The question is how many of those 25% were fake numbers "just to get that creeper off my back". It's nice that you decided to "not be creepy", but it's not you who decides how your behaviour is judged.
That's a bit (I admit not entirely) like saying that "Maybe all those free-throws you practiced between games didn't score us any actual points."
100% of the women he didn't ask did not give him his number. The exercise served the purpose of pushing him past the fear that would have otherwise paralyzed him during a real request.
Except women are people, not inanimate objects to bounce balls off of. Those women did not choose to participate in SeanDav's practice, and it was not cost-free to them to be used and discarded that way.
More to brazzy's point, SeanDav doesn't get to decide how he comes across to people. Pretty young women get hit on constantly and it is really exhausting and demoralizing to be rudely interrupted every five minutes while out in public, by people who pretend to be friendly but clearly have ulterior motives. The girl - who was, by definition, interrupted for the umpteenth time that day - likely considered the interruption unpleasant and at least somewhat creepy. Withdrawing "if the situation becomes uncomfortable" is taking it many, many steps too far and is frankly wishful thinking - people in general, and girls especially, are not socialized to tell people to f--ck off right away so by the time the situation is so uncomfortable that the girl actually asks you to leave her alone, it is way past discomfort for her.
Not to mention that if all you really want to do is practice free-throws, you don't need to bust your way into the most elite basketball court to do it. Nothing wrong with practicing within your league. Why couldn't he get phone numbers from unattractive girls, or boys?
Pretty young women get hit on constantly and it is really exhausting and demoralizing to be rudely interrupted every five minutes while out in public
Holy hyperbole. I have two sisters that are very pretty and their chief complaint growing up was that men were too intimidated by them and never hit on them.
As a 6'7" man I cannot walk anywhere without being "rudely interrupted" as you say by people bringing up my height. It's the same old thing - "Wow, you're tall!" "Did you play basketball?" "How tall are you?" "Are your parents tall?" "Hey Giant" "Hey Too Tall" "Hey Stretch". Unlike you though I don't think it's rude. I think it's an attempt to initiate a conversation.
I think you're taking those staged "street harassment" videos too seriously.
I appreciate that you are relaying your sisters' experiences and I want to respect that they may be different from mine. I hope you can equally respect that I am speaking from personal experience as well, as opposed to watching those "staged" (huh?) street harassment videos. It is not a hyperbole to me, my twenties were spent getting hit on every 5 minutes while in public. Granted this was in NYC where street harassment is especially egregious.
It is not a hyperbole to me, my twenties were spent getting hit on every 5 minutes while in public.
So since it's not hyperbole, let's figure you were in public an hour a day in your twenties. That is 1 hour x 365 days x 10 years. So you were in public an estimated 3,650 hours during that decade. There are 12 five minute increments per hour, so that means you were hit on 43,800 times in your 20s. And that's only if you were in public an hour a day which is probably a fraction of reality! It's much more likely you've been hit on by literally hundreds of thousands of men if you weren't just making "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally" (i.e. the definition of hyperbole if you were unaware).
You poor thing, you must make Helen of Troy look like a hag.
I don't understand. I am telling you what my actual experience was, and you are saying it must be a hyperbole because... you personally find it hard to believe? I've re-read your comment several times and all I can see is that you've added up the numbers and then just decided that they cannot possibly be true.
Your Helen of Troy put-down has nothing to do with my comment. If I were to say that I get hundreds of spam emails every day, it would be a statement of fact, not a claim that I am so rich that I make King Midas look destitute. You don't have to look like the most beautiful woman in history to get hit on, you just need to be conventionally attractive and physically present.
Ironically, it seems you're trying to sympathize with women by saying they're not inanimate objects to bounce balls off of, but you're still denying them autonomy.
When women want attention, they dress attractively. When they don't want attention, they dress casually. It's just like birds. Ever wonder why they call it the birds and the bees? If you're a guy and you hit on women in sweatpants, you'll most likely fail, b/c those women are not signalling their availability and interest.
