Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We women are supposed to give a chance to guys we not only are not physically attracted to, but who also have unattractive personalities?
I think an attractive or even a "non-unattractive" personality could be compensating factor.
Although I never had this experience, if there was a woman who I knew had been in emotionally (or goodness forbid physical) abusive relationship, and she projected mild anger / skepticism towards me and men in general -- but my instincts told me there was a good person in there just protecting herself, then I would probably give it a chance.
I think an attractive or even a "non-unattractive" personality could be compensating factor.
Although I never had this experience, if there was a woman who I knew had been in emotionally (or goodness forbid physical) abusive relationship, and she projected mild anger / skepticism towards me and men in general -- but my instincts told me there was a good person in there just protecting herself, then I would probably give it a chance.
And it is the same for many many women. When our instincts tell us the opposite, though, we do shy away. That is reality and honestly, it is quite smart.
I'm thinking mainly of the ones who identify as such and join message boards where they rant about women. I used to lurk on a Men's board for "Nice Guys" and the hatred of women permeated almost every thread. As well as the "You deserve a 'quality' women" chorus for any guy that appeared to be settling in their eyes. In one case, the guy was a druggie alcoholic living in a section 8 apartment on disability, and the guys would be "Don't settle, you deserve a quality woman who.....". I'd be thinking, why does he "deserve" any woman, and what "quality woman" would want him?? There was never a push by these guys to get him to straighten his life out, it was like he simply deserved a good woman as a birthright or something.
If you say so. I haven't lurked on a place where I saw something like that (except for one that made fun of the looks of women some members had been with).
Possibly I was wrong. Maybe men settle but completely keep that to themselves. I know a man isn't going to tell a woman that he settled for her. Maybe it's a de facto tenet of chivalry, like don't directly insult a woman.
Anyway, those sites are interesting to learn about the dark side of humanity, but never ever should someone take much of the advice there or post regularly to those places, because that would be counterproductive to meaningful, happy coupling with women.
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
So do men. Routinely. But women don’t go shooting up schools over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by At Arms Length
Neither do men.
Well, that's a relief. So you agree that the incel community idea that Rodger and other mass shooters/killers were bent and warped by women not sleeping with them is 100% bogus? If so, we're actually on the same page. I, too, see it as just an excuse.
A dangerous, dangerous, dangerous excuse.
It needs to be retired permanently. Women refusing to have sex with men they don't desire are not to blame for men's problems. It seems that women usually avoid the guys who ALREADY have this severe a degree of problems...because duh.
We also avoid sleeping with men whom we...don't want to sleep with (even if they're not dangerous). Because, again, duh. Amazingly, that's our right and it isn't "part of the problem" of men being incels, much less men acting out.
Now I just wish you would go on some incel or Red Pill boards and relay this information. I can't...they're never going to listen to a useless virginia with legs. They'd listen to you...well, unless you're a Chad. Or a beta. Or an alpha. Or a fellow incel because he's not getting any...Okay, never mind. There is no satisfying answer for such a person. Which really is the point. (Not going to put the cute "spoiler" thing there, it's frigging annoying.)
I think people know I didn't mean nasty pics (I think sending naked pics nearly always is stupid). Also, I personally don't like "meek" women.
If you didn't expressly state how you define "not nice" then how is anyone to know what it is you mean.
Quote:
I was thinking about garden-variety bad behaviors, like hair-trigger blocking,
How is blocking "not nice" when it is often in response to undesired, aggressive and unsavory behaviors. That's...the whole point of blocking on such a site. Unwanted attention. It happens a lot. Is there a certain scale of douchebaggery where blocking becomes acceptable to you?
Quote:
ghosting, no-shows, and last-minute, unjustified cancellations. I suspect that women are more likely to do that to men than the other way around.
You do realize this is not a gender issue, right? Please cite data to corroborate the above. I had several dates admit to the above behaviors when they received "better" pictures of their dates or they admitted to showing up early and hiding to get a good look at their date to decide whether they'd go through with it or bail. A lot of interesting things come out on those first dates when the topic of dating sites come up.
And it's no secret that many dudes are thirsty on dating sites and will go through with a date, even a not-so great date/match, with the hope of at least getting something out of it.
So...yay for keeping plans even if the motivation behind it was the hope you'd bump uglies even if neither is truly interested in a second date. It's not necessarily bad behavior, but it's not exactly "nice," either.
Quote:
Still, as the topic came up, there's nothing wrong with a guy pushing for a first shot with a woman who objectively is about his level.
There is if she's not interested. If I'm not interested, I'm not interested. If the dude continues to pester me and I block him, it's because he was acting like an entitled asshat.
Quote:
Maybe he's right. More women should be, to use a word I'm enjoying today, gracious.
Lol wut. Gracious of what, exactly? That some dude is hitting them up and pushing for attention, despite the possibility they may not be a match or compatible. You do realize this isn't all about looks, right? Like, some people, through periods of introspection and experience, know what they like and know what's a compatible fit. It's very likely that the female '6' is perfectly fine with dating a man of average looks, and that just because she's messaged by another '6' or '7' doesn't mean they're the right fit.
