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.
I just don't really think of it in terms of attracting or selecting a specific type of person. Like when I'm single/available, I would kinda just be open to whatever, like the bat signal was lit or something, and I was just waiting to see who showed up in my life. Certainly back then I wasn't doing any kind of online dating. I had my limited little social group, and I had a favorite I was flirting with, but he wouldn't date me because in the past I'd been with a close friend of his. So there I was. Just...available. There were a number of guys I knew I did NOT want, some sleazy greasy characters who made a move and got shot down. But my Ex seemed more or less like a regular fella. I mean, sure he was 29 and working on divorce #2 but he was very persuasive that he'd simply chosen poorly with his first two wives. His mother, a sweet woman I was very fond of, also talked about how much better for him I was, than those other two.
And the guys closer to my age, didn't seem to want anything "serious." I was feeling like I wanted something meaningful in my life, but I didn't know what. And he wasn't ALWAYS bad, all the time. That's the thing too...even a jerk isn't always a jerk, or completely a jerk. They are a mixed bag of sometimes very redeeming qualities, and bad (occasionally VERY bad) behavior. If they were bad all the time, nobody would stick around for five minutes.
Obviously if I'd gone to college for instance though, I'd have been in a completely different social group and exposed to different connections. But like the Buddhists say, "maybe better, maybe worse."
I went to college but still ended up with a 37 year old drug addict that took advantage of me (when I was 20 to 22).
You did better than I, your guy was at least in his 20s still, and I assume not a drug addict who got you hooked on drugs too.
I know how it happened. I was far from home, extremely alone, anyone who could provide a connection to the locale, some warmth, connection, less aloneless, was hard to pass up. And he wanted to be there all the time, he was willing to commit and not be someone just calling once a month when he was horny.
Right, most guys my same age couldnt give that level of commitment.
Yeah, I tried to kick him out, but, he had gotten me addicted to weed. As my father said, "You are a big girl. You could say no." Yes, in theory, but tell that to a 20 year old college student feeling like a misfit, deficient in social skills cause she spent her entire teenage years being depressed and isolated, and someone is pursuing her nonstop and while he's creepy, at least it breaks up the monotony of sitting alone in a cold empty apartment and having no idea how to make friends. He's doing all the work and he obviously has experience in this.
You sound more social and outgoing than I ever was. But both of us still fell into traps, I think.
I wouldnt fall for this now, though they keep trying. At 20 though, just didnt have the life experience yet to know.
Its very tough to come with your own religion, that isn't any more inconsistent than the existing religions. If I tell someone I am a deist, they have no real ideal what that means. So after that I became pretty understanding of various cafeteria approaches to religion. I know you hate revolutionary psych, but this book was excellent.
Another way of making my argument though is this. Your Ex might have been an a-hole but he had kids. Zen might have a lot of traits that you have come to value, but he didn't have kids. All of the reasons that made both of these events happen make me wonder if in the modern age its a better male mating strategy to be more like your Ex than Zen (in terms of passing your genes on to the next generation).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
It isn't that I hate evo-bio, it's that I hate how it is co-opted to be this Unified Theory that is supposed to explain everything. So it might be a valid part of the picture, but it isn't the ONLY part of the picture. Not when, for instance, each of us comes to the world of dating with such a big bundle of factors that make us who we are. Parents and other influences, genetics, mental health, a thousand things.
Humans have a way of being messy and complicated and I just don't see any one bundle of explanation making the actions of all human beings nice and clear and logical, like a nature documentary. Which I for one, am OK with. It may be a lot simpler to mate like a tree frog, but it doesn't look like much fun.
To me there seems to be two difference sources of evolutionary psych information, there is the stuff that is put out by the HBES crowd which I tend to think is likely fairly credible. These people make predictions do studies and test them. If their arguments aren't perfect they are in the direction of being truthful and sincerely trying to be truthful. I definitely will skim the twitter feed of this crowd.
and there is stuff coming from Rollo Tomassi and the RedPill crowd which I think is largely bullsh*t but Tomassi tends to co-opt language from academic crowd which really muddles the water. This guy makes a lot of untestable claims and mostly just likes to hear himself speak. The problem on this forum is that people are making both types of arguments and calling them Evolutionarily Psych.
