Why many women dislike socially awkward men

Post Reply New Topic

Evidence please.

Young women are pursued, largely because they have a vagina.
I'm not trying to sound political or sexist or graphic, or upset anyone.
I know I'm generalising a bit, but that's the biology of it.

Most young guys date these women, not for "interpersonal relationships" but for sexual stimulation.
Most young guys aren't old enough to get married or maintain a longterm relationship but they date anyway.

If it does turn out that young women have more dates, that's likely why.
It's not exactly a triumph for women to be dated because of their bodies.

Hmmm I think this broad generalisation overlooks the fact that men still have standards. Sure there are men who are not getting a date who will be desperate but even then we have standards.

When I was in my 20s I was athletic (gym junkie) and I knew there were overweight women who found me attractive and were drawn to me. But I (and keep in mind young men can be as judgemental as young women) never found them physically attractive.

One of the issues I have tried to address on this forum is young men who (like me) are avoiding overweight women but can't get a date. If they dropped their standards then they could experience dating and a sexual relationship. I was picky and it was one reason I had to wait till I found my Indian princess before knowing a woman intimately for the first time.

In my 50s I'm not exactly "hot" anymore but I am still average-slim and presentable in a suit. But as I am older I am much more tolerant of different shapes/sizes and in any cases the idea of classing women based on their "fuckability" is simply no longer an issue for men my age who are married.

Saying that they should “drop their standards” so they’ll “tolerate” dating overweight women is just an awful attitude.

There is much more to people than physical appearance. It’s such a small part of who a person is.

You married a princess?
That's cool. I went to university with a princess from a Latin American country.

I wasn't trying to be disparaging of men.
I'm not even saying they all expect sex.
It just stands to reason they hope they'll get as close to sexual intimacy as possible.
It's not a judgment call against men.
I'm just saying that's why most young women are initially asked on dates.
The guy might think she's pretty and want to hold her hand or whatever, but it's still sexual.

I guess from the girl / woman's POV they go on these dates because the men make them feel beautiful.
It's not necessarily a ploy.
Maybe they are beautiful.
Maybe the person makes them feel smart or funny.
Most guys still fantasise about the physical aspect going further, and that's why they start dating.

I'm only replying to the person who thinks it's a badge of honour for women to be dated.
Lots of young women get asked on dates, but hormones play a big role.
It's not always worth celebrating like an achievement.

Also, where did I say men don't have standards?
They ask out the ones they're attracted to. That's normal.
Women accept the ones they're attracted to. That's normal.
I hope we all have standards.

Last edited by IsabellaLinton on 09 Mar 2023, 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Additionally, although a guy who dates a lot of women often gets called a "casanova" or "player" or "ladies' man", a woman who dates a lot of men tends to get saddled with terms like "slut" or "promiscuous" or "easy", or it gets implied that she "can't keep a man" or is somehow "undesirable".

Also worth mentioning, there's a difference between being "socially awkward" as in saying "you too!" when the server says to enjoy your meal, stuttering and mumbling, being a little clumsy, staring at your lap, or not knowing what to talk about - and being "socially awkward" as in making someone feel uncomfortable or unsafe, hurt, judged, marginalized, etc, even if accidentally or unintentionally.

Don't forget "old maid" and "spinster" if she doesn't get asked out, or the fact they could end up as teenaged pregnancy statistics and being single parents while "Casanova" heads west in search of another virgin conquest.

Oh, what fun!

It's weird because some people do seem to treat women who aren't skinny (or who aren't blonde) as coded as unattractive regardless of their facial appearance or build. Even from that simple and shallow angle, there's lots of ways women can be attractive in. It's not like there's a pass/fail test or a rubric to apply.

The attitude of 'lowering their standards' is insulting, but learning to reconsider and broaden their own standards of beauty is good advice.

There's a lot more to people than physical appearance, but physical appearance is usually a significant factor when it comes to romantic interest.

Were you picky? Actually?

I've never understood this way of thinking, not then not now, but perhaps I'm not typical. When I was a young man I didn't think of girls as meeting or not meeting any arbitrary set of aesthetic standards I'd devised. All I knew was that there were girls I was attracted to and girls I wasn't.

And it wasn't just about sex for me. I wanted to be close to someone, physically and emotionally. Is that really so uncommon in young men? Or could it just be a myth, a received wisdom, that young bucks are just out for sex and so they live up to it?

For me, there would have been no point in 'lowering my standards' to date a girl. Because my standards were "Am I attracted to this girl?". If no, then what's the point? I'd really like to think that's not so strange.

