Im a pretty outgoing girl, but I find it a bit awkward to ever hit on a guy. Normally I would think that's the guys "job" to do, but after thinking about it more I find it pretty unfair for them to have to make the move. But is that the way it should be? Is it just weird if a girl sends you a message saying YOUR CUTE, GET AT ME, TEXT ME? Or do guys like it just as much as girls?
I definitely got my answer. Not gonna lie, I'm suprised about some of the things you guys said! Pleased, flattered AND impressed...this makes me disagree with many of the girls that say guys don't think haha. Its good to know there's guys that think outside the box.
Most Helpful Guy
Am I looking for the thrill of the chase? No. Do I look like Bill Clinton? If a girl treats me or thinks of me as a womanizer, before she even gets to know me, how does she expect a man who isn't a womanizer to feel? Insulted? Who does she then expect to end up with? (No. There is no thrill of the case. A woman "hitting" on me doesn't turn me off, consciously or unconsciously. I don't lose respect for the girl - quite the opposite - and I don't sexually desire her any less).
Do I need the ego-boost? Not really. Is it flattering? Sometimes. It's not like a girl is walking up to me and saying "omg, you're so sexy and hot, I want to have your babies right now!" She's just saying hi or finding an excuse to talk. There's nothing that's reasonably too flattering or ego-gassing about that. I'm not looking for a woman to "chase" me, just to introduce herself, throw me a bone that she's probably interested.
Would I get annoyed, turned off, or creeped or weirded out? No. I would be very impressed and giver her a lot of credit, even if I wasn't interested. However, I would be annoyed, turned off, creeped out, and weirded out if "after" I communicate to her that I'm not interested in her, she keeps persisting. Though, girls are usually smart enough to understand once (or maybe guys are just clearer and less vague about communicating the message).
Would I prefer girls hitting on me rather than me hitting on her? Yes. Why? Because she's just better at it, and guys don't take advantage of it. She's not going to have to pay for drinks, or lunch, or dinner. She's not going to have to open up her heart and spill out all of her emotions until I feel comfortable to do the same. She's not going to have to make promises of exclusivity, etc. In other words, she's hitting on a guy, not a girl.
She's better at socializing. If all I had on my mind was enjoying a wide variety of vagina, I would throw school and my future on the side in return for being better at socializing. But if instead of wanting those things, my long-term family plans took priority. So, socializing took a back seat to school, earning potential, acquiring assets, etc. Who is the better person to control the initiation and maintenance of the social interaction, my book-smart self, or the girl's people-smart self? Which person is likely to create less misunderstandings?
From the girl's perspective: Is a girl more likely to end up dating a player if she limits her dating options to only men who hit on her, or if she initiates social interactions with men? Is a girl more likely to find a man she is interested in if she limits herself to selecting among only the men who hit on her, or the men she hits on who are also interested in her?
As far as these imaginary studies of men LOVING competition for mating, or being attracted to women surrounded by men: link