"Well hi there cute girl in my class"

[Loonyyy]

That is what flirting and dating is for, establishing interest and getting to know the person who might or might not work out. It's not the start of the relationship.
If they aren't interested the matter is resolved right then and there, no dragging it out and people getting offended over how the other person is entitled to one imaginary bullshit or another, how they have been deceived all along, and who knows what else might come up...

I don't think that's what they're arguing for. I think they're arguing that you do some of that flirting, and socialising with a person before you ask them out. Because if you just ask them out, you signal the intent that evil described, and you back them into a corner and scare them like Lilani described, and they decide that you are a creeper, which to be frank, is an apt descriptor. Plus, you are basically getting close to them and letting rip with your one and only move which scorches the earth.

If you ask immediately, you're going to be less successful, just because it means presenting yourself as shallow, domineering and intimidating, with a poor understanding of social boundaries. You don't have to be good friends, just hang out a couple of times. Know the person's name, talk, share interests, demonstrate willingness to tolerate each others company/don't run screaming. That sort of thing. Takes all of running into someone a couple of times. Plus, there's an extra advantage. If they say no, and they may, you still have met a person, who you may actually like, and now you have a new friend, which is great. And the wider your social circle, the more people you know, the more people you have an "in" with.

 

[Aramis Night]

Have to agree with this. The last thing a woman will want to hear is anything so honest. They want presentation and a show, nothing direct and to the point.

Well. No. What most adult women don't want is risk. Heck, the absolute best way to persuade anyone to do anything, sexual or otherwise, is to present a situation in which there are no foreseeable risks. The best way to do that is to have it be true.

Furthermore, randomly going up to someone and asking them for a date, or sending a cookie-cutter message on a dating site, isn't actually "honest" really, is it. It's a way of putting pressure on someone to respond to you, to take the risk and shoulder the responsibility of showing interest in you without actually giving away any information about yourself.

What would be far more honest would be to talk openly with someone and allow someone to see a little bit about you and then to ask them if they want to take it further. That may be the harder option, because if they say "no" it might feel more personal than if you'd just charged up to someone, asked them if they wanted a bang, been rejected and immediately rushed off to find someone else with a working vagina but hey.. honesty is difficult.

Seriously though, if you find it objectionable to spend any time with someone of the opposite sex without the confirmed possibility of sexual reward, I would actually suggest sucking it up and lying about that. Not just to women, but to everyone.

I was actually referring to the quote you mentioned "Hey, I don't know anything about you, but your physical appearance makes me want to have intercourse with you and this is sufficient for me to want to spend time with you."

It's about as honest a statement as any can be. It isn't pressuring. And it demands no requirements on the other party. It's a simple take it or leave it statement of fact. It's direct, honest, and to the point. But your right. As I acknowledged. Most people do not respond we'll to honesty. We tend to prefer hypocritically parroting the notion that we prefer honesty, while we reward lies. Consequently it would be a bad idea to use that approach.

 

[Aramis Night]

Have to agree with this. The last thing a woman will want to hear is anything so honest. They want presentation and a show, nothing direct and to the point.

Well. No. What most adult women don't want is risk. Heck, the absolute best way to persuade anyone to do anything, sexual or otherwise, is to present a situation in which there are no foreseeable risks. The best way to do that is to have it be true.

Furthermore, randomly going up to someone and asking them for a date, or sending a cookie-cutter message on a dating site, isn't actually "honest" really, is it. It's a way of putting pressure on someone to respond to you, to take the risk and shoulder the responsibility of showing interest in you without actually giving away any information about yourself.

What would be far more honest would be to talk openly with someone and allow someone to see a little bit about you and then to ask them if they want to take it further. That may be the harder option, because if they say "no" it might feel more personal than if you'd just charged up to someone, asked them if they wanted a bang, been rejected and immediately rushed off to find someone else with a working vagina but hey.. honesty is difficult.

Seriously though, if you find it objectionable to spend any time with someone of the opposite sex without the confirmed possibility of sexual reward, I would actually suggest sucking it up and lying about that. Not just to women, but to everyone.

I was actually referring to the quote you mentioned "Hey, I don't know anything about you, but your physical appearance makes me want to have intercourse with you and this is sufficient for me to want to spend time with you."

It's about as honest a statement as any can be. It isn't pressuring. And it demands no requirements on the other party. It's a simple take it or leave it statement of fact. It's direct, honest, and to the point. But your right. As I acknowledged. Most people do not respond we'll to honesty. We tend to prefer hypocritically parroting the notion that we prefer honesty, while we reward lies. Consequently it would be a bad idea to use that approach.

On the other hand if women think they can eliminate risk in these matters, they are clearly not adults.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's about as honest a statement as any can be. It isn't pressuring. And it demands no requirements on the other party. It's a simple take it or leave it statement of fact. It's direct, honest, and to the point. But your right. As I acknowledged. Most people do not respond we'll to honesty. We tend to prefer hypocritically parroting the notion that we prefer honesty, while we reward lies. Consequently it would be a bad idea to use that approach.

