Skip to main content

from: Rowe

Well, to be fair Sister Suz, the title of this thread asks should sistas chase down their man, which suggests that the man already belongs to us, but in actuality, he doesn't. Like some of the brothers have said, women tend to take some things for granted. Don't you think that women should do something to earn the affections of a man in which she's interested, or does a man "belong" to us simply because he's expressed an interest in us?

I think women get so caught up in feeling flattered by a man's interest that we forget that even though a man may have expressed an interest in us, he still doesn't belong to us. In others, he's not "our man" and there is still a very long series of events and stages that the relationship has to survive before we can call a man ours. However, in the mind of some women, the relationship begins the second the man approaches us. We forget that men are visual, and they are attracted to not just us, but to many women.

A woman would have to be awfully naive, actually down right stupid to believe that a man belongs to her simply because he expressed interest in her, or she's so young, inexperienced & totally out of touch to make such assumptions.

And as far as a woman earning the affections of a man, why certainly she has to earn them just as he has to earn hers, but that comes with time, can't happen overnight, & as they continue to feel each other out by going from phase 1 onto phase 2. Rome wasn't built in a day & neither is love & affection.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
In my opinion, it is more unnecessary than it is inappropriate. Women do not need to approach men, because most women are approached by men on a regular basis anyway. Think about it this way: If you are being approached by the opposite sex on a regular basis, then why would you feel compelled to do any approaching? It is the same process that happens in the animal world. If a female animal has her choice of mates fighting amongst themselves to mate with her, then why would she feel a sense of urgency to approach the males in her specie?


I dunno about this, Rowe! Even if a woman is approached by men on a regular basis ... she still has both the choice and the option of choosing a man that she might have an interest in ... not just one that has an interest in her.

I have been in a room full of men that were showing plenty of interest ... but, there was that one that, for some reason, just stood out, or displayed a personality that I was attracted to .. and that's not to say there was something wrong with the other guys .. but, some of us just like a certain/special kind of man! Smile

And whereas there was a time where it would have been deemed "inappropriate" to step to a man and show interest, I think times have changed and not only is it appropriate, if done tastefully, but it helps to facilitate a greater degree of success at landing a man that both attracts you and is probably more compatible to you, since, in actuality, you did the choosing.
fro Why do women still want the chase? Natural Selection. Innate. Can't help it. Genetically don't want to change the pattern of behavior. But it is what is. As Sista NS states some women are raised a certain way. Some say..."I'm not gonna raise my kids like I was raised back in the day" or some will continue the tradition where women allow the men to chase. For me I couldn't date until I was sixteen. And it was chaperoned! And if my mom knew I went after a boy? In those days? She would have done a serious job on me. The fear was there. So. you know. guys chased. and girls giggled. I guess it's a bit different...but the expectations are still the same. But as far as the black women I grew up around, it was a certain way YOU better carry yourself. And all EYES were on you and black folks back then weren't playing either. Cuz it was important that young black women were given respect...and protection from the men in their culture...but I guess things really have changed. fro
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
It's only since I've been participating on this and a few other messageboards, that i've become aware that brothas wish to be pursued. They would like for women to step to them, instead of having to step to women in the dating and mate selection process.

IMHO, many sistas have not been raised or groomed to do this. Many sistas have had a different belief instilled in them: That if you are a clean woman, an honest woman, a hardworking woman, a kind woman, etc that brothas "would just know" that you are special, and worthy and therefore seek you out.

I am not sure how brothas are "supposed to just know" but in many circles, a sista chasing a brotha is seen as forward, loose, desparate, etc. Pursuit is even described by some sistas as a masculine endeavor. Perhaps the parameters of pursuit have changed. Let some tell it, Buffy and Heather nem, are much more adept at the art of pursuit than the sisters. Is it appropriate for a sista to chase?




No man or woman needs to be found "chasing" another... that's primitive... barbaric and is a form of harrassment...
Ladies, "chase" is a catch-all phrase to describe who does the initating/pursuing/nuturing of a relationship in its infancy.

quote:
No man or woman needs to be found "chasing" another... that's primitive... barbaric and is a form of harrassment...


