Post: #1

While recently reviewing my list of Facebook friends, I came to the interesting conclusion that all my currently single male friends are reasonably successful, normal, family-oriented guys looking for a GF, but all the single females tend to be "party girls" who like getting drunk, being deviant, leading a party lifestyle, and generally not wanting a relationship of any kind.

The reason this is interesting that it goes against the stereotype. Only a few years ago, the roles would have been reversed: the guys tended to be portrayed as Seth Rogen-sque commitment-phobes and partiers, while the women tended to be thought of as "relationshipy." And indeed, as recently as 2001-02, that was the case.

But a new trend has emerged that has flipped the script. I have the articles to prove it, read on.

In terms of my own experience, starting around 2008, all the girls I've met have only been interested in one-night stands but strongly resisted any kind of romantic insinuations on my part. (Prior to that, however, in the early-/mid-2000s, girls were trying to persuade me to start romantic relationships with them, a huge contrast. Maybe some other guys have noticed this too.)

What's going on? Two separate articles confirm women's new preference. Their message: Women right now want independence and partying, while men right now want conventional relationships and marriage. The roles have flipped.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/sex-relatio...43219110/1

Quote:A new portrait of single Americans, drawn from a major new survey, suggests the attitudes and behaviors of today's singles are quite unlike their counterparts just a few decades ago.

Findings show men are more interested in love, marriage and children than their peers in earlier times; women want more independence in their relationships than their mothers did.

"Men are now expressing some traditionally female attitudes, while women are adopting some of those long attributed to men," says biological anthropologist Helen Fisher

And another one, very interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...35,00.html

Quote:Women are much more interested in their independence than men are," says Fisher. They value certain parts of their single lives more than men do: according to the survey, women are likelier to want to have their own bank accounts, their own interests, their own personal space and solo vacations, even if they're in a committed relationship. They also care more about nights out with buddies.


Despite the size of the sample and the big names attached to the study, not everybody deems plausible the idea that men are slavering to become husbands. Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, points to figures from the 2002 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health that show the opposite. When asked if they would like to be married, more single women ages 21 to 24 said yes than men. "Maybe this is a brave new world, but I'd be surprised if things had changed that fast," says Regnerus, a co-author of Premarital Sex in America, which explores how young people's attitudes toward sex affect their inclination to marry. But he concurs that women's enthusiasm for marriage has faded in the light of their growing economic independence. "For them more than men, marriage has to be good or it's not worth trading their newfound independence for."

Mark Regnerus is correct: It's a brave new world, literally. The situation was quite different as recently as 5 yrs ago.

Any confirmation of this trend?

Post: #2

(08-14-2011 09:12 PM)AVisitor Wrote:  Women are much more interested in their independence than men are," says Fisher. They value certain parts of their single lives more than men do: according to the survey, women are likelier to want to have their own bank accounts, their own personal space and solo vacations, even if they're in a committed relationship. They also care more about nights out with buddies.

Women are the ones with the jobs as more American men than ever are without them so of course they want their own bank accounts so they have full control over their money, plus it allows them to play poorer than they really are, while expecting those with money to pay for everything.

The whole wanting personal space is so that it's easier to juggle multiple dicks and solo vacations so they can get some rawdog love from Pierre, Juan Carlos, Hakeem, and Luca without anyone else being the wiser.

Run, don't walk, from American women.

Post: #3

A few things:

1. I have personally witnessed this trend. It is real-young women (25 and under, to be general) tend to be commitment-phobes. They just want fun, and when any male tries to push something more serious on them, they tend to get scared away very quickly. This is another big reason why "nice guys" (the more commitment oriented types) finish last-women do get scared by their seriousness and attempted chivalry.

MiXX describes this phenomenon pretty well here. To keep it simple, young American girls today (especially the attractive ones) have a great setup in our modern age. They're shielded from reality not just by their parents, but also by male relatives and a host of unrelated men willing to hand them the world in a rather transparent bid to get their attention and possible sexual access (and fueled by a feminized, emasculating culture). They have no need or real incentive to be practical in such a favorable environment (all of their immediate needs are more than taken care of and they want for relatively little), so partying is priority number one.

