Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Women asking guys out?

Page 15 of 34 [ 543 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 34  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Mar 2018, 12:43 am

314pe wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
We don't want to be with just any woman. We have standards. We just want more choice so we can choose the right woman.

My hypothesis is that for those who have standards, they should do things to attract the right people, not do things to simply attract more people. Attracting "more women" doesn't necessarily put the right woman in that mix.

Is it really "more choice" that you want, or is it the right woman that you want? What if you were able to attract her and only her? You have no choice in that scenario, just her, so is that a bad outcome?

If you attract no one, then your goal is to attract someone. Bad outcome is attracting nobody, because nobody is certainly not the ideal partner. Trust me. I've spent years with her!


Sounds like you need better standards.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

14 Mar 2018, 1:46 am

314pe wrote:
If you attract no one, then your goal is to attract someone. Bad outcome is attracting nobody, because nobody is certainly not the ideal partner. Trust me. I've spent years with her!

So have I, and my preference is nobody, over just anybody. Strong preference. But, I'm an independent person who doesn't want companionship just for the sake of it. I've experienced nobody, somebody, and somebody special. I'd rank them
1. Somebody special
2. Nobody
3. Somebody
in order of preference. Is this unusual?



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

14 Mar 2018, 2:02 am

No, not unusual at all. It's expected when you have more choice.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

14 Mar 2018, 2:06 am

314pe wrote:
No, not unusual at all. It's expected when you have more choice.

What do you mean by choice? What does having "more choice" look like?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Mar 2018, 2:20 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
If you attract no one, then your goal is to attract someone. Bad outcome is attracting nobody, because nobody is certainly not the ideal partner. Trust me. I've spent years with her!

So have I, and my preference is nobody, over just anybody. Strong preference. But, I'm an independent person who doesn't want companionship just for the sake of it. I've experienced nobody, somebody, and somebody special. I'd rank them
1. Somebody special
2. Nobody
3. Somebody
in order of preference. Is this unusual?



You can find 1.Somebody special and it's the 1.Somebody special that we are talking about all the time, you are smart....is it really that hard for you to understand that there's a higher probability fo find the 'special one' among a number than among null?

This has nothing to do what women want vs men - this is pure mathematical question.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Mar 2018, 2:25 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
If you attract no one, then your goal is to attract someone. Bad outcome is attracting nobody, because nobody is certainly not the ideal partner. Trust me. I've spent years with her!

So have I, and my preference is nobody, over just anybody. Strong preference. But, I'm an independent person who doesn't want companionship just for the sake of it. I've experienced nobody, somebody, and somebody special. I'd rank them
1. Somebody special
2. Nobody
3. Somebody
in order of preference. Is this unusual?



You can find 1. and it's the 1. that we are talking about all the time, you are smart....is it really that hard for you to understand that there's a higher probability fo find the 'special one' among a number than among null?

This has nothing to do what women want vs men - this is pure mathematical question.

Can we count the wrong partner as a -1?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Mar 2018, 2:27 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
No, not unusual at all. It's expected when you have more choice.

What do you mean by choice? What does having "more choice" look like?


By having more choice one may also learn what an ideal partner should be, one needs plenty of dating experience before to figure it out. A lack of choice means a lack of experience, meaning a lack of knowing how an ideal partner should be.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

14 Mar 2018, 2:35 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
If you attract no one, then your goal is to attract someone. Bad outcome is attracting nobody, because nobody is certainly not the ideal partner. Trust me. I've spent years with her!

So have I, and my preference is nobody, over just anybody. Strong preference. But, I'm an independent person who doesn't want companionship just for the sake of it. I've experienced nobody, somebody, and somebody special. I'd rank them
1. Somebody special
2. Nobody
3. Somebody
in order of preference. Is this unusual?

The trick here is that 1 and 3 intersect, but 2 does not. I've experienced nobody, somebody, and somebody special too. And I know that if you have null dates, then you have 0 chance of meeting somebody (and somebody special too). Having some dates increases chance of finding someone special.



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,013

14 Mar 2018, 2:38 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Can we count the wrong partner as a -1?

And some dates will definitely be the wrong ones. So to find a special one you should not date at all. This definetly will help you find true love :D



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

14 Mar 2018, 2:59 am

Of course you're not going to find someone special if you're not meeting anyone at all! I'm not sure why people keep thinking I don't understand this.

