Why can't guys take no for an answer?
GERSZ,CAROLYN,M
just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
her. Go on to the next. If she is interested then she will respond,
but it is in her hands. Men just remember it is better to just accept
a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
as an obnoxious jerk!
Etherman
> I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
> just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
> strong.
Simple, if they ask enough you'll give in (at least that's their hope).
I've seen it work too.
> My friends and I always try to apologize
What are you apologizing for?
Etherman
Ilya
|I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
|just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
|but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
|games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
|you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
|women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
|her.
I see. Thank you for sharing your infinite wisdom with the rest of the
world. A few legitimate questions arise: Why should guys take the
intiative 100 percent of the time? Why should we humiliate ourselves and
boost women's egos? Why, why, why? I concede, "no" means "no". This hardly
tells me anything I did not already know.
Go on to the next.
No, thank you for the offer. Why should *we* jump through societal hoops
to please your (now, that plural, not singular) obnoxious egos? What do
*you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
should we play the dating game on your terms?
|If she is interested then she will respond,
I see. Thank you for clarifying this. Let me put it this way: If *I* am
interested, *I* will let her know that I am *available*, assuming that she
has something to offer me unlike most brainless bimbos on our campus.
|but it is in her hands.
Only if you think it is.
|Men just remember it is better to just accept
|a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
|as an obnoxious jerk!
An obnoxious jerk is someone who flirts with as many men as possible
knowing that she will ulitimately reject most, if not all of them if they
do not conform to her standards of wealth of whatever.
==========================================================================
Ilya Beloozerov Email: ibel...@runet.edu
Public PGP key is available at http://www.cs.runet.edu/~ibelooze
This message is sponsored by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In the war of the sexes, I take no prisoners
==========================================================================
Jeffrey Haber
ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu (GERSZ,CAROLYN,M) wrote:
>I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
>women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
>but it is in her hands. Men just remember it is better to just accept
>a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
>as an obnoxious jerk!
I think that men's movement writer Warren Farrell covers this in his
book Why Men Are the Way They Are, which I highly recommend.
Why do many men not take "no" to mean no?
Why do guys in their twenties come on so hard?
Here are the answers.
Quite often a man can find that he can turn a "no" into a "maybe" and
then into a "yes". Males, being the performers and being socialized to
attract women by performing, have to learn to be persuasive. Some women
are just looking for a man who is tenacious and confident enough to go
beyond their no's. Also, saying "no" removes might help, in a
convoluted manner, to remove any guilt she has on her part for sleeping
with a guy.
In his book, Farrell recounts one man's experiences. He wanted to be
a "nice guy" so he didn't take any sexual initiatives with this one girl
he was dating. He found out two weeks later that two other guys were
able to sleep with her. What's the message--as a male you have to be
aggressive and go for it.
As for why men in their twenties are so aggressive--young males grow up
in an "oil crisis"--that is--female sexuality is in high demand and
there is a shortage of it, he finds that women are often dating somewhat
older men, have more hangups about sex, etc. At any rate, it's a very
tough market, and the only way to succeed is to be aggressive and pursue
as many women as possible--which is why you and your friends will get
hit on so much if you go into a bar, especially if you look good.
Farrell also recounts why men turn women into sex objects--it hurts less
to be rejected by an object than a human being. And why men practice
"railroad sex"--getting from first contact to sex as soon as
possible--it decreases the time period of becoming rejected ("you're
such a nice man, who'd want to ruin such a nice friendship with sex?
Let's just be friends". It isn't really that hard to find someone to
be friends with--it is hard, for a male, to find someone who wants to be
his friend who is also attracted to him sexually as well.
These men who are hitting on you and your friends are probably just very
lonely, frustrated, decent guys. The kinds of "problems" you're
complaining about are beyond most men's fantasy lives.
Consider the alternative to men's hitting on you...try to imagine if
every offer for a date you have had never occurred. Try to imagine what
it would be like if all or most of the men you were interested in were
taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing them to choose
from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the younger male's
experience.
Just tell them you are unavailable, understand and emphathize with their
plight, and wish them well.
Jeffrey Haber
Jill Lundquist
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu (GERSZ,CAROLYN,M) wrote:
>>I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>>just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>>strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>>but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>>games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>>you're interested in says no it means no.
[long paraphrase of Farrell deleted]
>
>Just tell them you are unavailable, understand and emphathize with their
>plight, and wish them well.
I was under the strong impression that the original poster
and her friends ARE telling these men no. I don't see
any reason that they should have to "understand and
empathize" with this plight you see the men as being in,
any more than the many men who have turned me down owed
me anything more than common politeness.
Wishing someone well when turning them down is a nice
touch, though, as is at least a token expression of
regret. I've discovered that turning people down nicely is
a skill that is developed over time, and I don't usually
fault someone for doing it badly unless they manage to get
me to feel as if I've crawled from under a log.
So, any suggestions on how to make lack of interest clear
to one of these 20ish men you sympathize with so much if he
ignores a "no?" I mean, whatever psychological or
sociological problems the boor in question may have is not
the responsibility of the woman he won't leave alone when
she asks him to.
--
Jill Lundquist ji...@qualcomm.com DoD #882
When hell freezes over, grab the ice skates.
Steve Chaney
>GERSZ,CAROLYN,M (ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu) wrote:
>|I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>|just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>|strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>|but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>|games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>|women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
>|her.
>
> world. A few legitimate questions arise: Why should guys take the
> intiative 100 percent of the time? Why should we humiliate ourselves and
> boost women's egos? Why, why, why? I concede, "no" means "no". This hardly
> tells me anything I did not already know.
Ilya! Ilya! Ilya! Ilya!
> No, thank you for the offer. Why should *we* jump through societal hoops
> to please your (now, that plural, not singular) obnoxious egos? What do
> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
> should we play the dating game on your terms?
ILYA ILYA ILYA ILYA!!!!!!
Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
Female sexuality is EXTREMELY overrated. Men who don't give it so much
play, get so MUCH action; if men learned this trick and learned to do it en
masse, we might have a lot LESS single and desperate guys out there..
>|Men just remember it is better to just accept
>|a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
>|as an obnoxious jerk!
>
> An obnoxious jerk is someone who flirts with as many men as possible
> knowing that she will ulitimately reject most, if not all of them if they
> do not conform to her standards of wealth of whatever.
And the crowd goes WILD!!
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>
>Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
>>>
>>
>>> No, thank you for the offer. Why should *we* jump through societal hoops
>>> to please your (now, that plural, not singular) obnoxious egos? What do
>>> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
>>> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
>>> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
>>> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
>>> should we play the dating game on your terms?
>>
>> ILYA ILYA ILYA ILYA!!!!!!
>>
>> Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
>> high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
>
>any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
>respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
>adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
>rant, is not attractive...
This is where your opinion and mine strongly differ. He's telling it like
it is; and Ilya is by NO means talking desperation here; it isn't even
relevant to his comments! He's taking a stand against things that happen
in real life, something that is rather barely short of encompassingly
trrue. Just because you live the sheltered life as far as women's
attentions is concerned, doesn't mean life isn't hard for some of the REST
of us guys. You remind me of the rich looking down on the poor because
they find it hard to get food (analogously speaking); you miss the point,
they don't want a free handout, they want to earn a living with honest,
hard work. (Granted, there is a percentage of lazy hobo's too.) They're
tired of the fruitless ratrace, period. While want-for-nothing's think
that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
In other words, I doubt you even know what it's like, Andreas. You keep
preaching about how it's not an "adversarial" thing, well guess what -
often it is, and it slaps many people in the face like a reality check from
Hell. Many a man, including myself, went into it with a positive outlook,
and LIFE showed just how adversarial the dating scene is. LIFE showed us
the games, and how badly we could get clobbered.
Ilya's statement was one of disgust at men who push themselves on women -
AND the conditions which contribute partially to why this happens. He's
tired of having to jump through hoops for women, I'm tired of it, we and
many others have learned that this happens - the HARD way - and we're tired
of it, Andreas. We're tired of the incompassionate and the downright
blind, standing around and saying "Life is great, why must you paint it so
harshly?" Noone is asking for a free ride here, Andreas! Both of us have
often delved into how we deal with life - but damn it life ain't easy, and
for many, neither is appealing to women. Through no fault of their own,
they simply weren't allowed much ACCESS to learn the incredible social
skills needed to be appealing to a woman. You aren't there when computer
fanatics are getting laughed at in their formative, school years, while
brainless JOCKS who often go to college on *ball scholarships, only to
flunk out (oh, you didn't know that this is a serious problem for many
colleges? Ah yes, in your world Jocks Are All Smart People, pthah! Wake up,
ANDREAS - jocks often have a problem making the grade) and be unable to get
a decent job; but even so, they still get the girl in high school. The
computer kids get the boot, from the women. In these, their formative
years, they miss out on what it's like to socialize in a balanced
environment because many women AND men are so hard on them. Likewise, at
my campus, the Chess team, some of whom I played with for fun, got poked,
joked about, and generally were relegated to the Nerd Table, which was to
the far right in the Cafeteria if you were coming in from the parking lot
(Hiram Johnson High School). I was into D&D with my friends; we got the
same table, to sit anywhere else brought too much harassment our way. Yard
duties? HAHAAHAHAHAHAAH GET A LIFE - they didn't give a fuck! To call on
one made us even more like whiners.
Andreas I swear to God you redefine blind, if you cannot see how badly that
affects one's ability to socialize in GENERAL, much less with women. You
think that these people are inherently evil, born whiners with a misguided
view of life concocted by their own dysfunctions. Oh God, it's impossible
to talk to one as obtuse as you... You probably are too blind to even know
that there are some of us who are desperately looking for a solution within
ourselves. Your "just be confident! Don't be desperate!" logic is as as
solid as saying "just have a million dollars! get out and get a million
dollars, dammit! What's your problem?!"
-- Steve
Andreas Tovornik
GERSZ,CAROLYN,M (ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu) writes:
> I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
> just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
> strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
> but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
> games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
> you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
> women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
> a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
> as an obnoxious jerk!
If there is ever a reason to ask, then you know that there
are enough uncertainties going on. If something is right for
the place and time, it just happens. It's rare, but much more
rewarding...
--
'dreas... If you want something bad enough, you will get it.
VictoriaTaxi15 When you get it, you may wonder why you wanted it.
Andreas Tovornik
Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
> In article <4flnef$7...@newslink.runet.edu>, Ilya <ibel...@runet.edu> wrote:
>>GERSZ,CAROLYN,M (ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu) wrote:
>>|just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>>|strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>>|but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>>|games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>>|you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
>>|women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
>>|her.
>>
>> world. A few legitimate questions arise: Why should guys take the
>> intiative 100 percent of the time? Why should we humiliate ourselves and
>> boost women's egos? Why, why, why? I concede, "no" means "no". This hardly
>> tells me anything I did not already know.
>
> Ilya! Ilya! Ilya! Ilya!
>
>
>> to please your (now, that plural, not singular) obnoxious egos? What do
>> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
>> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
>> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
>> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
>> should we play the dating game on your terms?
>
> ILYA ILYA ILYA ILYA!!!!!!
>
> Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
> high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
From my perspective, it came across like whining. In my experience,
any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
rant, is not attractive...
> Female sexuality is EXTREMELY overrated. Men who don't give it so much
> play, get so MUCH action; if men learned this trick and learned to do it en
> masse, we might have a lot LESS single and desperate guys out there..
Desperation keeps you single. Work on conquering those adolescent
urges, become more smooth and refined, and not only women, but
everyone you meet will treat you with a greater respect and be
more easily attracted to you. If anything, human sexuality is
hyped up, not only that of the feminine gender...
Ilya
|
|>> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
|>> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
|>> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
|>> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
|>> should we play the dating game on your terms?
|>
|> ILYA ILYA ILYA ILYA!!!!!!
|>
|> Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
|> high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
|
|From my perspective, it came across like whining. In my experience,
|any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
|respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
|adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
|rant, is not attractive...
I agree with you that it is much easier to label my legitimate worries
"whining" than to intellegently address them, and that is what you are
doing, as well as resorting to insults since you have nothing of substance
to contribute.
|> Female sexuality is EXTREMELY overrated. Men who don't give it so much
|> play, get so MUCH action; if men learned this trick and learned to do it en
|> masse, we might have a lot LESS single and desperate guys out there..
|
|Desperation keeps you single. Work on conquering those adolescent
|urges, become more smooth and refined, and not only women, but
|everyone you meet will treat you with a greater respect and be
|more easily attracted to you. If anything, human sexuality is
|hyped up, not only that of the feminine gender...
