After a few months of dating and holding them in, those farts and all future ones earn their freedom. My boyfriend now blames the cats when he smells something, which is very nice of him.
As the less conventionally attractive woman, there's a few different things that could happen.
Option A: you can't, she knows she's not as pretty and has always known she's not as pretty and will feel bad about being the one who doesn't get hit on no matter what.
Option B: her and her friend are there to have fun on a girls night out and not to be hit on so she's actually happy that she's not the one being bothered. (Assuming this is In a social situation like a bar or a concert where going up to a woman and speaking to them because you are interested is socially acceptable)
Option C: The "less attractive" friend is presenting that way intentionally and is there for scary dog privilege and will back you down and make you go away because neither of them is interested in being bothered. (More likely in scenarios where it was socially unacceptable to go speak to the pretty girl in the first place, but not uncommon in social settings if the pretty girl is tired of being hit on and asks their friend to play bouncer)
Part of the reason I don't go out as much anymore is because I got asked to play scary dog privilege more often than not and it just kind of doesn't feel good knowing that you're only there to be a repellent to men.
-The humble perspective of the 5'10" but will still wear 5-in heals, 250 lb muscular woman who knows what way to twist a head to sever the vertebral artery. 🫠
Yeah that stuff is kinda why I won't bother with girls unless they show interest first. Also besides the point, I'm celibate. I'm never gonna have kids and I don't gamble. I'll still flirt though.
Yeah it’s been on multiple podcasts as a topic forever now. Even one as new as yesterday. I didn’t bring it up to argue or whatever you think the reasoning is. There’s plenty of women on both sides. More pick the man from what I’ve seen though. I find it interesting. I also understand why some opt for the bear initially.
I think a lot of people are really bothered by it, but just don't understand why. They can sense the hate and bigotry layered into the scenario, but they can't really see past the the misandry in the responses to see just how truly awful the question is. And I think they cant just let it go without understanding it.
I'd like an explanation of the argument from a woman. The only experience is I have with the question is my little sister asking me the question, and me answering that I'd prefer the man because the bear might eat me. She then told me that most women would prefer the bear, but I never understood why. So that's why I'm asking a woman why that is.
Well three big reasons, it's statistically less likely to be an incident, has less terrible results if DOES become a problem and the personal experiences of women. So just to be clear, the hypothetical is
Would you rather be alone in the woods with a random man or a random bear?
And the vast majority of women, myself included, pick the random bear. Of course we realize that bears are dangerous creatures, on average they attack about 40 people a year worldwide. Primarily hikers that get too close to a mother bear and it attacks to protect its cubs.
Now compare that with the statistics of sexual violence. A few things should jump out, primarily that 1 in 5 women experince sexual assault at some point in their lives. One in three victims are minors and just over half of those attacking the crime are known to the victim. It's hard to compare those numbers straight across, because per year and in lifetime aren't quite the same thing, BUT it's also very clear that it's WAY WAY WAY more likely that a young woman will be harmed by men they know. Exponentially more so than they are attack by bears.
(and it's worth nothing that most experts agree those numbers are likely lower than reality due to social pressures and shame)
If I were hypothetically alone in the woods with a bear, I would know that so long as I leave the bear alone, its likely to leave me alone. If I mess with it or it's cubs, I'm liable to have a problem but if I focus on getting home then it's likely not a problem.
But if it were a random man that knew we were alone in the woods? Well, not only is the man faster and stronger than me, he is also way more likely to harm me than a bear. If I attempt to evade a human, it's way less assured that I could get home safely. Not only is he way smarter and more motivated to find me than a bear, but he also runs the risk of being sadistic. Even in a worse case scenario, the worst thing a bear can do is simply kill me. But some men are liable to keep me alive simply for their gratification and then eventually kill me. To speak nothing of sadists who will specfically enjoy my suffering. That's not a risk with the bear. Getting the worst bear in the world means minutes of pain if I am reckless enough to be near it, but getting the worst man means hours/days/weeks of suffering from a captor that is much harder to escape from. Regardless of my actions, age, appearance or relationship to the man.