My suggestion is that instead of focusing on meeting "someone"/"just anyone", one can focus on finding someone in particular. That is, someone suitable. And yes, having experience in dating can help with figuring that out. So can other things though, like really understanding oneself and one's needs and wants. Or exploring other types of relationships (e.g. friendships, family, workmates) and learning about what types of people are healthiest to be around.

My ideas are only for people who are neurodiverse. The neurotypical person is probably more likely to have success with the 'just increase your options and someone suitable will be in the mix' method, because normal people are similar to each other, by definition.

As this is a forum for neurodiverse people, I'm making an assumption that there are at least a few people here who are not suited to a "normal" partner, and may benefit from seeking something different. And my hypothesis for such people is that there's a higher chance of meeting someone if you're not trying to look for just anyone.

The "how" is a whole other story. As we are individuals, it's about figuring out what works for each of us, rather than one-size-fits-all techniques.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Mar 2018, 3:31 am

You have to have minimum set of traits in order to be attractive, conventionally at least , before going into filtering.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

14 Mar 2018, 4:10 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You have to have minimum set of traits in order to be attractive, conventionally at least , before going into filtering.

All methods involve filtering, no? E.g., as I keep saying, if I make a dating profile with no text, or just a couple of cliches, I'm filtering out the sorts of people who look for information in my profile.

Do you have an example of a way to present yourself so as to not filter anyone out?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Mar 2018, 4:16 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You have to have minimum set of traits in order to be attractive, conventionally at least , before going into filtering.

All methods involve filtering, no? E.g., as I keep saying, if I make a dating profile with no text, or just a couple of cliches, I'm filtering out the sorts of people who look for information in my profile.

Do you have an example of a way to present yourself so as to not filter anyone out?


I don't think it's possible, but I don't get why non-reading or low quality guys would stop message you if you write a detailed profile, they wouldn't care either way.
What is your magic spell that makes them go away?

Do you really pick a very very unflattering picture, like the ugliest picture you ever have? Because you said you receive only few messages and I find this hard to believe.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Mar 2018, 4:24 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You have to have minimum set of traits in order to be attractive, conventionally at least , before going into filtering.

All methods involve filtering, no? E.g., as I keep saying, if I make a dating profile with no text, or just a couple of cliches, I'm filtering out the sorts of people who look for information in my profile.

I don't think that will filter out the amazingly good ones. It's actually not that hard to skim through a profile and respond to something she likes. I used to do it dozens of times per day. I guess it took a bit more thought than just saying "Hi" but it felt equally mechanical.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

14 Mar 2018, 4:27 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You have to have minimum set of traits in order to be attractive, conventionally at least , before going into filtering.

All methods involve filtering, no? E.g., as I keep saying, if I make a dating profile with no text, or just a couple of cliches, I'm filtering out the sorts of people who look for information in my profile.

Do you have an example of a way to present yourself so as to not filter anyone out?


I don't think it's possible, but I don't get why non-reading or low quality guys would stop message you if you write a detailed profile, they wouldn't care either way.
What is your magic spell that makes them go away?

Do you really pick a very very unflattering picture, like the ugliest picture you ever have? Because you said you receive only few messages and I find this hard to believe.

I don't know why I don't get many messages from those who ignore my profile text, except maybe that I don't look feminine. I have either very short hair or a shaved head, no makeup, casual androgynous clothing...I'm not ugly, but I'm not "typical". I use photos that I think give the best possible representation of who I am. I don't use unflattering pics.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

14 Mar 2018, 4:37 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You have to have minimum set of traits in order to be attractive, conventionally at least , before going into filtering.

All methods involve filtering, no? E.g., as I keep saying, if I make a dating profile with no text, or just a couple of cliches, I'm filtering out the sorts of people who look for information in my profile.

I don't think that will filter out the amazingly good ones. It's actually not that hard to skim through a profile and respond to something she likes. I used to do it dozens of times per day. I guess it took a bit more thought than just saying "Hi" but it felt equally mechanical.

I skip over profiles with little or no text, and I've known guys who do this too. So if I'm an "amazingly good one" to some guy who chooses not to put text in their profile, he misses out on me 8)