Women and dating

[Anton]

I'm no expert, but for the past year I've made women my central focus in life. It was like a personal project of mine. I read "All you need is love and other lies about marriage", "How to succeed with women" and I got about halfway through "The game" before I got a little disgusted and had to put it down. I also did research online, talked to friends, mentors and experimented with different approaches until it finally started coming together.

I started getting it. I was actually approaching women, hitting on them and making them feel good. I came off as a confident, desirable and charming man. I went to the gym to look good, and spent time on the details of my appearance, groomed myself and focused my thoughts so that I felt in 'the zone'

In the end a girl tore my heart out. And then another. And finally just last month I got -really- hurt and decided to just take a step back from all this. I realized that I was focusing too much on a particular part of life and had forgotten the big picture. Everything else was in my peripheral vision, and I had made women and dating the central focus, the reason why I lived. Bad idea.

The whole reason I'm writing this though, is to get through to anyone who may have bought into the fallacy that you need a woman to be a man. You don't. I've learned from these mistakes, and despite the fun, sexual encounters, an even bigger problem envelops the entire thing. I am not a real man yet. What is a real man? Well it's what women want. If you can think about how many beautiful, attractive women you've seen, you might reach into the hundreds, maybe even thousands. But how many men have you met that had their whole lives together? Men that had total composure over themselves and really had it all together?

By simply focusing on getting my life together, by focusing on the bigger picture, by finding my path and sticking to it and not letting anything- especially a woman. distract me from getting what I want out of life. It's made me even more attractive to the opposite sex. In other words I'm beginning to learn how to grow up and be a real man.

Know what you want, why you want it, and what you have to do to get it. Be the center of your universe, because if you're looking to orbit around a woman and leech of off her to feel like a whole person, to feel energized and have reason and validation in your life, then you're instantly going to be unattractive to her. Focus on yourself first, get your life together and -then- just let them come to you. If you need a woman to feel whole, what's going to happen when she leaves you? She's going to tear your heart out. Just sayin'

[SimplyOtter]

Thank you for sharing this. It's always interesting to see the other half's point of view. I think you are right and it works both ways, all of us want to be with somebody who's not just economically but also emotionally and psichologically independent; this is the only way you can actually give something to each other, otherwise it's just "mutual secour".

As for having "composure" and looking as you you have your life together, I don't know if women are better than men... actually, often, at least on the surface, because men are not "allowed" by society to be emotional (which is crazy I think), it can look the other way round... but it's tricky, because that's just the surface.

I believe life is a matter of energy, once we learn to provide ourself that energy, we can share and love, otherwise we are just looking for something or somebody who can "feed" us of that energy...

You sound very honest with yourself, and that is the very first thing on this path i reckon. I'm sure from now on it will work out great! :)
best wishes

[reb]

if you study deer and their mating habits, the way they relate to each other, i have always thought this would be a better model for humans than what we are doing. our 'massive forebrain' is not helping our relationships much, especially with lawyers and courts 'helping us'. lol!
reb

[moon]

In the other way, you can't be alone too. Woman forms a man of you. Don't be dissatisfied if you had a few bad realtionship endings. If true love primarly existed, it wouldn't be like that. I mean, you can't love someone with all your hart and be torn away, if you know that person about a month. That was maybe a hard crush. True love is formed very long, with lots of sharing, mutual committment and understanding. Anyway, it's a matter of risk. Yes, she may leave you and your relationship will end some day for sure. It's about what you give and what you get in return. Are you ready to give your all for a memories, experience, love, obscurity?

p.s. Nice avatar ;)

[Anton]

Women do help shape men, but one of the biggest mistakes a guy can make is to place too much importance on finding a woman. That's what I meant by looking at the bigger picture. Life is huge. It envelops many things. It's like a massive buffet, and the opposite sex is like a desert. Sure women are enjoyable and I look forward to being in a committed long-term relationsihp, but if I can't get laid at all in the next year. I can simply take care of myself anytime I want to :)

I'm going to quote a guy named David Deangelo on what his opinion of a real man is to paint a clearer picture of what it is that I'm talking about.

What does a woman mean when she says she wants a "real man"? A real man is a universal desire among women. Women all over the world, all across all ages and incomes are looking for the same thing and they describe it in basically the same way. But what exactly is a real man, and why do they use these words and describe them in this way? What do they not want?

Well to begin with, I believe that they don't want a wussy. Women and especially attractive and desirable women who have choices are used to men chasing after them, kissing up to them and demonstrating that they believe the woman is a rare and valuable prize. When a guy calls too often, shares his feelings too soon or too much, tries to buy a woman's affection with gifts, dinners, favors and generally puts his own life, self respect and needs aside for a woman, he is a wussy. This is the opposite of a real man.

A real man has his own life together, he has his act together. Sure he'd like to find a beautiful, intelligent women to enjoy time with, but he doesn't need it. And when he meets and interacts with attractive women, he demonstrates in every little way that he's comfortable with himself and he's comfortable with women. He holds and carries himself like he owns the entire city he lives in.

When he makes eye contact with a woman, he doesn't look away instantly out of nervous self-consciousness. Instead he keeps looking as if to say "I see something that might interest me. Let me take a moment to consider it." He is cool and calm at all times. His movements are just a little slower then those of other men. Everything about him suggests that he doesn't need to hurry because things are going to work out the way he wants in the end anyway. A real man communicates with attractive women in a way that confuses and excites them at the same time.

Because he's so un-self conscious and he's not looking for a woman's approval, he says things that are totally unexpected. A real man isn't afraid to say what's on his mind, or even make fun of a woman because he feels like it. It's obvious that he's being who he is, and this easy grace and lack of insecurities about himself are magnetic. He's respectful, yet brutally honest.

He's not apologetic or overly eager to say he's sorry, especially because he knows how to handle his life in such a way that he doesn't create problems by being immature, late, dishonest or otherwise flakey. He's spontaneous, but responsible. He isn't afraid to speak his mind or have an opinion. He doesn't live his life to please anyone, parents, friends, and especially women. He never acts or communicates that he's a victim. A real man is what every women wants, but he's so rare that many women doubt that they'll ever find him.

David Deangelo was 33 years old when he said this and is an INTP.

[Autoptic]

Women want an ideal that'll give better than they do, so do men. The rest is a hodgepodge of instincts, delusions, and half-baked "plans" stuck in a feedback loop. Considering that most in the loop aren't particularly smart, and those that are tend to base they're judgments within the definitions made up by the more numerous that aren't, it's not surprising it doesn't go well. Consider that it was never really built to go well. It is mostly about trying to knock some girl up, while she uses that desire to string you along or at least to draw you in later, while she try to get knocked up by some other guy then stick you with the "bill". Most of this stuff is obsolete and won't simply mesh with anything intelligent.

[LionsPride]

Be careful you don't confuse what women think they want and what they actually want.

To compare. Not all women that men want to sleep with are the ones they want to marry. Some men realize this and can tell the difference between the foxy girl and the one they want to take home to meet their parents. Others never realize the difference and let their groin lead them around, trying to make relationships out of lust.

Women aren't any better at picking what they want to spend their life with and the guy that they just want their kids' genes from. The 'real man' you described is likely the latter. He's the genes winner, not the spouse. No woman wants to be in a 10 year relationship with a guy who doesn't say sorry or who doesn't show them they are appreciated by calling. Yah, the real guy gets the swoon, and some women marry him and live unhappily every after, but it's not the be all end all of dating.

I think you bought into some mumbo and tried to oversimplify. It's reinforced because you compare on the short term, real guy gets girl. The truth is if you looked at realtionships that last 10 years or more, the dynamic is different.

[INTJayW]

I'm no expert, but for the past year I've made women my central focus in life. It was like a personal project of mine. I read "All you need is love and other lies about marriage", "How to succeed with women" and I got about halfway through "The game" before I got a little disgusted and had to put it down. I also did research online, talked to friends, mentors and experimented with different approaches until it finally started coming together.

I started getting it. I was actually approaching women, hitting on them and making them feel good. I came off as a confident, desirable and charming man. I went to the gym to look good, and spent time on the details of my appearance, groomed myself and focused my thoughts so that I felt in 'the zone'

In the end a girl tore my heart out. And then another. And finally just last month I got -really- hurt and decided to just take a step back from all this. I realized that I was focusing too much on a particular part of life and had forgotten the big picture. Everything else was in my peripheral vision, and I had made women and dating the central focus, the reason why I lived. Bad idea.

The whole reason I'm writing this though, is to get through to anyone who may have bought into the fallacy that you need a woman to be a man. You don't. I've learned from these mistakes, and despite the fun, sexual encounters, an even bigger problem envelops the entire thing. I am not a real man yet. What is a real man? Well it's what women want. If you can think about how many beautiful, attractive women you've seen, you might reach into the hundreds, maybe even thousands. But how many men have you met that had their whole lives together? Men that had total composure over themselves and really had it all together?

By simply focusing on getting my life together, by focusing on the bigger picture, by finding my path and sticking to it and not letting anything- especially a woman. distract me from getting what I want out of life. It's made me even more attractive to the opposite sex. In other words I'm beginning to learn how to grow up and be a real man.

Know what you want, why you want it, and what you have to do to get it. Be the center of your universe, because if you're looking to orbit around a woman and leech of off her to feel like a whole person, to feel energized and have reason and validation in your life, then you're instantly going to be unattractive to her. Focus on yourself first, get your life together and -then- just let them come to you. If you need a woman to feel whole, what's going to happen when she leaves you? She's going to tear your heart out. Just sayin'


Yup! Well said!

Went through the same thing a couple of years ago. Realized that I needed to become confortable in my own skin. This is exactly the difference between a boy and a man. This realization needs to happen, before you can grow up.

But in terms of healthy lasting relationships though, there is still considerable complexity.

You're a man now, great! Now try to find a woman among all the girls out there!

That too is difficult.

[Josh]

I'm no expert, but for the past year I've made women my central focus in life. It was like a personal project of mine. I read "All you need is love and other lies about marriage", "How to succeed with women" and I got about halfway through "The game" before I got a little disgusted and had to put it down. I also did research online, talked to friends, mentors and experimented with different approaches until it finally started coming together.

I started getting it. I was actually approaching women, hitting on them and making them feel good. I came off as a confident, desirable and charming man. I went to the gym to look good, and spent time on the details of my appearance, groomed myself and focused my thoughts so that I felt in 'the zone'

In the end a girl tore my heart out. And then another. And finally just last month I got -really- hurt and decided to just take a step back from all this. I realized that I was focusing too much on a particular part of life and had forgotten the big picture. Everything else was in my peripheral vision, and I had made women and dating the central focus, the reason why I lived. Bad idea.

The whole reason I'm writing this though, is to get through to anyone who may have bought into the fallacy that you need a woman to be a man. You don't. I've learned from these mistakes, and despite the fun, sexual encounters, an even bigger problem envelops the entire thing. I am not a real man yet. What is a real man? Well it's what women want. If you can think about how many beautiful, attractive women you've seen, you might reach into the hundreds, maybe even thousands. But how many men have you met that had their whole lives together? Men that had total composure over themselves and really had it all together?

By simply focusing on getting my life together, by focusing on the bigger picture, by finding my path and sticking to it and not letting anything- especially a woman. distract me from getting what I want out of life. It's made me even more attractive to the opposite sex. In other words I'm beginning to learn how to grow up and be a real man.