Kweli rephrased it here if "chase" is the troublesome word:
quote:
I think what is being asked is is it appropriate to approach (edit) the man that you find attractive.


So the questions still stand:

quote:
If a woman is interested in a man, the extent of her effort to make this known should be to smile or make direct eye contact?


So essentially, if a man doesn't interpret your "signal" correctly, you're willing to miss out on a potential relationship?
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
If a woman is interested in a man, the extent of her effort to make this known should be to smile or make direct eye contact?



No... as I am against getting to know strangers outside of my circle... within my circle these things are unnecessary....


quote:
So essentially.... you're willing to miss out on a potential relationship?


Yes... I view it as favorable to "miss out" on relationships that would go nowhere to begin with... I am not interested in men who pursue strange women....
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
If a woman is interested in a man, the extent of her effort to make this known should be to smile or make direct eye contact?



No... as I am against getting to know strangers outside of my circle... within my circle these things are unnecessary....


quote:
So essentially.... you're willing to miss out on a potential relationship?


Yes... I view it as favorable to "miss out" on relationships that would go nowhere to begin with... I am not interested in men who pursue strange women....




With all due respect, then it would seem that you are uninterested in anyone you do not already know. If you're not already interested romantically in someone within this circle it is unlikely you will ever be.

This is "circular".

If all women followed this example, then we would simply cease to exist after a generation or so.

And is it then any surprise that black men would pursue non-black women?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by ddouble:
quote:
If a woman is interested in a man, the extent of her effort to make this known should be to smile or make direct eye contact?



No... as I am against getting to know strangers outside of my circle... within my circle these things are unnecessary....


quote:
So essentially.... you're willing to miss out on a potential relationship?


Yes... I view it as favorable to "miss out" on relationships that would go nowhere to begin with... I am not interested in men who pursue strange women....




With all due respect, then it would seem that you are uninterested in anyone you do not already know. If you're not already interested romantically in someone within this circle it is unlikely you will ever be.

This is "circular".

If all women followed this example, then we would simply cease to exist after a generation or so.

And is it then any surprise that black men would pursue non-black women?



To elaborate on my response:

This seems very typically "old southern" - although I realize that your particular belief system is a factor as well. But then again, the Hon. Elijah Muhammad was from a small town in Georgia.

In my area, local women tend to date only within very closed social circles which contain relatively few "eligible" men.

The result seems to be de facto "man sharing" (even within the churches).

Meanwhile, you have an influx of professional black men coming here from outside the state and whose adaptive response has been to


1. Date outside the state.

or

2. Date non-black women.

or

3. Decide that this is not the place they need to be because the outside influx is not adequate to create its own social scene.
Last edited {1}
Uniting on the primary basis of physical attraction is not our MO... we work together, pray together and study together... the ideal place is in study group or on a project...

we get to know each other through avenues such as these... rather than seeing someone from across the room, thinking their fine and subtly trying to gain their attention....

a physically attractive brother will render himself out of the running once he opens his mouth and he is ignorant.... or uncultivated... and vice versa for the sisters... a sister not spiritually mature no matter how pretty will not garner the attention in my circle that she would in the world... as physical attraction alone is not held in such esteem...

or at least not encouraged...

physical attraction does not need to be cultivated...

if its there ... its there...

quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
The result seems to be de facto "man sharing" (even within the churches).


But...

I believe in limited and highly regulated polygyny Big Grin

quote:
Meanwhile, you have an influx of professional black men coming here from outside the state and whose adaptive response has been to


1. Date outside the state.

or

2. Date non-black women.

or

3. Decide that this is not the place they need to be because the outside influx is not adequate to create its own social scene.



1 and 3 seem like reasonable choices to me...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
Uniting on the primary basis of physical attraction is not our MO... we work together, pray together and study together... the ideal place is in study group or on a project...

we get to know each other through avenues such as these... rather than seeing someone from across the room, thinking their fine and subtly trying to gain their attention....




