What are the factors to consider when asking someone out via email?

[honestrosewater]

Its obvious you have some serious issues about a potentially abusive relationship.

Is that a joke? If not, I think you should support it. How did you come to that conclusion? It strikes me as an attempt to dismiss what I said without having to come up with something resembling an (non-fallacious) argument.

If you were suggesting that he tell her what to do as a joke, I didn't pick up on that, as I already said

They also don't seem to suggest this be done as a joke or by being cute -- you wouldn't be indirect about a joke.

What did you mean by being indirect? I've joked with people about dominant and submissive roles and the jokes are usually direct. In fact, that's what makes the jokes work.
Evo's example, I imagine something like "So where are you taking me Friday night?" is not what I would consider indirect. Women also are not traditionally in the dominant role, so the context is different; there's much less reason to suspect that she is being serious.

Personally, I don't think it's a good ice-breaker for a man to use on a woman. Similarly, because I am white, live in the US, and am aware of the history, I would not try to ask out a black man by suggesting, jokingly or seriously, that he be my slave. I think they just aren't appropriate to say to a practical stranger.

How can you begin to speak for all women based on only your experiences.

I wasn't and never said I was. Why do you think that? In fact, I just said a few posts earlier

Well, I'm starting to think that I'm not like most women, but for what it's worth...

How many women have you asked out? dated? I speak from experience and have support from other members here.

Congratulations.

 

[honestrosewater]

And yet you proceed to say the same thing again:

Okay, let me be clearer.

You are exaggerating by insisting

I intentionally say things like "I think" and "it seems" to indicate that I am not insisting but presenting my opinions and observations. I was insisting just now.

that in any relationship where one person is the planner/motivator

I did not consider it to be that kind of relationship or role, as I already said

I thought this and the rest of their advice was clearly not about a divsion of labor or taking the initiative but about dominance and submission.

the other is somehow comparable to a dog.

I listed specific ways that I think the typical husband-wife and owner-pet relationships are similar. You didn't address them. I'm not expecting a serious discussion, but if you disagree, why not address them?

Accepting the invitation, "I'm going out and you're coming with me," or, to use Evo's example "So, where are you taking me Friday night?" could constitute a submission if it were delivered in a dictatorial way, and that would be a sad thing. However, you seem to think that's the only way it can be delivered.

I don't know why it seems that way since I have already admitted that it could be said in different ways, but it seems like you didn't read my post, so let me say again: That is not what I think. That is more like a caricature of my opinion. Dictatorial? Seriously? Also, they didn't say to say so directly; they said to sort of say so indirectly.

In fact, I think everyone in this thread who thinks it would work is assuming it would be delivered in a lighthearted, humorous spirit; a kind of surprising cutting through the bull of hemming and hawing.

Well, you are wrong. As I already said, I think it would work on some people and I assumed it would be delivered as they said, in an indirect, yeah-I-just-told-you-what-to-do-don't-pretend-you-didn't-notice-and-like-it kind of way.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it should be an offer they can't refuse.

Great, I don't think anyone is suggesting that either.

There has to be the equivalent of a wink to it.

Even as a joke, the person making the joke is assuming a dominant role for themselves and a submissive role for the other person. Do you disagree? Even if you don't agree that owner-pet is similar, do you agree that parent-child is a dominant-submissive relationship?
What in the original post made you think that it was intended as a joke? I'm looking for actual quotes from the post.

You are clearly fixated on this dominant/submissive dichotomy and can't pick up on the fact no one's talking about such an extreme thing.

I don't see dominant and submissive roles as an extreme thing. They are roles in lots of normal relationships. In fact, I think there is a trichotomy: For any relationship between two people x and y, at any given time, either x dominates y or y dominates x or they are equal with respect to dominance. Do you think that's false? I am talking about these roles because that is what I think the comment was about.

My comparison of the submissive role in the traditional husband-wife relationship to that of a dog's role was just sarcastic at first -- I even said so, for crying out loud. As I have already said (as if it really needed saying), I don't think the roles are exactly alike, but I do think they are similar. I don't like being wrong, so if you think I'm wrong, please tell me your reasons for thinking so. "You are crazy", while perhaps true, is not what I consider a sufficient condition for my being wrong. Are you willing to consider that, instead of me seeing something that isn't there, you might be not seeing something that is there?

 

[Monique]

Personally, I don't think it's a good ice-breaker for a man to use on a woman. Similarly, because I am white, live in the US, and am aware of the history, I would not try to ask out a black man by suggesting, jokingly or seriously, that he be my slave. I think they just aren't appropriate to say to a practical stranger.

