Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

A Self-Made-Man girl discovers that life as a man is harder

Page 16 of 19 [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 2:51 am

314pe wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
If your desires in the dating world lie within that top part of the bell curve (e.g. the typical ideas of beauty, the typical gender roles, the typical first date, the typical ideas about commitment, etc. etc.) then you have to compete with all the others top-of-the-bellers out there, and conform to the stupid* system they have set up for dating. That's unfortunately just the way it is.

Would you say that people who fail there at the top have it just as bad as those who fail at the lower parts of the curve? They chose to date there, whereas if you fail at the bottom, there's no other place to date. Failing at the top means that you're imperfect. Failing at the lower parts, means that nobody finds you attractive enough to sit beside you at the movies.

When I talk about the bell/normal curve, I'm talking about what is most common (the "norm"), not what is "better" or "worse" or anything like that. The bottom parts of the curve are where you find deviants and outliers (in whatever domain you are talking about), which is saying nothing about one's relation to perfection. I tend not to find people at the top of the bell curve to be closest to perfect, I often prefer those who are different. But that's just me. Most people prefer most people. Normal people tend to prefer normal partners. So if you want a normal partner, there's a heap more competition.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,688
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

21 Jul 2015, 2:57 am

Omg.....I agree with yellow.

Are you people sensing a blackhole nearby?



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 3:00 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Omg.....I agree with yellow.

Are you people sensing a blackhole nearby?

We often agree. I just usually only respond to you when I'm disagreeing with you :P



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 3:15 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
When I talk about the bell/normal curve, I'm talking about what is most common (the "norm"), not what is "better" or "worse" or anything like that. The bottom parts of the curve are where you find deviants and outliers (in whatever domain you are talking about), which is saying nothing about one's relation to perfection. I tend not to find people at the top of the bell curve to be closest to perfect, I often prefer those who are different. But that's just me. Most people prefer most people. Normal people tend to prefer normal partners. So if you want a normal partner, there's a heap more competition.

Perfection is complete normalness. Being perfect means that a lot of (normal) people find your traits somewhat attractive. Not being normal means that most (normal) people may not find them attractive, but some might like them a lot. The problem is that dating in the lower parts of the bell curve not only decreases competition, but also decreases your dating pool. There's a point where people are so weird (not bad or good) that there's nobody for them to date. Normal people sometimes call them lazy or worse, they pity them.



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 3:18 am

314pe wrote:
Perfection is complete normalness.

8O



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 3:25 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
Perfection is complete normalness.

8O

Think about it. What would a completely flawless person look like? He/she would look completely normal and fake. He/she wouldn't have any 'special features' because there's no feature everyone likes. He/she would be a blended mix of all humans.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,688
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

21 Jul 2015, 3:25 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Omg.....I agree with yellow.

Are you people sensing a blackhole nearby?

We often agree. I just usually only respond to you when I'm disagreeing with you :P


But I want a black hole.....



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 3:27 am

Boo, you think you're big enough not to be sucked into it?



314pe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 3:32 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
Perfection is complete normalness.

8O

Perfection is like a Camry. It has no flaws, because there's nothing special about it. Nobody loves a Camry, but a lot of people drive one.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,183
Location: US

21 Jul 2015, 3:43 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
sly279 wrote:
nurseangela wrote:
I just woke up and Grumpy is grumpy, Boo. Women don't get to choose their partners either if they are waiting for men to ask them out - they take what they can get too. No one is forced to stay in a relationship, it's a personal decision. You make your bed and lie in it.


maybe it use to be that way. but now adays theres dating sites and facbook and all the clones of them. women now have access to just about all single guys and get tons of messages. they very much get to choose. they aren't going to take something less then their idea as they can just wait for the next guy and see if he is more closer to it.

A certain type of woman gets tons of messages, or gets asked out a lot in the real world, etc. The same type of woman that most men are chasing. If you happen to like the typical female the most, then bad luck, she'll be harder to catch. And harder still if you are an atypical kinda guy, because she is more likely looking for a typical man.

If your desires in the dating world lie within that top part of the bell curve (e.g. the typical ideas of beauty, the typical gender roles, the typical first date, the typical ideas about commitment, etc. etc.) then you have to compete with all the others top-of-the-bellers out there, and conform to the stupid* system they have set up for dating. That's unfortunately just the way it is.