Know what you want, why you want it, and what you have to do to get it. Be the center of your universe, because if you're looking to orbit around a woman and leech of off her to feel like a whole person, to feel energized and have reason and validation in your life, then you're instantly going to be unattractive to her. Focus on yourself first, get your life together and -then- just let them come to you. If you need a woman to feel whole, what's going to happen when she leaves you? She's going to tear your heart out. Just sayin'

Preach on brother! I came to exactly the same conclusion about women and life in general, and amusingly enough it took me the same number of failed relationships as you, 3 to be precise. As you adaquetely put it, a woman being the focus for all your energy is neither healthy for yourself, nor is it a good thing if one intends to keep the relationship going as it is of course unattractive. No matter how you cut it, serious relationships at a young age especially, can do nothing but detract from the other important aspects of your life and require energy that can be put to better use either professionally, scholastically, or whatever the case may be. Only when you are stable in every other area is a relationship a good idea, imho. It boggles my mind when so many people decide to get married in their early twenties and whatnot, but hey what doesn't work for me may for them. I still date occasionally, more out of boredom and sexual urges, but i will certainly not get emotionally involved again without a long process of getting to know the girl extremely well.

[Avid]

You have to learn to stand alone before you can stand together.

*Nice post, was fun to read.

[Vastfnup]

I came to that conclusion some time ago. Unfortunately, I have become so good (and used to) being single that I am just now learning things that I have been neglecting for years with regard to attracting the opposite sex.

I have been trying my hand at internet dating. It is going rather slowly. I decided to make a second profile (now disabled) for eharmony today and see how consistent their personality profile was. It had me pegged as an emotional person, which I am not. Upon retaking the test, it said that I was very emotional! WTF! I am really beginning to wonder about the people that came up with their profiling mechanism. How can the other numerous personality tests I have taken correctly identify me as a chilly, robotic, computer and that site thinks I am a fuzzball! Perhaps I should create a third profile with the mindset of Ghengis Khan or Blackbeard to avoid that moniker!

[Deliberator]

This is a very good analysis I think. It seems hard for people of either sex to find that happy medium where neither person is 'above' the other. It's all about mutual respect, and having your own life setup first. It's very dangerous for anybody to expect that another person can make them happy.

[Jakalwarrior]

I agree. Who cares what those women want. If they are looking for a man who presents the perfect image of cool etc... leave them to the pickup artists who get layed and leave em. They deserve it. In the mean time try to find someone you don't have to change for. It's the only way you'll be happy long term anyway.

[Anton]

There's a slight fallacy in the idea "Just be yourself" look at it this way: "Just be yourself" was probably said with the intention of being true to yourself. But when used improperly it becomes a crutch to avoid doing things that may initially feel uncomfortable. Discomfort is a part of life. Accept it.

Initially to challenge this concept usually brings on the conviction that you're encouraging people to be "fake", to wear a mask or generally try to be something that they are not.

While it's essential that you stay true to who you are, it's still important to improve yourself or be the best that you can be.

There's a fine line that separates a hoax from making an effort to adapt.

[Rohsiph]

I'm indecisive whether to start a new topic or respond here . . .

I had a wild philosophical chat with a friend last night. About a third of our dialogue focused on relationships, women, expectations--much of what's going on here.

We reached a different conclusion. We agreed that something like this "real man" is what most women say they want. However, if this kind of ideal is what they really wanted, it would be harder to look around and find examples of terrifying, ill-founded relationships.

Most women, and most men for that matter, want to avoid the fear of being alone. When prompted to define the quirks and qualities they think they value in potential partners, of course they will spout a list of positive characteristics. Unfortunately, people with everything on the list are very hard to come by--and it's even harder to come by one who's single.

I've developed a cynical misogynistic attitude towards the "standard" (young) woman. This is because I am not lacking in any of the qualities defined by DeAngelo above, unless part of the equation is buying into the "man must always approach woman" tendency in Western society, yet can't for the life of me seem to find a partner. I've asked 'standard' women what they want in a man, and more than once she has basically described me without realizing it.

Maybe I deceive myself. Maybe I'm not as special as I like to think, and so women avoid me because the truth is there are better men. I want to ask for the benefit of doubt for just a few paragraphs--assume for a moment that my self-conception is accurate.

My friend and I questioned, solidly, why we have both had terrible ordeals with the "romantic" side of our lives. Considering the root of the standard person's desires, we worked on figuring out how we might define what we want.

We liked this:

"Love is two people looking in the same direction, enjoying every glance they share with each other."

That is: we're looking for a woman to share a mutual companionship with. Both of us are capable of living alone--indefinitely, even--believing that if a relationship lacks equity, then it isn't worth pursuing.

Most women (again, also most men) never self-reflect enough to align their perceptions and beliefs such that they can accurately say what they're looking for. This is a problem for people who are defined by questioning everything. Standard folk don't like having skepticism thrown at them . . . as such, even though I'm confident, honest, witty, intelligent, creative, etc., I'm incompatible with most women.

This is where we arrived: we're looking for something a lot different--and a lot rarer--than what the average person is after. It's an annoying dilemma and a depressing sentiment. Unfortunately, unless we want to submit to common culture, it's our reality.

It's a funny thing: that confident, honest, intelligent person everyone wants always ends up having very similar opinions and expectations as the person who dreams him/her up.

I don't like this idea of "real" men, as if there are, I don't know, "unreal" men, or maybe "not quite" men . . . it simplifies an importantly complicated problem. Does the "real" man question society's values? Does he pursue changing the status quo wherever it's outdated? Does he ignore popular taste in favor of finding flavors that are personally meaningful?

Can he justify his every aspect? If he can, will he do so whenever he is given a chance?

If he does all these things, most "real" women--understanding "real" as actually existing in empirical reality --won't like him.

[Jakalwarrior]

When you are adapting or trying to grow up into what you think they want isn't that line crossed? honestly though it is a huge gray area and to each his own. We are after all programmed with the ultimate goal of finding the best mate and reproducing. If you've found the path that offers you the most happiness along the way and are making the most of life, more power to you.

[SimplyOtter]

Rohsiph

I think the only thing you're missing in your very accurate reasoning is that attraction can't be explained rationally, as the sum of different factors.
Intelligence + honesty + wit doesn't mean automatically ATTRACTION.

If we are talking about attraction here, I think it's one of the most mysterious thing in human life, probably our genes could explain it better than us...

If we are talking about love, we should start a new thread, because nothing has been said about GIVING something to the other person, just what we would like to have, just as like we were chosing in a supermarket.

About the perfect "real man", I do agree with you; if such a man existed, I don't think I would want him. I'd love to have somebody to grow up with, if he's perfect already it would be a very unbalanced relationship as I'm not perfect at all.

[Rohsiph]

I think the only thing you're missing in your very accurate reasoning is that attraction can't be explained rationally, as the sum of different factors.
Intelligence + honesty + wit doesn't mean automatically ATTRACTION.

If we are talking about attraction here, I think it's one of the most mysterious thing in human life, probably our genes could explain it better than us...

You're right. I didn't mention much (anything?) about attraction.

And it's difficult for me to outright reject that attraction is something important to the idea I was trying to present last night.

I'm tempted to reject it because it's so often predicated on appearances. My annoyance with appearances is at the center of much of my misanthropic misgivings: it's easy to believe what you see is all there is, and since most tend towards whats easy that's what most believe in. Another icky cynicism.

If we are talking about love, we should start a new thread, because nothing has been said about GIVING something to the other person, just what we would like to have, just as like we were chosing in a supermarket.

Here I think you're still right, but not as directly as before . . . my thought is, ideally, if we're talking about "women and dating," shouldn't there be a part of this that is about giving?

I know Western ideology prizes self-interest, and I'll grant that there's a segment that would suggest the "purpose" of dating is to reproduce and nothing more, but I can't help myself from trying to strive for something more.

Merely a list, like for this "supermarket," isn't going to say much. In the off-chance someone comes by and claims they're looking for inherently negative traits, I'm sure others will question him/her and the best conclusion would show a difference of opinion. That's not very interesting. Neither is finding out oh, here's someone who seems to eat more poultry, and here's someone who seems to eat more dairy (following the supermarket analogy).

I'm happy with moving forward in this thread, as I don't think any extreme leap has been made . . . but if Anton or a moderator would like to separate things, that's fine with me too ;)

About the perfect "real man", I do agree with you; if such a man existed, I don't think I would want him. I'd love to have somebody to grow up with, if he's perfect already it would be a very unbalanced relationship as I'm not perfect at all.

It seems to come down to a terrifying bell-curve: the most virtuous, incredible, strong-willed people have as small a "dating pool" as those that are the least virtuous, etc. Even worse, those in the middle rarely ever get the slightest glimpse of how lonely it is at either extreme . . .

[Luthor Rex]

Rohsiph

I think the only thing you're missing in your very accurate reasoning is that attraction can't be explained rationally, as the sum of different factors.
Intelligence + honesty + wit doesn't mean automatically ATTRACTION.

Attraction is not conscious, but it certainly is a logical process that can be explained. For example we know as a fact that you can smell your genetic compatibility with another person and if you are compatable it will turn you on.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm too sleepy to find more for you right now.

[Firebrand]

The best advice I've ever seen is from the user "Parallel" :
"Dude. Fck self help books. Just be completely un-embarassed and un-apologetic of who you already are without, of course, being an asshole or douchebag and don't try to look too hard for the right girl and it'll all come to you."

Looking back at my life, this has always been how I've gotten/attracted the best women for me to date. When I went to far away from the person I naturally am, I attracted women who did the same thing to me as they did to you.

[volk]

I came to think of a good analogy to all this: Living your life for the purpose of searching for a woman is like working on a project for the sole purpose of getting paid.

[ragavpayne]

I will wholeheartedly agree with the thread starter about his discovery of what charms women. From my own recent (a matter of the past few days) experience, I've figured it works the same way for both men and women. We like those from whom we can get and give...not just give.

I'm a freshman and being the INTJ I am I've almost never focused on girls before. But I wasn't being very approachable either; so, I've had little experience with girls. However, upon landing in college, I figured I needed some emotional and sexual satisfaction. But, I didn't really look for girls. I just stopped being unapproachable. I instantly noticed attraction from girls from all around. Then I found this one girl in Freshman english composition class. She was most attractive, quite smart, unique, feminine, sexually attractive etc. But, I didn't care to pay much attention to her...not until she started glancing at me, smiling at me, being jealous of the girls I was talking to etc. She even started being noticable in class...coming up with smart and quirky responses etc. I pretty much ignored all her glances, smiles etc. But, she started lingering in my mind. One day, I started a conversation with her right after class and I found her very welcoming...she asked me for my contact information etc..in our very first conversation. I started liking her and was prepared for emotional commitment. She WAS quite lovable. Then the next time we met after class, she asked me out. She wanted to go to my room, I said "um yeah...perhaps we could watch a movie in my room"...then she said "or we could go to the theatre this weekend"....we both agreed. Then I started to really like her. I sent her messages that conveyed my excitement for the day out. Later, hours before the movies, I got this message saying she has to cancel the movies because her family wanted to spend time with her. <I don't know how true that is>. I just sent her a message showing my disappointment. Then the next day, (which was yesterday) we met at class and she wasn't apolegetic in the least. She didn't even bring up the subject until I started it. She was kind of apolegetic after that...but I said "well, its ok..we can go out some other time can't we?"...and she said "let's see...I'll be at work on weekdays and I'll be out of town this weekend" and then she went off on tangents on where she'll be this weekend etc. And then unlike our previous meetings, she didn't even stay long. She was in a hurry. I was quite confused. Right after that, I sent her this message:-

"Erin, I really like you for various reasons and I've been thinking of you a lot and I want us to be more intimate. But, I'm not sure what you think of me. It is very confusing and I wanted to ask you this directly, but since you're quite busy with things, it looks like we aren't going to get a lot of time together. So, if its ok for you, I want to know what you think of me...because I just can't sustain unreciprocable feelings..."

