Modern fomance

[PassiveAgressiveQueen]

I saw this college humour video, and it made me wonder is it still possible for someone to "woo" someone anymore? As all the old things are now considered creepy, so what romantic things could a man do to convince you to give him a date?

As I recall, now DH took a bit of time to get to know me and then asked if I'd like to go for a walk around lesser known parts of the city as we were both interested in history. So talking helps

Well, how would you ask a man out? Whatever it is, that is what he should do.

I have never bothered convincing anyone, friends, casual sex, marriage was how this one went as i don't actually have a romantic bone in my body, which my husband complains about on valentines day, and anniversaries.

" As all the old things are now considered creepy, so what romantic things could a man do to convince you to give him a date?"

Not think of anything he was doing to be to ' convince meto give him a date' would be one!

Chat and see if we get on, go from there.

i don't actually have a romantic bone in my body

I don't think I do either

A romantic weekend
Fun filled family day out
Relaxing spa break

All make me shudder.

what romantic things could a man do to convince you to give him a date?

None. Either I want a date with him, or I don't.

Being an overall decent human being helps, but he'd have to do that all the time, not only when he realizes that he wants a date with me.

I am a romantic. I love flowers and watching sunsets together and all that.
That does not mean that one an use those things to make me fall in love. Human biology, or psychology, does not work like that.

I think talking to someone with genuine interest and attention, effort to discover different facets of their personality counts as wooing.

I think talking to someone with genuine interest and attention, effort to discover different facets of their personality counts as wooing.

Well, you know, I have for some time suspected that men only talk to me with genuine interest and attention if they want to get in my pants, but it's still depressing to have this confirmed.

Well, you know, I have for some time suspected that men only talk to me with genuine interest and attention if they want to get in my pants, but it's still depressing to have this confirmed

Even homosexual men ? Or men who don't find you physically attractive? How is this theory "confirmed"

It's one of the rape apologists/ pro punter apologist excuses isn't it that men have such strong , uncontrollable sex drives that they can't help themselves and you seem to be backing this up with this sweeping generalisation.

I think that it may depend on your definition of 'wooing'. If you think it means persuade you to have sex then I can see that someone might then assume that if 'getting to know someone' is defined as wooing any man being friendly is really just trying to get their end away, with no actual interest in you as a person.

If on the other hand you think that wooing is more like courtship, involving flirting and generally having a fun time getting to know someone with perhaps the hope that something of a relationship might develop but no pressure for sex then you'd have more of a positive spin on it.

If you think it means persuade you to have sex then I can see that someone might then assume that if 'getting to know someone' is defined as wooing any man being friendly is really just trying to get their end away, with no actual interest in you as a person

Sorry, but I cannot imagine how any one can come to the conclusion that all men being friendly or "talking with genuine interest and attention" are just doing so with a view to getting their end away with that person.

Wooing, to me, has the connotations of one party (male or female, but usually male) being supplicant to the other for her/his romantic attention.

Surely it's too old fashioned a concept to apply much in the UK today?!

It's no that way I think Lass, I can't remember the last time I thought I was being chatted up and I spend a fair amount of time with men for one reason or another so plenty of conversations have been had. Of course I'm probably a bit invisible now, but I've not been in the dating market for decades. Possibly I'm a bit oblivious in any case.

Oops, that came out a bit poorly. I meant to say that It's not the way I think.

Nooka- sorry, my comment wasn't directed at you. I didn't take your reply as being they way you think.

Even homosexual men ? Or men who don't find you physically attractive? How is this theory "confirmed"

I haven't met many homosexual men, and as for men who don't find me physically attractive, I have no way of knowing that.

My experience is that most of the men who have chosen to talk to me instead of anyone else when given a choice eventually asked for a date.

Possibly that is because I am not a very interesting person, and I admit that women don't often choose to talk to me, either, but with women, at least I know if they talk to me that they really like me.

It is really disappointing to find out that someone was only interested in talking to me because of my looks, and I am not fond of the notion that acting friendly towards a woman will eventually make her fall in love.

