The thread title isn't quite what I mean, but let me explain.
I read a Dan Savage letter recently that got me thinking. His response (to a 30-year-old-virgin) was thus:
"Yeah, you'll be okay—but by ruling out drunks, the emotionally vulnerable, and the easily manipulated, VAT, you increase the odds that you'll remain a virgin for the rest of your natural life. A lot of very beautiful relationships—to say nothing of a lot of very timely deflowerings—owe their existences to booze, emotional vulnerability, and a little well-timed, well- intentioned manipulation."
Now I'll admit I'm not in as bad a spot as that guy, but I have been missing something in my search for love and meaning and all that. All my life I've acted the gentleman, or tried to anyway - giving women space when they want it, help when they need it, a friend, a listener, all that good stuff - and not because I want to jump their bones or jump-start a relationship (because we all know they can sense that falseness - or some can anyway). Because I care about their well-being (le gasp!). It's not like I don't do the same for my guy friends.
See, I'm only really interested in relationships with respect and love. So being a friend first is important to me. Don't get me wrong, trysts for fun can be their own reward, but not when looking for the Deep Stuff (no not that kind of deep stuff, dirtyfrank).
Trouble is, all it's ever gotten me is friendship. You know the guy that gets put in the Friend Zone because he's too "valuable" to put through the messiness and risk-potential of "something more"? That's me in spades (or at least, that's the reason they give me).
Now I'll be the first to say, it's not all "them" - I don't exactly have a large pool of empirical data to pull from. I don't "put myself out there" often. Straightly-put, I'm a bit of a hermit. When you don't drink, don't like coffee, and your hobbies are (we can admit it here) seen as "eccentric" by most, well...
But Savage's response put me in a cold shock. You see I'm a pacifist IRL (despite my love of violent games of all sorts, D&D's company included), and I consider myself pretty empathic. I try to put my self in other people's shoes often and I can usually tell what someone's feeling. And while I do love biting sarcasm, playful criticism, and the occasional troll - I only do it with people I've already "felt out" (no not that kind dirtyfrank), people who I know can take it.
Thus I'm very much against manipulating people for my own ends - be their vulnerability emotional, alcohol-induced, or just natural naivete. I don't like relationships founded on lies or misrepresentation on principle. I've done "the right thing" more times than I can count, and helped some other people out of what might've been a very regret-worthy situation or two...but after reading the above, I wonder. Has doing the "right thing" been killing my chances? Is that my reward?
So this is an EXTREMELY roundabout way of me asking you lovely forum folks - what do you think of the above Savage quote? Does one's chances at love or "beautiful relationships" drop astronomically without the presence of "social manipulation" (in chemical or other forms)? Or is Dan only right about the "deflowering" bit?
Think about your own experiences, and then do tell! (Your opinion that is. You don't have to dish on your own life unless you wanna.) :P
Some women will try and take charge of a relationship, whether overtly or subtly, change this exciting and restless jerk into the nerd that she also desires. If she fails then she will lose interest. If she succeeds then the fun guy she fell in love with is no longer fun and thus she will likely leave.
You can still be a nice kind and truthful friend and still get the girls. You just have to be exciting. If you can be exciting, fun and show confidence, you can still be the nice and upstanding gentleman, for you will be able to attract women.
Meanwhile, you get to sit on the f***ing shelf while they take their time dating morons and losers, just to see if there's something "better" out there. Now, by "better," I mean that they want to see if one of these morons or losers can be fixed and turned into their own personally trained Finished Product, which they will surely have more control over and will be more to their tastes. Women are very, very curious, after all, and the idea that there's a guy out there that would be "perfect" for them, if only they could fix him
, is fairly common among women.In other words, you need to get some character defects, bud. It's why I still let my anger get away here and there, and why I keep a little bit of jerk-wad alive inside of me, because women automatically see those as challenges to be overcome, and if you aim those defects towards the right type of curiosity and determination for you, you'll get more the type of woman you want, while still making her happy with her "perfect" man.
Shocker: it wasn't filthy humor! it was appropriate for little children!
Yeah, a good sense of humor will save your ass in many different ways, that's true. :D
.....like how?
The worst part to me is that it re-emphasizes sex ("timely deflowerings") instead of an actual relationship.
But if I talk on this much, I'll inject religion or something. Wouldn't want the thread locked.
I am pretty good at making people laugh. At my ceramics class, I had everyone pretty much rolling on the floor laughing. And I wasn't trying to be funny. When you try too hard, you fail. Just let it come naturally.
Shocker: it wasn't filthy humor! it was appropriate for little children!
It isn't about making people laugh, but instead how you make them laugh.
There's way more to a relationship than getting laid. Too many poeple don't realize that.
Y'know, I just thought of something. Put an ad in the newspaper, or just write it on a peice of paper and stick it on the wall in my ceramics class.
WANTED: Girlfriend. Must put up with me.
It isn't about making people laugh, but instead how you make them laugh.
umm, they were laughing b/c they though I was ****ing hilarious. Is that good?
umm, they were laughing b/c they though I was ****ing hilarious. Is that good?
It's about delivery.
I often seem to be neutral/emotionless when make most of my funny comments. As if I sort of not caring about much. In doing so I can make a lot of jokes without it seeming as if I'm actually trying and without boasting. I have gotten it down so well that I can be absolutely serious and everyone around me will take it as serious sarcasm and such.
Huh? Delivery? Can you elaborate a bit? I'm lost.
Well that usually happens 9 months after the deflowering.
Meanwhile, you get to sit on the f***ing shelf while they take their time dating morons and losers, just to see if there's something "better" out there. Now, by "better," I mean that they want to see if one of these morons or losers can be fixed and turned into their own personally trained Finished Product, which they will surely have more control over and will be more to their tastes. Women are very, very curious, after all, and the idea that there's a guy out there that would be "perfect" for them, if only they could fix him
Jebus do I hear that. It's like "I'm right friggin' here, ladies. I've made my interest rather plain. Yeah, great, just keep stringing me along while you tell me about the latest jerk that was so nice at first. I have been nice forever for real reasons." *sigh*
Again, not that it's all their fault - but since I can't change them, and I don't want to wait my whole life for them to "figure it out", I gotta change me.
In other words, you need to get some character defects, bud. It's why I still let my anger get away here and there, and why I keep a little bit of jerk-wad alive inside of me, because women automatically see those as challenges to be overcome, and if you aim those defects towards the right type of curiosity and determination for you, you'll get more the type of woman you want, while still making her happy with her "perfect" man.
Interesting. It's still rather manipulative, so I don't like it...but I guess it does give her a feeling of accomplishment in the end. The "make up a wrong, give Mr. Right" method? Like a Trojan Horse full of delicious candy. :P
Yeah, a good sense of humor will save your ass in many different ways, that's true. :D
A cool, clear head will too. But yeah, they've pretty much all said I'm funny - a few said I'm the funniest guy they know, so I guess that's something. (Go English and History degrees - dance for me words, dance!)
So maybe I just have to work on being James Bond and Batman as well as Groucho Marx and friggin' Gandhi. :P
WANTED: Girlfriend. Must put up with me.
lol. Well, I suppose it couldn't hurt (besides your pocketbook). Everybody has that story about the one friend who just goes up to every girl in a bar and says "wanna screw?" and they get slapped 9 times out of 10, but every 10th time...
This sounds like even less risk - at least they won't be telling all their girlfriends about your jerkitude (unless you're a jerk after they call up, which hopefully one would avoid).
Well that usually happens 9 months after the deflowering.
Leadfeather folks, he'll be here all week! Tip your waitress! But don't tip her too far, she's carrying drinks! Hi-yooo!
It's about how you act when you deliver the joke/comedy.
I often seem to be neutral/emotionless when make most of my funny comments. As if I sort of not caring about much. In doing so I can make a lot of jokes without it seeming as if I'm actually trying and without boasting. I have gotten it down so well that I can be absolutely serious and everyone around me will take it as serious sarcasm and such.
Ahh. I was just talking normally, and everyone started laughing, and I was just like "What? What did I say? And then I kept going. My buddy Mason was laughing so hard he was crying.
@ leadfeather:
A cool, clear head will too. But yeah, they've pretty much all said I'm funny - a few said I'm the funniest guy they know, so I guess that's something.
A lot of girls will say such to not hurt your feelings. They may like you because your nice, so they don't want to hurt you, but they also am not interested in starting a relation ship with you. It can be a nice way of saying "lets be friends."
lol. Well, I suppose it couldn't hurt (besides your pocketbook). Everybody has that story about the one friend who just goes up to every girl in a bar and says "wanna screw?" and they get slapped 9 times out of 10, but every 10th time...
More around 50% of the time.
@ WW: I was just joking when I said the "Wanted: Girlfriend. Must Put up with me" thing.
Humor, self confidence, demonstrate self care and don't be so nice that you are constantly patronizing. Show interest, show friendship, show strength (not so much physical, but character) and pay attention. That is really just about it. When the attraction comes, it comes.
Edit: Also show potential and interest in your long term self.
A lot of girls will say such to not hurt your feelings. They may like you because your nice, so they don't want to hurt you, but they also am not interested in starting a relation ship with you. It can be a nice way of saying "lets be friends."
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I don't think it's the case here, just from a vague ratio of "laughs I get" to laughs other people get with their jokes in our "group", but it's still possible - I don't know all their friends after all. Maybe some of them know you dirtyfrank, and I don't have a prayer. :P
@ WW: I was just joking when I said the "Wanted: Girlfriend. Must Put up with me" thing.
Right. Still, fun experiment to see what calls (if any) you get. (I mean if you've got money to toss - but who does these days?)
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I don't think it's the case here, just from a vague ratio of "laughs I get" to laughs other people get with their jokes in our "group", but it's still possible - I don't know all their friends after all. Maybe some of them know you dirtyfrank, and I don't have a prayer. :P
What gives you the impression that I'm a ladies man?
That is really just about it. When the attraction comes, it comes.
Thanks for weighing in, Minja. Though if you could spread the word among any female friends to "be more assertive"...
I mean heck, it's 2009 people! [Insert obligatory Obama reference], anything's possible! I say more equal rights for the ladies - including me not always having to be the pursuer! I could stand to be romanced a little...and I can damn sure guarantee I'll be more up-front about whether it's working than some women I've seen... :P
If there's one thing I'm living proof of, it's you can be sensitive without bein' a delicate flower.
What gives you the impression that I'm a ladies man?
Well you're probably funnier than me, judging just from the boards. And 50%?! Wtf man, that's better odds than I've ever heard. :P
EDIT: Course maybe they do things different in Cali.
Well you're probably funnier than me, judging just from the boards. And 50%?! Wtf man, that's better odds than I've ever heard. :P
EDIT: Course maybe they do things different in Cali.
I think success depends partly on how you look, how you present yourself, and how you deliver. Even then, those that are looking for sex will say yes, most of the time, and those that are just hanging out at the bar will hit you.
And the whole "nice guys finish last" DOES have some truth to it. If you consider nice guy as "lets people walk all over him."
You can both be a nice guy, and still be confident, hell even cocky.
Basically, compromise is not bad, but if it is obvious you are compromising to your own detriment, then you look like a wimp. Agreeing on seeing the movie she wants to see, even though you have no interest is not a bad compromise. Agreeing to get up early to drive her somewhere, even though you worked late the night before and are dead tired, is.
Compromise on stuff that doesn't matter, be firm on things that do. Even then, sometimes compromise, but don't become a doormat. Everyone likes doormats, but they don't want to date them.
Another thing is word things as statements rather than questions. Don't make there be no way to say no, but a statement will make it sound more confident. Also, try not to end sentences with things like "is that ok?"
Anyway... I know I mostly rambled through this... but I hope its somewhat useful.
(Note: this is from the perspective of a polyamorous male who has been married for nearly 8 years, and has had three long term girlfriends during the same time. If you think trying to ask someone out when you are single is difficult, try doing it when you aren't... and you are adamant about making sure everyone knows and is ok with it.)
(Note: this is from the perspective of a polyamorous male who has been married for nearly 8 years, and has had three long term girlfriends during the same time. If you think trying to ask someone out when you are single is difficult, try doing it when you aren't... and you are adamant about making sure everyone knows and is ok with it.)
Well if that's not expert advice, I dunno what is. Thx TF.
Me I am not ready for all that yet, but I wish you well.
I still recommend that you hit up some of your female friends to go out and do some blind dating, double dating, and playing the wing woman. I know it sounds funny, but it works.
The worst case scenario is you get practice, the best is you find a match.
Love isn't fair.
Love isn't kind.
Love could give a dead moose's last crap about how nice you are.
That works both ways, you can easily fall in love with a real douchebag and not know it until it's too late to easily extricate yourself from the bad situation.
The problem lies not in women, or in men, but in the fact that (in America at least, that's the only culture I am intimately familiar with, so my commentary does not apply to any other culture) in our society we are bombarded constantly with romance and whatever.
To paraphrase Ben Croshaw: every American movie has a romantic subplot shoved in whether it makes sense or not. If you went to an alternate dimension where very movie regardless of genre had a Country Line-Dancing scene in it, you'd think they were insane. (Source available upon request, links to naughty language the ORCs wouldn't approve of).
So, everyone in America thinks that you fall ass-backwards into a perfect romantic relationship or lay anyone you see for more than a few weeks, and get depressed when they fail. (It's more exceptional to be like they are on TV. And before anyone comes to waggle their genitals around and brag about how they get laid, individuals are utterly irrelevant.) That's not how it works, it often takes a very long time to trust anyone if one or both people have been hurt often or seriously enough in the past, and romantic relationships take work. Your brain is wired to not be in love with someone about a year to 18 months after falling in love. That's how it works, it's perfectly normal. You need to work at it to keep it going.
Simply put, don't worry about getting laid or falling in love. If you are the breeding type, it will happen regardless of what you do. If you aren't good breeding stock, there's nothing you can do to help it. Don't let it rule your life, there are too many things in this world to see and do and have done to you to pine because you're not in a relationship.
By the way Count Arioch the 28th, I liked the part about the moose.
In my mind, in this context, love is twofold.
There's the "feelings" of love. This is the warm fuzzies, skip in your heart, etc. This comes and goes for everyone. I bet you if you ask a couple married 50 years, they'll say there were times when things weren't fuzzy warm gooey feelings.
That's where love comes in. You know that passage about "love is patient, love is kind, etc"? A feeling can't be patient. A feeling just is. I propose that love, real love, is a...hm. A state of being? A long term working of actions and choice? You love that person. That doesn't just mean you have warm gooeys, it means you do for them. For them, you're patient. For them, you're kind. For them, you do things, not because you have to, but because you want to. You communicate. You help. You surprise. You support. You encourage. You defend (them, not yourself). You maybe even lead.
That's what love is. Not this gooey fleeting feeling, sleep with someone on the second date crap Hollywood tries to feed us.
No, I'm not married. No, I'm not dating. But I do see my parents every day, and they are married. For...29 or so years now. My grandparents on my mother's side? Over 50 years. And I've got plenty of friends who are younger and married, and more friends or friends of my parents who are older and married. So I can at least observe secondhand.
True love endures problems. I know which one I want. ;)
seems like I agree with you in just about every way on this subject.
Love isn't fair.
Love isn't kind.
This, at least, I agree with. You have to fight to make it work, and sometimes even then...
I was an usher at a friend's wedding recently, and the priest said some words
about the "three kinds of love". There are many theories of how many kinds there are - a testament to how confusing it is for all of us. One of the priest's three though was a kind the Greeks called agape. The way he described it (which is not necessarily accurate, but it was his - remember many definitions) was the love essential for a lasting relationship with anyone. Selfless love without condition - self-sacrificing love, love to all (foe and friend). He stated that anyone who practiced it would be rewarded.
I think he was wrong about that last part.
However, I think I think it's still worth the risk of wasted effort and time.
In a strange twist of fate or coincidence for these boards, tonight I received a firsthand lesson in the lack of kindness or fairness. In fact it was more like a series of about a dozen smaller lessons all rolled up together, slapping me in the face.
People are twisted, confused, stupid, glorious creatures. Sometimes the most painful hurts come with the best of intentions. Sometimes you don't get "rewarded" at all, and unlike D&D, a happy ending is not ensured.
I think it's still worth fighting for. I'll probably always think that, even if I can't physically do it, like now.
If I seem unresponsive, listless, or businesslike on these boards over the next...however long, I don't do it to hurt you. It just means my boards-personality and my IRL-personality have clashed, and an extremely long-duration depression has crept into this last refuge. That's all.
This isn't a cry for sympathy. To be honest I don't care whether you believe me or not - it's a forum, it is empirically impossible to tell. I suspect some of you still will, because you're good people and concerned, but I'll tell you right now - there's not much you can do. I'm one little guy in a big (twisted, confused, stupid, glorious) world, and the best thing you can do is keep truckin' on with your lives, keep fighting (whether it's orcs or IRL for What You Want).
Hopefully I will find some help for this. If not, if so, the world keeps turning - that is the most simultaneously great and horribly cruel thing about it. I'm going to go away for a bit now - I've been up for two days and my brain is afire with...there's not really a word to describe it. Feelings and concepts and cruel realities that are not nice have yet to settle.
So you all have a good night, kick ass, and kiss someone if you feel like it. Revel in your glory, forgive your stupidity.
[This thread is in OTT instead of Astrid's because it has nothing to do with gaming, and is an omnigender topic.]
The thread title isn't quite what I mean, but let me explain.
I read a Dan Savage letter recently that got me thinking. His response (to a 30-year-old-virgin) was thus:
"Yeah, you'll be okay—but by ruling out drunks, the emotionally vulnerable, and the easily manipulated, VAT, you increase the odds that you'll remain a virgin for the rest of your natural life. A lot of very beautiful relationships—to say nothing of a lot of very timely deflowerings—owe their existences to booze, emotional vulnerability, and a little well-timed, well- intentioned manipulation."
Yeah, here's where he's wrong. Beautiful relationships are NOT[not/NoT] built on that. He's totally being over-cynical there. Timely deflowerings, totally, painful, short trists, sure... but no marriage will last like that, and if it does, it sure as hell won't be beautiful.
I will say this... women are more easilly attracted to douchebags, but they usually grow out of it sooner or later.
Just keep looking. That's really the only advice I can give you. Also, shower regularly and try to watch where your eyes go when you meet someone. ;)
At least not until Sunday morning....
If I am remembering the letter correctly in which he posted that response to the guy was a jackass with ridiculous standards for women. He wanted to be 100% sure that the girl he lost his viginity with was the one he wanted to be with for the rest of his life but didn't want to wait until he was married. The guy writing in implied that girls who drank more than one glass of wine were drunks and girls who flirted were manipulative.
Back to your question, do any of these girls show any interest in you at all? I agree that it sounds like they are sparing your feelings and have no interest in you at all. Either that or you are dating the girls that like to fix people. I have a friend like that and she has horrible horrible taste in men and is extremely suspicious of guys that seem nice without horrible amounts of emotional baggage. Most girls are not like that.
Either the girls are not interested in you and are sparing your feelings or you are inexplicable drawn to girls with complexes. If it is the second than faking an emotional problem might help. Either way you might want to re-examine your own choices in women.
And yes, confidence is appealing in both a physical and a mental way. Developing confidence is a huge plus in terms of making yourself more appealing to the opposite sex.
"You're putting the ***** on a pedestal."
You don't have to pick up on drunks. Plenty of people aren't drunk at the bar. But, you must have reservations about pursuing somebody you're interested in, and a little group consumption of alcohol is one way that some people learn to get over themselves and their hangups.
But never mind that if its not helping. I understand the friendship aspect. My girl is my best friend too. Guess what. We met in a bar seven years ago (as of friday). However, you can trap yourself (as you know) in the friendship loop. If you don't let the lady know that you're interested through words, body language, whatever then she's going to think you're either not interested (because most guys are perfectly capable pigs and have trouble hiding their hormones enough) or she'll think you're just some kid with no self-confidence who can't man up and put his heart or ego at risk.
You have to accept that rejection is always possible.
i'm 23 and a virgin, semi-by-choice. I had one real girlfriend that didn't last very long and it's just been a long and lonely existence o_O.Wanna talk about horror stories? I HAVE been given the "lets just be friends" speech. You can just feel it coming a mile away.
Never let a woman "talk" with you. "we need to talk" is never a good sign. And yes the moment she said that I already knew it was coming. Yeah it's all hollywoodish but thats how it can really happen.
I'm sort of desperate to get laid (i'm closing in on 24!) but part of me has stopped caring and more just wants to wait for that special girl to deflower me that I am actually looking for.
I'm not changing anything for anybody, if I have to wait more years then fine. I look fine, i dress fine, i'm healthy, i been called incredibly funny with a great sense of humor. Something just isn't clicking... maybe because i'm a D&D nerd/geek and I live in a tiny town of 3k people where the main attraction is to go out and get plastered drunk. And mind you I do not drink, i'm the black sheep of the family who doesn't party hard or get drunk or smoke or even touched drugs in my whole life.
It's funny to watch the girls I like go through these horrible relationships thinking they found the one and things fall apart.
I'M RIGHT HERE LADIES! COME AND GET ME!
edit: One thing I remember, forgot who said it. Girls get confidence confused with men being d1ckheads.
Hi
I think they get pulled aside at a young age and taught that.
edit: One thing I remember, forgot who said it. Girls get confidence confused with men being d1ckheads.
The same over-generalization could be used to say some guys feel sour grapes when a girl they are interested in dates another guy.
The same over-generalization could be used to say some guys feel sour grapes when a girl they are interested in dates another guy.
There is some grain of truth to this though. I mean, its not 100% true, but at the same time, I've watched a lot of girls date guys who were complete jerks because they were "exciting". And then have to sit and talk to them when the complete jerk does something jerkish, and then have them go back to the same guy...
And these are girls I have no interest in personally... (mostly because they are too messed up to realise what they are doing is retarded).
Its not true for all girls... but it does happen.
