The importance of lying to getting a girlfriend

Page 4 of 5 [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

MorbidMiss
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 333

14 Aug 2009, 10:10 am

I think that the issue with creepiness may not be that they are too "deep" as much as too intense. I had a lot of trouble finding dates because I was just too intense for a lot of people.



Space
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,082

14 Aug 2009, 1:48 pm

MissConstrue wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
I know a few really deep guys, they give women the creeps.


I've known deep women who either look plain or too ugly for guys...

Then again, I would have to know one's interpretation in the meaning deep for it to mean deep... :wink:

I think it's a classic chicken/egg dilemma:

Are very good looking people automatically unintelligent/incapable of deep thinking?

Or are they simply able to thrive comfortably in life based on looks alone, and have no hardships to cultivate their character or think deeply, no reasons to use intelligence?



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

14 Aug 2009, 4:05 pm

You cannot build a solid relationship on a lie.

Yet ... there are definitely things that shouldn't be spoken of until you are on more solid footing with the person you are interested in.

Learn the art of timing your disclosures carefully, or deflecting untimely questions, but do not speak untruths, or you will have ruined any chance of advancing the relationship beyond a casual one.

I guess it all depends on what you want with the person.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,687
Location: Northern California

14 Aug 2009, 4:09 pm

Space wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
I know a few really deep guys, they give women the creeps.


I've known deep women who either look plain or too ugly for guys...

Then again, I would have to know one's interpretation in the meaning deep for it to mean deep... :wink:

I think it's a classic chicken/egg dilemma:

Are very good looking people automatically unintelligent/incapable of deep thinking?

Or are they simply able to thrive comfortably in life based on looks alone, and have no hardships to cultivate their character or think deeply, no reasons to use intelligence?


Are you saying there are no good looking people who are also extremely bright and deep thinking? I would disgree, although the way people treat one who has good looks does tend to encourage them to develop superficiality, and they will have to actively fight that if they want to use their intellect. But I've known people who've succeeded in avoiding the trap. It's really interesting to spend 24 hours around someone like that, and see how life challenges them in a very unique way.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

14 Aug 2009, 4:52 pm

Space wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
I know a few really deep guys, they give women the creeps.


I've known deep women who either look plain or too ugly for guys...

Then again, I would have to know one's interpretation in the meaning deep for it to mean deep... :wink:

I think it's a classic chicken/egg dilemma:

Are very good looking people automatically unintelligent/incapable of deep thinking?

Or are they simply able to thrive comfortably in life based on looks alone, and have no hardships to cultivate their character or think deeply, no reasons to use intelligence?


I think some of both -- some people have the looks, but not the brains, and some of them are able to skate by or reproduce before they die (and thus pass on those "pretty" genes).

There are others who have the capacity but not the motivation.

The third group, who are the most dangerous, or effective, are the ones who have the looks and the brains, and use both to great effect.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

14 Aug 2009, 5:00 pm

billsmithglendale wrote:
[

The third group, who are the most dangerous, or effective, are the ones who have the looks and the brains, and use both to great effect.


Former U.S. president John F. Kennedy (sigh :oops: )



MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

14 Aug 2009, 5:10 pm

Space wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
I know a few really deep guys, they give women the creeps.


I've known deep women who either look plain or too ugly for guys...

Then again, I would have to know one's interpretation in the meaning deep for it to mean deep... :wink:

I think it's a classic chicken/egg dilemma:

Are very good looking people automatically unintelligent/incapable of deep thinking?

Or are they simply able to thrive comfortably in life based on looks alone, and have no hardships to cultivate their character or think deeply, no reasons to use intelligence?


No Space, indeed they can be just as deep as the ones who are plain or ugly. The only difference is they're probably more bound to attract people than those who aren't eye candy. I've seen a lot of guys go for girls just as shallow as this arguement in women going for shallow guys. Most of my observations in some of the guys I've interated with was always....they will never find a girl as hot as the one they got. Kind of the same excuse I hear women give when they're in an abusive or possesive relationship.

