# The Number 1 Reason You Fail at the First Hurdle in Getting Women.



## TaylorP (Mar 22, 2011)

undead said:


> As I said, when you overcome "fear of rejection" there are still 3 more obstacles:
> communication, lifestyle, and physical attractiveness.
> 
> So, it's not the one ring to rule them all.
> ...


Is some one insecure of them selves?

I would say so if they have to go as far as to think that way.

lol, but all the rings are called to the one ring.
OMG Ringwraiths


----------



## Darth INTPhoebe (Jul 20, 2010)

​


----------



## TaylorP (Mar 22, 2011)

Darth INTPhoebe said:


> ​


How did he give him self a kiss on the neck, thats amazing?

I do not think he is soft enough, needs more flufff.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Darth INTPhoebe said:


> ​


Faaaaakkkkkkk what a screaming douche.


----------



## Goodewitch (Mar 4, 2010)

Oh for crying out loud! ..Whats with all this 'picking up women,' and go get em' stuff?
Dont you young men realise, ..were'nt you ever told that its women who choose YOU..not the other way around. We simply require you to present yourselves for inspection, and to approach us, and say hello,.. Gosh, man,..if we find you attractive,..we'll take the social conversation stuff from there.
Curse these PUA's..they've done nothing but create an army of muppets who try to ruin your night out by coming up to you and trying to do some sort of strange display of hypnotic misdirection whilst dangling shiny stuff in front of your face. It reeks of the very desperation that young men are supposedly trying to mask.
Just smile and say hello, have a freindly chat, talk to her as if she were..oh I dunno...a human being? Its a radical suggestion, I know,.. but if you can see a woman as a human being, and not just as a potential 'target' then you may actually find that SHE CHOOSES YOU.
If you're a shy or very introverted or otherwise terrified guy,..just make a few seconds eye contact, give her yer best smile, then look down all sheepish like. Shy men can be sexy to a lot of women. IF she likes the look of you,..she'll ooze her way, bit by bit, in a sideways pincer movement, a bit like a crab,..over to where you are and will position herself near you. Thats your signal to look across , smile, and say Hi... she'll talk back to you if she likes the look of you,..if she actually fancies you,.. she'll stick around and keep that conversation going. She'll probably do the old 'touch on yer arm' thing too,.. to signal that she doesnt actually find you repellant. Take it from there.
If all else fails, and she isnt catching your eye, then itss time for the oldest trick in the book,.. you pretend to be moving to another part of the environment,.. you bump gently into her,.. say 'oh, sorry there, smile yer best smile, pat her upper arm as if steadying her, from the tiny bump ye just did into her,.. and move a little away. In this way, you've made her take a look at you,.. and now she can take another look at you if she liked what she saw.then you can play googly eyes with her for a while.. as stated earlier.
Its dead easy.. 


G. x


----------



## TaylorP (Mar 22, 2011)

Goodewitch said:


> Oh for crying out loud! ..Whats with all this 'picking up women,' and go get em' stuff?
> Dont you young men realise, ..were'nt you ever told that its women who choose YOU..not the other way around. We simply require you to present yourselves for inspection, and to approach us, and say hello,.. Gosh, man,..if we find you attractive,..we'll take the social conversation stuff from there.
> Curse these PUA's..they've done nothing but create an army of muppets who try to ruin your night out by coming up to you and trying to do some sort of strange display of hypnotic misdirection whilst dangling shiny stuff in front of your face. It reeks of the very desperation that young men are supposedly trying to mask.
> Just smile and say hello, have a freindly chat, talk to her as if she were..oh I dunno...a human being? Its a radical suggestion, I know,.. but if you can see a woman as a human being, and not just as a potential 'target' then you may actually find that SHE CHOOSES YOU.
> ...


If only it was so easy. lol

What if we find eye contact hard to do, lol, have you ever seen a INTJ look?

All I want is to walk around and be jumped and told what to do. *winks*


----------



## Jolie (Mar 26, 2011)

Ormazd said:


> I think I'm with Joe here, I'm not out to sell myself.
> 
> I'm out to present myself in the most honest way possible. I'm not going to go with that psuedo-confidence that people find attractive. I'm simply going to be me, I am attractive, I am confident in that.
> 
> *shrugs*


My policy as well (Is this an NT thing? I'm ENTP). I've noticed some people tend to see me as a bit vulnerable because of this, but I'm stronger than I appear


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Define confidence?

Because I honestly feel true confidence is a function of time and can't be "proven" in an initial meeting.


----------



## Reclusive (Mar 25, 2011)

Reclusive said:


> I agree with you on a certain level, but I tend to think women look down upon guys who think they have the gusto to be able to pick them up. I think of finding yourself in the right circumstances for a mutually beneficial relationship that goes beyond friendship, somewhat rare. If you have the courage and are simply trying to pick up women, you can, if you look in the right places. I can't guarantee the quality though, if this is your approach. I figure any guy with any sense will want a woman who is decent, intelligent,etc. If she feels like all you trying to do is conquer your fears, she will leave you to your vices.





Goodewitch said:


> Oh for crying out loud! ..Whats with all this 'picking up women,' and go get em' stuff?
> Dont you young men realise, ..were'nt you ever told that its women who choose YOU..not the other way around. We simply require you to present yourselves for inspection, and to approach us, and say hello,.. Gosh, man,..if we find you attractive,..we'll take the social conversation stuff from there.
> Curse these PUA's..they've done nothing but create an army of muppets who try to ruin your night out by coming up to you and trying to do some sort of strange display of hypnotic misdirection whilst dangling shiny stuff in front of your face. It reeks of the very desperation that young men are supposedly trying to mask.
> Just smile and say hello, have a freindly chat, talk to her as if she were..oh I dunno...a human being? Its a radical suggestion, I know,.. but if you can see a woman as a human being, and not just as a potential 'target' then you may actually find that SHE CHOOSES YOU.
> ...



I guess I didn't get as direct as you, but certainly I feel like I eluded to the fact that any decent woman is offended by the attempted conquering advances of those that think they'll succeed because they think they have it. Thanks for mentioning how much shy men can appeal to women, and the bottom line is we have to be pleasing to you and not so much to ourselves. Some men are too selfish to realize this. Yes, normally women have the ball totally in their court as to whether there is any relationship. I find the only way men end up with a choice in the matter is when, they don't ruin every woman's night they try to go out. They instead look to develop relationships that can turn into something more, because they want to get to know and value women as a people, instead of objectifying them.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

#1:Fear of Rejection: Caused because I get rejected so awesome that I don't have any inner faith despite projecting a strong exterior. If I had a bit bigger balls, I could be more audacious and potentially win that way.

#2: I'm short. 94-96% of women really strongly prefer that their man is noticeably taller than they are and maybe 80% of the girls I have access to are visibly taller than I am. Do the math.

#3: INTP. This topic has been beaten to death with a nuclear powered jackhammer.

#4: Minimal Experience: Having a dating track record makes you more attractive. Just pretending to have a girlfriend makes you more desirable!


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> 94-96% of women really strongly prefer that their man is noticeably taller than they are


Creditable source?


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Hokahey said:


> Creditable source?



bodylanguageproject.com - Why Tall Men Have Prettier Girlfriends

BTW, what is your height?

P.S.: Fizz, stay out of this.


----------



## Third Engine (Dec 28, 2009)

Monte said:


> I didn't read all of it, but I laugh at those who legitimately fear rejection.
> 
> 99% of the time, the worst that some can do or say to you is the word "no". It isn't physical pain, sure your ego might be bruised, but it isn't the worst thing that could happen to you by a long shot. Suck up and move on.
> 
> Btws, you had the honor of receiving my thousandth post.


Emotional pain and physical pain are both felt in the same area of the brain, just so you know.

Sound advice, OP.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Define confidence?
> 
> Because I honestly feel true confidence is a function of time and can't be "proven" in an initial meeting.


 I think you're right but I also think being "slow to warm up" can limit men to dating the women in their social circle or those in the ring just outside their circle. That is cool for some men and some even prefer it. I think the OP is written for those men who would like to have a wider amount of choices in who they try to date.

I can sense confidence in people when I just met them. I can also (usually) sense when someone is just acting confident. I can also (often) sense when that person is generally confident but just a bit nervous about approaching me. (That can be cute and endearing, and no that doesn't mean something negative to the man approaching me that I consider the nervousness "cute." If I'm interested, cute isn't an issue at all.)

To me, confidence as it applies to gender relations (socializing generally) is about...opening up to share/being open with who you are. You can do this without being loud. You can do this without being chatty. It is harder to see confidence in someone who puts out an air of hiding who they are. 

The man who is talking with his buddies, making them laugh, easily communicates with the waitress (bartender, barista, whatever), and the man who is just sitting quietly in the corner can both project confidence.

It is about being comfortable in your own skin, and it is about knowing you are valuable as a human being, and it is about sharing whoever you are without apology.

This topic has a parallel with women too. I know women who complain about the quality of the men they go out with, but they have never initiated themselves. Kind of odd, to expect someone to fit your ideal when you wait and only consider the ones who initiate with you. My issue is having initiated, and not feeling like I match as well with those guys, and feeling like I'm in the dominant role for the entire relationship because I initiated. I don't prefer that. 

Initiating doesn't have to be scary. I have done it. I think one major way to make it more comfortable is to be in the moment without expectations. (It also helps if you have accepted an Abundance mindset about dating. As in, it doesn't matter if one person says no, because there's plenty out there who will say yes. You may just need to cross paths wtih them.)

Talk to that person for the purpose of talking to them, sharing a moment. Don't talk to them for a goal or specific outcome. Have the outcome in mind, but don't focus on it. Focus instead on just being in the room with that person. Takes a lot of the pressure off. 

Also helps if you learn to focus on the enjoyment of meeting and talking to people. If you focus on getting a number or getting a yes, it will wreck your confidence more if it doesn't work out that way. If your main focus is talking and connecting, it's less pressure for all involved, and then you can be that much more enthused if it works out the way you wanted it to before you went all "in the moment for the purpose of connecting with this person" about it.


----------



## JoetheBull (Apr 29, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> #1:Fear of Rejection: Caused because I get rejected so awesome that I don't have any inner faith despite projecting a strong exterior. If I had a bit bigger balls, I could be more audacious and potentially win that way.
> 
> #2: I'm short. 94-96% of women really strongly prefer that their man is noticeably taller than they are and maybe 80% of the girls I have access to are visibly taller than I am. Do the math.
> 
> ...


no experience and INTP are kind of tied for number 1 for reason I fail with women. That and I don't like getting drunk and 90% of what people consider fun boring lol. Only time I seem to be able to meet women is taking classes, work, and conventions


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> bodylanguageproject.com - Why Tall Men Have Prettier Girlfriends
> 
> BTW, what is your height?
> 
> P.S.: Fizz, stay out of this.


Hrmm would be interested in seeing their "sampling" size. Also I don't see this as a "creditable" source. When my college library get's their off-campus website back up I will look for actual scientific journals about it. Not just a website with sources of studies that all show different numbers. The ones study I believe said:



> In his study, consisting of 145 females, 32 percent reported this as their preferred height. Thirty-two percent is not everyone, and most certainly not the majority, so this statistic might give you hope!


Seriously they are asking 145 females and calling it a study? Though if we do want to use this as a 'creditable" source, doesn't this study that shows only 32 percent show a reverse of 94-96%?

Also to answer your question I'm 5'11" and have only had 1 girlfriend, and I'm 28 if that matters either.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

mutatio nomenis said:


> bodylanguageproject.com - why tall men have prettier girlfriends
> 
> btw, what is your height?
> 
> *p.s.: Fizz, stay out of this.*


*I'M ALLOVER THIS!!!*

What's going on?