The same over-generalization could be used to say some guys feel sour grapes when a girl they are interested in dates another guy.
This doesn't also apply to females, why? ',: )
Its not true for all girls... but it does happen.
And the exact same comments could be made about my sour grapes arguments. Attraction is a strange thing, it is not always intuitive, and it is in the eye of the beholder. You have as much right to judge my attraction as I do yours, and I can understand yours about as much as you understand mine.
@ Crimson Lancer, Sure it can apply to females, I didn't say it couldn't.
In fact I have felt that way before.Attraction is a strange thing, it is not always intuitive
Well electricity and magnetism isn't all that strange of a concept. Like charges repel and opposite charges attract. I do agree that when getting deep into the math/physics of it that it can get a bit unintuitive. ;)
I recommend not worrying about it. If it's going to happen, it will happen. With the exception of bathing and grooming regularly, there's nothing you can do to influence attraction. Either you are or you're not. Smelling bad can drive people away, but nothing else really affects anything.
There's a world full of stuff out there, way too much to be worrying about fifteen minutes of calisthenics followed by a release of endorphins.
When you are someone who listenes and cares, someone will always see you as weak and try to walk all over you. People will come to you with their problems and come out feeling better about themselves, without thinking of how you feel. Because people just aren't as nice as you. Maybe the time has come for you to be a little more selfish. If someone want's to cry on your shoulder, are they doing it because they need You to comfort them, or just anybody? Are they talking to you because you always listen anyway? Are they letting you show your affection because it makes them feel good about themselves, without regard for what it means to you? I know that it's hard to ask questions like this, but sometimes you have to be cynical. You might loose a little of your insight of people and the world, but maybe it's worth it. Remember that you are good enough, sometimes even too good for the girls. (Yes, I know how that sounds).
Romance isn't for the dysfunctional, but don't give it away freely either.
Now that was my thoughts on the subject, hopefully I didn't misunderstand the thread to much.
Well electricity and magnetism isn't all that strange of a concept. Like charges repel and opposite charges attract. I do agree that when getting deep into the math/physics of it that it can get a bit unintuitive. ;)
Attraction gets more difficult the closer you look. Stupid Heisenberg...
Attraction gets more difficult the closer you look. Stupid Heisenberg...
Don't be dissing on my main man Heisenberg. It takes brilliant person to realize that the world is a crazy place where things can happen in unexpected ways.
Don't be dissing on my main man Heisenberg. It takes brilliant person to realize that the world is a crazy place where things can happen in unexpected ways.
It takes a brilliant person to figure that out? Geez. Seems like me and everyone I know are geniuses then.
People are like particles, their attraction is hard to understand and can't easily be judged. Particles should also not blame other particles for being attracted to another particle and not them.
I'll make a feminist out of you yet. :P :D
Although, we will have to do something about all that dirty.....
So this is an EXTREMELY roundabout way of me asking you lovely forum folks - what do you think of the above Savage quote? Does one's chances at love or "beautiful relationships" drop astronomically without the presence of "social manipulation" (in chemical or other forms)? Or is Dan only right about the "deflowering" bit?
Think about your own experiences, and then do tell! (Your opinion that is. You don't have to dish on your own life unless you wanna.) :P
In my experience, some people believe that men only come in 2 forms, 'jerks' and 'nice guys'. In a way, they're right that men come in 2 forms, just not in the way they think. The real difference is not between nice guys and jerks (who're usually two of a kind), but between the guys who split men into nice guys and jerks (and subsequently blame women for only falling for jerks), and the guys who don't.
I don't think direct manipulation is the way to go. In fact, honesty tends to give better results, but a lot of it is the way you present it. And you have to have something to be honest about – a guy lying about his performance in a field is not attractive, but a guy who performs badly isn't very impressive either. A guy who doesn't throw himself at your (and every other girl's) feat is attractive, but not if he's just putting up an act to seem unimpressed. Some guys make the mistake up believing that faking what other guys have will get them the same favourable result, and they're usually wrong.
Show
I remember a D&D session where one of the guys left early. After he was gone, another guy mentioned that the reason this guy always got laid, was because he wouldn't accept a 'no' from girls (with the implicit meaning that the speaker believed he would get sex himself if he acted the same). Now, there was a lot of differences between the two guys. 'Nice guy' (the speaker) was both overweight and otherwise physically unattractive, lived with his parents, had no job, no education save high school, described himself as socially incompetent (one of the few correct evaluations he's ever made), and didn't know how to take care of, let alone responsibility for, himself.
The 'jerk' on the other hand, was both leaner and more physically fit, had a more attractive face, a better voice, and was overall more handsome. He was also more charming, and had his own job and a life besides gaming. And if the differences in looks, skill, and status (job and money) wasn't enough, the difference in personality was staggering, and not in favour of the 'nice guy'. Yet of all these differences, 'nice guy' honestly believed that what prevented him from being as successful with girls as the 'jerk', was his (alleged) respect for women
The 'jerk' on the other hand, was both leaner and more physically fit, had a more attractive face, a better voice, and was overall more handsome. He was also more charming, and had his own job and a life besides gaming. And if the differences in looks, skill, and status (job and money) wasn't enough, the difference in personality was staggering, and not in favour of the 'nice guy'. Yet of all these differences, 'nice guy' honestly believed that what prevented him from being as successful with girls as the 'jerk', was his (alleged) respect for women
Re: the Savage Quote
Eh. The guy's a cynic, but not necessarily wrong. But that shouldn't suprise you... if you rule out options, then you reduce the odds of reaching the end result.
That said...
Re: My own advice
It's still expected for the guy to make the first move. As such, if you don't, then anything happening is unlikely.
That's not to say that relationships can't still happen, but if you aren't out there asking new people out, meeting new people, chatting it up at social scenes, you're less likely to meet someone and get a spark.
Of course, I'm still/only 1 for 1 on relationships1 so take my advice with a grain2 of salt.
1That is to say, I have had one boyfriend. I'm still with him something like three years later.
2Bucket?
There is some great advice in here. My situation is similar to Steve Carell - some bad early experiences (though mine were minor comparatively) followed by a "giving up" for a long time. I still make attempts but they are rare (or rather, I internally shout-myself down a lot with low self-confidence, depression, and a feeling of having wasted too much time already).
I can say it is not due to physical unattractiveness - I would consider myself "ok", and have outside evidence this is the case. If someone is really interested in the specifics I can answer a PM. It is unlikely my social group search my posts, but some of them know this handle.
But I prefer people responding to the Savage quote than directly to my problems. I appreciate it, but the best you can do is tell me to work to solve them and "get out there" (which you have), and those are things only I can do. I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a "pat/push/pity the weaver" thing.
I enjoy reading Savage (I think most people do due to his abrasive honesty), but he's definitely not right about everything. I was just curious as to what people here think about this response in particular, and to what extent. (For example, I agree with EscherEnigma that ruling out options = reducing odds is self-evident - it's just that Savage makes it seem like ruling out those particular odds makes the result drastically less likely.)
The real difference is not between nice guys and jerks (who're usually two of a kind), but between the guys who split men into nice guys and jerks (and subsequently blame women for only falling for jerks), and the guys who don't.
Ummm, I'm sorry, but this part makes no sense. There is a huge difference between the nice guy and the jerk. The nice guy is the guy who offers to help you with your Math homework, and even though he's desperately attracted to you, he still actually wants to help you with your Math homework (because, ya know, he actually cares about you as a person). The jerk is the guy who is brimming with arrogance, every chick around wants to date him when he puts "the moves" on them, and he actually does date all of these chicks; then he cheats on them/lies to them constantly/dumps them for a "hotter" chick/gets bored of them/etc.
I fail to see how these two kinds of people are "two of a kind." ',: |
Ummm, I'm sorry, but this part makes no sense. There is a huge difference between the nice guy and the jerk. The nice guy is the guy who offers to help you with your Math homework, and even though he's desperately attracted to you, he still actually wants to help you with your Math homework (because, ya know, he actually cares about you as a person). The jerk is the guy who is brimming with arrogance, every chick around wants to date him when he puts "the moves" on them, and he actually does date all of these chicks; then he cheats on them/lies to them constantly/dumps them for a "hotter" chick/gets bored of them/etc.
I fail to see how these two kinds of people are "two of a kind." ',: |
You forgot to mention that the jerk helps out with math homework not because he cares but as a chance to get laid.
Ummm, I'm sorry, but this part makes no sense. There is a huge difference between the nice guy and the jerk. The nice guy is the guy who offers to help you with your Math homework, and even though he's desperately attracted to you, he still actually wants to help you with your Math homework (because, ya know, he actually cares about you as a person). The jerk is the guy who is brimming with arrogance, every chick around wants to date him when he puts "the moves" on them, and he actually does date all of these chicks; then he cheats on them/lies to them constantly/dumps them for a "hotter" chick/gets bored of them/etc.
I fail to see how these two kinds of people are "two of a kind." ',: |
I interpreted that to mean that there are a lot more than two kinds of guys - not that there are less.
But there are guys that classify guys as nice guys or jerks. And they tend to be less of a catch than they think they are.
I interpreted that to mean that there are a lot more than two kinds of guys - not that there are less.
But there are guys that classify guys as nice guys or jerks. And they tend to be less of a catch than they think they are.
I'm the third kind of guy. I'm a nice jerk. ;)
But there are guys that classify guys as nice guys or jerks. And they tend to be less of a catch than they think they are.
I can definitely see that. It's dumb to categorize anyone - a shortcut at best, and not to be used with something you find important. Even with incontrovertible evidence of a guy being a jerk, you don't have omniscient knowledge - it doesn't mean that's how they get all their women, or how they always will.
Blaming others for failure is never as productive as overcoming it, and if you're not willing to look deeper than labels to find out "dating secrets" then that's really your problem, isn't it?
The nice guy is the guy who offers to help you with your Math homework [...]
What about the guy that asks if she can help him with his Calculus homework (what, she was a math major, and humility is supposed to be a virtue) not because he actually needs the help, or is terribly interested in her, but is trying to test if he's actually gay or not?
I can definitely see that. It's dumb to categorize anyone - a shortcut at best, and not to be used with something you find important. Even with incontrovertible evidence of a guy being a jerk, you don't have omniscient knowledge - it doesn't mean that's how they get all their women, or how they always will.
You got it!
People do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons, they date in all kinds of ways with all kinds of different motivations.
People want someone that will excite them and treat them right.
1. The typical stereotypical 'nice guy' is more reserved because being nice to people is something he prioritizes it, often above having fun.
2. The stereotypical 'exciting guy' is more, how should I put it, impulsive. (Actually, I don't think that is the right word. I'm winging it here.) He prioritizes fun, often above being nice.
Out of 1., there are some who really are fun despite being nice and prioritizing that.
Out of 2., there are some who really are considerate of others feelings despite being 'exciting'.
Since being 'fun and exciting' is easier to spot from casual acquaintance than being truly nice, girls will often pick the fun and exciting in hopes of finding the nice one.
It has more appeal than sifting through boring to find nice and exciting. (Yes, looks mean a lot too.)
In the end, eventually many of the exciting ones who aren't nice grow up and learn to respect others.
In the end, many of those nice guys who are not fun gain enough dating experience to know how to show someone a fun time.
Some jerks stay jerks. Some with little social skills never develop them.
But, I believe a big mistake is when guys try to get girls by being nice or have the expectation that being nice will/should get the girls.
The real reason to be nice is that it is the right thing to do. You should have no expectations in return for it, except perhaps to be treated with decency. I believe this is a distinctly different approach than the guy who held women to such high expectations mentioned in the Savage article.
So don't manipulate people. It is the wrong thing to do, even if it helps others to get what they want.
As others have said, people should go for volume/numbers. Date as many people as possible and look at why things didn't work and try things differentlly the next time. It boils down to not being afraid to go for something, whether that something is improving your personal appearance, asking out a girl, or simply starting a conversation with a random girl over something random.
Dating is a skill. Practice it or lose it.
As others have said, people should go for volume/numbers. Date as many people as possible and look at why things didn't work and try things differentlly the next time.
That reminds me of a conversation I once had with my department manager1. She ended up giving similar advice, throwing in a few things like "you never really know what it is you're really looking for until you've been looking a while" and "it's good to have a lot of dating experience so when you find the right person you know what to do."
Then she asked "You know what I mean?" to which I responded with my 1-for-1 dating record2. Her reaction was a little amusing.
---
1We were waiting on someone else to show up to start a meeting and got to small talk.
2I've had one SO, whom I am still with.
I interpreted that to mean that there are a lot more than two kinds of guys - not that there are less.
But there are guys that classify guys as nice guys or jerks. And they tend to be less of a catch than they think they are.
Ohhhh...Interesting! I missed that one! Still, "Two of a kind," is fairly insulting to guys who actually care, but are pushovers.
I agree with Dirtyfrank: I'm a nice jerk.
@Escher: That guy is simply scared. Scared of himself, and scared of the World around him in accordance of who he might be. :S
Disclaimer 2: As the meme in question deals specifically in stereotypical depictions of men and women, as well as assuming a heteronormative/cisgendered relationship model, I will forego my usual gender-neutral speech and discuss the situation as a male/female scenario, though I do not doubt that variations of this theme cover the spectrum of sexes, genders, and orientations.
Disclaimer 3: This is not directed at anyone in particular. Please do not take it personally.
I once read a good article about the misogyny of the 'nice guys finish last' mentality. Obviously the 'nice guy' is a better judge of character than every dizzy dame out there, so he knows that what the ladies really need isn't the guy they naturally fell for due to reasons as nuanced and meaningful as his own desires; instead they should smarten up and fall for an embittered, passive-aggressive wimp who feels entitled to their time/hearts/bodies because he performs the herculean task of convincing himself that he respects them. In actuality his complaint demonstrates that, at least on some level which he probably doesn't want to know about, he considers them brainless prostitutes too stupid to fall for a guy who's 'sensitive' enough to pay them in the currency of false respect.
Now, I'm not saying that every guy who feels romantic plight and jumps onto the 'nice guys finish last' bandwagon is like this, but I do feel that this demeaning (to all parties involved) attitude is at the heart of the sentiment.
If you want to be loved, the only person you have to impress is yourself. Get seriously comfortable with who you are. If that isn't something you can do, become someone you can be happy with. Learn to live with you, without needing support or someone to 'complete you'. Be a complete person on your own. If you can pull that off, you will radiate the kind of confidence that attracts other healthy, beautiful people.
Another important thing to realize is that nothing is forever. I had a friend who said he'd had nothing but failed relationships. Turns out his rationale was that, if it didn't last forever, it was a failure. Yow. Don't expect, or even hope, for a relationship to last forever. Take what you get, and be prepared to let go when the time comes. That way you can face each ending like an adult, treasuring the good times and looking toward new beginnings. If everything goes wrong and you turn out to be the one in a million who gets 'forever', you can be pleasantly surprised.
Lastly, get out into the world. I'm not saying you should hit bars or dating circuits. Just meet people. Don't have an agenda, but make yourself visible to people with like interests and perspectives. You can't meet someone if you never meet anyone, after all. If, in the course of living your life among your fellow sentients, you meet one who you would like to know better, ask them out. Don't hide your intentions, don't say you should 'hang out'; nearly every guy who's trapped in the 'friend zone' is there because he didn't have the reproductive orbs to admit that he wanted something more. Be honest, be genuine, be yourself.
I wish every one of you the deepest of happiness in these matters.
I once read a good article about the misogyny of the 'nice guys finish last' mentality. Obviously the 'nice guy' is a better judge of character than every dizzy dame out there, so he knows that what the ladies really need isn't the guy they naturally fell for due to reasons as nuanced and meaningful as his own desires; instead they should smarten up and fall for an embittered, passive-aggressive wimp who feels entitled to their time/hearts/bodies because he performs the herculean task of convincing himself that he respects them. In actuality his complaint demonstrates that, at least on some level which he probably doesn't want to know about, he considers them brainless prostitutes too stupid to fall for a guy who's 'sensitive' enough to pay them in the currency of false respect.
Now, I'm not saying that every guy who feels romantic plight and jumps onto the 'nice guys finish last' bandwagon is like this, but I do feel that this demeaning (to all parties involved) attitude is at the heart of the sentiment.
Yeah it's really not about the "nice guys finish last" thing. I mean it's possible it is them (women and men are people and can be stupid) - but the larger your sample size, the more likely it is that it's you, buddy. My sample size is pretty tiny and I still think it's prolly me. The only thing you can do in that situation is take a good, long, honest look at yourself (with input from them if you can hack it, as you are inevitably biased) and find out what you need to change - and whether you think it's worth changing. If you don't, then stop blaming them and start looking for the smaller sub-selection of girls that would like your "kind".
Minor Clarification: I don't think it's the "nice guys finish last" term itself that is misogynistic - as it is entirely possible there is some biological or sociological phenom that means the statistics against you really are out of either party's control (what I mean is, the phrase itself isn't blaming women, but society in general). It's when guys use it in the same breath as explaining why women never go for them that's the problem. You could say "nice guys finish last" in the car sales business (or in gay relationships), and it wouldn't be misogynistic.
If you want to be loved, the only person you have to impress is yourself. Get seriously comfortable with who you are. If that isn't something you can do, become someone you can be happy with. Learn to live with you, without needing support or someone to 'complete you'. Be a complete person on your own. If you can pull that off, you will radiate the kind of confidence that attracts other healthy, beautiful people.
Another minor clarification: "Living with yourself" means more than surviving on your own. I've lived a solitary existence almost my whole life, watching people around me that can't make it a week without finding a new bf or gf. This doesn't mean I've been happy with me for that whole time. I have an aunt in Seattle that one of the few singles in my extended family - and she's happy like that (at least from my perspective) - she enjoys the freedom and for her, friends and dogs are plenty. Some of the population is like that, and it's a good thing to figure out where on the sliding scale of "people neediness" you are.
Hopefully I can get back to the point where I not only knew how to live alone (which I still can), but was comfortable in my own skin and confident enough to consider a relationship merely a "plus".
Another important thing to realize is that nothing is forever.
Great advice. Don't look for "the one". It'll happen or it won't - if you think you might have "the one", you can work at it once past the "honeymoon phase", and more power to you (because that's what it requires - work). But tragedy, misunderstandings, and unhealable wounds happen, and you can never be 100% sure you're the exception. Once you accept that, you can enjoy the time you have.
I'm not looking for a forever-girl (if I find one, great). I'm looking for someone where the moments with her are meaningful and rewarding.
Lastly, get out into the world. I'm not saying you should hit bars or dating circuits. Just meet people. Don't have an agenda, but make yourself visible to people with like interests and perspectives. You can't meet someone if you never meet anyone, after all. If, in the course of living your life among your fellow sentients, you meet one who you would like to know better, ask them out. Don't hide your intentions, don't say you should 'hang out'; nearly every guy who's trapped in the 'friend zone' is there because he didn't have the reproductive orbs to admit that he wanted something more. Be honest, be genuine, be yourself.
I could use some work on this one. Got the honest and genuine down-pat...so if I utilize "be yourself" after the "yourself" is something I can get behind, and then get out there, I can't lose! Or rather, will win eventually (gotta expect a few failed rolls when "retraining").
10. Have your own mind. It doesn't hurt to listen, but it pays to have something of substance to say when it's your turn to speak, preferably not always about yourself.
9. Use hygienic products. Smelling like a WMD won't absolutely prevent you from getting laid, but bad odor is a heck of a handicap to overcome. Be smart. Getting rid of this flaw won't cost you any character points.
8. Stand up for yourself. Doormats can get some, but usually only with closet dominatrixes. A relationship is about give and take. Start out on the right foot by doing both. It's very important to give, but don't give away the farm. Ask for a token payment, at least.
7. Be a man. Express sexual interest. You don't need to be vulgar, but she needs to know that you find her sexually attractive. Be subtle, but make sure she knows.
6. Be funny. A sense of humor goes a long way. But you already knew that.
5. Know what you want. You may or may not want to get laid on the first, second, third, or whatever dates, but it pays to resolve it in your own mind before the question comes up. You can't be debating with yourself whether or not you want to have sex when she starts pulling your shirt off. However you want to go, having a firm idea about it when asked is attractive.
4. Rip out your muscles. This is not to say that all women like the beef, but most women do, and even those that don't won't be turned off by your rock-hard abs. You don't need to look like Ahnuld or even like a bad infomercial to pass, but getting off your couch to play Wii Bowling every now and then won't kill you.
3. Have a fashion sense. Ask your fashionable friends to help you dress like a million bucks. If you're not getting laid, you probably have awful or nonexistent fashion sense. Fake it by asking for help. You can be your own unique snowflake later on when you actually know what you're doing.
2. Show her the money. Most women won't admit it, but money is downright sexy. You've heard about Anna Nicole Smith, right? You don't actually have to be rich to look rich - you just need the right accessories.
1. Be awesome. Like Paul McCarthy awesome. Like Stephen Hawking awesome. Awesomeness is sexy. If Stephen Hawking can get laid, so can you - if you're that awesome.
Women do not put sexy men in "The Friend Zone." A sexy man is always fair bait for a lay.
To paraphrase Ben Croshaw: every American movie has a romantic subplot shoved in whether it makes sense or not. If you went to an alternate dimension where very movie regardless of genre had a Country Line-Dancing scene in it, you'd think they were insane. (Source available upon request, links to naughty language the ORCs wouldn't approve of).
Begging your pardon, but I'd like to submit a test-case: Kung Fu Panda
also, School of Rock
Simply put, don't worry about getting laid or falling in love. If you are the breeding type, it will happen regardless of what you do. If you aren't good breeding stock, there's nothing you can do to help it. Don't let it rule your life, there are too many things in this world to see and do and have done to you to pine because you're not in a relationship.
Also, pining for a relationship is unsexy. Very. It can only make your chances worse.
So, everyone in America thinks that you fall ass-backwards into a perfect romantic relationship or lay anyone you see for more than a few weeks, and get depressed when they fail.