So, were you actually 'picky'? Did you rule out entire body types or hair colours or whatever? Or did you just wait until a girl who you found attractive felt the same way about you? Because I don't think that's the same thing.

I'd sort of half-to-three-quarters agree with this.

In general, yes, there is no one objective way to be attractive, and while as such there is no objective rubric or test, that doesn't preclude individuals from adopting their own subjective personal rubric despite that.

I would certainly agree that lowering unreasonable standards can only be to the benefit of the individual. However, simply calling it "lowering standards" without recognizing the part about how the standards were unreasonable to begin with, likely leads to resentment, as the act is seen as a "sacrifice" for having to "settle" for less than they want or "deserve", rather than them actually learning to value people differently. Yes, they're "lowered" standards, but they're "lowered" back down to "reasonable", not lowered to "sub-standard". That awareness makes a difference in the individual's attitude towards the adjustment.

As for looks, the Halo Effect is a thing, and we as humans are predominantly visual creatures. What something looks like is the easiest way to snap-judge things. It's why people wear clothes with their interests printed on it, like their fav band, or movie, or show, or w/e. We as humans are also prone to being intellectually lazy when it comes to making decisions - we prefer the easiest method leading to satisfactory outcomes.

We're bombarded with images of what the "ideal look" supposedly is, on tv, in movies, on the net, advertisements everywhere, etc., and in the real world by the people who try to emulate these images in daily life. So it's very easy to passively absorb these images, and internalize them - and when we meet someone new, sometimes the elements get held up as our template for "attractive", whether it's conscious or not. And we do this cos it's the easiest way to very quickly justify spending more time on or with an individual - on a purely reactionary level.

However, nothing about this precludes individuals from being more consciously aware of these things, and questioning them. If one can get their head untangled from the lure of the Halo, can learn what they value besides the "visuals", and can learn how to "spot" these traits in an efficient manner, looks no longer become as important of a factor, even as an initial "attractor" - unless one still chooses to prioritize "looks" in some form.

I've tried to put my thoughts about this in order and write a response several times but I keep getting in a mess.

So I'll just say simply that I don't think you're right.

Without wishing to offend anyone's vagina, there's nothing in there that can't be found in the palm of your own hand.

It's all emotional. It's about the women, even for the serial shaggers I think, who appear to discard women after intimacy has been achieved.

I think those men want something that they can't bear when they actually get it. And I don't it's just the physical sensations and dopamine rush of sex. Nor is it just some perceived status among their social group.

I think its a desperate need for emotional closeness that scares the s**t out of them when they get it. And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole sowing your wild oats thing is a post-justification for this behaviour, because to need emotional closeness is weak and to fail is unacceptable.

Which of course doesn't excuse anything.

lol - no offence taken whatsoever.

I wasn't trying to make young men / men sound like perverts.
I like the way you identify the emotional rush that comes along with love and acceptance, or even lust.
That's a very good point.

I'm generalising again, but I still think men think more about the sexual aspect than women.
I'm not even saying that's bad. It just is, even if it's at the back of their mind.

Young women don't look at their crushes and think about the orgasm she might have together or alone.
They usually think about love, or "making love", or getting married or having kids.
It's not as physical like "How far will he be willing to go with me?"
I'm talking about the early stage of meeting someone, before dating.

I'm talking myself into a sexist rabbit hole so I'll leave it at that, but you said nothing wrong.

I'm glad we agree on something. If you read my post I was not proud of carrying those attitudes as a 20 year old, and I advocate for young men on this forum not to be picky like I used to be.
I have detected a few members (some of whom have left) carry the idea that they will only settle for a slim, attractive girl. Of course, they are struggling to find anyone to talk to (let alone a date). That's all I meant by dropping standards. Broaden the scope of the women they will consider dating.

It was a term of endearment

"Princess" is a term of endearment toward one of her parents, as king or queen.

Which do you prefer?

Yeah I was. Like everyone else my age I was influenced by "idealised images" presented in the media. When I was in my teens I let a lot of attractive teen girls slip through because I was a typical NT who never tried to set roots (plus I was dirt poor too lazy to get a part time job and my allowance was pitiful)

When I did start working around the late 80s/early 90s I rejected girls based on their looks. I had attractive girls who went out with me, spoke to me and became my friends. But alas....I was young and dumb and didn't realise I was being friendzoned. Probably served me right.

But rather than drop my standards, I became a "passport bro" (one of the originals) and found me a pretty wife overseas.