We might be seeing a clash of conversation styles here. You expect people to ask questions. But the way a lot of people converse is by trading stories, or just letting things prompt other things -- not asking questions.
That is to say, the way a conversation goes in this style is that person A tells a story, or explains a topic, or whatever; person B maybe gets person A to expand on this for a bit, if they're interested in this particular topic; and then B just takes something A said as a jumping-off point to tell a tangentially related story or explain a tangentially related topic. And this goes back and forth.
You do ask questions in this format, but they're questions to clarify or to get someone to expand on what they've already said or to resolve apparent contradictions; you don't generally open a new topic with a question. You open a new topic with a "Funny you should mention that..." or a "Heh, that reminds me of the time..." or similar.
You're wondering why they're asking you no questions -- they're likely wondering why you're not telling them anything! You're like, it would be awkward because I haven't been asked -- no, that's exactly how it's supposed to go! You don't tell a story when *asked*, you tell a story when it comes to mind because the other person said something tangentially related. (Why wouldn't the guy want to know?)
Indeed, the fact that you *didn't* spontaneously talk about something might lead the other person to infer that you're *deliberately* keeping it hidden and they shouldn't pry! Although if you talk around it enough they might feel a need to ask directly because you're making it obvious.
Asking questions is what I resort to when the other person *really* just isn't saying much and I can't think of any other way to get them to talk. Normally, though, I expect them to respond with stories of their own, not wait until asked. Someone who wouldn't say things until asked I would find quite frustrating!
I'm not sure why you seem to so strongly associate getting to know one another with asking questions. Is this a requirement for getting sufficient information? Well, OK, I guess for the more private awkward stuff you're talking about it likely is. But why are you expecting to start with that? Normally it takes time to get to that! People generally aren't going to tell you such things until you've done something to demonstrate that it's safe to do so. Maybe you're just expecting to get to that too fast? (Although, idk, it seems like maybe you're also trying to filter for the sort of person who doesn't care about that sort of safety, and so going to that right off the bat is a deliberate filter. Which is fine if it is; just, y'know, that's going to be a strong filter to apply.)
I don't know -- I only have your textual description to go by. If these people are actually asking *no* questions -- when you tell them something, they don't ask you clarifying questions or try to get you to expand on it or anything, they immediately claim the turn for themselves with a tangentially related story -- then yeah, I have to agree, that doesn't seem very interested or curious, and that's unfortunate. But if they're merely not asking you any questions to *open* topics, it may just be a different conversation style?
I want a man who follows his own curiosity when when it risks making others uncomfortable. That's real hot. Men who are like "oh I'm scared if I express my curiosity about something" are unattractive and doing the same warping fear I describe in the rest of the essay.
Plus, according to a Twitter poll I did a while back, people overwhelmingly want to be asked questions, so those men are additionally poorly calibrated.
Also, I've def been on dates where people asked me zero questions at all (or rather, sometimes they do ask questions but then immediately go on to answer it themselves).
Your poll asks if it's kinder to "ask questions", but it doesn't specify how personal the questions can be.
You've written: "I want a man who follows his own curiosity when when it risks making others uncomfortable. That's real hot."
Perhaps you should do a poll about whether specifically having someone ask you “When your ex broke up with you, did you deserve it?” or “So when your mom died, did you feel bad about it?” is hot.
Yeah I think Aella has weird stated preferences in men relative the rest of the internet. Like a lot of women, she assumes her preferences are universal.
Some guys she discusses in her post are basically optimizing to impress Reddit Woman, who has seriously different stated preferences from Aella's.
I find Reddit Woman to be super-aggravating. But from an expected-value point of view, I kinda understand why some guys are so optimized around not hurting her / not getting cancelled by her.
You would, they'd just get downvoted and eventually removed, depending on the subreddit.
I bet even Reddit Woman doesn't actually get explicit affirmative consent for each level of escalation IRL...though she won't hesitate to hold that over you if things go wrong.
There's the added problem that Aella's famous, so she has an entire Internet platform to attack you from if she decides to. Not that she would--it would be kind of off-brand--but the possibility is probably enough to scare off a lot of guys.
I think that, in much of culture (at least in my friends groups), we have a mutual agreement to avoid bringing up topics that other people might find emotionally distressing, because we don't want to hurt our friends unless it's absolutely necessary.
I think Aella is saying: "A man who asks these emotionally-distressing questions is signaling that he doesn't care about me liking him, which implies that he's higher status than me, and I think that's hot."
My take on these questions is: "A person who asks these emotionally-distressing questions is demonstrating that they don't care about hurting me, or perhaps even that they enjoy hurting me, and I think that's a red flag for a romantic partner or even for a friend."
I do think it's okay to ask these sorts of questions if you're careful to give the other person a way to politely decline to answer. I have, in the past, asked questions like: "if it's not too personal, can you tell me more about your last relationship?", because I thought it was a good question for learning more about my potential partner.
I think Aella would argue that the "if it's not too personal" disclaimer signals a lack of confidence and makes her less interested in the person asking the question.
"Questions" also means any amount from 2 to plus infinity, and I suspect most people will start feeling weird around the 10th question or so.
It is yet another instance of the "chocolate problem". "Do you like chocolate?" - "Yes!" - "OK, here is a shipping container full of chocolate, eat through it NOW. What? Are you poorly calibrated or what? That idiot says he likes chocolate and can't even appreciate all the chocolate I prepared for him to feast upon."
Aella consider the implications of this being the most liked comment. You have other problems, but your described conversation style is clearly your most immediate impediment to connecting with people on dates.
As a fellow autistic whose dating life improved greatly by asking fewer questions and talking more, volunteer more information about yourself. People need stories to stoke their curiosity. Don't just say "I moved to Australia before". Elaborate. You are an interesting person but it doesn't sound like you are showing up on dates as an interesting person. This is why you are getting no questions or generic questions. You need to give people more to work with.
Reframe your thinking. These men are not "scared". No one is "scared" of you. They are just being polite and following normal social conventions.
People can definitely be scared or intimidated on dates. Neither of us have been on Aella's dates, so it's odd to read such a confident assessment.
Anyway, while Aella may overdo it with the questions, I think she's looking for someone who is comfortable going off the beaten path in a conversation and actually reading cues from the other person rather than just running through the usual polite repertoire. I can definitely identify with that. I'd be bored with someone who just plays it straight all the time.
Having said that, I agree that trading stories and being willing to be the talker instead of just the questioner are also important social skills.
Autistic people find it very difficult to form relationships - in part because of having very specific and inflexible ideas about what other people should be like
I believe a part of her is aware and frustrated by this specificity and inflexibility. Which, I think, is the reason she said "I’m a slave to my own desire."
Those men tend to be in prison or already taken. You are confusing lust with love, they aren't related. It's something men tend to learn by their early 20's, women unfortunately often much later or never at all. They aren't there to entertain you, that isn't an equal, maybe get a cat?
To the OP though, he nails it. Men don't tend to ask personal questions, not out of fear but simply because it's not our business your history, you'll probably lie anyways. We take you (men or women , it's not a gender difference) as you present NOW and in the future and if you want to tell your story, great, feel free to contribute to the conversation and do so unprompted, we would appreciate you actually contributing for once. But otherwise, we can wait, you'll share when you want too, maybe never. That's ok.
I.e. the overwhelming majority of men, not the "This is my wife and her boyfriend" crowd you all seem to think is normative even in San Fran. It's not BTW, not even a statistically significant noticable from the chaff normal. I'd bet my entire months income you couldn't even find a 1000 openly defacto polyandrous couples in San Fran (~1% of heterosexual marriages there) hence just like you'd tell your kids to quit hanging out with bad influences if they want to change, so does our friend.
Lol nah, I just treat them as my equal which as any man knows who has tried, they overwhelming despise.
It's all good though, I've had my litter of kids and soon grandkids, my genes will survive as will my cultural pro social values as does anyone who isn't a genetic dead end, generally as a result of bad self destructive anti natalism ideas, like our blogger here seems to have. All she is doing to herself is bringing herself a miserable existence in about three decades forth.
Having a good enough relationship and kids isn't hard nor is raising them right. Nor is it expensive. People overcomplicate things for no reason.
Squat some kids out, they basically feed themselves off your tit for a year or three and after that they generally are smart enough to use the microwave and care for themselves. Then you got thirteen years of free daycare and $3 spaghettos for dinner. My kids at most cost me about $500 extra a month each throughout their lives, that's nothing.
If homeless chicks with five kids with five different dads can, by choice even, live in an emergency shelter for nine years and their kids turn out just fine, I'm sure hers can to given she seems to be quite wealthy. I spent two decades as a case manager in an family emergency shelter, believe me, kids are neither hard or expensive nor are satisfactory relationships. The road block is her.
No worries, the Amish will inherit the earth along with the guys who beat their wives, they breed and quite successfully as women tend find it attractive, at least the sort that have children do and they are the only ones that really matter.
Nobody likes being interviewed. That isn’t genuine human interaction. I suggest just acting normally and letting the conversation flow. Be unguarded. React to what they say. Use humour. Don’t try to build a mental model- that’s weird and will come across as such. Don’t constantly reference your own internal dialogue about yourself- you will appear as a robot or a fake person.
Normal people do not like being asked "did you feel sad about your mother's death" or "were you a bad boyfriend to your ex" in the first hour of knowing someone. Cmon lol.
They were at dinner, on a date. Was it the first hour? It’s not clear.
I would say that’s true of normal people in normal situations, but a date in which you’ve been set up with each other is not a normal situation.
It also depends on how attracted you are to the other person already. If you want them to like you, you want them to be curious about you and ask questions, if you're a normal person.
People who don't like questions from people they want to get to know and vice-versa are not normal.
Your social skills are severely lacking. So are your .. time comprehension skills ? How long do you think a dinner date lasts? Not more than a few hours, and talking with someone for one or two hours doesn't suddenly make us close friends.
I want people to ask me questions on a first date, yes. Normal questions. A very pointed question about whether I cared about my mother's death is really not that. That's a question you don't ever ask, you should let the other person volunteer that info. It's clearly fishing for some sort of trauma, or trying to psychoanalyze, which is not a vibe most people like. Just because a guy has nice blue eyes doesn't mean that I would accept him trying to make me uncomfortable on purpose. That's a massive red flag. Women who ignore that type of shit because of a guy's biceps are what we would call "easy victims", not sure why you want men to be like that. A confident man certainly would not let a woman do whatever to him as long as she had big tits, he would leave her and find a big-titted woman who makes conversation that the enjoys.
A date is not a normal context, but it's also not an extremely abnormal one. You're acting as if dates are this strange social situation where no rules apply and no one really knows how to act. It's just getting to know someone and flirting with them, like you would at any "normal" event. The strangeness comes from the fact that it's a bit contrived and there's nothing else to focus on or do.
It's absolutely a learning process, expressing curiosity about stuff that might be uncomfortable. I'm married to someone I've been together with since we were fourteen, and it's great and aside from infidelity, neglect or abuse I am confident there isn't much I could do to wreck things. Yet I still have some hangups around expressing dangerous curiosity. I just worked through a big one on my own and then shared with her. Expressing that kind of dangerous curiosity paid off big time and now we have a whole new way of talking and a whole new thing to talk about. But it's not easy!
Agreed. I've been with mine since I was 16 and there are things we couldn't really communicate to each other until 35. It takes time, and the more you love someone the more you worry about hurting them. Too much honesty can be destructive, you have to know how to calibrate it. And sometimes you just have to be on their team whether they are right or wrong.
After you've answered that question, I should remind you that you can't separate the two. To deny what she wants as wrong is to deny her very individuality as wrong. And that's a cruel thing to pronounce.
The above comment sounds like Cartman "outthinking" Clyde Frog during a backyard tea party, deconstructing Clyde's words so he can white-knight-splain their implicit abuse and misogyny to Polly Prissy-Pants.
However, Charlatan's full of shit from the word Go:
If you know someone who is using an ineffective strategy
to pursue something important
-- like a satisfying relationship --
it's not at all cruel to tell them their current goal / objective is Wrong,
whether it's "Marry Sweetest Guy On Death Row" or "Reject All Possible Partners Who Don't Ask Enough Intrusive Questions."
Truth be told, "Charlatan" is the most-apropos username I've seen this year.
So, for example, being surrounded by people of some ethnicity and loudly expressing curiosity about the practical consequences of the difference between their mean IQ and his?
I guess, at that point, his hotness depends crucially on whether anyone dares attack him, and, if they do, on who wins. If he’s defeated, there are some memorable comebacks the winner could perform, but I’m scared of expressing them.
This is a bit extreme, but I used to express curiosity in all sort of situations where it was likely to make others uncomfortable. Needless to say, I wasn’t brave; just ignorant and arguably stupid. When I began to grasp faint traces of what all this meant socially, I predictably shat my pants.
You are a lot closer to "automatically strategic" than is typical, but I still have to check because the prior on "humans are not automatically strategic" is so strong:
Have you mentioned this preference (in so many words) when advertising your date-me doc? Because I think "follows own curiosity to the point that it often makes others uncomfortable" is an unusual preference and also something people are likely to know about themselves, so would be an unusually useful preference to advertise.
Regarding your first paragraph -- I mean yeah that absolutely makes sense as a filter you would apply, but that only seems to be responding to the bit I wrote about "if you don't talk about something spontaneously they might figure you're deliberately keeping it hidden"? As in, you'd want someone whose response in that situation would be to make a point of asking because it's bugging them, not someone who'd shy away. And yeah that makes sense. But it doesn't seem to be related to the overall conversational style, only to that bit?
Idk about for other people but for me at least curiosity is usually triggered by noticing something discordant or missing, finding that something is *bugging* me -- that's part why I mention so much above clarifying questions or questions to get people to expand on a topic. You ask a question when something clashes with what you already know, when it doesn't make sense internally, when there's something vague, when there's an obvious implication that the other person doesn't seem to be exploring for some reason, when there's a related case they seem to have missed, etc. ("Hold on, so what if A and B occur simultaneously?" "OK but what if instead of A it were A'?" -- I guess those are more examples for intellectual conversations than personal ones, but the principle is the same to my mind.)
But none of that is really using questions to open a new topic! Sometimes I might sort of do that in that I've been mulling an old topic for a while, find it's bugging me, and ask out of nowhere about the *old* topic to return to it because I feel like I need an answer. But it's still a question arising from something bugging me based on what the other person said. Using questions to open a new topic entirely is something different and for me usually a case of "ugh this person isn't talking much I guess I need to try to say something that will get them talking". (I guess if I notice a topic has been conspicuously missing, that could be a case where a question is both opening a new topic and prompted by something bugging me, but that's not what I'd call the typical case.)
Do you have any specific stories about men who asked you questions that made you uncomfortable, and how that was hot at the time? I know I don't like being asked uncomfortable questions, and I think most people don't. In fiction, steering conversation toward another person's traumas and secrets is an act of severe aggression, even villainy, like this scene where a "therapist" character uses this technique to trap the protagonist in his own head with malevolent intentions. https://youtu.be/kBwVWrBk_uo?t=20 . In more prosaic, real-life situations, people may have the experience of a popular "friend" in childhood pressuring them into revealing their secrets only to gossip about them to your social detriment.
