Could Women Cope With The Amount Of Sexual Rejection Men Cope With ?

A guy called Warren Farrell tried a role-reversal that will terrify most women in which men took on a women’s role, and women took on a man’s role. The feminists LOVED him for the role reversal experiments he did with men, and HATED him for the role reversal experiments he did with women.

Role Reversal For Women

He had the women ask men out. Women had to call the man, plan the evening, and initiate every step of the date.

The men were told to be entirely passive, putting the burden of the evening on the woman. It was up to the women to risk rejection for any physical or sexual contact she wanted, with the men accepting or rejecting the women’s advances.

Many of the women said they were unable to listen to what the man was saying because they were so worried about getting rejected. Instead of connecting with men, the women found themselves constantly thinking “How do I get this guy not to say no?”

Every time I’ve told this story to man, he’s burst out laughing in recognition. Just as most women worry about their looks, most men worry about getting rejected.

Role Reversal For Men

Warren had men participate in a beauty contest. Male contestants had to present themselves shirtless, and have women vote on who was the most attractive.

At first, the men loved the attention. However, as men began to get voted off for being less attractive than other contestants, the men became self-conscious. They felt hurt and rejected when they were voted off.

After the experiment, the men had a greater understanding of the insecurity women experience around their body.

Double Standards

While the men were willing to do the beauty contest, most of feminists, even after watching the men go through the beauty contest, walked out when it came time to participate in the role-reversal date.

While women’s issues with body image are constantly explored in mass media, very little has been written about men’s issues with rejection that isn’t demeaning or shaming.

The only group that treat’s men’s fear of rejection with anything resembling empathy is the pick up industry. It’s not surprising given the amount of rejection men face.

If women expect men to understand their struggles with body image, they should also seek to understand men’s issues with rejection and game.

Most women who criticize men’s pick-up tactics have never tried to approach a stranger, win their trust, and ask them out. My intention isn’t to give up roles, but simply to understand the others experience better and I wouldn’t want to change either.

Well, of course! As soon as a man rejects a woman, it's immediately his fault just because she starts to feel insecure.

Actually it sounds like she was being defensive because she felt like you were hitting on her and she felt uncomfortable so she was making an excuse to leave. It's nothing to do with her trying to assert some sort of social dominance.

So what, this woman was not interested, she had a boyfriend. There will be others that are single and interested.

You'd probably find an excuse to shut the conversation down if you weren't attracted to the person or were attached.

If you had asked, do you want a man rather than do you need a man, I'd think that you'd probably get a more positive response, bar our lady loving sisters.

The only way that this is not a logical contradiction is if you are not a man. Is that what you are saying?

How is that a contradiction? You can find somebody attractive and still have platonic intentions regarding them.

If you have platonic intentions, why would you ONLY approach people you are attracted to? What possible logical reason could there be for such selective socialising?

Its clearly contradictory. Only really creepy guys like this Mike bloke try to hit on girls in the street.

It's a very limited way of building a friend-group, admittedly, but it's not contradictory. Perhaps he just likes have (only) attractive friends.

It's a very limited way of building a friend-group, admittedly, but it's not contradictory. Perhaps he just likes have (only) attractive friends.

Perhaps, but that still wouldn't excuse the fact that he said MEN only approach women they're attracted to. Not him, all men. (He then contradicts this in the next post by admitting he also approaches a wide variety of people.)

Perhaps, but that still wouldn't excuse the fact that he said MEN only approach women they're attracted to. Not him, all men. (He then contradicts this in the next post by admitting he also approaches a wide variety of people.)

Which is clearly abject excrement, just like everything else he writes.

I said I approach a wide variety of people I am attracted to. I expanded on the meaning of 'attractive' to explain how someone can be attractive in a non-physical sense. Hence enabling me to approach only those I am attracted to without crossing platonic boundaries.

.

Hahahaha! Talk about moving the goalposts! Your original point was revealed to be bull****, so you're changing the definition of the word attractive.

Man, talk about all-time colossal fails.