2. Men here often comment on American women by noting their attitude and almost paranoid fear of seeming vulnerable and/or doing anything nice for a man or adopting a more "traditional role" at any one time in a relationship. This phenomenon is real, and it is stoked by the flames of the women's liberation movement and feminism. This is the train of thought that has pervaded most corners of American society.

Young women here do (sometimes even unconsciously) fear the possibility of old, patriarchal elements returning to their society and stifling their freedom and fun, locking them down in a more traditional role. Those elements are represented by men who want to lock them up in a traditionally monogamous relationship early. American feminism has helped to make this fear very widespread, causing many young women to view any man pushing commitment as something of an enemy or a threat to her liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The only guys who can get away with being so commitment oriented in youth on a regular basis are those of extremely high value (the top 1-5% or so). Young women will want them in order to impress their friends with their cool, "hot" guy-more practical concerns are irrelevant.

3. This certainly varies by age, as this fantastic post makes clear. Once women pass their prime (the decline generally begins at around 26), the dynamic changes direction once again.

Younger guys may be more relationship oriented today than they are given credit for, and I would posit that part of this is due to desperation. Younger men have far lower sexual market values than their female peers. They get less in the way of direct interest from the opposite sex in most cases, and are thus more likely to have a scarcity mentality-any decent looking girl that comes along can get him to committ easily, because female company, due to its rarity in his young life, is more valuable to him. Consequently, the very high value young women enjoy contributes significantly to their commitment-phobia. They have many options, and are constantly being told never to settle, thus lowering the chance of any one guy locking her down.

Once you hit the late-20's, however, men gain higher market value and women begin to lose it. This is when men become much harder to lock down, and women start really gunning for their own "Mr. Big" to marry, usually getting a little more desperate(read: settling) with each year. Their priorities change as well-"cool" and "hot" guys are less enticing to them than they were in their youth, while wealthier, stable men hold more appeal.

Post: #4

Great points by all.

I've noticed in the past few months, that the percentage of girls who go out at least once every two weeks is far far higher than the percentage for men. From corresponding with dozens of girls online, and skimming profiles, being fat, bookish, ugly and boring is no impediment to partying.

On the other hand, it seems like there are tons of men who rarely set foot in a bar, and when they do, it's obvious. There are wide swathes of men for whom partying is just not something they do. This just isn't true with girls, in my experience.

The difference is even more stark with men and women in exclusive relationships; after all, she can suck up as much male attention as she likes and still be a good girlfriend, in her mind. The man can have a few beers with friends in his backyard to have fun, and the only advantage of the bar is strange girls, who are forbidden to him. Mere validation, if he can get it, does nothing for him.

It seems like fewer guys go out but more often whereas girls may only go out once a week. I always hear from girls "I went really hard last night, so I think that's it for the week."

While I like these intellectual discussions, it's good to pair them with some real world advice as a matter of course. Such as:

For girls under 25, never insinuate interest in a relationship until she's broached it.
Act as if hanging with her is one of many possible options for the night. You are supremely indifferent if she doesn't show.

Recently, a girl flaked on me and tepidly offered to reschedule. I said cool, and lied about doing something interesting. She replied, then hours later I sent her a pic of a concert I was at. With a couple days and some more texting she asked me out*. Hell, I'm going to try this for all future flakes: use the concert pic, or a random one from the internet, and send it to her.

*When a man talks with a girl, one leads, the other follows. You ask, she answers, traditionally. But if you make declarative statements enough, with no come-ons, she will be forced to start leading and asking the questions. And she'll eventually ask you out. DHV.

Post: #5

Absolutely true.

I'm getting more and more impressed by the intellectual quality of what's posted around here (most of the time).

Of course, it makes sense.

The entire benevolent welfare-state apparatus makes traditional male virtues like physical strength and fierce loyalty to the "team" immaterial.

Women are more or less married to the State - they don't need men to defend them, they have law enforcement and national defence. They don't need men to provide for them, they have gender discrimination and divorce lawyers, abortion and contraception. They don't need men to inseminate them, they can do that themselves too.

Who benefits? Women benefit because they can indulge in multiple sexual partners without physical or social consequence (even then, helloooo STDs!), and the few of us guys who have discovered game and can ride the wave as long as it lasts.

