men in their thirties who never dated
Dawn Hardin
work as a sexual surrogate. I was telling her yesterday about the numbers
of men who've posted here yesterday saying that they've never had dates at
all and never had any relationships. This is the kind of men that she
used to counsel, and she had some interesting things to say about the
situation.
She said that the typical never-had-any-kind-of-relationship guy doesn't
have anything wrong with him -- it's not that he's rude or ugly or has
some major flaw that makes women run away. They're usually perfectly
nice men who just have put all of their energies into something other than
people. They've been in grad school, or they've been starting a business,
or whatever it is that they thought was important, and they've never really
talked much to people. They may be able to smalltalk, but they've never
practised sharing themselves with anyone. I asked her where the women
like that are, and she said there are very few women like that. Women
are socialized to look for relationships first and everything else second.
If nothing else, women will have close female friends so when they meet a
man they're interested in, being close to him won't be such a culture shock.
(I'm not sure I agree with that, but it's what she said.)
She said there was no agreed upon treatment for it, but she didn't think
that anything a person in that boat could do would be wrong. The important
thing was to learn how to talk to people and how to interact with people.
Since the kind of counseling that she used to do is now illegal, she thought
that personal ads or a dating service would be the best thing to do. The
emphasis on the dating service wouldn't be to meet the perfect mate -- it
would just be to talk or dance or whatever, to have fun, to learn how to
be friendly for an evening, to ask the other person questions and try to
connect a little bit. If the person is in really bad shape, very scared
or shy, then perhaps an escort service, where the girl is paid to be
friendly might be good for a date or two until you learn that women aren't
going to bite. (Again, her idea, not mine.)
She said that the most important thing for them to do is to decide that
they'd like a little human company and then to interact with some humans.
Once they get to that stage (and not just looking at couples wistfully,
yearning for something to happen to you) then most of them start making
friends and girlfriends relatively quickly. Some people have really strong
barriers around them that require counseling to bring down, but for most
of the people she saw, she said it was just habits that grew up over the
years. When they realized their habits were making them unhappy, they
changed.
Dawn
Juha Taina
The rest of the world is probably very different.
Thanks again for a great article, Dawn. I'm not going to quote it
here, this followup is long enough anyway. :)
#1 About a typical never-had-any-kind-of-relationship guy
I agree that a typical nondating man has his qualities elsewhere.
If they have concentrated on careers or studying it's possible that
they haven't had anyone to really open up (parents perhaps). A typical
man talks to his friends/colleagues about everything but his inner
feelings; unless he's really drunk and then the level of talk isn't
too high anyway. Thus, they don't really know how to show feelings in
the right way and/or they are afraid of showing their feelings. I
don't know about women, but my guess is that women really open up to
each other more easily. So, for a man the worst shock is when he
should get to know someone, while for a woman it is when she realizes
that she can't always understand the man (which happens much later).
#2 How to learn to talk and interact with people
I'm not sure about personal ads or dating services. I think that the
really shy guys who would need help are too shy to reply a personal ad
or join a dating service. But a meeting service, a kind of
friends-together club, might be more useful. It should be shown
clearly that the service is mostly or even completely for getting
friends only. That wouldn't sound too bad, at least not for me. Then
they shy ones would notice that other people don't usually bite. The
escort service that was mentioned doesn't sound promising to me
either. I wonder how many of the shy ones would be ready to have a
date that way. An escort service date sounds too commercial to me.
If I had a date there I'm sure that she would be nice to me... but
after all, it would be just a mask. It wouldn't work for me, perhaps
others will think differently.
#3: About shy guys changing their habits
I agree that the change must start from their habits and they must do
the change themselves (who else? :). But at least for me, changing
something that I have been practicing for 20 years isn't that easy.
The shy guys need support from their friends. Unfortunately male
friends are not good at giving the support and they don't have female
friends. So, either they go through the hard way and try to change
habits without support or they seek professional help. Or, as a lot
of them do, they stay the way they are.
I hope that I said something new... sometimes I felt like I was
repeating Dawn's words. :)
Juha
--
Juha Taina | ta...@cs.helsinki.fi | Phone: +358-0-708-4247
David Roe
>Some people here will remember me talking about my housemate who used to
>work as a sexual surrogate. I was telling her yesterday about the numbers
>of men who've posted here yesterday saying that they've never had dates at
>all and never had any relationships. This is the kind of men that she
>used to counsel, and she had some interesting things to say about the
>situation.
>
>Since the kind of counseling that she used to do is now illegal, she thought
I read this a few times, but I still dont get it, how can counselling be
illegal?? Please elaborate.
Dave Roe
Dawn Hardin
She was a sexual surrogate. That meant sometimes having sex with men
who had sexual problems so she could teach them to overcome their
difficulties. They always had to deal with the occasional police
harrassment, but after the AIDS thing broke the AMA came down
on their butts and said that it wasn't ethical for a counselor to have
sex with a client no matter what the reason. (Actually, the counselor
and the surrogate were two different people, but now they no longer accept
the idea of surrogates at all.) If she were to do it now she would either
get arrested for prostitution or get the clinic shut down. Or both.
According to my friend anyway, this has a lot more to do with AIDS than
it does with the efficacy or ethics of the counseling.
Dawn
Stephen Swann
>She was a sexual surrogate. That meant sometimes having sex with men
>who had sexual problems so she could teach them to overcome their
>
>According to my friend anyway, this has a lot more to do with AIDS than
>it does with the efficacy or ethics of the counseling.
As for efficacy, it probably does what hundreds of hours of counceling
can't do for some people - namely, to convince them that they, too,
can get through this sticky business, just like the rest of the human
race. Nothing succeeds like success, even if it is a "setup".
--
Steve Swann | Speak to me in many voices; make
sw...@acsu.buffalo.edu | them all sound like one... -BOC
Jeff Smith
|> She was a sexual surrogate. That meant sometimes having sex with men
|> who had sexual problems so she could teach them to overcome their
|> difficulties. They always had to deal with the occasional police
|> harrassment, but after the AIDS thing broke the AMA came down
|> on their butts and said that it wasn't ethical for a counselor to have
|> sex with a client no matter what the reason.
I'm fascinated by this. Did your friend have any problems keeping "detached"
from her clients? Or more likely, did the clients ever become attached to
her? It seems like this could be a very odd situation...we're talking about
men who already have problems in this area! Also, wasn't this kind of
hard on her own personal life? None of my business of course, but I am curious!
jds
***************************************************************************
* Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith * Passion and poems and sex
sm...@fl08-g.comm.mot.com * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
* I won't shut my mouth for less.
- shriekback
***************************************************************************
Dawn Hardin
>In article <l8if21...@news.bbn.com>, dha...@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) writes:
>
>|> She was a sexual surrogate. That meant sometimes having sex with men
>|> who had sexual problems so she could teach them to overcome their
>|> difficulties. They always had to deal with the occasional police
>|> harrassment, but after the AIDS thing broke the AMA came down
>|> on their butts and said that it wasn't ethical for a counselor to have
>|> sex with a client no matter what the reason.
>
>I'm fascinated by this. Did your friend have any problems keeping "detached"
>from her clients? Or more likely, did the clients ever become attached to
>her?
Yeah, people getting attached to her was a big problem. She speaks very
highly of how effective the counseling was in helping men start and keep
relationships, but from the way she talked about these men falling for her
I wonder how good it really was for them.
>It seems like this could be a very odd situation...we're talking about
>men who already have problems in this area! Also, wasn't this kind of
>hard on her own personal life? None of my business of course, but I am curious!
She told me once that she wished she still had the job because she had met
so many hopeless but rich men and she'd like to "give" me one of her graduates
because I could use a rich boyfriend. Didn't sound like a great attitude
to me and I'm just as pleased she doesn't meet them anymore. (Although I
imagine her graduates might have appreciated being introduced to a "real"
prospect when they started feeling more confident.)
Her husband didn't mind, but she did keep coming home with sub-clinical
diseases -- clients were all screened for syphilis etc, but she kept
catching undefined bugs -- and of course, he caught them all too. She
describes this as the best job she ever had, but it sure doesn't sound
great to me.
Dawn
Jeff Smith
|> Yeah, people getting attached to her was a big problem. She speaks very
|> highly of how effective the counseling was in helping men start and keep
|> relationships, but from the way she talked about these men falling for her
|> I wonder how good it really was for them.
I wonder statistically how many of these men were noticably better off after
this particular treatment.
|> Her husband didn't mind, but she did keep coming home with sub-clinical
|> diseases -- clients were all screened for syphilis etc, but she kept
|> catching undefined bugs -- and of course, he caught them all too. She
|> describes this as the best job she ever had, but it sure doesn't sound
|> great to me.
Hmmmm...I don't think I would take it quite so well as her husband.
Even without the bugs! No, it doesn't sound so great to me either.
Although I must admit...certain aspects of it are attractive! Maybe
just as a hobby? :-)
lai...@lub001.lamar.edu
Ohhh! Dawn, please, please spare us any more 'bout this lady. How about
writing her biography and sending it to TRUE DETECTIVE, NATIONAL ENQUIRER,
GLOBE, STAR, CHERRY MAGAZINE, ETC.....
Tell us about yourself - do you do the nasty? Do you have a firm, round
butt? Do they stick out when someone rubs them? Enquiring minds want to
know!
Dawn Hardin
[obnoxious drivel deleted because I can't stand to read anymore]
So yesterday you tell me that I don't have any morals because you can't get
a joke and today you decide to make a lot of obscene remarks and flame
everyone in sight in a singularly graceless manner without the courtesy
of signing your name?
For one thing, you're not the least bit entertaining. For another thing,
I was hurt by your remark yesterday, whether it was a bad joke or not.
There are real people reading this group, not just moving targets. Please
grow up.
Dawn
Kiran Wagle
>She said that the typical never-had-any-kind-of-relationship guy doesn't
>have anything wrong with him -- it's not that he's rude or ugly or has
>some major flaw that makes women run away. They're usually perfectly
>nice men who just have put all of their energies into something other than
Easy to say. I assert: they _must_ have something wrong with them,
since many of them do not put all of their energies into other things,
and furthermore, many people who _have_ done this still have found
partners. Try and prove me wrong. :-) (Sorry, just feeling
argumentative. This is glib advice from someone who has (presumably)
never been in the position she is describing.)
>people. They've been in grad school, or they've been starting a business,
>or whatever it is that they thought was important, and they've never really
>talked much to people.
What about the ones who have talked a lot to a lot of people? What
about the ones who think that relationships and friendships are the
most important things in life?
>They may be able to smalltalk, but they've never practised sharing
>themselves with anyone.
Might I suggest that a simple explanation for this is that they have
not had anybody to share themselves with? Or perhaps they are simple
people who don't have a dark side to "share."
>that anything a person in that boat could do would be wrong. The important
>thing was to learn how to talk to people and how to interact with people.
Fine advice if this is the problem.
>She said that the most important thing for them to do is to decide that
>they'd like a little human company and then to interact with some humans.
>yearning for something to happen to you) then most of them start making
>friends and girlfriends relatively quickly.
Again, glib advice but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the
world as I know it.
--
Kiran Wagle <ki...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083 (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
Sanjay Dhar
so why don't u enlighten us all & tell us what is wrong with them.
>since many of them do not put all of their energies into other things,
>and furthermore, many people who _have_ done this still have found
>partners. Try and prove me wrong. :-) (Sorry, just feeling
>argumentative. This is glib advice from someone who has (presumably)
>never been in the position she is describing.)
