|
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. |
General tips (and probably above 21):
1. Actually trying to date, asking girls and out and not be too afraid to speak... will in fact make your date life more successful. It baffles me how many men say their dating life sucks but in the end they just do nothing. It won't magicly happen. Not knowing what to say and shit is irrelevant if you don't have the courage to even say Hi.
2. People who date mainly follow rule #1. They are not Brad Pit or movie stars (well some are obviously...) and they dont throw the best lines around. They just try, fail, and sometimes succeed.
3. Make the best out of yourself. A better haircut, some moisturizing, more or less facial hair, better clothes. All this is in reach of 99.9% of men, so why shrug it off. Nobody likes hobos or nerds that look like nerds. No need to spend a fortune in clothes unless you evolve in an environment where its the norm. But get a nicely cut shirt next time you go out instead of an oversized T-Shirt. Unless you're pathologically ugly these should be enough to make most girl not dismiss you based on looks.
Oh... and hit the gym, no need to be Schwarzeneger but you'll look healthier (and its good for you !). Any kind of other sport is okay too. And might even be better ! So far I have met more girl that want their man to play a sport like soccer or climbing than brainlessly hit a gym full of dbags.
4. Have some hobby you are passionate about. Starcraft is your only hobby ? Well you really never wanted to play a musical instrument ? If yes... do just that. Not only you'll meet people while doing your hobby, you'll also be a more interesting person. Having multiple dimensions. Being smart is an attractive trait (unless you're 16). Being nerdy and awkward isn't. Do not mistaken one for the other (isn't it drowsimba ?)
5. Don't do shit you hate just to please someone that's weak. Be "cool" with girls, like you would be with a friend. You don't crawl before your friends. So don't do that.
|
United States15275 Posts
On January 04 2013 08:00 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 07:48 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 07:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:45 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 06:39 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:35 Salazarz wrote:http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/This should be a required read for pretty much everyone talking about importance of 'mental part' over 'status and wealth', it's really so spot on. The fact is, majority of people in the western world are poor because they deserve to be. Yes, there are some people with circumstances, medical conditions, whatever - but then again, if you have issues that legitimately prevent you from being at least somewhat successful in life (not talking about having a private jet, but at least a steady job and enough money to cover a car / mortgage), what makes you think anyone should want to get entangled with that? LMAO you choose that website to get "real honest truths" when it's known for its overbearing, smug cynicism and factual inaccuracy? I know what cracked.com generally is. Have you read that particular article, though? It's really quite accurate. "The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You"This is a meaningless generalization because the use of "the world" in any meaningful sentence makes it meaningless. The relevant world you will interact with exist on multiple levels: individuals, families, social groups, businesses, ideological organizations. All of them have their own needs, desires, goals, and conjectures. Saying that you were born into a system that supports people's needs is a mundane truth; if it did not do so, it will not be self-sufficient and would eventually collapse. "The Hippies Were Wrong"People often interpret the speech given by Baldwin's character incorrectly, especially when they fail to recognize what kind of writer David Mamet is. Mamet's works almost always deal with masculine identity and that was the entire focus of the speech. It is not about how people are only viewed as the sum total of their skills, it's about how the failure/success of men in their work is a self-reflection of the state of their masculinity. If you suck at selling real estate you're just not an idiot at selling real estate: you're a coward, a failure, lack personal resolve, and lack the essence of a real man. The same thing for Tyler Durden: didn't David Wong realize that Tyler Durden wasn't a real person, and not in the sense of physical existence? Durden wasn't even a fully-realized personality but the ideological incarnation of the protagonist's view, his essence negative. So it should have no surprise that he eventually went "insane". Even his soap business was based off of a childish revenge fantasy: steal the fat of the rich and sell it back to them at a profit, yeah we're sticking it to the man! Wong is forced to make his statement toothless by equating "job" with "what you do". Since people naturally do things anyway, where's the insight? People are associated with their actions? STOP THE PRESSES. "What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People"Uses the plight of hopeless romantics as a strawman, does not discuss any other relationships which do not require a sexual base. etc. etc. etc. What's your point? lol That the article is neither intelligent nor insightful but states very mundane truths that are warped by the author's need to sound wise? It's like reading a high school student who just discovered Nietzsche and goes around talking about "beating people up proves I'm superior to them". Woah...there are people who interpret him worse than Rand?
