Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: What is an acceptable amount of time to wait for sex?
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 107 (view)
What is an acceptable amount of time to wait for sex?
Posted: 2/22/2013 8:00:20 PM
Maybe a more productive question would be to ask for men's opinions on how long THEY personally would wait before they give up on the relationship. I don't believe there's any God-given answer to how long you "should" wait. I don't see anything wrong with doing it within 1 minute or 1 year, as long as both people are okay with it. It's just that there are certain risks associated with it, or you may not like what it does to the relationship dynamics, or if you wait too long, maybe you're missing out on sex for no good reason, etc. Just trade-offs.

Personally, it's hard to put an absolute limit on it, but probably after a year, if there was no sex, I would give up on it. Maybe after 3-4 months, though, it would start to be an issue. In the abstract, if there was some contrived scenario where I was guaranteed to get the girl of my dreams for the rest of my life if I were only willing to date her for 2 years without sex, then you could count me in, but in real life, as opposed to hypothetical scenarios, you might start to wonder if there is something fishy going on if she wants to wait TOO long, like she isn't very sexual, etc.

So, it's up to the guys you date what THEY think is reasonable. But it's up to you who those guys are, only within the limits of what guys you can find.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 51 (view)
Why contact me then not write back?
Posted: 2/3/2013 11:27:09 AM
I disagree with the idea of judging someone by one message. I'm a very skeptical person, so I try never to draw conclusions that are not warranted by the evidence. As far as someone saying, "hey, how are you?" and leaving it at that, they are just starting at the beginning. Doesn't mean they are lazy or not smart or anything. They are just trying to START a conversation. If they have a good profile, why not?

One time a girl contacted me and said, "Hey, hot stuff."

I think that was it. Of course, I wasn't really impressed, but there was no reason not to give it a try and see where it went. Wasn't a bad girl at all. Very talkative. Maybe too talkative. She lived about half an hour away, so we talked on the phone a few weeks, and eventually met up. I ended up turning her down, due to a turn-off that I won't mention here, but it was probably the most difficult time I ever had turning someone down.

Of course, if you get 20 messages a day, somebody has to be weeded out, so I suppose the one-liners are a good candidate for that.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 30 (view)
Am I trying too hard?
Posted: 2/1/2013 10:28:29 PM

The problem is that I don't think the girls here are serious. If they say the want a good guy, I'm a good guy. It makes me feel that the majority of them here are full of shit.

I wouldn't conclude that they are full of it, per se, although I can relate to finding their behavior a bit perplexing. Just treat their minds like an impenetrable black box.

Here's the thing. They can't conclude that you are a good guy. Until proven otherwise, you are just like any other guy. Doesn't matter one way or another if you say you are or not. Most bad guys probably claim that they are good guys, so it doesn't really do any good to say you are. Of course, I would be the last person to jump onto the ridiculous POF forums bandwagon and say people who call themselves "nice guys" are automatically bad. The truth of the matter is that it is not possible to conclude anything one way or another from the fact that someone calls themselves a nice guy or a good guy.

I know the feeling of thinking about how you'd treat your girlfriend so well, your last relationship proves it, blah blah blah. But you have to put it into perspective and realize that they don't know you. They have no way of knowing that. If they believed you, they would have to believe any guy who says he's good. Not that I'm accusing you of going around telling them that. But, you just have to realize that all guys look the same to them at first. You feel like they should be psychic or something and realize that you're a good guy because you are biased by being yourself, but they don't have good guy radar. They can't tell. So, you have to get rid of any bias towards yourself.

Secondly, maybe they want MORE than a good guy. Maybe they want a good guy who is attractive, funny, and any number of other things.

Maybe what they are doing is working for them and they have no reason to change it. Or, if they want a good guy and can't find one, maybe they just don't know how to find one. Maybe they pass by good guys who were right in front of them. Rather than than blaming them for not being serious, you might realize that maybe they don't really know how to find what they are looking for and are unfortunately making the wrong decisions at times. And yeah, maybe some of them are not serious, maybe some are really judgmental about silly things. Like the poster above who said playing video games makes you look like a child. That's their problem if they think that way. People are judgmental about the most trivial things. That's the way it is. Their peevish reasons for rejecting you may have no substance. Or maybe they do have substance. You don't want someone who doesn't like you to just go through the motions.

The dating world is not ideal, so you just have to accept that and deal with it the best you can.

The general principle is just to be skeptical and not leap to any conclusions about people's motives because there is no way for you to know what they are thinking, whether it's reasonable or not. I think probably a lot of women probably have totally shallow reasons for not liking me, a lot of them might be making a mistake in rejecting me, but probably a lot of them also have totally legitimate reasons and not be making a mistake. I have no way of telling who is in which of those categories. There's just no way to know.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 12 (view)
Wouldn't it be better to just not have beliefs?
Posted: 2/1/2013 9:19:36 PM
It's not about refusing to believe stuff. It is about refusing to believe stuff UNLESS there is good evidence for it. Or, in some cases, maybe it doesn't matter to you that much if your beliefs are true. Like, if you tell me your name is Joe, I'll take your word for it because it wouldn't matter that much if I was wrong. On the other hand, if I am going to base my life on something, such as a religion, if I am going to put all that effort into following it, there ought to be evidence for it.

It's like if I came up to you and tried to convince people that I am God. Only a few people out there would take me seriously. They would all recognize that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. If you are going to be completely unbiased, if a religion claims that so-and-so is God, if you give that religion a free pass, then consistency requires that you give me a free pass, too, if I say I am God. So, really, just about everyone, whether they admit it or not, understands this. Now, of course, Christians can point to lots of differences between their religion and me saying I am God. I won't argue about that here. Of course, it is much more understandable that they, as part of a social structure with a long and rich history, believe what they believe. than people believing some random guy claiming to be God. The point is, you can't just believe any old thing for no good reason.

So, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with atheists, you have to acknowledge that their idea of demanding at least SOME sort of criteria for accepting it as true is a valid one. If you disagree, then you are required to believe the next random guy on the street who walks up to you and tells you he is God.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 41 (view)
Marriage, do you believe in it, why/not?
Posted: 2/1/2013 8:54:29 PM
I don't think marriage is a big deal, one way or another. It's a rather simple thing, and these days, you can always get a divorce if you have to. It seems misplaced to worry about marriage as creating any significant problems.

I don't like the idea of a fancy wedding ceremony, but there is some value to the ceremony itself. I'm not very big on tradition, but I also don't believe in throwing out old traditions just because they are old traditions. There's just something romantic to me about getting married. I don't think of it as something that's imposed on me. More like something I get to do. You don't have to get married if you don't want to.

If you really love and trust your partner then why do you need the government/church/3rd part etc to sign a contract and validate your relationship? It seems to me that if you REALLY love and trust your partner then a 3rd party isn't necessary.

It's not as if anyone NEEDS it. That's kind of a double-edged sword. If you really love and trust each other, then it doesn't matter if you DO get married or if you don't. This just seems to be over-thinking it to me. The contract part of it might not really be the point. It's not a matter of validating anything, at least to me. More like celebrating it.

Another problem I see here is talking about failed marriages as if non-marital relationships are immune to failure. There's just a little extra hassle of getting divorced involved.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 14 (view)
How important is a good sense of humor
Posted: 2/1/2013 6:06:00 PM
Kind of an annoying issue. I am kind of intimidated by the amount of women who say they have to date funny guys. The reason this is intimidating to me is that I have a sneaky suspicion that they want to be impressed with humor right off the bat, on the first date, whereas, for me, it doesn't really make sense to laugh with someone you just met. I mean, I'm not going to consciously avoid trying to be funny with people I don't know that well, but I think of it more as something you do with close friends. You can tell me I need to come out of my shell and open up more, but the problem with that is, then, I feel bad about it, too, because it would feel like I am trying to put on a comedy act, instead of go on a date. It would seem too artificial and forced. If I wanted to, I have little skits that I have come up with that would probably make some girls laugh, but it would just feel so stupid to come out with that stuff out of the blue in the first few dates. Plus, if I don't know what their sense of humor is like, maybe they won't even think it's funny.

Ugh. Any way you slice it, it just doesn't feel right to me to consciously try to be funny just to impress them. So, my reaction to the whole thing, is just "f*** it." If I'm wrong and my dating potential is compromised as a result, then so be it. The only thing I can do is just try to be relaxed enough and connect with them enough to where MAYBE if I am VERY lucky, I will just naturally happen to make them laugh at some point.

So, either I meet women who just bring it out of me, don't care about it as much, or they are one of the very few who would give it more time to get to know you before concluding that you weren't funny. If none of those happens, well, better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you're not, as Kurt Cobain once said.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 36 (view)
Worst dating advice in the world
Posted: 2/1/2013 5:48:04 PM

"You need to read this book."

Obviously, without knowing the contents of the book in question, it is silly to call this bad advice. That being said, I am very suspicious of dating books.