That's well and good. Perhaps ideal.

But most of us do not have this option.
fro Just my two cents and I'm going to class. Circular relationships is even prohibited in the animal mating selection world. Once the adult male [animal] within the family becomes mature enough....he is ousted from the circle to prevent inbredding. That behavior is innate. And this form of circular dating became dangerous way back when cousins were marrying cousins cuz no body wanted to go outside the circle. Now that's primitive! And all types of biological complications occurred as a result of this form of people behavior/mating. I'm not projecting incest behavior--I'm just saying it is NATURAL to look outside your immediate surroundings to pursue/connect with the opposite sex. Many animals do it as a way of protecting the genetic pool, humans do it for the same reasons....to keep from inbredding with distance family members. Cuz with circular dating you never KNOW whose related to whom....until of course....it's too late. Some cultures arrange mating/dating selections....but that's off topic. So as I said this is ...JMHO...fro
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
Uniting on the primary basis of physical attraction is not our MO... we work together, pray together and study together... the ideal place is in study group or on a project...

we get to know each other through avenues such as these... rather than seeing someone from across the room, thinking their fine and subtly trying to gain their attention....




That's well and good. Perhaps ideal.

But most of us do not have this option.



Not really...

we all have social circles... the basis of attempting to find someone is uniting with someone of like mind.. values and goals.... even if its another atheist/buddhist mind... { the exception is a true hermit or nomad sck }

thereafter you don't want to be the only two people on the planet you get along with... so you expand... and socialize with like minded couples.... this is the basis for a community for your children...

mating begins with limited social ideals... as in you do not go after what you yourself don't like... we cultivate relationships with those whose mind we appreciate... even if the circle is not large but just a few families....


The Western society we live in and the western mind has done away with and turned its nose up at "community"... in the name of "freedom"... which is why we are left with individuals approaching strangers for hook ups rather than cultivating courtships for the purpose of marriage ...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
Uniting on the primary basis of physical attraction is not our MO... we work together, pray together and study together... the ideal place is in study group or on a project...

we get to know each other through avenues such as these... rather than seeing someone from across the room, thinking their fine and subtly trying to gain their attention....




That's well and good. Perhaps ideal.

But most of us do not have this option.



Not really...

we all have social circles... the basis of attempting to find someone is uniting with someone of like mind.. values and goals.... even if its another atheist/buddhist mind... { the exception is a true hermit or nomad sck }



My immediate social (and professional) circle consists of old white married men. We're talking mathematics professors here.

And, again, we're talking the south. I only know of one black Buddhist in the city (besides myself). The rest are white or Asian.

Your point is a good one and valid. But in order to make it work, you require sufficiently large numbers to at least assure initial compatibility on the interpersonal level.

I wouldn't even want to choose my friends from a pool of 5 people.
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
fro Just my two cents and I'm going to class. Circular relationships is even prohibited in the animal mating selection world. Once the adult male [animal] within the family becomes mature enough....he is ousted from the circle to prevent inbredding. That behavior is innate. And this form of circular dating became dangerous way back when cousins were marrying cousins cuz no body wanted to go outside the circle. Now that's primitive!




It also leads to social stagnation ... and decay ...
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Khalliqa:
Uniting on the primary basis of physical attraction is not our MO... we work together, pray together and study together... the ideal place is in study group or on a project...

we get to know each other through avenues such as these... rather than seeing someone from across the room, thinking their fine and subtly trying to gain their attention....

a physically attractive brother will render himself out of the running once he opens his mouth and he is ignorant.... or uncultivated... and vice versa for the sisters... a sister not spiritually mature no matter how pretty will not garner the attention in my circle that she would in the world... as physical attraction alone is not held in such esteem...

or at least not encouraged...

physical attraction does not need to be cultivated...

if its there ... its there...


