Is it self defeatist to say that some men are meant to be alone??‏

Wibbs

Remmy wrote: »

This describes me very well. I'm am quite sociable and good with groups but I do need time alone to recharge. I noticed some folks are quite content to be around people every minute of the day. My alone time doesn't need to be much, 30-1 hour to listen to music/ go for a run.

Your description R would well illustrate my problem with the introvert/extrovert label as it's often applied. Under such a label system though I have mellowed with age, I would be the polar opposite of the quiet wallflower in the corner. An extreme extrovert who will talk to the wall and would have very little if any reticence to walk up to a stranger male or female and say "howya". I get a buzz off people*, the more and the more interesting the better. However if I had to get by with just an hour alone time per day I'd be sectionable before the week was out. :eek::D I'd need at least two hours of daily me time. Even on holidays with girlfriends or mates it would be expected for me to go walkabout during the day. To the degree where this has impacted relationships of mine in the past. I found it very hard with women who came from close knit type families and my most successful relationships were with only children who had a similar need for me time.





*Which in my case anyway was as much learned as innate. As an only child I was far happier in my own company and world and a small circle of mates. I made a conscious decision around 15-16 to break out of that and explore the wider world socially.

Pug160

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually just thinking more on this earlier... the men I've known with the most "success with the ladies" as a consistent trait had one big thing in common. It wasn't looks, nor money, nor status and all that stuff. Yep individually they might have had one or the other, or not as the case may be, but overall the biggest trait they demonstrated was they engaged with way more people, both men and women. They weren't always obvious extroverts either - one or two I can think of were quite quiet in a group - but they were constantly engaging with new people all the time. Basically their success boiled down to a numbers game. IMH that's the one area the PUA gobshítes may actually have it right. They push the idea of constantly approaching women = success. The numbers game.

[/SIZE]

They actually have lots of things right - not just one thing. 'Social proof' is another one that is almost certainly important in many cases - especially if you're showing pictures of yourself. If you're not very outgoing and you're out socialising it becomes equally as important, as people will want evidence that you have friends and are trusted and respected etc. When a couple of women are in your social group it is a huge bonus.

That childish three letter acronym that we're not allowed to type on here is long out of fashion now anyway I think, and it's been replaced with general advice - good and bad. The numbers game works but developing a thick skin is unbelievably hard for some people. Being rejected is rarely personal but it's still tough for lots of men. One thing I've noticed about men who don't care about rejection is that they quite often don't take women seriously in general. Women are unable to hurt them the same way a man would. That actually sounds like chauvinism on the surface but it could very well be a positive trait in some cases. I'm by no means saying it applies to all men who don't care about rejection but it's just something I was thinking about.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

I dunno D, maybe. IMH the introvert/extrovert model is too black and white and tends towards looking at the extremes at either end. Outside those extremes most people I've known were introvert/extrovert depending on context and most people have some sort of a balance.

In the context of confidence you have a balance that suits you. You have social confidence so you can choose when to engage or not. I'm suggesting that in some cases - and I'd reckon it's the case with some of the chaps on this thread - "introversion" is an outside force driven by lack of social confidence. Without this social confidence and experience they don't have the choices you have. Some of the guys may actually be extroverts by nature but are trapped because of life circumstances and lack of social confidence.

Most people on first meeting me assume I'm a full on extrovert and yes I am/can be in social situations, however I really need my me time and lots of it. However I am socially confident so I can choose how I engage socially.

I suppose it boils down to this; Outside of the introvert/extrovert label, if you have social confidence and awareness you have a choice in how you interact socially. If you are lacking social confidence and awareness you don't have that choice and IMHO social confidence and awareness can be learned.


