Claims that a few "super hot men" are hogging all the women

Post Reply New Topic

Being realistic in terms of investing a lot of time/effort/money into an project which is likely to not bear fruit. Small steps and realistic goals with tangible outcomes are better than having expectations that if they "smile and be friendly" that they will make friends with girls immediately leading to a long term relationship.

A better goal is to be accepted into a friendship group where the girls can develop mutual respect that leads eventually to love (although to be fair that didn't work so well for me..but it at least puts the guy in a better position)

Last edited by cyberdad on 22 Jun 2019, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It would be lousy.

I like progress and the ability to have a voice.

They do need to smile and be friendly, though. Relationships are not business transactions. There’s a little more romance in the world than that.

Still, working on improving in areas that one can is always positive. There’s no point in focusing on areas that one can’t change, though.

I'd hate to be married to someone who I couldn't be myself around.

Conversely there's plenty of tough guys who don't smile, not nice and treat women like dirt...and yet?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... -cruel-men

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-bad- ... a_b_996781

I don't write this stuff...psychologists do...

Would you want the kind of woman who digs those sorts of guys?

People fall for all sorts (which should be further proof that it’s not impossible), but most straight women want nice guys. People tend not to stay in abusive relationships. I certainly didn’t, and I wouldn’t have got with him if I knew that he wasn’t nice at the start.

Abusers don’t usually show their true colors right away.

The thing is no one is stopping someone who wants to have a traditional lifestyle. If a guy wants a traditional woman to be the homemaker go for it! Find that woman and marry her. There are still plenty in areas of the Midwest and the south of the United States.

Just don't expect every woman to go along with it. Some of us like our jobs and and the security we get from it.

Like have you ever read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin? The character Charlotte Lucas was an example of a woman who was not the most attractive and who had to settle on marrying a man she didn't love so she did not become a burden to her family. The best she could hope for was that at least he mostly left her alone. And the idea of having to return to those days?? Forget it. Never.

Not all of them. Some are based on service for pay -- the classic "Gold Digger marries Wealthy Codger" and "Gigolo Marries Wealthy Widow" relationships are not just stereotypes.

All relationships, however, involve social transactions -- the study of which is called "Transactionalism".

"... a philosophical approach that views social exchange as a fundamental aspect of human existence; all human exchange is best understood as a set of transactions within a reciprocal and co-constitutive whole..."

Source: This Wikipedia Article

AND men will chase after a woman who is hot, even if she is a complete racist nut job...

https://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-i ... file-ever/

So you see... it's not just women. HUMAN BEINGS make poor choices. Like... I don't understand why you guys refuse to get this when it's completely obvious.

What I mean is that there is more emotion and nuances involved than a mathematical business transaction. You can’t use a mathematical formula to figure out how attracting a mate is going to go (unless we’re talking about gold diggers or mail order brides).

Sorry, but I think you are wrong on that point. In my area of the world, intelligence is not something that many people of either sex seek out in a mate. I seek it first, but I am a rarity. Most people are seeking looks far and above the other qualities you listed. That directly relates to the swiping mentality on the phone apps. I do not see people looking at the others education first and then deciding what direction to swipe. They make their determinations on looks alone.

Personally, I do not have skin in the game, as I know my social skills (and self-esteem) are just too low to get and sustain a real relationship. Unfortunately, others have asked me if I was gay due to my decision not to date. I have to set them strait each time that I am heterosexual, but not dateable, which gets old fast. It is interesting to see normal guys struggle in the area of dating, to the point that a few of them also simply gave up on the whole mess.

I think "traditional" can mean different things to different people. From what I recall, you've said that you grew up in a very sex segregated cult with rigidly defined rules and punishments for male and female.

Other "traditional" roles aren't that black and white or that restrictive. My Dad grew up on a farm and most of his now elderly relatives are still farmers. His ancestors were farmers. Farm families from where he's from had "traditional" roles for men and women. I can tell you with certainty that the women in my Dad's family have a voice and the roles compliment each other such that the families as a whole prosper and have done so for generations. Are the women regarded as subordinate? Oh my gosh, no. They're absolutely considered equals. The women can step up and do many of the kinds of "men's" work if needed; conversely, most of the men in my Dad's family wouldn't be able to cook at such a high level or sew or quilt like the women are capable of. The women run the household and often the financial aspects of the farm business along with their husbands. No voice? Far far from it. Their talent, knowledge, versatility and toughness is awe inspiring. Years ago, one of my Dad's aunts had a tooth that was giving her terrible pain. Dentist? Nope. She took a pliers and pulled her own tooth out of her head. Tough as nails. Women are respected as equals in my family and always have been even with my older female relatives and those from prior generations mastering and living wonderfully in their "traditional" role.

I just happen to like progress. I like that people aren’t segregated so much based on gender - that we don’t have to conform to masculine or feminine roles. I like that women have access to birth control and abortions if need be. I like that there’s gay rights. I just like living in the present time period.

I realize that my experience of “traditional roles” may be stricter than somebody else’s, but I still like progress and nonconformity over the idea of “tradition.” When I hear that word, my gut reaction is to fight against it. I hear “Tradition!!” from Fiddler on the Roof resounding in my ears. LOL

I’m also a person of my generation, I think. I don’t like the word “conservative,” either.

I fully support people having different viewpoints. Using words like "segregation", etc make it sound like the women in my extended family and other women in similar agrarian families had and have no choice. The women I describe not only wanted to fill the roles of wife, mother, farmer and businesswoman, they were proud of their achievements and their accomplishments. They loved their lives. They were some of the happiest people in my memories; joking, laughing, playing cards and enjoying the fruits of very hard work.

I didn’t mean to imply that. I live in an area with a lot of Amish and Mennonites. There’s a lot of the old type of religious-based “tradition” that I especially despise... They don’t have a lot of choices or options (Amish drop out of school in 9th grade), and they lose everything when they leave.

I’m happy if people are free to make the choices they want to.