She replied:-

"I am not interested in an intimate relationship, but wouldn't mind being friends...I enjoy talking to you and you seem like a neat person... : )"

<note the words "wouldn't mind"...denoting her instinctive perception of my genuine message being a request for her modest approval of my yearning for her..>

That was our last point of contact. My theory is that she did like me when we started out but it wasn't out of instinctive attractiveness. It was rather because unlike the other guys, I didn't approach her and tell her things like she was pretty etc. I didn't even notice her. So, being this pretty girl she was and being hit on countless times, she found me mysterious for not being like the other guys. It was at this point that I explored her and showed my genuine liking for her. And now, with the my mysteriousness dissolved, she is ready to move on...to get her next ego-satisfaction...or just get used by someone fake. <well, this could entirely be a bogus theory>

I don't know what might happen the next time we meet (tomorrow). But, most likely, I will be ignored, and she will try to make me notice her more by publicizing her feminine gestures and and feel extremely delighted with my watchful eyes and silent lips aimed at her. She probably wouldn't even stop after class to talk to me.

It does hurt a lot to be rejected in this manner after willing to think of her as someone special to me...especially after the childlike expression of my genuine emotions. But the good thing is that there are other girls who're aware of my confident, self-oblivious persona...and upon this very significant realization of the nature of attraction to the opposite sex prevalent in the west, I am 18 and not 33...





ragavpayne added to this post, 91 minutes and 30 seconds later...

And by the way, in no way am I implying that this nature of liking the one who is self-oblivious, confident and not tailing them is an explicit, conscious behavioral trend. It is rather an implicit, sub-conscious thing. I'm saying this because these pretty girls wouldn't really know how to explicitly calculate such things. They just get played by their instincts...So, if you wanna be a "real man" to most women, just start pleasing their instincts rather than their mnids..

[Rohsiph]

The best advice I've ever seen is from the user "Parallel" :
"Dude. Fck self help books. Just be completely un-embarassed and un-apologetic of who you already are without, of course, being an asshole or douchebag and don't try to look too hard for the right girl and it'll all come to you."

This is the approach I've had my entire life.

If your "completely un-embarrassed and un-apologetic" self is too different from the norm, it doesn't work.

But the good thing is that there are other girls who're aware of my confident, self-oblivious persona...and upon this very significant realization of the nature of attraction to the opposite sex prevalent in the west, I am 18 and not 33...

There are? Really? Why aren't you with one right now, then? Not to be a dick, but I know for myself a very important lesson I've crossed multiple times in college is that "thinking never makes it so."

Optimism isn't a bad thing . . . but never rely on false hope.

And by the way, in no way am I implying that this nature of liking the one who is self-oblivious, confident and not tailing them is an explicit, conscious behavioral trend. It is rather an implicit, sub-conscious thing. I'm saying this because these pretty girls wouldn't really know how to explicitly calculate such things. They just get played by their instincts...So, if you wanna be a "real man" to most women, just start pleasing their instincts rather than their mnids..

Yeah, I think you have the right idea . . . and I think it comes down to expectations: if you just want something pretty, be an animal. Speaking for myself, that's not something I can justify the desire for--regardless of how much I might subconsciously want a little 'harmless fun,' I'm all too aware of how I would feel like I'm betraying my core values if I ever went after such a thing.

I'd like for someone to convincingly argue a non-cynical answer, really--but I'm not sure such a thing is compatible with the society I live around.

[Henry]

I'm no expert, but for the past year I've made women my central focus in life. It was like a personal project of mine. I read "All you need is love and other lies about marriage", "How to succeed with women" and I got about halfway through "The game" before I got a little disgusted and had to put it down. I also did research online, talked to friends, mentors and experimented with different approaches until it finally started coming together.

I started getting it. I was actually approaching women, hitting on them and making them feel good. I came off as a confident, desirable and charming man. I went to the gym to look good, and spent time on the details of my appearance, groomed myself and focused my thoughts so that I felt in 'the zone'

In the end a girl tore my heart out. And then another. And finally just last month I got -really- hurt and decided to just take a step back from all this. I realized that I was focusing too much on a particular part of life and had forgotten the big picture. Everything else was in my peripheral vision, and I had made women and dating the central focus, the reason why I lived. Bad idea.

The whole reason I'm writing this though, is to get through to anyone who may have bought into the fallacy that you need a woman to be a man. You don't. I've learned from these mistakes, and despite the fun, sexual encounters, an even bigger problem envelops the entire thing. I am not a real man yet. What is a real man? Well it's what women want. If you can think about how many beautiful, attractive women you've seen, you might reach into the hundreds, maybe even thousands. But how many men have you met that had their whole lives together? Men that had total composure over themselves and really had it all together?

By simply focusing on getting my life together, by focusing on the bigger picture, by finding my path and sticking to it and not letting anything- especially a woman. distract me from getting what I want out of life. It's made me even more attractive to the opposite sex. In other words I'm beginning to learn how to grow up and be a real man.

Know what you want, why you want it, and what you have to do to get it. Be the center of your universe, because if you're looking to orbit around a woman and leech of off her to feel like a whole person, to feel energized and have reason and validation in your life, then you're instantly going to be unattractive to her. Focus on yourself first, get your life together and -then- just let them come to you. If you need a woman to feel whole, what's going to happen when she leaves you? She's going to tear your heart out. Just sayin'

David Deangelo should be the starting place if you're struggling. There's little exploitation or stupidity there, he's more about the psychology of attraction and how to get to the point where you're attracting a fair number of women without having to work at it.

Also, I would strongly not recommend an extremely active pursuit of any woman, especially attractive ones in their 20s. They will get a lot of aggressive attention and will quickly categorize you with a bunch of epic douchebags. Hot/Cold may work, or just interacting with them in a cool-cold manner will probably be more effective than an active pursuit; this isn't the 1950s and if they're attracted to you most will chase you.

Also, a "real man" is not whatever women want. Not even close. A real man is someone who acts like who he is and is not scared of that or looking for approval. Looking for approval will get you killed.


If you just want sex or short term stuff, Robert Greene is a good author for that as well. That said, his tactics are pretty brutal at times and are not for everyone. He's a fantastic author, but I'm just not comfortable "using" other people.

[Luthor Rex]

Also, I would strongly not recommend an extremely active pursuit of any woman, especially attractive ones in their 20s. They will get a lot of aggressive attention and will quickly categorize you with a bunch of epic douchebags. Hot/Cold may work, or just interacting with them in a cool-cold manner will probably be more effective than an active pursuit; this isn't the 1950s and if they're attracted to you most will chase you.

I have found this to be true with even moderately attractive women as well. Actually I've also found that during the "relationship" you can't get warm either. Just because you're putting your penis in her vagina doesn't mean you can decide to be a human and show that you care. The thing is, by selecting for men who are emotionally cold to them, women are only setting themselves up to be abused.

It's like there is some kind of mind virus they have all been infected with that makes them terminally stupid.

Also, a "real man" is not whatever women want. Not even close. A real man is someone who acts like who he is and is not scared of that or looking for approval. Looking for approval will get you killed.


Yeah there's really no non-cynical explaination for what's going on right now in American / Western culture.

[Anton]

I came to think of a good analogy to all this: Living your life for the purpose of searching for a woman is like working on a project for the sole purpose of getting paid.

Quoted for great justice. I agree whole-heartedly, this is a really good analogy.
I'm not saying that I'm doing this to attract women. What I'm really saying is that I'm doing what feels right, and I'm a little surprized (although I shouldn't be) that by doing this, I'm even more successful then when I was actively trying to get a woman.

It's like hammering a nail into a wall. The more force you use, the easier and faster the nail goes into the wall. It's like the opposite with women. However there's a sweet spot between doing absolutely nothing, and trying to hard. It's kind of tricky and easy to misunderstand.

*edit* Some of the ideas work, but they only work in certain situations. Like most of the ideas here are purely situational. They work for some people, and not for others. Other people seem to be missing the other persons point and so on and so forth. There's misunderstanding if we're talking about love, or attraction and it just goes on. In the end I think it's just too complicated of a thing for us to break down and pick apart what works and what doesn't.

[SimplyOtter]

This thread is starting scaring me.
Luthor Rex, there's nothing more stupid than a scared generalisation.

Has any of you ever tried simply LOVING somebody instead of obsessively trying to be loved?

[Anton]

This thread is starting scaring me.
Luthor Rex, there's nothing more stupid than a scared generalisation.

Has any of you ever tried simply LOVING somebody instead of obsessively trying to be loved?

Yeah. The feeling of love is attributed to feeling out of control. I learned to not try to control it, because it's like taking a railroad spike and a sledghammer, and just slamming it into the coffin of attraction. The feelings fizzle when you try to control it. That was one of my miskakes, but it was all for the sake of being sure that I was loved back. I guess if I simply loved her without trying to be loved back, it would have been just that much easier to let her go. ^_^

[SimplyOtter]

Yeah. The feeling of love is attributed to feeling out of control. I learned to not try to control it, because it's like taking a railroad spike and a sledghammer, and just slamming it into the coffin of attraction. The feelings fizzle when you try to control it. That was one of my miskakes, but it was all for the sake of being sure that I was loved back. I guess if I simply loved her without trying to be loved back, it would have been just that much easier to let her go. ^_^


That made me smile :)

Again, to me you sound a bit confused but really honest with yourself, and this is definitely the RIGHT approach. Please let go of that DeAngelo crap.
I even did a search on the net to see what you were on about and it gave me the creeps. If I saw some of his books in the house of the man I'm dating I'd run away for dear life.

this is just a sentence from his site.

"Do compliments create ATTRACTION when you first meet a woman?
Most of the time the answer is NO."

the first two things that come to my mind:

- if a man decides to do or not to do something basing himself on the other person's reaction, he's NOT free. So he thinks the woman is gorgeous and what he does, he bites his lips so that he will be seen as tough or whatever..? excuse me, what a LOSER. I hate the word loser, but it's the only one that comes to my mind. A Real Man to me is somebody who is free to express himself, this poor David (sorry David) seems to me like a little ugly monkey who's trying to mimick the behaviour of a real man...

- The guy is not gifted with much fantasy. Does he know that you can compliment a woman just by looking at her, without saying one word? Or leaving the door open just a fraction of second longer for her to come in? He noticed just the most obvious things in his "Naturals" behaviours, but because he's a monkey, he's doomed to get just very stupid women...
A woman with average sensibility, intelligence, intuition would perceive the monkey even before it starts talking.

All of you, with your honest confusion, doubts, tentative approaches, miseries have all my respect for trying to understand; as I believe most of you are also very young, I'm sure you are just Real Men in the making.
This Deangelo guy just gives me the creeps.

[ElstonGunn]

A woman with average sensibility, intelligence, intuition would perceive the monkey even before it starts talking.

Sort of like how any intelligent person knows when someone is doing a magic trick. The problem is that the trick, while not actually magic, is still appealing to most people as long as they don't know the secret to how it works. If you know that the magician has a trap door, or that a man is intentionally refraining from giving you a direct compliment, then it's not as interesting.

I've seen these kinds of things work. They shouldn't, and I'd really prefer it if they didn't, since it implies that people are easy to manipulate and that attraction really isn't that mystical and special if it can be created on demand with relatively decent rates of success. And while we're at it, let's also point out that they're not infallible, but they do work.

Part of it could be statistical: if a guy has a bag of tricks at his disposal, there's nothing preventing him from using them on ten different women within a span of a few hours, whereas if a guy is clueless, he probably won't try as many times. Another part of it might be the placebo effect: if a man believes that his bag of tricks will work, he's probably going to be more confident. And because confidence is evidently very appealing to most women, the fact that the guy's sense of confidence is essentially false is irrelevant, as long as it's convincingly present.

