Dating Intelligently 1: Gender Norms, Trust, and Social Boundaries

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/18

Christopher Louis is a Los Angeles–based international dating and relationship coach and founder of Dating Intelligence. As host of the Dating Intelligence Podcast, Louis draws on intuition and lived experience to guide clients toward authentic selves and meaningful romantic connections. He gives in in-depth conversation on gendered double standards in dating and nightlife. They explore how social freedoms differ between men and women, especially in public settings like bars or clubs, and how misreading cues often leads to miscommunication. Louis discusses how men project insecurities, the importance of mutual respect, and why open communication is key in relationships. He also highlights the often-overlooked reverse dynamic—when women cross boundaries with men—and calls for balanced emotional intelligence, trust, and consent. The discussion emphasizes the need for healthy relationship habits across diverse social and cultural contexts. Interview conducted June 9, 2025.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Christopher Louis. I will insert his bio later to streamline the session—that is just a note to myself.

Double standards are an ongoing aspect of social dynamics that many people encounter. Ideally, we would live in a world where these are reduced in all contexts. However, in the dating world, double standards persist between men and women. What are some of the key examples you have observed, particularly in how men and women are treated when they go out socially? And how do men typically react in these situations—especially in terms of defensiveness?

Christopher Louis: Double standards come up in dating. One typical example appears when men and women in committed relationships go out separately with friends. Men often have more social license to be friendly or even mildly flirtatious in public settings—as long as it is seen as harmless and not crossing boundaries. These behaviours—like talking with women and making physical gestures like touching a shoulder—are often excused under the assumption that there is no romantic or sexual intent behind them.

When women go out, especially with single friends or in nightlife settings like bars or clubs, they are often subjected to greater scrutiny. Some male partners feel uncomfortable, not necessarily because of mistrust, but due to perceived vulnerability—such as unwanted male attention or pressure from strangers. This can lead to tension, especially when the male partner believes the social environment itself increases the likelihood of boundary-crossing with others.

Jacobsen: It is not just the emotional reaction of men that is important here, but also how they verbalize those concerns. How is that typically expressed?

Louis: In my experience with clients and conversations with friends, many men express it through concern or control. They might say something like, “If you go out with your single friends to a club, you’re just opening the door for other guys to hit on you.” There is an underlying assumption that physical appearance, attire, or setting could invite attention—and that this could lead to miscommunication, misread cues, or even predatory behaviour from others.

This does not mean that women are doing anything wrong. But some men project their insecurities or fears onto their partner’s actions. It is not uncommon for these conversations to revolve around perceived risk, even though the real issue may be a lack of trust, fear of infidelity, or difficulty managing jealousy. It becomes a broader conversation about autonomy, mutual respect, and communication in the relationship.

Like, if a girl is just talking to a guy and she’s laughing with him or whatever—keeping it platonic—the guy may get the wrong signals. He may go in for a kiss, he may go in for a touch, or he may make a move that is off-putting or even interpreted as a sexual advance toward someone else’s girlfriend.

Jacobsen: That leads to a practical follow-up question: How do women typically view those misinterpretations? There is that pattern. Specifically, the situation where men overperceive romantic or sexual intent, and women may underperceive how their actions could be misread. I’m referring to moments when men mistake friendliness for interest and try to make a move.

Louis: So, in that case, here’s the thing: most guys misread signals. Let’s just be honest—half the time, guys are wrong about what they think is being communicated. I know for a fact that if a woman is just being her fun, energetic self—talking to a guy, laughing, maybe touching his arm while being friendly and platonic—some guys are going to interpret that as an invitation.

They think, “Oh, she’s into me. She wants me to go for it.” That’s when you’ll see a guy go in for a kiss or get more physical, thinking it’s a green light when it was just a woman being social, kind, and open.

Now, if she’s in a relationship, and that moment happens, most of the time, she’ll stop it right away and say, “Whoa—hey. I wasn’t giving you that kind of signal.” And then the guy may flip it, saying, “You were flirting with me,” or “You wanted that.” But the reality is that she wasn’t. He just misread the friendliness. It happens way too often.