Personally, I think that there's a lot more fantasy going on in "You've Got Mail" than there is in the entire LoTR trilogy put together.
First; Dan Savage isn't a relationship columnist; he's a sex columnist. His advice only really works when the relationship is moving out of PG13 territory. I enjoy his column (and read it weekly), but I disagree with a lot of his attempts at relationship counciling. I also think that a lot of his readers tend to confuse sex advice for relationship advice, and that will get you in trouble every time.
Second; Shithead behavior is a marker for potential future importance. For pretty much all of our existence as a species it's been the people who are willful, controlling, aggressive and willing to openly challenge "authority" that have become powerful and influential. Now, a huge majority of those people just die heartless *******s, but there's a non-insignificant portion that have done pretty well for themselves. We as people (and this is both sexes) are intrinsically drawn to those types of people because we recognize (usually completely subconciously) that they have a chance of becoming very good people to be on the right side of. I'm not saying that's the only contributer to the "******* gets the girl" truism, but it's definitely in there somewhere. There's also "wounded puppy" syndrome, but that seems to be somewhat outside the scope of this thread.
Third; "Nice guys" suck at initiating. We do. It's just not something that we do very well, for a lot of reasons. We're not romantically aggressive, we're afraid of ruining our non-romantic relationships by changing them, we've got rejection complexes, etc. It's something that I personally struggled with on a huge level (which leads to stories like the one in the Dumbest Thing thread where the girl I was crushing on asked if I was gay) and would still be struggling with if I was still dating (Hi, hon. :D).
Put all of this together and you've got the jerks and *******s generating a subconcious pull and openly initiating with the girls that the nice guys want. I guess it's just a matter of being more aggressive about getting what (who) you want and being more willing to put yourself out there. It's a hard thing to do, I know.
Being a nice guy and being shy are not the same thing. You can be a nice guy but also be adventurous, forthright, and proactive.
You can. Too often, though, the qualities that make one "nice" (concern for the emotions of others, tendency to avoid conflict, etc) make it hard to balance one with the other.
2. Show her the money. Most women won't admit it, but money is downright sexy. You've heard about Anna Nicole Smith, right? You don't actually have to be rich to look rich - you just need the right accessories.
I'll agree with this one. Many actors and politicians, such as presidents, are found attractive by many women because they have money (and power). Money may not be the main thing that attracts women but it sure can help. It seems that with many women, if you have money, and they know it, you then become much more attractive. What can also make you more attractive is knowing how to manage that money well.
I'll agree with this one. Many actors and politicians, such as presidents, are found attractive by many women because they have money (and power). Money may not be the main thing that attracts women but it sure can help. It seems that with many women, if you have money, and they know it, you then become much more attractive. What can also make you more attractive is knowing how to manage that money well.
yeah, but the latter takes a lot longer for someone else to see. I mean my credit rating is great, I've never needed a loan, and I always keep a good bit for emergencies - but it's not like that comes up in nearly as many conversations as "how much do you make?", or is as self-evident.
yeah, but the latter takes a lot longer for someone else to see. I mean my credit rating is great, I've never needed a loan, and I always keep a good bit for emergencies - but it's not like that comes up in nearly as many conversations as "how much do you make?", or is as self-evident.
The showing of responsibility does take a while, but the showing of money can be immediate. If more girls can see that you may have money then there will be more of a chance that more girls will see that you are responsible with money.
yeah, but the latter takes a lot longer for someone else to see. I mean my credit rating is great, I've never needed a loan, and I always keep a good bit for emergencies - but it's not like that comes up in nearly as many conversations as "how much do you make?", or is as self-evident.
As in so many things, technique is much harder to advertise than scale. ;)
I suppose you could try your luck by asking out bank tellers, accountants, and loan officers. :D
As in so many things, technique is much harder to advertise than scale. ;)
But don't be surprised if girls pick up on it pretty quick as some of us are intuitive and actually pretty good at math. ;)
He'll only help with the math homework if you go out with him, and there's no guarantee that he can actually help - he just wants sex and he'll get it any way he can.
The Nice Guy:
He'll help you with your math homework. He may or may not use it as a vehicle for expressing sexual interest in you. You owe him one. He has a right to ask for a date in return, though he won't insist if you REALLY REALLY don't want to.
The Idiot:
He'll help you with your math homework and then fail to express the sexual interest he thinks will offend you, but really won't because you secretly like him. He won't ask for anything in return because his "values" makes him think that he's everyone's slave.
All this talk makes me wish I was better at math. I mean I can balance a checkbook, but if differential equations homework is what gets the ladies hot and bothered...
I took DE and and learned that it doesn't. Now Linear Algebra is a different story. ;)
All this talk makes me wish I was better at math. I mean I can balance a checkbook, but if differential equations homework is what gets the ladies hot and bothered...
The only way diffyQ works is to give you a reason to study with your cute classmates.
Or I guess you could convince your TA who also happenst to be your roommate's older sister that she should let you take her to dinner to negotiate a little more leniency on your homework grades and....
Oh dear. I think I've said too much.
But then, it doesn't really work like a Penthouse letter. It's not "guess what happened to me", it's "guess what I made happen".
All this talk makes me wish I was better at math. I mean I can balance a checkbook, but if differential equations homework is what gets the ladies hot and bothered...
Geometry is best, mixed with a little bit of statistics. ;)
Geometry is best, mixed with a little bit of statistics. ;)
I've met a girl by tutoring her in statistics. It was damn hard to peel her off of me while I was trying to explain the math. I'm not even sure she knew her homework existed.
Guy: "Ok 1 + 1 = ?"
Girl: "Oooo I love it when you talk dirty!"
Guy:
(I'm adding examples of what Frank is saying.)
Not that I've taught perpendicular lines want to try it out. ;)
(I'm adding examples of what Frank is saying.)
Actually it goes more like along the lines of I'm pushed on my back and she climes on time followed by "So are we making perpendicular lines?" :D
*And yes, she will be grinning like hell*
I think that's called "friends with benefits", Count. Almost had a similar situation myself. Woulda been nice.
I don't know, I don't "do" friends with benefits. I only have sex with women I intend to pursue a relationship with.
Singing and playing instruments are sexy - if you're actually any good at them. Otherwise, they're just really, really painful. For both of you.
The combo of fashion, hygiene, money, and abs usually work surprisingly well when combined with a decent amount of self-confidence. You won't get every woman, but you'll get a decent cut.
Count Arioch the 28th:
Loosen up man. Having sex 3x a week reduces your likelihood of developing prostate CA later on. If you won't do it for her, do it for your health. ;) :D
Count Arioch the 28th:
Loosen up man. Having sex 3x a week reduces your likelihood of developing prostate CA later on. If you won't do it for her, do it for your health. ;) :D
I can take care of that myself with a minimum investment of time and effort.
Damns, Bats! I have missed out on so much fun. That stuff never happened to me - just kinda floated morosely through college.
But then, it doesn't really work like a Penthouse letter. It's not "guess what happened to me", it's "guess what I made happen".
Heh. This was honestly one of those "cosmic convergence" things that happened to me occasionally in school. She was hanging out in our room almost constantly when she didn't have office hours, playing intramurals with us, etc. And we were gallavanting around Nebraska in search of live music anyway; we just started holding hands while we did it. ;)
Act casual..naturally.
That's the biggest advice I can give you. Pretty much every time I have ever gotten a date out of a girl (or other things) it's because I'm confident, or more importantly relaxed.
Money doesn't do it, (though people that have money tend to have confidence) a great body doesn't do it. (Again though confidence does tend to come from that) and a nice car won't do it (though again confidence).
You could be the ugliest man alive, but if you're confident and relaxed you'll probably do better than someone that's good looking but gunshy around women.
Also, you might want to try dating women that are a little older than yourself. :P It's much easier to sweep them off their feet. :D Because older women generally speaking know a little more about what they want or need in a man, and are generally speaking more realistic about the kinds of guys that they should be looking for.
PS also take the following litmus test in hand with you. If she thinks Edward Cullen would make an excellent boyfriend just walk away. Slowly at first as if you are backing away from a snake and then run. She's into abuse etc etc or is just that incredibly shallow that she won't care how she's treated as long as her man is "hot".
Also, helping a woman when she's vunerable can help. I don't mean "recovering from a bad boyfriend" vunerable. I mean a genuine helping when she's genuinely vunerable and needing help. Such as when her car breaks down. Being there to help when she's broken down sobbing over her abusing boyfriend isn't the kind of gal you want to be after anyway because at best you're going to be her rebound. I'm assuming you are after a real relationship here after all. Sure you can help her, but I would -so not expect- to have her 1 be go after worthy and 2, if she's come to you you're already damned before you start pursuit. You're someone she's -too comfortable - to be around. You aren't even really male in her mind. Especially at that point.
At least that seemed to work for me. (But then again I'm generally at my best when I'm helping people in general.)
Ever wonder why whenever you're looking for a girl, it's hard to find one but when you have a girl, they seem to find you? It's confidence. When you're with a girl, you don't worry about how you appear to others as much. The result is a confident, "I don't need to impress you" vibe and - more importantly - you act exactly as you are. Just translate that confidence into everyday life and you've got it. It's easier said than done, though. ;)
"Outliers" is a very interesting read that discusses some of the determinants of success in theory.
That's one of the reasons why people that fake confidence are not as appealing. One they might not seem as knowledgable as the actually Confident person and two they might just come across as Arrogant.
Ever wonder why whenever you're looking for a girl, it's hard to find one but when you have a girl, they seem to find you? It's confidence. When you're with a girl, you don't worry about how you appear to others as much. The result is a confident, "I don't need to impress you" vibe and - more importantly - you act exactly as you are. Just translate that confidence into everyday life and you've got it. It's easier said than done, though. ;)
I know of a few guys that don't like to wear their wedding ring out in public because of this. They noticed that if they don't wear their ring they are almost never bothered. If they wear their ring, damn near every woman is hitting/flirting with them.
Be yourself, be confident. Or at least seem confident.
Act casual..naturally.
Also, helping a woman when she's vunerable can help. I don't mean "recovering from a bad boyfriend" vunerable. I mean a genuine helping when she's genuinely vunerable and needing help. Such as when her car breaks down. Being there to help when she's broken down sobbing over her abusing boyfriend isn't the kind of gal you want to be after anyway because at best you're going to be her rebound. I'm assuming you are after a real relationship here after all. Sure you can help her, but I would -so not expect- to have her 1 be go after worthy and 2, if she's come to you you're already damned before you start pursuit. You're someone she's -too comfortable - to be around. You aren't even really male in her mind. Especially at that point.
At least that seemed to work for me. (But then again I'm generally at my best when I'm helping people in general.)
Great advice!
(Maybe except for the after a breakup part - that is how I started dating my husband)
(Maybe except for the after a breakup part - that is how I started dating my husband)
So you're still going through the rebound sex period. ;)
So you're still going through the rebound sex period. ;)
Talk about a long rebound. I'm in the gym parking lot going after this one, apparently.
I tried the whole math tutor angle back in high school. They gave me a dude. I was not happy. He was an alright kid, but I had been having dreams of something quite different. I probably should have tried some sort of Lit tutor thing. At least I understand that stuff ... and maybe they would have assigned me to a girl.
I don't know about your school, but I'm pretty sure that if you asked my high school for a tutor in a subject they tried to pair you up with someone of the same sex.
Probably one part thinking you could relate better, and probably one part thinking everyone is het. Same reason they assign same-sex roommates in most cases.
---
On a more serious note, am I the only one slightly disturbed that a lot of this advice seems to boil down to "puff out your chest and woo her when she's not expecting it"?
On a more serious note, am I the only one slightly disturbed that a lot of this advice seems to boil down to "puff out your chest and woo her when she's not expecting it"?
I am, a little bit. I'd be much more comfortable with advice that didn't effectively amount to "false arrogance + suberfuge = good."
Who is? The article in the Op?
Who is? The article in the Op?
A lot of the advice has different shades of it. Yours less then others. I have no interest in starting a fight, so I think that's as far as I'm going to go on this.
I'm not prescribing that for advice.
Who is? The article in the Op?
It's just kind of the vibe I'm getting from a lot of this advice.
"Be confident" seems to be translating into "feign confidence." A good portion of this thread has been devoted to finding ways to effectively trick girls into dates through various means. The rest can pretty much be boiled down to "actively show them how awesome you are, and if you aren't actually awesome make something up."
I don't know. I wasn't exactly a player back in the day, but a lot of this advice seems a little skeezie to me.
Also trickery is fair game when dealing with women :P you being married should know that above anyone lol.
I'm more saying that someone should -be confident- not fake it. Do stuff that you are comfortable doing, chances are there's women around at one point or another anyway just you may or may not have noticed them before. Notice them. Get to know them. That sort of thing. (Getting to know them is important. You never know when an angry boyfriend or husband is lurking around the corner :D )
I've not read through this whole thread (I'm kind of afraid to honestly Gamers giving dating advice.. scary thought that) yet.
Being kind, thoughtful, and nice only gets you so far. Generally speaking not far enough for a relationship. Great when -you are already in one-. But not so great for -getting one-.
Also, Warweaver, before you go date hunting and all that check your appearence. Does it look like you've shaved within the last 48 hours? Do you have any funny odors you are aware of? (This one is important smell is a very very big thing when you are meeting new people)
Hygene is important.
Also it helps if you don't open a conversation by groping inappropriately
Also it helps if you don't open a conversation by groping inappropriately
It's important to note that "innapropriately" in this sense is entirely dependent upon the crowd you're hanging out with. :P
*Or guy depending on who is reading this.
I am, a little bit. I'd be much more comfortable with advice that didn't effectively amount to "false arrogance + suberfuge = good."
Yeah, that's why I posted; there's enough here that makes me squirm (hell, some makes my skin crawl) that I felt obligated to chime in as a dissenting opinion.
You should never try and trick a girl* into believing you're confident. You should trick yourself into believing you're confident. After a while, your own fake confidence will become real confidence.
*Or guy depending on who is reading this.
Exactly. I read most of the advice as either tongue in cheek or believe you are confidant and you will be. Confidence is one of those things that it is possible to trick yourself into having.
I don't know, I don't "do" friends with benefits. I only have sex with women I intend to pursue a relationship with.
I used to believe that too, although now I think it was because I couldn't envision a woman wanting to do the horizontal mambo with me without the whole relationship factor. Now I think I just like the act to have "meaning", not necessarily a "relationship". I do still want a full-on relationship but in the meantime...fwb sounds pretty good, actually. It helps that I am very..."accepting" of whatever my partner might be into (though everyone has their dealbreakers...). So such an "open" arrangement, with the understanding that it's temporary, wouldn't faze me.
After all, as Roxlimn says it reduces your risk of cancer. (I've read that article too.)
Heh. This was honestly one of those "cosmic convergence" things that happened to me occasionally in school.
I think this might be why I don't subscribe to the "nice guys / jerks" classification. My best friend in high school and college had that happen to him constantly. He was a genuinely nice guy, but unlike me, got "lucky" all the time (in both senses of the term). This isn't me projecting - it's actually how he describes it. Out of us two, I'm the one who thinks luck is the lesser factor - he's also good-looking, confident, and passionate about what he does (which is everything - seriously anything he set his mind to doing in hs/college he Aced). Although he is still very lucky in everyday events, love, career, etc. in ways that are independently verifiable. Like "swedish bikini team bus breaks down outside your house" kind of stuff.
Also, you might want to try dating women that are a little older than yourself. :P It's much easier to sweep them off their feet. :D Because older women generally speaking know a little more about what they want or need in a man, and are generally speaking more realistic about the kinds of guys that they should be looking for.
Personal Stuff
So far I've been looking within an age range of about +/-5, though I have been leaning on the younger end. I think this is because I haven't dated in such a long time I feel like I need to "backtrack", gain experience chronologically speaking, although it hasn't been a conscious decision. Austin is also a college town, and the population reflects it.
But yeah, there's a definite note of confusion in how younger women (and men) seem to treat their relationships, with the whole "not knowing what they really want". (And I may be part of this, given the time lost in finding that out.)
But yeah, there's a definite note of confusion in how younger women (and men) seem to treat their relationships, with the whole "not knowing what they really want". (And I may be part of this, given the time lost in finding that out.)
Although he is still very lucky in everyday events, love, career, etc. in ways that are independently verifiable. Like "swedish bikini team bus breaks down outside your house" kind of stuff.
I am a firm believer that you really do a lot to make your own luck. You may not have total say, but the more you put into life the more you get back.
I know it's all related but let's stick to "should I give in to drunk/disturbed/easy chicks" for now (oversimplification of OP!).
"should I give in to drunk/disturbed/easy chicks"
If you want to just have a one night fling and am not looking for a long term relationship with her.
If you want to just have a one night fling and am not looking for a long term relationship with her.
True. Though even then, I recommend making sure she feels the same way.
True. Though even then, I recommend making sure she feels the same way.
If you both want to do it, and you both just met, then I think it is safe to say that she feels the same way.
1) Plastic rose
2) Moustanche and bad french accent
3) ????
4) Profit!
Here's what you do:
1) Plastic rose
2) Moustanche and bad french accent
3) ????
4) Profit!
You know...that's almost worth trying. Not with anyone serious or nuthin'. But randomly. Now I wish my mustache could grow beyond "standard" size.
Sidenote: Recently discovered the "Honestly, why haven't we had sex yet?" meme from 4chan. (All you do is send that phrase to people on your buddy list.)
Haven't tried it yet myself, but looks hilarious and/or profitable. Most get a response somewhere between "wtf you weirdo" or "you know...I'm not sure." Of course the latter sounds more promising.
that...errr...do, I'd do that.I've been saying I'd
that to much...I've found it funny as hell how differently women act when you first meet them with an accent.
I was once using a British accent (I'm Californian) while talking to a girl and she was falling head-over-heals for me. A mutual friend was there with us and her her eyes were
the whole time. Finally she broke the news to her friend. She turns to her friend that I am charming and says, "he's not English." Her friend sort of just looks at her for a second, and my response is, in my normal voice, "why did you have to ruin my fun?" Once I was no longer foreign to the girl she lost interest.Also I'd so do the moustache/rose thing for the lulz!
Most people are shocked to find out I'm Mexican (I look white as can be).
The rest can pretty much be boiled down to "actively show them how awesome you are, and if you aren't actually awesome make something up."
In other words: advertise.
This is just as true when selling yourself professionally as it is when selling yourself sexually.
Warweaver:
Out of us two, I'm the one who thinks luck is the lesser factor - he's also good-looking, confident, and passionate about what he does (which is everything - seriously anything he set his mind to doing in hs/college he Aced). Although he is still very lucky in everyday events, love, career, etc. in ways that are independently verifiable. Like "swedish bikini team bus breaks down outside your house" kind of stuff.
He's fashionable, possibly with a face or abs, and he's *awesome*. Yeah, he's a shoe-in.
There are exceptions to using basic guidelines for landing a woman, but all of those exceptions invariably lead to real relationships, not just sex.
Hmm, good point. I'm bad at that. I help women (guys too, but I'll admit I'm more perceptive of the former as they're often more willing to be helped), but I don't really treat it as an opportunity for anything more; practically automatic.
Help everyone equally. You never know when a guy has a sexy sister who needs a date. Also, quit helping for free. You can and should always call back favors.
Unless you're doing it for charity, helping people for nothing does nothing for you.
Of course, the worst part is the opposite also begets itself. That's kinda what I'm dealing with right now. I hate to admit it, as you guys are such a fun loving, helpful bunch on here and I don't want to belittle your efforts - but IRL I'm a very depressed person. It builds on itself easily and has a counter for every argument. Thoughts of "trying dating again would cheer me up and boost confidence" are met with "do you really want to inflict your current state on a woman?", for example.
I'm no therapist, but I've been there before. I'm never been treated, but at one point, I had 7 of the 12 diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder, including suicidal ideation.
What I did was live life and approach everything as if I had amnesia - like playing a huge RPG with your life. Selectively remember the good parts, actively forget the bad.
You can't go lower without being dead, so what have you got to lose, right? Carpe Diem. Go up to that pretty lady and ask her out point blank without "using a line" with no "game" and fully expecting to get burned. Just go up to the woman, say your name, and ask for the date. You only live once, right, and it could be over tomorrow. No sense passing up the chance.
You'll be surprised how often that works out.
Seriously, this is my default way of approaching anyone (men or women) for anything (date or the time of day). It works very well.
I use deodorant, a tiny dash of cologne on the (extremely rare) occasion of me going "out". I shave/trim regularly (have a beard). I'm not skinny by any means, but I'm within the healthy body-mass index for my height. I think I'm "average looking", but they wouldn't call it the "genetic lottery" if everybody won it.
I'm not sure because it's not obvious from how you put it, but you should always put in the effort in anything you do or it's just not going to turn out very well. "Average-looking" is not good enough unless you just want to stroll down the lane and do your thing (enjoy life, maybe).
Of course, if you're already putting your A game into the prep, then good for you!
I know it's all related but let's stick to "should I give in to drunk/disturbed/easy chicks" for now (oversimplification of OP!).
Why does it have to be an either or, or give in? Nothing wrong with dating as practice, and getting to know people.
Seriously, this is my default way of approaching anyone (men or women) for anything (date or the time of day). It works very well.
Don't people give you strange looks when you ask what date it is though?
Not in particular. I get that wrong a lot of times.
Flowers are great, teddy bears are great, and jewelry is just plain teh awesome.
Oh yeah. Clothes can be romantic too....
I love romance.
Flowers are great, teddy bears are great, and jewelry is just plain teh awesome.
Oh yeah. Clothes can be romantic too....
Threesomes are over-rated too...
On a sidenote
Sometimes long-term relationships form from one nighters...
Does not mean they will be good.
Dexter marathons....:D
1. its dark so you can't see the other person
2. Its loud so you can't hear the other person
3. They serve large quantities of a mind influencing drug in liquid form
The only time i enter a bar is if i have to work at one.
yes but Bars exist only so ugly people (or people woth ugly personalities) can have sex.