The losers are the millions of men whose sexual energy hitherto was channeled into building the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen. They are still the providers - they just pay their taxes to the State instead of giving their wife pocket money. They are still loyal - how long will they take the abuse?

Post: #6

Great points Athlone, I'm curious though.

Have you noticed is the same true for women in Europe, or Asia. I mean there are obvious cultural differences between them, and American woman but do you think the idea of having a lower sexual market value when your younger exist any other places, or is it just an American thing?

Post: #7

(08-15-2011 03:23 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  The losers are the millions of men whose sexual energy hitherto was channeled into building the greatest civilization the planet has ever seen. They are still the providers - they just pay their taxes to the State instead of giving their wife pocket money. They are still loyal - how long will they take the abuse?

If demographic trends are anything to listen to, that whole welfare state system they've been upholding is set to collapse pretty soon anyway. Those supporting it are going to be too few in the future.

Shit will hit the fan one way or another, I fear.

Post: #8

(08-15-2011 03:55 PM)Wizard Wrote:  Great points Athlone, I'm curious though.

Have you noticed is the same true for women in Europe, or Asia. I mean there are obvious cultural differences between them, and American woman but do you think the idea of having a lower sexual market value when your younger exist any other places, or is it just an American thing?

It exists everywhere to some extent since it is a biological construct, not a sociological one. Older men have always had higher sexual market value, and likely always will-they simply possess more of the triggers for female attraction than their younger peers. This may all in fact be more pronounced in some places where age-gap relationships (that is, those involving older men and much younger women) are more commonly tolerated and not shamed as they often are in the US, and younger girls can be more open in dating much older guys (Colombia and the Philippines come to mind).

American feminism does make this phenomenon uniquely virulent here, however, by creating a particularly paranoid fear among young women of being seen as vulnerable, which in turn makes it even harder for younger guys to match up (he has to bring a lot more to the table to overcome this).

Post: #9

(08-15-2011 04:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-15-2011 03:55 PM)Wizard Wrote:  Great points Athlone, I'm curious though.

Have you noticed is the same true for women in Europe, or Asia. I mean there are obvious cultural differences between them, and American woman but do you think the idea of having a lower sexual market value when your younger exist any other places, or is it just an American thing?

It exists everywhere to some extent since it is a biological construct, not a sociological one. Older men have always had higher sexual market value, and likely always will-they simply possess more of the triggers for female attraction than their younger peers. This may all in fact be more pronounced in some places where age-gap relationships (that is, those involving older men and much younger women) are more commonly tolerated and not shamed as they often are in the US, and younger girls can be more open in dating much older guys (Colombia and the Philippines come to mind).

American feminism does make this phenomenon uniquely virulent here, however, by creating a particularly paranoid fear among young women of being seen as vulnerable, which in turn makes it even harder for younger guys to match up (he has to bring a lot more to the table to overcome this).

This is some pretty impressive insight, thanks again.

Post: #10

This is based on what I have observed.

Girls are not commitment-phobic, per se. They just have impossible standards that most guys cannot meet. If you are that guy, they will be itching on your jock to "commit." Thus, they are really having fun until they meet that dude who they think they can fit into their ideal. This has more to do with the phenomenon where ugly-to-cute girls think they deserve the best, even though they don't.

Example. You are a handsome guy, charming and attract a lot of girls. You can bet she's going to try to nail you down.

Post: #11

(08-15-2011 08:42 PM)scorpio Wrote:  This is based on what I have observed.

Girls are not commitment-phobic, per se. They just have impossible standards that most guys cannot meet. If you are that guy, they will be itching on your jock to "commit." Thus, they are really having fun until they meet that dude who they think they can fit into their ideal. This has more to do with the phenomenon where ugly-to-cute girls think they deserve the best, even though they don't.

Example. You are a handsome guy, charming and attract a lot of girls. You can bet she's going to try to nail you down.

Good point. I'd forgotten about that.

Watching SATC and popular fem-culture has made girls think they can live like teenagers until they're 40. They have impossibly high-standards, then they settle, then they dump the poor chump they settled for. Rinse and repeat.

I guess we can be grateful this has made ONS and multiple LTRs so much easier.