*EDIT* I hated small talk when I was younger. "eee the weathers awful/there's a bug going around y'know" etc Drove me bloody mad TBH. However I realised that the majority use it as a social oil to lubricate social interactions and who the hell was I to dictate to the majority? Who the hell was I to appear rude to people who weren't being rude to me and more were actively trying to engage with me in a friendly manner by observing social conventions, even if the method was banal to me? I thought sod that, there'e enough narcissism in the world I don't need to be adding to the pile. So basically I learned how to do it over time. After a while it became second nature and it does grease the social wheels on a daily basis and I am far less likely to offend someone who is not being offensive to me. Funny enough I never learned and I still can't do it over the phone. I'm all business there.

No that makes a lot of sense!

And you are right, it was just the label getting me confused. Regardless of where you are, you can learn the skills.

Ironically, one of my closest friends is Aspie, and he went out of his way for years to learn the social conventions, to learn the skills to adapt to a neurotypical world [which is not that empathetic ultimately-despite what it likes to think about itself] and it is amazing. He still gets it wrong a lot of the time [ but then who doesn't?] , but it's incredible what he can do and I learn a lot from him.

Whereas I would have greater tolerance and appreciation for eccentricity, I tell him why not? Throw it out there...see what happens, be brave, be free.... he will follow the manuals. And it will absolutely exhaust him.

You can get caught in a loop where you try and then the risk fails, and then you are far less likely to keep trying.

It's kind of an odd suggestion, but if you do have these anxieties it might be worth looking at some of the books that people with various disabilities look at for guidance. I don't think self help is all garbage, there is some worthwhile stuff out there.

Pug160

^^ I reckon a guy with Asperger's could potentially use it to his advantage if he was decent looking and told people he had it early on. It's the so-called 'normal' people who are actually judged the most, as there are certain expectations, and if anything seems a little bit off women can quite often go running for the hills scared, as it's an in-built defence mechanism that many have. A decent looking lad who a woman was attracted to might get past that by being honest which would rationalise the situation in my opinion. If the person had no idea what Asperger's or autism was, it would be of no use, though.

diveout

Pug160 wrote: »

^^ I reckon a guy with Asperger's could potentially use it to his advantage if he was decent looking and told people he had it early on. It's the so-called 'normal' people who are actually judged the most, as there are certain expectations, and if anything seems a little bit off women can quite often go running for the hills scared, as it's an in-built defence mechanism that many have. A decent looking lad who a woman was attracted to might get past that by being honest which would rationalise the situation in my opinion. If the person had no idea what Asperger's or autism was, it would be of no use, though.

True. And a good example of how unempathetic the conventional world is. You need a label to get some understanding. And when I find myself not being very understanding, I tell myself "just pretend they have asperger's."

paddy1990

paleoperson wrote: »

The only thing new you said was "These social media sites are literally a godsend for the good looking guys.", which is highly speculative and imo false.

edit: oh you also said "If you were to ask any woman on an online dating site, she will definitely say she has sent a first message quite a few times.", which is definitely false. Some of the ten girls will say they have hardly ever or never sent the first message.

STRONG delusion.

paddy1990

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My point was that a lot of women prefer older men.


So many women on POF will list nothing about themselves. Since I moved here in January, I've seen three profiles that caught my interest. Plenty of pretty girls to be sure, but what do I use as an icebreaker. One of the three mentioned enjoying Breaking Bad and a trip to Thailand she'd been on alone. I used these as icebreakers, alas to no avail. I could go to the pub, but then I get to deal with crowds.

The first sentence is true but the amount of girls that like older men (>10 years), is remote (attractive girls between the ages of 18-24), unless he's bringing some serious M (money) or S (status) to the table, to compensate for his lack of L (looks). - Always remember the holy trinity of LMS.

The reason the girls didn't respond to your comments on POF is because they werent attracted. Those same girls messaged an attractive guy FIRST, I can almost guarantee you.

LMS is everything.

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

The first sentence is true but the amount of girls that like older men (>10 years), is remote (attractive girls between the ages of 18-24), unless he's bringing some serious M (money) or S (status) to the table, to compensate for his lack of L (looks). - Always remember the holy trinity of LMS.

