Not knowing how to flirt is the main reason behind “involuntary singlehood”
psychnewsdaily.com
psychnewsdaily.com
>>""reverse causation” might also play a role here. A longer time being single, for example, may lead to worsening flirting skills. It might also cause people to conclude that they have poor flirting skills, which can lead to hopelessness, which in turn can lead to putting in less effort to find a partner. "
Males, are generally clueless clods, when it comes to picking up subtle feminine flirting. So more than likely they aren't rejecting it, they are simply oblivious.
Females, OTOH, think they have a flashing sign over their head, when it reality they are so subtle no one notices. So a suggestion for women, is be more straightforward. Plus, for most women there is about 0 risk of being more overt and escalating outside of the guy overtly rejecting them. Men have to worry about coming on too strong, or again failing to notice subtle signals of disinterest.
Men are still pretty cloddy, and there's a lot more to learn. But in general it's a lot safer to go online than to try to discern whether you're misreading "signals". "Being on Tinder" is about the clearest signal you can get.
Now just don't mess it up. Hoo, boy, do the men mess it up. I swear I've given serious consideration to opening a consultancy in helping men talk to women online. Not that the women are universally all that great, either, but I cannot tell you how many men I've watched talk themselves out of getting laid.
Her: I had a huge crush on you in high school/college and dropped hints all the time.
Me: But you told me you had a boyfriend/were a lesbian/hated my guts.
Reading the room, flirting, are all part of it.
First move is to recognize the problem
I think arranged marriages has some advantages in that it removes the ambiguity. You don’t have to guess if someone is interested in romance or just a friendship. You know from the outset, you are pursuing marriage. In addition, the things that are attractive in that system, such as good habits, stable job, etc are likely more conducive to successful marriage over ability to flirt.
> but the skills to attract a partner in single hood are different from the skills to build a happy marriage.
Does it count when any of the parties are legally/socially stuck in a relationship without recourse?
Flirting can and should be duplicitous, for boosting the mood of others and potentially showing interest. But too many people these days take flirting and humor the wrong way or as a paranoid concern that it represents too much interest, so it's best to gauge the coolness and resilience of the other first. Most (but not all) people under 30 are offended by everything, including flirting, which is why Seinfeld and many other comics have avoided colleges for decades.
"Involuntary singlehood" is multifaceted including not making an effort to socialize, waiting for others to do it for them, distractions, life stresses, catastrophising unlikely concerns, low self-esteem, low confidence, depression, lack of wit, humorlessness, failure to grasp sarcasm, lack of perspective taking, lack of trust, lack of nuanced thinking, lack of manners/etiquette, psychological immodesty, unoriginality, lack of creativity, unreasonableness, inexperience, or unpleasant attitude.
Be handsome
Be attractive
Don't be unattractive
However, that doesn't mean that you must be handsome. There's a lot more to attractiveness than just appearance.
It’s also legitimately dangerous to flirt at work - a place where we might spend enough time with a woman to get past appearances and into personalities - because a single misunderstanding due to poor flirting skills can lose you your job.
Obligatory disclaimer that I’m not trying to downplay how much women can be harassed at work, on the street, in the bar, on messaging apps, etc.
Most people can be attractive to someone somewhere with a mild amount of effort, it’s just that they don’t put in that effort.
I’ll also add, that in the modern world it’s difficult to realize what you need to do to be attractive since social mores aren’t so rigid anymore and thus most people develop their own ideas about how to signal interest and disinterest.
Sexual encounters need not be evenly distributed among attractiveness levels for a species to succeed. One mating pair can, fairly easily, replace in excess of 6-8 non-breeding individuals. More, if you switch from monogamy to polyamory.
In a way, evolution relies upon evenly distributed mating not happening.
You faultily assume mutual interest. One could have perfect emotional intelligence and still end up "incel" if he does not surpass the choosiness "threshold".
>However, that doesn't mean that you must be handsome. There's a lot more to attractiveness than just appearance.
What's the ratio though? 80% conventional physical attractiveness, 20% situational?
> What's the ratio though?
It depends on the woman. Some people care a lot about looks, others don't. Just like men.