>>people. They've been in grad school, or they've been starting a business,
>>or whatever it is that they thought was important, and they've never really
>>talked much to people.
>Might I suggest that a simple explanation for this is that they have
>not had anybody to share themselves with? Or perhaps they are simple
>people who don't have a dark side to "share."
Didn't know that one needed a dark side to date. what kind of men do u know/
date????
>Again, glib advice but unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the
>world as I know it.
so how does it work?(especially for the simple men with no dark sides)
>Kiran Wagle <ki...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083 (812) 336-7478 [8p-1a EST]
sanjay.
Craig Dewick
Hi Dawn.
Your discussion is very interesting reading, so I thought I'd relate to you
something similar that concerns me a great deal.
I'm almost 24 years old, and I keep seeing my friends getting into serious
relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
courage to approach women that I find attractive.
Please don't get me wrong here - I'm always admiring attractive women just like
most men do. I seem to have a sort of 'fear of the unknown' which I am not able
to conquer. All too often I feel as though I'd like to be holding an attractive
woman in my arms and doing all the 'normal' things a couple does when they are
in love, but this apparent 'fear' takes control and I lock up into a passive
state.
Now that I am beginning to see friends talk about marriage, etc. I am starting
to think if I am doing something seriously wrong, or have I just developed this
overbearing self-consciousness that prevents me being able to show my emotions
in the ways that I wish I could?
To put it simply, I feel as though I am being left behind in the social skills
department, and I can't seem to break down the barriers.
I suppose what I have described is what all people go through at some stage in
life, but for me it seems to be going on too long, and I don't know what to do
about it, or how to cope with the frustration that this situation creates.
Can you recommend anything that might help?
C ya later.... Craig.
Dawn Hardin
>
>I'm almost 24 years old, and I keep seeing my friends getting into serious
>relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
>my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
>courage to approach women that I find attractive.
[stuff deleted to shorten]
>Can you recommend anything that might help?
Aack! I never wanted to be net.counselor and I wouldn't be a good choice for
it even if I wanted to be. Good lord, I've had such little real dating
experience that it's really silly to think of people asking me for advice.
I'm half tempted to say:
1) Get a sex change operation and date lesbians.
2) Move to a farm. The phrase "chasing tail" takes on new meaning.
But you were serious so I'll try to be. What my friend the ex sex counselor
said it all boiled down to is you need to do something. Anything. She
thought dating services or personal ads were a good start for people who
had a horrible time learning how to start things. If you see an ad from
a girl who wants to go out with someone, it might be easier to write her a
note saying hi, and then if she likes the note it's not so difficult to
make plans to do something. So you go out 1-3 times and the next times
not so tough. Eventually, you feel more comfortable with the situation and
you might meet someone in a more natural environment. In a personal ad,
you know the girl put one in or responded to yours because she'd like a
date -- that takes a bit of pressure off right there.
Dawn
Graydon
The common characteristic I have noticed about men in their thirties
who have never dated is that they want to be attached to someone
less than they want to not make a fool of themselves.
Anyone able to decide you're perfect from distant observation and
decide you're the one and then be able to pay the whole initiation
costs of a relationship is not all that sane or stable.
Relationships *cost* - time and sleep and the pain of changing your
mind. If you're in a state of mind that wants to minimize risks,
you're not going to find one.
Graydon
Graydon the Curious /gra...@micor.ocunix.on.ca
Skraeling Althing, EAldormere, MK / "Nihil est quin obsisti possit"
nancy.l.colucci
>relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
>my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
>courage to approach women that I find attractive.
That's probably because it's difficult to "approach" anyone you don't
know and strike up a conversation, and even more of a gamble that the
two of you will have anything in common. It's kind of like chosing the
right kitten from a basket of ten - the one with the prettiest markings
might also be the least friendly. Pick the one who climbs up your shirt
and starts pawing at your nose. You'll get along much better and in time
it'll be the most beautiful kitten in the world to you.
When it comes to a human-type lifemate, it's not a really good idea to
let your gonads do the choosing. Don't choose at all. Just go live your life
and persue your interests and the people you meet along the way will be
part of your life already, have the same goals, probably be a HELL of a lot
easier to talk to, and will in time become the most beautiful people in the
world.
It's like drawing the runes. The right one will stick to your fingers.
>
>All too often I feel as though I'd like to be holding an attractive
>woman in my arms and doing all the 'normal' things a couple does when they are
>in love, but this apparent 'fear' takes control and I lock up into a passive
>state.
A normal couple in love doesn't always consist of a man holding an
attractive woman in his arms.
-Not Dawn
--
Nance Colucci *^*^*^*^*^* o__ *^*^*^*^* | Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci _.>/ | Stay fit for life.
(_) \(_)
606...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
is it possible that they are just shy?
is it possible that they do not have the gift of gab?
is it possible that most women now days expect too much
from a man?
what is your conclusion?
Aahzmandius
>
>The common characteristic I have noticed about men in their thirties
>who have never dated is that they want to be attached to someone
>less than they want to not make a fool of themselves.
>
>Anyone able to decide you're perfect from distant observation and
>decide you're the one and then be able to pay the whole initiation
>costs of a relationship is not all that sane or stable.
>
>Relationships *cost* - time and sleep and the pain of changing your
>mind. If you're in a state of mind that wants to minimize risks,
>you're not going to find one.
To these words of wisdom, I can add only one: amen.
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
"I 'got a life'. Now what?"
Roger Tang
>RE: men in thirty something groups ***
>
>is it possible that they are just shy?
>is it possible that they do not have the gift of gab?
>is it possible that most women now days expect too much
>from a man?
Nope, nope and nope.
>what is your conclusion?
We're all just dweebs.
--
"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail: gwan...@milton.u.washington.edu
Kenn Barry
>
>is it possible that they are just shy?
Yep.
>is it possible that they do not have the gift of gab?
Yep.
>is it possible that most women now days expect too much from a man?
Could be.
>what is your conclusion?
I wanna be a woman next time around.
Kayembee
Gary Bliefernich
Yes.
Yes.
Possible.
There are mine./gb
Karen Gorman
Why wait until next time around? There is a surgical operation
(SRS Sexual Reassignment Surgery) that can accomplish it in this
lifetime for you.
Never say never. :-)
Karen
Ross Ridge
>All too often I feel as though I'd like to be holding an attractive
>woman in my arms and doing all the 'normal' things a couple does when they are
>in love, but this apparent 'fear' takes control and I lock up into a passive
>state.
na...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>A normal couple in love doesn't always consist of a man holding an
>attractive woman in his arms.
Attractive from the man's perspective or from a third person's?
Ross Ridge
--
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU l/ //
[OO][oo]
ro...@zooid.guild.org /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross db //
Gary S. Wachs
>dha...@bbn.com (Dawn Hardin) paraphrases her friend:
>>She said that the typical never-had-any-kind-of-relationship guy doesn't
>>have anything wrong with him -- it's not that he's rude or ugly or has
>>some major flaw that makes women run away. They're usually perfectly
>>nice men who just have put all of their energies into something other than
>
>Easy to say. I assert: they _must_ have something wrong with them,
>since many of them do not put all of their energies into other things,
>and furthermore, many people who _have_ done this still have found
>partners. Try and prove me wrong. :-) (Sorry, just feeling
>argumentative. This is glib advice from someone who has (presumably)
>never been in the position she is describing.)
If you are saying that the mere fact that a guy has never dated at all means
something is wrong, you are clearly overgeneralizing. I know a great many
men and women in their 20's, 30's, and even some in their 40's who haven't
dated once and still appear to me to be, in all the common areas, quite
normal.
>>people. They've been in grad school, or they've been starting a business,
>>or whatever it is that they thought was important, and they've never really
>>talked much to people.
Well these people of whom I speak do talk to people (not talking to people
at all is very abnormal, isn't it?) but they don't become attached to them.
The word "reserved" is a good word for this type of behavior.
>What about the ones who have talked a lot to a lot of people? What
>about the ones who think that relationships and friendships are the
>most important things in life?
Gosh, I dunno, what about them? Maybe they are right. Those things would
probably be on most people's top-10 list of Life's Important Things,
right? Are you sure the number of people who think that great sex
is the most important thing wouldn't outnumber 'em? I wonder...
Gary
nancy.l.colucci
>na...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>A normal couple in love doesn't always consist of a man holding an
>>attractive woman in his arms.
>
>Attractive from the man's perspective or from a third person's?
From anyone other that the couple in love's perspective. Who
else matters??
-Nance
Ross Ridge
>A normal couple in love doesn't always consist of a man holding an
>attractive woman in his arms.
Ross Ridge <ro...@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Attractive from the man's perspective or from a third person's?
na...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>From anyone other that the couple in love's perspective. Who
>else matters??
I would've thought that the couple's perspective was the only one
that matters.
Snoopy
| can anyone suggest an aphrodisiac other than the 'big three' for those
| of us unable to enjoy the finer (i.e. dairy) things in life?
Well, pizza is the best, but Henry the K says power.
_____
/_____\ Snoopy
/_______\
|___| cse.ogi.edu!sopwith!snoopy
|___| {ares,illian,loop,parsely,qiclab,sequent,techbook}!sopwith!snoopy
schock
> >Didn't know that one needed a dark side to date. what kind of men do u know/
> >date????
WO-men
:-)
Craig
schock
> can anyone suggest an aphrodisiac other than the 'big three' for those
> of us unable to enjoy the finer (i.e. dairy) things in life?
> (and please don't mention those damn pills you see on tv. they aren't
> strong enough for me, and quantities don't seem to help.)
According to "The Way of Herbs" by M. Tierra, the following herbs are
aphrodisiacs:
Common Name Latin
----------- -----
damiana Turnera diffusa turneraceae
false unicorn Chamaelirium luteum liliaceae
ginseng Panax ginseng araliacea
angelica Angelica archangelica umbelliferae
astragalus Astragalus membranaceus leguminosae
kava kava Piper methysticum piperaceae
burdock Arctium lappa compositae
I've never used these herbs so I'm sure of their safety. I know that
prolonged usage of kava kava will cause a build up of liver-toxic
substances so if you are planning to use some, please make sure to
do some research on them. I've included their latin names so that
you are sure to be researching (and purchasing) the correct herbs.
Wouldn't want to make yourself sick. :-(
On the other hand... a nice dinner, some Grand Marnier or Bailey's,
some pleasant conversation or a back/body massage (giving or
receiving) always seem to do the trick for me :-)
> --hymie
Craig
Stef Jones
> can anyone suggest an aphrodisiac other than the 'big three' for those
> of us unable to enjoy the finer (i.e. dairy) things in life?
Oysters, raw eggs, and a copy of _Tampopo_.
--
Stef Do under others as you would have them do under you.
st...@apple.com --Bolloxed proverb hall of fame
Marianna Max
>hymo...@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
>> can anyone suggest an aphrodisiac other than the 'big three' for those
>> of us unable to enjoy the finer (i.e. dairy) things in life?
>
>Oysters, raw eggs, and a copy of _Tampopo_.
>
though myself)
Larry Margolis
> hymo...@whatever.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) writes:
> > can anyone suggest an aphrodisiac other than the 'big three' for those
> > of us unable to enjoy the finer (i.e. dairy) things in life?