And let's say a man/bear does assault me in the woods and I escape back to civilization. Everyone will believe me when I say a bear attacked me. But not so it I say a man. That will prompt questions of
"what were you wearing?"
"Did you lead him on?"
"He said it was consentual, you might be lying because you regret it."
Mosy women have not been raped, BUT most women have had a man try something explict with them while alone. Be it alone in an apartment, home, classroom or any other place. So when the hypothetical is total isolation from society, laws and repurcussions. When it's just me alone in the woods, the bear is a safer bet on every single factor.
Try to answer the question with your little sister in mind, would you rather her be alone in the woods with a stranger man or a random bear? Because as I said before, tragically, 1 in 3 victims are minors, how many many men would we this as their golden opportunity for SA without repercussions? Would those men seek her out? Or would you rather the subject contuine being a wild animal in the woods that doesn't care your sister even exists.
Let me preface this by saying that I'm a man and I too would choose the bear.
That being said the statistics you shared are not an apples to apples comparison because humans are more often in touch with humans than with bears, so the fact that we get attacked way less by bears than by other humans is to be expected even if bears were the most violent aggressors out there. To kind of put it in perspective think about the opposite, how many times have you been close to a human and the human hasn't attacked you, then compare that to encounters with bears and it quickly becomes obvious that an encounter with a bear is statistically a lot more dangerous than an encounter with a human, because people meet with hundred if not thousands of humans on a daily basis, and only get attacked by one of them periodically, whereas if humans were encountering hundreds or thousands of bears daily the number of attacks would be way higher.
Which is not to say that you shouldn't choose the bear, like I said before I would choose the bear, but the reason for me is that bears are likely to be more predictable, if a bear decides to attack me I'm fucked, if a human decides to attack me I have a chance of survival, but the likelihood that the bear would attack me is easy to calculate, as long as I'm not threatening him and he has some food, we should be good. on the other hand the likelihood that the human will attack me is completely random, some people will have a 0% chance, while others will have a 100%. So it's like asking would you prefer to play Russian roulette with the normal rules (1 bullet) or with a random 0-6 bullets? I personally would go for the 1 bullet, because while I can get 0 bullets on the other way I might also get 6 bullets.
For the menfolks; how would you feel if your SO announced they were trans and began transition? Would you stay together? Or just become friends or something?
As a lady I don't know how I'd feel, I think the sexual part would be a huge loss for me. I likes the G-spot orgasms.
This is probably more of an individual's question than a gender-based question. I would support the transition, but I'd be lying to myself if I said I'd want to be with a trans guy. I am vanilla-ass hetero.
As a trans masculine non-binary person it's more of personal conversation. My partner isn't into masculine body types so my transition ended up being purely social because my partner does more on a daily basis to contribute to my happiness then the comfort of being in a body that doesn't make me feel like shit daily. It's a bit like having a pet allergy but deciding that you can live with feeling like someone poured sand into your sinuses every day rather than giving up your furry best friend. For all purposes though our relationship is coded and treated as though I am my specified gender. We are effectively culturally a same sex couple. Neither of us use female terms for my junk and he doesn't claim to be straight. We do joke he is "queer by association" however.
But what I am doing counts as a full transition.
In regards to the what you give up situation it's all rather dependant on how adverse you are and whether someone in your relationship is able to give a little and how much you value and ultimately how non-fungible the relationship is to you... Because - just putting it out there - strap-ons do exist.
And that's fine. I do what I do because I have a mentality of non-fungibility. There aren't simply more fish in the sea, this is my person. There's not another one out there for me.
