• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

how women judge you (opposite sex)

Ex-User (16576)

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jan 5, 2020
Messages
20
I think most people have...small? standards, BOTH genders because we're all judgemental in both groups, even doggies, well maybe not, i've been to a dog park.

You know what screw my opinion.
 

Daddy

Evil Jew
Local time
Today, 15:49
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
102
mind
body
appearance
personality


(career, wealth)
now go reflect on it.
Truly, I've found this more to do with personality types, esfjs in particular to have a long list of requirements or expectations for a good relationship. And not necessarily just women.

Most people I think just want to have fun and feel secure with another. Looks and wealth and health are more of a bonus.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
As far as what it is that women want that men aren't understanding...I think that answer is actually a pretty straightforward one.

Women want men to understand how they are feeling, and to value and respect them like fellow human beings.

No matter what your preferences are as a woman, the bottom line of what you're looking for is almost ALWAYS the same. Women want to feel good in a relationship, just like men want to feel good. The difference comes into play when we believe different things will make us feel good.

Men often believe that beautiful young women will make them feel good, for physically fulfilling reasons, and sometimes, I think, ego-driven ones.
Women often look for a man who will relate to how they are feeling, validate their emotions, enjoy having conversations with them, and make them feel valued, and loved.

That is why, from my experience, women look for personality much moreso than physical attributes. Women, in general, are thinking of the "long run" - how is this guy going to make me feel? Is he mean? Is he very critical? Will he make me cry? Will he cheat on me? I don't know of many women who will look at the way a man looks and think "I want to bang that guy". There's some, but they seem to be very much in the minority, and any that I have met have had unusually high sex drives and an extreme lack of fidelity. (Nymphos, I suppose)

So the miscommunication comes into play because men believe that physical attributes are the most important thing when it comes to mate selection, because that is what men value. That is why so many men seek to objectify women, and oversimplify the dating game by trying to reduce it to scientific theories like evolutionary biology. Believing concepts like evolutionary biology (insofar as it relates to mate selection), and objectification, in and of itself is a highly unattractive quality in and of itself, because it shows that a man doesn't value (and potentially, isn't able to understand) emotional context.

The "scientific man" is seldom very successful in dating. No woman wants to be thought of like an animal. If you think of her like an animal, you don't value who she is as a person. She's not much more to you then a bunch of cells in motion. Furthermore, this kind of man seldom values life, itself. Whether its his own life, or the lives of children, or animals.

By contrast, most women value life very highly.

So you see where the deviation is here? And also, where the dangerous misconception comes in? Men believe that by becoming more objective, and more scientific, they can somehow "crack" the female equation - but the act of doing so causes an even bigger gap of relatability. And no matter the gender, men and women are more successful at dating when they are better able to relate to, and understand the opposite sex.

That is why my first bit of advice is that men should surround themselves with women. Men need to dedicate themselves to understanding how women think and feel. Having female friends is an excellent way to do that.
by definition, to make a woman attracted to oneself, one has to make her feel good about oneself. I continue to be extremely curious why women find it so distasteful when men pose the question: what is it that actually will make a woman feel good about me, and then analyze this problem objectively and scientifically. Yet the recommendation remains to find out what makes them feel good, but the source of that information supposedly has to be exclusively self-reporting from women themselves.

I think the problem is that from a woman's perspective, analyzing such a problem with any level of rigor seems unnecessary and try-hard to begin with, because to an average woman making a guy attracted to her is a matter of just being in the vicinity of men. For example I can be an above-average looking guy who is a millionaire and a PhD in quantum physics, yet if I show up in a bar, my default attraction value will be lower than the average early-20s chick whose achievements amount to putting on some makeup (although even the makeup is not necessary). It would remain my responsibility to use my skills with women to generate enough attraction to par the early-20s chick.

and also I would say this: men who haven't analyzed this question with rigor are the men who end up making women miserable.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today, 13:49
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,705
Location
Dandelion field
@Serac

I met a woman from France in 2010 at a book store. It was easy to talk to her, she was an exchange college student. All I had to do was be myself and take interest in what she was reading. There is no secret to making women like you for you. Women respect authenticity. To say otherwise is to say women are shallow. Depth is not formulaic. Being considerate and aware of the other person automatically gets them on your side.

Now I am not saying there is no bias. I am sort of a nerd and certain women dislike nerds. But what I said is true. If I am authentic I don't need to "do" anything. I don't need to get her to like me in the sense that she prefers such and such in her men. I just need to detect where the friction is at and reduce it. I have to get on her side and all that is required is observing how comfortable she is around me. Be natural and all barriers come down.
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today, 13:49
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,705
Location
Dandelion field
@Animekitty by "met a woman", what do you mean
At the local Barns n' Noble I was wandering around looking at books and she asked me if I knew where a section was on a topic. I showed her where it was. I started talking to her about all sorts of things. She told me she was from France. Sometime later we parted but I enjoyed talking to her. This was in the year 2010.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
well that's a start I suppose, but in terms of turning that potential into an entelechy, it's like walking knee-high into the water at a beach in france and then saying one has crossed the atlantic ocean.
 

