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

Scientific & Historical Exploration of Cultures, Religions, & the Sexes

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I made a reference to some of the sexist themes I had noticed in religion (a subject I have little experience in), and it ended up snowballing into a very interesting discussion. Curious to hear more viewpoints and really take the curtains down on this issue and discuss it with genuine honesty in a politically incorrect INTP playground.

Here are some questions we've been batting back and forth:

  • Where do perspectives of the female sex as demonstrated by Christian and Muslim religions, stem from?
  • What are some of the differences between the ways that Ancient Greeks & Ancient Romans regarded women?
  • Which religious perspectives are based on the religion's foundation, and which are cultural influences, crossover influences, mistranslations, or other divergences from the original message?
  • How is female mate selection influenced by history, religion, culture, and evolutionary biology?

As you can see, there is a heavy emphasis on the female sex - obviously, this subject is more of a mystery to us.

I would hope that everyone here feels free to speak their mind (what's really on their mind), discuss unconventional thoughts/feelings/beliefs, and also feel welcomed to express themselves and exercise their freedom of speech without alienation, ridicule, and judgment. Can we keep emotions out of it?

If you're easily offended, this thread could turn into something which may upset you...so maybe not the best choice for reading material.

BOTTOM LINE: Let's try to have civil, honest, real discussions, and get to the truth of things - without judging each other.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
@Kormak @scorpiomover



@Kormak :
"If you beat and raped your kids as a father their future and your standing in society was forfit."

@scorpiomover :
"But I agree that in modern times, if someone was publicised as having beaten or raped their wife or their kids, that their standing in society would be trashed. Doesn't really matter if it's true or not. Doesn't really matter if the police proved they were completely innocent. So I think you might be trying to perceive Ancient Rome as if what is true now, was always true. Things change. Things weren't always as they are now."

Inex :
I've heard the perspective that social ridicule was the consequence for the harsh treatment of women and children in ancient cultures/older societies...
I'd like to see some sources, if anyone has any. I think it's possible that this line of thinking has been repeated so often that we might believe it is a fact, when it might have originated as someone's personal supposition. If I'm not mistaken, beating children was a common practice until quite recently in history. I think beating wives may also have been a common practice.
As far as rape is concerned, well there is the myth of the incubus, which appears to be rooted in rape. There is also the (fact?) that raping your wife was acceptable and legal until, again, recently.
It also seems to be the case that the statutory rape of male children was acceptable, and common practice, until...Paul's version of Christianity became a thing? (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Here are some other ideas relevant to that:

  • I believe that women were generally expected to stay in the house and not be seen in public (I think it was Ancient Greece, maybe, where that wasn't a common practice and it that philosophy was sort of shocking for the time period.)
  • I find it very unlikely that women would be allowed to speak about being beaten or raped - especially not to anyone who was in a position to do anything about it, but I might be wrong. I don't think that women were traditionally allowed to speak in front of strange men. Potentially they could have told their fathers, but from my understanding, women rarely (if ever) saw their family after they were married.

All in all, I think Scorpio might be right on this point. I think the notion of social ridicule as a means to control male behavior, is a very recent one.

I DO think that this idea that this was a useful way to ensure healthy treatment of women may have stemmed from Nietzche...because the people I've spoken to with that notion are also Nietzche referencers. That's just conjecture though. I've not read much of the philosopher, myself.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,710
Location
Stockholm
  • How is female mate selection influenced by history, religion, culture, and evolutionary biology?
genetic analysis of modern humans shows that we have more female ancestors than male, meaning that fewer males reproduced in prehistoric times. I don't recall the estimates but something like 25% of males reproduced whereas close to 100% female did. Nowadays males reproduce at almost the exact same rate as females, presumably because of the way society has set up monogamy.

I think women's mate selection happens pretty much according to nature when they are in their twenties, single, etc, but then converges towards finding a stable, kind guy who can push a stroller and is willing to become a financial slave via a sizable mortgage as they get older.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
Kormak :
"e_e as in most things the western mindset dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of the dark ages."

Scorpio:
"I know people who were treated as you described mankind being treated. They hate learning so much that they keep well away from it. So if that was true, I would then conclude that (a) mankind hates learning and has become even more ignorant than in the Dark Ages, and (b) the Western mindset was the cause of such incredible ignorance."

Inex:
Scorpio, what do you mean by "people who were treated as you described mankind being treated."?
Insofar as being "dragged out of the dark ages kicking and screaming" and hating learning - well, I don't think those two things are equivalent. Generally, people see the "dark ages" as a mindset of old school, outdated traditionalism.
Western culture has thrown a lot of different ethnicities and religions together, and encouraged them all to express themselves and follow whatever philosophy they felt like following. Obviously, that's led to some strife, but the general western mindset appears to be that we should learn to accept people for who they are and/or want to be.
Additionally, there's been some necessary changes in our mindset that has helped us adapt to changes in technology, population, and diversity.

I don't think it is that people who are "stuck in the dark ages" so to speak, hate to learn, but I think it is that they hate to change. There's a difference. Some of the best scientists and mathematicians absolutely hate new philosophies that challenge age-old knowledge.

Or did I entirely miss your point?
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
@Kormak

"There are laso more high IQ, but also extremely retarded men in the gene-pool. Women tend to concentrate more towards the middle, so there are less retarded but also less very high IQ women. "

This is really interesting. Where did your read this? Anecdotally, I would say it seems to be true...but I really wonder whether it's nature or nurture. I've been steadily questioning the nature argument these days. We seem obsessed with it in society today, despite the fact that we are repeatedly learning from scientific observations that nurture plays a much more important role that we ever gave it credit for.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
@scorpiomover

"But the amount of science that was developed by people who were not just religious, but extremely religious, suggests that a huge amount of science was developed by religious extremists."

Sorry - I think I would disagree. Everybody back then was religious. If you were to aspire to achieve great feats in science or philosophy, the sacrifices you have to make in your own life force you to seek reasons for believing that you can move mountains. It turns people to religion. I've felt similar pulls myself.

To say those people are religious extremists? Religious extremist appear to be those people who aggressively push their dogma. I don't think we see that in the best scientists of our history. I think their objective was a higher level of understanding. Having an intense amount of faith doesn't make you an extremist.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I think women's mate selection happens pretty much according to nature when they are in their twenties, single, etc, but then converges towards finding a stable, kind guy who can push a stroller and is willing to become a financial slave via a sizable mortgage as they get older.
I think it actually happens "naturally" much, much earlier than that - if I may say.

I think the only time that women really demonstrate what many people today have decided appears to be a natural method of mate selection, is when they're between the ages of 12 or 13, roughly, and about 18. Basically, underaged.

Underaged girls will look for the "bad boy" or the guy that is far, far superior in social status or physical fitness to everyone else. They're not interested in intellectual conversation, generally speaking. They want to be shown off, and they want to also be able to show off their selected mate. They want to impress. They want status. They will compete with each other and lie/manipulate, or perform other underhanded or sneaky maneuvers to get the mate that they're after...

All of those immature behaviors are something that, I think, most women grow out of before they get to college. Usually Sophomore and Senior females are much more mature, but the only immature females in college seem to be those that represent the low end of the bell curve.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,277
Location
Ireland
I think a lot of girls go for socially popular guys, at least that's what I've found. A lot of them like someone in the circle of things, they hone in on every conversation you have, every friend you interact with. I've known so many people that didn't talk to me before knowing I talked to X, Y and Z, and then they would pretend they hadn't noticed me before (or maybe they genuinely didn't, either way I sure noticed.)

benefits:
-Signs of emotional intelligence from the guy
- Less chance of being one-dimensional
-Social events require you to be social and do something outside of work and the house.
-Linking with more people.

It acts as a filter: if they're popular it's assumed they're well liked by others, that strips the investment for personalised, unbiased assessment. If everyone likes him, chances are you will too.

I personally try to go for introverted girls who aren't about partying. Never had a chance of romance with them :(
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I think a lot of girls go for socially popular guys, at least that's what I've found. A lot of them like someone in the circle of things, they hone in on every conversation you have, every friend you interact with. I've known so many people that didn't talk to me before knowing I talked to X, Y and Z, and then they would pretend they hadn't noticed me before (or maybe they genuinely didn't, either way I sure noticed.)

benefits:
-Signs of emotional intelligence from the guy
- Less chance of being one-dimensional
-Social events require you to be social and do something outside of work and the house.
-Linking with more people.

