|
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 June 20 2014 13:27 maggle wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool. Like farvacola and levelping have said previously - just because you have kids does not mean that your purpose in life was to have kids. You fail to realise that every individual has a choice of what their purpose in life is and thus, your sweeping generalization that 'procreation is the purpose of living' is seriously flawed.
And the majority of the people just chose to have kids. Having kids = huge investment in money, time, and energy. You will be devoting the first couple of years to them crying at night, then later you have to teach them various life skills, letting them know from right and wrong morally, and tutoring them in their school subjects, and supporting them in their endeavors.
|
On June 20 2014 13:33 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:27 maggle wrote:On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool. Like farvacola and levelping have said previously - just because you have kids does not mean that your purpose in life was to have kids. You fail to realise that every individual has a choice of what their purpose in life is and thus, your sweeping generalization that 'procreation is the purpose of living' is seriously flawed. And the majority of the people just chose to have kids. Having kids = huge investment in money, time, and energy. You will be devoting the first couple of years to them crying at night, then later you have to teach them various life skills, letting them know from right and wrong morally, and tutoring them in their school subjects, and supporting them in their endeavors.
And? We all know that kids cost a lot.
But how does this show that the main purpose in life is to have kids?
|
On June 20 2014 13:33 Najda wrote:
More on the topic of dating rather than perpetuating the argument at hand (I always feel like we are just one day closer to this thread getting closed):
I've had a few first dates recently, but never a second date. Some of it has been my decision, some the girl's decision but it's usually down to the same factor: I'm just not really having fun or establishing any sort of real connection of the first date. I don't know if it's just a numbers thing and it's hard for me to find girls that I relate to since I'm not into the typical things people in college are into or if it's a personal flaw and lack of ability to really express myself. Anyone relate to this or provide some insight on the matter?
In general if you start noticing some form of reoccurring pattern it's usually safe to assume that you're doing something wrong instead of everyone else.
It could be that you're trying to date women that aren't your type in general but you sound like it would be easiest if you went with your gut instinct.
Do you feel like you're not expressing yourself properly? If yes, work on that.
Do you feel like you can't keep a more superficial conversation going (assuming you even want to do that)? Work on that.
Since you mention the whole "I'm not into typical things people in college are into" I'd just recommend looking elsewhere. If you like women that like museums, look for them in museums and not at rock concerts. =P
|
On June 20 2014 13:31 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:19 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:11 r.Evo wrote:And in order for a man to become sexual, he needs to have a level of power, resources, and social dominance. Again this showcases fundamental misunderstandings in a nutshell. I can walk into a place with no friends, no money and no power over anyone and still be the most sexual guy in the room. Similar to being confident it's only going to work if it's not tied to outside influence, just like any other strong frame of mind. Yeah but you won't be laid by the ladies because that's displaying pure thirst and decrease your worth. You will be labelled as a rapist by the girls and the cops will be after you. The word you are looking for is "sexy". On June 20 2014 13:19 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool. This assumes a lot, and does not account for falling birthrates in rich countries like Japan and Europe. Plus, knowledge is not exclusive to your genetic off spring. Like I said Einsteins theory of relativity was not founded for his kids. Nor the theory of evolution, nor most scientific discoveries for that matter. These do not provide exclusive benefits to your genetic offspring. But ah you see being famous for being knowledgeable = create wealth and wealth can be inherited by your kids. P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debtJapan is in huge debt and so are many nations of Europe being in the top 10. This is a liability that will bite them in the back later on. Er how is this point on debt relevant? We're talking about your supposed main purpose in life which is to procreate. If that were true shouldn't people procreation regardless of the status of public debt? Also being famous for being knowledgeable does not invariably make you rich. Tesla died poor. And I'd be keen to hear your proof that scientists these days are all rich. Instead I put it to you that scientists do what they do not for monetary gain but simply because they enjoy the pursuit of knowledge. Same as artists who enjoy art (and art is hardly a lucrative career). This has nothing to do with procreation, or providing an advantage for your offspring.
Debt is relevant because you are saying how those countries are doing oh-so-great and their childbearing rate are dropping which I disproved that they aren't doing as great as you thought they are.
Tesla might have died "poor" but their offspring will reap on their father's fame just by their last name. Just by saying that "Oh my father was the great Mr. Tesla!" will automatically make you interesting and it can translate into many opportunities.