Why does one taking the lead make the other sub-ordinate? In a loving relation it means the one taking the lead is a care-giver, not repressor.

Someone saying: "Im going to see a movie on sunday, you should come along." would be flattering, if you know it is well-meant (personally for me it would mean the date is not a date, but just a meeting as friends). There are guys who are arrogant to think they can get any girl in sight, such a comment from them would be highly insulting (since they would see it as a date).

 

[honestrosewater]

Why does one taking the lead make the other sub-ordinate?

Dominant and submissive are the terms I see used, so I borrowed them. I associate being dominant with being in control. I think that's just the way those roles work by definition. If both people are leaders, they're equal, so neither of them is really leading. One being a leader implies that the other is not a leader but a subordinate. How else could it work?
I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with that, by the bye.

In a loving relation it means the one taking the lead is a care-giver, not repressor.

Yes, I agree. If people want that kind of relationship, great -- if they aren't hurting others, I have no problem with that. I've just been told that people, or at least most people from my generation on, want to be equals in that kind of relationship. So I thought it was funny when they suggested that the man assume a dominant role in order to attract the woman.

Someone saying: "Im going to see a movie on sunday, you should come along." would be flattering, if you know it is well-meant (personally for me it would mean the date is not a date, but just a meeting as friends).

Sure, if you know it's well-meant. I interpreted the original advice to be the man telling the woman what to do. That is, sending her the message, in so many words, "I am going out, and you're coming along." That sounds like dominant behavior to me, and it seems to play on the traditional husband-wife relationship.

Of course, I never really had a father, so maybe I'm a freak.

 

[Evo]

Bingo.

I should also add that I am a geek, i like computers science math, I am on a physics forum?! talking about dating. I am not super hot, though i think I am decent, but I get attention from very attractive women. Being able to cut through the "bull" and getting to the point make a huge difference, and of course its always with a joke and a smile.

Confident geeks with a sense of huimor will get me every time. :!) :!) :!)

Guys, listen up, a confident, pleasant attitude will work wonders for you.

 

[nsimmons]

I had a really long response typed up but the server went down right as i sent it and i lost it.

Bottom line is, honestrosewater, you state opinion. I state fact as in the fact my approach works. Its very common for it to work, and any guy who 'gets' women use something similar.

Its directly playing on instinctual evolutionary processes whether you like it or not. Females are geared to be submissive, males are geared to be dominant. Look at most any species.

You're very close to concluding that dominant = abusive, controlling, narcisistic. I treat women with utmost respect, they always have a say in a decision.

A few decades of feminism can't overcome 2 million years of evolution.

 

[nsimmons]

Confident geeks with a sense of huimor will get me every time. :!) :!) :!)

Guys, listen up, a confident, pleasant attitude will work wonders for you.

See even the ladies here love me...

 

[Monique]

Confident geeks with a sense of huimor will get me every time. :!) :!) :!)

Guys, listen up, a confident, pleasant attitude will work wonders for you.

I was about to say just that, confidence is good and for someone to act confident some dominance is required.

 

[russ_watters]

Dominant and submissive are the terms I see used, so I borrowed them. I associate being dominant with being in control. I think that's just the way those roles work by definition...

So I thought it was funny when they suggested that the man assume a dominant role in order to attract the woman.

You originated the use of those words, in post 75. Perhaps the others didn't object strongly enough at first, but it was still you pushing that viewpoint.

I agree with the others - you are reading things people aren't saying, changing the conversation to be something people aren't intending, and your perception of how people think relationships work is different from what what people are actually saying here.

My view, in short, is that many women want a confident and assertive man, but that does not mean they want a dominant man. Women may want men to do most of the work, but do not construe that to imply dominance.

I don't see dominant and submissive roles as an extreme thing. They are roles in lots of normal relationships.

Perhaps 50+ years ago, but not today. The primary difference today is that women no longer stay in the home (and even if they do, it is by choice). So relationships are viewed by most as an equal partnership.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, Russ, assertive is a good word I kept not quite finding.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, Russ, assertive is a good word I kept not quite finding.

And to clarify what that means, "assertive" is simply making the first move. As someone else pointed out, your odds may not be all that great in asking out a complete stranger, but the odds are zero in not asking.

 

[Moonbear]

My view, in short, is that many women want a confident and assertive man, but that does not mean they want a dominant man.

