How To Tell SHE’S Just Not That Into You (or, Captain Clueless’ Guide To Interested Women)
Dear Duana,
My superhero name is Captain Clueless. I’ve done the “shot down at the bar” scene and lived the “she wanted me, but I found out after she married someone else” fiasco. To round it out, I’ve also dated women who gradually faded away while promising more time together—as if they just couldn’t bring themselves to say the words, “Let’s break up.”
It’s worth donning the cape to find the future Mrs. Clueless, but saving some pain and confusion along the way would be great. Are there are any reliable signs that a woman is or is not into me?
Scott/C.C.
Dear Scott,
Heroes like you possess a vital superpower: Bravery.
Thank goodness. Without it, you violate women’s prime directive to find a *willing* provider. After all, if you’re running away, how willing can you be? Ardent pursuit, on the other hand, is downright valiant. If risking your heart and other sensitive parts isn’t chivalry, I don’t know what is.
But if three’s a crowd and two’s company, one’s a stalker. Plus as you know, getting rejected and led on really hurts.
Fortunately, you need not be reckless or blind in your bravery, because…
Interested Women Usually Make The First Move. (Kind of.)
About 2/3rds of the time, women are the first to signal Interest—and we do it in reliable ways.
Apparently, though, we pay too high a price when we’re obvious. Just as we want willing pursuit, you guys prefer quarry that is a bit elusive, discerning, and for long-term purposes, Not Easy.
So to avoid being branded as nuts or sluts, we initiate things without speaking or moving towards you. No wonder you’re clueless!
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to learn to recognize Interested Women’s signals.
Signal #1: The Smile/Look Combo
Monica Moore’s extensive barroom observations—in the name of science, of course!—yielded a whopping 52 nonverbal come-hithers women employ. But you need only recognize two, and only in combination:
The Smile:
Whether you’ve been on zero dates or dozens, the Woman Who Wants You smiles. At you. And she smiles with genuine, eye-crinkling pleasure. No eye crinkles = fake smile = why waste your time?
The Look:
Women in love can’t take their eyes off of yours. So, if you’re dating and she’s avoiding your gaze, that’s a huge not-into-you, she’s-lost-that-lovin’-feelin’ tip-off.
The Look is for strangers, too. Interested women level three different kinds of looks at men they don’t know…yet:
—the Entire-Room Scan, which (along with Dancing By Herself) indicates general openness to being approached;
—the Brief, Darting Glance that is repeatedly directed at one specific man; and
—The Look men find hard to resist— the steady gaze of longer than 3 seconds’ duration.
Three seconds seems like a loooong time to look a stranger straight in the eyes, and it is. But unlike Gotham City, where just one signal brought out the Batman, a woman hoping to be approached may need to target a specific man with The Look upwards of once every two minutes—35 times per hour!
Upshot? A woman’s real smile paired with the right eye contact is kryptonite of the Come Here, Lover variety. And the more a woman likes you, the greater the number of times she sends out her signal.
So memorize this: A Real Smile Plus Repeated Eye Contact is *the* most reliable signal of female Interest. It is a dead giveaway that you should be striding purposefully across the crowded room, carelessly throwing back your cape, and confidently introducing yourself.
Signal #2: The Turn & Touch
Timothy Perper has identified, in order, what happens when an initial encounter goes well. After the woman lures you over with smiling eyes, couples talk, turn, and touch.
Again, the process isn’t random. If a woman is Interested in you when you’re speaking, she’ll begin turning towards you as you turn towards her. And she’ll typically initiate the first touch—usually on your arm.
Signal #3: The Mirror
Watch others, and you’ll see it: The just-met-you Interested folks copy one another’s eye contact duration, facial expressions, voice rhythms, and body positions. And the happiest long-marrieds tend to look similar in part because they’ve spent decades mirroring one another’s expressions.
This does not mean you should start mimicking women like crazy. Like most human mating behavior, mirroring is unconscious, and if you draw attention to it, it could make you look like Weirdo/Stalker Guy.
But do become aware of when a woman is mirroring *you*. It means your superpowers are doing their super thang.
And if she’s not copying you at all—she’s just not that Into you.
Signal #4: Reciprocity
Of course, in love there are two ways to fall. And when a woman wants to end things, she should employ the art of the break-up to tell you—clearly and kindly—that it’s over. In life and in science, I’ve never yet met anyone who preferred a vague, dragging-on, non-ending kind of ending.
