I read this today:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn420

It's about how, in male-female interactions, society usually assumes it is the male initiating when in fact the female is leading every step of the way. How is this so? By subtle cues that women send out, hints that she is interested and beckoning the man to proceed further.

I have two questions for the ladies:

1. Do you (or other women you know) do this? (You have to read the article before you answer)

2. If you said yes to question #1 above, do you think sending these signals is a deliberate act, or is it done unknowingly?

If I ever have done anything like that, it would have been unconsciously. But I really don't think I ever have.

Now, I DO like to joke around and "flirt" with guys I know (like I do here), but its not to get a date, its because I just like to joke around (and with men, they usually won't be offended, unlike most women.) In fact my husband warned me against joking around on here too much, he said men take it the wrong way, but I told him you guys are OK (plus there is an ocean separating most of you from me anyway!

My guess is that it's largely subconscious. I'm not aware of ever having done it, but I have noticed other women doing it. I can't help but wonder, though, if they are unaware they doing it, and perhaps I've done it, too, and just didn't realize it. Does that make sense?

Bit of a worry you ask this since your chosen area is DV

1. Yes
2. Yes it is a deliberate act but sometimes you don't realise you are doing it because it is automatic. Something you learn very young.

I'm not a lady (except some Friday nights for fun - jk) but this article doesnt' come as a surprise to me. I've had a keen interest in body language for a while. Mostly I pick up on the blatantly obvious than the subtle though.

One occasion that I have a strong memory of, is when my ex and I were at home and my ex-ex called to ask if I'd like the kids over for a while (this was prior to the Animal interfering with my relationship to them). So out of common decency just checked with her if it would be ok.

She huffed, threw her arms together and crossed them, scowled like a bulldog chewing a wasp and her eyes turned to ice. However, she said "yeah..sure"

So, it was pretty obvious to me she didnt' want the kids over that day. I explained to my ex-ex that it probably wouldn't be a good time and let it go.

The ex could not accept that her body language spoke considerably louder than her verbal communication. Seems either way I went, I would have been in the wrong. Well, what's new there

Flipping your hair and adjusting your clothing are courtship signals? I thought it was to get your hair out of your face and make sure your top is hanging right and not gapping, if it's button-front. Then again, I've had confusion about such things, as you know.

When someone is talking to me, I usually nod at appropriate places out of politeness. Even if they're boring me to tears if I'm not in a situation where I can excuse myself. Except for some of the people I used to see on the city bus, cause they were nuts, and the panhandlers on my way to work, because I'm not giving them any more money. Them I just ignore.

Again, though, boundary issues.

I'm not getting the point on the "chosen area" thing... I'm an MRA all-around, just more educated on the DV stuff.

The reason why I'm interested in this stuff is because I follow the PUA community (not as a participant, but I do keep my eye on it since it's a male social movement). The top guy in the PUA community (nicknamed "Mystery") says that when women make these gestures, the gestures are really involuntary -- and it means she's interested on some level. If true, that means that the balance of sexual power (now heavily tilted in favor of women, in western societies) can rapidly be altered when a particular man recognizes these things and acts.

Twenty-one years ago Warren Farrell wrote about this phenomenon in "Why Men Are the Way They Are." He pointed out that women have greater sexual power because they telegraph interest in men passively, and therefore excuse themselves of responsibility for their sexual/romantic decisions because of their socialization. Men, therefore, end up either emotionally and financially vulnerable (on one extreme) or too sexually aggressive (on the other extreme). So this is not a new discussion.

I do think that DV is related to a man's lack of sexual and social power because in the West, these areas are dominated by women and those who play women's games. When men are emasculated, and yet trained to think of themselves as leaders and kings of their castles, that is a powder keg for conflict. I think there would be far less DV if otherwise violent men took charge of their sexuality and stopped supplicating to women, seeking female validation and approval in everything (and being terrified of female scorn and/or disapproval). I also think there would be fewer false allegations of DV made by women (usually as a gambit to kick out the husband and bring in the new lover) if men were more aware of what sparks a woman's attraction. Supplication may please a woman, but it won't turn her on. I think that a lot of DV is an outgrowth of powerlessness. Men can counteract being treated like wallets if they explore their manhood and become in control of their sexual lives -- being choosers instead of beggars. In other words, becoming more powerful.

I think the whole PUA phenomenon is money-driven (meaning a lot of desperate men fuel it by paying for seminars and courses). But the PUA phenomenon exists because there is a demand -- and that demand is for men to reassert their manhood even while our culture shuns this. Someday fathers will train their sons to embrace manhood, power, and independence -- and that may happen if we can overcome our biased custody laws. Until then, I think a shift in adult men can yield great benefits right now, but that shift won't spring from the PUA community.

There is a thread started by one of the users on this forum named "ninjamaster," about a Web site (manhood101.com) that caters to the demand for men to master the areas of their lives that western society has decimated. I think this Web site has some good points. And better yet, it's not PUA-related:
http://antimisandry.com/manhood_101_...ood-t7879.html

I personally don't have a problem with PUA per se. I've had some conversations with someone I know online who is a PUA, and from what I can tell, it's really all about teaching men confidence.

I disagree with some of their techniques, for example the "neg hit". That isn't about being confident; it's about manipulation. But being confident enough in yourself to not be devastated by a rejection just makes you a happier person. And that makes you more attractive to the opposite sex. (Note I'm talking about a non-cruel rejection here. I do realize some women get off on making men feel like dirt).

Annette wants me. She can say it's only play flirting if she wants, but she wants me. I don't blame her in the least, if I was a woman, I'd want me too. Luckily I am me, and I get to spend my entire days around myself.

I tend to agree. You seem to be on the same page as Marc Rudov, calling for realism about the hetero dance. But if this stuff comes from evolutionary development we can't really expect changes can we? The best we could hope for is enough awareness to play the game effectively.

What we're fighting against is, in essence, a diversion from nature. Namely, the diversion from manhood to a society that invents its own social and political rights. Entitlement is what we're about in the West. When men stop seeking external solutions and embrace their own manhood, entitlement dies. They are no longer entitled, nor do they feed the entitlement of others. This is in their interest -- our interest. For men, rejecting the sole provider role and regaining our sexual power will do more to help us (and humanity) than any contrivances of ideology or entitlement.

Those who survive our male-neutering culture will be the ones who make a decision to embrace independence and autonomy, even if this means incurring social rejection, or any one particular woman's disapproval. It is this willingness to have a stronger backbone and reject external pressures -- the willingness not to be a financial doormat -- that generally makes men sexually attractive to women in the first place. And therein lies the evolutionary advantage.

In the past, it was the physically strong who survived. Today, with the influence of technology, physical survival is not as much under threat. Manhood, independence, assertiveness -- these are under threat. Those who retain their manhood will probably be successful in sexual attraction, as well as a host of other areas in life. Ironically, this gets us back to what men were naturally meant to be.