"Go down to the mall. Ask every woman you see if you can fondle her boobs. 99% will say no. You are looking for that 1%."

Again, obviously no one ever actually gave that dating advice. That wouldn't be dating advice. That would be boob-touching advice. Now, if we erase the first sentence, which is a straw man, we have a GOOD piece of advice, which probably should just be understood to mean that persistence in the face of difficulties is important in dating. It could easily be interpreted to mean other things that are not actually stated, such as that you should just go solely for numbers, that you should ONLY rely on approaching random women, etc. I think the point is only to say don't be affected by failures, even if your failure rate is 99%, if you try enough times, you'll succeed. And just increasing the number of attempts is a completely airtight piece of advice because nothing is implied about the quality of the attempts. It's just saying, all else being equal, if you take more shots, you score more points. And that's just obvious. The only cost to increasing the number of attempts is the energy, time, and courage necessary to do it.

"You need to have something to offer before you start dating. Get an education, get a career, get settled and set in life, then start looking in earnest."

The only problem here is the word "need" and possibly if it's interpreted as if that's going to solve all your dating problems magically. Otherwise, yes, getting all that stuff will increase your odds to some degree.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 16 (view)
How often do you message someone living long distance from you?
Posted: 1/28/2013 10:20:07 PM
I don't normally do it, but I have tried a couple times recently because I am about to move in several months, so unless I find someone very soon, it's kind of a similar situation even if I look for someone nearby. Also, I am a bit of an oddball who very few women want to date, yet my standards are very high, so sometimes I wonder if it may be the only way to get what I really want. There are gorgeous, intelligent women who would date me out there somewhere. Are they where I live? Hard to say. Usually, on POF, if I go local, I'm lucky if there are one or two promising candidates near me out of hundreds. And this is coming from a guy who is amazingly bad with women. The last two times I tried contacting far away women, they were both interested, so I like those odds. They have to have a very impressive profile for me to contact them under those circumstances. The first one lost interest after we talked on Skype. She was beautiful, though. Second one, I started talking to about a week ago, and I am still talking to her. I unexpectedly have a date with a local girl coming up, though, so I'm not sure if I'll stick with it. It really helps widen the pool, though. When I stick with the locals, I'm always picking the girls with the blurry pictures and taking my chances on how they will look when I see them and getting rejected over and over and over by the ones I like. So, in some ways, things get considerably better when I am able to go through pages and pages of profiles to pick the girls that I am really attracted to AND are likely to have a good connection with me. I'm not sure if it's really the way to go, but just having that many more options is a huge advantage if you're in a situation like mine.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 14 (view)
Getting off the ground
Posted: 1/22/2013 9:07:11 AM
I usually ask them out right away after exchanging a few e-mails. Maybe the 4th or 5th message or just a few days. If I'm not mistaken, I get better results now than when I used to wait longer and try to do instant messaging, then move to phone, then ask if they want to meet. Part of the philosophy here was that you should save stuff to talk about in person, so that was really my idea--just to make the dates go better, since there's more to talk about in person. But it had the side effect of increasing my success rate at getting dates.

Edit: it could be better pictures that increased the success rate, so I'm not sure now, if that was it. But it seems to work.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 9 (view)
Last man standing...
Posted: 1/21/2013 4:36:36 PM
I kind of never even noticed it when hanging out with them. Just didn't think about it. I just think of the wives and girlfriends as extra friends. There have been times when I felt left out and behind, but not when it comes to hanging out. I guess maybe when I find out that someone is getting married or having a baby or suddenly I realize that several of my friends did all that 5 years ago, that's when I have my moments of feeling behind schedule and left out.

You know, the one thing that's nice about grad school is that it was so bad, nothing else really matters to me. There could be a nuclear holocaust going on, and all I would be thinking about is how bad I want to be done with grad school. I'd quit, but I'm so close to being done with it, there isn't much point by now. So, I suppose that's how I dealt with it. I got myself in bigger trouble than being single could ever be. When I finish graduate school, all I will be able to think about is how awesome it is to be free. I won't care about anything else. I'll be all set.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 14 (view)
Am I trying too hard?
Posted: 1/21/2013 12:43:20 PM

On a side note, being single is fvcking awesome.

Okay, I agree that it is awesome, just because it's awesome to be alive (unless you are doing a math PhD, like I am, in which case, you should just shoot yourself). But why is it awesome compared to not being single? Casual sex? That's not everyone's cup of tea.

Just because you're unhappy being single doesn't mean you should get into a relationship. That actually the worst reason, in my opinion, to get into a relationship.

I'm not sure that's why people who are unhappy being single actually get into relationships. Maybe they don't get into them because they are unhappy being single. Maybe they get into them because they just like the person. If it makes you choose or stay with the wrong person, that's when it's bad.

I don't feel that anyone is ready to be in a relationship until they're totally content being single.

Typical dating forum BS. There is no evidence to support this. I wasn't that content with being single, but my last relationship was fine. There's some BS stereotype that you'll be needy or somehow deficient in the relationship, but that is complete unsubstantiated nonsense. In fact, I had a relationship where I was the one wanting all the time to myself and lways having to push my girlfriend away because she was too needy and wanted to spend an excessive amount of time together. Relationships have health benefits, assuming they are good relationships, so actually, being TOTALLY content with not being a relationship is like being TOTALLY content with eating junk food. It's not healthy or at least not as healthy as being in a relationship. Some people say they have gotten out of a depression because of a relationship. You don't have to be happy to get into a relationship. All you need is two things. You have to want to treat the other person well and actually be able to treat them well in practice. Secondly, you need to make sure that the other person treats you well, too, know how and when to compromise and be able to call it quits if the relationship is bad. That's it. Everything else is irrelevant if those two conditions are met.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 9 (view)
Am I trying too hard?
Posted: 1/19/2013 6:33:40 PM
Probably 99% of the time people say you are trying too hard, it's complete BS. We've all tried every combination of not trying, trying. Trying is usually much more effective, in my experience. At least when I try, I get dates, usually, unsuccessful ones, but dates. When I don't try, I get nothing.

Just don't think in terms of one girl. Think in terms of getting to 1,00o. that's what I do. I don't even make it my goal to get dates or get a girlfriend because my odds are so low, it's too depressing to think of it that way. Sure, it still sucks when you have a close call with a girl you start getting into. I don't think you can ignore that altogether. When you suffer a loss, you suffer a loss. But, as much as I can, I just think of it as a game where my goal is to make the moves on some astronomical number of girls. Don't think in terms of puny numbers, like 10. You have to think in terms of numbers like 1,000 or even 10, 000. Doesn't mean you can't be picky and have low standards. You can still be selective and think in these terms. Just don't look at your failures. My only concern is racking up those numbers. If I achieve my goal of 10, 000, then I will go cry about it or something, but I think if I can achieve something like that, success is inevitable. The more you focus on getting numbers, the more likely it is that you will be able to find someone who just likes you as you are and that you don't have to play some ridiculous mind-games with in order to attract them. Better to avoid BS than to overcome BS, in my book.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 77 (view)
What do we like about men/women?
Posted: 8/27/2012 9:30:04 PM
Any man who does not see his woman or women in general for the amazing gift to us men, is sadly missing one of life's most greatest joys.

But it's not at all sad if he is simply incapable of attaining it, of course, because if he says that, then, he's a pathetic whiner who gets burned at the stake on POF forums (sarcasm). I hope I am not too whiny, despite my less than stellar dating prospects, but I think it needs to be acknowledged that if someone can't find love, that IS a sad thing, and in some cases, it may be due to laziness and not willing to do what it takes, but in many cases, men face PROFOUND difficulties in measuring up to what women expect or in finding that needle in the haystack girl who is right for them, despite doing everything they know how to do. I see a contradiction when someone is complaining about "whiners" and then basically "whines" on their behalf.

Basically, the question for me is just about achieving the "greatest good for the greatest number", where every human being has, in theory, an essentially equal share in this to anyone else. I have no concern for fitting into bizarre dating cultures. Conformity is for sissies. So, I have zero concern about whether someone is "whining", EXCEPT if it is or is not conducive to the common good. To bring up what men may be missing out on is, I would think, somewhat relevant to the common good.

I do think women are a gift to men, but they are also human and not perfect. I used to worship women in general because I was blind to their all too human faults. Just as many guys are not nice people, there are many women who are not nice people. Of course, many men, including myself, have a soft spot in their hearts for women, which can make this hard to admit at times. Now, I only worship a select few women. I still think there's nothing in the world better than a kind, intelligent, and beautiful woman, but not all women fall in that category (beauty is a small thing, but necessary, to some degree for it to work romantically). I might add that the fact that she is not interested in me makes her no less magnificent, but I'll be damned if it's unnatural if it should--heaven forbid--make me a touch sad from time to time.