Post: #12

(08-15-2011 04:45 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-15-2011 03:55 PM)Wizard Wrote:  Great points Athlone, I'm curious though.

Have you noticed is the same true for women in Europe, or Asia. I mean there are obvious cultural differences between them, and American woman but do you think the idea of having a lower sexual market value when your younger exist any other places, or is it just an American thing?

It exists everywhere to some extent since it is a biological construct, not a sociological one. Older men have always had higher sexual market value, and likely always will-they simply possess more of the triggers for female attraction than their younger peers. This may all in fact be more pronounced in some places where age-gap relationships (that is, those involving older men and much younger women) are more commonly tolerated and not shamed as they often are in the US, and younger girls can be more open in dating much older guys (Colombia and the Philippines come to mind).

American feminism does make this phenomenon uniquely virulent here, however, by creating a particularly paranoid fear among young women of being seen as vulnerable, which in turn makes it even harder for younger guys to match up (he has to bring a lot more to the table to overcome this).

This phenomenon is happening in China as well. Could it be that the more educated and liberated women become, the more empowered they feel regardless of location?

Post: #13

U.S. women still want commitment - or at least a boyfriend.

However, as average status of women rise and men fall, there are fewer eligible bachelors.

As a man in my 30's with his shit together, I have no shortage of women (under 24) wanting to lock me down in relationships. Aimless guys who aren't ridiculously good looking are the ones struggling, and as relates to them, yeah, it may seem women want no relationship.

Post: #14

(08-16-2011 08:15 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  U.S. women still want commitment - or at least a boyfriend.

However, as average status of women rise and men fall, there are fewer eligible bachelors.

As a man in my 30's with his shit together, I have no shortage of women (under 24) wanting to lock me down in relationships. Aimless guys who aren't ridiculously good looking are the ones struggling, and as relates to them, yeah, it may seem women want no relationship.

I agree, with the part about "as the status of women rise and fall, there are fewer eligible bachelors". What is the catalyst for that is my question. I was in Hong Kong last year, and saw this happening at warp speed. Chinese women today are different from those of Mao Tse- tung's era. Here's in an interesting article about what women in China are doing, and I may be wrong but I thin there's a correlation to this post.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=we...vTcn-NKy8Q

Post: #15

(08-16-2011 08:11 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  This phenomenon is happening in China as well. Could it be that the more educated and liberated women become, the more empowered they feel regardless of location?

Yes, I would posit that there is a very strong correlation to be observed there. Furthermore, as Mike_CF suggested, the rise of women corresponds with a decline in the number of eligible bachelors and an increase in women's standards relative to the quality of men available within the male population.

In other words, women are naturally hypergamous. As they rise, their standards rise too (they want men at or above their level), but fewer men can meet them. If you're one of the remaining few who still meets those standards, you'll be in Mike_CF's situation with plenty of options.

If you're the vast majority of other men (or even a younger version of Mike_CF who has not yet hit 30 and has not had the time to "get shit together"), you're going to feel more shut out, as it will naturally be much harder for you to compete.

This post explains how the numbers play a role here as well.

Post: #16

A few things:

@MikeCF. I think what we're all talking about different phases of the game. Athlone is talking about the typical young guy struggle. I'm talking about the alpha game. You're talking about the typical beta game. Jefe is talking about getting effed by the beta game.

@Pusscrook. I used to work in the US office of a global company headquartered in Hong Kong. Got to know a lot of those types pretty well. There's a lot of bad things going on there... awful. Modernization and materialism is one reason. Indoctrination/education of women? Maybe. One big thing is the massive male-to-female imbalance in mainland China due to selective abortion of female babies over many decades. Another big thing though is the beta nature of Asian culture itself. The guys are practically raised from a young age to become emasculated, nerd beta providers beholden to their parents and wives. The girls are a product of the materialism rampant there.

Post: #17

(08-16-2011 08:48 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-16-2011 08:11 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  This phenomenon is happening in China as well. Could it be that the more educated and liberated women become, the more empowered they feel regardless of location?

Yes, I would posit that there is a very strong correlation to be observed there. Furthermore, as Mike_CF suggested, the rise of women corresponds with a decline in the number of eligible bachelors and an increase in women's standards relative to the quality of men available within the male population.