There isn't anything ethically wrong with someone with a more flexible approach to romance or someone who has a hard boundry. Not everyone is down for a sacrifice at that level for another person - and that is okay, not everyone is deserving of being the recipient of that kind of sacrifice just as everyone isn't nessisarily capable of making that kind of sacrifice. If you are only kind of happy with your relationship then that's not enough it has to be deep. It isn't nessisarily easy, it doesn't get easier and it might require daily conviction. It is a vulnerable space too. If you don't have absolute trust it's not going to work and absolute trust comes with intense emotional risk.
But on the other hand of things if your partner is dead set on doing this, you love them in a holistic way, you're in a stable environment and you are at any level unsure of your ability to be attracted to them... you could probably afford to try. You might actually surprise yourself with be how you are okay then you thought you would be - and you can set the expectation at the beginning of the process that you are unsure of yourself and don't know if it's something you can do so they know and weigh the risks as part of their transition. Not all transitions are 100%. Trans people are often very calculated about what they choose to pursue based on what they personally value out of life in a more general sense. Not everyone goes for every option and the reasons behind them are intensely personal value judgements that involve way more than just the dysphoria/euphoria hits. I think way too many people peace out of things in general before they try or fully understand something and miss out because they built molehills into mountains. The process of transition isn't lightning fast. You have time to think, to adjust, to compromise and if it really isn't working for you then you will be absolutely sure that it's not for you.
It all depends on your personal estimation of the value of the relationship you have going and how open you are to the process of self exploration to test your hypothesis about yourself against an actual real life situation. Because none of us know ourselves half so well as we think we do.
Then, provided this is not simply a theoretical, I wish you whatever outcome is the best for everyone in the situation you are in. May you and your partner find the most happiness whatever that outcome looks like.
I think it depends on the relationship. Personally, I married the person, not her genitalia. I like those too but I want the person to be with me until the day we die, far far in the future.
Could you imagine being in a relationship with a woman who takes on the “masculine role,” i.e. taking you out, taking initiative, being the breadwinner, protecting you, etc?
Asking because I’ll forever be searching for a man who wants this type of relationship. I don’t know. Reversed roles are sexy, sue me.
I hope you’re right. I keep daydreaming about taking my future man out to dinner, spoiling him, going on shopping trips with him. Feels like people don’t believe me when I say this, like it’s so crazy for a woman to want it. Oh well. :’) Maybe my guy’s out there somewhere.
I’m actually in a similar relationship, though not due to design or will, just life and happenstance.
My so has a great job with good schedule and it’s her “soul” job, not sure what the word is in English but maybe you understand.
I’m, on the other hand, struggling with finding a career I could sustain. I have ADHD so it’s kinda tough, but we make it work perfectly.
Nowadays I study an engineering degree, so I’m home keeping the place neat and cooking for her and all that, and she provides the funds for all kinds of fun activities and all the rest you know, food and such included. I don’t mind, though at first my toxic masculinity kind of fought against that and I had a period of feeling bad about it. But we talk a lot and are good with it, so we went through it and it’s been nice since.
But I can imagine it’s hard for a man without prior experience of such a situation, to acclimate. But I think everyone can acclimate to it and get used to it. Just need to have very good communication to get through the first rough couple of months.
Yeah, I would definitely be down with that. The only thing I really want out of a relationship is snuggles because sleeping alone feels so... empty.
Only minor note is that I've been in relationships before where, for reasons beyond my control, I was unable to make an income. It doesn't matter to me whether I'm the "breadwinner", but not being able to financially support my other at all was horrible. I don't know if that's universal for guys but I would imagine mostly yes.
I took care of our young kids for a fortnight "instead of working" when my wife was rushed to hospital. It was far more exhausting than doing the day job. I don't know how single parents cope at all.
Kids take a lot of energy when everything is going well, so I can imagine the added stress plus no support from your partner make this situation extra hard.
I was thinking more in a normal scenario where my partner still help, but isn't the primary caretaker of the kids and home.
But yeah, taking care of kids alone and working? A feat of resilience for sure.
