I have seen a few threads lately where guys complain about how girls never approach them. My question is: so what?
What it means for you to approach a girl is you will have to be courageous and take a risk. You feel that there is this demand being put upon you by the female sex: if you approach you might or might not succeed, if you don't approach you are guaranteed no success. Us girls... all we have to do is sit around and let the guys come to us, so easy, so unfair!~
Except that we are being sized up and judged based on how thin our waist is, how big our boobs are, what kind of clothes we are wearing, and how pretty we are overall. It doesn't matter how intelligent a girl is, or successful, or what attitude she takes on life. I despise the thought that guys are looking at me and may be automatically rejecting me because my hair is short, I don't bother with makeup, and that I select my shoes for comfort and not sex appeal.
Sure, being judged at face value is unfair for both sexes. Which has it worse, where you are judged on your level of confidence or judged on your appearance. Which sex is the most shallow here?
>Which sex is the most shallow here?
The females.
>So girls should approach guys, eh?
Yes, if they want to...
>Except that we are being sized up and judged based on how thin our waist is, how big our boobs are, what kind of clothes we are wearing, and how pretty we are overall. It doesn't matter how intelligent a girl is, or successful, or what attitude she takes on life.
What the fuck are you just trolling? Especially on this forum where you are guaranteed to find only guys who prefer flat chested girls.
And look at all the threads about conflicted guys falling for the ugly girl with great personality. I know I made one although in /love/.
>Which sex is the most shallow here?
Neither sex is inherently shallow... but I ask you, just which poster in this thread is the most shallow?
Well really, it's not so much a fear of rejection as it is a fear of being arrested. And believe me, if a woman has an asshole personality, I can't find her beautiful, even if she won the genetic lottery. I honestly can't stand to look at her.
>>Which has it worse, where you are judged on your level of confidence or judged on your appearance.
How about neither? Instead, let's make our attractions to genuine humanity and decency instead of shallow gimmicks of masculinity and fake plastic bimbos? It's infuriating to know that some guys really can learn to love someone ugly for their personality and be turned off by shit personality but even some asshole can automatically be rendered sexy for a woman just because he's confident, and will always be more attractive to a woman than some unassuming guy who has no issues, but isn't so confident as to run red lights and is on the wrong side of the law, because it takes balls to do something like that. That's more than insulting, it's downright subhuman.
In fact, now that I think about it, it's really the idea that women love assholes and will always find them attractive based on their asshole-ness because it requires a lot of balls to be a criminal or a bad boy, that really gets me. Guys at the very least have the decency to find something attractive that isn't inherently vile.
And of course, any man who is shy in asking a woman out doesn't deserve the girl because guess what, no matter how much of a good person you are, if you are more cautious in situations or respectful of people without sacrificing your needs, then you're not worth anyone's time amirite?
I don't know what it is, but I agree with anonygod here. Females always go for the asshole.
I consider myself pretty (male) and I am always nice to girls, without fail. I am repectful and well mannered towards everybody. Guess how many girlfriends I have had? None! That's right. I suppose 'twould be best to shit on their face and punch their stomach, then they might go out with me, cause girls respect that.
The rampant generalizations on both sides are stupid. Yes, girls are being sized up all the time, but it does not mean that the boy will always go for the prettiest, far from it. Having a great personality is a great asset. And it's not like boys are not evaluated either, right?
As for girls never approaching guys, I don't know in which planet you live, but that's not my experience at all,...
My experience is straight forward. Men and women who take the initiative are more often rejected, but they also are more successful in getting what they want. After all, it's not a big deal to fail a couple of times, if you end up getting a hit. It's much worse not even trying and failing all the time, or even be picked up by someone who is not our first choice.
> my hair is short, I don't bother with makeup, and that I select my shoes for comfort and not sex appeal
firstly if you want to know about my life, I am a Guy and have this crush, and fancy this girl for 5yrs, going 6yrs soon and I have never talked to her, and only know her from friends (they gave me her personality; shy, quiet, gentle, innocent, soft voiced, reserved) and her general appearance can be described has like yourself, short light brown hair, with a sort of side fringe going on, pure shiny innocent warm eyes, wears no make-up(whenever I see her at least), dont know about shoes, I dont pay attention to shoes, but has a small petite body frame, flat chest, and cute baby-face, but looks mature enough that she would look over 18.
= Have lack knowing the male gender, 'typical' boys would judge a girls APPEARANCE of attractiveness from body frame size(natural size and shape of body), well this might just be me, but I think guys in general are put of with skinny girls that look like they have an eatting disorder or girls who be cant lifted by their counter-part, I mean that when I see a girl, bigger than me (she can be big but not to an extend she would be not possible to lift by her counter-part). and the "Welcoming face expression" i.e Smile, Eye contact, etc. After the first stage is complete for APPEARANCE factors there is the second stage, which is the PERSONALITY, Personality of the person must feel they can be trusted, an understanding of each other.
this is my experience from talking to alot of boys or the crowd I am with, however there could be different people so there are other reasons.
As for shallowness, both sex are, as I hang out with alot of people/ crowds and Girls do similar things like this aswell, its not sure if they know they do and that its sub-conscience though.
This is my experience from talking to alot of boys or the crowd I am with, however there could be different people so there are other reasons.
As for shallowness, both sex are, as I hang out with alot of people/ crowds and Girls do similar things like this aswell, its not sure if they know they do and that its sub-conscience though.
Women aren't attracted to men. They're attracted to vague ideas of masculinity and shadows of personality like, "Oh he's confident,", "Or he had the guts to ask me out!" but good character is just icing on the cake. It's akin to finding prostitutes or serial killers sexy just because they have more guts than some shy guy who isn't spineless but doesn't go around doing crazy shit. Really I find the thought of even fucking them sickening. A man is attracted to real personality and decency but any achievements she's made or a bold personality is just icing on the cake. Women are freaks and until they acknowledge their screwy tastes in men and manipulative game playing and signal sending when it comes to men's feelings, they won't get equal rights despite how much they want them.
Please, what's stopping you from approaching a guy? I've seen it a hundred times, girls do hit on guys and happened to me a couple times. If you like someone, do your thing. Stop waiting around. That's the same advice i would give to a guy asking the same questions. Yes, both genders play mind games and honestly, if the person i'm dating does that i just don't bother.
Hey, couldn't you have kept your rampant generalization in your own thread?
>>16
AARGH! Why do idiots always say 'here here'??? FUCKING SHIT! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANY LONGER! It's 'hear hear'!! DRILL THAT INTO YOUR BRAIN.
Ladder Theory knuckle-draggers: Stop feeling sorry for yourselves and whining all the time. Also, you're not a "nice guy". A nice guy doesn't lie about his intentions and pretend he's okay being friends to get close to girls.
Ouch. Not the end of the world, but way off topic >>17. Stick with the subject people!
