Single and looking ladies, and options

[fortyninethousand322]

Perpetually down-on-their-luck blame-the-world types? No. Why would I?

 

I don't know, maybe they make great racquetball partners or they're in your hiking club. These guys don't exactly wear a sign or act negatively in all aspects of their lives.

 

But it's not like all the men and women I know have happy dating lives all the time. Healthy people do not develop absurd fixations with a member of the opposite sex who is clearly not interested in them; they may have a passing crush, but instead of nurturing it, they extinguish it and move on. That's. . . how they stay healthy.

 

I would say that healthy people don't obsess about every person they asked out once and got rejected by, but there are certainly people who take some rejections more deeply than others, even to the point of obsession.

 

Either way, most people also don't make it to 30 having never had a relationship either like SD has. That would make him an outlier in that way as well.

[reallyhotguy]

So let me get this straight:

 

Somedude81 claims that all single women have "options". An "option" for a woman is a man she knows who wants to sleep with her.

 

Somedude81 contrasts this against his view on men: some single men have no "options" (whereas all single women have options).

 

However, for a man, an "option" is only a girl that would like to sleep with him, and that he would also like to sleep with. To be a woman's "option" doesn't require that the woman would even want to sleep with that person.

 

Is that right? If so, somedude: how do you account for this deliberate inconsistency? Why do you think this is a balanced comparison?

[fortyninethousand322]

So let me get this straight:

 

Somedude81 claims that all single women have "options". An "option" for a woman is a man she knows who wants to sleep with her.

 

Somedude81 contrasts this against his view on men: some single men have no "options" (whereas all single women have options).

 

However, for a man, an "option" is only a girl that would like to sleep with him, and that he would also like to sleep with. To be a woman's "option" doesn't require that the woman would even want to sleep with that person.

 

Is that right? If so, somedude: how do you account for this deliberate inconsistency? Why do you think this is a balanced comparison?

 

I think he's saying that because someone like him and others are often on this forum complaining about women not wanting to date them that there must be more guys like that out in the real world. Regular guys who are good, but maybe not great options that women are routinely passing up for greener pastures. Therefore, a single woman probably has someone like him who'd love to date her while a man is just hoping against hope for a decent girl to accept him.

 

I think that's the point of this thread.

[somedude81]

No, I'm assuming they wanted a date. Most people don't decide immediately whether or not they'd have a relationship with someone, unless the answer is definitely no---that was a main part of my point.

Then that still counts for what I intended in the OP.

Um … because you have a problem with women having criteria? Only men are allowed to have their "minimums"? Because a fat old man who's at least a B cup asking me out equates to a viable "option" for ME, in your view.

And where did you get that idea that a fat old man counts as an option for women? No I specifically didn't say that they didn't, I just assumed that was understood.

 

But the female counterpart (minus the B cup) who might be interested in YOU is not even really thought of as a person.

Where did you get the idea that I think anybody, no matter what their characteristics makes them less of a person?

 

Remember when you used to mainly whine about your height? Well, you were not okay with women who passed you by because of it, since you think of yourself as a "nice guy."

 

What about the flat chested fatso self professed "nice" ladies whom you reject?

Because a flat-chested fatso is flat-chested and fat. That's two things.

 

I'm just short.

[january2011]

How many single and looking ladies out there (yourself or somebody you know) have zero options. Meaning, you know without a doubt that there are no men who want to date you or her.

 

I thought this when I first broke up with the long-term ex. But over time, I discovered that it was really a lack of awareness regarding the size of my dating pool - I'd been so out of the loop for years.

 

I don't believe that anyone (men or women) has "zero options." Just lack of awareness and perhaps the gumption to put themselves out there. And just because you don't like him/her back, it doesn't mean that she/he is not an option. He/she just isn't a very attractive one, that's all.

[somedude81]

So let me get this straight:

 

Somedude81 claims that all single women have "options". An "option" for a woman is a man she knows who wants to sleep with her.

 

Somedude81 contrasts this against his view on men: some single men have no "options" (whereas all single women have options).

 

However, for a man, an "option" is only a girl that would like to sleep with him, and that he would also like to sleep with. To be a woman's "option" doesn't require that the woman would even want to sleep with that person.

 

Is that right? If so, somedude: how do you account for this deliberate inconsistency? Why do you think this is a balanced comparison?

An option is somebody who wants at least a date, and does not make it obvious that they just want sex.

 

Also to be considered an option, that individual must be within the said person's minimum criteria.

[zengirl]

I don't know, maybe they make great racquetball partners or they're in your hiking club. These guys don't exactly wear a sign or act negatively in all aspects of their lives.