Instead of addressing the issues which most single, young, men under
thirty have to deal with, such as tough market and competition, tactics
one would use when dating, etc, you are labeling me and other people
'desperate', which is a totally baseless accusation, and I think you know
that. The issues I am focusing on are not unique to me, a great deal of
young men have to deal with them. By resorting to personal attacks you
have contrubuted nothing to soc.singles.
==========================================================================
Ilya Beloozerov Email: ibel...@runet.edu
Public PGP key is available at http://www.cs.runet.edu/~ibelooze
This message is sponsored by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
==========================================================================
Bill Kolstad
>Andreas Tovornik (ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
[among others who's attribs have been wiped]
>|
>|>> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
>|>> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
>|>> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
>|>> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
>|>> should we play the dating game on your terms?
>|>
>|> ILYA ILYA ILYA ILYA!!!!!!
>|>
>|> Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
>|> high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
>|
>|From my perspective, it came across like whining. In my experience,
>|any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
>|respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
>|adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
>|rant, is not attractive...
>
> I agree with you that it is much easier to label my legitimate worries
> "whining" than to intellegently address them, and that is what you are
> doing, as well as resorting to insults since you have nothing of substance
> to contribute.
What the endless anthem of Whys? Those are answered quite easily. You
seem to be the ones who are so up in a bunch over dating. You are the
ones who want dates and don't seem to be willing to understand that you
might not be attractive to those women. Those women don't owe the time
of day to you or anyone else. They have their own set of criteria.
Before you or someone else goes back into the mantra of "they always go
for x", stop and think about it. They aren't the ones who are
complaining about dating, you are. To answer your last question "Why
should you play the gane on their terms?" Because that is your choice.
You can surely choose to sit silently and wait for women to come to you,
but I wouldn't hold your breath.
>
>|> Female sexuality is EXTREMELY overrated. Men who don't give it so much
>|> play, get so MUCH action; if men learned this trick and learned to do it en
>|> masse, we might have a lot LESS single and desperate guys out there..
>|
>|Desperation keeps you single. Work on conquering those adolescent
>|urges, become more smooth and refined, and not only women, but
>|everyone you meet will treat you with a greater respect and be
>|more easily attracted to you. If anything, human sexuality is
>|hyped up, not only that of the feminine gender...
>
> Instead of addressing the issues which most single, young, men under
> thirty have to deal with, such as tough market and competition, tactics
> one would use when dating, etc, you are labeling me and other people
> 'desperate', which is a totally baseless accusation, and I think you know
> that. The issues I am focusing on are not unique to me, a great deal of
> young men have to deal with them. By resorting to personal attacks you
> have contrubuted nothing to soc.singles.
>
Sorry, but you are not contributing anything more than that same tired
old line about how unfair it all is. Life isn't fair. You can choose to
get in and work on it or sit by and complain. Desperate is as desperate
does.
YTsai
My sexual partner is also my best friend. Who else am I going to trade
sexual fantasies with?
Victoria
--
*Creak* Been logged on since before the Web *Creak*
mnem...@pacificnet.net
SEAN LOUIS STREET
of childish "Hard to get" game, then she's not going to get got by me.
I'm tired of all the little emotional mind confusing non communitive
games. If she is going to try to flatter herself by seeing how much I
beg and grovel then she's not my type to begin with. I'll ask her once,
if she says no, I move on. I have too many goals in my life to waste
time with some teen-age acting woman. If I ask a woman to dance and she
says not right now, well then I'll ask again later. I guess it depends
on the circumstance and the way she declines. But I am not going to give
her the pleasure of having me beg at her feet. Phew. Anyway, just
figures I'd put in my two dollars worth. Take care.
Sean
Steve Chaney
Ilya was talking about guys who are persistent with women to the point of
being harassing, and how it is indicative of how far men are willing to go
for women. So far as to go TOO far. Why do they do that? Why do we put
out for women so much? Why should we? Perhaps, we should not.
This was not "why do women not like Ilya/Steve."
>Before you or someone else goes back into the mantra of "they always go
>for x", stop and think about it. They aren't the ones who are
>complaining about dating, you are. To answer your last question "Why
>should you play the gane on their terms?" Because that is your choice.
But we have to listen, on soc.singles, to women who, at the same time, talk
about how they get jerked around by the Exciting Men that they reject us
for. Ever heard of that book "100 lies men tell women?" It's a
collection, IMO, of the experiences that women have when they deal with
jerks; some Nice Guys From Hell experiences, but mostly assholes they chase
in place of Nice Guy/wallflower types.
What is it about NG's that they don't like? Probably what my girlfriend
said to me: I would take the ten-foot-pole approach towards her; I would
ask before I touched her (some NG's take "no means no" so far as to say
"lack of a `touch me please' means 'no'"), I would hesitate to speak for
her, or make a decision involving her, etc. I was bad, bad bad about it;
very strongly anti-aggressive, in fact, just out of fear of being too
pushy. IMHO, along these lines, you may find the root as to why, in many
cases, it is true that women don't go for Nice Guys.
You see, neither Ilya nor I are sitting on our asses about this, Kolstad.
I disregard and ignore NO ADVICE...consider that I have harnessed the
advice of some people here. Eugenia gave me the insight to the Fairy Tale
perception of relationships, from which I am able to deal better with the
"you'll just have to wait" philosophy. Jim Heck's attitude about meeting
and keeping friends, was right in and of itself - but the side-effects
weren't. Now I understand; I hadn't thought of that, and maybe others
haven't either. But now I can make something effective from it - like
advising single men who read my posts, NOT to walk off in a huff if a woman
says "let's be friends" instead of taking things further (or drive off in a
huff). I give them MOTIVATION, along with cold logic. Why? Because I
listen to people. As does Ilya. Ilya was EXTREMELY wise in what he said;
men overrate women's sexuality, and women in general. A great deal of a
man's problems with women, can be handled if he, while seeking to meet
them, doesn't give her the sense that for him, IT'S ALL LEANING ON HER.
There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
step, no?)
And no, we don't play their games. I feel that by not doing so, it will
count to my advantage. And in some ways, it has; I've had 2 dates this
year and it's only February; things are going better than my entire LIFE
before this, and while I may not be The Mackdaddy Who Has a Date Per Day
(can't even try to be a mackdaddy, in my situation :), I have done well for
myself. Why? Unlike you, I recognize the game play and the adversarial
element. I work to define it. Then I work a way around it. Then I don't
run into it anymore and I can go on from there, in a non-adversarial,
non-games-oriented fashion. By recognizing what it is and dealing with it,
Kolstad, you can get around it. That's what Ilya and I are saying; we
aren't imagining things, and we ain't wallowing in it.
When I have a solution on how to get around it, I post it. If I see
someone else mired in it, I'll repost.
>You can surely choose to sit silently and wait for women to come to you,
>but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Where do you get *THAT* from? You're reaching into a grab bag for this
stuff, Kolstad. Neither Ilya nor I wish to sit idle, nor do we sit idle
about it. I suspect that, like me, he's a man of action, a man of going
out into that world and going for a piece of the action.
And don't even assume you know what action I'm talking about; chances are,
you're going to be off-mark, especially if you're thinking about sex.
>>|Desperation keeps you single. Work on conquering those adolescent
>>|urges, become more smooth and refined, and not only women, but
>>|everyone you meet will treat you with a greater respect and be
>>|more easily attracted to you. If anything, human sexuality is
>>|hyped up, not only that of the feminine gender...
>>
>> Instead of addressing the issues which most single, young, men under
>> thirty have to deal with, such as tough market and competition, tactics
>> one would use when dating, etc, you are labeling me and other people
>> 'desperate', which is a totally baseless accusation, and I think you know
>> that. The issues I am focusing on are not unique to me, a great deal of
>> young men have to deal with them. By resorting to personal attacks you
>> have contrubuted nothing to soc.singles.
>>
>Sorry, but you are not contributing anything more than that same tired
>old line about how unfair it all is. Life isn't fair. You can choose to
>get in and work on it or sit by and complain. Desperate is as desperate
>does.
We're looking for answers, and Andreas' answer is to conjure an attitude
out of thin air, like a magician; your answer is one of PURE
non-compassion. Work on it how, Kolstad? You need motivation; neither you
nor Kolstad even think about that when you talk. Ilya's onto a good point.
For the MAN, female sexuality is overrated; he should stop making it so
important. The motivation? Simple. When a man chases her like that, he
becomes a suitor; step in line, please. When he stops chasing women so
intensely, he's either not going to be in the competition for her
affections, or he's going to be The Guy She Can't Attract. And women who
take it as the latter, and who start to take interest in that type, are FAR
from few. I've run into one myself at the height of living that attitude,
and I suspect that if I internalized it more, there would be plenty of
women around to reject because I'm already spoken for :)
But ask Ilya, not me....Ilya are you just sitting by and complaining?
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>Andreas Tovornik (ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>|
>|From my perspective, it came across like whining. In my experience,
>|any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
>|respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
>|adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
>|rant, is not attractive...
>
> I agree with you that it is much easier to label my legitimate worries
> "whining" than to intellegently address them, and that is what you are
> doing, as well as resorting to insults since you have nothing of substance
> to contribute.
I know and you know that an adversarial point of view is indeed something
that is not desired, but in those sometimes constant times when trying to
meet women becomes an issue of dodging ambiguities to find the *truth* in
what a woman's all about, it's time to recognize a spade as a spade. How
that gets twisted into "desperate" or "ranting" or "whining"...well I guess
you could come up with that if, say, it was a random label drawn from a
GRAB BAG....
>|> Female sexuality is EXTREMELY overrated. Men who don't give it so much
>|> play, get so MUCH action; if men learned this trick and learned to do it en
>|> masse, we might have a lot LESS single and desperate guys out there..
>|
>|Desperation keeps you single. Work on conquering those adolescent
>|urges, become more smooth and refined, and not only women, but
>|everyone you meet will treat you with a greater respect and be
>|more easily attracted to you. If anything, human sexuality is
>|hyped up, not only that of the feminine gender...
>
> Instead of addressing the issues which most single, young, men under
> thirty have to deal with, such as tough market and competition, tactics
> one would use when dating, etc, you are labeling me and other people
> 'desperate', which is a totally baseless accusation, and I think you know
> that. The issues I am focusing on are not unique to me, a great deal of
> young men have to deal with them. By resorting to personal attacks you
> have contrubuted nothing to soc.singles.
He just doesn't get it. How do you work on becoming "smooth" and
"refined"? It takes confidence, and confidence isn't something you just
conjure up.
-- Steve
Andreas Tovornik
> In article <DMoMJ...@freenet.carleton.ca>, Andreas Tovornik <ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> No, thank you for the offer. Why should *we* jump through societal hoops
>>>> to please your (now, that plural, not singular) obnoxious egos? What do
>>>> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
>>>> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
>>>> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
>>>> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
>>>> should we play the dating game on your terms?
>>>
>>> ILYA ILYA ILYA ILYA!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
>>> high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
>>
>>From my perspective, it came across like whining. In my experience,
>>any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
>>respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
>>adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
>>rant, is not attractive...
>
> This is where your opinion and mine strongly differ. He's telling it like
> it is;
I agree that we differ. I disagree that he's telling it like it is.
He's telling it like it is for him. He's telling it like it may be
for you. He's not telling it like it is for all of humanity that
happens to be single, and he's not telling it like it is for me...;
> and Ilya is by NO means talking desperation here; it isn't even
> relevant to his comments!
The attitude with which he writes is soaked in desperation from
my perspective...
> He's taking a stand against things that happen
> in real life, something that is rather barely short of encompassingly
> trrue.
Maybe things are like that where you live, and perhaps they are
true in your environment, but you must take into consideration
that anyone who reads this could be in a very different kind of
place where none of what you or ILya wrote about happens. Imagine
how things are in Ireland or rural Quebec, or even here in Vicky...
Your reality is not the same one the rest of us live in.
> Just because you live the sheltered life as far as women's
> attentions is concerned, doesn't mean life isn't hard for some of the REST
> of us guys.
Life is only as hard as you make it, and you seem to take delight
in making it harder for yourself. As soon as you come to learn that
women are people too, and not some borglike adversarial conglomerate
that's out to make life impossible for men, your life will become
much easier...