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Fizz said:


> *I'M ALLOVER THIS!!!*
> 
> What's going on?


The war has been prevented.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> The war has been prevented.


I wouldn't even bother. It's completely hopeless to change your mind. It doesn't bother me that you're dwelling on your insecurities. You constantly talk about your height and I honestly don't give two turds. I couldn't give ONE turd. Therefore, you don't get no turds.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

@Fizz yeah it only took me one thread to see it isn't worth the effort to encourage Mutatio to take on a more empowering perspective. He is confirming it right and left. My point about attitude being more important went in one ear and out the other. Which is kind of a shame. I bet he'd be pretty great company without those thoughts weighing him down all the time.

ETA: @Mutatio NOmenis, that last bit wasn't meant to offend you. I would just say, I prefer to be around folks who are not so hung up on insecurities myself, and who are generally pleasant, and your narrow focus on this, that I've seen in many of your posts... suggests to me that hanging with you afk would feel rather heavy for me. You're great company anyway, I'm sure, it's just that for me I enjoy being around folks who enjoy themselves and their lives. I'd prefer to be around a person of any size (tall or short or thin or large or purple) with a positive attitude and appreciation for life than a person of any size who does not choose to have that. This applies to my dating life as well.

Mutatio, have you looked into booking a session with an NLP Practitioner for this topic?

Double turdlessness. Starting... now. That I don't really expect interest in solutions! Too bad, there's so many paths to get there.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

chibs said:


> *going off topic*
> 
> as you might have noticed, your negativity is annoying to others and more important, destructive to yourself.
> 
> ...


Don't give him attention! If you've seen the movie Stephen King's IT, it's like that._ [No spoilers please, I kept that ambiguous]_


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Monte said:


> *99% of the time, the worst that some can do or say to you is the word "no".* It isn't physical pain, sure your ego might be bruised, but it isn't the worst thing that could happen to you by a long shot. Suck up and move on.


One time I tore a man's jugular out with my teeth after he asked me on a date.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> But through the feminist movement we were told to not live by stereotypes. Also equality is preferred right? The same risk of rejection is "shared" I thought.
> 
> Please don't take that as an "attack" I know what you mean, I understand the frustration, I just find it very hard to get out of my shy-zone. Then to hear that women really hate (who I am at the surface level) makes me honestly even more withdrawn to myself rather than take the chance. So basically (I don't want to say "yelling") but giving a negative reaction to an aspect and expecting someone to react in the manor you wish them seems counter-productive. :tongue:
> 
> Again, not trying to "attack" that just giving my honest opinion about it.


 Personally, I think feminism is great; I'm glad I can work if I want to work and all that. It also screwed up romantic interactions :tongue: It made things confusing for everyone.

I don't feel attacked by your post, no worries on that. I like a healthy dash of challenge anyway :wink:

Every strong independent woman I know personally, and afk, secretly wants a man to sweep her off her feet. I'm sure the exceptions to this will enter this thread to slap my wrist, but whatever. 

Some are more expressive of this desire than others. Some act independent and strong, and don't open up their softer side around others, and then complain that they don't have suitable men trying to date them. And it isn't the case that this is true for EVERY woman. I am sure there are those who are more dominating by choice, and desire to have a less dominating partner. I'm quite sure that's true.

I just know most of the strong women I know... are like that because that is what they were "told" is required to be equal to men in the work place. It does not mean they want to be that way in a relationship. Unfortunately, sometimes they are not very skilled at displaying a softer persona, so they can seem intimidating. I've been called intimidating but I would hope it's more about my level of education. I don't feel like I intimidate people socially, I wear dresses, I come across as receptive and open and easy to talk to. I show folks the softer side that I prefer to maintain in my relationships. 

I saw a great youtube vid set about this, about gender energies, and about learning as the man to hold the space for the woman to expand into her femininity at home. Whatever sort of person she is out in the world. Because the way we are out in the world, and the way we are or want to be at home in a relationship, aren't always the same. Some of us are better than others at showing that.

You have a point, and I am not saying shy is bad. It can limit you to the women friends want to set you up with, or to women who want to make more of the moves, and there's plenty who do. I've toyed with the idea of "landing" someone and then just showing them how I'd like them to be, but I think it is unfair to initiate with someone and then try and change their way of interacting with me. 

Yes the same risk of rejection is shared. I'm not the typical hypocritical woman who talks about preferring someone to take action while not having initiated myself. Plenty of women initiate, it's become more common. I don't like the results but some are fine with it.

I will ask you, if you found me interesting as a relationship partner, and I was the one who initiated things, but then I found our dynamic to be unsatisfying, and I enjoyed everything about you other than your greater level of passivity (assume for the question that you would have a greater level of passivity than myself), would you respond well to my attempts to change you into a more activating intiative-taking person, or would you feel as most people do - that it is inappropriate and kind of insulting when someone wants to change you? Assume as well, that I would pose it as a topic for discussion, explain that I enjoy you in most other ways but would prefer that you be more assertive in the relationship. Rather than just trying to make you change in passive aggressive ways, without talking about it first. How would you deal with that? Assume you appreciated me as a partner otherwise, so the issue is really whether you think it would be "fair" or "worth it" to experience me asking you to change for me.

Because personally, I would rather not date someone and then try to change them. I have discovered that *I* am not the best fit more a more passive man, but there are women who LOVE that. I would rather not try to change my partner into a more assertive person. I would rather just skip that and date someone more assertive in the first place. 

But the question still stands. How would you respond to a relationship partner asking you to become more assertive with her? Would you want to do that, would you want to change anyway, would you only do it because she asked, would you agree but resent it?

And for the record, I am not holding that attitude most of the time. Most of the time I am open and accepting with everyone. If I meet someone who seems more shy and they intrigue me, I will start up a conversation. If they are interested, I will still leave it to them to make it clear by asking for my info. Because, like I said, I haven't preferred the dynamic otherwise, and at this point I think it would be messed up to initiate with someone who was naturally more passive, and then ask them to change.

I understand your response, and like I said in that post, I don't like to be that way about it because I know it is counter-productive or I know it isn't likely to strengthen the ego of a person who would be awesome to me if they would only make a move.

Oh, and in spite of all my blabbing, there are women who enjoy passive men. Plenty enjoy this. Many I know prefer less passivity. But plenty enjoy it, especially more domineering personalities. I used to dominate partners, but I ended up walking all over them, and I don't like that one bit. Unfortunately, it is what happens when my personality meets a personality that will allow that to happen.

I think with all the feminist stuff, things just got all confused for both sides. All I know is, I do better with a stronger personality. I do not want to end up walking all over a partner. I find the idea of someone who will put me in my place to be highly appealing.


----------



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

Monte said:


> 99% of the time, the worst that some can do or say to you is the word "no". It isn't physical pain, sure your ego might be bruised, but it isn't the worst thing that could happen to you by a long shot. Suck up and move on.


One time, some crazy b**** tore out my jugular with her teeth after I asked her out on a date, not sure how I survived. Anyways, I now have a certain fear of asking women out on dates. I think my fear is understandable given the circumstances.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

chibs said:


> i'd say she was voicing a personal opinion and not trying to represent a whole gender :crazy:


 Can't thank this for some reason, but "thank."


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

@Hokahey Your experience may vary. I don't know if feminism created a higher number of passive males in our overall culture. I've gone there, it doesn't work for me, but there are women it works for. 

I'm not even judging it as a bad thing. I just know it does not work as well for me as dating a more assertive person. But then, I'm also assertive and not aggressive. I think passive men probably work well with aggressive women, and yes they exist.

They are just not in my social circle, hence my comments about the women I know personally secretly wanting a man to come and sweep them off their feet.

Oh and it isn't always clear that's the case. Sometimes a more independent woman will make you work for it, unconsciously asking you to prove you have the stuff for her to fold into you or defer to you in a relationship. That is where the challenging behaviors, the boundary-flexing, all that stuff comes in. PUA calls this shit-testing, I think it boils down to the same basic thing -

Show me you have the strength and power for me to finally embrace the incredible relief of not being all strong and independent all the time, in every setting.

I'm a fan for equal partnerships too. I'm not talking about BURDENING a partner with too much responsibility. I'm rather talking about a circumstance where I don't feel burdened by the level of responsibility I hold in the relationship. I think sometimes men use feminism as a copout. That isn't meant as an attack and I'm sorry if it's offensive.

David Deida is a really fantastic resource for this topic. Highly highly recommended.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Ormazd said:


> One time, some crazy b**** tore out my jugular with her teeth after I asked her out on a date, not sure how I survived. Anyways, I now have a certain fear of asking women out on dates. I think my fear is understandable given the circumstances.


You survived?!?


----------



## Ormazd (Jan 26, 2010)

Fizz said:


> You survived?!?


It was a harrowing experience, but apparently there was a team of highly trained robot doctors nearby. At least, that's what I've been told, I went out cold shortly after the attack and woke up a few months after the experience.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> I will ask you, if you found me interesting as a relationship partner, and I was the one who initiated things, but then I found our dynamic to be unsatisfying, and I enjoyed everything about you other than your greater level of passivity (assume for the question that you would have a greater level of passivity than myself), would you respond well to my attempts to change you into a more activating intiative-taking person, or would you feel as most people do - that it is inappropriate and kind of insulting when someone wants to change you? Assume as well, that I would pose it as a topic for discussion, explain that I enjoy you in most other ways but would prefer that you be more assertive in the relationship. Rather than just trying to make you change in passive aggressive ways, without talking about it first. How would you deal with that? Assume you appreciated me as a partner otherwise, so the issue is really whether you think it would be "fair" or "worth it" to experience me asking you to change for me.
> 
> Because personally, I would rather not date someone and then try to change them. I have discovered that *I* am not the best fit more a more passive man, but there are women who LOVE that. I would rather not try to change my partner into a more assertive person. I would rather just skip that and date someone more assertive in the first place.
> 
> But the question still stands. How would you respond to a relationship partner asking you to become more assertive with her? Would you want to do that, would you want to change anyway, would you only do it because she asked, would you agree but resent it?


Wow that was a big post. Umm I will try to answer what I "think" was the question. No I don't want anyone to "change" me without it coming naturally. What I mean by that as I stated with the "confidence" thing, I actually get more confident and assertive later in the relationship. I adapt and change naturally. I would be the boyfriend where everyone asks the girl in private, "how can he make you laugh? He never talks or talks rarely. How is he strong? He looks like a push over." and her response would be "he's totally different when we are alone". 

No one should try to "change" anyone, but more or less just simply "mold"/"fuse" together. Adapt and change naturally.

That's part of my thing. I want to be me and still be "sought" out or at least apprieciated. Yes I know there are women out there that like that. I believe in ultimate balance and as great as the feminist movement has been (I have nothing against individuals who want to be treated as individuals) there has been "side-effect" if you will. Also with just general growth of opinions "affection" and being in touch with "emotion" has been a general increase in what is valued in relationships in the past couple of decades, and just like companies who jump on "bandwagons" because that's where the money is. I think there has been a subtle increase of this in men. Not in a "manipulative" way but just a natural form of things.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

chibs said:


> i'd say she was voicing a personal opinion and not trying to represent a whole gender :crazy:


Yeah I know, I didn't mean to generalize. I read/hear more and more from women who are increasing in this though. I kind of explain it in my recent post at the bottom.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Wow that was a big post. Umm I will try to answer what I "think" was the question. No I don't want anyone to "change" me without it coming naturally. What I mean by that as I stated with the "confidence" thing, I actually get more confident and assertive later in the relationship. I adapt and change naturally. I would be the boyfriend where everyone asks the girl in private, "how can he make you laugh? He never talks or talks rarely. How is he strong? He looks like a push over." and her response would be "he's totally different when we are alone".
> 
> No one should try to "change" anyone, but more or less just simply "mold"/"fuse" together. Adapt and change naturally.