The usual advice on conversation is to *avoid* making the other person engage in things they find uncomfortable. But then, notoriously, most people don't like being hit or physically restrained most of the time, but some people enjoy it in specific circumstances with a trusted partner. I don't have much experience with kink communities, but do people usually find a dom by going around slapping people in the face, hoping that someone slaps them back harder, while being a good and loving person? Because the approach of asking people uncomfortable questions on dates, to find a man who will do it to you, strikes me (no pun intended) as sort of a verbal version of that. Most people aren't into that stuff, some like it but only if they were expecting it in advance, and those who are into it will notice that you are the one playing the "aggressor" role.
This is for your bounty, I would like to introduce you to myself.
I am the indisputable god of curiosity and question-asking, and always have been. I will exhaust you with my questions, I can guarantee it.
I am kind and capable and completely accepting of your lifestyle. I am intelligent and educated enough to earn a decent living. I would like to have many children with you, and want to raise them all with total love and kindness. I thoroughly identify with all your thoughts that I have encountered so far.
It's really an article about what a lot of autistic women want in a partner. I have a very good friend who's on the spectrum as well, and she's very much the same.
I think it is her self involvement that is the main problem. She’s interviewing them while referencing an internal dialogue with herself. This is not a conversation and will not lead to normal human connection.
The men aren't asking her any questions because she's self-involved?
That's quite the chain of logic you've got there, sunny Jim 😂
But alas, no. When people who are ostensibly interested in someone don't ask them any questions and instead just talk about themselves, they are being self-involved.
The fact that there are so many self-involved people out here that some think it's normal adaptive behavior is beside the point 😂
Adam Mastroianni’s model of conversational givers and takers (or inviters and declarers, as I would call them) describes this phenomenon exactly! Super enlightening for anyone who feels confused by how others don't ask questions or don't talk about themselves
If you understand and appreciate both styles, I don't think there's anything wrong with Aella's initial approach - she wants to understand the man, so giving him space to talk about himself is beneficial to both parties.
But switching roles can be tricky for both sides if they aren't used to it. From Aella's side, it requires asserting her story a little more, not just a quick blurb about going to Australia that could be interpreted as a throwaway comment, but offering enough to be noticed, to get the mindset to shift.
And from the man's side, it requires being aware and present to notice the shift, to be receptive to reading the room.
This can be very tricky, but there's actually a great analogy to partner dance - the follower needs to have just enough resistance to give the leader feedback, and the leader needs to be receptive to adjusting to feedback.
What you described sounds to me more like two monologues happening at the same time than a conversation. It is indeed how a lot of millenials and gen Z people converse with each other, and perhaps it is my personnal taste as you seem to suggest but I find it very shallow and sad.
And asking questions can also totally be used as openers, to show the other person you are leaving the floor and to nudge them to start telling a story of their own, e.g. asking after you finished 'has something similar ever happened to you?' or whatever. In fact, this is absolutely essential if like me you have a tendency to talk a lot.
It's not two monologues, because what people say interact with each other. If I talk about my trip to Australia, my conversation partner brings up their related trip to Australia. When they mention something about the dangerous Australian wildlife, I bring up my favourite South American venomous animal. The points relate to each other.
Questions still should be used to elaborate on what you're curious about. Maybe I want to know more about their experience in Sydney. But in most cases, most of someone's deep, personal information should be volunteered instead of dug out in an interrogation.
It's fine for Aella to have a different preference where she prefers to have people interrogate her. But she should be aware most people don't have conversations like that, she shouldn't expect to have conversations like that by default, and she shouldn't be afraid to teach a parter to ask her questions the way she wants.
I don’t really think two stories about Australia are really interacting with one another. They’re similar to each other, for sure- they’re both about Australia. But to interact, for them to engage, is for each story (monologue, point, whatever) to reflect, argue, or encourage the essential feature of the other’s point. Imagine we are taking a reading test, and the test gives us two stories about Australia. One is about how the natural environment is being deteriorated, the other is about how wonderful the safari trips and the surfing is. They interact not because they’re both about Australia, but because one encourages the other; from the surfing article we get some of the stakes of the environment article.
Now imagine the surfing article is placed next to an article about an article about it Australian dolphins. It’s related, of course, but it’s not engaging with the other article. It could, if dolphins article talks about the threat of surfing or the surfing article talks about seeing dolphins, but outside of that the stories just don’t interact. And that’s what I feel many conversations are- a bunch of stories related by subject and not by argument. And if that’s how you’re relating to each other, you’re not really engaging.
I agree. My main point is just that two people talking to each other without questions is not always two unrelated shallow monologues. Sometimes questions are necessary, but sometimes your conversation partner knows better than you about what you’d like to hear and just says their interesting relevant anecdote. There’s no one size fits all approach to conversation.
I think it can both be true that the two people talking are shallow monologues and that they are also interesting in exactly what the other person wants to hear. I've totally been in the position where I want my partner to give me their interesting relevant anecdote, but I also know that what I want is something less engaging than what I'd usually want in a great conversation (especially on a first date). I mean, if two AI chatbots are each giving each other incredibly insightful and interesting tidbits bout dolphins, thats great, very interesting. But its not engaging and specifically its not interacting in the ways that I personally and it seems like many other people want. I hope that clears things up!
It sounds like that because Aella is very obviously on the spectrum - which will mean very specific type of interactions that most neurotypical would find socially clunky
Indeed, Stanislas. I was appalled at the blandness and risk-averse nature of the conversation style described by Sniffnoy, and still more at the fact that it was implied that it was normal: that a “lot of people converse” that way.
I’m just grateful that I have somehow been spared exposure to such people 😅
Aella’s story completely resonated with me & my experiences dating as a woman. I’d say that the majority of the dates that I’ve been on within the past ~year have consisted of the man I’m on a date with talking *a lot* and not asking questions or leaving room for me to respond. After feeling disappointed wondering why men weren’t asking me questions on dates, I arrived at the same conclusion that you present here, and made a point to experiment with “cutting in”, even if it requires forcing a pause. When I started doing this, what would typically happen was that he would either not be fully listening to what I’m saying, and/or would steer into another monologue that was disconnected from what I shared. This all usually seemed to be happening from a place of lack of self awareness and probably insecurity/nervousness, which I have sympathy for, but it didn’t seem like there was any part of them online that felt interested in connecting with me or getting to know me.
No, that is simply how men talk. Talking is a way to fill time and express comradery, the content is irrelevant. We tell stories and we interrupt each other when we get tired of listening and want to tell our own story; we might even interrupt each other every other sentence. It's a dynamic conversation because you are engaging, not be lectured. I find many women seem to think conversations are structured things with formal rules like a debate where each party takes turns and follows a script.
Also let's face it, women don't talk, especially around men in the same way the never know what they want to eat, where to go, or really make a decision at all or even offer their input on anything because that implies accountability which is an anathema for women.
Even my own daughter complains about this in that her friends (and mother) will sit for hours in death silence not because they enjoy silence but because they expect others to entertain them because ass my ex said "if I want to entertain, I can do that myself and don't need you, any man, or anybody at all" hence she (daughter) has to man up and talk.
Something you see time and time again in these comments including the OP is they feel men are responsible for entertaining them like a member of their own narcissistic personal royal court. They aren't looking for a partner but a pet hence get upset when they are engaged as equals.
Men and women operate differently when it comes to communication, specifically in romantic relationships. I guess we can all agree that a man who gets himself involved in a romantic relationship with a woman, will naturally have a dire need to feel emotionally connected. That need comes off more strongly when we see past honeymoon phase when things get real. And in most cases, a man can easily see the shift in how things are different. A cherry on top if that man have some serious childhood trauma that triggers some uncomfortable emotions. All this might sound off topic. So, my point is, things will get to that point in life when it comes to dating and relationships. Some people can pull it off for longer and go past the dating stage. LIFE WILL ALWAYS BRING US TO A CERTAIN LESSON OVER AND OVER AGAIN, until we learn to accept, adapt and evolve. So my friend Aella, clear and effective communication, setting boundaries and by openly expressing your feelings, opinions and concerns would save you and the other person time, feelings and disappointments. In the End, truth shall set you free. Wether it’s before or during the first date, or while being in a relationship and/or marriage when things get REAL.
That reminds me of something I read once long ago, or maybe someone told me IDK, but it was an epiphany and you should think chew on it as I see in my daughters as well in the way they treat men, "men are not defective women, quit treating them as such". Men socialize differently, the fact the guy is physical there means you being "seen/heard" or else he would just leave; men have no problem exiting, I've literally got up mid-sex / sentence and walked out the door as have most men I've known. "felt/understood" is a different matter because you aren't communicating (at all) or in the few cases where you do, you are communicating to a defective woman rather than a man. We can't read your mind and we can't pick up your secret female handshakes nor should we, we are equals after all. You can make an effort to come to us, we do so for you given it's generally men that have to do the chasing and women that control the sex (place holder for second dates, etc).
Nearly all relationships (and this has lots of data behind it) are ended on the initiative of women, that alone shows the monumental effort men take to "meet you in the middle", and really more than the middle; maybe make an effort to to reciprocate sometime and you might find dating a more fulfilling experience.
Years ago I remember I had a couple conversations with a chick at work who was complaining about "my husband doesn't have sex with me anymore" and couldn't figure out why (as she didn't think he was cheating [he wasn't] nor did she become unattractive). I happened to be friends' with her husband (unbeknownst to her; bar friend) and he generally complained about it at the bar as "look, every time we have sex she just lays there like a dead fish absorbing everything and never giving or taking her own initiative. I'm tired of doing all the work and being self charging self cleaning dildo/vibrator. So yeah I'm done having sex with her after all these years because she refuses participate, it's less exciting and more work that my hand at this point, and I'm not a dog". And this is an extremely common problem guys complain to each other about, hell even "Dear Abbey" talked about it once though I can't find the article from years ago. Sex takes TWO people ACTIVELY ENGAGING, just like conversations, women seem unable to grasp that. Take some damn initiative and assert yourself, you'll be happier for it.
re “effort”: in my original comment, I described a scenario where I made an effort to give someone the benefit of the doubt and meet them halfway (with the implication that I have done this more than once, when faced with the same scenario repeatedly), and to no avail.
Except most people like talking more than they like listening (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-everybody-favorite-topic-themselves/). Asking insightful questions gives people the space to not only talk about what they want to, but also allow them to talk about interesting topics in ways they might not have thought about before. There's a reason why active listening is the #1 skill recommended by every self-help book on how to socialize.
And also, don't you ever get curious about the other person you're talking to? Sometimes there is just no way to converse in a coherent way while bring up a related 3rd, 4th, 5th point. So, you can ask questions to give the other person the space to talk more, without them feeling like they're not giving you any conversational space. Hopefully, they return the favor.
I do agree with the existence of different conversational norms here, but I think this is a place where maybe 80% of people would prefer their conversational partner to be in one culture over another. Most guys I talk to like me more after I ask them more questions. It often seems to me that people in the "trade-stories" culture still prefer their conversational partner to be in the "asking-questions" culture.
ok but I cannot possibly imagine hearing "I decided to move from Idaho to Australia by myself when I was nineteen" and not going "wait, what, why Australia, tell me more about that", you do have to take *some* conversational hooks and that example is an extremely glaringly obvious one, missing it feels like a really loud signal of lack of interest
There’s the “small talk” context which is light and breezy; there’s the “first date” context where you disclose a little, then ask a question and get the other person to disclose, etc.
Both of those contexts have unspoken rules and if you break those rules by being to penetrating, or outspoken, or heartfelt, then you get marked down and maybe the other person will even show some discomfort and withdraw.
You can judge them for that, but honestly I’m not sure I’d be up for a demanding, free-ranging, fearlessly honest conversation with a pretty woman I happen to be sharing a taxicab with.
I think you need to find a context where those rules don’t apply as much, for example shop talk about some subject of great mutual interest. I think this is why so many people fall in love at writer’s workshops.
First date maybe as you hope to see them again but taxis, elevators, bars, etc ... one offs never to be seen again conversations can be cathartic and deep. It's like a priest you will never see again. Many of the deepest conversations I've had in my life have been on airplanes, bar stools, etc because there is no judgement the immediacy.
Aella and I are having similar experiences with many men and are looking for similar men but I’m in a later stage of life. I’m looking for intellectually curious men who ask questions and respond with equal levels of interest. I want to date men who aren’t afraid to ask or be asked hard questions and who are open to growing and connecting through these conversations.
It’s not wrong to expect men to show up with emotional intelligence. She’s showing up prepared and wants someone who’s also at that level. I’m 52 yo with one bf (44 yo) at that level and looking for a couple more (ENM) who are also fit, attractive, intelligent, and emotionally open and curios. Men who seem to fit the bill always stall out despite my showing up whole having done a great deal of hard work on myself to get there.
Men have gotten used to the only expectation being that they just show up. It’s less about her having high standards and more about men not having any for themselves.
I agree with this. The other thing I noticed was this attempt to classify men quickly to minimize investment in guys who aren't right. But it seems like that isn't how things happen outside of romance novels. You can't tell quickly. People have good days and off days... and people are naturally repelled by appraisal. Think of how women react when a man looks them up and down; this is the emotional equivalent.
I will say that the bounty is an interesting idea.
But reading you own narrative, your curiosity was performative. Imagine you do meet that man but internally he has the same calibrating internal monolog as you. Not curiosity but just performance, would that matter? Do you want authenticity or better customer service
Somewhat related, a friend recently sent me an NPR piece on "magical questions," which are supposed to be good ways to get people to open up about themselves (without feeling pressured or probed) and start a conversation. They give examples like, "what are three gifts you would give aliens on behalf of humanity?" Or, "when was a time you really went all-in on celebrating something or someone? What did you do, and what were you celebrating?"
It helps if you use what you know about the person or their context to shape the question. These questions should be open-ended and creative, while giving lots of room for people to express themselves.
Of course, it depends what you're trying to achieve. If you're only interested in men who enjoy "what are specific things about you that it's not socially acceptable to be honest about" questions, giving and receiving (while also being rich, smart, handsome, poly, confident enough to take the lead role when approached romantically by a minor celebrity, who can *still take the lead and display seductive confidence* when being grilled diabolically for vulnerabilities like "how did you *really* feel when your mother died?", and who are looking for a primary romantic partner of your age and description, and also having gone through trauma and processed it to an unusual degree, and become comfortable with the lake of infinite sadness), and the stuff before the parentheses is non-negotiable, then driving off most people is what you actually want, and normal advice about how to make people comfortable will just remove your filter.
Done buy this. Women I know play a game at dinner: how many questions do I ask before he asks me one. Half the men don’t ask a question till the woman has asked 20…. A sad indictment on our sex. They just aren’t interested they want to strut their stuff .
