Women are not attracted to me because I'm not 'masculine'?

Post Reply New Topic

Woman, 30's, single here, always been, but I don't know why I have to start a thread about that (well, I know why, maybe because some male members would say to me that I'm exaggerating and that men have it more difficult, it's what happened last time I talked about my love life here, and it's probably the same reason why a lot of female members don't talk about their love problems here either). I can speak about more women on their 30's that are single too. It's not that incredible. In fact, there are a lot of single people out there, males and females.

I'm quite tired of the "women have it easy" s**t. Well, then why I don't have it easy? Or some of my female friends? Why my male friends have had girlfriends then? No, they are not very handsome, no, they are not bad boys. You really don't know what happens in the life of every man and woman of this planet.

I do agree the bitter posts around here get annoying. Even if one side has it easier it all still boils down to what are you willing to do to get something den. Most here just like to whine until they don't do much else than hate

But you've hit the nail right on the head there as regards their problem

ie "to get the girl of their dreams"

if they gave up on that and just looked for 'a girl' they'd have far more chance of success!

it's the very fact they go for 'the girl of their dreams' types that they get so many knock-backs!

That actually makes a lot of sense.

An average does not always fall in the "middle".

Consider, for example, a set with objects 0, 0, 0, and 10. The average of these four numbers is 2.5, which is decidedly not in the "middle" between 0 and 10 which is 5, nor is it the median which is 0.

Not that I have any idea what you two were talking about, I just had to point this out.

I don't the statitical logic in your statement. Can you argue your statement?



I don't know what 'fat' involves exactly, since in my country there's no separate words for 'chubby' and 'fat'. I think that they're not talking there about chubby or overweighted people, but about really fat people (perhaps 100 kg -around 200 pounds- of overweight).



BanjoGirl, if you don't believe me, I would propose you an experiment. I open a profile with your picture (as a female), you open a profile with my picture (as a male), and we check how many answers we get. If you want to feel better about your love life, honestly, you only must try to date online with a male profile. After writing several dozens of mails and getting a couple o answers, I could assure you that you'll go back gladly to be a woman.

The odds are on the females favour when it comes to online dating for a simple reason: there are too many males online/not enough females.

However is anyone forcing you to limit yourself to online dating?

There are plenty of "female" activities where a man would be more than welcome and be the one with odds in his favour.
Most dancing clubs/courses/whatever need males...

for the sake of argument, i am going to use the terms "high quality" and "low quality", which is obviously not really true. i am using high quality to mean "choice partners that the person would like to date", and low quality to mean the opposite.

if a woman had more viable dating opportunities than a man, she would have to have MORE good quality men to choose from, as compared to how many good quality women that a man has to choose from. this makes no sense, because:

1. there aren't any more men on the earth than women

2. there are approximately the same number of single men and women on the earth (there are slightly more single women, but for arguments' sake)

3. the men on the earth are the same quality as the women

basically, there is absolutely no advantage in being a woman if you are asked out by multiple "low quality" men. it is not a true dating opportunity if it is a chance to date someone that you are not attracted to. and that is exactly what many people are arguing in the thread i linked to. here it is again:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt227412.html


that... is not a relevant question, but if you had bothered to read the thread you would have seen the answer multiple times (you gave yourself away, that you did not bother to read the thread).

people were stating in the thread, over and over again, that they would not date fat or obese people. there are very few people on this earth who will date absolutely anybody, which directly contradicts what you said right here:


quite a few of them won't date fat women, apparently (in spite of some of them being overweight or obese themselves). but the same was true for many women in the thread.

I don't understand your comment. I never said that I was limitting myself, I used online dating as an example. I don't understand why you suggest that having dated online imply that you were not doing it in other ways. That assumption seems slightly neurotypical in my opinion. Could you explain it?

You're considering a population where everybody has the same chances. This is not a right model of the situation. You're forgetting the concept of standard deviation of a distribution.



Are you telling me that, in a thread about dating fat people, how you define 'fat' is not relevant???

they do have the same chances. otherwise try to prove that they do not.


you're avoiding my whole point. define it however you like (or define it as people in the thread have done) if it will help you to address the applicable point. i can see why you're being slippery, as your point does not hold water regardless of how the word is defined.

here's an idea - try to defend your point using two definitions of fat ("chubby" and "obese").

Oh, c'mon. I told you: standard deviation. They group has the same average opportunity, obviouly, but inside the group those chances are distributed. In the male group, standard deviation is bigger, that means that there's men who are VERY promiscous and other men that find it real difficult to hook up. Basically, most of women hook up with a reduced number of males, call them alpha males or whatever name you want. It's like one group where one guy hooked up with all the women. The number of relations are the same for men and women, so the average chance is the same, but for women relations are distributed, while for men they're concentrated in this guy. To say it other wise: some guys get it all, other ones get nothing.



NO! You can't define however you like. How can you debate about going out with fat people if you don't define first if fat means 10-20 kg overweight or it means 100 kg overweight??? How can you debate about a word and get conclusions about people debating if you don't know what the words they're using mean for them????

you have no evidence that it is any different for men or women, though. it could be exactly the same, as some women date a lot of men, just like some men date a lot of women. there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise.


people did define it, which you would realise if you bothered to read the thread. the point is that you said this:


but many men made it quite clear in that thread that fat and obese (and in some cases even overweight) women are undateable and hence actually BELOW their league, so that negates your point. a definition of obese or fat does not have to be universally agreed-upon because the men were talking about their own opinion of who they would not date, and you were saying that some men are below anyone's league. apparently, that is not true, as the men have placed themselves above some groups of women.

in order for your statement to be true, the men would have to be willing to date anybody. and many of them were not.

I opened a profile on the GeektoGeek dating site last month, thinking these people see themselves as 'geeks', which could well mean at least some of them have Aspergers. I thought I would be on 'home territory' and more likely to find someone like-minded.

I put a photo taken last year on ie my most up to date one and I was honest in the weight section and put I was overweight

And do you know what happened?

I didn't get one single response!

This was a first for me as I'm used to getting a number of responses

So if there were more people than average with an ASD on that site it explains a lot!

Far from being desperate for a partner, any partner, in my opinion geeky types/people with Aspergers are MORE picky than average, not less and this is why they don't find partners ie because they think they deserve Princess Leia!

Watching all these films and playing video games instead of mixing more in the real world where real women don't look so perfect has warped their aesthetics. This is my theory and my experience seems to support it.

Have you zero, ZERO, success??? Because there's guys here with zero success. There's is guys here in their 30s that NEVER had a girlfriend. And you're telling them that they had not enough interest??? that they didn't make enough effort???, that it's their fault because their level is too high and they only look for bimbos and don't want a simple next door girl???

Are you f**** kidding me? Have you any trace of empathy?



Great! I'm glad to hear it! Then I suppose you don't have any problem in saying how it was defined.



Did you ask what they meant with fat? I'm glad you know, because I don't.

And what means that they can't complain if they are not willing to date anyone? a 250kg peson? a 50 years older person? what that means?

Have you ever dated a 250kg guy, for example, or is it below you?

So, has TS come to a an answer yet?