MrCastle Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I prefer the set up the way it is. I only approach women I find absolutely attractive. That's pretty good considering that any girl who accepts my invitation is someone I find totally hot. Every girl who says yes is a girl I really wanted. Approaching gives men with balls an advantage. While other guys are too shy (and this includes all kinds of men -- rich men, tall men, model looking men, etc) to approach pretty women, the guy with balls has the upper hand. You can only get a shot if you toss your hat in the ring. Every approach I make is me throwing my hat in the ring to let the girl know I'm available and if she knows what's good for her, she'll pick me. She can't do that if I don't approach. This set up is much much better. If women did the approaches, most men would be excluded, and more than likely more bitter than they are now. 6
hotpotato Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Excellent post. You deserve a nice cold beer. Edited September 9, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator 3
GoodOnPaper Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I agree about how men -- even the ones who really struggle -- should do the approaching. For the simple reason that the more a man struggles, the less prepared he would be to reject a woman who approached him and liked him more than he liked her. THAT could have serious life consequences. I don't know about always having to go after the hottest woman in the room, though. I think that's a luxury limited to those few guys who can attract pretty much anyone they want. For those of us who have/had to slog through the trenches just to get a first date, it's probably better to identify what level of attractiveness is "cute enough" and go from there. To a certain extent, attainability is sexy, and for me, comfort level means a LOT. Being one of a thousand schmucks trying to get a date with a woman because she's the hottest woman in the room is extremely uncomfortable. I need a better basis for a connection than that. 1
Carenth Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Wait, this isn't the norm? I've never approached a lady I haven't found attractive.
skydiveaddict Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) I prefer the set up the way it is I only approach women I find absolutely attractive. Don't we all? Anything less is a waste of time. Edited September 9, 2013 by skydiveaddict
skydiveaddict Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 This post seems to be nothing more than posturing without any real substance. Naw. I think Mr.C enjoys meeting/dating beautiful women. Just like me. What's wrong with that?
skydiveaddict Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 That isn't different from any other heterosexual male. No, I guess not
Author MrCastle Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Guys sorry. I didn't start this thread but rather posted in the thread about what would dating be like if women approached men. Guess mods felt my answer was off topic and decided to give it it's own thread?
Imported Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I agree with you, but it is a rare case that I go for a girl that I didn't feel as if she "invited" me to approach. And even the times I do an actual cold approach, the girl was obviously wanting a guy. Not too concerned about some other guy beating me to the punch. In bars/clubs, often times I see girls giving me cues as they are talking to some other guy that went straight up to her, probably total cold approach and she is probably trying to get rid of him. But yeah, often times a women will find a guy more attractive that they think is attracted to them. Kinda like a bird in the hand or two in the bush deal.
MomsSpaghetti Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I agree that guys with "balls" have an advantage, because anyone who plays the numbers game hard enough can end up with good results in absolute terms. However, I, personally, am not someone who would get satisfaction by getting a hot woman if I knew I was a try-hard who had devoted my life to this goal and was considered unattractive by the other 20 women who rejected me.
BradJacobs Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Don't we all? Anything less is a waste of time. Some men have to bunt to get in the game.
