Author pandagirl Posted August 30, 2009 Author Posted August 30, 2009 Panda, you are probably showing your insecurity with these guys, it's not really the hotness factor. Guys will sense insecurity and then they think "well, this chick really isn't a catch, she doesn't even like herself, what's up with that, I don't want that" and head for the hills. Insecurity to guys = desperation = you're not a challenge to them = you're not worth chasing because they've "got" you = not a catch to them, they're moving on. You need to think of yourself as worthy to date these guys, otherwise you will get the guys thinking that you are not worthy. CONFIDENCE Hell. I think I can work on the confidence, but I think I AM worth it. I may not be the most beautiful thing in the world, but guys seem to like me enough, and I have other qualities that make a pretty a-OK person. These guys I date...they're just not hot, they have other great qualities, also. But it seems like they're so used to getting what they want -- like the world revolves around them -- because they're used to being catered to because of their looks, their intelligence, their charm. But I guess if that's how you have been treated your entire life, then what can ya do?
Pink Cupcakes Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 I think you're playing the victim instead of examining what it is you're doing that men don't stick (hot or not). I think you're using the looks as an excuse as to why you can't get a committed relationship from a man, rather than a few dates. (Again, hot or not.)
Author pandagirl Posted August 30, 2009 Author Posted August 30, 2009 I think you're playing the victim instead of examining what it is you're doing that men don't stick (hot or not). I think you're using the looks as an excuse as to why you can't get a committed relationship from a man, rather than a few dates. (Again, hot or not.) This isn't about me wanting a committed relationship necessarily. I have my own demons to deal with. I'm not desperate, but maybe it is more about me picking unavailable men than anything else. But hey -- might as well picking really attractive unavailable men, right?
SpanksTheMonkey Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 I'm an average looking women admittedly maybe not the "hottest" thing around by far not feeling sorry for myself just being honest. That said I like myself as I am I also have lots of other good qualities that I bring to the table far as dating goes. I treat my guys like kings long as they do the same in return my current one always has clean clothing and hot cooked meals every day. Plus anything else he wants/needs to me its more about the quality of the person your dating what they have to offer into the relationship. Lets face it looks fade in time I'm also in my 30s now so I wonder if thats a factor maybe said "hotness" is more a 20 somethings thing lol.. On a last note I also agree that allot of people date with in there own league or what they perceive to be..
whiteberry Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 dating with gorgeous guy is something fun, but falling inlove with them is a hell..
Tayla Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 I think someone touched base that the older you get the wiser you get in your choosing of dates. Yes - in the teens and 20's years its the physical. In the 30's its the stability of the person ( you weed out the whackos) In the 40's its about the personality ( How charming they can be or gracious a lady she can be) In the 50's your back to the same- Are they physically able to move and not worry about their arthritis or other ailment kicking in after dinner. So it runs full circle I personally have dated varying types- The most adoring ones have been the charming men who seem to bring this aura to them and that is MORE physically attractive then any adonis style guy . Give me a guy with that aura and I am all in!
westernxer Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 Haha. Not true! I've dated a soccer playing painter, a musician who surfs, and a film director who runs marathons. Those are renaissance men, not artists. Real artists don't even like sports. LOL
Lusitan Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 Creative guys are not athletic. LOL Lord Byron is considered by many as one of the greatest Poets of Europe and he was, by their standarts at the time, athletic and quite handsome(though he had a lame foot ) Real artists don't even like sports. LOL I've fallen in love with Baseball, thank you very much
westernxer Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 Lord Byron is considered by many as one of the greatest Poets of Europe and he was, by their standarts at the time, athletic and quite handsome(though he had a lame foot ) Apparently, those standards were pretty low, especially among the stuffy aristocrats. LOL
Lusitan Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 I'm sure the ladies of that time would contest that
Isolde Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 http://users.telenet.be/gaston.d.haese/lord_byron.jpg He was attractive, depending on what portrait you refer to (they vary widely) but a bad boy/jerk/playa. Not a big fan of his poetry either... give me Keats any day.
Porn_Guy Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 So, to wrap it up, are men who are very attractive less quality? And by that i mean lesser quality for a potential relationship. This is a gross generalization, but let's just open it up for discussion anyways! everyone has a "value" on the dating scene. if you're going to date people that lots of other people want then you have to live with that fact. i don't know of many people who are in high demand that don't take advantage of it, especially men.
westernxer Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 http://users.telenet.be/gaston.d.haese/lord_byron.jpg He was attractive, depending on what portrait you refer to (they vary widely) but a bad boy/jerk/playa. Not a big fan of his poetry either... give me Keats any day. Byron's wife left him because of his wild ways and took their daughter with her. He also enjoyed a comfy relationship with his sister that surpassed normal boundaries. I guess he was a little too athletic. LOL
Lusitan Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 http://users.telenet.be/gaston.d.haese/lord_byron.jpg He was attractive, depending on what portrait you refer to (they vary widely) but a bad boy/jerk/playa. Not a big fan of his poetry either... give me Keats any day. Someone else has been googling Byron's pictures I happen to think that he was more attractive than most people of his century. I don't know if that means the people back than were really unattractive but who can look at this and not find him good - looking? http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/images/image_bank/news/byron http://www.batguano.com/VLBlordbyronB.jpg Wikipedia: Physical description: Byron's adult height was about 5 feet 10 inches (1.78 m), his weight fluctuating between 9.5 stone (133 lb; 60 kg) and 14 stone (200 lb; 89 kg). He was renowned for his personal beauty, which he enhanced by wearing curl-papers in his hair at night.[39]He was athletic, being a competent boxer and horse-rider and an excellent swimmer. At Harrow, he played cricket, although he was unskillful. Characteristics The Byronic hero typically exhibits the following characteristics:[2][3] high level of intelligence and perception cunning and able to adapt sophisticated and educated self-critical and introspective mysterious, magnetic and charismatic struggling with integrity power of seduction and sexual attraction social and sexual dominance emotional conflicts, bipolar tendencies, or moodiness a distaste for social institutions and norms being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw "dark" attributes not normally associated with a hero disrespect of rank and privilege a troubled past cynicism arrogance self-destructive behavior Yep, pretty much a player
stuckinwithyou Posted August 30, 2009 Posted August 30, 2009 I am fat, bald, ugly and old I hope I can qualify for change later
Recommended Posts