How to approach her? (therapist, honest, psychology, people)

[Nutz76]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

As for the rest of your quote, obviously Roissy hasn't hung around a lot of Evangelical Christian girls, as they will have sex only inside committed relationships (if before marriage at all). And yes, believe it or not, there ARE still women out there like this. Not all of them, to be sure, but certainly the majority of such girls. Roissy's simply not taking a diverse sample - and even then his sample is representative ONLY because the majority of girls seem to be party and drinking types.

There certainly are women out there like you describe, but the dirty little secret is that the more outwardly chaste they appear, often times the more decadent they really are. For example, the girls who jumped on the purity ring/virginity pledge bandwagon a few years back tended to lose their virginity on average a 12-18 month earlier IIRC than the general population. They were also far more likely to resort to non-vaginal forms of sex to maintain the technicality of being so-called virgins.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

More to the point, isn't seeking to get laid actually demeaning, as a truly manly should know that sex is just some primitive animalistic rite of passage that says NOTHING about the man's deeper qualities? effectively saying we have no more capacity for self-control than do wild animals.

This is exactly right. Human beings, as animals, are driven by primal, instinctual urges. When nature calls, we urinate. We nature calls, we defecate. And when nature calls, we also have an urge, to your chagrin I am sure, to fornicate.

There was once a system in place called monogamy to check the latter of these instinctual urges. The pill, feminism, and women's economic independence have pretty much blown that away.

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

This is exactly right. Human beings, as animals, are driven by primal, instinctual urges. When nature calls, we urinate. We nature calls, we defecate. And when nature calls, we also have an urge, to your chagrin I am sure, to fornicate.

There was once a system in place called monogamy to check the latter of these instinctual urges. The pill, feminism, and women's economic independence have pretty much blown that away.

So you, yourself, are absolutely NOTHING -- emotions, designs, aspirations themselves being meaningless in the grand scheme of things -- absolutely NOTHING-ZIP-ZILCH-NADA-NIENTE-ZERO more than a monkey in pants looking for his next screw, right?

That may just be the coolest approach to nihilism ever!

[joeychestnut]

292 responses of advice that could have sufficed with just one "Be yourself"..If it doesnt workout move on!

[robee70]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

This is exactly right. Human beings, as animals, are driven by primal, instinctual urges. When nature calls, we urinate. We nature calls, we defecate. And when nature calls, we also have an urge, to your chagrin I am sure, to fornicate.

.

Really?

So that feces I side-stepped when walking in the park was YOURS! Next time bring a pooper scooper with you.

[Yzette]

Originally Posted by TheImportersWife

The dude ended up with a red skunk streak in his hair and a really bad shirt. I'm embarrassed for him. He looked better "pre-game."

Ye gods, I hope he didn't PAY for that kind of makeover.

[Phil75230]

My response to Bajan equally applies to Nutz too.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

This is exactly right. Human beings, as animals, are driven by primal, instinctual urges. When nature calls, we urinate. We nature calls, we defecate. And when nature calls, we also have an urge, to your chagrin I am sure, to fornicate.

Irrelevant parallel with deficating and urinating (henceforth called D&U). Namely, you're confusing individual survival with species survival.

Firstly, D&U are necessary for the individual to survive for more than a few days. Intercourse or BJ's are not such a function. In fact, its quite possible to go your entire life without having sex and still be reasonably healthy.

Secondly, D&U are not functions that contain an intimate emotional component that can negatively impact another person's life on a major scale , certainly not an emotional component that can greatly impact on one's ability to trust others: Sex CAN do so.

Thirdly: D&U cannot potentially produce another life that you are morally obligated to care for. Sex can.

Fourthly: At least with modern sanitary conditions, D&U do not cause serious dangers to others health and certainly not ruin their chances of having healthy offspring. Sex can.

Fifthly: If sex is such a vital function, then how come you don't hear of people dying of virginity? Sure, it helps propogate the species, but even so, it doesn't necessarily have to impact on an individual's happiness. The very presence of a growing childfree community is proof positive of this.

Sixth (most importantly): Even if we are animals, we transcend the animal kindgom as well. We have brains that allow us to think very thoroughly about such matters. Our brains are able to pass down, communicate, absorb, and process much more knowledge than other animals are. We are MUCH more capable of rational thought AND self-control than animals are. Therefore, I still stand by my claim that saying sex is such a big deal implies we have little more capacity for self-control than lesser animals.

To UrbanSasquatch: Exactly my point! The "if it feels good, do it" attitude - followed out to its non-hypocritical,logical conclusion leads to nihilism.

To Robee: HAHA, LOVE IT! It perfectly encapsules my sentiments - and on more levels than humor at that (namely "self control").

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Phil75230

My response to Bajan equally applies to Nutz too.



Irrelevant parallel with deficating and urinating (henceforth called D&U). Namely, you're confusing individual survival with species survival.

Firstly, D&U are necessary for the individual to survive for more than a few days. Intercourse or BJ's are not such a function. In fact, its quite possible to go your entire life without having sex and still be reasonably healthy.

Secondly, D&U are not functions that contain an intimate emotional component that can negatively impact another person's life on a major scale , certainly not an emotional component that can greatly impact on one's ability to trust others: Sex CAN do so.

Thirdly: D&U cannot potentially produce another life that you are morally obligated to care for. Sex can.

Fourthly: At least with modern sanitary conditions, D&U do not cause serious dangers to others health and certainly not ruin their chances of having healthy offspring. Sex can.

