The difference between appearing cautious and uninterested

Post Reply New Topic

What is it?

Most of the women I know about my age strike me as uninterested, by my criteria, which is that if they're not uninterested they at least respond to my friendly gestures with some of their own. It has been suggested to me that many women about my age may be shy around me or otherwise intimidated by me. I'm not sure if there is a way to tell the difference, but if there is I'm open to ideas.

I'm pretty sure I have no answers... so instead, I'll offer questions.

First Question: Why do you think they are uninterested in you? What signals or characteristics do you define interest?


M.

The problem is, I don't really think you can theorize or hypothesize about this sort of thing. Instead, the actions have to be seen, heard and felt to really know what's going on. So, with that, I suggest making a video of how you approach a girl (this goes for everyone with this question) and shove it on here. Then we can truly discuss.

Signs of lack of interest to me include looking away or at something else, not engaging with me on any meaningful topic of conversation despite repeated attempts (with different topics), appearing in a hurry to go somewhere else without any particularly good excuse, not asking me questions about what I'm discussing and at the same time not telling me much about themselves. This is all particularly pertinent if I don't know the other person all that well, because the way I see it there are plenty of people who just won't get on with me and trying after a certain point would only make it worse.

I'm no good at acting, and I get nervous anyway, so I would need no less than video evidence of me trying to meet new people.

Eye contact can be due to many reasons; falls under diagnostic criteria, for goodness sake - it could be simple shyness. Remember also that other people don't have to justify their lives to you - if they do not wish to tell you why they have to go, that is their right.

Second Question: What is the ratio of questions to answers and explanations on your side of the conversation?


M.

Of course I understand all this, it's more a combination of two or more of these that leads me to suspicion, and sometimes I'm wrong but usually these traits persist for one reason or another. Whether or not it's shyness deals precisely with the question I asked in my original post; whether there's anything to distinguish this form of "shyness" from a lack of interest.

My friends in contrast usually began to show a peculiar level of interest in hearing the details of what I have to say, or my various stories and anecdotes, within the first few conversations (at least on a particular range of topics on which we can connect). Notably, nearly all of my friends have been male.

With people I don't know at all I feel more comfortable trying to put the conversational focus on them because I'm afraid of rambling too much if the focus is on me. As I get more comfortable I can start talking about myself, and if I'm really comfortable with the person I may start to ramble more and more. With my friends I tend to give long and thorough answers followed by questions, whereas with people I'm not as acquainted with it'd be in the form of shorter answers.

If they seem mostly unresponsive, don't make an effort to converse with you, or always have to go somewhere else, then it's safe to assume that they're not interested. Unfortunately, I can't explain what the signs of "shy but interested" are, since I don't really know.

I've noticed some people are just like that, in general. I've noticed women are much more so, especially around guys. I've seen my friends act this way, even if they're not particularly disinterested in a guy. It all depends, but there's a lot of fear out there, especially women toward guys, and especially tall, 'weird' guys. Unfortunately, that just seems to be the way it is much of the time.

Where are all the fearless women? The women that aren't afraid to speak their minds, hold their own, and not run in the other direction if they think a guy is hitting on them? Do I know the only women in the world like this? Are we a rare breed? Come on! But, believe it or not, I've talked to co-workers about them confronting men they liked, because they ran away from them. Yeah, the guys they actually fancied. I know it doesn't make sense on a simple, logical level, but from what I've seen it's pretty common. And that's not to say every woman that runs away has an interest in a guy, of course.

Of course, maybe it's that we girls who're loudmouths never get approached. I'm not as blatant as some of my women friends and family, but I'm still pretty crass and not afraid to rip a cuss in front of a lot of people (though with some tact). Are we just not attractive enough to be approached by men? Are we scary in some way? Do we need to be coy, small and giggly? WHAT GIVES?



No no no, nonono, I don't mean acting. I mean something more candid than that. Just a video documentation, should it ever occur. Just whip out the digicam (or whatever) and pop it on in a discrete place and let 'er rip. I used to do stuff like that all the time, so I know it's possible.

At least women are now "fearless" enough to press harassment charges against guys who thought they were just being shy or playing "hard to get"...

I'm alarmed at how few women my age in college are (or at least appear to be) loudmouth types compared to the girls I knew in secondary school and the women I know who are well past college age. There of course are exceptions, and they're automatically interesting, but they're also one in at least a few dozen.

It seems like that may be construed as a violation of privacy.

I...well, maybe, but this is the internet, for godsakes. You could always blur out their face if you're worried.

I would think Irish culture would have more loudmouths than in, say, the Mexican culture I'm more or less surrounded by here. Not that I'd personally know, but it seems to be a stereotype. I would expect puritan cultures to be the worst.

I actually have some strong opinions about the loudmouth type girl/woman, both from personal experience and observation. Watch out, because some of the below is controversial and incendiary, but not meant to be sexist or to define gender roles. It's rather just a statement of how things are, rather than how they should be.

I think loudmouth girls fall into 3 categories --

1. Women who are just plain loud by genetic personality, culture, or both. Some of it is culture -- women in the ghetto tend to be far more loud and crass than their middle class counterpart, and some cultures (e.g. African American) place a higher value on being outspoken than others (e.g. Asian or Northern European). There is also a lot of gender programming here, where boys are taught to be aggressive and outgoing at a young age, while girls are taught to be dainty and gentle. And sometimes, the culture end doesn't trump genetics -- they've done studies with children where they try to break toy stereotyping (e.g. toy trucks for boys, dolls for girls) and the girls still end up wrapping the trucks in blankets and saying "I love you, trucky." So maybe some loud women are just from loud families.

2. Women with deep-seated attention issues. If something about you is deficient in terms of your attractiveness to others(or if you just feel that way), odds are you need to do more to attract others to you. Pretty girls are often shy because they can afford to be -- meanwhile, I have found that many overweight/unattractive women are very aggressive in their pursuit of love (and food ). I have literally been groped by unattractive women at work, and I know others here have had similar experiences. I also have noticed that sometimes the loudest girls, who are not necessarily ugly, will be masking other things, like a fear of intimacy or sex. It's like they are trying to make up for not being "complete" (not being able to consummate a physical relationship) by being extra zany -- "Hey, I won't get you laid, but I'm funny, right? Zoinkers!". I dated someone like this, and it turned out that she had been molested as a child, and was not interested in sex at all (which then killed any chance of us having a real relationship). She might have also been closeted, which brings me to my next point....

3. Lesbians. Let's face it, a lot of gay women are just more aggressive and testosterone-prone than their straight counterparts. Some are angry, some are athletic, and a lot are loud. It's like a male brain was put into a female body. A lot of them even have the same handicaps men in general have about not being able to read female body language, not being socially intelligent, and not being intuitive about intent, at least not as intuitive as their female counterparts (my ex mentioned above comes to mind, having had no idea what signals she had sent or what the double meaning or real meaning of many of her actions were).

Case in point for all of the above -- Rosie O'Donnel. Very loudmouthed, angry, funny lesbian from a very large and loud Catholic family, and not especially attractive (though if you ever saw any of her standup from the early 80s, she wasn't awful-looking). How much of her loudness comes from each of the above? Hard to tell.

So, let me finish this by saying that not all loud women are defective or gay (though many can be annoying), but that it is not the normative behavior, adjusted for culture, in most cases (ghetto culture and some parts of Latin America excluded).

I'm not necessarily put off by quieter women, of course. Just curious to know where I can draw a clear distinction between appearing uninterested and just being cautious.

Honestly, if they're not doing anything to further a discussion, they're probably not interested -- keep looking.