>
> Oysters, raw eggs, and a copy of _Tampopo_.
This is a myth. I had a dozen raw oysters last night, and three of them
did *nothing*. :-)
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
John R. Morton
>>relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
>>my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
>>courage to approach women that I find attractive.
BE GLAD. This is a trait that frustrates you now, but will save you
later. Your instinct not to approach the physical attraction, is
a wonderfull nature provided safeguard, and will protect you !
You are one of the few... be glad, it will feel right someday,
and you shall be fulfilled !
Josh Diamond
Spidey!!! here...
Craig, I saw your post, and realized that you have a lot in common
with the Spidey!!! of three years ago:
cr...@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Craig Dewick) writes:
>I'm almost 24 years old, and I keep seeing my friends getting into serious
>relationships with the opposite sex but, possibly because of my upbringing and
>my responses to the way I've seen other people react, I cannot muster up the
>courage to approach women that I find attractive.
You cite your history (upbringing and previous failure?) as a reason
for your lack of confidence. Why should your history have any bearing
on your success in approaching a woman today? Remember that your
history is the past -- it only has bearing if you allow it to color
your perception of the present.
From the way you phrased your message I get the feeling that you are
using your history as an excuse for not making the things you want to
happen actually occur. It's not good or bad -- but just an excuse to
avoid taking a risk. You indicate that you are uncomfortable in
taking the risk of approaching women. Is it possible that the beliefs
you have about yourself are keeping you from what you want? Could
it be that you have become more comfortable in being alone than are
going out and chancing rejection? I think this is probable -- judging
from my own experience. Perhaps you should reexamine your beliefs
about yourself...
Your last sentence is interesting -- you say "I CANNOT muster up the
courage to approach women that I find attractive" (capitalization
added for emphasis). On the contrary -- I believe that you DO NOT
muster up the courage. The fact is that there is no invisible force
which sucks all the energy out of you body when you think about asking
a woman out on a date. Only your beliefs about yourself are holding
you back. When you DECIDE to muster up the courage, you WILL muster
that courage. When you DECIDE that you are confident in yourself, you
WILL show up as confident, and be more successful. And when you
DECIDE that you are attractive, and that women might want to go out
with you, they WILL.
You can...
Spidey!!!
--
/\ \ / /\ Josh Diamond j...@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!! ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\(( ))/\\
/ < `' > \ Beauty is the purgation of superfluities. -- Michelangelo
Dennis Preston
>that courage. When you DECIDE that you are confident in yourself, you
>WILL show up as confident, and be more successful. And when you
>DECIDE that you are attractive, and that women might want to go out
>with you, they WILL.
>
> You can...
(Also get screwed in Divorce Court)
Unfortunately, Women are also wonderful..when they can be understood! :)
Patrick D. Buick
>>date????
>
>--
>Kiran Wagle <ki...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
>P.O.Box 2083 Bloomington IN 47402-2083 (812) 335-0420
Hmm... this *must* be a requirement... us Nice Guys (tm) just don't
seem exciting enough or something... :-)
Patrick
--
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET | Internet: buick%be...@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc. | Internet: bui...@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada | UUCP:...!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
Jeffrey Watson
:
: Spidey!!! here...
:
: From the way you phrased your message I get the feeling that you are
: using your history as an excuse for not making the things you want to
: happen actually occur. It's not good or bad -- but just an excuse to
: avoid taking a risk. You indicate that you are uncomfortable in
: taking the risk of approaching women. Is it possible that the beliefs
: you have about yourself are keeping you from what you want? Could
: it be that you have become more comfortable in being alone than are
: going out and chancing rejection? I think this is probable -- judging
: from my own experience. Perhaps you should reexamine your beliefs
: about yourself...
One of the biggest fears I have is that I won't know what to say. What
I usually do is to compliment them on some feature that I found
particularly attractive--their smile or their eyes for instance. It
usually comes out all wrong, and I turn red and look at the ground a
lot. Luckily these women found it endearing and cute. Of course now
that I have found a secret weapon that works for me, I will probably be
overconfident the next time and get turned down cold. Oh well.
Jeff
Kiran Wagle
>>>Didn't know that one needed a dark side to date.
buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick) writes:
>Hmm... this *must* be a requirement... us Nice Guys (tm) just don't
>seem exciting enough or something... :-)
Well you could always cultivate a dark side. I'm working on it.
--
Kiran Wagle <ki...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> (812) 335-0420
Mark
>One of the biggest fears I have is that I won't know what to say. What
>I usually do is to compliment them on some feature that I found
>particularly attractive--their smile or their eyes for instance.
That's a nice miniskirt your have on. Terribly sexy and short. I have one
just like it at home (proceed to giggle, blush, and turn head away).
Aahzmandius
>>>>Didn't know that one needed a dark side to date.
>
>buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick) writes:
>>Hmm... this *must* be a requirement... us Nice Guys (tm) just don't
>>seem exciting enough or something... :-)
>
>Well you could always cultivate a dark side. I'm working on it.
Then there's always the dork side.
--
--- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
@netcom.com
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
So much Astroglide. So little time.
Aahzmandius
have you?
james.j.dutton
================================================================================
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. There ain't no more.
================================================================================
Josh Diamond
You really *haven't* been reading soc.singles for the past three years,
have you?
I don't see a smiley on this, so I'm going to treat it as serious...
My response was not based upon anything which I may (or may not) have
read here in soc.singles. It is, however, based upon my own
experience. The story I used to tell was very similar to Craig's.
Fortunately someone pointed out to me how ludicrous it was.
If your complaint is that the "I have trouble asking women out"
question is an FAQ here on soc.singles, that may be -- but in my book
anyone reaching out for help deserves to get some.
Since I posted that message about how I came to be here, and why I
just recently came back, I have been trying to keep up with the
proceedings. Unfortunately, the number of articles posted daily here
is awe-inspiring. I have to filter soc.singles quite a lot -- if I
read everything, I'd never get any work done. Some of us do have to
work for a living (unfortunately)...
On the other hand, if I'm way off base here, and Aahz's post is really
supposed to be a humorous comment, as opposed to serious criticism,
yeah, I hadn't realized how much I missed this mess...
Later...
Aahzmandius
>In article <1rfn0p...@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>
> You really *haven't* been reading soc.singles for the past three years,
> have you?
>
>I don't see a smiley on this, so I'm going to treat it as serious...
>
>My response was not based upon anything which I may (or may not) have
>read here in soc.singles. It is, however, based upon my own
>experience. The story I used to tell was very similar to Craig's.
>Fortunately someone pointed out to me how ludicrous it was.
>
>If your complaint is that the "I have trouble asking women out"
>question is an FAQ here on soc.singles, that may be -- but in my book
>anyone reaching out for help deserves to get some.
True enough. I was just somewhat amused because your post, particularly
the last few sentences, sounded almost like a pastiche of recently
posted articles.
Josh Diamond
In article <s#kn4#f.a...@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>In article <JMD.92Se...@lion.bear.com> j...@bear.com (Josh Diamond) writes:
>>In article <1rfn0p...@netcom.com> aa...@netcom.com (Aahzmandius) writes:
>>>You really *haven't* been reading soc.singles for the past three years,
>>>have you?
>>
>>read here in soc.singles. It is, however, based upon my own
>>experience. The story I used to tell was very similar to Craig's.
>>Fortunately someone pointed out to me how ludicrous it was.
>>
>>If your complaint is that the "I have trouble asking women out"
>>question is an FAQ here on soc.singles, that may be -- but in my book
>>anyone reaching out for help deserves to get some.
>
>True enough. I was just somewhat amused because your post, particularly
>the last few sentences, sounded almost like a pastiche of recently
>posted articles.
Isn't it interesting how the same advice gets posted over and over
again? About 4 years ago someone on the net gave me this same advice.
But at the time I didn't take it to heart -- I kept on going the way I
was, living my life with the same things holding me back. It took a
MAJOR interruption to get me to realize what I was doing.
Eventually, most people figger this out. Some do it sooner, others
take much longer. Fortunately, I found out sooner...
Patrick D. Buick
I've been working on it, too.. I guess it is time to turn over and
do the other side for a while :-)
Aaahh.. solar toaster... love 'dem UV rays...
Oh.. you mean personality... oops ... You mean I have to be a *bad*
dude companion etc... I have to quit being so nice all the time...
doesn't that take me out of trademark? [sigh....]
So... hints.. what seeds does one sew to cultivate a Dark Side (tm)?
(Yes I left myself open on that one... c'mon gimme your best shot(s)) :-)
Bill de Beaubien
: Oh.. you mean personality... oops ... You mean I have to be a *bad*
: dude companion etc... I have to quit being so nice all the time...
: doesn't that take me out of trademark? [sigh....]
I see... a bad goon a-rising...
--
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / w...@moscom.com
Patrick D. Buick
>In article <kiran.7...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ki...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
>>Someone unattributed at oregon.uoregon.edu writes:
>>>>>Didn't know that one needed a dark side to date.
>>
>>buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick) writes:
>>>Hmm... this *must* be a requirement... us Nice Guys (tm) just don't
>>>seem exciting enough or something... :-)
>>
>>Well you could always cultivate a dark side. I'm working on it.
>
>Then there's always the dork side.
>--
Been there, Done that, No Go. Not enough physical challenge.
matthew...@cup.portal.com
body type that turns women off?
Charles R. Martin
Okay, about what happens to all the men who has a
body type that turns women off?
They have to learn to make their verb agree in number with their
subjects.
Moderately serious, drop down to your local KMart some time -- watch
carefully, and think "were those people ever significantly more
attractive than they are today?"
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/mar...@cs.unc.edu/(ne c...@cs.duke.edu)
O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
nonsense?" _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.
Herb Huston
>body type that turns women off?
Great wealth, immense power, huge talent, or a magnetic personality have
been known to compensate.
-- Herb Huston
trygve lode
>body type that turns women off?
Fortunately, there is the tremendous advantage that women are individuals
with different tastes and a body type that would turn one woman off
completely will be another's ideal. Short, tall, thin, wide, muscular,
round, hairy, hairless, and any combination of the above all have their
detractors and their fans. (To give you an extreme example, hard to
believe as this might be, there are actually a surprising number of women
out there who seem to find my body shape appealing (6'4" approximately
pro-wrestler shape).)
Trygve (Poor grammar, on the other hand, seems to be a universal
turn-off.)
Dawn Hardin
>body type that turns women off?
They find a woman with a body type that turns men off.
Dawn
"Oh, Time! Of all the dwellers here below
You only elevate buffoons or fools,
Or him whose anus as an inkstand serves."
The Perfumed Garden of the Shaykh Nefzawl, translated by Sir Richard F. Burton
Edward V. Wright
>Moderately serious, drop down to your local KMart some time -- watch
>carefully, and think "were those people ever significantly more
>attractive than they are today?"
But, if you successfully unscramble his grammar, you'll see
that he didn't ask about "the people at the local KMart." You
may consider the average KMart shopper -- that is, the average
American -- to be quite inferior by your standards, but your
standards are not everybody's. Sure, not all of them are the
bronze gods/goddesses you'd find in Muscles and Fitness. Most
of them have some physical features that would be considered
unattractive. Some have more than others, but most of them also
have at least one or two characteristics that most people would
consider attractive. It's very rare to find a person with no
attractive physical characteristics.