It acts as a filter: if they're popular it's assumed they're well liked by others, that strips the investment for personalised, unbiased assessment. If everyone likes him, chances are you will too.

I personally try to go for introverted girls who aren't about partying. Never had a chance of romance with them :(
Oh no, Rebis! Don't save the one opportunity you chose to use an emote for THIS statement! You'll make me so, so sad inside. My heart hamster is getting out his tiny little violin.

Just kidding! Although, not really. It sucks when you can't find the right mate.

I think you made a very keen observation, though. I think, generally speaking, you're absolutely right. Women seem to choose the men who are most socially accepted. However, it's a little more fine-tuned than that. Not only do they want social acceptance, but they want men who have earned the respect of their peers. The "leader of the pack" so to speak. Many people confuse this for dominance, but it isn't. That dominant male is very likely to be subordinate in other situations.

We're talking in generalizations, though. Generally, most members of the populous, I think, are extroverts...even if that's not the case, though, it should certainly be the case that most extroverts are out roving around looking for mates, and of course, they'll prefer socially dominant ones.

I'm an introvert, and I met my last two boyfriends online. Not because I can't find a boyfriend in the "real world", but because, before I get to know someone in person, I prefer to get to know them online. I want to know who they really are, and what their philosophy is. I rigorously screen for males that don't value the female gender - anyone who is jaded, bitter, or resentful towards my sex. To my way of thinking, that kind of attitude is a show of ignorance, and it means that my boyfriend will not respect me or not listen to me when I'm speaking.

Maybe you're not looking in the right directions, Rebis? Us introverted girls are extremely hard to find, and I think we're often put off or wary about being approached or pursued. I know I am. I hate feeling like human prey.

Do I get to give you girl advice? Or is that too personal? Or...would you rather take girl advice from other men, like the blind leading the blind...which appears to be the style that most men favor!
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,277
Location
Ireland
Maybe you're not looking in the right directions, Rebis? Us introverted girls are extremely hard to find, and I think we're often put off or wary about being approached or pursued. I know I am. I hate feeling like human prey.

Do I get to give you girl advice? Or is that too personal? Or...would you rather take girl advice from other men, like the blind leading the blind...which appears to be the style that most men favor!
You're right about that. I think I forgot I had a long distance relationship, I actually went to london to see them but I was massively underprepared, heart was about to explode when I seen them. Oh the anxiety. I haven't had an intimate romance with introverts. Yeah you're right about the chasing aspect, I tend to pursue quite keenly when I'm interested (of course it depends on the reciprocal queues I pick off them). I've probably been around popular extroverts far too long, they like gigs, parties and lots of people.

I don't think they like me because I usually become extroverted to quiet ones it's over the top for their liking. I can't find them, like you said above the majority of people are extroverts, are rather: the majority of visible people are the ones that make the most noise.
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,277
Location
Ireland
It's like impatience: If someone is quiet I can't screen them, to screen them I must become the extrovert to extract info from them. In the process of doing that, I would gradually ask explicit questions because they wouldn't give a descriptive answer.

REVEAL TO ME YOUR SECRETS QUIET ONE

I think it'd work well if I let it grow over time, but TIME is always of the essence for me. I can't stop thinking about how much time I spend on everything.

There's actually this really, really nice girl I'd want to talk to but she has a bf and they're both very nice people. The first message I sent her was a skeletor video at 2am, we sent skeletors memes through out the night. She also sang the narwol song in her school for a school project which I thought was top level quirkyness. Introverted nerds are the best, extroverted ones are what turned me off from conventions.

This other girl I'm friends with also has a Long Distance Relationship, was interested in her for a while but I couldn't stop shit posting outloud when we were playing league. Pretty sure she vehemently hated me from that. I just gotta learn how to keep my mouth shut, or alternatively as you said meet them online and then transition to IRL. Get to know them online so I don't shitpost in real life.

How did you meet them? Video games, forums, chat websites etc. I used to talk to randomers on chatango a lot, that was fun.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
It's like impatience: If someone is quiet I can't screen them, to screen them I must become the extrovert to extract info from them. In the process of doing that, I would gradually ask explicit questions because they wouldn't give a descriptive answer.

REVEAL TO ME YOUR SECRETS QUIET ONE

I think it'd work well if I let it grow over time, but TIME is always of the essence for me. I can't stop thinking about how much time I spend on everything.

There's actually this really, really nice girl I'd want to talk to but she has a bf and they're both very nice people. The first message I sent her was a skeletor video at 2am, we sent skeletors memes through out the night. She also sang the narwol song in her school for a school project which I thought was top level quirkyness. Introverted nerds are the best, extroverted ones are what turned me off from conventions.

This other girl I'm friends with also has a Long Distance Relationship, was interested in her for a while but I couldn't stop shit posting outloud when we were playing league. Pretty sure she vehemently hated me from that. I just gotta learn how to keep my mouth shut, or alternatively as you said meet them online and then transition to IRL. Get to know them online so I don't shitpost in real life.

How did you meet them? Video games, forums, chat websites etc. I used to talk to randomers on chatango a lot, that was fun.
So...first off - learn more.
Not just about introverts, but about women.

The number 1 mistake men make is that they seem to believe they can figure women out either on their own, or from another man. They judge actions and behaviors, and form assumptions, completely neglecting emotion and intention.

Women are very, very different from men. Neither of the genders has a good understanding of the other.

You should be on forums like this finding introverted, intelligent women, who can spill the secrets and answer your questions. You don’t want to rely on the source of your attraction to tell you the way her brain works, because we are all victims of the anxieties of social perception. If a woman perceives that you like her, or if she thinks she might like you, her information is already biased.

Now - that doesn’t remain true. Once you breach the wall, you can really get into someone’s intimate inner mind, and understand them in a way that they probably can’t even understand themselves. But you can’t get there without establishing intimacy.

The question you’re grappling with is not where to find these women, but how to make the connection.

It sounds to me like you’ve found plenty of women who are shy. (Know that shy is not synonymous with introverted.)
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
Sorry for my slow response! It’s Thanksgiving here in the USA, which means I was watching Cobra Kai S1 E1 with my parents.
They are used to dealing with my unusual way of doing things.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,710
Location
Stockholm
So how does one approach an introverted girl, Inexorable?

And what sort of guys have YOU found attractive and what did they do
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
So how does one approach an introverted girl, Inexorable?

And what sort of guys have YOU found attractive and what did they do
The two main differences between an introverted woman and an extroverted woman, is that an extroverted woman seeks social entertainment (obviously), and contrarily, an introverted woman seeks solitary hobbies.

Extroverted women dance, go to conventions, and spend time at bars and clubs - usually in the company of two or three other females. These women are the people that primarily define the female stereotype. The introverted woman prefers gardening, artwork, photography, playing music - anything, essentially, that doesn't involve more than one person.

That is fairly obvious, but what most people overlook, is the fact that the extroverted woman defines her sense of self worth through social status. The introverted woman defines her sense of self worth through knowledge and skill.

So in going with the paradigm of the male being the "hunter" in the dating game - when choosing your hunting ground - you need to look for an environment that nurtures skill and knowledge, not social standing.

Extroverted habitats :
Bars, clubs, parties, town/city events, anything involving nightlife...also restaurants, movies, tours, conventions, and most places where a person wouldn't usually go by themselves.

Introverted habitats :
Coffee shops, libraries, classes/seminars, stores like gardening centers, yoga, botanical gardens, parks and gardens, alone at the beach reading a book, book stores, lone window shopping, lectures...

Even most of these places will be crowded with extroverts, but a few of the braver introverts will be scattered around. If it's too crowded, it's not worth it, I would think, as your chances of finding an introverted woman won't be high, and if you do, she'll be very uncomfortable. You can occasionally catch the lone introvert visiting a zoo, aquarium, or out taking pictures.

Finding an introverted woman in person, rather than online, is tricky...and I think - very difficult. I think most introverted women (myself included) shop for boys online. In public, introverted girls are like shiny Pokemon.

BUT! If you're insistent on finding one in person, I have a few suggestions:

(1) Drink coffee at coffee shops, do your work at libraries, and get your snacks at cafes. Work your way around your region, testing out different cafes and coffee shops. You're likely to happen upon an introvert's common haunt, and when you do notice a girl sitting on her own reading a book and drinking a coffee, chances are good she'll be back another day. So work that location into your habits.

