|
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 November 10 2013 02:05 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 00:57 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On November 09 2013 08:31 Dr. Dumptruck wrote:On November 09 2013 07:08 Najda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The difference as you mentioned is the confident part. The problem is that there are a lot of nice guys who aren't very confident, who then blame their lack of success on the fact that they are too nice rather than lack of confidence. I agree wholeheartedly, attraction is a much overlooked part of the equation, especially amongst people that like to approach problems intellectually. I also think that men have it better in this regard-your attractiveness is more up to you than it is to women. I mainly posted it because I just had never seen such an obvious illustration of the idea-sorry for being a little off topic to what was being discussed in the thread. Don't really agree with that. Aside from a very, very small minority of girls who are for want of a better word ugly. Pretty much any girl will look great so long as she's not really overweight, wears nice clothes, has nice hair, wears make up etc.. If you're a size 6-12 UK sizes (I think that's 2-8 US) and put effort into your appearance then loads and loads of men are going to want you. Most guys (me included) don't really care that much if a girl is a 6 or a 9, all that matters is that they meet your baseline for attractiveness and after that it's all about personality. Almost any girl can make herself a 5 or above if she puts in some effort to looking good. Any guy can do the same thing. He can go to the gym, learn to dress well, but more importantly learn to act more confidently. Both genders have opportunities to increase their attractiveness to the opposite sex, although I would maybe agree women have it simpler, whereas men have more potential for growth. Since a woman's attractiveness depends much more heavily on appearance, there is only a certain point she can reach with what she's been given. Men on the other hand don't have such tangible limits because their attractiveness depends moreso on personality and confidence than appearance. You might be right in saying that 'most guys don't care if she's a 6 or a 9' but I disagree. Or rather not disagree, but instead would like to say that a high quality woman does not want "most guys," she wants an equally high quality man. This man most likely has a higher baseline of appearance in women he is attracted to, since most girls would be attracted to him. Not sure if I articulated that correctly, and I would love to hear a woman's point of view on the subject.
I don't disagree with anything you said but I think the reason men have it harder is because when a man is looking for a woman he most likely either doesn't care at all or places fairly low emphasis on things like money, background, status, career prospects etc... which is pretty hard to change (unlike going to the gym, buying a haircut/clothes etc..)
Most women on the other place huge emphasis on this stuff.
On the other hand this does mean that if you're ugly/fat/not confident etc.. but you have money and a good job you have a very good chance of scoring a 6 and above in a woman.
Where as the equivalent woman would struggle to find a man.
I also think that women are more inclined towards types (some like big 'manly' guys, some like quiet guys, some like super confident/arrogant guys, some like super ripped guys, some like guys with the metrosexual look) so as a guy it's impossible to tick every or even most girls boxes with how you dress, act or shape your body.
Where as most girls like a pretty similar thing -- we all have minor preferences but if you're slimmish, have long hair and dress in a 'girly/trendy' way you're going to be 99% of guys type.
|
Let me explain to you why men have it harder. It is not because we look like shit or because we have different expectations.
Given:
1) rate of success = # of successes / # of tries
Every "success" (either a date or relationship or sex or whatever) takes approx. 1 men and 1 women
therefore
2) #of men successes = #of women successes
Saying "Men have it harder than women" means
3) rate of male success << rate of women success
lets subsitute rate of successes in equation 3) with 1) and we get
4) #of men successes/ #of men tries << #of women successes / #of women tries
if we include 2) into the equation 4) we can see
5) 1/ #of men tries << 1/ #of women tries
or
5') #of women tries << #of men tries
Conclusion:
The reason why "men have it harder" is because they try more often. Women try less and most likely only when they think they have a good chance.