In other words, women are naturally hypergamous. As they rise, their standards rise to(they want men on or above their level), but fewer men can meet them. If you're one of the remaining few who still meets those standards, you'll be in Mike_CF's situation with plenty of options.

If you're the vast majority of other men (or even a younger version of Mike_CF who has not yet hit 30 and has not had the time to "get shit together"), you're going to feel more shut out, as it will naturally be much harder for you to compete.

This post explains how the numbers play a role here as well.

Ahh Ath, I see.

Let's push the envelope here. As a neuro-marketer, I try to spot trends. My question to you is this: Do you think that people( let's just say women ) are hardwired to modify traditional beliefs simply because they want to become relevant to what society has deemed attractive, successful? Is this the reason they would appear to be less committal until those needs are met?

Post: #18

(08-16-2011 09:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  Ahh Ath, I see.

Let's push the envelope here. As a neuro-marketer, I try to spot trends. My question to you is this: Do you think that people( let's just say women ) are hardwired to modify traditional beliefs simply because they want to become relevant to what society has deemed attractive, successful? Is this the reason they would appear to be less committal until those needs are met?

Well, we do know the following things about women:

1. They have a more egalitarian social structure, less hierarchical than our own. This explains why...

2. ...they're far more concerned with following trends than men generally are, and they care a lot more about what fellow members of their social structure (mainly other female members of the herd) think. While they value individuality, they are far less likely than men are to become "lone wolves". What others are thinking and doing is extremely important to them. In short, they are more social creatures than we are on average.

This is why concepts like pre-selection are so salient when it comes to attracting women (as any gamer/experienced man knows), it is why women are the primary marketing targets(and the dominant consumers) in modern society and it is why women spend five hours a day on average gossiping about seemingly irrelevant social topics. They care about fitting in to the mainstream the most, and are the most likely to support the mainstream.

When the general consensus shifts, women are therefore more likely to desire coformity and adaptation in kind with the wider trend, with the attainment of stability being a prime directive. It is the men who are more likely to strike out on their own, for better or for worse.

3. Because of this kind of female herd mentality, it is possible(in fact, I would contend, pretty much certain) that societal trends can influence the way women commit and relate to men. If society (mainstream media, for one) consistently beats it into women's heads that they should never settle, then you could see that effect. If it romanticizes the image of a "Sex and the City" lifestyle, then women (the ones most likely to observe and buy into these wider portrayals) may emulate it in greater numbers than they otherwise would, emulating Carrie Bradshaw and and holding out for "Mr. Big" or simply remaining single until it is too late to indulge in other options.

I would therefore posit that it is indeed entirely possible that societal trends can contribute to an artificial rise in "standards" among women, influencing their desire(or lack thereof) to become committal. What society deems attractive/successful is extremely important to them on average-they generally want to be in accord with it, and they very much wish to be seen well by their peers.

I am not a psychologist, but rather a 20 year old college student. My words should therefore be taken with a grain of salt, as they merely represent an educated guess/theory on the issue based on some prior knowledge. But there is my take on it.

Post: #19

(08-16-2011 09:38 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(08-16-2011 09:02 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  Ahh Ath, I see.

Let's push the envelope here. As a neuro-marketer, I try to spot trends. My question to you is this: Do you think that people( let's just say women ) are hardwired to modify traditional beliefs simply because they want to become relevant to what society has deemed attractive, successful? Is this the reason they would appear to be less committal until those needs are met?

Well, we do know the following things about women:

1. They have a more egalitarian social structure, less hierarchical than our own. This explains why...

2. ...they're far more concerned with following trends than men generally are, and they care a lot more about what fellow members of their social structure (mainly other female members of the herd) think. While they value individuality, they are far less likely than men are to become "lone wolves". What others are thinking and doing is extremely important to them. In short, they are more social creatures than we are on average.

This is why concepts like pre-selection are so salient when it comes to attracting women (as any gamer/experienced man knows), it is why women are the primary marketing targets(and the dominant consumers) in modern society and it is why women spend five hours a day on average gossiping about seemingly irrelevant social topics. They care about fitting in to the mainstream the most, and are the most likely to support the mainstream.