(2) If you have a dog, walk them in different locations. If there are dog parks in your area, consider going there as well. Many introverted women, in order to not feel alone, have pets. If you have a dog, you're a good man. It's a fact. So that makes you less intimidating. Extra credit if you have a very friendly dog that is well trained. Women want to see that you cared enough about your dog to invest the time and energy to raise them properly. Extra, extra credit if your dog was adopted. (You sweet, compassionate person!)

(3) Depending on the kind of woman you think you might be looking for, consider going to small local plays, musical performances, or art shows. Small, niche events like that have the highest probability, I would think, of turning out introverts. There is a very good possibility that an introvert may even be performing in the event, in which case, you have a really good opportunity for conversation. Compliment her on her work.

(4) Most men won't do it, but better advice has seldom been spoken. Take a leaf out of Lloyd's book from the YouTube channel LindyBeige, and learn how to dance. LindyBeige is a Lindy Hopper (whatever that is), and despite the fact that he is the funkiest looking man on the planet, his female fans adore him. (Myself included, the man is a catch!)
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I'll have to pair that with a word of advice though.

Check out yourself before you seek out an introvert, I would say...because I think introverted women are very adept at picking up little "clues" you think you're keeping to yourself. If you think socializing with her is a waste of your time and money, I'm pretty sure she's going to pick up on that pretty quickly. If you don't value the company of women, or you don't value their mind, or their gender - again, I don't think she will be very impressed.

All of the introverted women I've known are "in it for the long haul". None of them have been interested in a fling or a romantic two week stand. They're often desperately romantic, even though they pretend not to be, and they're looking for someone who thinks they are really special and irreplaceable. You don't actually have to feel that way about her, but you should be familiar enough with her, and know enough about how she thinks, feels, and what she does for fun, that you have some level of respect for her.

Also, the introverted women I've known are empathetic, compassionate, and have semi-traditional values. They wouldn't "go dutch" for instance. (Myself included).

@Rebis - I think you already have a great attribute on your side. If you let yourself be yourself, instead of attacking her with your agenda and interrogating her to determine how worthy she is - then she's likely to be drawn by your "mysterious" personality....and I think introverted women are suckers for that. We're pretty universally naive, and want to believe that WE are the ONE woman who understands you and accepts you for who you are...so if you're a bit fucked up in the head, it's actually pretty sexy in a weird, twisted way. :)
Not saying that you are - I don't really know you. But...I think you think that you are. So that's good enough!
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
And what sort of guys have YOU found attractive and what did they do
Oh and...It's not a good idea to go off the kind of guys that I found attractive. >_>
That's a dark page we should probably never turn. Although, it is behavior I've identified in other women as well.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
@Kormak

"There are laso more high IQ, but also extremely retarded men in the gene-pool. Women tend to concentrate more towards the middle, so there are less retarded but also less very high IQ women. "

This is really interesting. Where did your read this? Anecdotally, I would say it seems to be true...but I really wonder whether it's nature or nurture. I've been steadily questioning the nature argument these days. We seem obsessed with it in society today, despite the fact that we are repeatedly learning from scientific observations that nurture plays a much more important role that we ever gave it credit for.
The greater male variability hypothesis, the variability of male scores is greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. Females cluster around the mean.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
@Kormak

"There are laso more high IQ, but also extremely retarded men in the gene-pool. Women tend to concentrate more towards the middle, so there are less retarded but also less very high IQ women. "

This is really interesting. Where did your read this? Anecdotally, I would say it seems to be true...but I really wonder whether it's nature or nurture. I've been steadily questioning the nature argument these days. We seem obsessed with it in society today, despite the fact that we are repeatedly learning from scientific observations that nurture plays a much more important role that we ever gave it credit for.
The greater male variability hypothesis, the variability of male scores is greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. Females cluster around the mean.
Oh. Hmmm...I’ll have to look into that
 

Animekitty

baby marshmallow born today
Local time
Yesterday, 22:35
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
6,598
Location
simulation
Both men and women were looked at as resources. Each being valued differently for different utility. Originally all the men hunted and the women gathered. That has pretty much stuck out until recently. All the men hang out with men and women with women.
In all religion, I say the same hierarchy follow the same structure of rank and importance. I do not know any details but the leaders are who decide the social positions. Society decides based on power distribution even in modern-day.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
@Kormak

"There are laso more high IQ, but also extremely retarded men in the gene-pool. Women tend to concentrate more towards the middle, so there are less retarded but also less very high IQ women. "

This is really interesting. Where did your read this? Anecdotally, I would say it seems to be true...but I really wonder whether it's nature or nurture. I've been steadily questioning the nature argument these days. We seem obsessed with it in society today, despite the fact that we are repeatedly learning from scientific observations that nurture plays a much more important role that we ever gave it credit for.
The greater male variability hypothesis, the variability of male scores is greater than that of females, resulting in more males than females in the top and bottom of the IQ distribution. Females cluster around the mean.
Oh. Hmmm...I’ll have to look into that
I honestly think we started controlling women because most men under hypergamy and normal conditions of sexual selection do not reproduce. Imagine 75% of the male population being incels... woah.

The idea is that there is more variability in men because we are highly expendable and compete for women who have to be more stable due to the role they occupy as the selector. Men who come up with newer and better strategies are more likely to pass on their genes and the advantage to the rest of society.

Nature tries to select the best genes that aide further survival and reproduction of the species. Hypergamy exists for this reason. ^^; monogamy is a mistake... unless we see it as a way of providing social stability and averting war.


:thinking:... but If I invent AI sex dolls and porn <_< all the Beckies and Stacies are belong to the good genes lads and the incels won't rise up!

4769
lets do dis lads! Bread and circuses galore! Win-Win!

4770
 

Rebis

Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
1,277
Location
Ireland
So...first off - learn more.
Not just about introverts, but about women.

The number 1 mistake men make is that they seem to believe they can figure women out either on their own, or from another man. They judge actions and behaviors, and form assumptions, completely neglecting emotion and intention.

Women are very, very different from men. Neither of the genders has a good understanding of the other.

You should be on forums like this finding introverted, intelligent women, who can spill the secrets and answer your questions. You don’t want to rely on the source of your attraction to tell you the way her brain works, because we are all victims of the anxieties of social perception. If a woman perceives that you like her, or if she thinks she might like you, her information is already biased.

Now - that doesn’t remain true. Once you breach the wall, you can really get into someone’s intimate inner mind, and understand them in a way that they probably can’t even understand themselves. But you can’t get there without establishing intimacy.

The question you’re grappling with is not where to find these women, but how to make the connection.

It sounds to me like you’ve found plenty of women who are shy. (Know that shy is not synonymous with introverted.)
It's less about understanding them in their entirety and more about understanding what I can like about them. If I like them and I can talk to them about stuff that's all I need. If they're ambitious then I can also have a good recharge time. I accept peopleas a default, I'm not one to complain "The girls CRAZY she said this", I expect everyone to be fucked up and base my interactions with them from there. Her interests, hobbies and personality are the defining points rather than her day-to-day decisions, behaviours or morals.

Most of the introverted girls I know, in current time are based in the past. There's 1-2 at work but I don't have much time to talk to them, or even an opportunity to see them in real life. So to be honest I still need to find a way to meet them, I've recently been wanting to talk to random people in coffee shops but talking to randomers isn't exactly normal.

@Rebis - I think you already have a great attribute on your side. If you let yourself be yourself, instead of attacking her with your agenda and interrogating her to determine how worthy she is - then she's likely to be drawn by your "mysterious" personality....and I think introverted women are suckers for that. We're pretty universally naive, and want to believe that WE are the ONE woman who understands you and accepts you for who you are...so if you're a bit fucked up in the head, it's actually pretty sexy in a weird, twisted way. :)
Not saying that you are - I don't really know you. But...I think you think that you are. So that's good enough!
every girl thinks I'm kinky, and supposedly you do too just through text! I thought it was just the look in my eyes.
 