Nietzsche is pretty hard to decipher. He doesn't make strict arguments, his books are not meant to be read independently of each other, and the original language uses a lot of double meanings and inventive sayings. The original translations by Danto and company made some critical errors that affected standard English analysis, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rand was using those translations to draw conclusions.
|
I have enough on my plate just worrying about myself personally. I can't imagine worrying about another person, not to mention the time they take up, which could potentially be pleasant, I just don't care for the responsibility and all that jazz and having to worry about another person.
Maybe if I met someone who was similar to me, that doesn't like going out, likes to stay home and play games, and isn't high maintenance and all that, maybe then I could imagine being with someone, but I'm perfectly content being alone.
Relationships to me just mean stress, and I'd rather not have any more of that in my life, so I'm happy without one.
|
On January 04 2013 07:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:48 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 07:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:45 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 06:39 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:35 Salazarz wrote:http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/This should be a required read for pretty much everyone talking about importance of 'mental part' over 'status and wealth', it's really so spot on. The fact is, majority of people in the western world are poor because they deserve to be. Yes, there are some people with circumstances, medical conditions, whatever - but then again, if you have issues that legitimately prevent you from being at least somewhat successful in life (not talking about having a private jet, but at least a steady job and enough money to cover a car / mortgage), what makes you think anyone should want to get entangled with that? LMAO you choose that website to get "real honest truths" when it's known for its overbearing, smug cynicism and factual inaccuracy? I know what cracked.com generally is. Have you read that particular article, though? It's really quite accurate. "The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You"This is a meaningless generalization because the use of "the world" in any meaningful sentence makes it meaningless. The relevant world you will interact with exist on multiple levels: individuals, families, social groups, businesses, ideological organizations. All of them have their own needs, desires, goals, and conjectures. Saying that you were born into a system that supports people's needs is a mundane truth; if it did not do so, it will not be self-sufficient and would eventually collapse. "The Hippies Were Wrong"People often interpret the speech given by Baldwin's character incorrectly, especially when they fail to recognize what kind of writer David Mamet is. Mamet's works almost always deal with masculine identity and that was the entire focus of the speech. It is not about how people are only viewed as the sum total of their skills, it's about how the failure/success of men in their work is a self-reflection of the state of their masculinity. If you suck at selling real estate you're just not an idiot at selling real estate: you're a coward, a failure, lack personal resolve, and lack the essence of a real man. The same thing for Tyler Durden: didn't David Wong realize that Tyler Durden wasn't a real person, and not in the sense of physical existence? Durden wasn't even a fully-realized personality but the ideological incarnation of the protagonist's view, his essence negative. So it should have no surprise that he eventually went "insane". Even his soap business was based off of a childish revenge fantasy: steal the fat of the rich and sell it back to them at a profit, yeah we're sticking it to the man! Wong is forced to make his statement toothless by equating "job" with "what you do". Since people naturally do things anyway, where's the insight? People are associated with their actions? STOP THE PRESSES. "What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People"Uses the plight of hopeless romantics as a strawman, does not discuss any other relationships which do not require a sexual base. etc. etc. etc. What's your point? lol That the article is neither intelligent nor insightful but states very mundane truths that are warped by the author's need to sound wise? It's like reading a high school student who just discovered Nietzsche and goes around talking about "beating people up proves I'm superior to them".
Nothing you wrote addressed any of the points made by the article at all, though. You're right about majority of that article being a 'mundane truth' - but in the context of this thread, it's quite fitting. A lot of posters here seem to think that personality and material things are not related to each other and discuss whether one or another is more important and more attractive for the opposite sex - when in reality, the best way to project your personality is by getting involved with the material side of things.
It's obviously not an advanced study on psychology or something, but then again, it doesn't need to be. The basic principles behind attraction are a lot simpler than anything written by Nietzsche, and they are presented pretty well in that article.
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
Dunno why but every time I see this thread in the sidenavbar it reads "Dating, how's your dick?"
|
On January 04 2013 08:05 rezoacken wrote:
Being smart is an attractive trait (unless you're 16). Being nerdy and awkward isn't. Do not mistaken one for the other (isn't it drowsimba ?)
