Do you have a moral obligation to hit on women?

[Deep Dish]

Tonight I dined with Rollo Tomassi and STR8UP in a very nice sushi restaurant, and afterwards I had a few drinks with STR8UP at a bar. Sometime during then I experienced an intersection of a number of lines of thought that I had been loosely thinking about, and the collision of thoughts produced a perspective that I had never really thought about.

Given that...

1) Women just want a little love just as we do and women are hit on by a galaxy of sleazebags.
2) Let us assume for the sake of argument you are a good guy. You are handsome, you have your life together, you have a good sense of morals, you are a good person.
3) You meet a woman who interests you. She meets your physical criteria and for whatever other reasons turns you on.
4) You are "that guy" that she has been waiting for, while she has putting up with all the drunk asswholes who hit on her.

Do you have a moral obligation to her and ultimately to yourself to push yourself out of your status quo and ensure a hook-up? In other words, that it's not optional but morally mandatory for you to hit on her, cold approach her, warm approach her, or whatever; or if she's the aggressive type to accept her advances and make advances of your own. In other words, you must follow through with things. Again, I'm not talking about being a slave to the vagina and getting with any woman who is interested in you. I'm talking about where you ARE interested and there seems to be a potential mutual match. If you say no to the situation, then you are depriving her of happiness, glee, joy, and that is arguably immoral; you are leaving her to be with the sleazy wolves and continue looking for a good partner longer than necessary. Of course, if multiple plates are being spun then that is its own matter but let's keep this simple.

For a number of years now I have considered this whole "getting women" thing as optional. I like my life just as it is and by no means am I dependent on there being a lady in my life, as I have spent my entire private life in resigned solitude. Back when I was younger I of course thought this solitude was a bad thing and I've steadily learned it's no less valid. However, in my contentment of the status quo and enjoying what I do already have, I've become awfully lazy. Even when I'm interested in a lady and she is interested in me, with no obvious roadblocks in sight, I'm apt to shrug it all off, not follow through, or even politely reject the lady.

I am reminded of an insight I read five years ago in a seduction book that people resist change in their life even if that change would be very positive for them. That certainly describes me right now—I would rather hang out with friends, play Playstation, or read a book by Carl Sagan. I'm a "cute handsome" guy to the ladies; I'm a good guy at heart; I hold down a good job; I like to think I'm interesting; but it didn't occur to me until now that maybe I really am committing some moral injustice to others by saying no to the right ladies when I am their right guy, presumingly.

So, what do you think? Is there a moral obligation to act?

 

[Phyzzle]

We must ensure the survival of the species! Those females aren't gonna fertilize themselves! Face up to your duty! Long live Homo sapiens!

 

[Last Man Standing]

Moral obligation is nonsensical - this is not a question of morality!! You should have gone out with me and I would have enlighten you over some beers - if it was at your expense, of course.

Who cares if you are that guy that she has been waiting for? The man is the dominant force! It is what we want that dictates!

We are genetically inclined/predestined to pursue women but not morally obligated!

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Why is it that morality can put undue amounts of pressure on a person however it's purpose is primarily towards the benifit of other people?

 

[squirrels]

If you're attracted to a woman, you have an obligation to YOURSELF to pursue that which you want.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

If you're attracted to a woman, you have an obligation to YOURSELF to pursue that which you want.

But is that a duty?

 

[grinder]

Tonight I dined with Rollo Tomassi and STR8UP in a very nice sushi restaurant, and afterwards I had a few drinks with STR8UP at a bar. Sometime during then I experienced an intersection of a number of lines of thought that I had been loosely thinking about, and the collision of thoughts produced a perspective that I had never really thought about.

Given that...

1) Women just want a little love just as we do and women are hit on by a galaxy of sleazebags.
2) Let us assume for the sake of argument you are a good guy. You are handsome, you have your life together, you have a good sense of morals, you are a good person.
3) You meet a woman who interests you. She meets your physical criteria and for whatever other reasons turns you on.
4) You are "that guy" that she has been waiting for, while she has putting up with all the drunk asswholes who hit on her.

Do you have a moral obligation to her and ultimately to yourself to push yourself out of your status quo and ensure a hook-up? In other words, that it's not optional but morally mandatory for you to hit on her, cold approach her, warm approach her, or whatever; or if she's the aggressive type to accept her advances and make advances of your own. In other words, you must follow through with things. Again, I'm not talking about being a slave to the vagina and getting with any woman who is interested in you. I'm talking about where you ARE interested and there seems to be a potential mutual match. If you say no to the situation, then you are depriving her of happiness, glee, joy, and that is arguably immoral; you are leaving her to be with the sleazy wolves and continue looking for a good partner longer than necessary. Of course, if multiple plates are being spun then that is its own matter but let's keep this simple.

For a number of years now I have considered this whole "getting women" thing as optional. I like my life just as it is and by no means am I dependent on there being a lady in my life, as I have spent my entire private life in resigned solitude. Back when I was younger I of course thought this solitude was a bad thing and I've steadily learned it's no less valid. However, in my contentment of the status quo and enjoying what I do already have, I've become awfully lazy. Even when I'm interested in a lady and she is interested in me, with no obvious roadblocks in sight, I'm apt to shrug it all off, not follow through, or even politely reject the lady.