And hey...I know a lot of healthy, sane, emotionally well adjusted, intelligent adults, who are choosing not to have children. (Idiocracy much?) It was one of my Zen's reasons for NOT putting more effort into forming a relationship throughout his life, and he was thrilled to hear that I'd had my tubes tied when we met. He did not want to pass on his genes, he was pretty determined NOT to. Now setting psychopathy aside, I do think it is a man of poor judgment at best, and downright "Who cares what's best for anyone else, I want what I want" at worst...who carelessly or deliberately makes babies when he and their mother are not prepared to support them, yet it happens all the time, doesn't it?
We have a lot of disadvantaged people being born to adults who arguably aren't prepared to be good parents. I've got to say that the simple fact of passing on your genes successfully doesn't make you "a success" unless you have swallowed evo-bio like it's a religion. A lot of humans reproduce who really are not "more fit" and a lot of people who are in some ways very fit, choose not to reproduce. Which again, is an illustration of how Darwin can't account for all of our behaviors.
I see where and why you are misinterpreting my point. I am not saying that your Ex was a success in being a good human being and that Zen was not a success at being a good decent human being. Instead I think your Ex is an a-hole and from everything you have written Zen seems like a perfectly wonderful human. But I do think your Ex was successful in passing on his genes to future generations and Zen wasn't. Why that matters is that in a previous post that started this discussion I had been speculating that one of the unintended consequences of birth control was that I thought the promiscuity that birth control unleashed made people with dark triad traits more likely to pass on their genes making this behavior more likely in the future. Your relationship history with both your Ex and Zen just was an example of how this process is working itself out in the real world.
I just have a sense that rate of sexual assault that is happening now seems higher than in the past. I have boomer cousins who have discussed with me the date rapes of their daughters with me so I don't have the sense that they feel uncomfortable talking to me about these issues and in fact some of them initiated these conversations given my brothers history. But that generation itself didn't seem to have the same level of sexual assault, both when I asked them directly and when I asked them about women they knew in their social circles. I know only one cousin who was sexually assaulted, but I know at least 4 of their daughters have been. I have dated at least 2 women who have admitted to being sexually assaulted and 1 who I assumed was assaulted but didn't seem to want to discuss this issue at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
As for religion, I don't care if anything is consistent or inconsistent. Your statement implies that I have any interest whatsoever in having my belief system challenged by anyone. I don't. I have no desire to share it, no need to persuade anyone else that it's right, and nothing at all to prove. It's entirely consistent with my philosophies and beliefs, because that's what it's made of. It doesn't have to be better than any other religion, simply better FOR ME.
Hey my religious journey is varied. When all three of your older brother have substance use problems and two of them are mentally ill you are drawn to really strong boundaries. I spent time as a fundamentalist Christian, a militant atheist (which for me was just a different type of fundamentalism) a Deist. and several points in between. You might not care if your beliefs were consistent but I certainly did. It was only when I realized that was a trap and became more post rational - accepted my own hypocrisy that I got out of that trap. I wasn't actually talking about you, I was remarking on my own journey here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
I just deleted a paragraph of mockery of your assertion that my Ex was in any way a model for how anyone should be. He is a wretched heap of misery and I'm sorry but if you really believe that every man who impregnates a woman is "a success" in any way that matters enough to be looked up to by anyone...boy do I have a bridge to sell you.
My intent was never to rile you up. If I did strike a nerve here, I regret that because that wasn't my intention.
I so love it when a “man” tells us what we all want.....
Women can think they want this, that or the other thing, but the only thing that matters to a guy is what she ACTUALLY responds to. I honestly don't think women know what they want, they just know "feelings". If they feel it, they do it, they'll rationalize it to themselves later. They are emotionally driven creatures and driven by feelings.
That's why it's in the best interest of guys who want a woman to find the best way to manipulate her and figure out what makes women respond to men, not what they SAY they want. Doing what they say they want leaves you a "nice guy" with no girls interested in him. Women want style, not substance.
I was uneducated in the traits of a male psychopath and in hindsight I know he took advantage of my innocence. They are very persuasive in the art of seduction and skilled in finding someone who is needy. All women should learn their pattern of behavior!
