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?
Geez, what’s left?
Is that what men should do? Give physically unattractive girls with bad personalities a chance? Otherwise these women are fully justified in forming groups to boycott men’s cruelty?
Think about it. And answer honestly.
Yes, because...those poor unattractive men. It's not their fault they weren't blessed with Chad-like genetics. They still deserve to experience a relationship, even if their attitudes and behaviors are vitriolic and/or dangerous.
No.
Somehow, someway, I still see less-than-attractive men get into relationships, even by meeting, gasp, online.
If it was all based on looks there would be a lot more people, males and females, that would never have sex or relationships. It's amazing how attractive a good personality can be.
With people who didn't meet through the Internet, it seems to work that way. Online it seems that many people are holding out for an obviously impressive prospect. I know there's data about many women on Tinder rarely if ever going on dates, and I doubt that's due to lack of swipes on them and probably not because the vast majority just wants attention.
Spoiler
Yes, I am thinking of the Charlie Puth song.
The not-crazy-and-not-repulsive incels have a point about women apparently wanting too much. Heh, I think that's been a trope for millennia.
It just seems when you make a post you're in a victim hood mindset that you then need to fight fight fight fight your way out of.
Oh, that buzzword. Victimhood. Translation: you don't have a solid rebuttal. Dudes wanting a return of the 1950s is something that should be rejoiced and evil wimmenz should accept interest and dates from any bloke who hits them up for a date, as long as they don't ping any red flags. Such a low bar. I'm all for men and women deciding who they want to date and not being obligated or pressured into a bad or incompatible match. Women and men should not be obligated to date someone they're not interested in. It doesn't matter if they're "around the same level of attractiveness" and they're not swamped by thirsty interests. They don't even have to ping orange flags. It's okay to not show interest in someone even if they're into you.
But there are guys out there who for whatever reason can’t find a relationship. That’s why I redacted it, I didn’t realize we were debating the existence of men who aren’t able to find women. The way I understand your posts is that you’re not leaving a lot of wiggle room between “able to find a relationship with effort” and “incel.” If I misread or misconstrued then okay, but that’s the way what I’ve been quoting reads to me.
No I’m not doing that at all at least I wasn’t intending to. I consider Incel to be those who go out of their way to identify as that, cast blame on women for it, and wallow in it. There are many many women who can’t find a relationship either. Hop on over to Amazon and look at how many books there are for women on how to find a relationship. There are hundreds. That is for a reason.
Incels think only in terms of sex, and draw conclusions about how easy it is for women to get laid (as in used) when most women just want love. It is hard to find and many of us have been emotionally through the ringer trying to find it. Even those of us who are attractive. I was online for probably 14 years, with one 3 year relationship (with an angry guy I was definitely settling for) and a 1-2 several month long relationships. I spent more than a few nights crying myself to sleep wondering if I’d ever meet someone right for me. And remember, I gave almost everyone who wrote to me a chance who seemed like a decent person.
That is really the only thing that I am disagreeing with some about on this thread. The fact that so many believe that women have it so much easier. It is just not the case especially when it comes to online dating.
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?
Personally I'm very averse to blocking people. I just don't respond to them. Of course there's behavior that justifies blocking. Things that don't justify it yet happen include disliking a not-important opinion, misinterpretation, and requesting a first picture then blocking because it's deemed not attractive. I can feel the pain in the words of men as they talk about going through the last one. Again, seeming forgetting by women of men having feelings, helped along by the Internet, where many of us easily forget we're interacting with human beings.
Quote:
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.
That's all interesting, but ghosting, etc. are still bad and you realize there's probably no data I can cite. Maybe eventually there will be. I think if polled, most people believe it's either about equal or women do it more often. Regardless, both sexes need to cut down on that.
Quote:
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.
Gracious because he's likely to offer to take her out to a setting they both like (for example, a comedy club) and probably pay for most or all of it.
Quote:
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.
You and others seem to make a bunch of assumptions about this person you don't know. I am one of the more pickier-on-personality males anyone is going to run into, and while I think most younger people deem looks the "primary indicator of compatibility" (and have broken pickers that might always be broken), I've never thought that, just that a minimum looks ceiling exists and that most couples are looks-matched and therefore aiming for that is sensible.
Most dating profiles don't say enough about personality; and few people actually excel at guessing from limited information. I think many people use pictures to slant their opinions for or against the written information if they bother to read it, bleh. If the looks of a "suitor" might be good enough and not levels below, no deal-breakers or warning signs have surfaced (putting the bare minimum of text in a profile probably is a no-go), and better prospects aren't plenty, respond to a polite message (if he's able to message) and explore a little. Maybe some mutual interest will develop, and then a date would become worthwhile. (I didn't say a total stranger is entitled to a date just because he thinks he's as good as her. I don't see the point of going out of the way to spend one-on-one time with someone with whom there might be nothing in common.) That's my advice. I think there wouldn't be so many miserable men joining incel-like communities if that advice were often heeded.
