Why don’t men try to learn an activity that would impress a woman like ballroom dancing or salsa so they could enjoy them together?
My answer was: Men don’t take classes in things that they will never apply or use in day to day life just to meet women. They will take classes (and pay money) for something that will produce a return on investment. This isn’t due to laziness. This is due to common sense. If they are going to invest a few hundred dollars, there needs to be some form of a guarantee or high likelihood that they will be getting laid out of it.
Why are some men not concerned with being well groomed when they go out unless they are sure they are getting laid? Like clean shaven, wearing a suit, wear cologne?
See answer above. You answered your own question. Men will dress this way for work because…say it with me…they are getting paid for it and because how they dress is related to how they are perceived by superiors and peers. They do not dress this way for women by choice. They do it because they believe it is expected of them. Kind of like why they pay the tab on dates. If a button down shirt and jeans isn’t good enough for you, then I suggest getting familiar with it. Because no man is putting on a suit just for a first or second date. You’re just not that important to him a that point. The other reason they might not make an effort? They don’t have to. They’re either good looking or charismatic enough OR their grungy/starving artist look scores them sex. The only other reason they don’t make a noticeable effort is because they are socially clueless and haven’t had much experience with women and therefore have never been educated on what is more likely to get them laid.
Do guys really like the Damsel in Distress act? For example, do guys really want a woman who is dependent on their significant other?
I think you’re conflating two different issues. The Damsel in Distress act usually refers to a woman who is in well, distress. She frequently has issues or problems that require the man to swoop in and “save” her. That’s not the same thing as wanting a woman to be somewhat dependent on him. It’s not that they want us to be dependent on them. They want us to need them. They want us to be emotionally available. They don’t want us to be shutting them out or keeping them at arm’s length or judging them. They want to know that our lives are made better for having them in it and that we appreciate them.
Why do men think they could sustain a relationship when the only activity they both share is sex and dining out?
We’ve discussed this before. What else are you supposed to do? I mean, sure, it’s good to throw in an activity date here and there, but what do you think a “real relationship” looks like? How often do you think couples go rock climbing together or to an art gallery or a movie? I’d say those dates are the minority. And let’s face it, the longer you’re together, the less common they become. It’s one thing if the dinner/drink is more of an obligation a la the Dignity Date. That’s done to avoid making the hook up feel like a hooker/john dynamic or because the guy knows the woman needs “more” in order to have sex. But if there’s a genuine connection between you and the other person and you enjoy each other and you use the pre-sex time to connect and get to know each other, then who cares what you’re doing? I can assure you that if you said to a man that you’d like to do something other than dinner one night, and he was interested in you beyond sex, he’d do it. He might not plan it, but he’d do it. If it bothers you, speak up. If you don’t, he’s just going to keep doing what he’s doing because he thinks it is working. Now, if he balks at it or doesn’t want to do anything else, then you have your answer about what sort of “relationship” you have. I think that’s the real issue. They assume that the less effort he makes to plan creative dates, the less interested he is or the more likely he is just interested in sex. It’s the path of least resistance/common sense thing again. You can’t go wrong with dinner. Ever.