The thing that makes me appreciate women, no matter what, though, is that they commit less violent crimes than men. If they kick our ass at not committing crimes, then, they pretty much kicked our ass in general in my book.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
Alcohol - lowers inhibitions, or social conditioning?
Posted: 8/27/2012 7:42:24 PM
I've never been very drunk, but in my experience, it just makes me MORE shy, or at the very least, has no effect. Maybe like it makes me lazier about trying to override my natural shy instincts or something like that. Maybe if I got drunker, it would be different, but I have definitely gotten to the point where I feel some effects for sure, but it does absolutely nothing for me, socially.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 65 (view)
Why does dating seem so much like work?
Posted: 8/21/2012 8:20:21 PM

Alas. Very interesting point you make. I've seen this to be the case many times with intellectual people. The only exception would be Abelian, who has found a balance between logic (intellect) and creating attraction (emotion). In your mind you process information as mathematical equations that if they do not feel true to you, your intellect stops you in your tracks. It's like asking my accountant to give me a ball park figure. She never could do that!! Even if it was within 50 bucks.

I can handle ambiguity, imprecision, ball park estimates and all that. Actually, I think the most important thing in real math is intuition, not logic. If you don't have any ideas, the logic is useless, and the ideas don't really come from logic. Logic is just used to check things. Maybe it's partly the other way around. Maybe just being bad with people made me over-compensate and develop my intellect and that's why I ended up being into math and stuff. But what really prevents me from being able to relate to other people is inhibitions and too much self-awareness. Even if my intellect can understand what needs to be done, it seems like I need super-human courage and will-power to actually make myself do it. Or I just find that I find it very hard. Take smiling. I hate fake smiles and I can't make myself do a real smile, most of the time, unless I think of a joke, but jokes only work once or maybe like 5 times tops, if it's really funny.

The other problem I see a lot with highly intellectual people is that they don't seem to be able to do one of the most essentials things that would move attraction forward. As Cowboy in his post has said many times and that is to engage in "Small Talk". Nothing important, nothing of consequence, just an easy feeling about life.

I can do that to some extent, but I'm not particularly good at it.

I just don't have any charm, I'm not funny, I don't know what to say, don't know how to say it.

People in general want and have an incredible need to be acknowledged as a person, as a human being. The irony is that take for instance an incredibly gorgeous woman. She knows that she is attractive, but she does not want you to tell her that. Actually she hides her insecurities behind her beauty, that way the usual shallow men that want her only for sex, will say, Hey, you are hot!! While some other guy, simply ask her about the belt she is wearing or some other casual thing that validates something that is inside of her that has value.

I have a rule: never compliment a woman on her looks, unless you aren't interested in her or are already in a relationship with her, perhaps.

One guy will come here b it ch ing that all women are shallow and impossible to connect and gives up. The other says, this is great, and yes, it can be work, but the challenges, the discoveries, the fun of getting to know and share are just awesome.

I see challenges, but I don't see discoveries. Challenges are empty if you learn nothing from facing them. That's the problem. If I was making progess, it might be a little better. But I am not making progress because I don't know what I'm doing wrong, and I never find out what I am doing wrong. Those times when I learn something about dating are the exception, rather than the rule. Actually, I like actually going on dates. I just don't like feeling like I have no control over the situation. To give another analogy, if I had to become a grand master at chess in order to get a date, it would be hopeless. I'm never going to be a grandmaster, no matter how hard I try, realistically. But I would be happier about having to become a grandmaster to get a date than what I actually have to do to get a date because at least I would know how I can improve. I could get feedback, see how much progress I was making, and so on. But with people, it's just such a struggle, it's nothing like that. My progress is 100 times slower than it would be with something like chess. There's a theory of flow in psychology. You can enjoy yourself when you are just out of your comfort zone in terms of the challenge. So, it's not necessarily the case that attitude alone is making the difference. The guy who b it che s may just be doing something that is way beyond his current skill level, whereas the guy who thinks it's work, but it's great, and so on may be facing something that is just a little out of his comfort zone. That's only natural. If I gave you a math assignment that was way beyond your abilities, naturally, you would think it kind of sucked. If I gave you one that was challenging, but doable, you might enjoy it. Just telling yourself that you are having fun isn't going to change the very real difference between those two scenarios.

Also, if you follow the laws of attraction, what you see is what you get. What you think, is what comes back. Change what you think, and you will change your outcome.

Until this law is proven, I will not believe it. I get knocked down, but I get up again. That is the way it is for me. I'm not going to deny that I get knocked down. That's just denial. But when I go on the next date, I forget about it. I get back up again. I remember on a recent date, she specifically asked me about how my dates usually went. Not a typical date question. THAT made me vulnerable. I didn't have a defense against that. But, if they don't ask, I really don't think they could ever guess that I am having this much trouble with it. I mean, it's by choice. I just have normal guy's standards, even though I am not a normal guy. If I was normal, I'd probably have a beautiful wife, as of like 5 years ago who met all my standards.

I mean, women say they don't like desperation because they are afraid that the guy is going to settle for them or something. So, I'm not settling. And that's why it's so tough. It's somewhat self-imposed. But you could argue that I have no choice, but to keep my standards high.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 60 (view)
Why does dating seem so much like work?
Posted: 8/20/2012 3:25:13 PM
It normally is self defeating.

Definition of sucking in this context: attempting to do something over and over again and not getting anything out of it.

That is objectively true in my case. The only thing negative I added to it was calling it "suckage". That's a small addition, I think. I mean, if you went to a restaurant and they forgot to serve you and then closed, I think you would be justified in saying it sucked. You might object that you can always expect a restaurant to serve you, but in dating, you know it's a crap shoot. Well, I thought everyone just went and dated and eventually they found someone. I found out that's not true. It's really heavy to think that maybe you're never going to find anyone. To dismiss such a thought as overly negative is just being unrealistic, in my case. I think there's a real possibility that will happen.

90% of the "sour grapes" posts on this forum come from people that just aren't dateable. And the only reason they aren't are themselves.

Where I come from, you don't get to just make stuff up. How can you say that about people you don't know? I am myself. And I have a disability. I am myself, and myself is great, but it can't deal with people to save it's life.

It's normally a circular mentality that destroys one's own chances. The way to make yourself appealing to the opposite sex is simply to be someone the opposite sex would want to date. The problem is, self image and mental blocks often ruin this. Many people have a problem with seeing themselves as "deficient to others" so they will ALWAYS see themselves as someone that everyone should want to date.

Well, obviously, that's not applicable to me. I just said I am terrible with people. If I said I was great with people, it would be like claiming to be a virtuoso on the piano, when I can't even play chopsticks. It would be utter nonsense to the point of being laughable, not positive thinking. I am extremely deficient to others. But, I am a very nice person. My ex said I am the most loving person she has ever known, the best friend she ever had. And she's not bullshitting. I'm not claiming to be some kind of angel. There are certain times, just like any other guy, when I can be a jerk, even. But, my ex didn't just say that. My ex ALSO said when she first met me, she thought I was the most awkward person she had ever met. That is a recipe for a genuinely good guy who is going to have trouble with dating if there ever was one.

Look at all the people who say "I'm a nice guy!" Half of the time, in their post history, these "nice guys" will have post histories that seeth with bitter, hateful nonsense, sexist-ly stereotyping all women, or whining with self depreciating attention seeking.

I'm not mad at women. I'm just frustrated with the situation. The frustration is with myself and the situation, not with women. True, they are a big part of the situation. But it's like when I forgot to bring my music to my saxophone lesson. My teacher said he was frustrated, but he wasn't angry. That's about how it is. Sure, they are responsible for it, but I'm not mad at them. Doesn't mean they did anything wrong, per se.

Incidentally, my guess is your bar for what you would call "hateful" is pretty low. There's a lot of stereotyping going in the other direction. As if anyone who utters the slightest complaint about dating is automatically in the same category with those idiots who e-mail a girl and call her names just because she rejected them. That's BS.

This is an extreme example, but it's pretty much MOST people's problems with dating; they just don't see themselves for what they are to other people, so they never take the steps to improve. Meanwhile, other non-supermodel guys that don't have these issues are getting three and four dates a week (and when they give these guys advice, it's completely ignored). And it's all self defeating because it's something that the people themselves can easily handle.

I doubt it. Some people just have bad social skills. I am bad with people, and I have always been bad with people my whole life, before I even thought about dating. Most of my life I didn't even try to date, and I was always terrible with people. So, when I start dating, what do you expect?

I see what I am to other people. Awkward. If I knew how to improve, I'd do something about it. Imagine if people were judged in dating based on how good they were at math. Suddenly, the tables would be turned. A lot of people would be struggling. So many people struggle with math. If they had to take a graduate level math class in order to get a date, they'd be screwed. I imagine they might not be too happy about it. In fact, they'd probably just give up and become monks. So, that's basically the situation I am in, except it's social skills instead of math. You shouldn't trivialize the difficulty that people like me are having. I think this is a pretty accurate analogy. So, if I just point that out, I know it sounds negative, but it's the truth. It's not something I can easily handle. That's like telling one of my students they are really a math genius, so they should sit in on some advanced algebraic topology classes. It's just oblivious to reality. And I'm optimistic about people's abilities, but it just isn't going to happen without a huge fight on their part.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 73 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/20/2012 2:20:12 PM

I had some second dates when there was no kissing on the first date.