I think both have it pretty rough. Neither can have it worse or better as it's more of a balance. The sexes are shallow towards each other and their outlooks. It's a vicious circle. One degrades the other, vice versa.
>>19
This.
Also, men are judged as much for physical appearance as women are.
I think that you should take the initiative regardless of what gender you are.
>>13
Me being another wang besides, it's amusing how many GIRLS I've heard who would actually subscribe to your "rampant generalizations", as someone put it.
>>23
Who made the move in your case? You or your bf?
XD
Few nice guys actually believe in using niceness as a strategy, they simply do it for its sake alone. That said, it becomes infuriating to see how genuine decency is apparently worth nothing when most women don't see that as attractive, not enough to show any interest in you on her own at least. No, no, you have to poke fun at her or generally replicate the bad boy to some extent, even if you are confident and have money.
Stop making assumptions before you make an ass out of yourself any further.
>>25 You are right that "nice" guys are not nice on purpose, and it's just a spontaneous behavior. The problem is that being nice alone is not enough. You still have to show masculinity, in order to raise sexual interest from a woman. And to display masculinity does not mean to be a jerk. It involves physically touching the woman, not be afraid of speaking about sex and love, and basically show that you are sexually inclined and not a "neutral" friend.
Once again, this does not mean to be a jerk, or imposing yourself on the lady. I hope the distinction is very clear....
And what else does masculinity contain in its paradigm? I hear about the line between being a nice guy and a jerk is that you still have to be challenging, you still have to poke fun at her, etc, in short you have to be challenging or have enough ballsiness without overstepping it, lest you risk being labeled as boring. Fuck that. FUCK THAT. I don't want a challenge and I don't want my woman to see me as someone challenging or that I'm interesting because I poke fun at her, that that's the main reason she's with me. Furthermore your definition of masculinity seems to imply that shy guys aren't masculine, that a guy being afraid to ask someone out or liking being chased themselves isn't manly and therefore they don't deserve a relationship.
> Furthermore your definition of masculinity seems to imply that shy guys aren't masculine, that a guy being afraid to ask someone out or liking being chased themselves isn't manly
Homosexual men are more masculine than a man that's intimidated by a women (and also more desirable to the opposite sex). It doesn't mean he's not a man or not masculine, just that the man that takes the lead is more masculine than he.
Same reason feminists aren't feminine. Most men don't want to be castrated. We want a submissive women who wears a dress, cooks the steak we've provided, spreads her legs, and make us feel like men.
Yeah, yeah. Fuck me. I'm a terrible human being for playing fast and loose with the horrible truth that we're all cruel animals.
> And what else does masculinity contain in its paradigm?
If it'll keep your feelings from being hurt, we can say masculinity is the presence of male genitalia or a Y chromosome. But then FtM transsexuals are offended, and maybe those of us with a micropenis.
You want to be a winner? Cross the finish line first. That participant ribbon is crap and we all know it.
>>29
It seems somebody here has been subjected to a lobotomy.
You truly astound me.
That is why I shall deconstruct your argument completely, line by line. Of course this is no great thing as you seem to be an idiot.
>Homosexual men are more masculine than a man that's intimidated by a women (and also more desirable to the opposite sex).
I am afraid you still have not defined what 'masculinity' is, and why it is desirable.
>It doesn't mean he's not a man or not masculine, just that the man that takes the lead is more masculine than he.
Again you fail to define what exactly it means to be masculine, etc., etc.
>Same reason feminists aren't feminine.
What is it to be feminine? Why can;t someone who holds feminist views be feminine? I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. In fact, this statement is completely ridiculous.
>Most men don't want to be castrated.
I'm afraid I don't see what this has to do with anything at all.
>We want a submissive women who wears a dress, cooks the steak we've provided, spreads her legs, and make us feel like men.
You seem to have substituted 'we' for 'I'. Why do activities that include wearing a dress, cooking steaks, spreading your legs (?), and making someone feel a certain way define a woman? I am afraid you seem to have completely lost your head in this little passage and you will have to be much more explicit in your meaning. So tell me why these things define a woman, and are desirable?
>Yeah, yeah. Fuck me.
My respect for you dropped even further, or rather it might have were that at all possible, which it wasn't after I read the first few lines of your dribble.
>I'm a terrible human being for playing fast and loose with the horrible truth that we're all cruel animals.
You have not at all validated a thing you have said. Why is what you say 'the truth' (strong words)? Would you care to validate your numerous and ridiculous claims? They must have a basis in reason and logic and you must show your reasoning. Who are you, for instance, to make claims about the general disposition of all men (cruel animals)?
>If it'll keep your feelings from being hurt, we can say masculinity is the presence of male genitalia or a Y chromosome.
So if masculinity is the presence of male genitalia and/or a Y chromosome, why are not all men masculine, and thus desirable, according to your reasoning? Unless that is not what you meant.
>But then FtM transsexuals are offended, and maybe those of us with a micropenis.
Again, irrelevant. Were you frequently visiting the academic help department in the university you attended, or perhaps you didn't qualify?
>You want to be a winner? Cross the finish line first. That participant ribbon is crap and we all know it.
What is this rot? Has eloquence of speech and general refinement been discounted? Is idiocy now the prime characteristic that is desirable?
Also, I am a male, you nitwit.
...Guys, I don't think any girl likes being poked fun at. Or something like that... could you help out with grammaire a bit?
Where would you get that idea from anyway?
To answer the original question -- yes, they should approach guys once in a while, it wouldn't fucking hurt.
Some of us happen to find that attractive in itself; a woman who isn't behaving like all the other sheep.
>>28 Ok, I think talking about sexuality was a bad idea, because the word is too loaded and everyone understands it differently. Basically what I meant is that the failure of the "nice" guy is that he behaves in a gender neutral, assexual way. And this is what prevents him from raising (sexual) interest, as is obvious. There is the confused belief that behaving in a sexually charged way means that you are a slut if you are a woman, and a jerk if you are a man. But it's not the same thing. Behave in a sexually charged way is a behavior that clearly shows interest for the opposite sex (in the case of hets): make eye contacts longer, touching the other person, talk about sex, etc.
If a "nice" guy avoids this behavior (because he is shy, or associates it with being a jerk, or whatever), then he has much less chances of eliciting interest from a woman. But behaving in this way is not being a jerk. Being a jerk is when you abuse the other person, which has nothing to do with what I just described.
>Furthermore your definition of masculinity seems to imply that shy guys aren't masculine, that a guy being afraid to ask someone out or liking being chased themselves isn't manly and therefore they don't deserve a relationship.
Shy guys (or girls) are always disadvantaged in the game of seduction, simply because they refuse to make the first step, and rely non-shy people to do the job. This automatically rules out shy-shy pairings, and puts them in a disadvantage in a competition with a non shy person. It's not that shy people do not deserve a relationship, but it's harder for them to get one, just like it's harder for people with other disadvantages (handicapped, severely sick, with mental problems). It has nothing to do with justice.
