Men explained why they no longer ask women for their numbers in public. The answers are eye-opening.

“Social media has proven public encounters are off limits.”

By

Mark Wales

Jan 10, 2026

By Mark Wales

January 10, 2026

Add to Google News

Photo credit: Photo credit Canva – Two people enjoy a conversation.

In our modern world, one might think making connections and finding relationships is easier. Perhaps for some it actually is. However, with more people moving toward online dating, fewer are meeting and starting relationships in person.

On the Reddit thread r/AskMenAdvice, someone asked, “Are men generally not asking women for their numbers anymore when they meet someone in the wild? If so, why?” Some of the answers shed light on a troubling situation. Men aren’t comfortable asking women for their numbers in public, and so they don’t do it.

man, woman, well-being, camping, modern world, face-to-face, phone numbers — Coupleu00a0talking in the woods. Canva Photos

Redditors share why they aren’t asking women for their numbers in person

Men have other avenues for striking up a conversation with less face-to-face risk. With social media and dating apps, some find it a simple, and safe, alternative. Many find the thought of social embarrassment overwhelming if they were to approach a woman in public, and so prefer the safety of swiping left or right. Still, with fewer young people dating, there’s a dramatic change in how we form relationships in the modern world. As this trend unfolds, it’s worth investigating why men aren’t asking women for their numbers anymore.

chatting, complaining, flirting, hints, interest, friendship, caution, ask out — Woman and man have a conversation. Canva Photos

It’s harder than ever to read signals

There’s no doubt that people respecting each others’ boundaries should be the standard. However, some men complain that it’s hard to tell what those hard-line boundaries are these days. Does a transition still exist to move from a casual conversation to asking someone out on a date?

“Also, we’ll assume maybe she was just being nice and fun and we absolutely aren’t picking up any hints. Unless you tell us explicitly, assume we don’t know.”

“Yup. Flirty, laughing, touching me… And then laugh at me when I ask for her number.”

“There has been a big (and imo positive) move forward in terms of men misreading women’s friendliness as interest, so a lot of men are simply more cautious these days. Perhaps it’s about that?”

“I’m extremely dense and need a runway lit up like a Christmas tree for me to realize you’re flirting. Then you have to ask for my number.”

public spaces, comments, Reddit, TikTok, social media, peer pressure, work place, relationship status — A chat on the couch. Canva Photos

Men feel like in-person is no longer a viable option

It seems the modern consensus is that it’s probably better that men don’t approach women in public for various reasons. Due to this, and according to some of the comments on the thread, the responsibility for moving a relationship forward in a public space falls on women.

“The sentiment from women for the last few decades has been don’t bother women while they are working, or while they are at the gym, or while they are on the street, or at a bar. And I think it definitely is an overcorrection from men in general. But it’s tough to find that balance and you don’t want to make anyone uncomfortable…”

“Social media has proven public encounters are off limits. I’m not here for you to feel good about yourself and make media content for others to enjoy. I don’t approach anyone. The ones ‘acting really nice’ get a smile, small talk, and ‘have a nice day.’”

“Because women have made it clear that they don’t want men approaching them.”

“You don’t know who has a 50k follower tiktok account that will put you on blast if you have the audacity to approach while ugly”

gym, exercise, standards, random guy, unsafe, listening skills, woman's rights, society — Two people high-five working out. Canva Photos

Trying to respect a modernized dating world

Women have every right to be treated respectfully. These men shared that they want to meet that standard:

“Contrary to popular belief most men do listen, and the loudest women tend to be those who are telling men to stay away and not ask. So people listened.”

“I never ask for a woman’s number, i offer them my own. It can be a red flag to ask for theirs, i dont want them to feel unsafe. I offer mine that way if theyre interested they can reach out to me without giving out their own info to a random guy first”

“Better for a woman to give her number versus asking in today society”

gif, men, night at the roxbury, dating, public — Movie scene from Night at the Roxbury. media0.giphy.com

Don’t be creepy

Rejection can be uncomfortable and even painful. Nobody wants to be viewed as undesirable and downright creepy. These men find that thought mortifying:

“Cuase we dont wanna end up on tik tok as “creeps” and “stalkers” and lose our jobs and life’s ruined”

“There was a thread the other day where someone said it was normal to ask someone you just met out and/or for a number and there were ENDLESS responses that it was creep behavior and not normal. I’m not sure how one of the most normal rituals on the planet has suddenly become creep behavior.”

“Men have been chastised in the media to the point they dont want to do anything that may come off as sexually harassing.”