Women can think they want this, that or the other thing, but the only thing that matters to a guy is what she ACTUALLY responds to. I honestly don't think women know what they want, they just know "feelings". If they feel it, they do it, they'll rationalize it to themselves later. They are emotionally driven creatures and driven by feelings.
That's why it's in the best interest of guys who want a woman to find the best way to manipulate her and figure out what makes women respond to men, not what they SAY they want. Doing what they say they want leaves you a "nice guy" with no girls interested in him. Women want style, not substance.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
I mean this kind of makes sense but not in the way you're putting it, or seeing it?
Define "success." Is success achieved when a man gets a woman to consent to sex? When he successfully impregnates her? When she agrees to a long term commitment? When he gets in and out of there with NO commitment? Or when the relationship lasts a test of time? What is the bar for success? Just getting a woman, or keeping one?
The stereotypes about men would suggest that just getting "in" is good enough to be a score mark on the success board. The reality I've encountered tells a VERY different story. The many guys I've encountered who can get sex, but who really, REALLY want more...they want a long term committed relationship...indicate to me that for those guys, just getting laid and then going separate ways would not be success if they actually wanted a relationship out of it. They wouldn't be happy with that result.
Of course guys who can't get any female attention at all, might think that either is good. Many men of any kind seem to believe that if they can just get in there and have a sexual connection, the power is all in their hands then, and if they want to run, they run, and if they want to stay, they stay. They take for granted that after she's bedded them, a woman will be theirs if they so desire, like a woman's agency is only valid up to the point of getting a yes or no to that initial sexual encounter. Few seem to really consider what it takes to keep her around. Even those who WANT to, just take for granted that it'll happen if they just get that chance.
The difference in short term and long term is significant. Because in the short term, all you've got is style. You don't know the person well enough to really know their substance yet. Women who are willing to have sex prior to a long term commitment might be won over with style into doing so, just fine. It might even go on for a little while like that. But if he hasn't got the substance to back it up, then the relationship won't last whether he wants it to or not. Eventually she will leave. And even if she stays for some reason, that's how you get those sexless marriages. He cared about making her happy up front, but he hadn't the substance to keep it going.
I do agree that how a man makes me, as a woman, feel, is very important. But that is a matter of both style and substance. If he thrills me at first but upsets and annoys me later, sooner or later that connection is doomed. But for sure, how a guy makes me feel is more important to me than his looks, his height, how much money he earns, and a host of other things. The good results in that department over the long term come of having a good attitude, decent emotional intelligence, communication skills, a fun approach to sex, things in common we can enjoy together, etc.
I mean this kind of makes sense but not in the way you're putting it, or seeing it?
Define "success." Is success achieved when a man gets a woman to consent to sex? When he successfully impregnates her? When she agrees to a long term commitment? When he gets in and out of there with NO commitment? Or when the relationship lasts a test of time? What is the bar for success? Just getting a woman, or keeping one?
The stereotypes about men would suggest that just getting "in" is good enough to be a score mark on the success board. The reality I've encountered tells a VERY different story. The many guys I've encountered who can get sex, but who really, REALLY want more...they want a long term committed relationship...indicate to me that for those guys, just getting laid and then going separate ways would not be success if they actually wanted a relationship out of it. They wouldn't be happy with that result.
Of course guys who can't get any female attention at all, might think that either is good. Many men of any kind seem to believe that if they can just get in there and have a sexual connection, the power is all in their hands then, and if they want to run, they run, and if they want to stay, they stay. They take for granted that after she's bedded them, a woman will be theirs if they so desire, like a woman's agency is only valid up to the point of getting a yes or no to that initial sexual encounter. Few seem to really consider what it takes to keep her around. Even those who WANT to, just take for granted that it'll happen if they just get that chance.
The difference in short term and long term is significant. Because in the short term, all you've got is style. You don't know the person well enough to really know their substance yet. Women who are willing to have sex prior to a long term commitment might be won over with style into doing so, just fine. It might even go on for a little while like that. But if he hasn't got the substance to back it up, then the relationship won't last whether he wants it to or not. Eventually she will leave. And even if she stays for some reason, that's how you get those sexless marriages. He cared about making her happy up front, but he hadn't the substance to keep it going.