[SimplyOtter]

True. Everywoman has been "tricked" a few times in her life by false confidence. And I'm sure, the other way round.
But what happens after a while? Is an unconfident man, who translates his own value in the number of women he can get laid with, able to be confident in a longterm relationship, in life?

If the point of this thread is "tricks for getting laid with a woman" then keep on reading Deangelo....one out of ten women (sorry, but I keep on saying: most stupid, most desperate, or simply less experienced) will fall into the trap.

If the point is "how to be a real man and therefore have a woman" (which I think is more like what these guys really want, even if sometimes very well disguised) the first thing to remember is that a real man has also a moral, and a real man is the same man from dating to relationship.

Since our energy in life is a precious resource, I'd focus my energy in becoming the real thing instead of a magician.

[Luthor Rex]

This thread is starting scaring me.
Luthor Rex, there's nothing more stupid than a scared generalisation.

Has any of you ever tried simply LOVING somebody instead of obsessively trying to be loved?

I'm not generalizing in a bad way, I am relating the last 15 or so years of my personal experience. I have related the patterns I have seen over and over again. Please understand that it took me YEARS to accept what I was seeing: I really didn't want to believe things were as they were. At some point, the evidence becomes overwhelming and I had to accept the world that had presented itself to me.

Long before I knew about the "online seduction community" I saw what they talk about. Some of it I didn't want to believe and I searched for years for an alternate explination, but found none. Things didn't start falling into place and making sense until I starting reading about the effect of evolution on human psychology.

Please don't missunderstand me here: I *wish* the world wasn't this way, but denial never made things better (at least for me anyway). The kind of behavior that you want to believe is uncommon is actually very common, and the kind of seduction tactics I'm sure you wish didn't work actually do work and most people really are that vicious.





Luthor Rex added to this post, 13 minutes and 29 seconds later...

"Do compliments create ATTRACTION when you first meet a woman? Most of the time the answer is NO."

DeAngelo is correct about this. Attraction is a biological responce, like when the doctor taps your knee, and thus is not a choice. What you do once you are attracted certainly is a choice. You could chose to persue or not persue. A compliment may be an 'in' to get to talk to the girl, but it won't *create* attraction. Attraction is either there or it is not there.

Also, regarding your comment about being young, well I'm 32 years young and I must say that I never had more success with women than when I employed tactics I learned from the seduction community. Bear in mind, these tactics did have to fit my personality so no big fuzzy purple hats for me.

I can give you a good example. When I met the last girl I dated, I knew she liked me right away. There was something about the way she looked at me, but other indications of interest were there as well -- for example she touched me. Knowing what I know now, I didn't bother to ask for a date with her. Rather I hung out for about an hour, we flirted, she kicked my shoes, and then I kissed her. I didn't need to ask for a date after that, she forced me to go one!

When learned and employed properly, this stuff works, and you don't have to betray your own soul to make it work.





Luthor Rex added to this post, 2 minutes and 24 seconds later...

A woman with average sensibility, intelligence, intuition would perceive the monkey even before it starts talking.

This is just wishful thinking. The girl I mentioned above was finishing her Master in Psychology at the time.

Otter: have you ever seduced a woman? No? Then how would you know what works or does not work on a woman? Being a woman doesn't count either. If you've never driven a car you wouldn't be able to relate all of what need to be done to properly drive one. Oh sure, you could give a mechanical explination of it, but knowing about it and actually doing it are two different things. And just like a heterosexual woman, a car can't tell me how to drive itself either.

[Anton]

Ah, the online seduction community. I've found myself there as well as at least one or two of my friends. It's actually not a bad thing. From the outside, it's easy to cringe. Once you're inside, it's reality. It's self-help, right there alongside reading books on how to get out of debt or lose weight. It's a specific area of life that many guys struggle with, and want to HELP themselves be better at.

I enjoy listening to the experts who have this area of life down to a form of art or science.

It doesn't hurt to hear these guys out. The universe tends to help those who help themselves.

[Rohsiph]

The universe helps no one. The universe merely is.

Don't misunderstand this as something simple--it's actually a horrible complexity. It's that all prayer, all good-will, all hope and belief in salvation is imagined; it's that nothing is sacred or safe.

It's easiest to believe in the appearances. For the animals, they work--instincts, biology, pathology . . . it adds up and checks out. But for the philosophical, it's never so easy.

It stands that there are men and women capable of absolute goodness who are ignored by the opposite sex. It is for them to become someone else to assimilate and normalize, and thus odds continue rolling against them as they become ever more ingenious and competent.

Understand Nietzsche's "Destroyer" class, and then reflect.

It's a necessarily lonely path. MBTI suggests INTJs are rare--true examples of the kind Nietzsche praises are far rarer.

It's not wrong to just want some simple love, and then to use trickery to find it--unless you're striving beyond averages, unless your standards won't allow such compromise.

[demaugustus]

I don't equate the term "Alpha Male" as being an asshole. I don't see them as being synonymous. These days all you have to do is appear Alpha Male in the eyes of a woman and you don't need to be #1 in the social circle, just very influential in some way. Whether if you want to admit it or not, women go for aggressive males ("aggressive" in that they are not hesitant to show their sexual interest in them as a male - appearing hesitant subconsciously gives signals to a woman that you're being restricted by other males), it's in there instincts as female apes. The social circle could be the football team or it could be the philosophy club (using high school terms here). If I recall, when I was in the philosophy club in college, many of the women were interested in me because I could carry an intellectual conversation and was one of the smarter and influential guys in our clubs philosophical conversations. I didn't have to be an asshole, but I was one of the alpha males in that particular social circle because I wasn't shy or hesitant in my overall actions. Women in the club came to me and I didn't have to go to them.

You don't understand how I can equate ones standing among other men with their standing among the ladies?

It's very simple, really. If you believe in the 'Out of Africa Hypothesis', it is likely that most of our genetics seen today comes from a very small population of humans in South Africa as seen from mtDNA from the "mitochondrial Eve" (humans are, genetically speaking, clones of one another compared to other mammals). In general, men throughout human history, have often been responsible for protecting the overall clan and bringing in large amounts of protein; although there is always the exception to the rule, what I have stated has remained consistent. Women expected the men to carry out these duties and selected the best males for the job. Women set the rules and men would adjust their pecking order accordingly. It was often the aggressive males who were the best protectors and providers, so they were the ones selected the most. All of this evolution was happening long before the pyramids were built and intellectual thought was an influence in human genetics. It was that very small population of "mitochondrial eves" who set the standards for male selection before the human population exploded. Sure, you may have two cultures. Culture A values intellectualism (philosophy club) and culture B values hunting (football team). Women value intellectualism in Culture A because by having a higher degree of intelligence, along with using it aggressively to get a high paying job, will provide for them. Women value hunting in Culture B and being an aggressive hunter brings in the most meat, so the best male hunters are selected. In the end your Alpha male status, which involves various forms of aggression (OR, how about using the word: PROACTIVITY?), in the pecking order determines how much opportunity you're going to have to mate.

About your first point. The framework of the male pecking order was created by women, not men. The culture may chose football or philosophy, but in the end it's the aggressive (or proactive) males getting the best females. By building a network of female friends, while ignoring the male pecking order (by which the framework was created by women thousands of years ago), will only get you a lot of female friends and likely not a romantic relationship, unless a woman is desperate (typically the undesirable females). You can easily meet lots of females by being alpha male in your particular circle and the best women in it will present themselves to you. You'll create a network, but it will be a network by which you'll be viewed as a potential mate, not a friend. Perhaps, figuratively speaking, to get a good selection of various types of women, spread yourself out over various social circles focusing on a variety of your strongest attributes. In my case, I'm an intellectual and an athlete. The women I met at the parties and traditional dating methods (extroverted activities) revolved around the athletic culture seen in many colleges in the United States. I found these types of women to be largely extroverted sensing. When I realized these women were not for me I've now been returning to the intellectual social circles.

[Colette]

By simply focusing on getting my life together, by focusing on the bigger picture, by finding my path and sticking to it and not letting anything- especially a woman. distract me from getting what I want out of life. It's made me even more attractive to the opposite sex. In other words I'm beginning to learn how to grow up and be a real man.

Know what you want, why you want it, and what you have to do to get it. Be the center of your universe, because if you're looking to orbit around a woman and leech of off her to feel like a whole person, to feel energized and have reason and validation in your life, then you're instantly going to be unattractive to her. Focus on yourself first, get your life together and -then- just let them come to you. If you need a woman to feel whole, what's going to happen when she leaves you? She's going to tear your heart out. Just sayin'

As someone who has started dating seriously again in their late 30s, I feel I should offer another perspective. While what you say has intuitive appeal, and very much accords with the relationship literature you read in the 'personal growth' areas of the bookstores (i.e. fix yourself and be whole first, and then a relationship is an enhancement, etc etc), what I've found recently in the dating scene is this.

Many of the guys on internet dating sites don't in fact truly appear to be looking with any real intensity for a romantic relationship. Some of the guys I've encountered lately put minimal effort into responses to online messages, probably 'spread themselves around' a bit, talk mostly about themselves (showing little interest in me, very often), and seem in no hurry either to meet up, or to readjust priorities or time in their lives to make space for a relationship. They come across as kind of just 'tyre kicking' really - "if it happens, well and good, if not, then hey...who cares? I've got my house, job, piles of money, friends, hobbies, etc etc, to fall back on.."

What's your reaction to this?

[Anton]

What's your reaction to this?

You haven't met a guy like me yet :) (courtesy laugh?)

Outside appearances can really blur what a guy is really like. Women are blessed with this ability to just feel if a guy is being straight with her or not. If I were you, I'd take advantage of my feelings and intuition, and keep in mind that I'm not going to sell myself short.

However these abilities aren't so accurate online. It's easy to misconstrue written text. Use your best judgment.

[Autoptic]

Bear in mind, these tactics did have to fit my personality so no big fuzzy purple hats for me.
...
When learned and employed properly, this stuff works, and you don't have to betray your own soul to make it work.

Some of us don't fit anything of the sort. I don't even have that type of response. There is nothing there to modify. Anything of the sort that I did would always be fake. You're assuming all women are attracted to the same thing too.

Otter: have you ever seduced a woman? No? Then how would you know what works or does not work on a woman? Being a woman doesn't count either. If you've never driven a car you wouldn't be able to relate all of what need to be done to properly drive one. Oh sure, you could give a mechanical explination of it, but knowing about it and actually doing it are two different things. And just like a heterosexual woman, a car can't tell me how to drive itself either.

All you really just said was that you know already, thus everyone else is wrong.

Women are blessed with this ability to just feel if a guy is being straight with her or not. If I were you, I'd take advantage of my feelings and intuition, and keep in mind that I'm not going to sell myself short.

In all my experience, women's intuition is bullshit. Everyone male or female assumes I'm telling the truth if what I'm saying is expected and normal and thinks I'm lying if otherwise, thus most personal issues are not believed unless I lie. If gender changes anything, the women are more apt to either completely believe or disbelieve anything I say.

Something that still confuses me, why come in all this are you still attracted to the girl if all she is to you is this bullshit process? Her personality would be filtered through this experience. To me that'd kill anything not purely sexually immediately. I suppose I should ask, do you like girls flirting back? That's just the same bullshit in reverse to me, thus her personality equals this bullshit, and she's nothing but a pain in the ass. Before you mention it while the physical attraction remains, sex would only be an option if I viewed her only as a unusually annoying piece of meat and chose to go about it in a somewhat hostile manner.

[Luthor Rex]

Some of us don't fit anything of the sort. I don't even have that type of response. There is nothing there to modify. Anything of the sort that I did would always be fake. You're assuming all women are attracted to the same thing too.