Last edited by goodheathen; 10-26-2018 at 06:42 PM..
I never said anyone is a loser, nor did I say men who can't get a woman hate women. I said the men who hate women because they can't find one are in a self-defeating cycle of their own making, and I said their excuses are just that. They say they can't get a woman because they aren't attractive, YET the vast majority of unattractive men and women DO find partners. I said if the vast majority of men manage to find partners, and only a small percentage can't, then obviously the problem lies with them somewhere. Not because they are losers, there are probably a myriad of reasons from personality disorders to being on the spectrum to simply having a bad attitude.
There probably are some who have serious physical deformities or handicaps that are not there fault, but again there are women who are in the same boat there, too.
I had to look back a few times to find that post. From what I've read on city-data and elsewhere, men are much more likely to overlook handicaps than women are, if she's not ugly. Deformities I'm not sure, but women sometimes can disguise them through means men are discouraged from using. It's easy enough to find men like that who identify as incels or thereabouts.
The more important point is the continuing insistence that "the vast majority of unattractive men and women DO find partners." Is the vast majority of even normal-looking people finding partners these days? I mean almost everybody will have sex at some point in life and get at least a little relationship experience, but anything substantial? Singles are more common ever. Also, it's common sense that people who look-below average are less likely to find partners. I think women want to believe that inceldom has almost nothing to do with homeliness because of the just-world fallacy. It starts to reflect badly on women as a whole if many average guys are feeling perpetually rejected by the opposite sex, plus those men are at risk of hating how they look or thinking they lack something in personality and losing social confidence either way - I think this was posted in the Relationships forum before. Then specifically the average-looking women will be meeting them less and pursued less while the players and cheaters remain on the scene.
Last edited by goodheathen; 10-26-2018 at 08:08 PM..
I blocked a fair share in the two and a half years, off and on, that I explored the realm of dating sites. I'd say most men can take a hint when interest is not mutual. Some, well, get very angry, bitter and aggressive, in which case, just not responding is not suffice.
Quote:
I just don't respond to them.
Sure. Unless you're getting flooded with messages and IM messages with insults and harassment. It's not a matter of just ignoring them and hope they'll going away. I wasn't interested in having my inbox flooded with that claptrap.
Quote:
Of course there's behavior that justifies blocking. Things that don't justify it yet happen include disliking a not-important opinion, misinterpretation, and requesting a first picture then blocking because it's deemed not attractive.
See, I can't understand why any of this really matters if they're not a match. It just comes off whiny to get in a huff about these things and assume you get to decide what's block worthy for other people. If the dude I messaged that one time decided to block me because I sent him a message challenging him on his rant about atheists need Jesus...oh well. I wouldn't even think he was "not nice" because he blocked me after I challenged him on his baseless assumptions and religious absolutism. I'd take it as "this person was not interested in what I had to say and does not want further communication." I wasn't interested. I just wanted to challenge him on his assumptions.
Quote:
I can feel the pain in the words of men as they talk about going through the last one.
I mean, it sucks to experience rejection in that way. Both men and women experience this. I didn't bother with profiles without photos. *shrug* I don't know a single guy that messaged women who didn't have a photo.
Thing is, in the situation you describe, it could go something like this:
OKC-guy:"Hi. How are you? You look nice."
OKC-gal: "I'm well. Thanks. You like Battlestar Galactica! How cool Me, too. ...
Later in conversation:
OKC-gal: "So, do you have a photo?"
OKC-guy sends it and she realizes she's not attracted to him. She could stop talking to him and hope he catches on that she's not interested, or she can let him know she's not interested. Either way, the message is clear. Choosing to not respond and block him could very well be a decision made based on past experiences where the guy became angry, bitter and flooded her with aggressive, hateful messages because his ego was bruised due to rejection. So to avoid a repeat scenario, you block.
To block someone often signals that a no-reply did not work to stave off this unwanted aggressive behavior in the past, so blocking became necessary.
I had plenty of dudes pester me after I didn't respond to their messages. And the times I responded, engaged in nice chit-chat before explaining I wasn't interested and wished them well in their search.
Quote:
Again, seeming forgetting by women of men having feelings, helped along by the Internet, where many of us easily forget we're interacting with human beings.
