Dating & Settling

[Computerpro3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plainsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif We all have our own stupid criteria that would close our eyes something potentially wonderful. We meaning all of us. Not you, I'm not calling your religion stupid, so don't even try. But understand that by putting those blinders on (blinders are those things on a horse's bridle, mostly used while in harness, pulling something behind them, or in horse racing, meant to keep away the horse-eating monsters that appear to either side of the horse), you cut down drastically on the potential to have someone that is your other half. Like I said in my other post, there's nothing wrong with that, but just know that's your choice.

Would you marry an axe murderer? Why not, just because you disagree with his life viewpoint? You're limiting your options!

 

[plainsong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Computerpro3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Would you marry an axe murderer? Why not, just because you disagree with his life viewpoint? You're limiting your options!

No, but maybe you should.

 

[tylernol]

Hehe, I'm posting at work too!

Anyways, I didn't even really touch upon the whole "settling" thing. If one ardently goes out and meets thousands upon thousands of people in 50 years of age (I am capping the "settling limit" to that age, it sounds reasonable to me), then it's definitely your rules that are limiting you.

You can meet interesting people anywhere. If you want somebody who takes care of their body.. why not join a gym? A lot of people in the gym like to take care of their body. Then you can also appreciate the work it takes to do so. IMO that's what chemistry is.

I feel when I talk to most people about relationships, they don't understand common sense things. It's called "learned helplessness."

I have a saying.. "What you resist, persists. What you accept, you gain power to utilize." If you accept the fact that (maybe) a lot of girls are snotty and shallow, then you can use that to your advantage, cator speach towards that type of person, and then be introduced to one of their gorgeous friends who is, in fact, a "cool chick." Heck, shoot from the hip and go for 1/10 girls you meet will be this magical "cool chick" and then if she's not a "perfect" match, then keep going. Out of 100 girls you meet and talk to and get to know in a 5 yr period, you'll meet 10 that you both have chemistry. 100 girls in 5 yrs? Come on now, it makes me think those of you are just complaining about a lack of women in your life and it's projecting as frustration on a headphone forum toward a couple of opinionated articles.

By all means, be picky. But don't complain when you're picking out of 2 girls a year or something like that.

Tyler

P.S. There could easily be a "relationship" sub-forum all on it's own. It's a huge topic, not one to cover in a little post. And again, ask about my posts if you have questions or don't agree, or whatnot. I was at work and spaced the post out over an hour and a half. It could easily have became covoluted in that time.

 

[Illenom]

Well, given that generalizations always have exceptions (including the generalization that generalizations always have exceptions), I have found the following two things to be true:

Guys are looking for a girl, girls are looking for the guy.

In one way or another, guys just want someone they can hold on to.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illenom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, given that generalizations always have exceptions (including the generalization that generalizations always have exceptions), I have found the following two things to be true: Guys are looking for a girl, girls are looking for the guy. In one way or another, guys just want someone they can hold on to.

I know this is rude to ask, but, how old are you?

Because I'm sure it looks that way when you're about 22.

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Women were not the ones who created this double standard; it's existed since long before they had any power or rights whatsoever.

Women did not. Men did not either. It's a direct consequence of biology. Spermatozoa are cheap and plentiful, ova aren't. There is never doubt on who the mother of a child is, the father is less sure, and needs other signals to accept contributing to rearing the child.

Of course, with the invention of the pill and modern biology, all the assumptions that underpin behavior were invalidated, but evolutionary sociology doesn't change in a heartbeat, which the 40+ years since the invention of the pill is.

 

[tylernol]

*deleted* -- I was a little too intoxicated to be posting.

 

[dazzer1975]

read some dawkins

 

[oicdn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by usc goose /img/forum/go_quote.gif yeah, sort of. but that's part of playing the game. hmm.... bitter much?

Nah...not bitter, just pointing out facts...and BLUNTLY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif .....what? Talk about blaming the victim. Women were not the ones who created this double standard; it's existed since long before they had any power or rights whatsoever.

I'm not talking about womens rights or any of that sort of thing...you're looking into it MUCH deeper than it really is. Things don't just "exist", they exist for a reason. Why do you think men are given props for hittin and quittin? Because it's not exactly the easiest thing to do....well, with "hot chicks" atleast. It's not easy because (most) women don't want to be the physical object of somebody, where alot of guys, could care less if they themselves are or not. So yes, women did it to themselves. It's the nature of the beast...I accept it (cause I sure as hell can't change how it works), I'm just pointing out a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly. oicdn, you fit the "nice guy" stereotype perfectly - bitter because of what you perceive as an injustice in that you consider yourself superior to other people and are pissed that women don't universally bend over for you because of it.

I fit the nice guy stereotype because I'm stubborn. I don't chase anybody...if you want to have me chase after you, you'll soon find after a little sprint, you'll be running all on your own. I don't deal with nonsense, or childish games...yeah they're fun, for all of about 2 weeks. I'll tell you why. Cause I chased a girl once...only to find it was all for nothing. No sense in doing it ever again.

I also REFUSE to be anything but a gentleman to a woman, and will not be an *******. I will be the "nice guy"....I won't expect anything, but I at least expect the attitude to be reciprocal. That's easy enough, isn't it? Too bad it's not the case. In the long run...hopefully it works out....

