Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Good looking but nobody sees it

Page 5 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,534

18 May 2012, 2:19 pm

ZX_SpectrumDisorder wrote:
This is still going. Can someone give me a synopsis pls?


Erm.......we have gone a tad off topic and degenerated into a lot of joshing and idle banter. It's gone a tad bawdy (that was Boo's fault), but it seems safe enough, and it is Friday.



rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

18 May 2012, 3:12 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
mv wrote:
How about *broader* standards?

HALLELUJAH!! !! in my world, there is no "lower" or "higher". all that stuff is manufactured nonsense.


Yes, but in the real world it exists and is quantifiable to some extent by society at large.

I find using "broader" standards to be kind of humorous considering the previous thread about dumping people for getting fat.



ZX_SpectrumDisorder
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,608
Location: Ireland

18 May 2012, 4:06 pm

Thanks Tough Diamond. I knew I could count on you.



Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

18 May 2012, 4:47 pm

rabbittss wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
Having reread the first post and the following advice, I think the OPs words are fine :) short answer to OP = Yes, lower standards. Better results.

EDIT: gah!


Same advice as always.. "SETTLE, SETTLE, SETTLE!".

Granted, it is good advice to get laid, just not to form an actual healthy relationship.


Here's some better advice: Instead of whining about how you only get people who aren't good enough for you, figure out why the people you think you deserve don't think you're good enough for them, and, if you can do it and think it's worth it, change yourself to meet their standards.


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

18 May 2012, 4:50 pm

Who_Am_I wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
Having reread the first post and the following advice, I think the OPs words are fine :) short answer to OP = Yes, lower standards. Better results.

EDIT: gah!


Same advice as always.. "SETTLE, SETTLE, SETTLE!".

Granted, it is good advice to get laid, just not to form an actual healthy relationship.


Here's some better advice: Instead of whining about how you only get people who aren't good enough for you, figure out why the people you think you deserve don't think you're good enough for them, and, if you can do it and think it's worth it, change yourself to meet their standards.


That would be counter productive.



MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

18 May 2012, 4:52 pm

rabbittss wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
Having reread the first post and the following advice, I think the OPs words are fine :) short answer to OP = Yes, lower standards. Better results.

EDIT: gah!


Same advice as always.. "SETTLE, SETTLE, SETTLE!".

Granted, it is good advice to get laid, just not to form an actual healthy relationship.


Here's some better advice: Instead of whining about how you only get people who aren't good enough for you, figure out why the people you think you deserve don't think you're good enough for them, and, if you can do it and think it's worth it, change yourself to meet their standards.


That would be counter productive.


Only because you seem to prefer your current status as being above those who are willing instead of working your way into the ones you want. Which by the way is likely no ammount of working up to will let you reach them. My advice. Grow up, or deal with it.



Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

18 May 2012, 4:52 pm

rabbittss wrote:
Who_Am_I wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
JanuaryMan wrote:
Having reread the first post and the following advice, I think the OPs words are fine :) short answer to OP = Yes, lower standards. Better results.

EDIT: gah!


Same advice as always.. "SETTLE, SETTLE, SETTLE!".

Granted, it is good advice to get laid, just not to form an actual healthy relationship.


Here's some better advice: Instead of whining about how you only get people who aren't good enough for you, figure out why the people you think you deserve don't think you're good enough for them, and, if you can do it and think it's worth it, change yourself to meet their standards.


That would be counter productive.


How so? You'd get the people who you wanted.


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

18 May 2012, 4:53 pm

I am dealing with it, I'm dealing with it by complaining on the internet, last I checked, that wasn't against any laws.



MXH
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain

18 May 2012, 5:02 pm

rabbittss wrote:
I am dealing with it, I'm dealing with it by complaining on the internet, last I checked, that wasn't against any laws.

Thats not dealing with it, thats being a whinny kid about it. Dealing with it would involve not caring about it. So as i said
Image



RightGalaxy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,145

18 May 2012, 6:13 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I think RightGalaxy was beaten by a short colleague when she was was kid.


:lol: ....but about your other post involving the on-eyed trouser snack - EWWWWW!! !!



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,452
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

18 May 2012, 6:24 pm

RightGalaxy wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I think RightGalaxy was beaten by a short colleague when she was was kid.


:lol: ....but about your other post involving the on-eyed trouser snack - EWWWWW!! !!


You'd wish to access it.



bnky
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 486
Location: England

18 May 2012, 7:16 pm

Has anyone else noticed that OP hasn't been back after posting that (his first ever) post on WP? :oops:



JanuaryMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,359

18 May 2012, 7:26 pm

It did cross my mind. And I hope he took whatever advice or information he needed from the thread :lol:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

18 May 2012, 7:54 pm

rabbittss wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
mv wrote:
How about *broader* standards?

HALLELUJAH!! !! in my world, there is no "lower" or "higher". all that stuff is manufactured nonsense.


Yes, but in the real world it exists and is quantifiable to some extent by society at large.

I find using "broader" standards to be kind of humorous considering the previous thread about dumping people for getting fat.

no, actually... your whole idea of broader standards (with people beneath you) is a peculiar construct of your own mind. it does not exist like that in the outside world. each person has their own preferences (some people prefer larger partners, some prefer smaller ones, others don't care), and the people they are not attracted to are just that - people they are not attracted to. a person's unattractiveness to you does not put them below you by any universal measure.

something to keep in mind is that people consistently overestimate their own level of attractiveness (the majority of people place themselves 'above average, which is statistically impossible).


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


rabbittss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348

18 May 2012, 8:03 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
mv wrote:
How about *broader* standards?

HALLELUJAH!! !! in my world, there is no "lower" or "higher". all that stuff is manufactured nonsense.


Yes, but in the real world it exists and is quantifiable to some extent by society at large.

I find using "broader" standards to be kind of humorous considering the previous thread about dumping people for getting fat.

no, actually... your whole idea of broader standards (with people beneath you) is a peculiar construct of your own mind. it does not exist like that in the outside world. each person has their own preferences (some people prefer larger partners, some prefer smaller ones, others don't care), and the people they are not attracted to are just that - people they are not attracted to. a person's unattractiveness to you does not put them below you by any universal measure.

something to keep in mind is that people consistently overestimate their own level of attractiveness (the majority of people place themselves 'above average, which is statistically impossible).


I actually place myself BELOW average. I simply want some one who meets certain characteristics, You seem to take great personal offense to this, and use every opportunity to attack me for it.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

18 May 2012, 9:04 pm

rabbittss wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
rabbittss wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
mv wrote:
How about *broader* standards?

HALLELUJAH!! !! in my world, there is no "lower" or "higher". all that stuff is manufactured nonsense.


Yes, but in the real world it exists and is quantifiable to some extent by society at large.

I find using "broader" standards to be kind of humorous considering the previous thread about dumping people for getting fat.

no, actually... your whole idea of broader standards (with people beneath you) is a peculiar construct of your own mind. it does not exist like that in the outside world. each person has their own preferences (some people prefer larger partners, some prefer smaller ones, others don't care), and the people they are not attracted to are just that - people they are not attracted to. a person's unattractiveness to you does not put them below you by any universal measure.

something to keep in mind is that people consistently overestimate their own level of attractiveness (the majority of people place themselves 'above average, which is statistically impossible).


I actually place myself BELOW average. I simply want some one who meets certain characteristics, You seem to take great personal offense to this, and use every opportunity to attack me for it.

no, you don't. you have called yourself a "7" and have said that you look for other women at the same "rating"


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105