> You remind me of the rich looking down on the poor because
> they find it hard to get food (analogously speaking); you miss the point,
> they don't want a free handout, they want to earn a living with honest,
> hard work. (Granted, there is a percentage of lazy hobo's too.) They're
> tired of the fruitless ratrace, period. While want-for-nothing's think
> that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
I don't see how this can follow from me living a sheltered life
when it comes to women's attentions. First you imply that I'm
sheltered from the attention of women, and you go on to argue
that I get so much that I don't know what to do with it, looking
down on those that don't get any...
I suggest that you learn consistency in your arguments.
> In other words, I doubt you even know what it's like, Andreas. You keep
> preaching about how it's not an "adversarial" thing, well guess what -
> often it is, and it slaps many people in the face like a reality check from
> Hell. Many a man, including myself, went into it with a positive outlook,
> and LIFE showed just how adversarial the dating scene is. LIFE showed us
> the games, and how badly we could get clobbered.
You know? I don't even mess with the dating scene. It's a fucking
waste of time and brings up false hopes and tensions, and in this
I agree with you. There is nothing wrong, however, with getting to
know members of the appropriate sexes and having relationships with
them outside the context of the dating scene. There is no point in
trying to change the world when it's so easy to adapt to it, and
make things work for you in such a way that you don't keep crashing
into brick walls...
You and I are not in high school anymore. Besides, you know very little
about my background, and in many ways it may resemble yours despite what
you may believe now. This has very little to with the present reality
unless you keep imagining yourself at the nerd table. Besides all that,
the "jocks" had all the same emotions as you did when you were growing
up, only you couldn't see it because you blamed your lack of success
on being at the nerd table. All adolescents go through the experience
of thinking that the grass is always greener on the other side of the
fence, but you? You appear to still be going through it. Would you
be all that surprised if the "jocks" were thinking that they were
blaming all their shortcomings on getting poor grades?
> Andreas I swear to God you redefine blind, if you cannot see how badly that
> affects one's ability to socialize in GENERAL, much less with women. You
> think that these people are inherently evil, born whiners with a misguided
> view of life concocted by their own dysfunctions.
You know sweet bugger-all what I think. Show me one instance where
I referred to anyone as evil. I want PROOF!
The ability to socialize improves with practice. It would appear
that you have never tried to socialize, so the experience of having
your social skills improve and your confidence with people grow is
a thoroughly foreign one to you. I wish you luck in your life quest...
> Oh God,it's impossible
> to talk to one as obtuse as you... You probably are too blind to even know
> that there are some of us who are desperately looking for a solution within
> ourselves.
Contrary to what you may think, it could be that I have found the solution
that you seek within myself. I have had a little more practice than you
and your desperate friends, and I would never wish to be 25 again. It is
not an easy road, but the rewards of growing up are numerous as are the
pitfalls...
Steve Chaney
>If you're not my friend, what makes you think you're going to get much further?
>My sexual partner is also my best friend. Who else am I going to trade
>sexual fantasies with?
Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
A lot of men out there have women friends (and probably vice-versa on this
situation, too), but none of these friends want to take it any further.
I, personally, was one who suffered with that problem. What I and many
other men wish, is that just *ONE* of these women would give us a try,
sexual or otherwise.
My beloved was a friend of mine before this, indeed a close one, as I could
only talk to her about what I was going through at the time, as she could
with me. (My ex-fiancee' was remarkably jealous about women being around
me, and I foolishly felt that any female company was tantamount to risking
messing around. Foolishly.) But she was the first close friend, among
many dozens over 11 years of being in the dating market, to take it any
further.
No, wait, she was the second. Toni was the first. Make it 8 years.
Forget about women who don't want to take it any further; I wish more women
like YOU were in my social circles, when I was single.
-- Steve, and for all those guys coming up behind me...
Steve Chaney
>>
>> This is where your opinion and mine strongly differ. He's telling it like
>> it is;
>
>I agree that we differ. I disagree that he's telling it like it is.
>He's telling it like it is for him. He's telling it like it may be
>for you. He's not telling it like it is for all of humanity that
>happens to be single, and he's not telling it like it is for me...;
He's not trying to speak for all of humanity; likewise you cannot stand
here and talk him down when you haven't walked in his shoes.
>> and Ilya is by NO means talking desperation here; it isn't even
>> relevant to his comments!
>
>The attitude with which he writes is soaked in desperation from
>my perspective...
Okay, where's the desperation in his attitude? I say you got that one out
of a grab bag, as his comments were not of desperation, but rather, of
disdain towards men who can't say no; and defiance of the fact that men
have to be the ones doing the chasing, the impressing, the massive levels
of putting out that we do to get accepted by women. And a defiance towards
the games we have to play with certain women.
Desperation? No, quite the opposite. I've explained where you're wrong -
now let's see where you justified this "desperate" comment, eh?
>Your reality is not the same one the rest of us live in.
You're assuming to speak for everyone else. Major error, Andreas.
>> Just because you live the sheltered life as far as women's
>> attentions is concerned, doesn't mean life isn't hard for some of the REST
>> of us guys.
>
>Life is only as hard as you make it, and you seem to take delight
>in making it harder for yourself.
Grab Bag time again, eh Andreas? Anyone who lives in the real world, will
tell you that life can throw some hard, HARD curves, and that some people
catch it in the nose.
On Earth, Andreas, psychologists have been known to bring up the fact that
there are many instances where young children, by no fault of their own,
end up on the outside of social circles (oh, I know, you've never heard of
a bully, ok, sorry Andreas), and have trouble fitting in. Furthermore, you
probably have never heard of the MILLIONS of well-educated, well-documented
observations where smart, well-mannered kids, often wind up being the least
accepted in their class. This causes them to be unable to develop healthy,
constant interaction with enough people - which causes shyness, inability
to deal with ambiguous body language, and other social problems...because
they didn't have ACCESS to the skills needed to make them "popular."
You believe that all social problems exist only for the Evil, those who sit
around wishing and thinking evil things of themselves. Andreas, get this
in your adamantium skull, ok? Some people have a shitty life no MATTER how
much they look for the good, no MATTER how hard they try to be happy about
themselves, and whether they were well-behaved OR troublemakers. Some men
have problems being appealing to women DESPITE being well mannered folks
with an OTHERWISE well-balanced life and psychological profile, and a good
number of hobbies. You will never be able to comprehend this from your
Ivory Tower, but then again, you have never been on Earth.
And Earth will not ever reach you.
>> You remind me of the rich looking down on the poor because
>> they find it hard to get food (analogously speaking); you miss the point,
>> they don't want a free handout, they want to earn a living with honest,
>> hard work. (Granted, there is a percentage of lazy hobo's too.) They're
>> tired of the fruitless ratrace, period. While want-for-nothing's think
>> that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
>
>I don't see how this can follow from me living a sheltered life
>when it comes to women's attentions. First you imply that I'm
>sheltered from the attention of women, and you go on to argue
>that I get so much that I don't know what to do with it, looking
>down on those that don't get any...
No, idiot, the implication was quite clear - you are sheltered from the
problems many men have with being attractive to women.
>I suggest that you learn consistency in your arguments.
I suggest you brush up on reading comprehension.
>> In other words, I doubt you even know what it's like, Andreas. You keep
>> preaching about how it's not an "adversarial" thing, well guess what -
>> often it is, and it slaps many people in the face like a reality check from
>> Hell. Many a man, including myself, went into it with a positive outlook,
>> and LIFE showed just how adversarial the dating scene is. LIFE showed us
>> the games, and how badly we could get clobbered.
>
>You know? I don't even mess with the dating scene. It's a fucking
>waste of time and brings up false hopes and tensions, and in this
>I agree with you. There is nothing wrong, however, with getting to
>know members of the appropriate sexes and having relationships with
>them outside the context of the dating scene. There is no point in
>trying to change the world when it's so easy to adapt to it, and
>make things work for you in such a way that you don't keep crashing
>into brick walls...
So, no dates? How do you have a healthy relationship without dating,
finding out how that person is in the context of an intimate, 1-on-1
relationship? Did you miss the Reality Check, Andreas? You could know a
woman for 50 years, and the whole scene could INVERT the moment you and she
say "I do." You OR her, or both of you, could find things in yourselves -
good and bad - that your "friendship" alone couldn't bring out. Contexts
that were never explored until then. Dating is Nature's way of helping us
tell who's compatible with us when it's time for Twoo Wuv; friendships is
Nature's way of helping us tell who's compatible, period. Without having
had that friendship, your relationship is less likely to survive.
Just to clarify, I do not look at every woman as a potential date. Nor did
I with women I knew before. But I do like to date, just like any other
normal man, so as to tell who I might be compatible with for life. I also
like to date so as to enjoy casual, non-relationship-oriented, 1 on 1
interaction with a woman. Furthermore, I don't seek to change the world
except for finding out and disseminating en masse how to get AROUND the bad
things in the world (in this case, the dating scene). Have you not read my
posts? I talk quite often and at length about how to get around life's
hard knocks, in this context. I don't just scream at that brick wall.
Nor did Ilya.
Look. Listen. The women flocked to their table, despite their constant
bouts of rudeness (spilling food, getting into fights amongst themselves,
come and starting fights with US when all we did was keep to ourselves - oh
wait, you know nothing about that, you think nerds FORCE jocks to bother
them, or that jocks never bother anyone), getting some women pregnant and
shooing them off as a result, coming to *US* to bail their asses out of
flunking out of class, etc. We were quiet guys who had a passion for
chess, role playing games, and sci-fi, we didn't go pinching women's asses
like these guys like to, we didn't start fights, we didn't badmouth people
- and guess what. The women didn't come by us, they didn't like us, they
physically and overtly looked at what we liked and LAUGHED...
Oh no, Andreas, by your reasoning we did everything we could to chase them
off, oh yeah us evil monsters! So, Andreas, was it the way we beat the
women up? How did you know we, in reality, were plotting to axe murder
them? Gee man, I can't believe you saw how obnoxious or dispassionate that
we were.
Yes, Adamantium Skull of Impenetrability, the nerd table is QUITE WELL
KNOWN in society as the place that high school women liked to avoid. You
represent the most ignorant part of society which has not gotten out long
enough to see it. Even psychologists recognize that factor...but you? Oh
no, Andreas, in your sheltered-from-reality life, the nerd table had its
share of women.
Oh God, how much was your mother drinking when she was having you....?
>All adolescents go through the experience
>of thinking that the grass is always greener on the other side of the
>fence, but you?
Let's see. They had the women, they had the dates. We didn't. We didn't
learn how to become attractive to women, and it has affected MILLIONS of
men, many of whom are now posting here, resorting to personals, etc. Let
me say it in the most plainest of English, hoping that you understand
English well enough to get it: the grass would be greener to have more
dates and girlfriends, than maybe 1 or 2 in one's entire life. It was
better to have what the jocks had, than what we had. And you keep talking
as if I am the only person who would say this. In that you are patently
wrong.
>You appear to still be going through it. Would you
>be all that surprised if the "jocks" were thinking that they were
>blaming all their shortcomings on getting poor grades?
They didn't HAVE shortcomings besides their *ball performance; they came to
US to save their fucking grades. If I was smart, I'd have gotten with my
group, and told them to refuse to help them unless they got us in with
those women. Either that or let their asses FLUNK.
If I'd been smart.
>The ability to socialize improves with practice. It would appear
>that you have never tried to socialize, so the experience of having
>your social skills improve and your confidence with people grow is
>a thoroughly foreign one to you. I wish you luck in your life quest...
OH MAN!!!!! NEVER *TRIED*??? I tried so often and so hard that .. oh man,
you are a black hole where it comes to intelligence..fuck this, you're too
stupid. Get lost, Andreas. I can't believe you came up with that.
-- Steve
Jeffrey Haber
>In article <4fntpg$a...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>
>>ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu (GERSZ,CAROLYN,M) wrote:
>>>I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>>>just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>>>strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>>>but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>>>games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>>>you're interested in says no it means no.
>
> [long paraphrase of Farrell deleted]
>>
>>Just tell them you are unavailable, understand and emphathize with their
>>plight, and wish them well.
>
>I was under the strong impression that the original poster
>and her friends ARE telling these men no. I don't see
>any reason that they should have to "understand and
>empathize" with this plight you see the men as being in,
>any more than the many men who have turned me down owed
>me anything more than common politeness.