Rare but not impossible. That is what I think the poster was
asking about. A person who has only one "attractive" feature
and a hundred "unattractive" features can still be considered
physically attractive if he finds a person who values that
one particular characteristic above all others. The person
who has no attractive physical features does not have that
chance.
Edward V. Wright
>Fortunately, there is the tremendous advantage that women are individuals
>with different tastes and a body type that would turn one woman off
>completely will be another's ideal. Short, tall, thin, wide, muscular,
>round, hairy, hairless, and any combination of the above all have their
>detractors and their fans.
That may be true, but it's also true that not all physical
features have fans in equal numbers. If the fans of a
certain combination are rare enough, it is possible that a
man could go his entire life without meeting one of them.
Let's say, hypothetically, that 90% of women favor "tall"
and 90% favor "hairy," while 10% favor "short" and 10 favor
"bald." The tall, hairy man is going to meet women who find
him attractive 81 times as often as the short, bald man.
It's also possible that a man will meet a few women in
his lifetime who find him physically attractive, but
that none of those women will have the characteristics
(physical or otherwise) he is looking for. This is not
likely to happen to our hypothetical tall, hairy guy, who
is attractive to 81% of all women, but it might happen to
our short, bald guy, who is only attractive to 1% of all
women.
So what, then, is our short, bald guy to do? He can try
to meet as many women as possible, hoping that he'll get
lucky before his time runs out. But while it's possible,
with some effort, to increase the number of women he meets,
it's probably not possible to increase the number 81-fold,
which means he's still at a disadvantage. Or he could give
up some of the things he believes are necessary in a mate
and settle for any of the 1% of all women who do find him
attractive. If he does that, he's liable to end up married,
but unhappily. Or he can find someone who has the characteristics
he's looking for but doesn't necessarily find him attractive.
In surveys, 6% of all women say that physical appearance does
not matter at all. So, by dating women who don't find him
physically attractive and don't care, as well as women who
do, our short, bald guy can increase his chances of finding
someone who has the characteristics he wants by a factor of
seven. (Yes, Trygve, I know you consider dating someone who
does not consider you physically attractive to be immoral,
but the mathematics shows that it's the best strategy he
can pursue.)
It's also possible that a certain physical appearance may
have its fans, but there may be more people with that
appearance than there are fans to go around. If 5% of all
men are green and wrinkled with pointed ears, and only 4%
of all women like green and wrinkled with pointed ears, then
1 out of every five green, wrinkled, pointy-eared men will
never find a woman who considers them physically attractive
and is available for a permanent relationship. This is true
no matter how many times you say, "Hogwash, I see plenty of
happily married green, wrinkled, pointy-eared men at KMart."
Charles R. Martin
In <MARTINC.92...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Moderately serious, drop down to your local KMart some time -- watch
>carefully, and think "were those people ever significantly more
>attractive than they are today?"
But, if you successfully unscramble his grammar, you'll see
that he didn't ask about "the people at the local KMart." You
may consider the average KMart shopper -- that is, the average
American -- to be quite inferior by your standards, but your
standards are not everybody's. Sure, not all of them are the
bronze gods/goddesses you'd find in Muscles and Fitness. Most
of them have some physical features that would be considered
unattractive.
So, interestingly enough, do most of the people in the muscle magazines.
Some have more than others, but most of them also
have at least one or two characteristics that most people would
consider attractive. It's very rare to find a person with no
attractive physical characteristics.
Rare but not impossible. That is what I think the poster was
asking about. A person who has only one "attractive" feature
and a hundred "unattractive" features can still be considered
physically attractive if he finds a person who values that
one particular characteristic above all others. The person
who has no attractive physical features does not have that
chance.
Ed -- ask Dawn for a description of her sweetie. As I followed it, his
physical appearance was a significant *dis*-advantage until she got to
know him and he stole her away from me. (*sigh*)
And in the mean time -- why is it that someone for whom physical
appearance is completely unimportant seems to be so obsessed by it?
Charles R. Martin
In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com> ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
In <MARTINC.92...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
But, if you successfully unscramble his grammar, you'll see
that he didn't ask about "the people at the local KMart." You
may consider the average KMart shopper -- that is, the average
American -- to be quite inferior by your standards, but your
standards are not everybody's. Sure, not all of them are the
bronze gods/goddesses you'd find in Muscles and Fitness. Most
of them have some physical features that would be considered
unattractive.
Just by the way, would one of my friends and acquaintances here at UNC
please post a description of my Greek-God-like physique, so we can
disabuse Ed of the notion once and for all that I expect that
"reasonably attractive" -- which I actually am -- equates with "perfect
physical specimen".
trygve lode
in <ewright....@convex.convex.com>] In <1992Sep20.2...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
] tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
]
] >Fortunately, there is the tremendous advantage that women are individuals
] >with different tastes and a body type that would turn one woman off
] >completely will be another's ideal. Short, tall, thin, wide, muscular,
] >round, hairy, hairless, and any combination of the above all have their
] >detractors and their fans.
]
] That may be true, but it's also true that not all physical
] features have fans in equal numbers. If the fans of a
] certain combination are rare enough, it is possible that a
] man could go his entire life without meeting one of them.
] Let's say, hypothetically, that 90% of women favor "tall"
] and 90% favor "hairy," while 10% favor "short" and 10 favor
] "bald." The tall, hairy man is going to meet women who find
] him attractive 81 times as often as the short, bald man.
don't work this way--it would probably be much more accurate to say
(using tall/short as an example) that 50% of women prefer tall men, 20%
prefer short men, and 30% don't care at all. Now, of the 70% that do
have a preference, maybe for 70% it's just a mild preference, something
that would help get their attention at first (though not required for
it) but would be hugely overshadowed by considerations like personality,
interests, preference for gouda over brie, etc. 25% might make it a
higher priority, but could still be convinced by other features (say, a
sense of humor or a positive outlook on life) that someone not meeting
their preference in this area is worth dating; and only the remaining 5%
would insist on this criterion or at least require a lot to make them
seriously consider anyone not meeting this specification.
Offhand, I'd guess that a substantial majority of men and women have few
(if any) fixed standards of physical appearance and what few fixed
standards they do have (e.g. shouldn't drool too much in public or be
able to kill nearby vegetation by removing shoes) tend to be of a nature
that fit the vast majority of humanity.
The upshot is that we don't live in a binary world like you describe
above--people's standards are not absolute, not immutable, and not
rigorously enforced.
] So what, then, is our short, bald guy to do? He can try
] to meet as many women as possible, hoping that he'll get
] lucky before his time runs out. But while it's possible,
] with some effort, to increase the number of women he meets,
] it's probably not possible to increase the number 81-fold,
] which means he's still at a disadvantage. Or he could give
] up some of the things he believes are necessary in a mate
] and settle for any of the 1% of all women who do find him
] attractive. If he does that, he's liable to end up married,
] but unhappily. Or he can find someone who has the characteristics
] he's looking for but doesn't necessarily find him attractive.
a tiny portion of what constitutes attractiveness that he should just
stop worrying about it and allow people to find him attractive anyway.
The people I know who seem to be the most attractive to MOTAS are
generally not the ones who are most conventionally physically
attractive--people who wouldn't be mistaken for a model at two hundred
paces who have no shortage of offers and no shortage of interest while
others around them who are much more conventionally physically
attractive are being practically ignored.
Maybe the tough thing about "physical attraction" is that it contains
the word "physical" which can be misleading, since one's personality,
energy, enthusiasm, attitude, expressions, behaviors, etc., add up to a
lot bigger part of physical attraction than mere phenotype does.
] In surveys, 6% of all women say that physical appearance does
] not matter at all. So, by dating women who don't find him
] physically attractive and don't care, as well as women who
] do, our short, bald guy can increase his chances of finding
] someone who has the characteristics he wants by a factor of
] seven. (Yes, Trygve, I know you consider dating someone who
] does not consider you physically attractive to be immoral,
] but the mathematics shows that it's the best strategy he
] can pursue.)
bears only the slightest resemblance to ours, it would be an effective
strategy. (Incidentally, even as far as valuing physical appearance
goes, it's not a binary decision--people attach varying degrees of
importance to it, and those levels of importance are likely to change
with time and situation as well.)
Also, it's probably worth pointing out that I don't consider it immoral
to date someone who doesn't find you attractive--rather, I've found that
it's much more fun for me to date someone who does find me attractive
and that, consequently, I'm not particularly inclined to date someone
who doesn't. I don't feel any guilt over this, since I seriously doubt
that I'm going to hurt anyone's feelings by not dating people who don't
find me attractive.
Trygve
Jeff Smith
> I am a little green, wrinkled, pointy-eared man.
OK. I seem to remember this exact argument. Ed, stop telling us how unattractive
you are! No matter how much a person does or does not look like a Greek god
fashion model type, the *one* thing that most affects whether a person in "real
life" is attractive or not is their bearing...how they carry themselves, act,
smile, etc. Walking around muttering about how ugly you perceive yourself to be
will make you about as unattractive as you can get. It's that old self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
As far as your argument about beautiful people meeting more MOTAS who are
attracted to them than non-beautiful people, you are probably right. No, life
is not fair. Deal with it! I really do not know what you want to hear...
jds
***************************************************************************
* Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith * Passion and poems and sex
sm...@fl08-g.comm.mot.com * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
* I won't shut my mouth for less.
- shriekback
***************************************************************************
Edward V. Wright
>Fortunately for people interested in romantic relationships, people
>don't work this way--it would probably be much more accurate to say
>(using tall/short as an example) that 50% of women prefer tall men,
I said it was a *hypothetical* example. That means I'm allowed
to use any numbers I want -- I'm not claimed them to be accurate.
>Now, of the 70% that do have a preference, maybe for 70% it's just
>a mild preference, something that would help get their attention at first
Ah, but don't you see, that's the problem? Getting someone's attention
is step one. It may not be the most hardest step, but it *is* the most
important step, because without it you can't get to steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6....
Personality, interests, preference for gouda over brie, etc. may overshadow
it, but unless you get the person's attention, and she agrees to spend at
least a little time with you, how is she ever going to find out about any
of those things? Can you remember the last five women who didn't get
your attention and tell me about their personality, interests, and
preference in cheese?
If we're talking about people you meet and see regularly at work,
school, church, and so on, such "mild preferences" are, indeed,
not very important. But for every person whom you do see on a
regular basis, there are probably a hundred people you bump into
at the supermarket, the shopping mall, the park, or the video store
and never see again -- unless you get their attention and convince
them to go out of their way to see you again. In these chance
encounters, even a mild preference for physical appearance is
often important because the other person has little else to go
on.
>The people I know who seem to be the most attractive to MOTAS are
>generally not the ones who are most conventionally physically
>attractive
This may be part of the reason why we've had so much trouble
understanding one another. "Attracting members of the opposite
sex based on physical appearance" is exactly what I mean when I say
"physically attractive." I don't mean "conventionally attractive."
I'm not even sure what that means. Where was this convention held? :-)
>Maybe the tough thing about "physical attraction" is that it contains
>the word "physical" which can be misleading, since one's personality,
>energy, enthusiasm, attitude, expressions, behaviors, etc., add up to a
>lot bigger part of physical attraction than mere phenotype does.
And that, I'm certain, is part of the problem. What you are
calling "physical attraction" is just what I called "attraction,"
in general. When I say "physical attraction," I mean only
attraction specifically to physical characteristics. If you
acknowledge that personality, energy, enthusiasm, attitude,
expressions, and behavior make up a larger part of attraction
in general than physical features do, why do you call this
"physical" attraction?