And I said being famous, not unknown ones that can't cash in. Artists might enjoy art yes and many artist gets into the business just to be in the "it club" so they can get into all the "parties" in order to meet wifeable girls.
On June 20 2014 13:31 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2014 11:54 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal a+ posting there dawg, reducing women to sexual objects is awesome
Nope, just because I said their number 1 asset is their sexual appeal not they are 100% sexual objects. L2R please.
On June 20 2014 13:37 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:33 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:27 maggle wrote:On June 20 2014 13:14 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:12 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 13:08 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 13:03 farvacola wrote:
The word you're looking for is "devote", and you can go ahead and put away the "no one is addressing my argument" card because your long list of statistics on childbirth and sex rates is one big non-sequitur; you have still been utterly unable to substantiate your claim that people, in the general case, live to fuck and have children. The importance of attentive parenting is, yet again, irrelevant. Asking people why having kids is a huge part in people's life, ignore the importance of attentive parenting. Where's my brown cap at? You're shifting goal posts. Your original claim was never that having children is a huge part in people's lives. It was that our civilization is built on procreation and that the main purpose in life for most people is to have children. On June 20 2014 13:04 levelping wrote:On June 20 2014 12:59 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 12:55 farvacola wrote:
Having children and living to have children are entirely different things. Just as having sex and living to have sex are. But go ahead and dig up some more irrelevant statistics, you're only proving my point lol. On June 20 2014 12:58 levelping wrote:
The fact that people have kids just shows that people have kids. Where is the basis for your conclusion that this is the main purpose in the lives of people? I could probably show you studies that lots of people buy cars but that does not mean car ownership is the main purpose on life. Once you have children, you pretty much have to devout majority of your life to them if you want them to grow up functional (there are plenty of study that those kids with more parental cares end up growing up much healthier than in the case of Elliot Roger being completely ignored by his parents) and by the fact that most people have kids means that most people devout their lives to them. But yeah to way to complete not address anything while being evasive. Er who is being evasive? You've made a pretty bold claim to say that the main purpose of human life is to procreate. You have not really backed that up with anything, besides showing that most people have kids. As before, where is the basis to say that procreation s the main motivation or purpose for most people's lives? I don't even seen how this point about maintenance of children supports what you're trying to say. You've also not addressed that there are plenty of other motivations and purposes in life. The accumulation of wealth, or the pursuit of knowledge, or a concern for your fellow human beings. All of this does not require sex by the way. And those wealth and knowledge are directly inherited to those people's offspring. Securing your offspring's future is the end-game goal. Why don't the rich and smart end up saying "Fuck it, I ain't raising kids. I've got money to make and shit to learn. Get out of my way." Its because at the end of the day, they want to pass down their gene pool. Like farvacola and levelping have said previously - just because you have kids does not mean that your purpose in life was to have kids. You fail to realise that every individual has a choice of what their purpose in life is and thus, your sweeping generalization that 'procreation is the purpose of living' is seriously flawed. And the majority of the people just chose to have kids. Having kids = huge investment in money, time, and energy. You will be devoting the first couple of years to them crying at night, then later you have to teach them various life skills, letting them know from right and wrong morally, and tutoring them in their school subjects, and supporting them in their endeavors. And? We all know that kids cost a lot. But how does this show that the main purpose in life is to have kids?
Because you are pretty much devoting the majority of your life for your family.
After a person gets a job, he or she will be looking for a wife material girl/husband material man that have the necessary skill to care for the kids. Depending on your "luck" though, most of the people gets married around 30. Then after their kids moves out, they will be in the early 40s, that's half of what average life expectancy is and a person's most energetic years have long gone so relatively speaking an average couple will spend most of their energy in raising kids and more than 80% of the people does this. So because that the majority of people's life are devoted to raising kids and the majority of the people follows this trend, the main purpose in life is raise kids.