Except for the frequency and focus of the group engagement, how is this any different from meeting and engaging someone you met because you workout at the same gym? or someone you met at a PTA meeting because you both may happen to be parents? Is it not still "getting to know each other?"

Same holds on the physical attraction tip. A pretty woman who has nothing between her ears but the breeze blowing through, will soon be in the wind. But maybe that's only attained with maturity.

Your process may involve a shared initial beleif system, but don't two people, who overtime find they don't share the same or strongly similar belief systems, usually fall apart anyway?

Human interaction comes down, IMO, to personal interaction, whatever the larger group dynamic might/might not be.
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
but don't two people, who overtime find they don't share the same or strongly similar belief systems, usually fall apart anyway?


Dating:the focus is backwards...

you approach someone primarily on the basis of physical attraction...

we believe that the central part ... the "core" of who we are as beings IS in our belief systems...

the sustenance and sustaining part of a relationship is not our hobbies or day to day routines... but our belief systems... therefore approaching someone outside of the core of the basis of the relationship (values and beliefs)is highly hit or miss and the antithesis of the purpose for uniting...
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
but don't two people, who overtime find they don't share the same or strongly similar belief systems, usually fall apart anyway?


Dating:the focus is backwards...

you approach someone primarily on the basis of physical attraction...

we believe that the central part ... the "core" of who we are as beings IS in our belief systems...

the sustenance and sustaining part of a relationship is not our hobbies or day to day routines... but our belief systems... therefore approaching someone outside of the core of the basis of the relationship (values and beliefs)is highly hit or miss and the antithesis of the purpose for uniting...


I'd say it was a bit of an over-generalization to say dating's primary focus is physical attraction. While initial physical attraction is always an element, and there are those for whom physical attraction is paramount, I think mature daters take a lot more into account, and come together around a range of sustaining attractions.

What of people who have been friends 5, or 6 years and then realize they have deeper feelings for each other? Can it be argued that their attraction was based on "physical" as you suggest dating demands?

How do you draw the conclusion that for two people seriously and exclusively dating each other that their belief systems are not as much a driving force in their status, as their hobbies and day-to-day routines might be? Who can truly know, except the two people involved, but you seem to draw a distinction. How is that arrived at?

I'm not trying to debate the merit of the factors you describe in courtshop, but a lot of what I'm reading, particularly the interpersonal aspects, even with the broader context, look like dating, as practiced by mature people.
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
but don't two people, who overtime find they don't share the same or strongly similar belief systems, usually fall apart anyway?


Dating:the focus is backwards...

you approach someone primarily on the basis of physical attraction...

we believe that the central part ... the "core" of who we are as beings IS in our belief systems...

the sustenance and sustaining part of a relationship is not our hobbies or day to day routines... but our belief systems... therefore approaching someone outside of the core of the basis of the relationship (values and beliefs)is highly hit or miss and the antithesis of the purpose for uniting...


I'd say it was a bit of an over-generalization to say dating's primary focus is physical attraction.


I would say it is naivete to think that the majority of people who date do not take the initial step to meet based off physical attraction... unless they meet through some sort of venue that is predominately focused on their value system... this is simply not the case.. umm... this is America.. even for this message board the majority of dating discussion is highly visually (and/or sexually) centered.....

quote:
How do you draw the conclusion that for two people seriously and exclusively dating each other that their belief systems are not as much a driving force in their status, as their hobbies and day-to-day routines might be?


When it is the primary force... they will not need advice on how to meet off the street.. club... social activities... they will know each other through their respective belief/value systems organization or environment... this is not the majority of cases discussed among single people...

quote:
but a lot of what I'm reading, particularly the interpersonal aspects, even with the broader context, look like dating, as practiced by mature people.


spiritually and socially mature people consider marriage as the purpose for male/female intimate unions... not companionship....
Sorry in advance for the tangential discussion point...

quote:
spiritually and socially mature people consider marriage as the purpose for male/female intimate unions... not companionship....


This is getting somewhere (I think)...

What is the purpose of marriage? Isn't companionship at minimum a subset of what marriage entails?