I'm not going to respond in any meaningful way to you when the majority of you post is nothing but a string of 'YOU ARE STUPID' and 'PROVE IT'. Try responding again, but without the exceedingly transparent and vainglorious intellectual tone.
>>34 Oh man, I meant masculinity, not sexuality in
> I think talking about masculinity was a bad idea, because the word is too loaded and everyone understands it differently.
>Shy guys (or girls) are always disadvantaged in the game of seduction, simply because they refuse to make the first step, and rely non-shy people to do the job. This automatically rules out shy-shy pairings, and puts them in a disadvantage in a competition with a non shy person. It's not that shy people do not deserve a relationship, but it's harder for them to get one, just like it's harder for people with other disadvantages (handicapped, severely sick, with mental problems). It has nothing to do with justice.
This is OP, I think this is the truth of the situation. If you are shy you are going to be passed by because our society promotes outgoing individuals. The ones that get promoted and noticed are the assholes and the hot chicks.
I really think that both sexes approach each other equally, just that guys do it differently then girls do. Girls will get dressed up to get attention and will send signals. If I was to approach a guy I would most likely flirt and see how he responds. A positive response would lead to either dancing or a conversation and dating could progress from there. A rejection would be either no response or a negative one.
A shy guy will not notice the approach, or if he does he could take it the wrong way and react negatively. Shy people get the short end of the stick, but especially shy guys. Since your average guy is more direct he will likely win over the attention of a shy girl. But a shy guy will totally miss the approach of an average girl.
I'm sure a bunch of you think "well, if girls are approaching us why don't they just be more direct?" Because being a girl who's direct means you're a slut, a whore. Guys will reject girls just because they are direct. A nice girl can seduce and enchant without a word.
>>38
Just what the fuck is a slut? A woman who has a lot of sex or enjoys sex?
Can you tell me why that is something to be ashamed of, or why it is necessarily a bad thing? Goodness gracious.
It's called the double standard.
Now, either stay in your ivory basement or stop being offended by human gender dynamics that have been around for longer than humanity itself and aren't going away anytime soon.
This bothers me to some extent. I can understand why women find masculinity attractive but again it seems like you're saying the guy needs to take initiative, that the woman can't find him attractive on her own while a guy certainly can find a woman attractive on his own, which is certainly a troublesome conclusion if I am to respect her or even care for her.
Even then I can play the initiative when needed but women will rarely if ever play the initiative themselves. How can I ever respect someone so clearly weak?
Have you ever actually encountered a guy repulsed by being forward or anything? Just curious, since this seems more like an appealing stereotype and not anything rooted in reality. I have encountered a few girls send indirect signals at me and quite frankly I've always been annoyed out of my skull, because it is just another game. I hate games. But directly asking me out has always been attractive to me.
>>40
Keep repeating that to make sure they do, or maybe just shut the fuck up and let the rest of us be. "Because it has always been like this" is not very convincing.
>women will rarely if ever play the initiative themselves. How can I ever respect someone so clearly weak?
>I hate games. But directly asking me out has always been attractive to me.
So you like when women take the initiative, but according to what you say previously shouldn't the woman taking the initiative find you weak-willed? Your opinions contradict themselves.
To start a relationship, someone will have to take the initiative. This does not mean that the other is weak-willed. The other may not even be that attracted, at first. In most cultures it is considered the duty of the man to have the initiative. I don't agree with it, and I also like when the woman takes the initiative, but this is a fact that explains why often women are reluctant to take the initiative (but not always, my partner was the one who took the initiative, and she's a woman). Please note that I don't consider taking the initiative to be masculine. I consider masculinity when a man displays sexual interest for a woman, touches her, speaks about sex with her. Taking the initiative does not hurt, but is not all of it. I don't consider women who take the initiative non feminine at all, and when they show sexual interest for the man they also become more attractive. In the end shy people lose, and hot people carry the day, regardless of gender. That's all there is to it.
Think of it this way: The only guys who would reject you based on your clothes, shoes, boob size, or hair are the superficial assholes you wouldn't want anyway.
>Have you ever actually encountered a guy repulsed by being forward or anything?
I can tell a rejection before the approach, generally. I still remember going out with friends one time to a show in San Francisco and I saw this guy that I thought was cute and I remember getting this glare or... well i can't explain it but I could tell he wasn't interested.
I do not get repulsed by being forward because I look for signals. If I get positive feedback I will follow up on it, and if I get negative feedback I will ignore the person and let them go. I don't expect guys to be forward either, and from what I see guys aren't forward. Guys don't just come up to me and ask me to dance. From my experience it's an exchange, I will give signals and look for reactions and that could lead to an interaction. While I don't see guys being forward, I will say that they are great at the followup of asking for a number or seeing about going out.
>>43
No what I mean is that across the global spectrum, a woman will rarely if ever make the move. Sure she might give off some half-assed hints but who in their right mind has the time for such intentional manipulation and deceitfulness? Look back in literature hundreds of years ago and you'll see women playing the same bullshit games. It seems as if women are genetically hardwired not to make their interests known, that it goes against everything in their grain to do so and that's why they don't, and what's more, if they don't, this is perfectly acceptable. For a guy? Oh no, if he doesn't make his interests known, then he's less of a man or he was a whiny douche bag who was just clinging to her, or was manipulative, etc. Never mind that guys have reasons to doubt themselves especially when they're consistently expected to go and get themselves burned without question!
Tell me, had you already been on good terms with your partner, that is to say, you approached her and started a good conversation with her before you started dating, or did she approach you out of the blue and propose the acquaintanceship? A woman will never approach someone who's shy either or who generally keeps to himself. No, she'll be far more attracted by the actions of someone who is as loud and arrogant as possible. Even though these personality types are abominable to begin with, why take a chance and talk to the guy minding his own business in the corner? No confidence clearly is key and anything that passes for confidence, ie arrogance, still is perfectly preferable to someone who keeps to himself right?
>>45
Please. Maybe if you stopped basing everything on "signals" and instead realized that sometimes people can misread each other or are too mature to have their mind wrapped so around signals in the first place, you'd learn something. Believe me when I say that guys are consistently expected to go out and grill their asses. For you to dismiss that as nothing or that they weren't preoccupied with your juvenile tendency towards signals gives good reason as to why guys complain about women.
>Tell me, had you already been on good terms with your partner, that is to say, you approached her and started a good conversation with her before you started dating, or did she approach you out of the blue and propose the acquaintanceship?
I didn't know her before she started hitting on me. Actually later I learned that a common friend had showed her a beach picture of me and she decided she had to meet me. We met at a party and she monopolized me for the whole evening. It was not subtle. By the third meeting she "accidentally" kissed me on the mouth when we where kissing our goodbyes. It was obvious that she was interested in me. I thought about it, decided to give it a try and asked her out. So as you may notice, although she clearly was the active party in this business, it was still up to me to officially "ask" her out, and that's where culture comes in. Although she was heavily and visibly invested into creating a relationship, officially she had made no move and expected me to do it, because that's how things are supposed to happen in our culture (fortunately this is less and less the case).