Yep I'm verbal, don't claim to be concise, but I think there's value in the whole post m'self even if it could be pared down I'm sure. I would wonder if you're using a phone to spend time here.

Well, I know that what you're talking about exists. If I see potential in a person, I spend enough time with them to see what sort of person they are once they are comfortable around me. I still don't like to initiate, though, since it has so far set the tone for the whole relationship. One of those partners was more assertive in private than the other, but overall lacked initiative. Probably partly due to his attachment to pot.

I'm not against slow to warm up. If I find that person interesting I hang around to see what they mold into around me. Not every woman is like this, some aren't aware that such a change can happen. And the fact remains, a man is still likely to have more options romantically or sexually if he goes after what he wants instead of choosing from whoever crosses his path with initiative on their end. Same is true for women.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Also to elaborate more on this. 



> I believe in ultimate balance and as great as the feminist movement has been (I have nothing against individuals who want to be treated as individuals) there has been "side-effect" if you will. Also with just general growth of opinions "affection" and being in touch with "emotion" has been a general increase in what is valued in relationships in the past couple of decades, and just like companies who jump on "bandwagons" because that's where the money is. I think there has been a subtle increase of this in men. Not in a "manipulative" way but just a natural form of things.


I think in 30 years or so, there is going to be another major change of things if women's population increases as it has to where there are so many more females, this will make men ("good" ones at that even more "rare") and women will find a balance, whether that be sort of "reverting" a little to suit the need or not. I don't know, but it's interesting to think about.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Yep I'm verbal, don't claim to be concise, but I think there's value in the whole post m'self even if it could be pared down I'm sure. I would wonder if you're using a phone to spend time here.


No I use a laptop honestly. To give away something, I have trouble focusing when I read, I actually don't like to read even though the stereotype of INFJ is (reading). I have to skim. I mean I read it's just hard to explain. I love knowledge and finding things out.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

As to your edit I do think feminism has lead to more men giving themselves permission to express more feminine energy. You are right there are women who dig that and I used to be one of them. 

Now I do better with someone who embraces more masculine activating energy because I accepted more of my yin. I don't work well anymore with a more yin partner. 

I do think plenty of women are getting fed up with the increase though. It is possible to have emotional intelligence AND be bold, daring, action-oriented. There are movements like Taken in Hand that I believe are a response to that change. I do not think all women are frustrated but many of us are.

Some women enjoy more yin partners, that is very true. Many of us do not. Our ability to take charge and be leaders in the public world is taxing and we would feel such sweet relief at not carrying it into our relationships. I imagine there are plenty who would appreciate a more yin partner but they may not be in the majority.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Oh as for yin and yang I have seen conflicting sources on which is which. I mean yin as soft and yielding and yang as hard and solid and unbending.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> No I use a laptop honestly. To give away something, I have trouble focusing when I read, I actually don't like to read even though the stereotype of INFJ is (reading). I have to skim. I mean I read it's just hard to explain. I love knowledge and finding things out.


I understand that actually. You may be more auditory or kinesthetic than visual.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Also to elaborate more on this.
> 
> 
> 
> I think in 30 years or so, there is going to be another major change of things if women's population increases as it has to where there are so many more females, this will make men ("good" ones at that even more "rare") and women will find a balance, whether that be sort of "reverting" a little to suit the need or not. I don't know, but it's interesting to think about.


 Are you saying women would just get over their preference for a more yang partner because of supply and demand? They would relax their standards and accept the possibility of a more feminine partner because there were less men to start with?


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

It's kind of difficult for me actually, because I'm strong ... I mean I can be a natural leader... but don't want to be in charge in my relationships. I don't think I seem intimidating socially, but I can see that it might take someone of great... something... to feel like they can rise to the challenge. Even if it isn't put out there as a challenge (except when I'm interacting romantically with someone and I can't tell if I would be comfortable deferring to them. I will readily admit I do test such a person with power plays and such, whether I'm trying to or not. It just happens. Not proud of it but it totally happens and it isn't even purposeful... I'm just that funny about personal power as I understand it.)

Went out with someone not too long ago, would have been fantastic if only he were not so inclined to defer to me and so against making decisions. It took us way too much effort to decide whether to eat at the place we were playing pool or go across the street.

And honestly, I don't want it to be a challenge really. I'd rather things just be natural, to just happen to meet someone who would just naturally prefer to express that level of activating energy. I don't want to be burdened with too much of the responsibility for the direction of things in my relationship but I don't want a partner to feel burdened by that either. Would work better if I happen to meet someone who is activating and naturally leads, without being a control freak. Not a tall order I'm sure.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Wait I think my comment about power plays might be misunderstood so I'll give an example. Went on a blind date recently with an artist. He was worried he'd be late, sent me a message about getting pulled over by a cop. Decided he could make it anyway but said he was not able to bring his own vehicle due to the law enforcement involvement. 

While we were there, he dropped a hint about transport. He said, "So... I don't know how I'm going to get home tonight once we finish the movie."

I responded instantly with, "Are you asking me to give you a ride home after this?" Before he could answer I said, "Wow, do you really expect a woman who has never met you before in her life is just going to randomly let you into her car to drive somewhere she's never been before? Seriously, you thought that?!"

A moment later I said something like, no offense it isn't personal, but I would be shocked that a woman would do that with someone she just met, from the internet, because I think saying yes to that idea would be a stupid move regardless of what sort of person you are. A woman would have no idea what sort of person you are on a first date.

I got feisty about it, partly because he would not even say directly he was hinting at a request for a ride. Partly because... the stuff I mentioned in my last post. And because the situation seemed fishy anyway. Get a ticket halfway to a theater, for insurance issues, cop lets you drive off, and you manage to take your own car home and get a ride from a parent instead, all while still being able to make it for the initial planned time? Um, something doesn't smell right about that.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Are you saying women would just get over their preference for a more yang partner because of supply and demand? They would relax their standards and accept the possibility of a more feminine partner because there were less men to start with?


I actually think it's a possibility. Not going to say it "will" happen. Also maybe not necessarily "accept more feminine partners" but I also mean may revert themselves from being more masculine. Again, only theories. People adapt and change though. 

When it comes to chosing a partner, it's a mutual weave of two distinct individuals, which will have clash marks, the balance is determining that balance while maintaining one's self. How can I be me and still be "us"? In a manor of speaking. So to truly answer your question before, when I jump on the scale, I want it to be me only on one side and her on the other and we simply balance out. She can't throw "be more assertive" on my side of the scale, it would shift. Just like I can't throw "be more assertive" on hers. Haha...

I have yet to find anyone where I was like "omg, I must go talk to that person they seem amazing" any female I have met has been out of being in the situation. School, work, online, etc. I have seen women where I was like "wow" but they were with a man in what very much seemed like a relationship based on gestures the two exchanged. And that's just initial "attraction" the more I get to know someone is when that non-physical attraction builds at exponential rates. That may seem very closed but that's just honestly how I feel, I sit there and think yes she is gorgeous but it doesn't scream inside my head, "get your ass up and talk to her". That could just be the shyness in me though.

P.S. So I don't get labeled as objectifying women or something else. Women and men are truly naturally beautiful.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Went out with someone not too long ago, would have been fantastic if only he were not so inclined to defer to me and so against making decisions. It took us way too much effort to decide whether to eat at the place we were playing pool or go across the street.


Haha, well sadly I would be like that, not the "so against making decisions" I can make them, sometimes just takes awhile. But food, I absolutely never care where I eat, I can eat anything (that I like) and will find anything that is acceptable (unless it's a salad only place). Once in awhile I will get cravings but that's rare. When we get to an impasse like that though and nothing is "happening" I will just be drastic pull out a quarter and let it decide for us. I love leaving things to chance "sometimes" lol....and yes I have done this when I was with my ex and neither of us had a preference. Not sure if that's being "assertive" or not though. Haha


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> I actually think it's a possibility. Not going to say it "will" happen. Also maybe not necessarily "accept more feminine partners" but I also mean may revert themselves from being more masculine. Again, only theories. People adapt and change though.


Do you mean what you said here, or do you mean you see the possibility that women would revert to expressing more masculinity to compensate for the greater expression of yin in the men?

I am not sure I see it working that way. What I see happen more, is men who don't like their results start on a path of growth to become happier with their results for relationships. Many of the more yin men I've come across aren't as self-accepting about it as you are. And some of the more yin men I've met were also incredibly lazy and that's where their yin was really coming from. My ex was probably more yin from laziness than truly yin.

I also think it depends on how important relationship is to the man or woman in question. Either side will be more motivated to do something about the results if they aren't happy with them and if they desire a relationship.

In a way it's a sign of yang in you, to be that unwilling to bend to the natural preference for more yang from the bulk of the women out there :wink:

As for me, I get enough interest that I'm not about to modify my level of yang at this point. I may or may not become less choosy.


Hokahey said:


> When it comes to chosing a partner, it's a mutual weave of two distinct individuals, which will have clash marks, the balance is determining that balance while maintaining one's self. .


I agree it is a balance, but I think it is unrealistic to expect a partner will continually be a perfect expression of that. A relationship without change and growth will stagnate. It is a balance but it is a dance too. I would not expect my partner to be permanently pleased with all my traits. I would expect us to both work to sustain the relationship by both communicating things we might like to be different and both putting in some effort. 

I think resentment builds in relationships where both people aren't expressing when things aren't how they want them to be, so working to keep it sustainable is generally a good idea for long-term stuff. That's not in line with the ideal many folks have, though. People seem to think if you meet someone compatible enough there's no effort required ever. I think any successful LTR has involved effort on both sides to keep it going as successful. I could certainly not keep a relationship sustainable if I were the only one willing to put any effort in, even if that person was the most compatible person on the planet for me. 

Of course, ideally, you start out compatible enough that there's less of that to do. I think it is unrealistic and unreasonable to not expect any work to balance or movement and growth and modification so both people continue to be as satisfied as possible.

I can't imagine being in a relationship where neither person changed. I think it's human nature to change and grow. I respond to the changes in my relationships and work better with someone who's also responsive in that way. 

I think it is impossible to not respond to changes in relationships, even if the response you take is to dig in your heels.



Hokahey said:


> I have yet to find anyone where I was like "omg, I must go talk to that person they seem amazing"


If you don't feel a pull to approach then you would obviously not approach as often, unless you draw motivation from something else, like desire for companionship or desire to feel deeply known as you can only feel in a romantic relationship.

Do you do any regular physical activity like running or weights? Anyone ever said you seem ungrounded? I've got that before and lots of my friends can be like that. No judgment and it isn't wrong it is just my curiosity.

Random aside: I think PerC is addictive enough. Now that it's been sold to fb I'm sure the level of dopamine-reward-motivated addictiveness is gonna skyrocket.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Haha, well sadly I would be like that, not the "so against making decisions" I can make them, sometimes just takes awhile. But food, I absolutely never care where I eat, I can eat anything (that I like) and will find anything that is acceptable (unless it's a salad only place). Once in awhile I will get cravings but that's rare. When we get to an impasse like that though and nothing is "happening" I will just be drastic pull out a quarter and let it decide for us. I love leaving things to chance "sometimes" lol....and yes I have done this when I was with my ex and neither of us had a preference. Not sure if that's being "assertive" or not though. Haha


 Flipping a coin to decide where to eat? I wouldn't call that assertive lol. HOWEVER, the decision to take action to settle the choice process IS a form of assertiveness. Not as much if you're putting the responsibility for the choice on a third party, but the underlying action to take action is assertive.

I can be like that too, if I don't care about something I'm very laid back in a lot of cases, and I'll directly share that I don't really care one way or the other. 