|
On November 10 2013 02:47 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 02:05 Najda wrote:On November 10 2013 00:57 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On November 09 2013 08:31 Dr. Dumptruck wrote:On November 09 2013 07:08 Najda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The difference as you mentioned is the confident part. The problem is that there are a lot of nice guys who aren't very confident, who then blame their lack of success on the fact that they are too nice rather than lack of confidence. I agree wholeheartedly, attraction is a much overlooked part of the equation, especially amongst people that like to approach problems intellectually. I also think that men have it better in this regard-your attractiveness is more up to you than it is to women. I mainly posted it because I just had never seen such an obvious illustration of the idea-sorry for being a little off topic to what was being discussed in the thread. Don't really agree with that. Aside from a very, very small minority of girls who are for want of a better word ugly. Pretty much any girl will look great so long as she's not really overweight, wears nice clothes, has nice hair, wears make up etc.. If you're a size 6-12 UK sizes (I think that's 2-8 US) and put effort into your appearance then loads and loads of men are going to want you. Most guys (me included) don't really care that much if a girl is a 6 or a 9, all that matters is that they meet your baseline for attractiveness and after that it's all about personality. Almost any girl can make herself a 5 or above if she puts in some effort to looking good. Any guy can do the same thing. He can go to the gym, learn to dress well, but more importantly learn to act more confidently. Both genders have opportunities to increase their attractiveness to the opposite sex, although I would maybe agree women have it simpler, whereas men have more potential for growth. Since a woman's attractiveness depends much more heavily on appearance, there is only a certain point she can reach with what she's been given. Men on the other hand don't have such tangible limits because their attractiveness depends moreso on personality and confidence than appearance. You might be right in saying that 'most guys don't care if she's a 6 or a 9' but I disagree. Or rather not disagree, but instead would like to say that a high quality woman does not want "most guys," she wants an equally high quality man. This man most likely has a higher baseline of appearance in women he is attracted to, since most girls would be attracted to him. Not sure if I articulated that correctly, and I would love to hear a woman's point of view on the subject. I also think that women are more inclined towards types (some like big 'manly' guys, some like quiet guys, some like super confident/arrogant guys, some like super ripped guys, some like guys with the metrosexual look) so as a guy it's impossible to tick every or even most girls boxes with how you dress, act or shape your body. Where as most girls like a pretty similar thing -- we all have minor preferences but if you're slimmish, have long hair and dress in a 'girly/trendy' way you're going to be 99% of guys type.
On your last point, attractive women are often allowed to be a lot more picky when it comes to partners simply because so many men are attracted to them. Without trying to sound like a pickup artist, I think it's important for men to learn that they too can become more attractive to women and can afford to be just as picky. The idea of improving yourself and making yourself more attractive isn't supposed to tick every girl's boxes but rather just the ones that you would be seriously interested in.
On November 10 2013 03:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
Let me explain to you why men have it harder. It is not because we look like shit or because we have different expectations.
Given:
1) rate of success = # of successes / # of tries
Every "success" (either a date or relationship or sex or whatever) takes approx. 1 men and 1 women
therefore
2) #of men successes = #of women successes
Saying "Men have it harder than women" means
3) rate of male success << rate of women success
lets subsitute rate of successes in equation 3) with 1) and we get
4) #of men successes/ #of men tries << #of women successes / #of women tries
if we include 2) into the equation 4) we can see
5) 1/ #of men tries << 1/ #of women tries
or
5') #of women tries << #of men tries
Conclusion:
The reason why "men have it harder" is because they try more often. Women try less and most likely only when they think they have a good chance.
I disagree with your premise. Because of the typical gender roles, of course men have it harder the way you define it. Men have it hard because they try and fail a lot, whereas women have it hard because they have to entice the man to approach if she were interested. Obviously she could approach too, but that is extremely atypical in our society.
Also we were mainly discussing who has it harder when it comes to increasing one's attractiveness rather than difficulty of finding a partner
|
A lot of guys have the misconception that women just get constantly hit on all the time without having to do anything. This is a long way from the truth.
|
I'm not a woman so I can only speak secondhand, but I do know girls who get hit on very regularly. It's similar to the 80/20 rule in that the most attractive women also get almost all of the attention. Of course, it depends a lot on the setting as well.
|
On November 10 2013 04:13 Najda wrote:
I'm not a woman so I can only speak secondhand, but I do know girls who get hit on very regularly. It's similar to the 80/20 rule in that the most attractive women also get almost all of the attention. Of course, it depends a lot on the setting as well.