>A woman will never approach someone who's shy either or who generally keeps to himself. No, she'll be far more attracted by the actions of someone who is as loud and arrogant as possible. Even though these personality types are abominable to begin with, why take a chance and talk to the guy minding his own business in the corner?
Well, its obvious that people who stand out have more chances of being noticed that shy people who are good at passing unnoticed. And although people may stand out for the wrong reasons, this still gives them an advantage over people who are not noticed at all. In my case, she did not know me before we met, so it did not matter if I was shy or extrovert (I'm more on the introvert spectrum).
You know, in real life the last time I was approached by a guy in real life was in eighth grade. Yeah, guys do not come up to me and start hitting on me. It just never happens. Of course, I have hit on guys before, and the results have been mixed.
So really, you're living in a bubble. How do you expect a girl to approach you when you are radiating hostility and hatred? Wherever you are you are muttering to yourself, "girls are shallow, girls only want assholes, girls can't make the first move". No girl wants to approach someone with a toxic attitude like that. If a girl did approach her you would be a complete asshole to her, wouldn't you? Nobody likes you because your a snivling whiny little jerk. You are the asshole, and yet you get no girls. Get over your resentment and get a life.
>>47
This here is an admission from you that women will do everything but make their interest to you known. Even as forward as she was, she didn't make her intentions known. Why the hell is this at all acceptable period, but worse yet, acceptable for women but not guys? If a woman does it, it's expected of her. A guy? Oh no, then he's being an asshole. I don't what anything to do with this system, nor do I like the idea of even touching "people" who think they can pull this double standard bullshit on us.
>>48
Until you can explain why this little dating system of yours based on manipulative signals is justified in anyway and why think its okay for anyone to respect you while you continue this shit, I'll be happy hating you pathetic excuses for "people."
>>49 I have big news to you: human relationships are all about manipulation. That is the thing: you do things to get a certain behavior from others. There's nothing wrong with that unless you are completely egocentric, a liar and lack empathy.
However I'm thinking that you are indeed not suited for the western society dating system, because you abhor failure and rejection. You would probably fare better in a society (north Africa, Middle-East, India) where your parents arrange a marriage for you, or where you buy off a bride. What do you think?
>>50
Uhhh, see the thing with women is that they all seem to lack empathy and they all seem to be liars. They won't ever tell you directly what they want where as with all other forms of interaction you at least have an idea what you're getting. With women and their screwy system? It's basically throwing darts in a dark room. How the hell can I respect anyone who intentionally throws this sheep's wool over my eyes? This isn't about failure and rejection, it's about jumping through flaming hoops then you realize you also have to land on a platform one inch long amongst a pit of spikes just to build a relationship with another human being who thinks their shit doesn't stink enough to warrant this. It's really appropriate when you realize that women are far more unpleasant than men in general as people.
>the thing with women is that they all seem to lack empathy and they all seem to be liars.
Humm, I advise you to stay away from women. They are not suited to you, and you are not suited to them. Don't worry, there are plenty of other things to do in life, besides having to deal with them. Of course, you may try men, as an alternative.
So Mr. Asshole, how should a woman approach you? Do you want her to be the one to ask you out? Or do you want her to slam you against a wall and start raping you? It sounds like what you want is to be the submissive one in the relationship. You want the girl to be the dominate one and to be the one that does the work.
In the real world that lies outside of the mind there is a give and take. Women do approach men, women ask men out, women sometimes pay the bill for the date, but we are not going to do everything. A woman is not going to just start making out with you and give you a blow job, you're going to have to ask first.
Let me tell you, the problem isn't every woman on the face of the earth. The problem you have with girls is caused by YOU.
>>53
Because clearly relationship roles need to be defined by extremes. No, what I want is someone who has the decency to be honest with me. In all honesty sometimes I do get women sending their signals at me. But it's precisely because they're using signals and not actually talking to me that I get angry. It's dishonesty by definition, even when someone does have an interest in you.
>>54
Exactly.
As they say, don't hate the players, hate the game.
I actually told that once to somebody. "Excuse me if I don't respond to your bullshit, but I clearly hate the game. Don't make me hate you."
>>53
Ok, I'm going to see if I can understand where your coming from. What you see is a girl giving you a signal, and what you take from that is she expects you to approach her. She expects you to walk up and initiate the conversation. Am I correct or incorrect here? I'm just going to assume I'm correct and you can tell me if I'm wrong in a reply.
The problem with this is there are girls that don't expect you to walk up to them, they just want to see if you like them or not. If I was interested in a guy I would send a signal, which would actually be asking "I think you're cute, do you think I'm cute?" The response I'm looking for is just a smile and maybe a nod. If I get a smile I will go up to him and start talking to him.
My other option would be to tap him on the shoulder and start talking to him. His response is he could look at me and say, "hi", pause for a moment and then say to a friend of his, "excuse me, I need to use the restroom." Aka a polite rejection. I would feel humiliate if I approached someone like that and had them beat a hasty retreat. At least if I send a signal and he scowls at me the rejection is silent. So please inform me how a signal is being dishonest? I'm just seeing if a guy is interested in me or not.
Oh, and BTW, guys send signals too. Yup. Never had a guy tap me on the shoulder or just come out of nowhere and talk to me. They will do a gesture or a look that says that they are interested in me and look for my reaction. So this signal thing works both ways.
>>56
Whoops, prior thread was meant to address post #54. Sorry, wish they allowed editing on these boards.
>>56
A smile and a nod can mean anything. They don't necessarily have to be connected to a romantic context. People usually tell me I look extremely gloomy so when I see people smile at me or try to start a conversation, I assume they're trying to cheer me up or something, not necessarily anything else. Or even if that weren't the case, maybe they're just being friendly. In any case, it's hardly means romance. And if you do end up misinterpreting things, then you're setting yourself up for a massive humiliation. In the case of someone just talking to you, well you understand the person was just being a deceitful asshole and you're done with it. You're still humiliated but not to the extent that you'd want to quit this dating game both out of disgust and humiliation entirely since signals are so ambiguous.
But even then, when the sole basis of this communication is based on signals, I wonder how anyone can put up with it. It's entirely antithetical to any normal means of communication. I don't like beating around the bush or hinting at things, I want actual direct communication. Some of the signals you've mentioned I've noticed are utilized rarely by people. Instead you have people fooling around and what we're dealing with then isn't real communication, it's a game involving people beating around the bush. For any relationship to be reduced to that is an affront. And even then if you don't notice these signals, no matter how direct they are, or play along, then there's essentially no relationship. If the foundation of a relationship is established upon such shaky grounds, then the whole premise of romance seems farcical.
>>when I see people smile at me or try to start a conversation, I assume they're trying to cheer me up or something, not necessarily anything else. Or even if that weren't the case, maybe they're just being friendly. In any case, it's hardly means romance. And if you do end up misinterpreting things, then you're setting yourself up for a massive humiliation.