Most of the couples who've been together long term have a significant age difference with guy always being the older one. The age difference is usually 7-10 years and the guys are regular, working class chaps.

paddy1990 wrote: »

The reason the girls didn't respond to your comments on POF is because they werent attracted. Those same girls messaged an attractive guy FIRST, I can almost guarantee you.

I know they weren't attracted to me. It didn't hurt to try though. I disagree with your latter statement. Most girls don't email guys.

Daveysil15

TBH I don't think I've ever been rejected, at least not on a night out anyway. Usually the conversation doesn't develop to the stage where I can be rejected. Either my words get drowned out from the loud music, she runs to the dance floor to get her grove on, or else I have to run to the jacks, (I do an extraordinary amount of pissing on a night out if I'm drinking cider.)

I suppose I'm lucky in a way that I haven't really been rejected, but then I would be a bit concerned if I can't even get to the stage where I can get shot down. Then again the Irish nightlife has always been more perplexing to me than quantum mechanics.

paddy1990

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most of the couples who've been together long term have a significant age difference with guy always being the older one. The age difference is usually 7-10 years and the guys are regular, working class chaps.

Not true. Most couples are around the same age. 7-10 year age difference is far from the norm.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I know they weren't attracted to me. It didn't hurt to try though. I disagree with your latter statement. Most girls don't email guys.

No harm in trying I agree. You do need to find out where you stand and what your level is and in order to do that you have to try.

You are so deluded on girls messaging it's unreal. I get lots of messages from girls on POF all the time, messaging me first. Consider making a profile of a good looking guy and see what happens.

Actually don't, im not sure you could take it.

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

Not true. Most couples are around the same age. 7-10 year age difference is far from the norm.





No harm in trying I agree. You do need to find out where you stand and what your level is and in order to do that you have to try.

You are so deluded on girls messaging it's unreal. I get lots of messages from girls on POF all the time, messaging me first. Consider making a profile of a good looking guy and see what happens.

Actually don't, im not sure you could take it.

If this is the limit of scintillating insight you've to offer then I think I'll leave it there.

Wibbs

paddy1990 wrote: »

unless he's bringing some serious M (money) or S (status) to the table, to compensate for his lack of L (looks). - Always remember the holy trinity of LMS. LMS is everything.

Again sounding like someone too overly invested in a worldview, like PUA in reverse. A worldview you'd be surprised to find in a very good looking man who never has problems with women. Such a bloke wouldn't come across as so obsessed, even bitter, never mind go to the trouble of finding out how the other half lives. He'd simply have no reason to.

Though I would agree re the age gap thing. Sure in general women may go for a guy a few years older(IIRC 2-3 is the average), but women who seek out guys more than ten years older are a much smaller subset and women who would go for a guy 15-20 or more years older are rarer again. I say that as a man who has had a few age gap relationships(between 8 and 15 years diff). They were either outliers among their peers who had previous with older men, or I was an outlier in their usual dating pattern. In each case their mates were cool about us, but would remark on it. Along the lines of "oh you don't look/act older". Compliments I grant you but still age based. Their parents were more wary at first that's for sure, but that passed in all but one case(her da warmed to me, her ma never did).

There can also be a novelty factor to it too. So a woman may have one age gap relationship to see what it's all about and change her usual pattern, but in the back of her mind it's not destined for the real longterm. I've seen similar with younger guys and older women.

On the money/status front? Yep that can be a factor in some of those type of couples alright, but I found in my own experience(cos I don't have status or large amounts of cash ) that with the outliers who had a preference for older men, it was the age difference itself that was a big factor in attraction(Elektra complex or somesuch?) and those where I was the outlier in their usual relationship pattern the age was just another factor, even a possibly negative one, but there were more factors that just meant we were attracted to each other. Age diff was something like long distance in a relationship. A possible negative, but everything else made up for it. IE if I'd been their age we likely would still have ended up in a relationship anyway.