And before someone goes all "women should be able to dress however they want and not get raped," consider that I'm not advocating rape. I'm pointing out that the previous poster asked "attractive" women for their phone numbers, not every woman. Logically, this implies that he was asking women who were seeking attraction by dressing attractively and presenting themselves as available and seeking mates, just like birds who sing to signal their availability.
The reason everyone confuses attractiveness is that our media present it as a thing that you have or don't. "Movie stars have it, computer nerds don't." But the real truth is that attractiveness is something you do. When you want to "get out there," to signal your availability and interest in mating, you do attractiveness. It doesn't matter how fat or pimply you are: You adorn yourself, you clean yourself, wear fancy clothes, you grab attention, you impress people, try hairstyles. Once you're married, reproducing, dropping kids off in a minivan on Saturday morning, you wear sweatpants and other casual clothes and no one (except social retards, of which there are unfortunately plenty) hits on you. Or else if you miss that egoistic feeling of being attractive, you dress up a little bit and reject all the people that hit on you.
This is how it works. It's just one step advanced from non-speaking mammals. Political correctness is just an attempt to cover up the realities that not everyone understands, just like religion and the Republican party are shorthand behaviors/scripts for people to follow when they don't know exactly what to do.
> Logically, this implies that he was asking women who were seeking attraction by dressing attractively and presenting themselves as available and seeking mates, just like birds who sing to signal their availability.
Hm, the male gaze is heavy with this one. Has it ever occurred to you that people (of whatever gender) might like to put on clothes to please themselves? Because it makes them feel nice? Your assumption that the only possible reason to do that could be to "show availability" and that it was done with other people, and their regard, in mind, is awfully egocentric of you.
Incidentally, i agree with your thesis that attractiveness isn't a have/have not thing, nor is it about normative tastes with regards to appearance. This is, however, orthogonal to whether or not women exist simply to mate with, and that they signal this by clothing choices (which is what you're implying, by denying that anyone would dress a certain way for other reasons).
Turns out people wear nice clothes for a whole lotta reasons, and even beyond that the attention they might want is probably not the attention you're about to give. You can't divine the other's context, which is why the less creepy ways of meeting someone almost always involve relating over explicitly shared context.
>Why couldn't he get phone numbers from unattractive girls, or boys?
A charitable assumption is that he thought approaching unattractive women wouldn't sufficiently affect his anxiety when speaking to attractive women and decided the benefit for him would outweigh the aggregate cost for them. As for asking men for their phone numbers, I assumed he either never considered it or feared being attacked in response (reasonably).
> Those women did not choose to participate in SeanDav's practice, and it was not cost-free to them to be used and discarded that way.
Isn't it sad that the womens' fathers treated their mothers like inanimate objects when they courted them for marriage (or whatever level of relationship led to child-bearing that produced those women ) ?
Those mothers-to-be did not choose to participate in the fathers-to-be's practice, and it was not cost-free for them to be used and courted that way.
Those mothers-to-be were exhaustedly and demoralizingly and rudely interrupted, perhaps as often as every 5 minutes (although there are no sources to back this up) while out in public, by people who pretended to be friendly but had ulterior motives. Those mothers-to-be considered that interruption unpleasant and at least somewhat creepy, even though that awful inappropriate experience actually led to a couple who created a new generation of human beings for the world.
Those mothers-to-be were not socialized to tell those fathers-to-be to f-ck off right away, otherwise they wouldn't have had (at least some) lifelong relationships that produced children. Some of those mothers-to-be were certainly made extremely uncomfortable. How dare those fathers-to-be take action on their biological instincts?!?
It's not rude to interact with a person in public. As long as he didn't harass, and he respected the women's choice if they didn't want to talk, there's no harm done.
Many friends of mine have met their significant others through spontaneous interactions like this. It's not as uncommon as you'd think.
Why couldn't he get phone numbers from unattractive girls, or boys?
Are you serious? This is rather insulting to so-called "unattractive" girls.
Indeed, better that SeanDev have suffered a lifetime of loneliness and social anxiety than an attractive woman suffer through even a single socially awkward moment. God knows their lives are hard enough already.