THIS. Girls have smiled at me before, but I never respond with anything more than a smile back. I can never tell when a smile is supposed to mean more than just a smile, and if I presume incorrectly, I might have a sexual-harrassment suit on my hands.
I mean, it's simple math. If she only means the smile and I only smile back, then that's it -- there's nothing between us. If she means the smile to mean more than just a smile and I only smile back, I've lost my chance. If she means it only as a smile and I mistakenly interpret it as something more, I put myself at risk for a harrassment charge.
Only if she means the smile as something more AND I correctly interpret it and respond appropriately does the signal lead anywhere.
That's only a 25% chance of success, and we're just talking theory, here. Factor in real-world variables, and the percentage chance of success is even less.
With signals, you've got such slim odds that it's not even worth trying, especially when the risks for screwing up can be much worse than mere humiliation.
>>59
Assuming that by "respond appropriately" you don't mean "pin her down and screw her right there", what's needed is for judges to smack down women who think they need to cry to the courts just because a guy came up and said hi. Sadly, most of the local judges are elected, and they'd lose their job if they weren't tough on "crime" and the women's organizations would have their heads if they didn't bend over backwards for every woman who was offended by a man.
Man, all I can say is that you guys are really resentful. But have you forgotten that dating is difficult for most of us? You guys are bitter about getting unclear signals from girls. I'm sure there are plenty of women out there that see guys as insincere, only looking to get a one night stand. I will say that for the most part I ignore guys because I think most of them are only looking for a fuck. Both sexes can point fingers and blame each other for shortcomings. Women tend to be passive-aggressive, making false rape charges or playing mind games. Men tend to be violent and end up raping and beating their girlfriend.
Stereotyping other people based on gender or age or race or religion or occupation or intelligence or political party affiliation or anything means you are not seeing people as they are: a person. Sure there are psycho bitches that will play games, but there are plenty of sincere people out there. And everyone out there, whether they will admit it or not want the appreciation and approval of others. While you complain about the agenda of females what you really want is to be noticed and appreciated by a girl.
How about instead of trying to find out what a girl means with a signal you just try talking to her? Try being a nice person and just see what happens.
Okay, this probably has not convinced you in the least, you're probably still suspecting that women are all plotting to dash your dreams of romantic love to the dirt. Because when it comes down to it women shouldn't be so cryptic right? They should be approaching men too. However, women do approach men. There are girls that will just start hitting on guys. There are girls that will ask guys out. The problem is that girls that are confident and outgoing tend to want the same from the guys they approach. So yes, girls approach guys, they just aren't approaching you.
>>So yes, girls ... just aren't approaching you.
This thread's truth in a nutshell.
I wonder... why do you expect anyone to approach you? For anyone to lean against a wall and expect the person they're interested in to approach them is delusional. The reality is whether you are a girl or a guy if you want to spark a relationship with anyone you are going to have to take a risk. You're going to have to go out there and start a conversation, or try flirting or ask them to dance. This is not a sex based concept, it applies to everyone.
So if you see a girl showing signals then try to approach her. You might start something. And if you get rejected there are plenty of other girls out there. The same goes for the chicks. If a guy gives me a signal and I don't follow up on it I missed my chance. That's not the other person's fault, that was mine for being a coward.
Stop blaming 50% of the world's population for your problem and face the facts. You don't have the balls to approach girls. It's not their problem, it's YOUR problem. You know, if you weren't such a coward you wouldn't have the problem you're faced with. Girls don't like cowards, so grow a little confidence. Have some faith in yourself, don't wuss out. Get some confidence in yourself and stop giving all the power to the girl. Seriously, girls should be the same way too, they should approach people the are interested as well. But you can't blame girls for your own cowardace.
Courage and confidence to all!!
>>63
Yes, clearly my lack of approaching girls means I lack confidence. It couldn't be that I'm generally not a take charge person in general or that I'm somewhat awkward when it comes to social situations, namely romance, and facing a sexual harassment lawsuit or generally making a fool out of myself. Never mind that this assertion leads away from the original problem which is that women rarely make their intents known to guys as is. Granted there have been girls who have bluntly made their interests known to me but these were few.
Your assertion that women only ask out confident guys is a false dichotomy saying that every guy who doesn't take charge or is outgoing is automatically spineless. It's why women go around complaining about their jerk boyfriend while they fail to notice that some of their friends are equally good relationship material or that there are people who they fail to notice period that are good relationship material. Granted such decency alone should not entail a date and you say that women should approach guys too, but when you say that I should automatically respond to the most obscure of signals, it does reinforce the notion of guys not only approaching first, but also that signals are acceptable in the first place when direct communication comes from someone respectable.
>>Yes, clearly my lack of approaching girls means I lack confidence. It couldn't be that I'm generally not a take charge person in general or that I'm somewhat awkward when it comes to social situations, namely romance, and facing a sexual harassment lawsuit or generally making a fool out of myself.
I think all that >>63 is trying to say is that we shouldn't assume that women will change their enculturated behavior just to suit those of us who happen to be awkward in social situations. Taking umbrage at the situation won't change the basic facts of the matter.
And the sad fact at the heart of it all is that, in our society, men are expected to take risks. We're supposed to be bold, pioneering entrepreneurs. That's what society expects of us; so it should come as little surprise that if we prefer to be conservative and avoid risk, society assumes that something is wrong with us. And what rational woman would want to date a malfunctioning guy?
Righteous indignation is all well and good, but it won't change hearts and minds. This is the hand we're dealt; our options are either to ante up, or fold and go home. Personally, I choose to give up, but I know perfectly well where that will lead me. I've resigned myself to a life lived alone.
But you, of course, are free to do what you want. Just don't expect society to change just to suit your convenience.
>>we shouldn't assume that women will change their enculturated behavior just to suit those of us who happen to be awkward in social situations. Taking umbrage at the situation won't change the basic facts of the matter...if we prefer to be conservative and avoid risk, society assumes that something is wrong with us. And what rational woman would want to date a malfunctioning guy?
Then according to this reasoning, why the hell should I respect women when they've made it clear they don't respect me? OP says that women shouldn't be blamed, that they should be respected, but this shoddy reasoning is essentially an admission that women don't deserve respect, since men refusing to take the initiative don't deserve respect either. Yet she says that men deserve the greater blame here and she sounds like the supposed sexists she denounces. She ignores that outgoing guys ask shy or generally less outgoing girls out all the time. Clearly when she says that men should man up and approach women because they lack confidence otherwise, there couldn't be any alternatives to why refuse to take initiative. Never mind that approaching someone is not necessarily connected to taking initiative.
Furthermore the issue isn't that I'm a coward, it's that women really can be obtuse with their intentions sometimes, yet this is acceptable, even encouraged. The ultimate irony is that her argument promotes deceit and for men to possibly not take the initiative, since men should apparently be free to send vague signals too, to women who do approach, without actually, you know, DOING anything. The position contradicts itself.
