Single and looking ladies, and options

[Mme. Chaucer]

somedude, you are profoundly blind when it comes to self assessment. It's actually pretty astounding.

 

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?

 

1) Looks are not the be all and end all for all of us.

 

2) Someone being "good enough" does not even touch on compatibility. A guy with whom I'm incompatible, no matter how handsome, is not an option for me. What is so mysterious about that?

 

Evidently, you just want pretty, not fat, and B cup. Many of the rest of us want someone who is a good fit for us. What's the problem?

[somedude81]

"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?

 

 

 

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.

Most people have a general idea of what a decent looking girl or guy looks like.

[fortyninethousand322]

 

2) Someone being "good enough" does not even touch on compatibility. A guy with whom I'm incompatible, no matter how handsome, is not an option for me. What is so mysterious about that?

 

 

He can't grasp that not everyone is as desperate as he is.

[Mme. Chaucer]

He can't grasp that not everyone is as desperate as he is.

 

It's hard to not take his desperation with a big grain of salt when he has bra size parameters on it.

[fortyninethousand322]

It's hard to not take his desperation with a big grain of salt when he has bra size parameters on it.

 

Yeah. I agree. Someone in his shoes really has no business being picky. I threw out my standards years ago.

[reallyhotguy]

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.

 

Okay, but wait -- doesn't that mean that she does meet your minimum criteria...? Hence, why she's an "option"?

 

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You're picturing a woman who has standards that don't make sense to you ("10 good looking guys who have nothing wrong with them" -- not in her opinion, if she's turned them down).

 

You then imagine that this woman uses those criteria, which you don't understand, to exclude guys like you -- if she excluded those 10 guys, you'd probably be #11.

 

You finally take this model of behavior, and apply it to all single women.

 

Ergo, your main concern: "All single women are out to judge somedude as undesirable for reasons somedude can't fathom, and thus it really sucks to be somedude."

 

And hence your claim that all single women "really do have options"... according to what somedude decides what those women should really be considering "options".

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

[Untouchable_Fire]

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.)

 

Having functional headlights is not the same as having well formed eye catching headlights.

 

Do you have anything that is very eye catching? Something that sets you apart from other girls?

 

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.

 

Those are not negative personality flaws. TONS of guys love women like that. Especially the more intellectual guys. My cousin would go crazy for those particular traits in you. He feels like most of the women he meets are overly vapid and unable to talk about deep topics like the industrial revolution. He sucks at small talk too... ect.

 

Why do you think these are negative traits? They are only negative with the wrong guy.

 

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?

 

It's going to depend on the guy, BUT if you already have his attention it means you have passed most of this test.

 

Fact is that not every guy is attracted to the same thing. You want to select for guys who like your most positive physical features.

[GoodOnPaper]

2) Someone being "good enough" does not even touch on compatibility. A guy with whom I'm incompatible, no matter how handsome, is not an option for me. What is so mysterious about that?

 

But don't you need a little time to evaluate compatibility -- a date or two at least? That's why I always translated failed approaches as meaning I was "not good enough" or "beneath her league".

[zengirl]

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.

 

It's hard to not take his desperation with a big grain of salt when he has bra size parameters on it.

 

This!

 

He is so desperate, but he won't date anyone outside of his physical parameters, still. He cannot imagine other people have parameters that aren't purely physical, I guess.

 

somedude, you are profoundly blind when it comes to self assessment. It's actually pretty astounding.

 

1) Looks are not the be all and end all for all of us.

 

2) Someone being "good enough" does not even touch on compatibility. A guy with whom I'm incompatible, no matter how handsome, is not an option for me. What is so mysterious about that?

 

Evidently, you just want pretty, not fat, and B cup. Many of the rest of us want someone who is a good fit for us. What's the problem?

 

Right! Well-said.

 

Most people have a general idea of what a decent looking girl or guy looks like.

 

Most people I know aren't as superficial as you and care about more than just looks.

[zengirl]

But don't you need a little time to evaluate compatibility -- a date or two at least? That's why I always translated failed approaches as meaning I was "not good enough" or "beneath her league".

 

Not always. I mean, if there's obvious incompatibility, it can be obvious right away. You may find it out later, too, but if you already know why date them?

[reallyhotguy]

But don't you need a little time to evaluate compatibility -- a date or two at least? That's why I always translated failed approaches as meaning I was "not good enough" or "beneath her league".

 

Wait, I'm missing something. Why do you translate a failed approach to meaning you're "not good enough"? What reason do you have to believe that this is why you were turned down?

