Can shyness/quietness ever be attractive to females?

Post Reply New Topic

Gwenevyn is also the empirical source of repitition and narrowmindedness. The only reason you don't want to challenge what you think you believe in, at any time whatsoever, is you realize you might very well arrive at my answers.

Yes, I believe shyness/quietness is very attractive but if the woman has a reason to be like that, then I will highly respect that.

You're really not one that should speak of repetition. It is fine if you can't back up most of what you've said. Just don't try and act like the burden of proof is on everyone else, or that evidence provided by others is somehow flawed simply because it doesn't go along with whatever you might believe.

Wouldn't repeatedly suggesting that someone's experiences and beliefs are flawed / wrong be a bit...close-minded?

Yes; I find shyness/introversion in itself to be attractive.

Dracula's argument is sort of reminding me of Mr. Collins from Pride and Prejudice.

Yes, and that's exactly why I wouldn't mind dating a quiet male.

I guess you are too ignorant to see that I offered proof. I told some people where to look for the proof, and I suggested that the women around us always have a tendancy to go for the more AM. They never were able to defend themselves. The only thing they could do was not answer to my challenges, and b*tch about how I make my points.

If all you can do is b*tch, then don't bother typing to me.



You can't be that dumb. This is a debate of viewpoints, where both parties repeatedly suggest that the other's viewpoint is flawed.

Yet that isn't proof that -all- women like the same thing, which is what you've claimed. More Americans voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 than for other candidates. Does that mean the rest of us are all closet Democrats in denial? Of course not.

I told you why I'm not going to respond to your every question. You believe you know what we're thinking and you're not listening to what we really think. It would be a waste of my time to tell you what I think, because (according to the MO you've demonstrated thus far) wherever it conflicts with what you think I should think, you will reject it as falsehood (and/or call me names). Several other people are trying to tell you the same thing. I've got the impression that if I showed you a poll in which 40% of women surveyed expressed a preference for non-alpha traits in a mate, you'd say "that doesn't prove anything because those women must be lying." That's not debate--it's just preaching. Reading your words reminds me of the second half of the flowchart that Alex recently posted in the PPR forum.



You don't know all the pieces of the puzzle yet. Nobody does. When you realize that there's more to know about the world around you on this particular subject, you'll be open to encountering new information and we can dialogue.

To most of the most women?

No

amazing pic gwen but I guess dracula was talking pure science tho.

Girls like shy guys ....yet they want the guy to approach them at first right ahead

Girls like shy guys ....yet they seek confidence in a man

Girls like shy guys .....yet they prefer someone sociable with good social status.

Girls like shy guys ....yet they want a good dancer guy



Too damned delusions and contradictions.

Here you are thinking human constructs are comparable to biology. That's proof you aren't even approaching it from a right angle. You're still floating around on the surface of the water, and I'm submerged deep where meaning is.



Stop making assumptions of my future behavior. I am listening to what you think... and I'm telling you why your thoughts may be contrary to your biology at times. You seem so unwilling to even consider that. You say "I prefer this sorta guy, with that sorta act" instead of considering it on a more profound level.



Hmm. I'd probably call them silly, rather than flatout liars.



I know everything about this subject. There are other subjects that can be a little confusing at times, and require Ibuprofen (I keep a bottle of that handy at my desk ). But in this area, I'm all game.

Now I've read, observed, went out and mastered my own Game, have encountered a lot of women, and I can call that an experiment... but not the boring kind, because it is actually very fun. From that proof I proceed. I know you don't like or appreciate that, but that's okay.

Your challenges were meaningless, because you shirked the burden of proof, suggesting you have none. If you have such great, unquestionable proof, provide it. Otherwise, stop acting like you do. I think that's a pretty simple and reasonable request.

I didn't think bringing up issues with your "arguments" was bitching. If you think so, well, that's too bad.
Oh it is? You don't seem to be debating, but rather informing others that they are incorrect, despite the presentation of their own experiences. If you truly believe what you stated here, then why again use these silly little personal attacks and call someone narrow minded? If your arguments are so unshakable, is it really necessary? With as frequently as you use them, that really suggests otherwise.

We've moved beyond simple biology. Humans can think, and not rely solely on instinct. That's pretty simple stuff.


Your notion of what "profound" is may differ from that of other people. Then again, you seem to think everything you say is profound. That's rather profound in and of itself.