This deceitful behavior is unacceptable and tells a lot about someone. It's akin to being in a classroom where the teacher has a childish mentality and is always playing a game of, "Guess the word!" except I thought we were supposed to be more mature than that.
I don't feel like sorting through the details of your argument, but hey, if you want to hate the game and bitch and whine and never get any, go right on ahead.
Don't worry, some of us value our dignity over being a sellout to copulate with some retard's incapable vagina.
What I don't get, though, is why you bother to keep arguing. Yes, society expects men to be assertive, and if you aren't, society says that there is something wrong with you, not with itself. But seriously, any truly worthwhile relationship isn't going to be based on being a sellout to society anyway. Arguing to prove a point isn't going to change the situation.
>>67
Wow, ignorance and blindness are rife with you. First of all you are totally forgetting the context of history. For the past several thousands of years women were expected to be completely submissive to men and take absolutely no initiative. Often times women couldn't even say no to an arranged marriage. Only since the sexual revolution of the 1960s could women really have any say in the realm of dating.
You're looking at a cultural shift here. We have only been able to take an active role in sex and dating in the past forty years. And things are changing, women are being more aggressive and communicating their intentions more, and yet culture changes slowly. Women are still expected to be passive, men are still expected to be the aggressive one that initiates. No it is not fair for either sex, but that's the way it is. It is shifting, but it's not going to change tomorrow.
I fully understand that the sexes should be equal and are not, but I accept that. Societies change slowly. I wish each sex approached one another equally, but that won't be the case for decades. Either you are going to have to accept the world as it is and play the game as it is or you should just label yourself a women hater. Ranting and raving about the circumstances of the world won't do you any good.
>>71
Hey, I never said I was a woman hater. I said I despise this behavior of playing games and that anyone who utilizes it is essentially telling me they don't deserve respect. Likewise, any woman who labels me a pussy or less of a man because I refuse to play the game or because I think it's stupid can go straight to Hell too. Nevertheless, you cannot in any rational manner defend the game without admitting it for the bullshite it is. Granted as I've said before, I have had girls be honest with me about their intentions so the idea of me hating women is farcical. And it seems you got carried away some posts ago, ignoring the original complaint I've issued which is against the behavior itself and the notion of this behavior being acceptable.
You're right, the game is bullshit, and I was never defending it. My point was that saying the game is bullshit doesn't change that fact, and neither does complaining about it. I didn't say play along with it.
>>74
My point wasn't so much about whether or not the game should be played, but whether those who play the game dogmatically should be respected.
Well, outside of rare circumstances, playing the game is really the only way to get anywhere, romantically speaking.
If you aim to curse everyone who plays the game, I hope you realize you're basically declaring unilateral war on the Western world.
>>73
I think you and I might actually be very similar. There are arrogant assholes out there that are after a one night stand and not interested in a relationship of substance, nor are they interested in women with substance. I avoid these types of men, and I see them as not worth any sort of effort approaching.
Perhaps similarly you dislike women that want to feel in control by making men do everything for her like making the man approach her, buy her drinks, cover the bill, etc.
And these two types of people play games with each other and you want to have the game end, and have these women be straightforward instead of manipulative.
But I find that the game is an extension of their lives, an extension of their personality. Everyone with these deficient characteristics will play the game as though the game was the meaning of life.
This is from "don't hate the player, hate the game"
Don't hate, cause my game's much, tighter than yours
My girls, finer than yours
My jewels shine, brighter than yours
You look me dead in my face
then you act like you don't see me
You wanna be me, you hate my motherfuckin' guts
Lickin' nuts - what's the deal?
It's a level playin' field, my games' against yours, hustlin' wars
Roll the dice, risk your motherfuckin' life
Bank rolls and low hoes, anything goes...
I don't know why a player wanna hate T
I didn't choose the game, the game chose me"
The players are people that see all life as a game and do everything to keep image. In a way I pity the player. But there is the fact that dating and sex is a game too.
The way I approach "the game" is I am not looking for the player, but the person that doesn't see life as a game. I look for a potential partner that will be an equal to me, and treat me as an equal and will stick with me. But am I going to go up to him and ask him to marry me? Nope, I have to play the game and see if there is interest, determine if there is chemistry, go out on dates and see if there is a connection. One has to start with flirting and build up to conversation, and to kissing and to a relationship.
The point I am making is you should not hate the game but hate the player. You hate both. But if you are ever going to find a good relationship you need to find a girl that strikes your interest and doesn't want to play the game for the sake of playing the game but plays for keeps. And then you would have to play the game, you will need to ask her out, talk to her, flatter her and see if she is worth your effort. Everyone that wants a partner has to make an effort, and has to play the game. We need a process that determines whether a potential mate is right for us, or if they are not. That is the purpose of the game, and the game is over once you find the right person.
So stop hating the game and avoid the girls that play for the sake of playing. If you are going to hate the game then give up on finding the girl.
Which is an entirely valid point- if you're just playing the game for the sake of playing the game, you're a retard, but like >>76 and >>77 said, it's basically the only way to start a relationship in Western society because we don't really do arranged marriages here. (I'm sure there are still some, but I have yet to hear of any.)
I actually dislike both genders of "players." I am female myself, and I don't want a guy to do every last little thing for me just because I'm a woman. It actually rather bothers me when he does- I can open my own car door, thank you. However, if he insists on paying, I won't stop him if that makes him feel better about himself, because hey, more money I get to keep. Shallow, possibly, but if all he can pay for is the dollar theatre and Wendy's, I'm fine with that too.
>>78 what the heck is Wendy's, for the non-USians around here?
Besides the trivia, I wonder how Mr. Player-Hater suggests we should play the game, in his ideal world? This is a serious question, I hope we can get an interesting answer...
>>what the heck is Wendy's, for the non-USians around here?
It's a fast-food chain, comparable to McDonald's or Burger King.
I may be wrong, but I would think that Mr. Player-Hater, as you call him, would rather that people just directly say "Hey, I like you. Date me plz?" to which they would receive a response of "Hey, I like you too. Sure I'll date you." or "No offense, but I don't really see you as dateable." Or perhaps an even more straightforward yes or no.
>>77
>>78
No when I say play the game dogmatically, I mean that's the only way they'll ever communicate their desires to you initially. It's bullshit and an affront to any kind of real social interaction. If I acted this way around making new friends, it'd be frustrating as hell and they'd probably get tired of me quickly. Why is it okay for romance? The whole thing is nothing more than a set of cheap ploys and half-assed gestures that have ridiculously arbitrary meanings. You want a coffee date? Oh then you don't like her in that way or you don't respect her enough to take her to a real fine establishment. Please. Grow up and get over yourself. The whole thing feels like prolonged entrance fees for a longer span of fucking a prostitute. If you don't respect me enough to be honest with me or that you gauge my worth as a mate based on where I take you, I feel like I'm dealing with a goddamn gold digger. You can find out plenty about people and their compatibility for you without beating around the bush and essentially wasting your time. I always love how you have to wait X number of days before calling someone. It's not like you could just be really into them from the beginning without being clingy, right?