Revolver Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I prefer the set up the way it is. I only approach women I find absolutely attractive. That's pretty good considering that any girl who accepts my invitation is someone I find totally hot. Every girl who says yes is a girl I really wanted. Approaching gives men with balls an advantage. While other guys are too shy (and this includes all kinds of men -- rich men, tall men, model looking men, etc) to approach pretty women, the guy with balls has the upper hand. You can only get a shot if you toss your hat in the ring. Every approach I make is me throwing my hat in the ring to let the girl know I'm available and if she knows what's good for her, she'll pick me. She can't do that if I don't approach. This set up is much much better. If women did the approaches, most men would be excluded, and more than likely more bitter than they are now. Why doesn't this happen with the current set up we have now then? Why aren't most women excluded with men doing the approaching, why would this be different? The only explanation would be that you're basically admitting women are much more shallow then men are 1
PJKino Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Why doesn't this happen with the current set up we have now then? Why aren't most women excluded with men doing the approaching, why would this be different? The only explanation would be that you're basically admitting women are much more shallow then men are Women on here would think thats impossible but i think you could make at least a legitmate debate that they are more shallow 1
Author MrCastle Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Why doesn't this happen with the current set up we have now then? Why aren't most women excluded with men doing the approaching, why would this be different? The only explanation would be that you're basically admitting women are much more shallow then men are I wouldn't say more shallow. Both sexes are equally shallow. But because men are more visual -- in my experience, they go after all different types of women. And we even see it played out in Hollywood. Leading women can be all different ethnicities and body types. Same with magazine covers. A variety of different types of women. When you look at the leading men, they all fit a very similar mold looks wise. So if women did the approaching, it would be those kind of men that would predominantly get approached. 1
Grumpybutfun Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) I rarely, if ever, approached a woman when I was single and I always had a date. I wasn't aware that women approaching men was an anomaly. Grumps Edited September 9, 2013 by Grumpybutfun
Revolver Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 Women on here would think thats impossible but i think you could make at least a legitmate debate that they are more shallow I'm not saying they're more shallow but that's the only possibly answer to that comment castle made. Here's what we know In the current set up we have now, men do the approaching/asking out. In this set up men ask out ALL types of women. Big/small/ugly/pretty/rich/poor/unpopular/popular etc But he said most men would be excluded if women did the approaching. Why would this be? The only answer is that women are more shallow then men, because in our current set up most women aren't excluded...
Author MrCastle Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 I'm not saying they're more shallow but that's the only possibly answer to that comment castle made. Here's what we know In the current set up we have now, men do the approaching/asking out. In this set up men ask out ALL types of women. Big/small/ugly/pretty/rich/poor/unpopular/popular etc But he said most men would be excluded if women did the approaching. Why would this be? The only answer is that women are more shallow then men, because in our current set up most women aren't excluded... Again, I don't think it's that they are "more shallow", I think men, since they are more visual, have a wider spectrum of what they find attractive. Women are a bit more rigid in what they find physically attractive, in my experience/opinion. Even reading this forum, if you make a thread "what are you physically attracted to," men are all over the board. Small, petite girls called "spinners," curvy girls, tall leggy girls called "amazons," -- every spectrum is covered. When the topic is what kind of men females go for, the answers kind of blur into each other and don't deviate as much as the men's answers do.
RedRobin Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 I wouldn't say more shallow. Both sexes are equally shallow. But because men are more visual -- in my experience, they go after all different types of women. And we even see it played out in Hollywood. Leading women can be all different ethnicities and body types. Same with magazine covers. A variety of different types of women. When you look at the leading men, they all fit a very similar mold looks wise. So if women did the approaching, it would be those kind of men that would predominantly get approached. It's my observation, as well as many others, that the women projected onscreen and in magazines (at least in the US) have very little variation in any real sense. The fact they are different ethnicities means nothing. Keep in mind that most movie studios are run by men. Most of them white men. So it should come as no surprise that the movies they make feature male leading roles who are white men. So the preferences and differences in women chosen to play various roles are no more distinctive than the average porn movie... it's just more classed up for the general audience. 2
Revolver Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Again, I don't think it's that they are "more shallow", I think men, since they are more visual, have a wider spectrum of what they find attractive. Women are a bit more rigid in what they find physically attractive, in my experience/opinion. Even reading this forum, if you make a thread "what are you physically attracted to," men are all over the board. Small, petite girls called "spinners," curvy girls, tall leggy girls called "amazons," -- every spectrum is covered. When the topic is what kind of men females go for, the answers kind of blur into each other and don't deviate as much as the men's answers do. I disagree with you here. I think its the other way around. Men are more like minded in what they find attractive and women are more different.
Author MrCastle Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 I disagree with you here. I think its the other way around. Men are more like minded in what they find attractive and women are more different. I don't think so. You'll have men (here, and elsewhere) prefer shorter women, or prefer taller women, or prefer curvy women, or prefer slender women. I've yet to meet a woman who prefers anything other than tall, moderately built to well built men. They'll date different types of men, after looking past looks, but if they were the ones approaching -- approaches are a purely physical attraction -- how many skinny or short guys would get approached? Or bald guys? Guys who don't dress well? When you look at the Maxim Hot 100, you'll see an entire spectrum of different females. From a young, skinny (in my opinion, unattractive) girl like Miley Cyrus (who was rated 1!) to older, curvy latinas like Sophia Vergara. And all the differences in between. If girls had something similar, it would be Ryan Gossling, Ryan Reynolds, Chris Evans, Hugh Jackman, etc. Tall, built dudes.
Author MrCastle Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 And let me try to clarify better. I think when it comes to dating and relationships, women will place a greater importance on personality/emotional connection after they get to know the man. You can become more attractive to a woman over time no matter what you look like. Over time. We're talking about a world in which women approach men right? This is a purely physical thing as you have nothing else to go on but the way the man looks. What would be the incentive for a woman to approach a shorter man, scrawny man, a balding man, a man with a bit of a gut, a man with a messed up haircut, etc etc if they didn't have to?
serial muse Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) I don't think so. You'll have men (here, and elsewhere) prefer shorter women, or prefer taller women, or prefer curvy women, or prefer slender women. I've yet to meet a woman who prefers anything other than tall, moderately built to well built men. They'll date different types of men, after looking past looks, but if they were the ones approaching -- approaches are a purely physical attraction -- how many skinny or short guys would get approached? Or bald guys? Guys who don't dress well? When you look at the Maxim Hot 100, you'll see an entire spectrum of different females. From a young, skinny (in my opinion, unattractive) girl like Miley Cyrus (who was rated 1!) to older, curvy latinas like Sophia Vergara. And all the differences in between. If girls had something similar, it would be Ryan Gossling, Ryan Reynolds, Chris Evans, Hugh Jackman, etc. Tall, built dudes. On, no, I don't think there's much spectrum in the Maxim Hot 100 - no different than women drooling over well-built guys of various ethnicities. Same exact thing. Just because some of those women are shorter and some are taller? C'mon. And lots of women drool over handsome bald guys, or handsome guys regardless of how they dress - just like those men drool over that "variety" of beautiful women who are, let's face it, still beautiful. You'll see plenty of women talking about Vin Diesel, Tyrese, even Patrick Stewart. Or James MacAvoy, RDJ, Mark Wahlberg - none of whom is above 5'8". I think people are trying to force some dichotomy - AGAIN - that simply isn't there. I mean, right here on LS http://www.loveshack.org/forums/off-topic/water-cooler/418791-most-attractive-movie-star-what-movie we actually did this sort of straw poll. What that thread shows is that I'm right: men and women both go for the hot people of various body types. As long as they're hot. The end. Edited September 10, 2013 by serial muse
Author MrCastle Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 On, no, I don't think there's much spectrum in the Maxim Hot 100 - no different than women drooling over well-built guys of various ethnicities. Same exact thing. Just because some of those women are shorter and some are taller? C'mon. And lots of women drool over handsome bald guys, or handsome guys regardless of how they dress - just like those men drool over that "variety" of beautiful women who are, let's face it, still beautiful. I think people are trying to force something that isn't there. I mean, right here on LS http://www.loveshack.org/forums/off-topic/water-cooler/418791-most-attractive-movie-star-what-movie we actually did this sort of straw poll. What that thread shows is that I'm right: men and women both go for the hot people of various body types. As long as they're hot. The end. No it's not just taller vs shorter. Some girls are completely flat, some girls are extremely curvy. I think there is a bigger deviation when it comes to men in general.
Recommended Posts