[verhrzn]

Having functional headlights is not the same as having well formed eye catching headlights.

 

Do you have anything that is very eye catching? Something that sets you apart from other girls?

 

Nope, nothing eye catching. It's entirely possible that I'm not ugly in the strictest sense of the world. Ugly people are eye-catching. I'm usually invisible. I think I might be... well, is there a middle ground between "plain" and "ugly"? Like, too ugly to be attractively plain, but too plain to be interestingly ugly?

 

I actually saw a fun study that the "extremes" of people were more likely to get attention online. So, if you have ugly features, people either react to you very negatively (you're ugly) or very positively (I have an attraction to your particular brand of ugliness!) It's actually the "plain" people who lose out, because the more men as a group disagree about a woman's attractiveness, the more they end up liking her.

(The Mathematics Of Beauty « OkTrends)

 

Those are not negative personality flaws. TONS of guys love women like that. Especially the more intellectual guys. My cousin would go crazy for those particular traits in you. He feels like most of the women he meets are overly vapid and unable to talk about deep topics like the industrial revolution. He sucks at small talk too... ect.

 

Why do you think these are negative traits? They are only negative with the wrong guy.

 

Okay, this might be a bit of a rant, but... in my experience, intellectual and nerdy guys say they want one thing, when in truth they really want another. I've met TONS of guys who say they'd love a smart woman, an intellectual woman, a nerdy woman... But what they really mean is they want a woman who appreciates those qualities in the GUY, and doesn't threaten the guy's superiority about those topics.

 

I'll use my ex as an example. He always proclaimed how much he loved "intelligent" women. But when I was actually intelligent with him, he would get very competitive and nasty. Why? Because I undermined his intelligence. He really didn't like that. So when he said he wanted an "intelligent" woman, he really meant he wanted one who was smart just enough to keep up with what he was saying, but not smart enough to overshadow him.

 

That's why I consider them negative (socially maladjusted) qualities. I make other people look bad. My mother says being around me is tiring. I make people think and I push them intellectually. (Think of that kid who is always asking "Why." So damn annoying. But curiosity is a good thing, right??)

 

 

It's going to depend on the guy, BUT if you already have his attention it means you have passed most of this test.

 

Fact is that not every guy is attracted to the same thing. You want to select for guys who like your most positive physical features.

 

Ah, but you have to get their attention first.... and therein lies my problem.

[GoodOnPaper]

Wait, I'm missing something. Why do you translate a failed approach to meaning you're "not good enough"? What reason do you have to believe that this is why you were turned down?

 

Being filtered out quickly has to mean there's something pretty bad about what's on the surface -- looks, personality, demeanor, etc. -- doesn't it?

[somedude81]

Yeah. I agree. Someone in his shoes really has no business being picky. I threw out my standards years ago.

Beggars can't be choosers and all that?

 

So you will accept anybody no matter what they look like?

 

It's hard to not take his desperation with a big grain of salt when he has bra size parameters on it.

Seriously, what is so wrong about wanting a woman have a defining female sex trait characteristic.

 

It's like saying that a woman is shallow because she wants a guy to have some muscle. Not ripped, but some muscle.

[Star Gazer]

As cliché as it sounds, life really is simple. We just always find ways to complicate it. That is the human condition.

 

Maybe you'll get through to him. I haven't, and I've been saying the same exact thing (it's the insecurity that's unattractive) for over a year.

[verhrzn]

Being filtered out quickly has to mean there's something pretty bad about what's on the surface -- looks, personality, demeanor, etc. -- doesn't it?

 

Or they're in a relationship. Or they're recently single and still hurting from a relationship. Or they're in a bad mood and just want to have a night with friends.

 

Or the way you approach them was creepy or strange. Demeanor and conversational skills can be adjusted and worked on. Each rejection is a chance to evaluate and hone your skills.

[reallyhotguy]

Being filtered out quickly has to mean there's something pretty bad about what's on the surface -- looks, personality, demeanor, etc. -- doesn't it?

 

???

 

I was expecting to read something like "that didn't meet their criteria". Where are you getting that it indicates something "bad"?

[fortyninethousand322]

Beggars can't be choosers and all that?

 

So you will accept anybody no matter what they look like?

 

 

More or less. I would say that about 95% of women are attractive in my opinion.

 

I used to believe in other kinds of compatibility and all of that, but then I realized a 24 year old guy who has never even kissed a girl has absolutely no right to have standards. Most women would laugh and/or mock my inexperience if they knew. Therefore you have to pick women who are also at the bottom of the barrel that way it's like a pot calling a kettle black.

[ScreamingTrees]

Wait, I'm missing something. Why do you translate a failed approach to meaning you're "not good enough"? What reason do you have to believe that this is why you were turned down?

 

Well, what if a guy just goes up to someone he finds attractive and just starts a little conversation with her and seems to hit it off, only for her to turn him down when he casually asks for her number to get together sometime?

 

What if what started out as a friendly, innocent conversation turned to awkward silence as the girl smiled and said "eh, I'm sorry, no thank you" or tried to change the subject or said "oh, gee, wonder where my (imaginary) boyfriend is.."

 

What other reason could it possibly have been if there were no major red flag that would've turned her off from giving the guy a shot? Just curious.

[verhrzn]

More or less. I would say that about 95% of women are attractive in my opinion.

 

I used to believe in other kinds of compatibility and all of that, but then I realized a 24 year old guy who has never even kissed a girl has absolutely no right to have standards. Most women would laugh and/or mock my inexperience if they knew. Therefore you have to pick women who are also at the bottom of the barrel that way it's like a pot calling a kettle black.

 

I really don't get where you developed this idea that inexperience is the kiss of death. I really don't think women care all that much, or that it is really all that obvious unless you MAKE it so.

[fortyninethousand322]

I really don't get where you developed this idea that inexperience is the kiss of death. I really don't think women care all that much, or that it is really all that obvious unless you MAKE it so.

 

Trust me, I'm sure it's very obvious that I've never kissed a girl. Perhaps not to my friends or people I hang out with, but if I was on a date I'm certain any girl could tell.

 

If you don't believe me go back and check the threads on this board (I can think of a couple right off the top of my head) in which women complain about inexperienced men and men who don't know how to kiss properly. I'm 24, not 13. Most women would expect a guy who's at least kissed a girl before.

[GoodOnPaper]

???

 

I was expecting to read something like "that didn't meet their criteria". Where are you getting that it indicates something "bad"?

 

Getting first dates was so difficult that I naturally assumed the problem was something superficial about me. After awhile, it's difficult to say that the problem was with the women.

[Lonely Ronin]

My mother says being around me is tiring. I make people think and I push them intellectually. (Think of that kid who is always asking "Why." So damn annoying. But curiosity is a good thing, right??)

 

You need to work on this, If your mother tells you this, then it's pretty bad.... It doesn't matter how physically attractive you are, no guy is going to stick around, if being around you is draining.

[Nightsky]

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.

 

You have to live life from your position.

 

If you start trying to make up hypotheticals from their position you have to realize they aren't you turning down 10 pretty girls interested in them.

 

But don't you need a little time to evaluate compatibility -- a date or two at least? That's why I always translated failed approaches as meaning I was "not good enough" or "beneath her league".

 

You're taking it all too personally. It doesn't mean any of that.

 

Well, what if a guy just goes up to someone he finds attractive and just starts a little conversation with her and seems to hit it off, only for her to turn him down when he casually asks for her number to get together sometime?

 

What if what started out as a friendly, innocent conversation turned to awkward silence as the girl smiled and said "eh, I'm sorry, no thank you" or tried to change the subject or said "oh, gee, wonder where my (imaginary) boyfriend is.."

 

What other reason could it possibly have been if there were no major red flag that would've turned her off from giving the guy a shot? Just curious.

 

theres a lot of what if's. You just have to be you and not take things like this personally.

[zengirl]

Well, what if a guy just goes up to someone he finds attractive and just starts a little conversation with her and seems to hit it off, only for her to turn him down when he casually asks for her number to get together sometime?

 

What if what started out as a friendly, innocent conversation turned to awkward silence as the girl smiled and said "eh, I'm sorry, no thank you" or tried to change the subject or said "oh, gee, wonder where my (imaginary) boyfriend is.."

 

What other reason could it possibly have been if there were no major red flag that would've turned her off from giving the guy a shot? Just curious.

 

I've turned down guys for all sorts of reasons: I didn't think we'd have much in common to talk about (i.e. they aren't in my general kind of laid back/liberal/hipster/nerd/ish circle, which is easy to tell), he had expressed views that were politically or morally different to mine, I wasn't attracted, talking to him was awkward rather than fun, etc. If I have already have a clear indication that I WON'T like him, why would I agree to go out with him? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.