 

I'm talking about guys who perpetually act that way. And you said 'down on their luck.' The men I know have trials and tribulations, some of them with dating on occasion, and drama and flaws and are whole people, just like the women I know.

 

I would say that healthy people don't obsess about every person they asked out once and got rejected by, but there are certainly people who take some rejections more deeply than others, even to the point of obsession.

 

Either way, most people also don't make it to 30 having never had a relationship either like SD has. That would make him an outlier in that way as well.

 

I don't think taking a rejection more deeply necessarily translates to mooning over the person and pretending to be their friend for some length of time after a clear rejection has been made. I know many, many people who take rejections (and yes, not all, but certain ones) deeply at times---I think that just happens. It's what you do with that which determines how healthy you are. Most men I know tend to go more inward with it, when deeply rejected or dumped or something, and get all broody and grow hipster beards and get emo over things like Ted Mosby and such. They aren't magically bouncing back EVERY time, but generally when they ask a girl out, they're just . . . asking her out. There may be some exception that they really did have higher than usual hopes for (women do this too) but they still try to get over it and move along.

 

Does that make more sense?

[reallyhotguy]

An option is somebody who wants at least a date, and does not make it obvious that they just want sex.

 

Also to be considered an option, that individual must be within the said person's minimum criteria.

 

Okay, great.

 

So you really can't conceive that there are women out there that don't know anyone who meets their criteria who also want to date them?

 

In other words: what gives you the impression that there aren't women in your same boat? I ask because I've yet to see a reason to believe that, and you haven't put one forth that I can tell.

[zengirl]

Because a flat-chested fatso is flat-chested and fat. That's two things.

 

I'm just short.

 

Sometimes I really think you're joking. *sigh*

 

It's not a matter of counting potential 'deficiencies.' That's absurd.

 

An option is somebody who wants at least a date, and does not make it obvious that they just want sex.

 

Also to be considered an option, that individual must be within the said person's minimum criteria.

 

A lot of people I know don't go around having 'minimum criteria' that they have all listed out, and it isn't all physical! I would say that if a girl who was single and looking knew a guy who she thought she might like ("minimum criteria") and be attracted to and was also definitely interested in her, she'd go out with him. And if she didn't, she'd be silly, yes.

[Lonely Ronin]

No I don't know the answer. Is it that you have to put yourself through the meatgrinder every day? Doesn't sound too fun.

 

Life isn't easy for everyone, accept it and do the work required to get what makes you happy.

[Untouchable_Fire]

An interesting insight into sales, but I think it de-credits Zengirl's point (that you just need to like yourself, or... something) than mine.

My original point was that when trying to approach dating as a "sales" venture, I knew what the buyer (in this case) men, wanted. They want a physically attractive woman (a visual inspection) with a good personality (features, benefits.)

Since I can't make it past the first stage (I have a bad visual inspection) then the rest is pointless knowledge, which is why marketing/sales strategies in dating wouldn't work for me. Can't remember if I said this in another thread, but it seems like the marketing/sales would work well for women who can't push dating past that initial attraction stage.

 

Zengirl isn't wrong. I would never suggest you trying to sell a product that you don't like. I think that is your basic issue here.

 

Keeping with sales as an analogy... if you are struggling to sell a product because you don't like it... then you need to do some research on it. You need to start thinking about the positives of the product.

 

Additionally I don't think you understand the buyers at all. Some are rich and some are poor. Sure everybody is wowed by a pretty exterior, but that doesn't always mean its a superior product. The Toyota Prius is ugly as hell, but sold out, while Mazarati's are very pretty.... but the demand is so low you have to buy one before they build it.

 

So... basically you don't believe in yourself and you don't understand men at all.

[Lonely Ronin]

while Mazarati's are very pretty.... but the demand is so low you have to buy one before they build it.

 

That's because they fall apart after a year.

[somedude81]

Okay, great.

 

So you really can't conceive that there are women out there that don't know anyone who meets their criteria who also want to date them?

Correct

In other words: what gives you the impression that there aren't women in your same boat? I ask because I've yet to see a reason to believe that, and you haven't put one forth that I can tell.

Because I can't think of anybody in the past year that had expressed any interest in me beyond that of a friend. The girls that I thought might be interested have rejected me and the other girls had boyfriends.

 

Sometimes I really think you're joking. *sigh*

 

It's not a matter of counting potential 'deficiencies.' That's absurd.

A smiley would have made it too obvious....

 

A lot of people I know don't go around having 'minimum criteria' that they have all listed out, and it isn't all physical!

No, I'm sure they all do.

 

Everybody can look at somebody who doesn't meet their minimum and know that they would never do anything with that person.