Precisely. Dominance would imply an imbalance and a power struggle, which I don't think is ever good in a relationship. Confidence and assertiveness just means you'll speak your opinion...it doesn't mean you'll always get your way, just that you'll speak up and say what it is you want, and the woman can do the same, and thus all those silly guessing games are out of the picture, which opens up real communication.

 

[honestrosewater]

Its directly playing on instinctual evolutionary processes whether you like it or not. Females are geared to be submissive, males are geared to be dominant. Look at most any species.

In other words, you are conceding that I was right the whole time; the message, whether it is delivered jokingly or seriously, is to be understood in the context of a dominant-submissive relationship, with the message sender in the dominant role.

You're very close to concluding that dominant = abusive, controlling, narcisistic.

No, I'm not. In fact, I have made statements that are inconsistent with that.

A few decades of feminism can't overcome 2 million years of evolution.

Well, if you fleshed out a little what kind of behaviors count as overcoming 2 million years of evolution here, I might just be a counterexample to it. I seriously doubt your approach would work on me, assuming I was sober and all that jazz.

And to everyone else to whom it applies: Please stop saying that I said things that I didn't say. I realize it's GD, but it's still PF.

 

[honestrosewater]

You originated the use of those words, in post 75.

Will you please show me where I said otherwise? Okay, sorry, that's mean. You don't have to. I didn't say otherwise. If you are wondering where I was borrowing them from, it's just various papers and such on animal behavior, gender roles, ethics, and such. They seemed pretty common. I was pointing out that I was borrowing the terms in case anyone was assigning some special significance to them.

If people stop putting words in my mouth, I will gladly leave.

 

[nsimmons]

. I seriously doubt your approach would work on me, assuming I was sober and all that jazz.

No one agrees with anything you've said. You're not willing to discuss things, just defend your position with personal speculation.

You keep coming back to "wont work on me". Guess what no ones talking about you. Stop interjecting yourself as the subject of discussion. Topic here is whether in general email is a good idea and what techniques work to attract a woman. Not what techniques work on honestrosewater.

Reminds me of a study I read about in a psyc class. One girl argued with the prof admitantly that its not valid, because she wouldn't react the way women in the study did. This is exactly what your doing, posing opinion vs established fact. She as well as yourself don't get 'it'.

 

[honestrosewater]

Dont worry, you have the personality most guys would avoid like the plague. Reasoning with you is like talking to a brick. No one agrees with anything you've said. You're not willing to discuss things, just defend your position with personal speculation.

You keep coming back to "wont work on me". Guess what no ones talking about you. Stop interjecting yourself as the subject of discussion. Topic here is whether in general email is a good idea and what techniques work to attract a woman. Not what techniques work on honestrosewater.

Reminds me of a study I read about in a psyc class. One girl argued with the prof admitantly that its not valid, because she wouldn't react the way women in the study did. This is exactly what your doing, posing opinion vs established fact. She as well as yourself don't get 'it'.

You didn't quantify your statements. I assumed they were universal and offered myself as a counterexample because I don't like it when people put forward as fact things that are demonstrably false.

As for the rest, I don't care enough to argue. As I just said, if you stop putting words in my mouth, I will gladly leave.

 

[russ_watters]

Will you please show me where I said otherwise? Okay, sorry, that's mean. You don't have to. I didn't say otherwise. If you are wondering where I was borrowing them from, it's just various papers and such on animal behavior, gender roles, ethics, and such. They seemed pretty common. I was pointing out that I was borrowing the terms in case anyone was assigning some special significance to them.

If people stop putting words in my mouth, I will gladly leave.

The way you said it in your last post implied that others here used the word first. So I guess you weren't putting words in their mouths with that statement. But regardless - if you got the words elsewhere and injected them into this discussion, you're still arguing against something that wasn't intended by the people you are arguing against, nsimmons's lack of couth notwithstanding. You still hijacked the thread.

 

[Monique]

Let's stop bouncing the ball and replace dominant with assertive.

 

[GCT]

Hi,

I have been pondering the notion of asking out a former TA of mine. She was in charge of the lab in which I was enrolled last quarter. Though I never really talked to her, I did catch her gaze a few times. I didn't think asking someone out while in the subordinate position of TA and student, was a very good idea, and it may even have violated a university policy. Since I don't have her number or anything, I would have to contact her through her official email address. I am leaning against this for a few reasons: she might be weirded out; might be not happy that I am contacting her this way; the fact she doesn't really know me; maybe she thinks I'm desperate. Further I think she is stunningly beautiful and possibly she has had to deal with this before.