Adaire

backish
Local time
Yesterday, 22:35
Joined
Apr 3, 2009
Messages
3,665
I say listen to individual women about themselves rather than inexorable. I find myself quite allergic to most of her assertions and yet she is supremely confident that she speaks for me. It's icky tbh. However, greater fools than her become successful self help gurus, so perhaps I'm simply underestimating my deviation from the mean again. Still, such bravado and the inability to acknowledge her fallibility or question her assertions and observations should give you pause.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
I say listen to individual women about themselves rather than inexorable. I find myself quite allergic to most of her assertions and yet she is supremely confident that she speaks for me. It's icky tbh. However, greater fools than her become successful self help gurus, so perhaps I'm simply underestimating my deviation from the mean again. Still, such bravado and the inability to acknowledge her fallibility or question her assertions and observations should give you pause.
Please provide your perspective. I'm interested.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,806
@scorpiomover

"But the amount of science that was developed by people who were not just religious, but extremely religious, suggests that a huge amount of science was developed by religious extremists."

Sorry - I think I would disagree. Everybody back then was religious. If you were to aspire to achieve great feats in science or philosophy, the sacrifices you have to make in your own life force you to seek reasons for believing that you can move mountains. It turns people to religion. I've felt similar pulls myself.
There are plenty of people who want to make a ToE of physics, but don't. So I don't think that the desire to make a ToE of physics makes you become extremely religious.

Rather, those who are extremely religious and thus have a strong belief in G-d anyway, have a strong belief that G-d will help them to make a ToE in physics.

To say those people are religious extremists?
I would have thought that people who are religious extremists are people who are extremely religious.

I would have thought that people who are extremely religious, are like people who are extremely tall and people who are extremely strong. I.E. extremely = "very".

Religious extremist appear to be those people who aggressively push their dogma.
I thought that the whole point of labelling the Iranians as "religious extremists", "religious fundamentalists", and "Islamic terrorists", was to make a connection between those who were very religious and those who were aggressively pushing their dogma with lots of violence and killings.

It suggested to me that my government wanted to blame the problems of the world on religion.

Not long after, I found that lots of people were claiming that ALL wars were caused by religion.

Then I looked into the matter, and discovered that wars were usually about money, and particularly black gold (petroleum).

I don't think we see that in the best scientists of our history. I think their objective was a higher level of understanding. Having an intense amount of faith doesn't make you an extremist.
My point was exactly that, that being extremely religious doesn't make you a religious extremist.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
I thought that the whole point of labelling the Iranians as "religious extremists", "religious fundamentalists", and "Islamic terrorists", was to make a connection between those who were very religious and those who were aggressively pushing their dogma with lots of violence and killings.

It suggested to me that my government wanted to blame the problems of the world on religion.

Not long after, I found that lots of people were claiming that ALL wars were caused by religion.

Then I looked into the matter, and discovered that wars were usually about money, and particularly black gold (petroleum).
oh... what if I told you its also about the geopolitcal interests of a nation Britain helped reestablish itself? See the Balfour Declaration. In a way it is about religion, culture as well as money, power, oil, guilt and debsts owed and collected.

4771
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,806
If I'm not mistaken, beating children was a common practice until quite recently in history.
Beating kids was normal when I was a kid. I read things that indicated that it was accepted even in older times. But I think it varied by the parents and the children.

I think beating wives may also have been a common practice.
Differs by culture. I was learning religious stuff in my youth, when we came across a bit in one of the Medieval commentators, who was a highly respected Rabbi in his country, that said that if a Jewish man was beating his wife, and the courts were powerless, then you should gather together some men and beat him up.

There is also the (fact?) that raping your wife was acceptable and legal until, again, recently.
I read in the Babylonian Talmud about how if someone accidentally bruised their wife, their wife was entitled to damages from her husband and could make this claim in the Jewish courts of law. I would expect that rape would be a lot more damaging than a simple bruise.

One of the categories of damages in Jewish law is pain, which is measured by how much one would have to be paid to choose to accept such pain. So from that perspective, in a case of rape by the woman's husband, the damages required to be paid by the husband, would be the amount of money a woman would have to be paid to willingly let her husband rape her. I would imagine that would be in the billions.

Also, according to Jewish law, if a man owes a lot of money and can't pay up, he would have to be sold into slavery, but would be freed after 7 years. So I would presume that if the man was not a billionaire, he would have to be a slave for 7 years.

Put together, in Jewish law, raping one's wife => becoming a slave for 7 years. Not really worth it.

It also seems to be the case that the statutory rape of male children was acceptable, and common practice, until...Paul's version of Christianity became a thing? (Correct me if I'm wrong!)
The Ancient Greeks had a tradition of pederasty. But that was a thing when a teenage boy would hang out with an older man in his 20s. The older man would teach the teen about the ways of the world, including sex. It still occurs in some parts of the world.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,806
I thought that the whole point of labelling the Iranians as "religious extremists", "religious fundamentalists", and "Islamic terrorists", was to make a connection between those who were very religious and those who were aggressively pushing their dogma with lots of violence and killings.

It suggested to me that my government wanted to blame the problems of the world on religion.

Not long after, I found that lots of people were claiming that ALL wars were caused by religion.

Then I looked into the matter, and discovered that wars were usually about money, and particularly black gold (petroleum).
oh... what if I told you its also about the geopolitcal interests of a nation Britain helped reestablish itself? See the Balfour Declaration. In a way it is about religion, culture as well as money, power and debsts owed and collected.
I was taught about the Balfour Declaration as a kid. I was in Israel during the Intifada. There were deaths almost every day. When I came back to the UK, I started doing my own research. I discovered a lot of things.

The Muslims had been promised an Islamic State from Yemen to Syria by the British via T.E.Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), in return for revolting against the Ottomans in WW1. Then the British ignored that and promised the land to the Jews in the Balfour Declaration. Palestinians claim the land partially because of that promise.

But the British didn't seem to do anything to satisfy their promise to the Muslims there. Bound to cause riots.

There had been religious Jews and religious Muslims living there for centuries. One old Muslim woman said in an interview that she had grown up with 2 families, one Muslim, one Jewish, as if she had 2 sets of grandparents. So there were a lot of Jews and Muslims who got on.

So naturally, if you were to give the land to the Jews, you'd appoint the natives to rule the land, right?

Instead, the British gave control to a bunch of Eastern-European Jews, who were communists and atheists. When they got control of Israel in 1948, they did a lot of things to make the Jews coming there to become non-religious. Lots of scandals about it.

The Mediterranean mindset is very different to the European mindset. Also, Muslims tended to be business-people and traders. Also, they were religious.

Putting European, communist, atheist, anti-religious Jews in charge, who had no connection with the region and had no understanding of the natives, would have been perfect conditions for pitting the Jews and the Muslims against each other.

Also, the British set up train lines all over Israel. But all the stations were built outside of the cities. Imagine if you built Kings Cross in Uxbridge! Stupid, right?

A friend pointed out to me that this would make sense, if they expected riots, as then if there were riots, the soldiers could leave the trains and regroup outside of the riots in safety, before going in.

So the British were either monumentally stupid about diplomacy and trains, unless they knew that the things that they were doing would cause major fights between Jews and Muslims.

But they still did them anyway, even though there were clearly more peaceful alternatives.

They wanted trouble there.

The reason? Oil was discovered in the Middle East in 1895. If the natives were fighting each other, then the British could rule easily.

Clive of India used the same tactic earlier, by pitting the Maharajahs against each other. They went to war, armed with British rifles. Then once they'd killed each other, the British went in, claiming to be trying to make the land peaceful again. Result: The British took over the whole of India, and conquered millions and millions of Indians, with comparatively few soldiers.

So the British had form for starting fights in order to control a region's resources.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,806
genetic analysis of modern humans shows that we have more female ancestors than male, meaning that fewer males reproduced in prehistoric times. I don't recall the estimates but something like 25% of males reproduced whereas close to 100% female did.
One male can impregnate many females. So you could kill 75% of the males in a war and still repopulate the nation in 1 generation. But a woman can only carry a few kids at most, and usually only 1 at a time. So if you killed most of the females, it would take several generations to repopulate.

I think women's mate selection happens pretty much according to nature when they are in their twenties, single, etc, but then converges towards finding a stable, kind guy who can push a stroller and is willing to become a financial slave via a sizable mortgage as they get older.
In most species, the kid can walk on its own almost immediately, breast-feed for a few weeks, and in a year, is an adult.

Humans need several months to learn to walk, breast-feed from 1 year to 6 years, and take 12-18 years to become an adult.

Also, in the past, infant mortality rates were often as high as 90%. So often, families would have 20 kids and only 2 would grow up to continue their genes.

So humans child-rearing puts a much greater toll on the woman. So naturally, a woman would need a man around for the 20-30 years of having kids.