"The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
You have a very high list of requirements. Open to nonmono knocks out at least half to three quarters of the dating pool, charitably, probably more. You want someone of equal income to you or close enough, and you're also willing to throw $100k at finding the right partner, so this argues that your standard of living is high enough that you will screen out 80-90% of the male population based on income alone-- I make 200k/yr in a LCOL state where that puts me in a high income percentile and I couldnt scrounge up $100k to throw at a problem without selling my home or destroying my retirement. I hazard a guess that you want someone you consider physically attractive, which further thins the herd. And then you wanted them fully realized as mature individuals with no issues, which narrows the pool down to a very small percentage of people.
Tellingly, you say that you do find people who meet your standards. But a lot of the time they don't meet your other standards... particularly the one in which they're partnered with someone else. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that people do not spring into the world fully formed. They have to grow and become. Someone else earlier in their lives realized that this person had the potential to greatness, and they were willing to walk alongside that person and share companionship and grow together, until that person became the sort of man you desire today. They have what you desire because they put in the work you are unwilling to put in, and as such, they reap the benefits.
Consider that you may have to plant a tree if you wish, some day, to shelter under it.
Yeah, any guy that meets Aella’s requirements sounds like they would have had no trouble getting married younger. If they are still single, they are probably younger than Aella and are only looking at dating girls in their 20s. That leaves recently divorced and recently widowed. And very recently, because they will be popular with every woman in their age range.
I think the fundamental issue is that she wants a guy who mogs her at IDGAF, and almost no one mogs Aella at that.
I suspect the only way to reach Aella-tier is by being an autistic celebrity/e-celeb with years of desensitization against savage public opinion, and that's a very select group.
This without doubt is the most thoughtful, analytical, and practical comment. I hope Aella sees it. If she was already aware of this fact, I think this comment makes it even more stark and inescapable.
So, Aella's entire scenario made my brain itch. And when my brain itches, I turn to data.
She sets out a rather intimidating set of requirements. She wants someone who is nonmonogamous to suit her lifestyle. She wants someone who wants children. She wants someone roughly within her age bracket. Realistically, they have to be mildly above average in attractiveness. And based on the fact that she doesn't want to feel like she is supporting someone, but she expects a lifestyle commensurate with hers as someone who can offer a $100,000 bounty for a nonessential goal (defining essential goals as stuff like not dying of starvation or homelessness) they need to make a decent amount of money.
I pulled some surveys quickly. This YouGov poll, sourced at the end, notes that 9% of the male population is interested in complete nonmonogamy. US Government Statistics note that males that make >$200k/year comprise approximately 5% of the population. A Pew Research poll states that 51% of young men desire children. Approximately 10% of the population is males ages 22-40, which is a wider age range than I think she would be interested in, but I'm trying to make the numbers as generous as possible. Using a normal distribution curve, approximately 25% of the population will have an attractiveness of >5.9. And based on her statement that she "maybe once in a while, I find someone who does seem whole, mostly, who has all their nerve endings pointed in my direction" I selected a generous 10% of the remaining population as being interesting enough for her to engage with on an intellectual level.
0.09 * 0.05 * 0.51 * 0.25 * 0.10 * 0.10
0.00057%
5.7 per million people
There are 4.6 million people in the San Francisco metro area. This means her immediate area dating pool contains approximately... twenty-six men that would meet her standards. Note that I didn't add a statistic for the number of men who are married to a primary partner (I'm gonna say 50% of the pool is married off the top of my head), or add any controlling factors like some of these men being unwilling to date a famous individual. It's five AM, I've worked 14 hour shifts in the ICU for the better part of the last week, and I'm tired. Working in the world's most expensive funeral home does that to people for some reason.
Aella, I would like for you to please pick my statistics apart. I would like you to respond to this with the data driven curiosity that is the reason that I followed your blog in the first place. I would like for you to prove your own conclusion that it is the "good men" that are at fault for your lack of ability to find a partner, and not the fact that "[your] desire is luxurious." Which, I must conclude, if your desire will be satisfied with only one of less than approximately two thousand, three hundred men in the United States... it probably is.
The problem with this kind of “delusion calculator” analysis is that multiplying all the individual probs together only works if you assume the desired qualities are uncorrelated. This is false. Good traits correlate, so do “weird” traits. And CERTAINLY ppl who fulfill Aella’s criteria aren’t evenly distributed across the country.
Thank you for this even more extended commentary. I have also expressed somewhere else that I wish Aella responds not just to yours but other intelligent comments as well. If there's a primary piece in need of a rejoinder from the author, it is this one.
Maybe they are not sincere, but whose is. And even if they're not, I still believe she is writing in earnest. The problem is real for her and she is in some sense in private anguish about it.
This sort of statistic only works if you think that dating people happens at complete random, and that people spread out completely randomly. If you live in a city with (relatively) a lot of rich and poly people, and spend most of your time in those spaces, the odds are nowhere near as bad as you portray them. Kind of like it would be pretty hard to run into a 13 year old boy who's into fantasy books and has long hair on the street, and you could also call that a "female delusion" because it's so specific, but 13 year old me managed to find a boyfriend like that pretty easily because I went to school (which contains lots of 13 year olds). That's usually how dating goes.
If she has only 2300 potential spouses in the US, that's around 2300 times as many as she needs. That's a huge safety factor. I'm confused why you think that's not enough.
Because you're grabbing onto the wrong number. She would need to interview three men a day every day of the year for 150 years to find one, statistically.
It's like me telling you that somewhere in this Amazon warehouse stuffed with hay, there is a needle. Is it possible to find? Absolutely. Are you going to be able to do it in a reasonable time frame? Doubtful.
You're assuming she's interviewing people randomly, which she hopefully isn't.
Take monogamy for example. It *doesn't matter* how many monogamous men there are. She's not interviewing them, and she's mostly not even interacting with them. You are artificially inflating the denominator by including people outside her dating pool like non-monogamous men. You can go much further: include women (EDIT: it seems you're already including them), people who've already died, people who haven't been born yet, all the species on earth, maybe aliens if there are any. Of all the life that has every lived in our universe, the ones you'd want to marry are a very tiny fraction. But that is obviously irrelevant.
I think the correct denominator is something like "people she can't rule out before meeting them".
And it's worth remembering that Aella is an internet celebrity with a large number followers. To extend your metaphor, there are a million Amazon workers in that warehouse who follow you on social media and who'll let you know if they ever see your needle.
How many dates would she need to go on, in order to find one of those 5.7 in a million people?
Also don't forget that the guy has to want to marry her, as well. Suppose he *also* has only 2300 potential spouses in the US. What are the odds that Aella is also part of his potential-spouse set?
Your second paragraph assumes independence. But for example if a man is around her age, then she is around his age. You should multiply by 0.1 only once, not twice.
This goes for most things IMO: if he's non-monogamous, then he probably wants a non-monogamous partner; if he wants children, then he also wants a partner who wants children; if he asks lots of personal questions on a first date, he might also want a partner who asks lots of personal questions on a first date.
Technically I didn't assume independence. I think these considerations are valid. But I would guess that a hypothetical match for Aella has some preferences that don't mirror hers, and some preferences that don't fall into this "if you match me, I match you" schema, such as physical attractiveness and chemistry.
I have had these exact thoughts about Aella's situation. These are almost certainly the reasons for her frustration. It's also extremely ironic, for someone like her who is so good at interpreting data. She seems to have a giant blind spot when it comes to evaluating herself. These reasons are quite obvious, yet the reasons she offers up are much more complex. Also, her dilemma of high standards combined with a certain inflexibility is common of unmarried women in their thirties (if they had lower standards or were more flexible, they'd already be married). To succeed, she'll have to compromise in a few areas, and the most impactful would probably be monogamy instead of polygamy and lower income level.
Having a very high list of requirements => Mlodinov: Why multiply rather than add? Suppose you make a pack of trading cards out of the pictures of those 100 guys you’ve met so far through your Internet dating service, those men who in their Web site photos often look like Tom Cruise but in person more often resemble Danny DeVito. Suppose also that on the back of each card you list certain data about the men, such as honest (yes or no) and attractive (yes or no). Finally, suppose that 1 in 10 of the prospective soul mates rates a yes in each case. How many in your pack of 100 will pass the test on both counts? Let’s take honest as the first trait (we could equally well have taken attractive). Since 1 in 10 cards lists a yes under honest, 10 of the 100 cards will qualify. Of those 10, how many are attractive? Again, 1 in 10, so now you are left with 1 card. The first 1 in 10 cuts the possibilities down by 1⁄10, and so does the next 1 in 10, making the result 1 in 100. That’s why you multiply. And if you have more requirements than just honest and attractive, you have to keep multiplying, so . . . well, good luck.
Still, some of „us“ have a chance of winning at this lottery-chanced game, but chances are…
This reminds me of an old friend, one of the smartest people I've ever known, who had similar dating woes in her early 30s. The vast majority of men were intimidated or turned off or both by her success and her force of her personality, which fits what you're seeing from men too. And she also had a single life so awesome that it set a very high bar for a partner to improve on, which potential partners could see, which made the intimidation/turnoff thing worse.
When she connected with the man she is now happily married to and has kids with, a co-worker who it turned out had had an off-and-on crush on her for awhile, it was obvious literally from across the room how he cared for her. I cannot describe the signs precisely, but it was something in the way his body angled toward and around her as they talked. She says she didn't see it at the time, but her friends, myself included, looked at the two of them and saw it immediately.
In my experience, that kind of caring ("agape", if you want to get fancy and philosophical about it) is how "whole" people best express their wholeness. And the traditional dating/meet-at-a-party interaction format where you know you're being judged and put on the spot by a new person is a huge barrier to developing or expressing it. So if that expression of wholeness is a sine qua non to arouse your interest, I'd ask: where and how might you put yourself in a position to let people build and show that caring for you?
It's a frustrating thing to think about doing because it requires you to sort of not aim at what you actually want, like how meditation supposedly can only bring you happiness if you abandon your striving for the goal of its bringing you happiness. But on the other hand, it's likely to lead you to social experiences that are fulfilling and worthwhile even if they don't find you a life partner.
If you've already considered/tried this, my apologies for rambling about it. May you find your already whole guy who is even more whole with and through you.
Thanks for writing this, it was very sweet and encouraging to read after a depressing post and comments section (signed, a recently-single 35-year-old woman who also wants kids)
“Are you smarter than your coworkers” or “When your ex broke up with you, did you deserve it?” or “So when your mom died, did you feel bad about it?”
I would be put off by such questions in a first conversation; they feel like trick questions, with lose/lose answers. They don’t seem to express a real interest, but make the situation feel more like a job interview: let’s just see how the candidate handles himself when we put him on the spot. And who are you, to ask me how I felt when my mom died? What makes that your business?
My experience dating in my 30s makes a lot more sense after reading this piece. I often ended up on dates with women like this. They would say that they’re empathetic and want a guy like that, but would spend the whole date judging and psycho analyzing my emotions or asking incredibly rude questions like OP’s. I was asked “so why are you still single?” probably 50% of the time.
As you alluded to, you rarely even encounter anyone in their "true form", everyone has their flexible core structure folded into a specific shape by their environment and previous interactions. It's improbable to encounter a person who happens to be in the exact shape that you need, and optimizing for that may end up suboptimal on other things.
Instead, it may be worth spending some time (a few dates? a few weeks?) applying pressure to get the shape you want out of someone, if you think they are worth the shot, to see if their structure allows them to get there. They, in turn, decide if it's a shape they want to be in.
But you can't really re-shape someone. Ever. Life does not work that way, though Hollywood and popular culture may make you think otherwise. The only person that can cause someone to change - is themselves - if they truly want to. Applying pressure to someone, particularly very early in a relationship - all you'll accomplish is getting them to fake being someone else in order for them to achieve short-term gratification or whatever they want out of the deal - and then when they are done they'll end it and this will lead to resentment. Basically this is an almost guaranteed recipe for failure and wasting time.
I don't think that's quite true. Everyone is changing all of the time, and people do change in response to the people around them. Obviously living with my wife has changed me in uncountable ways.
However, you can't easily control how you will change someone. And even if you can, they're going to notice that you're trying to reshape them and they probably won't like it.
This depends on what changes you are looking for. If you just differ in taste in music, then change is easy. If you're talking about the person's formula for success, you should stop before you even start.
You're always reshaping everyone you spend time with. You are the environment from which they learn, and they are your environment. Changing relative to each other is inevitable and largely unconscious.
In OP, Aella claims that the guys who meet her criteria already tend to be in relationships. The assumption here seems to be that they were already "snapped up" by other women, but I'd suggest that actually, a big part of what's going on is that the characteristics Aella is attracted to (emotional intelligence, self-assuredness, etc.) tend to appear as a *result* of a man being in a really good LTR.
One could go further and argue that women face a public goods problem. Dating a man makes him more attractive, but if they split, he may be able to use that increased attractiveness to find someone even better. Reminds me of this discussion from the other day: https://loloverruled.substack.com/p/you-cant-fuck-the-sad-away/comment/103480270
So maybe what Aella should do is work as a dating coach, and search for a husband among her best clients. Getting paid to go on dates can't be that bad!
Honestly though, I can't say I'm *super* excited about this idea. My sense is that there may be real trade-offs between pro-social behavior and self-assuredness. We might live in an inconvenient world where making men (or people in general, really) more self-assured, and less self-questioning, *will* increase antisocial behavior / decrease prosocial behavior. Like, my experience at "Circling-adjacent" events is that those people who are all about "being true to yourself, getting in touch with yourself, learning authenticity", etc. tend to be jerks (and frankly, I don't have all that high of an opinion of the moral character of Aella or the women who said this post resonated with them). There's probably a way to achieve both high pro-social behavior and high self-assuredness at the same time, but I'm not sure it is the default path.
On the other hand, her "sex guide for men" blogging would probably be better if it was more informed by the sex issues that men actually face (and working as a dating coach could help gather data on that).
"His body tension reminds me of the way I feel when I’ve appeared on high-pressure public shows and I don’t want people to know that I’m really scared right now."
Later in her post, Aella suggests that this may be evidence of "devastating cracks in their psyche".
Does Aella think that she herself has a devastating crack in her psyche due to the anxiety she sometimes experiences on public shows?
Usually anxiety gets desensitized through repeated exposure.
There's a good chance she's basically cockblocking herself by being a micro-celeb. Fame -> guys get anxious -> Aella judges him for his anxiety and gets turned off -> she's still single -> more time spent poasting online -> more fame.
100% agree about the shape being influenced by environment and previous interactions.
If I become hypothetically single and am looking to marry again, I will probably explore doing more volunteer work, going for in-person courses I am interested in, etc. where there is a chance to mix and mingle with others in person, in the same environment.
Though if I become hypothetically single, I will just go ordain as a Buddhist monk! It's a lot more peaceful... :)
The type of man you want is an artistic man. These men who are focused on introspection, darker parts of themselves, and their curiosities are like this because they are not focusing on making money. I read things like this from rich women more often than you would expect. If you have $100k to spare, you should be able to afford kids without an issue. The man you want doesn’t come with a bank account. He spent time focusing on growing in a personal way, not a financial or status way.
