[woodandsteel]

A while back I read about a study that found that when a woman is friendly toward a man she doesn't have sexual feelings toward, often the male will mistakenly believe that she does, and act on those feelings.

My response was, how is the male supposed to tell the difference? If there is a clear, observable behavior difference between how women behave when they are sexually attracted, and when they are just being friendly, then females should explain it to males when they get old enough to be interested.

On the other hand, if there is no observable difference, then females are just creating problems and should not be surprised if things go badly.

Women want to be respected as equals. That's fine, but in some ways respect has to be earned, and part of how you earn respect is by being open in the signals you send other people, instead of expecting them to read your mind, and then being upset when they fail to do this correctly.

[JonGarfield]

Start by assuming that not all women who are friendly towards you "want you." That default assumption seems to be ingrained in some (by no means all) men and that is what gets them in trouble.

If you start with the default assumption that women who are friendly are ... just being friendly then misunderstandings are far fewer. Most men who approach you are just being friendly rather than coming on to you. Do you require men to reassure you that they are not coming on to you as well? Most women are not into every man they interact with. It's not their job to convince you otherwise. It's your job not to assume.

[woodandsteel]

That's excellent advice. But I am saying it is a lot more likely men will start thinking and behaving that way if women explain it all to men, and if they behave in a consistent manner themselves.

[JonGarfield]

What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.)

Individuals can be consistent, populations are not. Men as a group do not all behave the same (aka "consistent" for their gender) or all have the same expectations, just as not all women behave/expect the same.

There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other.

[woodandsteel]

>There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other.

True, but there are norms and averages.

>What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.)

I explained this in my original comment. Women should have a reasonably standard way of behaving when they are sexually attracted and a perceivably different way of behaving when they are just feeling friendly. And they ought to explain to men what the two sorts of behavior are, so men can spot the difference. I don't see why that is unreasonable.

[JonGarfield]

The fact that someone can't perceive a difference doesn't mean it isn't there. People are not as difficult to read as you are making them out to be. And if they seem to be, then that is a problem that other people can't fix for you. It is a skill gap that an individual needs to close on their own.

I've already said why your position is unreasonable, but I'll say it one last time: These homogeneous populations with homogeneous behaviours don't exist. Even within cultures and within generations, behaviour differs according to lived experience. You will falsely rule people in as well as out if you rely on some kind of shortcut rule of thumb to indicate interest. This applies to both sexes.