Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[winner]

It means that he's going to stop bugging you about it but he still has hopes. Which is pretty much the best ending.

Biologically females (lets use birds as examples) are best served by sleeping around as much as they can, without their formal mate finding out about it.  That way they get the advantage of both good genes and dedicated child care.
Males wish to do exactly the same.

[Acanthus117]

Achievement unlocked!

Just kidding. but seriously, if he 'cares' for you, he wouldn't be acting so creepy.

[Pathos]

11:19 PM. Calls my house to apologize for making me uncomfortable with and says he hopes we can stay friends. Says hes "really sorry" and "never meant to pressure me."
Then, when hanging up, added  "I really do care for you." Click.
...
So was that it, or is this just a new tactic?

We won't know until you give a follow up.

[bjlong]

Well, that's an excellent sign--it means he got the message, and will probably act on it. Still, disappear from his life for a little while, so he has some time with you not being around.

[Jude]

Other than this, I don't think you're qualified to make any of the wild assertions you've been positing across this forum. Are you a scientist of some sort? If we're using twists of logic here, women should technically be more willing to take many partners because they need to keep having sex to get pregnant. Also, there is no down-time for them, so they can be doing it all the time until it happens for them. Trying to theorize on this leads us in two directions.]

We're not using twists of logic, we're using evidence from biology, psychology anthropology and other fields. I'm not just talking out my butt, this is well-established science. Differential parental investment theory predicts that men should be interested having more different sexual partners than women, whereas women should be interested in maximizing the quality and commitment of whatever man impregnates them. And we find that that IS the case in every society on earth. Therefore, the theory has a lot going for it.

That's how these conclusions were come to, in miniature. There's plenty of other evidence for differential parental investment theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_investment

Incidentally, I'm not "some kind of scientist" (yet, I eventually plan to be) but I majored in psych and studied a bunch of this stuff in depth, as well as having read plenty of popular and technical scientific literature on it and done some research into it and related fields. But in any case I'm not discussing my findings, I'm discussing well-known findings by other scientists

Sexuality, at least modern sexuality, seems like something that should be studied using Sociology, and not Biology.

That would be a horrible idea, about as bad as trying to study atoms with theology, not physics.

Sex is biological. Humans are organisms. Attempting to treat humans as something other than biological organisms (which is to say, products of evolution) is not going to produce good science. Just look at post-modernism.

My own experience has been that my girlfriends have been more libidinous than me (though, that may be because I am such a studmuffin and I wield the rod of power that menaces with spikes of sexy). I somehow doubt that I just so happen to date every deviant in the world.

There's no prediction that women don't enjoy sex or want sex less than men, just that on the whole they're more interested in having it with a single partner (and are much more picky about who they do it with) than men are

Also, you could be an outlier in terms of strength of male sex drive

@Renault: Just ignore him. He may get increasingly desperate at first but then if you stop responding to him it'll drop off pretty quick.

[Grakelin]

Everything you said is completely debunked by trying to say sociology is not a valid science.

[Cthulhu]

Evolutionary Science is fun because anyone can come up with a very reasonable-sounding reason for anything in about two seconds.

That doesn't mean Sociology isn't a valid way of analyzing this, social forces have a big impact.

[andrea]

Sociology is just applied psychology, which in turn is applied biology.

xkcd

[Tylui]

Thanks Acanthus. Heh. I'll try it tomorrow, I think.

And Jude, there are some things I could have lived happily never knowing. Ever.
And I don't think I'll ever quite understand that numeric system people use. Like what constitutes a 6 opposed to a 5. Or what a 1 could possibly be.

Time to build back what little confidence I have. Conan will help. Yes yes.

This is about a 0.2 if it helps:



Anyway, that phone call is just a way of letting you know that he hasn't given up. He thinks he has, but that last comment, whether he meant to say it or not, is evidence that he isn't finished.

Personally, I believe that far too many humans do things for reasons they don't know anything about. They just act on the memetic behaviors our fucked up culture has taught us, or the clashes between instinct and rational thought.

I think he's just trying to illicit some reaction from you. His comments and the whole phone call shouldn't mean a thing to you. Don't be scared. Don't be happy. Don't be sad. Don't be mad. Continue to stay indifferent to his actions/words/etc. This'll give off the message. Like someone in the thread said, there'll be the extinction spike where he'll try really hard and then die out. Just keep acting indifferent, and I'd give it a week or two to be completely done.

Alternatively, you could set him up with one of your "lusty" friends. Ha.

[Shades]

Sociology is just applied psychology, which in turn is applied biology.

xkcd

One of my favourite xkcds

[Kebooo]

This topic is so active with all these replies because secretly everyone was that awkward stalker guy, and still is.     Maybe.

I'd say any sane guy (although he may not be sane) will realize his chances are gone if you tell him "I'm not interested in you as anything more than a friend, and I never will be."  The never is the nail in the coffin.  It doesn't have to be vicious.

Also, the whole "guys will masturbate to anyone they're attracted to" is nonsense.  And to compare pornstars to people you know is equally nonsense.  One is objectifying, even degrading an unknown person that you couldn't care less about.  The other is doing that to a personal friend that you have real life relationships with.  I hope I don't have to explain the fundamental differences further.  I have a circle of very close male friends, 5 or 6, that I've known long enough and well enough to know their most depraved thoughts.  Only two of them are the kind that have no care to restrain any primal urges of theirs.

[smigenboger]

xkcd

I love how he's just holding on to an octopus

[smigenboger]

True, and the whole he/she's just not that into you thing. Same with friendships, if someone doesn't call or ever want to do anything, might as well get over it than try to draw that out

[Hyndis]

I'd say any sane guy (although he may not be sane) will realize his chances are gone if you tell him "I'm not interested in you as anything more than a friend, and I never will be."  The never is the nail in the coffin.  It doesn't have to be vicious.

Agree. And even as a guy, this is what I would want to hear. Its how you tell a guy no. Not knowing where you stand is much worse than at least getting an answer even if the answer is no.

No need to be mean or rude about it, just polite, matter of fact, and completely unambiguous. Simple and straightforward.

[Jude]

Everything you said is completely debunked by trying to say sociology is not a valid science.

Yeah that was a bad analogy

Sociology in itself is legitimate but it's been done quite badly for a lot of the past century but that's not true for all of it nor does it mean the subject matter shouldn't be studied. But you said that sociology alone should be used to study sex which is preposterous and which is what I was contradicting. You simply can't understand human sexual behavior without starting at biology and evolutionary theory, plus comparative psychology and more classical psychology, and then once you understand how it works at and individual level then you have a much better basis for studying it at the level of societies.

Otherwise you'd have something like what economists do, assuming people are all rational utility maximizers in their models, which doesn't at all reflect how people actually act

Evolutionary Science is fun because anyone can come up with a very reasonable-sounding reason for anything in about two seconds.

That's true of all science; the thing is that good science involves distinguishing the reasonable-sounding but false explanations from the explanations that actually make good predictions and hold up under examination.

You'll just hear that accusation against evolutionary psychology from people who don't like it (usually because its implications threaten their worldview somehow) even though it fails to distinguish well-done science from badly-done science, like saying all Republicans are closeted gays or all Democrats are corrupt and taking kickbacks.

Also, the whole "guys will masturbate to anyone they're attracted to" is nonsense.  And to compare pornstars to people you know is equally nonsense.  One is objectifying, even degrading an unknown person that you couldn't care less about.

I'm not sure what's degrading about fantasizing about someone, it's a pretty natural human tendency
I'm sure people have masturbated while thinking about me at some point and I'm OK with that