Elen

Cold and damp
Local time
Today, 12:49
Joined
Jan 18, 2019
Messages
131
(4)Obtain enlightenment and realize you don't need women.

I was semi trolling when i start this thread, but ok.

i have fun with wet dreams and jizzing off with my pillow.
Right, because I totally wasn't commenting on how impossible Cog's list is to complete. :pueh:
 

moody

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:49
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
492
Whenever people talk about the opposite sex, I've noticed the thread begins augmenting women as a outsider more and more. (There are more guys here, so women become the "opposite sex" more so than not). Rarely does anyone speak rationally about women as another person, instead of something that acts with a separate theory of logic that we cannot understand.

Logically, women are other humans there are more similarities in the brains of males and females than differences. Though threads about women are generally discussing social nuances, I think some more ground could be covered if there was a smaller chasm between analyzing yourself vs. the opposite sex.

Put yourself in the social role of the opposite sex, and logically think about how you would behave. Of course, this all kind of crumbles when you talk about personal relations, because then you are biased, the object of your relations is biased, and no one has any rationality.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
@moody I for one don't think women act with a logic one cannot understand, but I think they act in a complicated manner which is a reasonable subject of analysis like any topic in psychology, biology, sociology etc etc. One would think that the existence of scientific writing on these topic proves at least to some degree that things are complicated.

I even apply such analyses on my own behavior and thinking on regular basis, despite the fact that I am in possession of my own brain and that I supposedly could have asked myself at any point in time "why do you do this and that".

but let's have it from you then moody: what can a man do to make himself more attractive to women and be more successful in the dating sphere?
 

moody

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:49
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
492
but let's have it from you then moody: what can a man do to make himself more attractive to women and be more successful in the dating sphere?
I was addressing strictly how others here have discussed women as a topic, not necessarily dating. But as most topics about women fall into that category, that’s unfair for me to leave it open ended like that....

From my perspective, women would most likely want men to be as straight forward as men want women to be, but both parties get caught up in what we all think is the most socially correct way to go about a situation. As a human, the best policy is not to take things personally and not to assume something another is projecting is directed at you.

The classic dilemma: I see women get upset because their partner didn’t pick up on something, so they assume they don’t care because they’ve been taught not to vocalize those things. But then I’ll see men react to that, thinking that a passive aggressive behavior means they did something wrong, or that they are being treated unfairly for something they couldn’t help. Or visa versa. Much could have been avoided if one of the parties didn’t involve themselves, and looked at the other person’s problems as separate from themselves. This goes against our instincts, but in reality, the way someone feels and thinks is seldom directly related to you.

I’ve tested this theory with a friend who was being passive agrressive once, and it turned out they were struggleing with depression. They were touched that I’d asked if they were okay, as no one else “noticed.” I almost didn’t ask them, because my reaction was I had done something to piss them off. But their mood had nothing to do with me.

(I cant speak from much more than observation, because I’m fairly asexual and don’t much relate to relationship problems. You’re welcome call bull if you please).
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:49
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,247
Location
69S 69E
Average Looking Man Who Dresses Nicely and Doesn't Do Anything Egregiously Stupid Finds Himself Having Lots of Sex

News at 6
 

sushi

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
812
point of opening discussion is that women are judgmental animals and like to hit the rejection button as often as they can.

still dont overthink it , keep calm and go on.

second is a simplified criteria which i think/guess on how women evaluate men. (judge/evaluate use synonymously)

if your attitude is like charlie brown and is prone to self doubt, you get fucked and burned.
 

sushi

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
812
Here's my advice for young, lonely men:
(1) Surround yourself with women. Listen to them talk. Learn to relate to how they feel.
(2) Identify your insecurities. Spend time understanding why you are insecure about them. Develop a strategy to address the things you are insecure about.
(3) Decide what your ideal future life would be. Develop a set of goals to strive for that will give you the future you desire.

That's it. That's as basic and simple as I can make my generalized advice.
thats the best advice i read here so far, but i watch alot of dating advice of women talking about X from youtube videos and still quite clueless.
 

ZenRaiden

One atom of me
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
790
Location
Between concrete walls
First the question is whether there is any real strategy. That is if females really have any real goal to achieve. Sex, relationship, family etc.
Also not all females really think in clear terms. Not everyone thinks ahead and thinks about what they really want. So if you do not know what you want and find yourself with someone who also does not know what they want you might be disappointed.
Depending what the female wants she will select for such criteria.
Some females just select for good looking sexy guys with relatable personalities.
Some females want someone to take care of them and protect them. Some want just sex and fun. Some females want gay romance and some want family and stability.
Some females do not know what they want.
 

sushi

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
812
here the city i live in women are shallow superficial , maybe its different in other areas/countries.

once you engage in talks in any in depth topics, they will instantly get bored.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
Here’s my advice for dating:

1: sign up for an online dating service
2: learn web browser automation
3: use algorithms to send out standardized messages en-masse
4: meet up with the women who respond
5: refine the algorithm over time via trial and error to optimize the response rates