In response--persistence pays off on rare occassions. Also, as I
mentioned, many men learn to not take "no" seriously, in many different
contexts and situations. She and her friends, and perhaps 50 other
women in the bar really do mean no, but it's that one woman who will
change her mind later which is important to the men.
As for these women feeling harrassed--they are just sex objects to these
guys, and I don't think the men should appologize for that.
>So, any suggestions on how to make lack of interest clear
>to one of these 20ish men you sympathize with so much if he
>ignores a "no?" I mean, whatever psychological or
>sociological problems the boor in question may have is not
>the responsibility of the woman he won't leave alone when
>she asks him to.
It's not the responsibility of those women, though some of their
actions, as a whole, might indirectly contribute to some of it. What
can one do? If saying "I have a boyfriend, seek greener pastures
elsewhere" doesn't do it, then I suppose that asking the bartender to
bounce those bozos out might be necessary.
Joel Roberts
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>ji...@qualcomm.com (Jill Lundquist) wrote:
>>I was under the strong impression that the original poster
>>and her friends ARE telling these men no. I don't see
>>any reason that they should have to "understand and
>>empathize" with this plight you see the men as being in,
>>any more than the many men who have turned me down owed
>>me anything more than common politeness.
>As for these women feeling harrassed--they are just sex objects to these
>guys, and I don't think the men should appologize for that.
Wait a second. What are you saying? If men see these women as something
less than human this is not something to apologize for?
--
===============================================================================
Joel Roberts / "If you're so special why aren't you dead?"
jo...@math.ohio-state.edu / -The Breeders
===============================================================================
Bill Kolstad
No it certainly wasn't. But what you claim it to be isn't correct
either. Guys that harass and go too far are a different class entirely
than the ones that just have had a bad time of it. It doesn't take a
degree to see the difference. You could stop being so persistent in
chasing women, though you will likely find that if you chase none, you
won't be chased much either. Again, this is your choice.
>
>
>>Before you or someone else goes back into the mantra of "they always go
>>for x", stop and think about it. They aren't the ones who are
>>complaining about dating, you are. To answer your last question "Why
>>should you play the gane on their terms?" Because that is your choice.
>
>But we have to listen, on soc.singles, to women who, at the same time, talk
>about how they get jerked around by the Exciting Men that they reject us
>for. Ever heard of that book "100 lies men tell women?" It's a
>collection, IMO, of the experiences that women have when they deal with
>jerks; some Nice Guys From Hell experiences, but mostly assholes they chase
>in place of Nice Guy/wallflower types.
Gee, how did they ever stop at 100? We all have had bad timess and
people lie to us, and this only enforces the negatives of dating not how
to overcome them. Hey, one person's excitement is another's boredom.
Maybe Nice Guys are just as guilty of bad dating filters as are women.
>
>What is it about NG's that they don't like? Probably what my girlfriend
>said to me: I would take the ten-foot-pole approach towards her; I would
>ask before I touched her (some NG's take "no means no" so far as to say
>"lack of a `touch me please' means 'no'"), I would hesitate to speak for
>her, or make a decision involving her, etc. I was bad, bad bad about it;
>very strongly anti-aggressive, in fact, just out of fear of being too
>pushy. IMHO, along these lines, you may find the root as to why, in many
>cases, it is true that women don't go for Nice Guys.
No, no, no! You are thinking in extremes again. What you describe with
your girlfriend is nothing but polite courtsey, not Nice Guyism. What
drives women away from Nice Guys is that they try to go from 0 - 140 in
the shortest possible timeframe. Trust takes time, and trust is the only
thing that makes it work.
>
>You see, neither Ilya nor I are sitting on our asses about this, Kolstad.
>I disregard and ignore NO ADVICE...consider that I have harnessed the
>advice of some people here. Eugenia gave me the insight to the Fairy Tale
>perception of relationships, from which I am able to deal better with the
>"you'll just have to wait" philosophy. Jim Heck's attitude about meeting
>and keeping friends, was right in and of itself - but the side-effects
>weren't. Now I understand; I hadn't thought of that, and maybe others
>haven't either. But now I can make something effective from it - like
>advising single men who read my posts, NOT to walk off in a huff if a woman
>says "let's be friends" instead of taking things further (or drive off in a
>huff). I give them MOTIVATION, along with cold logic. Why? Because I
>listen to people. As does Ilya. Ilya was EXTREMELY wise in what he said;
>men overrate women's sexuality, and women in general. A great deal of a
>man's problems with women, can be handled if he, while seeking to meet
>them, doesn't give her the sense that for him, IT'S ALL LEANING ON HER.
Overrating women is not the problem, merely a symptom. The problem is in
each person not the opposite sex. Underrating women is not the answer
either, treating women as the people they are is.
>
>There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
>thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
>(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
>to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
>doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
>are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
>call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
>for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
>step, no?)
Couldn't stand to calmy discuss without going back to your tired old
slams, eh? If you think you know what I think about dating problems, you
are sadly mistaken. Your biggest error above is going back to step one.
That is called regression not progression. Move forward from where you
are. Learning from past mistakes is not an Universal, you have to learn
from your own mistakes as those are the ones hindering your progress.
You might get insight from others but it is your own internal systems
that need to be debugged. Life isn't Windows '95 and there is no upgrade.
>
>And no, we don't play their games. I feel that by not doing so, it will
>count to my advantage. And in some ways, it has; I've had 2 dates this
>year and it's only February; things are going better than my entire LIFE
>before this, and while I may not be The Mackdaddy Who Has a Date Per Day
>(can't even try to be a mackdaddy, in my situation :), I have done well for
>myself. Why? Unlike you, I recognize the game play and the adversarial
>element. I work to define it. Then I work a way around it. Then I don't
>run into it anymore and I can go on from there, in a non-adversarial,
>non-games-oriented fashion. By recognizing what it is and dealing with it,
>Kolstad, you can get around it. That's what Ilya and I are saying; we
>aren't imagining things, and we ain't wallowing in it.
<sigh> Again you presume things about me that you have no knowledge of.
You actually think that I don't see the adversarial games in action? I
bet I've seen more than you have. What I don't do is assume that there
is a network of these games being played but some set of rules. You
can't do anything more than take each case individually. If you try to,
you will be less than successful.
>
>When I have a solution on how to get around it, I post it. If I see
>someone else mired in it, I'll repost.
>
>
>>You can surely choose to sit silently and wait for women to come to you,
>>but I wouldn't hold your breath.
>
>Where do you get *THAT* from? You're reaching into a grab bag for this
>stuff, Kolstad. Neither Ilya nor I wish to sit idle, nor do we sit idle
>about it. I suspect that, like me, he's a man of action, a man of going
>out into that world and going for a piece of the action.
From your implied statements about not chasing women, not paying them the
attention, and not playing games because you want women to be more active
in dating. Well, you can't have it both ways. You either have to play
with the hands you are dealt or fold. You won't change the entire scope
of dating in your lifetime. Bank on it.
>
>And don't even assume you know what action I'm talking about; chances are,
>you're going to be off-mark, especially if you're thinking about sex.
Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
It doesn't matter if you are still The Guy She Doesn't Want to Attract.
You have to get your filters fixed and be more exciting, (no Steve,
exciting is not a bad thing nor is being a good conversationalist), if
you aren't doing well with the way you are proceeding at present,
reevaluate it. Don't swing to the opposite view because these types of
extreme swings don't show you to be your own person but an inconsistent
one. One thing women are wary of is someone that isn't consistent as
they never know how they will be from time to time. If you are looking
for a relationship, which would seem to be the end result of dating, you
need to be stable enough, as seen by the women, to have her open up her
trust to you. Anything less raises doubts.
>
>But ask Ilya, not me....Ilya are you just sitting by and complaining?
You asked him, I'll hang up and wait for his reply.
Bill Kolstad
>In article <mnemosyne-130...@pm3-1.pacificnet.net>, YTsai <mnem...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>If you're not my friend, what makes you think you're going to get much further?
>>My sexual partner is also my best friend. Who else am I going to trade
>>sexual fantasies with?
>
>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
What's the b.s. above Steve, that is a valid point. There is a lot of
mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
poor way of doing it.
>
>A lot of men out there have women friends (and probably vice-versa on this
>situation, too), but none of these friends want to take it any further.
That can only be confirmed by asking them, don't be predisposed as to
mind reading as you will not be correct most of the time.
>
>I, personally, was one who suffered with that problem. What I and many
>other men wish, is that just *ONE* of these women would give us a try,
>sexual or otherwise.
Did you ask or just assume they didn't want to?
>
>My beloved was a friend of mine before this, indeed a close one, as I could
>only talk to her about what I was going through at the time, as she could
>with me. (My ex-fiancee' was remarkably jealous about women being around
>me, and I foolishly felt that any female company was tantamount to risking
>messing around. Foolishly.) But she was the first close friend, among
>many dozens over 11 years of being in the dating market, to take it any
>further.
>
>No, wait, she was the second. Toni was the first. Make it 8 years.
So, then, it has in fact happened to you twice. Why then do you sound as
if you disbelieve that it happens more often?
>
>Forget about women who don't want to take it any further; I wish more women
>like YOU were in my social circles, when I was single.
There likely were more women like that when you were single(actually you
still are), it is just that not all of them will be a match.
>
>
>-- Steve, and for all those guys coming up behind me...
Bill Kolstad (I'll bite my tounge on that line)
Steve Chaney
>In article <DMrLy...@freenet.carleton.ca>, ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...
>>
>
>I thought that his comments were too inflammatory and a bit out of place (after
>all this thread isn't about why women should ask men out). But I do think he
>has some good points, in his argument. Why shouldn't women ask men out? I'm
>not saying that men should stop asking women out, just that women are just as
>capable as men are, of asking someone out.
Read his stuff again. If the man doesn't spend as much time as he does,
chasing her (something Kolstad doesn't understand; I don't mean "NEVER"
chase, I mean stop chasing as MUCH), and if he develops a way to catch
people's attention (something I've said before also, but Kolstad missed it
obviously), he's more likely to be hit on instead of having to do ALL the
startup work himself. Ilya just said that guys do too much initiation
work.
>>Your reality is not the same one the rest of us live in.
>>
>Well, I don't know how things are in Canada, but in the US, it's not often that
>a woman asks out a man, at least from my perspective (I've never been asked
>out but a couple of my male college friends were asked out by a couple of
>college women, the rest of my male friends had to do the asking).
So, that's three of us who agree.
-- Steve
Douglas T. Collins
>> I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>> just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>> strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>> but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>> games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>> women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
>> but it is in her hands. Men just remember it is better to just accept
>> a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
>> as an obnoxious jerk!
>>
females, thus ensuring that only the most fit specimen passes his genes
on to the next generation. A good analogy is the Rocky Mountain Sheep
female that leads potential suitors on a grueling chase before one of
them is allowed to mate. This one happens to be the strongest, healthiest,
and most persistent animal. Now I will grant you this; humans should know
better. However, I am afraid that cultural evolution hasn't quite caught
up yet, and to some extent we remain prisoners of our own genetic code.
...hmmm, rationalizing a bit, but what the hell.
--
Doug
Ilya
|In article <4fqodq$o...@newslink.runet.edu>, Ilya <ibel...@runet.edu> wrote:
|>Andreas Tovornik (ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
|
|[among others who's attribs have been wiped]
|>|
>|>> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
>|>> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
>|>> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
>|>> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
|>>> should we play the dating game on your terms?
|>|>
|> "whining" than to intellegently address them, and that is what you are
|> doing, as well as resorting to insults since you have nothing of substance
|> to contribute.
|
|What the endless anthem of Whys? Those are answered quite easily. You
|seem to be the ones who are so up in a bunch over dating.
Same thing, over and over again: Instead of addressing my arguments, you
are attributing the problem to me, which is a pathetic tactic. I am
subjectively describing societal trends I see everyday in life and you are
clearly are not competent enough to address these issues so you are forced
to label me names. To my question of "Why men have to be the sellers and
women the buyers" as well as other ones, your answer is "It is you ... "
You are avoiding the questions and you are resorting to personal attacks,
as I have mentioned before. What you are saying makes no sense at all to
me and is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.
|Sorry, but you are not contributing anything more than that same tired
|old line about how unfair it all is.