Me too.

BTW there were other times when I kissed a woman on the first date. But there wasn't a second date.

That hasn't happened to me. But then, I've kissed so few women, it's kind of depressing to think about it. Well, on the bright side, the number of dates I have been on is slightly more uplifting, if you ignore the low success rate on them. I guess that should tell you how much a slacker I am when it comes to the first kiss.

Yeah, it's probably hurting me more than it's helping me. I do need to set up the date to get some privacy, at some point, though.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 69 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/19/2012 8:23:31 PM

you're sufficiently smooth


I am about as smooth as sandpaper, so there goes that.

as you're not awkward about it.

That's a lot to ask from me.

I think it's a much bigger risk NOT to try to kiss someone who is attracted to you, lest she leave the date thinking there wasn't enough of a spark, you weren't aggressive/confident enough for her, etc.

Sometimes, I wonder about that. I mean, I've done it before, but it has to be like the perfect moment for it or else, I have a lot of trouble doing it. Sometimes, it just seems impossible, though. I would have to plan the date so that the right moment would arise.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 57 (view)
Why does dating seem so much like work?
Posted: 8/19/2012 8:14:30 PM

Also, it's false to assume that if I learn how it works that I am actually going to be able to apply that knowledge. I read How To Win Friends and Influence People. Do I understand it? Yes. Can I apply it? Hell no. Why not? Because that requires experience dealing with actual people. It's too hard to get the practice you need. If you have trouble getting a date, how are you going to practice your skills?

You learn by doing, nor just reading some material and expect that it will change you overnight. The above mentioned book does work. I've seen it at work with sales people, with people that wanted to be more dynamic and social. I've even seen it at work with me. But realize that YOU have to go out there and get the experience. And you start simply by talking to people, and when communicating at work, using the material, so there are a ton of opportunities to make this work.

It did help, but I just find it INCREDIBLY difficult to apply most it. I mean, I am getting a math PhD, and the math PhD is child's play compared to applying that stuff, at least for me (actually, it looks like I'm going to just barely get the PhD, but the statement still stands). I guess the way a lot of people are with math, that's the way I am with people. Worse, really. I am shocked by the difficulties my students have with math, but I don't think the worst I have seen in math even comes CLOSE to how bad I am with people. For example, he tells you to give people sincere compliments. I can never come up with sincere ones--it always seems completely forced, so I just fail at it altogether. It's just unbelievably hard for me. Plus, with the whole math PhD thing, I have precious little time or energy to put into it.

Yes, the system does suck (I have no desire to kiss everyone's ass and say that it doesn't because I would be lying if I said I thought it didn't suck), but there's not much we can do about it. So, we have to learn to live with what we have.

Another self defeating statement. The system works quite well for some people. But for the majority, it does require some effort.

Alright, it just sucks for most people, then. Same thing. I don't think it's self-defeating. I think it's just true. You're not going to convince me that Chinese water torture is great fun, and similarly, you're not going to convince me that dating, as I am experiencing it, is great fun. Actually, the dates themselves are okay. It's just going on 10 in a row (with months in between them), and having no luck that kind of blows.

Take for instance me. POF has not been very effective for me in the past. Some other website was. And I could get one or two dates a week. This place zero. Then I contacted one lady from here. The communication evolved rather slow. Then she said okay to a date. Then it cooled off for a couple of weeks because she had to do some business traveling and after that suddenly the relationship took off.

The point is, keep trying, here, there, real life, you never know. It turned out that POF worked for me, when I least expected.

Saying it sucks doesn't mean I gave up. Just means it isn't producing anything. When I go on dates, I leave all this at home. I don't bring any negativity to the date. Just be myself. Not working very well.

I have ALWAYS thought real life was the answer to my prayers. I asked this girl out one time, and it was the scariest thing I have ever done by far. It's awful. And my roommate kind of discouraged me from talking to strangers, which is dumb on his part, but it knocked what little courage I had out of me, despite the fact that I disagree with him fiercely on this.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 67 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/19/2012 7:29:24 PM
Ugh. Looks like I got my posts deleted for double-posting, I guess, so let me just restate the most important points.

So, I'll just summarize. When I say everyone deserves respect, I am saying it with the understanding that respect is not all or nothing. Think about it. That takes care of all the objections if you think it through.

I never meant to say that women are emotionally-driven. That was totally misinterpreted. Emotion and reason and not separable. It's a mistake to assume that emotional was being used in a pejorative sense. Emotions are not always bad things that should be ignored. And if you insist on using the false dichotomy of emotion and reason, I was not saying that emotion, in that sense, was the ONLY thing driving the decisions.

Also, I didn't say it was disrespectful to ignore, just that it wasn't the nicest possible way to do it. If it were me, I wouldn't care about a few bad apples and let them ruin it for everyone else.

<div class="quote">If she won't kiss you on the first date, you aren't likely to get a second, so save yourself the uncertainy. Go for the kiss on the first date and don't ask for a second unless it happens.

Some girls just don't kiss on the first date, so I don't know about that. Plus, I'm just chicken to kiss them on the first date. There's never a good time for it on most of my first dates, as far as I can tell. I can handle a little uncertainty.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 62 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/19/2012 1:15:04 PM
I think he just expressed that he didn't understand their behavior and it didn't make sense to him. It's not clear that he is saying that they did anything wrong, even.

Not accurate at all. He said:

At least be a respectful human being and be straight up with how you feel. Don't lead someone on; that's a scumbag move. And don't ignore someone; that's completely immature

Okay, I admit I forgot about the subsequent posts where he said that because the person I was addressing was referring to the very first post.

Especially when he has no clue that women who DO tell men that they're not interested in a first or second date can get called ugly b!tches and cvnts in exchange for their honesty.

That has no particular relevance because what's stopping them from calling them names if they just ignore instead of say they aren't interested? I concede that, in practice, it COULD be the case that ignoring them fends off more of these sorts of attacks, and if experience showed that to be the case, I would understand their behavior.

Everyone owes everyone else a little something called R E S P E C T

In an ideal world where everyone subscribes to the same definition of respect AND conforms to it, this would apply.
But we do not--would YOU honestly disagree?

I'm basically just saying it's not okay to go around flipping people off randomly. If you had no respect for people, that would have to be viewed as a neutral action, rather than something extremely rude to do, which it is. If someone has absolutely zero respect for anyone until they earn it, I call that person a jerk. Basically, what that means is they are free to treat anyone they don't know like ****. That's what I'm saying. It's not about the definitions, it's about the meaning behind them.

I don't know what you are doing, but if every woman you meet reacts the same way, its probably not them, its probably you.

They don't act the same way. It just happens to be that the ones I am interested in don't like me. I don't know if it's because I get too excited and it throws me off or if the ones that I am interested in are "out of my league" or something.

This is not accurate at all:

The problem with looking at yourself is you have no way of knowing what it is about yourself that is so bad and whether or not it's something you can change or whether the only thing you can do is play the numbers game.

It is accurate when viewed with its intended meaning. Believe me, it's beyond my expertise to figure out why women reject me. I have thought about it a lot. I can't come up with very much.

Anyone who has the ability to empathize with others can mentally shift their own outgoing behavior and try to see it as the receiver.

And they have no guarantee of success in doing so, which is my point.

Anyone who can see all behavior as falling on a continuum, from worst to best, can make self adjustments to up their own ante.

It's inaccurate to see all behavior arranged in order like that because one person's turn-off is another person's turn-on.

The more constructive attitude to take for the OP would be to look at these women as having done him the favor of not wasting any more of his time.

It's not clear that that is actually accurate. No one on here can claim to know whether it would have worked out or not, had they given it more of a chance, unless they are omniscient (though it would not be out of place to bet against it). The proper stance on that is not that his time was saved, but merely to be agnostic, or maybe more prudently, to reason that there are many other people out there, so he need not worry about those three. However, once you have been rejected enough, you start to see a pattern, and you extrapolate that into the future, and the pattern usually continues to hold.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 59 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/19/2012 9:02:09 AM
Yes, I think he went a little too far to use the word scumbag. I actually was mostly focusing on his first post in my previous posts, which I thought wasn't really objectionable. The later posts were more problematic.

Actually, no one OWES respect to anyone: respect is to be earned. Perhaps you mean that we owe a polite attitude to others, but we don't OWE politeness to anyone, either. Most of us choose to be polite, including me, but it isn't because I owe anyone anything--empathy spurs me to treat others as I want to be treated. Some people lack manners and others are just mean.