Fifthly: If sex is such a vital function, then how come you don't hear of people dying of virginity? Sure, it helps propogate the species, but even so, it doesn't necessarily have to impact on an individual's happiness. The very presence of a growing childfree community is proof positive of this.

Sixth (most importantly): Even if we are animals, we transcend the animal kindgom as well. We have brains that allow us to think very thoroughly about such matters. Our brains are able to pass down, communicate, absorb, and process much more knowledge than other animals are. We are MUCH more capable of rational thought AND self-control than animals are. Therefore, I still stand by my claim that saying sex is such a big deal implies we have little more capacity for self-control than lesser animals.

To UrbanSasquatch: Exactly my point! The "if it feels good, do it" attitude - followed out to its non-hypocritical,logical conclusion leads to nihilism.

To Robee: HAHA, LOVE IT! It perfectly encapsules my sentiments - and on more levels than humor at that (namely "self control").

"D&U"...haha...that's cute. And why did you stop at "Fifthly?" I was hoping you'd make it to at least "Eleventhly."

Why is that anytime someone makes a comment on this thread--particularly if that comment runs contrary to the deeply ingrained beliefs of some women and their beta male cheerleaders--then any factual assertions therein (whether accurate or not) are considered as irrefutable evidence of a particular worldview? For example:

"People die in wars."
You advocate killing innocent women in children on the battlefield. Shame on you!

"Global warming is destroying the earth."
I bet you make it a point to release as many chlorofluorocarbons as possible into the stratosphere on a daily basis.

"Women are attracted to badboys."
You advocate raping women, disemboweling them, and then having a barbecue with their ovaries. All while you and your buddies bond together around the grill with a keg of Amstel Light!

While I appreciate your literal interpretation of my analogy and the effort you made in distinguising the involuntary bodily functions of "D&U" from sex, I think you may have disregarded the bigger point.

Sex is not the only unruly desire that humans have. Greed is one as well. In 1917, some guys had the idea that you could control greed by establishing a society of communes where everyone was of equal rank and there was no private ownership of property. The implicit assumption was that avarice could be eliminated. Well, we saw how that experiment ended. If you ignore reality, sooner or later it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Nobody said that everyone should follow their self-interest. I do believe that EVERYONE, including you, will do what's in your best interest more times than not. In our current society, women are following their prime biological imperative to secure sperm and commitment from alpha males. Men, on the other hand, are following their biological imperative to pump their seed far and wide. In the days of old, we had a system that put checks on this behavior, but that system is now eroded, and we're witnessing human sexual instinct gone wild. Yes, people get hurt in the process, but when has that ever made people change their behavior. Greed hurts people too, but that has not stopped college kids from seeking jobs on Wall Street.

Under the veneer of civilized discourse, we all act in ways that are brazenly self-interested.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

"D&U"...haha...that's cute. And why did you stop at "Fifthly?" I was hoping you'd make it to at least "Eleventhly."

This is just a cheap appeal to negative caricature – painting my view with unflattering colors (or that which mainstream society considers “unflattering”, at least)…but I’ll respond anyway.
My use of D&U has nothing to do with squeamishness. It’s merely a shorthand way to keep me from repeating the same set of words all over again. Sort of like Texas A&M instead of “Texas Agricultural and Mechanical”, or L. A. instead of “Los Angeles”. I’m sure you get the picture

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Why is that anytime someone makes a comment on this thread--particularly if that comment runs contrary to the deeply ingrained beliefs of some women and their beta male cheerleaders

More argument from caricature. For the record, I don’t consider myself a beta at ALL, as the whole alpha-beta-omega scale doesn’t apply to me because I'm committed child-free and thererfore see no point in even flirting, much less finding casual sex. BTW, since you’re apparently familiar with the such terminologies, if you have to put a label on me, the most accurate would be “Committed child-free + MGHOW. IMO, being married itself is a huge $ risk for men, so there’s no point in taking on risks inherent in a relationship unless you plan to be a parent one day, but that’s (as I said) just my opinion.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

then any factual assertions therein (whether accurate or not) are considered as irrefutable evidence of a particular worldview?

I can’t speak for others, but speaking for myself, it’s because even if I do agree that some claim is a fact, there’s still a HUGE difference between a facts and interpretation of a fact. In this case, confusing “natural urges” with “natural needs” Saying we have “sexual urges” is a statement of fact; saying we need to have sex is an interpretation of that fact. Likewise, saying a person doesn’t get sex more than once a year (if provable beyond doubt) is a fact; saying a person is a loser for not having sex more often (as quite a lot of PUA’s imply) is an interpretation of that fact. Science deals with facts (germs cause disease, for example). What we ought to do with that fact (destroy the germs so that humans may life) is a question of philosophy. As it stands, I simply disagree with the mainstream society philosophy that people have to get laid (I also disagree on FACTUAL grounds that you have to have sex to be healthy, but that’s another topic). I think this adequately addresses the rest of your post, so I won’t go any further.

[HurricaneDC]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDC

Okay so there's this girl in my public health class who's stunning, seriously just gorgeous. I usually sit either a seat away from her or a few seats away, she seems pretty smart judging from what she says in class so that's good too.

But yeah, how the heck do I approach her? I've never been good with a simple "cold call" as it were, especially with women. I can't think of anything besides something stupid like "that was a good lecture huh" which I always imagine her responding with "uh yeah" and the conversation ending there. Either that or just being ignored.

**** me they need to write a manual on life.

Man, 11 months go by quickly. Still as clueless now as I was when I wrote it