 

I would say that if a girl who was single and looking knew a guy who she thought she might like ("minimum criteria") and be attracted to and was also definitely interested in her, she'd go out with him. And if she didn't, she'd be silly, yes.

And that happens all the time. It's the whole point of this thread.

[zengirl]

And that happens all the time. It's the whole point of this thread.

 

And my point was I don't think you'll find a woman on this thread (or many anywhere) who is single and looking AND knows a guy who is attractive and interesting to her AND knows he definitely likes her AND won't go out with him.

 

Now, she may have options if options are "Guys who like her" or "Guys who like her and think they're guys she should go out with" or "Guys who like her and Somedude thinks they're guys she should go out with" or etc, but that's not the same as it being someone she's personally interested in.

 

I don't know girls who are rejecting men they're interested in constantly when they're single and looking.

[verhrzn]

Zengirl isn't wrong. I would never suggest you trying to sell a product that you don't like. I think that is your basic issue here.

 

Keeping with sales as an analogy... if you are struggling to sell a product because you don't like it... then you need to do some research on it. You need to start thinking about the positives of the product.

 

Additionally I don't think you understand the buyers at all. Some are rich and some are poor. Sure everybody is wowed by a pretty exterior, but that doesn't always mean its a superior product. The Toyota Prius is ugly as hell, but sold out, while Mazarati's are very pretty.... but the demand is so low you have to buy one before they build it.

 

So... basically you don't believe in yourself and you don't understand men at all.

 

 

No no, you are misrepresenting me.

 

I didn't argue Zengirl's point that I don't "like" myself because I think it's thread-jacking (and the sales as dating is a lot more fun to discuss.) I've said this before and I'll say it again; I like myself just fine. It's my OUTSIDE I am not a fan of. More accurately, I like myself until I venture out into the world and discover... um, nobody else likes me. That makes me wonder if there's something wrong with me, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes me dislike myself. It just makes me introspective.

 

In the marketing metaphor, you said yourself that the visual presentation to hook the customer is important. ("Product is shiny.") Why is this different in the dating world? Why does assuming that men want a visually stimulating product (a hot woman) with good features (good personality) incorrect? My issue is that I can't get past the visual presentation; so what would you do in that case? (Keeping in mind that the visual presentation is important to your buyers?)

[somedude81]

And my point was I don't think you'll find a woman on this thread (or many anywhere) who is single and looking AND knows a guy who is attractive and interesting to her AND knows he definitely likes her AND won't go out with him.

 

Now, she may have options if options are "Guys who like her" or "Guys who like her and think they're guys she should go out with" or "Guys who like her and Somedude thinks they're guys she should go out with" or etc, but that's not the same as it being someone she's personally interested in.

 

I don't know girls who are rejecting men they're interested in constantly when they're single and looking.

Exactly.

 

Guys who Somedude thinks she should go out with are decent guys that meet her minimum criteria that she subconsciously holds, and don't have anything glaringly wrong with them. Those men are her options. It's not limited to just the men she's interested in.

[zengirl]

Exactly.

 

Guys who Somedude thinks she should go out with are decent guys that meet her minimum criteria that she subconsciously holds, and don't have anything glaringly wrong with them. Those men are her options. It's not limited to just the men she's interested in.

 

That is absurd. Why do you get to say who others should be attracted to? I don't know about you, but MY minimum criteria always WAS men who I was interested in and attracted to. I didn't have set specifications---which I think are kind of shallow---I just looked at men individually.

[Nightsky]

That is absurd. Why do you get to say who others should be attracted to? I don't know about you, but MY minimum criteria always WAS men who I was interested in and attracted to. I didn't have set specifications---which I think are kind of shallow---I just looked at men individually.

 

Logic does not seem to be strong with him today.

[Untouchable_Fire]

No no, you are misrepresenting me.

I didn't argue Zengirl's point that I don't "like" myself because I think it's thread-jacking (and the sales as dating is a lot more fun to discuss.) I've said this before and I'll say it again; I like myself just fine. It's my OUTSIDE I am not a fan of. More accurately, I like myself until I venture out into the world and discover... um, nobody else likes me. That makes me wonder if there's something wrong with me, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it makes me dislike myself. It just makes me introspective.

 

This isn't a threadjack. Your issue is almost the exact same as OP.

 

From reading your threads I would say that it's much more likely that you have created a self fulfilling prophecy. You don't like your appearance much, which makes you assume that every little thing is about that.

 

You used to have a picture posted. You are definitely an attractive woman. I know for fact that most of these issues are in your head.

 

So... speaking about your physical appearance... what do you believe is positive about your looks?