|
On June 20 2014 13:38 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:33 Najda wrote:
More on the topic of dating rather than perpetuating the argument at hand (I always feel like we are just one day closer to this thread getting closed):
I've had a few first dates recently, but never a second date. Some of it has been my decision, some the girl's decision but it's usually down to the same factor: I'm just not really having fun or establishing any sort of real connection of the first date. I don't know if it's just a numbers thing and it's hard for me to find girls that I relate to since I'm not into the typical things people in college are into or if it's a personal flaw and lack of ability to really express myself. Anyone relate to this or provide some insight on the matter? In general if you start noticing some form of reoccurring pattern it's usually safe to assume that you're doing something wrong instead of everyone else. It could be that you're trying to date women that aren't your type in general but you sound like it would be easiest if you went with your gut instinct. Do you feel like you're not expressing yourself properly? If yes, work on that. Do you feel like you can't keep a more superficial conversation going (assuming you even want to do that)? Work on that. Since you mention the whole "I'm not into typical things people in college are into" I'd just recommend looking elsewhere. If you like women that like museums, look for them in museums and not at rock concerts. =P
That makes sense and it goes along with my line of thinking, I just want to be able to keep a more superficial conversation going and keep it actually interesting. It's not that I can't keep the conversation going, I've been in customer service long enough to know how to feign interest in things, I just don't think that alone is interesting enough to secure a second date. I guess the alternative would be to be more sexual in a touching/flirty way but that just comes with expirience... I'm sort of just ranting when I know that only experience and time will solve my problems.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
This is about dating and dating advice, not a discussion about humanity's purpose. No more derails plz or I'ma ban someone.
|
Edit: sorry was typing a response before the mod.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
If you guys want to continue this kind of discussion, I recommend taking it to blogs. You'll have less restrictions there, and you won't scare off people who actually want to talk about dating in this thread
|
On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal
You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone.
|
On June 20 2014 13:38 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:33 Najda wrote:
More on the topic of dating rather than perpetuating the argument at hand (I always feel like we are just one day closer to this thread getting closed):
I've had a few first dates recently, but never a second date. Some of it has been my decision, some the girl's decision but it's usually down to the same factor: I'm just not really having fun or establishing any sort of real connection of the first date. I don't know if it's just a numbers thing and it's hard for me to find girls that I relate to since I'm not into the typical things people in college are into or if it's a personal flaw and lack of ability to really express myself. Anyone relate to this or provide some insight on the matter? In general if you start noticing some form of reoccurring pattern it's usually safe to assume that you're doing something wrong instead of everyone else. It could be that you're trying to date women that aren't your type in general but you sound like it would be easiest if you went with your gut instinct. Do you feel like you're not expressing yourself properly? If yes, work on that. Do you feel like you can't keep a more superficial conversation going (assuming you even want to do that)? Work on that. Since you mention the whole "I'm not into typical things people in college are into" I'd just recommend looking elsewhere. If you like women that like museums, look for them in museums and not at rock concerts. =P
Yeah this is the main point. If you find yourself homing in on conversations based on your interests you are probably better off trying online dating and finding women who have similar interests to you. You might need to narrow your range.
I mean could you imagine keeping this up for a long time? Probably not. I just want to mention though that strong relationships are more or less based on needs, not common interests. Just because you think everything went amazing because you found someone who likes what you like, doesn't mean its in the bag.
The problem with the whole numbers game concept is that most girls you are gonna get are the ones that are super comfortable with hanging out with a complete stranger they don't really know or connect with on the street. Any girl who is willing to do this will more often than not have this one problem which you will have to deal with, a lack of boundaries which you will have to manage.
Girls with a good head on their shoulders would more often than not reject your offer, this does not mean they are not open to conversation or be friendly though. You should find solace in the fact that these girls understand when they know the relationship is not gonna work, because trying to make one work when it doesn't will just result in a lot of psychological pain.
This does not apply if you can tell her everything about yourself and she's super keen and hangs out a lot with you. I'm talking about girls willing to get into a relationship when you know nothing about each other. Ignoring one night stands of course because that's a completely different context.
Get used to talking about your passions, and actually being really passionate and interesting about it. You should not be engaging in "superficial conversations" for a date, you are supposed to get to know each other and find out whether you are compatible.
Just keep working at it, and rather focus on making your life more interesting and complete. Do not try to fill gaps in your life with a girlfriend, a girlfriend should be an addition to your already amazing life and she should just be there to enjoy the ride.
|
On June 20 2014 16:34 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone.
It won't certainly on her looks alone. Again I'm going to quote myself again:
"But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash."
