EPTDating: How's your luck? - Page 639
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On June 22 2015 05:29 killa_robot wrote: I never said it was purely visual. Would it clarify my point more if I said physical attractiveness rather than just attraction? Also this: it goes well beyond their appearance Is sort of my point. Physical attraction is mandatory to make you interested in someone enough that you actually pay attention to them, but it's not like it's the only attribute. What I'm annoyed with is everyone pretending like it doesn't matter at all. Like the physical appearance of someone is more of an afterthought, and that we've somehow transcended ourselves and that physical appearance no longer matters, when that isn't the case at all. I'm not going to begin to say that, each person has their tastes for physical attraction and it's important to give them some satisfaction, I'm just saying it's not something you can measure out by looking at her physical attributes, there's more at play when I deal with someone I find appealing. I could see someone, decide to talk to her because I find her attractive at first, but within seconds I find myself quickly turned off, like if I find her to be a ditz, or she suddenly says something that I just can't reconcile with a potential partner of mine, if maybe she's just crazy or something. Conversely, maybe she reveals an interest or value of hers that makes me considerably more interested in her. This is stuff you get in casual conversation before a date can ever take place, but it can hold sway over my assessment of her and whether I want to really pursue her. The window you talk about that's purely physical often lasts for only a moment, unless you just never talk to her. Personality comes in as soon as you start actually interacting with her, and some people are more willing to deal with stuff that deep down bugs them or turns them off. The guy's intentions going into it matter as well, maybe the guy doesn't give a shit and just wants to get laid. For someone looking for a deeper relationship though, I don't think it's ever purely physical, people learn what they want and that a pretty face is only part of it. I don't mean to just flat say you're wrong, because I agree that how physically attractive one finds their partner is very important, and sometimes in conversation it can get lost, but I don't want either side to get overplayed, it can give people the wrong idea. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
Feromones, Body Language, Tone of voice, Mannerisms, way of touching. . . - and it's not a logical choice, some people are just compatible, it's your subconscious that decides. Like dogs sniffing their butts 2 people just meat that are attracted towards one another and cause spike in testosterone/estrogen (and the resulting effect on neurotransmitters) for short term attraction and oxytocin/vasopressin for long term bond. This is what people call love, what poems were written about etc. People overestimate the impact of their logical brain, and then guys end up with a hot girl just because she's hot in TV and porn standards (or she's just successful / compatible in other stuff) in life and society tells them it's some sort of an achievement and they should be attracted to them and people let their logical brains to get in the way of the genetic attraction. Which I believe is a 100% pre-requisite and a building block of any romantic relationship - like the basis of Maslow's hierarchy of needs for being involved with someone with other requirements being built on top of it. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On June 22 2015 03:53 corumjhaelen wrote: Persistent homogamy (unsure of the term, we say endogamy in French) seems to suggest otherwise If you mean what I think you mean, endogamy is the term in English too (it's a Greek word). Means preferring to mate with people literally or metaphorically "in your tribe," either culturally or genetically. Monogamy is people pairing off in couples and staying that way, as opposed to polygamy or the like. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On June 22 2015 04:57 killa_robot wrote: You're making some pretty far reaching inferences about me there, lol. Everyone looks for attraction first. Everyone. It's the entire reason you approach someone, because short of how they look, you usually have no idea what they're like before hand. This is your problem. Yes, people who meet their love interests on Tinder or at a bar probably "approached" their partner due to physical traits. But lots of people get to know each other socially and fall in like/lust/love as they learn more about each other. And dude, look around. There are plenty of couples where one or both people aren't selecting for physical appearance. And good for them. | ||
|
JoeCool
Germany2520 Posts