Sometimes, this is the case with my wife and I. We have kind of a fluid relationship. Each of us have things going on in our lives and one of us sometimes can't contribute to the household as much as the other.
When my wife was in college, I worked a shitload and was the bread winner. Now I'm in college and not working much at all and she is the breadwinner. Our marriage is hardly ever a 50/50, but we both understand this and I'm confident it's one of the main reasons we are so great together.
I'm okay with this as long as the attitude is loving and not demeaning. But I'd probably need her to be okay with it being a level playing field, and her being fine with me leading when I feel I need to.
I was once in a relationship with a woman who didn't know how to hand off the reigns. It was tiring. But I'd love to date someone who is confident enough to switch roles whenever each other needs to.
Sure. At least I don't think I will be salty about having the inferior wage.
Dunno about the protection part though. I would personally hope that even the weaker partner would shield me from bad things as well as the strong partner.
Those are good behaviors regardless of whether they are considered masculine or feminine. In my mind femininity is inclusive of the strong beauty archetype. A highly capable person can be both a great leader and a great follower depending on the context.
To an extent this is my marriage. My wife and I both own our own companies. Mine is much more established and therefore offers me some leeway on my in office time (I'm an accountant). This means I often spend more time taking care of our children. I also cook, make grocery store trips, clean (to an extent), etc. She still helps around the house which isn't ad much as it used to be. But I see her working her ass off so I don't complain.
As for protecting me....no. I'm a pretty large dude. 6'3" 250. So unfortunately when things go bump in the night ya boi gets to go investigate.
That's my dream, and I actually had such relationships in the past.
For all intents and purposes, there are actually more men than women who want that, so you're on a great side of it!
Just look for role reversal/female-led relationships, or even in gentle femdom communities (though the latter is sexual, the community of it highly intersects with the other two).
I'm a singularity of thought existing in the mythic plane; a mass hallucination; a self-aware story; a dialectical conversation between sociocultural influences.
To be fair, as a woman, my partner playing with my nipples does nothing for me either. They're just about as sensitive as fondling my tummy would be, or my outer elbow. can you imagine someone playing with your belly pudge to feel particularly arousing? I just kinda figure it's not for me. Since guys just love touching boobs so much, I just kinda let em play. They are fun to squish around I guess, like jello. I may very well be in the minority in this, it is just my personal experience. Actually, funnily enough, the inner elbow is more sensitive to me than my boobs are. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Maybe in a minority, but definitely not alone. I agree completely. Does absolutely nothing for me when someone touches my breasts, like at all. They may as well just been touching my back or my arm. Nothing erotic about it. But you know, it's not like it's particularly unpleasant either, so I guess, who cares? At least they like it. :p Well, as long as they're not trying to actually pinch or bite my nipples because that's very uncomfortable, and at certain points during my cycle it's downright painful.
All my questions can't really be answered by just asking another person. I wanna know what it feels like to have their plumbing. Words aren't enough though. I want to experience it. At least for a day.
Everything I've read about the Freemasons has been clearly written by people who hate freemasons, I mean... I don't keep going past the obvious tell, but I've been inside looking out on a my own strange outsider culture so, I just can't take haters at face value. As far as I can tell. It's a club.
Freemasons also don't let atheists in. Was a hard pass from me at that point. I'm not faking belief in some deist creator god just to join in their weird rituals and bridge clubs.
To tell the truth, it's a complex question, like "why are there no female Christian priests".
Christianity is a wide thing, with lots of subdivisions. So is freemasonry.
Why no woman ? There are historical reasons: a founding text (Anderson's Constitution) states that to be a Freemason, you have to be a free man.
There are also old initiation rituals (a bit like a Masonic baptism) where the person is bare-chested.
For traditionalists, this forever excludes women. This is particularly the case in the Anglo-Saxon world.
Traditinnalists also often exclude atheists, LGBTQIA+ people, etc.