“From around 2023 onwards I feel like the attitude towards men showing any kind of interest in women has soured. Absolutely everything can be considered creepy. It’s like a weird social contagion caused by TikTok.”

friendships, respect, dating scene, dating apps, swiping, casual encounter, sexual harrassment, creep — Friends laughing together. Canva Photos

What science says is happening

A 2024 study by DatePsychology reported that about 45% of men ages 18-25 had never asked a woman out on a date in person. These young men are heavily reliant on social media and dating apps to navigate social anxiety and the fear of rejection. There seems to be a growing trend of less energy invested in dating in general. In a 2025 survey, Dating News reported the average U.S. single person went on fewer than two in-person dates in 2024.

Although research into the psychology of recent dating trends is a rather small body of work, dating anxiety seems to be a significant factor. The distress about initiating a romantic interaction reduces the likelihood of someone making a first move. A 2022 study in Research Gate found that people’s growing attachment to their appearance and the high value placed on it make rejection more anxiety-inducing.

If people are going to attempt to move a casual conversation toward a possible date, that transition of responsibility now rides heavily on women. As this Redditior stated, “The ball is in the women’s court now; you can ask us, or we will respectfully treat all your ‘hints’ as you just being nice.”

Add to Google News

More for You

Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images – Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

Culture, Media

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Why “bad” English is nothing new.

Good Partner

4/22/2026

Valerie M. Fridland

As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuously, t’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

The rise of the grammar sticklers

Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

Embrace the change

Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Keep Reading →
Photo credit: Canva – (L) Kids wrestling in the yard; (R) young children playing chess

Culture, Media

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

The premise was simple but high stakes.

Adam Albright Hanna

GOOD Staff

4/19/2026

It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

The Setup

While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

The Boys: Instant Chaos

In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

“We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

The Girls: Organized Society

The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Keep Reading →
Photo credit: Wikicommons – (L) A young girl's letter to Steph Curry asking about women's shoe sizes; (R) Steph Curry.

Culture, Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

“… it seems unfair that the shoes are only in the boys,” Riley Morrison wrote, starting a chain reaction of positive change.

GOOD Staff

Adam Albright-Hanna

4/19/2026

Nine-year-old Riley Morrison from Napa, California is a huge basketball fan. She roots for the Golden State Warriors and her favorite player is four-time NBA champion Steph Curry. Morrison loves to play basketball so she went online to pick up a pair of Curry’s Under Armour Curry 5 shoes, but there weren’t any available in the girls’ section of the site.

But instead of resigning herself to the fact she wouldn’t be able to drive the lane in a sweet pair of Curry 5’s, she wrote a letter to the man himself. Her father posted it on social media:

“My name is Riley (just like your daughter), I’m 9 years old from Napa, California. I am a big fan of yours. I enjoy going to Warriors games with my dad. I asked my dad to buy me the new Curry 5’s because I’m starting a new basketball season. My dad and I visited the Under Armour website and were disappointed to see that there were no Curry 5’s for sale under the girls section. However, they did have them for sale under the boy’s section, even to customize. I know you support girl athletes because you have two daughters and you host an all girls basketball camp. I hope you can work with Under Armour to change this because girls want to rock the Curry 5’s too.”

“I wanted to write the letter because it seems unfair that the shoes are only in the boys’ section and not in the girls’ section,” Riley told Teen Vogue. “I wanted to help make things equal for all girls, because girls play basketball, too.”

The letter got to Curry and he gave an amazing response on X (formerly Twitter).

Appreciate you helping us get better Riley! We got you. #MoreToCome pic.twitter.com/UBoTklvwhg
— Stephen Curry (@StephenCurry30) November 29, 2018

Many might be surprised that a megastar like Curry took a nine-year-old’s letter seriously, but he’s long been a vocal supporter of women’s issues.

That August, Curry wrote an empowering letter that was published in The Player’s Tribune where he discussed closing the gender pay gap, hosting his first all-girls basketball camp, and what he’s learned from raising two daughters.

In the essay he shared a powerful lesson his mother taught him. “Always stay listening to women to always stay believing in women, and — when it comes to anyone’s expectations for women — to always stay challenging the idea of what’s right,” he wrote.

Curry clearly practices what he preaches because when a nine-year-old girl spoke up, he was all ears.

Steph Curry and Under Armour didn’t just fix the girls’ sizing issue, they launched a special edition Curry 6 “United We Win” co-designed by Riley, created a $30K annual scholarship for girls, and shifted to unisex sizing across Curry Brand shoes.

Since then, Curry has stayed active in promoting gender equity: he’s hosted girls’ camps, added girls to his elite training programs, mentored players like Azzi Fudd, and launched the Curry Family Women’s Athletics Initiative to fund 200+ scholarships at Davidson College.

View this post on Instagram

Riley and Steph bumped into each other at an event where they caught up and took photos. She is now a high school athlete at Vintage High School in Napa, still playing basketball. And yes, still rocking Currys.

This article originally appeared seven years ago. It has been updated.

Keep Reading →