On June 21 2015 01:51 LemOn wrote: EDIT: You are good at making out? Should happen on the 1st date, or at the very least a kiss on the lips. If it doesn't and you truly want a relationship - move on and never see the girl again. Also, magic tricks are good at getting dates. Useless thereafter besides gaining social value with groups of women when she's there. I would not consider myself "good", it's just that one of the girls I made out with asked me to teach her some of the stuff I did to her. And another women told me straight to my face that I am good when we were talking about sex. Anyways, getting physical at the first or second date (of course depending on the place) is a must in my experience. Although it's sometimes pretty hard for me to identify her "signs". When I was talking about my skills with cards I way trying to say that I have some interesting hobbies. You know because some might think that some of the women left me because I am a boring person with lame/no hobbies/no personality etc. On June 21 2015 18:36 LemOn wrote: Well, yeah. If a long term relationship is what he's looking for and he hasn't been successful so far, the easiest way is to find girls where the mutual chemistry/compatibility is super high from the get go. And if you're 8/10+ chemically attracted to each other pretty much no matter what you do, she won't turn her head when you go for it, will break her own rules and will make dating easy for you as long as you give her space to express herself. Again I'm like 99% sure he was quickly in a relationship with the wrong girls in the first place, because he focused on getting a relationship, not if they are great for each other and even try to be in one in the first place. I think we've all done that at some point  Might be true. :-/ Theres just a lot of pressure since everyone around me has a relationship while I am the only person who is not able to get one. Well I'll do my best next time. | ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
| ||
|
dvb
Czech Republic4 Posts
On June 22 2015 21:55 levelping wrote: Don't overstate physical attraction. It's just one attribute on a list that you go through. It's obviously not the most important one for everyone. I mean if it is for you, that's great. But please for the love of god don't presume to speak for all of humanity from your keyboard. 'Looks aren't everything, but you can't masturbate over personality.' But yeah, I agree that only a certain level of physical attraction is needed. The rest is determined by who the other person really is. To put it this way, graphics have to be accompanied by fun gameplay | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On June 22 2015 17:54 Yoav wrote: This is your problem. Yes, people who meet their love interests on Tinder or at a bar probably "approached" their partner due to physical traits. But lots of people get to know each other socially and fall in like/lust/love as they learn more about each other. And dude, look around. There are plenty of couples where one or both people aren't selecting for physical appearance. And good for them. just because a couple isn't hot or even conventionally attractive doesn't mean they don't find each other hot. how big of a priority differs from person to person. Killa's point is that at some point attractiveness is always part of the equation (unless you're asexual I guess?) | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
On June 22 2015 22:37 dvb wrote: To put it this way, graphics have to be accompanied by fun gameplay Wow, dat comparison, it's great! | ||
|
Disengaged
United States6994 Posts
On June 22 2015 22:37 dvb wrote: 'Looks aren't everything, but you can't masturbate over personality.' But yeah, I agree that only a certain level of physical attraction is needed. The rest is determined by who the other person really is. To put it this way, graphics have to be accompanied by fun gameplay Thats just one of few ways. Something can have the most amazing "graphics" but crap "gameplay" and something can have crap "graphics" but have amazing "gameplay", then theres the one where it has both and then the one where it has neither. Take your pick. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
To put it this way, graphics have to be accompanied by fun gameplay (Insert multiplayer joke here) | ||
|
d_runk
124 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wQrpBMV.jpg) I LOLed | ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
| ||
|
Ctone23
United States1841 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IUfKZgp.png) lol solid lineup. rip productive Monday EDIT: Oops Someone already posted a screenshot and I posted in the wrong forum. Good luck to the singles out there! I wish I had advice. It was cliche for me, I found her when I least expected it  | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
taking her going to the woods making a bow and arrows with her then shooting random stuff good date idea? She's not done that as a kid apparently hopefully the axe, string and a knife won't scare her since I don't plan on telling her also. don't really know hot wo make a bow, wikihow knowledge right here | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
Okay maybe I should try myself first if I it's possible  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24143 Posts
On June 23 2015 08:18 LemOn wrote: I did is as a kid pretty sure? :D Okay maybe I should try myself first if I it's possible I would advise it. Bow's aren't too tough, but arrows aren't easy if you want to shoot them more than about 5 ft with any accuracy. Last time I went camping we made crossbow bolts and tried an arrow (For a real bow) Find a couple (preferably small) arrows at a GoodWill or something and save the effort. You'll probably be pretty satisfied with the bow, should shoot 20+ft with enough power to penetrate a hay target. This isn't a first date right? | ||
| ||
, and you're quite right.