But worldwide, there are also progressive lodges, mixed or even feminine (which accept male visitors, but do not initiate men).
I live in Europe, and in my loge we are about 10 men and 20 women. Lots of us are social workers, teachers, nurses or public servants. Lots of us are atheists or agnostics. Some of us are gay, lesbian or bi.
About what we do, one more time: it depends.
The main idea is to have philosophical questionings, based on ritual and symbolism (A bit like a religious person who uses a holy text to nourish their philosophical reflections).
All lodges also have charities, because the aim of Freemasonry is to improve oneself in the hope of making the world a better place.
But some progressive lodges (like mine) go further and are places for reflection on society, in a place where everyone can share their point of view without being cut off (this is an absolute rule) and without judgment.
In these lodges, all kinds of issues of social progress are discussed, including feminist issues. But also topics like the defense of democracy, the right to a dignified end of life, the impact of AI on the job market, ecology, the rise of the far right, and so on.
In men's lodges (I sometimes go as a visitor), even the progressive ones, there's very little talk of women in my experience. Except at communal meals, where you can hear the same mysogynistic remarks as in any all-male group (ewww, imho)
If that's the gist of it, why does it tend to be secretive? It doesn't strike me as the kind of thing that would inspire people to be low-profile about.
Showing that you know how to keep a secret shows that you're trustworthy.
There are also certain rites of passage that are more striking if you don't know what to expect (but it's always benevolent).
Also, as it's a place where speech is totally free, it makes it easier to open up.
For example, if we're having a discussion about LGBTQIA+ rights, I can share my experiences as a bi person to enrich the discussion, and I don't have to worry about being outed.
Finally, in Europe, the memory of Nazi persecution is still vivid, and today's far right hates us too.
Secrecy, or at least discretion, is a protection.
But I have to admit that it raises suspicions and feeds conspiracy theories.
So secrecy has its downside
Briefs because our balls get in the way and our sweaty scrotum sticks to our legs. The leg bands of the briefs sit up in the crease and separate the sack from the thighs.
Boxers because some folks don’t like restriction and want airflow to our sweaty balls. Also they come in more fun patterns.
Because that’s what our parents bought for us as kids. It’s not an important enough part of our wardrobe to change if it’s working for us. No one is supposed to see them in public anyways.
Yeah there's one that I've wondered for a while now. Awhile back, I found out that women don't have prostates but they can still feel pleasure from that hole. How can they feel pleasure from that hole if they don't have a prostate?
Similar to how you can feel a sensual touch on your lips, nipples, or fingertips. There's a bunch of nerves there and if you're having a good time already and you're relaxed enough for it to not hurt, all that stimulation feels good. It also has the benefit of being right behind the vagina and the trailing tail ends of the internal clitoris, so they get stimulated a little too.
Additionally, if we're talking multiple penetration, when you have an object in the anus whether it's static or thrusting it stretches out the rectum and occupies space within the the pelvis. This means that when you go to insert an object into the vagina, there is less space in the pelvis for it to also expand out into. This means that the vagina will be tighter around the inserted object and as a result that object will feel larger than it otherwise would.
Even without any of that they say the brain is your biggest sex organ for a reason, some people can actually meditate themselves to orgasm (although there is some abdominal flexing iirc). Anal is a taboo at least to some extent in most places, and psychologically that's a cheap arousal button for an insane number of people.
Analog: How can you feel pleasure from someone sucking on your finger for instance?
My biggest sexual organ is my brain and when my body is used to get someone else off, I, too get off on it. It feels so so so so good to take dick in the ass (especially if they hit my prostate, but that part is not necessary).
How is a dick different than a toy . . . in terms of physical sensations?
