this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
719 points (80.9% liked)

Comic Strips

12447 readers
3737 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mbgid 64 points 7 months ago (3 children)

While it might feel rough for you, it's worth remembering that a lot of women have faced very real threats of violence for their upfront honesty.

If you're only getting vague signals then maybe that's the sign that she's not fully into you.

[–] [email protected] 89 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

I feel like this is very dismissive and also ignores that lots of relationships do inevitably start with vague signals.

“Yeah, well, women have it worse so your feelings are irrelevant and it’s okay if they ghost you.”

As I said in my original comment, I get it. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a difficult situation for men.

Being dismissive of men’s feelings and not letting them talk about how dating is difficult for them isn’t helping anyone.

[–] mbgid 47 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn't intend to be dismissive and if my response sounded that way then I apologise.

I agree it's difficult to be on the receiving end of vague signals, but my perspective is if there's any annoyance or frustration it should be directed at the violent/angry men who have caused women to feel unsafe.

Helping women feel safer by tackling the violence and misogyny directed at them by men will benefit everyone.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

The main thing for me is to remember it’s not personal. When a stranger treats me as a potential threat, it is not an insult to my character.

Being treated as a threat by someone who knows my character, is an insult to my character.

But when a stranger models me as a stranger, it’s not personal at all. It’s not about me. Not a reflection of who I am.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's also dismissive of the fact that a lot of women give vague signs as their signs of interest. It's really just a damned if you do or don't situation. Either you interpret the vague signals as disinterest and move on, or you read them as a potential go ahead and you're a dick.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Trying to live so that nobody ever sees you as an asshole is a recipe for depression and regret.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

But that's just circular. Girls can't be direct because guys are assholes. Guys can't be direct because they don't want to be assholes. If standards for one must change, guys being ok with being assholes but being direct with their assertions, then so too must the other change standards, i.e. being direct with their signs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn’t say to be okay with being an asshole.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Trying to live so that nobody ever sees you as an asshole is a recipe for depression and regret.

How, else do you interpret that? Assuming that depression and regret are things to be avoided, then saying living so that no one sees you as an asshole = depression would mean that, if you want to avoid depression, you necessarily have to be an asshole. I suppose you can be an asshole without being ok with it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think there's three main reasons for vague signals.

  1. They legitimately don't know how they feel. Maybe they kind of like you but aren't sure. Recommended: do not pursue. Find someone who is enthusiastic about you. Do you really want to spend your time with someone who can't make decisions and doesn't know how they feel? It's exhausting.

  2. They are afraid or uncomfortable, and are trying to avoid upsetting you. Like the comic. Enough men will do just that or worse if they get rejected that being polite can seem safer, even if it makes me man feel like he's getting mixed signals. You know you're not like that, but they don't. Recommended: same as above.

2b. You are talking to someone who can't leave like a retail worker. Stop bothering the person who can't tell you to fuck off.

  1. They aren't thinking about you at all. Like one time they're happy to go bowling with you but the next time they blow you off on biking. What gives?? Mixed signals?? Nah dude she just likes bowling.
[–] candybrie 17 points 7 months ago

There's also a sort of 1b. They're into you but are playing games like "hard to get." Again, do you really want to be with someone playing games with you? It's exhausting.

[–] ReiRose 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Love this. Especially 2b. I hated this about working in a cafe.

I'm only talking to you at all because I'm being paid to do so. I'm only smiling because my job is customer service. I'm being nice because you're a fellow human, not because I want you in any way

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

I’m only smiling because my job is customer service.

That in many cases smiling is mandatory is a revolting part of customer service in the US.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, for men the likely worst case scenario is embarrassment, women can get straight-up beaten or murdered

[–] Fredselfish 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Yet I read other thread were women bitched and men acknowledge that we just miss signs when they interested. Its a no win situation. Man glad met my wife on a dating app and we communicated properly.

But the comic got real point because there was other thread and women dicussed dating and man the crap they deal with makes you wonder they even bother.

[–] venusaur 27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The answer is to flip this psychology/narrative that men have to be the ones to initiate and women are to be demure and play hard to get. Women should be approaching men more and men should be approaching women less.