Except it does carry an expectation, doesn't it. The flipside of "I want to sleep with you, and thus I will tolerate spending time with you provided that is a possible outcome" is "if there is no chance you will sleep with me, you are not worth my time." You're putting that person in a pretty unenviable position, in fact, because they have to make a decision without actually knowing any of the details except that you are interested in doing them, which is something most people can actually figure out without being told.

That is actually why so few people, especially women (but in my experience most men don't really like to be treated like this either, and those who claim they would tend to be straight men who've never actually experienced anything comparable) will respond positively. Seriously, why would you take that risk? Even if they think you're superficially attractive, why would they bother taking the chance to get to know you when you've already made it apparent you have no interest in them which will persist beyond the point where you're not getting sex.

The problem is not what you're asking for, the problem is that you're asking for it under fundamentally flawed and actually quite dishonest terms. You're effectively telling someone that you are willing to spend time with them even though you don't actually want to, because as of that point you have no reason to want to. Again, that is not honesty.

On the other hand if women think they can eliminate risk in these matters, they are clearly not adults.

Read what I said again. People are more likely to agree to something if they don't see a potential for negative consequences to themselves, or for that matter to others since most people have this thing called "empathy". Obvious, right? The category of people, much as you seem to subconsciously gravitate towards the contrary position, actually includes women.

 

[Jesterscup]

which is something most people can actually figure out without being told.

Actually I'm one of those people, in general life at least, I have to actually be told ( in many cases ) that someone 'likes' me 'in that way'....

That being said

That is actually why so few people, especially women (but in my experience most men don't really like to be treated like this either, and those who claim they would tend to be straight men who've never actually experienced anything comparable) will respond positively. Seriously, why would you take that risk?

Hmmm...

I do have quite a lot of experience of this, and mostly it's unwelcome and creepy, I'd say especially from men but it can be creepy from women too, though it's often a matter of approach. That being said there have been times I've been attracted to someone and they've behaved like that, and have to admit it's a lot of fun when that happens. I am talking about being out in clubs, so it's a different environment, and the demographic is usually more attuned to that sort of behaviour.

I highly recommend visiting a club and just watching, think of it as a sociological experiment....

I've simply no idea of what anyone 'wants' , but as a general rule being someone friend is a pretty good starting point, sure you may get friendzoned, but accept that that may happen anyway.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I think they're arguing that you do some of that flirting, and socialising with a person before you ask them out.

Which is what a date is about... that is why you ask them on a date.

Because if you just ask them out, you signal the intent that evil described, and you back them into a corner and scare them like Lilani described, and they decide that you are a creeper, which to be frank, is an apt descriptor. Plus, you are basically getting close to them and letting rip with your one and only move which scorches the earth.

If they are threatened by your approach then why in the holly hell would you ever want to pursue that any further then the first exchange, that is just the worst possible idea for everyone involved. Which is why you flirt and ask out, that way it doesn't drag out into something awkward and weird as a friend date maybe kind of thing that no party wanted to be a part of in the first place.

 

[Aramis Night]

It's about as honest a statement as any can be. It isn't pressuring. And it demands no requirements on the other party. It's a simple take it or leave it statement of fact. It's direct, honest, and to the point. But your right. As I acknowledged. Most people do not respond we'll to honesty. We tend to prefer hypocritically parroting the notion that we prefer honesty, while we reward lies. Consequently it would be a bad idea to use that approach.

Except it does carry an expectation, doesn't it. The flipside of "I want to sleep with you, and thus I will tolerate spending time with you provided that is a possible outcome" is "if there is no chance you will sleep with me, you are not worth my time." You're putting that person in a pretty unenviable position, in fact, because they have to make a decision without actually knowing any of the details except that you are interested in doing them, which is something most people can actually figure out without being told.

That is actually why so few people, especially women (but in my experience most men don't really like to be treated like this either, and those who claim they would tend to be straight men who've never actually experienced anything comparable) will respond positively. Seriously, why would you take that risk? Even if they think you're superficially attractive, why would they bother taking the chance to get to know you when you've already made it apparent you have no interest in them which will persist beyond the point where you're not getting sex.

The problem is not what you're asking for, the problem is that you're asking for it under fundamentally flawed and actually quite dishonest terms. You're effectively telling someone that you are willing to spend time with them even though you don't actually want to, because as of that point you have no reason to want to. Again, that is not honesty.

On the other hand if women think they can eliminate risk in these matters, they are clearly not adults.

Read what I said again. People are more likely to agree to something if they don't see a potential for negative consequences to themselves, or for that matter to others since most people have this thing called "empathy". Obvious, right? The category of people, much as you seem to subconsciously gravitate towards the contrary position, actually includes women.

Why do you believe that people are entitled to waste the time of other people? Life is short and not everyone has so little regard for its value and limits that they are prepared to invest their time into fruitless endeavors for the edification of strangers. You would probably have better relations between the genders if we could stand to be a bit more honest with each other. No one is entitled to the attention of other people any more than they are entitled to sex.