It might be a cultural thing too? None of the women in my examples were Irish, though were all European so hardly that much different and as I said I know a few Irish folks in such relationships. Some cultures do seem to be not so bothered with age gaps though. A mate of mine is going out with a lass from the Philippines and there's over 20 years between them. And no before the sugar daddy stuff comes out(which can of course be a factor), she's a highly educated professional, far more qualified than he is, but he is comfortable(entrepreneur type). Still he ain't rich, their earnings wouldn't be too far apart and her potential could well be higher in the future. Looks wise she's defo above him, though his face wouldn't scare children or anything She ain't looking for a passport either as neither live in the EU and both have dual citizenship(American). He noticed among her peers that there are more of such gaps than you would see in Ireland by comparison.

Wibbs

paddy1990 wrote: »

Not true. Most couples are around the same age. 7-10 year age difference is far from the norm.

TBH I would agree with him here. 0-5 years difference would be the norm. 7-10 would be common enough. Depends on age though, so you'd have far more women of 25 going out with say a 35 year old, than you would have a 20 year old woman going out with a 30 year old. Above 10 year difference, rarer again, though not that rare and I've noticed a lot more of it in the last 15 years than I did back in the 80's. And older women with younger men? Way more today than even 15 years ago. At 19 a knew a guy going out with a 24 year old and that was considered really out there. Yet in the last decade two of my mates were in a longterm living together set up and she was 33 and he was 11 years younger and while there was the odd comment it wasn't frowned upon and there were similar about. I can think of a few on Boards with that kinda gap where the woman is older, including one marriage.

You are so deluded on girls messaging it's unreal. I get lots of messages from girls on POF all the time, messaging me first. Consider making a profile of a good looking guy and see what happens.

Actually don't, im not sure you could take it.

Again this seems quite obsessive for someone who has apparently won the looks lotto in life. Apparently by your own words you have set up multiple fake profiles to prove this worldview. QV

paddy1990 wrote:

Meanwhile set up a dating profile with an average 35 year old womans pictures online and see how many 20 year old guys she can get (hint - alot)

Heres another one, set up a dating profile online of a girl in a WHEELCHAIR and see how many guys are still willing to date her and then do the same for a man in a wheelchair.

I have done all of these experiments.

[Emphasis mine].

Why would a "very good looking guy" whose man parts are being worn away from a queue of equally tasty ladies lining up on dating sites go to just so much trouble to prove this? Makes no sense. Either the guy isn't actually "very good looking" and is bitter about rejection so goes out to prove that women are "shallow", or the chap is good looking but insecure enough to have an ego so delicate that he is obsessivley determined to rub "butt ugly" guys faces in it. It's pretty much an either or scenario as I see it. Both not exactly healthy.

diveout

^I have a friend and when he was 22 he was dating a much older woman. And at the time he said the problems were largely economic. She was well established and she'd want to go to expensive restaurants and he'd want to go out for pizza. And she, over 40 would be like "hey I'm over 40 I don't want to out for pizza." I remember when it fell apart he said to me "DON"T LET ANYONE PAY FOR ANYTHING FOR YOU EVER!!!" Obviously something went down there...I was too scared to ask.

Anyhow about 10 years later, he started dating her daughter. Yes I kid you not. She encouraged it too. So that would have been about a 15 year age difference at the time. And what he said then about it was very interesting. He said as you get older you accumulate layers to you and when you are with someone much younger they don't have those layers, so it can feel very lonely a lot of the time.

People connect in so many various ways, that it's too limiting to try to organise it into little cubby holes.

paleoperson

I think it's unethical to do "experiments" on other people like that. I think this paddy1990 fella is a bit of a cod tbh.

paddy1990

Wibbs wrote: »

Again this seems quite obsessive for someone who has apparently won the looks lotto in life. Apparently by your own words you have set up multiple fake profiles to prove this worldview. QV

[Emphasis mine].

Why would a "very good looking guy" whose man parts are being worn away from a queue of equally tasty ladies lining up on dating sites go to just so much trouble to prove this? Makes no sense. Either the guy isn't actually "very good looking" and is bitter about rejection so goes out to prove that women are "shallow", or the chap is good looking but insecure enough to have an ego so delicate that he is obsessivley determined to rub "butt ugly" guys faces in it. It's pretty much an either or scenario as I see it. Both not exactly healthy.