I am not rich enough for 100k to be trivial. But I figured - if I imagined being happily married now, and someone was like 'either you can have 100k or have never met your husband', the choice would be easy. So if I were gonna do it in hindsight, I should do it now.
You want someone artistic, that can sit with their darkness, but also pragmatic and thus has a stable job / income.
Too much drive for stability / ambition in one area will often kill the curiosity you crave so deeply in this post. But someone with too much curiosity will override the need for stability and thus be unable to provide the monetary safety you crave for raising a child.
What you want are the people on the curious / safe spectrum close-ish to where I sit, where they hold a functional and respectable job with a reasonable salary, but see it purely as a means to an end that lets them deeply and fully chase their curiosity / stoke / meaning after they clock out.
I have to believe these are exactly the kind of people you still can find at The Center or within authentic relating and other forms of deeper communication practices (not without its flaws, but it promotes a deepness and connectivity you seem to be reaching for in this post)
Nate RN (those contract RNs do very well?) says he would have to be much richer to "afford $100K," but if he really "wanted to transform his life" (I'm not saying he does or needs to), I think he would be happy to spend $100K if it worked.
The "Die with Zero" book by Bill Perkins explores the tradeoffs between money and time. Counter-intuitively it often makes sense to spend more money when you're younger and have less. If your $100K bounty is going to work it will work soon rather than 10 years from now when you're 43.
Yes, you should lower your standards. 33, unmarried, and long searching implies a mismatch, and your odds do not improve from here. Also, make second dates the default as opposed to the exception. Many people glow brighter with increased exposure.
Wishing you luck. I want you represented in the gene pool!
Work the Numbers: Go on at least one date a week. Nothing planned? Go to an event where people you like are, and pick someone up.
Poly in Practice: Always be in a romantic relationship with at least three men. Only dump someone to replace with another. (Your next three dates get a bye directly into a relationship 😉)
Casting Couch: Revealed preferences show sex is extremely important. I'd guess it's even more important for Aella. Sleep with prospectives. If the awkward guy turns out to be good, hard man in bed, his social skills may matter less.
Follow these three steps, and I'd give favorable marriage odds in three years.
I am sorry aella, i think youre just picky. You seek contradictory things in men, you dislike sensitivity in a man, but those that dont have that will tend to be nonchalant, but you dislike that too. you dont someone who isnt curious about you, but you also dislike sexual submissiveness which a curious guy will tend to have. You are probably chasing a type of guy who makes up 0.0000001% of the population who has the traits you want in your specific quantity, and if you do find that person then other compatibility issues could come into the mix. Think of the personality you want using the big 5 personality traits, rarely will people have a surplus in one with no deficit in another. To be picky in such a way is just human nature, I myself am like that, I have found that the best way is to simply shut off my mind when assessing people, I go zen and just let it happen. I think as long as this person is not drastically affecting the trajectory of my life i really dont have much to lose. I have embraced the fact that my marriage and my children will probably all happen as an accident, not really well thought out with issues baked in that i should have considered but didnt. There are also so many other decisions i make everyday that aren't well thought out, drinking a glass of water at a party? what if it had been poisoned with lead due to a pipe burst that happened minutes ago? I dont think it matters to assess these possibilities the same way i dont think it matters to assess every failure point a future relationship coud have.
"you dont someone who isnt curious about you, but you also dislike sexual submissiveness which a curious guy will tend to have." This is not true in my experience. I mean, *maybe* curiosity is negatively correlated with dominance, but not that much, so this is overwhelmed by base rates (most men aren't sexually submissive)
Not sure I agree with everything here (are curious people actually subs? I don't know), but yeah, writing long essays about what you want is somewhat counterproductive as the more things you ask for the less likely you are to find someone with all of them.
Your writing and insight are beautiful in this piece. I wish you and the men you meet the best of luck finding happiness. I'm incredibly happy I've been married to a wonderful woman who has grown to know my flaws deeply and still accept them while loving me despite the flaws and also supporting our combined successes over the past 25 years. Thanks for sharing this!
Very interesting. Oddly I’m experiencing the companion story of zero question women. Which makes me wonder if being too curious makes people shrink? But then again what makes people default to story telling and sharing? It’s such a strange default to avoid exploring when there is some modicum of a goal to spend more time w the person you’re with.
I dislike it when people ask a lot of questions. It seems demanding. I want them to tell me a story, but I in turn don't want to demand a story from them. So I tell a story, and I pause and I see if they respond to openings I leave them in the story. And when they start telling their story I listen. And then we start building a story together.
This whole question-first culture feels so alien and the clash is harsh... I think the other person is needy and boring, they think I am self-centered and not interested in them maybe. I am trying to learn to communicate better with the other culture but it is just so much easier to communicate with my kind of people. But I have already found a partner and community that matches my style... If I didn't I would need to learn faster.
The "good conversations have doorknobs" substack piece touches on this for me, but isn't really on it - the energy you embody is received and responded to. When you go around fascinated by other people, they'll start telling you about themselves. They're not going to try to fight the conversational flow by getting you to start sharing.
This seems a reasonable answer. It takes a lot of mental bandwidth to answer deep questions that you have not thought about before. Especially if you don't have experience with being deeply questioned, I feel like it is easy to get into an introspection-mode. If you don't discover new things about yourself frequently, the new things that you're having to think about about yourself might be more interesting than the other person.
True, I'm just sharing my experience as an awkward guy who took way too long to tell when women weren't interested and was trying to help someone else out who I figured had the same problem. Guess I was wrong. :)
My wife and I have been together eight years now, married for four. Our relationship isn't perfect, but the love and respect we have for each other is deeper than I would have thought possible. We met through an online dating app that restricted the number of matches--I can't express just how amazing of a design feature that is from a game theoretic perspective. Anyways...
Fairly recently, she told me the full story of our meeting from her perspective. [Section redacted because this isn't my story to tell, at least on a public forum]. Summary: her first reaction towards me was (weirdly) neutral.
The first date went fairly well, so she agreed to a second date (because "why not?"). The second date was slightly better and more connective. Then the third was slightly better than that. And so it continued. Three months in we were clearly in a relationship, six months in we moved in together.
My own experience was having an extremely hard time getting any woman to so much as notice me. When I thought about what it would be like to find a girlfriend, the kind of progression above was pretty much exactly what I imagined--I just needed to find one person who knew how to pay attention and then I'd be set. Because this is how psychology (obviously) works when you strip away all the nonsense and introspect for real.
More recently, I found that the relevant term from the literature is "responsive desire," where arousal builds over time, as opposed to "spontaneous desire" that comes on in a flash. As a general rule, everyone feels a mix of both, but women's desire is primarily responsive and men's is primarily spontaneous (I prefer to use the word "anticipatory", but these were popularized by Emily Nagoski in "Come as You Are" and her understanding of men is...erm, lacking). Popular culture, however, wildly overrepresents spontaneous desire, which has just enough truth to stick.
This means that: you will *not know* if a man is attractive to you until you have been with him for a while!
Yes, if you get a *bad* feeling, you should listen to that. This is an area where, when things go wrong, they have the potential to go very wrong, so some risk aversion makes sense.
Yes, dynamics that are a little off at the start tend to stay off by default. But not always! Some men just need time to learn your patterns to feel comfortable enough around you to show their full selves and navigate the dance of adapting to your preferences while staying true to their own.
Yes, investing more time in relationships that don't work mean more good time thrown after bad and fewer men you can meet in the same time.
But here's the thing: there are no shortcuts. Our cognitive desire circuits were formed at a time when people knew each other--including potential long term mates--through deep community connections that formed over years. "Getting to know" someone in a one hour meetup over coffee or in a few minutes of conversation at a party is wildly unnatural--frankly, it's a contradiction in terms. You might occasionally come across a handsome stranger, just passing through, that can catch your interest for the short term, since that has a historical analog. But if you are looking for something deeper than that, trying to look for a connection that feels right on a first date is Not The Way. I mean, there are statistical anomalies (never say never!) but you really have to play the numbers game for that.
As with so many things, you have two options: adapt your mind to modernity (by acting in ways that make sense but feel unnatural, to balance out the unnaturalness of the context) or adapt modernity to your mind (by changing your context so that what works aligns with what feels right). Obviously, the latter is better if you can find it...or create it. You've had some success using a data-driven approach to design a better orgy, perhaps you can use a similar mindset to design (or find because you know how to recognize) a community context where people are able to really see each other.
"I just needed to find one person who knew how to pay attention and then I'd be set."
There's something about this self-related knowledge that is hugely impressive. To have such confidence in this set-up in the context of a life history filled with romantic insignificance is beautifully heroic.
>We met through an online dating app that restricted the number of matches--I can't express just how amazing of a design feature that is from a game theoretic perspective.
Coffee Meets Bagel...though I heard from a friend it's been bought out by Match, so I don't know if it's still any good. In addition to restricting to 3 matches per day of use, once you got a mutual match, you only had 1 week before the instant message with them closed, to prevent endless pen-pal dynamics.
It's ironic, but the way for people to imagine you a great conversationalist is...to ask them lots of questions! When I was in high school I was a lonely and frustrated kid and found this book that said you shouldn't talk more than your "share" of a conversation. And that you should ask questions and listen without thinking of your response. So I trained myself to do those things!
I had the opposite experience recently, though. Had to realize people wanted me to share and that it was offputting to like, interview everyone I met.
That’s not to say the advice that being curious about people is wrong, it’s just to say don’t read that advice as “asking questions good not asking questions bad” like I did
Aella’s story isn’t about “good men” but the emptiness of surface-level connection.
She’s not picky, she’s precise. She wants depth, curiosity, and presence. Most guys aren’t built for that — they’re stuck in autopilot or afraid to show real emotion.
I get it. I’ve lived it and been on both sides.
The real takeaway? Some of us aren’t wired for shallow. We’re hunting for soul-level resonance in a swipe-based world. It’s rare. But it’s worth it.
And yeah, I respect the $100K bounty. Put skin in the game.
I remember that in my 20s, I had such _similar_ thoughts as Aella describes here. I sympathize. That said...
"She wants depth, curiosity, and presence. Most guys aren’t built for that — they’re stuck in autopilot or afraid to show real emotion."
The man who can do that is one who is so at home with himself that he doesn't really care if you like him or not. That vibe might be very conducive to "deep" conversations, but might be crap for kindling attraction.
I was about to write that (goes in both directions: men/women) but then it occurs to me that (1) the post was about 'dating men' and (2) my gut sense is that far more women are "interview dating" men than vice versa. When's the last time you saw/heard/read a piece about "how women aren't measuring up" ?
@Aella - how would all this look through a non-dual perspective? What would happen if you treated your date men as if they were already friends you trusted? What would that do to how you spoke to them, and what might it do to the vibe you project to them, and how they might speak and behave in _that_ vibe?
I wish you all the best, and than you for sharing such considered and well written things with us.
There are a lot of men who could meet this standard once they learn to let go of their insecurities and pay attention. Unfortunately most of them don't learn that until like 45 after they get divorced.
If you had actually read her post, you would know that there are many men who are willing to date her.
Not that I'm defending her standards (I don't agree with them and think they are counterproductive). But your statement is just untrue. Aella is rejecting the men and not the opposite way around.
I absolutely hate when someone seems to be trying to map out my internal world on the first few dates. It's invasive, tiring, and it makes me assume they have an anxious attachment style, and need to know exactly what I'm thinking and feeling in order to feel secure. I'm pretty open with people I'm close to, but why would I offer that level of intimacy and vulnerability to a stranger? You can't speed-run your way to that kind of closeness. That kind of understanding comes through experience, not answers to a barrage of questions. The fact that men don't want to do this with you the first time you meet doesn't mean they never want deep intimacy or are not fully realized people. You're doing a ton of mind-reading and not allowing for the fact that some people are simply nervous on first dates, have different expectations for privacy, that you might be doing things that are off-putting to them and make them not want to share. That they actually have no reason to trust you with their deepest feelings yet. Someone not responding to you exactly the way you want doesn't mean they have devastating cracks in their psyches.
We might be seeing a clash of conversation styles here. You expect people to ask questions. But the way a lot of people converse is by trading stories, or just letting things prompt other things -- not asking questions.
That is to say, the way a conversation goes in this style is that person A tells a story, or explains a topic, or whatever; person B maybe gets person A to expand on this for a bit, if they're interested in this particular topic; and then B just takes something A said as a jumping-off point to tell a tangentially related story or explain a tangentially related topic. And this goes back and forth.
You do ask questions in this format, but they're questions to clarify or to get someone to expand on what they've already said or to resolve apparent contradictions; you don't generally open a new topic with a question. You open a new topic with a "Funny you should mention that..." or a "Heh, that reminds me of the time..." or similar.
You're wondering why they're asking you no questions -- they're likely wondering why you're not telling them anything! You're like, it would be awkward because I haven't been asked -- no, that's exactly how it's supposed to go! You don't tell a story when *asked*, you tell a story when it comes to mind because the other person said something tangentially related. (Why wouldn't the guy want to know?)
Indeed, the fact that you *didn't* spontaneously talk about something might lead the other person to infer that you're *deliberately* keeping it hidden and they shouldn't pry! Although if you talk around it enough they might feel a need to ask directly because you're making it obvious.
Asking questions is what I resort to when the other person *really* just isn't saying much and I can't think of any other way to get them to talk. Normally, though, I expect them to respond with stories of their own, not wait until asked. Someone who wouldn't say things until asked I would find quite frustrating!
I'm not sure why you seem to so strongly associate getting to know one another with asking questions. Is this a requirement for getting sufficient information? Well, OK, I guess for the more private awkward stuff you're talking about it likely is. But why are you expecting to start with that? Normally it takes time to get to that! People generally aren't going to tell you such things until you've done something to demonstrate that it's safe to do so. Maybe you're just expecting to get to that too fast? (Although, idk, it seems like maybe you're also trying to filter for the sort of person who doesn't care about that sort of safety, and so going to that right off the bat is a deliberate filter. Which is fine if it is; just, y'know, that's going to be a strong filter to apply.)
I don't know -- I only have your textual description to go by. If these people are actually asking *no* questions -- when you tell them something, they don't ask you clarifying questions or try to get you to expand on it or anything, they immediately claim the turn for themselves with a tangentially related story -- then yeah, I have to agree, that doesn't seem very interested or curious, and that's unfortunate. But if they're merely not asking you any questions to *open* topics, it may just be a different conversation style?
I want a man who follows his own curiosity when when it risks making others uncomfortable. That's real hot. Men who are like "oh I'm scared if I express my curiosity about something" are unattractive and doing the same warping fear I describe in the rest of the essay.