I don't see it as some unnatural modification. Since I don't know you, I'll use a personal example of mine that I hope will illustrate what I'm talking about.

Most of my life I've been a humourous guy, some people have told me I should go to open mic night and get my funny on. But let's pretend I'm not so witty and needed to learn some humor. As an INTJ I have found that my natural style of wit is dry and sarcastic. So if I tech myself that type of humor, then it is in line with my natural personality. However, if I should pick slapstick as my desired genre of humor it would be very unnatural to me and would be fake. Because dry-sarcasm is in-line with who I am I don't see enhancing this pre-existing quality as being fake.

All you really just said was that you know already, thus everyone else is wrong.

Well that usually is the case, but what I actually said was that if you haven't done something before then you don't have the authority to say what works and what does not work. It's like a vigin giving advice on sexual techniques.

In all my experience, women's intuition is bullshit.

Here is something we can agree on!

Everyone male or female assumes I'm telling the truth if what I'm saying is expected and normal and thinks I'm lying if otherwise, thus most personal issues are not believed unless I lie.

I've had this experience as well. Sometimes it's so stupid to the point that there have been times when I couldn't believe that I wasn't being belived.

Hugging / snuggling is one issue for me that I've had several women give me problem with. When it comes to someone I'm attracted to I like to hug and snuggle. I just think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it. However, on more than one occation I have taken *mountains* of shit from women over this. This is one of those times where I couldn't believe that I wasn't being believed.

But, oh well.

[Henry]

I have found this to be true with even moderately attractive women as well. Actually I've also found that during the "relationship" you can't get warm either. Just because you're putting your penis in her vagina doesn't mean you can decide to be a human and show that you care. The thing is, by selecting for men who are emotionally cold to them, women are only setting themselves up to be abused.

You can certainly up the level of warmth and how you express it as time goes on. I dare say that it becomes a necessity after a while.

If after a few months with her she reacts negatively to occasional affection, I would consider that a huge red flag and a sign of an abusive paternal relationship at some level. I learned a while ago to avoid relationships with crazy girls with daddy issues that will get projected onto you.

It's like there is some kind of mind virus they have all been infected with that makes them terminally stupid.

Well its not exclusive to women. There are plenty of men who spend way too much time looking for approval from women they will never get it from.




Yeah there's really no non-cynical explaination for what's going on right now in American / Western culture.

Indeed there is not. That said, OP should be aware of the fact that looking for external approval is bound to end in failure, and that this looking for approval will harm his chances with decent women.

[Rohsiph]

I don't see it as some unnatural modification. Since I don't know you, I'll use a personal example of mine that I hope will illustrate what I'm talking about.

Most of my life I've been a humourous guy, some people have told me I should go to open mic night and get my funny on. But let's pretend I'm not so witty and needed to learn some humor. As an INTJ I have found that my natural style of wit is dry and sarcastic. So if I tech myself that type of humor, then it is in line with my natural personality. However, if I should pick slapstick as my desired genre of humor it would be very unnatural to me and would be fake. Because dry-sarcasm is in-line with who I am I don't see enhancing this pre-existing quality as being fake.

You weren't responding to me, but I want to take a shot as I think Autopic seems to have a perspective similar to mine.

The problem isn't finding what in yourself is somewhat lacking and then working to fix it--the problem is fixing "what's lacking" for bullshit reasons. In your example, why do you want to go to open mic night if you know you need to improve? What's the motivation behind it all? That's where the poison seeps out: if it really is part of yourself to follow biological imperatives, then there's nothing wrong with "dating world self-help" techniques. However, if you're the kind of person who intrinsically looks past appearances, then you could be setting yourself up for devastating self-contradictions.

Those of us with world-views falling outside the norm are often going to have a negative reaction to "help" that suggests one improve his/herself by appealing more to the norm.

Further, we're bound to be more aware of the shortcomings of our approach, since we're bound to have more people trying to convince us to be more normal since more people are normal--said another way, we're bound to have more elaborate justifications than anyone who follows what's standard/easy.

if you haven't done something before then you don't have the authority to say what works and what does not work. It's like a vigin giving advice on sexual techniques.

Watch yourself--the standard counter here is "If someone asks you to jump off a bridge, do you really need first-hand experience of jumping off a bridge to realize it's not a good idea?"

Always be cautious of questioning "authority" because of percieved lack of experience--for all you know, such a person might have spent his/her entire life considering different theories about this thing, in which case he/she should have at least some authority for saying something about it.

I just think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it.

Consider: Killing babies is something I like to do. I just think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it.

Would you give me shit for saying something like that?

[SimplyOtter]

I find this thread of vital importance; I think here lies one of the biggest problems between men and women.

The OP says: Women and dating.
It's really neutral. It doesn't have any "only sex involved dating" or "dating to get married" connotation. But all the other posts seem to be about "how to seduce" a woman. Since many of you talk about biology, do you still think that dating is the first step towards a possible or desired relationship? Why, in evolutionary terms, men and women should date without this as natural consequence?

Many of your posts seem to consider dating merely as a mean to obtain self-esteem or sexual favors with the minimum effort:

I didn't need to ask for a date after that, she forced me to go one!

So what is your purpose Luthor Rex? To meet an interesting woman, date her and maybe explore with her a possible relationship or use her to reassure your ego without risking to be rejected? Even if it works, as you say, are you pleased of these results? You are the first to say you would prefer the world didn't work like that, so why do you perpetuate the situation? Why don't you dare changing it, for the small part you are concerned? Why don't you stop to use tricks and risk that the other person sees your spontaneous reactions to her, sees your true self? You sound pretty self confident, what are you so scared of?

When learned and employed properly, this stuff works, and you don't have to betray your own soul to make it work. Tricks have always a very slow side effect; then one day you wake up and you don't know who you are anymore.


The girl I mentioned above was finishing her Master in Psychology at the time.
Rational intelligence is not necessarily emotional intelligence.
But yes, let's say some of your tricks can trap the most intelligent women, but as Autoptic says:

Something that still confuses me, why come in all this are you still attracted to the girl if all she is to you is this bullshit process? Her personality would be filtered through this experience. To me that'd kill anything not purely sexually immediately. I suppose I should ask, do you like girls flirting back? That's just the same bullshit in reverse to me, thus her personality equals this bullshit, and she's nothing but a pain in the ass. Before you mention it while the physical attraction remains, sex would only be an option if I viewed her only as a unusually annoying piece of meat and chose to go about it in a somewhat hostile manner.

the problem is not the general problem of how to seduce a woman anymore.
I'm sorry, I think it's more personal and related to the way you see women.

Otter: have you ever seduced a woman? No? Then how would you know what works or does not work on a woman?
I'm sure it's not easy. I have often put myself in a man shoes and confess I wouldn't know where to start from. So you are right, I don't know how to. And I don't want to give advices on how to. I don't claim any authority on the matter, and I didn't mean YOUNG in a derogatory way, actually I wrote it with hope. I'm just telling you from a woman perspective how I perceive this dangerous and very superficial philosophy of this Deangelo prophet, as a loser misogynist disguised as a winner playboy. From what he says I think he has MANY difficulties not just with women but with himself, he just found a way to (literally) sell himself and his words to people who look for the easiest and shortest way. I'm generally frightened by any "how to... in 5 steps"; if you add a total lack of morality, lack of knowledge and lack of respect for what a woman truly is, please allow me to dislike this person.


Some of us don't fit anything of the sort. I'm sure of this. There ARE real men out there, and many of them in this forum. I will always be sure of this, as this is the only hope women and men have to keep communicating and "see" each other.



The problem isn't finding what in yourself is somewhat lacking and then working to fix it--the problem is fixing "what's lacking" for bullshit reasons. (.....) What's the motivation behind it all? That's where the poison seeps out: if it really is part of yourself to follow biological imperatives, then there's nothing wrong with "dating world self-help" techniques. However, if you're the kind of person who intrinsically looks past appearances, then you could be setting yourself up for devastating self-contradictions.

Quoted for very true.

[Colette]

You haven't met a guy like me yet :) (courtesy laugh?)

Outside appearances can really blur what a guy is really like. Women are blessed with this ability to just feel if a guy is being straight with her or not. If I were you, I'd take advantage of my feelings and intuition, and keep in mind that I'm not going to sell myself short.

However these abilities aren't so accurate online. It's easy to misconstrue written text. Use your best judgment.

I'm not saying these guys are misleading me, or anything like that. Just that they seem to be approaching the dating thing on a very 'take it or leave it' basis, and seem unwilling to put much effort into it. I don't really get why someone would sign up with a site that charges a monthly fee, and then be so casual about it. It seems to me that you either want a relationship or you don't - what's the "in between"? Or maybe there is an 'in-between', but I wouldn't expect the 'in between' people to be signed up with a dating site.

Anyway, rant over. If you can figure these guys out you'll be doing better than me.

[intjguy593]

This thread inherently beats around the bush.

Humans are not meant for fidelity relationships; those who think contrary jest themselves on romantic colloquialisms.

Humans are animals ergo sexual tension.

Dating is a cultural and social normality established by religious fools. Real INTJs don't "date" because they don't enjoy anything pertaining to small talk, emotions, and flirtation. A "date" to an INTJ is "I'm going out with this male/female to inherently develop a stronger bond with him/her in an honest attempt to facilitate sexual reproduction to pass my alleles on."

How one does it depends on the skill at bullshitting the whole dating experience.

[Luthor Rex]

Consider: Killing babies is something I like to do. I just think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it.

Would you give me shit for saying something like that?

I was going to respond to the rest of your post but when I saw this I realized it's best not to bother. You just compared my like of hugs to your (hypothetical I hope) liking to kill babies. Not only is this a bad analogy, since I was not making a statement designed for a moral comparison, but it also shows poor reading/comprehension and it’s just downright CREEPY! Congratulations, you are the first person going on my ignore list!

[Colette]

Anton:

Have you found this thread yet? Sounds like you should give it a good read :p

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ElstonGunn]

The OP says: Women and dating.
It's really neutral. It doesn't have any "only sex involved dating" or "dating to get married" connotation. But all the other posts seem to be about "how to seduce" a woman. Since many of you talk about biology, do you still think that dating is the first step towards a possible or desired relationship? Why, in evolutionary terms, men and women should date without this as natural consequence?

That's a good point. It's interesting that the discussion developed the way that it did-- how to seduce women. It didn't necessarily have to go that way. There are several other areas that could be discussed within a category as broad as "women and dating."


Many of your posts seem to consider dating merely as a mean to obtain self-esteem or sexual favors with the minimum effort:

Minimum effort? Minimum? Seriously? How many topics in the Sociology forum here are some variation on the "I'm interested in this person, but I don't know what to do" theme? There would be a minimum, but minimums are relative measurements. For several people here (INTJs, and others in some cases) it's going to take a lot of effort no matter what. It's like asking for the easiest way to push a five-hundred-pound boulder up a hill. Can you really blame someone for wanting to make a difficult task easier, especially if that task appears so infuriatingly easy to 90 percent of the rest of the world's population? If somebody's selling something that's alleged to make the task easier, why wouldn't someone who's struggling with it be interested?


You are the first to say you would prefer the world didn't work like that, so why do you perpetuate the situation? Why don't you dare changing it, for the small part you are concerned?

Not that you were asking me, but it's hard to argue against what works.


I'm sure it's not easy. I have often put myself in a man shoes and confess I wouldn't know where to start from. So you are right, I don't know how to.

But you do know how not to?