Your posts are generally FAR TOO tl;dr so I skim them and see if im mentioned and in this case I was here.

I have some really good friends as I've said who are butt ugly and in fact I would surmise are in the same position as many guys on here. This is where my interest first started really because I found it hard to believe their stories of how hard they were having it. I quickly realized how shallow women are (as are men) and this was a natural and obvious conclusion for obvious reasons. I really wanted my mates to realize that there was actually nothing wrong with them, other than their poor looks/height because they were buying into the BS that some people propagate that they have issues.

Also I found it quite interesting overall. who knew a woman in a wheelchair would have so many dating options? Most guys on here can't even believe that women chase after guys they find attractive. These things are very interesting, for me anyway.

I also like bringing my view in because I know I am correct. I'm a guy who actually has options with different women all the time and has women coming on to him daily. I actually know what I'm talking about.

The above paragraph will lead to ridicule/sarcastic remarks, only from guys who it struck a nerve with, because they don't have those options.

But honestly, if you read my posts objectively and without your own biases, im merely stating what I believe are facts. I take a neutral perspective and just say it like i see it and relay how things really work. This forum is quite feminized overall so naturally the blunt truth is going to get responses from posters and mods of course. All of which I do find quite funny to be honest, the feminized reaction to the hard truth.

Thargor

paleoperson wrote: »

I think this paddy1990 fella is a bit of a cod tbh.

He's painful to listen to whatever he is, why does he keep repeating the looks/money thing over and over? Does he think its some great insight nobody has ever arrived at themselves before? Along with several mentions of how good looking he is, his modelling career and his sexual prowess along with his bff the successful city centre nightclub manager I think he's probably just a troll who could have written the OP himself.

DublinWriter

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Is it too self defeatist to suggest that some men, whether they like it or not, are destined to be alone for the rest of their lives? Is it too unrealistic for some us to contemplate a relationship?

Thomas? We need to have a chat.

I'm 45 years of age now, and the one, solitary lesson I've learnt in life is that there's (at least) someone for everyone.

Just let me repeat that - there's someone for everyone. Even Hitler got married (albeit briefly).

Let's rewind a little. You say BO is an issue. BO is only a symptom of the issue, which in your case appears to be social anxiety.

What's happening here is that you're setting up a negative feedback loop for yourself - the more anxious you are, the more you sweat, the more you sweat the more anxious you are...and so on.

You've admitted to undergoing CBT and attempting your own life. That, my friend, takes balls to admit, even if Thomas Flynn isn't your real name, you've got personal courage and you've obviously been proactive enough in life to seek help from others. That's a big plus in your scorecard.

Is BO the biggest turn off for a woman? Well, it's certainly up there, but doesn't hold a candle to reason numero uno - desperation.

Nothing turns a woman off quicker than desperation.

Got that? Hopefully so, I put it in bold. Mass murders languishing in prisons receive marriage proposals every week.

Am I suggesting that you go out on a killing spree? Of course not! But understand my point. Again, the negative loop thing - the older you get, the more desperate you get, the older you get...and so on.

US Comedian Bill Hicks summed up about 5,000 of Buddhist wisdom by stating that "we're all the same conscious experiencing itself subjectively".

Huh? He basically means that we're all the same as human beings but we perceive each other as being completely different. We've all got the same hang-ups and anxieties and it's just that some of us present a more 'coping' public face to the world.

Case in point, let's you and I go to the most exclusive club in Dublin right now. Undoubtedly there will be a very hot woman there. She's got the same hangups and anxieties as you, but just manifested differently. Guys will hit on her all the time, but not for the person she is. Her attractiveness will cause resentment and gossip issues with her 'closest' circle of female friends. She doesn't know who to trust.

Basically, she's as screwed up as you.

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

Your posts are generally FAR TOO tl;dr so I skim them and see if im mentioned and in this case I was here.