After all, anything that goes against what you say would be silly, if not wrong. Go ahead and say that this isn't what you are implying. I'd call you silly, rather than a flat out liar.


Your sample size is not representative of the entire population. Thus, your "data" is flawed. While you might be able to create rough rulesets that might work for many situations, without being able to react to new information they will all fail at some point. If all women could be classified in such a simplistic manner, you could put on the auto-pilot and have any woman you want. I doubt you can pull that off.

I have no problems comprehending the current scientific understanding of how biology relates to behavior. (What makes you think that political decisions are immune from biological influence, for instance? We're human beings 24 hours a day.)

You, however, have some misconceptions:

1) You seem to be under the impression that genetic predispositions = destiny.

2) You also seem to be under the impression that there is no genetic variety among humans in regards to the qualities one desires to see in a mate.

You reject all evidence to the contrary, which in my eyes leaves you with zero credibility. You accuse me of rejecting the evidence you submit, but I'm not--I'm rejecting your conclusion. I don't respect the conclusions of a person who tosses out all of the information that doesn't fit his hypothesis. It's sloppy logic. Clean it up and try again.

Dracula, the whole beef, any beef, that's going around has nothing to do with any kind of newbie crap, we don't treat people that way, and everything to do with having stuff arbitrarily shoved down our throats.

Point being, one of the reasons I said you should REALLY check out a site before you start slinging mud, you'd see that a lot of my posts agree with yours, different symantics maybe, and yeah - yet you've been sitting there lecturing down to me that I'm one of those idiots who's swallowed some kind of sheeple pill thrown out there by popular culture and feminism. The details do matter, pay a bit more attention.

As of right now I'm guessing the reason that your 100 absolute "Its this way and never any other way" is because your still trying to stomp out your own emotions and get your head around what your saying. Just do that a little while longer, mind you keep it to yourself, but at time goes on and your able to observe a lot more. That perfect wall of reasoning that seems to be the only fit to the puzzle right now will start showing weak spots, discrepancies, holes start showing up bringing water through, mind you it may still work in most cases but it won't explain everything. If you actually care enough about the truth of things that will bother you enough to where you'll critique it, analyze it, and figure out where the exceptions come from.

It's clear to me you don't have the spirit of my last post in your reply here. I could copy/paste what I said all over again to you, but you'd only spout off the same stuff. I might as well be typing to a tree stump, hun.

There's a few of you here that deny experience, and deny the happenings around you, at least openly here on this thread. I'm a very direct person with these things... for future referance, forward direction and conviction are not bad. They're revolutionary. Anyone who ignores what's obvious (that all women are naturally attracted to Alpha Males), has no way of moving forward... you're in limbo. What you complain about me doing, what you say I'm doing wrong, is what you often did in this thread, moreso than me and in more ignorant ways. I'm not saying I'm right about absolutely everything... I admitted to that, but I also admitted to being completely right about my thoughts on this certain matter.

The brain chemicals of attraction are not a choice, just like you often can't control what your AS makes you obsess over. Think of it that way. Genes ARE destiny crafting. They set forth our personality, which is cemented by our experiences in life, and we become individual souls relatively separate from the primordial movements... but we still answer to them in the end. It's a beautiful path that nature takes. It was never anything but what it was. Personality and special ego have a lot to say about where we go in life, but the other 50% of that life-altering influence goes to the other brain mechanisms... the ones that lie under the surface of that.

We hassle around with our lives so often because we don't know what we want most the time. What we want, traces to biological needs. I don't look down at my dick and say: "Harden, there's a hot chick." It does it automatically. I didn't consciously start unleashing chemicals. I didn't necessarily choose what was hot to me. My brain knew what was hot, and it moved on it itself. We're all the same in the respect that we are highly evolved animals, but we're animals nonetheless who act on instinct, and instinct has NOTHING to do with choice, but EVERYTHING to do with nature's resounding voice of "Survive!"

Take it as you will. That's my final word.

True!

But that's not what you started out saying. You said 100% of women like the same kind of stereotypical alpha male.

Again, I know what attracts me and it's not what you insist must attract me. I enjoy these traits on a very automatic and instinctual level. I always have. Shyness, introversion, a reflective nature... all of that can be hot as hell. You can't make my experience go away just 'cause you don't like it. Looking back at my family tree one could say the passion for introverts runs in my blood.

...I like it that way. A lot.

Happy New Year.

Last edited by gwenevyn on 01 Jan 2008, 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.