But I know it just doesn't work very well to be with someone equally laid back. Nothing ever gets decided. Nothing ever happens. It gets boring quickly for me. As you say it is about balance, I think it would make for a better relationship to pair with someone who's more naturally decisive and more likely to take a stand without being encouraged to do so.

Otherwise it's all just way way too floaty. Again, for me. 

I thought since that guy worked in a very grounded form of artistic expression, working with his hands and all, he'd be more grounded and a little more in touch with the yang, but he wasn't. We planned to hang out again, he followed up like a week later, then I never heard from him. No idea if he was really interested (he acted like it) or was just being polite.

I was the first person he went out with by meeting them online, and I think when he said that to me it was intended as some kind of compliment. Said toward the end of the date. Started as just coffee and turned into like a six-hour thing including dinner. So like I said he seemed interested, then ... blah. No action to pin down future plans with me translates as blah.

It isn't as fun to me for someone to be that lackluster about it. I'd rather them be a little more enthused about making plans. If they can take or leave me, then I feel like they must not really see me.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

I also fought with myself about that particular guy, because it seemed so cool and we clicked so well otherwise. He was physically attractive and sweet and generous and had nice manners and a neat job and cool liberalish values.

I resisted the urge to become the pursuer. In fairness, that's probably best, because I can be flighty so I do better with someone who seems more solid and in spite of his solid type of work he didn't have that effect on me. The interaction started out making me feel good, uplifted, but by the end of the date I felt really floaty and ungrounded and that doesn't work for me. I need to be more present than that.

Too bad though. It would have worked so well otherwise.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Do you mean what you said here, or do you mean you see the possibility that women would revert to expressing more masculinity to compensate for the greater expression of yin in the men?


I don't know how to express this without offending some I honestly think, again it's just a theory and shouldn't be looked at as much of anything. Or turning it into some sort of "logical" debate.



> As for me, I get enough interest that I'm not about to modify my level of yang at this point. I may or may not become less choosy.
> I agree it is a balance, but I think it is unrealistic to expect a partner will continually be a perfect expression of that. A relationship without change and growth will stagnate. It is a balance but it is a dance too. I would not expect my partner to be permanently pleased with all my traits. I would expect us to both work to sustain the relationship by both communicating things we might like to be different and both putting in some effort.
> 
> I can't imagine being in a relationship where neither person changed. I think it's human nature to change and grow. I respond to the changes in my relationships and work better with someone who's also responsive in that way.


Oh yeah I agree about change. I had it in my signature once. "Destiny of a relationship is when both paths are walked side by side." Meaning on the same page just not the exact same person. Like I have said earlier it's a "mold" as I put it. 



> Do you do any regular physical activity like running or weights? Anyone ever said you seem ungrounded? I've got that before and lots of my friends can be like that. No judgment and it isn't wrong it is just my curiosity.


I have recently started to run on an elliptical everyday for 30 minutes. Since last Easter I have lost 50 lbs and after this one I plan to lose around another 60. To answer you second question. "ungrounded"? How so? I hear many different things about me.

I don't lift weights or plan on it, because I have no desire to build "muscle" I just want to be healthy. I know it's not solely used for this, but I hope you know what I mean, I don't want a HHH or Mr. Universe look, I want something slightly close to what Matt Damon had in the bourne movies. Average looking not overly "huge".


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> I don't know how to express this without offending some I honestly think, again it's just a theory and shouldn't be looked at as much of anything. Or turning it into some sort of "logical" debate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 My question was for clarification, not a sign of being offended. The way you worded it just didn't make sense to me logically/linguistically. 

I think if you are seeing a theory that men will continue to be more yin and women will have to adapt, then it would be the women becoming more yang. Your wording wasn't exactly saying this, though. I just wanted to make sure I got where you were coming from on the loose outline of your theory.

But my questions on that were just to understand, not out of being offended. I haven't been offended by anything you've said to me here, ever. You'd have to try a lot harder to offend me :tongue: And if you offend others here, who cares? They are responsible for their response or reactionariness, not you.

Ungrounded... as in, kind of blowing about instead of being firmly rooted in yourself. Quick to change interests or something. Hard to explain. A lot of artists are ungrounded. A lot of people who do whatever they want as the mood strikes them are too. If you aren't particularly opinionated about your food you might not be as grounded. I know for me, I don't have the same passion and vigor about food as a lot of people I know. I eat it but I am not all like oooooh fooooood like most folks. Free food doesn't make me more likely to attend a function.

Not having very clear and well-defined opinions or boundaries may or may not be a sign of being ungrounded. Having an air of nebulousness or seeming diffuse in things to others can be a sign of ungroundedness too. Flighty or scattered or un-opinionated can all be related.

It isn't bad. I have a dash of it myself. Like I said it's just curiosity motivating the question.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Well what I mean is women possibly could revert back to being in the 1950's idea. The man goes and is the main bread winner and give away their freedoms to find suitable mates. Again, only a theory and not saying I'm in favor of a lot of the sexism that was alive back then. When a group of people get more "masculine" and their potential mate goes more "feminine" that group will shift somewhat back to "feminine" for the sake of finding a mate. Again, just a theory. I just don't want to offend anyone saying women "could" feel the need to give up their freedom to find a potential mate, again supply and demand could make this happen. Then again, maybe not.

Anyways, yes I am ungrounded as you put it.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

I am already more interested in a partner bringing in more than I do but I dint think it has to be a matter of choosing to work or not work to create more traditional gender relationships. 

What you explained is the opposite of what I thought you were saying. 

It would be awesome if men would grow to feel secure alongside women. Your post gives the impression that men are largely so intimidated by women working that they react with passivity. Not being in it at all rather than rising to meet any challenge they may perceive there. 

It is sad to consider the notion that women at large would have to shrink in some way for men at large to take on a more secure perspective for their place in relationships. 

Why can't we all just grow into our greatness together. 

I may misunderstand your point though. If I do understand, my response would be damn, and here I thought I generally do a great job at not being an emasculaing influence on the males in my life.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Why can't we all just grow into our greatness together.


We can, that "shrinking" you talk about is what has happened in the past few decades in men if you look at it. Nothing is ever absolute though. Men did have to adapt with the change, which is where we are. I just think it's possible that it could revert. Because like you said, if women were handed the authority over "everything" (as you said you don't want to be always in charge) it would be the same situation as the past has been and there would be another feminist movement except with men, lmao.... again I don't have this whole theory even close to polished, just something I have thought about a "what if" moment.

I will say yes we can all just grow into our greatness together and a lot of people do. Like a dance as you put it, I like using that as a reference as well.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

@Hokahey I believe it is possible that men have had this adverse reaction to feminism. 

I guess not enough men have been told that many women want to be soft and yielding outside of work and in that sense we would appreciate men keeping the awesome qualities from before. 

I think maybe that is part of it anyway, men not being told that women who work would still enjoy relying on them. 

My interest in a male partner is more than him being a sole provider but I greatly enjoy the energy that comes with a man aligned with that role. 

I may enjoy his company and yes, Shh, I may need him. Feminism means that is supposed to be a secret. 

The right man finds it out anyway. 

I have only had this kittenish submissive response to one guy and he was a nerd with good social skills so probably read Deida or other less hokey pick up material. It was working for him. 

That experience also tells me there are men in the world who embrace that yang essence regardless of feminism. 

The problem might be the women in the early part of the movement. They may have gotten drink on new power and emasculated their husbands and any male children in such an environment would, once adults, possibly have to work to reclaim male power for themselves and their family.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

How the hell have you two been talking all day long? I swear, I was here like, four or five hours ago when this started. There is PM if you're off topic. I don't know if you two are, it's a crippling case of TL;DR.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Haha why do you care Fizz? We are on topic and I'm also having an afk life this very moment. Not that that even matters. 

So really why does it matter or bother you?

We are OT actually.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

It's just that it keeps updating but it's only you two.

And for the most part, I don't care. That's why I'm not reading what you two are talking about. I have no interest, just asking if you're on topic basically.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Only the two of us. I feel so valued. Yes we are on topic and I think we are bringing up some potentially insightful points on the topic of gender relations. 

I mean I think we are on topic. Men and their mindset as it pertains to dating women.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Do you have an abridged version?


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Feminism confused things and some men got more passive in reaction to it and brainstorming for both theoretical futures (boring to me) and ways more men might feel more secure to grow up and out to be grander alongside women instead of shrinking into passivity.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

I don't think most men are daunted by women at all. Sexism is still prevalent. I also think people have this idea of feminism and thinks it's a man-hating-machine, which is wrong. Don't worry, theoretical futures wouldn't be too interesting to me either. Since it doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of backing to it. It's just an opinion, especially in online forums.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


> I don't think most men are daunted by women at all. Sexism is still prevalent. I also think people have this idea of feminism and thinks it's a man-hating-machine, which is wrong. Don't worry, theoretical futures wouldn't be too interesting to me either. Since it doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of backing to it. It's just an opinion, especially in online forums.


Yeah I know that feminism isn't (man-hating-machine). But it was a big change in direct relations and the more empowered women felt, the more it has changed them (nothing wrong with that) I'm just saying there is an actual "side-effect" not in a bad way, just acknowledging that it's here. 

I mean I grew up with the ideas of tradition, which means you hold open doors for women, now that's frowned on because (a woman can hold her own door open). I mean I guess I can see how it's "doing" something just because of the sex. But I find it respectful not only to hold the door open for women but anyone, now I'm confused if I should, maybe I'm being "judged" if I do so. 

My dad always told me women get to sit in the front, when I had my ex and I was picking him up, he ALWAYS sat in the back. It's just how I grew up, I'm very passive and shy, mixed with tradition. I truly enjoy being like that. My ex wasn't used to it, she didn't understand why I would hold open doors for her or anything. 

We did get side tracked with my "theory" of possibilities. I apologize for that, I kind of wanted to bow out of it after I initially said it. LOL.....

I just think as being "assertive" initially isn't me, but I still yearn to be with someone so it's hard to say "ok, I'm gonna be less like me to get something I desire." Like @sparkles has said, she doesn't want to do it because it would be less like her if she did or it would be out of her comfort zone of what she feels defines herself.


Edit: I should clarify, I don't feel "confused" about holding the door open, I will do what I feel is right, I'm just saying......


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Yeah I know that feminism isn't (man-hating-machine). But it was a big change in direct relations and the more empowered women felt, the more it has changed them (nothing wrong with that) I'm just saying there is an actual "side-effect" not in a bad way, just acknowledging that it's here.
> 
> I mean I grew up with the ideas of tradition, which means you hold open doors for women, now that's frowned on because (a woman can hold her own door open). I mean I guess I can see how it's "doing" something just because of the sex. But I find it respectful not only to hold the door open for women but anyone, now I'm confused if I should, maybe I'm being "judged" if I do so.


The side-effect would only pertain to a few men, not all. I really doubt that most of the male population in the US cares that much about it. It doesn't apply to them because they feel it's alright, they haven't been as discriminated against.

I prefer when people are chivalrous, regardless of their sex or gender. I hold open doors for men and women alike. It doesn't bother me. The only time it does bug me is when someone doesn't do it for me or thank me.




Hokahey said:


> We did get side tracked with my "theory" of possibilities. I apologize for that, I kind of wanted to bow out of it after I initially said it. LOL.....
> 
> I just think as being "assertive" initially isn't me, but I still yearn to be with someone so it's hard to say "ok, I'm gonna be less like me to get something I desire." Like sparkles has said, she doesn't want to do it because it would be less like her if she did or it would be out of her comfort zone of what she feels defines herself.


You better freaking apologize, goddamn it. No, jk.