There's a lot of sense in them.

paddy1990 wrote: »

I have some really good friends as I've said who are butt ugly and in fact I would surmise are in the same position as many guys on here. This is where my interest first started really because I found it hard to believe their stories of how hard they were having it. I quickly realized how shallow women are (as are men) and this was a natural and obvious conclusion for obvious reasons. I really wanted my mates to realize that there was actually nothing wrong with them, other than their poor looks/height because they were buying into the BS that some people propagate that they have issues.

Also I found it quite interesting overall. who knew a woman in a wheelchair would have so many dating options? Most guys on here can't even believe that women chase after guys they find attractive. These things are very interesting, for me anyway.

I also like bringing my view in because I know I am correct. I'm a guy who actually has options with different women all the time and has women coming on to him daily. I actually know what I'm talking about.

The above paragraph will lead to ridicule/sarcastic remarks, only from guys who it struck a nerve with, because they don't have those options.

But honestly, if you read my posts objectively and without your own biases, im merely stating what I believe are facts. I take a neutral perspective and just say it like i see it and relay how things really work. This forum is quite feminized overall so naturally the blunt truth is going to get responses from posters and mods of course. All of which I do find quite funny to be honest, the feminized reaction to the hard truth.

Why are you clinging to this mantra so fervently? Especially when you're purportedly so successful with the ladies. Why should it matter what a group of people who you'll most likely never meet think?

I find your comment about the "woman in a wheelchair" a tad distasteful to be honest. Someone in a wheelchair mightn't be top of the list in terms of one night stands but that doesn't mean they're undateable.

Wibbs

paddy1990 wrote: »

The above paragraph will lead to ridicule/sarcastic remarks, only from guys who it struck a nerve with, because they don't have those options.

For me it's nothing to do with options, as let's face it the interwebs are chock full of men with ten inch mickeys and incredible fighting strength. For reference I have neither, well I'm doing OK in one area, but couldn't fight a toddler without getting an arse kicking. Plus the police tend to take a dim view of toddler fighting.

Plus I agreed with you re the age gap thing and have consistently stated that IMHO the online dating arena is stacked against men because of numbers and the concentration on the purely visual(doesn't help non photogenic women either, but because of the male to female ratio it'll still give them a better chance as a general rule).

I merely noted the near obsessive focus on this subject and mused on the possible reasons for the incongruities of that.

I take a neutral perspective and just say it like i see it and relay how things really work.

Obsessively, that's the point.

This forum is quite feminized overall so naturally the blunt truth is going to get responses from posters and mods of course. All of which I do find quite funny to be honest, the feminized reaction to the hard truth.

For a start I ain't a mod of this forum so... Oh by the by, truth has no gender, it either is or it isn't.

paddy1990

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's a lot of sense in them.



Why are you clinging to this mantra so fervently? Especially when you're purportedly so successful with the ladies. Why should it matter what a group of people who you'll most likely never meet think?

I find your comment about the "woman in a wheelchair" a tad distasteful to be honest. Someone in a wheelchair mightn't be top of the list in terms of one night stands but that doesn't mean they're undateable.

Because i want posters like the OP to get the truth rather than the BS that i see spouted ever so eloquently. Plus like i said i find the defence mechanisms/coping strategies employed to be quite funny. I mean,you cant even accept that women message guys they find attractive online. From the illogical responses to the defensive "thanks" of other posts, i find it all quite funny.

paleoperson

paddy1990, you got some issues bro.

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

Because i want posters like the OP to get the truth rather than the BS that i see spouted ever so eloquently. Plus like i said i find the defence mechanisms/coping strategies employed to be quite funny. I mean,you cant even accept that women message guys they find attractive online. From the illogical responses to the defensive "thanks" of other posts, i find it all quite funny.

I never said that women don't message guys, I said that "most girls don't email guys".

Daveysil15

paddy1990 wrote: »

This forum is quite feminized overall so naturally the blunt truth is going to get responses from posters and mods of course. All of which I do find quite funny to be honest, the feminized reaction to the hard truth.