It's one thing to show interest in someone while understanding that you won't be everyone's type and take it in stride. It's another to think you're owed a response or interest just because you're both equal in looks. Cool, dude, you're good-looking and you have muscles. It does not mean I am into you, John.
Quote:
If she's lukewarm
Lukewarm isn't interest.
Quote:
but has no other plans, isn't being swamped by seemingly better guys, isn't actively turned off by or fearful of him, and truly does want a man in her life, she probably should say yes.
Not if she's not truly interested. There's a difference between "want a man" and "want a compatible match/date." You seem to focus on the former and assume that's how others should consider a potential date. Isn't for you or anyone else to determine what a better guy is. John with the nice cross fit bod, who does Spartan and mud races, works in tech (as he vaguely describes), loves Krav Maga, and wall climbing, may hit me up and think we're good to party, but he's very likely wrong, from experience.
Looks are not a primary indicator of compatibility for a lot of people.
Quote:
If more women did that, the dating scene would be better for all, instead of the tragedy of the commons it feels like. I guess now I'm a target for inaccurate accusations, despite the technique being advocated by many dating experts male and female and likely agreement from most guys.
If more women accepted dates from incompatible "suitors." That's...entitlement.
I'm going to say that no one should feel obligated to give anyone a chance. That sounds, unpleasant, for the person giving and the person receiving the chance. I guess if someone felt they were getting nowhere with dating, then I might agree that they'd be wise to examine their criteria and maybe consider broadening some aspect of it. But if you're entirely indifferent to someone, meaning there's nothing promising about them to focus on, then I think it's a bad idea.
Well, that's a relief. So you agree that the incel community idea that Rodger and other mass shooters/killers were bent and warped by women not sleeping with them is 100% bogus? If so, we're actually on the same page. I, too, see it as just an excuse.
A dangerous, dangerous, dangerous excuse.
It needs to be retired permanently. Women refusing to have sex with men they don't desire are not to blame for men's problems. It seems that women usually avoid the guys who ALREADY have this severe a degree of problems...because duh.
We also avoid sleeping with men whom we...don't want to sleep with (even if they're not dangerous). Because, again, duh. Amazingly, that's our right and it isn't "part of the problem" of men being incels, much less men acting out.
Now I just wish you would go on some incel or Red Pill boards and relay this information. I can't...they're never going to listen to a useless virginia with legs.
I agree with everything you’ve said here. I’ve NEVER been one to blame other people for my problems. Where you and I disagree is in how people with such issues should be treated. As I said, I believe that everyone is entitled to compassion and dignity until they undo that with their behavior...on an individual level, not a collective one.
Speaking of blocking. Maybe some here should try it here on CD. geez....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique
Yes. Challenging a statement is "not nice." lol
If you didn't expressly state how you define "not nice" then how is anyone to know what it is you mean.
How is blocking "not nice" when it is often in response to undesired, aggressive and unsavory behaviors. That's...the whole point of blocking on such a site. Unwanted attention. It happens a lot. Is there a certain scale of douchebaggery where blocking becomes acceptable to you?
You do realize this is not a gender issue, right? Please cite data to corroborate the above. I had several dates admit to the above behaviors when they received "better" pictures of their dates or they admitted to showing up early and hiding to get a good look at their date to decide whether they'd go through with it or bail. A lot of interesting things come out on those first dates when the topic of dating sites come up.
And it's no secret that many dudes are thirsty on dating sites and will go through with a date, even a not-so great date/match, with the hope of at least getting something out of it.
So...yay for keeping plans even if the motivation behind it was the hope you'd bump uglies even if neither is truly interested in a second date. It's not necessarily bad behavior, but it's not exactly "nice," either.
There is if she's not interested. If I'm not interested, I'm not interested. If the dude continues to pester me and I block him, it's because he was acting like an entitled asshat.
Lol wut. Gracious of what, exactly? That some dude is hitting them up and pushing for attention, despite the possibility they may not be a match or compatible. You do realize this isn't all about looks, right? Like, some people, through periods of introspection and experience, know what they like and know what's a compatible fit. It's very likely that the female '6' is perfectly fine with dating a man of average looks, and that just because she's messaged by another '6' or '7' doesn't mean they're the right fit.
It's one thing to show interest in someone while understanding that you won't be everyone's type and take it in stride. It's another to think you're owed a response or interest just because you're both equal in looks. Cool, dude, you're good-looking and you have muscles. It does not mean I am into you, John.
Lukewarm isn't interest.
Not if she's not truly interested. There's a difference between "want a man" and "want a compatible match/date." You seem to focus on the former and assume that's how others should consider a potential date. Isn't for you or anyone else to determine what a better guy is. John with the nice cross fit bod, who does Spartan and mud races, works in tech (as he vaguely describes), loves Krav Maga, and wall climbing, may hit me up and think we're good to party, but he's very likely wrong, from experience.
Looks are not a primary indicator of compatibility for a lot of people.
If more women accepted dates from incompatible "suitors." That's...entitlement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazingly, that's our right and it isn't "part of the problem" of men being incels, much less men acting out.
I can't...they're never going to listen to a useless virginia with legs. They'd listen to you...well, unless you're a Chad. Or a beta. Or an alpha. Or a fellow incel because he's not getting any...Okay, never mind. There is no satisfying answer for such a person. Which really is the point. 