I'm not saying these guys are misleading me, or anything like that. Just that they seem to be approaching the dating thing on a very 'take it or leave it' basis, and seem unwilling to put much effort into it. I don't really get why someone would sign up with a site that charges a monthly fee, and then be so casual about it. It seems to me that you either want a relationship or you don't - what's the "in between"? Or maybe there is an 'in-between', but I wouldn't expect the 'in between' people to be signed up with a dating site.

So what would you like to see a man do? You mentioned how they don't give very good responses, that they talk about themselves, they aren't in a rush to meet, and they don't seem especially eager to meet. If someone did do all those things, many women would immediately dismiss him as desperate and clingy. At the very least, he would assume that women would dismiss him as desperate and clingy if he wrote you a thousand-word reply in which he asked all about the details of your character and life, and then asked to meet you tomorrow or this weekend, and suggested that you start looking at houses together and picking out baby names. That's an oversimplification on my part, yes, but oversimplification is a huge and integral part of dating.


Humans are not meant for fidelity relationships; those who think contrary jest themselves on romantic colloquialisms.

Humans are animals ergo sexual tension.

Dating is a cultural and social normality established by religious fools. Real INTJs don't "date" because they don't enjoy anything pertaining to small talk, emotions, and flirtation. A "date" to an INTJ is "I'm going out with this male/female to inherently develop a stronger bond with him/her in an honest attempt to facilitate sexual reproduction to pass my alleles on."

It's comforting to know that there is someone out there who thinks he can speak for me with complete infallibility, even if he's completely wrong. I'm in your debt.

[Lucid]

Because what a person wants in a mate is so subjective and varies so widely between individuals, I'm hesitant to say there are any hard and fast "Do's and Don'ts." The "I'm interested in this person but what should I do" threads always leave me wondering why a person thinks that a bunch of similarly relationship-impaired strangers on the internet can give them insight or advice about a complete stranger.

There is no one way to go about things. As Elston mentioned, many women would find the things that Collette seems to look for in a mate unattractive (I'm one of them). Many others would be all about it.

The best advice I've seen in this thread or in others, is to stop obsessing so much about getting into a relationship and spend more time on other aspects of your life.

And while some animal species are completely monogamous and others are not, humans are rather special in that we have higher reasoning abilities and therefore get to make rational choices about who we mate with, under what circumstances, and why. Aren't we lucky?

[intjguy593]

It's comforting to know that there is someone out there who thinks he can speak for me with complete infallibility, even if he's completely wrong. I'm in your debt.

I speak for distinct INTJs. If you enjoy such things as small talk, flirtation, and other extroverted activities, then perhaps you don't fall into this category.

What other reason could you have for dating beside a) petty, inefficient things like small talk and flirtation or b) your personal desires?

[Colette]

I speak for distinct INTJs. If you enjoy such things as small talk, flirtation, and other extroverted activities, then perhaps you don't fall into this category.

What other reason could you have for dating beside a) petty, inefficient things like small talk and flirtation or b) your personal desires?

Umm let me see. To meet someone?? Or am I missing something...

[notthedroid]

Wow. You know, this thread so eloquently expresses why I do not trust men I have known less than a year.

I am not a vending machine. I do not dispense tasty pellets when my buttons are pushed in a certain order. Anyone who thinks they know how to get tasty pellets out of me because a certain button order worked on someone else is welcome to try.

Edited to add:

If you only target vending machines that are susceptible to button pushing, does it not stand to reason that you would harbor an inner loathing for these women who are so easily duped by tricks? And yet, these would be the only women you would have success with. How sad.

I forgot to say that the op's posting could apply to women as well. I would like to be a "real man" -

He's not apologetic or overly eager to say he's sorry, especially because he knows how to handle his life in such a way that he doesn't create problems by being immature, late, dishonest or otherwise flakey. He's spontaneous, but responsible. He isn't afraid to speak his mind or have an opinion. He doesn't live his life to please anyone, parents, friends, and especially women. He never acts or communicates that he's a victim. A real man is what every women wants, but he's so rare that many women doubt that they'll ever find him.

Just substitute "he" for "she" and this is good advice for women as well. Ideally, I want a partner, and I would hope he would value these same qualities in me.

Being a "real person" should be everyone's goal.

[Anton]

Anton:

Have you found this thread yet? Sounds like you should give it a good read :p

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"entractology" That brought the lol. Good stuff! :)

It sounds like a perfect system to get an ESTP male and ESFJ female together ;)

Well said. At first I agreed totally, but then I remembered that David Deangelo is an INTP.

...you know. I have to thank you for posting that link. And I'm glad I've found this forum. Reading all of that and all this discussion has resparked my desire to date again. I actually totally quit for awhile there. Like I didn't even leave myself open to opportunities. My friend invited me to go meet some girls with him this weekend. *bites lip* and my ex is paying for me to get a hair cut tomorrow. It seems like those that know me have been trying to convince me to get out there again, in their subtle ways.

Yeah I feel like I'm moving on from that whole "I don't care anymore" mentality, into the gradual process of getting back into the dating pool- this time, with more wisdom, and a bigger picture for myself. If a woman wants to be a part of my life, she's got to inspire me to do my mission in life. I'll give her respect in kind by being a better man.

Woot, getting a faux hawk tomorrow and going out this weekend! :) things are looking up.

[Rohsiph]

He won't see my post, but for my own understanding I want to explore this--it's off-topic, quite possibly shouldn't be posted publicly, but maybe someone could let me know through a PM if I'm missing something, or a moderator can please just delete this if it's decidedly too inappropriate.

I was going to respond to the rest of your post but when I saw this I realized it's best not to bother. You just compared my like of hugs to your (hypothetical I hope) liking to kill babies. Not only is this a bad analogy, since I was not making a statement designed for a moral comparison, but it also shows poor reading/comprehension and it’s just downright CREEPY! Congratulations, you are the first person going on my ignore list!

My goal was to show that the form of your "argument" was lacking. I replaced your terms with something that I would think just about everyone would take issue with--and indeed, you have taken issue with it.

But now you're making me reconsider my method for your having had such a strong reaction . . .

so here's your full context:

there have been times when I couldn't believe that I wasn't being belived.

Hugging / snuggling is one issue for me that I've had several women give me problem with. When it comes to someone I'm attracted to I like to hug and snuggle. I just think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it. However, on more than one occation I have taken *mountains* of shit from women over this. This is one of those times where I couldn't believe that I wasn't being believed.

But, oh well.

I interpreted your language into an argument supporting an opinion along the lines of:

1. When I'm attracted, I like to hug / snuggle.
2. This is because I think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it.
3. Yet, some women have taken issue with my liking to hug / snuggle when I'm attracted.
4. Therefore, hugging / snuggling is something many women take issue with.
5. Can you believe that?

And, my guess, is our response should be something like "Wow, that's crazy! I never thought about it like that!"

It's an opinion, so looking at it this way is admittedly out of place, yet there's a problem I found in it that I wanted to point out.

Rather than writing the whole argument out, I tried changing the terms to show how silly the whole thing is--my full argument (which is certainly hypothetical) would have been something like:

1. When I'm bored, I like to kill babies.
2. This is because I think it feels nice and there's nothing more to it.
3. Yet, some people have taken issue with my liking to kill babies when I'm bored.
4. Therefore, killing babies is something many people take issue with.
5. Can you believe that?

And in this case, my point was that our response should be "Um . . . yes, I can believe that."

What I was aiming for was showing how just because someone may like something because he/she thinks it feels nice, that's not a good way to explain anything. I'm not sure how I've demonstrated poor reading/comprehension skills, and since I have to rely on such skills for most of the work I do I'd like to see what it is I'm missing. I'd appreciate if anyone can help, since Luthor Rex shouldn't be able to see my posts if he has indeed ignored me.

[Luthor Rex]

Well its not exclusive to women. There are plenty of men who spend way too much time looking for approval from women they will never get it from.

I'll be sure to not date those men either. Thanks for the warning. :p

So what is your purpose Luthor Rex? To meet an interesting woman, date her and maybe explore with her a possible relationship or use her to reassure your ego without risking to be rejected?

Women are far too boring for that. It is not a realistic assumption that I would ever meet the kind of woman you describe anywhere. I also think it’s silly that you think an INTJ would use a person to reassure his ego. Ego reassurance for an INTJ would be building or designing something, it wouldn’t be getting laid.

Even if it works, as you say, are you pleased of these results? You are the first to say you would prefer the world didn't work like that, so why do you perpetuate the situation? Why don't you dare changing it, for the small part you are concerned? Why don't you stop to use tricks and risk that the other person sees your spontaneous reactions to her, sees your true self? You sound pretty self confident, what are you so scared of?

I am pleased with the results in the way that I am pleased when something I have put effort into works. But here is the part you do not understand: I am not perpetuating the situation. This stuff works because this is how human beings ARE. The only way to change it would be to rewrite our DNA and change human nature.

Part of what you are also not understanding is that this isn’t about ‘tricks’ or hiding the ‘real me’. What the PUA/seduction/whatever the heck you want to call it thing is really does for you is that it allows you to navigate dating and mating by understanding the system behind it. Kissing that girl before asking her on a date wasn’t a ‘trick’, rather it was based on two facts. Fact 1: I knew she was attracted to me because of how she showed signs of interest. Fact 2: most people you meet in your lifetime would be ok with someone they are attracted to coming up to them and kissing them. Understanding this small part of the mating system allows you to do things that make you look like some kind of player.

I'm just telling you from a woman perspective how I perceive

The only woman I ever met who made any sense when it came to dating women was a lesbian. She said the same things men say.

[zibber]

Why do people insist on throwing the word "women" around so nonchalantly? Women like this, women appreciate that, this and that "works" on women. (What is it, a puzzle?) This generalisation is based on some kind of stereotype distilled from the most superficial, extraverted individuals.

Also, am I the only one who questions discos/clubs/bars as THE place to meet people? You get the most random bunch of people, actually most likely mostly comprised of party-loving Es, and THE way to success is some kind of "flirting strategy". That is terribly misguided.

What happened to being yourself patiently and, CHANCELY, meeting a compatible person in some familiar, interesting context like university? People of all ages can enroll in (evening) courses that interest them, and they are a wonderful place to come into contact with interesting people, including those of the sex you're attracted to. Obviously it's highly ineffective to come in looking for a partner, as any act of desperation is (unless you find an equally desperate person of the sex your attracted to, in which case you're in for a forced and awkward ride).

Again, rush is NOT effective. I understand how one can get desperate and frustrated when one is "looking for love" and not coming into contact with worthwhile people (or having a starting mindset so skewed that this is implausible from the get-go, "effective" as it may seem (effectiveness here being defined by the amount of lays procured), as the "button pushers" and players in this thread have), but as SimplyOtter said, love (attraction) is a mysterious thing. Fight your INTJ nature to completely control (and manipulate!) it and you'll open yourself up to the possibility of being overwhelmed by ACTUAL love. ("Actual love" is not half-drunken flirting and raking up pussy.)

Wow. You know, this thread so eloquently expresses why I do not trust men I have known less than a year.

I am not a vending machine. I do not dispense tasty pellets when my buttons are pushed in a certain order. Anyone who thinks they know how to get tasty pellets out of me because a certain button order worked on someone else is welcome to try.

Edited to add:

If you only target vending machines that are susceptible to button pushing, does it not stand to reason that you would harbor an inner loathing for these women who are so easily duped by tricks? And yet, these would be the only women you would have success with. How sad.

I forgot to say that the op's posting could apply to women as well. I would like to be a "real man" -

Just substitute "he" for "she" and this is good advice for women as well. Ideally, I want a partner, and I would hope he would value these same qualities in me.

Being a "real person" should be everyone's goal.

^READ THIS!

Humans are not meant for fidelity relationships; those who think contrary jest themselves on romantic colloquialisms. Humans are animals ergo sexual tension.