Maybe you just don't know what's like being smart? I don't mean to offend, but seriously, being smart is one of the worst things for attracting girls. Really.
|
|
|
United States15275 Posts
On January 04 2013 08:08 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 07:48 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 07:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:45 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 06:39 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:35 Salazarz wrote:http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/This should be a required read for pretty much everyone talking about importance of 'mental part' over 'status and wealth', it's really so spot on. The fact is, majority of people in the western world are poor because they deserve to be. Yes, there are some people with circumstances, medical conditions, whatever - but then again, if you have issues that legitimately prevent you from being at least somewhat successful in life (not talking about having a private jet, but at least a steady job and enough money to cover a car / mortgage), what makes you think anyone should want to get entangled with that? LMAO you choose that website to get "real honest truths" when it's known for its overbearing, smug cynicism and factual inaccuracy? I know what cracked.com generally is. Have you read that particular article, though? It's really quite accurate. "The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You"This is a meaningless generalization because the use of "the world" in any meaningful sentence makes it meaningless. The relevant world you will interact with exist on multiple levels: individuals, families, social groups, businesses, ideological organizations. All of them have their own needs, desires, goals, and conjectures. Saying that you were born into a system that supports people's needs is a mundane truth; if it did not do so, it will not be self-sufficient and would eventually collapse. "The Hippies Were Wrong"People often interpret the speech given by Baldwin's character incorrectly, especially when they fail to recognize what kind of writer David Mamet is. Mamet's works almost always deal with masculine identity and that was the entire focus of the speech. It is not about how people are only viewed as the sum total of their skills, it's about how the failure/success of men in their work is a self-reflection of the state of their masculinity. If you suck at selling real estate you're just not an idiot at selling real estate: you're a coward, a failure, lack personal resolve, and lack the essence of a real man. The same thing for Tyler Durden: didn't David Wong realize that Tyler Durden wasn't a real person, and not in the sense of physical existence? Durden wasn't even a fully-realized personality but the ideological incarnation of the protagonist's view, his essence negative. So it should have no surprise that he eventually went "insane". Even his soap business was based off of a childish revenge fantasy: steal the fat of the rich and sell it back to them at a profit, yeah we're sticking it to the man! Wong is forced to make his statement toothless by equating "job" with "what you do". Since people naturally do things anyway, where's the insight? People are associated with their actions? STOP THE PRESSES. "What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People"Uses the plight of hopeless romantics as a strawman, does not discuss any other relationships which do not require a sexual base. etc. etc. etc. What's your point? lol That the article is neither intelligent nor insightful but states very mundane truths that are warped by the author's need to sound wise? It's like reading a high school student who just discovered Nietzsche and goes around talking about "beating people up proves I'm superior to them". Nothing you wrote addressed any of the points made by the article at all, though. You're right about majority of that article being a 'mundane truth' - but in the context of this thread, it's quite fitting. A lot of posters here seem to think that personality and material things are not related to each other and discuss whether one or another is more important and more attractive for the opposite sex - when in reality, the best way to project your personality is by getting involved with the material side of things. It's obviously not an advanced study on psychology or something, but then again, it doesn't need to be. The basic principles behind attraction are a lot simpler than anything written by Nietzsche, and they are presented pretty well in that article.
I proved that the article makes shoddy arguments and any truth in it is distorted by generalization and egoism. The first line is meaningless, the second line is meaningless, the third line is meaningless, etc.
He never directly discusses attraction in the article. He talks about how nice guys complain about not getting women when the guys who are getting women have much more to offer, and that it boils down to what you have that benefits people. Considering that such a specific example and definition of "benefit" doesn't address any other type of relationship, it doesn't really help establish his premise, does it? What about worker-boss relationships? What about actual human relationships that are more complex than glorified personality gifts?
|
On January 04 2013 08:13 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:05 rezoacken wrote:
Being smart is an attractive trait (unless you're 16). Being nerdy and awkward isn't. Do not mistaken one for the other (isn't it drowsimba ?) Maybe you just don't know what's like being smart? I don't mean to offend, but seriously, being smart is one of the worst things for attracting girls. Really.
That's fine we're here to listen. Go on.