I'm fine being assertive. As you may have noticed, I can be a little aggressive. It's just how I act naturally. I'm not trying to be "one of the boys" or trying to intimidate people. If they're intimidated, that's on them.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Fizz said:


> The side-effect would only pertain to a few men, not all.


Yeah I know, that's why we were referring to the "shy" guys. Even in that category it's not an absolute just like nothing is.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Yeah I know that feminism isn't (man-hating-machine). But it was a big change in direct relations and the more empowered women felt, the more it has changed them (nothing wrong with that) I'm just saying there is an actual "side-effect" not in a bad way, just acknowledging that it's here.


I think that many women who were ball-busters in the home are still ball-busters in the home. I was raised to be passive like a 'good little American girl'. I just happened to break myself outside of that because I got tired of those patterns but I'm still passive around a certain type of person. 

I don't know if feminism changed women. It may have shown some women their access to personal power. It's not like only one gender can have power though. Men can be empowered while women are empowered. 

I think if anything it is more likely that newly-empowered women had it go to their heads and their husbands allowed the power dynamic to change and then young boys grew up around that instead of around role models of assertive or aggressive males.



Fizz said:


> I don't think most men are daunted by women at all. Sexism is still prevalent. I also think people have this idea of feminism and thinks it's a man-hating-machine, which is wrong. Don't worry, theoretical futures wouldn't be too interesting to me either. Since it doesn't have a whole heck of a lot of backing to it. It's just an opinion, especially in online forums.


 I agree with you that most men seem to be just fine about it. Most people I know don't see feminism that way!

I do know (of) men who blame feminism for stuff though. They are not usually as attractive to me as the men who accept responsibility for being what they want to be regardless of (reasonable) influences of the environment.

A passive man can stay passive. If he doesn't want to change he doesn't have to. I do think that isn't what a lot of women want. I also think he's likely to get walked all over by a stronger partner, but if he chooses a passive partner this won't be as likely to happen. 

@Fizz Do you end up with stronger partners or do you end up with more submissive ones? I'm trying to find out how to surround myself with more men who aren't intimidated by me and who naturally step up. I think a lot of these sorts of men shy away because they think I'm smarter than them or something. Maybe I'm not as cute as a lot of people tell me I am either lol.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> @Fizz Do you end up with stronger partners or do you end up with more submissive ones? I'm trying to find out how to surround myself with more men who aren't intimidated by me and who naturally step up. I think a lot of these sorts of men shy away because they think I'm smarter than them or something. Maybe I'm not as cute as a lot of people tell me I am either lol.


I don't have a lot of committed relationship experience, but I do prefer more passive. I wouldn't really say submissive, but they're definitely not dominant. I prefer introverted males, I am more drawn towards them than their extroverted counterparts. There is nothing wrong with extroverts, it's just not something I'm drawn towards. I have a habit of pursuing introverts.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I don't have a lot of committed relationship experience, but I do prefer more passive. I wouldn't really say submissive, but they're definitely not dominant. I prefer introverted males, I am more drawn towards them than their extroverted counterparts. There is nothing wrong with extroverts, it's just not something I'm drawn towards. I have a habit of pursuing introverts.


Haha I have that same habit. Wish I enjoyed the dynamic of me plus passive partner as much as you apparently do. I'd make it so much easier on myself to just be satisfied with that... I'd rather be with a more dominant/assertive introvert  Yes I think they exist because I know a few. Maybe in the minority though. 

I'm drawn to introverts more than extroverts too usually. I still like to be handled and challenged and put in my place.

Maybe my problem is my last partner was just reeeeeally lazy and passive, and it turned me off to that whole general sort of person. Never initiating anything. Always my job to decide things. Blech. Plus I had to be on top like every time even though that's not my favorite thing. He controlled in that sort of way.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Haha I have that same habit. Wish I enjoyed the dynamic it creates as much (the passivity not the introverted partner) as you apparently do. I'd make it so much easier on myself to just be satisfied with that... I'd rather be with a more dominant/assertive introvert  Yes I think they exist because I know a few. Maybe in the minority though.
> 
> I'm drawn to introverts more than extroverts too usually. I still like to be handled and challenged and put in my place.


I don't want a partner that needs me to help them stand up, but I also don't want someone that will let me walk allover them. I need some challenge from a partner, but a positive challenge. Not a malicious power struggle.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I don't want a partner that needs me to help them stand up, but I also don't want someone that will let me walk allover them. I need some challenge from a partner, but a positive challenge. Not a malicious power struggle.


 That is my preference also. Maybe I prefer a bit more of it than you do. Maybe my last partner just turned me off to all forms of passivity for right now. 

Meh I don't like to be in charge in my relationships, if it means feeling burdened by it. I need my partner to share the responsibilities for decisions and stuff, to have opinions and push against me sometimes.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> That is my preference also. Maybe I prefer a bit more of it than you do. Maybe my last partner just turned me off to all forms of passivity for right now.
> 
> Meh I don't like to be in charge in my relationships, if it means feeling burdened by it. I need my partner to share the responsibilities for decisions and stuff, to have opinions and push against me sometimes.


Yeah, I don't like being given full power over somebody. I would rather the power be shared than divided unequally. Nothing turns me off more than an indecisive nebbish. I want someone who is inspired and can think of creative things to do as well. I hate being the ringleader all the time.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Yeah, I don't like being given full power over somebody. I would rather the power be shared than divided unequally. Nothing turns me off more than an indecisive nebbish. I want someone who is inspired and can think of creative things to do as well. I hate being the ringleader all the time.


Me neither especially when it is just... out of laziness to make a decision which is what I experienced most recently. He was just that stubborn he never took a stand on anything and it drove me up the wall. Also lazy in bed. As generous and enthusiastic as I am in bed, that just doesn't work for me. 

I think an assertive introvert, or an introvert with some spunk who will offer input on things without being asked and also handle me when I get out of line... would suit me just fine.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Me neither especially when it is just... out of laziness to make a decision which is what I experienced most recently. He was just that stubborn he never took a stand on anything and it drove me up the wall. Also lazy in bed. As generous and enthusiastic as I am in bed, that just doesn't work for me.
> 
> I think an assertive introvert, or an introvert with some spunk who will offer input on things without being asked and also handle me when I get out of line... would suit me just fine.


Are you saying you want someone who is as generous and enthusiastic in bed as yourself? I need someone who wants it just as bad as I do. I'm not interested in wasting my time with a coquette. It's business time and we need to stop wasting it away.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> Are you saying you want someone who is as generous and enthusiastic in bed as yourself? I need someone who wants it just as bad as I do. I'm not interested in wasting my time with a coquette. It's business time and we need to stop wasting it away.


As generous and enthusiastic in bed as myself, yes. Ideally similar sex drive too. I don't need it daily and if he's hornier than I am I need us to work something out on that, and when I do go there I don't want to feel anything less than captivating to my partner. That guy I was talking about, not so much. Even when I dressed in some sexy lingerie for a special occasion, and came back to the bedroom, I saw his eyes light up... which is in the right direction. 

But I was going for, all composure out the window can't help but attack me right there because I look so tasty.

Kind of kills the mood for me to get all sexied up, and then still have to make the first move. WTF if I put on lingerie instead of just undressing, I can't help but expect that he'll take some sort of action.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> As generous and enthusiastic in bed as myself, yes. Ideally similar sex drive too. *I don't need it daily and if he's hornier than I am I need us to work something out on that, and when I do go there I don't want to feel anything less than captivating to my partner.* That guy I was talking about, not so much. Even when I dressed in some sexy lingerie for a special occasion, and came back to the bedroom, I saw his eyes light up... which is in the right direction.


I would probably be more than once daily kind of person. I would like a partner that matches me or is higher. I would like to feel desired.



sparkles said:


> But I was going for, all composure out the window can't help but attack me right there because I look so tasty.
> 
> Kind of kills the mood for me to get all sexied up, and then still have to make the first move. WTF if I put on lingerie instead of just undressing, I can't help but expect that he'll take some sort of action.


I definitely wouldn't want to deal with someone who had no enthusiasm and ignored all the effort I made. Not worth my time.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I would probably be more than once daily kind of person. I would like a partner that matches me or is higher. I would like to feel desired.


I like to feel desired too, had a good match on sex drive with most of my partners. In the right circumstances my sex drive increases, and pushing the right buttons I'm more easily receptive to it. More than once daily sounds pretty time-consuming to me lol.





Fizz said:


> I definitely wouldn't want to deal with someone who had no enthusiasm and ignored all the effort I made. Not worth my time.


Agreed. Sigh it isn't always easy to tell when you initiate what sort of person they will turn out to be. There's some fun mystery to that but it can be disappointing sometimes too. Guess that goes for everyone.

Like the sexy builder I mentioned upthread. So cute and rugged and interested in some of the same things. Just way too indecisive. Sigh.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

sparkles said:


> Dude, I would really enjoy it if the men in my world would step up a little bit.
> 
> I don't like to talk about it in that way because I know they put themselves under enough pressure as it is, but for real yo. Read David Deida. Let go of outcomes. Come over and TALK to me if I've glanced at you a bunch because those glances are a sign that I will be receptive to you.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that's all that need be said. I'll do that if women also promise to meet me more than 0% of the way.

EDIT: By more than 0% of the way, I mean that don't say know when you mean yes and act like you don't care when I do something. If you play hard to get, I'm going to assume that you're not interested and will act accordingly by leaving you alone.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I'm pretty sure that's all that need be said. I'll do that if women also promise to meet me more than 0% of the way.


 Women are the ones who really initiate with subtle signals of interest (in many or most cases). If a woman wasn't sending these she probably isn't interested. See that post to hear again why this is a comfortable thing to discover. 

Like I also said in that post, I'll do far more than zero percent of the work if I'm interested in a person.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Women are the ones who really initiate with subtle signals of interest .


I don't know body language. It's foreign to me. I also can't read minds even though I am an INFJ. lol.....


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> I don't know body language. It's foreign to me. I also can't read minds even though I am an INFJ. lol.....


Uh oh @Fizz is gonna snipe us again lol.

Women looking over at you more than once... is pretty obvious. Lots of body language is more subtle. I think even someone who is less tuned into it would notice if a woman keeps looking at him and doesn't have a look of disgust on her face... am I wrong?

If you don't like to approach anyway then does this matter? Are you thinking of approaching women who seem interested?

ETA I imagine Ni is in their internal world more of the time, so less apt to notice things happening around them. I can understand if a woman looking at you several times might not be noticeable to Ni.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Uh oh @Fizz is gonna snipe us again lol.
> 
> Women looking over at you more than once... is pretty obvious. Lots of body language is more subtle. I think even someone who is less tuned into it would notice if a woman keeps looking at him and doesn't have a look of disgust on her face... am I wrong?
> 
> If you don't like to approach anyway then does this matter? Are you thinking of approaching women who seem interested?


Well I figure they are just doing what I am, taking their heads out of what they are doing and simply looking around, I guess if they only looked up and only looked at me, that may make more sense. In general though talking to women I honestly get more focused on listening to them than telling any type of body language.

Example, I was working at a gas station, this young woman (about my age) came in. Came up to the counter, talked to me, my co-worker standing right there (he was a player) anyways small chit chat, and rang her up and off she went, before she left she did look back at me. My co-worker was like ("dude, she was into you, I think she wanted you to ask her out") which I dismissed because I thought she was just friendly, but like I said I was more focused on her talking than any "body language". The only thing that made me 2nd guess that was the fact she did actually look back at the register before leaving the store. Meh.....