Jacobsen: So how do you coach men to understand and adjust for this—so it’s not just understood, but behaviour changes?

Louis: That’s a key point. What I tell men is this: no matter how warm or friendly a woman seems—whether she’s laughing with you, maintaining eye contact, or even touching your arm in conversation—it does not mean she’s giving consent to anything more.

Some women, like my girlfriend, are naturally social. She’ll talk to guys and be engaging because that’s who she is. It doesn’t mean she’s inviting more. So, I teach people to read the room—not just through body language but also through context, tone, and especially words. And always, always ask yourself: “Did she explicitly indicate interest beyond friendly conversation?” If the answer is no, then back off.

Teaching this is about emotional intelligence, reading signals with nuance, and—most of all—respect. Respect her boundaries even if you’re unsure because consent is never assumed.

She’ll be like, “Oh my God.” She’ll touch their arm or leg—whether they’re sitting or standing—in a platonic way. But again, I coach guys to understand, first and foremost, what kind of woman they’re speaking with and where she’s coming from.

If she’s saying, “Hey, my boyfriend’s over there, but I’m loving this conversation,” it’s about reading the room and asking the right questions. Let’s say the woman is single, and she’s being a bit more flirtatious—your goal then might be to gently escalate by asking flirtatious questions like, “Wow, I think you’re adorable,” or “I love your energy.” You’re trying to gauge whether her energy is genuine interest or simply a friendly gesture.

The hardest thing for a lot of guys when they go out is misreading those cues. You approach a girl with your usual flirty lines, have a ten or fifteen-minute conversation, and suddenly you’re thinking, “Yeah, I think she’s into me.” But she might just be being polite. That’s why I always emphasize the importance of asking deeper, clarifying questions.

You need to determine: is this something real? Is she genuinely interested? Or is she simply being kind? That discernment can save you a lot of confusion—and awkwardness. So, the answer to your question is to ask better questions before interpreting subtle cues as signs of sexual or romantic interest. Do not rely solely on body language because it is often misread.

Jacobsen: Are there situations where the reverse happens? Where a woman misunderstands a man’s signals and assumes more interest than there is? That might be a practical educational example to illustrate how misinterpretation can occur in both directions.

Louis: Yes—definitely. This is where it gets a little complex.

From both experience and in the present, I’ve found that many women feel they have more freedom to touch men casually than men would ever feel comfortable doing with women. I’ve had moments where I’ve felt put off or even uncomfortable when a woman approaches me and starts touching my chest or my face while telling me how handsome I am. And I think: Did I permit you to do that?

So, yes, there’s a clear double standard. Some women feel entitled to touch men without considering whether that contact is welcome. It can be unsettling—because, just like with women, men have personal boundaries too. But society often overlooks that.

Some women see a man they’re attracted to and treat him like a piece of meat. It can feel predatory—just in a different way. And that discomfort is something I help men navigate and discuss openly. Boundaries apply both ways. Respect and consent have to be mutual.

Because men are often socialized to accept or even welcome sexual attention from women, some women may assume their advances will always be well received. There’s this idea that if they touch a man or express sexual interest, he will automatically be into it—that he’ll want them, want more, and be flattered. But that is not always the case.

There have been many instances in my past—during my modelling days or even now—where a woman has approached me, come straight over, and said something like, “You’re hot,” and made very forward advances. And my reaction has been, “Excuse me.” First of all, I may not even be interested, and second, who gave you the right to touch me?

In those situations, I’ve had to be polite—putting on a smile, acting coy or nervous, saying, “Oh, thank you,” just to keep the peace, even though inside, I was feeling genuinely uncomfortable and anxious.

There have even been times when my girlfriend witnessed this. She noticed the expressions and behaviour some women used—expressions that mirrored what men often do in similar situations. And I found myself thinking, “Someone, please come rescue me.”

This dynamic happens in reverse. But socially, there’s this perception that men should enjoy it, that they should be grateful. Some women seem to think, “You’re a guy, you like it—just accept it.” But if the roles were reversed—if I, as a man, touched a woman without consent, people would immediately recognize how inappropriate and violating that is.