>Also, it's probably worth pointing out that I don't consider it immoral
>to date someone who doesn't find you attractive--rather, I've found that
>it's much more fun for me to date someone who does find me attractive
>and that, consequently, I'm not particularly inclined to date someone
>who doesn't. I don't feel any guilt over this, since I seriously doubt
>that I'm going to hurt anyone's feelings by not dating people who don't
>find me attractive.
This is true, if you use the more general definition of attraction.
If someone wasn't attracted to you in the broadest sense, she wouldn't
even want to date you, much less have hurt feelings if you turned her
down. However, if you mean that you can't hurt someone by turning
her down if she does find you physically attractive, in the narrow sense
(she does not like your looks), I do not believe that is true.
Edward V. Wright
>No matter how much a person does or does not look like a Greek god
>fashion model type, the *one* thing that most affects whether a person in "real
>life" is attractive or not is their bearing...how they carry themselves, act,
>smile, etc.
Jeff, so far as I know, you have never seen me, either in person, on
videotape, or even in a photograph. How the heck do you know anything
about my bearing, how I carry myself, act, or smile? None of my friends,
who have seen me, think I have any of these problems. What makes you so
all-fired sure that I do?
>Walking around muttering about how ugly you perceive yourself to be
>will make you about as unattractive as you can get.
When have you seen me walking anywhere, let alone muttering about
how ugly I perceive myself? I certainly don't recall muttering
any such thing. I have stated, as a matter of fact, that *other*
people perceive me as, well, not exactly ugly, but not physically
exciting, either -- kind of bland and uninteresting. But "how others
perceive me" does not equal "how I perceive myself."
>It's that old self-fulfilling prophecy thing.
It's the old, bigotted, "I knew one person who said this, but
his real problem was something else, so that must be true of
everyone who says this" thing.
>As far as your argument about beautiful people meeting more MOTAS who are
>attracted to them than non-beautiful people, you are probably right.
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
Um, what's that? It sounds like you're actually acknowledging
that there *are* non-beautiful people. If that's the case, why
do you find it so impossible to believe that I could be one of
them? Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
Andreas Tovornik
>Okay, about what happens to all the men who has a
>body type that turns women off?
There is always some woman who is interested in a man for his personality.
at that point, body type doesn't matter.
Same goes the other way. Would you be more interested in a woman who
is an incredible knockout with no personality or attitude, or would the
girl with an intelligence be more appealing to you even if she were
were not so physically attractive?
Physical attraction is important, but when that novelty wears off what
do you do if you have nothing to talk about?
Do you remember the song?
If you want to be happy for the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife.
The only danger is that she could end up ugly without a personality.
...Such a relationship wouldn't last anyway.
THE KEY WORD IS ATTITUDE.
Andy.
Charles R. Martin
Jeff, so far as I know, you have never seen me, either in person, on
videotape, or even in a photograph. How the heck do you know anything
about my bearing, how I carry myself, act, or smile?
Because you are quite eloquent enough to make it clear even over the net
that you're a whining, self-pitying twit.
Charles R. Martin
Um, what's that? It sounds like you're actually acknowledging
that there *are* non-beautiful people. If that's the case, why
do you find it so impossible to believe that I could be one of
them? Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
you bitching because you ain't gettin' any? It reads to me the second;
it also reads to me that you can't (for some reason) hear all these
people telling you that physical attractiveness ISN'T the only aspect of
attractiveness.
But that's ever so much easier than dealing with people not liking you
because you're obnoxious, isn't it?
Edward V. Wright
>Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
>you bitching because you ain't gettin' any? It reads to me the second;
If you bothered to read anything I wrote, instead of going into Instant
Automatic Attack Mode, you would know the answer to that. Once more,
for your benefit: I do not have, and have never had, any desire to be
physically "fit", handsome, attractive, pretty, macho, pumped up, built,
stacked, or otherwise "goodlooking." I would not trade my appearance
for yours even if it was possible. All I want is one woman who accepts
me for myself, not for what I look like. Is that clear enough for you?
>it also reads to me that you can't (for some reason) hear all these
>people telling you that physical attractiveness ISN'T the only aspect of
>attractiveness.
Excuse me? Let me set the record straight...
The first time I ever posted in this newsgroup, I asked a simple
question: how could I meet women who were not interested in physical
fitness. I got very few constructive suggestions, but a lot of personal
attacks and abuse from people who could not that a women who didn't
work out could have anything to offer.
The next time I posted was in response to someone who asked why
a woman would consider it insulting that a man dated her for her
physical appearance, even if he thought she had other desireable
characteristics. I said that what was insulting was the implication
that he would only date her *if* he thought that she was physically
attractice, and that I would not date a woman who would not be
interested in me regardless of my physical appearance.
For that I was immediately attacked by a gang of people who told
me that I was a liar and a hypocrit, that it was impossible for
anyone to be romantically interested in a person who he did find
*physically* attractive. One of the leaders of this gang was one
Charles R. Martin (Charlie) of Duke University. "Charlie" was particularly
eloquent in pointing out that it was inexcuseable for a person to
be unattractive, that *anyone* could become physically fit, that
people who chose not to be physically fit were inferior not only
physically, but morally, spiritually, and intellectually as well.
To prove the superiority of physically fit people, he wrote long,
long articles filled with quotes from the DUMB Book of Diet and
Fitness.
He denied that there existed *any* attractive characteristics
other than physical ones -- "Anything you have on the inside will
show on the outside as well."
Good ole' Charlie subjected me to a stream of personal abuse
because I dared to insist that being physically fit was not
an unmixed blessing and that there could be advantages to spending
one's time on more intellectual pursuits rather than exercising in
the gym. When I told the story of a good friend, who tried everything
including surgery to lose weight, almost died from that surgery, then
was driven almost to the point of suicide by people who condemned her
for her appearance, Charlie was one of the people who said that she
deserved it for not having the self-esteem and physically fit body
that comes from a proper exercise program.
And now Charlie says that *I* refuse to listen to people
telling me that there are more types of attractiveness than
physical attractiveness.
>Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/mar...@cs.unc.edu/(ne c...@cs.duke.edu)
^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Prize-winning blue-ribbon hypocrit.
james.j.dutton
>them? Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
>how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
>is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
>
off. Thanks.
nancy.l.colucci
>body type that turns women off?
With any luck they will meet a woman in the same gender-appropriate
predicament, let love be blind (if necessary) and live happily ever after.
-Nance
--
Nance Colucci *^*^*^*^*^* o__ *^*^*^*^* | Work that body!
att!ihlpk!colucci _.>/ | Stay fit for life.
(_) \(_)
jdav...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
In article <1992Sep23.1...@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
jj...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
> In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com> ewr...@convex.com
(Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
> >them? Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
> >how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
> >is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
> >
>
> Um, if anyone is not to busy, could you possibly blow my fricken head
> off. Thanks.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. James, you just started my day off with the best laugh I
have had in days, and I don't even usually start my day with this
newsfroup. (And is it just me; I cannot seem to make sense of what he
wrote, even after 10 tries at it)
--
************************************************************************
the Lost Cause jdav...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
(hardwaire guy extraordinaire) MACTech,NeXTtech; NeXTmail accepted
"Everything is relative."
************************************************************************
PS. Hey James, do Bell Labs still run their Comten front ends, or are they
history, along with the company? They used to be my account when I lived
there.
james.j.dutton
>Distribution: na
>
>In article <1992Sep23.1...@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
>jj...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>> In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com> ewr...@convex.com
>(Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>
>> >them? Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
>> >how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
>> >is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
>> >
>
>have had in days, and I don't even usually start my day with this
>newsfroup. (And is it just me; I cannot seem to make sense of what he
>wrote, even after 10 tries at it)
Can you say shooting rampage?
>PS. Hey James, do Bell Labs still run their Comten front ends, or are they
>history, along with the company? They used to be my account when I lived
>there.
Marianna Max
>In article <ewright....@convex.convex.com> ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
> Jeff, so far as I know, you have never seen me, either in person, on
> videotape, or even in a photograph. How the heck do you know anything
> about my bearing, how I carry myself, act, or smile?
>
>Because you are quite eloquent enough to make it clear even over the net
>that you're a whining, self-pitying twit.
>
you don't need to remind us further.
Max
Edward V. Wright
>>Because you are quite eloquent enough to make it clear even over the net
>>that you're a whining, self-pitying twit.
>Yes, that attitude is something that I'm sure none of us has yet forgotten,
>you don't need to remind us further.
>Max
Another prize hypocrit heard from. Max, old pal, you were
the woman who said "I can't become romantically involved with
a man if I don't find him physically attractive. I just can't!"
Remember those words? If that doesn't sound like whining, I
don't know what does. And now you say that anyone who believes
that some people are to bigotted to date anyone who isn't physically
handsome is a whining, self-pitying twerp.
Oh, but let's be fair. I wouldn't want to misstate your views,
the way you and Charlie love to misstate mine. You also said
that a man who was not physically attractive was not completely
worthless. You would let him be your "friend" and maybe even help
him apply for an NIH research grant so that he could do things like
cancer research that would benefit you. You just wouldn't do anything
yucky like going out to dinner with the guy or spending time with him
alone instead of with a group of people.
Oh, and remember all that whining and self-pitying about how
"inappropriate" it is for people to judge you on appearance
when you apply for a job or a research grant. Though, of course,
it's completely OK for you to judge people the same way....
Marianna Max
>
>>>Because you are quite eloquent enough to make it clear even over the net
>>>that you're a whining, self-pitying twit.
>
>>Yes, that attitude is something that I'm sure none of us has yet forgotten,
>>you don't need to remind us further.
>
>>Max
>
>Another prize hypocrit heard from. Max, old pal, you were
>the woman who said "I can't become romantically involved with
Whine and misstatement deleted ---
Well I guess it doesn't matter if we don't need the reminder, we're gonna
get it anyway aren't we?
Larry 'Purple' Hays
>In <1992Sep23.1...@news.acns.nwu.edu> dr...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marianna Max) writes:
>
>>>Because you are quite eloquent enough to make it clear even over the net
>>>that you're a whining, self-pitying twit.
>
>>Yes, that attitude is something that I'm sure none of us has yet forgotten,
>>you don't need to remind us further.
>
>>Max
>
Dude. Take a pill or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry 'Purple' Hays ha...@technet.nm.org
Better living through chemicals
Edward V. Wright
>Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
>you bitching because you ain't gettin' any?
Oh, yeah, and just what leads you to believe I'm not "getting any"
at the moment, Charlie? Just because your girlfriend dumped you,
that doesn't mean everyone's life is headed into that direction.
Perhaps she just got tired of having to watch you face the east
and read six verses from the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness five
times a day.
Dawn Hardin
> because I dared to insist that being physically fit was not
> an unmixed blessing and that there could be advantages to spending
> one's time on more intellectual pursuits rather than exercising in
> the gym. When I told the story of a good friend, who tried everything
> including surgery to lose weight, almost died from that surgery, then
> was driven almost to the point of suicide by people who condemned her
> for her appearance, Charlie was one of the people who said that she
> deserved it for not having the self-esteem and physically fit body
> that comes from a proper exercise program.