Boom, problem solved
 

peoplesuck

caretaker of machines
Local time
Today, 14:49
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,567
Location
only halfway there
Here’s my advice for dating:

1: sign up for an online dating service
2: learn web browser automation
3: use algorithms to send out standardized messages en-masse
4: meet up with the women who respond
5: refine the algorithm over time via trial and error to optimize the response rates

Boom, problem solved
You could do this. In my experience people who use dating apps, are in this mindset of scavenging for anything that will make them feel valued.
There needs to be a heartbreaking service, allowing the mere mortals to learn to be self sufficient. Modern ideas of romance are just dependency. Grown adult children who havent learned to care for themselves, so they seek it out in others. sure, at some point you value a person to the point of your wellbeing being tied to theirs, but that isnt the same as needing a person to care for you.

My advice: dont take my advice.
I laugh at my own jokes
truly the worst of the worst
degeneracy at its finest
You can love me or hate me, tbh im too autistic to differentiate.
* fumbles with door*
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,085
Would be interesting to know how many men who tend to struggle with women or tend to view them like this alien species that work in mysterious ways completely different from their own who don't have sisters. Men with sisters seem to generally be more aware how women are individuals and are better able to relate and empathize with them, perhaps except if they grew up with batshit crazy or spoiled vicious ones. Or maybe even that would help. Having a mother doesn't seem to have the same effect. I guess having brothers would also impact women's perspective on men in some ways.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
Hey, @Minuend. I view all humans as aliens, and I think that helps me empathise with them. I have no problem getting laid, and I grew up with an older sister. I'm good at reading people, to the extent that my psychologist said he had never seen a higher score on detecting fake smiles (from video clips. I scored 95%). I credit this in part to analysing people based on science.

For accusing people of perpetuating stereotypes, the critics of this thread sure perpetuate a lot of stereotypes.

Why can't we analyze what draws women to particular men without being seen as misogynist assholes? Sure, there have been some silly comments about women being shallow, but not everyone interested in this topic condones such comments. I figure there's just a lot of frustration behind those.
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,085
I view all humans as aliens, and I think that helps me empathise with them. I have no problem getting laid, and I grew up with an older sister. I'm good at reading people, to the extent that my psychologist said he had never seen a higher score on detecting fake smiles (from video clips. I scored 95%). I credit this in part to analysing people based on science.

For accusing people of perpetuating stereotypes, the critics of this thread sure perpetuate a lot of stereotypes.

Why can't we analyze what draws women to particular men without being seen as misogynist assholes? Sure, there have been some silly comments about women being shallow, but not everyone interested in this topic condones such comments. I figure there's just a lot of frustration behind those.
You consider being able to see fake smiles on videotape equal to understanding the complexity and nuance of people and their reactions live in a social context? Does understanding the physical mechanics behind a smile = understand what a person is feeling/ thinking and why? If a person give you a fake smile in any situation, do you immediately know why, know why that person is fake smiling instead of reacting with something else? Is recognizing outward reactions the same as understanding internal motivation? Do fake smiles always have the same motivation to where you can always easily know the motivation for it?

Who is accusing you of stereotyping and simultaneously stereotyping? Who are "the critics" and what does it mean to be a critic in this context?

Who is calling you a misogynist asshole and is that relevant to my post somehow or just an afterthought?
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
You consider being able to see fake smiles on videotape equal to understanding the complexity and nuance of people and their reactions live in a social context?
You describe cognitive empathy, which is indeed reliant on the ability to read facial cues. Being able to read facial cues is not sufficient, but necessary, for good cognitive empathy. More to the point, if you consider the dating game complex, this thread is all the more prudent?

Who is accusing you of stereotyping and simultaneously stereotyping? Who are "the critics" and what does it mean to be a critic in this context?
This thread has been accused of stereotyping. You are stereotyping. Do you really need to ask why I consider you a critic? Here are some posts of yours:

"I vote to just close dumb threads. It's spam."

"This topic was never made to have a serious discussion, it's just shitposting aka spam. And it's not even good, entertaining or funny. It's bottom tier shitposting."

Add to that the fact that 70% of your activity on the forum consists of accusing Serac of being a misogynist.

Anyway, haven't you mentioned you are in fact on the spectrum? Perhaps you shouldn't lecture on cognitive empathy.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
in a parallel proposition to the Freud theory where he says women have an inherent envy of the male's cock, I would extend this theory and say the cock represents male pro-activeness and a certain aggression. The cock is a protrusion, both physically and metaphysically. I.e. women have an inherent envy of the male pro-activeness and said aggression – this is why a woman will try to shoot down any analysis of women via any other means than her own feelings on the topic, because this is seen as a manifestation of the pro-activeness they are envious of. Alternatively, they go directly to the cock itself and attack its size. Yet this is another reflection of the Freud theory, because since they are envious of the cock, they believe it is also the most prized possession for a man (but it is really not).

finally we have this:
RESPECT THE COCK
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:49
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,247
Location
69S 69E
what a strange world we live in where men apparently don't realise that women are also incredibly horny much of the time and that 'incel' and difficulty dating isn't an exclusively male phenomenon

people are very much exaggerating their own problems and extrapolating it to others who are similar to them, assuming that them and those similar to them are the unique bearers of this burden when actually there's so, so, so many women who are average to good looking that still struggle to find partners for many reasons that run parallel to the reasons men struggle
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
Certainly, there aren't as many female incels as male ones, but obviously they do exist. Casual sex is easy to achieve for a woman, but I guess both genders necessarily struggle equally finding a long term partner.

