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.
There was one way and thing I needed to help me be attractive to women... Here it is..
I pretended that none of them cared about me and I did my own thing.
For me, assuming that women didn't give a s**t about me helped me a lot better. I gave out vibes that I didn't need women in my life and it worked greatly for me. Desperation isn't attractive.
Like or dislike only happens when someone is interested in a particular person.
You're not a very good scientist if you use theory and hypothesis interchangeably.
Evolution is a theory. "Women are attracted to men with nice cars" is a hypothesis.
Shallow women are attracted to men with nice cars. Smart women are attracted to men who are good persons with a good life.
Having a nice car does not make a man shallow. I have an 11 year old SUV in extremely excellent condition. My date last night was favorably impressed, this was our first date she rode in my car. I'm not obsessed by cars. It's men obsessed with uber cars that think owning the car will get the women.
Men trying to get women with their moneys are going to get shallow women who are cash-centric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ_
I didn't mean to equate the two terms. For the sake of argument, a hypothesis can be altered just as a theory can be altered. They're not static results.
Please read some scientific glossary. You are digging yourself in deeper.
I'd love to hear your definition of "static results."
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ_
I never used my own observations to prove or disprove anything. All I did was assert that you need to use science to disprove science. Because that's how science works. Seeing as we've been discussing a scientific study regarding the cross species behavior of females in response to attraction, I'd say it's important to understand that a decision on the veracity of the study cannot be concluded anecdotally. That's it.
Please tell me you are shooting from the hip. You are not using science at all. You appear to not know how science works. Just noting my degree is Bachelor of Science.
Just to let you know how silly you sound, your use of the word "species" in reference to females. More or less the definition of species is animals that can be cross-mated. Females are NOT a species, they are a gender. Males and females together make up Homo sapiens AKA the human species.
I'm sorry to be shooting you down, but you need to talk the talk before you can walk the walk. If you have a scientific education all I can say is that you are not very eloquent.
Last edited by Lovehound; 07-03-2018 at 07:36 PM..
And I know I'm capable of developing emotional connections with people because I have them with my family. But most women don't stick around long enough for those connections to form. And that's my fault as much as anyone's. It's why I've moved from the Caregiving and Psychology board to the Relationships board. Because I want to be better at the emotional side of things. I've done years of therapy regarding all this, and I've come a long way. But I'm not there yet.
I'm glad you said that. It shows to me that you are willing to admit things aren't working and you want to move on. Just get from right now that relationships with your family (immediate family) are NOT the same as connections with persons of the opposite sex that you want to have a relationship with.
You said, "Most women don't stick around long enough..." Well right there it could be you!
I'm glad you have decided to consider Relationships section. Keep posting and we'll wear off your rough edges and fill you in on how to succeed in your non-family relationships.
Nothing that "non-family" can become "family" if your relationship works!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ_
You think if I knew how I wouldn't? I've been trying to rewire my brain for the past 15 years by, as my therapist used to say "fake it till I make it." It's a technique that suggests that conscious behavior will become unconscious if repeated enough. But it doesn't work. It's never worked for me. And I'm not comfortable enough in social settings, with stranger to practice this technique. So, online seems to be the best alternative.
Just fire your therapist and get a new one. Fact is that if you "fake it" (a behavior) you will discover that repeating the action makes it become natural behavior.
Trust me this works!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ_
My problem is not with listening. I see and read everything people say or type. I truly do. The difficulty I have is in taking that information and putting it into a logical context. And the bottom line is, if what's you're saying isn't logical, I'm not to accept it. This is obviously counterproductive as my relationship history is evidence of that. So my goal is to find balance. Use my analytical brain but engage my emotional brain at the same time.
I'm (obviously) catching up to this topic, but you are showing signs of coming around and getting the picture.
I too am both logical/analytic and intuitive, and if you have access to both modes it's just amazing if you can get your left-brain and right-brain going at the same time!
If Eliot Rodger had driven a Bentley, he'd still have been Eliot Rodger in a Bentley. AKA, still a kissless virgin.
He used to frequent the incels forum on Reddit - it's now been shut down since the whackadoo in Canada went on a rampage (also a regular on those socially unfit stalker-type forums), but the residual forever alone derps have now scattered like buckshot and made a bunch of new ones, like braincels, truecels, etc. They've got some new jargon too - now it's called blackpilling.
DH8M I was going to write you a PM asking for elaboration, but your comment above is just so fascinating I wish you would elaborate. Particularly on the jargon and what it means.
What the heck is a league? Man, if I rooster blocked myself I wouldn't have had some of the best dates of my life. Utter nonsense.
Hell yes! I don't have any league. I'm a multi-dimensional man and I use all my male attributes to attract women, and those women use all their female attributes to attract men like me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepsix
I believe in someone being out of your league. Just not based on looks. That's a load of BS.