That being said, both men and women go into a "relationship" in hoping to hoping to have sex with a person that fits into their own criteria. Men are predominantly attracted to women with attractive appearance because that induces reproductive stimulation and women are predominantly to men with confidence and have his life figured out. So whoever that possess more of those qualities than the other person can utilize it for leverage. So while there may be other qualities that increase a woman's worth, men primarily values her attractiveness over the other qualities. In retrospect, while a man can be extremely good looking, if he isn't financially stable, women will simply use him for a one night stand and nothing more so they won't be exactly dating.
But both of these qualities can be improved from men and women to maximize their dating options. With women, their worlds are literally filled with advertisement for cosmetic products, designer clothing. The most aesthetic improvement for men are suits and shaves, majority of the ads running these days for men are car and jewelries, both of those items are advertised for them to provide for the women with jewelries or how women will be attracted to you if you have fancy cars. Anyone that are familiar with propagandist such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, and Uncle Sam knows that as long as you are able to control the media, you can condition the minds of the people.
So while in the cavemen's times, the entire species' goal is for the survivability of the tribes. This means that women have to be impregnated to fulfill that purpose. The more appealing she is, the more likely that men will get aroused for her. The men's role are to protect the family against any other tribes or beasts. In the modernized time, both men and women are even MORE bombarded with constant remainder of their place in the society that women needs to wear makeups, high heels, colorful clothing, plastic surgery, and anti-aging creams. Men simultaneously are reminded that they have to buy all those jewelries, cars, and take their women on trips to impress them. So the primitive gender roles have launched into overdrive in ad nauseum .
In the dating world, with the rise of "gender equality", it is extremely difficult to determine which role are the men and women suppose to take. Yeah feminism are fighting against these role genders issues but however they are fighting an uphill battles with women showing even showing MORE skins than in the past centuries. Miley Cyrus have been heralded as a feminist icon ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jincey-lumpkin/why-miley-cyrus-is-a-feminist-icon_b_4078373.html ), I mean what kind of message does that send to the young girls of the world? That they should be dress as sexually as possible? If you want to be treated as more than a sex object, there is no reason to dress so provocatively.
In terms of dating, its truly a strange and confusing world we are living in. Nobody knows what are they suppose to do anymore.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 21 2014 03:21 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 16:34 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone. + Show Spoiler +It won't certainly on her looks alone. Again I'm going to quote myself again: "But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash." That being said, both men and women go into a "relationship" in hoping to hoping to have sex with a person that fits into their own criteria. Men are predominantly attracted to women with attractive appearance because that induces reproductive stimulation and women are predominantly to men with confidence and have his life figured out. So whoever that possess more of those qualities than the other person can utilize it for leverage. So while there may be other qualities that increase a woman's worth, men primarily values her attractiveness over the other qualities. In retrospect, while a man can be extremely good looking, if he isn't financially stable, women will simply use him for a one night stand and nothing more so they won't be exactly dating. But both of these qualities can be improved from men and women to maximize their dating options. With women, their worlds are literally filled with advertisement for cosmetic products, designer clothing. The most aesthetic improvement for men are suits and shaves, majority of the ads running these days for men are car and jewelries, both of those items are advertised for them to provide for the women with jewelries or how women will be attracted to you if you have fancy cars. Anyone that are familiar with propagandist such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, and Uncle Sam knows that as long as you are able to control the media, you can condition the minds of the people. So while in the cavemen's times, the entire species' goal is for the survivability of the tribes. This means that women have to be impregnated to fulfill that purpose. The more appealing she is, the more likely that men will get aroused for her. The men's role are to protect the family against any other tribes or beasts. In the modernized time, both men and women are even MORE bombarded with constant remainder of their place in the society that women needs to wear makeups, high heels, colorful clothing, plastic surgery, and anti-aging creams. Men simultaneously are reminded that they have to buy all those jewelries, cars, and take their women on trips to impress them. So the primitive gender roles have launched into overdrive in ad nauseum . In the dating world, with the rise of "gender equality", it is extremely difficult to determine which role are the men and women suppose to take. Yeah feminism are fighting against these role genders issues but however they are fighting an uphill battles with women showing even showing MORE skins than in the past centuries. Miley Cyrus have been heralded as a feminist icon ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jincey-lumpkin/why-miley-cyrus-is-a-feminist-icon_b_4078373.html ), I mean what kind of message does that send to the young girls of the world? That they should be dress as sexually as possible? If you want to be treated as more than a sex object, there is no reason to dress so provocatively. In terms of dating, its truly a strange and confusing world we are living in. Nobody knows what are they suppose to do anymore.
