Don't you see how this alone proves my point
No. It proves that people (both men and women) erroneously assume that it would be the man who initiates, and that this doesn't work. It proves not only that women are capable and successful at initiating, it proves that they ARE the ones who overwhelmingly initiate successful encounters. That means the vast majority of people alive were born to a woman who initiated contact.
If you think about it, it's pretty obvious. A guy approaches you (you being a girl here) - what's that situation? A guy, by comparison to you, is a big hairy murder machine full of bulging muscles. Such a guy approaching you sets you right into panic mode, because, a man approaching, is first and foremost a physical threat. And the guy doesn't really have a way to defuse this initial problem either, he has a low, booming voice, and smells bad. Contrast that to a girl approaching a guy - By contrast, it's basically a harmless child that approaches you. And in between mind-controlling cleavage, a pleasant voice and generally presenting much less of a threat or body odor, there's tools to defuse the situation and reduce tension. Light touch, for example, done by a physically inferior girl, is not perceived as threatening. Women are so much better equipped for initiation of contact than men are, this is why anyone who knows his shit preferably uses cute girls when gathering signatures, or as receptionists and in many other situations. Women are not only the ones who do initiate, they're the ones who should initiate, and the tragedy of today is that everyone is taught the reverse, to have men approach, when that provably does not work.
I can even tell you why you'd think it's men who do the approaching!
That's a cultural trope that has evolved in the west over the last 200 years, and primarily popularized with Charles Darwins second book, "Sexual Selection", which codified the victorian age ideal of the gender interactions as some sort of biological reality without empirically validating this assumption. The victorian age ideal was for the woman to stay at home and be a demure house wife, while the husband is out slaughtering Zulus and other assorted brown people, you know, imperializing. In its most abstract terms, the victorian age ideal revolved around passivity of the female as opposed to the (pro)activeness of the male. Because Darwin was that influental, this "darwinist sexual selection" has since greatly influenced western culture, beginning with the sciences, to the point where it now has been adopted as "common sense truth" even when it does not stand up to the most superficial of empirical observations. So yes:
You, Darth, are promoting a victorian age gender stereotype here. Knowing you, I know you'll feel incredible shame and embarassment by now. Cheers!
I know I've talked about this before, but in the west, the source of the "gender ideal" before this victorian-darwinist-modernist interpretation was the Bible, where women are essentially succubi who think only with their pussies and how to get them stuffed. Not necessarily a positive image, certainly - but a proactive one, when it comes to sex, and much closer to observable reality than the darwinist one.