 

In the marketing metaphor, you said yourself that the visual presentation to hook the customer is important. ("Product is shiny.") Why is this different in the dating world? Why does assuming that men want a visually stimulating product (a hot woman) with good features (good personality) incorrect? My issue is that I can't get past the visual presentation; so what would you do in that case? (Keeping in mind that the visual presentation is important to your buyers?)

 

Two reasons: First you undervalue the appearance of your product and overvalue the importance men put on that.

 

First what do men look for physically in a woman?

 

Second, once a man is physically attracted to a woman what does he look for?

[zengirl]

That is absurd. Why do you get to say who others should be attracted to? I don't know about you, but MY minimum criteria always WAS men who I was interested in and attracted to. I didn't have set specifications---which I think are kind of shallow---I just looked at men individually.

 

To elaborate on this. . .

 

Somedude, you do realize women are actual people, right? That they have their own feelings and thoughts and opinions and expect to direct their own lives, right? So, just because a guy seems like he should be "good enough" for them in your eyes doesn't mean she's going to be interested in that guy, and there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with that.

[somedude81]

To elaborate on this. . .

 

Somedude, you do realize women are actual people, right? That they have their own feelings and thoughts and opinions and expect to direct their own lives, right? So, just because a guy seems like he should be "good enough" for them in your eyes doesn't mean she's going to be interested in that guy, and there is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with that.

And that's where I see things differently.

 

If a girl seems like she should be good enough for me, whether, I'm interested in her or not, I'll give her a shot. If she has expressed any interest in me, she's an option.

 

But you're saying it's not the case for women. That the men who are good enough, are not actually options, they don't count at all.

 

You are saying that a woman who has 10 good looking guys who have nothing wrong with them ask her out and she turns them down because she's not interested in any of them, has no options.

 

Does that seem logical at all?

 

Anybody would call me a fool for turning down 10 pretty girls that were interested in me.

[fortyninethousand322]

That's the problem right there in a nutshell, SD.

[verhrzn]

This isn't a threadjack. Your issue is almost the exact same as OP.

 

From reading your threads I would say that it's much more likely that you have created a self fulfilling prophecy. You don't like your appearance much, which makes you assume that every little thing is about that.

 

You used to have a picture posted. You are definitely an attractive woman. I know for fact that most of these issues are in your head.

 

So... speaking about your physical appearance... what do you believe is positive about your looks?

 

Most of the pieces are in generally the place they should be. They fulfill their intended function without too much of an error margin. They don't spontaneously burst into flames (since we're comparing cars, I thought that was important to note.)

 

For the record, I don't assume EVERY little thing is about my looks. For example, I assume I have difficulties in my friendships because I am overly serious, like to talk about unpopular/boring topics ("Did the industrial revolution help, or hurt, the domestic sphere?"), love to debate (not to play devil's advocate, I just love examining all angles of a situation but that can get very tedious) and have extreme difficulty with small talk. These I consider socially maladjusted tendencies, but aren't that big a cause for concern in areas like friendships or a reserved work environment.

 

In dating, however, these flaws COMBINED with a less-than-ideal physical appearance is not desirable. It's playing with a disadvantage on several sides. I focus on my looks, however, because that is what I have been TOLD to focus on. Ex-boyfriends, male friends... they've all zeroed in on my appearance as my problem in the dating world.

 

 

Two reasons: First you undervalue the appearance of your product and overvalue the importance men put on that.

 

What is the correct amount of importance to put into looks?? My assumption has always been that guys need to be physically attracted to a woman. Am I incorrect in this assumption?

[zengirl]

And that's where I see things differently.

 

If a girl seems like she should be good enough for me, whether, I'm interested in her or not, I'll give her a shot. If she has expressed any interest in me, she's an option.

 

"Seems like" to who? If someone said to you, "You should go out with that girl," even if you thought she was unattractive, you'd go out with her anyway? That's also absurd.

 

Why would anyone else be the arbiter of what you are attracted to?

 

But you're saying it's not the case for women. That the men who are good enough, are not actually options, they don't count at all.

 

No, I'm saying that I don't really like the phrase "good enough" personally (because I don't think you should determine your worth based on who wants to date you) but basically, in those terms:

 

I'm saying that women don't view those people as options or guys that are good enough just because YOU (or anyone else) thinks they should. They choose their own criteria, just as you do.

[fortyninethousand322]

"Seems like" to who? If someone said to you, "You should go out with that girl," even if you thought she was unattractive, you'd go out with her anyway? That's also absurd.

 

Why would anyone else be the arbiter of what you are attracted to?

 

Because he's got no options. A thirsty person in the desert isn't going to require an unopened bottle of deer park rather than regular tap water. If someone says "she'd be a good match for you" you take it and run. Unless of course you're a guy with options.