Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.9 3/12/85; site unisoft.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!tim From: tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: side-issue on a side-issue Message-ID: <527@unisoft.UUCP> Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 20:01:53 EDT Article-I.D.: unisoft.527 Posted: Thu Aug 1 20:01:53 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 07:23:59 EDT References: <607@ttidcc.UUCP> Reply-To: tim@unisoft.UUCP (I am the great and Oz) Organization: UniSoft Systems, Berkeley Lines: 101 In article <607@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >Now, think for a minute. Men may VERBALIZE more, women less (culturally >imposed bias). But, as some one else pointed out recently, I, too, have >never been surprised by a "move" made on me in my life, because the non- >verbal communication was more than clear. Men I know don't make the >mistake of verbalizing a question, since my non-verbal signals quite >clearly indicate that I am "not-interested" or "taken". And in the past, >when I haven't been "taken", the men I wanted to be aware of it _were_ >aware of it, and acted, or didn't take action, according to their >inclination. Conversely, I've seen unwelcomed "passes" coming because I >could tell from their non-verbal signals that they were ignoring my signals >-- which is really just the same thing as SAYING you are not interested, >and getting asked out again later. > >How often, really, have you been "surprised" (as opposed to "insecure") >about the signals you read from either men or women? Seems to me that if >you are insecure about the signals, then you ask (male or female). And >there are a few people who are no good at all in expressing themselves, so >once again you ask, male or female. But, on the whole, is it really that >difficult? > ... >I think women do a heck of a lot of initiating on one level, and very little >on another level. And men vice versa. Big deal. So maybe you want to >switch around the percentages on who verbalizes and who signals? Fine by >me, but I can't really get excited about it. Same language, same message. I really don't think that these non-verbal signals are always as clear as you think they are. Besides the fact that different kinds of signals may be used many different people (thus causing confusion as to who wants what... eg. playing hard-to-get on a non-verbal level might be the way someone believes it is "right" to behave), both verbal AND non-verbal communication can be -- and often is -- used so that neither person knows what is really going on. For example, say you have a man and a woman at a party. The man may start talking to her, throwing his hips forward, making eye contact, etc. and otherwise non-verbally showing he's interested in her. Let's say she is attracted to him, too, and gives HIM some non-verbal signals to that effect as well. --- The above situation is one level. --- While all this is going on, the woman is thinking of another man she knows, who she is trying to get close to. He happens to be at the party, and she is suddenly afraid he will see her talking to this man, get jealous, and not want to get to know her better. --- This is another level. --- The woman has got a conflict. This isn't the only one. Bits of her conscious (due to a particular set of values from up upbringing) bother her about acting attracted to more than one man. She also hates herself for falling into a social role she would like to reject. All of this and more contributes to her state of mind during the encounter. All of these emotions and thoughts contribute to her behaviour at the time. What can she do? ... Meanwhile, the man she's talking with has sat down next to her, and is obviously getting up the nerve to do something... kiss her, maybe, or ask her out. She gets uncomfortable, says "Well, I think I'll go talk to X," and gets up and walks away, leaving the guy puzzled and frustrated. ------------------ What is this supposed to mean? That the man was "insecure," as you say, because he "mis-read" her signals? That he was "led on"? That it was just a bad situation? After all, he had conflicts of his own going on at the time. I want to say, though, that all of this could have been made less ambiguous if they had talked, and she had told him about these conflicts going on in her. But could she have trusted him with those thoughts? Or did she even CONSIDER telling him? Is it none of his business? Should he have gotten angry, or told her how she had confused him? Are either of them aware enough of their own non-verbal mechanisms to understand what was going on on that level? These are just questions, and none of them can be answered satisfactorily. The above encounter could have happened many different ways, say, if either the man or woman had been more sure of what they wanted at that moment, and had communicated it non-verbally; if either of them was confident enough to verbalize their thoughts and clear the air. If it was important enough to either of them to do ANYTHING about it. All of this is just as vague, confusing, and contradictory as human beings are vague, confusing, and contradictory. You just have to live with it. Questions? Comments? A fortune in cash and prizes? ============================================================== There's nuthin' sadder'n a wet troll. - The Outlandish Wizard ---> Tim Bessie ----- {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!tim ---> Unisoft Systems; 739 Allston Way; Berkeley, CA 94710 ---> (415) 644-1230 TWX II 910 366-2145