Plus, according to a Twitter poll I did a while back, people overwhelmingly want to be asked questions, so those men are additionally poorly calibrated.
https://x.com/Aella_Girl/status/1860862965278490977?t=crrt07p-HjaoZYoD-1240Q&s=19
Also, I've def been on dates where people asked me zero questions at all (or rather, sometimes they do ask questions but then immediately go on to answer it themselves).
Well that's unfortunate :-/
You are not wrong about the asking questions part. I've learned to do it with my kids and they open right up.
Your poll asks if it's kinder to "ask questions", but it doesn't specify how personal the questions can be.
You've written: "I want a man who follows his own curiosity when when it risks making others uncomfortable. That's real hot."
Perhaps you should do a poll about whether specifically having someone ask you “When your ex broke up with you, did you deserve it?” or “So when your mom died, did you feel bad about it?” is hot.
Yeah I think Aella has weird stated preferences in men relative the rest of the internet. Like a lot of women, she assumes her preferences are universal.
Some guys she discusses in her post are basically optimizing to impress Reddit Woman, who has seriously different stated preferences from Aella's.
You would never see comments like this on reddit:
https://xcancel.com/Aella_Girl/status/1224209813992693760#m
https://xcancel.com/Aella_Girl/status/1716280621008388148#m
https://xcancel.com/Aella_Girl/status/1825732576528707975#m
I find Reddit Woman to be super-aggravating. But from an expected-value point of view, I kinda understand why some guys are so optimized around not hurting her / not getting cancelled by her.
You would, they'd just get downvoted and eventually removed, depending on the subreddit.
I bet even Reddit Woman doesn't actually get explicit affirmative consent for each level of escalation IRL...though she won't hesitate to hold that over you if things go wrong.
There's the added problem that Aella's famous, so she has an entire Internet platform to attack you from if she decides to. Not that she would--it would be kind of off-brand--but the possibility is probably enough to scare off a lot of guys.
The super-aggravation of women that don't have a rape kink😔
Hm, let me clarify my post.
I think that, in much of culture (at least in my friends groups), we have a mutual agreement to avoid bringing up topics that other people might find emotionally distressing, because we don't want to hurt our friends unless it's absolutely necessary.
I think Aella is saying: "A man who asks these emotionally-distressing questions is signaling that he doesn't care about me liking him, which implies that he's higher status than me, and I think that's hot."
My take on these questions is: "A person who asks these emotionally-distressing questions is demonstrating that they don't care about hurting me, or perhaps even that they enjoy hurting me, and I think that's a red flag for a romantic partner or even for a friend."
I do think it's okay to ask these sorts of questions if you're careful to give the other person a way to politely decline to answer. I have, in the past, asked questions like: "if it's not too personal, can you tell me more about your last relationship?", because I thought it was a good question for learning more about my potential partner.
I think Aella would argue that the "if it's not too personal" disclaimer signals a lack of confidence and makes her less interested in the person asking the question.
"Questions" also means any amount from 2 to plus infinity, and I suspect most people will start feeling weird around the 10th question or so.
It is yet another instance of the "chocolate problem". "Do you like chocolate?" - "Yes!" - "OK, here is a shipping container full of chocolate, eat through it NOW. What? Are you poorly calibrated or what? That idiot says he likes chocolate and can't even appreciate all the chocolate I prepared for him to feast upon."
Aella consider the implications of this being the most liked comment. You have other problems, but your described conversation style is clearly your most immediate impediment to connecting with people on dates.
As a fellow autistic whose dating life improved greatly by asking fewer questions and talking more, volunteer more information about yourself. People need stories to stoke their curiosity. Don't just say "I moved to Australia before". Elaborate. You are an interesting person but it doesn't sound like you are showing up on dates as an interesting person. This is why you are getting no questions or generic questions. You need to give people more to work with.
Reframe your thinking. These men are not "scared". No one is "scared" of you. They are just being polite and following normal social conventions.
People can definitely be scared or intimidated on dates. Neither of us have been on Aella's dates, so it's odd to read such a confident assessment.
Anyway, while Aella may overdo it with the questions, I think she's looking for someone who is comfortable going off the beaten path in a conversation and actually reading cues from the other person rather than just running through the usual polite repertoire. I can definitely identify with that. I'd be bored with someone who just plays it straight all the time.
Having said that, I agree that trading stories and being willing to be the talker instead of just the questioner are also important social skills.
Autistic people find it very difficult to form relationships - in part because of having very specific and inflexible ideas about what other people should be like
I believe a part of her is aware and frustrated by this specificity and inflexibility. Which, I think, is the reason she said "I’m a slave to my own desire."
Those men tend to be in prison or already taken. You are confusing lust with love, they aren't related. It's something men tend to learn by their early 20's, women unfortunately often much later or never at all. They aren't there to entertain you, that isn't an equal, maybe get a cat?
To the OP though, he nails it. Men don't tend to ask personal questions, not out of fear but simply because it's not our business your history, you'll probably lie anyways. We take you (men or women , it's not a gender difference) as you present NOW and in the future and if you want to tell your story, great, feel free to contribute to the conversation and do so unprompted, we would appreciate you actually contributing for once. But otherwise, we can wait, you'll share when you want too, maybe never. That's ok.
^^Please ignore this asshole, he's in the "Not All Men, But Definitely You" cohort.
I.e. the overwhelming majority of men, not the "This is my wife and her boyfriend" crowd you all seem to think is normative even in San Fran. It's not BTW, not even a statistically significant noticable from the chaff normal. I'd bet my entire months income you couldn't even find a 1000 openly defacto polyandrous couples in San Fran (~1% of heterosexual marriages there) hence just like you'd tell your kids to quit hanging out with bad influences if they want to change, so does our friend.
Yes yes, "Everyone's doing it."
Millennials and Gen Z like that excuse too, for their lack of social skills.
You're hostile AF toward women.
Lol nah, I just treat them as my equal which as any man knows who has tried, they overwhelming despise.
It's all good though, I've had my litter of kids and soon grandkids, my genes will survive as will my cultural pro social values as does anyone who isn't a genetic dead end, generally as a result of bad self destructive anti natalism ideas, like our blogger here seems to have. All she is doing to herself is bringing herself a miserable existence in about three decades forth.
Having a good enough relationship and kids isn't hard nor is raising them right. Nor is it expensive. People overcomplicate things for no reason.
Squat some kids out, they basically feed themselves off your tit for a year or three and after that they generally are smart enough to use the microwave and care for themselves. Then you got thirteen years of free daycare and $3 spaghettos for dinner. My kids at most cost me about $500 extra a month each throughout their lives, that's nothing.
If homeless chicks with five kids with five different dads can, by choice even, live in an emergency shelter for nine years and their kids turn out just fine, I'm sure hers can to given she seems to be quite wealthy. I spent two decades as a case manager in an family emergency shelter, believe me, kids are neither hard or expensive nor are satisfactory relationships. The road block is her.
No worries, the Amish will inherit the earth along with the guys who beat their wives, they breed and quite successfully as women tend find it attractive, at least the sort that have children do and they are the only ones that really matter.
Nobody likes being interviewed. That isn’t genuine human interaction. I suggest just acting normally and letting the conversation flow. Be unguarded. React to what they say. Use humour. Don’t try to build a mental model- that’s weird and will come across as such. Don’t constantly reference your own internal dialogue about yourself- you will appear as a robot or a fake person.
Normal people like being asked questions by someone they're attracted to 👍🏼
Someone as inquisitive as Aella reports herself to be would be delightful and amusing to any normal, well-adjusted man, not threatening.
Normal people do not like being asked "did you feel sad about your mother's death" or "were you a bad boyfriend to your ex" in the first hour of knowing someone. Cmon lol.
They were at dinner, on a date. Was it the first hour? It’s not clear.
I would say that’s true of normal people in normal situations, but a date in which you’ve been set up with each other is not a normal situation.
It also depends on how attracted you are to the other person already. If you want them to like you, you want them to be curious about you and ask questions, if you're a normal person.
People who don't like questions from people they want to get to know and vice-versa are not normal.
Your social skills are severely lacking. So are your .. time comprehension skills ? How long do you think a dinner date lasts? Not more than a few hours, and talking with someone for one or two hours doesn't suddenly make us close friends.
I want people to ask me questions on a first date, yes. Normal questions. A very pointed question about whether I cared about my mother's death is really not that. That's a question you don't ever ask, you should let the other person volunteer that info. It's clearly fishing for some sort of trauma, or trying to psychoanalyze, which is not a vibe most people like. Just because a guy has nice blue eyes doesn't mean that I would accept him trying to make me uncomfortable on purpose. That's a massive red flag. Women who ignore that type of shit because of a guy's biceps are what we would call "easy victims", not sure why you want men to be like that. A confident man certainly would not let a woman do whatever to him as long as she had big tits, he would leave her and find a big-titted woman who makes conversation that the enjoys.
A date is not a normal context, but it's also not an extremely abnormal one. You're acting as if dates are this strange social situation where no rules apply and no one really knows how to act. It's just getting to know someone and flirting with them, like you would at any "normal" event. The strangeness comes from the fact that it's a bit contrived and there's nothing else to focus on or do.
It's absolutely a learning process, expressing curiosity about stuff that might be uncomfortable. I'm married to someone I've been together with since we were fourteen, and it's great and aside from infidelity, neglect or abuse I am confident there isn't much I could do to wreck things. Yet I still have some hangups around expressing dangerous curiosity. I just worked through a big one on my own and then shared with her. Expressing that kind of dangerous curiosity paid off big time and now we have a whole new way of talking and a whole new thing to talk about. But it's not easy!
Agreed. I've been with mine since I was 16 and there are things we couldn't really communicate to each other until 35. It takes time, and the more you love someone the more you worry about hurting them. Too much honesty can be destructive, you have to know how to calibrate it. And sometimes you just have to be on their team whether they are right or wrong.
Aella, you’re wrong. Rethink this position. This is the crux of your issue.
Reexamine this. The commenter is speaking towards reality.
Gack no. The commenter is wholly self-involved and would make her unhappy.
What is wrong: Aella herself or what Aella wants?
After you've answered that question, I should remind you that you can't separate the two. To deny what she wants as wrong is to deny her very individuality as wrong. And that's a cruel thing to pronounce.
The above comment sounds like Cartman "outthinking" Clyde Frog during a backyard tea party, deconstructing Clyde's words so he can white-knight-splain their implicit abuse and misogyny to Polly Prissy-Pants.
However, Charlatan's full of shit from the word Go:
If you know someone who is using an ineffective strategy
to pursue something important
-- like a satisfying relationship --
it's not at all cruel to tell them their current goal / objective is Wrong,
whether it's "Marry Sweetest Guy On Death Row" or "Reject All Possible Partners Who Don't Ask Enough Intrusive Questions."
Truth be told, "Charlatan" is the most-apropos username I've seen this year.
So either a man who is curious and brave, or a man who doesn't care about others' feelings. Or someone really old who doesn't give a shit anymore.
So, for example, being surrounded by people of some ethnicity and loudly expressing curiosity about the practical consequences of the difference between their mean IQ and his?
I guess, at that point, his hotness depends crucially on whether anyone dares attack him, and, if they do, on who wins. If he’s defeated, there are some memorable comebacks the winner could perform, but I’m scared of expressing them.
This is a bit extreme, but I used to express curiosity in all sort of situations where it was likely to make others uncomfortable. Needless to say, I wasn’t brave; just ignorant and arguably stupid. When I began to grasp faint traces of what all this meant socially, I predictably shat my pants.
You are a lot closer to "automatically strategic" than is typical, but I still have to check because the prior on "humans are not automatically strategic" is so strong:
Have you mentioned this preference (in so many words) when advertising your date-me doc? Because I think "follows own curiosity to the point that it often makes others uncomfortable" is an unusual preference and also something people are likely to know about themselves, so would be an unusually useful preference to advertise.
Regarding your first paragraph -- I mean yeah that absolutely makes sense as a filter you would apply, but that only seems to be responding to the bit I wrote about "if you don't talk about something spontaneously they might figure you're deliberately keeping it hidden"? As in, you'd want someone whose response in that situation would be to make a point of asking because it's bugging them, not someone who'd shy away. And yeah that makes sense. But it doesn't seem to be related to the overall conversational style, only to that bit?
Idk about for other people but for me at least curiosity is usually triggered by noticing something discordant or missing, finding that something is *bugging* me -- that's part why I mention so much above clarifying questions or questions to get people to expand on a topic. You ask a question when something clashes with what you already know, when it doesn't make sense internally, when there's something vague, when there's an obvious implication that the other person doesn't seem to be exploring for some reason, when there's a related case they seem to have missed, etc. ("Hold on, so what if A and B occur simultaneously?" "OK but what if instead of A it were A'?" -- I guess those are more examples for intellectual conversations than personal ones, but the principle is the same to my mind.)
But none of that is really using questions to open a new topic! Sometimes I might sort of do that in that I've been mulling an old topic for a while, find it's bugging me, and ask out of nowhere about the *old* topic to return to it because I feel like I need an answer. But it's still a question arising from something bugging me based on what the other person said. Using questions to open a new topic entirely is something different and for me usually a case of "ugh this person isn't talking much I guess I need to try to say something that will get them talking". (I guess if I notice a topic has been conspicuously missing, that could be a case where a question is both opening a new topic and prompted by something bugging me, but that's not what I'd call the typical case.)
Do you have any specific stories about men who asked you questions that made you uncomfortable, and how that was hot at the time? I know I don't like being asked uncomfortable questions, and I think most people don't. In fiction, steering conversation toward another person's traumas and secrets is an act of severe aggression, even villainy, like this scene where a "therapist" character uses this technique to trap the protagonist in his own head with malevolent intentions. https://youtu.be/kBwVWrBk_uo?t=20 . In more prosaic, real-life situations, people may have the experience of a popular "friend" in childhood pressuring them into revealing their secrets only to gossip about them to your social detriment.
The usual advice on conversation is to *avoid* making the other person engage in things they find uncomfortable. But then, notoriously, most people don't like being hit or physically restrained most of the time, but some people enjoy it in specific circumstances with a trusted partner. I don't have much experience with kink communities, but do people usually find a dom by going around slapping people in the face, hoping that someone slaps them back harder, while being a good and loving person? Because the approach of asking people uncomfortable questions on dates, to find a man who will do it to you, strikes me (no pun intended) as sort of a verbal version of that. Most people aren't into that stuff, some like it but only if they were expecting it in advance, and those who are into it will notice that you are the one playing the "aggressor" role.
This is for your bounty, I would like to introduce you to myself.
I am the indisputable god of curiosity and question-asking, and always have been. I will exhaust you with my questions, I can guarantee it.
I am kind and capable and completely accepting of your lifestyle. I am intelligent and educated enough to earn a decent living. I would like to have many children with you, and want to raise them all with total love and kindness. I thoroughly identify with all your thoughts that I have encountered so far.
Thank you for your attention!
She's on the spectrum. That's why it is confusing lol.
Bingo
It's really an article about what a lot of autistic women want in a partner. I have a very good friend who's on the spectrum as well, and she's very much the same.