Well, that is your interpretation of what I said. The truth is that I have
not inserted my personal feelings into this discussion, I just asked a few
normal questions about the nature of the dating scene and you by now have
convinced me that you are not capable of answering them in any way. The
validity of what someone is saying does not somehow depend on the person
who is raising these issues. Who I am has absolutely no relevence to
anything in this discussion.
Paul Probus
>
>GERSZ,CAROLYN,M (ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu) wrote:
>|I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>|just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>|strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>|but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>|games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>|you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
>|women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
>|her.
I agree. I've always taken "no" to mean "no". There's no ambiguity
whatsoever. Now I'm not saying that the door was not open after I've been
turned down (most times it was, however, I couldn't be "just friends") and any
time, if they had changed their minds, they could have asked me out, but I
would *not* ask them out a second time. To do so just serves to heap more
rejection on top of rejection. It's best to move on, no matter how hard it is.
>
> I see. Thank you for sharing your infinite wisdom with the rest of the
> world. A few legitimate questions arise: Why should guys take the
> intiative 100 percent of the time? Why should we humiliate ourselves and
> boost women's egos? Why, why, why? I concede, "no" means "no". This hardly
> tells me anything I did not already know.
>
>Go on to the next.
>
> No, thank you for the offer. Why should *we* jump through societal hoops
> to please your (now, that plural, not singular) obnoxious egos? What do
> *you* have to offer us? Why should it be the man who always has to
> perform, perform, perform, try harder, try again, deal with a seemingly
> endless string of rejections, et cetera? Just because status-quo says so?
> Just because the rest of society terribly overrates female sexuality? Why
> should we play the dating game on your terms?
While you do make some valid points, I believe that Carolyn was simply talking
about situations where men ask out women. I agree with you that women should
take the intiative more, however, this thread was started on the basis of men
asking women out, the woman saying no and the man persisting. I see nothing
wrong with talking about men asking women out separately from women asking men
out.
>
>|If she is interested then she will respond,
>|but it is in her hands.
>
> Only if you think it is.
Ah, but alas it is. If you do the asking, then it is, in fact, *her* decision.
Again, if you sit back and wait for her to respond to you (ie. by asking you
out), again, it is in her hands. Either way, it's in her hands.
>
>|Men just remember it is better to just accept
>|a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
>|as an obnoxious jerk!
>
Not to mention that asking out a woman who's already turned you down is just
asking for more rejection. If she doesn't want to date you, there's nothing
you can do. If she changes her mind later (unlikely) then she'll ask you out,
if she doesn't then she really never wanted to date you.
Paul Probus
pro...@cnj.digex.net
Paul Probus
>>> Dude, you speak the words of the MOST wise. I'm not being sarcastic, it's
>>>> high assed TIME that someone braved the PC barrier and told the truth.
>>>
>>>From my perspective, it came across like whining. In my experience,
>>>any encounter works out favorably when the people involved have
>>>respect for each other and don't look at dating or sex from an
>>>adversarial point of view. Desperation, as exemplified by Ilya's
>>>rant, is not attractive...
>>
I thought that his comments were too inflammatory and a bit out of place (after
all this thread isn't about why women should ask men out). But I do think he
has some good points, in his argument. Why shouldn't women ask men out? I'm
not saying that men should stop asking women out, just that women are just as
capable as men are, of asking someone out.
>
>The attitude with which he writes is soaked in desperation from
>my perspective...
>
>> He's taking a stand against things that happen
>> in real life, something that is rather barely short of encompassingly
>> trrue.
>
>Maybe things are like that where you live, and perhaps they are
>true in your environment, but you must take into consideration
>that anyone who reads this could be in a very different kind of
>place where none of what you or ILya wrote about happens. Imagine
>how things are in Ireland or rural Quebec, or even here in Vicky...
>
>Your reality is not the same one the rest of us live in.
>
Ilya
|In article <4flnef$7...@newslink.runet.edu>, ibel...@runet.edu says...
|>
|>|but it is in her hands.
|>
|> Only if you think it is.
|
|Ah, but alas it is. If you do the asking, then it is, in fact, *her* decision.
|Again, if you sit back and wait for her to respond to you (ie. by asking you
|out), again, it is in her hands. Either way, it's in her hands.
If men don't ask, NOTHING will happen, get that into your head.
Women are sellers to the same degree men are.
Ilya
Steve Chaney
>In article <4fsl83$k...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>In article <4fr6l5$n...@ecom1.ecn.bgu.edu>, Bill Kolstad <guc...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <4fqodq$o...@newslink.runet.edu>, Ilya <ibel...@runet.edu> wrote:
>>>>Andreas Tovornik (ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>>
>>>What the endless anthem of Whys? Those are answered quite easily. You
>>>seem to be the ones who are so up in a bunch over dating. You are the
>>>ones who want dates and don't seem to be willing to understand that you
>>>might not be attractive to those women. Those women don't owe the time
>>>of day to you or anyone else. They have their own set of criteria.
>>
>>Ilya was talking about guys who are persistent with women to the point of
>>being harassing, and how it is indicative of how far men are willing to go
>>for women. So far as to go TOO far. Why do they do that? Why do we put
>>out for women so much? Why should we? Perhaps, we should not.
>>
>>This was not "why do women not like Ilya/Steve."
>
>No it certainly wasn't. But what you claim it to be isn't correct
>either. Guys that harass and go too far are a different class entirely
>than the ones that just have had a bad time of it. It doesn't take a
>degree to see the difference. You could stop being so persistent in
>chasing women, though you will likely find that if you chase none, you
>won't be chased much either. Again, this is your choice.
These super persistent guys are bad news, and noone's debating that - but
a root of the problem is the fact that for most men, the man has to do all
the initiation. Another unrelated one is the concept that if you push hard
enough, a button will give. That some women give like this, only fans the
flames, burning everyone ELSE who runs afoul of this, both the women who
find themselves having to deal with guys who try this, and the guys who get
their nads quite justly smashed in, or their asses thrown onto the pavement
by a bouncer.
Second of all, I don't suggest you NEVER hit on women; however, some guys
never have to, the women come to them. And my end goal is to know how to
do that myself - and transfer it to others...as many others as possible..
That was never my point.
>>But we have to listen, on soc.singles, to women who, at the same time, talk
>>about how they get jerked around by the Exciting Men that they reject us
>>for. Ever heard of that book "100 lies men tell women?" It's a
>>collection, IMO, of the experiences that women have when they deal with
>>jerks; some Nice Guys From Hell experiences, but mostly assholes they chase
>>in place of Nice Guy/wallflower types.
>
>Gee, how did they ever stop at 100? We all have had bad timess and
>people lie to us, and this only enforces the negatives of dating not how
>to overcome them. Hey, one person's excitement is another's boredom.
Sad that there's no book about the lies women tell men. I know, I asked at
the front counter at Border's. They haven't heard of one and it isn't on
their HIGHLY extensive book list.
>Maybe Nice Guys are just as guilty of bad dating filters as are women.
Ergo I advise them, if you've read my posts, to change who they go after.
>>What is it about NG's that they don't like? Probably what my girlfriend
>>said to me: I would take the ten-foot-pole approach towards her; I would
>>ask before I touched her (some NG's take "no means no" so far as to say
>>"lack of a `touch me please' means 'no'"), I would hesitate to speak for
>>her, or make a decision involving her, etc. I was bad, bad bad about it;
>>very strongly anti-aggressive, in fact, just out of fear of being too
>>pushy. IMHO, along these lines, you may find the root as to why, in many
>>cases, it is true that women don't go for Nice Guys.
>
>No, no, no! You are thinking in extremes again. What you describe with
>your girlfriend is nothing but polite courtsey, not Nice Guyism. What
>drives women away from Nice Guys is that they try to go from 0 - 140 in
>the shortest possible timeframe. Trust takes time, and trust is the only
>thing that makes it work.
Really...? In what ways do they go too fast? Not like a challenge or
anything, but my gut says you've got a point.
>Overrating women is not the problem, merely a symptom. The problem is in
>each person not the opposite sex. Underrating women is not the answer
>either, treating women as the people they are is.
Noone said to underrate women.
>>There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
>>thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
>>(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
>>to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
>>doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
>>are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
>>call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
>>for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
>>step, no?)
>
>Couldn't stand to calmy discuss without going back to your tired old
>slams, eh? If you think you know what I think about dating problems, you
>are sadly mistaken. Your biggest error above is going back to step one.
>That is called regression not progression. Move forward from where you
>are. Learning from past mistakes is not an Universal, you have to learn
>from your own mistakes as those are the ones hindering your progress.
There is a lot of moving forward involved, but sometimes, see, you wind up
at LA-X, and someone needs to go to Bakersfield. So you go back to the
101/405 junction, take the 101 back, and head up North. Analogously,
that's what needs to be done here. Unless you can afford a helicopter to
skip all those steps.
>You might get insight from others but it is your own internal systems
>that need to be debugged. Life isn't Windows '95 and there is no upgrade.
That has nothing to do with what I said. But there are general wisdoms
involved, some do's and dont's, that are valid to just about anyone.
Starting with "no means no."
><sigh> Again you presume things about me that you have no knowledge of.
>You actually think that I don't see the adversarial games in action?
Then why are Ilya and I being ribbed for it? If you've seen it, then why
all this...?
>I bet I've seen more than you have. What I don't do is assume that there
>is a network of these games being played but some set of rules. You
>can't do anything more than take each case individually. If you try to,
>you will be less than successful.
Noone's talking about a network. However, many of these things are quite
common, not seldom, and while noone's passing around a manual or training
people to do this, IMO it is possibly someting Nature does. There is a
perfectly rational, psychological reason which drives men and women to play
these ambiguous games, it just hasn't been discussed yet as far as I've
seen.
>>Where do you get *THAT* from? You're reaching into a grab bag for this
>>stuff, Kolstad. Neither Ilya nor I wish to sit idle, nor do we sit idle
>>about it. I suspect that, like me, he's a man of action, a man of going
>>out into that world and going for a piece of the action.
>
>From your implied statements about not chasing women, not paying them the
>attention, and not playing games because you want women to be more active
>in dating. Well, you can't have it both ways. You either have to play
>with the hands you are dealt or fold. You won't change the entire scope
>of dating in your lifetime. Bank on it.
No, but I can do what I can and pass it on. Aggressively. And my point
about not chasing is, there are many women who play the "opposites" -
meaning, if you're NOT the one chasing her, or you're one of the guys who
aren't treating her like an object(ive), then she will wonder why, and will
come to you to see why. In my (in?)famous dating advice file, I pointed
out the fact that in many cases, if you just talk to her and treat her as a
companion and such, she'll start pushing your buttons to see how to get
you. By that point you're likely to get asked out, among other things.
Not all women react like this...but enough do that if you cultivate this
and provide a reason for someone to be interested in you, you're going to
be quite a ladies' man.
How do you become interesting....? Probably the answer lies in the issue
of tapping what ignites one's passions. In fact, I was handed a book for
my philosophical troubles, by someone else who is also, in real life,
interested in the solution-finding part of this dilemma. "Friends and
Lovers: How to meet the people you want to meet" by Bhaerman and McMillan,
at the bottom of page 11, a woman was talking to a man and the conversation
was VERY dull; until she asked him what turns him on...and he said sailing.
He went off into a long animated discussion about it, and even though she'd
never sailed in her life, she was attracted to his passion.
The end lesson: get into that which ignites your passions - and hope that
there are single women involved also. And then apply your lesson in not
being overly aggressive. Don't approach her until you've had some time
amidst this group; if things work out like they should and often do, either
she'll come to you, or when you DO come to her, it'll be a lot better.
Therein lies a dilemma in which the individual is left on their own to
combine the element of passion and the presence of women.
>>And don't even assume you know what action I'm talking about; chances are,
>>you're going to be off-mark, especially if you're thinking about sex.
>
>Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
I said "if" - I didn't presume you were.
>It doesn't matter if you are still The Guy She Doesn't Want to Attract.
>You have to get your filters fixed and be more exciting, (no Steve,
>exciting is not a bad thing nor is being a good conversationalist),
Never said being exciting or good at conversation, was a bad thing. It
isn't the best of filters, but the world isn't perfect either. Terrible
traits should be avoided, less terrible things should be avoided or put up
with, inversely proportional to how idiotic it is. Women who look for rich
men, and men who date only beauty queens, are to be avoided, IMO; people
who only go after the life-of-the-party types, should be avoided or put up
with at discretion; people who don't want to deal with unpassionate,
neither-hot-nor-cold types, aren't bad people, and their filter is
"borderline okay."