I don't think what you said there has any content. It's just playing with words. Anyway, I do think we owe everyone respect. It's just that you can earn MORE respect or lose respect.

I know women have emotions that are driving their decisions, and it's only natural for them to act the way that they do. So, I'm not blaming them.

Who can spell "condescending"?

Try spelling "misunderstanding". Basically, I am just trying to put myself in their shoes. You call that condescension? I think you are just trying to find more things to disagree with because I am to some degree defending a guy who you don't like.

I seriously empathize with these women who are being picky. I am picky, too, but in a different way. I am reasonably picky about looks, for example. It's my weakness. I know it's not really a good thing, but I can't help it. So, I am just trying to put myself in their shoes. What I have trouble understanding is why they seem to be big on first impressions. So, I can't relate to the cause because first impressions are nothing to me. So, the best I can do to try to relate to them is compare it to when I am not attracted to a girl. I don't like to be picky about looks, but I can't ignore my gut feelings about it. So, it's very similar to what I imagine they must feel like. If I am wrong, then, at least I tried to imagine their point of view.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 50 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/18/2012 12:02:06 PM

Women don't owe you anything.

I beg to differ. Everyone owes everyone else a little something called R E S P E C T (just a little bit). Would you honestly disagree? Do you really want to be caught saying, "no one owes anyone else any respect?"

Didn't think so.

Actually, he just said it's a scumbag thing to, which is slightly different from calling them scumbags. I wouldn't call them scumbags or say it's a scumbag thing to do, but I would say it falls short of the ideal of what a truly nice person would do. It's kind of like if someone doesn't say please or thank you when they should.

But, by the same token, I wouldn't want to make a big deal out of it if they ignore me because that would be contrary to my niceness. It's not a big deal. It's just a courtesy. It's nice.

If you are a truly nice person, you don't just give people what you owe them. If you are a truly nice person, you don't just do the minimum that you can get away with and not be labeled as rude. You try to be as friendly as possible, as welcoming as possible, make people feel as much at ease as you can, etc. So, if some girl ignores me after a date, by no means is she a b****, but she's probably not going to be winning any big awards for niceness, either.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 11 (view)
The point in this is....?
Posted: 8/18/2012 9:12:39 AM

Thanks guys. I called at&t and had him blocked from my phone, but forgot to block him on here which is the direct copy/pastes I showed ya'll. Those were yesterday. but he is now blocked from here also. I guess it just kind of bothered me, not because of him (he can kick rocks) but because I started to wonder if all men have that very perception of a divorced woman with kids. It's a little disheartening.

A lot of guys will not want to date women with kids, but it has nothing to do with thinking they are sluts or whatever he said.

Kids just get in the way of the romance. I know, I dated a single mom once before. This video explains the usual reasons:

So, yeah, it's can be an issue, but no, we don't think you are a slut just because you have kids. That's silly. And there are plenty of men out there who are willing.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 7 (view)
The point in this is....?
Posted: 8/18/2012 9:04:28 AM

So, my question is do you guys really view things like this?

Nope, that's just him (and a few other jerks). Try not to generalize so quickly.

And why is there such hostility over someone you never met?

I'm never hostile, but sometimes, it can be pretty disappointing to be rejected by someone who just seems like they are the perfect person for you from just a profile and talking a little bit. Your hopes are smashed. This guy just doesn't handle that well, I guess. But he seemed to be just looking for sex, so I am puzzled as to why that is such a big loss for him that he has to throw a tantrum over it.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 32 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/17/2012 8:04:30 AM

So start looking at yourself, before you start pointing fingers.

The thing that people don't understand here is that finger-pointing is not mutually exclusive with looking at yourself. It's perfectly possible to be doing everything you can to work on yourself and still point the finger. Also, it is possible to criticize without "pointing fingers". I just question the way women are thinking and if it's really in their best interests to think that way. That doesn't presuppose that I think I can change them. And I'm honest about it. I don't know. Maybe I really am not suitable for most of the girls I date. I'm open to that possibility. I just question it.

The problem with looking at yourself is you have no way of knowing what it is about yourself that is so bad and whether or not it's something you can change or whether the only thing you can do is play the numbers game. If there was something obvious that we could fix, we would have done it already. There's nothing obvious. And in fact, I do get second dates sometimes, but it's pretty much never with the ones that I am really interested in. In my case, it may just be that I need to be better at getting FIRST dates (offline!). I wouldn't mind having to play the numbers game if I was good at getting first dates, but it's the combined difficulty of getting the first date, then a second, then a third, and so on, that makes it so tough. And for me, by far the biggest bottleneck is getting the first date, I think.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 25 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/16/2012 9:32:25 PM

Well thats a bit arrogant that you think of yourself so highly that how dare they not want to meet again.

face fats.. you were not good enough. get over it and deal with it.

i had one like you. I made the mistake of saying why and said i was not interested, nothing rude. Then had the onslaught of his material possesions in a essay to try to sway my judgement. Its sad on so many levels that you think this way. Your probably punching well above your weight, so try dating out of your little box and stop moaning about women all because you didnt secure a shag out of it lol. come on man up!

This epitomizes what is so annoying to me about these sorts of discussions. Stereotyping, unfounded assumptions, preconceived notions, and putting words in peoples' mouths. It goes to the extent that you are speaking to the OP as if he actually WAS this other guy. As if he actually tried to persuade you to change your mind with his material possessions. Where did he ever say anything like that? Did he ever say "how dare they not want to meet again"?

I think he just expressed that he didn't understand their behavior and it didn't make sense to him. It's not clear that he is saying that they did anything wrong, even. It's particularly presumptuous to accuse him of "moaning about women all because you didn't secure a shag out of it".

For goodness sake, why all the stereotyping and wild assumptions?
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 136 (view)
No spark/chemistry is women code word for I don't know what I want
Posted: 8/14/2012 8:35:04 PM

That is your main problem right there. Thinking you have to change and improve yourself. Why waste time on a woman who doesn't appreciate who you are? You need to start being more selective, become indifferent to rejection, and find a woman who lives up to your standards. Not the other way around.

I'm already way too selective, and that's the main reason why I can't find anyone. I am indifferent to rejection. What I am not indifferent to is the near-impossibility of finding someone. The feeling that my odds of success, not with one woman, but with one who meets my standards at all are about the same as winning the lottery.

If I don't improve at it, I guarantee you, I WILL be single for life, or at least until I am very old. If I can't improve AT the dates, I at least need to be able to get more of them. At the current rate of getting dates and the success rate at them, it's almost hopeless.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 135 (view)
No spark/chemistry is women code word for I don't know what I want
Posted: 8/14/2012 8:28:26 PM

You profile reads like it was written by a mad scientist.

Yeah, and that's more or less what I am, so they better take it or leave it. Anyway, I don't care about on here. I want to get better in real life.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 129 (view)
No spark/chemistry is women code word for I don't know what I want
Posted: 8/12/2012 8:26:30 PM

WOULD you rather have a person sit down and list all the reasons they are not into you???? I mean bare bones, no hold back, straight to your face honesty? EGO breaking, knees buckling, heart ripping out honesty??

If I actually got some feedback on what women were thinking about me, maybe I'd be able to improve. As it is, I'm stuck with no feedback, so it's nearly impossible to get any better on the next date. The only thing I can do is read some dating advice and 99% of it is nonsense, so I don't trust what anyone says about it, unless they can prove it objectively, which they rarely bother to do. Having so much difficultly in dating hurts infinitely more than any harsh words any one girl could give me ever could.

There are few things more absurd than trying to learn something when you are deprived of the feedback that tells you if you are doing it right or not. It's like blind-folding yourself and then trying to learn marksmanship. You won't even know if you hit the target or even how close you were, so how are you ever going to improve? You have no way of knowing how to do it better next time.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 71 (view)
Asking a Female Stranger Out. (Randomly)
Posted: 8/12/2012 7:40:55 PM

Why is it ok for men to find women attractive but women are shallow insecure needy being for doing the same thing? Hello if you dont like being judged based on your looks THEN dont judge women on their's. I know kindergarten logic. If you dont like something dont do it to other people.

Am I missing something? I don't know when anyone said it wasn't okay to judge a potential date based on their looks.

Actually it's really not so simple. Even if I HATED the idea of being judged based on my looks (and I do find the whole thing somewhat unfortunate in some ways), I wouldn't be able to do anything about doing it myself, unfortunately. I really think I have no choice in the matter, since any time I try to date a girl I am not physically attracted to, I have HORRIBLE guilt about it. What we she think if she knew what I was thinking, I tell myself? Can't do it. I do (rarely) get dates with girls who would only be flattered if they knew how they appeared to me, so I may as well wait until one of them reciprocates my feelings.