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Well I figure they are just doing what I am, taking their heads out of what they are doing and simply looking around, I guess if they only looked up and only looked at me, that may make more sense. In general though talking to women I honestly get more focused on listening to them than telling any type of body language.
> 
> Example, I was working at a gas station, this young woman (about my age) came in. Came up to the counter, talked to me, my co-worker standing right there (he was a player) anyways small chit chat, and rang her up and off she went, before she left she did look back at me. My co-worker was like ("dude, she was into you, I think she wanted you to ask her out") which I dismissed because I thought she was just friendly, but like I said I was more focused on her talking than any "body language". The only thing that made me 2nd guess that was the fact she did actually look back at the register before leaving the store. Meh.....


 Yeah if she was smiling while talking with you that is another good sign.

However, people from both genders can also run into an issue of mistaking general friendliness for interest. Sucks when that happens and that is one reason sometimes women will act kind of cold with men trying to talk to them... we have learned that our general friendliness is misunderstood sometimes, so this is our way of communicating that we are not interested. It really doesn't mean the woman who does that is a bitch, but she might act like one so there won't be any confusion.

I know it's all so simple isn't it. 

Said to everyone. If you think you might enjoy someone's company strike up a conversation and then if it goes well ask for their info or offer yours. Even if it doesn't go well if you think you might enjoy their company ask for or offer info. To guys, sometimes getting an email address instead of a number is NOT a brush-off. I don't give my number out until I've known the person really really well, just to be smart about things (and to not face the possibility of having to change my number), so any info at all from a girl is positive even if it isn't a number.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> I know it's all so simple isn't it.


It would be if people were merely honest. I asked out this girl who worked at little caesars, a friend gave me this great idea to go in, give my order and while giving my order ask for her number as if it was like the order. At first I was against this but this friend really talked me into it. Well I went in and such, did the whole bit. Asked for her number and her response was "I don't think so" like I was a crazy nut who just walked through the door. Then she went in the back and someone else finished my order lol.. But I give her credit at least she was "HONEST". I'm tired of getting excuses, there's 7 billion people on this planet I KNOW not everyone is going to think I'm interesting, I KNOW not everyone is going to think I'm cute, but don't say it just to make me "feel" good if you are going to turn around and not totally believe it yourself. Be open about it. Say I'm just not attracted to you. Not, I'm not really into dating right now (2 days later you are dating someone else) LMAO.....I must say I bet I have gotten more guys dates with women because once I ask it's like they go out as fast as possible and make themselves unavailable. Also don't say "yeah I would date you if I was single" then when you are single you say "no". Thanks for lying.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> It would be if people were merely honest. I asked out this girl who worked at little caesars, a friend gave me this great idea to go in, give my order and while giving my order ask for her number as if it was like the order. At first I was against this but this friend really talked me into it. Well I went in and such, did the whole bit. Asked for her number and her response was "I don't think so" like I was a crazy nut who just walked through the door. Then she went in the back and someone else finished my order lol.. But I give her credit at least she was "HONEST". I'm tired of getting excuses, there's 7 billion people on this planet I KNOW not everyone is going to think I'm interesting, I KNOW not everyone is going to think I'm cute, but don't say it just to make me "feel" good if you are going to turn around and not totally believe it yourself. Be open about it. Say I'm just not attracted to you. Not, I'm not really into dating right now (2 days later you are dating someone else) LMAO.....I must say I bet I have gotten more guys dates with women because once I ask it's like they go out as fast as possible and make themselves unavailable. Also don't say "yeah I would date you if I was single" then when you are single you say "no". Thanks for lying.


 That idea from your friend was cute. That may not work on me if I was in "work mode" and not mentally prepared to be hit on. Yes I sometimes respond better when I'm mentally prepared for it.

I hear you! I value being direct, but sometimes guys will get really crazy when you reject them. They don't take it well. They argue or demand explanations. Sometimes they can even seem rather volatile about it. Not everyone takes it as well as you do. 

So a lot of the time women get passive or vague in our rejection of offers, just in case we're talking to such a person. A lot of the time we switch to that after seeing someone take it so bad it scared us a little and made us unsure of what men like that are capable of when they experience a threat to their ego.

Believe it or not a lot of women do not like rejecting people. I really hate it, I like to influence people in a positive and uplifting way and rejection doesn't usually do that. I try to be as clear and direct as possible without making myself feel like I might be risking my personal safety. It's never easy though, but I do try to be more direct, or find a reason I'm saying no that the guy won't take personally (like you live too far away from me, I prefer women - sadly I've used that before with a really persistent unstable guy - I'm kind of seeing someone, I'm not interested in dating right now, focused on my career... yes all those things are the woman's way of rejecting nicely. None of them matter if she is really into you, IMO/IME/YMMV).

Besides, women are often conditioned to be passive, so the result of that is often rejection in a passive way. Giving fake phone numbers or saying okay and then flaking out or just slowly not talking/responding to you as much. Such women are not taught that it is okay or encouraged to express a clear no (yes that contributes to all sorts of problems for women, and in a sense for men as well, but in terms of safety issues it is worse for women as this crap leads to date rape and stuff like that).

But me, I am assertive, I just don't like to see people hurt, and you never know whether you're talking to someone who can take rejection without getting all mopey or volatile.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> But me, I am assertive, I just don't like to see people hurt, and you never know whether you're talking to someone who can take rejection without getting all mopey or volatile.


Well I do get mopey, I mean after you get so many rejections it does kind of sting after awhile, not to mention when you truly find out you were basically "lied" to about the reasons behind it. I'm an investigator of sorts, I can pick up on the smallest things and piece together puzzles, that lie you told me today I will disprove tomorrow. That's when it really hurts.

I understand women have to take care of themselves, (which is really a shame). Damn people! That's why I hate my gender so much, I only have two male friends and probably will ever only have two male friends, I will have other male acquaintances but I just generally hate the male population. 

I would never want to hurt anyone's feelings either. Considering I've never rejected anyone since no one has ever asked not sure how I would go about it, I know how I would want to though, because it's how I would want to be treated. I did graduate from diapers and now I wear my big boy boxers, so I can take it. lol...

Lying, yeah now you just made me mad. Even if you were genuine about me being "cute" or "nice" how could I possibly believe you actually meant them now.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> That idea from your friend was cute.


Yeah it was interesting. I can't say it was 100% me normally, but I gave it a whirl. Normally I don't like pick-up lines or cheesy anything. I just say "Hello my name is....." that's usually my "pick-up" line. I'm not "dry" I am witty and funny but that's not usually revealed until later.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

@Hokahey yes you're a big boy. Doesn't mean we want to see a big boy sad or angry. Harder to reject assertively in person. I would say I do not lie but I might look for an excuse that is technically true but not my main reason for declining. If I weren't bisexual I would not have used the excuse of seeing a woman. 

It may not be the boldest version of the truth but human males as a whole are too unpredictable for most women to be comfortable rejecting more directly, especially in person. 

If you honestly want a more direct response, when the woman gives her reason you could ask if that is an excuse and read her facial expression because that will give you the answer. 

Anything but a yes is a no. It is frankly not safe enough in the world for many women to give a more direct no. Unfortunately that means making excuses and no I don't like doing that. I would rather just be straight up. But I do not trust total strangers enough for that at this point, in this particular situation, for better or worse.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

I should say anything but a consistent and enthusiastic yes that continues as a yes over time is a no or has become a no.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

sparkles said:


> @Hokahey yes you're a big boy. Doesn't mean we want to see a big boy sad or angry. Harder to reject assertively in person. I would say I do not lie but I might look for an excuse that is technically true but not my main reason for declining. If I weren't bisexual I would not have used the excuse of seeing a woman.
> 
> It may not be the boldest version of the truth but human males as a whole are too unpredictable for most women to be comfortable rejecting more directly, especially in person.
> 
> ...


Yeah I know...../sigh lol...


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

Actually, after further thought. It's not "fear of rejection", it's the other factors. 

For example, how could you be interested with a "sales" representative who offer you things that you don't want or need? 

Okay, let's say the sales person is very talented and influential. You said "yes" to what is offered. Then you go on living and you think.. hmmm why did I say yes? I don't need this, but I have to live with this...

This would create somekind of frame of thought for you to prevent this from happening in the future. You create a better defense system for the kind of person you meet in the future. This is the situation with "most" women.

Then, if you're so different with the stranger you just met who is trying to get your attention, you would probably be confused about how to spend time with this stranger.

Now, as someone said earlier. It's actually the woman who choose the man, not the other way around. It's quite easy to connect with woman who is approachable, and it's quite easy to make the next move if she's interested.

Ever hear this advice? Create a good product or service, and the good things will follow. 

How did you get that great job at that reputable company? By building your reputation. How many people got rejected to enter that company?

Lots.

So, it's the quality of the person that determines how successful a man is with a woman. The notion that you could just bump into a woman on the street and expect that if you try hard enough you will get her, will only works if you're good enough to begin with.

You need other ways if you're not good enough. The point is you need to have "something", a unique character to offer, or a mutual need with the woman.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> However, people from both genders can also run into an issue of mistaking general friendliness for interest. Sucks when that happens and that is one reason sometimes women will act kind of cold with men trying to talk to them... we have learned that our general friendliness is misunderstood sometimes, so this is our way of communicating that we are not interested. It really doesn't mean the woman who does that is a bitch, but she might act like one so there won't be any confusion.


That happens while I'm on campus a lot. If a classmate or a stranger becomes too friendly, I brush them off and ignore them. I was friendlier last semester but an older married man started to really creep me out. Whenever I was in the library I felt like he was looking for me and wherever I sat, he happened to be able to see me. That happened a couple times. I would be sitting and reading and get up to, then see him sitting within view. Or another time I was doing some work and he sat at a table that was behind me and faced my direction. 

Since I'm not a full-fledged confrontational asshole, I ignored the guy and didn't talk to him in class. He finally caught on I think, but I still see him around and avoid him. He made me very uneasy.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Believe it or not a lot of women do not like rejecting people. I really hate it, I like to influence people in a positive and uplifting way and rejection doesn't usually do that. I try to be as clear and direct as possible without making myself feel like I might be risking my personal safety. It's never easy though, but I do try to be more direct, or find a reason I'm saying no that the guy won't take personally (like you live too far away from me, I prefer women - sadly I've used that before with a really persistent unstable guy - *I'm kind of seeing someone, I'm not interested in dating right now, focused on my career... yes all those things are the woman's way of rejecting nicely.* None of them matter if she is really into you, IMO/IME/YMMV).


I'll only be direct if it's needed. I have no interest in crushing a man's soul because I'm not attracted to him. It's either going to be I'm not attracted or he's a creeper. Age could also be a factor, even if a guy is attractive, I would probably stay away from someone 15 years older. At least right now. 

And as you said, the excuses basically try to let it down easier but they really don't. Though I feel like I actually have those qualities, I'm kind of seeing someone but I'm not interested in dating and my career is very important. I shit you not, I can manage all of those at once.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

^^The above by @undead is about value. And yes, it is a valid point imo, and applies to both genders. I think the above might apply more if the woman you're after has been given feedback from the environment that suggests she is higher value as an "object of pursuit" than others in the mix. If she gets regular offers or signs of interest, she can be more choosy than the woman who doesn't or thinks she doesn't (since it's largely about attitude and perception of others and self).

This is all a highly tactical and dehumanizing way of talking about it though. Can't say I'm a fan.

I think the key is recognizing we are each high value, and realize it is on that other person if they cannot see it. Personally, I move on quickly if someone can't see my value, why would I want to try and convince them? Meh. If you start to really understand you're high value, then that leads to an abundance mindset in dating, and you won't take a single yes/no so seriously because you'll have integrated the idea that there are plenty of folks out there who would be interested in dating/relating with you. Less pressure, again, makes it easier for everyone.