But until everyone gets that memo, you’re stuck deciphering women’s non-verbal behavior to gauge how things are going. And what you’re looking for is an over-all *pattern* of Reciprocity.
Women who are Into you probably don’t lead the dance; that’s too risky (see nuts/sluts, above). They often take things—especially sexual things—more slowly than you would. But whether you’ve known them for two minutes or twenty years, Interested women follow your lead by *returning* some of the Interest you show!
And so, Captain Scott, your best indication of women’s Interest is not women’s words—not at the beginning, certainly, and not necessarily later on.
Instead, you can read her feelings in her eyes, smile, touch, reciprocity—and above all, in her joy at being with you. If those are there, she’s all about you. Keep pursuing, Brave One!
If the signs aren’t there, though, she’s just not that into you, and it’s time to find another worthy damsel.
After all—bravery like yours is super, and a super, Interested woman will appreciate that.
Cheers,
Duana
Related Love Science articles:
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/texting-your-breakup-whether-when-how-why.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/winning-him-backwith-jealousy.html
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-winning-him-backwith-jealousy.html
The author wishes to acknowledge the following scientists and sources:
Monica Moore, for cataloging the 52 nonverbal courtship patterns of women
Timothy Perper, biologist and author of Sex Signals, for outlining the stages of successful initial encounters
David Givens and James Dabbs, for further work about nonverbal signals in human courtship
Ben Jones, Lisa DeBruine and others of the Face Research Lab at the University of Aberdeen, for work showing why smiling is so alluring
Paul Ekman, for his lifetime research on facial expressions and genuine, eye-crinkling smiling
Martie Haselton, for research on why men sometimes overestimate a woman’s sexual interest, and underestimate her lack of interest
If this article intrigued, surprised or enlightened you, please click “Share Article” below to link it with your favorite social media website.
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D. and Love Science Media, 2010
Do you have a question for Duana? Contact her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com
Share Article Print Article Permalink tagged Breakups, Dating, Evolutionary Psychology, Male Female Differences, Nonverbal Communication
Reader Comments (6)
Yep. Seen 'em . . . verified in the field ;-)
Thank you for the great information.
Veddy inter-esting, and gels exactly with my experience. Hope Scott gets the girl, and I would like to understand this part of his question better.
He writes:
"I’ve done the “shot down at the bar” scene and lived the “she wanted me, but I found out after she married someone else” fiasco.
Hmmm...
I understand "shot down at the bar," ...I think. That means Scott was approaching women who hadn't signaled him?
But what does the other one mean? A woman was sending signals to Scott that she wanted him, but that message wasn't getting across? Well, why the heck not? If the smiling didn't work, how far could the woman have reasonably gone to attract his attention without falling into the nut or slut category?
Are the guys turned off when the woman makes the first move ...?
To me, it feels like a big cat and mouse game. Maybe we could go back to grade school where we passed notes. Do you want to be my friend? (girlfriend/boyfriend) ? Check "yes" or "no."
It seems that both sides have it rough. The guys must read the signs, be brave, and risk rejection. The gals must send the signs, and be simultaneously available and "hard-to-get" without being too nutty or too slutty. Probably a wonder we any of us ever get together at all!
Thanks for a terrific article!
Thanks, All. Gillian, to answer your queries, per the science, Scott's experience of getting "shot down" is the norm--evolutionarily, it's to men's advantage to see Interest where there is none. If men routinely ignore women's signals, then they're missing mating opportunities, as it were. Gene survival, then, has favored the Bolder among men. (See the link at article's end re: Martie Hasselton's research if you'd like some more info.)
But whereas getting shot down by disinterested women is simply part of the deal for most guys, it's much rarer for men to not take multiple hints from a female friend. As you know from an earlier LS column regarding whether men and women can ever really be "just friends" and nothing more, men are very often friends in truth, but with a sexual interest in addition. Only Scott knows the details of why the latter scenario occurred to him, and it's possible that he was misinformed about his friend's interest by someone else much later.
As for whether men are turned off by women's direct approach: That depends on whether a man wants a hook-up or a wife. Men who are interested in a fling are turned on, not off, by women who do quite brazen things. However, getting their immediate sexual wants met short-circuits the dopamine reward center in men's brains. Meaning? They lose interest in the woman who provided a quick hook-up. (For exceptions, please see the LS article, "Sex & The Happily Single Girl.)