*IMO


well i like playful women which isn't the typical woman. I find 95% or more of women to be really pretty. I base beauty more on the face then body. I prefer walks for dates not typical as typical would be expensive dinner and movie, I think most people have typical ideas of commitment.

though are you taking about a women? if so i misunderstood.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,183
Location: US

21 Jul 2015, 3:45 am

yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
If your desires in the dating world lie within that top part of the bell curve (e.g. the typical ideas of beauty, the typical gender roles, the typical first date, the typical ideas about commitment, etc. etc.) then you have to compete with all the others top-of-the-bellers out there, and conform to the stupid* system they have set up for dating. That's unfortunately just the way it is.

Would you say that people who fail there at the top have it just as bad as those who fail at the lower parts of the curve? They chose to date there, whereas if you fail at the bottom, there's no other place to date. Failing at the top means that you're imperfect. Failing at the lower parts, means that nobody finds you attractive enough to sit beside you at the movies.

When I talk about the bell/normal curve, I'm talking about what is most common (the "norm"), not what is "better" or "worse" or anything like that. The bottom parts of the curve are where you find deviants and outliers (in whatever domain you are talking about), which is saying nothing about one's relation to perfection. I tend not to find people at the top of the bell curve to be closest to perfect, I often prefer those who are different. But that's just me. Most people prefer most people. Normal people tend to prefer normal partners. So if you want a normal partner, there's a heap more competition.


wouldn't thete also be heaps more options/chances. unless women prefer different people and most men prefer normal people then there wouldn't be enough normal and be heaps of competition?



yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jul 2015, 6:44 am

sly279 wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
314pe wrote:
yellowtamarin wrote:
If your desires in the dating world lie within that top part of the bell curve (e.g. the typical ideas of beauty, the typical gender roles, the typical first date, the typical ideas about commitment, etc. etc.) then you have to compete with all the others top-of-the-bellers out there, and conform to the stupid* system they have set up for dating. That's unfortunately just the way it is.

Would you say that people who fail there at the top have it just as bad as those who fail at the lower parts of the curve? They chose to date there, whereas if you fail at the bottom, there's no other place to date. Failing at the top means that you're imperfect. Failing at the lower parts, means that nobody finds you attractive enough to sit beside you at the movies.

When I talk about the bell/normal curve, I'm talking about what is most common (the "norm"), not what is "better" or "worse" or anything like that. The bottom parts of the curve are where you find deviants and outliers (in whatever domain you are talking about), which is saying nothing about one's relation to perfection. I tend not to find people at the top of the bell curve to be closest to perfect, I often prefer those who are different. But that's just me. Most people prefer most people. Normal people tend to prefer normal partners. So if you want a normal partner, there's a heap more competition.


wouldn't thete also be heaps more options/chances. unless women prefer different people and most men prefer normal people then there wouldn't be enough normal and be heaps of competition?

Yep, more options too.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

21 Jul 2015, 7:35 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:

Then why the Women's forum is almost inactive?

Nah...XFG, it is not that, the reality is, a WP single girl eventually finds a boyfriend within months so she loses interest to post here.

I can give you names, Cafeaulait for example had been active and posting here for long when she was single, once she got a got, her posts became less till nil.


And I can think of plenty of women who've I spoken to who have cited the exact reason I did as why they don't post on this sub-forum.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

21 Jul 2015, 7:37 am

Fnord wrote:
Okay ... Then what DOES it take for a woman to get into a good relationship? A good man seems to be only half of the process ... maybe even less than half ... ?


Good social skills and decent instincts to start with.......


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

21 Jul 2015, 7:42 am

314pe wrote:
Now you're talking about good relationships. That's different. Being unemployed is not the same as working at average wage job. Similarly, being undateable is not the same as being in less than ideal relationship.


.....which is why I qualified it as such. I have no doubt women find it way easier to get sex/crappy relationships than men (especially non-tradition men).

And being unemployed isn't the same thing as working a soul-crushing sh_t job, although I can understand why someone who's never had any job whatsoever would think so.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

21 Jul 2015, 7:56 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
.....which is why I qualified it as such. I have no doubt women find it way easier to get sex/crappy relationships than men (especially non-tradition men).

Certainly easier to get a sex relationship, but I think that the chance of getting into a crappy relationship is roughly the same for men and women.