Ahh here, this isn't TLL. How the hell is it feminized?

Wibbs

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's a lot of sense in them.

Though to be fair A, he has me bang to rights there as I am near terminally longwinded and can type really fast so it's the perfect storm for the longwinded bullshítter. I've just done it again! :eek:

Daveysil15 wrote:

Ahh here, this isn't TLL. How the hell is it feminized?

Don't agree with me = Feminised(with an S goddamit!! >_<:)). Apparently. The joke is I regularly call shenanigans on the more extreme(but all too oft accepted) angles feminism takes. I am anything but your average male feminist*. Maybe it's because I am a bullshítter I can spot it the more easily in others. And I absolutely abhor givens and sacred cows, so I have no problem saying that women are just as turned on by looks etc(have said it more than once before), or indeed that individuals have a value in the dating/mating game if we were to look at it in the economic sense. However I simply see it as far more complex, with a lot of competing factors and highly dependent on environment and setting and all too often chance.

In the current meme of the "manosphere", I sure as hell ain't blue pill, however nor am I red pill. If I had to ally myself, I'd say I'm Purple Pill(tm)(c)Wibbs 2014





*though I 100% agree with and would fight for gender equality. I just can't abide the BS that all too often(with gorgeous irony) reduces women to over sensitive victims with no agency and places all the blame, more the responsibility at the feet of "the patriarchy", sorry that's spelled M E N.

diveout

paddy1990 wrote: »

Because i want posters like the OP to get the truth rather than the BS that i see spouted ever so eloquently. Plus like i said i find the defence mechanisms/coping strategies employed to be quite funny. I mean,you cant even accept that women message guys they find attractive online. From the illogical responses to the defensive "thanks" of other posts, i find it all quite funny.

They also message guys who love themselves because they think its funny, get them on the webcam, get them to strip via exploiting their egos, make fun of them and invite their girlfriends over to watch and laugh unbeknownst to the target.

Wibbs

Pug160 wrote: »

One thing I've noticed about men who don't care about rejection is that they quite often don't take women seriously in general. Women are unable to hurt them the same way a man would. That actually sounds like chauvinism on the surface but it could very well be a positive trait in some cases. I'm by no means saying it applies to all men who don't care about rejection but it's just something I was thinking about.

Hmmm yea good point and I can see what you're getting at. Though I would think of it differently P. The guys who take rejection more easily and the guys who usually have more options, it's not so much that they don't take women seriously, it's that they don't see women as a uniform group, that are automatically "better" or "prizes", or beyond critique just because they're women. They generalise less. So one woman rejecting them doesn't automatically translate into "all women are the same/bitches and will reject me". They go more on individuals and their individual responses. So "ah well I got blown out by her, but sure feckit, more fish in the sea and other women won't be like that, so I'll try them" kinda thing. In some ways they're less sexist.

B0jangles

paddy1990 wrote: »

Your posts are generally FAR TOO tl;dr so I skim them and see if im mentioned and in this case I was here.

I have some really good friends as I've said who are butt ugly and in fact I would surmise are in the same position as many guys on here. This is where my interest first started really because I found it hard to believe their stories of how hard they were having it. I quickly realized how shallow women are (as are men) and this was a natural and obvious conclusion for obvious reasons. I really wanted my mates to realize that there was actually nothing wrong with them, other than their poor looks/height because they were buying into the BS that some people propagate that they have issues.

Also I found it quite interesting overall. who knew a woman in a wheelchair would have so many dating options? Most guys on here can't even believe that women chase after guys they find attractive. These things are very interesting, for me anyway.

I also like bringing my view in because I know I am correct. I'm a guy who actually has options with different women all the time and has women coming on to him daily. I actually know what I'm talking about.

The above paragraph will lead to ridicule/sarcastic remarks, only from guys who it struck a nerve with, because they don't have those options.