Funny, that's not how I remember it. You asked a question, you got some
answers, you insulted everybody who tried to answer you, you posted long
line-by-line rebuttals showing how everyone was completely wrong (no matter
what they said), and you always refused to listen to anything that anyone
said to you. So after a little bit of this, it became open season on
Edward V. Wright. You were some of the best flame bait that this group
has ever seen. We were telling Ed Wright jokes. (how many Ed Wright's does
it take to change a light bulb? ans: none, you moron, it's impossible to
really change light bulbs.) And in the midst of all this gleeful feces
throwing, Charlie said "you know, I think this guy has a real problem" and
started sharing (in a very open, kind, and for this forum a downright
*brave* way) stories about his therapy and how counseling might help you
with some of the problems that you sure seem to have. And you disappeared
rather abruptly, and we all sort of hoped that you'd taken Charlie's
advice to heart and gotten some counseling. But it looks like this was
a vain hope.
Well anyway, I guess it's open season on Ed again. I'm not writing this
with any hope that you'll read it and understand it, because you seem to
read with the sole purpose of finding fault. I guess this is more to
set the record straight for any new readers who missed your previous
excursions here. Sigh. If it's anything like last time, they'll figure
it all out soon enough.
Edward V. Wright
>Whine and misstatement deleted ---
Oh? What misstatement was that, Maxie Girl? Are you going to
deny saying that you'd never go out with a man you who you
didn't think was physically attractive? Or that you would
still be willing to be his friend?
Or are you just going to rely on your usual sleazy tactics
of insult, implication, and innuendo?
Come on, Maxie. Let's see how much of a liar you really are.
Stef Jones
>] Let's say, hypothetically, that 90% of women favor "tall"
>] and 90% favor "hairy," while 10% favor "short" and 10 favor
>] "bald." The tall, hairy man is going to meet women who find
>] him attractive 81 times as often as the short, bald man.
*groan* Oh no, statistics again!
If you're feeling inadequate or unlucky, just remember that the sperm
which produced you beat out 100,000 other sperm for the job. (a bit of
graffiti I saw once)
--
Stef "Excuse me. This life isn't working. I want to exchange it."
st...@apple.com "Have you tried plugging it in?"
Stef Jones
>If we're talking about people you meet and see regularly at work,
>school, church, and so on, such "mild preferences" are, indeed,
>not very important. But for every person whom you do see on a
>regular basis, there are probably a hundred people you bump into
>at the supermarket, the shopping mall, the park, or the video store
>and never see again -- unless you get their attention and convince
>them to go out of their way to see you again. In these chance
>encounters, even a mild preference for physical appearance is
>often important because the other person has little else to go
>on.
The problem with this is that it is an incorrect model of how meeting and
dating people works. First of all, most people do not date folks they bump
into at the shopping mall, because a lot of people would not date someone
they had just met out of the blue. Second, if someone were to consider
dating someone they had just met, physical appearance would probably be far
less important than charm. Hey, if a gorgeous guy came up to me at the
video store I would be not at all tempted to date him unless he showed that
he had the kind of personality I like. I would be more tempted to date a
guy who said the right things, regardless of his appearance.
Those of us who are not high on charm points need to spend more of our
energy getting to know the people we meet at work, school, church, and so on
-- since these are social milieus where people are more likely to get to
know and like you for who you really are, not your surface characteristics.
Or else you can take acting lessons.
>Attracting members of the opposite
>sex based on physical appearance" is exactly what I mean when I say
>"physically attractive." I don't mean "conventionally attractive."
Ah, so you are saying that people who attract more MOTAS are statistically
likely to attract more MOTAS.
--
Stef I may look calm, but beneath this cool exterior
st...@apple.com is a churning iceberg ready to explode.
--Mixed metaphor hall of fame
james.j.dutton
With a sense of humour that rib ticklin, who could resist.
I believe Eddies gettin some. Yeah right.
james.j.dutton
Eddie never got that spankin when he was five.
Now you see the result.
Edward V. Wright
>Funny, that's not how I remember it. You asked a question, you got some
>answers,
The question I asked the first time was, "How can I meet women
who are not interested in physical fitness." Soc.singles immediately
switched into instant attack mode. The "answers" I got were along
the lines of, "Why would anyone want to date somebody who doesn't
exercise. That's like wanting to date somebody who doesn't read.
Get a pump, dude." [That's pretty close to an exact quote.] I did
get a few genuinely helpful suggestions, mostly by email, which I
thanked people for. Those were the exceptions, however.
The second time, I didn't even *ask* a question. I answered
someone else's and was immediately attacked for giving him
an opinion that differed from the group's.
>you insulted everybody who tried to answer you,
I insulted people who insulted me first. When people say
that people who exercise are physically, morally, and intellectually
superior to those who don't, I say they're full of horseshit. If you
can't take it, don't dish it out.
>you posted long line-by-line rebuttals showing how everyone
>was completely wrong (no matter what they said),
People misquoted me, misquoted me again after I had corrected them,
and continued to misquote me. People made up things I had never
said out of whole cloth (such as the bit about my refusing to
date women who were overweight) and accused me of saying them also.
I posted long line-by-line rebuttals correcting the people who had
misquoted me and explaining what I actually said. Not that anyone
cared. Setting fire to strawman arguments seemed to be much more fun.
>and you always refused to listen to anything that anyone said to you.
People were telling me "facts" about myself that they could
not possibly know and that I knew were untrue. People told
me that I "must be spending all [my] time hanging out around
gyms and health clubs." Not "might be" or "could be" but "must
be." When I told them that was not true, they only repeated,
"you must be." Other people told me in exact detail how many
women I met, how often I asked a woman out, how I behaved on a date,
even what I looked like. No one *asked* me these things, they
*told* me. I was accused of being a homosexual, a bisexual,
and worse. Yes, I "refused to listen" to people who had never
met me telling me facts about myself that they could not possibly
know. I did my best to state honestly what the true facts were
in these matters, but because the facts differed from the speculation,
you folks called me liar, said that I was "argumentative", and
told me I need therapy.
>So after a little bit of this, it became open season on Edward V. Wright.
Bull crap. I was under attack from the first response to the
first article I ever posted.
>And in the midst of all this gleeful feces
>throwing, Charlie said "you know, I think this guy has a real problem"
Charlie had been throwing feces right along.
>And you disappeared rather abruptly,
I "disappeared rather abruptly" because I was *kicked out* of soc.singles
by a group of net.censors who said anyone who didn't agree that
physical appearance was a necessary part of a romantic relationship
was not welcome here. A group that included the "helpful" Mr. Charlie
Martin. At the time, I decided it wasn't worth fighting anymore, so
I stopped posting. After explaining exactly what my reasons were.
>and we all sort of hoped that you'd taken Charlie's advice to heart
>and gotten some counseling. But it looks like this was a vain hope.
Thanks for telling me once again what I have and haven't done with
my life. For your information, I have spoken to two different counselors
specializing in romantic relationships. I did this long before Charlie's
"helpful" suggestion. Both gave me exactly the same advice: That I didn't
really need counselling, that there was nothing really wrong with me,
and all I needed to do was find some way to meet women who were less
interested in physical appearance. Of course, while they might be
authorities in their field, neither one of these counselors can quote
chapter and verse from the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness the way Charlie
can. And they had the disadvantage of actually having spoken to me,
met me, and listened to my answers to their questions instead of
making up things about me.
>Well anyway, I guess it's open season on Ed again.
Surprise, surprise.
>I'm not writing this with any hope that you'll read it and understand it,
No, you're writing because you can't resist another opportunity to
throw feces at me. Tell me, what part of your work of fiction did
I not understand?
Well, take your best cheap shot, Dawn. I'm prepared to stay and
fight you this time.
Brad Wallet
|> > ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
|>
|> >] Let's say, hypothetically, that 90% of women favor "tall"
|> >] and 90% favor "hairy," while 10% favor "short" and 10 favor
|> >] "bald." The tall, hairy man is going to meet women who find
|> >] him attractive 81 times as often as the short, bald man.
|>
|> *groan* Oh no, statistics again!
|>
|> If you're feeling inadequate or unlucky, just remember that the sperm
|> which produced you beat out 100,000 other sperm for the job. (a bit of
|> graffiti I saw once)
If this is true, i would hate to see the results of some of the sperm
that failed to produce some people i know.
Brad
trygve lode
] tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
]
] >Fortunately for people interested in romantic relationships, people
] >don't work this way--it would probably be much more accurate to say
] >(using tall/short as an example) that 50% of women prefer tall men,
]
] I said it was a *hypothetical* example. That means I'm allowed
] to use any numbers I want -- I'm not claimed them to be accurate.
that they were simply made up--but the assumption implicit in (and
necessary to) your example that humans (or even a particularly large
percentage thereof) are essentially binary creatures who have a rigidly
defined preference for any given physical characteristic and who would
be unwilling to date anyone who doesn't match their preference. Humans
just aren't like that.
] >Now, of the 70% that do have a preference, maybe for 70% it's just
] >a mild preference, something that would help get their attention at first
]
] Ah, but don't you see, that's the problem? Getting someone's attention
] is step one. It may not be the most hardest step, but it *is* the most
] important step, because without it you can't get to steps 2, 3, 4, 5, 6....
] Personality, interests, preference for gouda over brie, etc. may overshadow
] it, but unless you get the person's attention, and she agrees to spend at
] least a little time with you, how is she ever going to find out about any
] of those things?
tall happens to get a particular person's attention and you're not tall,
you'd just have to rely on getting that person's attention some other
way. For example, you could be witty or silly or dance well or wear
distinctive clothing; if you want to be really effective in getting
someone's attention, you might even try such radical things as making
eye contact, approaching the object of your interest and striking up a
conversation, flirting shamelessly, or paying attention to what he or
she says when talking to you.
] If we're talking about people you meet and see regularly at work,
] school, church, and so on, such "mild preferences" are, indeed,
] not very important. But for every person whom you do see on a
] regular basis, there are probably a hundred people you bump into
] at the supermarket, the shopping mall, the park, or the video store
] and never see again -- unless you get their attention and convince
] them to go out of their way to see you again. In these chance
] encounters, even a mild preference for physical appearance is
] often important because the other person has little else to go
] on.
who are attractive and the ones I remember are the ones that started a
conversation with me.
] >The people I know who seem to be the most attractive to MOTAS are
] >generally not the ones who are most conventionally physically
] >attractive
]
] This may be part of the reason why we've had so much trouble
] understanding one another. "Attracting members of the opposite
] sex based on physical appearance" is exactly what I mean when I say
] "physically attractive." I don't mean "conventionally attractive."
] I'm not even sure what that means. Where was this convention held? :-)
standards of physical beauty set out by our culture and mass media.
(Oh, I've been holding the conventions in my hot tub lately--didn't you
know? It's a long and hard judging process, but somebody's got to do
it.)
I think part of the difficulty in discussing the whole physical
attraction thing is that the human body is just the canvas on which
emotions, attitudes, expressions, etc., are painted. For a face to be
attractive, a smile counts a lot more than the shape and size of the
nose, for example; for a body, posture and attitude can count a lot more
than mere shape. Throw in energy, interaction, and behavior and what
adds up to "physical attraction" is vastly more than the configuration
of one's physical body.
] >Maybe the tough thing about "physical attraction" is that it contains
] >the word "physical" which can be misleading, since one's personality,
] >energy, enthusiasm, attitude, expressions, behaviors, etc., add up to a
] >lot bigger part of physical attraction than mere phenotype does.