Are you saying a union lacking only an official sanction (by faith or government) is inherently deficient?
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
I would say it is naivete to think that the majority of people who date do not take the initial step to meet based off physical attraction... unless they meet through some sort of venue that is predominately focused on their value system... this is simply not the case.. umm... this is America.. even for this message board the majority of dating discussion is highly visually (and/or sexually) centered.....

"I didn't say that. Actually I acknowledged that initial physical attraction was "a" component, not neccessarily the only or dominant one in any relationship, particularly for the more mature (35+, 40+?) segment of daters. Factoring in those who have been hurt in relationship (and who can't ride that train?) experience, if learned from, teaches that emotional aspects of relationships are just as valuable as physical or other aspects.

This messageboard's percentage of visual/sexual content is irrelevant to my dating decisions, and I'd suspect to most people's, so I don't get the point of your statement."

quote:
How do you draw the conclusion that for two people seriously and exclusively dating each other that their belief systems are not as much a driving force in their status, as their hobbies and day-to-day routines might be?


When it is the primary force... they will not need advice on how to meet off the street.. club... social activities... they will know each other through their respective belief/value systems organization or environment... this is not the majority of cases discussed among single people...

"That's my point. Dating, done responsibly, is no less a viable mechanism for bringing them together than anything else.

Shared beliefs are revealed and expressed over time in dating relationships. It's those shared beliefs, more so than what societal mechanism brought them together, that is likely to determine whether they stick as a couple.


spiritually and socially mature people consider marriage as the purpose for male/female intimate unions... not companionship....


As a spiritually and socially mature man I don't necessarily agree. Yes, IMO, for the purpose of male/female intimate unions marriage is best, but companionship cannot be disgarded.

What of people who wish not to marry? or not to marry again? Are you saying they are either not "spiritual" or "mature" because their relationship goal may be different than yours? or because their goals are acheived in a social construct (dating) outside of that which you practice?
I think many women do. I think many women understand that a flutter of eyelashes and even half a smile will be interpreted as interest and possibly "hookup" by a male. and Thus, a girl has got to be careful with those eyes because a mere blink can bring a whole lotta trouble. Unless, of course, a sista is looking for trouble

Many women avert their eyes or keep their heads down because they know the power of eye language, and other facial expressions.

This might seem strange, but sometimes necessary.

~I'm sorry....I just am not liking the above at all. It makes me think of the "belief" that a woman wearing tight or revealing clothes is asking for rape. Now she can ask for trouble with a glance of her eyes? That's exactly what the men think in societies that have LAWS prohibiting women from looking a man in the eyes and make them wear hoods that make it very hard for one to see their eyes. It's not only law, but also religious. And whenever I see these women I'm thinking "dang! These women don't even know what it's like to feel a cool breeze cross their faces!" Even in the summer they wear all that head cover. Makes me want to faint just looking at them! I get miserably hot VERY easily, so I couldn't do it if I were in their shoes. But, I digress.

There is, in fact, a very interesting history (and present ways) regarding the power of the eye. According to that history, yes, trouble could start brewing from a mere glance in a targeted direction. If I'm not mistaken, women were thought to be the best at this, and maybe this is where it ALL comes from --- the laws, religious doctrines, and comments such as the one you made. Apparently all born out of a very real history and practice. Eek Very interesting.~
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
I would say it is naivete to think that the majority of people who date do not take the initial step to meet based off physical attraction... unless they meet through some sort of venue that is predominately focused on their value system... this is simply not the case.. umm... this is America.. even for this message board the majority of dating discussion is highly visually (and/or sexually) centered.....

"I didn't say that. Actually I acknowledged that initial physical attraction was "a" component, not neccessarily the only or dominant one in any relationship


My focus is on "the" component... which is heavily derived from one's initial purpose in meeting...

quote:
, particularly for the more mature (35+, 40+?) segment of daters. Factoring in those who have been hurt in relationship (and who can't ride that train?) experience, if learned from, teaches that emotional aspects of relationships are just as valuable as physical or other aspects.