@nooka: PassiveAgressiveQueen asked what could convince us to give a man a date. And my answer to that is: Nothing.

How do you know that women who talk to you really like you?
How do you know that men who talk to you aren't asking for a date because, following a conversation, they have discovered that you are an interesting/funny/whatever person?

Vestal - If a man asks you on a date, that's fair enough isn't it? I agree with you that you'll basically know whether you are interested or not, regardless of anything he may do in the way of persuasion. But if you like him, I don't think you need to worry too much about his motives. He probably finds you attractive AND interesting. Even if he does want sex, this is a very different thing to expecting it. The ball is in your court there. Just enjoy it otherwise.

I don't really see why wooing can't be mutual. I see it more like Nooka's second courtship style activity and agree with deydo that it's a bit more of an iterative process. I know my relationship with DH is at it's best when we are both actively wooing the other, a bit like a dance. So I suppose wooing for me would be "a conscious attempt to let another person know that you like them, that you want them to see your best self and that they are prepared to put in the effort to find out the things/activities that make comfortable/make you tick/make you laugh as an attempt to show that they will be a considerate, motivated friend or partner should you chose to deepen the relationship". It's just doing a preliminary version of the work it takes to keep a relationship healthy.

There's pursuing someone who isn't interested and applying undue/unwanted pressure. But that's more like grooming than wooing.

How do you know that women who talk to you really like you?

Because they don't get anything out of spending time with me if they don't.

How do you know that men who talk to you aren't asking for a date because, following a conversation, they have discovered that you are an interesting/funny/whatever person?

Because they don't "get" me. A man who has taken the time to get to know me would know that it is pointless to try to "woo" me.

Because they don't "get" me. A man who has taken the time to get to know me would know that it is pointless to try to "woo" me

But according to you men only talk to me with genuine interest and attention if they want to get in my pants-ie men never take the time to get to know without this ulterior motive.

"I wouldn't join any club that'd have me as a member".

An ex-BF had a friend (misogynist) who wouldn't go out with anyone who would sleep with him.

So I think you thinking is a bit circular there. Any guy who gets you (and is inclined to talk to you to get to know you, perhaps to get in your pants, perhaps just to get to know you, see where it goes) knows not to bother, so doesn't. You're excluding the (decent) ones from the get go!

I can understand that, vestal. I find it stunning, in 2016, that some people really don't believe women might like to make the first move, and might genuinely be put off by men who do it.

If you are the type who obviously prefers not to be 'wooed' and would want to do your own asking, what's wrong with that? It's not circular thinking. It's just remembering that it's not forbidden for women to ask men out.

I also dislike the idea that there should be a concrete 'something' men can do to get a date. It just sounds very cynical, as if men are supposed to 'win' dates by doing the right thing, and we don't have the right to say no because they've gone through steps 1-5 in order. IME, only men who are really unpleasant think like this, but they are out there.

Anyway. I think the youtube film is quite funny, but I cannot see my granny being remotely amused about someone punching someone else. Or indeed about someone not taking no for an answer. I think it's utter bullshit that a generation of nice old ladies used to just love all of this stuff. We've got to remember there are loads of women in their 20s who'd find it 'romantic' that their bloke started a pub fight over them, and lots of women in their 80s who live on lesbian separatist communes, and maybe stop stereotyping a bit, right?!

Isn't the stereotyping of the generational differences the actual nub of the humour? Wouldn't removing them kill the joke? Which goes to prove the point that humour very rarely stands up to critical analysis because is it usually about the absurd. It takes extremes in order to make it's point, and can't be judged on the same basis as an academic piece of work. Maybe in some walks of life there is no place for it.

D'you think?

I think it would be funny if they were the same age - and even funnier if the ages were the other way around, actually.

But yes, something can be funny and you can still say it doesn't reflect reality, absolutely.

I think your post conclusively disproves the theory that humour doesn't stand up to critical analysis, though!