1. its dark so you can't see the other person
2. Its loud so you can't hear the other person
3. They serve large quantities of a mind influencing drug in liquid form
The only time i enter a bar is if i have to work at one.
Cynic much? Just 'cause something doesn't work for you, and doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean that it's necessarily bad for others.
Don't get me wrong, you won't find me at a bar myself outside of a staff party, but that's no reason to bash on people that like 'em.
yes but Bars exist only so ugly people (or people woth ugly personalities) can have sex.
1. its dark so you can't see the other person
2. Its loud so you can't hear the other person
3. They serve large quantities of a mind influencing drug in liquid form
The only time i enter a bar is if i have to work at one.
At least half of the concerts I have been to could be characterized in exactly the same way. Does this mean that concerts exist only so ugly people can have sex?
Bars are a good place to socialize, dance, meet new people, etc. There's a reason people have been going to bars, or their equivalent, for thousands of years, and the reason is not so ugly people can have sex.
Faelar
yes but Bars exist only so ugly people (or people woth ugly personalities) can have sex.
1. its dark so you can't see the other person
2. Its loud so you can't hear the other person
3. They serve large quantities of a mind influencing drug in liquid form
The only time i enter a bar is if i have to work at one.
This would make logical sense, if not for the fact that most ugly people tend to have self-esteem issues, which makes it VERY hard for them to actually get anywhere with anyone in a bar or club. I don't like bars as a way to get laid, but maybe for a date.
I find jogging works pretty well for me meeting people...at least for those lucky few that can catch up to me and keep up with me. ;)
*Huff, huff, huff* I...want...her...pee...checked...*passes out*
1. There are no women
2. They're 40 yr old men protending to be horny 16 yr old girls
3. Always hit on the women.
And you need to read a Tome of Leadership and Influence.
My Con is surprisingly high.
Dirtyfrank:
And you need to read a Tome of Leadership and Influence.
Huh?
According to what I've been told, my charisma is extraordinarily high, my strength and con are also exceptional, my intelligence is moderately high, wisdom is average, and charisma is very low.
Wis is your dump stat. :P
Wis is your dump stat. :P
Fixed, was distracted by my cat. She was howling and trying to eviscerate a bug crawling up the wall.
that. :PSTR: average to slightly above average (11)
DEX: average (10 most likely)
CON: fairly decent (13)
INT: Good (15)
WIS: Good (13)
CHA: slightly above average (12)
Pigknight, you'd tap anything.
Mine was done through a test that's linked in my sig. I didn't just make them up.
CON 17
DEX 17
INT 15
WIS 11
CHA 12
Same test.
Imagine you've got two tickets to a sports match, and you ring up a mate and say "Hey, wanna come with me?". That's the same sort of vibe you want when asking a girl on a date. It's great, it will be fun if she comes, but it's not the end of the world if she says no (or yes, for that matter).
Do:
* keep it casual
* ask!
* present it as being something that would be fun for both of you
Don't:
* make it a big deal
* apologise for asking
* help her say no
* assume that because she's said no sometime before you can't ask again
Have a good time, and she'll look forward to the next one. Have a few "next ones", and suddenly you're exciting and interesting, not just "dependable".
The original quote has a little merit in that catching someone off guard or tipsy is one way to get past initial wariness and build up confidence. However, if you can do it with style instead that's a much better technique.
Most importantly, don't fritter around building up confidence while she wonders what on earth is up with you. A date is just a date; so pick someone that you think would enjoy spending a couple of hours having fun with you and suggest they do so. If they say "no", leave it a couple of weeks then ask again, or ask someone else.
(Personal experience: I really struggled with this until I finally started to get some idea, at which point I went on first dates with about 5 different women over six months until I started "dating" my current wife. I've now figured out all sorts of stuff about initiating relationships with women that is totally useless to me.)
Most importantly, don't fritter around building up confidence while she wonders what on earth is up with you. A date is just a date; so pick someone that you think would enjoy spending a couple of hours having fun with you and suggest they do so. If they say "no", leave it a couple of weeks then ask again, or ask someone else.
QFT. This is confidence. A date is just a date, don't make it more than that, have fun, be confident.
Good show Nom. ;)
(Personal experience: I really struggled with this until I finally started to get some idea, at which point I went on first dates with about 5 different women over six months until I started "dating" my current wife. I've now figured out all sorts of stuff about initiating relationships with women that is totally useless to me.)
Feel free to PM me your brain, then.
If I eat it I get his knowledge and power, right? Or maybe that was a swordfight with inexplicable electricity involved.
Choose three single girls of your acquaintance who you think are interesting. It's OK if you don't currently have any particular romantic interest in them; this is about getting comfortable inviting a woman on a date, not choosing your life partner.
For each girl, think of something that she'd enjoy that you could do together. It shouldn't be too expensive, it should be around 2-4 hours in length, and it should be an activity that is inherently entertaining but not all consuming. Movies, bushwalking, horse-riding, seeing a sports game or art exhibition, or even doing community service together are all good choices; even if you can't talk during the event you can talk before and after. Going to a cafe or out for dinner is less good, because it can be really awkward if neither of you feel comfortable carrying a conversation.
Then pick one and invite her. Remember, this is an activity that you think she would enjoy and you're coming along too, so be confident and upbeat (
If she says yes, go enjoy yourselves.
If she hesitates for more than, say, 5 seconds, assume that she's sympathetic to the idea. Fill in a few more details ("If pick you up at 4, we can drive to X, and we'll be back home by 8."). But just a few; don't blather. Quiet and cheerful patience is worth much more than shows of nervousness or pleading.
If she says no, give her a warm smile and say "Sorry you can't make it, perhaps another time." and drop the subject. Until another time.
If she says no, but one of the others would enjoy the same thing, you can go ahead and ask them instead (not in front of the first girl, obviously). You'd do the same thing if your first choice of mate to a sports game said 'no'. In this case, I wouldn't ask more than one or two second choices, or it stops looking like you were planning to do the activity anyway and wanted company and starts looking like you're desperate. Desperate is not the vibe we're going for.
Otherwise, leave it a few days then invite one of the other girls to another activity.
Importantly, plan out the entire excursion as far as possible. I'm not saying "be inflexible", but it's in general far more appealing to a girl if you say "I'm thinking of seeing movie X on day Y; wanna come?" than if you say "Let's see a movie sometime" and expect her to then do all the effort of choosing. If she's interested but doesn't want to see movie X or on day Y then she'll tell you and you can work out an alternative (tip: have at least some idea about what alternatives are available before asking).
Finally, remember that this is "just a date". All you're asking is for her to spend a few hours enjoying herself with you. Heck, if it makes it easier, it's OK for you to go on "just a date" with someone you don't have a specific romantic interest in (no, your sister or other unavailable girls don't count). The objective is to convince both you and her that it's OK for you to take her to something and have fun together; any thoughts of romance or longer-lasting effects can come later. If it helps, think of it as a fun challenge ("How fast can our party run the Dungeon Delve?", "Who can I convince to go on a date?") rather than a big deal. Bizarre as it might sound, your invitation will be more appealing if it's less serious.
Anyway, that's my challenge to you over the next 2 weeks. Choose 3 girls, plan 3 activities, and do your best to make at least one of them happen.
Any comments, Minja or others?
That's probably because most of the time, I really do plan on going on said activity regardless of whatever any one else says - I really am just looking for any company that might be interested. I find that most people tend to say "yes" to an enjoyable activity when it's clear that they're under no pressure to "perform," as it were.
Seriously though, the best thing you can do is build up your confidence and just go in and not give a crap. Sure you will get some, "no" answers you will also get, "yes." There are some pretty desperate people out there with really low standards, you just have to find them and take advantage of their vulnerablity. I'm kidding by the way.
The hot girl I work with dated a guy who beat her. Maybe you should try that?
Abusive guys get girls through lying. They act like the nice kind guy, which is the guy the girl falls for and loves. This nice guy is just a lie and will go away once he has the girl for a while and she has shown that she loves hem. After this point the guy will stop acting and become himself, which means he will get abusive. While slowly getting more and more abusive they will try and isolate the girl, either mentally of physically, so that she feels as if she needs him. The girls wont leave because she becomes dependent on the abuser and because she is still in love with the "nice" guy she knows he is. The only problems is that she fell in love with a lie.
Beating a woman is never the answer.
Beating a woman is never the answer.
I dunno.... the back of the hand has proven to be the ultimate problem solver. Simple and effective. Beer is warm? BACKHAND! No food waiting after a hard day of watching TV? BACKHAND! Shirt shrank in the dryer and won't fit over your beer gut? BACKHAND! The toilet seat is down... I think you get the idea.
Remember, pain and fear are the best teachers, and nothing is more satisfying than making someone feel worse than you.
I dunno.... the back of the hand has proven to be the ultimate problem solver. Simple and effective. Beer is warm? BACKHAND! No food waiting after a hard day of watching TV? BACKHAND! Shirt shrank in the dryer and won't fit over your beer gut? BACKHAND! The toilet seat is down... I think you get the idea.
Remember, pain and fear are the best teachers, and nothing is more satisfying than making someone feel worse than you.
That's what friends are for, not girlfriends and wives.
Why is it ok to beat men and not women?
Blocking this because it's a complete side-track from genuine discussion about relationships and romance, straying into much more inflammatory 'gender equality' territory.
Obviously, it isn't. It's not okay to hit anyone. Just the same, I chafe at the same issue that you are; I find female-on-male violence far too common/acceptable, especially when done in the protection of the knowledge that the man can't hit back. It's deeply unfair, and the number of instances of cruelty to men which are played for laughs which would be (appropriately) viewed as atrocities if done to women are unsettling to say the least.
Just the same, for the other side of the coin, the sexism that leads to this situation of 'gals can hit guys but guys can't hit gals', consider the following; why is it okay to shoot wild animals, but not pets? Because the wild animals are their own creatures which can fend for themselves, while pets are considered too domesticated/weak/docile and they belong to someone. The perception that women need to be protected is unfair to them, and the implementation resultant of that protection, that only women get that protection, is unfair to men. It's yet another sexism no-win scenario that leaves everyone feeling (right or wrong) that their camp gets the shortest end of the stick.
Just the same, for the other side of the coin, the sexism that leads to this situation of 'gals can hit guys but guys can't hit gals', consider the following; why is it okay to shoot wild animals, but not pets? Because the wild animals are their own creatures which can fend for themselves, while pets are considered too domesticated/weak/docile and they belong to someone. The perception that women need to be protected is unfair to them, and the implementation resultant of that protection, that only women get that protection, is unfair to men. It's yet another sexism no-win scenario that leaves everyone feeling (right or wrong) that their camp gets the shortest end of the stick.
Remember, pain and fear are the best teachers, and nothing is more satisfying than making someone feel worse than you.
I thought studies were inconclusive on whether positive reinforcement or punishment were better instruction aids. Punishment is just easier.
Why is it ok to beat men and not women?
It's OK to beat a woman but only if she starts the fight. You shouldn't hit your girlfriend or wife. Hitting friends should be done in a playful manner. Girls should not hit men nor women and men should not hit men nor women.
Friends are around for having fun and entertainment. A good friend can take can take some jerky criticism and not be hurt by it because they now that you aren't trying to hurt their feelings. Your girlfriend or wife is suppose to be the second half of your team. You don't try to hurt them, physically or mentally, because it would hurt the effectiveness of the team.
Blocking this because it's a complete side-track from genuine discussion about relationships and romance, straying into much more inflammatory 'gender equality' territory.Obviously, it isn't. It's not okay to hit anyone. Just the same, I chafe at the same issue that you are; I find female-on-male violence far too common/acceptable, especially when done in the protection of the knowledge that the man can't hit back. It's deeply unfair, and the number of instances of cruelty to men which are played for laughs which would be (appropriately) viewed as atrocities if done to women are unsettling to say the least.
Just the same, for the other side of the coin, the sexism that leads to this situation of 'gals can hit guys but guys can't hit gals', consider the following; why is it okay to shoot wild animals, but not pets? Because the wild animals are their own creatures which can fend for themselves, while pets are considered too domesticated/weak/docile and they belong to someone. The perception that women need to be protected is unfair to them, and the implementation resultant of that protection, that only women get that protection, is unfair to men. It's yet another sexism no-win scenario that leaves everyone feeling (right or wrong) that their camp gets the shortest end of the stick.
It's OK to beat a woman but only if she starts the fight. You shouldn't hit your girlfriend or wife. Hitting friends should be done in a playful manner. Girls should not hit men nor women and men should not hit men nor women.
Friends are around for having fun and entertainment. A good friend can take can take some jerky criticism and not be hurt by it because they now that you aren't trying to hurt their feelings. Your girlfriend or wife is suppose to be the second half of your team. You don't try to hurt them, physically or mentally, because it would hurt the effectiveness of the team.
Ahh. Not guy vs gal but friend vs SO. Understood.
Blocking this because it's a complete side-track from genuine discussion about relationships and romance, straying into much more inflammatory 'gender equality' territory.Obviously, it isn't. It's not okay to hit anyone. Just the same, I chafe at the same issue that you are; I find female-on-male violence far too common/acceptable, especially when done in the protection of the knowledge that the man can't hit back. It's deeply unfair, and the number of instances of cruelty to men which are played for laughs which would be (appropriately) viewed as atrocities if done to women are unsettling to say the least.
Just the same, for the other side of the coin, the sexism that leads to this situation of 'gals can hit guys but guys can't hit gals', consider the following; why is it okay to shoot wild animals, but not pets? Because the wild animals are their own creatures which can fend for themselves, while pets are considered too domesticated/weak/docile and they belong to someone. The perception that women need to be protected is unfair to them, and the implementation resultant of that protection, that only women get that protection, is unfair to men. It's yet another sexism no-win scenario that leaves everyone feeling (right or wrong) that their camp gets the shortest end of the stick.
Still, MrC's in the right about how off-topic this is. We should probably drop it.
Dropped like algebra class.
But I liked algebra. That was when math was still easy and fun.
With that in mind, I'm not surprised that you, Dirtyfrank, like calc.
Anyway, that's my challenge to you over the next 2 weeks. Choose 3 girls, plan 3 activities, and do your best to make at least one of them happen.
I am in the process of trying it, Nom. I've tried such a challenge before, but as I tend to do things slowly, only only a few times (enough that I can't discount bad luck just yet). I'll keep you (vaguely) updated. :P
Show
Also, I agree with what folks have said about abuse of either sex. Physical violence to the people you love is never the answer.
Well, unless they ask for it anyway...I mean actually ask. don't think I'm into the S&M thing, but I figure to each their own, so long as both parties have voluntary fun. :P
Well, unless they ask for it anyway...I mean actually ask. don't think I'm into the S&M thing, but I figure to each their own, so long as both parties have voluntary fun. :P
The only kind of algebra I like is linear algebra. ;)
... I don't get it.
*Spank, spank*
NOT
*Punch, punch.*
... I don't get it.
Then that may be a good thing, for that means that your mind is not as dirty as dirty's.
Then that may be a good thing, for that means that your mind is not as dirty as dirty's.
Or that I'm quite happy with my upper math capping out with Calc 2, Probability, and Statistics.
Rule of thumb:
*Spank, spank*
NOT
*Punch, punch.*
Yeah - don't do anything that leaves marks, kids!
And quit carrying each other's blood around in little necklace-vials ya weirdoes.
Or that I'm quite happy with my upper math capping out with Calc 2, Probability, and Statistics.
Stuff
Linear algebra isn't really algebra. It is however dealing with multiple linear equations such as 100 unknowns and 100 equations and solving them quickly. The class deals with matrices and dimensional spaces and such. It is a cool math class, or at least I think it is. The math type proofs that I did in Astrid's was linear algebra stuff.
Yeah - don't do anything that leaves marks, kids!
And quit carrying each other's blood around in little necklace-vials ya weirdoes.
That reminds me of an article I read a while back. To make a long story short, there's a company (I think in England) that takes a small bone sample from you and then grows a bone ring from that sample. The article mentioned them being used for wedding rings. That's right, a wedding ring made of bone grown from a sample from your SO. I can't decide if that's creepy or sweet.
To DF
Yeah... I know when math is over my head, so I just kinda skipped that. The only kind of matrices I deal with are in computers, and those are complicated enough for me.
That reminds me of an article I read a while back. To make a long story short, there's a company (I think in England) that takes a small bone sample from you and then grows a bone ring from that sample. The article mentioned them being used for wedding rings. That's right, a wedding ring made of bone grown from a sample from your SO. I can't decide if that's creepy or sweet.
Hmm...yeah tough call for me too. I do likes my weird science. Especially romantic weird science.
I once saw a documentary blog about two people who got married, and instead of doing the "traditional" ring thing, decided to cut each other's ring fingers off at the same time. (And there were pics, rather bloody ones, so it did happen.) That was squarely in the creepy factor for me. Ouch.
I hate you Warweaver...
To DFYeah... I know when math is over my head, so I just kinda skipped that. The only kind of matrices I deal with are in computers, and those are complicated enough for me.
to EETo my knowledge linear algebra is used in computer programming so that computers can compute a lot of stuff really quickly.
I am in the process of trying it, Nom. I've tried such a challenge before, but as I tend to do things slowly, only only a few times (enough that I can't discount bad luck just yet). I'll keep you (vaguely) updated. :P
Hint: it will work better if you keep all thoughts of romance out of your head at first. Yeah, I know that sounds really odd, but the biggest cause of anxiety in guys when dealing with women is setting the bar for "first date" way too high.
That was the big thing that helped me be comfortable talking to women: realising that the only real questions that needed to be considered between "She's interesting" and "Let's go on a first date" are "What might she like to do?" and "Will I go stark raving mad if I have to spend even an hour alone with her?". Anything more than that raises the stakes in your mind and makes the whole process much harder than it needs to be (at least it did for me).
[This thread is in OTT instead of Astrid's because it has nothing to do with gaming, and is an omnigender topic.]
The thread title isn't quite what I mean, but let me explain.
I read a Dan Savage letter recently that got me thinking. His response (to a 30-year-old-virgin) was thus:
"Yeah, you'll be okay—but by ruling out drunks, the emotionally vulnerable, and the easily manipulated, VAT, you increase the odds that you'll remain a virgin for the rest of your natural life. A lot of very beautiful relationships—to say nothing of a lot of very timely deflowerings—owe their existences to booze, emotional vulnerability, and a little well-timed, well- intentioned manipulation."
Now I'll admit I'm not in as bad a spot as that guy, but I have been missing something in my search for love and meaning and all that. All my life I've acted the gentleman, or tried to anyway - giving women space when they want it, help when they need it, a friend, a listener, all that good stuff - and not because I want to jump their bones or jump-start a relationship (because we all know they can sense that falseness - or some can anyway). Because I care about their well-being (le gasp!). It's not like I don't do the same for my guy friends.
See, I'm only really interested in relationships with respect and love. So being a friend first is important to me. Don't get me wrong, trysts for fun can be their own reward, but not when looking for the Deep Stuff (no not that kind of deep stuff, dirtyfrank).
Trouble is, all it's ever gotten me is friendship. You know the guy that gets put in the Friend Zone because he's too "valuable" to put through the messiness and risk-potential of "something more"? That's me in spades (or at least, that's the reason they give me).
Now I'll be the first to say, it's not all "them" - I don't exactly have a large pool of empirical data to pull from. I don't "put myself out there" often. Straightly-put, I'm a bit of a hermit. When you don't drink, don't like coffee, and your hobbies are (we can admit it here) seen as "eccentric" by most, well...
But Savage's response put me in a cold shock. You see I'm a pacifist IRL (despite my love of violent games of all sorts, D&D's company included), and I consider myself pretty empathic. I try to put my self in other people's shoes often and I can usually tell what someone's feeling. And while I do love biting sarcasm, playful criticism, and the occasional troll - I only do it with people I've already "felt out" (no not that kind dirtyfrank), people who I know can take it.
Thus I'm very much against manipulating people for my own ends - be their vulnerability emotional, alcohol-induced, or just natural naivete. I don't like relationships founded on lies or misrepresentation on principle. I've done "the right thing" more times than I can count, and helped some other people out of what might've been a very regret-worthy situation or two...but after reading the above, I wonder. Has doing the "right thing" been killing my chances? Is that my reward?
So this is an EXTREMELY roundabout way of me asking you lovely forum folks - what do you think of the above Savage quote? Does one's chances at love or "beautiful relationships" drop astronomically without the presence of "social manipulation" (in chemical or other forms)? Or is Dan only right about the "deflowering" bit?
Think about your own experiences, and then do tell! (Your opinion that is. You don't have to dish on your own life unless you wanna.) :P
Stop acting like you are their best friend, and they wont see you that way. You need to make your intentions clear from the beginning. Women want to know that you lust after them. Be the aggressor. The "right thing" is for you to get some by any means neccessary. That means not being a listener, or a shoulder to cry on. YOu need to assert yourself. You need to offend them at times. Stop trying to please women, and make them try to please you. By this I mean, you need to be the cool one, and that begins with having the guts to disagree with them about things. Your opinion should dominate. Don't pretend to like a movie, just cause she does. She doesn't want some guy who is into chick flicks. You gotta be willing to be the bad boy once in a while. You do need to manipulate, if that means trying to get someone else to do what you want them to. That is what all human relationships are about, power and influence. SOmetimes power and influence are achieved through empathy, but most times not. Whatever you do, don't send flowers to a girl...it has too much of a stalkery-desperate vibe (unless you are dating for a while). Talk, and ask her to go somewhere with you. Make it clear its a date (and not by literally saying this is a date). Take her someplace you are comfortable and can use to your advantage. If alcohol is served, so much the better. Not only to make her more at ease, but to let yourself let loose as well. After the first date, wait 3-4 days before calling again. Then call and ask her to a club, a restaurant, or a movie (movies are cool because you don't need to think of things to say). Go for a kiss when you take her home on the second date. If she doesn't kiss you back, it isn't a good sign, but not the end of the world. She might just be shy or a little conservative. Call two or three days later for a third date. If she kissed you on the last one, you should be sleeping with her by the end of the third date. If she didn't kiss you on the second, she should be kissing you by the third.