Physically only?
there’s the person attached to it who’s enjoying ramming you
temperature
unless someone else is toying you, you’re missing out on submitting to their rhythm
the sound (not physical, but not strictly emotional)
that the top is getting off too from the exact same friction (again not exactly physical, but I would have a hard time saying it’s just as good having someone toy you and jo at the same time as it is if he’s fucking you)
Why don't some of you high five me when I get drunk? When I'm drunk enough, I highfive EVERYONE on the street! Never been high five rejected by a guy on the bar crawl, and some women are happy to high five.......but some get defensive, and reserved, like they think my hand is poison!
And you also never met me (I am a guy too).
My response to unexpected fist bumps, high fives and handshakes is basically a silent "Huh?" before I figure out how to respond. Awkward 4 seconds. Oh, and I also likely forgot what I was thinking of and won't have a peace of mind until I remember it to finish the thought, but that has nothing to do with actually doing a high-five or not.
The only people that have ever high fived me are assholes that put all their strength into it. Then my hand burns in pain for the next 30 minutes. I don't want more abuse from another drunk asshole .
Are you male or female? Males, yeah, that's how we high five. Females I go waaaaaay lighter on. Like a fist bump with your palm. The same way you'd high five a kid basically.
Dude everyone hates your high fives. Everyone. Penis or no. You over aggressive high fivin' fool. (I mean this mostly in jest, if it stings for 30min you're a wuss)
In my case it's because often even the slightest bit of humor or attention or willingness to play along with the bit gets me way more unwanted attention than I bargained for. If I respond like a person wanting to have a little fun with another person and it gets me treated like a thing they can now win and possess, the genuine human interaction has been tainted by the implication that it wasn't genuine, there was always a motive and, because I played along, I'm now not a person to be interacted with, I'm a thing to be owned. I'd rather just not do the thing if that's one of the possible outcomes. And yeah, that's why I tend to not go out anymore.
I see you've met the guy who thinks that being horny and talking to a hot lady equals the lady being attracted to him...
Sorry for your burden. I wish men were less like that
You are taking a high five for WAAAAAAY more than what it is. I'm just high fiving people left and right, celebrating having a night out.
Nobody is trying to "win" you, or own you, or get one over on you. By the time I've high fived you, I've already high fived you......and then I'm high fiving the next person. Without further context, I'm not sure what you mean by you getting more attention than you want, or how that happens. I'm high fiving about 8 people in about 3 seconds, and then running to the next group. Within about 10 seconds the interaction is over, so I'm highly confused by what you're talking about.
But she has no way to know that, and a lifetime of evidence to suggest that your attitude isn't the universal male perspective. Since she doesn't know you personally, the risk outweighs whatever benefit she gets from the high five.
I think I know what the user means. Trust me (yeah sure random internet person), you have no idea how often the most innocuous stuff gets used as an opening, a justification to keep bothering someone. Some guy asks for the time? Suddenly he also wants to know your name and do you want to have a drink? Some guy asks where x building is? Oh well, have you lived here long? I'm new here, maybe we could get together? Or it's "does this tram go to x station?" and then, fuck, you're stuck in a moving tram without an easy escape and the guy keeps asking why he can't have your phone number, even though you already said no and then you lied about having a boyfriend, but still he won't give up. Playing along with someone, being nice, trying to help them with innocuous stuff, 8 out of 10 times it doesn't end there at all.
Before I get a bunch of downvotes: No, it's not every guy. We know it's not every guy. But most of us don't want to sit through 6 creeps just on the off-chance of meeting a nice person. It's just not worth it. And yes, it's always guys who do this. I've never had a woman following me after giving her directions. I've never had a woman keep pushing me after I said no (and I'm sure they exist, crappy women exist, but usually I feel perfectly safe responding to women - so sue me, confirmation bias).
Edit: Just to respond to your specific situation. I think I might have given you the high five if you'd been at it for a little bit and I'd seen you do it to everyone else and not acting like a creep. The fact that it's a bar scene and a social environment makes it all a little easier, imo. Most of my examples, real experiences btw, always happen in non-social scenes, like when going to work, or while doing groceries, etc. So in your case, I probably would have. But just to point out: it wasn't about you personally, basically a bunch of creeps ruined it for you.