Nah. I'm well aware a lot of men have and express healthy feelings that are not rooted in anger, bitterness, hate, and a sense of entitlement. I interacted with, met and dated a lot of genuinely empathetic, kind, compassionate, caring, and great men. And not all of these men were "top tier" as Incels suggest women go after.
A guy is not going to win me over by telling me in an angst-induced conniption that "women are only good for two things anyway, sex when men want and baby vessels." He may be a WoW nerd and play for the Horde. He could even go to DragonCon every year and nerd out to Neil Gaiman and Brandon Sanderson. We still ain't talkin' if you reduce "women" to sex objects and baby vessels and helpmates for men.
Quote:
That's all interesting, but ghosting, etc. are still bad and you realize there's probably no data I can cite. Maybe eventually there will be. I think if polled, most people believe it's either about equal or women do it more often. Regardless, both sexes need to cut down on that.
It's probably equal.
Quote:
Gracious because he's likely to offer to take her out to a setting they both like (for example, a comedy club) and probably pay for most or all of it.
Why would you assume that? And what does a date setting have to do with interest, chemistry and compatibility? So, hypothetically, I get hit up by an '8' and I'm not busy and 9s and 10s aren't flooding my inbox, I should take him up on the offer, even if a) I'm not really interested b) I'm not interested because we're not compatible or I'm not feelin' it.
Going to a neutral venue like a comedy club is not the bar I set to determine interest.
Quote:
You and others seem to make a bunch of assumptions about this person you don't know.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here? I've interacted with Incels and their vitriolic rants on various online spaces including dating sites and dating site forums for several years. I don't need to "know" the ins and outs of Incels to know I'm not interested in what they're selling.
Quote:
I am one of the more pickier-on-personality males anyone is going to run into, and while I think most younger people deem looks the "primary indicator of compatibility" (and have broken pickers that might always be broken), I've never thought that, just that a minimum looks ceiling exists and that most couples are looks-matched and therefore aiming for that is sensible.
I mean, sure, but just because a '6' messages another '6' doesn't mean they're a match in other areas or that the two share mutual attraction and compatibility.
Quote:
Most dating profiles don't say enough about personality;
You mean Tinder and similar apps. Because the above is not true for dating websites. You can include as much or as little as you like in your profile. I knew a lot about my husband before we even talked on the phone. OKC was great in that way. It had fun quizzes and detailed survey with questions covering a lot of areas of compatibility. *My* highest and best matches answered at least 600 questions. Most thousands. You can find out a great deal about someone by seeing how they answer a variety of questions. Not only did I go through all of my husband's 2000+ answers, but I read his 2200 word bio multiple times.
So, yes, you can know a lot about someone's personality, background, personality type, quirks, sense of humor, value system, beliefs, interests, passions, communication style, sexual preferences, relationship background, knowledge (OKC's "Is the sun bigger than the Earth?" question. Considering a worrying number of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows, questions like this are essential, for me at least.)
Quote:
and few people actually excel at guessing from limited information.
I didn't take interest in someone unless I had usable information to determine a base level of interest.
Quote:
I think many people use pictures to slant their opinions for or against the written information if they bother to read it, bleh.
You're saying some people will disregard incompatibilities if the person they're interested in looks hot? Or they're willing to indulge the attention and interest if, despite the lack of bio and "nice" message, the suitor is nice to ogle? That's not news, for either women or men.
Quote:
If the looks of a "suitor" might be good enough and not levels below, no deal-breakers or warning signs have surfaced (putting the bare minimum of text in a profile probably is a no-go), and better prospects aren't plenty, respond to a polite message (if he's able to message) and explore a little.
None of this has anything to do with interest and baseline compatibility. Just not having a) deal-breakers b) warning signs c) not having swarms of suitors and d) a "nice" message, is not an obligation to reciprocate interest.
Quote:
Maybe some mutual interest will develop, and then a date would become worthwhile. (I didn't say a total stranger is entitled to a date just because he thinks he's as good as her. I don't see the point of spending one-on-one time with someone with whom there might be nothing in common.) That's my advice. I think there wouldn't be so many miserable men joining incel-like communities if that advice were often heeded.
While I sense it's well-meaning in the search for a solution, I still get a "cast a wide net" and pressure to accept mediocrity and lukewarm interest. It seems more like setting the bar low just to give someone a chance. This isn't even specific to looks. It's fine if someone comes to that decision after much thought and consideration, but the expectation that "women" should do x, y and z and entirely off-putting. Just like I find the "He/she may grow on you. Chemistry doesn't need to be immediate." For some, it's either there or it's not. There's no forcing it.
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.
