Almost a spin off for inadequate relationships

[JJS99]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Right back atcha. That's what everyone here is doing, saying "this has been my observation". That's how discussion forums work. Why do you assume the type of guy you describe isn't the type I go for? That pretty much describes most of the guys I've ever been interested in. There's so much more to life than appearance. But you don't seem to agree, in spite of your clear desperation for that to be true.

I am out there and approaching women.

You think I make up stories about meeting and getting rejected by women at baby showers for fun? Yea. Glamorous stuff indeed.

If you practiced what you preached, you'd have a field day of dates with men.

[dragon_fly_12]

Originally Posted by JJS99

I am out there and approaching women.

You think I make up stories about meeting and getting rejected by women at baby showers for fun? Yea. Glamorous stuff indeed.

If you practiced what you preached, you'd have a field day of dates with men.

Not all short, frumpy, average guys are created equal. You don't know the caliber of men on any given region.

Hitting on chicks at a baby shower? Really?

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by dragon_fly_12

The point that I'm going after is asking why humans, in general, tend to stay in a relationship and put up with characteristics or qualities in a lover that they would not put up with in a platonic relationship.

It's because we have more invested in our romantic relationships than in our friendships.

Most often, friendships form because of shared interests, and not mutual emotional appeal, compatibility or even fondness. A and B play golf together, and from there a friendship develops. But if they saw each other regularly and unrelentingly, if they lived together as romantic partners do - then maybe their friendship would collapse, because fundamental incompatibilities would manifest themselves. In other words, ALL people have unpleasant or perfidious characteristics, but it takes a high level of intimacy to fully ascertain these characteristics, to peel the veneer of decorum.

Secondly, the less close a person is to us, the less we're liable to forgive in that person, and the lower the threshold of transgression before we break the association. If my mere acquaintances annoy me, I jettison them without a second thought, whereas with a friend I'd be more indulgent. With a very close friend I would abide more insult and obnoxiousness than with a distant friend, for I am more invested in the close friend's well-being and personal interests, and make more provision for bouts of truculence. After all, friendship means being there for him/her, even if his/her behavior is abrasive. Continuing, in a romantic partner I'd tolerate even more than from a close friend.

[JJS99]

Originally Posted by dragon_fly_12

Not all short, frumpy, average guys are created equal. You don't know the caliber of men on any given region.

Hitting on chicks at a baby shower? Really?

See, listen to you guys.

'Hitting on chicks at a baby shower?'

Us guys have to stick out our necks and try and make a connection, and if the approach and location isn't right, then you mock us.

'Hitting on women at a bar'
'Hitting on women at volunteer events'
'Hitting on women at a cafe'
'Hitting on women at the train stop'

Now, I'm not hating. I know how the game is. All women are different and are picky in separate ways. If I was born a pretty woman and I was being approached dozens of times a year, I'd probably too at certain approaches.

But, if I were to magically turn into an attractive woman tomorrow, then I would know how it is to be a below average man and have to approach constantly and I wouldn't mock approachers or approaches. I'd be like, "Nice try tiger, not my type, but I appreciate the effort."