>if you aren't doing well with the way you are proceeding at present,
>reevaluate it. Don't swing to the opposite view because these types of
>extreme swings don't show you to be your own person but an inconsistent
>one.
I'm not going to extremes.
--- Steve
Steve Chaney
>In article <4fsn05$p...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>In article <mnemosyne-130...@pm3-1.pacificnet.net>, YTsai <mnem...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>>If you're not my friend, what makes you think you're going to get much further?
>>>My sexual partner is also my best friend. Who else am I going to trade
>>>sexual fantasies with?
>>
>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>
>What's the b.s. above Steve, that is a valid point. There is a lot of
>mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
>other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
>poor way of doing it.
The b.s., I was referring to, is the back and forth "why don't women date
their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
>>A lot of men out there have women friends (and probably vice-versa on this
>>situation, too), but none of these friends want to take it any further.
>
>That can only be confirmed by asking them, don't be predisposed as to
>mind reading as you will not be correct most of the time.
*Thonk* hellooooooooooooo? Bill, listen...look... we (who complain about
this issue) have experienced the action of having asked the woman, and the
taste of rejection after having asked. That is why this issue is on the
table.
>>I, personally, was one who suffered with that problem. What I and many
>>other men wish, is that just *ONE* of these women would give us a try,
>>sexual or otherwise.
>
>Did you ask or just assume they didn't want to?
Asked.
>So, then, it has in fact happened to you twice. Why then do you sound as
>if you disbelieve that it happens more often?
I didn't say I disbelieved it, I said it was rare for me.
>>Forget about women who don't want to take it any further; I wish more women
>>like YOU were in my social circles, when I was single.
>
>There likely were more women like that when you were single(actually you
>still are), it is just that not all of them will be a match.
Until the age of 22, "not all" was "none."
>>-- Steve, and for all those guys coming up behind me...
>
>Bill Kolstad (I'll bite my tounge on that line)
Man, and I forgot my asbestos undies.
-- Steve, puns, puns, puns
Steve Chaney
Not really, Ilya. Some women are interested in why YOU didn't chase her.
It's almost like Wile E Coyote, the way it happens. The rock is in mid
air, and she'll get out and stomp on it doing everything she can to make it
MOVE. Be sure that when it moves, it moves the way you want it to move :)
-- Steve
Jim Dutton
>Just to clarify, I do not look at every woman as a potential date. Nor did
>Look. Listen. The women flocked to their table, despite their constant
>bouts of rudeness (spilling food, getting into fights amongst themselves,
>come and starting fights with US when all we did was keep to ourselves - oh
>wait, you know nothing about that, you think nerds FORCE jocks to bother
>them, or that jocks never bother anyone), getting some women pregnant and
>shooing them off as a result, coming to *US* to bail their asses out of
>flunking out of class, etc. We were quiet guys who had a passion for
>chess, role playing games, and sci-fi, we didn't go pinching women's asses
>like these guys like to, we didn't start fights, we didn't badmouth people
>- and guess what. The women didn't come by us, they didn't like us, they
>physically and overtly looked at what we liked and LAUGHED...
>Oh no, Andreas, by your reasoning we did everything we could to chase them
>off, oh yeah us evil monsters! So, Andreas, was it the way we beat the
>women up? How did you know we, in reality, were plotting to axe murder
>them? Gee man, I can't believe you saw how obnoxious or dispassionate that
>we were.
You got it stalker boy.
>Yes, Adamantium Skull of Impenetrability, the nerd table is QUITE WELL
>KNOWN in society as the place that high school women liked to avoid. You
>represent the most ignorant part of society which has not gotten out long
>enough to see it. Even psychologists recognize that factor...but you? Oh
>no, Andreas, in your sheltered-from-reality life, the nerd table had its
>share of women.
Plenty of people with brains have no problem with women. Focus on the nerd
Steve. It shouldn't be a stretch for you.
>Oh God, how much was your mother drinking when she was having you....?
Or in your case what was the crack dealer thinking?
>Let's see. They had the women, they had the dates. We didn't. We didn't
>learn how to become attractive to women, and it has affected MILLIONS of
>men, many of whom are now posting here, resorting to personals, etc. Let
>me say it in the most plainest of English, hoping that you understand
>English well enough to get it: the grass would be greener to have more
>dates and girlfriends, than maybe 1 or 2 in one's entire life. It was
>better to have what the jocks had, than what we had. And you keep talking
>as if I am the only person who would say this. In that you are patently
>wrong.
In your case it should be any dates or girlfriends. Get some help.
>>You appear to still be going through it. Would you
>>be all that surprised if the "jocks" were thinking that they were
>>blaming all their shortcomings on getting poor grades?
>
>They didn't HAVE shortcomings besides their *ball performance; they came to
>US to save their fucking grades. If I was smart, I'd have gotten with my
>group, and told them to refuse to help them unless they got us in with
>those women. Either that or let their asses FLUNK.
Because all women are stupid egh dumbass.
>If I'd been smart.
There's your problem.
-Jeem, You are so fascinating Steve.
========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" --
Paul 1 Corinthians 10:29
========================================================================
Charlotte L. Blackmer
>I thought that his comments were too inflammatory and a bit out of place (after
>all this thread isn't about why women should ask men out). But I do think he
>has some good points, in his argument. Why shouldn't women ask men out? I'm
>not saying that men should stop asking women out, just that women are just as
>capable as men are, of asking someone out.
Exactly right, and I don't think you would get too much argument on that
point.
The whole idea is a topic of frequent discussion here, though, and in the
course of discussion, a number of the men who regularly post here have said
"sure, women have asked me out", and a number of the women who regularly
post here have said "sure, I've asked guys out".
Folks could argue frequency and stuff (and frequently do - yawn), but for
the basic idea, sure, great idea, it does happen, next!
>Well, I don't know how things are in Canada, but in the US, it's not often that
>a woman asks out a man, at least from my perspective (I've never been asked
>out but a couple of my male college friends were asked out by a couple of
>college women, the rest of my male friends had to do the asking).
Well, different people have different experiences (don't think the border
makes too much of a difference for this). Perhaps you might see how
folks might get annoyed at hearing statements such as "women never ask
men out" when their experience is different. I compliment you on not
using such categoric language, by the way :-)
Cheers,
CLB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer c...@rahul.net
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Edward Lawrence
'raging feminists(sic) can stop reading now. I have been 'through the mill'
twice, and don't want to do it again, so don't bother on that line.
I have been single since 1980, and am getting old enough that I really
don't give a damn if the woman says Yes or No. And I have a substantial income
so I feel that I can attract women that are much younger that before my income
increased.
Many of you complaining females are complaining because you are NOT
GETTING ASKED! Me thinks thou dost complainist too much. You have gotten FAT
and
LAZY, old dogs, so to speak, and still think you are cute little puppys. Get
an objective view of yourself, and I think your attitude will improve.
Yes, many men refuse to stop completely at the first "No". Why would a
man continue to press the issue after being turned down, you ask? Guess what!
Most women will say no the first time as a matter of form, so they don't feel
like a slut when they say YES latter, and so they can fool themselves into
believing "IT just happened! I told him No!"
So I feel that the answer is for you women to become more mature in
these areas. Stop playing 'cat and mouse', and become more truthful with your
self. Then you can move on to becoming more truthful with others. Now, I also
feel that men in general need to follow the same advice, and quit their portion
of this silly, distructive game. But one person here and there won't make the
game go away. Never-the-less, all I can do is work on changing my own actions,
while encourging others to be more honest. Good Luck!
John Fereira
>In article <4ftbtq$l...@ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu>, Bill Kolstad <guc...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4fsn05$p...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>In article <mnemosyne-130...@pm3-1.pacificnet.net>, YTsai <mnem...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>>>If you're not my friend, what makes you think you're going to get much further?
>>>>My sexual partner is also my best friend. Who else am I going to trade
>>>>sexual fantasies with?
>>>
>>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>>
>>What's the b.s. above Steve, that is a valid point. There is a lot of
>>mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
>>other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
>>poor way of doing it.
>
>The b.s., I was referring to, is the back and forth "why don't women date
>their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
>forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
>intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
--
John Fereira
fer...@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY
Todd Gilbert
Probus) wrote:
>
> Ah, but alas it is. If you do the asking, then it is, in fact, *her*
decision.
> Again, if you sit back and wait for her to respond to you (ie. by asking you
> out), again, it is in her hands. Either way, it's in her hands.
Whoa, nellie! So if you do the asking she has control, but if she
does the asking she has control? [all together now] BZZZZZZZT.
Perhaps what you meant is she has _some_ control. She can say no.
She can opt not to ask you out. But of course, the same is true for
you. You seem to be suggesting at least one of the following:
You'll go out with anyone and you ask _everyone_
(inferring from your tone) You wish that merely wanting
a woman would make her yours.
Clearly neither of these is healthy. Resolve it/them and
you'll probably do better in the dating arena.
regards,
Todd
--
tgil...@news.abq.bdm.com The owls are not what they seem
<I speak for the only person I can speak for>
o/~ "Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand"
Remember when the CDA was _just_ the Canadian Dental Association?
Bill Kolstad
[Warning: Long Post, all text remains for context. If you are looking
for flames hit 'n']
The man has to do all the initiating. No kidding! Since, from your
perspective, the man wants attention, he has to do something to get it.
Just being isn't enough. The manner of initiation is the variable here.
You can go for the rude obnoxious route, the opposite of sitting silently
staring, or try for a balance that feels right for you. Stop focusing on
the dating aspects and have a good time, it worked for you once. Don't
shy away from talking to people even if they aren't the ones you are
interested in, it lets the ones you may be interested in know you are
approachable.
>
>Second of all, I don't suggest you NEVER hit on women; however, some guys
>never have to, the women come to them. And my end goal is to know how to
>do that myself - and transfer it to others...as many others as possible..
>That was never my point.
That isn't a skill that can be learned and passed on as much as it is an
attitude that you live and it can't be faked.
>
>
>>>But we have to listen, on soc.singles, to women who, at the same time, talk
>>>about how they get jerked around by the Exciting Men that they reject us
>>>for. Ever heard of that book "100 lies men tell women?" It's a
>>>collection, IMO, of the experiences that women have when they deal with
>>>jerks; some Nice Guys From Hell experiences, but mostly assholes they chase
>>>in place of Nice Guy/wallflower types.
>>
>>Gee, how did they ever stop at 100? We all have had bad timess and
>>people lie to us, and this only enforces the negatives of dating not how
>>to overcome them. Hey, one person's excitement is another's boredom.
>
>Sad that there's no book about the lies women tell men. I know, I asked at
>the front counter at Border's. They haven't heard of one and it isn't on
>their HIGHLY extensive book list.
I told you to write one, didn't you listen.
>
>
>>Maybe Nice Guys are just as guilty of bad dating filters as are women.
>
>Ergo I advise them, if you've read my posts, to change who they go after.
>
Not complete enough. The ones they go after may be fine and it is their
attitudes that need altering. Ever meet a average guy who sees a good
looking woman and says "She'll never go out with me". Attitude. If you
look at the dating scene in negatives like that you will find it. An
average looking guy with a proper attitude will see the woman in question
and say "She looks like my type, I think I'll go talk to her and find out
some more." I know it sounds a bit like those old sales courses but
Positive Mental Outlook is a plus in these situations. I know you'll
probably counter with the "What if she just blows the guy off(not in a
good way for the sick minds out there)?" question. Hey, a guy that is
looking positively will then be able to say, "Well, guess she isn't my
type after all, now where was I" and go on with his evening. This is
something that has to be tried over and over and then some more before
you get it to be natural. Practice in front of the mirror, ask some
female friends to let you try it on them as practice, just don't expect
that the world will change overnight, that will happen after the first
success and your confidence builds. Setbacks are only temporary.
>
>>>What is it about NG's that they don't like? Probably what my girlfriend
>>>said to me: I would take the ten-foot-pole approach towards her; I would
>>>ask before I touched her (some NG's take "no means no" so far as to say
>>>"lack of a `touch me please' means 'no'"), I would hesitate to speak for
>>>her, or make a decision involving her, etc. I was bad, bad bad about it;
>>>very strongly anti-aggressive, in fact, just out of fear of being too
>>>pushy. IMHO, along these lines, you may find the root as to why, in many
>>>cases, it is true that women don't go for Nice Guys.