Does that make women luckier than men in the dating game? I dunno, I really don't think casual sex is as attractive to women as to men. In any case, the discussion of who has it worse seems pointless, unless we are entering a debate on whether prostitution should be legalized, and legalizing out of pity for incels is an argument.

Speaking of prostitution, if female incels are so abundant, I think I should finally start that gigolo career. Who wants to be my pimp?

 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
If the average-looking woman would be willing to take the same emotional risk as a man takes every time he approaches a woman, she could get laid with 30 different men every day if she wanted to.

And let me say I’m not complaining, I’m quite happy with my achievements in the poontang game, these are just facts of life
 

peoplesuck

caretaker of machines
Local time
Today, 14:49
Joined
Apr 12, 2014
Messages
1,567
Location
only halfway there
If the average-looking woman would be willing to take the same emotional risk as a man takes every time he approaches a woman, she could get laid with 30 different men every day if she wanted to.

And let me say I’m not complaining, I’m quite happy with my achievements in the poontang game, these are just facts of life
*awaits offended response*
1580383885652.png
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
If the average-looking woman would be willing to take the same emotional risk as a man takes every time he approaches a woman, she could get laid with 30 different men every day if she wanted to.

And let me say I’m not complaining, I’m quite happy with my achievements in the poontang game, these are just facts of life
*awaits offended response*
View attachment 5023
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,085
You describe cognitive empathy, which is indeed reliant on the ability to read facial cues. Being able to read facial cues is not sufficient, but necessary, for good cognitive empathy. More to the point, if you consider the dating game complex, this thread is all the more prudent?
Did I say I consider the game dating game complex? Do you consider it complex? That's exactly my point with my post, you're assuming a lot of things I've never said. You've already decided what my opinion is, even though I've barely voiced any.

This thread has been accused of stereotyping. You are stereotyping. Do you really need to ask why I consider you a critic? Here are some posts of yours:
Why am I responsible for people who are mad at you for stereotyping? If you are allowed to stereotype, why aren't I?

So when a person write a few words that's not even an argument, someone saying that is bullshit (and the poster even said he was being trollish), that person is a critic? If so, then I'm happy to be a critic. Taking a post that's not even a formed opinion at face value is not a person I'd want to be. But I see people attributing a lot of intentions to OP like he had this complex idea formed and he had all these arguments lined up. But he hasn't and didn't and he said himself he was semi trolling, which I think is putting it mildly.

Really, criticized for not taking that kind of shit post seriously?

"I vote to just close dumb threads. It's spam."

"This topic was never made to have a serious discussion, it's just shitposting aka spam. And it's not even good, entertaining or funny. It's bottom tier shitposting."

Add to that the fact that 70% of your activity on the forum consists of accusing Serac of being a misogynist.
Yes, I have 4000 posts on this forum and most of them are calling serac a misogynist LOL. I doubt I've even called him that once. Why does he even come into this picture? What the fuck has he do to with any of my posts in this thread? I doubt he appreciates you preemptively white knighting him in a thread where I haven't even mentioned him or replied to him.

But yeah, I stand by my opinion saying this thread was shit posting, and OP admitted it himself so, yeah, don't see the problem.

Anyway, haven't you mentioned you are in fact on the spectrum? Perhaps you shouldn't lecture on cognitive empathy.
I guess we're just down to personal attacks, then? How intellectual of you. Assuming my opinions, attributing things to me I never said and now personal attacks. You have the high ground why exactly?
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Today, 13:49
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,705
Location
Dandelion field
.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
So I have misintereted you, then? This thread didn't turn into the ridiculous discussion you expected, you don't think Serac is a misogynist, and you don't presume to give people social lectures. My bad, I ought to stop reading between the lines and take everything literally, instead. Sorry, Minuend.

I'm glad you condone stereotyping. I shan't expect future complaints from you on that, then.
 

Minuend

pat pat
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
4,085
So I have misintereted you, then? This thread didn't turn into the ridiculous discussion you expected, you don't think Serac is a misogynist, and you don't presume to give people social lectures. My bad, I ought to stop reading between the lines and take everything literally, instead. Sorry, Minuend.
I haven't read most of it, so I have no idea where this thread has gone. So yeah, no strong opinion on that. My opinion on OP's intentions is still the same. I don't know why you interpreted my curious thought about men and siblings to mean I hate everything about this thread, serac is a misogynist and you are all horrible, evil stereotypers. Well, that's not entirely true, I know you attributed a lot of opinions and intentions to me and my post because you have this idea of who I am and how I think.