Ouch. If women really respond to that kind of "strategic gaming," I think we're all in trouble.
Nah; seduction has been a game ever since there were men and women. You shouldn't worry about things collapsing now just because.
More cogently, sociopathic male over female domination has been a game ever since way back when.
There is nothing sociopathic about it.
Of course, the meaning of "sociopathic" depends on which social model you think is ideal, but I happen to think that espousing the domination of male opinion over female opinion as a matter of principle is kind of sociopathic, if you'll forgive the opinion.
(1) She was decent enough company, but it quickly became obvious that we didn't have a lot in common. Though by the end of the evening I was getting quite tired of the word "lov-e-ly" (soft voice, 3 syllables).
(2) Said yes quite enthusiastically, then called back the next day - when she realised it was actually an invitation to date - to change her mind.
(3) Began lunch with "Oh, you know I have a boyfriend, don't you?". Uh, no, I didn't, and while I'm just as happy to do lunch with a friend it's a rather awkward time for a mental gear shift. Other than that I had fun, though she brought a friend as a chaperone who happened to be one of my younger sister's good friends (I didn't even know there was a connection).
(4) Went well, but I think she decided that I wasn't really for her, since there wasn't any interest in a second date.
(5) My now wife (first date started a string of future dates).
Why am I telling you this? To reinforce the "it's not a big deal" message. "This is my big / only chance" is not what you want to have in your head, nor is "I must get it right!". Over the preceding years I missed out on a lot of dates - mostly because I never asked - because of thinking like that.
It's best not to take it too seriously - just laugh off any failed hook-ups. You should still take it seriously enough to put effort into being a great and fun person to be with, just not so seriously that you mind a turn-down. The object is mainly to have fun, not to set your sights on your future Mrs. That'll come naturally.
The sex does, too, at least as far as I can tell.
"Stop trying to please women, and make them try to please you. By this I mean, you need to be the cool one, and that begins with having the guts to disagree with them about things. Your opinion should dominate."
Of course, the meaning of "sociopathic" depends on which social model you think is ideal, but I happen to think that espousing the domination of male opinion over female opinion as a matter of principle is kind of sociopathic, if you'll forgive the opinion.
Its more like you said originally - the way how he came the conclusion is weird, not the conclusions themselves.
As for the conclusions themselves - well, as I said, seduction is a kind of game of trying to get the other interested. You can play it in many ways - and the trick is to know when to do what, when to raise and when to fold, when to surrender and when some battles can be won by charging.
And speaking of the people's attitudes, I find it more sad the numerous "politically correct" ways of thinking. All the "I try to be nice, helpful and friendly to the girls, but they get hooked to some *******. What's wrong with them?"
I mean, if the large majority of the mankind is doing something, and you're doing something else and are not successful, how hard is it to think you're actually doing something wrong?
If you truly were sensitive to the disabled, you wouldn't hesitate to call them that when it's appropriate and *****-slap any fool who verbally abuses you for helping them out of a fatal situation they really have no ability to get out of.
"Politically correct" is a set of behavioral patterns that the clueless and the bigoted use to appear to be other than what they are.
No, its not that.
Being "Politically correct" at its core is a very valid philosophy - do not discriminate. Just that. Simply said, if something gets stolen, don't run and burn the nearby gypsies just because they happen to be gypsies.
The problem is, as my friend well put it, when people use it to justify their internal frustrations and a bunch of others follow them thinking that its somehow "right". As he said "if I made a fairytale movie, a princess in it would have to beat the dragon that kidnapped her and escape and meet up with the knight on the white horse. If I didn't do that, I'd be crucified for being a chauvinist by ten crazy femminists and a bunch of idiots who'll follow them without thinking about the absurdity of it all just because they think it'll make them look better".
No, its not that.
Being "Politically correct" at its core is a very valid philosophy - do not discriminate.
........instead reverse discriminate.
........instead reverse discriminate.
The problem is, as my friend well put it, when people use it to justify their internal frustrations and a bunch of others follow them thinking that its somehow "right".
I really don't like when people counter with something I've already covered like seconds ago.
No, dude. NOT shooting the local gypsies whenever something goes missing isn't "politically correct" so much as it is normal, sane, decent behavior.
The only people who would call that politically correct are people who have to be convinced that it's actually something that's good to do.
And yes, other interests groups also use "politically correct" for the purpose of discrimination. Ugh.
Just call me when it's all over.
I really don't like when people counter with something I've already covered like seconds ago.
PCness is often about discriminating against the majority because the people feel guilty. It is not much more than a justification for stupid behavior.
Kobajagrande:
No, dude. NOT shooting the local gypsies whenever something goes missing isn't "politically correct" so much as it is normal, sane, decent behavior.
Exactly! That's the point! Its a normal, sane, decent behaviour.
... Which, funnily enough, became thought about as a political topic only relatively recently, after the WWII, when people realized that the things that happened there must not happen again.
The problem, as I said originally, and to what you seem to agree except you somehow avoid saying so, is that a bunch of idiots take it to extreme absurdity for reasons... well, absurd.
PCness is often about discriminating against the majority because the people feel guilty.
Please don't talk to me about the right-wing "tyranny of the minority over the majority" ideas. I already have to deal with that mindset on a semi-regular basis, and its weekend now.
Besides, I still don't know what are you trying to argue, except to push forward some wrong definition of yours of "political correctness". Sorry, I'll again have to excuse myself out of such argument.
PCness is often about discriminating against the majority because the people feel guilty. It is not much more than a justification for stupid behavior.
No it isn't. By definition, Political Correctness simply means not discriminating. If you are discriminating against any nationality, religion, or gender, you are by definition not being politically correct.
No it isn't. By definition, Political Correctness simply means not discriminating. If you are discriminating against any nationality, religion, or gender, you are by definition not being politically correct.
Your not being but such behavior is often labeled as such. Many people seem to be fine with such things and that's really my problem with PCness.
Your not being but such behavior is often labeled as such. Many people seem to be fine with such things and that's really my problem with PCness.
That's not a problem with Political Correctness, that's a problem with people using whatever's convenient to justify their behavior. You're talking like the person who hates muslims because of religious fanatics.
Quite aside from the abusive in which "political correctness" is being used, the term only exists because the behavior it describes is atypical and unnatural. This is why it's necessary to give it a special name.
If people in a particular society naturally weren't discriminatory, there would be no need to label such behavior, because it would simply be called "normal."
To the OP:
Every Girl will be different. From your post as far as i can tell you just havent met a girl who knows what a good find she has right under her nose. Any girl would be lucky to have a 'gentleman' date her. Im so sick of girls being 'friends' with the guy who likes her and is perfect while 'dating' the jerk. then crying to the guy friend about it while he longs for a relationship with her but she cant see past their friendship because hes 'not someone i would usually date'
Let me tell you. My husband never turned my head, i never thought about dating him , we were friends. We had been friends for monthes, and the whole time he wanted more than friendship. We went as friends to a dance with a large group. And he was such the perfect gentleman / prince charming that i was totally floored, he swept me off my feel with romance. i fell in love with him that night. The next day we declared ourselves dating, we said 'i love you' at one month and shared our first kiss at 6 monthes and just before 3 years we were married.
(ps---hes the one who got me into gaming :P)
dont give up hope. Youll find her.
Every Girl will be different. From your post as far as i can tell you just havent met a girl who knows what a good find she has right under her nose. Any girl would be lucky to have a 'gentleman' date her. Im so sick of girls being 'friends' with the guy who likes her and is perfect while 'dating' the jerk. then crying to the guy friend about it while he longs for a relationship with her but she cant see past their friendship because hes 'not someone i would usually date'
So are you saying that it's common for women to fail their perception checks? Or would it be insight checks? I think it may be both?
This is a tough one. 
Here's a translation for you: there is no "friend zone."
And yes, I know that there is no real friend zone with dating. A guy is either dating material to a girl or he isn't. The non date material become the friends because they aren't date worthy in the girls opinion.
A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, you're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way. This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired.
Count Arioch the 28th:
Quite aside from the abusive in which "political correctness" is being used, the term only exists because the behavior it describes is atypical and unnatural. This is why it's necessary to give it a special name.
If people in a particular society naturally weren't discriminatory, there would be no need to label such behavior, because it would simply be called "normal."
A scant few centuries ago, it was considered proper to wipe your ass with your bare left hand. (Unless you were the king, then you literally had someone else wipe your ass. With their left hand.)
Things change. Things that were considered alright back in the day are no longer considered alright now. Things we do now will make people a few decades from now shudder with revulsion.
I highly doubt that we are even going to still be here in a few decades.
I highly doubt that we are even going to still be here in a few decades.
And I highly doubt that we will be gone in a few decades.
Things are not nearly as bad as they have been in the past, it's just that we have too many people that can't be arsed to change anything. They'd rather sit around and let some idiot on the TV tell them their thoughts and opinions.
I... ...don't see how that rebuts the point. I don't suppose you're agreeing with what I said?
from bash.org top 100
A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, you're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way. This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired.
As I see it, there are three ways a guy can go from here...
(1) He can accept the status quo and enjoy it, at which point everyone is happy enough, right?
(2) He can listen to the guys who are saying "Despite what it looks like to you, you do have a presentation issue, and if you try approaching things this way it will help you understand what she is looking for and why she reacts the way she does.". And yes, it's scary, because you need to face rejection with a happy, carefree smile on your face.
(3) He can moan about the situation and insist that it's actually the girls' fault, at which point perhaps he's not such a nice guy after all?
addedum: this isn't to say that women don't have their own set of hang-ups and unrealistic expectations. But setting the example in trying to get past your own hang ups is a lot more attractive (and effective) than blaming the other party.
This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview ...
Actually, I'm glad you brought up job interviews, because the basic idea is the same. My advice to people going for job interviews is to interview the interviewers. "Please give me a job" isn't impressive. "Let's make a deal" is. You need to convince them what you're bringing to the table, and you need to expect them to convince you what they're bringing to the table.
Take a tip from salesmen. They don't ask "I don't suppose you're looking for a car.". They say "You look like you're looking for a car. Can I help you?". The salesman doesn't ask you, they invite you.
It's the same with asking a woman on a date. Assume that she doesn't know exactly what she wants. That's not actually as patronising as it might sound. If she knew exactly what she wanted, she'd presumably have got it already. Thus, she's obviously not entirely certain. People who are not entirely certain are open to suggestions. This opens the door for you to say "Hey, I think I might know what you want; check it out!".
If you can, it's worth phrasing things as an invitation rather than a question. "Hey, come to the movies with me on Sat!" (in cheerful, non-pushy tone) rather than "Would you like to come?". It's not that the latter is bad, but the first feels more exciting and interesting.
Actually, I'm glad you brought up job interviews, because the basic idea is the same. My advice to people going for job interviews is to interview the interviewers. "Please give me a job" isn't impressive. "Let's make a deal" is. You need to convince them what you're bringing to the table, and you need to expect them to convince you what they're bringing to the table.
Take a tip from salesmen. They don't ask "I don't suppose you're looking for a car.". They say "You look like you're looking for a car. Can I help you?". The salesman doesn't ask you, they invite you.
Another thing about job interviews is that you are more attractive as a possible hire if you currently have a job. The job doesn't need to be great. The job shows the interviewer that you have enough commitment to bust your ass at a possibly bad job rather than be unemployed or live off of the government.
It is similar when trying to find women to date. It is easier to find a possible date if you are already with a woman, even if she isn't that great of a person or looks good. It shows that you are willing to give it a try and commit to something rather than sulk in your lonesome or mooch off another.
In my younger years I was shy (well I still am, but not as awkward). I got my first girlfriend when I was twenty, we had sex on the first date and I thought that was what love was. We stayed together for nearly three years. She cheated on me three times that I know of (because she told me about it) and I forgave her until she slept with someone I worked with and that was to my mind unforgiveable. It broke my heart but it taught me a valuable lesson.
The lesson was:
Women are just as insecure as men in many of the same areas.
I immediately went in search of another "love of my life" but this time I decided I was going to be the one in control and so purposely or subconsciously (I don't honestly don't know which) chose women that were really insecure and thus easily controled. This was easy because I am a chubby chaser. In short, I became the dick wad I never really wanted to be and messed these girls up by unknowingly making them totally dependant on me.
Later when I finally grew up, I found I didn't really like myself and so stable girls would not like me either. At that point, which only happened a few short years ago, I decided I had to change myself and not try to change or "fix" the damaged people I was attracting. Instead of going into the relationship with idea of "fixing" them, I wanted to find a girl that was in no need of repair.
But, I was still shy. So what was I supposed to do. That's when I decided to use the internet for the purpose it was designed to do, meeting people. At first I visited chat rooms but found I fell into the same trap some find themselves in. Cyber sex is a no no if you are looking for a stable loving relationship. When I discovered this, I decided to get serious and try dating websites. There are several to choose from and almost everyone of them have people just like you who are looking for stable longterm relationships and cater to whatever tastes you have.
That's when I found Sandy, my fiance. Now I said in another thread that I am married and while that is not entirely true I am getting married this July. Now I know what your thinking. "Internet dating is not something I cannot stoop to."
I am here to tell ya that there is no stooping involved. However, there are rules to follow.
1) Take your time, don't rush it.
2) Be completely honest with yourself and those you meet.
3) Talk on the phone before meeting (In my case we talked for months before I ever saw her face)
That's it, it is that simple. Sandy and I have now been together for over three years if you count time spent just talking without ever meeting.
The internet is the best invention ever, hands down beating even fire.
That's when I decided to use the internet for the purpose it was designed to do
Look up porn?That's when I decided to use the internet for the purpose it was designed to do
Let the government and important locations to national defense stay connected in the case of an invasion?
That's when I decided to use the internet for the purpose it was designed to do
Download music and videos illegally?
[...] meeting people.
Download music and videos illegally?
Usurpers.
Count Arioch the 28th:
I... ...don't see how that rebuts the point. I don't suppose you're agreeing with what I said?
My point was saying something is unnatural isn't an argument. Humans cleaned feces from their bums using their bare hands for millions of years. Sometimes, what comes naturally isn't the ideal course of action.
from bash.org top 100
A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, you're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way. This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired.
Often, it goes more like this: A disrespectful creep, who would never be good friends with a girl in the first place, fakes a friendship in order to get close to the girl, and exploit the friendship to get sex. The girl senses something's off with the guy, despite his nice façade, so she rejects him. And because of his enormous sense of entitlement, she feels bad for him and get nervous about how he'll react, so she tries to make it easier for him by focusing on the positive. He dumps the friendship (or alternatively, hangs around for years with no other intention than to see if she gives in), all the while whining about how women don't like nice guys.
Add to that, that the girl in question is probably very pretty, while the guy is not, or maybe he has some other trait that just makes him unattractive to her sexually, but he'll never believe anyone if they said it to him, because in his mind, the nice guy needs to 'get the girl', because that's only fair. Nevermind if it's fair for her to date a guy she's not interested in. this is not about love, lust, desire, or good relationships, this is about 'fairness', and about the 'nice guy' being entitled to the girl because of all the time he wasted being her friend.
I think Warweaver's already on the right track, in that he doesn't blame girls for not being attracted to him. That's one of the defining traits of a real nice guy, instead of the typical Nice Guy(TM), who sees women as prostitutes who need to pay him back every time he does something for them, whether they asked for it or not, or as little children who need him to tell them what they really want.
My advice: Relax, and be with women because you like their company, not because you hope to get rewarded by sex. Some of the guys I know who're most successful with women, are guys who like women, both as friends, and to flirt with, even if it doesn't result in sex. Guys who just sees all that as something they need to go through to get laid, need a lot of other qualities to make up for it.
Focus on other things to make yourself attractive. Work out, take care of your appearance, concentrate on your education/job, learn to sing or develop some other artistic abilities, practice martial arts, get yourself a nice wardrobe (maybe ask a couple of female friends to shop with you), learn to fix machines, read Kama Sutra and practice giving a good massage, whatever you can think of. But make sure it's something you enjoy, and see as self-improvement, not something you merely hope will make you more likeable.
Get some manners (if you don't already), but don't always aim to please. That is, opening the door for someone in a wheelchair is good, waiting on a girl hand and foot all the time is not. Admitting that you don't agree with someone, but choosing not to carry it any further for the sake of civility is (usually) good, pretending to agree to avoid a conflict is (usually) bad. Saying thank you, and complimenting people when they deserve it is good, never being critical and never using foul language is bad.
It's part of natural selection, some people are considered poor breeding partners. Sure, you can still be prominent and do many things that perpetuate the species indirectly, but nothing can get you laid if you aren't already getting laid.
Simply put: Don't worry about it. If it happens, good for you, if it doesn't, you are only tormenting yourself by chasing after what you will never have.
To some extent, attraction is based on pheromones and your natural expression of particular antigenic profiles. You can't really do anything about that. Everything else you can change - even when you're already in a relationship.
I have it on good authority that working out and being hygenic gets you more sex than you otherwise would have, even when you're already married and the spouse is already legally obliged to give it to you.
Manipulation and coercion are needed in everything. Not just love...
The very notion that we can get anything from being compassionate and understanding is absurd and only a line of bullcrap fed to the weak so that they never attempt otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to gain from trying to avoid manipulating and hurting people. Atleast not in the longterm. Oh sure, the breif protection of not getting arrested for beating a guy to death with a monkey wrench motivates me not to brutalize him, but for how long? Till I know there's not witnesses? Till I know I have friends that'll help me get away with it?
People seem to exist only to **** you off. They're not happy unless they're ruining your day. Everyone wants you to feel and think like they do. And when you get antzy and violent about it, suddenly you're the badguy! Nobody likes to be infringed upon, but everyone is ready and willing to poke and prod untill someone loses an eye...
Life is built around suffering and sweat. From the moment I get up in the morning my day is a grueling task of patience and willpower. Why do I work? To eat? No... I could find food anywhere... well, atleast I could if all the trees were smacked down from the industrial revolution... No, I work because society commands me to work. Because if I don't work, I starve and become homeless. I have no choice in the matter. And what do I get out of it?
Nothing, nothing but knowing their feet won't step on me for being an annoying little pest. Atleast up untill there is something else about me that bothers them. That's the life I have to look foward too. Tip toeing around a bunch of people I'll never see with my own eyes but think they can tell me what to do. Walking aimlessly through a cold and bleak existence neither knowing joy nor God. Wondering why I even bother. And then people wonder why there are those who commit suicide... because it's an escape! Escape from the trechory and oppression! But I continue to live... Maybe it's cowardess... Afraid of having to face some sortof God that would judge me harshly for ending my own life... Or maybe it's hatred... just living to squeeze every ounce of sweat and tears I can from my fellow man. Before they can get to me...
And then there are those who have the audacity to condemn me. It will not be I who silences you, who arrests you, who tells you you're not good enough. I am just an observer, a bystanding animal, who's just as perplexed and angry as you are... Why condemn me? To scared to condemn your owners? Do we act good in accordance to what is good or what others force us to call good? Does a man abide by the law, by what is right, or a slave? A man chooses... a slave obeys...
Why so socialist?
A woman has a close male friend. This means that he is probably interested in her, which is why he hangs around so much. She sees him strictly as a friend. This always starts out with, you're a great guy, but I don't like you in that way. This is roughly the equivalent for the guy of going to a job interview and the company saying, You have a great resume, you have all the qualifications we are looking for, but we're not going to hire you. We will, however, use your resume as the basis for comparison for all other applicants. But, we're going to hire somebody who is far less qualified and is probably an alcoholic. And if he doesn't work out, we'll hire somebody else, but still not you. In fact, we will never hire you. But we will call you from time to time to complain about the person that we hired.
LOL! This is hysterical and I'm keeping it for later use incase it's ever used against me.
Though oddly enough that rarely happens. Most girls don't want to be "just friends". But I have no interest in them. I don't give them the "let's be friends" smeal. I just ignore them. And they keep following me around like a lost puppy. I'd tell them to scram, but then, I don't want to burn my bridges. See, that's manipulation.
But if I wasn't manipulative, I'd just be a big jerk. Now which is worse? Being a big jerk who everybody's going to scorn about and talk smack too and I have noone to exploit, or just making them think I'm aloof and passive, and have a bunch of little minions running my errands?
Self interest. If they didn't want to get manipulated, they wouldn't have put themselves in that position. I should know, I've been manipulated. I blame but myself. I should destroyed her life when I had the chance and left her begging to have me.
I don't leave things to chance. The only people who aren't out to get you probably have downs syndrome or something. Which is why I tend to hang around people who aren't all there. Sure we're not going to discuss Plato or anything... but atleast you know they won't turn on you.
In an unrelated story, I may work on the D&D game in a story format here. Not here as in this topic or even the same forum bracket, but in like a D&D section of some kind. Campaigns probably... A rehersal of the heavily political/philosophical D&D game I'm in that for not having alot of combat is pretty sweet.
What at first I was a laughing stock and branded a "rapist, sick, twisted, nihilist" I am responsible for the recent decline in political power of the libertarian party. Who heald a monopoly over the nation. But my utter hatred of them allowed me the oppurtunity to seize people's attention, and through propaganda, and betryaying a friend and getting him charged with treason (he was esecuted, and his republican party has suffered dramaticaly cause of it), I was able to get into the communist party. And the communist party has put alot of faith in me, and now they have no idea I'm the reason the "neo-democrats" are going to make a big splash on the political scene. The democrats are at odds for party control as these new-dems are taking over, I'm involved in that secretly, and will ultimately help them because frankly the communists are just far too shortsighted to see my vision carried out...