>>
>>No, no, no! You are thinking in extremes again. What you describe with
>>your girlfriend is nothing but polite courtsey, not Nice Guyism. What
>>drives women away from Nice Guys is that they try to go from 0 - 140 in
>>the shortest possible timeframe. Trust takes time, and trust is the only
>>thing that makes it work.
>
>Really...? In what ways do they go too fast? Not like a challenge or
>anything, but my gut says you've got a point.
This is tough to put into words but I'll try. A nice guy gets a girl to
sit and have a drink with him. Many nice guys then have their brains
rushing so frantically to figure out what's next that they blow it by
assuming things before they are discussed. Some nice guys also try to
move into physical contact, even what seems to be non-threatening contact
such as hand holding, long before they should. Basically they are in a
hurry to get to L O V E, and they scare the heck out of the woman. In
other cases they blast their life's history into the conversation and
then run the woman through the third degree trying to get an equal amount
of information from them. Slow down, but not stop. Pay attention to the
person you are talking with and take cues from them on the pace of
conversation.
>
>
>>Overrating women is not the problem, merely a symptom. The problem is in
>>each person not the opposite sex. Underrating women is not the answer
>>either, treating women as the people they are is.
>
>Noone said to underrate women.
Implied.
>
>
>>>There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
>>>thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
>>>(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
>>>to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
>>>doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
>>>are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
>>>call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
>>>for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
>>>step, no?)
>>
>>Couldn't stand to calmy discuss without going back to your tired old
>>slams, eh? If you think you know what I think about dating problems, you
>>are sadly mistaken. Your biggest error above is going back to step one.
>>That is called regression not progression. Move forward from where you
>>are. Learning from past mistakes is not an Universal, you have to learn
>>from your own mistakes as those are the ones hindering your progress.
>
>There is a lot of moving forward involved, but sometimes, see, you wind up
>at LA-X, and someone needs to go to Bakersfield. So you go back to the
>101/405 junction, take the 101 back, and head up North. Analogously,
>that's what needs to be done here. Unless you can afford a helicopter to
>skip all those steps.
Wrong analogy. When you are talking about patterns in a person's makeup,
you can't just wipe the slate clean and start over. Many things can't be
added and deleted as easily as they can be modified. I wouldn't, for
instance, take the motor out of a car because I was getting bad milage,
I'd tune it up.
> >
>>You might get insight from others but it is your own internal systems
>>that need to be debugged. Life isn't Windows '95 and there is no upgrade.
>
>That has nothing to do with what I said. But there are general wisdoms
>involved, some do's and dont's, that are valid to just about anyone.
>Starting with "no means no."
And maybe fix yourself before fixing others.
>
>
>><sigh> Again you presume things about me that you have no knowledge of.
>>You actually think that I don't see the adversarial games in action?
>
>Then why are Ilya and I being ribbed for it? If you've seen it, then why
>all this...?
Because what you say and what I see aren't matching up. You are trying
to apply a solution wholesale in a retail market.
>
>
>>I bet I've seen more than you have. What I don't do is assume that there
>>is a network of these games being played but some set of rules. You
>>can't do anything more than take each case individually. If you try to,
>>you will be less than successful.
>
>Noone's talking about a network. However, many of these things are quite
>common, not seldom, and while noone's passing around a manual or training
>people to do this, IMO it is possibly someting Nature does. There is a
>perfectly rational, psychological reason which drives men and women to play
>these ambiguous games, it just hasn't been discussed yet as far as I've
>seen.
Hard to describe what some people have tried to figure out for thousands
of years, and still come up way too short. You need to get more specific
with each person and combination that is involved to get workable
answers. No blankets.
> >
>>>Where do you get *THAT* from? You're reaching into a grab bag for this
>>>stuff, Kolstad. Neither Ilya nor I wish to sit idle, nor do we sit idle
>>>about it. I suspect that, like me, he's a man of action, a man of going
>>>out into that world and going for a piece of the action.
>>
>>From your implied statements about not chasing women, not paying them the
>>attention, and not playing games because you want women to be more active
>>in dating. Well, you can't have it both ways. You either have to play
>>with the hands you are dealt or fold. You won't change the entire scope
>>of dating in your lifetime. Bank on it.
>
>No, but I can do what I can and pass it on. Aggressively. And my point
>about not chasing is, there are many women who play the "opposites" -
>meaning, if you're NOT the one chasing her, or you're one of the guys who
>aren't treating her like an object(ive), then she will wonder why, and will
>come to you to see why. In my (in?)famous dating advice file, I pointed
>out the fact that in many cases, if you just talk to her and treat her as a
>companion and such, she'll start pushing your buttons to see how to get
>you. By that point you're likely to get asked out, among other things.
>Not all women react like this...but enough do that if you cultivate this
>and provide a reason for someone to be interested in you, you're going to
>be quite a ladies' man.
I do not see this happening all that often. Unless you draw some kind of
attention you will get none because people aren't there looking for you.
They come to hang out and maybe meet friends that they already know.
Unless you are going to the meat market places, which I don't.
>
>How do you become interesting....? Probably the answer lies in the issue
>of tapping what ignites one's passions. In fact, I was handed a book for
>my philosophical troubles, by someone else who is also, in real life,
>interested in the solution-finding part of this dilemma. "Friends and
>Lovers: How to meet the people you want to meet" by Bhaerman and McMillan,
>at the bottom of page 11, a woman was talking to a man and the conversation
>was VERY dull; until she asked him what turns him on...and he said sailing.
>He went off into a long animated discussion about it, and even though she'd
>never sailed in her life, she was attracted to his passion.
>
>The end lesson: get into that which ignites your passions - and hope that
>there are single women involved also. And then apply your lesson in not
>being overly aggressive. Don't approach her until you've had some time
>amidst this group; if things work out like they should and often do, either
>she'll come to you, or when you DO come to her, it'll be a lot better.
>
>Therein lies a dilemma in which the individual is left on their own to
>combine the element of passion and the presence of women.
Now this makes much more sense. It is more along the lines of
customizing to your personality and the one of the person you are
interested in. Don't think it is easy, because it isn't. Mistakes will
be made and hopefully learned from. It's like A+B=C where A,B, and C are
unknowns. Experiment and don't take it too seriously.
>
>>>And don't even assume you know what action I'm talking about; chances are,
>>>you're going to be off-mark, especially if you're thinking about sex.
>>
>>Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
>
>I said "if" - I didn't presume you were.
>
>
>>It doesn't matter if you are still The Guy She Doesn't Want to Attract.
>>You have to get your filters fixed and be more exciting, (no Steve,
>>exciting is not a bad thing nor is being a good conversationalist),
>
>Never said being exciting or good at conversation, was a bad thing.
Implied in much of your posts. Blaming Mr. Exciting or Smooth Talkers is
not an endorsement.
>It isn't the best of filters, but the world isn't perfect either. Terrible
>traits should be avoided, less terrible things should be avoided or put up
>with, inversely proportional to how idiotic it is. Women who look for rich
>men, and men who date only beauty queens, are to be avoided, IMO; people
>who only go after the life-of-the-party types, should be avoided or put up
>with at discretion; people who don't want to deal with unpassionate,
>neither-hot-nor-cold types, aren't bad people, and their filter is
>"borderline okay."
>
These aren't traits of the filtering mechanism. These are personality
issues that will vary immensely between people. You won't be able to
spot them that easily. This is where the advice about being yourself
comes in. If you are true to yourself, not the self that you are cast
as, you will attract people that are your type. I can't put it any
plainer than that.
>
>>if you aren't doing well with the way you are proceeding at present,
>>reevaluate it. Don't swing to the opposite view because these types of
>>extreme swings don't show you to be your own person but an inconsistent
>>one.
>
>I'm not going to extremes.
>
Then tone down the extremes in your advice and look for balance.
Would love to continue this for now, but I've had enough of looking into
my monitor today. Catch ya on the flipside!
Bill Kolstad
Eugenia Horne
[Major choppage...]
>You see, neither Ilya nor I are sitting on our asses about this, Kolstad.
>I disregard and ignore NO ADVICE...consider that I have harnessed the
>advice of some people here. Eugenia gave me the insight to the Fairy Tale
>perception of relationships, from which I am able to deal better with the
>"you'll just have to wait" philosophy.
"Insight"? "INSIGHT"?!
I remember getting at least two posts from a certain person
along the lines of: "It was stupid, unrealistic, and has no
bearing on real life situations." Almost to the point of
"Gee, that person just lives in fantasy land."
> [...]Jim Heck's attitude about meeting
>and keeping friends, was right in and of itself - but the side-effects
>weren't. Now I understand; I hadn't thought of that, and maybe others
>haven't either. But now I can make something effective from it - like
>advising single men who read my posts, NOT to walk off in a huff if a woman
>says "let's be friends" instead of taking things further (or drive off in a
>huff). I give them MOTIVATION, along with cold logic. Why? Because I
>listen to people. As does Ilya. Ilya was EXTREMELY wise in what he said;
>men overrate women's sexuality, and women in general. A great deal of a
>man's problems with women, can be handled if he, while seeking to meet
>them, doesn't give her the sense that for him, IT'S ALL LEANING ON HER.
Anybody watch "Politically Incorrect" last night?
(It reruns today; It's the "Valentine's day edition".)
Was like watching this group:
"Women can have sex anytime they want while men
can't. For a man to pick up a woman in a bar he
has to be World Conqueror; for a woman to pick up
a man in a bar she has to do her hair."
"Men where made to chase every sexually desirable
woman (defined as "hourglass figure", "young",
"beautiful"); It's 4.4 billion years of evolution."
"Why do women date Jerks?"
It was like the moderator just read this group and picked
out the neverending threads. At least they had a sense of
humour about it.
>There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
>thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
>(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
>to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
>doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
>are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
>call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
>for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
>step, no?)
Has anyone ever brought up that people are individuals
with different preferences in a potential "romantic
partner", different likings for how fast a relationship
develops, in different phases of their lives, etc.?
What works for one person is a disaster for another.
And that the people who found a mate by chance, fate,
family introduction, whatever and are happily coupled
are not usually represented in these discussions?
As unfair as it may seem, probably just as many people
DON'T have a problem finding a date. EVER. Have people
LINED UP waiting for a chance.
And most of them probably couldn't tell you what they
did (if anything) that was "right".
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On every side there is nothing but a network of cabals and intrigues, and
parties are arrayed against each other in the most inexplicable manner."
- Prince Albert
Steve Chaney
>If a girl tells me no, I leave it at that. If she is playing some sort
>of childish "Hard to get" game, then she's not going to get got by me.
>I'm tired of all the little emotional mind confusing non communitive
>games. If she is going to try to flatter herself by seeing how much I
>beg and grovel then she's not my type to begin with. I'll ask her once,
>if she says no, I move on. I have too many goals in my life to waste
>time with some teen-age acting woman. If I ask a woman to dance and she
>says not right now, well then I'll ask again later. I guess it depends
>on the circumstance and the way she declines. But I am not going to give
>her the pleasure of having me beg at her feet. Phew. Anyway, just
>figures I'd put in my two dollars worth. Take care.
w00t w00t w00t w00t!! (hacker speak there :) There certainly is hope for
mankind.
-- Steve, if more men were like him...
Steve Chaney
>>>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>>>
>>>What's the b.s. above Steve, that is a valid point. There is a lot of
>>>mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
>>>other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
>>>poor way of doing it.
>>
>>The b.s., I was referring to, is the back and forth "why don't women date
>>their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
>>forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
>>intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
>
>Because it's *her* choice who's life she wants to be in.
And thus, the *man*'s choice to avoid looking for love amidst his friends,
and *his* choice to look for it elsewhere. Quite often I've had long time
friends fall for someone on sight, get jerked around, and then come looking
to me for consolance.
And it will be my choice to, if it happens again, tell her that hey, she
turns me, a close friend, down for losers like that, and she wants ME to
help her pick up her mess? *Snort* You know what they say to us guys:
"Stop whining."
-- St...@my.choice,no?
Jim Dutton
>The b.s., I was referring to, is the back and forth "why don't women date
>their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
>forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
>intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
eye contact. Your welcome.
>>That can only be confirmed by asking them, don't be predisposed as to
>>mind reading as you will not be correct most of the time.