That would have been true for nearly all of the past 200,000 years of homo sapiens. So all of that time, women would have had to be insane not to want a stable, kind guy who was willing to support the woman financially and help with the kids.

It's only recently that women have had all the societal infrastructure and technology that made it easy for young women to have lots of sex with different partners.
 

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
1,806
Kormak :
"e_e as in most things the western mindset dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of the dark ages."

Scorpio:
"I know people who were treated as you described mankind being treated. They hate learning so much that they keep well away from it. So if that was true, I would then conclude that (a) mankind hates learning and has become even more ignorant than in the Dark Ages, and (b) the Western mindset was the cause of such incredible ignorance."

Inex:
Scorpio, what do you mean by "people who were treated as you described mankind being treated."?
I was talking to a female friend I know. She's religious and likes to host events for older people and do things for people. There are also a lot of learning opportunities for women these days. A lot of women like them. So I asked her if she went to any of those as well.

She replied that her parents were religious and wanted her to study. They would force her to study. She ended up becoming so turned off by the treatment, that she won't attend lectures, not even ones aimed at women. Won't even consider it.

Insofar as being "dragged out of the dark ages kicking and screaming" and hating learning - well, I don't think those two things are equivalent. Generally, people see the "dark ages" as a mindset of old school, outdated traditionalism.
From what I learned about the Dark Ages, the history of the UK was that the Romans ruled, and did a lot that a lot of people liked.

The Romans set up bath-houses, and roads, and aqueducts that brought clean water. So everyone was a lot healthier. Lots less plagues.

The Roman soldiers were brutal. Everyone was afraid of them. So they were very good at keeping the peace. So a lot less crime, which meant a lot more trade, and a lot more money.

But the Romans weren't big on science. They sacked the Greek Island of Rhodes, which was a big centre of Greek learning.

Then when Rome fell, the Romans stopped coming. Lots of laments were written about the time, as if the sun had gone and was never coming back.

Everything would have fallen into disrepair. Wars started. There were lots of wars between areas in England and in Europe.

Then the Muslims started sharing their manuscripts with Xians, first in Toledo in Spain, then along the Silk Road where it connected to Italy. Manuscripts of Greek science, Hindu science and Muslim science were used to set up the University of Oxford, and kept being shared with European Xians for the next few hundred years.

Along the way, all sorts of things were learned. E.G. after the Black Plague, there were efforts in the UK to make better sewage facilities.

According to Bettany Hughes, a historian, the Scientific Revolution was actually a period of a few hundred years where science was slowly increased, thanks to all the science coming from the Muslims, and Europeans learning to do things themselves.

So it was more like someone else provided your technology. Then one day, that person stopped coming. Then everything got rebuilt slowly.

Western culture has thrown a lot of different ethnicities and religions together, and encouraged them all to express themselves and follow whatever philosophy they felt like following. Obviously, that's led to some strife, but the general western mindset appears to be that we should learn to accept people for who they are and/or want to be.
Additionally, there's been some necessary changes in our mindset that has helped us adapt to changes in technology, population, and diversity.
Sure. But in the UK, the Celts came. Then the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came. Then the Romans came. Then the Vikings came. The Danes came. Then the Normans came.

Also, later on, the Hugenots came.

Also, a lot of Frency people. Mr Darcy's family name is short for "D' Arcy", a well-known French name. Lots of French names in English culture.

England was a melting pot for 2,000 years.

Then you had all the different religious views. The early Celts were polytheists. So were the Romans and the Vikings. But they all worshipped different gods (similar gods, but with different names).

Then when Xianity came in, first there was Celtic Xianity. Then there was Catholic Xianity. Then Protestant Xianity, which was actually many different denominations.

Then some religious killings of Catholics, then Protestants, until Elizabeth I managed to establish a compromise where both Catholics and Protestants lived in the same country without lots and lots of government-sanctioned killings.

Also, Jews came with William I in 1066. Then they got persecuted. Then told to leave or be killed. Then introduced on the sly by Cromwell a few centuries later. Then eventually accepted, to the point where a Jew was the chief advisor to Queen Victoria (Benjamin Disraeli).

So the UK has had a lot of ethnicities and religious denominations, and a lot of integration.

So I think that what we are seeing now, has been happening for a long time.

I don't think it is that people who are "stuck in the dark ages" so to speak, hate to learn, but I think it is that they hate to change. There's a difference. Some of the best scientists and mathematicians absolutely hate new philosophies that challenge age-old knowledge.
Yes. There's a lot of opposition to change in science and even in maths. People get used to stuff.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 18:35
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,744
Strategizing about love seems self defeating.

I don't want to win someone or earn their favor or get a dog just to make myself more appealing, if I have to manipulate someone into falling in love is it really me they love or whoever I was pretending to be?
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
So...first off - learn more.
Not just about introverts, but about women.

The number 1 mistake men make is that they seem to believe they can figure women out either on their own, or from another man. They judge actions and behaviors, and form assumptions, completely neglecting emotion and intention.

Women are very, very different from men. Neither of the genders has a good understanding of the other.

You should be on forums like this finding introverted, intelligent women, who can spill the secrets and answer your questions. You don’t want to rely on the source of your attraction to tell you the way her brain works, because we are all victims of the anxieties of social perception. If a woman perceives that you like her, or if she thinks she might like you, her information is already biased.

Now - that doesn’t remain true. Once you breach the wall, you can really get into someone’s intimate inner mind, and understand them in a way that they probably can’t even understand themselves. But you can’t get there without establishing intimacy.

The question you’re grappling with is not where to find these women, but how to make the connection.

It sounds to me like you’ve found plenty of women who are shy. (Know that shy is not synonymous with introverted.)
It's less about understanding them in their entirety and more about understanding what I can like about them. If I like them and I can talk to them about stuff that's all I need. If they're ambitious then I can also have a good recharge time. I accept peopleas a default, I'm not one to complain "The girls CRAZY she said this", I expect everyone to be fucked up and base my interactions with them from there. Her interests, hobbies and personality are the defining points rather than her day-to-day decisions, behaviours or morals.

Most of the introverted girls I know, in current time are based in the past. There's 1-2 at work but I don't have much time to talk to them, or even an opportunity to see them in real life. So to be honest I still need to find a way to meet them, I've recently been wanting to talk to random people in coffee shops but talking to randomers isn't exactly normal.

@Rebis - I think you already have a great attribute on your side. If you let yourself be yourself, instead of attacking her with your agenda and interrogating her to determine how worthy she is - then she's likely to be drawn by your "mysterious" personality....and I think introverted women are suckers for that. We're pretty universally naive, and want to believe that WE are the ONE woman who understands you and accepts you for who you are...so if you're a bit fucked up in the head, it's actually pretty sexy in a weird, twisted way. :)
Not saying that you are - I don't really know you. But...I think you think that you are. So that's good enough!
every girl thinks I'm kinky, and supposedly you do too just through text! I thought it was just the look in my eyes.
Woah - I don’t think you’re kinky? Where did that come from?

Anyways - my advice isn’t about getting to know women. It’s about finding the women who are most likely to have similar likes/interests, and a similar lifestyle to you.

The question that was asked was how to meet introverted women. In my experience, that’s how. You go to coffee shops, libraries, or walk your dog, and wait until you see someone who incorporates those locations into their regular haunt.

The “getting to know you part”, is more advanced. In general, though, if you don’t have the patience to get to know someone, or you value your time and money more than you value people, it’s going to be tough. I’m not saying you do, of course.

I get that philosophy though...because if only, say, 5% of the dateable population would be of interest to you, then it’s frustrating wasting so much time sifting through the other 95%. In which case I would use the internet.

Like I said, my last two relationships were guys I found online. One of them from a dating site. I think it’s common for introverted women to search online.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
So the British had form for starting fights in order to control a region's resources.
So why are they and the Americans still there? The Uk gets most of it's oil from Norway, the US, Russia and africa. A tiny fraction from the Saudis & Libya. The us gets most of it from Canada, Columbia and Venezuela as well as it's own. The Saudis give it merely 11%. The US can survive on it's own oil reserves just fine if it choses so at any time.

You do realize the oil story doesen't hold up nowadays. They are still there for a lot of other reasons. Mainly to crush all the Muslim states and ensure Israel rises as the region's biggest player / power. Its also a proxy war against Russia and it's allies. That patch of dirt is the holy land for all abrahamic religions and a source of constant conflict.