I don't like judging them based on looks, and I don't like being judged on looks, but that's just the way it is. I don't think there's anything I can do about it, and I don't expect them to be able to do anything about it. People are just going to go for what they want. If you CAN avoid judging based on looks, you should, but only to the extent that you can without causing problems for yourself or whoever you are dating. If the person I am dating has some imperfection in their looks, as long as I am attracted to them enough to not feel guilty about it, I don't care.

Anyway, it's fine with me if a girl doesn't like being approached at random. We're just putting the out there. They don't have to say yes, and it's cool with me if they think I'm lame or shallow or creepy or whatever it is. I understand. If the need ever arises later, I can easily demonstrate that I'm not lame/shallow/creepy when I am not judged by superficial first-impressions, stereotypes, and preconceived notions. Having the chance to get a date with a great girl is well worth any minor consequences like what she might think of me if she doesn't like the idea.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 62 (view)
Asking a Female Stranger Out. (Randomly)
Posted: 8/12/2012 7:41:13 AM

You've simply added that the schmuck can also want something else based on more than looks after he gets what he wanted based on nothing but her looks.

Not really. I have added that the schmuck ONLY might want a date, not some huge thing. Wanting a date is not wanting that much and that is the point. Here's why it's not wanting that much. Say you offer me a blind date. I know NOTHING about the girl, other than that she is female. Am I going to say yes or no?

You guessed it, I'm going to say yes. Based on what? The fact that she's female. Hell, I'd accept if there was a possibility of it being a man. In that case, as soon as I found out it was a man I would say, sorry, I'm not gay, so this isn't going to work. But, anyway, I would want a date with someone based on absolutely nothing, just to give it a try and see what happens. So, actually, wanting a date is more of the default position than not wanting the date. Approaching the stranger is therefore merely an outward expression of the DEFAULT position of wanting to date as many women as possible, preferably ones that meet their standards. So, really, the women who should be offended, from this point of view, are all the ones I DON'T approach, solely based on looks. You have to give me reasons NOT to want to date you to scare me away, not the other way around. It doesn't work that way. Once I look at a girl, she might be ruled out based on looks, just because that's the only information I have when I first see her, so that's all there is. So, unless they are unattractive, I just want to date them by default. So, think of it as if it was her looks that made me want to date her is just looking at it from the wrong perspective altogether. The only role her looks played was to keep her in the pool of women that I want to date. She didn't get eliminated because of her looks. I already wanted the date before I even saw her. It's just that that desire didn't go away when I saw her.

And you know what? It's not even that the men want a date. Actually, that's a false assumption. They don't even want a date. They just want to ASK her for one and see if there's any interest. If there's no interest, why would I want the date? So, all that's really desired is not even a date, but just the chance to ask her a question, consisting of one sentence, such as "would you like to get coffee, sometime?"

Wow. Imagine a woman having to endure such a torment as a guy asking her a QUESTION. Just based on her looks. Woo hoo. Man, I mean, it must really suck to be a hot girl. I feel so bad for them. Can you imagine?

Boo hoo. Cry me a river.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 58 (view)
Asking a Female Stranger Out. (Randomly)
Posted: 8/10/2012 8:44:52 PM

In my opinion schmucks just lonely and trying to get a date doesn't prove how badly women misjudge men as trying to get a date is wanting a piece of her and likely it's based on absolutely nothing but the way she looks. I think you're misjudging the statement equating "wants a piece of her" to bad intentions or solely wanting sex. I equate the statement to mean wanting something from her based on absolutely nothing but the way she looks and it seems that's the truth for most men.

Yeah, I did misinterpret it as wanting sex, but that's beside the point. The point is that yes, they might want something from her solely based on her looks, but that it's only a date to DECIDE if they want something more than the date, based on more than just looks.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 114 (view)
No spark/chemistry is women code word for I don't know what I want
Posted: 8/10/2012 8:34:38 PM

When there's no spark.........there's no fire
Can't build a fire without a flame...............
I know exactly what I want.......................fireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
and I don't speak in code

Yeah, but what's puzzling is why women would expect it right away.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 17 (view)
Getting a second date from online dating is harder than pulling teeth..
Posted: 8/9/2012 8:05:38 PM

It has nothing to do with women having too high standards. It is a woman's instinct to select a mate who will meet the challenge of impressing her and proving to her that he provide for her what will make her happy and meet her needs

Yes, and we all know that women are infallible judges of who is going to make them happy and meet their needs. Is the challenge of impressing her really a good indicator of that? There are people who will meet that challenge very nicely (Ted Bundy), yet far from providing for her and making her happy, they just rape and murder her. I sort of know of a rapist in real life. If I had any say in the matter, he'd be in jail, but there's not really anything I can do about it. He has a girlfriend. Women like him. If only they knew his crimes, they'd feel a little embarrassed about their taste in men. Of course, merely not being a rapist hardly qualifies you as a good boyfriend, but it ought to be a minimum requirement. yet somehow it's so easy for women to miss even such a basic requirement when following their supposedly infallible intuition.

Don't get me wrong. I know women have emotions that are driving their decisions, and it's only natural for them to act the way that they do. So, I'm not blaming them. Just suggesting maybe it might be a good thing to question those attractions a little. And, really, I don't even expect them to do that. I just wish I understood better why they were doing what they are doing, so I can either find ways to work around it or at the very least know that I am doing the right thing by playing the numbers game and expecting to be rejected billions of times before I am successful, and that there isn't a better way of doing it.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 38 (view)
What do Nerdy men look for in a woman?
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:43:32 PM
Looks, intelligence, interest in intellectual topics.

OP, looking at your profile, you ARE what a lot of nerds look for, so I think you don't really need to worry about it. You can pretty much breathe easy. Nerdy girls are a hot commodity because in the world of nerd-dom, there are WAY too many men. Therefore, the few nerdy women that exist are extremely desirable in the world of the nerds.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 108 (view)
No spark/chemistry is women code word for I don't know what I want
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:29:58 PM
I don't really understand the "no sparks" thing, but I have rejected at least one girl who I thought was nice and I was attracted to. I don't know how I feel about saying it, but one reason I turned her down was that she was poor, yet she was going to spend a massive amount of money on a breast implants, and I just found that unattractive and an unwise decision. Breast-enhancement is such a bad idea, since it involves gruesome surgery, plus, it's not permanent. The implants will wear out, necessitating more gruesome surgery. She seemed like she would not take kindly to it if I complained about the issue, so I just didn't contact her again after the first date. It was kind of sad to let her go, though.

Or it could be smoking. Or having kids. Lots of reasons to turn someone down, even though they have all the qualities you want.

As far as "no sparks" goes, I am just perplexed by it. I never know if it's a valid reason or if they are just kind of psyching themselves out of a good relationship opportunity. Rather than "blaming" women for their incomprehensible decisions, I just wish I understood what they were thinking pr feeling to know whether or not there was something I could do about it. I would never take it to mean they don't know what they want, though. That seems kind of like wishful thinking.

Once someone has made up their mind about something, it's hard for them to change it. That may help turn those "no sparks" judgments into a self-fulfilling prophecy, whether or not there is any validity to the "no sparks" feelings themselves. Although I tend to have doubts about more concrete things that I can put into words, I know what it feels like. It can be difficult to deal with feelings of doubt with a potential relationship, and you may not have that much control over them. Therefore, as tragic as it may be, whether the girl is right or not about the potential of the relationship, it's hard to put much blame on her. She may be afraid of getting into a relationship and the nagging doubts won't go away. I know the feeling, myself, though, again, my doubts are usually much more concrete/logical than "no sparks".
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 51 (view)
Asking a Female Stranger Out. (Randomly)
Posted: 8/9/2012 7:00:44 PM
There was a study I read about where an attractive man went around on campus, asking girls out (I read this somewhere in "How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker, if I remember right). The success rate was 50%. So, I think if you're really smooth and good-looking, you can expect something like that in the best case scenario.

Every schmuck wants a piece of her, based on absolutely *nothing* but the way she looks.

This proves how badly women misjudge men, even though many of them claim to have an infallible intuition when it comes to picking the right men. What if those schmucks are just lonely and trying to get a date? Just a date. Not sex, not necessarily a relationship, unless there's more there. Just a ****ing DATE! Granted, there may be SOME that just want a piece of her, but not nearly all. I think about asking girls out at random all the time with nothing but good intentions. Is it based on their looks alone? Initially, yes, pretty much. Does it need to STAY that way? No way! The looks just catch my attention. It just means she passes the first test. In all likelihood, I'm not going to like her, she's not going to like me, we're not going to be a good match, and no, I am not going to want a piece of her. But there's no harm in finding out if there's more there than just physical attraction.

I can understand if it's phrased more like, "Maybe they have good intentions, but it scares me, so no thanks" or "they might not be creepy, but it comes off that way, sorry."

Can't we give each other the benefit of the doubt sometimes?

I find it astounding how people make the most massive unfounded assumptions when judging the intentions of others, as if they are omniscient or something.