You think? I think there's a bit of truth in the cliche the 10s don't get hit on as much as 7s or 8s because guys don't think they have a chance. A lot of guys prefer the cute look to the hot look in a long term partner as well imo.
|
Maybe, it depends on the setting. I think guys would be less likely to cold approach a 10, but if your waitress was a 10 then you can gaurantee she gets hit on all day long.
|
Yeah I suppose so. I only ever hit on people in bars/clubs or if they're in my Uni classes.
Waitresses/Supermarket girls etc.. always seem like such a low success rate thing unless you're getting signals because chances are they've already got a boyfriend.
Where as Uni girls you already know and girls in clubs/bars are fairly likely to be single if they're not there with their boyfriends.
|
On November 10 2013 03:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote:
Let me explain to you why men have it harder. It is not because we look like shit or because we have different expectations.
Given:
1) rate of success = # of successes / # of tries
Every "success" (either a date or relationship or sex or whatever) takes approx. 1 men and 1 women
therefore
2) #of men successes = #of women successes
Saying "Men have it harder than women" means
3) rate of male success << rate of women success
lets subsitute rate of successes in equation 3) with 1) and we get
4) #of men successes/ #of men tries << #of women successes / #of women tries
if we include 2) into the equation 4) we can see
5) 1/ #of men tries << 1/ #of women tries
or
5') #of women tries << #of men tries
Conclusion:
The reason why "men have it harder" is because they try more often. Women try less and most likely only when they think they have a good chance.
This is not true at all. Some girls are really attractive and can get any guy in the room, some guys are the same way. The difference is not that the trying is any less, it's that you have to count all the cutesy shit girls do as trying. If a guy is trying only when he outright says he wants to go out, then it's obviously going to be as if guys have it harder since girls rarely make that move. You have to consider that girls usually try a lot more than guys, but its the guys that notice that trying that get the girl.
|
docvoc I feel you have it right. A lot of guys don't notice it, but girls do that cutesy shit to try to get noticed. Some guys don't consider it really trying, but it is.
|
On November 10 2013 06:36 WarSame wrote:
docvoc I feel you have it right. A lot of guys don't notice it, but girls do that cutesy shit to try to get noticed. Some guys don't consider it really trying, but it is.
I think the difference is girls do cutesy shit whether they're interested in a guy or not.
Where as guys are only going to flirt with a girl if they're interested.
|
Not always true! As a personal trainer, flirting without sexual interest is a major part of my job in keeping female clients interested in working out.
|
not even just that, flirting is a common part of everyday life even if you don't actually plan to pursue or even have interest in the person. Unless you're a dick/asshole you probably find yourself flirting a lot throughout the day without even realizing it. Basic human interaction
|
Why are you a dick or asshole if you don't flirt?
|
Because apparently polite social interaction = flirting.
|
On November 10 2013 07:53 VayneAuthority wrote:
not even just that, flirting is a common part of everyday life even if you don't actually plan to pursue or even have interest in the person. Unless you're a dick/asshole you probably find yourself flirting a lot throughout the day without even realizing it. Basic human interaction
That's not really flirting, or not my definition anyway.
|
On November 10 2013 03:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Let me explain to you why men have it harder. It is not because we look like shit or because we have different expectations.
Given:
1) rate of success = # of successes / # of tries
Every "success" (either a date or relationship or sex or whatever) takes approx. 1 men and 1 women
therefore
2) #of men successes = #of women successes
Saying "Men have it harder than women" means
3) rate of male success << rate of women success
lets subsitute rate of successes in equation 3) with 1) and we get
4) #of men successes/ #of men tries << #of women successes / #of women tries
if we include 2) into the equation 4) we can see
5) 1/ #of men tries << 1/ #of women tries
or
5') #of women tries << #of men tries
Conclusion:
The reason why "men have it harder" is because they try more often. Women try less and most likely only when they think they have a good chance.
I dunno if you can really do the math on a subject like this. Also, the discussion isn't about successful dates, its about attraction. They are correlated yes, but attraction has many other facets, like how desirable the women you spark interest in are. As well as this, if several women are attracted to one man, shouldn't they all be counted as having "failed" so to say? Or the same for many men and one women? Finally, men trying more does not mean that it is harder for them to make themselves attractive, it's just a facet of how human sexual interaction works, at least in our society, where men pursue and women select.