4772
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
Strategizing about love seems self defeating.

I don't want to win someone or earn their favor or get a dog just to make myself more appealing, if I have to manipulate someone into falling in love is it really me they love or whoever I was pretending to be?
Understanding isn’t the same as manipulating. And nobody should actually get a dog just to find love! Lol.

It’s not about making yourself more appealing, either. What I hear a lot from men, though, is that they can’t find the woman their looking for, but they have a tendency to go to the places with densely populated people. If you’re looking for an introvert, that’s probably not the best strategy - insofar as your availability is concerned.

As an example - let’s say I’m a Christian, and I want a Christian husband. Looking for one at a heavy metal concert is probably not the ideal tactic. It’s smarter for me to go to church, and maybe even visit a few different churches, so that I can meet Christians.

It’s the same principal for a man who is interested in a shy or introverted girl. You need to place yourself in the right locations to find those people.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
Strategizing about love seems self defeating.

I don't want to win someone or earn their favor or get a dog just to make myself more appealing, if I have to manipulate someone into falling in love is it really me they love or whoever I was pretending to be?
Actually the dog strategy works. Just get a pug, women like pugs. You drive to a park and walk the dog, radom women will come up and start the "Its soo cuute!" thing. e_e so easy. To bad I prefer cats.

Honesty is gr8 tho, she will find out who you are later anyweay.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I say listen to individual women about themselves rather than inexorable. I find myself quite allergic to most of her assertions and yet she is supremely confident that she speaks for me. It's icky tbh. However, greater fools than her become successful self help gurus, so perhaps I'm simply underestimating my deviation from the mean again. Still, such bravado and the inability to acknowledge her fallibility or question her assertions and observations should give you pause.
Well, for one thing, I think if you actually read my posts on other threads you would see that I almost always acknowledge my infallibility, I ask questions, learn, and listen much more than I offer advice or opinions, I usually ASK before giving advice (which I did in this situation), I’m very cautious of my own bias, and I’m never confident with my answers.
I did specifically request on this thread, however, unless I’m mistaken...that we make this a place where people could openly speak their minds, even if their ideas may be unconventional. I think I indicated that people should be aware that they might find that offensive. Maybe I deleted that though, I would have to go back and check.

It’s a shame that you misinterpreted my advice to mean that I’m speaking for you, when I felt like it was so obvious to begin with that I’m making generalizations, which I stare are based off my observations - obviously qualitative, anecdotal evidence. Placing yourself in the right locations for finding people that lead quiet lives is, I think, good dating advice for someone who isn’t looking to date a party animal.
The fact that you disagree is awesome. I would love to hear your opinions.

However, I also don’t think I should have to apologize for voicing mine, or for not winding in a bunch of disclaimers for how I’m never sure about myself and how I have a bunch of self doubts, and how I always want to hear what people have to tell me to the contrary. As you can see, my posts are already long-winded enough, and I’ve made quite a few of them.

In any case, I think you misinterpreted my advice that you should ask women about women when there’s a personal interest, because it presents personal bias. Obviously, you should get to know someone’s personality and character - their morals, beliefs, preferences, intent, reasoning, etc. On an individualistic basis.

However, when it comes to learning about women in general, it’s not really a good idea to get advice from a source who is affected by a social-romantic atmosphere, and their feelings about you in particular. This kind of generalized knowledge about the sexes is something you can develop in a number of ways. It makes no sense not to develop your generalized knowledge from the least biased sources you’re able to access.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
Strategizing about love seems self defeating.

I don't want to win someone or earn their favor or get a dog just to make myself more appealing, if I have to manipulate someone into falling in love is it really me they love or whoever I was pretending to be?
Actually the dog strategy works. Just get a pug, women like pugs. You drive to a park and walk the dog, radom women will come up and start the "Its soo cuute!" thing. e_e so easy. To bad I prefer cats.

Honesty is gr8 tho, she will find out who you are later anyweay.
.

Except when guys just get dogs to get girls - it’s obvious. They make terrible dog parents, and that’s not attractive.

You can rock it with a cat. I have a cat bubble backpack that allows me to walk with my cat and let him see the world in safety. It’s super cute.

Or just walk your cat on a leash in a nice park
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
Strategizing about love seems self defeating.

I don't want to win someone or earn their favor or get a dog just to make myself more appealing, if I have to manipulate someone into falling in love is it really me they love or whoever I was pretending to be?
Actually the dog strategy works. Just get a pug, women like pugs. You drive to a park and walk the dog, radom women will come up and start the "Its soo cuute!" thing. e_e so easy. To bad I prefer cats.

Honesty is gr8 tho, she will find out who you are later anyweay.
.

Except when guys just get dogs to get girls - it’s obvious. They make terrible dog parents, and that’s not attractive.

You can rock it with a cat. I have a cat bubble backpack that allows me to walk with my cat and let him see the world in safety. It’s super cute.

Or just walk your cat on a leash in a nice park
I mainly like cats, because they are independant and cry when I need to feed / pet them. Outside of that they have their own lives.
e_e dogs are like people... they need attention all the time, and a certain level of comitment / dependancy is needed that I'm not prepared to give to anyone let alone a dog. We are talkibg about somene here that has an automated irrigation system for house plants... because I can't be bothered to regularly water them. Even thought about getting plastic plants... but that sucks.

... I'm pretty sure women notice my lack of ability to comit after a while... its probably why all girlfriends up till now have grown very clingy towards the end of the relationships with many insecurities about my feeligst towards them :S "Do you still love me? u3u !?" happene every time.... e_e are there any women who are more like cats? Independent?
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
@Kormak
I mean...
A lot of women are insecure. I know I am. One of the problems with dating is that when you ask men for information, they won’t give you it, or they won’t give you enough. Invariably, that leads a person to imagine the information must be way worse than it is.
At least, that’s my problem with men.

So for instance:
“Did you like the movie?”
“It was fine.”
“Well, did you like it or not?”
“It was alright.”
“What does that mean?”

When a person answers you like that, it’s hard to imagine that they actually did like the movie. If they can’t explain themselves, it feels like they’re not being genuine.

That’s why girls follow up with “Why?” A lot. Men don’t provide enough information and their information isn’t believable. A lot of times, it directly contradicts their actions.
Ie: They will say “Yes” to “Do you love me”, but they don’t want to cuddle you, or kiss you, or go out on a date, or talk to you. All of that contradicts what he is saying.

I think men have a habit of drifting away when they sense things are getting serious, because they worry that they’re going to have to start either paying for more serious things (like a house), or they’re going to have to make potentially permanent changes to their life (like sharing their house with someone else, or getting married.)

As they drift, they don’t explain the reasonings behind their behavior.

The conclusion that I think many women draw is that their boyfriends don’t love them any more. Many women, like myself, take it upon themselves to make the relationship successful. So if he’s losing interest, you want to know why, and what you can do about it. Yet whenever you ask him, he won’t give you any information to help you figure out what the problem is.

So they’re left feeling confused, lonely, overthinking the issues of the relationship, making assumptions that are inaccurate - like maybe he’s cheating, or maybe he doesn’t like the way I talked to his mother six months ago. Women often try their best to figure out why you’re becoming steadily disinterested. A lot of women in the USA, I think, have a habit of going out and buying all new clothes, or getting their hair cut and dyed.

The truth is - the relationship is just over at that point when me start to act that way, and in my personal opinion, it’s basically the guy who ended it.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 18:35
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,744
I'm not looking for advice I was lamenting how seemingly impossible it is to find someone who will love you for who you are.

To get back on the OP topic I think the population density of modern cities and the constant exposure to modern media creates certain stresses on the human mind, our instincts are geared towards finding partners in townships of maybe a few thousand in which the number of peers and potential partners is each maybe a hundred or so. My point being that in larger populations a "rational actor" would more readily find suitable partners but in actuality we're predisposed to seek the best partner. This results in men with unreasonably high expectations of their partner's attractiveness (their sense of what's normal being wildly skewed by actresses, advertising and anime) and with women unreasonably high expectations of... a wide variety of hard-to-define things that men associate with dominance.

Women like men who are unique, society demands conformity.
Women like men who are assertive, society demands submission.
Women like me who are confident, society is emasculating and by that I mean there's no honor in the work we do, how many men can honestly say they're proud of their occupation, how many go home each day with a sense of accomplishment?
I don't mean accolades rather just the satisfaction of a job well done.