But honestly, if you read my posts objectively and without your own biases, im merely stating what I believe are facts. I take a neutral perspective and just say it like i see it and relay how things really work. This forum is quite feminized overall so naturally the blunt truth is going to get responses from posters and mods of course. All of which I do find quite funny to be honest, the feminized reaction to the hard truth.

I genuinely don't want to be rude or anything, but in your posts you come across as possibly quite a stupid person with a great many personal issues.

You constantly boast about how you are approached by many women because you are so good-looking but at the same time you seem to despise the same women for being superficial enough to be attracted to you. This to me suggests that you may have been are plain kid who got good-looking in their teens and hates the fact that good looks make a difference in the dating world.

Either that or you are a big ol' liar and you are just really cross that no-one appreciates you for your "sterling" personality even though you are physically about as attractive as a bad rash.

(apologies if this is over the line for the forum , delete if necessary)

paddy1990

B0jangles wrote: »

I genuinely don't want to be rude or anything, but in your posts you come across as possibly quite a stupid person with a great many personal issues.

You constantly boast about how you are approached by many women because you are so good-looking but at the same time you seem to despise the same women for being superficial enough to be attracted to you. This to me suggests that you may have been are plain kid who got good-looking in their teens and hates the fact that good looks make a difference in the dating world.

Either that or you are a big ol' liar and you are just really cross that no-one appreciates you for your "sterling" personality even though you are physically about as attractive as a bad rash.

(apologies if this is over the line for the forum , delete if necessary)

Well I appreciate your comment. I'd say i am a pessimist at heart. What really changed me was when i was able to act like a c*nt to girls and still get them, while my good mates treat them much better and get nowhere. A few girls actually im convinced never even liked my personality but had no qualms with giving me their bodies. It's kind of like realizing that your favourite movie star was actually a fraud. I've seen how downright shallow women are. I know the girls i'm with are mainly with me because of my looks. If i looked like Danny Devito, they wouldn't even look at me. And i'm the same. if they looked like a fat old warpig I wouldn't touch them either.

men are more honest about this though, to be fair.

I guess i just hate the entire dynamic. We are all genetically wired to be slaves to LMS, simple as that. And the guys who have a low LMS, like my unfortunate mates, are doomed to be struggle for scraps. what did i ever do to deserve what they can't get? they deserve success with women far more than me and women treat them like dogs if they try to chat them up.

i don't understand my own psychology but i'd say it's a combination of the above factors that annoys me

The fact that women so brazenly lie about this is what annoys me the most I guess. There were girls in the ladies lounge saying that a full blown disfigured burns victim should have no problem finding women to date him. meanwhile they wouldnt touch him.

I'm not sure whether it's stupidity or cognitive dissonance.

the hopeful feminized men that buy into it provide me with nothing but laughter though.

B0jangles

paddy1990 wrote: »

Well I appreciate your comment. I'd say i am a pessimist at heart. What really changed me was when i was able to act like a c*nt to girls and still get them, while my good mates treat them much better and get nowhere. A few girls actually im convinced never even liked my personality but had no qualms with giving me their bodies. It's kind of like realizing that your favourite movie star was actually a fraud. I've seen how downright shallow women are. I know the girls i'm with are mainly with me because of my looks. If i looked like Danny Devito, they wouldn't even look at me. And i'm the same. if they looked like a fat old warpig I wouldn't touch them either.

men are more honest about this though, to be fair.

I guess i just hate the entire dynamic. We are all genetically wired to be slaves to LMS, simple as that. And the guys who have a low LMS, like my unfortunate mates, are doomed to be struggle for scraps. what did i ever do to deserve what they can't get? they deserve success with women far more than me and women treat them like dogs if they try to chat them up.

i don't understand my own psychology but i'd say it's a combination of the above factors that annoys me

I think that maybe you have a very old-fashioned mindset, they didn't "give you their bodies", they used yours along with their own for as long as it was entertaining and then moved on to someone else.

Edit: I don't think you like yourself very much as a person and that is a tough thing for anyone to get over, but it can be done. Take care.