When the general consensus shifts, women are therefore more likely to desire coformity and adaptation in kind with the wider trend, with the attainment of stability being a prime directive. It is the men who are more likely to strike out on their own, for better or for worse.

3. Because of this kind of female herd mentality, it is possible(in fact, I would contend, pretty much certain) that societal trends can influence the way women commit and relate to men. If society (mainstream media, for one) consistently beats it into women's heads that they should never settle, then you could see that effect. If it romanticizes the image of a "Sex and the City" lifestyle, then women (the ones most likely to observe and buy into these wider portrayals) may emulate it in greater numbers than they otherwise would, emulating Carrie Bradshaw and and holding out for "Mr. Big" or simply remaining single until it is too late to indulge in other options.

I would therefore posit that it is indeed entirely possible that societal trends can contribute to an artificial rise in "standards" among women, influencing their desire(or lack thereof) to become committal. What society deems attractive/successful is extremely important to them on average-they generally want to be in accord with it, and they very much wish to be seen well by their peers.

I am not a psychologist, but rather a 20 year old college student. My words should therefore be taken with a grain of salt, as they merely represent an educated guess/theory on the issue based on some prior knowledge. But there is my take on it.

Excellent post. Spot on..

Post: #20

Lots of good points here.

As Athlone points out, the ages of the men and women in question plays a big role. I've banged under 25s who I never hear from again. Those chicks think the party will last forever, so why tie themselves down to anyone but Superman? And when I was under 25, I was ready to commit to (but not necessarily marry) the first cute girl who would have me. Now in my mid-30s, a woman would need to make a compelling case for her to be allowed to sleep over at my place even once.

As for what the research is suggesting, obviously women are less economically dependent on men, so settling down with the average beta doesn't get her much that she doesn't already have, so we see this supposed role reversal. But if you factor for female age and male age, I'd bet you'd see the patterns we are all familiar with. And don't discount feminist influence on the social science research that gets funded and published. Feminists love to beat the drum of females beating men at their own game, and will not hesitate to distort data to make their case.

Once shit hits the fan, and the state isn't providing the jobs or the security it once did, women will be looking to commit once again.

Post: #21

Hi,

In case you're wondering why women are partying so much these days, it's because they no longer depend on men for financial security, because they have more educational/professional opportunities than before and can provide for themselves. College-educated women outnumber college-educated men everywhere in the US and resources are no longer all that important in the mating ritual, women can acquire resources themselves.

That's the major change driving "Game 2.0" where women seem much less interested in relationships than before (when they're in their 20s) and are more focused on short-term fun.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18...y/?hpt=C2/

Post: #22

BTW it's no accident that women are the "new raunch" in movies. A recent string of movies released this summer, such as "Bridesmaids," are showing women in the role traditionally reserved for "bad boys" -- raunchy, dirty, and outrageous.

Yet another facet of the switched roles that seem to be the new trend right now.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44208674/n...rtainment/

Post: #23

Another observation I've made is that more and more girls are using the term "polyamorous" (or "poly" for short) in their online-dating profiles to describe themselves. I can't count the number of girls that are proudly declaring that they live that "lifestyle" and are warning potential suitors not to message them if "they're not okay with that." A few state outright that don't want to be pestered to enter a relationship--presumably because beta-ass dudes are always hitting them up to be their girlfriends.

Times have changed when it's the women making these sorts of announcements.

Some bitches go so far as to link their profiles to the chodes (plural) who are banging them more regularly.

Post: #24

Yep, the changes are in full swing alright. Women (particularly American ones) seem to really, really want to become more manly (raunchy, outrageous, polyamorous, etc), and they're doing it.

Personally, I don't even think trying to counter this whole process is even worth it. Guys just need to swallow that bitter red pill and enjoy the ride.

Things will work themselves out soon enough. Every action has its reaction.

Post: #25

I said this exact thing to a woman months ago...that women were just as commitment-phobic as men, and she got MAD! We've known for years that women are waiting longer and longer to marry (more career-oriented in the years post-college), and generally want to do their own thing, even though they may still have "boyfriends" or boyfriend-like attention from men without providing girlfriend-like attention in return.