There’s a clear double standard here. Some women may feel more justified in crossing boundaries because they think, “This doesn’t happen often, and most guys want it anyway.” Culturally, that kind of behaviour is sometimes tolerated more by women than by men, even though it can be equally uncomfortable or inappropriate.

Jacobsen: What else should I ask today? Well, the U.S. is incredibly diverse, so yes, there are subcultural differences in how gender norms and personal boundaries play out—differences even between states like New York and Missouri.

Louis: If we zoom out to global cultural dynamics, it gets more complex. In some cultures—though not universally and certainly not without exceptions—gender roles are more rigid. There can be expectations that men have more freedom while women are more restricted. For instance, in particular conservative communities across different regions, it may be more socially acceptable for men to socialize freely. At the same time, women are expected to remain at home or behave more modestly.

However, it is essential to avoid painting entire cultures or ethnic groups with a single brush. Gender dynamics are shaped by a complex interplay of tradition, religion, law, personal values, and evolving social norms, and they vary significantly within any given country or community.

I’m like, seriously? So you can basically go out and do whatever you want—you can party, use drugs, have people over, hang out with whoever—but if your girlfriend or wife wants to go out with her friends, suddenly it’s a problem?

Then it’s, “Where are you going? Who are you with? Make sure it’s someone we know. Don’t hang out with those single girls because you’re not single. You’re married, so you should only be with your married friends.” Like, what?

Jacobsen: That’s a common double standard.

Louis: Right? That’s real. It’s like, how come you get to go out and have fun, but your wife has to stay home? Why is she expected to sit around and do nothing while you get to live your life? And to bring it to a more everyday level—I always find this part funny—we were talking about the differences between places like Missouri and elsewhere. 

Even within Los Angeles, there are clear cultural contrasts. For example, Scott, let’s say you and I go out with some couples. Right? So it’s a group of five or six couples. We all head out for dinner or drinks. What drives me bonkers—especially when comparing the West Side of L.A. to a more conservative area like, say, Pasadena—is this: when we all go out, why is it that in the more conservative circles, the men and women split off? The men hang with the men, and the women hang with the women. It’s like some kind of social rule.

But in more liberal settings, people mingle. At dinner, everyone mixes. Husbands and wives don’t necessarily sit next to each other, and we all engage together. It’s social, fluid, fun. You’re not confined to one group.

But in those more traditional groups, it’s like, “Women over here, men over there.” My girlfriend and I always look at each other like, “Why do we have to do this?” She’s said to me, “Honestly, I’d rather talk to some of the guys—they’re more interesting!” But it’s treated like that would be inappropriate, like she’s breaking some unspoken rule.

And that’s the kind of rigid thinking that still exists in specific communities—where social roles are so defined that stepping outside of them is seen as strange or even disrespectful.

This happens, again, in specific cultural contexts—like in some parts of the Persian community or in other traditional communities—where if your wife or girlfriend is talking to a group of men, it’s considered inappropriate. It’sviewed as a bad form. There is an expectation that she should only socialize with women, not mix with men. And that mindset does not just exist in cultural contexts; it also shows up in very conservative social environments in general.

Jacobsen: What about pub or bar culture compared to nightclub culture?

Louis: That’s a good distinction. Yes, nightclub culture versus more rural or conservative bar culture—those can be worlds apart. There are some unspoken social “rules,” depending on where you are.

For example, in a more conservative or rural setting, when you go out with your partner, there may be this unspoken rule that you stay together the whole time, stick to your gender group, or act in specific predefined ways. Flirting—even if playful—is seen as threatening.

But in nightclub culture, especially in more liberal areas, it’s different. Say I’m out with my girlfriend—we’re secure, we trust each other. When we go to a club, she might go off to one part of the room, I might go to another, and we’ll meet in the middle. She can talk to whomever she wants. I can talk to whoever I want. It’s fun, flirtatious even, but we both know where we stand. We’re together.

