with that; further sending a confusing message with the opposite sex that the ability to do as the males do is considered female and male equality. it's bullshit and misleading to younger generations.


You don't need to be a feminist to see that the relations within the sexes is fucked up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
my hunch is that men don't like it and don't consider female initiators as serious relationship candidates

Women seem to take their time in deciding whether to like a member of the opposite sex for romantic purposes. This is usually a silent process that goes on mainly in the mind. Once they have checked off the yes box, a few things can happen.

1. She will avoid him. Avoiding means not doing stupid things in front of him. She becomes very self conscious and that makes her clumsy. If he is around, she will undoubtedly walk into a wall or sign.
2. She will be mean and sarcastic with him during the day while masterbating to his image at night. The meanness comes from her wanting to protect herself emotionally. She likes him so that means that he now has the ability to hurt her.
3. She will act helpless. She will ask him for assistance with the simplest tasks. Can you lift that box for me? It's sooo heavy. Yes, that's right. Make him feel big, strong and needed. Show him that you need to be taken care of. I personally can't hide my disgust when I see this scenario play out in front of me.
And then there is number 4.
4. The woman has decided that you are worth the risk of a possible rejection and goes out of her way to get to know you. She laughs at your jokes, tells you when your jokes are a fail, asks you to hang out or go for coffee, engages you in intelligent conversation. This is a woman making her move. She knows what she wants and isn't afraid to go after it. She has a mind of her own and she sure as hell can lift that box with her own two strong hands. She doesn't need to pretend to be anything other than who she is.

Yes. I suppose I can see why a #4 woman wouldn't be taken as seriously by a man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir