We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned: 1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post. 2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no. 3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture. 4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating.
On May 08 2013 11:59 rezoacken wrote: I would add: Text back only if you have something interesting to say; don't text back if you don't feel like it.
This is a bad idea. It is not a good idea to text back sparsely, it is a good idea to think through what you text back though. It is a balance that needs to be struck, you have to keep her attention, but you don't need to say mindless garbage that she doesn't laugh or give a second look to.
If you have enough spare time to text the same person incessantly, then you're not doing enough with your life or you're talking to too few people.
You would hate Korean dating culture.
Text text text oh you're asking me a question waitasec LET ME TEXT BACK MY GF IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CONVERSATION wtf are manners.
But I'm sure it's a cultural thing.
I'm from Silicon Valley, and although it's not that extreme here, that sort of texting has certainly become a large part of our culture.
Just don't tolerate it from people (turning around and slowly walking away is usually a viable option to stop it), and they'll learn quickly not to do that to you.
On May 08 2013 15:05 babylon wrote: I also hate texting. It allows for conversations that are about as deep as a puddle.
For the most part, I agree. Texting is merely a stepping stone to an actual conversation.
On May 08 2013 13:59 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: I got a job at a mexican restaurant and I'm the only guy who works there with a bunch of babes and I don't know which one to dominate first. Erm I'm the only good looking guy, other than me there's an old Hispanic and a fat alcoholic in his 20s. Am I really suppos to pick only one girl or can I indulge? The employee handbook says nothing about relationships.
This is a serious question, help a brother out.
Serious questions as to picking up women that include the word "dominate" either come from PUA fools or children.
Or perhaps he's into BDSM?
On May 08 2013 14:52 farvacola wrote:Step your game up, and maybe treat them like human beings and not things to be "dominated".
The reality is that women prefer dominant men. Anyone who's had a decent amount of experience will tell you that acting dominant will generally attract most women, while acting submissive will generally repulse them.
Acting dominant doesn't preclude treating someone as a human being, though. Your boss, teacher, or parent could certainly be in charge of you, but that doesn't mean that they have to treat you badly.
On May 08 2013 13:59 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: I got a job at a mexican restaurant and I'm the only guy who works there with a bunch of babes and I don't know which one to dominate first. Erm I'm the only good looking guy, other than me there's an old Hispanic and a fat alcoholic in his 20s. Am I really suppos to pick only one girl or can I indulge? The employee handbook says nothing about relationships.
This is a serious question, help a brother out.
Serious questions as to picking up women that include the word "dominate" either come from PUA fools or children.
On May 08 2013 14:52 farvacola wrote:Step your game up, and maybe treat them like human beings and not things to be "dominated".
The reality is that women prefer dominant men. Anyone who's had a decent amount of experience will tell you that acting dominant will generally attract most women, while acting submissive will generally repulse them.
Acting dominant doesn't preclude treating someone as a human being, though. Your boss, teacher, or parent could certainly be in charge of you, but that doesn't mean that they have to treat you badly.
Acting dominant and using the word "dominate" are two entirely different things.
On May 08 2013 13:59 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: I got a job at a mexican restaurant and I'm the only guy who works there with a bunch of babes and I don't know which one to dominate first. Erm I'm the only good looking guy, other than me there's an old Hispanic and a fat alcoholic in his 20s. Am I really suppos to pick only one girl or can I indulge? The employee handbook says nothing about relationships.
This is a serious question, help a brother out.
Serious questions as to picking up women that include the word "dominate" either come from PUA fools or children.
Or perhaps he's into BDSM?
On May 08 2013 14:52 farvacola wrote:Step your game up, and maybe treat them like human beings and not things to be "dominated".
The reality is that women prefer dominant men. Anyone who's had a decent amount of experience will tell you that acting dominant will generally attract most women, while acting submissive will generally repulse them.
Acting dominant doesn't preclude treating someone as a human being, though. Your boss, teacher, or parent could certainly be in charge of you, but that doesn't mean that they have to treat you badly.
Acting dominant and using the word "dominate" are two entirely different things.
Dominating someone is acting dominant over them.
Or are you simply arguing that the word choice is politically incorrect?
On May 08 2013 13:59 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: I got a job at a mexican restaurant and I'm the only guy who works there with a bunch of babes and I don't know which one to dominate first. Erm I'm the only good looking guy, other than me there's an old Hispanic and a fat alcoholic in his 20s. Am I really suppos to pick only one girl or can I indulge? The employee handbook says nothing about relationships.
This is a serious question, help a brother out.
Serious questions as to picking up women that include the word "dominate" either come from PUA fools or children.
Or perhaps he's into BDSM?
On May 08 2013 14:52 farvacola wrote:Step your game up, and maybe treat them like human beings and not things to be "dominated".
The reality is that women prefer dominant men. Anyone who's had a decent amount of experience will tell you that acting dominant will generally attract most women, while acting submissive will generally repulse them.
Acting dominant doesn't preclude treating someone as a human being, though. Your boss, teacher, or parent could certainly be in charge of you, but that doesn't mean that they have to treat you badly.
Acting dominant and using the word "dominate" are two entirely different things.
Dominating someone is acting dominant over them.
Or are you simply arguing that the word choice is politically incorrect?
Good teachers do not talk about dominating their students, good bosses do not talk about dominating their employees, and good parents do not talk about dominating their children, and yet all of them will act in a dominant fashion. It is the difference between showing and telling; that link you provided is just further proof of such a thing. Status, wealth, articulation, poise; these are the things that figure into an attractive and dominant male figure, not some silly "I'm gonna dominate you girl" approach that centers around an arbitrary power schema. Unless one wants to attract simple women of course, which I suppose is up to the individual.
The study defines the word "dominant" in a very particular way, i.e. dominant men are "men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation." It really suggests little about modes of behavior outside of "men pursue status because it pays off." (Duh.)
On May 08 2013 15:36 babylon wrote: The study defines the word "dominant" in a very particular way, i.e. dominant men are "men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation." It really suggests little about modes of behavior outside of "men pursue status because it pays off." (Duh.)
On May 08 2013 13:59 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote: I got a job at a mexican restaurant and I'm the only guy who works there with a bunch of babes and I don't know which one to dominate first. Erm I'm the only good looking guy, other than me there's an old Hispanic and a fat alcoholic in his 20s. Am I really suppos to pick only one girl or can I indulge? The employee handbook says nothing about relationships.
This is a serious question, help a brother out.
Serious questions as to picking up women that include the word "dominate" either come from PUA fools or children.
Or perhaps he's into BDSM?
On May 08 2013 14:52 farvacola wrote:Step your game up, and maybe treat them like human beings and not things to be "dominated".
The reality is that women prefer dominant men. Anyone who's had a decent amount of experience will tell you that acting dominant will generally attract most women, while acting submissive will generally repulse them.
Acting dominant doesn't preclude treating someone as a human being, though. Your boss, teacher, or parent could certainly be in charge of you, but that doesn't mean that they have to treat you badly.
Acting dominant and using the word "dominate" are two entirely different things.
Dominating someone is acting dominant over them.
Or are you simply arguing that the word choice is politically incorrect?
Good teachers do not talk about dominating their students, good bosses do not talk about dominating their employees, and good parents do not talk about dominating their children, and yet all of them will act in a dominant fashion. It is the difference between showing and telling; that link you provided is just further proof of such a thing.
Actually, good teachers, bosses, and parents do talk about how to act in charge and command authority over their students, subordinates, and children. They just don't use the word "dominant", but the meaning is the same.
On May 08 2013 15:34 farvacola wrote:Status, wealth, articulation, poise; these are the things that figure into an attractive and dominant male figure, not some silly "I'm gonna dominate you girl" approach that centers around an arbitrary power schema.
Part of social status is acting dominant over others (and having them accept it).
On May 08 2013 15:34 farvacola wrote:Unless one wants to attract simple women of course, which I suppose is up to the individual.
Because only simple women are attracted dominant men, just like only simple men are attracted to young, thin women, right?
On May 08 2013 15:36 babylon wrote: The study defines the word "dominant" in a very particular way, i.e. dominant men are "men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation." It really suggests little about modes of behavior outside of "men pursue status because it pays off." (Duh.)
Did you even read the article? Did you even skim the discussion at the end? :/ It's even less fitting. You're trying to support "women prefer dominant men!" by pointing to submission fantasies. Fantasy != reality. You have control of your fantasy; you don't have control of your reality.
"First, we found no evidence that women entertain forceful submission fantasies more than men. On the contrary, whether the forceful encounter was layered in romantic imagery or whether we specified that the aggressor was unknown to the fantasist, men reported higher preference for and a greater predilection to entertain such fantasies of submission."
"It is interesting to note, however, that men endorsed self-enhancement as a whole more so than women, largely due to their relatively greater predilection for (a) prestige enhancement, (b) assuaging their doubts concerning acceptance and rejection in the episode, (c) preferring a bit more emotional distance, and (d) preferring to surrender to the will of another. Participating men and women did not differ in their coveting irresistibility and personal power, and men and women endorsed these items to the highest degree of all facets of the self-enhancement factor."
"More important, women who entertain submission fantasies clearly indicate no wish to be raped (Kanin, 1982), and when guided through imagery of a realistic rape, women express disgust and fear (Bond & Mosher, 1986). In submission fantasies (of both women and men), in contrast to the reality of rape, the fantasist is in complete control and ascribes his or her own meaning to the exchange."
"namely, we anticipated that aggressively socially dominant women (i.e., bi-strategic controllers) would especially enjoy attention from a dominant man if such attention was associated with fantasy meaning that confirms rather than undermines her power."
"On the other hand, we uncovered important resource control type differences in the factors revealing meaning—namely, socially dominant, bi-strategic women appear to invoke powerful partner, self-enhancement, and ally–provider; that is, when she entertains this fantasy theme, she is seduced by a virile and successful man who wields power over others and is driven by uncontrollable urges consequent to her allure. Moreover, he is an ally, protective of her, and capable and willing of paternal investment. In contrast, subordinate non-controllers deemphasize power and self-enhancement in favor of softer romantic attributes, as well as characteristics associated with alliance, protection, and paternal investment."
I didn't even read the methods, so I can't speak to the study methods, but this is not a good article to make your point, esp. even if we accept everything they've said, it really only points out anything about one type of woman and apparently a whole lot of men. -_-
That's not what farvacola was pointing out: use of that verb was not so much 'I'm going to act like a generally dominant male around <these women> so as to be attractive' but rather something more along the lines of 'I'm going to conquer them'. E.g. they are objects to be manipulated for his satisfaction, standard PUA thought process.
Crystal clear to someone who's not distracted by their favorite hobby horse (e.g. the old alpha/beta male PUA cornerstone).
On May 08 2013 15:36 babylon wrote: The study defines the word "dominant" in a very particular way, i.e. dominant men are "men who are more likely to win a dyadic physical confrontation." It really suggests little about modes of behavior outside of "men pursue status because it pays off." (Duh.)
Did you even read the article? Did you even skim the discussion at the end? :/ It's even less fitting. You're trying to support "women prefer dominant men!" by pointing to submission fantasies. Fantasy != reality. You have control of your fantasy; you don't have control of your reality.
"First, we found no evidence that women entertain forceful submission fantasies more than men. On the contrary, whether the forceful encounter was layered in romantic imagery or whether we specified that the aggressor was unknown to the fantasist, men reported higher preference for and a greater predilection to entertain such fantasies of submission."
"It is interesting to note, however, that men endorsed self-enhancement as a whole more so than women, largely due to their relatively greater predilection for (a) prestige enhancement, (b) assuaging their doubts concerning acceptance and rejection in the episode, (c) preferring a bit more emotional distance, and (d) preferring to surrender to the will of another. Participating men and women did not differ in their coveting irresistibility and personal power, and men and women endorsed these items to the highest degree of all facets of the self-enhancement factor."
"More important, women who entertain submission fantasies clearly indicate no wish to be raped (Kanin, 1982), and when guided through imagery of a realistic rape, women express disgust and fear (Bond & Mosher, 1986). In submission fantasies (of both women and men), in contrast to the reality of rape, the fantasist is in complete control and ascribes his or her own meaning to the exchange."
"namely, we anticipated that aggressively socially dominant women (i.e., bi-strategic controllers) would especially enjoy attention from a dominant man if such attention was associated with fantasy meaning that confirms rather than undermines her power."
"On the other hand, we uncovered important resource control type differences in the factors revealing meaning—namely, socially dominant, bi-strategic women appear to invoke powerful partner, self-enhancement, and ally–provider; that is, when she entertains this fantasy theme, she is seduced by a virile and successful man who wields power over others and is driven by uncontrollable urges consequent to her allure. Moreover, he is an ally, protective of her, and capable and willing of paternal investment. In contrast, subordinate non-controllers deemphasize power and self-enhancement in favor of softer romantic attributes, as well as characteristics associated with alliance, protection, and paternal investment."
I didn't even read the methods, so I can't speak to the study methods, but this is not a good article to make your point, esp. even if we accept everything they've said, it really only points out anything about one type of woman and apparently a whole lot of men. -_-
I'm more interested in the data then the authors' interpretation of the data. The actual data shows:
1.Women strongly prefer submissive fantasies to dominant ones, and about 57% of women have strongly submissive fantasies at least half the time they fantasize 2.Everyone prefers the fantasy where they get to be the one who is pursued and submissive 3.On average, women strongly dislike dominant fantasies (women rating the female-dominance fantasy gave it a 2.5 out of 7, the worst rating any of the fantasies got) 4.Women like men to be dominant more than men like to be dominant 5.Men like the male-submissive fantasy more than the male-dominant fantasy; 66% of men have submissive fantasies at least half the time 6.Men like the submissive fantasy role even more than women do 7.Women project their preferences onto other women
TL;DR: Women are submissive, men are switches.
The fact that men also enjoy submissive fantasies doesn't change the fact that women do prefer to be submissive far, far more than they prefer to be dominant.
On May 08 2013 16:00 Ryalnos wrote: That's not what farvacola was pointing out: use of that verb was not so much 'I'm going to act like a generally dominant male around <these women> so as to be attractive' but rather something more along the lines of 'I'm going to conquer them'. E.g. they are objects to be manipulated for his satisfaction, standard PUA thought process.
Crystal clear to someone who's not distracted by their favorite hobby horse (e.g. the old alpha/beta male PUA cornerstone).
Sun, you're utterly wrong on this one. "Women are submissive, men are switches" is a statement you can't hold up because it's generalizing to kingdom come. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that a big part of my framing is that every woman I meet is submissive (and bisexual) but that doesn't mean it is what reality looks like, nor does it mean that I insist that a lesbian woman can't exist. The world isn't black and white. This is the thin difference between someone with a strong convenient frame and a stupid bigot. Don't try to be the latter just to prove your point.
Now let's look at people pointing out how "I'm going to dominate her" is bullshit. Political correctness? Screw that. "Being dominant" or "acting dominant" is completely different from "trying to dominate someone". The latter implies control, the former ones imply both leading and protecting.
"Trying to dominate someone" is nothing more than a person trying to exert control because of their own fears and insufficiencies. A naturally dominant person doesn't have to dominate anyone. People follow leaders by themselves.
A dominating presence is fundamentally different from dominating behavior. The former inspires loyalty and attracts people passively, the latter is usually considered both rude and unattractive, a sign of insecurity.
Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum. Pretty girls have guys being nice to them 36 times a day. Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick. You're like a new movie whose title is This Movie Is in English, and its tagline is "The actors are clearly visible."
I used to be extremely shy with girls, classic geek I guess (played a lot of Broodwar back in college ) What changed me was I think first work, and second, travel. Also, in general, throwing yourself into situations where you get to meet new people does the trick. I'm 32 now, married and happy, had my share of dating, and witnessed quite some dating drama in my friends' lives. Can't say I'm wise now, but I do have some experience and I can say that it sure would be great if someone put that article in my brain when I was, say, back in college.
Bottomline is - stop trying to 'meet a girl' or 'get a girl'. Stop fretting over dates, they are not important. Just work on improving yourself, become a person that is impressive *to you*, and you'll be amazed at how many opportunities you suddenly have without even trying. Become interesting, and it's you who will get to choose. And when two people who find each other interesting go on a date, or do any activity together for that matter, it's going to be fun.
On May 08 2013 17:30 quetzy wrote: I hope I won't go too much OT here, but after reading some of the posts here, I feel this would be a very very useful read for many: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/ especially points #4, #3 and #2, but also, well, the whole article. Just read it.
Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum. Pretty girls have guys being nice to them 36 times a day. Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick. You're like a new movie whose title is This Movie Is in English, and its tagline is "The actors are clearly visible."