I don't know why a wall of text was necessary to say that appearances play a role, that should be obvious enough.
And what you're "supposed" to do is just be yourself, and do what feels right. You can go for advice sometimes too, which is what this thread was for before the purpose-of-life discussion.
|
On June 21 2014 03:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2014 03:21 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 16:34 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone. + Show Spoiler +It won't certainly on her looks alone. Again I'm going to quote myself again: "But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash." That being said, both men and women go into a "relationship" in hoping to hoping to have sex with a person that fits into their own criteria. Men are predominantly attracted to women with attractive appearance because that induces reproductive stimulation and women are predominantly to men with confidence and have his life figured out. So whoever that possess more of those qualities than the other person can utilize it for leverage. So while there may be other qualities that increase a woman's worth, men primarily values her attractiveness over the other qualities. In retrospect, while a man can be extremely good looking, if he isn't financially stable, women will simply use him for a one night stand and nothing more so they won't be exactly dating. But both of these qualities can be improved from men and women to maximize their dating options. With women, their worlds are literally filled with advertisement for cosmetic products, designer clothing. The most aesthetic improvement for men are suits and shaves, majority of the ads running these days for men are car and jewelries, both of those items are advertised for them to provide for the women with jewelries or how women will be attracted to you if you have fancy cars. Anyone that are familiar with propagandist such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, and Uncle Sam knows that as long as you are able to control the media, you can condition the minds of the people. So while in the cavemen's times, the entire species' goal is for the survivability of the tribes. This means that women have to be impregnated to fulfill that purpose. The more appealing she is, the more likely that men will get aroused for her. The men's role are to protect the family against any other tribes or beasts. In the modernized time, both men and women are even MORE bombarded with constant remainder of their place in the society that women needs to wear makeups, high heels, colorful clothing, plastic surgery, and anti-aging creams. Men simultaneously are reminded that they have to buy all those jewelries, cars, and take their women on trips to impress them. So the primitive gender roles have launched into overdrive in ad nauseum . In the dating world, with the rise of "gender equality", it is extremely difficult to determine which role are the men and women suppose to take. Yeah feminism are fighting against these role genders issues but however they are fighting an uphill battles with women showing even showing MORE skins than in the past centuries. Miley Cyrus have been heralded as a feminist icon ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jincey-lumpkin/why-miley-cyrus-is-a-feminist-icon_b_4078373.html ), I mean what kind of message does that send to the young girls of the world? That they should be dress as sexually as possible? If you want to be treated as more than a sex object, there is no reason to dress so provocatively. In terms of dating, its truly a strange and confusing world we are living in. Nobody knows what are they suppose to do anymore. I don't know why a wall of text was necessary to say that appearances play a role, that should be obvious enough. And what you're "supposed" to do is just be yourself, and do what feels right. You can go for advice sometimes too, which is what this thread was for before the purpose-of-life discussion.
Oh boy...