Also, men need to have more platonic relationships with women and shouldn’t only be interested in, approach and talk to a woman because they want to have sex with them.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Probably best not to be so black and white. It’s probably not a healthy friendship if one of the people in the relationship just want to be friends and the other wants a sexual relationship.

[–] venusaur 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Right. Men should be able to be friends with women without only wanting to have sex with them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We would have to define “wanting to have sex with them”. I would say 95% of young women are sexually attractive to 95% of straight men. If someone is sexually attractive does that mean “you want to have sex with them”.

David Sedaris did a great story about this I can’t remember the name of the episode. But as a sexual male whenever you see a woman one of the first things you think in your head is “would I have sex with her”. Not “will I” or even “will I pursue” but “would I”. Most of the time, the answer is yes.

Being in an actual relationship and learning and navigating friendships is difficult for all humans.

But to say men should stop wanting to have sex with women is ignorant, and not true to reality. If you don’t like it, I guess too bad? It’s not going to change.

This doesn’t mean we should work on being more empathetic in our relationships to try and understand where others are coming from. We can still be respectful of each others boundaries while wanting to have sex with each other.

But my original point is that it is not really a friend relationship if one person has unrequited feelings the other doesn’t share.

[–] venusaur 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Updated my last comment for clarity

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It can be difficult for young men who have never been in a relationship before who also may not have positive male role models etc.

As social beings it’s also important to note that being rejected socially brings out some deep psychological responses in our lower animal brains.

[–] venusaur 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Sure. It’s also difficult for women to trust men for all the reasons that I hope go without saying. Life is hard. You don’t have to continue the cycle.

Won’t be rejected all the time if you’re just a normal dude and don’t go into every interaction with a woman expecting that you’re entitled to their affection.

It’s not hard. Just treat people like people and get to know them beyond appearance. More importantly, prioritize values and validation of yourself that isn’t centered around getting laid and there won’t be so much pressure on whether a woman likes you or not.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

When men see other men who are successful with women, that’s exactly what it looks like. Confidence is attractive to people. When the attraction is mutual, expecting that you’re entitled to affection is exactly the appropriate response.

The conflict happens when one person misses the signs that the attraction is not mutual and keeps pursuing which comes across as creepy etc. and yes women

It’s not so black and white. If it were life would probably be pretty boring.

It’s probably rude to say it but when guys ask girls out, the primary reason is most likely they want to have sex. You can have other activities and traits you enjoy sharing together as well, and there is absolutely more to life than having sex.

Men and women have similar and different complex wants and needs. Life is hard yes. But if we’re going to be offended about male sexuality then I guess we’re going to have to keep pretending that men don’t think about sex as much as they do.

Generic advice often sounds to some guys like… ok I should try to be friends with her and pretend I don’t want to have sex. The guy wants sex and will follow any advice and process to reach that goal. To tell the guy to not want sex is useless advice, because he wants it.

I see your point about having values and not basing your validation and ego around what other people think of you, it’s very important for healthy self esteem. But there’s no simple answer and we all have to navigate our complex personal relationships on the fly as we go, and some lessons are difficult to learn. I don’t have the answers but it’s interesting discussion.

[–] venusaur 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I stopped reading after the first paragraph. Nobody is ever entitled to affection whether somebody is attracted to them or not. Even in a committed relationship. You can expect it, but you’re never entitled to it.

[–] daltotron 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, I dunno, I do think it's sort of stupid idea to, as I see it, give men the advice to just sort of, pretend they like someone, when realistically they just want to have sex. Basically just telling them to, say, be courteous, or whatever, or to "be themselves", when "themselves" is the guy that's courteous, has sex, and then ghosts a chick, or does something worse. I think the advice kind of originates from the idea that sexual relationships will more naturally evolve into normal relationships over time, and if they just have sex, then their relationships will naturally evolve from there. It's a perspective where sex is the end goal, rather than like, third base, and then when they are unable to achieve sex, they turn into incels, and then when they achieve it and it doesn't work out how they want, they turn into cynical red pill grifters. Like, it's a very conventional reasoning for chastity before marriage, right, that you have sex, and that's sort of, the foundation of the relationship. I think that's really kind of stupid and misunderstands what the role of marriage is, but nonetheless, that's the origin of that advice, I think.

