Ok, so it seems that the previously briefly discussed topic seemed interesting enough to warrant some more thoughts...
As Jeff pointed out in the comments, the traditional idea of men-seek/women-decide might very well be true. Even common sense reasoning and intuition supports it. But where does this actually stem from? Is it inherent in us from day 0 onwards when we're born or is it learned? One might argue that it is present by default as similar behavior can be witnessed in some wild animals, apparently. Not that I'm that much a specialist in wild animal behavior, but anyway... I would, however, be careful in attributing the traditional model only to behavior that has been hard coded into humans. The behavior is also very much supported by social norms and customs. The man is supposed to ask the woman out on a date, the man is supposed to pay for the date, demonstrate that he is healthy, wealthy, and so on. But why does it have to be this way? And according to some more liberal women these days, it doesn't have to be and it's ok for the women to make advances, also. So in this respect the tables are evening out and for this we can, I guess, thank the more liberal women.
But even still, take the men-seek/women-choose framework. In the scope of it, the man still has the choice of which woman to pursue. Now, I may be very forward by saying this, but the traits that the women display and have are also important for men when deciding which women to approach. It is seldom, however, a good idea to pick apart and open up the decision frameworks behind the decisions as they typically just provoke hostile thoughts and reactions. But it is good to understand your preference and screening framework for potential mates, especially so if you're looking for a person to actually share a longer part of your life with. And even though it might seem that men in a nightclub setting try to attemp to pick up everytyhing that has two breasts and two legs, I would still feel that many perform many quick screening and decision processes when intuitively deciding on who to approach. In light of this, the situation might resemble an opening for a two-player game where player M is the man and player W is the woman.
- M: Identify other player W from the group of women in a given space. Requires some sort of selection process regarding who to approach.
- M: Approach player W with opening.
- W: Evaluate player M and determine whether or not to begin game. Requires some sort of evaluation process regarding whether to accept opening.
- W: If threshold score isn't reached, ignore player M. Wait for process to begin again from step 1. with a different player M.
- W: Otherwise, continue.
- ... players M and W engage in building mutual rapport, this might include opportunistic behavior by either player or both players...
So in light of this, both players are in fact performing a selection process. Granted, W in this case has the option of shooting M down by deciding not to enter the game. This result is often very visible and humiliating for M. But on the other hand, if W makes the initial approach, M also has the possibility of performing a visible act of turning W down.
But another dimension can be added by possibly looking at a similar situation which happens online. This is a wonderful application for all the useless technology that has been developed: e-dating. The nature of the game remains the same, only with the distinction that this time round the players supply each other with discretized and classifiable information on which the selection processes are based on. The game differs in the sense that because of the anonymity and distance afforded by the internet, the role of probabilities is further increased. In the original nightclub scenario there are probabilities also involved, but not to as great an extent. In the nightclub scene you are able to verify information about what the person looks like and can evaluate the general appearance of the person and perform better estimates (depending on your level of intoxication) as to whether or not the other person is lying. Online the selection process is based on more uncertain information. But regardless, the same handshake routine is present there, also.
The difference with e-dating is that from the outset the temporal aspect of the game changes from a very rapid game in the nightclub to a more visibly turn-based game that is played with a slower tempo. Also, the relevance of physical attributes is lessened as the greater uncertainty around the descriptions or pictures provided forces one to focus more on other bits and pieces of information. In this sense the handshake process may put more emphasis on writing skills as well as related attributes. This medium, in a way, is possibly more democratized than the nightclub setting and it is possible that women are more active in initiating contact through this media, further diluting the positions of the men-seek/women-choose framework.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even though women still often are afforded with the visible veto possibility, men are also provided with the option of deciding not to engage unattractive women. Feel free to comment, as I'm certain that this post is also very flawed and can be shot down with great ease.
3 comments:
First off, glad to be of service in generating content. :-)
As I mentioned, I think the behaviour has some basis in biological hard-wiring, but is societally reinforced. For example, paying for the date is not traditional in several countries (like the Netherlands, which is where "going Dutch" comes from).
I think it is probably based out of the reproductive cycle. Women are capable of conception only in a certain period of their cycle, and men are always ready in that respect. In a relationship it is typically the woman who controls access to sex, which is a different scale form of man-seeks/woman-decides. If I give you the words "Not tonight, honey, I have a headache", I bet you imagined it was a woman saying that. :-)
Back to the nightclub: Of course M has his choice of whom to seek, but as the seeker he has less information about the decider than W has about him. Both have information about the attractiveness of the other, but W already learned a lot about M's personality when he engaged her in the conversation. Also, as the decider, W is likely to have several viable options looking at her tonight, and the fact that she has rejected several seekers does not really harm her chances, because she appears more desirable. Meanwhile, if M is spotted moving from W to W, his chances are decreasing by the minute, because he appears more desperate.
I think one of the reasons why men are sometimes accused of attempting to pick up any woman with a pulse in a nightclub is the seek/decide ratio being unfavourable for the seeker. Much like applying for a job, M is going to get numerous rejections, no matter how good of a candidate he is (until you reach legendary status, but then the tables turn - they come to you!).
I've never done e-dating, but from what I have read, the situation for e-dating is in fact WORSE than that of the regular men-seek/women-decide architecture of the nightclub. I have read stories about people who create dating site profiles as 20-something attractive women and see extreme numbers of incoming messages/mails. Why? This takes away the risk of public humiliation that you see in the nightclub setting, and also makes it very easy to send N applications at once, where nobody can see how many you sent. In the real world, moving around like that is somewhat physically implausible, and would make you seem incredibly desperate and therefore incredibly undesirable.
I don't know what the details are on what info is available pre-first-message, but that will vary site to site. Still, there's likely less information available to the person who sends the first message than there is to the person who chooses whether or not to reply to it.
Of course, it can be the woman who seeks and the man who decides, but that's atypical, and for those scenarios, just switch around the he/she pronouns above. Still, when a woman seeks out a man, it's been my experience that it's relatively rare she gets turned down by him - most guys have had so many rejections that they are thrilled when someone is interested in them.
So even though the seeker has his choice about who to engage, he plays the game at a huge disadvantage just by being the seeker.
Wow. I stand corrected. :D
The underlying issue here, namely getting something you want, is one that is fought out in almost every aspect of life.
Change this situation to a business model. A person has an idea, and needs to get it of its feet. They can approach investors to help, or they can go at it themselves.
The ratio of success to failure i would wager would be very very similar to the ratio in the dating world.
It all boils down to the person with the idea, and their own individual method for getting things done. Either approach and let someone else decide, or make attempt to make the situation work for you on your own.
Some "Dating Advisors" insist that the methods they profess apply to all aspects of life. To me, a lot are just common sense. You make yourself desirable, then you make yourself almost unatainable, and the party that desires you will work to get you.
Post a Comment