|
On June 21 2014 03:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2014 03:21 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 16:34 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone. + Show Spoiler +It won't certainly on her looks alone. Again I'm going to quote myself again: "But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash." That being said, both men and women go into a "relationship" in hoping to hoping to have sex with a person that fits into their own criteria. Men are predominantly attracted to women with attractive appearance because that induces reproductive stimulation and women are predominantly to men with confidence and have his life figured out. So whoever that possess more of those qualities than the other person can utilize it for leverage. So while there may be other qualities that increase a woman's worth, men primarily values her attractiveness over the other qualities. In retrospect, while a man can be extremely good looking, if he isn't financially stable, women will simply use him for a one night stand and nothing more so they won't be exactly dating. But both of these qualities can be improved from men and women to maximize their dating options. With women, their worlds are literally filled with advertisement for cosmetic products, designer clothing. The most aesthetic improvement for men are suits and shaves, majority of the ads running these days for men are car and jewelries, both of those items are advertised for them to provide for the women with jewelries or how women will be attracted to you if you have fancy cars. Anyone that are familiar with propagandist such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, and Uncle Sam knows that as long as you are able to control the media, you can condition the minds of the people. So while in the cavemen's times, the entire species' goal is for the survivability of the tribes. This means that women have to be impregnated to fulfill that purpose. The more appealing she is, the more likely that men will get aroused for her. The men's role are to protect the family against any other tribes or beasts. In the modernized time, both men and women are even MORE bombarded with constant remainder of their place in the society that women needs to wear makeups, high heels, colorful clothing, plastic surgery, and anti-aging creams. Men simultaneously are reminded that they have to buy all those jewelries, cars, and take their women on trips to impress them. So the primitive gender roles have launched into overdrive in ad nauseum . In the dating world, with the rise of "gender equality", it is extremely difficult to determine which role are the men and women suppose to take. Yeah feminism are fighting against these role genders issues but however they are fighting an uphill battles with women showing even showing MORE skins than in the past centuries. Miley Cyrus have been heralded as a feminist icon ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jincey-lumpkin/why-miley-cyrus-is-a-feminist-icon_b_4078373.html ), I mean what kind of message does that send to the young girls of the world? That they should be dress as sexually as possible? If you want to be treated as more than a sex object, there is no reason to dress so provocatively. In terms of dating, its truly a strange and confusing world we are living in. Nobody knows what are they suppose to do anymore. I don't know why a wall of text was necessary to say that appearances play a role, that should be obvious enough. And what you're "supposed" to do is just be yourself, and do what feels right. You can go for advice sometimes too, which is what this thread was for before the purpose-of-life discussion.
Well I want to support that notion with hard logic for the "skeptics" (which really are just internet trolls trying to disagree for the sake of making you angry  ).
And we've been over the "just be yourself conversation" before, it isn't 100% beneficial. If you are a fat, unmotivated person living under your mom's basement while playing video games all day long, "being yourself" doesn't exactly do you good. However if you have a good job and is relatively in shape but just have some shy personality which hinders your ability to express yourself properly, well you still need to change yourself a bit by practicing talking more.
What I meant is that boys and girls these days are taught about gender equality while simultaneously bombarded by contradictory messages across the media so they end up being confused about what you are suppose to do in the dating world.
|
On June 21 2014 04:05 Cynry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2014 03:58 NewSunshine wrote:On June 21 2014 03:21 Xiphos wrote:On June 20 2014 16:34 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone. + Show Spoiler +It won't certainly on her looks alone. Again I'm going to quote myself again: "But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash." That being said, both men and women go into a "relationship" in hoping to hoping to have sex with a person that fits into their own criteria. Men are predominantly attracted to women with attractive appearance because that induces reproductive stimulation and women are predominantly to men with confidence and have his life figured out. So whoever that possess more of those qualities than the other person can utilize it for leverage. So while there may be other qualities that increase a woman's worth, men primarily values her attractiveness over the other qualities. In retrospect, while a man can be extremely good looking, if he isn't financially stable, women will simply use him for a one night stand and nothing more so they won't be exactly dating. But both of these qualities can be improved from men and women to maximize their dating options. With women, their worlds are literally filled with advertisement for cosmetic products, designer clothing. The most aesthetic improvement for men are suits and shaves, majority of the ads running these days for men are car and jewelries, both of those items are advertised for them to provide for the women with jewelries or how women will be attracted to you if you have fancy cars. Anyone that are familiar with propagandist such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, and Uncle Sam knows that as long as you are able to control the media, you can condition the minds of the people. So while in the cavemen's times, the entire species' goal is for the survivability of the tribes. This means that women have to be impregnated to fulfill that purpose. The more appealing she is, the more likely that men will get aroused for her. The men's role are to protect the family against any other tribes or beasts. In the modernized time, both men and women are even MORE bombarded with constant remainder of their place in the society that women needs to wear makeups, high heels, colorful clothing, plastic surgery, and anti-aging creams. Men simultaneously are reminded that they have to buy all those jewelries, cars, and take their women on trips to impress them. So the primitive gender roles have launched into overdrive in ad nauseum . In the dating world, with the rise of "gender equality", it is extremely difficult to determine which role are the men and women suppose to take. Yeah feminism are fighting against these role genders issues but however they are fighting an uphill battles with women showing even showing MORE skins than in the past centuries. Miley Cyrus have been heralded as a feminist icon ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jincey-lumpkin/why-miley-cyrus-is-a-feminist-icon_b_4078373.html ), I mean what kind of message does that send to the young girls of the world? That they should be dress as sexually as possible? If you want to be treated as more than a sex object, there is no reason to dress so provocatively. In terms of dating, its truly a strange and confusing world we are living in. Nobody knows what are they suppose to do anymore. I don't know why a wall of text was necessary to say that appearances play a role, that should be obvious enough. And what you're "supposed" to do is just be yourself, and do what feels right. You can go for advice sometimes too, which is what this thread was for before the purpose-of-life discussion. Oh boy...