>>81
Something like that. I think the whole notion of dating is absurd and that people should be free to spend romantic time alone without any bullshit pretense of going out, that time spent in a restaurant is somehow more meaningful than simply interacting normally with each other. People need to be more direct and honest with each other.
>>81
Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone was just straight forward about everything? Unfortunately people hide things because they want to protect themselves from the consequences. One person will be furious at someone else but will pretend everything is fine. Someone will not tell something that happened in the past that is relivent today. And one person will not approach another because they are afraid of being rejected.
I must say I have it easy, not because I'm a girl but because I can tell if someone likes me. It's just so obvious to me. Maybe I could give my ability to Mr. Player-Hater so he can tell when a girl likes him and have the confidence to approach her.
I do find it contradictory that he doesn't approach other people, but gets upset about no one approaching him.
>>82
... but, but, I met my boyfriend on a coffee date. And we take each other out to dinner. One date he'll treat and the next date I'll treat.
I must agree that paying the tab for every date is bullshit, but I would expect a girl to pay her share too. That's the way I am with dates. I wonder if you are constantly running into a specific class of females or if I'm really rare. Maybe you're just attracted to the wrong types of girls?
>The way I approach "the game" is I am not looking for the player, but the person that doesn't see life as a game. I look for a potential partner that will be an equal to me, and treat me as an equal and will stick with me. But am I going to go up to him and ask him to marry me? Nope, I have to play the game and see if there is interest, determine if there is chemistry, go out on dates and see if there is a connection. One has to start with flirting and build up to conversation, and to kissing and to a relationship.
Why do you have to "play the game"? This is what I don't get. I like to spend time with people. Talk to them. Get to know them. I'm a very social person (even if I'm kinda shy, seriously). The bad thing is I often "decide" I like someone after some time. But no, "the game" requires us guys to play moves quickly. Why? because otherwise here comes the dreaded friendzone, and before you know it you're the very cool guy everyone likes, and yet without relationship. See what I mean?
Okay, story time. After my last romantic screw-up (waited too long, got too close without "playing" the girl, and she ended up with a player friend of mine), I decided "oh hell no never again". I think this is where the "I have to" entered on stage for me. For some time, I started almost every encounter with scheming - subtle inner workings of my strategy-inclined mind - and considered almost every new girl I met as a potential partner. Then two things happened. First, I realized that it was a different way to adopt a comportment I've been forbidding myself to have: manipulation. Although it was in the frame of "playing the game", I was doing not much more than playing with attitudes, words and so much more with the only goal of manipulating people.
And then, I realized that it didn't work well for me. Because as much as I liked the idea of having people in my pocket, I knew that they didn't like me as I, deep down, would have liked them. When you "cheat" a feeling, it doesn't bear much value, does it?
So now, I just do the minimum, and don't care much about the rest. The sad thing is that a lot of people and, worse, the very concept of a relationship have lost a lot of value in my eyes in the process.
Yeah, I think I'd like a world where you can just hang around people, and when you'd feel you like them a lot you could just tell them knowing it could work. But as you said... In our time and place, it doesn't work like this.
Oh well, I might be doomed to friendzone for life. At least I feel I'm honest with myself. If it's the price to pay, so be it. Don't throw me stones if you find me apathetic and a bit cynical about relationships now. And if, as it happened to me before, a female friend asks me "I don't get it, why doesn't a guy like you have a girlfriend?", now I know what to answer: "Because I despise the game". This probably sounds arrogant, but it's not my problem.
>>83
...No I get upset at the manipulative "signals" used by women. If you want me, fucking say it and let it out. Don't dick around with bullshit that nobody in their right mind would care to sift through. If I see a woman giving me "signals", I get the idea that I'm going to be manipulated or have to deal with bullshite in general and my interest is lessened. Seriously, I can understand having reluctance to make your interest known but the game takes it to a whole new level of idiocy. Of course even if I did want women to approach me, there's nothing contradictory with it, not when the idiocy of the game and stupid signals are taken into account. Or in an ideal world without any bullshit, men and women would be free to be assertive with each other, and therefore my complaints that women always need to have the man ask them out directly would be nullified. If I'm shy, in an ideal world it's okay because I know a woman will take interest in me anyway and make her interest known. Not today though. That is what bothers me.
Then again, your rationale for defending the game is unsatisfactory since ultimately the game culminates with people revealing their feelings for each other. Rejection is a non-issue and doesn't justify why people play the game. Why waste time instead of solving the problem quickly? Is it to try and gauge interest, to see how determined a guy is to love you? Really if that's all it is, grow the fuck up. You don't do this shit when it comes to making new friends. There's no excuse for manipulation period.
>>84
I think you need to get rid of the concept of dates entirely and just talk to people in a normal social interaction. I would never go out on a date with a woman, not because I think the game is stupid anyway, but because I don't have a car as is. Guess that's not enough for women to consider me as a partner, right?
Mr. Player-Hater, there are several problems in your stance, which boil down to the fact that language is an imperfect way of communicating, and basing your expectations exclusively on spoken language will bring you little:
>>87
Not the one you call Player-Hater, I'm >>85.
Language may not be a perfect way of communicating, it's still the best (and probably only) way to formulate abstract thoughts.
>"hi Mr. Player-Hater, i don't know if you're interesting at all for me, but how about chatting a bit? I'm bored anyways!"
I really don't see what kind of problem you have with that behaviour. Do you only talk to people you want to bone?
>Why do you think some people resist so much saying "I love you" while at the same time going out together?
Because they're hypocrites? This isn't a problem in itself, actually.
>few people can stomach the level of sincerity you are requiring
You can be straightforward and honest without being rude, you know.
>it's still the best (and probably only) way to formulate abstract thoughts.
Sadly for you, that's theory. In practice people use acts, gestures, emotions to convey their unconscious abstract thoughts. Unconscious thoughts by definition can't be conveyed through language, because language is mostly under voluntary control. That's just how humanity works, for complaints address yourself to the Maker, please.
>Do you only talk to people you want to bone?
Mr. Player-Hater is speaking about people who might end up going out with him, not about friendzone interactions.
Besides, people often don't say "I love you" because they are NOT hypocrites. Because they don't know or understand their feelings, they don't want to say something they are not certain about.
>You can be straightforward and honest without being rude, you know.
You completely missed the point, if by rudeness you mean slang. But of course there is a level of honesty that is extremely aggressive and acid. Just try saying EVERYTHING that comes to your mind to people, and you will quickly lose all your friends. No one is so perfectly frank, but some manage to get quite close to that.
>Sadly for you, that's theory. In practice people use acts, gestures, emotions to convey their unconscious abstract thoughts. Unconscious thoughts by definition can't be conveyed through language, because language is mostly under voluntary control.