Evidently what we have here is a spy vs spy game of blind idelogy commies who want to raise a ruckus, libertarians who control everything and don't take kindly to people contradicting them, alot of moderates who are just being used by one evil or another. And then ofcourse me, who's ambitions are so vague and obscured by double meanings, lies, and small qhuips of "just trust me". I could very well be worse then the libertarians. But I don't care. I don't even have a real purpose, just the thrill of watching those pretencious pricks collapse, and seeing the country develop into chaos. It's depressing that it's easier to destroy the world then get some prolife laws and child healthcare concreted into the system, and then just take some embezzled money and go live on some island and make a family. I suppose that's the difference between lawful and chaotic evil.
James says the scaritiest thing is all this and I'm only a congressmen. Emperor Palpatine is playing this game.. lol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0RJhScEBZ8
^--If I knew how to make youtubes I mix that song in with bioshock. That's my alignment LOL!
Some studies show that racism is taught, not natural as was once thought. Clan discrimination and familial discrimination is actually more natural (and is based on kinship selection), but it's not normally classed under the same things which would be related to "political correctness."
And your argument about working out and bathing is a straw man. You're supposed to be doing that anyway, unless you like fungus and dying young.
Despite that, many people don't work out, and many D&D fans are notorious for bad hygiene. It helps to point out that these things can be changed and are contributory.
For what it's worth, it's possibly only Northerners who like doing that. Us tropical folk prefer to use leaves, and leaves are a ubiquitous and renewable resource. Better than toilet paper in many ways.
And in India and the rest of southeast Asia it is a custom you eat only with your right hand because?
Google up "Carlos Xuma" and add your email address to his mailing list. He gives some genuine, good advice, that is plain and deals with facts without being cynical.
I found his emails useful for both my difficulties with depression and with romance, and I think those difficulties were fixed in that order. For one thing, solving my difficulties with romance was not due to some deliberate strategy, but simply about gaining the self-motivation to be far more attractive.
(That said, he is well known for having strange views on a lot of things. And he has a kind of mercury switch with women - a vibe that they either love or hate. Maybe the "hates" are the ones that are "wired" correctly...maybe not. I doubt the answer is anywhere near that simple.)
Personally, I think the fact that most people refuse to even answer the question speaks more volumes.
God: "Hmmm this people are being bad. RAIN OF FIRE AND BRIMESTONE BABY! BURN BAY BURN! DISCO INFERNO!"
Lucifer: "Is it me or is God scary?"
Michael: "Totally man."
Gabriel: "Why's Lucifer here?"
Lucifer: "Wait 'till the new testament buddy."
I think I went a little off topic...my bad...
"Relaxed attempts" update:
#2: Online dating site. Sent invites to a women I seemed to have a lot in common with. No response (that she's visited her profile since my message was verifiable).
#1: Coworker. Agreed to a movie date at first, then emailed me changing her mind as she'd just started dating another guy and didn't want to complicate things. Unverifiable.
Count this a partial success. You asked; she agreed. Then she got cold feet, but it's clear proof that you're not "reject out of hand" material.
Heck, her initial reaction was positive. Give it a few weeks, then ask how things are going with her and the other guy. If well, good. If it's over, suggest she come out and see a movie with you.
#3: Long-term friend. Have expressed interest before but doesn't want a relationship. Interested in "friends with benefits", which would be fine if she ever found time for me. Has cancelled on me a bunch (sometimes w/o warning to get drunk w/ other friends), and has vacillated between whether it's a good or bad idea (as, being friends, she knows I want a relationship w/ someone eventually, but am ok with "FwB" in the short-term). She is still in college and has a much larger friend circle than I do - it is possible I'm just the last name in her little black book.
Bad option, honestly. From a romantic sense, shes "just not that into you". I think you're right about you being the "if all else fails" option. Ask others out instead. If she turns around and asks you out, point out that she's cancelled on you fairly often and see what she says before deciding whether to accept or not.
I've no experience with online dating sites, so I can't comment on that one.
Summary: a good start.
Responses!
Thanks bane, here's hoping. As I said before life isn't always (or even often) fair; you often have to fight for what you want out of it. Some people have more of an uphill battle than others, and it can get discouraging. Feels like I'm running on fumes and hope sometimes, but for now I'm keeping at it.
True, I'll have to consider that. I prefer in-person, but that's not always viable, especially with my hermity-ways. :P
Haha, "morality via apathy", nice.
Thanks for the tips Nom. I must admit this whole thing feels rather weird. I might be late-20's but I just kinda gave up for a long time...which makes me feel old and stupid as I missed a lot of chances for the experience everyone else seems to have. Here's hoping I can make up for lost time (or find someone with whom I won't need to).
WarWeaver, the more I read about ya, the more I respect ya. I'm pretty sure you'll find someone. If a jackass like me can, then you sure as hell can.
Thanks bane, here's hoping. As I said before life isn't always (or even often) fair; you often have to fight for what you want out of it. Some people have more of an uphill battle than others, and it can get discouraging. Feels like I'm running on fumes and hope sometimes, but for now I'm keeping at it.
With the online dating you should send invites to as many women as possible. This will increase the number of possible responses. Just because you see things in common with her, doesn't mean she sees anything she has with you. More invites = more chances of success.
True, I'll have to consider that. I prefer in-person, but that's not always viable, especially with my hermity-ways. :P
The correct answer is, "NO, it's too much work." ;)
Haha, "morality via apathy", nice.
Summary: a good start.
Thanks for the tips Nom. I must admit this whole thing feels rather weird. I might be late-20's but I just kinda gave up for a long time...which makes me feel old and stupid as I missed a lot of chances for the experience everyone else seems to have. Here's hoping I can make up for lost time (or find someone with whom I won't need to).
Hell I don't need alcohol to have a good time. Of course my dating batting average is at an all time low presently. I think part of that is, is everyone's just too damn depressed right now.
I feel confident answering your question in the anonymity of the internet - but also because my honest answer sounds good. I don't know whether it actually is. It's just that single-person sex isn't that much fun for me. Maybe when I was younger I would have answered "yes," but these days, I prefer activities where there's someone else throwing back the ball, you know?
Having a very pretty mannequin - even a live mannequin - for a sex buddy doesn't appeal to me much.
I think that in your situation, you've been missing out.
You shouldn't jump off the bridge just because everyone else is doing it - except when it's your goal to BE with everyone else, in which case jumping off the bridge, in spite of knowing it's a bad idea in general - is just what you want to do.
I've been a casual drinker in my youth. Been drunk once, and tipsy a lot of times. I don't need it, but it does relax everyone when they think I'm drinking a lot more than I actually am. Yes, it does say something about society in general.
Interesting stories usually equate to moments of stupidity. It is the stupid moments that make life stories so funny and entertaining. Quite often someone in the story should have been injured or killed but wasn't, or at least not hurt as bad as they should have been. Ya, if you weren't as much of a hermit then you would have interesting stories but then you may then also have substance abuse problems, diseases, viruses, major injuries or even be dead. Most of those that have interesting stories of youth usually have
ed up bodies, ed up lives, ed up friends, and almost never seem to go much of anywhere in life.I should explain, said friend is not what you would call a "bad guy".
I beg to differ.
He's been a gentleman with a variety of women, though I can't lay claim to specifics (only what they've said).
Play them a tape of his little 'hypothetical' and then ask again. I'd bet good money that they don't use the word 'gentleman' about him ever again. Even without their knowing about his earnest admission to an inclination to ****, his behaviour with women isn't as meaningful as you seem to want to think. Between acting like a gentleman in order to curry favour with women and making a private admission to trusted bros, I think the second one carries a lot more weight in determining who the person really is.
It'd be less telling if he'd simply been answering, like your friends did. Don't get me wrong; doing anything but lunging backwards and shouting a disgusted 'NO!' is a mark against someone, but the fact that your friend crafted this charming little hypothetical and submitted it to friends shows that he's looking for validation. Justification. He wants to be told that he's not the monster he knows that he is. Your other friend did a nice job of telling him 'Nah, females ain't really people. If there's no chance of any real human beings finding out, you go to town, dawg!' Your other friend, who found the question 'distasteful' scores 'spineless wimp' points for not speaking up either way. You're the only person who answered in the negative, and I'm not prepared to award even you full marks due to your failure to set the creep on fire.
When he said it, it was in a kind of "safe honesty" environment, and while I was horrified at his response, I can't fault his honesty.
Well, at least he's honest about wanting to **** women1. Do you really think, feeling as he does, that that impossible situation is the only circumstance in which he'd do this? Don't you think he might look at a situation where it's just him and a girl he can intimidate into silence and think 'close enough'?
Tell me! If he said to the rest of your friends 'if you were in an empty, featureless room with Warweaver, totally helpless - and you had a kind of metaphysical sense that you knew no one could ever possibly know or punish you for anything you did in that place (not even Warweaver) - would you **** him?' Do you think you'd be this comfortable with his honesty? Do you think you'd be fine dismissing/justifying him as 'just a guy that believes we can never 100% overcome our own animal sides'? Or do you think maybe you'd make a quiet little promise to yourself NEVER TO BE ALONE IN A ROOM WITH HIM?
Examine that. While you're at it, examine how you feel about his raping a friend (or family member or even perfect stranger) of yours who you introduced to him. Hell, not even introduced; a friend who you simply didn't warn about him. A good way to save yourself some guilt is to think ahead to that moment, feel that guilt as a hypothetical now, and work to avoid it. While you're at it, you could be saving some beautiful, innocent person the nightmare of being sexually assaulted (and probably murdered; note the 'nobody finds out' hangup) by this abomination of humanity.
You've garnered a good share of my respect in the time I've been corresponding with you via these forums, Warweaver, but taking this admission on your friend's part as irrelevant to his being 'not a bad guy' instead of the huge godsdamned red flag that it is... well, it makes me question your rationality at best, and your morality at worst.
__
1 If someone told you that they'd only go skydiving if there were absolutely, positively no way they could get hurt or killed, THAT MEANS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO GO SKYDIVING. The only thing stopping them is fear of the consequences. If someone says they'd only commit **** if there were absolutely, positively no way they could get caught or punished, THAT MEANS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO COMMIT ****. The only thing stopping them is fear of the consequences.
The postscript is that people do say this about skydiving. Guess what! Eventually some of them rationalize their fears enough to go for it anyway. Want to make a huge logical leap with me? Rapists will do that too. Any person whose only qualm about committing **** is the consequences (rather than basic godsdamned human decency) will rationalize their fear of those consequences, and will almost certainly find/place themselves in a situation where they feel that the threat of those consequences is minimized (Gee, boys and girls! How do we get **** victims to NEVER TELL ANYONE? CSI fans know the answer!), and then they will very likely choose to engage in the deliberate **** of a fellow human being.
Just embrace your inner gamer geek.
Would that I could! Unfortunately creativity has left me for a while (haven't played/DMed any D&D in months). Worse, my LGS's never seem to be frequented by many lady-gamers, which would be awesome. :P
I can't really fault anything you're saying MrCelsius, nor would I want to.
All I can say is that our group is not the only one this question has been posed to - in fact blind psychology surveys have shown I'd have to demonize a disturbingly large portion of the population if I were to get a hate-on for everyone who said "yes" (man or woman). There is a reason such acts were more common, even (:yuck
accepted further back in history - and today in the more lawless regions of the earth.I'm in 100% agreeance that this never makes it "right". Even back then there were people who spoke out against it, generals who forbade their men the part before "pillaging", etc.
However, there is a difference between admitting something in a hypothetical, and actually performing said act. The former is thought-crime, and the day I start lynching people for that (friend or not) is the day I discard another one of my beliefs - the right for other people to make their own value judgements.
I have my own opinion of said friend, and it's not favorable. But it's only my opinion. He's never done anything bad. If people ask me, I tell them. Otherwise, I'm not going to go around sabotaging someone for ideas I think are offensive.
That said, if he's willing (and he has been in the past, i.e. by bringing that topic up - "looking for validation" like you said), I talk with him about why I think it's the wrong mindset and why he should change it.
As I've mentioned before, the only time I generally get angry is with people who agree what they're doing is wrong but refuse to change.
About this:
Worse, my LGS's never seem to be frequented by many lady-gamers, which would be awesome.
Have you tried any gaming conventions or perhaps SCA for a chang of pace?
What about becoming a regular reader at the local (big) book store?
This may sound crazy, but if you are an avid reader or arer still in school, just hang out at some outdoors area frequented by women and read or study. You might be surprised.
I just throw these things in because you sound like you need a change of pace or perhaps to add to your hobbies. (Racquetball, hiking, biking, perhaps get a dog and take it walking., etc If you develop a hobby where females are involved you will both have a way to meet females and something to share with them. (example: Ever go to Schlitterbahn? (sp?))If you develop two or three new hobbies then you will have access to more ladies and have more interests to share. Sometimes taking that first step is hard though.
So, there it is for whatever it is worth.
Also, just had to share this.
Danke, Rumplestix. A change of pace does sound good. First step bit is tricky, but I'll go insane if I don't, so here's hoping.
Also, just had to share this.
Bitte (sp?) Warweaver
I'm in the same boat and need to do some different things myself.
Awesome cartoons BTW.
1) I've became cool...I don't believe it either.
2) I've gained a fanclub composed entirely of girls...I sleep with my eyes open...
3) Some how I became popular and cool and am still a nice guy.
Some thing WENT TERRBLY TERRIBLY WRONG!
nice outgoing people tend to be more popular.
That's my take anyway. You can be the nicest guy in the world but if no one sees it, no one knows - and it's nobody's job to go hunting for quiet nice guys when the louder pretend-nice guys (and real louder nice guys) are in plain view. By "louder" I don't mean volume of course - extroverts or people just generally better at small talk and energy.
Yeah, that cartoon is pretty spot-on. (Note: I choose outcast. If not getting laid means I can keep my dignity, then I'm calling it a bargain.)
Fair enough. I'm going more for love than laid, but I doubt dignity is even really possible for either. Otherwise the phrase "love makes you do stupid things" wouldn't exist - and when trying to mesh two personalities, sacrifices must be made (at least, from what I've observed). Whether it's worth it (in the sacrifice necessary for a particular person, or the effort expended in searching for the "right" one) is something everyone has to figure out for themselves.
BTW, people will really respond when I say, "FANCLUB! ASSEMBLE!"
@ Piggy:
are you serious? that is hilarious. freakin hilariousNo.
Damn, harsh. Way to shut down a brotha. :P
BTW, people will really respond when I say, "FANCLUB! ASSEMBLE!"
PK...are you the real Charlie Townsend?
Also I'm surprised nobody responded to my God thing.
EDIT: I was talking to Bane.
Lucifier: "Is it just me or is God scary?"
Michael: "Totally."
Gabriel: "Why's Lucifier here?"
Lucifier: "I'm God's right hand man 'till the New Testament."
didn't notice it. hilarious.Warweaver
Interesting stories usually equate to moments of stupidity. It is the stupid moments that make life stories so funny and entertaining. Quite often someone in the story should have been injured or killed but wasn't, or at least not hurt as bad as they should have been. Ya, if you weren't as much of a hermit then you would have interesting stories but then you may then also have substance abuse problems, diseases, viruses, major injuries or even be dead. Most of those that have interesting stories of youth usually have
Heh. Let me guess. You've been a social outcast your entire life, and instead of thinking once that the problem is in you, you've turned envy into hate for the rest of the world?
Heh. Let me guess. You've been a social outcast your entire life, and instead of thinking once that the problem is in you, you've turned envy into hate for the rest of the world?
Sure, if that is what you want to thing.
there is nothing wrong with nice guys regardless of what you think are inadquacies in fact we as a race would better of if we had more rational nice people then hormone driven idiots
as for your mates admission, he might want to take a long hard look at himself if he thinks its okay to exert that sort of power over a woman because he would get away with it then his mind is warped in some way he would still need to look at himself and her afterwards then what would he do?
see I am not a nice guy I will admit , but i try hard to be pleasant and easygoing and I in your position would most likely be quite physically unpleasant to your friend as to prove a pointthat it doesnt bother me at all hurting you and i quite enjoy my baser instincts i.e. "i percieve you as a threat and by this course of action you will know your place" I wonder would he except my justification.
as this guy Dan Savage he comes across as a shallow tosser who has little repect for himself or has obviously never heard of stds ad should really take a flying ****
as this guy Dan Savage he comes across as a shallow tosser who has little repect for himself or has obviously never heard of stds ad should really take a flying ****
I never actually read Savage Love until this thread piqued my curiosity1 (though I did hear, and approve, of his wicked little neologism). Since my first post, I've been strolling through The Stranger's archive of Dan Savage's column, and by my lights you've got the guy pegged (ha!) wrong. He's frank and curt, but while we're throwing names about, he's also earnest. He's good at talking straight about what needs to be talked about. The guy came to him saying 'I want to have sex, but I want to avoid the several most common conditions which lead to sex!' and he said 'Yep, that'll probably hurt your chances.' What's he supposed to do, sugar-coat it? Tell the guy -- in a sex advice column -- that he shouldn't be such a perv and should be looking for love instead of sex? Grow up.
He's not a bad person for acknowledging the truth, nor does your finding that truth distasteful make him a jerk for speaking it. The vast majority of relationship-seekers are emotionally vulnerable in some way. That is not inherently bad. Any time someone has any kind of objective in a situation and works to attain that objective with another human being, zie is being manipulative. That is not inherently bad. Booze is an excellent social lubricant which helps people get out of their own way and do what they're too self-conscious to let themselves do otherwise2. That is not inherently bad.
Dan Savage seems to have plenty of self-respect, with enough left over to respect his readers enough not to bull
them or talk about romance when they're asking about sex. He's definitely heard of STDs, if he's a tosser then it's in the good way, and if you're interested in the logistics of a flying then I suggest you address your inquiries to mail@savagelove.com; you'd be guaranteed a response nowhere near as judgmental, disrespectful, or misinformed as your own. :D__
1 Unlike a certain other poster, I actually followed the link and looked into the guy to get context before making any kneejerk judgments.
2 Brad Hicks has an excellent series of articles on just how evil schtupping while inebriated really isn't. I really should re-read it to make sure that it says what I remember it saying, but I'm late for my morning walk as it is. If you find that it doesn't say what I say it says, lemme know.
MrCelsius is correct in that none of those things are inherently bad. It is unfortunate that they're even necessary, but it's the reality of interpersonal barriers. The important thing to remember is no person is "bad" or "weak" for using them.
The only unfortunate bit, IMO, is that's it's pervasive enough that people who just don't like the premise behind manipulation and drinking (like me) don't have much recourse when they want the same results those things bring.
I'm a very honest person. I can play truth or dare sober; most people can't (or more accurately, won't). :P
I've reviewed the archives and certainly think Mr. Savage is getting out the wrong vibe if coming from just this one column. Of course, Mr. Savage probably wouldn't care one way or another anyway.
Now, I don't mind his telling it the way it is, or using a lot more vulgarity in his language than is really advisable - it's probably a disease of some sort. However, I do take issue with this statement:
"Yeah, you'll be okay—but by ruling out drunks, the emotionally vulnerable, and the easily manipulated, VAT, you increase the odds that you'll remain a virgin for the rest of your natural life. A lot of very beautiful relationships—to say nothing of a lot of very timely deflowerings—owe their existences to booze, emotional vulnerability, and a little well-timed, well- intentioned manipulation."
It's true that a heck of a lot of sex is had on account of booze, manipulation, and emotional vulnerability. It's true that many of these result in beautiful relationships.
But I don't like those two statements being put together in this fashion that makes it appear that having sex by intentionally getting people drunk, dumped, or manipulated is a good thing. It's not.
In fact, if the girl is passed out drunk - and is thus functionally helpless - it should count as ****. I don't condone **** and neither should you. I'm sure Dan Savage doesn't either, but if you squint your eyes a little bit and you trend that way, it sure seems like it.
1) Know who you are. Many people will bend themselves into pretzels trying to be what they think the other person wants. Then they can't understand why they're so unhappy.
Example: After a really sad breakup (4 years living together) I took some time to figure out what my interests, likes,dislikes REALLY were. I had gone along with whatever the present husband/SO/BF liked for so long, I honestly didn't know. I didn't date again untill I had it figured out.
2. Follow your passions. I met Mr. Right on a message board of a convention I volunteered for. I love anime and I knew that even thought most of the poster were way younger than me, this was where I wanted to spend my time. Doing what you love puts you in proximimity of like minded people. Plus YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU LOVE.
3. Friends first means friends forever. I don't beleave in sleeping on the first date, but make yourself clear: you don't really want another friend. You want to get to know someone and date them.
Dating Stuff
1. Watch how they react or talk about thier family. A man who treats his mom like crap or a daughter who has a bad relationship with her dad may have issuses about the opposite sex you don't want to deal with. Bridezilla always reminds why we have such a fantastically high divorce rate.
2. Look at thier bookshelves/DVDs/video games. I had a wonderful time with this one with Mr. Right. Not only did we have a lot doubles, his brother in law also did with my dad. Similar stuff is a great place to be. Plus with Mr. Right, he had a lot of books I wanted to read.
3. Mr/Ms right is not mr/ms Perfect. I have friend who has ben celibate for almost ten years waiting for mr perfect, her clone. Ain't gonna happen. My mr. right has bad teeth and is very quiet in most situations. Not the best looking on the block, but definately the most loyal.
4. Make a list of non-negotiables. Everyone's will be different and the more of them you have, the harder it will be. mine were fairly simple: steady job, a car, no felonies, similar interests and family background, and someone who would enjoy my family and friends. Aside from that, age differences weren't going to bother me.
But I don't like those two statements being put together in this fashion that makes it appear that having sex by intentionally getting people drunk, dumped, or manipulated is a good thing. It's not.
I'm afraid I have to chalk this up to your trending a certain way. At no point does Dan suggest liquoring people up in a planned attempt to lower their inhibitions. At no point does he suggest torpedoing someone's relationship so that they'll be more pliable on the rebound. Hell, I don't think I'd even go so far as to say that he generally (I haven't gotten through even a fifth of the massive archive yet) advises manipulation; his advice trends heavily toward honest openness rather than deceit or manipulation (of course, again, any interaction with a human being in which one has a goal is arguably 'manipulation', so big grain of salt on that charge anyway).