And that brings us back to what this comes down to: trust. If you trust your partner, you should not need to control them. You should not be setting rigid rules or putting them in a box, saying, “You can’t do x, y, or z,” while also giving yourself complete freedom to do those exact things just because you’re a guy.

Many women today push back against this double standard. They’re saying, “You can’t tell me what to do if you’re doing it yourself.” And honestly, they’re right. There’s a disconnect in some relationships because of that inequality.

Here’s a real example from just yesterday that came up in a relationship counselling session I had. You can use this generically if you’d like.

So, this couple I’m seeing right now—she went to a party with some of her girlfriends. He wasn’t there initially, but he knew she was going. When I talked to him before the party, he said something like, “I hope that when I get there, she’s not standing around with her friends talking to other guys because that’s going to piss me off.”

And I told him, “Look, if she’s already at the party before you get there, you know she’s going to be mingling. You’re showing up late—what do you expect?” And I added, “I hope that when you walk in and she sees you, she’s just happy to see you. That should be your focus.” Because, again, it’s about trust. If you walk in expecting to control her environment, it’s not trust—it’s possession. And that’s where so many of these problems begin.

So now I’m in a place where I want my partner by my side. I want to be with him exclusively in those moments. But here’s the thing—I’ve told him this. I said, “These are the kinds of conversations you need to have before you walk into any social situation—whether it’s a club, a party, or anything where you’re going to interact with others. You both need to communicate how the night is going to go.”

Here’s an example from my relationship. When my girlfriend and I are going out—whether it’s to a friend’s party, a social gathering, or a club—I might say, “You know what, Chris? Tonight, I just want to hang out with you. Is that okay?” And she’ll say, “Sure, honey, that sounds great.” Or I might ask, “How are we feeling tonight?”

She could say, “I just want to be free, hang out with friends, talk to other people. You can hang with your people, I’ll hang with mine, and we’ll meet up throughout the night.” And I’ll say, “Cool—let’s just check in throughout the night.”

We call it “checking in.” That way, there’s no miscommunication or assumptions. You both know what kind of energy the other person is bringing and what they need. Because there’s nothing worse than walking into a party and your significant other suddenly disappears—off to hang out with their friends—especially if it’s a party where they know everyone and you barely know anyone.

In that case, I’ll say, “Hey, honey, I’m good with you going and having fun; just let me know.” Or I’ll say, “I’d rather we stick together tonight.”

What you want to avoid is walking into a situation without communicating—and then suddenly your partner’s gone, and you’re thinking, “Holy crap, I don’t know anyone here.” And yeah, maybe I’m an extrovert, so usually, I can handle it. But sometimes, I’m just not in the mood to be social—to turn on the charm and smile and go, “Hey, how are you?”—when I’d rather just be with her.

There have been moments where I felt jealous, even though there was no real reason. And later, I realized it wasn’t about what she was doing—it was that I wasn’t in the right headspace, and I hadn’t told her how I was feeling.

She said to me, “If you had just told me you wanted me close to you tonight, I would’ve stayed by your side.”

But I didn’t. She assumed I was in my usual mood—happy, social, outgoing. And I realized she was right. I had no reason to be upset because I didn’t communicate what I needed. And that was on me. That level of honest emotional communication is rare. People do not always realize how important it is.

Sometimes, when there’s miscommunication, I always suggest checking in beforehand—just letting each other know what the expectations are before walking into any social situation. If we know we’re going to a club together, for example, we should talk about the parameters. What’s the vibe tonight? What are our boundaries? Are we going to be together the whole time? Is it mostly your friends or mine?

It’s helpful to say things like, “I don’t want you leaving me behind,” or, “It’s fine if you go off—I’ll hang out with a few people I know.” The key is alignment.

I believe that most people should check in before arriving at their destination rather than assuming everything will work out once they’re there. Because anything can happen—and it’s better to be on the same page.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Chris, thank you very much for your time today. Appreciate it.

Louis: Thank you, Scott. Appreciate you, have a fantastic day.

Jacobsen: You too. Thanks—take care.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.