In ages prior a man could take pride in his work, the town baker was the one who bakes, even if it wasn't glamorous it gave him an identity, feelings of purpose and satisfaction, he wore a baker's uniform because he wanted everyone to know who he was and what he does, that he had a trade and he was good at it.

By contrast every modern man feels a bit like Jerry from Rick & Morty, worse than a failure we feel like our efforts are pointless and thus our lives meaningless, not in the grand existential sense but rather the personal practical sense, our brains are still designed for living in tribes and that a man whose tribe doesn't need him is no man at all.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
Kormak :
"e_e as in most things the western mindset dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of the dark ages."

Scorpio:
"I know people who were treated as you described mankind being treated. They hate learning so much that they keep well away from it. So if that was true, I would then conclude that (a) mankind hates learning and has become even more ignorant than in the Dark Ages, and (b) the Western mindset was the cause of such incredible ignorance."

Inex:
Scorpio, what do you mean by "people who were treated as you described mankind being treated."?
I was talking to a female friend I know. She's religious and likes to host events for older people and do things for people. There are also a lot of learning opportunities for women these days. A lot of women like them. So I asked her if she went to any of those as well.

She replied that her parents were religious and wanted her to study. They would force her to study. She ended up becoming so turned off by the treatment, that she won't attend lectures, not even ones aimed at women. Won't even consider it.

Insofar as being "dragged out of the dark ages kicking and screaming" and hating learning - well, I don't think those two things are equivalent. Generally, people see the "dark ages" as a mindset of old school, outdated traditionalism.
From what I learned about the Dark Ages, the history of the UK was that the Romans ruled, and did a lot that a lot of people liked.

The Romans set up bath-houses, and roads, and aqueducts that brought clean water. So everyone was a lot healthier. Lots less plagues.

The Roman soldiers were brutal. Everyone was afraid of them. So they were very good at keeping the peace. So a lot less crime, which meant a lot more trade, and a lot more money.

But the Romans weren't big on science. They sacked the Greek Island of Rhodes, which was a big centre of Greek learning.

Then when Rome fell, the Romans stopped coming. Lots of laments were written about the time, as if the sun had gone and was never coming back.

Everything would have fallen into disrepair. Wars started. There were lots of wars between areas in England and in Europe.

Then the Muslims started sharing their manuscripts with Xians, first in Toledo in Spain, then along the Silk Road where it connected to Italy. Manuscripts of Greek science, Hindu science and Muslim science were used to set up the University of Oxford, and kept being shared with European Xians for the next few hundred years.

Along the way, all sorts of things were learned. E.G. after the Black Plague, there were efforts in the UK to make better sewage facilities.

According to Bettany Hughes, a historian, the Scientific Revolution was actually a period of a few hundred years where science was slowly increased, thanks to all the science coming from the Muslims, and Europeans learning to do things themselves.

So it was more like someone else provided your technology. Then one day, that person stopped coming. Then everything got rebuilt slowly.

Western culture has thrown a lot of different ethnicities and religions together, and encouraged them all to express themselves and follow whatever philosophy they felt like following. Obviously, that's led to some strife, but the general western mindset appears to be that we should learn to accept people for who they are and/or want to be.
Additionally, there's been some necessary changes in our mindset that has helped us adapt to changes in technology, population, and diversity.
Sure. But in the UK, the Celts came. Then the Angles, Saxons and Jutes came. Then the Romans came. Then the Vikings came. The Danes came. Then the Normans came.

Also, later on, the Hugenots came.

Also, a lot of Frency people. Mr Darcy's family name is short for "D' Arcy", a well-known French name. Lots of French names in English culture.

England was a melting pot for 2,000 years.

Then you had all the different religious views. The early Celts were polytheists. So were the Romans and the Vikings. But they all worshipped different gods (similar gods, but with different names).

Then when Xianity came in, first there was Celtic Xianity. Then there was Catholic Xianity. Then Protestant Xianity, which was actually many different denominations.

Then some religious killings of Catholics, then Protestants, until Elizabeth I managed to establish a compromise where both Catholics and Protestants lived in the same country without lots and lots of government-sanctioned killings.

Also, Jews came with William I in 1066. Then they got persecuted. Then told to leave or be killed. Then introduced on the sly by Cromwell a few centuries later. Then eventually accepted, to the point where a Jew was the chief advisor to Queen Victoria (Benjamin Disraeli).

So the UK has had a lot of ethnicities and religious denominations, and a lot of integration.

So I think that what we are seeing now, has been happening for a long time.

I don't think it is that people who are "stuck in the dark ages" so to speak, hate to learn, but I think it is that they hate to change. There's a difference. Some of the best scientists and mathematicians absolutely hate new philosophies that challenge age-old knowledge.
Yes. There's a lot of opposition to change in science and even in maths. People get used to stuff.
This is all very interesting. You know quite a lot. I’ve been hearing a few perspectives and they all help to paint a vague picture for me of religious and ethnic history. I find it helpful, because it gives me a starting point when it comes to researching things further.

I think that we’ve been dealing with cultural intermingling in spurts throughout history. Each time, there is social and political unrest.

Every time, the nature of the unrest is different. In the instance of modern society, we’re having to deal with cultural intermingling within the no age of the internet. That has changed things in a very significant way. It used to be that public opinion was fairly easy to control (with propaganda, for instance, among other things). That’s not really the case anymore. Apparently, that was one of the issues behind the Arab Spring.

So, even when cultures intermingled in the past, traditions could still be somewhat entrenched and the philosophy of the ruling class was still the go-to knowledge of the land.

In our grandparents day, the government was here to protect you and patriotism was a virtue that all good people possess. Today, we question the government to an extensive degree, and being unpatriotic is, in some cases, considered to be virtuous. A lot has changed very rapidly.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I'm not looking for advice I was lamenting how seemingly impossible it is to find someone who will love you for who you are.

To get back on the OP topic I think the population density of modern cities and the constant exposure to modern media creates certain stresses on the human mind, our instincts are geared towards finding partners in townships of maybe a few thousand in which the number of peers and potential partners is each maybe a hundred or so. My point being that in larger populations a "rational actor" would more readily find suitable partners but in actuality we're predisposed to seek the best partner. This results in men with unreasonably high expectations of their partner's attractiveness (their sense of what's normal being wildly skewed by actresses, advertising and anime) and with women unreasonably high expectations of... a wide variety of hard-to-define things that men associate with dominance.

Women like men who are unique, society demands conformity.
Women like men who are assertive, society demands submission.
Women like me who are confident, society is emasculating and by that I mean there's no honor in the work we do, how many men can honestly say they're proud of their occupation, how many go home each day with a sense of accomplishment?
I don't mean accolades rather just the satisfaction of a job well done.

In ages prior a man could take pride in his work, the town baker was the one who bakes, even if it wasn't glamorous it gave him an identity, feelings of purpose and satisfaction, he wore a baker's uniform because he wanted everyone to know who he was and what he does, that he had a trade and he was good at it.

By contrast every modern man feels a bit like Jerry from Rick & Morty, worse than a failure we feel like our efforts are pointless and thus our lives meaningless, not in the grand existential sense but rather the personal practical sense, our brains are still designed for living in tribes and that a man whose tribe doesn't need him is no man at all.
Well, personally, I don’t really like assertive men. I like confidence, but not excessive confidence. But, then again...I like intellectual, thoughtful men. Not to be mistaken with high IQ. There’s a different, I think, between having a high IQ and being an intellectual. I like men who enjoy using their minds, and learning.

I’ve also always preferred men who aren’t too physically overdeveloped. I’ve always liked that thinner look.

Really, when it comes right down to it though, appearances don’t rank much in my book. I’ve never really had a crush on an actor - but I’ve had crushes on the roles they play. It’s personality and attitude, and it’s also finding someone that makes you feel good. Assertive, overly confident men usually have the opposite impact - they have a tendency to make people feel bad.

That’s just me, though. I’ve met women before who said they like men who are less intelligent than they are and don’t enjoy thinking. I think whatever kind of man you are, there’s a woman who finds it attractive.

Insofar as taking pride in your work is concerned...well I think a large part of that is actually a consequence of our value system. People don’t seem to value their work like they used to. You used to be the best baker because you tried very, very hard to be the best baker. You did it for the reputation and the pride. These days, people are just interested in making money. There’s very little drive left.