Then this is sad- it’s an article about how autistic people cannot connect with others.
Nah they're just self-involved. Lot of that going around too.
You think she isn’t autistic and is instead a narcissist?
I think the men's self-involvement is the cause of that particular difficulty. Her autism is beside the point.
I think it is her self involvement that is the main problem. She’s interviewing them while referencing an internal dialogue with herself. This is not a conversation and will not lead to normal human connection.
The men aren't asking her any questions because she's self-involved?
That's quite the chain of logic you've got there, sunny Jim 😂
But alas, no. When people who are ostensibly interested in someone don't ask them any questions and instead just talk about themselves, they are being self-involved.
The fact that there are so many self-involved people out here that some think it's normal adaptive behavior is beside the point 😂
Which is why she's hoping other spectrum people who have figured it out can help her, I imagine...
I was going to say, I also had to very recently learn this, because I'm autistic.
Adam Mastroianni’s model of conversational givers and takers (or inviters and declarers, as I would call them) describes this phenomenon exactly! Super enlightening for anyone who feels confused by how others don't ask questions or don't talk about themselves
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/good-conversations-have-lots-of-doorknobs
If you understand and appreciate both styles, I don't think there's anything wrong with Aella's initial approach - she wants to understand the man, so giving him space to talk about himself is beneficial to both parties.
But switching roles can be tricky for both sides if they aren't used to it. From Aella's side, it requires asserting her story a little more, not just a quick blurb about going to Australia that could be interpreted as a throwaway comment, but offering enough to be noticed, to get the mindset to shift.
And from the man's side, it requires being aware and present to notice the shift, to be receptive to reading the room.
This can be very tricky, but there's actually a great analogy to partner dance - the follower needs to have just enough resistance to give the leader feedback, and the leader needs to be receptive to adjusting to feedback.
What you described sounds to me more like two monologues happening at the same time than a conversation. It is indeed how a lot of millenials and gen Z people converse with each other, and perhaps it is my personnal taste as you seem to suggest but I find it very shallow and sad.
And asking questions can also totally be used as openers, to show the other person you are leaving the floor and to nudge them to start telling a story of their own, e.g. asking after you finished 'has something similar ever happened to you?' or whatever. In fact, this is absolutely essential if like me you have a tendency to talk a lot.
It's not two monologues, because what people say interact with each other. If I talk about my trip to Australia, my conversation partner brings up their related trip to Australia. When they mention something about the dangerous Australian wildlife, I bring up my favourite South American venomous animal. The points relate to each other.
Questions still should be used to elaborate on what you're curious about. Maybe I want to know more about their experience in Sydney. But in most cases, most of someone's deep, personal information should be volunteered instead of dug out in an interrogation.
It's fine for Aella to have a different preference where she prefers to have people interrogate her. But she should be aware most people don't have conversations like that, she shouldn't expect to have conversations like that by default, and she shouldn't be afraid to teach a parter to ask her questions the way she wants.
I don’t really think two stories about Australia are really interacting with one another. They’re similar to each other, for sure- they’re both about Australia. But to interact, for them to engage, is for each story (monologue, point, whatever) to reflect, argue, or encourage the essential feature of the other’s point. Imagine we are taking a reading test, and the test gives us two stories about Australia. One is about how the natural environment is being deteriorated, the other is about how wonderful the safari trips and the surfing is. They interact not because they’re both about Australia, but because one encourages the other; from the surfing article we get some of the stakes of the environment article.
Now imagine the surfing article is placed next to an article about an article about it Australian dolphins. It’s related, of course, but it’s not engaging with the other article. It could, if dolphins article talks about the threat of surfing or the surfing article talks about seeing dolphins, but outside of that the stories just don’t interact. And that’s what I feel many conversations are- a bunch of stories related by subject and not by argument. And if that’s how you’re relating to each other, you’re not really engaging.
I agree. My main point is just that two people talking to each other without questions is not always two unrelated shallow monologues. Sometimes questions are necessary, but sometimes your conversation partner knows better than you about what you’d like to hear and just says their interesting relevant anecdote. There’s no one size fits all approach to conversation.
I think it can both be true that the two people talking are shallow monologues and that they are also interesting in exactly what the other person wants to hear. I've totally been in the position where I want my partner to give me their interesting relevant anecdote, but I also know that what I want is something less engaging than what I'd usually want in a great conversation (especially on a first date). I mean, if two AI chatbots are each giving each other incredibly insightful and interesting tidbits bout dolphins, thats great, very interesting. But its not engaging and specifically its not interacting in the ways that I personally and it seems like many other people want. I hope that clears things up!
Related monologues are still monologues. Two people being self-involved together. Such a pair deserve each other.
It sounds like that because Aella is very obviously on the spectrum - which will mean very specific type of interactions that most neurotypical would find socially clunky
Indeed, Stanislas. I was appalled at the blandness and risk-averse nature of the conversation style described by Sniffnoy, and still more at the fact that it was implied that it was normal: that a “lot of people converse” that way.
I’m just grateful that I have somehow been spared exposure to such people 😅
Aella’s story completely resonated with me & my experiences dating as a woman. I’d say that the majority of the dates that I’ve been on within the past ~year have consisted of the man I’m on a date with talking *a lot* and not asking questions or leaving room for me to respond. After feeling disappointed wondering why men weren’t asking me questions on dates, I arrived at the same conclusion that you present here, and made a point to experiment with “cutting in”, even if it requires forcing a pause. When I started doing this, what would typically happen was that he would either not be fully listening to what I’m saying, and/or would steer into another monologue that was disconnected from what I shared. This all usually seemed to be happening from a place of lack of self awareness and probably insecurity/nervousness, which I have sympathy for, but it didn’t seem like there was any part of them online that felt interested in connecting with me or getting to know me.
No, that is simply how men talk. Talking is a way to fill time and express comradery, the content is irrelevant. We tell stories and we interrupt each other when we get tired of listening and want to tell our own story; we might even interrupt each other every other sentence. It's a dynamic conversation because you are engaging, not be lectured. I find many women seem to think conversations are structured things with formal rules like a debate where each party takes turns and follows a script.
Also let's face it, women don't talk, especially around men in the same way the never know what they want to eat, where to go, or really make a decision at all or even offer their input on anything because that implies accountability which is an anathema for women.
Even my own daughter complains about this in that her friends (and mother) will sit for hours in death silence not because they enjoy silence but because they expect others to entertain them because ass my ex said "if I want to entertain, I can do that myself and don't need you, any man, or anybody at all" hence she (daughter) has to man up and talk.
Something you see time and time again in these comments including the OP is they feel men are responsible for entertaining them like a member of their own narcissistic personal royal court. They aren't looking for a partner but a pet hence get upset when they are engaged as equals.
Nope. Just want to be seen/heard/felt/understood.
Men and women operate differently when it comes to communication, specifically in romantic relationships. I guess we can all agree that a man who gets himself involved in a romantic relationship with a woman, will naturally have a dire need to feel emotionally connected. That need comes off more strongly when we see past honeymoon phase when things get real. And in most cases, a man can easily see the shift in how things are different. A cherry on top if that man have some serious childhood trauma that triggers some uncomfortable emotions. All this might sound off topic. So, my point is, things will get to that point in life when it comes to dating and relationships. Some people can pull it off for longer and go past the dating stage. LIFE WILL ALWAYS BRING US TO A CERTAIN LESSON OVER AND OVER AGAIN, until we learn to accept, adapt and evolve. So my friend Aella, clear and effective communication, setting boundaries and by openly expressing your feelings, opinions and concerns would save you and the other person time, feelings and disappointments. In the End, truth shall set you free. Wether it’s before or during the first date, or while being in a relationship and/or marriage when things get REAL.
That reminds me of something I read once long ago, or maybe someone told me IDK, but it was an epiphany and you should think chew on it as I see in my daughters as well in the way they treat men, "men are not defective women, quit treating them as such". Men socialize differently, the fact the guy is physical there means you being "seen/heard" or else he would just leave; men have no problem exiting, I've literally got up mid-sex / sentence and walked out the door as have most men I've known. "felt/understood" is a different matter because you aren't communicating (at all) or in the few cases where you do, you are communicating to a defective woman rather than a man. We can't read your mind and we can't pick up your secret female handshakes nor should we, we are equals after all. You can make an effort to come to us, we do so for you given it's generally men that have to do the chasing and women that control the sex (place holder for second dates, etc).
Nearly all relationships (and this has lots of data behind it) are ended on the initiative of women, that alone shows the monumental effort men take to "meet you in the middle", and really more than the middle; maybe make an effort to to reciprocate sometime and you might find dating a more fulfilling experience.
Years ago I remember I had a couple conversations with a chick at work who was complaining about "my husband doesn't have sex with me anymore" and couldn't figure out why (as she didn't think he was cheating [he wasn't] nor did she become unattractive). I happened to be friends' with her husband (unbeknownst to her; bar friend) and he generally complained about it at the bar as "look, every time we have sex she just lays there like a dead fish absorbing everything and never giving or taking her own initiative. I'm tired of doing all the work and being self charging self cleaning dildo/vibrator. So yeah I'm done having sex with her after all these years because she refuses participate, it's less exciting and more work that my hand at this point, and I'm not a dog". And this is an extremely common problem guys complain to each other about, hell even "Dear Abbey" talked about it once though I can't find the article from years ago. Sex takes TWO people ACTIVELY ENGAGING, just like conversations, women seem unable to grasp that. Take some damn initiative and assert yourself, you'll be happier for it.
re “effort”: in my original comment, I described a scenario where I made an effort to give someone the benefit of the doubt and meet them halfway (with the implication that I have done this more than once, when faced with the same scenario repeatedly), and to no avail.
here’s a thread I enjoyed—written by a man, if you can’t take my word for it: https://x.com/eigenrobot/status/1919415518114582689?s=46
Who is telling our secrets?!! 😌
Except most people like talking more than they like listening (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-everybody-favorite-topic-themselves/). Asking insightful questions gives people the space to not only talk about what they want to, but also allow them to talk about interesting topics in ways they might not have thought about before. There's a reason why active listening is the #1 skill recommended by every self-help book on how to socialize.
And also, don't you ever get curious about the other person you're talking to? Sometimes there is just no way to converse in a coherent way while bring up a related 3rd, 4th, 5th point. So, you can ask questions to give the other person the space to talk more, without them feeling like they're not giving you any conversational space. Hopefully, they return the favor.
I do agree with the existence of different conversational norms here, but I think this is a place where maybe 80% of people would prefer their conversational partner to be in one culture over another. Most guys I talk to like me more after I ask them more questions. It often seems to me that people in the "trade-stories" culture still prefer their conversational partner to be in the "asking-questions" culture.
Millenials and Gen Z suck at active listening, like, for real. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.
I really do not know why.
They suck at everything that involves interacting in real space
Because we have been actively, brutally punished for every attempt at it. This is not complicated at all.
DTCADD (Digital Technology Caused ADD)
ok but I cannot possibly imagine hearing "I decided to move from Idaho to Australia by myself when I was nineteen" and not going "wait, what, why Australia, tell me more about that", you do have to take *some* conversational hooks and that example is an extremely glaringly obvious one, missing it feels like a really loud signal of lack of interest
Yes. This.
I think it’s a matter of context.
There’s the “small talk” context which is light and breezy; there’s the “first date” context where you disclose a little, then ask a question and get the other person to disclose, etc.
Both of those contexts have unspoken rules and if you break those rules by being to penetrating, or outspoken, or heartfelt, then you get marked down and maybe the other person will even show some discomfort and withdraw.
You can judge them for that, but honestly I’m not sure I’d be up for a demanding, free-ranging, fearlessly honest conversation with a pretty woman I happen to be sharing a taxicab with.
I think you need to find a context where those rules don’t apply as much, for example shop talk about some subject of great mutual interest. I think this is why so many people fall in love at writer’s workshops.
First date maybe as you hope to see them again but taxis, elevators, bars, etc ... one offs never to be seen again conversations can be cathartic and deep. It's like a priest you will never see again. Many of the deepest conversations I've had in my life have been on airplanes, bar stools, etc because there is no judgement the immediacy.
It's indeed a clash of styles - a clash between the style of the self-involved and the style of the self-aware.
The former is usually boring AF to the latter. And her instincts to steer clear of them are correct.
Genuinely, I clued into this like, two years ago. I'm thirty one, lmao. It's the autism
Aella and I are having similar experiences with many men and are looking for similar men but I’m in a later stage of life. I’m looking for intellectually curious men who ask questions and respond with equal levels of interest. I want to date men who aren’t afraid to ask or be asked hard questions and who are open to growing and connecting through these conversations.
It’s not wrong to expect men to show up with emotional intelligence. She’s showing up prepared and wants someone who’s also at that level. I’m 52 yo with one bf (44 yo) at that level and looking for a couple more (ENM) who are also fit, attractive, intelligent, and emotionally open and curios. Men who seem to fit the bill always stall out despite my showing up whole having done a great deal of hard work on myself to get there.
Men have gotten used to the only expectation being that they just show up. It’s less about her having high standards and more about men not having any for themselves.
This seems reasonable; most guys can’t and don’t want to be that emotionally open, so you need to disqualify them fast.
I agree with this. The other thing I noticed was this attempt to classify men quickly to minimize investment in guys who aren't right. But it seems like that isn't how things happen outside of romance novels. You can't tell quickly. People have good days and off days... and people are naturally repelled by appraisal. Think of how women react when a man looks them up and down; this is the emotional equivalent.
I will say that the bounty is an interesting idea.
But reading you own narrative, your curiosity was performative. Imagine you do meet that man but internally he has the same calibrating internal monolog as you. Not curiosity but just performance, would that matter? Do you want authenticity or better customer service
Somewhat related, a friend recently sent me an NPR piece on "magical questions," which are supposed to be good ways to get people to open up about themselves (without feeling pressured or probed) and start a conversation. They give examples like, "what are three gifts you would give aliens on behalf of humanity?" Or, "when was a time you really went all-in on celebrating something or someone? What did you do, and what were you celebrating?"
It helps if you use what you know about the person or their context to shape the question. These questions should be open-ended and creative, while giving lots of room for people to express themselves.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1250902328
Of course, it depends what you're trying to achieve. If you're only interested in men who enjoy "what are specific things about you that it's not socially acceptable to be honest about" questions, giving and receiving (while also being rich, smart, handsome, poly, confident enough to take the lead role when approached romantically by a minor celebrity, who can *still take the lead and display seductive confidence* when being grilled diabolically for vulnerabilities like "how did you *really* feel when your mother died?", and who are looking for a primary romantic partner of your age and description, and also having gone through trauma and processed it to an unusual degree, and become comfortable with the lake of infinite sadness), and the stuff before the parentheses is non-negotiable, then driving off most people is what you actually want, and normal advice about how to make people comfortable will just remove your filter.
Done buy this. Women I know play a game at dinner: how many questions do I ask before he asks me one. Half the men don’t ask a question till the woman has asked 20…. A sad indictment on our sex. They just aren’t interested they want to strut their stuff .