If one were to give the benefit of the doubt -- in this case, not attributing wholly absent suggestions of date-**** -- in reading the advice, the extent of the alcohol element is 'engage in social settings where alcohol is had' NOT 'abstain from alcohol so as to clear-headedly liquor them into a rapeable stupor'. Hell, to apply RAW to the statement, he simply points out that by excluding individuals which match certain criteria from his dating pool, he is reducing the size of that dating pool. This is a statement as bereft of instigation or morality as saying that ten minus a number equals less than ten.
In fact, if the girl is passed out drunk - and is thus functionally helpless - it should count as ****.
'Should'? Does. Period.
I don't condone **** and neither should you.
I admit that my views on impaired mental states may differ from some more stringent perspectives; there is a certain level of accountability necessary when it comes to drinking and boning. If an individual is to be held accountable for getting drunk and deciding, under the influence, to drive, then an individual ought to be held accountable for the premeditated and sober decision to, say, get drunk in a frat house full of horny inebriates1. However! Inebriation does not remove the supreme power of the word 'no'. If that word comes out (or any variation thereupon), then any sexual activity thereafter is ****. If the individual has been rendered incapable of saying no, then it's also ****.
I'm sure Dan Savage doesn't either, but if you squint your eyes a little bit and you trend that way, it sure seems like it.
Honestly, I'd say that the way one would have to trend is toward wanting to pretend he condones ****, whether it's wanted for one's own absolution or for his vilification. Reading his words, both as they're written and as they're clearly intended, suggests nothing of the sort. He points out that the reader's forbidden elements in his quest for coitus are arguably the most common elements involved in the achievement of coitus, and further points out that eliminating those elements will reduce his chances of attaining said coitus. He does not say 'if you want sex, do these things'.
He does go on to point out the potential positive results of the sexual encounters that these elements lead to, but unless you spotted a footnote that I didn't that reads 'By the way, don't worry about your partner's consent; hit that any way you can', that's hardly a call to or condoning of ****.
I see where you're coming from and appreciate your zeal, but I think it's misplaced in this instance. Pointing out common factors in sexual contact -- themselves neither good nor bad in nature --, and the positive results which have come of them in some circumstances, is nothing even remotely like advocating the misuse of those common factors.
__
1 Just to be absolutely clear, I am not saying that someone who gets drunk at a party and is subsequently raped was 'asking for it'; I am saying that merely making bad choices due to intoxication does not make it ****. If at any time that drunken party-kid says 'no', then it means NO.
As a general note, discussions of **** are usually frowned upon here, please keep this to a minimum. We have found that this medium causes too much miscommunication and bad feelings on such a sensitive topic. Thanks for understanding.
I do understand. Thanks for reminding us gently, as opposed to editing/deleting/locking. Have cookie.
I'll drop discussion of the R-word, 'cause you're totally right. I have a new axe to grind anyway...I don't agree with everything Savage says, but by and large he gives good, if incendiary, advice (the incendiary bit is part of his appeal - most people are too afraid of offending those delicate sensibilities, so he's refreshing).
Ironically, it's immediately after I read this that I hit upon the first column of his with which I seriously disagree. I'm not sure I'll ever read another, in fact. It's just a real doozy that the first time I don't agree with him isn't just some minor point of sexual etiquette, but his calling me and everyone like me untrustworthy, deceitful, disgusting sluts1. It's so nice to know that, in all his rainbow flag-waving about civil rights and respect, we're not actually all in this together; it's sweet, loving, faithful lesbians and gays like him that're all in it together, whereas filthy degenerate bisexuals like me should be thrown under the bus ASAP.
Sorry for derailing, but it's the off-topic tavern and what the hell. I can wave vaguely toward on-topicness by saying 'The advice columnist quoted in the OP may or may not think romance is only for the dysfunctional, but he certainly thinks it's only for the monosexual! DISCUSS!' Needless to say, it's got me in something of a mood. Maximum irony points for my having gone out of my way to defend the guy just a few posts ago2.
Ah well. Nobody's perfect.
Mother
ing rat--ing ass.__
1 Observe the cozy little hate rally he throws with readers he'd flame into next week if they were talking about gays in his archived column 'Pride and Prejudice'.
2 Though he's revealed himself to be a jerkass of a particularly high magnitude3, that doesn't make the prick any less right on the point I defended earlier.
3 I'm sure that I'll eventually calm down enough to come to the conclusion that he's a generally intelligent and good person who's simply got it incredibly wrong on one massive point, but right now I'm just... very angry.
with regards to posts about knee jerk reactions i have actually read some of what Mr Savages column and I still think he seems an ass. i still think he is shallow and his advice is simply controversal for its own sake.
also I find it slighty mystyfing the idea that romance is for the monosexual (freaking labels again here we go). He seems to have some( i suppose the nicest term is) motivated opinions to bisexual people and their relationship capabilities.
as regards
warweaver, there are people that have posted on this thread who actual make sense (thumbs up to sheihel). i will admit that i do see people who have an unease when dealing with openly honest prospective partners, i am not condoning lying at all but i feel holding back a little and letting it over time seems to work better. but i would guess my social life and culture is probably at lot different then yours in some regards
In deference to ORC Calliope's request, I'll avoid the R topic as much as I can. That said, when Dan says "drunks," I kind of interpret that to mean someone who is, in fact, drunk, which renders him or her incapable of driving, let alone making a sound decision on pretty much anything, including consensual sex.
Whether or not the drinking or the emotional vulnerability was engineered doesn't seem to me to be all that relevant here. Fact is, the man is openly advocating taking advantage of other people when their defenses are down. I'm NOT down with that. If the person is emotionally vulnerable, then you should support him or her, not take advantage of it to have casual sex.
The mere thought of such behavior repulses me.
I'm no saint here. I totally drink (well, I used to) and I get that some people need alcohol to get past inhibitions they would rather not have in the first place. If you think someone really wants to have sex with you but is merely a little too timid to pursue it, I'm all for a little bit of encouragement from alcohol. However, when grouped with "emotional vulnerability and manipulation," it begins to sound a little less like social lubrication and a little more like outright drugging people into insensibility.
Especially when you describe the desired state as "drunk."
What I mean is, if a society's main modes of coitus are achieved through incapacitating drugs, blatant manipulation, and emotional predation, then I have to suspect that something is seriously wrong. I like to pretend that most sex is being had between consenting adults in full possession of their faculties. Is that wrong?
Sorry for derailing, but it's the off-topic tavern and what the hell. I can wave vaguely toward on-topicness by saying 'The advice columnist quoted in the OP may or may not think romance is only for the dysfunctional, but he certainly thinks it's only for the monosexual! DISCUSS!' Needless to say, it's got me in something of a mood. Maximum irony points for my having gone out of my way to defend the guy just a few posts ago.
In your defense, you have admitted to an emotional reaction to a flame against your preferences. I have no such similar defense. He's not flaming me, since I'm more or less heterosexual, and I'm no virgin, either.
In fact, the part of his views I'm objecting to appears to be taken at face value and as a norm at least by you, and I'm thinking also by most normal mainstream Americans. That creeps me out more than a little bit. Definitely more than the Japanese penchant for lolita girls. Remind me never to drink when I'm vacationing there.
That said, when Dan says "drunks," I kind of interpret that to mean someone who is, in fact, drunk, which renders him or her incapable of driving, let alone making a sound decision on pretty much anything, including consensual sex.
Whoza what-now?
Drunk is a rather large continuum, from 'buzzed' to 'passed out'. If your entire beef is with the idea that you're aiming for the lower end of the spectrum, then I think I have to pass off your criticism as over reacting over a not-perfectly understood word.
Re: the Doc's advice about bisexuals
Regardless of his reasons, his advice still comes down to "good for a lay, not for a life". He's of the opinion that bisexuals never make a good long-term partner, for men or women. And I'm not sure you can cut that in a way that isn't offensive.
In the context of "manipulation" and "emotional vulnerability," I would say he meant "drunk" to mean "intoxicated to the point where the victim is relatively defenseless and pliable."
If you condone that, then might I suggest Ativan? It leaves the victim completely capable of moving and "saying yes," but so mentally pliable that he might as well be hypnotized. Best of all, he doesn't remember a thing the morning after. "Better than alcohol," would you say?
In deference to ORC Calliope's request, I'll avoid the R topic as much as I can. That said, when Dan says "drunks," I kind of interpret that to mean someone who is, in fact, drunk, which renders him or her incapable of driving, let alone making a sound decision on pretty much anything, including consensual sex.
Which -- and I mean no offense here, just describing the situation as it appears to me -- seems like you're choosing the worst possible interpretation. Indeed, the most uncharacteristic as well. Other columns show that Dan Savage is very pro-consent, so why interpret 'drunks' in a manner counter to that? It's much more in keeping with his stated views (and acerbic humour) -- not to mention an equally valid reading that doesn't paint him as a bad guy -- to interpret 'drunks' as 'people who drink'.
Think of it as a sort of sociological Occam's Razor; between two interpretations of a statement, choose the one which is simultaneously more likely to apply to the individual, and gives the individual the benefit of the doubt by vilifying zir the least1. My first impulse is to say that you interpret it your way instead of mine because you want to be mad at him, which I as much as said in a previous post. I'm sorry, it was rude of me to conjecture your motives. Most likely, the statement just hit each of us differently for natural or even random reasons, and there's no ulterior reasoning behind it for either of us.
Whether or not the drinking or the emotional vulnerability was engineered doesn't seem to me to be all that relevant here. Fact is, the man is openly advocating taking advantage of other people when their defenses are down.
Ehh. He acknowledged that these are common factors to most hook-ups, and pointed out that the results are frequently good for all parties concerned, rendering those factors morally neutral. Obviously, they can be exploited to bad ends, but I think the vast majority of cases in which drinking, emotional vulnerability, and manipulation2 occur are perfectly innocent. Two people get tipsy together and decide to have some fun. Two people get to talking about the heartbreak of their respective exes and grow closer in their shared pain. Two people go on a date and try to convince each other to take a chance on a relationship. Drinking, emotional vulnerability, and manipulation, all in forms much more innocent and common than the interpretation you're ascribing.
I'm NOT down with that. If the person is emotionally vulnerable, then you should support him or her, not take advantage of it to have casual sex.
Damn near everyone is emotionally vulnerable. If both people involved are emotionally vulnerable, then are they just supposed to stay away from each other and sequester themselves into emotional good health? People don't work that way. Two emotionally vulnerable people lean on each other, as much for their own support as one another's. In that contact, feelings can arise, and the sexual congress which can result can be more healing than a thousand therapy sessions. If one person isn't emotionally vulnerable, but has good intentions, then I think the healthier person can be good for the vulnerable person.
The only time emotional vulnerability is truly bad (as with the other factors mentioned) is when someone is not operating in good faith, trying to take advantage of the situation to achieve a selfish end. You seem to feel that we should demonize social drinking (to name one) because a minority of people use it to exploit others, whereas I feel that blaming the booze is like blaming all kitchen knives everywhere when a psycho murders someone with one. Accept that the kitchen knife is a morally neutral and pervasive element of society, and blame the psycho. If some jerkass is using booze, or emotional vulnerability, or manipulation to do wrong things to people, but all of those elements can be and are employed in innocent, harmless, and even positive ways, then you should probably blame the jerkass.
The mere thought of such behavior repulses me.
The mere thought of negative exploitation of such situations repulses me. Positive interpretations -- like two people crying over their exes growing closer, emotional shut-ins letting their guard down enough to fall in love thanks to alcohol, a love-smitten romantic spending two days trying to come up with the perfect way to say 'I love you' -- warm my heart.
I'm no saint here. I totally drink (well, I used to) and I get that some people need alcohol to get past inhibitions they would rather not have in the first place. If you think someone really wants to have sex with you but is merely a little too timid to pursue it, I'm all for a little bit of encouragement from alcohol. However, when grouped with "emotional vulnerability and manipulation," it begins to sound a little less like social lubrication and a little more like outright drugging people into insensibility.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of cases in which people deliberately liquor up an emotionally vulnerable person so they'll be better manipulated, they're doing it to themselves. It's called self-medication. When people do it to each other, the sleaze factor depends entirely on motive. If the thought process is 'So-and-so is hurting over her ex, so I'm going to take her out partying to help her forget. Maybe once she's feeling better she'll see that I'm a nice guy and go on a date with me.' then it's pretty innocent. If it's 'That weepy chick will totally be down for a rebound bang if I pour a few shots into her!', then yeah, total sleazebag. What's the determining factor? Motive, not method.
Especially when you describe the desired state as "drunk."
Aside from the 'I think he meant people who drink, not people who're necessarily drunk' argument, the word 'drunk' itself is pretty blurry in definition. I hold 'drunk' to be when you've finally gotten out of 'tipsy'. I don't think 'drunk' is the 'this person cannot consent, and you're terrible for approaching zir while in this state' line. That's more like the state with the more colourful descriptors like 'sloshed', 'hammered', or 'plastered', and even then it's a sliding scale based on how drunk you are. If you're sober and the other person is tipsy, that's A-OK. If you're sober and the other person is drunk, you'd do well to have a couple of drinks yourself to catch up in order to avoid looking kinda skeevy. If you're stone cold sober and the other person is totally hammered, you had better not touch zir for anything but helping zir to a cab (which you should be in) or to a bed (which you should not be in). In all of these conditions, if you're within one step of the other person on the scale of inebriation, it's all good.
What I mean is, if a society's main modes of coitus are achieved through incapacitating drugs, blatant manipulation, and emotional predation, then I have to suspect that something is seriously wrong.
Oh, totally. It would be bar-none healthier if we could all go about these things soberly, without being on the rebound or needing to come up with a good approach to win attention. Trouble is, we'd have to be a lot healthier in the first place for those healthier methods to work. People are messed up, and so is society as a result. People smoke. People drive over the speed limit. There's high fructose corn syrup in everything. It's the world we live in. Just because we can imagine a Utopian ideal that's better doesn't make this some kind of hellish nightmare, however. Just because superhumans with a perfect culture could handle relationships more healthily doesn't mean we're demons enmired in something ugly. In the context of our society, the way that dating works (like the way everything in our society works) is 'good enough to get by'. We should ever-strive to improve that, but it doesn't mean we should reject the system out of hand until it's perfect.
I like to pretend that most sex is being had between consenting adults in full possession of their faculties. Is that wrong?
If by 'wrong' you mean 'morally wrong', then no! It's not wrong to pretend. If you mean 'factually wrong', then you're still right, but only because established relationships wreck the curve. Once people are together, they drop the self-deception and dependency on chemicals to... well, lesser levels than on first dates, anyway. If you limit your sample to 'most first sex is being had...' then yeah, you are wrong. Humans are weak and cowardly critters. The vast majority of us need icebreakers.
Your stipulation (if applied to two people's first sex together) falls apart at two points. The good news is that 'consenting' isn't one of them; most sex is had with full consent. That word that ORC_Calliope mentioned is not the norm. Not by a very, very long shot. One point where it does fail is, of course, 'full possession of their faculties'. Faculties apparently aren't all they're cracked up to be, judging by how happily and eagerly people will drink them away. The other point where your stipulation fails is at the word 'adults'. Sure, most sex is being had by people of legal age (or within legal proximity thereto), but seriously; do you actually term everyone who passes the age of consent an 'adult'? Hell, I probably know more fifty-somethings than not who I wouldn't consider 'adults'! Just about everyone is emotionally vulnerable in some way; if being such disqualified individuals from the dating pool, our species would die out in a big hurry.
In fact, the part of his views I'm objecting to appears to be taken at face value and as a norm at least by you, and I'm thinking also by most normal mainstream Americans. That creeps me out more than a little bit. Definitely more than the Japanese penchant for lolita girls. Remind me never to drink when I'm vacationing there.
Ehh... I think you find my taking it at face value creepy because your interpretation of his views differs from the one that I'm taking at face value and as a norm. I would not characterize your interpretation -- the calculated use of booze/vulnerability/manipulation to exploit someone -- as any kind of norm. I am characterizing my interpretation -- a morally-neutral and typically mutual use of disinhibiting factors, which can have positive as well as negative results -- as a norm. While my version allows for a variety of ethical interpretations based upon the intent with which the disinhibitors are used, yours seems to paint every situation that isn't an accidental meeting of two sober and psychologically perfect individuals as tantamount to... well... that one word3.
__
1 By the same rationale, for example, if a man says 'My wife is out with her girlfriends,' it's probably best if you assume that she's simply spending time with female acquaintances, rather than assume that she's a bisexual polyamorist who's left her hubby at home to go on a triple-date with her other significant others. To put it another way, if you hear hoofbeats, you should probably think 'horse', not 'zebra'.
2 The word continues to sound very harsh, but I see any deliberate attempt to produce desired behaviour in an individual to be 'manipulation'. Thus, trying to get someone to fall in love with you, or say 'yes' to a date, or touch your happy bits, are all 'manipulation', and I think humanity's essentially good enough that the vast majority of such cases are performed in earnest, without any sinister level of calculation or disregard for the other person's well-being.
3 Sorry ORC_Calliope, I hope these incidental mentions are all right. I think we've taken a big step away from the subject, instead talking about sociological interactions rather than the act in particular. Lemme know if we have to step farther.
Thanks for understanding.
Thanks ORC_Calliope - I was worried that might be the case when I made the post, but I thought it was important enough to establish my ideological stance. That's done so I'm happy to let the issue drift.
I'm sure that I'll eventually calm down enough to come to the conclusion that he's a generally intelligent and good person who's simply got it incredibly wrong on one massive point, but right now I'm just... very angry.
I think you will. As I said before, I don't agree with all Savage says (and I agree with you he's way off-base there), just most of it. I think one big thing to remember is he's first and foremost a sex columnist - the further a topic drifts from that, the less accurate he's likely to be.
Ironically I think despite my lack of experience I probably have more hard data (:rimshot
in that area from reading his and other sources, than most of the "much more experienced" people I know. *sigh*warweaver, there are people that have posted on this thread who actual make sense (thumbs up to sheihel). i will admit that i do see people who have an unease when dealing with openly honest prospective partners, i am not condoning lying at all but i feel holding back a little and letting it over time seems to work better. but i would guess my social life and culture is probably at lot different then yours in some regards
Heh. I don't think I've been "too forthcoming" in my attempts so far, but maybe. I like honesty and I like the feeling you get when you feel you can really open up to a person, so maybe there's some kind of subconscious eagerness that's a turn off. Something to watch for.
Warning: Long post is long.
I wish I could follow this post with something insightful of my own...but I really can't. It's that good. FWIW, I think our views are very similar on this topic.
Which -- and I mean no offense here, just describing the situation as it appears to me -- seems like you're choosing the worst possible interpretation. Indeed, the most uncharacteristic as well. Other columns show that Dan Savage is very pro-consent, so why interpret 'drunks' in a manner counter to that? It's much more in keeping with his stated views (and acerbic humour) -- not to mention an equally valid reading that doesn't paint him as a bad guy -- to interpret 'drunks' as 'people who drink'.
Think of it as a sort of sociological Occam's Razor; between two interpretations of a statement, choose the one which is simultaneously more likely to apply to the individual, and gives the individual the benefit of the doubt by vilifying zir the least1. My first impulse is to say that you interpret it your way instead of mine because you want to be mad at him, which I as much as said in a previous post. I'm sorry, it was rude of me to conjecture your motives. Most likely, the statement just hit each of us differently for natural or even random reasons, and there's no ulterior reasoning behind it for either of us.
Well, if it's any factor, where I come from, we don't drink alcohol as a matter of course. The mere notion of a "cocktail" anything is hopelessly foreign except to the more Westernized locals. When we order drinks, it's usually just juice or tea, and even when we order up alcohol, the norm ISN'T to drink until you're way past tipsy.
By local norms, anything past your ability to walk renders you incapable of making sound judgments on pretty much anything at all.
Of course, I live in a tropical country with a population known to have genes for fast acetylators. We don't drink much by comparison, and even when we do, it's kind of hard to get many of us intoxicated enough to put us past "tipsy."
So when Dan says "drunk," I think it means what it says - drunk. Is every person who drinks alcohol drunk? I'm not sure that's what's being meant here. Really? Is that what it sometimes means? Anyone who drinks? Huh.
Ehh. He acknowledged that these are common factors to most hook-ups, and pointed out that the results are frequently good for all parties concerned, rendering those factors morally neutral. Obviously, they can be exploited to bad ends, but I think the vast majority of cases in which drinking, emotional vulnerability, and manipulation2 occur are perfectly innocent. Two people get tipsy together and decide to have some fun. Two people get to talking about the heartbreak of their respective exes and grow closer in their shared pain. Two people go on a date and try to convince each other to take a chance on a relationship. Drinking, emotional vulnerability, and manipulation, all in forms much more innocent and common than the interpretation you're ascribing.
I don't think of people having sex while mutually intoxicated as innocent. It's stupid at best, and r*** at worst. After all, you CAN plan to be intoxicated along with your victim and just let nature takes its own course. It's not rocket science.
Likewise two people having rebound sex together - I see that as VERY bad. I've rarely seen it end well. Actually, it's got a ****-poor long-term success rate from where I'm looking. It's a bad idea. I'm revealing some of my sexist attitudes here, but in this case, I'm blaming the guy. He wants rebound sex, so he finds a girl on the rebound to get laid? Totally sleazy if you ask me. The fact that he's on the rebound does nothing to ameliorate his sleaze.
The manipulation aspect of two people convincing each other to try at love is fairly low. At that level of interaction, pretty much everything everyone says is manipulative. I'm not sure that's meaningful in any way. Since I think Dan means something other than normal human interaction by "manipulation," I'm interpreting it to be something more than normal human interaction.
Damn near everyone is emotionally vulnerable. If both people involved are emotionally vulnerable, then are they just supposed to stay away from each other and sequester themselves into emotional good health? People don't work that way. Two emotionally vulnerable people lean on each other, as much for their own support as one another's. In that contact, feelings can arise, and the sexual congress which can result can be more healing than a thousand therapy sessions. If one person isn't emotionally vulnerable, but has good intentions, then I think the healthier person can be good for the vulnerable person.
