this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
719 points (80.9% liked)
Comic Strips
12016 readers
1467 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
Right. Men should be able to be friends with women without only wanting to have sex with them.
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.
Updated my last comment for clarity
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can put your head in the sand if you like, I prefer living in reality. Where semantics are much less difficult to understand than actual human interactions and relationships.
You’re trying to draw a red line in on invisible sand and saying don’t cross this line. No one but you knows where that line is but you will know it when they cross the line, and if they do they are a bad person. This doesn’t help us become better people but I guess it makes you feel superior because you’re in the right?
Hm. You’re projecting a lot into this conversation. There is no semantics with consent. Nobody is entitled to anybody’s affection and much less their body (I know you didn’t say this part but this whole discussion is about sex so I imagine it’s implied). No superiority here. That’s all in your head. I’m just trying to explain how it is and why some people might be feeling rejected.
We can and should validate everybody’s feelings but not at the expense of others’ safety and autonomy, and we can validate feelings while at the same time not enabling and perpetuating bad behavior that got the person feeling rejected in the first place.
All due respect, just telling it like it is. No ego here.
Dalto is right, we are talking past one another. You’re not looking at the context of what I was saying and you are just saying consent is consent. That’s all well and good but navigating that is not black and white. Human relationships are more complex than just saying consent is consent and no one is entitled. It’s just a talking point but in reality relationships are complex and nuanced. Autonomy and consent is really important and necessary in relationships especially sexual ones.
All good. We’re not gonna solve sexism here. Best wishes to you and all current and future relationships, romantic or otherwise.
No! We will solve it here and Now!!! 😂. Communication is so important in any relationship but it is not always easy. Same to you
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.
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.
People who can't communicate probably wouldn't make good partners in the first place.
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.