Of course, but I think it's a more calculated and considered risk because you're not shooting a hundred arrows blind hoping for a target that you don't even know you want.
It's pretty easy to see if someone isn't into you after talking to them for a while. I personally wouldn't take a risk and ask to hang out with someone new unless I was pretty sure they were going to say yes.

Shotgun approach is more risky, comes across badly (in a lot of cases) and can cause some women to become increasingly hypervigilant/suspicious and more likely to shoot other men down in future, which feeds the whole rejection cycle. I don't think it creates a trusting vibe between men and women.

So you're bothered about wealth?

For instance if you came from an upper class background you would require a wealthy boyfriend if he was not to rely on you when it came to doing activities together.

Of course it would be possible to date a man below your social class, but if the gap is too wide it would be impractical. For instance if you wanted to go on holiday, a working class man might not be able to take time off work to go with you, and certainly the choices available that you could
both afford would be limited.

Now I can't think of many areas of a relationship that are not impacted by the balance of financial power between a couple. It would be crazy not to choose a partner who has a similar social class to you if you wanted an equitable relationship, which you seem to do.



Yes but men actually seek these kinds of relationships, after all: the primary purpose of men earning money, beyond subsistence amounts, is to attract a mate. I doubt men would voluntarily be doing 60hour weeks in a sterile, dreary office otherwise. We are happy to trade money for looks in a relationship.

There's nothing wrong with hypergamy either. It seems natural: it's a very good survival strategy for women.

Hahahaha! Talk about moving the goalposts! Your original point was revealed to be bull****, so you're changing the definition of the word attractive.

Man, talk about all-time colossal fails.

Your argument falls apart when you begin swearing.

I said that I wasn't that bothered about wealth. I'd like to be with someone of a similar income potential to myself for the reasons you give above. I would not like to be with someone significantly wealthier than myself because I would like to maintain some financial independence. I'm the sort of person who prefers to go 50/50 on a house rather than live in some flashy place he bought. That doesn't feel like MY home and what if the relationship fails? I think depending on a man for financial support is plain stupid and can leave you worthless in the employment market should you find yourself single after many years being kept.

Lots of young men resent hypergamous women. I see it on TSR every day threads full of resentful adolescent boys moaning about not having the resources to attract good diggers and then moaning about gold diggers gold-digging. Erm...what??
The solution is simple. Stop going for women who are impressed by money and go off piste.

From a woman's POV a wealthy partner makes sense: it gives her allot of flexibility if she wants to have children (maybe she wants to take time off work to raise the children), it provides security, and it indicates other good traits that a man would have, such as ambition or education, or smarts.

It isn't a 'calculated and considered risk', it's a risk that's going to wrench your heart out; because the guy may never have considered the fact that she may not be interested.
In reality, women are idiots when it comes to dating. That is, when it comes to actually signifying to a guy their levels of interest/approaching the guy they're interested in. They may know what they want from the youngest of ages; but the very fact that they know - irrespective of their circumstances/age - doesn't actually transfer to what they 'do/approach/signify'.

So, a 'shotgun' approach; is actually beneficial in the long run. It is, as the guy wouldn't have been chasing after a girl (who may've either decided to lead him on/not signified ample disinterest) for lengthy years of time; to only be told that she wasn't interested; but rather he would've been chasing after girls; and with that kind of approach, would be more successful, as at least one of the girls would be attracted.

'don't even know you want' << on the contrary, guys approach girls, with the pre-ordained knowledge that they want this girl. Be it for platonic/relationship reasons. If a guy approaches, they want her; nobody has time to be making approaches for something they don't want.

I say this, because what women perceive to be signs of 'ample interest' or signs of 'ample disinterest'; aren't things that would've otherwise been plainly understood when looking at it from an objective viewpoint. That is, unless a guy has read up on body language, eye contact; e.t.c women. are. mystifying. creatures.
In the beginning of an interaction, they don't say 'no I'm not interested'; moreover they don't say: 'Yes, I am interested'; rather they rely on a guy to be knowledgeable of these things (body language, proximity position; e.t.c) prior to the start of the interaction. Most guys aren't able to even tell the difference between two colors let alone that level of witchcraft.

Your argument falls apart when you begin swearing.