I don't think lying or being superficial is really a "normal" trait but rather one based off insecurity. And......I don't see insecurity as being all that nice as it is hard to love someone who isn't secure and happy with themselves ergo secure with people. If you can't be secure aren't very secure with that particular person or yourself....it's bound to rub off on them the wrong way.

Also, not all relationships are about winning numbers. Just because that person has dated a lot of people isn't indicative of how long or how fullfilled their relationships have been. It is my understanding that most women especially want to be looked as people first then a potential partner. You can't force people to like you unless you give them time to show their true actions. Everyone is shallow to a certain degree but most of that will usually go away once they've become more comfortable with you and you've become comfortable with them.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Last edited by MissConstrue on 14 Aug 2009, 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

billsmithglendale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,223

14 Aug 2009, 5:20 pm

Janissy wrote:
billsmithglendale wrote:
[

The third group, who are the most dangerous, or effective, are the ones who have the looks and the brains, and use both to great effect.


Former U.S. president John F. Kennedy (sigh :oops: )


Depending on your tastes, Bill Clinton as well. Though for some reason he seems to have a fetish for ugly/unattractive women....



Space
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,082

14 Aug 2009, 7:47 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Space wrote:
MissConstrue wrote:
MDD123 wrote:
I know a few really deep guys, they give women the creeps.


I've known deep women who either look plain or too ugly for guys...

Then again, I would have to know one's interpretation in the meaning deep for it to mean deep... :wink:

I think it's a classic chicken/egg dilemma:

Are very good looking people automatically unintelligent/incapable of deep thinking?

Or are they simply able to thrive comfortably in life based on looks alone, and have no hardships to cultivate their character or think deeply, no reasons to use intelligence?


Are you saying there are no good looking people who are also extremely bright and deep thinking? I would disgree, although the way people treat one who has good looks does tend to encourage them to develop superficiality, and they will have to actively fight that if they want to use their intellect. But I've known people who've succeeded in avoiding the trap. It's really interesting to spend 24 hours around someone like that, and see how life challenges them in a very unique way.


I consider myself good looking and extremely bright and deep thinking, so no it's not impossible.



greenlandgem
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 125

16 Aug 2009, 1:39 am

Space wrote:
I think it's a classic chicken/egg dilemma:

Are very good looking people automatically unintelligent/incapable of deep thinking?

Or are they simply able to thrive comfortably in life based on looks alone, and have no hardships to cultivate their character or think deeply, no reasons to use intelligence?


That is a very broad and unfair generalisation to make. Judging by men's behaviours towards me and, well, by what they say, I am a good-looking girl. And yet I have three degrees (through scholarship and jobs, jobs, jobs, not daddy's money), a high-paying awesome career, I read voraciously and have been known my entire life as a "brain". I also happen to prefer to be invisible than the "hot chick" in the room - precisely because many men will assume I'm a ditsy blonde and their attempts to chat me up are beyond insulting. I will almost never play up my appearance, and when I do, it's subtle.

Maybe there are some good-looking people who choose not to use their intelligence - but frankly, anyone who makes that choice was probably not very bright to begin with.

The best way to ensure that you never end up in a relationship with a beautiful, clever woman is to assume she's stupid.



LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

16 Aug 2009, 3:41 am

Quote:
Consider the following:

* Attractive people are 2-5 times more likely to be hired

* Attractive people earn 12 to 16 percent more

* Attractive people are 2 to 7 times more likely to date and make friends

* Attractive people are significantly more likely to attain elected office.


Quote:
Consider the following:

* Unattractive people are 2 to 6 times more likely to be laid off

* Unattractive people are 2 to 5 times more likely to be convicted of a crime

* Unattractive people are 2 to 3 times more likely to commit a crime

* Unattractive people are significantly more likely to be abused as children

* Unattractive people are extremely likely to be passed over for promotions.


http://www.viewzone.com/beauty99.html



anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

16 Aug 2009, 5:05 am

LePetitPrince wrote:
anna-banana wrote:
outright lying is a bit over the top. you should focus on using euphemisms and cool sounding names for shameful things, for example- if you're a cleaner, tell her you're a Flat Surfaces Manager, if you're a janitor you're a Maintenance Director. if you have an old car say it's "vintage" etc



A user called Dox or something (the cool guy with gun) suggested this way, it's still lying nevertheless.