We are a monogamous species though, aren't we? (Preferably "monoamorous", as "monogamous" literally refers to one woman, but monogamous is the accepted colloquialism.) I see the Darwinistic point you are looking to make, but there is such a thing as a predominantly monogamous species.

A "date" to an INTJ is "I'm going out with this male/female to inherently develop a stronger bond with him/her in an honest attempt to facilitate sexual reproduction to pass my alleles on." How one does it depends on the skill at bullshitting the whole dating experience.

"An INTJ" is not a nonphysical, purely "mental" entity. We have hormones. We can fall in love. We have (semi)complementary types.

Also, the 2008 human is far beyond living to pass on one's genes.

There's a slight fallacy in the idea "Just be yourself" look at it this way: "Just be yourself" was probably said with the intention of being true to yourself. But when used improperly it becomes a crutch to avoid doing things that may initially feel uncomfortable. Discomfort is a part of life. Accept it.

While it's essential that you stay true to who you are, it's still important to improve yourself or be the best that you can be.

There's a fine line that separates a hoax from making an effort to adapt.

Couple of problems:

1. Discomfort is a part of life. Discomfort shouldn't be a part of dating. (Except that fun discomfort that occasionally comes with falling in love.) The kind of discomfort you speak of is radically different from the natural discomfort associated with life; it is the discomfort of forcing yourself to act in ways which feel wholly unnatural to you in order to get some superficial success with indivivuals of the sex you are attracted to.

2. Self-improvement is a difficult one. If you open yourself up to self-help books and the like (including "PUA" books), you will suddenly have a lot more room for this "improvement" than someone who likes themselves for themselves and doesn't constantly try to live up to the standards of others.

3. Okay, you used the word "adapt". Adapt to what? Only when you've been in a relationship for a while should you adapt, as even the most naturally healthy relationship needs a little reciprocal compromise, but to adapt to someone before you've even met them is mind-numbingly insane and destined to fail (in the sense that it won't lead to a meaningful relationship, not in the sense that it might get you laid).

[Tablelamp]

"An INTJ" is not a nonphysical, purely "mental" entity. We have hormones. We can fall in love. We have (semi)complementary types.

Also, the 2008 human is far beyond living to pass on one's genes.

All you need to support this is to look at the US obesity statistics. :p

In responce to the first part, I ask all of you a question:
How many of you think a purely physical relationship would last?

It would drive me crazy! To me a relationship=intimacy, and intimacy goes beyond a physical need. To even get close to them I would have to get past the fact that they are a person, thus fallible. In order for that to happen, they have to be at least intelligent, and preferably with some common sense.

[Shoeless]

In responce to the first part, I ask all of you a question:
How many of you think a purely physical relationship would last?

It would drive me crazy! To me a relationship=intimacy, and intimacy goes beyond a physical need. To even get close to them I would have to get past the fact that they are a person, thus fallible. In order for that to happen, they have to be at least intelligent, and preferably with some common sense.

A purely physical relationship will never last.

Even if you get a man and a woman who are only into the horizontal tango and can't stand any form of intelligent conversation, one party will sooner or later find fault(s) with the other party and end the relationship.

It's human nature to desire something better; the man/woman will always be on the prowl for a mate who seems (or looks) better physically. Suppose the couple manage to keep their purely physical relationship going for 10 years, and the woman is 40 now, the man will surely go for a young honey who looks better physically. The same applies to the woman as she will desire a young stud who looks better physically.

[rewhu]

...the op's posting could apply to women as well...Being a "real person" should be everyone's goal.

Agreed. When I read the OP I thought the same thing. I've met plenty of women who had similar feelings about men and their relations with them.

[SimplyOtter]

The only woman I ever met who made any sense when it came to dating women was a lesbian. She said the same things men say.

Maybe you should date a man, then.

[Luthor Rex]

Maybe you should date a man, then.


What does this have to do with the statement you quoted? Oh that's right, nothing.

I tell you that the only women who was ever honest about dating women was a lesbian and you tell me that I should go gay? I'm sorry but the only language I know is English. There's really no other way for me to communicate with you.





Luthor Rex added to this post, 9 minutes and 38 seconds later...

"An INTJ" is not a nonphysical, purely "mental" entity.

This is something I've noticed repeated over and over here and I find it rather disturbing.

*ahem* There is no separation between mind and body. You don’t have the free will to choose to NOT follow human nature.

There is no separation between a "mental" activity and a "physical" activity. The physical activity is happening inside of your brain, so you can't see it. BUT IT IS PHYSICAL.

Let's go back to some basic facts:

1.) Human nature exists. link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

2.) Everything is physical.

3.) Human mating patterns are not a mysterious process. They are known, they are explainable and they are predictable. link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Most of the arguments against the demystifying of mating and dating are based on old ideas that modern science had shown to be false decades ago.

[ElstonGunn]

What does this have to do with the statement you quoted? Oh that's right, nothing.

You said the lesbian woman said the same things that men say. I assume that men would also tend to say the things that men say.

Of course, there is the problem of sexual orientation. If you have no interest in men, I can't blame you for not being interested in that line of advice.

[curiousjane]

Okay, y'all, call me an Idealist (I am), but ...

It's interesting to me that I am reading women saying, "most men want this," and men saying, "most woman want this" as a way to explain their own behavior.

Why would either men or women want to modify their own behavior to manipulate the actions of their counterparts? What I keep hearing is that a lot of you guys (male and female alike) just want a person who is genuine, caring, independent, intellectual, passionate, and interested in them both mentally and physically.

But the same people are being overlooked because they're not being noticed right away. There a lot of us "nice" men and women who would be exactly that kind of person, but aren't as flashy at the onset.

It's a shame that we can be honest about our desires here yet in the real world we blame the men or women we come across for not recognizing our true worth. Over and over again it's been said that women just don't appreciate the quieter men. May I raise my hand in support of the nice guy, the quiet man, the reticent intellectual? I've looked all over my area for one of you, and I only meet you online. Why waste your time on the women who don't?

And women, why pine for the hunk who doesn't appreciate you when you could hold out for the man with perhaps less of a fine physique but a good heart?

Guys, there are some of us out there who wish we could meet somebody just like you. Don't give up. Don't assume we're all vapid, vacant, pop-culture princesses. Please.

Hold out hope.

[Grace]

What does this have to do with the statement you quoted? Oh that's right, nothing.

I tell you that the only women who was ever honest about dating women was a lesbian and you tell me that I should go gay? I'm sorry but the only language I know is English. There's really no other way for me to communicate with you.





Luthor Rex added to this post, 9 minutes and 38 seconds later...



This is something I've noticed repeated over and over here and I find it rather disturbing.

*ahem* There is no separation between mind and body. You don’t have the free will to choose to NOT follow human nature.

There is no separation between a "mental" activity and a "physical" activity. The physical activity is happening inside of your brain, so you can't see it. BUT IT IS PHYSICAL.

Let's go back to some basic facts:

1.) Human nature exists. link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

2.) Everything is physical.

3.) Human mating patterns are not a mysterious process. They are known, they are explainable and they are predictable. link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Most of the arguments against the demystifying of mating and dating are based on old ideas that modern science had shown to be false decades ago.


I strongly disagree that I am a victim of my physical propensities. I have a mind, and I can exercise my mind over matter. I have the ability to exercise self control, and to make choices base on rational logic as opposed to whatever hormone may be influencing my instincts.

[intjguy593]

Umm let me see. To meet someone?? Or am I missing something...

Doesn't this fall into the category of your own personal desires?

[Rohsiph]

Over and over again it's been said that women just don't appreciate the quieter men. May I raise my hand in support of the nice guy, the quiet man, the reticent intellectual? I've looked all over my area for one of you, and I only meet you online. Why waste your time on the women who don't?

And women, why pine for the hunk who doesn't appreciate you when you could hold out for the man with perhaps less of a fine physique but a good heart?

Guys, there are some of us out there who wish we could meet somebody just like you. Don't give up. Don't assume we're all vapid, vacant, pop-culture princesses. Please.

Hold out hope.

I admire your perspective, CJ, sincerely--

For me, there's something about this image of a "caroling hell-walker," or maybe "abyss walker," that's rather romantic: one who embraces devastation and cynicism with a genuine smile, prepared to endure all tortures as long as he/she can hold onto his/her self-worth.

Part of this is understanding the negative curve, that the chance of finding relationship bliss is close to zero for wildly abnormal people, and an understanding of a theory that upon finding it then one's creativity could suddenly dry up for lack of suffering.

Everything is necessarily complicated, to the point any of the "vapid, vacant pop-culture princesses" (beautiful description, by the way) would never have a chance of understanding where I'm coming from. ;)

[Sinequanon]

I also think it’s silly that you think an INTJ would use a person to reassure his ego. Ego reassurance for an INTJ would be building or designing something, it wouldn’t be getting laid.
Uh, what? Really? Really?

I think a really common problem on this board is to confuse the mental processes of a type with the actual, physical, day to day functions of that type. To the point, a type isn't defined by what it would theoretically do in the abstract (even NTs!) but what they would do in situations, with actual people. And I don't mean to be insulting but it appears that perhaps some of you don't get out too much (out of the house or outside of your own heads.)

If an INTJ decides to make his or her next "goal" or conquest to be the seduction or selection of a mate, then absolutely part of his ego, whether or not he can complete the task he is setting out to achieve, is resting upon the success of that plan. If I decide I'm going to design a new game, and I tell myself that I believe I'm absolutely capable of it, and then I completely fail to do it, I've definitely got to reconcile my ego with my perception of my own abilities.

The statement you made seems more like a rationalization for why you (or someone like you) may not go out and actually try, but please don't try and generalize that to all INTJs as though none of us care for that pursuit.

Why do people insist on throwing the word "women" around so nonchalantly? Women like this, women appreciate that, this and that "works" on women. (What is it, a puzzle?) This generalisation is based on some kind of stereotype distilled from the most superficial, extraverted individuals.

Totally agreed. It's a pet peeve of mine as well. "Women" are too complex a group to treat as a single entity with the exception of certain anatomical features. It seems to be either people who don't meet "women" or don't respect "women" who tend to treat "women" as a monolith to be manipulated or reviled or otherwise categorized en masse.

[Colette]

Doesn't this fall into the category of your own personal desires?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I was merely responding to the somewhat ludicrous suggestion some people on this thread seem to be making, that dating is some kind of fraudulent game. Another example of a good thread topic gone bad...real quick.

[Luthor Rex]

And women, why pine for the hunk who doesn't appreciate you when you could hold out for the man with perhaps less of a fine physique but a good heart?

Because the hunk is what women really want, if they didn't then they wouldn't go after it.


The statement you made seems more like a rationalization for why you (or someone like you) may not go out and actually try, but please don't try and generalize that to all INTJs as though none of us care for that pursuit.

Ok, you'll use other people to make your ego feel better. Good for you or whatever. But I see just how self destructive such behavior is. By seeking the approval of others you are placing your happiness into something that is outside of your control, and that is the road to misery.

You said the lesbian woman said the same things that men say. I assume that men would also tend to say the things that men say.

Of course, there is the problem of sexual orientation. If you have no interest in men, I can't blame you for not being interested in that line of advice.

How difficult is the reading of that sentence that you both jumped on? Let's break it down since you still don't get it.

1.) There once was a lesbian woman.

2.) That lesbian woman dated other women.

3.) That lesbian woman made remarks about dating women.

4.) Those remarks were the same remarks that men make about dating women.

Your conclusion is therefore Luthor should go gay.

Hmm... your conclusion still don't make any sense!