But yeah, in this case you could've benefited from some autistic power where you don't try to read meaning into something and just interpret something at face value.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:49
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,247
Location
69S 69E
If the average-looking woman would be willing to take the same emotional risk as a man takes every time he approaches a woman
there's barely an emotional risk involved for casual sex anymore

dating apps exist now
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Tomorrow, 06:49
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
7,247
Location
69S 69E
Whenever people talk about the opposite sex, I've noticed the thread begins augmenting women as a outsider more and more. (There are more guys here, so women become the "opposite sex" more so than not). Rarely does anyone speak rationally about women as another person, instead of something that acts with a separate theory of logic that we cannot understand.
there's actually quite a lot of women on this forum

they tend to avoid these topics when as you say, people talk about them irrationally as if they operate on entirely inhuman concepts of logic. when people point out they don't they typically get backlash for it

it's not the only topic it happens on. people sure seem to love trying to find ways to justify their pet theories than to understand them with nuance, but it's a topic where if you're a woman you're the one under constant scrutiny so it's probably doubly tiresome to deal with. moreso again since it's cropped up on this forum more than a few times and seems to always focus on this apparently inexplicable alien quality of female logic that many feel super compelled to defend vigorously.

moody said:
Logically, women are other humans there are more similarities in the brains of males and females than differences. Though threads about women are generally discussing social nuances, I think some more ground could be covered if there was a smaller chasm between analyzing yourself vs. the opposite sex.
don't let the secret out or people might start viewing the behaviour of others with some nuance
 

Rolling Cattle

no backbone
Local time
Today, 15:49
Joined
Jan 24, 2018
Messages
115
This topic was made and maintained by trolls baiting an emotional response. It's an abusive game of you-react-you-lose. There isn't a shred of intellectual honesty here.

You people intellectualizing dating are a joke...lol.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
So many straw men. In one moment, the thread is ridiculous because women are so similar to men and easy to understand that analyzing them is redundant. In the next, psychology is so complex that any attempt at analysis of women is sacrilege because it necessarily resorts to stereotypes. You can't have it both ways.

How come dating should be exempt from psychological discussion? It is a subject most are strongly interested in, and it is highly complicated and worthy of study. If you take issue with a particular statement, counter that statement specifically; don't blanket bomb the entire discussion. Nothing is unworthy of intellectualization. Why even use that word as a derogative?

I welcome turning this thread into a discussion on how men pick mates. I find that topic equally interesting, treat it in the same manner, and it is easier to discuss without invoking taboo and social ridicule. Or is it? Like I mentioned earlier, talking about what men fancy in women also tends to be construed as chauvinism.

I grew up in a family engaged politically in The Socialist Left Party of Norway. Recent years, the Scandinavian left seems to have become the wet dream of the western liberal left. What these liberals seem to forget when lauding The Nordic Model is that it was predicated on the value of free speech above all. Placing all sensitive topics under taboo will not result in a stable, solidary society. It will lead to resentment and reactive extremism; like we are currently seeing in the west. Those of intellectual integrity will be alienated by both extremist poles, and seek refuge amongst each other rather than with those similarly placed on the political axis of left to right. We see this in The Intellectual dark web, for instance.

I feel completely alienated by the neo liberal left. It is not the left I grew up with.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,931
Location
Stockholm
This thread is actually quite amusing. One is accused of being too scientific, too irrational, and too “intellectualized” all at once.

One would think that the most human endeavor of all is to reason about things systematically and scientifically, but nay, apparently in some endeavors it’s only socially acceptable to remain an animal.

It reminds me of the classic situation where someone considers learning how to become good with women “creepy”, and then when you see the same people interact with women they do all kinds of overtly creepy things, have poor self-awareness, and generally fail big time in attuning themselves to women.

I’m not sure how people were conditioned for that, maybe they watched too many Hollywood movies where everyone is destined for the one true love as if by a law of physics.

I say onto thee I will continue to intellectualize the shit out anything and everything!
 

Rualani

You Silly Willy
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Nov 14, 2013
Messages
145
Location
Somewhere in Indiana
I do like the advice of trying to put oneself in a situation with more females and just continuously engage in conversation and improve on that level. That's the level I'm just focusing on right now, but there are certainly some barriers.

It's very revealing when these awkward situations and harsh self-reprimands occur when one is just trying to become friends to women. Lol.
 

sushi

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
812
This topic was made and maintained by trolls baiting an emotional response. It's an abusive game of you-react-you-lose. There isn't a shred of intellectual honesty here.

You people intellectualizing dating are a joke...lol.

no its semi trollish there is a difference.

anyway, i was curious what criterias women use to evaluate men (i dont want to use the word judge anymore)

perhaps its different from my opening post.
 

Bran Stark

Member
Local time
Tomorrow, 00:19
Joined
Feb 3, 2020
Messages
34
personality =
Very calm - Dreadful - Unknown and obscure ، No fear - no anger - no happiness -no sadness
 

moody

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:49
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
492
don't let the secret out or people might start viewing the behaviour of others with some nuance
The more secrets I tell, the more secret those secrets become. I don’t know why, but the more you tell someone something, the more they dismiss it. So by being frank, I’m actually contributing towards the mysticism.