I also figure I won’t be going out with her if don’t email her for certain and if she says no nothing really changes, I am still not going out with her. I only have the potential to gain from this should she say yes. At any rate perhaps I am just thinking too much about this and should just do it.

yeah, women enjoy the intelligent aspects of an man trying to have a relationship, it's doesn't seem to be "just a sign here" and let's go out kind of thing. Nothing is clear cut at times, such as the business with the email, you should find a gradual way to approach and bond with her on some level, because it may be a bit childish to just ask her out blatantly on a date. She may see it as a lack of good natured strategy and intelligence on your part, calling her up by phone probably isn't the best idea either. Albeit all of this may be tough, but on some level you've got to make the situation happen through sophistication and intelligence, yet civilized schemes. Not all of us have that kind of strategizing power, but it'll probably be best for you to make the effort. Admittedly they make it impossible at times, because some go for guys that simply "have it" as opposed to guys that don't "have it." That is women know genes

 

[loseyourname]

It matters only very little what you actually say (though it does matter). What matters is how you say it. The point is, you have to honestly believe that this woman wants you and that the two of you will be on a date sometime soon, and you will be having your way with her almost as soon. You cannot contrive this belief; there is no way to fake it. Women know whether you have confidence in yourself or not. You can only practice in front of a mirror for so long; you need to be out practicing in front of actual women. Actually, let me correct this. You don't even have to believe that every women is going to tell you what you want to hear, because the fact is, many won't. You have to not care. You have to be confident in the fact that you are a desirable person with something to offer and that you will get what you want, whether from her or from someone else. Men kill themselves by being afraid of rejection, when half the time that fear is the only thing actually holding them back.

This isn't about imposing yourself on someone else, either. The fact is, this won't work on everyone. You will hear the word "no" from time to time, perhaps more often than not. Don't think of it as rejection. Think of it as a selection process by which you only end up on a date with women who actually want what you want. It is a hell of a lot easier that way, because even if you can get women to go out with you, and even do much more, even when they aren't certain they want to, in the long run it isn't the best idea to do that. This way, two minds are in harmony, and regardless of who is leading the way (it's usually the man just by convention, but it certainly doesn't have to be), both end up in the same place without either having to dominate the other.

Really, this should work most of the time because, let's face it, we all want the same thing. Men need to remember that women are hardwired to desire what we have to give them just as we are hardwired to want what they can give us. We want each other. Women can often be more selective because they have more to choose from, but there is someone for everyone, and you aren't going to find her by sitting around and deliberating.

 

[honestrosewater]

The way you said it in your last post implied that others here used the word first.

Yeah, I guess one interpretation of what I said does imply that. Sorry, that isn't what I meant.

You still hijacked the thread.

That didn't even cross my mind, maybe because it's GD. Sorry, I didn't mean to. I am genuinely interested in this, and I know the difference between being confident and being controlling. I was going to mention loseyourname as a man who strikes me as being confident but not controlling. In fact, for what it's worth, if we were in the right place at the right time, I'd probably ask him out. Despite what my shirt says, I'm not really a rabid, man-hating misanthrope. (I probably shoud stop wearing this shirt.) Anywho, I don't think anyone understood what I was trying to say, so on the slim chance that anyone wants to actually discuss it, maybe a mentor could split it off. If not, I'll leave you guys in peace as promised.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Women know whether you have confidence in yourself or not. You can only practice in front of a mirror for so long; you need to be out practicing in front of actual women. Actually, let me correct this. You don't even have to believe that every women is going to tell you what you want to hear, because the fact is, many won't. You have to not care.

This is a kind of catch-22 that pervades most human endeavors: the more you want something the less likely you are to be able to get it. Strong desires tend to displace people's capacity for clear analysis and effective planning.

"You have to not care," is probably too strong a characterization of the most effective attitude. I think it's more accurate to say "You have to be able to take it or leave it." By that I mean, the prospect has appeal but you're not going to be unduely upset if it doesn't come to pass. Not caring would mean you don't even have the minimal motivation to make an attempt. I point that out because I've had the experience a couple/three times of finding out that women toward whom I felt nearly perfectly neutral had a crush on me, and since I authentically didn't care nothing ever happened. I was completely without any motivation to respond in kind, so I didn't.

 

[mugsby]

so your saying they were ugly

 

[zoobyshoe]

so your saying they were ugly

In all cases they were very physically attractive women with perfectly pleasant personalities. There wasn't anything I could point to about them that bothered or annoyed me. This happens to me once in a while: I recognise that someone fullfills the criteria to be called "attractive", but I still don't experience any attraction to them.