I strongly disagree that I am a victim of my physical propensities. I have a mind, and I can exercise my mind over matter. I have the ability to exercise self control, and to make choices base on rational logic as opposed to whatever hormone may be influencing my instincts.

The mind is what the brain does. Your "mind" is the physical processes your brain performs. The rest of this universe is deterministic and predictable, what makes you think that your brain is somehow exempt from that process?

People don't want to hear this, not because it's false, but because it terrifies them that it is true. But the truth is you can't make a decision, or feel an emotion, that you biology does not allow. There are plenty cases of people with brain damage who lost the ability for moral reasoning, or for having feelings. Because of the brain damage their biology no longer allowed them to behave in those ways.

The research already shows us just how little volition (if any) we have.

Women only portray themselves as mysterious creatures because they don't understand themselves. Your fear is that some men actually do understand you, and that you would end up dancing for them like a puppet on a string. Too bad for you that the world isn't the way you wish it was.

Certain patterns of brain activity predict people’s decisions up to 10 seconds before the people are aware of them, according to new research that casts fresh doubt on whether we have free will.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Sinequanon]

Ok, you'll use other people to make your ego feel better. Good for you or whatever. But I see just how self destructive such behavior is. By seeking the approval of others you are placing your happiness into something that is outside of your control, and that is the road to misery.

No, the only way to confirm your inner desires are attainable or realistic is to actually go out into the field and test them. Sometimes that involves other people, because other people happen to be objects in the world. Sometimes that involves other people because they happen to be the objects of your attention. To sit around just 'thinking' or imagining how great you are is delusional masturbation.

And yes, it does give up some measure of control, but you can either be the guy in his basement who 'thinks' he controls the world, or the guy out in the world winning and losing battles (but with experience, forethought and planning, winning more than losing). After you start winning battles, you can exert control over your new sphere of influence.

(Did I mention in this thread I've been wearing my Te mask lately? :))

[invicta]

This is something I've noticed repeated over and over here and I find it rather disturbing.

*ahem* There is no separation between mind and body. You don’t have the free will to choose to NOT follow human nature.

There is no separation between a "mental" activity and a "physical" activity. The physical activity is happening inside of your brain, so you can't see it. BUT IT IS PHYSICAL.

Let's go back to some basic facts:

1.) Human nature exists. link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

2.) Everything is physical.

3.) Human mating patterns are not a mysterious process. They are known, they are explainable and they are predictable. link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Most of the arguments against the demystifying of mating and dating are based on old ideas that modern science had shown to be false decades ago.

Hi Luthor Rex,

What do you think of simply relating to other human beings as if they were fellow human beings, without the need to try to control or predict anything?

I agree that mating and dating requires no demystifying. It requires no demystifying when you understand that there is only one species of human.

When I see people in this thread, and this is not only you, when I see people thinking of women as another species to "demystify" or otherwise predict and control I can see why there is the illusion that this is even necessary.

[Sonata]

Okay, y'all, call me an Idealist (I am), but ...

It's interesting to me that I am reading women saying, "most men want this," and men saying, "most woman want this" as a way to explain their own behavior.

Why would either men or women want to modify their own behavior to manipulate the actions of their counterparts? What I keep hearing is that a lot of you guys (male and female alike) just want a person who is genuine, caring, independent, intellectual, passionate, and interested in them both mentally and physically.

But the same people are being overlooked because they're not being noticed right away. There a lot of us "nice" men and women who would be exactly that kind of person, but aren't as flashy at the onset.

It's a shame that we can be honest about our desires here yet in the real world we blame the men or women we come across for not recognizing our true worth. Over and over again it's been said that women just don't appreciate the quieter men. May I raise my hand in support of the nice guy, the quiet man, the reticent intellectual? I've looked all over my area for one of you, and I only meet you online. Why waste your time on the women who don't?

And women, why pine for the hunk who doesn't appreciate you when you could hold out for the man with perhaps less of a fine physique but a good heart?

Guys, there are some of us out there who wish we could meet somebody just like you. Don't give up. Don't assume we're all vapid, vacant, pop-culture princesses. Please.

Hold out hope.

I am the exact same as you, and I agree whole-heartedly with your words. I can never find the nice, quiet, and intellectual guys I like locally, only online. It's somewhat disheartening. I know you guys are out there!

However, I suppose me being quiet myself doesn't help in the process.

[Colette]

Because the hunk is what women really want, if they didn't then they wouldn't go after it

Correction: it may be what some women want. It's not what I want, or curiousjane, or many of the other INTJ women on this site.

Personally I'm a little tired of men complaining that women only want one type of guy, and using this as an excuse for not even trying to get out there and meet someone compatible. I've started dating again recently, and as an older woman (38) with 2 kids and a disability, I could tell myself that no guy is going to want to date someone like me. I could convince myself that all men are looking for a sporty, bubbly, outgoing woman, with a slim build and no commitments or obligations. I could thereby talk myself into giving up before I even get started.

Giving up is the easy option. Putting yourself out there on your own terms is much harder, but if you do it, you'll find there are women who aren't looking for a 'hunky' type with square jaw and 6 pack stomach. They might be looking for a quiet, thoughtful and sophisticated guy, who can connect with them on a mental level, and show them a degree of understanding they haven't encountered from any of the men around them in their daily lives.

Women only portray themselves as mysterious creatures because they don't understand themselves. Your fear is that some men actually do understand you, and that you would end up dancing for them like a puppet on a string. Too bad for you that the world isn't the way you wish it was

It's bordering on offensive on an INTJ site like this to generalize about women in this way. How can you possibly suggest that women (generally) lack understanding of themselves? I'd like you please to outline what experience you have of women in your life (friends, girlfriends, etc), and what group of women you are basing these remarks on.

[ElstonGunn]

4.) Those remarks were the same remarks that men make about dating women.

Okay. "...about dating women." I get it now. Gay men probably wouldn't know much about that, at least not from personal experience. From what you originally said, it sounded like you just valued the lesbian woman's male-like perspective on dating (not specifically on dating women). That clears it up.


Guys, there are some of us out there who wish we could meet somebody just like you. Don't give up. Don't assume we're all vapid, vacant, pop-culture princesses. Please.

I can never find the nice, quiet, and intellectual guys I like locally, only online. It's somewhat disheartening. I know you guys are out there!

However, I suppose me being quiet myself doesn't help in the process.

Call me a cynic, but I always have a suspicion that women who say things like this don't actually look for the kind of man that they claim to be interested in. It's one thing to wish and wait and hope for a guy like that, but it's entirely different to actively seek one. Nice, quiet guys aren't especially known for high numbers of attempts to meet women and initiate a relationship with them. You might as well complain about not being able to find snow in the Sahara. Go to the freakin' Arctic if you want snow.

Just a cynical suspicion, though. Not that I include myself in the "nice, quiet guy" group anymore.

[Vastfnup]

Giving up is the easy option. Putting yourself out there on your own terms is much harder, but if you do it, you'll find there are women who aren't looking for a 'hunky' type with square jaw and 6 pack stomach. They might be looking for a quiet, thoughtful and sophisticated guy, who can connect with them on a mental level, and show them a degree of understanding they haven't encountered from any of the men around them in their daily lives.


That is relating physical attributes to mental attributes. Would you not be attracted to a 'hunky' guy that was quiet, thoughtful, and sophisticated? Does the body and mind not matching per stereotypes cause problems not for your perception, but more how you would be looked upon by others when you are with a 'hunk?'

This is important to me, because being someone who dedicates a fair amount of energy to the gym and shapes his diet to maximize strength, I don't fit the meathead stereotype. One of the reasons I am changing my hair style around is to appear more sophisticated instead of going with the quick and easy spiked hairdo that I have sported for many years. Do you see my conundrum? I am not going to strip off 50# (the majority of which will be muscle) and destroy my long term lifting goals in order to meet the initial expectations of others. The more I look into relationship dynamics, the more daunting the task appears.

[gadjitfreek]

I find that the older I get, the less attractive people are to me. I used to get all worked up about not being able to attract someone, now I just don't care. In fact, as sick as it sounds, I daydream about rejecting a woman. Not any specific one, just in general. Weird, isn't it?

[volk]

I am the exact same as you, and I agree whole-heartedly with your words. I can never find the nice, quiet, and intellectual guys I like locally, only online. It's somewhat disheartening. I know you guys are out there!

However, I suppose me being quiet myself doesn't help in the process.

And the three reasons for this are:

1) Quiet guys tend not to go out because they are scared of the society. This is probably the most obvious reason and you probably don't want this sort of quiet guy anyway.. Might as well buy a fluffy, sweet rabbit in a cage.
2) Quiet guys who are in control of their lives know that being quiet doesn't get you far in life. So they have developed their extroverted functions and make sure that they are not so quiet when they go out. They also try to kneel down to the intellectual level of the people around them, in order not to scare them off, and only reserve deep discussions for people who they know would appreciate it. This type has all the good qualities of the one above, except he is also a man and not a rag.. This is the one you want, but you can't easily notice him because he is wearing a mask.
3) Good guys are a minority. I have no idea to which extent this statement is actually true, but at least INTJs are a minority for sure.

As you can see, this drops your chances of finding the guy you want to nearly zero, unless you are exceptionally good at reading other people ;)

[Colette]

That is relating physical attributes to mental attributes. Would you not be attracted to a 'hunky' guy that was quiet, thoughtful, and sophisticated? Does the body and mind not matching per stereotypes cause problems not for your perception, but more how you would be looked upon by others when you are with a 'hunk?'


Yes I would be. That, for me, would be the 'ideal' guy I suppose - someone who looks after their physical appearance, but who also has depth, emotional maturity and an interesting mind. If you can package yourself in that way, I'd say you'll appeal to any 'thinking' woman (note: I am not using 'thinking' in the MBTI sense here).

[zibber]

Because the hunk is what women really want, if they didn't then they wouldn't go after it.

Women only portray themselves as mysterious creatures because they don't understand themselves.

Dude, enough with the "women". I'm sure there are a lot of individuals of the female variety that discuss "hunks" at the nail salon, but don't freakin' dare equate INTJf's women to them.

Ok, you'll use other people to make your ego feel better. Good for you or whatever. But I see just how self destructive such behavior is. By seeking the approval of others you are placing your happiness into something that is outside of your control, and that is the road to misery.

A healthy romantic (and sexual) relationship is certainly not necessary, but it is so far from destructive that I can't even express it. It can (or perhaps will) be volatile, but when embraced and understood (important) it can add a lot of depth to things.

I find that the older I get, the less attractive people are to me. I used to get all worked up about not being able to attract someone, now I just don't care. In fact, as sick as it sounds, I daydream about rejecting a woman. Not any specific one, just in general. Weird, isn't it?

Projection can take the weirdest shapes.

Why would either men or women want to modify their own behavior to manipulate the actions of their counterparts?

I love how you put this; it exposes the absurdity of the player's project.

[SimplyOtter]

Thank you. And thank you again.
Your voice in this thread is extremely important, Zibber.
For women who have read all the posts here, not to fall into despair; for the men who posted, as you show how being an INTJ and being plain negative are two very different things.

I think too that projections can be really tricky in life.

[ame]

My compacted answer to some threads.
Men who base their relationship and pick-up advice from books like DeAngelo's are a bit like the ones who pick up sex tips from porn movies.
Where you are lacking/faking will be picked up on eventually leading to lot's of disappointments on both sides.
Instead, developing yourself in positive ways first without tactics about the opposite sex will make your changes for the better in yourself much more successful and longlasting.
The genuine confidence that will result will lead to the ladies being interested. The "wuss" fear syndrome men have about themselves would dispel.

If you have negative views of women the only ones who will put up with you are the ones who share your opinion.
Self defeating if it is a woman you want in your life worth keeping long term.