My question would be, what's a real alternative to practice making perfect, done in the way that best respects the person being asked out and their physical integrity?
"Not doing anything at all" seems unrealistic, in a world where males are essentialized as the pursuers and women as the pursued, an unfortunate but for now real state of affairs.
"Simply will yourself to normalcy!" is almost offensive to me, since it simultaneously ignores the lived experience of the person feeling it and puts moral censure on the addressee--if there's some issue X in your life, it's entirely your fault. It's like telling someone that the only reason they aren't financially successful is that they're lazy.
I'm all ears, seriously, especially after the Scott Aaronson/Alexander debacle a couple weeks ago. It seems like a real issue in our society.
Practice is great! Girls want to meet guys as much as guys want to meet girls! Here is my take on how to do it respectfully:
1) Do not limit yourself to only the prettiest girls. The whole beautiful girl/rich guy dichotomy is ugly. Do you want to be seen as a full-spectrum human being and not just a walking wallet? Then see girls as full-spectrum human beings and not just tits on legs.
2) For god's sake, do not set up a lose-lose situation for the other person. SeanDev's practice method has two possible outcomes: if the girl does not like him, well then he just added to the endless stream of go-nowhere "sales calls" that she has to answer all day long; but if she does like him, then she feels sad and disappointed that he didn't call for a date. The whole thing is just so... disingenuous and defeatist.
3) Practice in an environment where girls are actually looking to meet guys. Dating sites is one obvious example, bars is another. Ambushing women as they go about their daily business is problematic. Human interactions are complex and there are no scripts but the closer you can get to implied consent the better.
3a) It's hard for anyone to meet sexually/intellectually/temperamentally compatible people on the street. I am a conventionally attractive woman; I've been approached on the street probably over 10,000 times (a totally unscientific but conservative back-of-the-envelope estimate) and I can tell you that it's never led to anything. Bars and parties have better outcomes, and being out and about doing fun stuff has yet better outcomes. For example yoga and volunteering are over-run by women, at least in cities where I've lived.
4) The initial conversation with someone you want to get with is no different than the initial conversation with someone you have no interest in getting with. I think that's the hardest thing for some guys to wrap their head around, hence all the weird "cheat codes for women" floating about. Social anxiety is a real thing but there is no rule that you need to hit on the prettiest girl in the room to get over it. I've practiced my social skills on strangers that I have no interest in, and it's helped me a lot. Granted my social anxiety is not very high to begin with - if yours is debilitating, see a doctor, it's treatable!
Speaking of social anxiety. I don't want to re-open the whole Scott Aaronson debacle either but since you mentioned him I'd like to point out that he actually went to a physician to request castration as a solution to his social anxiety issues so we are talking about an exceptionally disturbed individual who attempted a full-on sexual suicide. The vast majority of people - men and women both - are not looking to "kill" themselves so I think it's superfluous to bring him into this discussion. I don't mean that as a jab, I just mean that it is unhelpful to mentally lump yourself in with someone like SA.
Solid advice, and I like your point about SA--his experience was extreme enough that I wouldn't be surprised if it's totally unique, and yet everyone wants to have a debate as if his is typical or representative.
Sometimes the girl will feel good and confident the whole day after receiving a compliment, as long as it is in a polite and respectful way, even when they ignore it or roll their eyes to it...anyway it's a delicate matter.
Yes, the exercise anecdotally served the purpose of improving his confidence. But no, your assumption that he would be unable to ask for a number he really wanted is unfounded and has nothing to do with your false analogy.
Also, asking for something you're not emotionally invested in has little bearing to asking for something you're emotionally invested in. As an example: Asking someone you only just met for their number bears little resemblance to asking a someone you really like to go for coffee or dinner with you... when you're emotionally invested, rejection stings.
The analogy would be to throw the ball, but not look if he missed it or not. It's like practicing free throws by blindly throwing ball to basket's general direction and not knowing of outcome.
If someone is completely terrified of even attempting a free throw, then there's no sense in worrying whether they sink the shot. Until that terror is overcome, the fact that they try at all is a success.