Yeah sorry, I forgot he still doesn't understand what that means. My bad.
|
This is the first time Ive been really comfortable with a girl, shes like a bro and a women at the same time. Its weird
|
On June 21 2014 03:21 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 16:34 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 20 2014 13:40 Xiphos wrote:
A woman's number 1 asset is based on their sexual appeal You'd be surprised. If you've ever been out with a really really hot girl you would find the novelty fades away fast. It maybe what makes you attracted to her in the first place, but if you even spend more than a couple hours with her what keeps you attracted will never be her looks alone. It won't certainly on her looks alone. Again I'm going to quote myself again: "But this is all traditional belief. Nowadays with the rise of feminism that women wanted to be treated as equal as men, the dating climate have altered quite a bit and this could work both ways. But as men, we shouldn't exactly just based upon our judgement regarding a women's worth just by their beauty but also by their character, aka their sense of humor, kindness, ability to make a living. This goes same for men that nowadays, women ARE demanding you to have the necessarily body figures and looks of hollywood star instead of just being able to make money, it is beneficial to develop that. So next time you date, notice their characters. If they are all being ambiguous about her feelings and that she is doing that to milk as much time as possible, call her out on it. Don't let beauty control your life. So what if she is considered "hot"? If she use it for the wrong reasons, she is a piece of trash." That being said, both men and women go into a "relationship" in hoping to hoping to have sex with a person that fits into their own criteria. Men are predominantly attracted to women with attractive appearance because that induces reproductive stimulation and women are predominantly to men with confidence and have his life figured out. So whoever that possess more of those qualities than the other person can utilize it for leverage. So while there may be other qualities that increase a woman's worth, men primarily values her attractiveness over the other qualities. In retrospect, while a man can be extremely good looking, if he isn't financially stable, women will simply use him for a one night stand and nothing more so they won't be exactly dating. But both of these qualities can be improved from men and women to maximize their dating options. With women, their worlds are literally filled with advertisement for cosmetic products, designer clothing. The most aesthetic improvement for men are suits and shaves, majority of the ads running these days for men are car and jewelries, both of those items are advertised for them to provide for the women with jewelries or how women will be attracted to you if you have fancy cars. Anyone that are familiar with propagandist such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, and Uncle Sam knows that as long as you are able to control the media, you can condition the minds of the people. So while in the cavemen's times, the entire species' goal is for the survivability of the tribes. This means that women have to be impregnated to fulfill that purpose. The more appealing she is, the more likely that men will get aroused for her. The men's role are to protect the family against any other tribes or beasts. In the modernized time, both men and women are even MORE bombarded with constant remainder of their place in the society that women needs to wear makeups, high heels, colorful clothing, plastic surgery, and anti-aging creams. Men simultaneously are reminded that they have to buy all those jewelries, cars, and take their women on trips to impress them. So the primitive gender roles have launched into overdrive in ad nauseum . In the dating world, with the rise of "gender equality", it is extremely difficult to determine which role are the men and women suppose to take. Yeah feminism are fighting against these role genders issues but however they are fighting an uphill battles with women showing even showing MORE skins than in the past centuries. Miley Cyrus have been heralded as a feminist icon ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jincey-lumpkin/why-miley-cyrus-is-a-feminist-icon_b_4078373.html ), I mean what kind of message does that send to the young girls of the world? That they should be dress as sexually as possible? If you want to be treated as more than a sex object, there is no reason to dress so provocatively. In terms of dating, its truly a strange and confusing world we are living in. Nobody knows what are they suppose to do anymore. User was temp banned for this post.
I know the guy was temp banned but I just wanna re-iterate, science or not, from my own personal experience hot girls can actually appear "ugly" after a while and won't turn you on at all, while girls that I have found not as attractive at first become really "hot" after getting to know them. Its actually a really strange sensation the first time you can be face to face with a really photogenic girl and feel absolutely nothing.