I know it's not all men, every woman knows it's not all men. But I think the best analogy I ever heard for describing the way women need to treat men as a whole is the same way people should treat guns. In gun safety class they teach you to treat every gun like it is loaded until you are certain it's not, and even then it is always better to act with caution. I heard stories of my great uncle who was cleaning his rifle and he "knew for a fact without a doubt that it was unloaded" and he blew a hole through his foot and the floor. I'd rather not blow a hole in my foot because someone said a gun was unloaded and I just trusted them without double-checking. I'd rather not interact with a man I don't know so I can avoid getting harassed or hurt. The best advice for men, according to my guy friends that I have that I trust to treat women with respect and back them up in situations where they are uncomfortable, is: call other men on their shit. If a man is harassing a woman when she's said no, if a man is following a woman, if they are "just talking" but she looks super uncomfortable and he is encroaching on her personal space, interfere. Walk up, ask if she is okay, ask if you can get an authority for her. If the guy then becomes irritated with you for getting in the way, don't back down. Get between him and the woman and tell her she can get somewhere safe. If it's in a parking garage tell her she can get to her car and drive away, If it's at a bar tell her she can go to the bartenders or the bouncer and ask for help. If it's a guy friend of yours and you see them behaving that way, call them out and tell them to stop. It's uncomfortable, it could lose you a friendship, but if no one calls men on their behavior, if MEN don't call other men on their behavior, the men who don't think women are people and deserve respect will never stop behaving that way. Because if only women are telling them what they're doing is wrong, they will never listen. Because they don't consider women people. And when I say they don't consider women people I don't mean they think they're animals, they just actually don't believe women have autonomy, have minds of their own and the ability to say no and mean it and have that decision for themselves be respected. "No means yes" is a way for men to convince themselves that women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves and that you need to take control of them FOR them because they are incapable of making their own decisions. If you would like women to stop being afraid of men then men need to tell each other that the behavior that causes women to be afraid of them is unacceptable.
Just to be clear, this is not meant to be an admonition to you. You asked why we don't high five, I gave you an answer. My answer didn't seem to click for you as a valid thing that made sense so I'm trying to explain the reasoning behind it more thoroughly so you can actually understand where women are coming from. You might not be a bad person, but if we're not sure we're not going to interact with you because how can we possibly know?
I know it doesn't feel good to be treated like a loaded weapon when you are just trying to be a happy person. But before you respond in denial of my perspective, because it hurts you to have people be afraid of you when you didn't do anything wrong, think of how it would feel to have a gun pointed in your face and for you to have no idea if it's loaded or not. Can you blame women for shutting down or for shutting you down when confronted with that possiblity?
What the other commenter said, about it being more likely for women to respond in kind if you've been doing it with all the other people and it's a social setting, is true, but instead of being persistent if someone chooses not to high five you, instead smile and switch to a thumbs up and then just move on. The less of a problem you make of it when a woman decides not to interact with you the safer you will be to the women around you and the less likely you will be to be treated like a weapon.
I hope this helps you understand my perspective a little better, I hope this gives you some understanding the next time you feel shut down for seemingly no reason, and, most especially, I hope this helps you see the behavior of other men from the viewpoint of women and that you decide to help keep women safe when they feel uncomfortable.
Thanks for taking the time to ask, and thanks for taking the time to read my responses.
Oh, so it was you who walked past me last week downtown and was trying to get me to high-five you while shouting "HEY" at me repeatedly while I was trying to unlock my bicycle.
Oh wait you mean forward up between the lips? Yeah but not like into the vagina, it gets up into the hair like you said and disperses from there. Also for some reason I wanna say those ones don't really smell much even. It's those hot little ones that do that but I think that happens to guys too, idk tho you tell me.