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oicdn /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not talking about womens rights or any of that sort of thing...you're looking into it MUCH deeper than it really is. Things don't just "exist", they exist for a reason. Why do you think men are given props for hittin and quittin? Because it's not exactly the easiest thing to do....well, with "hot chicks" atleast. It's not easy because (most) women don't want to be the physical object of somebody, where alot of guys, could care less if they themselves are or not. So yes, women did it to themselves. It's the nature of the beast...I accept it (cause I sure as hell can't change how it works), I'm just pointing out a fact.

So.....because women don't want to be thought of as objects, it's their fault that they are? I seriously do not understand your logic. Quote:

I fit the nice guy stereotype because I'm stubborn. I don't chase anybody...if you want to have me chase after you, you'll soon find after a little sprint, you'll be running all on your own.

In other words, you don't want to put forth any effort and expect to get stuff in return. A real quality act. Quote:

Cause I chased a girl once...only to find it was all for nothing. No sense in doing it ever again.

Ah, the classic overgeneralization. Quote:

I won't expect anything, but I at least expect the attitude to be reciprocal. That's easy enough, isn't it? Too bad it's not the case. In the long run...hopefully it works out....

Actually, that isn't easy enough. Saying 'I think X of other people, so they should think X of me' is exactly what I was talking about earlier. Unrealistic and unfair expectations.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif So.....because women don't want to be thought of as objects, it's their fault that they are?

i think what he's trying to say is that the 'dating system' as defined by our societal norms is, from at least the public face of the female position, configured to discourage and impede the 'hit it and quit it' seduction method.

if the game must be one of persuit, and women appear to have demanded that it be so, the objective of the persued is to avoid men of lesser quality.

but some men play not to win, but to see women defeated.

it's an ugly game, but both parties agreed to play it. it's irrational to configure an adversarial system and expect the outcome to be win-win.

Quote:

In other words, you don't want to put forth any effort and expect to get stuff in return. A real quality act.

So you are implying that persuit by the male is the only acceptable model for this system. See above.

honestly what's the point? it's like the way my sister thinks a guy isn't into her if he doesn't shower her with adoration. she's pushed away plenty of decent guys purely because she didn't think they were trying hard enough.

 

[Tyson]

Axiom 1: Most people are dumb
Axiom 2: Most people are not physically attractive

Conclusion: People that are both smart and attractive are incredibly rare, so you better start learning where your compromises are pretty quickly. Oh yeah, and get to the gym and get in shape. Some thin people are attractive, but no fat people are. If you want someone to be attracted to you, do your best to make yourself attractive. And read some books, so you can keep up a decent conversation and have something besides TV to talk about.

Sorry for the rant, but so many people are lazy and don't want to work at making themselves attractive and interesting, then b*tch about not being able to find a mate. If you want to see the problem, look in the mirror. Educate yourself. Eat well. Dress well. Groom yourself. Work out. These actions by themselves they are not 'sufficient' to find love, but they are necessary. And don't tell me any crap about 'inner beauty'. If you wanted inner beauty you'd be dating your fat friends. But you aren't, you're holding out for that hottie with the Ph.D. And that's OK, just be honest about it and make sure you've done the work on yourself to make yourself a prize, not some schmuck that someone is going to settle for.

 

[Tyson]

And to follow up on that, most of the hot, smart, non-psycho women have been snapped up by smart, attractive men at a pretty young age. My rule of thumb is that if she's not married by the time she's 30, she's either unattractive, dumb, or psychotic. Best to avoid them entirely and wait for the good women that married badly to get a divorce.

 

[blessingx]

Here's a game -

Which page did this tread stop being useful?
Please vote.

 

[tylernol]

Page 1


Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif Axiom 1: Most people are dumb Axiom 2: Most people are not physically attractive Conclusion: People that are both smart and attractive are incredibly rare, so you better start learning where your compromises are pretty quickly. Oh yeah, and get to the gym and get in shape. Some thin people are attractive, but no fat people are. If you want someone to be attracted to you, do your best to make yourself attractive. And read some books, so you can keep up a decent conversation and have something besides TV to talk about. Sorry for the rant, but so many people are lazy and don't want to work at making themselves attractive and interesting, then b*tch about not being able to find a mate. If you want to see the problem, look in the mirror. Educate yourself. Eat well. Dress well. Groom yourself. Work out. These actions by themselves they are not 'sufficient' to find love, but they are necessary. And don't tell me any crap about 'inner beauty'. If you wanted inner beauty you'd be dating your fat friends. But you aren't, you're holding out for that hottie with the Ph.D. And that's OK, just be honest about it and make sure you've done the work on yourself to make yourself a prize, not some schmuck that someone is going to settle for.

Tyson, I almost wholeheartedly disagree with your post about beauty. Girl's aren't really too into a guy's physical beauty. (Oh boy do we love the generalizations..) They are more into how he acts, treats other people, treats her, what he can accomplish--his success rate, in other words--if he's good in bed (treats her well. think fantasies and such), and if he's ... dun dun dun, CONFIDENT.

Sure if you look like the guy in your avatar you're going to have a hell of a time getting an attractive girl. That's b/c you're CREEPY, not b/c you're ugly. I look like a child rapist when I haven't shaved for about a week, yet I can still be friendly with people and pull it off. It's not about your looks so much, I PROMISE.

As far as the woman-women victim to their own game thing, it goes with the saying "what you resist, persists. What you accept, you gain power to utilize"... kind of a classic saying, in a lot of respects.

Tyler