See, that just sounds wrong to me and my apparently puritanical values. Not everyone is emotionally vulnerable. Most people aren't. Some people are. People who are emotionally vulnerable need to be with friends who aren't until they get over it. Friends who won't take advantage of the situation to have casual sex.
I mean, really, what's a jerkass? I'm here, I'm a friend, and I'm known to be a good friend to a lot of pretty women who break up with their boyfriends - because I'm just that nice a guy. Also because it usually entails a lot of breakup sex which I totally don't encourage more than is normal - but I'm in it for the sex.
If I also happen to be a genuinely good friend aside from taking advantage of such people to have sex with them, am I not an angel sent from heaven?
I think that if you really had ONLY good intentions for the vulnerable friend, sex should be off the table for the duration of the healing.
If the thought process is 'So-and-so is hurting over her ex, so I'm going to take her out partying to help her forget. Maybe once she's feeling better she'll see that I'm a nice guy and go on a date with me.' then it's pretty innocent. If it's 'That weepy chick will totally be down for a rebound bang if I pour a few shots into her!', then yeah, total sleazebag. What's the determining factor? Motive, not method.
But, you see, that's the thing. Dan is espousing that you take out the chick to have sex with her. That's the entire point of that one article. It's not "be helpful to women and that'll sometimes allow you to get a date." It's "sex is easier to get from drunks, emotional cripples, and the gullible."
It's the world we live in. Just because we can imagine a Utopian ideal that's better doesn't make it some kind of hellish nightmare, however. Just because superhumans with a perfect culture could handle relationships more healthily doesn't mean we're demons enmired in something ugly. In the context of our society, the way dating works (like the way everything in our society works) is 'good enough to get by'. We should ever-strive to improve that, but it doesn't mean we should reject the system out of hand until it's perfect.
I live in a tropical country with a relatively low consumption of alcohol. Most of that is consumed by men drinking with other men without any sexual context whatsoever.
We don't have a perfect culture. Far from it. I can't stress enough how far from it our culture is. We're not superhumans. I'm not sure our relationships are any healthier than any other country's. I'm of the opinion that in some important ways, it's a lot worse.
We're also the 12th most populous country on the planet, despite the fact that we live on a tiny little archipelago that doesn't even show properly on most world and continental maps.
You don't need booze to have sex. Seriously.
I am characterizing my interpretation -- a morally-neutral and typically mutual use of disinhibiting factors, which can have positive as well as negative results -- as a norm. While my version allows for a variety of ethical interpretations based upon the intent with which the disinhibitors are used, yours seems to paint every situation that isn't an accidental meeting of two sober and psychologically perfect individuals as tantamount to... well... that one word.
"Psychologically perfect" is an exaggeration. I'd like to think that most sex is had between two people who are sober and aren't being manipulated into it, nor are emotionally vulnerable.
Judging from the social scene I saw at university, this seems to hold true there, at least - so it's perfectly plausible and possible. Yeah, a university where drunken frat parties aren't an everyday norm. Quaint, huh?
In the end, the advice was not about "get the girls while they're drunk", but rather "well, you may see people as acting like that and think lowly of them, but in the end, some nice things do come out of that".
Much ado about nothing.
And don't get me started on the whole "girls get attracted to jerks without noticing the nice guy" kind of thinking. Its much more mentally healthy for all of you to stop thinking like that.
Well, if it's any factor, where I come from, we don't drink alcohol as a matter of course. The mere notion of a "cocktail" anything is hopelessly foreign except to the more Westernized locals. When we order drinks, it's usually just juice or tea, and even when we order up alcohol, the norm ISN'T to drink until you're way past tipsy.
The social scene I'm in right now (when I can be buggered to be social outside of D&D sessions1) features very light, infrequent drinking, with occasional parties where it's essentially expected for the majority of those present to drink well past tipsy. I'm not making any kind of a point here, just describing the setting I'm basing my views on.
So when Dan says "drunk," I think it means what it says - drunk. Is every person who drinks alcohol drunk? I'm not sure that's what's being meant here. Really? Is that what it sometimes means? Anyone who drinks? Huh.
I think we might've hit a linguistic bump here. I'm not sure, and forgive me if it's otherwise. Drunk is both a state of being and a kind of person. A person who frequently drinks to excess might be called a drunk even while sober2. It seems perfectly in-keeping to Dan's deliberately inflammatory speech to refer to anyone who drinks as a drunk, even if that person's never gone past tipsy in zir life. Again, this isn't so much an argument as a clarification.
I don't think of people having sex while mutually intoxicated as innocent. It's stupid at best, and r*** at worst.
It seems to me that you're conflating intelligence with morality, putting 'stupid' and '****' on the same continuum. Something being stupid doesn't make it morally wrong. Anecdotally, the most caring, loving, communicative, warm, open couple I ever met describe themselves as 'a drunken one-night stand gone horribly wrong'. They've been together for years. I heartily disagree with 'stupid at best'.
After all, you CAN plan to be intoxicated along with your victim and just let nature takes its own course. It's not rocket science.
Which I wouldn't consider ****. Whether you're sober, drunk, stoned, in a boat, or with a goat, as long as you're both in similar states and nobody violates consent, it's just sex.
Likewise two people having rebound sex together - I see that as VERY bad. I've rarely seen it end well. Actually, it's got a ****-poor long-term success rate from where I'm looking. It's a bad idea.
Again, you seem to be conflating the odds of it ending well/in marriage(?) with whether or not it's morally right. Sure, it might go wrong, but that doesn't mean it is wrong for people to do it. People are free to make their own decisions, and sometimes that's standing on a high hill in a lightning storm waving a copper rod and shouting 'all gods are
s'. Stupid, yes. Morally wrong? No.I'm revealing some of my sexist attitudes here
Yes, you are. I won't say anything more on that because it's a whole other kettle of fish.
The manipulation aspect of two people convincing each other to try at love is fairly low. ... I'm interpreting it to be something more than normal human interaction.
...
See, that just sounds wrong to me and my apparently puritanical values. Not everyone is emotionally vulnerable.
I think this is the point at which we have to shake hands and accept that we have different definitions of the three elements in question (manipulation, inebriation, vulnerability) and views on the acceptability of each in a social setting. We seem to have explained ourselves well, and no amount of clarification will bridge the gap which remains in our perspectives. That's perfectly all right, of course.
I mean, really, what's a jerkass? I'm here, I'm a friend, and I'm known to be a good friend to a lot of pretty women who break up with their boyfriends - because I'm just that nice a guy. Also because it usually entails a lot of breakup sex which I totally don't encourage more than is normal - but I'm in it for the sex.
This seems to me like you're setting up a straw-man; caring, nice, supportive guy who's actually only in it for the sex. Sure, people like that exist, but they aren't the only caring, nice, supportive people who get laid off of it. I'm very much that guy without the goal of sex. I was on a cruise and saw a woman at a party who was crying. I talked to her for two hours about what was bothering her. If, in the course of that conversation, we warmed to each other and wanted to get fleshy, I'd warn her that she's probably rebounding and ask her if she was sure, and then rock her world3 the moment she said 'yes'. It's not my job to make her decision for her, and I'm not about to treat her like an irrational child just because she's feeling some heartache.
Here's the thing, though; if, when I approached her, she warily asked me to swear that I would never, ever have sex with her, I would in a heartbeat, and hold to my oath. I didn't go over there to score some rebound tail. I went over there to help a fellow human being in pain. Being open to sex doesn't prevent that from being my only true motive. Thus the implicit advice of not avoiding the emotionally vulnerable doesn't necessarily translate to 'talk to that vulnerable girl to get sex', it can also mean 'don't automatically swear off sex with a vulnerable girl, even if that isn't your intention, because something beautiful could come of it'.
I think that if you really had ONLY good intentions for the vulnerable friend, sex should be off the table for the duration of the healing.
Whereas I think that sex can be a wonderful part of the healing (see below re: 'friend', though).
But, you see, that's the thing. Dan is espousing that you take out the chick to have sex with her.
As I said above, I don't think the message need be 'seek out the vulnerable for sex', it can just as easily translate to 'don't rule out sex just because someone's vulnerable'.
Note, also, that we seem to be coming at the vulnerability issue from two separate scenarios. I'm talking about a stranger potentially sexing someone who's emotionally vulnerable, while you're talking about someone who's already established as a friend potentially sexing someone who's emotionally vulnerable. Friends have more of an expectation to fix things that are wrong with you than strangers; with strangers there's merely the expectation of interaction, whatever form that takes. When someone who's hurting goes to a friend, the implicit subtext is 'fix me', and doing more than that could definitely be skeevy. When someone who's hurting meets a stranger, however, there is no implicit subtext4, so it's all fair game.
That's the entire point of that one article. It's not "be helpful to women and that'll sometimes allow you to get a date." It's "sex is easier to get from drunks, emotional cripples, and the gullible."
Correct. What I've been saying, though, is that a statement of that fact (which it is) does not constitute a call to seek out drunks, emotional cripples, and the gullible to then exploit. One could interpret it that way, or one could interpret it as 'don't rule out sex with drunks, emotional cripples, or the gullible if you happen upon them'. Each version is a fair interpretation, but neither is exactly what was said. It's an RAW/RAI debate, and as such should probably be dropped.
I live in a tropical country with a relatively low consumption of alcohol. Most of that is consumed by men drinking with other men without any sexual context whatsoever.
We don't have a perfect culture. Far from it. I can't stress enough how far from it our culture is. We're not superhumans. I'm not sure our relationships are any healthier than any other country's. I'm of the opinion that in some important ways, it's a lot worse.
We're also the 12th most populous country on the planet, despite the fact that we live on a tiny little archipelago that doesn't even show properly on most world and continental maps.
I need to call this as a solid and straight-up 'my bad'. I've been talking about 'our culture' when, of course, I've really been talking about 'North American culture'. I didn't want to get into the societal differences tangent, so I hoped that the impossibility of one addressing a single, global culture (no such thing, really) would render implicit the disclaimer 'I am speaking of my regional culture and such elements as may or may not extend to other regions of the globe'. I realize, though, that what that usually renders implicit is more along the lines of 'I am an ignorant nonce who thinks his culture is the only one that matters'. I apologize for that. Obviously, Your Culture's Mileage May Vary. I can speak only of things on my continent, and even that gets shaky depending on sub-cultures.
"Psychologically perfect" is an exaggeration. I'd like to think that most sex is had between two people who are sober and aren't being manipulated into it, nor are emotionally vulnerable.
This is another of those 'agree to disagree over definitions' points. I would term 90% of the people I meet as emotionally vulnerable in one way or another. It's a rare duck who's actually got all of zir
together.I've really enjoyed this conversation, and it's given me some good perspective, but I worry about continuing beyond this point. It seems to me that, at the root of our disagreement, we have differing definitions and standards about the social elements involved, definitions and standards which we cannot change in ourselves, much less one another. As we have clarified our positions and definitions pretty well over the discussion, I don't see that we need clarify further, meaning that further discussion would probably be an attempt to argue one another into agreement, which I'd rather avoid. If you feel that there is more to be said without simply restating and bickering over small points, though, I will endeavor to be open to further exchanges.
Thanks for the discussion. It has been a good one.
__
1 Where we do not drink because it's bloody hard enough to get through a single round without alcohol fuzzing everybody's brains up. :P
2 Indeed, in my experience, a history of drinking is more relevant to being called a drunk than whether or not you're inebriated at the time.
3 All night long. :embarrass
4 Let me try an analogy, because they're what I think in. I equal car. Emotional vulnerability equals faulty transmission. Friend equals mechanic. Stranger equals stranger. If I park my car in a mechanic's driveway and hand zir the keys, the expected result is having my transmission fixed. If that mechanic jumps in the car and goes joyriding, that's a violation of my trust and the social contract. If, however, I park my car in a stranger's driveway and hand zir the keys, there is no expected result. If that stranger takes my car for a joyride, it's perfectly acceptable because there was no expectation that zie would do otherwise. Zie had no obligation to fix my transmission, and no obligation not to joyride in my car5. I hope that analogy makes sense.
5 One might argue that zie has an obligation not to joyride in a car with a noticeably faulty transmission, but I'd say at least equal responsibility is on me for giving my damaged car to a perfect stranger. If we're both to blame, then it's a mutual sin, the happy province of consenting adults.
... why does that make me think of the movie Hitch?
Yes. And make sure that the papers you stuff the books with are kiddy-porn pics. Chicks love kids.
Re: Stompie5
... why does that make me think of the movie Hitch?
I never saw Hitch, but wasn't the guy some womanising expert? Brilliant minds think alike, eh?
Re: Stompie5
... why does that make me think of the movie Hitch?
Except of course that the inclusion of the phrase 'wham, bam, thank you ma'am' included shows that Stompie5 actually maps more closely to the would-be client who Hitch turned away for being a pig than the men (it would've been nice if the film had showed him helping women in the same capacity1) who he made sure were looking for a real, mutually-fulfilling relationship.
__
1 I'd guess that they probably didn't because of the stereotypes that women have it easy in dating and could land any guy they want, and that the kind of extraordinary effort it's considered 'romantic' for a man to make is, when taken by a woman, seen as 'desperate'. I hate both of these stereotypes.
... ok, those may not be the best examples.
Either way, I think it was just the idea of using a stunt to grab their attention, but making it on your own merits from there.
Edit: Also, if you remember, the movie showed the leading ladies friend who had trouble with dates as well. At one point she even asked "I wonder if the date doctor does women?". So I think mostly the reason he didn't take on women as clients is (1) it wouldn't have been as funny1, (2) it's still much more common for men to ask women out, and (3) as his clientele was exclusively from references, it's not as likely that a woman would have gotten the referral.
1 Or at least, the writer/director/whoever didn't think so.
Hey, I just said it made me think of the movie. Sort of like how almonds make me think of cyanide, and licking envelopes make me think of anthrax.
... ok, those may not be the best examples.
Either way, I think it was just the idea of using a stunt to grab their attention, but making it on your own merits from there.
Oh ya, wasn't arguing or anything. Mostly just taking the opportunity to liken Stompie5's attitude1 to that of an utter pig from the film you referenced. :P
Edit: Also, if you remember, the movie showed the leading ladies friend who had trouble with dates as well. At one point she even asked "I wonder if the date doctor does women?". So I think mostly the reason he didn't take on women as clients is (1) it wouldn't have been as funny1, (2) it's still much more common for men to ask women out, and (3) as his clientele was exclusively from references, it's not as likely that a woman would have gotten the referral.
True true.
__
1 While the 'wham, bam, thank you ma'am' line may have been tongue-in-cheek, the 'if she doesn't go out of her way to pick up after a clumsy stranger, she isn't worth talking to' didn't strike a healthy chord either. It's entirely possible that I've read dear Stompie5 wrong, in which case I apologize. If I haven't, then zie can go jump. :P
Hey, I just said it made me think of the movie. Sort of like how almonds make me think of cyanide, and licking envelopes make me think of anthrax.
... ok, those may not be the best examples.
Either way, I think it was just the idea of using a stunt to grab their attention, but making it on your own merits from there.
Yes, that is the meat and potatoes of it. As I said, YOU must make the conversation happen.
MrCelsius, you sound like a bore. Have some fun with life.
@Stompie:
Yes. And make sure that the papers you stuff the books with are kiddy-porn pics. Chicks love kids.
Righto, pron pics with little kids dressed as Hitler while mimeing the plot to 1G1C and clubbing baby seals. It's perfect, no woman could resist! Thanks guys!
I'd guess that they probably didn't because of the stereotypes that women have it easy in dating and could land any guy they want, and that the kind of extraordinary effort it's considered 'romantic' for a man to make is, when taken by a woman, seen as 'desperate'. I hate both of these stereotypes.
I'm not sure about the stereotype women have it "easy in dating", but by and large they tend to be the hunted rather than the hunter. However this is no less exhausting for the women - sure you get a guy-buffet any time you want...but how would you like to face that every time you go anywhere, and most the hors d'oeuvres are food you find gross? And some of said food won't leave you alone until you send it back multiple times.
Good to have been conversing. I hope you didn't find any of my remarks particularly offensive. I tend to offend people with what I believe to be innocent or completely objective remarks. I don't mean any offense. I find that I do well enough of that at work.
I think we might've hit a linguistic bump here. I'm not sure, and forgive me if it's otherwise. Drunk is both a state of being and a kind of person. A person who frequently drinks to excess might be called a drunk even while sober2. It seems perfectly in-keeping to Dan's deliberately inflammatory speech to refer to anyone who drinks as a drunk, even if that person's never gone past tipsy in zir life. Again, this isn't so much an argument as a clarification.
Hmm... That sounds... ...weird. I've read a lot of his articles just to get a feel for his style of speech and I totally don't get the same meaning. For my part, I take it to mean that he's referring to the state of being drunk rather than just being deliberately offensive to the point of confusing his point.
That's my take on it.
It seems to me that you're conflating intelligence with morality, putting 'stupid' and '****' on the same continuum. Something being stupid doesn't make it morally wrong. Anecdotally, the most caring, loving, communicative, warm, open couple I ever met describe themselves as 'a drunken one-night stand gone horribly wrong'. They've been together for years. I heartily disagree with 'stupid at best'.
For clarification, I'm not actually putting them on the same continuum. I'm merely allowing for multiple possibilities along different continuums. The guy who "stole your car" might not be a thief - he could just be colossally clueless in general and yet mechanically adept.
This is even more likely with purses. The lady who picked up your bag could simply be absent-minded, not maliciously larcenous.
Likewise, I view the prospect of two people having sex while mutually intoxicated as stupid at best - assuming that no harm was meant, and **** at worst - assuming the guy arranged for the situation to occur so as to render the woman pliable or incapable of resistance. Just because he's drunk himself doesn't mean that he didn't mean for it to happen.
What I mean is, if alcohol isn't enough of a disinhibitant, then what is? Rufie? Ativan? Where is the line and why is it drawn there?
I'm a pretty hard hardliner on this topic (probably because I deal in psychotropic drugs for a living) - any drug that reduces your inhibitions to the point where you'd give your car to a thief willingly strikes me as strong enough to remove any real power or capability to say "no." That includes alcohol in sufficient amounts.
Stupid, yes. Morally wrong? No.
We are in agreement on this topic. As I said, rebounding off of each other is just normal human interaction. It's not really all that unusual so I can't say that it counts as being "manipulation" unless any and all human interaction is, and that just blurs the point to the level of obscurity.
Thus the implicit advice of not avoiding the emotionally vulnerable doesn't necessarily translate to 'talk to that vulnerable girl to get sex', it can also mean 'don't automatically swear off sex with a vulnerable girl, even if that isn't your intention, because something beautiful could come of it'.
Well, in my view I see that as splitting hairs. I don't much see the difference in helping someone with partially intending to receive sex in return, and wholly just intending to receive sex in return.
If you guys were really open to having sex, then that is a beautiful thing, and you could have it any time later on when the girl isn't hurting quite so much.
In truth, people in general are good at deceiving themselves. I might convince myself that I'm really just helping a stranger to be kind, but when sex is always on the table, you can't really be sure of the sincerity of that intention.
In which case, it might as well be for the sex. What difference does it make?
This is another of those 'agree to disagree over definitions' points. I would term 90% of the people I meet as emotionally vulnerable in one way or another. It's a rare duck who's actually got all of zir act together.
I gotta confess that I'm rather alarmed to see such an estimate. You could have unreasonably high standards for emotional stability, or it could be that you really are in a royally
up environment.I would say that close to everyone I know is in a stable relationship or has only ever had stable relationships and is looking for one. Sure, they got hangups. Everyone does. But I wouldn't label someone's adolescent need to be labeled "a jock" as an emotional vulnerability. By and large, they know what they're looking for in a mate and will settle to a relationship if all their basic requirements are met (and the lists are usually short).
Are my standards too low? What constitutes being "emotionally vulnerable" in your opinion?
I'm a pretty hard hardliner on this topic (probably because I deal in psychotropic drugs for a living) - any drug that reduces your inhibitions to the point where you'd give your car to a thief willingly strikes me as strong enough to remove any real power or capability to say "no." That includes alcohol in sufficient amounts.
My own stance is that in the case of both participants being "three sheets", you either have to charge them both or neither (unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt one or the other engineered the situation meticulously, of course - easier if they have a history). Given our "innocent till proven guilty" credo (at least in theory), what this means currently is such cases are notoriously hard to prosecute. As unfair as it can be to the occasional victim, I'm actually ok with this as a stop-gap measure. Until we have more exact rubrics of consent, I think it's better to act on the side of caution and not destroy a person's life over a drunk mistake.
In truth, people in general are good at deceiving themselves.
QFT
Are my standards too low? What constitutes being "emotionally vulnerable" in your opinion?
I think everyone's opinion is going to be slightly different on this one, so I just go with my gut, realizing that said opinion may change over time.
On a similar vein (that of a "sliding scale"), for a long time I've not thought of people in terms of gay/straight/bi, but rather predilections towards those categories. Bi is especially tricky as I know many bi folks (more than I ever thought till recently) who still prefer one gender over the other "on average", but don't count the other side out as potential. I also (again, recently discovered) know a lot of bi's who are monogamous, so I definitely disagree with Savage there. Some are because they prefer the attachment and loyalty, some do it as a minor sacrifice for their mate of choice (all relationships involve some).
If I were to make a very crude example with this "sexuality spectrum"...have you heard of the phrase "three-beer-qu**r?" I've had pretty much no attraction to others guys ever at any time in my life - so I just consider myself so far down one side of said spectrum, you'd have to pour so much alcohol into me to kill me a dozen times over before I'd want to go after "the dudes". It just means it's not a feasible option for me. :P
Point is, the "straight/bi/gay" categories are like any labeling system - never 100% accurate, gray areas can always be found, but useful for day-to-day operations.