Everybody... welcome drow.
|
On January 04 2013 08:13 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:05 rezoacken wrote:
Being smart is an attractive trait (unless you're 16). Being nerdy and awkward isn't. Do not mistaken one for the other (isn't it drowsimba ?) Maybe you just don't know what's like being smart? I don't mean to offend, but seriously, being smart is one of the worst things for attracting girls. Really.
I hope you are not one of those guys who failed with girls and rationalizes himself by stating that he is intelligent and that is why they do not want me.
|
On January 04 2013 08:16 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 08:05 rezoacken wrote:
Being smart is an attractive trait (unless you're 16). Being nerdy and awkward isn't. Do not mistaken one for the other (isn't it drowsimba ?) Maybe you just don't know what's like being smart? I don't mean to offend, but seriously, being smart is one of the worst things for attracting girls. Really. I hope you are not one of those guys who failed with girls and rationalizes himself by stating that he is intelligent and that is why they do not want me.
Every comment of his in this thread shows that he is.
EDIT:
So there's this girl, who was my prom-partner. Long story short, none of us really wanted to go to prom, but I decided to ask her, and she said I was the only one she would have gone with. We were getting along pretty well after that, and at one point I asked if it should be more serious of a relationship (we've been spending 8-10 hours together weekly). She said she is not sure, 'cause school is almost over and who knows if we can meet at all in the summer, not speaking about the time at the university. So, we settled with that. Two years have gone by, we met ~15 times since that mainly at the train station, but a couple times also on the street (as it turned out, we study quite close to each other)., taking shorter-longer walks those times. Maybe 2 months ago she said she had a boyfriend. I thought, well, this opportunity is gone. But then, at the last 2 times we met, both being on a one-and-a-half hours long train trips; she was straight up flirting with me. At one point, she was looking for her keys for quite some time and asked if she could sleep at my place, if she doesn't find them. I had no time to meet/talk to her, and she was also busy. But next week, we will most likely meet. I'm kinda curious what exactly she wants.
|
I'll answer the original question which makes me look like a colossal loser:
I'm 18 and have never kissed a girl (or guy).
Gender: M.
Hahaha, boosh!
|
On January 04 2013 08:19 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'll answer the original question which makes me look like a colossal loser:
I'm 18 and have never kissed a girl (or guy).
Gender: M.
Hahaha, boosh!
It only makes you look like a colossal loser if you think it does. Stop thinking that! 
|
United States15275 Posts
On January 04 2013 08:19 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'll answer the original question which makes me look like a colossal loser:
I'm 18 and have never kissed a girl (or guy).
Gender: M.
Hahaha, boosh!
Ha ha ha...it's cool. ^_^
|
On January 04 2013 08:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:19 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'll answer the original question which makes me look like a colossal loser:
I'm 18 and have never kissed a girl (or guy).
Gender: M.
Hahaha, boosh! It only makes you colossal loser if you think it does. Stop thinking that!
Alright thanks haha.
|
On January 04 2013 08:19 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'll answer the original question which makes me look like a colossal loser:
I'm 18 and have never kissed a girl (or guy).
Gender: M.
Hahaha, boosh!
I'm kind of in the same boat. I'm actually quite well liked and whatnot, i just haven't had good luck and i've been a pussy before. I feel like i've really made strides in the past year or two with girls, working on something at the moment which will, i hope, work out!
good luck to you too, good sir!