Well said
"The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
You have a very high list of requirements. Open to nonmono knocks out at least half to three quarters of the dating pool, charitably, probably more. You want someone of equal income to you or close enough, and you're also willing to throw $100k at finding the right partner, so this argues that your standard of living is high enough that you will screen out 80-90% of the male population based on income alone-- I make 200k/yr in a LCOL state where that puts me in a high income percentile and I couldnt scrounge up $100k to throw at a problem without selling my home or destroying my retirement. I hazard a guess that you want someone you consider physically attractive, which further thins the herd. And then you wanted them fully realized as mature individuals with no issues, which narrows the pool down to a very small percentage of people.
Tellingly, you say that you do find people who meet your standards. But a lot of the time they don't meet your other standards... particularly the one in which they're partnered with someone else. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that people do not spring into the world fully formed. They have to grow and become. Someone else earlier in their lives realized that this person had the potential to greatness, and they were willing to walk alongside that person and share companionship and grow together, until that person became the sort of man you desire today. They have what you desire because they put in the work you are unwilling to put in, and as such, they reap the benefits.
Consider that you may have to plant a tree if you wish, some day, to shelter under it.
Yeah, any guy that meets Aella’s requirements sounds like they would have had no trouble getting married younger. If they are still single, they are probably younger than Aella and are only looking at dating girls in their 20s. That leaves recently divorced and recently widowed. And very recently, because they will be popular with every woman in their age range.
I think the fundamental issue is that she wants a guy who mogs her at IDGAF, and almost no one mogs Aella at that.
I suspect the only way to reach Aella-tier is by being an autistic celebrity/e-celeb with years of desensitization against savage public opinion, and that's a very select group.
This without doubt is the most thoughtful, analytical, and practical comment. I hope Aella sees it. If she was already aware of this fact, I think this comment makes it even more stark and inescapable.
So, Aella's entire scenario made my brain itch. And when my brain itches, I turn to data.
She sets out a rather intimidating set of requirements. She wants someone who is nonmonogamous to suit her lifestyle. She wants someone who wants children. She wants someone roughly within her age bracket. Realistically, they have to be mildly above average in attractiveness. And based on the fact that she doesn't want to feel like she is supporting someone, but she expects a lifestyle commensurate with hers as someone who can offer a $100,000 bounty for a nonessential goal (defining essential goals as stuff like not dying of starvation or homelessness) they need to make a decent amount of money.
I pulled some surveys quickly. This YouGov poll, sourced at the end, notes that 9% of the male population is interested in complete nonmonogamy. US Government Statistics note that males that make >$200k/year comprise approximately 5% of the population. A Pew Research poll states that 51% of young men desire children. Approximately 10% of the population is males ages 22-40, which is a wider age range than I think she would be interested in, but I'm trying to make the numbers as generous as possible. Using a normal distribution curve, approximately 25% of the population will have an attractiveness of >5.9. And based on her statement that she "maybe once in a while, I find someone who does seem whole, mostly, who has all their nerve endings pointed in my direction" I selected a generous 10% of the remaining population as being interesting enough for her to engage with on an intellectual level.
0.09 * 0.05 * 0.51 * 0.25 * 0.10 * 0.10
0.00057%
5.7 per million people
There are 4.6 million people in the San Francisco metro area. This means her immediate area dating pool contains approximately... twenty-six men that would meet her standards. Note that I didn't add a statistic for the number of men who are married to a primary partner (I'm gonna say 50% of the pool is married off the top of my head), or add any controlling factors like some of these men being unwilling to date a famous individual. It's five AM, I've worked 14 hour shifts in the ICU for the better part of the last week, and I'm tired. Working in the world's most expensive funeral home does that to people for some reason.
Aella, I would like for you to please pick my statistics apart. I would like you to respond to this with the data driven curiosity that is the reason that I followed your blog in the first place. I would like for you to prove your own conclusion that it is the "good men" that are at fault for your lack of ability to find a partner, and not the fact that "[your] desire is luxurious." Which, I must conclude, if your desire will be satisfied with only one of less than approximately two thousand, three hundred men in the United States... it probably is.
Sources:
https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/45271-how-many-americans-prefer-nonmonogamy-relationship
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/15/among-young-adults-without-children-men-are-more-likely-than-women-to-say-they-want-to-be-parents-someday/
https://www.census.gov/popclock//data_tables.php?component=pyramid
The problem with this kind of “delusion calculator” analysis is that multiplying all the individual probs together only works if you assume the desired qualities are uncorrelated. This is false. Good traits correlate, so do “weird” traits. And CERTAINLY ppl who fulfill Aella’s criteria aren’t evenly distributed across the country.
Thank you for this even more extended commentary. I have also expressed somewhere else that I wish Aella responds not just to yours but other intelligent comments as well. If there's a primary piece in need of a rejoinder from the author, it is this one.
Aella's posts are performative. Please don't take them as sincere.
Maybe they are not sincere, but whose is. And even if they're not, I still believe she is writing in earnest. The problem is real for her and she is in some sense in private anguish about it.
This sort of statistic only works if you think that dating people happens at complete random, and that people spread out completely randomly. If you live in a city with (relatively) a lot of rich and poly people, and spend most of your time in those spaces, the odds are nowhere near as bad as you portray them. Kind of like it would be pretty hard to run into a 13 year old boy who's into fantasy books and has long hair on the street, and you could also call that a "female delusion" because it's so specific, but 13 year old me managed to find a boyfriend like that pretty easily because I went to school (which contains lots of 13 year olds). That's usually how dating goes.
If she has only 2300 potential spouses in the US, that's around 2300 times as many as she needs. That's a huge safety factor. I'm confused why you think that's not enough.
Because you're grabbing onto the wrong number. She would need to interview three men a day every day of the year for 150 years to find one, statistically.
It's like me telling you that somewhere in this Amazon warehouse stuffed with hay, there is a needle. Is it possible to find? Absolutely. Are you going to be able to do it in a reasonable time frame? Doubtful.
You're assuming she's interviewing people randomly, which she hopefully isn't.
Take monogamy for example. It *doesn't matter* how many monogamous men there are. She's not interviewing them, and she's mostly not even interacting with them. You are artificially inflating the denominator by including people outside her dating pool like non-monogamous men. You can go much further: include women (EDIT: it seems you're already including them), people who've already died, people who haven't been born yet, all the species on earth, maybe aliens if there are any. Of all the life that has every lived in our universe, the ones you'd want to marry are a very tiny fraction. But that is obviously irrelevant.
I think the correct denominator is something like "people she can't rule out before meeting them".
And it's worth remembering that Aella is an internet celebrity with a large number followers. To extend your metaphor, there are a million Amazon workers in that warehouse who follow you on social media and who'll let you know if they ever see your needle.
How many dates would she need to go on, in order to find one of those 5.7 in a million people?
Also don't forget that the guy has to want to marry her, as well. Suppose he *also* has only 2300 potential spouses in the US. What are the odds that Aella is also part of his potential-spouse set?
Your second paragraph assumes independence. But for example if a man is around her age, then she is around his age. You should multiply by 0.1 only once, not twice.
This goes for most things IMO: if he's non-monogamous, then he probably wants a non-monogamous partner; if he wants children, then he also wants a partner who wants children; if he asks lots of personal questions on a first date, he might also want a partner who asks lots of personal questions on a first date.
Technically I didn't assume independence. I think these considerations are valid. But I would guess that a hypothetical match for Aella has some preferences that don't mirror hers, and some preferences that don't fall into this "if you match me, I match you" schema, such as physical attractiveness and chemistry.
"Working in the world's most expensive funeral home" . . . Ouch! But good phrase.
On Topic: Congrats on your "odds analysis." Kahneman would be pleased.
in exchange for this early investment, a man will give you literally everything
I half expected you to pull out the Drake Equation on this one. :)
Excellent insight Nate. Your reply made slogging through the article worthwhile.
I have had these exact thoughts about Aella's situation. These are almost certainly the reasons for her frustration. It's also extremely ironic, for someone like her who is so good at interpreting data. She seems to have a giant blind spot when it comes to evaluating herself. These reasons are quite obvious, yet the reasons she offers up are much more complex. Also, her dilemma of high standards combined with a certain inflexibility is common of unmarried women in their thirties (if they had lower standards or were more flexible, they'd already be married). To succeed, she'll have to compromise in a few areas, and the most impactful would probably be monogamy instead of polygamy and lower income level.
Having a very high list of requirements => Mlodinov: Why multiply rather than add? Suppose you make a pack of trading cards out of the pictures of those 100 guys you’ve met so far through your Internet dating service, those men who in their Web site photos often look like Tom Cruise but in person more often resemble Danny DeVito. Suppose also that on the back of each card you list certain data about the men, such as honest (yes or no) and attractive (yes or no). Finally, suppose that 1 in 10 of the prospective soul mates rates a yes in each case. How many in your pack of 100 will pass the test on both counts? Let’s take honest as the first trait (we could equally well have taken attractive). Since 1 in 10 cards lists a yes under honest, 10 of the 100 cards will qualify. Of those 10, how many are attractive? Again, 1 in 10, so now you are left with 1 card. The first 1 in 10 cuts the possibilities down by 1⁄10, and so does the next 1 in 10, making the result 1 in 100. That’s why you multiply. And if you have more requirements than just honest and attractive, you have to keep multiplying, so . . . well, good luck.
Still, some of „us“ have a chance of winning at this lottery-chanced game, but chances are…
This reminds me of an old friend, one of the smartest people I've ever known, who had similar dating woes in her early 30s. The vast majority of men were intimidated or turned off or both by her success and her force of her personality, which fits what you're seeing from men too. And she also had a single life so awesome that it set a very high bar for a partner to improve on, which potential partners could see, which made the intimidation/turnoff thing worse.
When she connected with the man she is now happily married to and has kids with, a co-worker who it turned out had had an off-and-on crush on her for awhile, it was obvious literally from across the room how he cared for her. I cannot describe the signs precisely, but it was something in the way his body angled toward and around her as they talked. She says she didn't see it at the time, but her friends, myself included, looked at the two of them and saw it immediately.
In my experience, that kind of caring ("agape", if you want to get fancy and philosophical about it) is how "whole" people best express their wholeness. And the traditional dating/meet-at-a-party interaction format where you know you're being judged and put on the spot by a new person is a huge barrier to developing or expressing it. So if that expression of wholeness is a sine qua non to arouse your interest, I'd ask: where and how might you put yourself in a position to let people build and show that caring for you?
It's a frustrating thing to think about doing because it requires you to sort of not aim at what you actually want, like how meditation supposedly can only bring you happiness if you abandon your striving for the goal of its bringing you happiness. But on the other hand, it's likely to lead you to social experiences that are fulfilling and worthwhile even if they don't find you a life partner.
If you've already considered/tried this, my apologies for rambling about it. May you find your already whole guy who is even more whole with and through you.
Thanks for writing this, it was very sweet and encouraging to read after a depressing post and comments section (signed, a recently-single 35-year-old woman who also wants kids)
“Are you smarter than your coworkers” or “When your ex broke up with you, did you deserve it?” or “So when your mom died, did you feel bad about it?”
I would be put off by such questions in a first conversation; they feel like trick questions, with lose/lose answers. They don’t seem to express a real interest, but make the situation feel more like a job interview: let’s just see how the candidate handles himself when we put him on the spot. And who are you, to ask me how I felt when my mom died? What makes that your business?
My experience dating in my 30s makes a lot more sense after reading this piece. I often ended up on dates with women like this. They would say that they’re empathetic and want a guy like that, but would spend the whole date judging and psycho analyzing my emotions or asking incredibly rude questions like OP’s. I was asked “so why are you still single?” probably 50% of the time.
“Are you smarter than your coworkers?”
“Yes, I am.”
_(Motions for the coworkers to come into view)_
I completely agree! It would feel like a job interview, which is anxiety producing.
As you alluded to, you rarely even encounter anyone in their "true form", everyone has their flexible core structure folded into a specific shape by their environment and previous interactions. It's improbable to encounter a person who happens to be in the exact shape that you need, and optimizing for that may end up suboptimal on other things.
Instead, it may be worth spending some time (a few dates? a few weeks?) applying pressure to get the shape you want out of someone, if you think they are worth the shot, to see if their structure allows them to get there. They, in turn, decide if it's a shape they want to be in.
But you can't really re-shape someone. Ever. Life does not work that way, though Hollywood and popular culture may make you think otherwise. The only person that can cause someone to change - is themselves - if they truly want to. Applying pressure to someone, particularly very early in a relationship - all you'll accomplish is getting them to fake being someone else in order for them to achieve short-term gratification or whatever they want out of the deal - and then when they are done they'll end it and this will lead to resentment. Basically this is an almost guaranteed recipe for failure and wasting time.
I don't think that's quite true. Everyone is changing all of the time, and people do change in response to the people around them. Obviously living with my wife has changed me in uncountable ways.
However, you can't easily control how you will change someone. And even if you can, they're going to notice that you're trying to reshape them and they probably won't like it.
This depends on what changes you are looking for. If you just differ in taste in music, then change is easy. If you're talking about the person's formula for success, you should stop before you even start.
I'd just moderate your assertion a bit to: people don't change but they do evolve and adjust to varying degrees
You're always reshaping everyone you spend time with. You are the environment from which they learn, and they are your environment. Changing relative to each other is inevitable and largely unconscious.
Yep. How a guy is "naturally", how he is in a relationship, and how he is *on a first date with Aella* are probably somewhat different guys.
In OP, Aella claims that the guys who meet her criteria already tend to be in relationships. The assumption here seems to be that they were already "snapped up" by other women, but I'd suggest that actually, a big part of what's going on is that the characteristics Aella is attracted to (emotional intelligence, self-assuredness, etc.) tend to appear as a *result* of a man being in a really good LTR.
One could go further and argue that women face a public goods problem. Dating a man makes him more attractive, but if they split, he may be able to use that increased attractiveness to find someone even better. Reminds me of this discussion from the other day: https://loloverruled.substack.com/p/you-cant-fuck-the-sad-away/comment/103480270
So maybe what Aella should do is work as a dating coach, and search for a husband among her best clients. Getting paid to go on dates can't be that bad!
Honestly though, I can't say I'm *super* excited about this idea. My sense is that there may be real trade-offs between pro-social behavior and self-assuredness. We might live in an inconvenient world where making men (or people in general, really) more self-assured, and less self-questioning, *will* increase antisocial behavior / decrease prosocial behavior. Like, my experience at "Circling-adjacent" events is that those people who are all about "being true to yourself, getting in touch with yourself, learning authenticity", etc. tend to be jerks (and frankly, I don't have all that high of an opinion of the moral character of Aella or the women who said this post resonated with them). There's probably a way to achieve both high pro-social behavior and high self-assuredness at the same time, but I'm not sure it is the default path.