So, yeah, I guess some girls will judge you for it, but who cares? I personally could care less if most women mistakenly think I'm creepy or whatever, as long as there is one who will accept me for who I am.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 49 (view)
Why does dating seem so much like work?
Posted: 8/2/2012 7:09:57 PM

because it is work, anything worth having in life never comes easy

Sort of explains why "the masses" never have any of it now doesnt it?


Easy logic

It may sound good, but it''s not even remotely logical, actually. The problem for some people is that it's more than just hard. The problem for them is when they are afraid it's not going to come at all, not just not come easy. When you are 30, the clock is ticking if you want to have a family, especially for women, but men, too.

Also, it's baloney that anything worth having doesn't come easy, if you think about it for even two seconds. It's pretty easy for me to make some awesome burritos, and believe me, they're worth eating. Also, some people just get born into a rich family and have a cushy life by pure dumb luck. Actually, the last time I got a relationship, it was the easiest thing in the world to get. The trouble was that I had to wait for months and months before the right girl came along, so that it could be that easy. And then, of course, it turned out she wasn't the right girl, now, she's my ex, and I'm back on the prowl.

I'm okay with it being hard. What I don't like is when it's threatening to be impossible. People who are complaining about dating difficulties are usually doing so because they are the odd man out. Their friends can get girls. Why can't they? They see all their friends getting married, having families. The years go by, and pretty soon they are the only ones left single. It can be painful.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 15 (view)
The girl on the bus
Posted: 8/2/2012 5:46:46 PM

Don't make the mistake of reading more into what is more than likely just a simple act of politeness on her part.

It's not necessary to make that mistake in order to make a move. Making a move DOES NOT presuppose any interest. The point is to FIND OUT whether there is any interest.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 6 (view)
Insulted for NOT replying?
Posted: 7/25/2012 7:46:45 AM
You don't look chubby in the slightest. What a retard. Some people just like to insult others because they are just douche-bags.

<div class="quote">I would have thought twenty-four hours would be a standard "okay they're ignoring me/saying no" time period.

Actually, my policy is to wait for 3 days. I guess partly, that is because one time I screwed up my chances with this girl since I didn't hold back and wrote to her twice in a row before she responded (after she had written back to me a couple times).

<div class="quote">Does it seem like this guy seriously over-reacted and I was right to not respond in the first place?

No, it's perfectly appropriate to tell girls they are chubby, just because they rejected you (sarcasm). Actually, in other cultures maybe it is, but I think the context makes this pretty inherently wrong.

I don't know about writing back. It used to seem a little cold to me to not write back, like if someone spoke to you in real life, you wouldn't just ignore them. But I know some people on here just think it's more polite not to respond, I guess, or else they get too much mail. I had a couple experiences that made me stop writing back to people, myself, for a while, but then I decided it's not really me, and I'd prefer to write back to everyone. To each his own.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 32 (view)
Why does dating seem so much like work?
Posted: 7/22/2012 11:22:22 AM

Complaining about a system without spending the effort to understanding the inner functions and mechanics is honestly lazy in the grandest sense. Well then, no wonder there is such a pessimistic view by those who invest so little into their desires.

The problem with this is that we are obviously investing a lot of effort in our desires, but nothing is working. Yes, the system does suck (I have no desire to kiss everyone's ass and say that it doesn't because I would be lying if I said I thought it didn't suck), but there's not much we can do about it. So, we have to learn to live with what we have.

So how do we understand the inner functions and mechanics? The problem is, it seems like 99% of the dating advice out there is complete nonsense or at least full of half-truths. Even if it isn't nonsense, it's hard to tell which part of it is not nonsense because no one actually gives any proof that their dating theories are actually correct most of the time. It ought to be a little more scientific.

Here is one video from a series that isn't as scientific as it could be, but actually provides evidence, rather than just arguing from their own authority.

Also, it's false to assume that if I learn how it works that I am actually going to be able to apply that knowledge. I read How To Win Friends and Influence People. Do I understand it? Yes. Can I apply it? Hell no. Why not? Because that requires experience dealing with actual people. It's too hard to get the practice you need. If you have trouble getting a date, how are you going to practice your skills?

Some of us are just going to have a really hard time, no matter what we try to do about it.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 42 (view)
Non-virgin sexual camels
Posted: 7/20/2012 10:04:07 PM
Sex isn't necessarily very easy to get for everyone.

In my case, it's sort of by choice, but not really. I mean, if I really wanted to have sex, I could act interested in some girl that I'm not really into, just for the sex, but I am not really into exploiting women, so it's not something I could see myself doing. That's basically the only way for me to have sex 99% of the time. So, if you like, it's by choice, but if you don't consider being immoral a choice, then, no, it's not by choice.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 105 (view)
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 7/15/2012 7:30:34 PM

I wouldn't care what language you use. I wouldn't care what symbols or colors or musical tones or flavors you use. But whatever symbology you you use them indicates if you're someone who's honest, or dishonest. If your use isn't responsible, and consistent, and applicable and appropriate according to the whole point of symbol or language use...then you're just playing games and trying to employ the equivalent of sleight-of-hand tricks. Anyone who downplays the importance of this is only revealing themselves as a subversive...somebody who fully intends to undermine and sabotage the process of conversation itself, and therefore the possibility of people reaching an understanding of reality among themselves and making real discoveries.

Actually, I think you are the one downplaying the importance of this. Because you insist on your definition of atheism. As a result, you can't communicate effectively with anyone who uses the word in a different way from your own. A good example of why you shouldn't put correct use of language ahead of communication. Keeping language very standardized is sort of a matter of enforcing standards on the entire population. That's not easy to do. It's easier just to deal with the fact that people speak slightly differently from each other. Within reason, of course.

I, on the other hand, actually agree with your definition of atheism, but I take into account that other people might have a different definition in mind. So, rather than unrealistically expecting everyone to use the same language, I am being flexible and taking into account the way different people use the language, rather than trying to convince everyone to use my definitions, which is futile. Rather than getting involved in a big debate over whose definition is correct, I am then free to discuss the actual ideas.

The idea that you should adjust your writing based on your audience is one of the fundamental ideas in writing, far from being a destructive idea, and this is essentially what I am saying. Language can be used to distort the truth, but that's hardly what I advocate. I advocate talking things through, exactly to prevent these sorts of sleights of hand and misunderstandings. Talking things through is generally more realistic than to expect everyone to understand each other right off the bat.

I call normally call myself an atheist, but the reality is, large numbers of people will not know what I mean by it. It happens to me all the time if I tell people I'm an atheist.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 51 (view)
Religion and dating
Posted: 7/15/2012 6:31:03 PM

Maverick, I have no intention of continuing this beyond this post. Let me just say that I do study the Bible on a regular basis, as do many other Christians, so your statement about "most"not even knowing what the Bible says, is far too sweeping to be taken seriously. Be careful when you use sweeping quantitative estimations. .

Okay, I don't have statistics on hand, but it is fair to say that "a lot" of Christians have not read too much of the Bible. I didn't mean it to be taken too seriously. I meant it as a rough statement and it's at least close to being true if you don't alter my words. I said they haven't read much of it. I didn't say they don't even know what the Bible says. Note that most just means over 50%. I think that's probably not too outlandish of a guess for people who have never made it all the way through the Bible, but I don't know what the actual percentage is. I also said they "appear" not to have read it, imply some uncertainty.

The study of the Bible is something that must go on for one's entire lifetime,it is a study of a worthy book, which many of us choose to engage in, so that we can better understand our faith. I have a B.A. in Biblical Theology,as well as many years studying the Bible in various study groups, yet I readily admit that I am still learning.

Of course, there are Christians who are really into studying the Bible. That's not quite the same thing as applying it to your life. There are actually three things that I am talking about when I say they don't take their Bible seriously--and by the way, all of these only apply to certain people, not all. One is not knowing it very well. The second is reinterpreting it to make it more friendly. And the third is knowing it, but not actually putting it into practice.

Criticize away, if that is your desire. You cannot respect a person while at the same time criticizing their beliefs and doctrines.That fine hair is very difficult to split.

So, basically, merely disagreeing with someone is a sign of disrespect? Maybe the opposite is a sign of disrespect. To assume that they are too oversensitive or unquestioning to handle any criticism or have their beliefs challenged. That sounds more disrespectful by my standards. I want people to challenge my opinions. Only people who don't care about whether they are right or not don't want to consider all sides of the story. I think people who talk too much about splitting hairs are essentially admitting that they think that all subtleties should be swept under the rug and that it is mistake to be to be discerning. In fact, if I criticize someone's beliefs, I AM criticizing (criticizing, not disrespecting) them indirectly. But you fail to see the big picture here. For a Christian, their beliefs CAN be a big part of who they are. But for most non-Christians and even some Christians, the beliefs are not really an important part of who they are. Therefore, from OUR perspective, we are criticizing a very small part of their life. But they don't see it that way. They see it as a big criticism, but actually, it's not.