I'm almost tired of taking on a passive role when it isn't me. I'm just not sure I want to go the other way and put in a bunch of effort to find out that person doesn't transform into something that meshes with me after they get comfortable. It's just a lot easier with "what you see is what you get" sort of people. Introverts, sure, passive lazy indecisive, no, not for me. Can't rely on that and I need to rely on a partner.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

I also think @undead's post isn't exactly affirming if the underlying problem is ego strength related to dating/approaching.

If a man is hesitating to approach, I think the last thing he needs to see is something about being not good enough. Because that is simply not true. If anything it would be the man's underlying mindset of believing that and the associated patterns in thinking and behavior, because that would send out a vibe to the woman, regardless of any surface-hokey pua stuff. 

Releasing that notion of not being good enough - genuinely releasing it or working through it - is a fine place to start.

But it's also easier to just learn how to recognize signs of interest and approach those women instead.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> That happens while I'm on campus a lot. If a classmate or a stranger becomes too friendly, I brush them off and ignore them. I was friendlier last semester but an older married man started to really creep me out. Whenever I was in the library I felt like he was looking for me and wherever I sat, he happened to be able to see me. That happened a couple times. I would be sitting and reading and get up to, then see him sitting within view. Or another time I was doing some work and he sat at a table that was behind me and faced my direction.
> 
> Since I'm not a full-fledged confrontational asshole, I ignored the guy and didn't talk to him in class. He finally caught on I think, but I still see him around and avoid him. He made me very uneasy.


 Wow yeah that is totally creepy. Yuck. Had a guy come on really strong and sounded like he had some anger issues, finally I slowed it down and he had a hissy fit about that. Next day he sends a message I'm like, hey I'm under the weather I might talk to you another day. (I was feeling crappy but it was just allergies.) He sends a message the next day like still sick or just not interested. I'm like crap... if I don't get more obvious he will keep trying to talk to me... so I said, both. He's like I thought so, I'm like good luck with your search! He's like, whatever.

Okay you big baby you're the one who was being so pushy I had to reject you more boldly.


Fizz said:


> I'll only be direct if it's needed. I have no interest in crushing a man's soul because I'm not attracted to him. It's either going to be I'm not attracted or he's a creeper. Age could also be a factor, even if a guy is attractive, I would probably stay away from someone 15 years older. At least right now.
> 
> And as you said, the excuses basically try to let it down easier but they really don't. Though I feel like I actually have those qualities, I'm kind of seeing someone but I'm not interested in dating and my career is very important. I shit you not, I can manage all of those at once.


 Haha well, I would not say anyone I'm not attracted to is a creeper! I'm just attracted to someone, or I don't find them attractive. Creepers are unattractive but not all unattractive-to-me people are creepers, heh.

Right, I start more subtle or gentle and get increasingly direct if the guy isn't paying enough attention to my attempts to be nicer about it.

I believe you that you can manage all those things at once! So can most of us. That is why it's actually very simple. If the woman is obviously into it and quick to confirm a specific date/time to interact and open with her info, that's a yes. She's interested. If she is vague or waffles or you don't hear from her very quickly, that's a no.

Exception I guess would be stupid mind games. I dunno about you, Fizz, but I can't really play hard to get, lol. Either I make my interest clear while still having a life, or I make my lack of interest clear.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Haha well, I would not say anyone I'm not attracted to is a creeper! I'm just attracted to someone, or I don't find them attractive. Creepers are unattractive but not all unattractive-to-me people are creepers, heh.
> 
> Right, I start more subtle or gentle and get increasingly direct if the guy isn't paying enough attention to my attempts to be nicer about it.
> 
> ...


I don't mean all unattractive guys are creepers, sometimes they're one in the same. I just know people that look decent but turned out to be freaks.

I'm vague in general with times and dates. I don't like planning things a week in advance with most people...well, wait, you got me. I will only plan something ahead of time if it's for someone special.

Playing hard to get isn't my forte. I'm more of a pursuer anyway.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I don't mean all unattractive guys are creepers, sometimes they're one in the same. I just know people that look decent but turned out to be freaks.
> 
> I'm vague in general with times and dates. I don't like planning things a week in advance with most people...well, wait, you got me. I will only plan something ahead of time if it's for someone special.
> 
> Playing hard to get isn't my forte. I'm more of a pursuer anyway.


 I can be vague sometimes, but if I really dig that person I'll let myself get pinned down to a time in advance and I'll set reminders to be sure I remember.

I like to be spontaneous but with social stuff I can't do it on short notice because I've messed up and screwed over friends I made plans with doing that by double booking myself. And honestly, I just don't like someone expecting I'm available the same day or the next day if I don't know them well. For one thing, I'm usually not because I usually have stuff going on. For another thing, it's just... inconsiderate of my schedule to talk about doing something but not try to make any plans until the day of, especially for a weekend because most of my stuff gets crammed into the weekend. Don't call me Thursday or Friday and expect I have time to hang out that weekend, cuz chances are I won't unless you're a close friend in crisis. 

However, if I really dig you, then space for coffee will magically appear. If I'm lukewarm you'll have to wait until the next weekend, and if I end up more interested then I'll have more room available for something more spontaneous.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> I can be vague sometimes, but if I really dig that person I'll let myself get pinned down to a time in advance and I'll set reminders to be sure I remember.
> 
> I like to be spontaneous but with social stuff I can't do it on short notice because I've messed up and screwed over friends I made plans with doing that by double booking myself. And honestly, I just don't like someone expecting I'm available the same day or the next day if I don't know them well. For one thing, I'm usually not because I usually have stuff going on. For another thing, it's just... inconsiderate of my schedule to talk about doing something but not try to make any plans until the day of, especially for a weekend because most of my stuff gets crammed into the weekend. Don't call me Thursday or Friday and expect I have time to hang out that weekend, cuz chances are I won't unless you're a close friend in crisis.
> 
> However, if I really dig you, then space for coffee will magically appear. If I'm lukewarm you'll have to wait until the next weekend, and if I end up more interested then I'll have more room available for something more spontaneous.


It depends upon the people, as you said. I actually tell my friends to put in requests ahead of time so I get a better idea of what is going on. Recently I had to turn someone (lukewarm, don't know them that well) down after making plans because someone (boiling water, first priority) had been sick the day we planned to meet before. The first priority person usually gets first priority, of course. I'm not interested in passing that up for someone I'm not that interested in. 

I can work with "day of" plans. I've had friends ask me Saturday at 6pm if I wanted to go out, that works for me if I'm not already out. I'm usually in doing school work, the exciting life of Fizz. I'll pass up school obligations to go out. I'm bad like that.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> It depends upon the people, as you said. I actually tell my friends to put in requests ahead of time so I get a better idea of what is going on. Recently I had to turn someone (lukewarm, don't know them that well) down after making plans because someone (boiling water, first priority) had been sick the day we planned to meet before. The first priority person usually gets first priority, of course. I'm not interested in passing that up for someone I'm not that interested in.
> 
> I can work with "day of" plans. I've had friends ask me Saturday at 6pm if I wanted to go out, that works for me if I'm not already out. I'm usually in doing school work, the exciting life of Fizz. I'll pass up school obligations to go out. I'm bad like that.


 Yeah I can work with day of plans, if I don't have something else happening, but only with friends, and sometimes I have to turn them down or invite someone from one circle to join in what I have going on with someone from another circle (I'm always worried to do that though, because each of my friend branches are quite different). The talk of contacting me on a Thursday or Friday was more about dating. Um, no. 

Haha studying? What's that? I coasted in high school and stayed in the top ten, I crammed the night before on tests or essays and still kept my scholarship by combining this with paying attention in class. Grad school one, had to do lots of reading and grading papers but the tests were usually essay or there were none, so I didn't really study. Grad school part two, oh gawd, it was insanely too easy for me to make a 4.0 without cracking a single book ever and that's just sad. ESFP does not do bored well.

So yeah, unfortunately I never had to face bad consequences that would motivate me to become better with studying. Yes I had a point after all, and there it is.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Yeah I can work with day of plans, if I don't have something else happening, but only with friends, and sometimes I have to turn them down or invite someone from one circle to join in what I have going on with someone from another circle (I'm always worried to do that though, because each of my friend branches are quite different). The talk of contacting me on a Thursday or Friday was more about dating. Um, no.
> 
> Haha studying? What's that? I coasted in high school and stayed in the top ten, I crammed the night before on tests or essays and still kept my scholarship by combining this with paying attention in class. Grad school one, had to do lots of reading and grading papers but the tests were usually essay or there were none, so I didn't really study. Grad school part two, oh gawd, it was insanely too easy for me to make a 4.0 without cracking a single book ever and that's just sad. ESFP does not do bored well.
> 
> So yeah, unfortunately I never had to face bad consequences that would motivate me to become better with studying. Yes I had a point after all, and there it is.


I didn't say "studying" - fuck that shit. I just _DO_. I never study, I just do the work that's required. There's readings of course, but I only do that to get the gist of the work.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> I didn't say "studying" - fuck that shit. I just _DO_. I never study, I just do the work that's required. There's readings of course, but I only do that to get the gist of the work.


 Well, props to you for doing something for school on a weekend night. I'm not always so self-disciplined even when I really want to be.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Well, props to you for doing something for school on a weekend night. I'm not always so self-disciplined even when I really want to be.


It helps when you don't own a car.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Fizz said:


> It helps when you don't own a car.


 Oh, yeah I bet that would help. No decent public transport I guess? Yook. Lamesauce, hope you'll have one before long if the public transit isn't workable.


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

sparkles said:


> Oh, yeah I bet that would help. No decent public transport I guess? Yook. Lamesauce, hope you'll have one before long if the public transit isn't workable.


I don't like the public bus system. I'm not a fan of being stared at and the price went up by a lot about a year or two ago. I'm quite old enough to drive, I'm just poor. Not as bad as some, but no job. Living at home, chillin' style


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> Yeah I know that feminism isn't (man-hating-machine). But it was a big change in direct relations and the more empowered women felt, the more it has changed them (nothing wrong with that) I'm just saying there is an actual "side-effect" not in a bad way, just acknowledging that it's here.
> 
> I mean I grew up with the ideas of tradition, which means you hold open doors for women, now that's frowned on because (a woman can hold her own door open). I mean I guess I can see how it's "doing" something just because of the sex. But I find it respectful not only to hold the door open for women but anyone, now I'm confused if I should, maybe I'm being "judged" if I do so.
> 
> ...


After reading through this thread's responses, I feel like I can relate to a lot of the things Hokahey is saying. It is also cool to see the girls side of the story. I didn't realize that so many guys took rejection that badly. What comes to mind for my own experience is from the movie 40 Year Old Virgin, where the one guy says "Don't put the pussy on a pedestal" (or something like that). I think I have done a lot of that sort of thing over the years and it's gotten me no where with females. No relationships or no getting laid. 

I am not saying that a guy needs to treat women like crap or as sex objects, but trying to be overly nice or accomodating is not being real. Men by no means are not perfect in the way to we treat women, but when you start to feel ashamed of the way some guys do treat girls, and have a tendancy to overly sympathisize with females, you do yourself no good. It is like you are being hateful to yourself, and in the process try to create this whole nice guy or SNAG image, which is not genuine at all. For me anyway, I created this image for myself and used it to try find a girlfriend, or at times, get laid. I can say it never worked. Just resulted in me feeling sorry for myself and in the process, lost love for myself. In my case, I needed to see that females weren't these innocent, angelic beings that I made them up to be. When you put anyone on a pedestal, eventually they fall off, and this leads to hate or anger towards that person, or in this case, females in general. 

I think a person needs to be himself, and when this is the case, his beauty or preciousness, well shine through and he will probably be more successful in attracting females. And even if he is single, it will not be a huge deal because he will love himself, and will not dependant on things outside of himself to make him happy. I am passive and introverted by nature, but that doesn't mean I can't be myself and respect myself. Trying to be the stereotyped male image will not do anything for me. People will see through it. Just as trying to be the "nice guy" will not do anything for me as well. An introverted or passive person can still be his own man and be real. Be true to yourself and stop worrying about what others will think. 