|
On January 04 2013 08:16 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:08 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 07:57 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 07:48 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 07:17 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:45 Salazarz wrote:On January 04 2013 06:39 CosmicSpiral wrote:On January 04 2013 06:35 Salazarz wrote:http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/This should be a required read for pretty much everyone talking about importance of 'mental part' over 'status and wealth', it's really so spot on. The fact is, majority of people in the western world are poor because they deserve to be. Yes, there are some people with circumstances, medical conditions, whatever - but then again, if you have issues that legitimately prevent you from being at least somewhat successful in life (not talking about having a private jet, but at least a steady job and enough money to cover a car / mortgage), what makes you think anyone should want to get entangled with that? LMAO you choose that website to get "real honest truths" when it's known for its overbearing, smug cynicism and factual inaccuracy? I know what cracked.com generally is. Have you read that particular article, though? It's really quite accurate. "The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You"This is a meaningless generalization because the use of "the world" in any meaningful sentence makes it meaningless. The relevant world you will interact with exist on multiple levels: individuals, families, social groups, businesses, ideological organizations. All of them have their own needs, desires, goals, and conjectures. Saying that you were born into a system that supports people's needs is a mundane truth; if it did not do so, it will not be self-sufficient and would eventually collapse. "The Hippies Were Wrong"People often interpret the speech given by Baldwin's character incorrectly, especially when they fail to recognize what kind of writer David Mamet is. Mamet's works almost always deal with masculine identity and that was the entire focus of the speech. It is not about how people are only viewed as the sum total of their skills, it's about how the failure/success of men in their work is a self-reflection of the state of their masculinity. If you suck at selling real estate you're just not an idiot at selling real estate: you're a coward, a failure, lack personal resolve, and lack the essence of a real man. The same thing for Tyler Durden: didn't David Wong realize that Tyler Durden wasn't a real person, and not in the sense of physical existence? Durden wasn't even a fully-realized personality but the ideological incarnation of the protagonist's view, his essence negative. So it should have no surprise that he eventually went "insane". Even his soap business was based off of a childish revenge fantasy: steal the fat of the rich and sell it back to them at a profit, yeah we're sticking it to the man! Wong is forced to make his statement toothless by equating "job" with "what you do". Since people naturally do things anyway, where's the insight? People are associated with their actions? STOP THE PRESSES. "What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People"Uses the plight of hopeless romantics as a strawman, does not discuss any other relationships which do not require a sexual base. etc. etc. etc. What's your point? lol That the article is neither intelligent nor insightful but states very mundane truths that are warped by the author's need to sound wise? It's like reading a high school student who just discovered Nietzsche and goes around talking about "beating people up proves I'm superior to them". Nothing you wrote addressed any of the points made by the article at all, though. You're right about majority of that article being a 'mundane truth' - but in the context of this thread, it's quite fitting. A lot of posters here seem to think that personality and material things are not related to each other and discuss whether one or another is more important and more attractive for the opposite sex - when in reality, the best way to project your personality is by getting involved with the material side of things. It's obviously not an advanced study on psychology or something, but then again, it doesn't need to be. The basic principles behind attraction are a lot simpler than anything written by Nietzsche, and they are presented pretty well in that article. I proved that the article makes shoddy arguments and any truth in it is distorted by generalization and egoism. The first line is meaningless, the second line is meaningless, the third line is meaningless, etc. He never directly discusses attraction in the article. He talks about how nice guys complain about not getting women when the guys who are getting women have much more to offer, and that it boils down to what you have that benefits people. Considering that such a specific example and definition of "benefit" doesn't address any other type of relationship, it doesn't really help establish his premise, does it? What about worker-boss relationships? What about actual human relationships that are more complex than glorified personality gifts?
Let's just agree to disagree.
|
On January 04 2013 08:23 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:19 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'll answer the original question which makes me look like a colossal loser:
I'm 18 and have never kissed a girl (or guy).
Gender: M.
Hahaha, boosh! I'm kind of in the same boat. I'm actually quite well liked and whatnot, i just haven't had good luck and i've been a pussy before. I feel like i've really made strides in the past year or two with girls, working on something at the moment which will, i hope, work out! good luck to you too, good sir!
Thanks haha. 
|
On January 04 2013 06:03 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 05:06 dBdHellRider wrote:
IF a girl is extremely selfish and vain and dont accept your gaming time GET RID OF HER, better that you are happy then having a girl that control you life and makes you unhappy.
Are you serious? This kind of life has loser written all over it. A girl is thinking in her subconscious "what kind of boring ass life would I have hanging out with a guy that is extremely seflish and vain and spends 12 hours a day on the computer".
This isn't a boy/girl thing, if I was contemplating dating a girl I met at a party, and realized that she has rich parents and she goes partying every night, no job, no ambition, I'd make my decision right then and there to drop it, same goes for a girl if they heard the same about a guy. This applies to video games as well.
If you want to have a functional relationship, there has to be some give and take from both parties, but usually on the little things, what types of food you both like, what places you both enjoy hanging out at, etc... and not what you do with your spare time when you're home alone.
|
On January 04 2013 08:10 HornyHerring wrote:
Dunno why but every time I see this thread in the sidenavbar it reads "Dating, how's your dick?"
No normal person knows what that thing is called by its real name? Who are you and what do you do?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