I find that many people age but not mature... our standards of maturity... are presumably different however....

quote:
This messageboard's percentage of visual/sexual content is irrelevant to my dating decisions, and I'd suspect to most people's, so I don't get the point of your statement."


It was just an aside... like saying "look around you even in the "net" environment you choose to frequent it is a predominate leaning.....

quote:
quote:
[quote]How do you draw the conclusion that for two people seriously and exclusively dating each other that their belief systems are not as much a driving force in their status, as their hobbies and day-to-day routines might be?


When it is the primary force... they will not need advice on how to meet off the street.. club... social activities... they will know each other through their respective belief/value systems organization or environment... this is not the majority of cases discussed among single people...


"That's my point. Dating, done responsibly, is no less a viable mechanism for bringing them together than anything else.


I disagree... one's method of pursuit reveals much about their intentions, goals and values...

One can shop at McDonald's for food on a regular basis or the grocery store... the store provides junk food too... but presumably one will have a greater chance at eating healthy.... Mickie D's may have salad but the overwhelming reason people eat there is to get a quick satisfying but relatively unhealthy meal....

quote:
Shared beliefs are revealed and expressed over time in dating relationships.


My point... one does not enter a courtship... hoping..waiting for it to turn into something more meaningful if marriage is their goal... this is backwards... one engulfs themselves in environments where marriage is the goal and purpose for meeting and all else comes after.... as the core sustainable feature of marriage is shared values....

but even one's values regarding their outlook on marriage must be weighed against the fierce individualism of this society as marriage is still not a solo pair endeavor....



quote:
Yes, IMO, for the purpose of male/female intimate unions marriage is best, but companionship cannot be disgarded.


Companionship is not disregarded it is just not placed along the same level of importance as marriage regarding the purpose for male/female union...

quote:
What of people who wish not to marry? or not to marry again? Are you saying they are either not "spiritual" or "mature" because their relationship goal may be different than yours?



we can discuss this regarding accepted hierarchy of values....

mature: marriage

immature: hook ups..

I've accepted this definitional hierarchy.... yes...

quote:
Originally posted by Ddouble:

Sorry in advance for the tangential discussion point...



I've answered her question... I do not mind discussing this elsewhere....


Salaam...
I don't know ... maybe it's just me ...

But, it seems like the eye contact thing is generating a lot of confusion. sck

While I definitely agree that a certain look or glance by a woman can be (and usually is) misread by men, any misunderstanding or (if it's warranted) clarification should be cleared up through the ensuing communication that usually follows!

If you look and smile at a brotha simply to say hi ... when he comes over to get his mack on, simply tell him you only wanted to say hi! Eek By the same token, if your look is to try to get him to come over and start throwing the mack down in order to get to know him better, then let him know you found something interesting in him and continue on with the meet and greet!

I believe it is inhibiting for a woman to limit her eye contact or a smile at a man simply because you might get unasked for attention. If you're sitting there looking cute anyway, you're probably going to get that whether you ask for it or not! But, you can also miss out on the opportunity to meet someone interesting or facilitate something with someone who you might have an interest in.

I do think, however, that a lot of women have the belief in why even talk to a man that you have no interest in. Eek They think that they are only supposed to over themselves up to "Mr. Right" or at least "Mr. Maybe" .. and many times will pass him right on up because they wouldn't look at or talk to or acknowledge the possibility that he didn't on first sight, fit into their particular pre-conceived mold of who this gentleman would be!

I think if more women gave more men a little bit more of a chance ... there would be a fewer relationships that ended in drama and dissatisfaction ... and a lot more connectedness between two people who actually have things in common.
I've never considered a woman's glance, held a tad longer than necessary (by design), to be an invitation to "mack." I guess by "mack" I take that to be overly aggressive.

Gentlemanly subtlety has its place. If anything, her extended glance may be a signal to me (if I'm interested) to introduce myself, see how my introduction is received and go from there.