Just take a good picture. Something that conveys a sense of personality. Smile. Be doing something interesting.
And then have something interesting to say. In particular, stop talking about women as though they're not going to have you because you're not in the top 1% of attractiveness or income.
My advice is to force yourself to do that which is limiting you. Exposure therapy makes future exposure easier as long as you aren't adjusting maladaptively with ruminative anxiety or panic attacks.
This is of course a generalization, and details matter, but if we're going to err on one side or the other, erring on the side of the person being involuntarily affected vs. the person taking voluntary action is probably the better call, at least until all the details emerge.
And yes, pitchforks tend to come out long before all the details emerge, but that's a bigger problem (that we do need to solve)..
(Disclaimer, I have no idea.)
Although like anything else in life, "be nice, be respectful" are some pretty good rules to overlay on whatever approach you take.
Bonus advice. Ask about their mother.
Which tends to just be another way to restate that happy outgoing/extroverts are going to find it easier, because they are unintentionally sending signals.
Are going to find it easier because they are more attractive (or, attractive to more people).
And so ends civility in 50% of your social interactions.
Call yourself lucky then. It's of course anecdotal but I have seen both extreme ends of the spectrum.
Two, both physically very attractive, friends having ass-grabbing competitions at the club and both taking very attractive women home.
On the other hand a shy guy who was pulling all his confidence together and chatting up a girl at the bar, got shot down big time and from then on had the reputation of being a "creeper".
If you ask women, they will usually tell they want to be approached neither on the street nor the store, nor library nor public transport. They reinforce that idea by by wearing earphones, only staring at their phones, evading eye-contact.
So that leaves bar and clubs, you think? Well. they also do not like to be approached these places because they went to the club/bar for dancing/drinking with their friends.
I think this is an extraordinary case and it's not likely you'll be "cancelled" for flirting. But when anyone in the world can publicly slander you, it's your word against theirs, and the only thing you can really do is report their tweets...
It seems like part of flirting is being able to figure out the other person's response and either stopping the flirting or know that they're enjoying it and keep flirting.
(I'm saying all this like I'm an expert or something but yeah, I could use a 'Flirting For Dummies' book myself :) )
* Among 1228 people in Greece.
"Flirting skills" seems like a superficial skill without real value, the lack of which might condemn you to be single but in no way diminishes your self-perceived value proposition. It's like saying "I surely could, if I only knew that easy trick".
Avoid doing it at work.
ETA: dare to go inside a place you can mobile order from.
You can flirt at other times but you need other people to be clearly interested in that behavior (I mean, that’s true at all times but let’s be real about context). For most people commenting here on HN, I don’t think they know when that time is or maybe the nuances of flirting that are safe.
If you bump into someone at the hotel bar later, that's probably fine. Take "no" for an answer, don't be grabby, etc. all still apply.
And, like all activities, you learn the nuances and signals by trying, and failing.
Except, failing can have disastrous consequences in this age that does not forget (Google, Facebook, et.al.), and does not forgive (zero tolerance policies, harsh CoC penalties, etc).
Avoid flirting places where there's a zero tolerance policy or CoC that forbids it, then. Avoid hitting on people at work (yours, theirs, ours; the cashier at the grocery store almost certainly doesn't want to be propositioned in a customer service context) and conferences.
Bars don't have these. If you flirt and get turned down, it's not going on your permanent record unless you refuse to take "no" for an answer or you're assaulting/harassing.
People can and do take pictures of the 'offenders' at bars, gyms, even at the park, and post about how creepy they were on social media. Even if they aren't flirting, but just look silly or menacing or ugly or whatever.
This might not be a legal permanent record, but it will be there for discovery permanently. Social Media's propensity to do facial recognition on posted pictures will only help with this 'discoverability' of undesirables.
Haven't been on online dating in a while, but a 20% response rate seems astronomical compared to what most guys get.
Even when I did get a response, I was stood up more often than not. Online dating is a meatgrinder for men. If you're not tall and white it's really not worth having an account at all due to the toll it takes on your mental health.
Rule 1: be attractive.