On November 10 2013 00:57 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 08:31 Dr. Dumptruck wrote:On November 09 2013 07:08 Najda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The difference as you mentioned is the confident part. The problem is that there are a lot of nice guys who aren't very confident, who then blame their lack of success on the fact that they are too nice rather than lack of confidence. I agree wholeheartedly, attraction is a much overlooked part of the equation, especially amongst people that like to approach problems intellectually. I also think that men have it better in this regard-your attractiveness is more up to you than it is to women. I mainly posted it because I just had never seen such an obvious illustration of the idea-sorry for being a little off topic to what was being discussed in the thread. Don't really agree with that. Aside from a very, very small minority of girls who are for want of a better word ugly. Pretty much any girl will look great so long as she's not really overweight, wears nice clothes, has nice hair, wears make up etc.. If you're a size 6-12 UK sizes (I think that's 2-8 US) and put effort into your appearance then loads and loads of men are going to want you. Most guys (me included) don't really care that much if a girl is a 6 or a 9, all that matters is that they meet your baseline for attractiveness and after that it's all about personality. Almost any girl can make herself a 5 or above if she puts in some effort to looking good.
I agree with another poster on this, in that there is nothing about being male that prohibits a person from doing this as well. However a deeper problem is that, at least as I perceive it, physical appearance matters far less to women than it does to men. Men respond far more to physical attractiveness, and the way the "hot guy" presents himself in popular media is far less carnal than the "hot girl." For example, men consume pornography on a much greater scale then women, and just look at how women are represented in film and other media-female nudity is everywhere and male is not. If male nudity sold tickets to women in the same way, you can bet it would exist with much greater frequency.
It's not that women can't make themselves more attractive, because obviously they can, and I would even admit that they have a much more varied amount of options with which they can do this. However, female attractiveness is rooted to this idea in a way that male attractiveness simply is not, and as such, a women is much more tied to the hand she was dealt than a man is. I just think that women are attracted to the "alpha male" in a social group (some apologies for the terminology), that person being the male that commands the greatest amount of attention within that group-confidence being the primary determinant of who that person/s is/are.
On November 10 2013 02:47 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2013 02:05 Najda wrote:On November 10 2013 00:57 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On November 09 2013 08:31 Dr. Dumptruck wrote:On November 09 2013 07:08 Najda wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The difference as you mentioned is the confident part. The problem is that there are a lot of nice guys who aren't very confident, who then blame their lack of success on the fact that they are too nice rather than lack of confidence. I agree wholeheartedly, attraction is a much overlooked part of the equation, especially amongst people that like to approach problems intellectually. I also think that men have it better in this regard-your attractiveness is more up to you than it is to women. I mainly posted it because I just had never seen such an obvious illustration of the idea-sorry for being a little off topic to what was being discussed in the thread. Don't really agree with that. Aside from a very, very small minority of girls who are for want of a better word ugly. Pretty much any girl will look great so long as she's not really overweight, wears nice clothes, has nice hair, wears make up etc.. If you're a size 6-12 UK sizes (I think that's 2-8 US) and put effort into your appearance then loads and loads of men are going to want you. Most guys (me included) don't really care that much if a girl is a 6 or a 9, all that matters is that they meet your baseline for attractiveness and after that it's all about personality. Almost any girl can make herself a 5 or above if she puts in some effort to looking good. Any guy can do the same thing. He can go to the gym, learn to dress well, but more importantly learn to act more confidently. Both genders have opportunities to increase their attractiveness to the opposite sex, although I would maybe agree women have it simpler, whereas men have more potential for growth. Since a woman's attractiveness depends much more heavily on appearance, there is only a certain point she can reach with what she's been given. Men on the other hand don't have such tangible limits because their attractiveness depends moreso on personality and confidence than appearance. You might be right in saying that 'most guys don't care if she's a 6 or a 9' but I disagree. Or rather not disagree, but instead would like to say that a high quality woman does not want "most guys," she wants an equally high quality man. This man most likely has a higher baseline of appearance in women he is attracted to, since most girls would be attracted to him. Not sure if I articulated that correctly, and I would love to hear a woman's point of view on the subject. I don't disagree with anything you said but I think the reason men have it harder is because when a man is looking for a woman he most likely either doesn't care at all or places fairly low emphasis on things like money, background, status, career prospects etc... which is pretty hard to change (unlike going to the gym, buying a haircut/clothes etc..) Most women on the other place huge emphasis on this stuff. On the other hand this does mean that if you're ugly/fat/not confident etc.. but you have money and a good job you have a very good chance of scoring a 6 and above in a woman. Where as the equivalent woman would struggle to find a man. I also think that women are more inclined towards types (some like big 'manly' guys, some like quiet guys, some like super confident/arrogant guys, some like super ripped guys, some like guys with the metrosexual look) so as a guy it's impossible to tick every or even most girls boxes with how you dress, act or shape your body. Where as most girls like a pretty similar thing -- we all have minor preferences but if you're slimmish, have long hair and dress in a 'girly/trendy' way you're going to be 99% of guys type.