On the other hand, her "sex guide for men" blogging would probably be better if it was more informed by the sex issues that men actually face (and working as a dating coach could help gather data on that).
Especially this part:
"His body tension reminds me of the way I feel when I’ve appeared on high-pressure public shows and I don’t want people to know that I’m really scared right now."
Later in her post, Aella suggests that this may be evidence of "devastating cracks in their psyche".
Does Aella think that she herself has a devastating crack in her psyche due to the anxiety she sometimes experiences on public shows?
Usually anxiety gets desensitized through repeated exposure.
There's a good chance she's basically cockblocking herself by being a micro-celeb. Fame -> guys get anxious -> Aella judges him for his anxiety and gets turned off -> she's still single -> more time spent poasting online -> more fame.
100% agree about the shape being influenced by environment and previous interactions.
If I become hypothetically single and am looking to marry again, I will probably explore doing more volunteer work, going for in-person courses I am interested in, etc. where there is a chance to mix and mingle with others in person, in the same environment.
Though if I become hypothetically single, I will just go ordain as a Buddhist monk! It's a lot more peaceful... :)
The type of man you want is an artistic man. These men who are focused on introspection, darker parts of themselves, and their curiosities are like this because they are not focusing on making money. I read things like this from rich women more often than you would expect. If you have $100k to spare, you should be able to afford kids without an issue. The man you want doesn’t come with a bank account. He spent time focusing on growing in a personal way, not a financial or status way.
I am not rich enough for 100k to be trivial. But I figured - if I imagined being happily married now, and someone was like 'either you can have 100k or have never met your husband', the choice would be easy. So if I were gonna do it in hindsight, I should do it now.
Yeah the above post needs more nuance.
You want someone artistic, that can sit with their darkness, but also pragmatic and thus has a stable job / income.
Too much drive for stability / ambition in one area will often kill the curiosity you crave so deeply in this post. But someone with too much curiosity will override the need for stability and thus be unable to provide the monetary safety you crave for raising a child.
What you want are the people on the curious / safe spectrum close-ish to where I sit, where they hold a functional and respectable job with a reasonable salary, but see it purely as a means to an end that lets them deeply and fully chase their curiosity / stoke / meaning after they clock out.
I have to believe these are exactly the kind of people you still can find at The Center or within authentic relating and other forms of deeper communication practices (not without its flaws, but it promotes a deepness and connectivity you seem to be reaching for in this post)
Nate RN (those contract RNs do very well?) says he would have to be much richer to "afford $100K," but if he really "wanted to transform his life" (I'm not saying he does or needs to), I think he would be happy to spend $100K if it worked.
The "Die with Zero" book by Bill Perkins explores the tradeoffs between money and time. Counter-intuitively it often makes sense to spend more money when you're younger and have less. If your $100K bounty is going to work it will work soon rather than 10 years from now when you're 43.
Yes, you should lower your standards. 33, unmarried, and long searching implies a mismatch, and your odds do not improve from here. Also, make second dates the default as opposed to the exception. Many people glow brighter with increased exposure.
Wishing you luck. I want you represented in the gene pool!
>make second dates the default as opposed to the exception
Advice I really need to hear as someone who is also highly picky in terms of personality. We're much worse snap judgers of personality than we think!
More thoughts on how to work your quirks:
Work the Numbers: Go on at least one date a week. Nothing planned? Go to an event where people you like are, and pick someone up.
Poly in Practice: Always be in a romantic relationship with at least three men. Only dump someone to replace with another. (Your next three dates get a bye directly into a relationship 😉)
Casting Couch: Revealed preferences show sex is extremely important. I'd guess it's even more important for Aella. Sleep with prospectives. If the awkward guy turns out to be good, hard man in bed, his social skills may matter less.
Follow these three steps, and I'd give favorable marriage odds in three years.
I am sorry aella, i think youre just picky. You seek contradictory things in men, you dislike sensitivity in a man, but those that dont have that will tend to be nonchalant, but you dislike that too. you dont someone who isnt curious about you, but you also dislike sexual submissiveness which a curious guy will tend to have. You are probably chasing a type of guy who makes up 0.0000001% of the population who has the traits you want in your specific quantity, and if you do find that person then other compatibility issues could come into the mix. Think of the personality you want using the big 5 personality traits, rarely will people have a surplus in one with no deficit in another. To be picky in such a way is just human nature, I myself am like that, I have found that the best way is to simply shut off my mind when assessing people, I go zen and just let it happen. I think as long as this person is not drastically affecting the trajectory of my life i really dont have much to lose. I have embraced the fact that my marriage and my children will probably all happen as an accident, not really well thought out with issues baked in that i should have considered but didnt. There are also so many other decisions i make everyday that aren't well thought out, drinking a glass of water at a party? what if it had been poisoned with lead due to a pipe burst that happened minutes ago? I dont think it matters to assess these possibilities the same way i dont think it matters to assess every failure point a future relationship coud have.
"you dont someone who isnt curious about you, but you also dislike sexual submissiveness which a curious guy will tend to have." This is not true in my experience. I mean, *maybe* curiosity is negatively correlated with dominance, but not that much, so this is overwhelmed by base rates (most men aren't sexually submissive)
I would bet money curiosity is correlated with dominance.
Where did you get the idea that she dislikes sensitivity? I didn't get that impression at all
She literally criticizes the men for thinking too carefully about their responses AND the men who respond too quickly.
She does? Where?
Not sure I agree with everything here (are curious people actually subs? I don't know), but yeah, writing long essays about what you want is somewhat counterproductive as the more things you ask for the less likely you are to find someone with all of them.
I would bet lots of money that curiosity is correlated with dominance.
Your writing and insight are beautiful in this piece. I wish you and the men you meet the best of luck finding happiness. I'm incredibly happy I've been married to a wonderful woman who has grown to know my flaws deeply and still accept them while loving me despite the flaws and also supporting our combined successes over the past 25 years. Thanks for sharing this!
Very interesting. Oddly I’m experiencing the companion story of zero question women. Which makes me wonder if being too curious makes people shrink? But then again what makes people default to story telling and sharing? It’s such a strange default to avoid exploring when there is some modicum of a goal to spend more time w the person you’re with.
I dislike it when people ask a lot of questions. It seems demanding. I want them to tell me a story, but I in turn don't want to demand a story from them. So I tell a story, and I pause and I see if they respond to openings I leave them in the story. And when they start telling their story I listen. And then we start building a story together.
This whole question-first culture feels so alien and the clash is harsh... I think the other person is needy and boring, they think I am self-centered and not interested in them maybe. I am trying to learn to communicate better with the other culture but it is just so much easier to communicate with my kind of people. But I have already found a partner and community that matches my style... If I didn't I would need to learn faster.
The "good conversations have doorknobs" substack piece touches on this for me, but isn't really on it - the energy you embody is received and responded to. When you go around fascinated by other people, they'll start telling you about themselves. They're not going to try to fight the conversational flow by getting you to start sharing.
This seems a reasonable answer. It takes a lot of mental bandwidth to answer deep questions that you have not thought about before. Especially if you don't have experience with being deeply questioned, I feel like it is easy to get into an introspection-mode. If you don't discover new things about yourself frequently, the new things that you're having to think about about yourself might be more interesting than the other person.
Sadly zero questions often just means they're not into you for whatever reason.
or they lack social skills.
or they're nervous.
or they aren't comfortable with themselves.
or they are trapped in their own heads.
or you remind them of someone in their past and they are no longer fully present.
or 100's of other reasons.
True, I'm just sharing my experience as an awkward guy who took way too long to tell when women weren't interested and was trying to help someone else out who I figured had the same problem. Guess I was wrong. :)
I don't know if you're wrong. I cannot read people's minds. But thank you for the message.
I try not to assume too much without collecting more information. It can help you, me, and everyone else. I mean everyone.
I may very well be wrong.
My wife and I have been together eight years now, married for four. Our relationship isn't perfect, but the love and respect we have for each other is deeper than I would have thought possible. We met through an online dating app that restricted the number of matches--I can't express just how amazing of a design feature that is from a game theoretic perspective. Anyways...
Fairly recently, she told me the full story of our meeting from her perspective. [Section redacted because this isn't my story to tell, at least on a public forum]. Summary: her first reaction towards me was (weirdly) neutral.
The first date went fairly well, so she agreed to a second date (because "why not?"). The second date was slightly better and more connective. Then the third was slightly better than that. And so it continued. Three months in we were clearly in a relationship, six months in we moved in together.
My own experience was having an extremely hard time getting any woman to so much as notice me. When I thought about what it would be like to find a girlfriend, the kind of progression above was pretty much exactly what I imagined--I just needed to find one person who knew how to pay attention and then I'd be set. Because this is how psychology (obviously) works when you strip away all the nonsense and introspect for real.
More recently, I found that the relevant term from the literature is "responsive desire," where arousal builds over time, as opposed to "spontaneous desire" that comes on in a flash. As a general rule, everyone feels a mix of both, but women's desire is primarily responsive and men's is primarily spontaneous (I prefer to use the word "anticipatory", but these were popularized by Emily Nagoski in "Come as You Are" and her understanding of men is...erm, lacking). Popular culture, however, wildly overrepresents spontaneous desire, which has just enough truth to stick.
This means that: you will *not know* if a man is attractive to you until you have been with him for a while!
Yes, if you get a *bad* feeling, you should listen to that. This is an area where, when things go wrong, they have the potential to go very wrong, so some risk aversion makes sense.
Yes, dynamics that are a little off at the start tend to stay off by default. But not always! Some men just need time to learn your patterns to feel comfortable enough around you to show their full selves and navigate the dance of adapting to your preferences while staying true to their own.
Yes, investing more time in relationships that don't work mean more good time thrown after bad and fewer men you can meet in the same time.
But here's the thing: there are no shortcuts. Our cognitive desire circuits were formed at a time when people knew each other--including potential long term mates--through deep community connections that formed over years. "Getting to know" someone in a one hour meetup over coffee or in a few minutes of conversation at a party is wildly unnatural--frankly, it's a contradiction in terms. You might occasionally come across a handsome stranger, just passing through, that can catch your interest for the short term, since that has a historical analog. But if you are looking for something deeper than that, trying to look for a connection that feels right on a first date is Not The Way. I mean, there are statistical anomalies (never say never!) but you really have to play the numbers game for that.
As with so many things, you have two options: adapt your mind to modernity (by acting in ways that make sense but feel unnatural, to balance out the unnaturalness of the context) or adapt modernity to your mind (by changing your context so that what works aligns with what feels right). Obviously, the latter is better if you can find it...or create it. You've had some success using a data-driven approach to design a better orgy, perhaps you can use a similar mindset to design (or find because you know how to recognize) a community context where people are able to really see each other.
"I just needed to find one person who knew how to pay attention and then I'd be set."
There's something about this self-related knowledge that is hugely impressive. To have such confidence in this set-up in the context of a life history filled with romantic insignificance is beautifully heroic.
>We met through an online dating app that restricted the number of matches--I can't express just how amazing of a design feature that is from a game theoretic perspective.
What was the app?
Coffee Meets Bagel...though I heard from a friend it's been bought out by Match, so I don't know if it's still any good. In addition to restricting to 3 matches per day of use, once you got a mutual match, you only had 1 week before the instant message with them closed, to prevent endless pen-pal dynamics.
"I rarely feel judgment towards them." In fact, that is ALL that you do.
Was gonna say, every one of those anecdotes is her being incredibly judgy.
It's ironic, but the way for people to imagine you a great conversationalist is...to ask them lots of questions! When I was in high school I was a lonely and frustrated kid and found this book that said you shouldn't talk more than your "share" of a conversation. And that you should ask questions and listen without thinking of your response. So I trained myself to do those things!
I had the opposite experience recently, though. Had to realize people wanted me to share and that it was offputting to like, interview everyone I met.
That’s not to say the advice that being curious about people is wrong, it’s just to say don’t read that advice as “asking questions good not asking questions bad” like I did
Love this advice!! I did the same and it helped SO much
It kind of trained some of my Aspie tendencies out of me, TBH, although that's not what we called info dumping at the time!
Aella’s story isn’t about “good men” but the emptiness of surface-level connection.
She’s not picky, she’s precise. She wants depth, curiosity, and presence. Most guys aren’t built for that — they’re stuck in autopilot or afraid to show real emotion.
I get it. I’ve lived it and been on both sides.
The real takeaway? Some of us aren’t wired for shallow. We’re hunting for soul-level resonance in a swipe-based world. It’s rare. But it’s worth it.
And yeah, I respect the $100K bounty. Put skin in the game.
I remember that in my 20s, I had such _similar_ thoughts as Aella describes here. I sympathize. That said...
"She wants depth, curiosity, and presence. Most guys aren’t built for that — they’re stuck in autopilot or afraid to show real emotion."
The man who can do that is one who is so at home with himself that he doesn't really care if you like him or not. That vibe might be very conducive to "deep" conversations, but might be crap for kindling attraction.
I was about to write that (goes in both directions: men/women) but then it occurs to me that (1) the post was about 'dating men' and (2) my gut sense is that far more women are "interview dating" men than vice versa. When's the last time you saw/heard/read a piece about "how women aren't measuring up" ?
@Aella - how would all this look through a non-dual perspective? What would happen if you treated your date men as if they were already friends you trusted? What would that do to how you spoke to them, and what might it do to the vibe you project to them, and how they might speak and behave in _that_ vibe?
I wish you all the best, and than you for sharing such considered and well written things with us.
There are a lot of men who could meet this standard once they learn to let go of their insecurities and pay attention. Unfortunately most of them don't learn that until like 45 after they get divorced.
Agreed on these two counts. Most people are average!
‘Wants a sensitive man in touch with his feelings…also wants a man who’s cool with her sleeping around.’
Excellent point.
If you had actually read her post, you would know that there are many men who are willing to date her.
Not that I'm defending her standards (I don't agree with them and think they are counterproductive). But your statement is just untrue. Aella is rejecting the men and not the opposite way around.
I absolutely hate when someone seems to be trying to map out my internal world on the first few dates. It's invasive, tiring, and it makes me assume they have an anxious attachment style, and need to know exactly what I'm thinking and feeling in order to feel secure. I'm pretty open with people I'm close to, but why would I offer that level of intimacy and vulnerability to a stranger? You can't speed-run your way to that kind of closeness. That kind of understanding comes through experience, not answers to a barrage of questions. The fact that men don't want to do this with you the first time you meet doesn't mean they never want deep intimacy or are not fully realized people. You're doing a ton of mind-reading and not allowing for the fact that some people are simply nervous on first dates, have different expectations for privacy, that you might be doing things that are off-putting to them and make them not want to share. That they actually have no reason to trust you with their deepest feelings yet. Someone not responding to you exactly the way you want doesn't mean they have devastating cracks in their psyches.
I'm a woman who dates other women, for context.
This is everything I wanted to say but could not put the words to. 100% agree with you.
Woman mad that men aren't precisely every little thing that she thinks she wants and (still) can't read minds.
Must be day ending in "y".....