Trust me, I've been on both sides of the spectrum. I used to be very envious of guys with hot girlfriends, but once you've been there the novelty fades away fast and you stop being so obsessed with appearance.
Maybe I'm ignoring the "science" (I don't really care), and not everyone is like me, this is just from personal experience.
|
On June 21 2014 13:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I know the guy was temp banned but I just wanna re-iterate, science or not, from my own personal experience hot girls can actually appear "ugly" after a while and won't turn you on at all, while girls that I have found not as attractive at first become really "hot" after getting to know them. Its actually a really strange sensation the first time you can be face to face with a really photogenic girl and feel absolutely nothing.
Trust me, I've been on both sides of the spectrum. I used to be very envious of guys with hot girlfriends, but once you've been there the novelty fades away fast and you stop being so obsessed with appearance.
Maybe I'm ignoring the "science" (I don't really care), and not everyone is like me, this is just from personal experience.
What's happening is you're forming an attraction to someone that goes beyond appearances, how their personality meshes with yours. However, people are referring to physical attractiveness as a novelty, I feel superficiality is a more accurate term, since it reflects this phenomenon of attraction. There's what's on the surface, but when you get deeper you start finding a lot more substance, and that's what becomes important. If you have amazing chemistry with a gorgeous woman, because I guess you're the luckiest guy in the world or sth, her appearances shouldn't wear off like a novelty, it's just that what's beyond that is more important for a meaningful relationship, for meaningful connections and bonding. Generally it's the more emotionally mature that can appreciate this, those who are less so tend to fool around for the fun of it.
|
On June 22 2014 07:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2014 13:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I know the guy was temp banned but I just wanna re-iterate, science or not, from my own personal experience hot girls can actually appear "ugly" after a while and won't turn you on at all, while girls that I have found not as attractive at first become really "hot" after getting to know them. Its actually a really strange sensation the first time you can be face to face with a really photogenic girl and feel absolutely nothing.
Trust me, I've been on both sides of the spectrum. I used to be very envious of guys with hot girlfriends, but once you've been there the novelty fades away fast and you stop being so obsessed with appearance.
Maybe I'm ignoring the "science" (I don't really care), and not everyone is like me, this is just from personal experience. What's happening is you're forming an attraction to someone that goes beyond appearances, how their personality meshes with yours. However, people are referring to physical attractiveness as a novelty, I feel superficiality is a more accurate term, since it reflects this phenomenon of attraction. There's what's on the surface, but when you get deeper you start finding a lot more substance, and that's what becomes important. If you have amazing chemistry with a gorgeous woman, because I guess you're the luckiest guy in the world or sth, her appearances shouldn't wear off like a novelty, it's just that what's beyond that is more important for a meaningful relationship, for meaningful connections and bonding. Generally it's the more emotionally mature that can appreciate this, those who are less so tend to fool around for the fun of it.
Liking a girl purely for her looks is superficial, although I don't blame any guy for doing this as we are mostly all born this way.
I don't think chasing girls who are good looking is superficial though, we at least need some preliminary filters otherwise we wouldn't have time to do anything else.
If she's just really pretty and has a nice personality and you like her partly because you think she's gorgeous I don't have a problem with that either.
The novelty is basing your choices on looks rather than "fit" because you haven't been with a hot girl before and having that fuck yeah I have a hot gf ego factor.
Its really about the fantasy of having someone who looks better than Charlize Theron and being envious. I just wanted to say that a girl who you connect with will appear visibly hotter, rather than someone with popstar looks who you don't as much. So if you ever had a choice between one or the other, always go with the one who you connect with most.
|
Things have been slowing down a bit.
I've had nobody new for two weeks now and I'm considering writing the girl who told me she was still hung up on her ex a letter and ask her to see me again. There's a 95% chance that she just thinks I suck and that the ex/bf story is bollocks, but I really like her and I'd love to have another chance.
Other than that, the Japanese girl and the Spanish one are still trying to pressure me to be their boyfriend, the former with great sex, the latter with a nice place directly next to my uni as well as lovely cuddle sessions.
Do you think I should write her, or should I give it up as a bad job? It's a pity, I'd love to be with her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