I am reminded of an insight I read five years ago in a seduction book that people resist change in their life even if that change would be very positive for them. That certainly describes me right now—I would rather hang out with friends, play Playstation, or read a book by Carl Sagan. I'm a "cute handsome" guy to the ladies; I'm a good guy at heart; I hold down a good job; I like to think I'm interesting; but it didn't occur to me until now that maybe I really am committing some moral injustice to others by saying no to the right ladies when I am their right guy, presumingly.

So, what do you think? Is there a moral obligation to act?

In this spirit we should incorporate SoSuave as a charitable organization.

We could even have our own commercial that opens with two chicks at a bar complaining about the boring losers that hit on them or their pathetic boyfriends that call them 10 times a day.

Then the announcer breaks in:

“Here at the SoSuave AdVAnced Humanitarian Organization (SAV-A-HO) we fill an urgent need in modern society that is desperately in need of men….”

And of course the final scene is a very satisfied charitable recipient laying in bed smoking a cigarette who breathlessly exudes “Thank you SoSuave, thank you soooo much…”

Ok, enough silliness, but I’m being silly because, unfortunately, people who have “moral obligations” like to blow things up, take your money, and save your soul.

The phrase “moral obligation” is an oxymoron; for, nothing that is truly moral is obligated.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

LOL.


Good point, Grinder.

I tend to believe that anything that's done in the spirit of TRUE altruism should be done from a place of INSPIRATION rather than OBLIGATION. Otherwise, the person who acts in this manner really will receive only minimal spiritual, mental, or emotional benefit from it.

And besides, HOW hot and/or lasting can any male/female interaction be when the impetus for initially engaging in it is due mainly to the self-inflicted pressure of obligation?

In other words, if your HEART ain't in it, it's bound to ultimately FAIL. And if that's the case, it will leave the woman, AND the man himself who has attempted to save her actually WORSE OFF than they were BEFORE he attempted his daring rescue attempt.

This is what I was touching on here:
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1082804#post1082804

 

[STR8UP]

Tonight I dined with Rollo Tomassi and STR8UP in a very nice sushi restaurant, and afterwards I had a few drinks with STR8UP at a bar. Sometime during then I experienced an intersection of a number of lines of thought that I had been loosely thinking about, and the collision of thoughts produced a perspective that I had never really thought about.

Good to see you guys, as usual. We come up with some interesting topics, don't we?

For a number of years now I have considered this whole "getting women" thing as optional. I like my life just as it is and by no means am I dependent on there being a lady in my life, as I have spent my entire private life in resigned solitude.

I know you have more than enough skills to land a relationship (your coworkers seemed to think a lot of you!), but I respect the fact that you are one of the few that can be content WITHOUT a woman.

However, in my contentment of the status quo and enjoying what I do already have, I've become awfully lazy.

I'm the same way to an extent.

Maybe not quite to that extreme, but I'm at a point where I know that I can live a good life with or without someone else in it, so I really have to be attracted to someone to put more than a passing effort in to it.

That certainly describes me right now—I would rather hang out with friends, play Playstation, or read a book by Carl Sagan. I'm a "cute handsome" guy to the ladies; I'm a good guy at heart; I hold down a good job; I like to think I'm interesting; but it didn't occur to me until now that maybe I really am committing some moral injustice to others by saying no to the right ladies when I am their right guy, presumingly.

So, what do you think? Is there a moral obligation to act?

Last night I didn't quite get where you were coming from but now I see what you were asking.

I don't see it as a moral injustice, because that would imply that you have some sort of obligation to society to spread your genes. The only person you are obligated to is YOURSELF. Not your family, not your friends, and CERTAINLY not society in general.

I think we (at least the members of the Central Florida DJ Society) all know that one of the biggest steps to becoming the man we all strive to be is to get yourself out of the follow the herd mentality.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

DISH, I would think you of all people would know that 'morality' is a subjective definition. If by hitting on what you'd personally define as a woman warranting your attention, you'd consider this a 'moral imperative' then I'd say that may be a personal condition, but it should hardly be considered universal. Also, given that there are any number of women out there (not to mention Central Florida alone) who'd meet your personal criteria for acceptability, you'll have your work cut out for you in 'saving' them from the "sleezebags" of the world.

Bear in mind also that a good percentage of these women CHOOSE to engage themselves with "sleezebags" and continue to do so for the exact reason you quote here:

,..people resist change in their life even if that change would be very positive for them.

Approaching women is to be encouraged (particularly for the rAFC) in any condition, but doing so from the position of it being a moral obligation or out of some sense of duty smacks of self-righteousness; as if you're doing them a favor and improving their lives. Even in the best of circumstances this will rarely ever be recognized or appreciated by the woman since women generally expect, and feel a sense of entitlement to male attentions in western culture. There's nothing wrong with a strong sense of self and a PRIZE mentality, but when this is expressed OVERTLY to women it becomes conceit.

My concern is that cultivating an attitude of moral obligation leans dangerously close to a Savior Schema (Cap'n Save-a-Ho), particularly when your own self-interests are really the foundation of what's motivating it (i.e. you wouldn't consider her if she didn't meet a personal criteria). Contrary to what VICTORY would have us believe, genuine altruism is at best non-pragmatic and at worst self-delusion - ultimately we'll all do what our personal conditions require from us, whether we're conscious of the motivation or not. If you want to convince yourself that you're ethically bound to approach, initiate and engage a woman, then so be it - what ever it takes to get a guy to break out of his comfort zone - but the devil is in the details and it's not only important to be self-aware of personal motivations, but also to guard against falling into a savior trap, which is all too easy to do for guys who never truly kill their inner AFC once they do hook up with a girl they feel "morally obligated" to.