I 'm so angry

Post Reply New Topic

While your statement is true, I think that The Face of Boo is countering this point by saying the double-standard in some cultures lies where men have to be the confident ones since they're the ones doing the pursuing. Based on that, it's hard to stomach the "just get some confidence" advice given, even though it might be the one thing to close the experience gap, so to speak.

and men don't have it easier to have a viable long term relationship or to find love too.

That's fine. It doesn't mean I can't still resent them for it.

there are double standards for women too - men are simply not expected to put as much time and effort into their appearance, nor are they judged on their appearance as harshly. nobody really has it "easier" in dating.

it's hypocritical. also your behaviour is resulting in fewer dating opportunities and is ultimately making you unhappy. since you have some control over that, it makes no sense for you to decry women's behaviour towards you.

if you were doing everything you could do in order to successfully date women yet were rejected for shallow reasons, your complaints would be logical and you would find that people are more sympathetic to you.

I was referring to more the concept of the chase in a relationship rather than double-standards as a whole, but your point still stands nonetheless. Hum...just noticed there was one of your posts I wanted to directly reply to, hyperlexian, but I think there might be too many posts in-between

That's fine, I accept the judgement. If I wanted a date so badly I was willing to take anything I could get, I could go to town right now and have a girlfriend inside of a half an hour. But she'd be nothing to me, with no ability to ever have her be anything to me. I'd be settling and accepting the judgement that I was desperate. But I'm not going to settle. It wouldn't be fair. If I settle, then as soon as something better came along I'd ditch the one I'd settled on since I wouldn't be in an honest relationship in the first place.

If I settle then I'm not being fair to myself either, since I'm conceding that I can't do any better, which I know isn't true.

Furthermore, I don't consider "Not having anything in common" to be a shallow reason not to date some one. This is the heart of the matter. I find women all the time that I have nothing in common with, who are interested in me. But all the ones I find who are interesting to me, and with whom I share a great deal of common interests.. they always only want to be friends, or are dating some one else who is just like me except faster off the chalks.

well, rabbittss, i do not believe it is possible to find out if you are compatible in a bar based on whether a person laughs at a Monty Python joke, for example. the alcohol and other substances, the noise, the crowds, the distractions...

it's not "settling" to give someone more of a chance than that.

i prefer the chase, myself, but i do know what you mean. hopefully this will change with time, and mroe women will approach men - then confidence will more likely be a requirement for them too. and men will have to spend more time preening.

They obviously don't share the philosophy of wanting to date people who share their interests.

The Monty Python thing is shallow, sorry. It's extremely shallow. If she doesn't know it, can't you offer to introduce her to it? Maybe she will turn out to be a fan. When I read that you said that I have no surprise that you have trouble. You've set the standards too high as opposed to what you can offer.

I am geeky, and geeks don't do it for me. Should they?

The Monty Python thing was simply an example, not a set in stone litmus test. I've no problem with introducing some one to something they haven't been exposed to before. But I reference a tremendous number of pop-culture items in casual conversation. If they can't follow what I'm saying, then we aren't going to get very far. If they've only read one book in the last 2 years and it was a Nicholas Sparks, that pretty much dooms the venture too.

You aren't in a position to know what I can and cannot offer. I don't think I've set the bar to high at all, it isn't my fault that the people around me fail to live up to the same standards I set myself. If you are a geek but don't enjoy being around other geeks then well.. that's your issue. I don't enjoy being around non geeks and could never ever date a person who isn't geeky. We simply wouldn't have anything to talk about, and since that is the basis of all human interaction I'd say it would put us in a bad position from the outset.

So many posts I want to respond to. I'll keep it short though.

The word confidence should be replaced with self-assurance.

Sorry, I'm having trouble putting what I mean into words right now, but I know that, in my experience, admitting to a girl that she makes me nervous usually turns out well.

Women don't necessarily like the guy with the "I'm the greatest thing ever" attitude. They do, however, tend to like the guy with the "I am who I am, like it or not" attitude (unless, of course, who he is is an a**hole).

I agree. Being comfortable in your own skin is very important. I would take a comfortable beta male confident in his own skin than some alpha douche bag trying to hide a whole heap of insecurity.




Well, I'm simply looking at it from the position of someone looking as an outsider. You have high expectations, yet you can't manage to pull anyone.
Whose fault is it then? It's not theirs, or their problem.

I think you might be getting non-geeky mixed up with "boring" but then again, that's a whole other discussion.

There seems to be some interesting talk about confidence. People seem entirely too dismissive of just how powerful a force confidence is. Not only is it attractive to most prospective partners, it carries with it a general good vibe to everyone who wants, or needs to put value in you. Friends often prefer a confident friend, and not confident in a sense that they think they can do anything, or egotistical and a braggart, but the real confidence of accepting who and what you are for what it is, and the slow and steady progress of self awareness and improvement. Investors or employers want to feel they can rust you, and if you trust yourself, they are much more likely to do the same. Inner confidence can be had by anyone, of any creed, and fortune, any look, because it doesn't revolve around the external, it doesn't care how good you look or don't, it doesn't care how much money you have or what neighborhood you live in, it doesn't care how charming you can be or how smart you are. It is about accepting who you are, and staying true to yourself. Setting goals for your own sake and following through on them. This is where real self confidence comes from.

Confidence based on the external is flawed, and only superficial. Confidence in oneself is not alterable based on the external, it is internal, and can be had by anyone who chooses to seek it.



Your understanding of confidence is a bit flawed, there is internal confidence, confidence in oneself. This is not per setting, per skill. It applies to everything, for it is not determined by anything specific to the world beyond the mind.

Finding confidence in oneself despite external stimuli, will transcend any barrier. I highly recommend it.

This is simply a biology thing Boo. Think about it for a sec. What strategy works best in reproduction for which gender? If your goal is to have the most, healthiest, children as possible?

Don't let zoo animals like that get you down. Consider it a positive thing that people like that don't take an interest in you.