]
] And that, I'm certain, is part of the problem. What you are
] calling "physical attraction" is just what I called "attraction,"
] in general. When I say "physical attraction," I mean only
] attraction specifically to physical characteristics. If you
] acknowledge that personality, energy, enthusiasm, attitude,
] expressions, and behavior make up a larger part of attraction
] in general than physical features do, why do you call this
] "physical" attraction?
for me perceptually--I perceive these as a gestalt and it requires
conscious effort to separate into purely physical and not purely
physical categories. By contrast, there are forms of attraction that
don't fall into this category and are perceived as a different sort of
thing--for example, the attraction I would feel for someone who is
extremely good at a creative endeavor, expresses a particular logical
point incredibly well, or Stef's .sigs. As a general rule, "physical
attraction" tends to require proximity (or, at an absolute minimum,
visual contact) while non-physical attraction doesn't.
Further, it can be difficult to separate these perceptions I lump into
"physical attraction" even with effort--indeed, it would be more likely
that I would find, say, the physical conformation of someone's face
especially attractive, not because of its innate configuration, but
because I've come to associate it with someone I'm very much attracted
to. Considering that my own (and, to my understanding, most other
people's) perceptions of what physical characteristics are attractive
change as they spend time with people they are attracted to, it would
seem that most people perceive things in this respect the way that I do.
] >Also, it's probably worth pointing out that I don't consider it immoral
] >to date someone who doesn't find you attractive--rather, I've found that
] >it's much more fun for me to date someone who does find me attractive
] >and that, consequently, I'm not particularly inclined to date someone
] >who doesn't. I don't feel any guilt over this, since I seriously doubt
] >that I'm going to hurt anyone's feelings by not dating people who don't
] >find me attractive.
]
] This is true, if you use the more general definition of attraction.
] If someone wasn't attracted to you in the broadest sense, she wouldn't
] even want to date you, much less have hurt feelings if you turned her
] down. However, if you mean that you can't hurt someone by turning
] her down if she does find you physically attractive, in the narrow sense
] (she does not like your looks), I do not believe that is true.
the elements of physical attraction into purely physical and not purely
physical categories, since I know of no way to eliminate the effect of
associations, attitudes, etc., from the perception of the purely
physical. The odds are very small (personally, I'd guess real close to
zero) that someone who doesn't like my looks would find me attractive.
Trygve
Fred Walter
>intellectually superior to those who don't, I say they're full of horseshit.
But at least I'm full of physically (because I exercise) and morally and
intellectually (I would be whether or not I exercised:-) superiour horseshit:-)
>People misquoted me, misquoted me again after I had corrected them,
>I posted long line-by-line rebuttals correcting the people who had
>misquoted me and explaining what I actually said.
I've seen some of your responses to other peoples posts, and the general
feeling that your responses leaves is that you have a reading/comprehension
problem.
>I "disappeared rather abruptly" because I was *kicked out* of soc.singles
You had your account yanked ? Wow, that's one way free up some some time
to go to the gym with.
>For your information, I have spoken to two different counselors specializing
>in romantic relationships. Both gave me exactly the same advice: That I didn't
>really need counselling, that there was nothing really wrong with me,
>and all I needed to do was find some way to meet women who were less
>interested in physical appearance.
They never suggested that improving your physical appearance was an option ?
>I'm prepared to stay and fight [people-in-general] this time.
In another post you got upset that someone implied that you weren't
getting any. But if you have the time to 'fight' Dawn, Max, Charles, Aahz,
etc., etc., etc. -> when do you have time to have sex ?
fred
--
Disclaimer: everything I write is my *personal* opinion and does not represent
or reflect the opinion of the company which employs me.
Edward V. Wright
>Oh, indeed, getting someone's attention is very important--and if being
>tall happens to get a particular person's attention and you're not tall,
>you'd just have to rely on getting that person's attention some other
>way. For example, you could be witty or silly or dance well or wear
>distinctive clothing;
I'm not sure we mean the same thing by "getting a person's attention."
I generally have to get someone's attention *before* I dance with her.
>if you want to be really effective in getting
>someone's attention, you might even try such radical things as making
>eye contact, approaching the object of your interest and striking up a
>conversation, flirting shamelessly, or paying attention to what he or
>she says when talking to you.
Yes, now I'm sure we don't mean the same thing. By "getting a person's
attention," I don't mean just "getting her to notice you exist," I mean
"getting her to notice you as possible dating material." The things you
suggest may guarantee the first, but not the second.
>Weeell, by conventionally attractive, I mean someone meeting the
>standards of physical beauty set out by our culture and mass media.
Very few people actually *meet* the standards set by our culture
and mass media. But most people are at least trying to. Health
clubs would be a lot less popular if people were as happy to look
like Hercules Hare as Arnold Schwarzenneger. Very few people look
enough like Arnold to be mistaken for him in a dark alley, but a lot
of people look enough like him to benefit from the image. In the
same way, I hear women say things like, "Look at those buns. Don't
they remind you of Kevin Costner?"
It also seems that the range of forms that Hollywood projects as
being attractive gets narrower every year, especially when it comes
to women. In movies and TV shows from the 50's and earlier, the women
generally don't even enjoy watching sports, let alone participating
in them. Today, the women are pumped up almost as much as the men.
>I suppose I make this particular distinction because that's how it works
>for me perceptually--I perceive these as a gestalt and it requires
>conscious effort to separate into purely physical and not purely
>physical categories.
Well, when I hear women discussing "hot men" and talking about
broad shoulders, massive hairy chests, large forearms, rippling
thigh and calf muscles, "tight buns," etc., or men talking about
women in similar terms, it's pretty clear to me that that is "purely
physical attraction." Not to mention that perrenial favorite topic
of discussion among women (and even some men) -- "does size count?"
I can't really believe that attitude, energy, or any of the other
things you mentioned enter into such discussions.
>Further, it can be difficult to separate these perceptions I lump into
>"physical attraction" even with effort--indeed, it would be more likely
>that I would find, say, the physical conformation of someone's face
>especially attractive, not because of its innate configuration, but
>because I've come to associate it with someone I'm very much attracted
>to.
How, then, can you say you wouldn't go out with someone you weren't
phyisically attracted to? How can you form such associations until
you've actually met the person a few times and spent time together?
>The odds are very small (personally, I'd guess real close to
>zero) that someone who doesn't like my looks would find me attractive.
Why is that? Roughly 6% of American women do say that looks
do not matter to them at all. 6% is not even close to zero.
Unless you think you have nothing to offer a woman besides
your looks, why should this be true?
Fred Walter
>jj...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) writes:
>>ewr...@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>> >Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
>> >how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
>> >is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
>
>wrote, even after 10 tries at it
He's complaining that people are calling him a liar because he's concluded
that he's ugly because all his friends told him that he's ugly.
If you go back to the original post that he was responding to, you'll see that
he didn't understand what he was responding to (which might explain why
his response is hard to understand).
Edward V. Wright
>That's "wife", twit. Friday's my ersatz 10th anniversary, I'm just a
>little sensitive about it right now.
Let me get this straight. You said that one of my best friends
deserved to *die* because she did not follow the DUMB Book of Diet
and Fitness, and now you expect me to shed tears because your wife
left you? Get real, buddy.
>Ed, just clue me in on one thing: why is it that you can so readily see
>the mote in another's eye, and not the beam in thine own?
You're the one whining about not having a girl, pal. We know
how whiners are treated in this group, don't we?
Edward V. Wright
>Sure. But try it operationally: I'm not Clark Gable. I'm not noticably
>fit. (I'm *bigger* than you are, but I'm pretty sedentary no matter how
>much I try.)
"Noticeably fit" is a pretty nebulous term: it all depends on who's
doing the noticing. My operational definition of "physically fit"
is "fit enough that women find you physically attractive." Does this
definition fit you? From what you've said, yes. Other than that, I
can't say; I don't have your special ability to tell exactly what people
look like just by reading your words over the net.
I do suspect there's some degree of false modesty here, though. You
are forever banging the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness at people. If
you spend half as much time doing it as reading it, you should certainly
be "noticeably fit." Either that or just have one of those body's that's
decided it's going to be what it wants to be and not pay any attention to
exercise, but you don't believe those types of bodies exist, do you Charlie?
I wonder if you're not like a lot of people I know, who say that they're
not really fit or athletic, even though they run five miles a day and
work out for an hour in the gym, because they aren't as successful as
some other athletes they see.
Just because you aren't at the highest level doesn't mean you aren't
physically fit and doesn't mean everyone else is in the same boat you
are. It's a big ocean, and everyone's got his own boat in it.
As for me, well, I ain't even trying, so comparisons between you and
me are pretty silly.
Charles R. Martin
In <MARTINC.92...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
>you bitching because you ain't gettin' any? It reads to me the second;
If you bothered to read anything I wrote, instead of going into Instant
Automatic Attack Mode,
I wouldn't have nearly as much harmless amusement.
you would know the answer to that. Once more,
for your benefit: I do not have, and have never had, any desire to be
physically "fit", handsome, attractive, pretty, macho, pumped up, built,
stacked, or otherwise "goodlooking." I would not trade my appearance
for yours even if it was possible. All I want is one woman who accepts
me for myself, not for what I look like. Is that clear enough for you?
Sure. But try it operationally: I'm not Clark Gable. I'm not noticably
fit. (I'm *bigger* than you are, but I'm pretty sedentary no matter how
much I try.)
I *don't* think your problem is that you can't find anyone who doesn't
care how you *look*, Ed.
Charles R. Martin
I "disappeared rather abruptly" because I was *kicked out* of soc.singles
by a group of net.censors who said anyone who didn't agree that
physical appearance was a necessary part of a romantic relationship
was not welcome here. A group that included the "helpful" Mr. Charlie
Martin. At the time, I decided it wasn't worth fighting anymore, so
I stopped posting. After explaining exactly what my reasons were.
Would that it were true. If it worked once, it might work again.
Would someone please quote him the joke about psychiatrists changing
lightbulbs? I haven't the heart.
Charles R. Martin
In <MARTINC.92...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
>you bitching because you ain't gettin' any?
Oh, yeah, and just what leads you to believe I'm not "getting any"
at the moment, Charlie?
Your mood.
Just because your girlfriend dumped you,
That's "wife", twit. Friday's my ersatz 10th anniversary, I'm just a
little sensitive about it right now.
Perhaps she just got tired of having to watch you face the east
and read six verses from the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness five
times a day.
Ed, just clue me in on one thing: why is it that you can so readily see
the mote in another's eye, and not the beam in thine own?
rON.
>Bull crap. I was under attack from the first response to the
>first article I ever posted.
Probably, but if you post a flat declaritive statement, in a forum with
over 100,000 readers, you had >damn< well better expect that you're going
to get a few people that disagree with you. Especially if you post a
point of view that many people find outrageously silly.
>I "disappeared rather abruptly" because I was *kicked out* of soc.singles
>by a group of net.censors who said anyone who didn't agree that
>physical appearance was a necessary part of a romantic relationship
Who kicked you out? Your sys-admin? Did you site stop carrying the group?
Its blatently wrong statements like this that have earned you your
reputation, Edward. There are _NO_ mechanisms for "kicking out" a
single person from a USENET newsgroup. That action >can< be taken by a
systems administrator, or the like, but the people in the group have
no authority whatsoever to kick somebody out.
If you meant that you were 'run out of the group', then you weren't "kicked
out". You left, of your own volition, and by your own choice.