I feel completely alienated by the neo liberal left. It is not the left I grew up with.
I read this post backwards. I don’t kmow why, but after I saw this like I’m gradually read up the page to see how you got there. (At first I took this statement literally, and pictured you looking at your left hand, feeling betrayed).

In one moment, the thread is ridiculous because women are so similar to men and easy to understand that analyzing them is redundant. In the next, psychology is so complex that any attempt at analysis of women is sacrilege because it necessarily resorts to stereotypes. You can't have it both ways.
Opinions make us feel important. Doubly so if it’s contrary to what someone else said.

But both of those sound kind of like the same thing? Idk I may just be tired, but dont both statements lead to the same conclusion of why someone shouldn’t analyze women as a single entity?

I mainly find it comical when intellectuals analyze the opposite gender. It’s not the usual context for that type of subject, and reminds me of a conversation that may be held by normal people with normal thoughts and experiances in an “academic setting.” Like their wording and fanciful cloths makes their views any more sophisticated. You can take this with a grain of salt. I don’t know why I’m still typing,

This thread is actually quite amusing. One is accused of being too scientific, too irrational, and too “intellectualized” all at once.
It’s an INTP forum. People come to be nuanced and disagree with other people while using fanciful words. It’s to compensate for a lack of coolness in RL.
 

Marbles

What would Feynman do?
Local time
Today, 21:49
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
647
Location
Oslo
In one moment, the thread is ridiculous because women are so similar to men and easy to understand that analyzing them is redundant. In the next, psychology is so complex that any attempt at analysis of women is sacrilege because it necessarily resorts to stereotypes. You can't have it both ways.
But both of those sound kind of like the same thing? Idk I may just be tired, but dont both statements lead to the same conclusion of why someone shouldn’t analyze women as a single entity?
They are opposite reasons for why one should not analyze women. First, one argues that women are so easy to understand that analysis is redundant. Then, they are so complicated that analysis is futile. As long as the doctrine "don't analyze women" is followed, it seems unimportant why it is followed.

I mainly find it comical when intellectuals analyze the opposite gender. It’s not the usual context for that type of subject, and reminds me of a conversation that may be held by normal people with normal thoughts and experiances in an “academic setting.” Like their wording and fanciful cloths makes their views any more sophisticated. You can take this with a grain of salt. I don’t know why I’m still typing,
Well, intellectualization of social interaction wasn't comical when John Nash won a Nobel prize for Game theory? When Machiavelli published his theories; still influencing the biggest power players in the world? It isn't funny when the FBI uses psychological profiling to catch serial killers? When you struggle with anxiety and go to see a CBT therapist?

Clearly, analysis of social interaction is useful, so why should dating be exempt?
 

moody

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:49
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
492
Clearly, analysis of social interaction is useful, so why should dating be exempt?
It was nothing meaningful, just me expressing the entertainment value I find in these discussions.
You're points are valid but I don't have enough passion or depth in my initial views to disagree and/or debate with you. I'm just the kid tapping on the fish-bowl. I know you rather somebody debate than not, so I apologize for that.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Local time
Today, 12:49
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,237
Location
US of A
Women don't like me, so none of them are looking for hairy nose braids and tattoos on my head to look like hair

*sad
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 20:49
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,623
Location
Ireland
If only woman could be put in a box (and men, but the subject is woman).

I think woman like the fact that I am my own person and I appear content with that fact.
I've always been friendlier than woman than I have men, mainly because my bestfriends as a child were females, gays and nerds. I've had very few destructible problems with women where they developed a hatred to me. I am my own man, some woman like that others prefer one that socialises a lot. All that matters to me is in most cases If I'm interested in a woman I know I have an effect on them, I populate their mind either out of romantic interest or curiousity in the way I behave or who I am. That's all you can ask for really: If you're interested in a woman and they think of you in some way, shape or form that's all you can ask for I suppose.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:49
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
731
@moody

"I mainly find it comical when intellectuals analyze the opposite gender."
Oh my gosh! Me too! But the funny thing is - when I think that way - I'm also generally laughing at myself because I intellectually analyze the genders constantly and I really do enjoy it.

It's weird. In a way, I see myself as if I'm a stranger, who has average opinions of the sort that would be called "normal" - so seeing intellectuals analyze the sexes, or seeing intellectuals try to analyze what makes them socially alienated - is hilarious to me. It's like watching an elephant trying to do ballet. What makes it funny to me is that these issues involve deep, soulful emotions, but they're discussed objectively and scientifically - and the stark contrast between those two things definitely taps into a fundamental quality of comedy. I also think, though, that I've been exposed to situations where other people found my speech behaviors to be funny, and because I can easily sense and be influenced by the emotions of those around me if I'm not on guard, I think it might be something of a learned behavior. I've learned to laugh at myself, from the perspective of an outsider.

