I feel conflicted about this social norm. Right now, society is at a point of considerable concern regarding men who "make the first move" to a point bordering on harassment. There's a certain damned if you do, damned if you don't for how bold to be, at each stage of the game, depending upon when or where or with whom. This is generally thought to be due to differences in pickiness and/or horniness, which is why in alleged "reverse" cases of sexual harassment/assault, people find it hard to believe that a guy genuinely rejected a girl, even for practical reasons like fear of child support bills or STDs, let alone sentimental ones like obsessing over some other girl.
Needless to say, inverting the norm would go a long way to actually TESTING these theories of males and females. So for what purpose is it still the way it is?
Firstly, it seems to be emphasized a lot more to girls than to guys. I actually heard the opposite growing up, and was a little surprised at what the actual norm was. Could it have been done to delay teen sex as long as possible?
Secondly, one argument I've seen for it elsewhere is that girls will get flirted with so often they'll be used to it no matter what, while flirting from girls will mostly be directed at a few guys, with many left out of it altogether. This one stands out to me. We know that among many species, including some of our evolutionary cousins the great apes, the females wait their turn to have sex with the alpha male instead of just settling for an ordinary male they can have immediately. Even those who claim to doubt and/or object to that make cheap shots more often about a male's supposed virginity than that of a female, as though inability to get laid were the only reason for it if male, or as though female virginity were prized and seen as a sign of virtue. Might this social norm have been designed to prevent the same thing from happening among us as among other species? If it did happen, would it be irreversible?