I know some passive guys who have wives or girlfriends, guys that probably aren't being true to themselves, and man I don't think I would want to be in their shoes. Their wives or girlfriends walk all over them. Maybe they are happy, but I don't think I would be if I were them. 

Today, I am just going to try be me. I am not perfect and that is alright. At least today I am more honest with myself and how I think about things. I acknowledge some of my shadows. And for the most part, I am a lot happier today than I have been in the past. I am single, and that is okay. As well, don't deny your sexuality. It is alright to have sexual desires for people. For whatever reason, that is something I have beaten myself up for. I didn't think it was alright for me to think sexually about people. I would call myself a pervert. It is natural to be attracted sexually to be people and it doesn't mean I need to act them out. So just be kind to yourself. I've rambled enough.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

@lifeisanillusion

Good insights, imo, and thank you for sharing these as I value being a witness to them. I do not want a guy to be overly nice and accommodating to me if that isn't his preferred state of being. I do not mind some chivalry, but to me there's a big difference between being chivalrous and bending drastically to fit what you think I want. The former is attractive to me; the latter is not. If you are at your core a nice person, then be that person. If you do not want to get pushed around, I think the insights you shared are right on track.

For better or worse I may unconsciously test a guy to see if he will say no or set such a boundary with me. Because I am the one who leans and bends, and sometimes pushes, and I need to know he will not let me push too far, and that he is solid, because I'm not that solid, and I won't work dating someone who isn't solid. A truly solid woman (yes they exist) will work with a bending man. I'm only solid sometimes. So, I may test a guy without really trying to, by pushing him, with the goal of finding out if he bends to my will or doesn't let me push him. Doesn't let me push him = good.

I may sometimes ask an open-ended or slightly leading question for similar reasons, but I do this intentionally. Like with one guy I went out with, he was kind of chatty, and I enjoyed it, but I wanted to find out if he is usually that talkative. So I asked him, and I said it wasn't bad, i was just curious if he is usually talkative or usually more quiet. 

He didn't give me a straight answer! He said he can be both, but even if that is true,_ everyone I know leans more one way or the other_. His answer was a red flag for me, because he didn't just state the truth about himself, but rather waited and opted out of taking a stand so he could try and find out what is the "right" answer (what he thinks I want to hear). He did not pass this test. I was looking for him to be honest, open, genuine in answering me. He had to pick one or the other if he was going to answer in a way that tells me he has strength of character of the sort I appreciate in a partner.

I bring that up as an example because I bet a lot of women do this. (Not all probably but a lot of us, for similar reasons.) The secret is, *we want your truth! We don't want you to guess at what you think the right answer is, we want the right answer for you. Even if it means it will put you closer or further away from what we like in a partner... *we want the truth to a question like this. Guys, I hope you will take that and file it away.

You are right, I think, that it boils down to that really cheesy and trite advice about being yourself. Be you, rather than being what you think I want you to be. Be who you are, and don't let me push you into being something else, and don't choose to shift yourself to be more like me (I really don't care for this, yes I notice it), and I'll have a lot more respect for you. More than that, I'll find you more trustworthy, if I feel confident you're being yourself instead of bending to fit what you think I want, and everyone I know who wants a healthy relationship wants to trust their partner.

Respect and trustworthiness are sexy.


----------



## lifeisanillusion (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks Sparkles. And their are chivalrous or true "nice guys" (I like good guys better than nice) out there, but the ones claiming to be nice and also complaining that they always end up being friends with girls, I think most of the time these ones are bending to what they think women want. We probably do a lot of it unconsciously as well. Respect and trustworthiness are sexy, aren't they! Once you respect yourself, you will be able to respect your SO as well.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

You're welcome, @lifeisanillusion. By the way, don't misunderstand, a lot of that post wasn't directed at you specifically. I just don't always make that clear when I'm writing. You're right I think a lot of it is unconscious on both sides, that is one reason hokey versions of pua won't work for lasting benefits as well as something like Deida (imo). 

Hmm... is my behavior unconscious if I know I do it (unintentionally) sometimes, AND I know why I do it? Hehe.

You sound smart, and insightful, and capable. I'm sure you'll be just fine with the ladies or you already are


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't play games, especially not with strangers. This thread is just weird :tongue:


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Erbse said:


> I don't play games, especially not with strangers. This thread is just weird :tongue:


Huh? Where is there a game being talked about?

I don't think I play games except for fun ones with informed consent. 

If I want to find out whether a guy is going to bend himself to be what he thinks I want, I can't just ask him and expect to be able to take the answer at face value. He may not realize he bends himself. 

Trust is vital to me and I am not opposed to being bold in my means of grokking trustworthiness. 

I don't think it is a game. I think it is a test, sure. Women want to trust our partners and potential partners. Real trust takes time but there are signposts to help in that regard. 

I think most humans even genuine and honest ones do some version of this behavior. We just don't usually talk about it. I am sure even you have ways of figuring out whether you can trust someone.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Wasn't directed at you but the OP, who suggested that one should treat the whole procedure as a game. I usually quote people if I direct my answer towards them specifically, so I'm a bit lost as to what mine I stepped on to unintentionally. :blushed:


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Wasn't directed at you but the OP, who suggested that one should treat the whole procedure as a game. I usually quote people if I direct my answer towards them specifically, so I'm a bit lost as to what mine I stepped on to unintentionally. :blushed:


Oh no, you didn't step on a mine. Sorry if I came across that way, and it does happen sometimes so my apologies.

My mistake... walks away in shame.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

I'm passive but I never felt like my ex ever "walked" all over me. Until maybe the very end but that was brought on by a lot of things at once. We were both pretty laid back. I actually like the laid-back lifestyle, I don't want to feel like I need to go out and create a new adventure everyday outside of the house when I can create one inside as well. Doesn't mean I don't go out, just I'm very casual @sparkles mentioned about two casual people not being a good match. That idea kind of scares me because I would want that quality in my gf. If she is more energetic than I am and wants to go party all the time, I would get tired very quick and she would get tired very quick of that.


----------



## sparkles (Mar 2, 2011)

Hokahey said:


> I'm passive but I never felt like my ex ever "walked" all over me. Until maybe the very end but that was brought on by a lot of things at once. We were both pretty laid back. I actually like the laid-back lifestyle, I don't want to feel like I need to go out and create a new adventure everyday outside of the house when I can create one inside as well. Doesn't mean I don't go out, just I'm very casual @sparkles mentioned about two casual people not being a good match. That idea kind of scares me because I would want that quality in my gf. If she is more energetic than I am and wants to go party all the time, I would get tired very quick and she would get tired very quick of that.


 Well, two as you say casual people, can be an okay enough match. I don't know if I said it isn't a good match as a generalization. If I did, let me revise: I just don't like how it mixes for me usually. I like one person being more naturally comfy with decisions, or both people a combination of opinionated and laid back so there are ideas to pick from. I do not like - 
"What are you in the mood for as I'm open for whatever?" 
"Don't know, don't care, you decide," 

- as a default. I think nothing of substance would ever get done or happen, and I do prefer that something be happening. I don't need every day action-packed, at least not going out kind of action-packed. That would be too much for me also! I just need something going on or I will get restless, but I am good at finding ways to entertain myself even in unexpected places.

I don't go out all the time either, and would not expect my partner to have the same social needs as I do. If my partner is more of a homebody and I want to go out, that is what friends are for, or I can venture alone, or I can go out alone and have a textersation with him while I'm out. As far as socializing goes I'm not the typical E. I suppose a lot of people prefer the same social need in their partner but I don't require that myself. I don't think I would work well with an extreme extrovert who expected me to tag along all the time.

I think people of any sort can make a relationship work. I just know for me, I want it to be moving forward (generally) instead of stagnating, and for it to have any momentum there needs to be direction, and if I'm not a fan of making a lot of decisions (I make them but a lot of the time I don't care), it is just easier to match myself with someone who is more naturally inclined to enjoy that.

You said casual but I'm guessing you mean, like, easygoing. I know for a fact people exist who are low key and also comfortable making decisions. Yes sometimes, if someone likes to decide things they are also controlling and rigid and impatient and type A, but that isn't always how it works out.

I like a dash of difference and don't think I would want to date someone too similar to myself. But if you look you can find all sorts of opinions on this. Some say opposites for balance is the bees knees. Some say the point of difference started as a nice thing and morphed into an awful thing. Some say sameness is best. Some say sameness irks them. So the take-home point is any two people can make or break a relationship, depending on... whatever. My guess would be depending on how much effort they both want to make to keep it sustainable, to keep each other satisfied, to air issues before they fester. Others would probably say it depends on other things.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

sparkles said:


> I think the above might apply more if the woman you're after has been given feedback from the environment that suggests she is higher value as an "object of pursuit" than others in the mix. If she gets regular offers or signs of interest, she can be more choosy than the woman who doesn't or thinks she doesn't (since it's largely about attitude and perception of others and self).
> 
> This is all a highly tactical and dehumanizing way of talking about it though. Can't say I'm a fan.


I talked about it that way, because that's "real" life. 

This thread is very long. I can't find time to read all of it. But, whatever is discussed, my thought about this issue will always end up the way that I said it earlier.

I want to relate another thought about this: the origin of heroes/villain.

It's all started with how the heroes are inherently good and have special talents that could help people. The villains "become" evil due to the feeling of envy, the bitterness and unfairness of life, loneliness, which led them to be power hungry, or any other similar evil deeds.

Some people (e.g. Batman) could use this feeling of "hate" to fight crimes (plus he's wealthy and good looking). But what about most people? Nope, most people are not that lucky. 

Thus, they become villains. Once you're at this point, the only people that stick around with you are similar villains. 

Then take a look at the most successful people. They are the ones who could combine the best quality in every culture and education. 

This is achieved through experience and learning. Not, because they just have the "guts". Well it's true that you need some courage to change yourself. But, eventually in order to attract a woman, you still need to change into a "better" and "likable" person.


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

I saw this exact issue being "discussed" in an episode of 2 and a half men the other day. 

According to Charlie Harper, in order to deal with rejection, you needed a fair amount of alcohol in your system though.


----------



## Pengus (Mar 30, 2011)

Great thread TS, seems to me that we have similar mindsets! 



undead said:


> No. 2, communication.
> No. 3, lifestyle.
> No. 4, physical attraction.


No. Can´t see how you relate that as the most common reasons of failure with women?

I´d say the the next most common would be:

2. Men value women higher than their own life and goals.
3. Men dont REALLY know what they want or what they demand in a women, therefore they focus on the womens demands and fail.
4. Men ask women for advice on how to get women (do you think men writes the "how to act on a date" articles in media?)

- You dont ask the fish how they are caught, you ask a successful fisherman

Physical attraction is about 20% of the traits that makes a man attractive to women.. They dont look at men as we look at women.. remember this


----------



## chibs (Feb 24, 2011)

themartyparade said:


> I saw this exact issue being "discussed" in an episode of 2 and a half men the other day.
> 
> According to Charlie Harper, in order to deal with rejection, you needed a fair amount of alcohol in your system though.


depending on personality type, near lethal amounts are required, though xD


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

Pengus said:


> No. Can´t see how you relate that as the most common reasons of failure with women?


That's the most common reason that you fail with "everyone", not just woman. 

Your "typical" argument and the OP are the ones I used to read in how to get a woman articles.

How different is a woman compared to everyone else? They're after the similar things just like any other humans on this planet.

You offer something then you'll get something in return. That's the very basic of human interaction besides the act of donating or giving with no returns.


----------