At the same time though - I also can't stop, because logically, it's very hard to understand why there should be an incongruence in my behavior, if that makes any sense. I almost always made head-first decisions. (I've been soundly punished for the very few heart-first exceptions, lol!) So if I can't see why I should behave differently, and I can't find a way to value the quality of blending in, being normal, or otherwise belonging to people - I just can't seem to change. Even if I wanted to - I couldn't. It's like an addict who tries to not be an addict simply by saying "You shouldn't do that anymore." By the time the next day roles around, they've reverted back to their original selves.

On that topic - from a more serious standpoint, I agree but also disagree with the sentiment behind the statement. So many people these days are of the mind "don't even try to figure out the opposite sex because everyone is their own shade of human". But - frankly - that's ridiculous. That would be the same as me saying "there's no point in staying away from bad neighborhoods, or planning to visit a location I think I would enjoy, because every place on earth is different, so attempting to use generalizations to distinguish between them is an exercise in futility".

Here's a controversial example. Some people are gay and some are straight. If someone told me they're gay, I wouldn't tell them "How can you know? Every woman is different." It would almost be like calling a gay man sexist for preferring males, based on the fundamental fact that they are males - not just because they have male equipment (which females could imitate with technology), but because they have male personalities that appeal to a person who finds males to be attractive.

In the same way as gay men aren't sexist against females, I don't think it's sexist for people (gay or straight) to distinguish between males and females. Why should it be? We're different. While you may be able to take Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber and make the argument that they're essentially the same thing - and you might have a decent point - they're obviously the exception. In much the same way, you could take a woman who is heterosexual but acts and appeals identically to a man, and this partner might be a pleasing substitute for someone who is gay if they weren't free to express themselves. But again - that would be a very rare exception. So if we acknowledge that these things would be exceptional, and agree on that, then we are, by default, acknowledging that generalizations exist. And if we acknowledge the validity in a gay man choosing male sex partners because he prefers men to women, then we're also acknowledging that making generalizations is a useful exercise.

Moody - I'm not exactly arguing against you, per say. I didn't read your previous comments (sorry). I'm just using this opportunity to stage my defensive stance on generalizing for utility's sake.

What people dislike about generalizing is both very obvious, and very understandable. It's dehumanizing and it straddles a morally ambiguous line. It's morally subpar, for instance, to judge another person based on rumors without even giving them a chance. By the same token, it's morally subpar to judge a member of the opposite sex based on rumors of what the opposite sex is supposedly like, without giving them the opportunity to demonstrate what makes them unique.

There's another issue with generalization - and that is the "hilarious" scientifically objectified approach that intellectuals tend to engage with. This "logic" - while it parades itself as being "logical" - is an example of human ego and arrogance leading to irrational and invalid discussion which is often (from what I've seen) based upon fundamentally incorrect philosophies, dubious science (which is then often misapplied to add insult to injury), and which is used to rationalize abhorrent and immoral thoughts and behaviors that aggravate REAL and problematic sexism.

So. What you end up with - is a subset of people who feel that generalizations are a threat to them, or an attack on them, and who respond with defensive aggression to try to suppress, mock, or belittle the speaker.

But this is the argument of the gun, in my mind. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Generalizations don't cause bigotry or misogyny, people cause these things. Unfortunately, though, it can be easy to fall into that trap - I've suffered it myself when I was sexist against men.

So. Here's my thoughts. We need generalizations - they are important. Making generalizations is valuable, healthy, and natural. (Labeling, not so much. Liberals these days are label obsessed - which is very hypocritical of their message, at least, the message that has been conveyed to me by liberals I've talked to.)

BUT - what we also need is more talking. Not less talking. People have to stop censoring themselves and tip-toeing around the truth, and actually start sharing real, high-quality information about how they work and how they think and feel. We also need to stop associating such ridiculous levels of judgement and shame with shared thoughts and feelings that others can't necessarily help. The more we talk and tell the truth, the less corrupt generalizations become. Generalizations become toxic when the truths that are capable of contradicting them are kept under wraps, and they are allowed to breed and infect the populous.

You'll never stop people from generalizing. That truly is a natural condition. It's the way the human brain is programmed to work.

But you can take away the power of toxic generalization by contradicting the status quo with real, unbiased information, and teaching people about why what they're thinking is misinformed. I feel like I'm the only woman out there trying to speak out against sexist generalizations against women, by sharing my actual understanding of how women operate. Everyone else I see is just insulting people who make generalizations and trying to make them feel like shit about themselves. That's like telling a racist "You should be ashamed of being a racist!" Okay. That's not going to change their fundamental racist ideologies, though, is it?

This is, again, why I deplore censorship so much. The very people who I've met who claim to be champions of human rights, are aggravating things such as sexism and racism, by creating a breeding grounds where those philosophies can be covertly exchanged by believers, and used to indoctrinate new believers - because the philosophy itself has gone unchallenged. That's what happens when you create a "taboo". You create an information underground that leads to the cultivation of hate groups and all of the nasty isms a person can dream of.