And evolutionary psychologists predicted all this, because unlike women, men historically never truly Knew the kids were theirs. In order to protect their future paternity and choose a mate who was at a low risk for cheating on them, they had to become pretty good at eliminating Easy girls from long-term consideration.
And they are.
On the other hand, women who initiate without blatantly offering sex are often considered for a long-term relationship or marriage; at least, they aren't automatically thrown in the "Too Easy" pile. So you can readily appreciate why women's part of the dance is quite cautious--they only figure out which men really want them by awaiting pursuit, and women's advertisement of obvious sexual availability does not get them the commitment they seek.
Gillian, the meat of your query, I think, is the question of whether The Human Courtship Ritual (THCR) is silly, manipulative and gameish.
I think not.
If we see any species of birds engaging in their universal ritual, we don't say, "Oh, look at the silly game those birds are playing." No--we may not understand how their mating ritual suits them, but we do get it that somehow, their ritual is Important to them. There is something they are getting, some information they need in order to bond, that makes the ritual serious business.
We humans have a ritual, too--one that's been covered in many articles, including this one--and it's found everywhere in the world at all parts of known history. And our ritual hasn't heard of Metrosexuals, or Cougars, or anything about the 1960's, or political parties, or religions. Our ritual arises from human prehistory, and it continues to function, for better and worse, under every kind of cultural more today.
But because human mating psychology is unconscious, it's all too easy to tell ourselves that OUR ritual is just a silly game. Yet look at the profound benefits of the human way of courting. THCR lets men have the time they need to deeply bond with a likely-faithful mate; and it gives women the information they need to see whether a man really cares enough to fully commit, or whether he's more likely to abandon her when her and perhaps a child's survival is at stake. These are weighty matters, and when we let our ritual work, it helps us make a good bet on perhaps the most important decision of our and our children's lives: Our choice of partner.
So the problem as I see it is not that our ritual is trivial, but that Westernized nations have taken to trivializing The Ritual. It's as if now that women and men are finally acknowledged as (near) equals--as we well should be--, we've forgotten a crucial piece of information:
Equal Does Not Mean Same.
Men and Women evolved with different Issues for surviving and passing our genes forward. Men's biology meant and still means they must find someone who won't have other guys' kids--and women's biology meant and still means (in most of the world, including the USA) that we very much need to find someone who will bring home the wild boar/health insurance...and keep bringing it.
Summary? Treating the opposite sex as if they are Just Like Us in early dating is usually disastrous. I've never seen it work out well long-term, but I have seen a ton of train wrecks. It's the desire to help others avoid those wrecks that inspires me weekly.
That--and great contributions like yours.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Cheers,
Duana
So, in preparation for this article, I did a bit of asking around regarding whether people really do want to know when It's Over. I'd done some research on the topic nearly two years ago, but wanted some fresh voices for today.
And here's what I heard: Not one person--male or female--likes being left hanging. Everyone wants to know it if you're Just Not Into Them anymore! Drifting away is cruel, not kind--and it's cowardly, not brave.
To wit, I received a letter two days ago from a woman whose boyfriend had taken her on a week-long vacation and spent the duration bringing up marriage with her. Then, she left her country for a couple weeks. When she returned, his greeting was...cool. And he didn't call when he said he would.
So she wrote to me, and I said I didn't know what happened, only that she was reading the signs correctly and something had cooled him off while she was gone.
Of course, what I should have said was some *one* probably cooled him off.
She wrote to him and said, basically: What the hell happened? And he responded: I fell for someone else while you were gone.
If she had not written him, who knows how long that break-up would have drawn out? Being dumped is bad enough. Being sneakily dumped is just horrible behavior.
Perhaps the following thread will illustrate this more and help more folks to Get The Memo, Already:
From a post I put on Facebook:
Me: Men: So, someone you Like (Not like as a friend. Like-like.) does not return your Like. How do you want to find out about this? Does having her just gradually disappear work for you--or do you want to know for certain?
Woman: Speaking as a woman, I like the direct but kind approach. So, I try to give the same respect to men. I don't give a list of what's wrong with them since I would hate that, too. Instead, I tell them we're going in different directions but I appreciate them.
Man: I guess it's better to find out up front, putting us through the run around wastes time and gives us false hope, it's a terrible thing
Man #2: I'd rather know for certain. I prize honesty and most days, blunt honesty.
Woman: Then, too, sometimes a man (or woman) isn't clear in his intention. If it's vague flirtation, then a vague rejection is all that can be expected.
Man #3: Always Know for certain, being dragged on is a kids game...