I think probably the difference would be that, upper in the comment chain, you respond to a comment about "men should be able to be friends with women without wanting to have sex with them", you respond to that with, "nah it's just gonna happen anyways". Like, the men wanting to have sex. I dunno, I think human behavior, if anything, is successful in it's flexibility, and I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation to think that both sexes should be able to socialize outside of their sex without sex being the primary driving motivation. Especially for men. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation, and I think it's actually a pretty healthy one.

This isn't to say that men shouldn't necessarily experience sexual attraction, right, because that's sort of, harder for most men to exercise some level of self-control over. But I don't think it's a step too far to say that they should try not to show this sexual attraction in their behavior, or use it as a primary motivator in their behavior. I think it's probably more that one leads to the other, and men who exercise this level of self-control over their sexual attraction will probably be more consistently able to control their sexual attraction over time.

I mean, sometimes you'll get a boner in class or whatever, right, which I would consider more just a physiological oddity than originating from sexual attraction, but even that's not common if you're not a teenage boy. Usually, real sexual attraction comes from some level of like, human behaviors which can be changed. A stray or conscious glance at someone, a loop of thoughts, etc. This is sort of, related to normal human self-control, right. It's hard to not think of a pink elephant, if I tell you to think of one, right? But at the same time, it can be done, and you can not think about it. You can just, not really process it consciously, or cut off that thought at the root and think about something else. That's maybe getting more into the weeds a bit, though, and certainly, it's variable, depending on the person.

I also think there's probably a multitude of contexts in which two people can be experiencing sexual attraction and it's not right for them to both enter a relationship, have sex, or, have an expectation of affection. I would say, certainly, I understand the other person's perspective in basically never expecting that.

I think you and this other bloke are talking past each other a bit, it seems like they're talking more about just, men and women being able to have more platonic relationships, which, yeah, that seems healthy and probably like it should happen more, and you're talking more about like, the nuance of human behavior in maybe a less prescriptive way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Interesting…. I think you’re right in that we are probably talking past one another.

We can and hopefully we all do engage in platonic relationships where sex is not an expectation… I hope so dear lord.

It does upset me though in these conversations where some one just says… hey, don’t be a dick, it’s easy…. As if that is useful or helpful advice… and then also the canned and simplified response of sex is never an entitlement or an expectation. It’s not always that black and white. Yes we all have autonomy, and yes all sexual relationships should be consensual.

Human sexuality is a bizzarre thing and a lot of the things that we tell guys to do is the exact opposite of what should be done depending on the exact circumstances. It’s difficult to navigate, because women are not an algorithm where the correct input can be given to achieve the expected results, any more than men are. We are all complex. So one guy can do and say things depending on circumstances that would and do come across as creepy if another guy sees it and tries the same thing.

And in this comic I think it does speak to a lot of women’s personal experience.

Understanding one sides point of view doesn’t have to belittle the other persons experience on the other side either.

I’m glad we didn’t start attacking each other, it’s really interesting to me like I said. Thanks for responding.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yet I read other thread were women bitched and men acknowledge that we just miss signs when they interested. Its a no win situation.

People who can't communicate probably wouldn't make good partners in the first place.

[–] daltotron 2 points 7 months ago

I've seen this before in the thread, and I kind of wonder about it. I don't think that like, an inability to communicate, or, realistically, in inability for communication to take place (which could be due to either person), is necessarily an indication that a relationship is impossible or undesirable. There's more to people that just sort of, their surface level ability to communicate with one another, or show outward signals. Personality compatibility, shared interests, sexual attraction, even. Certainly, I'd say it's pretty important, that people are able to communicate with each other, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, as two people naturally spend time together, they'll probably get better at communication. Especially if they're actually capable of recognizing that they're not effectively communicating. What are two people doing, spending time together constantly, if they're not in some kind of relationship already, you know?

So I dunno, it's one kind of, cause and effect, that's mixed into the pot of many, but I think it's maybe a mistake to prioritize it so highly, before any other considerations.