>Both gave me exactly the same advice: That I didn't
>really need counselling, that there was nothing really wrong with me,
>and all I needed to do was find some way to meet women who were less
>interested in physical appearance.
Right, exactly what a number of people around here told you as well, but
you sure as hell didn't listen to them either, did you?
If they haven't then listen here and now, Edward:
The world contains well over 5 >billion< people in it, not even including
yourself. You may very well have a body type/appearance that a very large
majority of people find even downright revolting- I don't know, I've never
seen you in person (not so far as I know, anyways). But that fact _does not_
mean that >everybody<, _including_ 'everybody' in the group of people that
>you< would consider attractive (not necessarily physically), will, or does,
find you unattractive. What you need to do is to find your 'special someone(s)'
who either a) find your particular body type/appearance attractive or
b) don't care about physical appearance.
But, Edward, one thing you do have to do is try. If you don't want to try and
improve your lot with those masses who do find physical appearance important,
then try and improve yourself in other ways. Make yourself a better person,
for example. How? I don't know, its a personal thing that only >you< can
answer. If you don't want to do that, then make an effort to meet as many
people as possible. Improve your chances for finding a mate that way. If
you don't want to do anything, and want to sit about in front of your
computer hoping that your 'special someone(s)' will bound through the
door and take you away, then thats cool too, but you've only yourself,
not Charlie, not Dawn, not myself, only yourself to blame, or take the
credit for when it works or doesn't ever work.
Until then, have the grace to recognize that a large majority of people >do<
consider physical appearances to be important, and that they >do< have a
lot of evidence, scientific-wise, to back them up.
Just saying the world is flat doesn't necessarily make it so.
good luck.
r.
Jeff Smith
|> In <1992Sep22.1...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> sm...@comm.mot.com (Jeff Smith) writes:
|>
|> >No matter how much a person does or does not look like a Greek god
|> >fashion model type, the *one* thing that most affects whether a person in "real
|> >life" is attractive or not is their bearing...how they carry themselves, act,
|> >smile, etc.
|> Jeff, so far as I know, you have never seen me, either in person, on
|> videotape, or even in a photograph. How the heck do you know anything
|> who have seen me, think I have any of these problems. What makes you so
|> all-fired sure that I do?
|>
Because every goddamned post with your name on it is the net equivalent
of these actions. Reread what I wrote. I never explicitly stated that you
do these things. I said IF you do, then you should stop, becaues it will doom
you. The very nature of your posts, however, makes me think that my implications
were justified.
|>
|> >Walking around muttering about how ugly you perceive yourself to be
|> >will make you about as unattractive as you can get.
|>
|> When have you seen me walking anywhere, let alone muttering about
|> how ugly I perceive myself? I certainly don't recall muttering
|> any such thing. I have stated, as a matter of fact, that *other*
|> people perceive me as, well, not exactly ugly, but not physically
|> exciting, either -- kind of bland and uninteresting. But "how others
|> perceive me" does not equal "how I perceive myself."
You continously rave about how ugly others perceive you. You have never
once, to my knowledge, made any statements about anything which you think
makes you attractive.
|>
|> >As far as your argument about beautiful people meeting more MOTAS who are
|> >attracted to them than non-beautiful people, you are probably right.
|> ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
|>
|> Um, what's that? It sounds like you're actually acknowledging
|> that there *are* non-beautiful people. If that's the case, why
|> do you find it so impossible to believe that I could be one of
|> them? Why is it impossible for someone to objectively evaluate
|> how other people feel about his appearance and conclude that he
|> is "non-beautiful" without being called a liar?
Excuse me? Didn't you just get all hot and bothered because I said
I thought that you perceived yourself to be ugly? And now you call
yourself "non-beautiful". Ed, if you want to be an asshole, knock yourself
out. But at least be consistent about it. Don't waste my time arguing yourself
into a corner.
To summarize, my original post to you could easily have been expressed in three
words, but in the interest of politeness and a burning love for my fellow man
(*choke*) I chose to expand on it a little. Apparently, it was a waste of time.
What I meant was GET A LIFE.
jds
***************************************************************************
* Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith * Passion and poems and sex
sm...@fl08-g.comm.mot.com * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
* I won't shut my mouth for less.
- shriekback
***************************************************************************
|>
Jeff Smith
persecuted him, and is generally considered the anti-Christ.
OK.
Given that Mr. Martin (as an example...we both know there were MANY
more) has in the past written less than complimentary things about
you, let us ask ourselves why. Why would he do such a terrible thing.
Maybe he is simply not of sound moral character! But then...hmmm...no one
else seems to have this problem with him. Wh***************************************************************************
* Health and knowledge and wealth and power,
Jeff Smith * Passion and poems and sex
sm...@fl08-g.comm.mot.com * I wear a smile like a leather glove,
* I won't shut my mouth for less.
- shriekback
***************************************************************************
y doesn't he, or most of these
other people, constantly flame the hell out of everyone else? I've got it!
It's a plot! They're all ganging up on you Eddie! RUNFORYOURLIFE...
...unbelievable...
jds
Jeff Smith
|>
|> >Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
|> >you bitching because you ain't gettin' any?
|>
|> Oh, yeah, and just what leads you to believe I'm not "getting any"
|> at the moment, Charlie?
Because he believes in a just God? Hey, it's a guess...
jds
Andreas Tovornik
>In <MARTINC.92...@grover.cs.unc.edu> mar...@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>>Depends: are you really complaining about being "non-beautiful" or are
>
>If you bothered to read anything I wrote, instead of going into Instant
>for your benefit: I do not have, and have never had, any desire to be
>physically "fit", handsome, attractive, pretty, macho, pumped up, built,
>stacked, or otherwise "goodlooking." I would not trade my appearance
>for yours even if it was possible. All I want is one woman who accepts
>me for myself, not for what I look like. Is that clear enough for you?
>
>>people telling you that physical attractiveness ISN'T the only aspect of
>>attractiveness.
>
>Excuse me? Let me set the record straight...
>
>The first time I ever posted in this newsgroup, I asked a simple
>question: how could I meet women who were not interested in physical
>fitness. I got very few constructive suggestions, but a lot of personal
>attacks and abuse from people who could not that a women who didn't
>work out could have anything to offer.
>
>The next time I posted was in response to someone who asked why
>a woman would consider it insulting that a man dated her for her
>physical appearance, even if he thought she had other desireable
>characteristics. I said that what was insulting was the implication
>that he would only date her *if* he thought that she was physically
>attractice, and that I would not date a woman who would not be
>interested in me regardless of my physical appearance.
>
>For that I was immediately attacked by a gang of people who told
>me that I was a liar and a hypocrit, that it was impossible for
>anyone to be romantically interested in a person who he did find
>*physically* attractive. One of the leaders of this gang was one
>Charles R. Martin (Charlie) of Duke University. "Charlie" was particularly
>eloquent in pointing out that it was inexcuseable for a person to
>be unattractive, that *anyone* could become physically fit, that
>people who chose not to be physically fit were inferior not only
>physically, but morally, spiritually, and intellectually as well.
>To prove the superiority of physically fit people, he wrote long,
>long articles filled with quotes from the DUMB Book of Diet and
>Fitness.
>
>He denied that there existed *any* attractive characteristics
>other than physical ones -- "Anything you have on the inside will
>show on the outside as well."
>
>Good ole' Charlie subjected me to a stream of personal abuse
>because I dared to insist that being physically fit was not
>an unmixed blessing and that there could be advantages to spending
>one's time on more intellectual pursuits rather than exercising in
>the gym. When I told the story of a good friend, who tried everything
>including surgery to lose weight, almost died from that surgery, then
>was driven almost to the point of suicide by people who condemned her
>for her appearance, Charlie was one of the people who said that she
>deserved it for not having the self-esteem and physically fit body
>that comes from a proper exercise program.
>
>telling me that there are more types of attractiveness than
>physical attractiveness.
>
>>Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/mar...@cs.unc.edu/(ne c...@cs.duke.edu)
> ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>Prize-winning blue-ribbon hypocrit.
>
>
HEY PAL, STOP YOUR WHINING AND GET LAID.
IF YOU CAN'T, THEN WANK OFF :-\
What I wrote about attitude looks to be true, Yours sucks, Old Bean!!
Andy.
Andreas Tovornik
>In article <66...@cup.portal.com> matthew...@cup.portal.com writes:
>>Okay, about what happens to all the men who has a
>>body type that turns women off?
>
>With any luck they will meet a woman in the same gender-appropriate
>predicament, let love be blind (if necessary) and live happily ever after.
>
>-Nance
>--
>Nance Colucci *^*^*^*^*^* o__ *^*^*^*^* | Work that body!
>att!ihlpk!colucci _.>/ | Stay fit for life.
> (_) \(_)
My grandmother from Yoguslavia put it this way, and I'm not being sexist:
ALL COWS ARE BLACK AT NIGHT.
Nor am I being racist...Blame her, she's dead.
Andy.
Andreas Tovornik
>Oh, yeah, and just what leads you to believe I'm not "getting any"
>at the moment, Charlie? Just because your girlfriend dumped you,
>that doesn't mean everyone's life is headed into that direction.
>Perhaps she just got tired of having to watch you face the east
>and read six verses from the DUMB Book of Diet and Fitness five
>times a day.
Can you say ," WHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE ?
Andy.
Andreas Tovornik
Best answer I've yet seen to the FAMOUS SAGA OF Mr. WRIGHT. If the man
didn't have SHIT FOR BRAINS, he would take a bit of constructive critisism (sic).
I've only been into this addictive screen thing for a bit more than a week
and find it most entertaining. It's true that ED has some kind of honest
problem that requires IMMEDIATE attention.
I believe he's the type of guy who is so misunderstood that he'll end
up like the famous Montreal Hero, Marc Lepine. Looks like he's one of those
frustrated NICE GUYS who was told "NO" only too often. The only way to
explain his emotional imbalance is that likely he was abused as a child,
and so his sorry state can never be seen as his own fault.
To try and insult people who try to help you is nothing but a cry for
help. Wake up, ED, there's a long road to recovery ahead. It's not your
fault that you react the way you do. The shit was dumped on you a long
time ago. Just don't dive into the deep end and go shooting women for
your relief. We don't need insults and murder, life can get insulting
all by itself without us helping it along.
I see ED as an extremely nervous, agitated, introverted person whose
only contacts with real people comprise this box in front of me. DON'T
go away,MAN.
This net thing is definitely a good thing for shy people, and if we all
show a bit of compassion, well maybe, just maybe, we can contribute to
the reduction of the number of serious crimes against innocent individuals.
If you get yours by raping women (and it looks like the only way for you,ED),
it must stop now! If you don't reply in public to this posting, I most
seriously implore you to E-Mail me at your nearest convenience to discuss
these issues.
It's true that the netters out there may treat this thing as a BIG JOKE,
-and I did too- but DAWN sparked something about my adolescent years that
really struck a chord. If you find my language a bit crass and unfeeling
at times,it's because I'm expressing my indignation to what society has
done to you, and tried to do to me. I meant no insult by that "SHIT FOR
BRAINS" remark. It's about time you learned how to learn to laugh at your-
self...BRING ON THE FLAMES...
Andy.
P.S. I am proud to no longer be a NICE GUY[Tm] who was pushed too far.
NICE GUYS[Tm] are better people when they stop whining and expecting
too much.