Even though Japan is structured similarly, men still take pride in their work there, and society gives them credit for being astounding at what they do.

I think it’s more of a cultural phenomenon. You can’t really hire a good carpenter these days, in my experience - not because nobody can become a good carpenter, but, I think nobody wants to put the effort in.

I feel like we have a lot more job security than we realize, and dead end jobs aren’t as gruelling as they used to be. There’s little incentive to be a better carpenter if you can be a worse carpenter, and still make just as much money. Back in the day, if you weren’t that good, people just wouldn’t hire you. That’s far less true today. You have to be really bad to not get hired. Mediocrity is the expectation.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
I still take a lot of pride in my work, and I get a lot of respect from others for it, too.

But I also don’t have a social life and don’t take days off. The only entertainment I’ve engaged in recently is this forum.

When I talk to other people in my industry, though, they don’t have the same drive. For instance, I recently spoke with a girl that said she wouldn’t work after 5, under any circumstances. I’ve yet to meet someone in my industry that doesn’t fall victim to the “its good enough” philosophy. It’s just a different perspective. Some people want work life balance. If you want that, you’re just not going to be the best at what you do.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 18:35
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,744
Well, personally, I don’t really like assertive men. I like confidence, but not excessive confidence.
I was really talking more about a lack of assertiveness, men who can't stick up for themselves because society has always attached severe consequences to such. As someone who grew quite tall quite quickly I became almost unable to defend myself physically because any time I was physical with my peers a teacher was quick to intervene and blame me for the altercation on the presumption that because I was bigger I must have started it.

I still take a lot of pride in my work, and I get a lot of respect from others for it, too.

But I also don’t have a social life and don’t take days off. The only entertainment I’ve engaged in recently is this forum.

When I talk to other people in my industry, though, they don’t have the same drive. For instance, I recently spoke with a girl that said she wouldn’t work after 5, under any circumstances. I’ve yet to meet someone in my industry that doesn’t fall victim to the “its good enough” philosophy. It’s just a different perspective. Some people want work life balance. If you want that, you’re just not going to be the best at what you do.
You don't get what I'm talking about, which is fine I can hardly explain it adequately given that it's a hardwired irrational thing. Men are goal orientated, to say we want to hunt and kill something is overly simplistic but it illustrates the mentality, we want to do a thing, do it well and be done with it.

I think that's why we despise following written instructions unless the thing we're building is so complex it would be impossible to do it without them, we want the satisfaction of doing the thing and following instructions robs us of some of that satisfaction.
 

Kormak

The IT barbarian - eNTP - 6w7-4-8 so/sx
Local time
Today, 07:35
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
515
Location
Your mother's basement
I'm not looking for advice I was lamenting how seemingly impossible it is to find someone who will love you for who you are.

To get back on the OP topic I think the population density of modern cities and the constant exposure to modern media creates certain stresses on the human mind, our instincts are geared towards finding partners in townships of maybe a few thousand in which the number of peers and potential partners is each maybe a hundred or so. My point being that in larger populations a "rational actor" would more readily find suitable partners but in actuality we're predisposed to seek the best partner. This results in men with unreasonably high expectations of their partner's attractiveness (their sense of what's normal being wildly skewed by actresses, advertising and anime) and with women unreasonably high expectations of... a wide variety of hard-to-define things that men associate with dominance.

Women like men who are unique, society demands conformity.
Women like men who are assertive, society demands submission.
Women like me who are confident, society is emasculating and by that I mean there's no honor in the work we do, how many men can honestly say they're proud of their occupation, how many go home each day with a sense of accomplishment?
I don't mean accolades rather just the satisfaction of a job well done.

In ages prior a man could take pride in his work, the town baker was the one who bakes, even if it wasn't glamorous it gave him an identity, feelings of purpose and satisfaction, he wore a baker's uniform because he wanted everyone to know who he was and what he does, that he had a trade and he was good at it.

By contrast every modern man feels a bit like Jerry from Rick & Morty, worse than a failure we feel like our efforts are pointless and thus our lives meaningless, not in the grand existential sense but rather the personal practical sense, our brains are still designed for living in tribes and that a man whose tribe doesn't need him is no man at all.
Odd... I agree with this fully. Never thought you'd say something like this tho.

@Kormak
The truth is - the relationship is just over at that point when me start to act that way, and in my personal opinion, it’s basically the guy who ended it.
Yeah, you are right about this imo. Fear of comitment sucks.
 

Serac

A menacing post slithers
Local time
Today, 05:35
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
2,710
Location
Stockholm
the issue I've had with introverted girls is that they send zero signals outwards to the world, which is a problem in a romantic/sexual scenario because the counterparty is completely dependent on those in order to know how and whether they can proceed. That's true for both the mere flirting part and the physical intimacy part. If one gets zero clues as to, for example, she wants you to escalate physical intimacy, the only way forward is that I take a huge risk – at best of looking like a fool and at worst getting metoo'd. So in a lot of cases my best move is simply to do nothing and forget about the whole thing.
 

Inexorable Username

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 00:35
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
580
the issue I've had with introverted girls is that they send zero signals outwards to the world, which is a problem in a romantic/sexual scenario because the counterparty is completely dependent on those in order to know how and whether they can proceed. That's true for both the mere flirting part and the physical intimacy part. If one gets zero clues as to, for example, she wants you to escalate physical intimacy, the only way forward is that I take a huge risk – at best of looking like a fool and at worst getting metoo'd. So in a lot of cases my best move is simply to do nothing and forget about the whole thing.
Well...I think there's a difference between shy and introverted. For instance, I'm introverted, but I was never shy. My cousin is introverted, and growing up she was painfully shy.

I would say in both situations though, my experience, and her experience have been similar, in that men have a very "get it done" attitude about dating. I need time to warm up to a guy and decide whether or not I can trust him. I want to get to know him as a person, and I want him to get to know me, somewhat. It's flattering when men ask you questions about yourself, because it shows that they're actually interested in who you are.

I have to say though - the most romantic kiss I ever had was my very first kiss, in which the boy asked "Can I kiss you."
(By the way, I said no. Blushed, turned around and left, hyperventilated for like 2 minutes, and then came back and said that if he really wanted to kiss me, he could kiss me. XD I was super awkward about it. He wasn't though. He was really sweet.)

I'm not sure what kind of girls you're dating or how they feel, but maybe if you're not getting clear signals, it could be that she hasn't made up her mind yet? I don't start talking with a man and two minutes in, think "Yeah, I'd sleep with him."
It takes me a while...I've had friendships that have come on really hard and fast because the two of us just loved each other's company (or at least...I think the guy liked my company. Most men would have me believe otherwise) - and it takes me probably about a week of hanging out with the person every day to decide whether or not I would be interested in kicking things up a notch. Even with initial chemistry - I have to make up my mind as to whether or not its a risk I want to take.

From what I hear based on what men tell me, most guys would hear that and think something like "Oh my god, I couldn't possibly invest that much of my time in someone without a surefire return on my investment". I guess those are the guys I would weed out. If you don't honestly like being around me, then you're likely to use me, break my heart, or get bored of me after a month or two - so what's the point?

Not sure if any of this is helpful to you at all. People say I'm introverted to an excessive degree. I have one friend, and I literally grew up with her. (We were born 6 days apart). I'm also just very strange in that I'm not shy, but I'm introverted, and most of the time when other females are my friends...they're more like...followers? I think I'm a fairly dominant female, despite the fact that I've always had a crippling degree of empathy.

What I pick up on from other women is based on what other women have told me, and the answers I've gotten to the questions I've asked. I have "female friend flings" where a female friend will step into my life for a while, and I'll learn all about her...and I've traveled a lot. Quite a lot. So my friendships don't last long, but there are many of them, and I meet a lot of different people. (Most of my travel has been in the US. I've only been to Europe twice.)

Anyways...from what men say, I gather that most men these days have a very short attention span. I don't think they really "fall in love" with a woman from the standpoint of learning about who she is, and becoming more and more...what?...admiring? Of her real self? I'm not sure how to describe it. Men seem to fall in love with a woman's appearance, mannerisms, and the notion of winning her. That might just be the extrovert's way though. I've spoken to a couple of men who became real friends of mine, and then we dated - but I found those guys online. :/
I think it might be even harder to find an introverted man than an introverted woman.

Sorry to ramble! Maybe this perspective isn't at all useful to you. In any case, good luck!
 
Top Bottom