I used to be extremely shy with girls, classic geek I guess (played a lot of Broodwar back in college ) What changed me was I think first work, and second, travel. Also, in general, throwing yourself into situations where you get to meet new people does the trick. I'm 32 now, married and happy, had my share of dating, and witnessed quite some dating drama in my friends' lives. Can't say I'm wise now, but I do have some experience and I can say that it sure would be great if someone put that article in my brain when I was, say, back in college.
Bottomline is - stop trying to 'meet a girl' or 'get a girl'. Stop fretting over dates, they are not important. Just work on improving yourself, become a person that is impressive *to you*, and you'll be amazed at how many opportunities you suddenly have without even trying. Become interesting, and it's you who will get to choose. And when two people who find each other interesting go on a date, or do any activity together for that matter, it's going to be fun.
On May 08 2013 16:53 r.Evo wrote: Sun, you're utterly wrong on this one. "Women are submissive, men are switches" is a statement you can't hold up because it's generalizing to kingdom come. Hell, I'll be the first to admit that a big part of my framing is that every woman I meet is submissive (and bisexual) but that doesn't mean it is what reality looks like, nor does it mean that I insist that a lesbian woman can't exist. The world isn't black and white. This is the thin difference between someone with a strong convenient frame and a stupid bigot. Don't try to be the latter just to prove your point.
It's a generalization that's part of a TL;DR. It's no different from saying "TL;DR: Dutch people are tall."
Anyone not looking to nitpick understands what generalizations like that mean, and this should be especially obvious as part of a TL;DR with all the relevant information behind it.
On May 08 2013 16:53 r.Evo wrote: Now let's look at people pointing out how "I'm going to dominate her" is bullshit. Political correctness? Screw that. "Being dominant" or "acting dominant" is completely different from "trying to dominate someone". The latter implies control, the former ones imply both leading and protecting.
You're arguing semantics here. The definitions for dominate and dominant pretty clearly indicate that to dominate someone means to act dominant towards them.
If you are dominant, that means you are in control and leading. You can use that dominance to protect, or you could use it to harm; the definition does not include what that dominance is for.
On May 08 2013 16:53 r.Evo wrote: "Trying to dominate someone" is nothing more than a person trying to exert control because of their own fears and insufficiencies. A naturally dominant person doesn't have to dominate anyone. People follow leaders by themselves.
If you are dominant, that means you are in control. People don't just "follow leaders by themselves", they are influenced by those leaders in one way or another. Being inspirational or intimidating are just different means of influence.
@ restaurant guy, chances are if its not a massive restaurant all the girls will be friendly and talk to each making 'dominating' more than one pretty difficult. So just go for the hottest as if they are all into you, your pretty much socially proved and won't have an issue.
Isn't dominating what dogs do to each other in the park? Still chicks dig alpha so go for it!
- That article was a very interesting read hits the nail right on the head - Some genius posted this on this thread not so long ago turned my life around definitely worth a look if your on that journey to self improvement. And banging girls http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/21/kill-the-beta-2/
On May 08 2013 17:30 quetzy wrote: I hope I won't go too much OT here, but after reading some of the posts here, I feel this would be a very very useful read for many: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/ especially points #4, #3 and #2, but also, well, the whole article. Just read it.
Don't say that you're a nice guy -- that's the bare minimum. Pretty girls have guys being nice to them 36 times a day. Saying that you're a nice guy is like a restaurant whose only selling point is that the food doesn't make you sick. You're like a new movie whose title is This Movie Is in English, and its tagline is "The actors are clearly visible."
I used to be extremely shy with girls, classic geek I guess (played a lot of Broodwar back in college ) What changed me was I think first work, and second, travel. Also, in general, throwing yourself into situations where you get to meet new people does the trick. I'm 32 now, married and happy, had my share of dating, and witnessed quite some dating drama in my friends' lives. Can't say I'm wise now, but I do have some experience and I can say that it sure would be great if someone put that article in my brain when I was, say, back in college.
Bottomline is - stop trying to 'meet a girl' or 'get a girl'. Stop fretting over dates, they are not important. Just work on improving yourself, become a person that is impressive *to you*, and you'll be amazed at how many opportunities you suddenly have without even trying. Become interesting, and it's you who will get to choose. And when two people who find each other interesting go on a date, or do any activity together for that matter, it's going to be fun.
I am laughing so hard at that article. It is a study in flawed assumptions, word-diarrhea and superiority complex.
EPT
)