Man #4: Mark me down as a know for certain guy, too.
Me: Are there any guys out there who *don't* want to know for sure?
My husband: I like the direct approach. And when in doubt, I'll ask my wife.
Man #5: life is too short...I can take it or leave it.
Woman #2: Just driting off is cowardly and takes unfair advantage. It draws out an already painful situation to agonizing lengths
Man #6: It seems to be a variable how involved this relationship is. Hard to tell. I'd want to know...actually every detail would be nice...and of course kindly. Helps a lot as closure and understanding what happened and what may need improvement.
Man #3: Yep, I want to know for certain and in detail. Because if she is right in her concerns, I need to make changes in the future ... and if she is wrong, I get to celebrate my narrow escape.
Me: Excellent information, Wise Ones. I hope you don't mind if I utterly rip you off in the comments section for this next article, b/c apparently some folks still haven't taken the hint that WE ALL WANT TO KNOW IT when it's over!
Woman: Sorry to take over your thread; this is just a big issue for me. In business and personal relationships, I really hate being lead on. It puts the ignored party in the demeaning position of asking what's going on.
Personally, I *don't* want ...a man to give me a list of things wrong with me. That's subjective. What could be wrong for one could be right for another. I've had bad experiences when asking where I stand. Rather than own up to misleading me, often the man will rattle off a list of 'faults' to get the spotlight off his misdeed of leading me on. I'd much rather hear 'we want different things' than a list of supposed faults.....
Man #7: Agreed. Just rip off the bandaid and be done with it.
Woman #4: I agree -- One person's "faults" are another person's treasures. I really don't need to hear a list of grievances unless the grievance indicates a need for treatment (alcoholism, reluctance to use medication for illness (...mental or physical), etc.), Additionally, since 1+1 never equals 2 in a relationship (but rather some inter-dependent "greater than two" or "less than two"), the fact that our preferences don't line up (or at least compliment one another) just means that our pairing will most certainly result in the unhappy 1+1=<2 scenario.
Of course, there's always room to talk before the grievance reaches "dealbreaker" stage to see if there's room to grow together. But hearing "You know, I just don't like the way you smell," is not going to be helpful to anyone (yet was one reason I once broke it off with someone long ago).....
Man #3: Clearly, what the male respondents are saying we want is not what the female respondents would want, nor what they feel comfortable giving even when men explicitly ask. But both groups want clarity and we both want to end up feeling good about it. We get that differently.
Woman: So, if a woman were to break up with a man, do you think most men would want to know why? Such as "you stood me up and that's not acceptable for me" or whatever? It's been my experience men get defensive and/or accusatory if that's the case.
Man #3: Thank you for asking. I would say yes ... most men would want to know why. Being defensive in the moment creates our cover (if we are unprepared to hear) but we ultimately have to process what we have been candidly told, usually over an extended time. So ... see the other person's response for what it is ... a search for safety or stability ... but give them what they need in order to truly grow.
Woman: Thank you for answering. I truly appreciate it. The thing is, some men are really nasty in being defensive. It hurts. It makes me afraid to say anything for fear of more hurt. Some even get violent, so I think a lot of women might be afraid to speak up.
Man #3: The threat of injury is a weapon in itself. But I think there is always some fraction of people, women or men, whom we have to defend against ... certainly not every man or woman ... I have felt the lash of a nasty person's tongue in both genders. We do not owe those people a good candid explanation for anything unless we decide it is in our own interests.
Me: Tomorrow's article will include a link to how people prefer to receive break-up news--and many of the comments here :). Thanks mucho!
Woman #5: I'm glad [man #3] brought up that men use the nasty backlash as a cover. I have to remind my daughter to expect that when she is in this position otherwise she gets caught off-guard. But really, would you prefer to have the guy say something mean, or grovel while hugging your knees? I'll take the insult and have an extra glass of wine.
Me: Ummm, I'll take neither for $500, please. :)
Woman #5: Fair enough.
Me: If you do it right, there's usually neither--no cowering, no back-lashing. Of course, your mileage may vary and there's no accounting for the off-kilter recipient of unwanted news.
Woman #5: I'm interested in what the "right way" is, because my way does well a large percentage of the time, but still gets the nasty retort or the knee-hugging sometimes.
Me: I'll bet you're already doing it right. A woman as lovely as you are would be asked out a lot, and you'd get the knee-huggers occasionally just by sheer odds.
ALL: WE WANT TO KNOW WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH US :).
Memo over.