In any event whether she's interested, I'm interested we're both interested or neither is interested, subtle follow up conversation on just about any casual topic will give you a sense of what the deal is.

Someone earlier in the thread said that a man would have the woman's phone number within 15 minutes if she's intersted. I don't think I've ever asked for a woman's number in the first 15 minutes.

But if the flow/vibe was right, I did have it before either or both of us left the initial setting.
quote:
Originally posted by OhBlackButterfly:
I think many women do. I think many women understand that a flutter of eyelashes and even half a smile will be interpreted as interest and possibly "hookup" by a male. and Thus, a girl has got to be careful with those eyes because a mere blink can bring a whole lotta trouble. Unless, of course, a sista is looking for trouble

Many women avert their eyes or keep their heads down because they know the power of eye language, and other facial expressions.

This might seem strange, but sometimes necessary.

~I'm sorry....I just am not liking the above at all. It makes me think of the "belief" that a woman wearing tight or revealing clothes is asking for rape. Now she can ask for trouble with a glance of her eyes? That's exactly what the men think in societies that have LAWS prohibiting women from looking a man in the eyes and make them wear hoods that make it very hard for one to see their eyes. It's not only law, but also religious. And whenever I see these women I'm thinking "dang! These women don't even know what it's like to feel a cool breeze cross their faces!" Even in the summer they wear all that head cover. Makes me want to faint just looking at them! I get miserably hot VERY easily, so I couldn't do it if I were in their shoes. But, I digress.

There is, in fact, a very interesting history (and present ways) regarding the power of the eye. According to that history, yes, trouble could start brewing from a mere glance in a targeted direction. If I'm not mistaken, women were thought to be the best at this, and maybe this is where it ALL comes from --- the laws, religious doctrines, and comments such as the one you made. Apparently all born out of a very real history and practice. Eek Very interesting.~


point taken, but i was responding to Romulus' post about women not knowing the power of a smile or a glance/eye contact. I was merely stating that indeed women do know the power of this. By trouble (with a wink) I did not mean rape, but rather a "hookup".
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I don't know ... maybe it's just me ...

But, it seems like the eye contact thing is generating a lot of confusion. sck

While I definitely agree that a certain look or glance by a woman can be (and usually is) misread by men, any misunderstanding or (if it's warranted) clarification should be cleared up through the ensuing communication that usually follows!

If you look and smile at a brotha simply to say hi ... when he comes over to get his mack on, simply tell him you only wanted to say hi! Eek By the same token, if your look is to try to get him to come over and start throwing the mack down in order to get to know him better, then let him know you found something interesting in him and continue on with the meet and greet!

I believe it is inhibiting for a woman to limit her eye contact or a smile at a man simply because you might get unasked for attention. If you're sitting there looking cute anyway, you're probably going to get that whether you ask for it or not! But, you can also miss out on the opportunity to meet someone interesting or facilitate something with someone who you might have an interest in.

I do think, however, that a lot of women have the belief in why even talk to a man that you have no interest in. Eek They think that they are only supposed to over themselves up to "Mr. Right" or at least "Mr. Maybe" .. and many times will pass him right on up because they wouldn't look at or talk to or acknowledge the possibility that he didn't on first sight, fit into their particular pre-conceived mold of who this gentleman would be!

I think if more women gave more men a little bit more of a chance ... there would be a fewer relationships that ended in drama and dissatisfaction ... and a lot more connectedness between two people who actually have things in common.


My Goodness.Eek Someone gets it. Besides. it seems that folks are looking at the/any initial meeting is SUPPOSED to end in marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
Gentlemanly subtlety has its place. If anything, her extended glance may be a signal to me (if I'm interested) to introduce myself, see how my introduction is received and go from there.


Well, I have to say, in fairness to the ladies, this is oftentimes more like the exception than the rule! Eek

The word "pounce" comes to mind, when it comes to a lot of guys approach to the "get to know" a female that gives what is perceived as a 'come hither' look! And it becomes even more frustrating with those men that do not like to take "no" for an answer! And, there are plenty of them out there too!!