I would think that mental efforts would be better spent trying to find the good, the positive, and the possible.
Peace, love, and tolerance to all. :) My best to you!

I actually agree with that. However, sometimes, the disagreements are pressing enough for some action to be required and the most efficient thing to do is to criticize, rather than just to ignore and hope the problem will disappear from lack of attention.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 40 (view)
Religion and dating
Posted: 7/14/2012 9:42:19 PM
Depends on the person. The name "Christian" doesn't really tell you that much. I can't conclude anything from the fact that they are Christian. Lots of people call themselves Christian. You have to talk to them more to find out what that actually means. I mean, the OP and I will never agree with anyone who calls themselves Christian, but it's not clear if being in a relationship with one poses any problems. I have had two girlfriends, and they were both Christians. Well, they are my ex's. In the case of the first one, she was open-minded enough for it not to be a real issue. Second one, not so much. She was just offended by my views--specifically, my acceptance of the fact of evolution, which I thought was somewhat separate from any attitudes I might have towards Christianity.

Don't you just love the way it's perfectly fine to bash Christians, sight unseen, from one end of the globe to the other?

There's bashing, and there's criticizing. Those are two different things. If someone wants to bash Christians or atheists, or anyone else, that is their free speech. I personally don't like "bashing" because that suggests non-constructive criticism and sounding too harsh for people to actually listen. But I wouldn't at all be surprised if what I call criticism, you call bashing.

All that is accomplished by such behavior is to prove that you are the one who is guilty of what you're accusing Christians of: bashing the beliefs and behaviors of others for no good reason, and, um...hypocrisy. Yes, it is hypocritical to profess being non-judgemental when that's exactly what you are doing---judging and bashing an entire group of people, just because you can.

A bit over-simplified and unrepresentative of 99% of the arguments people have with Christians. Seems like you are putting words in people's mouths. Only in a few cases would this paragraph describe anyone's opinions on Christianity. I'm not really explaining myself fully, since I am trying not to get too side-tracked into a religion argument, here.

As a Christian, I have nothing more to say. It would be wrong to judge people without knowing them, and their behaviors, very well. Best wishes to all. :)

If a group of people defines themselves by belief in certain doctrines, we already know something about their beliefs and may reasonably have some suspicions about their resulting behavior. In the case of Christianity, though, thankfully, most Christians appear not to take their Bible very seriously, or else we would have much greater cause for concern. Most of them appear not to have read much of the Bible, let alone know it very well. There are some good lessons in the Bible, as well as some not-so-good lessons. What's problematic is not the book itself, but the idea that it is the unaltered word of God, and therefore cannot be questioned. Again, only SOME Christians actually interpret it that way.

I have taken part in discussions where I come off as "harsh" towards Christianity and other religions. However, if you pay careful attention, I think I rarely criticize the people people themselves. Many Christians are great people, but I think that's more despite the religion, rather than because of it. I criticize the beliefs and the doctrines. I respect the people; I don't respect the "holy" books. I think it is possible to make a distinction.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 89 (view)
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 7/11/2012 5:31:45 PM

Daniel C Dennett in Consciousness Explained outlined that we think in language and not in abstract thought or concept. It may be that the savants amongst us think in shapes and colours enabling their ferocious mentl calculating skills and staggering ability to recall or to learn a language to fluency from scratch in a week, however for the mortals amongst us, it's language.

I am not sure if that directly addresses the recent points and i cannot advocate this theory personally but i followed Dan Dennett's line of thought and it made sense to me.

I don't quite agree with that, except that most of our thoughts throughout the day are likely to be in our native language. That doesn't mean that language is our ONLY mode of thought. Actually, people ARE highly visual. We are primates. Primates are very visual. That is why windows-style operating systems won out over DOS operating systems. It's much more intuitive and easier for people to learn. Out there in the wild, when you are doing things like hunting and gathering, you do have language because a lot of what we were doing was cooperative, necessitating communication, but you also need to have good non-verbal processing to survive because that is the basic input that your senses are providing you. In nature, there are no symbols. There is raw information. Sights, sounds, etc. and you have to be good at processing those in order to react quickly to your surroundings.

Personally, it's very much dependent on what I am thinking about. Again, most of my thoughts throughout the day are in English, but that doesn't mean that English is going to be appropriate for every kind of thing I want to think about.

I don't think visual thinking is just for savants. It's a skill that anyone can develop to some extent with the appropriate practice.I am a mathematician who thinks about math in pictures, so what Einstein described is very close to the way I think about math. I wasn't exactly born that way. It took a lot of practice to get there. Actually, visual thinking CAUSES people to have a higher ability to some extent, rather than the reverse. The people who practice are the people who become good at it.

I have heard that 90% of scientific discoveries were inspired by visual thinking (i.e. predominantly non-verbal). And this is the bulk of the progress of civilization, not verbal thought. True, these thoughts do need to be communicated effectively or else they will remain impotent, and actually that is a big problem in science (badly written papers). But the communication problem in science is largely due to an over-emphasis on symbols, which obscures the concepts that inspired the ideas. Science papers need more diagrams, more visuals, and less symbols (my experience being with physics and math). I'm not against using technical language in all cases because sometimes you just need a name for a certain thing and it doesn't exist yet, so a technical word is born of necessity. Einstein's quote is sort of the tip of the iceberg here. I am finishing up a PhD in math right now. You don't come to appreciate this sort of thing overnight. But really, the key to a deep understanding in math and physics is to focus less on the symbols and more on the concepts and pictures. People like Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman have said a lot of things to support this viewpoint.

Because symbols are one more step removed from reality, they introduce an extra loss of information. For example, when I say I ate an apple, there is a big information loss from the actual event because in your mind, you have to combine all the apples you have ever seen (or some representative sample that has embedded itself in your brain over the years) to recreate the event in your mind from what I said. If you try to get back to what the symbols actually represent, you can recapture some of the information that gets lost in that abstraction. There's a point beyond which words can't reach, where communication is not possible, and where each person must experience things for themselves and only for themselves.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 88 (view)
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 7/11/2012 8:20:29 AM
drinkthesun, honestly, you're just being a contrarian. I think the disagreement here is actually fairly slight, since you have actually posted things along the lines of what I'm saying yourself. Which, by the way, just illustrates my point. Am I misusing the English language here? No, it just takes a while to figure out what I'm saying, just as I said. I'm not saying words aren't important, I'm just saying they are secondary to concepts and things out there in the world. Actually, getting beyond words is a key to progress of all sorts.

"The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be 'voluntarily' reproduced and combined. .... This combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others".

--Albert Einstein in a letter to Jacques Hadamard.

So, I guess Einstein is a tower of babel demon, right?
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 87 (view)
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 7/11/2012 8:04:35 AM
Huge mistake. Absolutely huge mistake. That's one of the most irresponsible and sabotaging ideas someone could embrace. The symbols are important. Very important. That's the only way we can talk about things while we're limited to spoken or written words. Language is the exchange of agreed upon symbols. It's about the concepts, but without responsible symbol usage, it's like trying to move things around that are at the bottom of a deep pool with no way whatsoever of touching them or affecting them, or of even seeing them clearly through the ripples, light bending, and muck. And, we need to understand the difference between language changing, and language improving. Our understanding has already outpaced our language and ability to discuss things. We have to be open-ended and creative in our use of language...but we also have to be responsible and anal when it applies. Some who'd ridicule the idea of being technical with our words...I could only think of as a tower-of-babel-demon with malign intentions.

I said the symbols were important as vehicles. But they are only a means to the end. If we value the process more than the end result, I'm afraid that's obviously the mistake, not the other way around. So, I'm sorry, but this is not only not a mistake, but it's just common sense. It's a tautology, in fact.

What I'm trying to say is that it's inevitable that people will have their own way of using language and that that has to be dealt with.
Joined: 5/1/2011
Msg: 85 (view)
Coming out as an atheist
Posted: 7/8/2012 8:46:29 AM

people, if we don't stop playing word-games, we're doomed. Words are the key. Magic words. They're the handles attached to the concepts. The tower of babel. Man was becoming as they were. The gods. So they confused our language, which gives them power over us, and takes away our strength, potential, and future.

We managed to progress a bit since the middle ages, yet we aren't speaking middle English. That suggests to me that it's okay if language changes a bit over time. The concepts are what matters, not the symbols representing them. The symbols are just vehicles for the concepts--they don't matter in and of themselves, except in so far as they are fulfilling their role in communication. Words don't have a fixed meaning. They can change depending on context, etc.

Actually, I think some "word games" are somewhat necessary for this communication to happen because standardized definitions don't really work for that. You have to discuss things in more depth before everyone knows what's being said. If "word games" just mean pointing to the dictionary and saying, your definition is wrong, my definition is right, and not getting anywhere, then that is no good. Then, you're spending too much time focusing on the symbols and not the concepts which were the goal of the discussion.
Show ALL Forums