I was talking about conscious thoughts. Of course unconscious thoughts will translate into attitude, gesture and also language - intonation, use of that word and not this one, etc. Then again, I'm talking about my case here, attraction is mostly created through intellectual connection, and thus, conscious development of feelings.
>Mr. Player-Hater is speaking about people who might end up going out with him, not about friendzone interactions.
I get that. Again, in my case, I usually don't know if I'm interested in people (besides basic "she's cute" and other "omg look at this rack", that don't matter that much for me) before I talk to them. Hence, if I want to adopt that method, I'm forced to approach everyone like they're possible mates. This is obviously not a healthy way to interact with people.
>Besides, people often don't say "I love you" because they are NOT hypocrites. Because they don't know or understand their feelings, they don't want to say something they are not certain about.
Yeah, I can agree to that. I was saying it's not really a problem because, in the hypothetical world we're talking about, people would have to be able to handle things such as "I really like you, and I can see myself in a relationship with you for now, but you're obviously not 'the one' and I might leave you if I find better". Then you choose wether or not this suits you. I know some people don't mind.
>You completely missed the point, if by rudeness you mean slang.
I don't mean slang, I mean lack of tact and compassion. Empathy, if you prefer. "You have a passable face, but god what an horrible hair cut and detached ears! Also, please stop with those terrible jokes and donkey laughter" might be what you're really thinking, but "you're not my type" and variants are as efficient without being harsh. It's not because you are honest that you have to be cruel. Then if the person insist, you can start by behaviour (things they're partly responsible for), ie "I don't like your sense of humor", and if they still insist and you find them really horrible, you can still say "no, your appearence really isn't my thing". Then if they continue to bother you, you can kick them in the guts, of course.
For the book thing, why not just try to change the subject of conversation? Why not just "oh, this isn't really my thing" (yes, again). See what I mean? Of course, this isn't the blunt truth, but you still get the message across in a semi-direct way, and achieve your goal - turn down the person or change the conversation. Now you probably think that I am the hypocrite, advocating the truth then saying you should somewhat disguise it. But when you take medicine to recover from some disease, it's not because it's aimed at curing you that we can't add sugar and flavor to it so you can down it easier, heh?
>attraction is mostly created through intellectual connection, and thus, conscious development of feelings.
Staggering,... I hate myself for sounding so snotty, but let's just say that you have a LOT to learn about human relationships. Your naive beliefs are on par with those of Prince Charming. Look, either you learn from experience, or else I suggest you read some books on psychology. I don't think you'll believe me when I tell you that most of seduction goes through unconscious channels (body language, etc). Actually it would be cool if attraction was mostly decided on intellectual grounds. The world would be a much simpler place ^_^
>I usually don't know if I'm interested in people [...] before I talk to them
Hey, then we agree, right?
>in the hypothetical world we're talking about, people would have to be able to handle things such as "I really like you, and I can see myself in a relationship with you for now, but you're obviously not 'the one' and I might leave you if I find better". Then you choose wether or not this suits you. I know some people don't mind.
Experience tells me that people who don't mind are vanishingly rare. They do exist though, since I'm one of them, and I am with an exceptionally frank woman. On the other hand, she would not be able to stand someone with her own level of frankness. How about that? ^_^
>I don't mean slang, I mean lack of tact and compassion. Empathy, if you prefer.
Well, that's where things start to get complicated: because of empathy, tact or compassion, people will soften their thoughts and opinions. What is the limit? I think you may have a lower threshold of tolerance than other people, and that's what makes you uneasy, but no one survives without a bit of social greasing (tact, if you prefer).
Besides, the terrible haircut and detached comments where from the hypothetical girl who is interested in the guy. She finds lots of defects in him, but somehow is still interested. Basically that's why people have such an easy time teasing and hurting a former lover as soon as their feelings are broken. They noticed the blemishes all the time, they were just pushing them below conscious level. As soon as the loving feelings go away, all those bad parts come up to their attention with a vengeance.
>>87
Because everything needs to be defined by extremes right? Jesus Christ.
>>92 Mr. Player-Hater, you are the one who seems to have some extreme conceptions. I'm merely trying to convey their absurdity by spelling them out. But you are welcome to inform me on your ideal world situation.
>Staggering,... I hate myself for sounding so snotty, but let's just say that you have a LOT to learn about human relationships. [...]
Don't think I'm stupid and talking out of nowhere... I have experience, and I read quite a lot of psychology. If you read my sentence well, you skipped an important part: I precised "I'm talking about my case here". And yeah, that might be Prince Charming-ish or whatever cheezy comparison you think suits me best. Of course, attitude and body language etc. play an important part for me too. The thing is, it's not because somebody will seduce me that way that I'll develop feelings. Actually, this could be my "problem" (if it is indeed one in regard to norm). Oh, and I'm very conscious that I'm not "like everybody else" on that level, for the best or the worst...
>Actually it would be cool if attraction was mostly decided on intellectual grounds. The world would be a much simpler place ^_^
Well, that's exactly my point. And yes I know that trying to hold up to it is doomed to failure.
>>I usually don't know if I'm interested in people [...] before I talk to them
>Hey, then we agree, right?
Agree on what?
>Experience tells me that people who don't mind are vanishingly rare. They do exist though, since I'm one of them, [...]
Yeah, I'm one of them too, even if I tend to attach myself a bit too much and would be hurt in the process, it's something I can honestly accept, suffering included.
>Well, that's where things start to get complicated: because of empathy, tact or compassion, people will soften their thoughts and opinions. What is the limit?
Hehe, I knew someone would give me that. Yes, it's a slippery slope. I'm not saying you have to soften your thoughts or opinions through empathy - rather, you should find the right way to formulate it without being harsh. I agree that flaws in a companion are often disregarded while positive points are in majority, and then come back strongly when said positive points fade away, though.
>>93
Uhhh, if the only options you see are either giving out random manipulative signals or being the most blunt douche bag imaginable, you are only seeing in extremes. It's not like people can simply say they make their attraction for each other clear. Like simply say, "I like you, wanna hang out?" If not say, "No thanks," or if so say, "Sure!" Things like saying that you might leave somebody if you find better is not only rude, it leads to the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy and if that's the case, why bother period? Nevertheless, the game is essentially akin to bluntly being the greatest douche bag possible since it's all open manipulation and ploys.
Mr. Player-Hater, I am wondering something. I am a somewhat picky person when it comes to men I like. The guy that pumps iron too much, the guy that looks to be too self assured (aka cocky), as well as a guy that can't carry on a conversation I will end up ignoring. I don't tell them they're obsessed with their looks, or they need to stop being an asshole and grow a personality or need to read a book. I just part ways and let them lead their life as they please.
It seems that you are on a crusade against a type of behavior you do not like. Why are you making such a big deal about it? Why not just ignore the girls who act in a way you don't like?