What? You let other people decide "your league?" Maybe I misunderstand you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
They left off two really important qualities:
1) Being positive. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to be around someone who is a downer and a certifiable energy suck all the time. Nobody wants to listen to the constant litany of your petty resentments, your anger, or your beef with the world. Get over it. You're not the only person who has had challenges in life. To be sure, everybody hits a rough patch, but a good attitude is pretty much omnipotent in those situations.
2) Not being about yourself all the time. Decent manners and basic consideration go a long way in the world.
This is a great recipe to have a good date and to have your partner feel it's about you two and not you selling yourself to your partner.
I'd love to hear your definition of "static results."
Please tell me you are shooting from the hip. You are not using science at all. You appear to not know how science works. Just noting my degree is Bachelor of Science.
Just to let you know how silly you sound, your use of the word "species" in reference to females. More or less the definition of species is animals that can be cross-mated. Females are NOT a species, they are a gender. Males and females together make up Homo sapiens AKA the human species.
I'm sorry to be shooting you down, but you need to talk the talk before you can walk the walk. If you have a scientific education all I can say is that you are not very eloquent.
Static results. It's self explanatory. You have static results(final) and then results under revision or dynamic results(hypothesis and theory.) These aren't obscure terms.
It was a cross species study, which is why I used the term cross species. As in, the study used multiple species in the research. Baboons were studied, other primates, as well as humans. That was the entire point of the research, to see how the data crossed over between species. If you had actually read the link I posted to the study, you would have seen that. So, it's actually you who is shooting from the hip. And I'll say, your aim is off.
I never used my own observations to prove or disprove anything. All I did was assert that you need to use science to disprove science. Because that's how science works. Seeing as we've been discussing a scientific study regarding the cross species behavior of females in response to attraction, I'd say it's important to understand that a decision on the veracity of the study cannot be concluded anecdotally. That's it.
What does "cross species behavior" mean, when we're talking about a sample taken in Germany, limited to young women from their teens into their 20's? Of course the veracity of that can be challenged. The initial study was limited as to age and also--culture. Even when other populations were added, they were still from a Western cultural background. The study was also limited as to the era in which they were done, which means it was limited as to the social context the participating women lived in. If you can't see that broad generalizations can't be drawn from that, you're not being honest. I don't know why that's still being debated; IIRC you're the only person defending it, at this point.
"Static results" is an obscure term for lay people, like most of the people posting on C-D.
Behavior that crosses species. Do I need to explain it further? And the study I was referring to was not a german study using only human females. It was a study that observed several species and how the females behaved around potential mates. They used the data for correlation, to see if specific behavior was similar in several different species. The point being, it eliminates cultural bias by showing that the behavior is inherent.
A league is the average guy pursuing a 22 year old Angelina Jolie for an one-night stand, or trying to compete with men who look like the 22 year old Brad Pitt , for a relationship with that woman.
I went to high school within near shot of Hollywood. You wouldn't believe the babes in my classes. At least one I had a crush on became a maybe B list Hollywood actress. Name brand here. Her older sister was A list.
But come on you need both sides to give something to a relationship. If one has nothing but a high school degree and a car, and the other is multi-$$$, of course there is going to be no relationship.
I've had A list friends. You as an average person cannot maintain a relationship with a Hollywood megastar. Yeah you can be friends for a short period, even really good friends for a while, but eventually their megastardom will encompass you and turn you into just another groupie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshyy
You are probably more good-looking than you think yourself to be. I have a friend with male model level of looks(Sean O'Pry level of looks) who thinks of himself as 'not that special,' so when women throw themselves at him(basically every day) he doesn't believe why would women that attractive want to sleep with him.
I hate to make this about me but I seem to consistently date women better looking than I. If you grasp the superficial concept that only looks count, maybe I'm like you said above, modest. Probably a trait that women like.
But seriously I think that I'm average looks but better than average luck at attracting cute women.
... Because an average looking man can increase his perceived value and attractiveness by orders of magnitude with a good personality. But the hottest man on earth, if he acts badly and projects toxicity, and is obviously a d-bag, and we women see that, sense that, his value and attractiveness will drop like a stone in our eyes. Every woman I know, could picture the hottest man she can imagine in her mind, and then imagine him acting like a sleaze, and she'll feel repelled. A man who starts at a place somewhere in the average range, like most do, and acts well, is a hot guy who will be appreciated, even approached.
OMG you got my whole dating strategy in one paragraph! Average range, acts like a gentleman, dresses good, youthful attitude. I think it also requires a bit of initiative on the guy's part, like before a kiss, asking with your eyes and not asking verbally. Non-verbal signals work perfectly fine.
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.