A cleaner's title is cleaner and not Flat Surfaces Manager , a janitor is not a Maintenance Director , he's probably stealing the title of his supervisor.
It's like you're saying that you're a doctor or manager while you're a nurse or assistant manager.

An used old car is an old car. Vintage cars are classic and look like this:

Image

and only very wealthy people can buy them.

However, coming from you, your suggestion just proves the article's point , women force men to lie :P.


my post was meant as a joke. I've been done with serious responses on this subforum for a long time, in case you haven't noticed :P


_________________
not a bug - a feature.


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

16 Aug 2009, 5:43 am

I should take Anna's route...

All the work I put in my feedback and no response or input >_<


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


makuranososhi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,805
Location: Banned by Alex

16 Aug 2009, 10:49 am

LePetitPrince wrote:
Quote:
Consider the following:

* Attractive people are 2-5 times more likely to be hired

* Attractive people earn 12 to 16 percent more

* Attractive people are 2 to 7 times more likely to date and make friends

* Attractive people are significantly more likely to attain elected office.


Quote:
Consider the following:

* Unattractive people are 2 to 6 times more likely to be laid off

* Unattractive people are 2 to 5 times more likely to be convicted of a crime

* Unattractive people are 2 to 3 times more likely to commit a crime

* Unattractive people are significantly more likely to be abused as children

* Unattractive people are extremely likely to be passed over for promotions.


http://www.viewzone.com/beauty99.html


By whose definition? I see a book referenced without any study or determining factors shown - would appreciate a little more information on these 'factoids'.


M.


_________________
My thanks to all the wonderful members here; I will miss the opportunity to continue to learn and work with you.

For those who seek an alternative, it is coming.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!


LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

16 Aug 2009, 11:14 am

anna-banana wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
anna-banana wrote:
outright lying is a bit over the top. you should focus on using euphemisms and cool sounding names for shameful things, for example- if you're a cleaner, tell her you're a Flat Surfaces Manager, if you're a janitor you're a Maintenance Director. if you have an old car say it's "vintage" etc



A user called Dox or something (the cool guy with gun) suggested this way, it's still lying nevertheless.

A cleaner's title is cleaner and not Flat Surfaces Manager , a janitor is not a Maintenance Director , he's probably stealing the title of his supervisor.
It's like you're saying that you're a doctor or manager while you're a nurse or assistant manager.

An used old car is an old car. Vintage cars are classic and look like this:

Image

and only very wealthy people can buy them.

However, coming from you, your suggestion just proves the article's point , women force men to lie :P.


my post was meant as a joke. I've been done with serious responses on this subforum for a long time, in case you haven't noticed :P


No, your post wasn't a joke. It sounded regular and sincere. Nice try for an evasion.



Last edited by LePetitPrince on 16 Aug 2009, 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,464

16 Aug 2009, 11:15 am

makuranososhi wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Quote:
Consider the following:

* Attractive people are 2-5 times more likely to be hired

* Attractive people earn 12 to 16 percent more

* Attractive people are 2 to 7 times more likely to date and make friends

* Attractive people are significantly more likely to attain elected office.


Quote:
Consider the following:

* Unattractive people are 2 to 6 times more likely to be laid off

* Unattractive people are 2 to 5 times more likely to be convicted of a crime

* Unattractive people are 2 to 3 times more likely to commit a crime

* Unattractive people are significantly more likely to be abused as children

* Unattractive people are extremely likely to be passed over for promotions.


http://www.viewzone.com/beauty99.html


By whose definition? I see a book referenced without any study or determining factors shown - would appreciate a little more information on these 'factoids'.


M.


It's the summary of a book, buy the book if you want more info.