A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by Marshbear Personally I prefer a super hot chick with a super sexy smile, a bubble butt that I can grab hold of when getting busy, either her own money or daddies, oh and I guess some intelligence, personality, common sense and a genuine good person..... Hummm... Let me know if one really exists
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall Hummm... Let me know if one really exists come to NYC. we're all over the place.
scratch Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall Hummm... Let me know if one really exists. Sure they do. They just won't be dating our ugly, poor, dumb asses anytime soon. Excuse me while I go check the pipes in hell.
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Sure they do. They just won't be dating our ugly, poor, dumb asses anytime soon. Excuse me while I go check the pipes in hell. oh, right. please ignore my last comment.
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 in all seriousness, i keep hearing guys all over this site saying they don't want girls like this because these kinds of girls don't "need" anything from them. i found it pretty depressing. I also hear guys say that it's intimidating when a girl has it so together. so what is it that you people want?!?! besides, when you find one, you'll probably notice that she's busy sobbing over some jerk that dicked her over.
alphamale Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Sure they do. They just won't be dating our ugly, poor, dumb asses anytime soon. ...most "hot" chicks have no money (cause they usually dumb), little personality, meager common sense and are genuinely not good people. there are exceptions, however, but they are rare. my recommendation is that if you want a chick with money, smarts, personality, common sense and a good heart then date an average looking woman. they tend to develop those qualities a bit better than their "hot" sisters.
d'Arthez Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 It is not about what men want from women (if you are a woman), but it is about what you want from men. You can't be in a relationship with the 3,000,000,000 men on the planet. It is hard enough to be in a relationship with 1. Don't decrease the odds for making a relationship work, by sacrificing your integrity. It takes two to form a relationship, and if men are intimidated because you are "unfeminine" (independent), that is their insecurity, and their problem. And not yours.
alphamale Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez It takes two to form a relationship, and if men are intimidated because you are "unfeminine" (independent), that is their insecurity, and their problem. And not yours. ahhh....but it is her problem cause she won't be getting a man or any ****
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 ahhh....but it is her problem cause she won't be getting a man or any **** so what do you suggest? should i become a whiny sniveling baby (outside of LS)? quit my job? stop being funny? i don't want to do all of that, i'm happy with me for the most part, i don't want to lessen myself to get a man.
d'Arthez Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by JS17 independent = unfeminine i didn't know that. To some men. Not all men. Don't forget that. The men who have issues with your independence would not be right for you anyway. Don't sacrifice your integrity, and your identity, to be with someone who does not appreciate that part of you. There are many men who will appreciate these things in you. It should be one of the criteria you have when looking for a prospective partner.
scratch Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by JS17 in all seriousness, i keep hearing guys all over this site saying they don't want girls like this because these kinds of girls don't "need" anything from them. i found it pretty depressing. I also hear guys say that it's intimidating when a girl has it so together. so what is it that you people want?!?! besides, when you find one, you'll probably notice that she's busy sobbing over some jerk that dicked her over. About a month ago, I dated a woman with whom I used to work. She outranked me at the firm by two tiers, and for a while I was her direct subordinate. I went out with her three times and then stopped calling her. I wasn't intimidated, and didn't feel useless. I simply had but a mild physical attraction to her and the sex wasn't that great, so I didn't think I'd enjoy continuing to see her. It's likely that she thought I lost interest for the reasons you stated above, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I lost interest for the same reason I'd have lost interest in a waitress who lived with her parents. JS17. take that stuff about intimidation and uselessness with a grain of salt, and apply occam's razor.
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by scratch JS17. take that stuff about intimidation and uselessness with a grain of salt, and apply occam's razor. ouch. well the guys that i've dated have always said that they like it that i'm independent but i keep seeing the contrary posted on LS.
Merin Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 While Physical Attraction shouldn't be the only reason you choose to date someone, IMO it is important to have physical attraction. It is rare that people (who aren't lying) will say or think to themself "Damn look at that not at all physically appealing Girl/Guy I MUST go over there and get to know him/her" In most cases a physical attraction is needed to spark an interest in finding out more about a person. There have been Guys I was attracted to right away physically but didn't choose to date for long because there wasn't anything more than physical attraction, I have also dated Guys who I wasn't sure if I had enough physical attraction for them to want to date and get to know them better as anything more than Friends.
A Fly onThe Wall Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by JS17 ouch. well the guys that i've dated have always said that they like it that i'm independent but i keep seeing the contrary posted on LS. They are telling you what you want to hear.. They want to get laid
alphamale Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by scratch , and apply occam's razor. what's that? is it like a Hobsons Choice? where it seems like u have multiple choices or paths but you only really have one?
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by A Fly onThe Wall They are telling you what you want to hear.. They want to get laid DUH!
Marshbear Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 my recommendation is that if you want a chick with money, smarts, personality, common sense and a good heart then date an average looking woman. they tend to develop those qualities a bit better than their "hot" sisters. I have also found this to be true, Alpha. They tend to be less of a headache and more genuine than their fickle "hot" sisters. They are more appreciative of what you do for them rather than expecting it done. They are not looking for the next "hot" guy to get their attention. Like JS17 said, it would be nice to get the whole package in one "hot" person but the odds seem to be 100,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. independent = unfeminine i didn't know that. That is not true. I love an independent women who knows what she wants and is not relying on someone else to give it to her. They are looking for someone to compliment their lives not BE their lives.
Marshbear Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
scratch Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by Marshbear Explanation. That's correct, google boy. As applied here, if a girl knows a guy isn't "that into her," and isn't sure why, it's probably because she's not hot enough, and not because he's intimidated by her mind, career or beauty.
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by Marshbear I have also found this to be true, Alpha. They tend to be less of a headache and more genuine than their fickle "hot" sisters. They are more appreciative of what you do for them rather than expecting it done. They are not looking for the next "hot" guy to get their attention. Like JS17 said, it would be nice to get the whole package in one "hot" person but the odds seem to be 100,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. ok, i'll give you guys this one cause i don't know any super models to disprove your theory. That is not true. I love an independent women who knows what she wants and is not relying on someone else to give it to her. They are looking for someone to compliment their lives not BE their lives. i thought that's what everyone did want and i'm very independent and just want someone to share things with. now i'm hearing that because i'm independent that i will not be thought of as female. i wish you guys would just make up your minds
Marshbear Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by scratch That's correct, google boy. Actually I used Excite's search page....
JS17 Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by scratch That's correct, google boy. As applied here, if a girl knows a guy isn't "that into her," and isn't sure why, it's probably because she's not hot enough, and not because he's intimidated by her mind, career or beauty. that's only surface stuff. that's before you get involved. if someone rejects you right off the bat then ok but i can't see this if you've been involved with someone for weeks or months. am i wrong?
scratch Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by Marshbear Actually I used Excite's search page.... Works for me. The parsimony thing gave you away. Even I didn't know that part. JS17, have a look at the theory I set forth in the last post. If you want more guys to be interested, both in terms of quality and quantity (they inadvertently go hand in hand), don't become less independent or smart - become more hot. It is not surface stuff. Do you really think that someone rejected you after weeks or months because you were too independent and smart, rather than because the attraction wasn't that strong to begin with? See the simplest explanation first, my dear.
Marshbear Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 but i can't see this if you've been involved with someone for weeks or months. am i wrong? It isn't always a lack of attraction that stops the relationship. Sometimes you see thngs about them that you just can't put up with, no brains, no communication, bi-polar, bad sex, bad sex, bad sex, bad sex, b...
Recommended Posts