I do agree that how a man makes me, as a woman, feel, is very important. But that is a matter of both style and substance. If he thrills me at first but upsets and annoys me later, sooner or later that connection is doomed. But for sure, how a guy makes me feel is more important to me than his looks, his height, how much money he earns, and a host of other things. The good results in that department over the long term come of having a good attitude, decent emotional intelligence, communication skills, a fun approach to sex, things in common we can enjoy together, etc.
I've already figured out a solution to the "problems" that dating and all that BS brings, I'm sure you know what I mean if you are familiar with my posts.
I still say women are more impressed with a smooth talking loser than an honest guy. Even if she knows he's a loser, she has this idea that she can "fix" him. As you said yourself, women are more feeling driven than anything else, so these nice guys trying to "intellectualize" their way into a relationship, or rationalize the behavior of women, are beating their heads against the wall. WOMEN ARE NOT LOGICAL. They are emotionally driven creatures and must be treated as such. Learn how to manipulate the feels, and you have women in the palm of your hand. It's sad to say but it's the truth.
Women can think they want this, that or the other thing, but the only thing that matters to a guy is what she ACTUALLY responds to. I honestly don't think women know what they want, they just know "feelings". If they feel it, they do it, they'll rationalize it to themselves later. They are emotionally driven creatures and driven by feelings.
That's why it's in the best interest of guys who want a woman to find the best way to manipulate her and figure out what makes women respond to men, not what they SAY they want. Doing what they say they want leaves you a "nice guy" with no girls interested in him. Women want style, not substance.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
You're absolutely wrong because you are trying to rationalize and analyze in your mind what all women (and men) do or want. You don't get to decide what all women want, despite their words to the contrary; rather, listen to each woman individually and respect what she says, period. The key for any couple is communication - and to respect each other.
Your words remind me of a guy who date rapes - then says, 'well she said no but I could tell she really meant yes'. It's not up to you to decide what women really want. No means no.
Women can think they want this, that or the other thing, but the only thing that matters to a guy is what she ACTUALLY responds to. I honestly don't think women know what they want, they just know "feelings". If they feel it, they do it, they'll rationalize it to themselves later. They are emotionally driven creatures and driven by feelings.
That's why it's in the best interest of guys who want a woman to find the best way to manipulate her and figure out what makes women respond to men, not what they SAY they want. Doing what they say they want leaves you a "nice guy" with no girls interested in him. Women want style, not substance.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
I mean really... where to begin? You telling me I don't know what I want and that I go on feelings? Puh-lease. My husband is cracking up at the idea.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Again, women want psychos, losers and players, not real men. And they’ll fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting it too. They have to get some sort of sick pleasure from doing it.
They don’t want a guy who’s got his life together. They want an unemployed, broke loser that they can “fix” or a man with money that they can spend. Women would rather have a bad man to complain about than a good man, because good men are “boring” and “predictable”.
I swear some people live off and thrive on drama.
You must have some sort of sick pleasure repeatedly stating what women want (according to jimmy). We are 'real men' when we listen to, and respect, what a woman tells us. All women are not alike. If you've done much dating in your life, you'd know this.
To suggest all women want a dysfunctional relationship with an unemployed 'loser' or a man they can 'fix' does nothing more than (repeatedly) suggest you are unhappy in your own personal relationships and/or with yourself. If not, you would know there are plenty of women out there with their lives together (who want men with their lives together as well). Your stereotype of women as all being dysfunctional and in search of losers or psychopaths simply gives you an excuse to feel better about yourself i.e. 'it's all them and not me' rather than looking at yourself (or how you tell women what they want instead of listening/getting to know someone on an individual basis).
Women aren't (sexually) attracted to "warm and loving" men; they're attracted to "confident and assertive" men. That's where your logic falls apart.
True for many women, but confident and assertive men aren't all psychopaths - lol (so that's where your logic falls apart). Most of us are attracted to confident and independent women as well (which doesn't make them psychopathic either).
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.
Speaking from experience
All women should learn their pattern of behavior!