I dunno man, I don't think that status/money matters as much to women as you think it does, at least when we're talking about attractiveness. Also, I don't think its good to try and date everyone you wanna sleep with-these can be, and often are, separate notions for both men and women. Attractiveness is the first step in any relationship, sure, but I myself would never date someone who seemed in it for the money or the social status (on a grand scale)-and not only because I have neither of those things. The point I'm trying to make, essentially, is that if you make many women attracted to you, you can then pursue companionship with some of them. You need a pool to choose from however, and that is where this is most important.
Furthermore, the notion that women are attracted to social status and money is shallow and, to be honest, quite sexist. Women are just as diverse as men and they find many different things desirable in both long-term and short-term partners. Some of them may find these things important, but that is something that can be said about a small group, not all women, and to extrapolate that is something that I actually find somewhat offensive. Not to get all self-righteous about it, but it is simply untrue, and maybe if you just stopped looking at the hottest/shallowest women around you might find that your conclusion is premature.
Your conclusion on male and female "types" is shallow as well-first off, most people don't have a type in the way they may think, and it has often been shown that people are very bad at predicting who they will be attracted too. Secondly, you fail to, once again, separate attraction from a desire to pursue a long-term relationship. People can be attracted to many people and want to date only a few of them, and I think that this is a pretty healthy way to approach this part of your life. Ultimately, each person wants something different from a long-term partner, some desire balance, others fire, but in the end, attractiveness is only one of the facets that come into play. Often among the most important, but still only one.
|
I'm not really hating on women for being shallow. Being attracted to purely looks is no less "shallow" than being attracted to wealth, status.
I can only speak for myself on this but the only time I'd want to have sex with a girl but not date her is when she has a personality I don't like. There isn't a type of look that's only suitable for sex and not dating like I think you're suggesting.
And the fact the male attractiveness is far more vague and in-tangible makes it much more difficult to achieve than for a women to just keep in shape, dress nicely etc.. Very few people are born incapable of looking good with some effort.
|
On November 10 2013 10:26 Dr. Dumptruck wrote:I dunno man, I don't think that status/money matters as much to women as you think it does, at least when we're talking about attractiveness. Also, I don't think its good to try and date everyone you wanna sleep with-these can be, and often are, separate notions for both men and women. Attractiveness is the first step in any relationship, sure, but I myself would never date someone who seemed in it for the money or the social status (on a grand scale)-and not only because I have neither of those things. The point I'm trying to make, essentially, is that if you make many women attracted to you, you can then pursue companionship with some of them. You need a pool to choose from however, and that is where this is most important.
I was originally going to respond to that point, but in trying to articulate my point of view I realized he wasn't really wrong, it's just if you took the extreme of what he said it becomes incorrect. A guy who is just working at McDonalds and has no real motivations beyond that will not be attractive to women beyond a short term fling regardless of what else he has going for him. However if you are working in a field you enjoy and are making a decent living, whether it's comfortably middle class or six plus figures, then money has much less of an impact.
|
So I just got back from a first date with a girl from my college. We went to see a movie and everything turned out good except she would text during the movie which irritates me a lot. We kissed at the end of the night and I said I'd call her but the texting thing is so annoying. Should I follow the advise of A Bronx Tale or go a second date and tell her to knock it off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