However ... there are ways to handle these situations as well. But, I believe that most women just don't like to go through the trouble. And sometimes, with some men, I can definitely understand why! Eek
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by TruthSeeker:
Gentlemanly subtlety has its place. If anything, her extended glance may be a signal to me (if I'm interested) to introduce myself, see how my introduction is received and go from there.


Well, I have to say, in fairness to the ladies, this is oftentimes more like the exception than the rule! Eek

The word "pounce" comes to mind, when it comes to a lot of guys approach to the "get to know" a female that gives what is perceived as a 'come hither' look! And it becomes even more frustrating with those men that do not like to take "no" for an answer! And, there are plenty of them out there too!!




Which is precisely why it would be nice if some would proactively commit to more than a (potentially misconstrued) glance . Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
The word "pounce" comes to mind, when it comes to a lot of guys approach to the "get to know" a female that gives what is perceived as a 'come hither' look! And it becomes even more frustrating with those men that do not like to take "no" for an answer! And, there are plenty of them out there too!!

However ... there are ways to handle these situations as well. But, I believe that most women just don't like to go through the trouble. And sometimes, with some men, I can definitely understand why! Eek


Tell me about it. My friendly ass always gets in trouble because I speak and/or acknkowledge any and every person of African descent I cross paths with. People don't do that much anymore, and too many morons think It's a 'come hither' thing... But that's not gonna stop me... I feel rude if I don't speak.
point taken, but i was responding to Romulus' post about women not knowing the power of a smile or a glance/eye contact. I was merely stating that indeed women do know the power of this. By trouble (with a wink) I did not mean rape, but rather a "hookup".[/QUOTE]

~I get what you are saying, but isn't too much being placed on that power? It's getting too much energy, isn't it? We put it in the box of "sex-related" and all of a sudden common cordiality towards one's neighbor takes on a whole 'nother meaning and becomes "game playing" in one place, and grounds for being stoned to death in another. That's all I meant. We can't just look somebody in the eye and say, "Hi", or "Good morning", without reading a lot more into it, depending on WHO said it, and "Hmmmm....am I mistaken...or did she batt her eyelashes when she said that?".....or, "Oooh! Girl, did you see that? He licked his lips when he said that!" LOL!

Do you realize that half the time when we (women) avert our eyes or turn our heads the other way, without speaking, that the brothas get the impression that we are stuck up? Even other people (races) think that we are unfriendly in that way. I recall that particular topic being hashed out on another board. I hold my head up and speak to err'body. Body language speaks VOLUMES. I live down south and everybody here, as far as I've noticed, holds their heads up and speaks up --- so much so that when you come across someone who does NOT, you notice it right off and come to the conclusion that something is wrong...the person is distracted, or.....yeah, stuck up.

We can always smile first, and THEN send the "get away from me" message immediately following. Big Grin~
quote:
Originally posted by OhBlackButterfly:
Do you realize that half the time when we (women) avert our eyes or turn our heads the other way, without speaking, that the brothas get the impression that we are stuck up? Even other people (races) think that we are unfriendly in that way.



This is funny. We had this discussion on the board a loooong time ago.

But where I used to live (in Georgia), I distinctly noticed a pattern where everybody you met on the street (including white males and females) would acknowledge a brotha ... except black females.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Tell me about it. My friendly ass always gets in trouble because I speak and/or acknkowledge any and every person of African descent I cross paths with. People don't do that much anymore, and too many morons think It's a 'come hither' thing... But that's not gonna stop me... I feel rude if I don't speak.


off

Put your picture back!!! Smile

Please?? Confused Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Tell me about it. My friendly ass always gets in trouble because I speak and/or acknkowledge any and every person of African descent I cross paths with. People don't do that much anymore, and too many morons think It's a 'come hither' thing... But that's not gonna stop me... I feel rude if I don't speak.


laugh yeah I agree completely! lololol!

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×