MetaChat - Ever wondered ...

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

30 March 2008

Ever wondered ... why the guys you want to be friends with think you want to be more than friends? Ever wondered why the guys you want to be more than friends with think you want to be nothing more than friends? We can't help it.

post by: seanyboy at: 05:22 | 29 comments

b.t.w. The comments on the article are pretty awful. Prepare to be annoyed.

posted by seanyboy 30 March | 05:26

The comments were indeed annoying, but then so was the use of 'gal' and 'pal' in the article. It's like talking to my great aunt!

Nonetheless, this is another study that re-enforces the gender differences between men and women. As I understand it, 'female intuition' is more accurately 'understanding body languange and nuance in speech', which men seem to be pretty poor at understanding. No magic involved.

posted by asok 30 March | 05:47

More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on, and a new study discovers why: Guys are clueless.

That's all I need to read. I'm happy with being though of as clueless, because then I never have to explain myself.

Ooh, those comments are nasty, nasty, nasty.

posted by dg 30 March | 08:24

Whether unintentionally or deliberately, we tend to discourage emotional awareness in boys.

Didn't bother with the comments, myself.

posted by lysdexic 30 March | 08:35

While certainly not assuming all men are like this or all men are like that (the article and the comments are ridiculous), I can attest from personal experience that one certain man (my husband) STILL thinks, after 20 plus years of marriage, that whenever I smile at him, I immediately want to have sex. Like...what the hell.

Calm down, Sparky. I thought what you just said was funny, but right this minute we're in the middle of food shopping at the supermarket and I don't especially want to get laid in the frozen food aisle, if that's ok with you ;P

posted by iconomy 30 March | 08:38

That's just because you're uptight ;-)

posted by dg 30 March | 08:49

And cold! The frozen food aisle is really chilly.

posted by iconomy 30 March | 08:51

This study was sponsored by the Institute For The Incredibly Obvious at Duh! University.

posted by jonmc 30 March | 09:15

Home of the Fighting Whathefucks!

posted by Lipstick Thespian 30 March | 09:35

Okay - just a test, guys: Would you categorize the image below as "friendly", "sexually interested", "sad" or "rejecting"?

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by taz 30 March | 09:45

Hmm, rejecting, taz, because it won't load for me.

posted by Ardiril 30 March | 10:19

I see no image. Ima go with "rejecting" then.

posted by richat 30 March | 10:20

okay... hold on... can you see zee pic now?

posted by taz 30 March | 10:33

I thought what you just said was funny, but right this minute we're in the middle of food shopping at the supermarket and I don't especially want to get laid in the frozen food aisle,

DAMN. . .calls for a massive recalibration. . .

posted by danf 30 March | 10:33

stoopid imageshack. last time I'm using them... though the plug-in uploader is so vewy, vewy convenient.

posted by taz 30 March | 10:34

It means, "come here, boytoy, NOW!"

That one was too easy.

posted by danf 30 March | 10:37

Wow that is one friendly, sad, sexually interested rejecting cat.

posted by cmonkey 30 March | 10:47

Ugh. "We can't help wanting to get in your pants, you're just going to have to live with it because it's SCIENCE! (you frigid bitch.)"

posted by casarkos 30 March | 12:05

I did a related study a few years ago where I showed participants photos of women making various facial expressions. Strangely enough, I found the men to more regularly show sexual interest in the photos.

The initial reaction is, of course, to think that men are more interested in sex than women. However, what I'd purport is that men's brains are more capable of generating sexual arousal based upon static images.

You want to know why we can't have nice science? This is why we can't have nice science. ::another study breaks against the wall::

posted by pokermonk 30 March | 12:20

Here's another woman's perspective on the debate. text, NSFW

posted by essexjan 30 March | 12:27

Awesome, ej.

posted by rainbaby 30 March | 14:56

erm, upon reflection - responsibility filter.

If you are young and/or inexperienced and/or have a partner that is young and/or inexperienced, essexjan's link is probably really really bad advice.

posted by rainbaby 30 March | 15:18

Good point, rainbaby, but I think the last lines of that CL post are valuable even --- heck, especially --- for the young and/or inexperienced:

Don't ever do something you don't want to do in silence and then blame the guy. Silence is dangerous.

I'd change that to "and then blame your partner," but I think it's an important sentiment.

posted by Elsa 30 March | 15:32

You are correct, of course, Elsa! I meant the overall tenor of the thing.

posted by rainbaby 30 March | 15:34

er. I definitely wouldn't take that all as good general advice. Pull my hair? Spank? Talk dirty? Pain is the point? Um... that would inspire a variety of responses in me - from a total loss of turn-on, to pulling out my little knife and stabbing you with it.

posted by taz 30 March | 15:41

Actually, the woman who wrote that craigslist post sounds like someone who'd rather hear herself talk than fuck.

posted by jonmc 30 March | 15:41

You shoot me glances and they're so hard to read
I misconstrue what you mean

posted by LoriFLA 30 March | 16:24

Am I misreading the LiveScience article, or does it tacitly assume that men are somehow at fault for the entire miscommunication?

It seems to restate some widely believed impressions, but with a tone that blames men for misinterpretation, rather than stating without attaching blame "physical cues look different to women than they do to men, generally," which seems like a more sensible message.

And ditto jonmc on the CL post. I think that's often true of people who write long descriptions of hypothetical sex: they'd rather be writing it than doing it, or they find it a lot easier to write it than to do it.

posted by Elsa 30 March | 16:27

Begging the question, how clueless are women for missing our friendly cues and subtle non-verbal communication that we men are clueless? Dearest women of the world, we are projecting signals of cluelessness all the time. It's coming out our ears. And yet you assume that we should know what we're doing?

Who is more foolish, the fool or those who trust the fool?

posted by Skwirl 01 April | 15:57

← There's a cardinal trying to break into our home. || Daft dog. →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN