|
|
Post by annaa on Feb 2, 2008 17:43:13 GMT -5
I'm glad someone else thinks so. It's probably going to be seen as silly, that i'm bringing it up and all, but this is bothering me so i've got to say something... I was quite surprised and a bit offended by what was said here, to be honest. It doesn't matter if he doesn't think it's worth getting pissy about.. I was on the recieving and and I didn't like it. Besides, if it were the other way, and I was saying these things to someone of the opposite sex (and as good as 10 years younger than myself), i'm pretty sure all hell would break loose. Well obviously you "thought yourself above him," which justifies a guy giving you crap to bring you down a few pegs. Don't feel so high and mighty now, do you?  Really though, Anna, don't take it to heart if you can help it. He doesn't differentiate between "nice" and "simpering," or "nasty" and "clever." In his head he's probably flirting with you. I felt I was above the whole "pick up artist" thing and was trying to encourage other people to feel that way too. I did say somewhere back that it wasn't a personal thing. But you're right, I won't take it to heart. I just had to express my annoyance.  I just feel that trying to enter the dating world without a job or something going for me would be like going to take a test without studying...you can give it a shot, but you just put yourself at a huge disadvantage that could have been minimized by taking some time to prepare (in this case, it's making sure you have something going for you first and are not looking for someone to fill that lack of confidence you're feeling). The unemployed aren't allowed to date or have feelings? Of course they are Richie! He was just talking for himself. And finally; Cary Grant... Who? What? Why? Does anyone care? |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Feb 2, 2008 17:45:31 GMT -5
Didn't Cary Grant eventually fly to South America to marry a woman who spoke so little English that they needed a translator to mediate? He made a lot of social gains; I'm just not sure he'd be my shining beacon of hope, personally. is my hero. It seems, to me, he made a lot of progress and became social, aka 'normal', and I respect that. I respect his progress, but still think it's questionable that he specifically flew out to a poor country to obtain a wife he could barely converse with. If they're happy, I guess I have no right to judge, but it's not much of an advertisement for "seduction," is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Feb 2, 2008 18:27:57 GMT -5
Cary Grant is my hero. It seems, to me, he made a lot of progress and became social, aka 'normal', and I respect that. I respect his progress, but still think it's questionable that he specifically flew out to a poor country to obtain a wife he could barely converse with. If they're happy, I guess I have no right to judge, but it's not much of an advertisement for "seduction," is it? Well, to me, he represent the willingness to do whatever it takes to get rid of anxiety, to become who you are without the fear. He tried a *lot* of things, as you can see if you read his posts, but I can't remember if seduction was one of them. CaryGrant's not really here to say what his situation is, in his personal life, but I have a feeling he's doing just fine. I have no problem with his personal life. His life, his call. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Feb 2, 2008 18:36:16 GMT -5
I have news for you - saying that you pity someone or feel sorry for them, among other things is not nice. You also throw in little insults and snyde remarks everywhere in your arguments, right from the start. I try to not make it personal and offensive as much as I can. I don't always succeed. And no, I am not flirting with her.
what's a good representative sample is the amount of women I have interacted with. I also watched the interaction of other people.
I don't claim to know what women in gerenal are like - I am always open minded about being wrong - though my experience of interactions is consistant with what I am saying.
I tried it your way (just being yourself, being nice, trying to figure it out on your own etc etc) - and there was no progress. I tried it a different way and made a lot of progress. That seals the deal for me. I don't need to become some sort of superman that can just snap his fingers and have all the women in the room lined up to get a piece, in order to share my experience or give advice to guys that are going through similar problems as I was/am. I campare where I was to where I am now and I am satisfied with the results so far. I don't care about looking foolish here.
|
|
|
|
Post by annaa on Feb 2, 2008 18:42:21 GMT -5
I have news for you - saying that you pity someone is not nice. And you throw in little insults and snyde remarks everywhere in your arguments. I try to not make it personal and offensive as much as I can. I don't always succeed. And no, I am not flirting with her... Yes, of course you would be offended. An insult to your masculinity or whatever. Wasn't my intention, but looking back I can see how you might have got upset. Could you not have told me you were upset with me right away rather than hurling a load of shit at me? Would have made life a bit simpler, no? Some people are just fragile... whether or not you 'try not to make it personal', you've got to consider the mind it's going into. Your idea of a joke isn't the same as everyone elses... another good reason why "fun insults" aren't a good way to 'seduce' a woman. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Feb 2, 2008 20:57:24 GMT -5
I have news for you - saying that you pity someone or feel sorry for them, among other things is not nice. You also throw in little insults and snyde remarks everywhere in your arguments, right from the start. I try to not make it personal and offensive as much as I can. I don't always succeed. And no, I am not flirting with her. Here's a little news for you. When you make insinuations about an entire group of people; when you insert penis jokes into discussions with women in an effort of "playful" degradation; when you consistently dismiss a carefully worded argument with a trite sentence and make accusations of unfairly biased perspective and admit none of your own, you lose your right to a respectful "man-to-man" discussion. I think perhaps you overestimate your own ability to keep your emotions in check when you enter into a disagreement. I'm pretty sure you have, actually. At the very least, you haven't bothered to ever deny it each time I've argued about that very thing, as I've steadily become more and more amazed at your convictions. And my experience of interactions is consistent with what I've been saying. And the experiences of the people who are arguing with you have been consistent with what we've each been saying. And yet you continually dismiss them--or seem to dismiss them--every time. First of all, your definition of "nice" is inconsistent with most people's definition of "nice," as Crash tried again to point out to you, and I don't remember you from before you found fast seduction enough to be able to compare your "nice/doormat" self to your current self. As she was getting at, guys women call "nice" are dubbed as such because the "niceness" is ALL they have, and "niceness" in itself makes not the man. A nice guy doesn't necessarily need less nice; he needs more other stuff. A nice guy with other stuff (confidence in particular) isn't called "nice" because nice is simply secondary to his general awesomeness, lol. The number of nice guys who do nice things and who have confidence and girlfriends are legion, so no matter what has worked for you personally, it is perfectly valid to introduce an alternative with its own variety of proof. Second, all you keep saying is that seduction has some good stuff in it and it's helped you. Why don't you post the actual advice that helped you? Then people will be free to agree or disagree or expand upon those specific ideas. Like in the other thread when you posted the link to the flirting article, and everyone said "that was pretty good." |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Feb 3, 2008 4:19:27 GMT -5
it wasn't me that inserted a penis joke, I just went along with it. perhaps some people aren't
as innocent as you would like it
your reaction to this only supports my point that your attitude towards what someone says depends on your prior perception of them
there was no degradation in there
the 'niceness' is not something separate from everything else about the man. A lot of the niceness is trying to fit in and to be liked and approved. If the man had confidence and didn't need approval he would automatically become less 'nice'.
But this type of 'nice' does not go around complaining 'I can't get any women, should I be myself or try to change?!
Does this simple fact escape you? That the guys that come seeking help with women are usually the doormat kind of nice?
A nice guy without anything else will not gain any 'general awesomeness' without giving up the approval seeking behavior that is directly related to him trying to be nice.
I do exactly that in various threads, when people ask specific sensible questions
In this thread I am just responding to general criticism that I think is wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by annaa on Feb 3, 2008 6:01:44 GMT -5
Ok, so you're going to completely ignore what i've said to you..
I don't exist and neither do my feelings.
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixferret on Feb 3, 2008 16:25:27 GMT -5
it wasn't me that inserted a penis joke, I just went along with it. perhaps some people aren't as innocent as you would like it Lol, yeah, that's it. It's the loss of innocence I fear. Don't kid yourself. It's not about "virgin ears" or anything of the sort, and you know it. It's not even as though this is the first time you've indulged in a little innuendo in the course of a heated discussion with female members. Just something I've noticed. Uhh, no. Again, your definition of "nice" is quite different from most everyone else's. I suspect graduates of FS might agree with your definition, however. Still not responding very coherently, I'm afraid. But that's alright. I think by now anyone following this thread has enough to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Feb 3, 2008 17:34:16 GMT -5
If you think the thread where the penis was mentioned was a 'heated discussion' you are just projecting your own bias. And don't ignore the fact that it wasn't me who made a dick joke.
I go a little deeper to see why the individual is acting 'nice'. On the surface its the same kind of nice but underneath some people are 'nice' because they are afraid of not being accepted for who they are. When a person has to stand up for their interests (or someone else's interest) and they are not acting nice. A person can't be nice all the time to everyone in every situation. For example you are not being nice to me right now. However very often the self esteem problems and fear of not being accepted leads to the 'nice guy' thing where he is just trying to fit to what he thinks the women want
just take a look at the lenny situation - why does he think lack of a job and living at home is a problem - because of what women will think about him, instead of just treating it as an inconveniece, albeit a big one.
whatever
more and more guys are turning to this kind of advice because they do see value in it. Even if you have proved that its all crap to yourself it doesn't undermine that value.
|
|
|
|
Post by annaa on Feb 3, 2008 17:37:45 GMT -5
The change in your screenname is very appropriate.
Picking on people on internet forums, particularly those aimed at fragile people, is definately Not Nice.
Are you going to continue to be a coward and ignore this too?
|
|
|
|
Post by annaa on Feb 3, 2008 17:46:08 GMT -5
...just take a look at the lenny situation - why does he think lack of a job and living at home is a problem - because of what women will think about him, instead of just treating it as an inconveniece, albeit a big one.
Pity.. you seem like a decent guy. Thanks, but like I said, until I get a job I'm not going to feel too confident. *Key... Anna = A woman |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Feb 3, 2008 17:48:01 GMT -5
unfortunately getting approval from women does not translate to romantic attraction
|
|
|
|
Post by annaa on Feb 3, 2008 18:40:24 GMT -5
You can speak for Lenny, can you? No. I didn't think so.
|
|
|
|
Post by carboncopy on Feb 3, 2008 21:29:30 GMT -5
Romance promotes procreation. That's kind of the point of sexual attraction. The evolutionary argument is flawed, in any case. It's been speculated that early humans would have lived in family groups like apes, with a dominant male having several permanent mates and many offspring for whom he would provide food, protection, and shelter. I think the evolutionary factor is the single most important thing and I completely agree with what you are saying about the history of a dominant male having many females to mate with. Today it's the same exact thing except for the fact that we generally don't live in close-knit groups and it's easy for a person to roam around - so the dominant males can wander away and not be inconvenienced. Also, furher to my point. Alpha males did care for females, but they also had a tendency to switch partners often, which was beneficial because it propagated the genes quicker. Again, the evolutionary approach doesn't hold up. Sex within a relationship is just as likely to produce offspring as a one night stand. No it isn't. You get fewer offspring this way and it's of lower quality because the weak males then do alot of the mating. And furthermore, in the "wild," offspring born to a mother who received care an protection from an "alpha" mate after procreation would have a greater chance of survival than offspring born to lone, stressed mother. It could be either advantageous or disadvantageous to the male to produce offspring with various females, but it could be more advantageous to mate with only one female with particularly suitable genes. Once again, that's how it used to be when early humans lived in small tribes and there was no viable way to exist outside of the group. Dominant males would protect the females and offspring since they had no other choice. Children and women were vital to the community in those days (not that they aren't today, but we are not facing extinction)because the group's numbers would dwindle quickly if they didn't procreate. Remember, too, that women are not just the receptacle for male genes. Biologically, females want their children to have the best survival advantage, as well. And what's more, "evolutionarily," it would behoove a woman to be more picky about a mate in consideration of the fact that the act of bearing a child requires much more time and effort than merely depositing sperm and leaving. She would therefore not be looking for the quickest route to sex possible, which would be beneficial to the male; she would be looking for particularly good genes. Yes, women are looking for "good genes", there is no question about that. However, my point was that women often fail to differentiate between a man who would be a good long time protector and an effective poser who has the charm. Obviously it was beneficial to our species that women often made this "mistake" because it's so prevalent. The only other explanation is that dominant men have recently gotten alot better at fooling women by playing on their emotions, but it's less likely. I've seen the alternative argument made that "alpha" behavior represents the "best" of the gene pool, but really whatever the individual is attracted to represents what, subconsciously or otherwise, the individual considers the "best" genes, and that varies quite a lot from person to person. Even assuming that the silverback gorilla personality type would be most appealing, remember that silverback gorillas get all the sex because they physically don't allow other males to have sex. A female gorilla doesn't get to date around and comparison shop, so she hasn't got a lot of choice in the matter. As societies in which this has happened with actual humans can attest, this doesn't necessarily affect who the woman desires at all, but if a man has good enough genes to enable him to care for and protect a large family, it's just as evolutionarily advantageous for the female to produce offspring with such a man as it would be for her to reproduce with a man she really fancied. The silverback personality type also seems to correlate more closely with a powerful, authoritarian personality, rather than a seductive or charming one, so the situations aren't really comparable in that sense. Male silverbacks don't need to be entertaining or persuasive; they just need to be big, potent, tough, and decisive. Alpha behavior is best of the gene pool if you look at it from a standpoint of survival. It provides the best chance of keeping the species alive. It does not however equate to the top quality of human beings in our modern understanding. Alpha males can be bigots, pricks, idiots, boors etc... it doesn't matter, what is important is that they were able to overpower (for example physically) other men and got to procreate. What I am saying is that in today's society women claim to pick their mates based on more refined qualities, but in actuality they still gravitate towards those who display dominant personalities. It just happens that a dominant personality almost always correlates with immediate sexual expectations and tendency to switch partners. Studies have found, also, that people are often apt to be attracted to partners that are somewhat like their opposite sex parent, suggesting that attraction is heavily influenced by nurture, not just nature (instinct). The existence of fetishes--sexual feeling toward non-sexual objects or situations--attests to this. Attraction is not controlled by a logical unit, but it's not all that illogical, either. Most people are attracted to other people who look and act mentally and physically healthy. The details of that attraction are quite variable. For instance, the preference for a certain hair or eye color; the preference for a frat boy type or a party girl versus a geeky type; the preference for thin or stocky or fit men and women. In today's society, women can have preferences and be choosy. Most men have to take anything that comes their way and doesn't run away screaming. When it comes to shy men it becomes almost grotesque - all they want is a plain looking, plain acting, not-monstrously obese woman who accepts them. Uniformly they can't even find that. It seems that attraction, at least in women, is not that variable. I want to also point out, again, that there are many resources aimed at female consumers that purport to give reverse advice to women that is actually, in many ways, very similar to the advice given men. There's The Rules, which I've already mentioned, and Why Men Marry Bitches--which is especially interesting because the title alone suggests women are complaining about how the guys all like female jerks while the men are complaining about how the girls all like male jerks. And then you have the Rules women gloating about how easily manipulated men are, and the "playas" and seduction enthusiasts gloating about how easily manipulated women are, and then the con artists gloating about how easily manipulated everyone is. I think that says something about humanity in general. When women discuss dating, they are basically talking about the top 20% of alpha men. The rest doesn't exist to them unless they are pressed by circumstances such as having a baggage of kids and/or being in the final countdown of their biological clock. Women don't really need such advice because their romantic life is unequivocally easier than mens'. At least when it comes to finding partners. That's part of what's so puzzling that with such vast choices women make such bad ones with tremendous consistency. To anyone reading this for advice... behold, exactly the warped attitude I've been describing. Notice the presumption: women don't understand what "cocky" and "arrogant" are. Women can't be expected to understand what they find attractive. Personally I think it's bad enough to argue in the vein of "All women like X--present company excepted," but it is far more damning to argue that "all women like X, even if they say they don't, even if they act like they don't, no matter what." That ain't logical, and it contradicts loads of anecdotal evidence, as well. So watch your sources, kids. It could happen to you. It has been said so many times before that it's a little strange it's still lost on you, but men's argument is that there is a great inconsistency between what women say they want in men and the choices they make in partners. It's not a matter of being presumptiuous or overly generalizing. It comes from everyday observation. The vast percentage of men (not just shy ones) who struggle to find partners is a testament to that. |
|