I love talking to racists. I've done a lot of research that prepares me to make solid arguments to logically dispute the racist beliefs those people have nurtured. When someone more or less proves to you that you are wrong, you're a fool not to change. And if they do so on a public venue - others will see you as a fool if you refuse to do so, and they will discount your belief, and be better prepared to make arguments against it in the future, to protect themselves from becoming unwitting victims of that poisonous mentality. But if you don't let people talk (especially on public venues) - well then, that doesn't happen. Shouting people are no threat. (It's why I'm not too worried about the radical feminists and radical LGBT members). Whispers - those are a threat. Those breed in secrecy.

Well - this concludes my effort to persuade you all to harbor my perspectives regarding generalizations!

I'll try again another day. Haha.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:49
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
731
Women don't like me, so none of them are looking for hairy nose braids and tattoos on my head to look like hair

*sad
This was hilarious! You can't really braid your nose hair can you? I mean. Frankly, that would be impressive. (Forgive me, I'm gullible af)
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:49
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
731
If only woman could be put in a box (and men, but the subject is woman).

I think woman like the fact that I am my own person and I appear content with that fact.
I've always been friendlier than woman than I have men, mainly because my bestfriends as a child were females, gays and nerds. I've had very few destructible problems with women where they developed a hatred to me. I am my own man, some woman like that others prefer one that socialises a lot. All that matters to me is in most cases If I'm interested in a woman I know I have an effect on them, I populate their mind either out of romantic interest or curiousity in the way I behave or who I am. That's all you can ask for really: If you're interested in a woman and they think of you in some way, shape or form that's all you can ask for I suppose.
Your message after I PMed you to check up was sooo helpful for challenging my own boxes. I'm really excited you shared perspectives with me. I wish you would do that more. I'm just as guilty of putting men in boxes as men are of putting women in boxes. It's so hard not to do that when you're lacking a perspective to the contrary.

You know, we make observations based on what we see and what we hear other people say...but the last phase of the scientific persuit to understand these observations is very much lacking. We usually fail to test them. We just sit here on the sidelines like we're watching a ball game, making guesses as to which people are going to win - but we don't talk to the ball players, and half the time, the ball players don't want to talk to us.

It's not science when you don't test and correct. It's philosophy. But people don't want to say "My philosophy regarding women is that women generally x" - because that feels less credible than trying to package your beliefs in a box labeled "scientific for sure. Uhh, like darwinism and stuff. Everyone knows this to be true!"

My favorite last words. "Everyone knows this to be true" - or the varieties of same. Critical thinkers don't need to fall back on "gut instincts" to try to support their case. It's generally a symptom of someone who hasn't done their research and has come to a feeling-based conclusion, rather than a conclusion supported by objective reality. So many people that think they are objective are faarrrr less objective than they realize. And very aggressive about you commenting on that! Jeez! It's not my fault if you're failing to practice what you preach. (Of course, I'm guilty of it too! But I actually like when people correct me. It's one thing that makes human interaction valuable)
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 15:49
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
731
Just to add more information on this.

My "box" that I had for men is that men pretty much attract to women based on their body, and sort of their face as a secondary quality, and unless a female doesn't have anything horrendous going on in the personality department, that's good enough for them.

Rebis has brought it to my attention that a male's attraction for a female may be just as rich and complex and as a female's attraction for a male.

Although, generally speaking, I've had numerous males corroborate this view I developed - either directly or indirectly - I realize now that because I expected this view to be validated, that influenced the way I spoke to men. Men are guilty of doing the same with women. When members of the opposite gender talk about their sex - they generally seem to do so defensively. Most of them are out to validate a belief they want other people to think about their sex, rather than what they believe is actually true, and I think the things they choose to validate are reflections of what they wish they possessed.

I think that's why we often get inaccurate information when we give males and females "pop quiz questions" sort of out of the blue as to whether to not they believe x generalization or y generalization. If a person isn't psychologically prepared to carefully think about the question and analyze what the truth is, based on their knowledge and experiences, they generally produce a knee-jerk reaction that is hampered by their subjective feelings about how they wish their sex (or themselves) was viewed by the questioner.

I think people are guilty of this in all sorts of contexts - not just genders. We have a habit of wanting to make a sales pitch on behalf of ourselves or the labels we harbor.

An example - I've heard some women argue (particularly to men), that women have "just as high of a sex drive as men do, and sometimes even moreso". But unless you grew up under a rock, I find it really hard to see how you could honestly believe that. You might have a very high sex drive. That doesn't mean that most women do. It does seem to be that women have a higher sex drive later in life, but "in general", it appears to be pretty obvious that men have more of a sex drive than women. Case in point - many women have confided to me that they don't even like sex. I've never heard a man suggest anything remotely close to this.

I think I'll change the way I ask about what men are attracted to....there's other questions I could ask that would be more enlightening, and frankly, haven't been subconsciously framed to confirm what I already believe to be true.

I might try asking men to describe the most intelligent, or most successful woman they have met, and their feelings about that person. That would be better than "What attracts you in a female". Because many men seem to be very proud of testosterone and sex drive - so it's self-fulfilling to make it out to be like a female's body is pretty much the end-all, be-all of attraction - with personality being more of an afterthought.
 
Top Bottom