Personally I don't find honesty so threatening. So being propositioned bluntly has never given me cause to think less of a women. If anything I tend to have greater respect for such women for being willing to be honest and up front. It's probably a good thing too since I tend to be pretty oblivious to the intentions of women unless they are willing to tell me straight out. I'm glad you have the ability to know without being told for your sake, but you take it for granted that not all of us have that ability. Even if one suspects, it is probably better that we give women no option other than to verbally give affirmative, direct, and enthusiastic indication of their desire to have anything to do with us given the current legal landscape.

The problem is not what you're asking for, the problem is that you're asking for it under fundamentally flawed and actually quite dishonest terms. You're effectively telling someone that you are willing to spend time with them even though you don't actually want to, because as of that point you have no reason to want to. Again, that is not honesty.

I have yet to be able to have sex with someone without spending time with them. How is that even possible? Making it clear that you want to have sex with them, is spending time with them. Do you really have such a dim view of sex that you consider it just "some other activity" that doesn't actually really involve the other person or spending time with them? That's very sad.

Read what I said again. People are more likely to agree to something if they don't see a potential for negative consequences to themselves, or for that matter to others since most people have this thing called "empathy". Obvious, right? The category of people, much as you seem to subconsciously gravitate towards the contrary position, actually includes women.

You make a lot of assumptions about people based on the idea that they lack some fundamental experiences. Sometimes people come to opposite conclusions from the same experiences. Your attempts to insinuate that I regard women as other from people, or that I couldn't possibly have had experiences with sexually forward women and have my point of view hasn't gone unnoticed. It is the internet after all, so I guess we can freely mischaracterize each other and ourselves to everyone else with little chance of establishing any credibility one way or the other.

 

[Loonyyy]

I think they're arguing that you do some of that flirting, and socialising with a person before you ask them out.

Which is what a date is about... that is why you ask them on a date.

And as I said, when you do that, you will scare them. That's what I'm saying. That's what everyone's been saying to you, and you've ignored it outright. A date is a risk for a woman, hell, it's a risk for anyone who is the passive party. At the very least it could be a waste of her time, at the very worst, well, it could be very worse.

If they are threatened by your approach then why in the holly hell would you ever want to pursue that any further then the first exchange, that is just the worst possible idea for everyone involved.

Because it's your first approach. You don't know shit about them, that's why it signals the sexual, shallow intent. So that's not putting the best foot forward. And why would it threaten them? Gee, I wonder. I wonder if there are any crimes which regularly occur against women by people who presume to be their romantic partners. That's a tough one. I wonder if there's often a perceived imbalance of strength.

Which is why you flirt and ask out, that way it doesn't drag out into something awkward and weird as a friend date maybe kind of thing that no party wanted to be a part of in the first place.

Which funnily enough, is something that no-one has suggested. And something they've specifically refuted. They're just suggesting that you don't need to give it a go on the first exchange. Because that's all too often creepy. Waiting until they actually know you from a hole in the wall, and that there are any shared interests, which, as said, takes all of talking to someone once or twice, is all you need to do. If you're regularly ending up in the as a friend date bits, then you are still doing it wrong, and if you're ending up on as a friend date, you're misinterpreting a soft no. Which I'm hardly suprised at if you're asking them out on the first exchange, because you've given a terrible impression. Although come to think of it, giving people who refuse to understand social boundaries advice on passing, is probably a poor idea. Carry on good sir, let the creep flag fly!

 

[mecegirl]

Since you have the opportunity you should definitely try to become her acquaintance before asking her out. Just a few good conversations after class would break the ice enough that you asking her out won't throw her off. It's no guarantee that she will want to go out with you, but it will make her more open to the idea. As others have mentioned getting asked out right off the bat is off putting for women because it makes the asker seem shallow. It also encourages the askee to be shallow in return. She will have no incentive to give you a chance if she figures that you are using her appearance as the determining factor. She will just judge you on the same shallow level that you have judged her. Half the time with "cold" approaches the guy wasn't even on the girl's radar. It won't necessarily be that she thinks he's ugly, just that he wasn't hot enough to grab her attention (the same way that she was hot enough to grab his). So if she feels the need to judge him superficially then of course she'd say no. He's just gonna be some random dude to her, but if a conversation goes well the he gets upgraded to an interesting dude.

Talking to her a bit will also ensure that your attraction is genuine. You may even change your mind about asking her out, which isn't a bad thing. She may seem nice but you don't really know that. So talking for a bit will help you dodge a bullet if need be. It will also give insight to anything you two have in common, that way if a date does happen you won't have to rack your brain for things to talk about.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Waiting until they actually know you from a hole in the wall, and that there are any shared interests, which, as said, takes all of talking to someone once or twice, is all you need to do.

That is an interesting distinction, flirt with someone once end up a lecherous predator, do it twice however and it's all perfectly fine. I didn't imagine this would get quite so silly, but that is beside the point.

Carry on good sir, let the creep flag fly!

See if you made your intentions clear from the start then you would have saved us both the time, since this is obviously an interaction not worth having.