>
>*Thonk* hellooooooooooooo? Bill, listen...look... we (who complain about
>this issue) have experienced the action of having asked the woman, and the
>taste of rejection after having asked. That is why this issue is on the
>table.
Get over it and see a psychiatrist about your fragile ego.
>>>I, personally, was one who suffered with that problem. What I and many
>>>other men wish, is that just *ONE* of these women would give us a try,
>>>sexual or otherwise.
>>
>>Did you ask or just assume they didn't want to?
>
>Asked.
You misspelt whine.
>>There likely were more women like that when you were single(actually you
>>still are), it is just that not all of them will be a match.
>
>Until the age of 22, "not all" was "none."
Could have knocked me over w a stick.
>Man, and I forgot my asbestos undies.
They don't make them in your size.
============================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
When I got in the water waist high I decided the water was too cold,
after all, I wanted to kill myself, I didn't want to be
uncomfortable. - Rich
============================================================================
Cheezits
e-spouse.:-)
In article <4fp9uc$i...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
>In article <DMoMJ...@freenet.carleton.ca>, Andreas Tovornik
><ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>From my perspective, it came across like whining.
[Chaneyisms deleted]
>While want-for-nothing's think
>that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
Good GRIEF! You're the one who's engaged, for heaven's sake! You *are* a
bloody want-for-nothing in my book!
You know, I haven't exactly memorized all of Andreas' posts, but nothing
he's written that I've seen so far gives me the impression that you seem
to be getting. He doesn't come across as someone who is so insensitive and
sheltered as you make him out to be. I think you're reading more into his
posts than what's really there.
>In other words, I doubt you even know what it's like, Andreas.
I doubt you know what his life is like either.
>Ilya's statement was one of disgust at men who push themselves on women -
>AND the conditions which contribute partially to why this happens.
Well, was he yelling at himself, or at society? Complaining about society
is pretty useless, as far as I'm concerned, unless you're prepared to do
something constructive about it. If he's yelling at himself, then he only
has himself to blame. And changing yourself is easier than changing
society (not to say it isn't still hard).
>He's tired of having to jump through hoops for women, I'm tired of it, we
and
>many others have learned that this happens - the HARD way - and we're
tired
>of it, Andreas.
So stop. Especially you - you're engaged, remember? If someone feels that
the women he is meeting are too "hard to get", then he should move on to
someone else. Like maybe a wallflower?
>We're tired of the incompassionate and the downright
>blind, standing around and saying "Life is great, why must you paint it
so
>harshly?"
Who said that?
>You aren't there when computer
>fanatics are getting laughed at in their formative, school years, while
>brainless JOCKS who often go to college on *ball scholarships, only to
>flunk out (oh, you didn't know that this is a serious problem for many
>colleges?
You should have gone to a different college, then. I guess you'll have to
put me in the same category with Andreas, too - I wasn't laughed at in my
formative years, but I wasn't a computer fanatic.then, because we didn't
have them in those days. So maybe I was lucky that there wasn't a strong
nerd/jock division in my high school.. Or unlucky, because I would have
loved to have some real nerds to hang out with.
>Ah yes, in your world Jocks Are All Smart People, pthah!
I have a feeling you don't know what his world is really like.
>Wake up,
>ANDREAS - jocks often have a problem making the grade) and be unable to
get
>a decent job; but even so, they still get the girl in high school.
Got WHAT girl? If your fiance ever reads this, you're in big trouble.
Because you're making it look like you're still not happy with your lot,
like you're still lusting after the cheerleaders. It may not be true, but
that's what it looks like.
>The computer kids get the boot, from the women.
Speak for yourself, pal.
>Likewise, at
>my campus, the Chess team, some of whom I played with for fun, got poked,
>joked about, and generally were relegated to the Nerd Table, which was to
>the far right in the Cafeteria if you were coming in from the parking lot
>(Hiram Johnson High School).
I wish our high school even had a nerd table! Or even a chess club.
>To call on
>one made us even more like whiners.
I hate to say it, but the overall tone of this post makes you look like a
whiner, to me at least.
>Andreas I swear to God you redefine blind, if you cannot see how badly
that
>affects one's ability to socialize in GENERAL, much less with women.
[and more of the same]
You know, for weeks now, I've
John Fereira
>In article <4g0fgi$i...@transfer.stratus.com>, John Fereira <fer...@isis.com> wrote:
>>>>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>>>>
>>>>What's the b.s. above Steve, that is a valid point. There is a lot of
>>>>mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
>>>>other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
>>>>poor way of doing it.
>>>
>>>their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
>>>forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
>>>intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
>>
>
>And thus, the *man*'s choice to avoid looking for love amidst his friends,
>and *his* choice to look for it elsewhere. Quite often I've had long time
>friends fall for someone on sight, get jerked around, and then come looking
>to me for consolance.
to turn to?
You just said that you wanted a woman that goes out intimately with
her friends in *your* life. The point is, it doesn't matter what you
want. It's still her choice if she wants to become romantically involved
with you or someone else.
>And it will be my choice to, if it happens again, tell her that hey, she
>turns me, a close friend, down for losers like that, and she wants ME to
>help her pick up her mess? *Snort* You know what they say to us guys:
>
>"Stop whining."
>
Here's where your logic gets screwed up. She is not turning you down
for "losers like that". If she is not romantically attracted to you she's
just not romantically attracted to you. That's her choice. If she
chooses to fall for someone that you consider a jerk, and she gets burned,
that does not mean that you deserve her affections just because you
consider yourself a non-jerk. She may choose another jerk, or she may
choose someone else that may legitimately be a nice guy(tm) but she's
not going to choose you for an intimate involvement unless she feels
some romantic attraction.
Jeffrey Haber
>In article <4ft56a$7...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>>As for these women feeling harrassed--they are just sex objects to these
>>guys, and I don't think the men should appologize for that.
>
>Wait a second. What are you saying? If men see these women as something
>less than human this is not something to apologize for?
Yes. Men have the sex role of being the initiators and suffering
countless rejections. One defense against rejection is to turn women
into sex objects (what a lovely thing to be), that is, it hurts less to
be rejected by an object than by a human being. Also, since a man who
is searching for a mate will have to be preoccupied with it, and since
obtaining a woman's love is the goal, women do become objects. I think
this is particularly true for men in the younger age brackets, where,
since there is much less choice available to a man, the goal of a
relationship might be more likely to be sex and companionship as opposed
to lasting love, in which case women are more interchangeable.
(Likewise, I suppose that many men are "success objects".)
Can anything be done to reverse this trend? I think so--sex roles need
to become less pronounced--which means that women will have to initiate
with men, both at the beginning and at the stage of physical intimacy.
I'm not going to hold my breath; there are reasons why male-female
dynamics are the way they are, and I don't expect them to change
substantially in my lifetime.
For further reading, see the chapter "Why Are Men So Preoccupied With
Sex and Success" in Warren Farrell's Why Men Are the Way They Are.
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>ge...@scsud.ctstateu.edu (GERSZ,CAROLYN,M) wrote:
>>I have always wondered why most guys cannot take no for an answer. It
>>just seems as if most guys, especially those in their 20's, come on so
>>strong. My friends and I always try to apologize and decline any offers
>>but still there are those men that insist that we are simply playing
>>games - we're supposedly saying no but mean yes. Men please if a woman
>>you're interested in says no it means no. If she is one of those few
>>women who give the rest of us a bad name and do play mind games, forget
Hear, hear!
>>If she is interested then she will respond,
>>but it is in her hands. Men just remember it is better to just accept
>>a rejection than coming on so strong that you end up being viewed
>>as an obnoxious jerk!
>Here are the answers. [according to Warren Ferrell - clb]
>Quite often a man can find that he can turn a "no" into a "maybe" and
>then into a "yes". Males, being the performers and being socialized to
>attract women by performing, have to learn to be persuasive. Some women
>are just looking for a man who is tenacious and confident enough to go
>beyond their no's. Also, saying "no" removes might help, in a
>convoluted manner, to remove any guilt she has on her part for sleeping
>with a guy.
Wow, looks like the old "a chick doesn't really mean no unless she slaps
you" garbage. Gag. My male friends all subscribe to the "no means no"
school, although I have laughed with them as they told me stories of the
women still operating under the old "rules" who got distinctly surprised
when they _stopped_!. They're not particularly interested in guessing games,
or in partners who can't say "yes" or even "maybe" for themselves. As one
of them says, "I don't have time for that crap". Of course, I heartily
agree :-)
And a _lot_ of the women I know can say "yes", "no", and "maybe" and don't
much like their no's not being taken seriously. A fellow who tries this
with a coworker might be out of a job. I imagine it does work sometimes,
but even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.
>Farrell also recounts why men turn women into sex objects--it hurts less
>to be rejected by an object than a human being.
So do the women morph back to humans when they say "yes"? Sheesh, one
day that switch is gonna break.
>it is hard, for a male, to find someone who wants to be
>his friend who is also attracted to him sexually as well.
He sure didn't talk to _me_. I've had more than one Torrid Affair
develop out of a friendship. I'm actually a lot more leery when a
relationship starts out on a more romantic/sexual plane for various reasons.
(Akshulally, Farrell's study population doesn't include a lot of people I
know *grin*)
>These men who are hitting on you and your friends are probably just very
>lonely, frustrated, decent guys.
This isn't an excuse for acting like a jerk. Hey, some dude doesn't take
my no seriously, I *know* he's not my type (and I don't think he's
"decent", either).
>The kinds of "problems" you're complaining about are beyond most men's
>fantasy lives.
There are a lot of problems and fears connected with that, for sure, and
you're right, most men can't imagine them. Else they wouldn't pull crap
like that.
(I suppose none of your female acquaintances have told you rape or
stalker stories, huh?)
I would suggest that any man who carries around a load of resentment at
some idea of women's "privilege" is probably not ever going to experience
something like these fantasies in RL (as opposed to the mind's eye or the
video screen).
>Consider the alternative to men's hitting on you...try to imagine if
>every offer for a date you have had never occurred.
Um, Jeffrey, it's not an either/or situation. I've had plenty of offers
that couldn't be described as being "hit on".
>Try to imagine what it would be like if all or most of the men you were
>interested in were taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing
>them to choose from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the
>younger male's experience.
If you add "or are gay", that describes my twenties in SF pretty well. So I
know the score. This is, however, no excuse for bad behaviour, vague
resentment, and the like. God knows it's the path of least resistance,
but it's not the way to the other side.
>Just tell them you are unavailable, understand and emphathize with their
>plight, and wish them well.
The "unavailable" ploy does work better than the "not interested" with
some men. Somehow they can accept "I have a boyfriend" better than "No
thanks". Go figure.
If they keep on asking me after someone has said no, though, "understanding
and empathizing" is a bit much. I do have to say that the worst problems I
had with someone not taking no for an answer were after I turned him down
in an exceedingly complimentary fashion (modelled on one I'd recently
received from someone who became a good friend). Think he'd read Farrell
too :-).
I still prefer the polite approach, but I can see why some women
brush men off coldly. It's a learned habit. When I visited Paris for
the first time, I wondered why most of the women seemed to have such
"cold" facial expressions; after a day of random strangers exposing
themselves to me, I started copping a Parisienne tude myself.
So, gone to the men's bar yet for your field experiments?
*grin*
Ogre
Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
>In article <4fsl83$k...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>
> [Major choppage...]
[what she said...]
>>But now I can make something effective from it - like
>>advising single men who read my posts, NOT to walk off in a huff if a woman
>>says "let's be friends" instead of taking things further (or drive off in a
>>huff).
And that's supposed to be earth-shattering advice, is it?
>>I give them MOTIVATION, along with cold logic. Why? Because I
>>listen to people.
That's funny.
[...]
> Has anyone ever brought up that people are individuals
> with different preferences in a potential "romantic
> partner", different likings for how fast a relationship
> develops, in different phases of their lives, etc.?
> What works for one person is a disaster for another.
Lots of times. They're just not listened to, because they're
part of the "in-crowd," and their opinions are therefore
worthless...
> And that the people who found a mate by chance, fate,
> family introduction, whatever and are happily coupled
> are not usually represented in these discussions?
> As unfair as it may seem, probably just as many people
> DON'T have a problem finding a date. EVER. Have people
> LINED UP waiting for a chance.
>
> And most of them probably couldn't tell you what they
> did (if anything) that was "right".
Probably didn't spend all their time whining about being alone,
for starters...
--
"The Ogre does what ogres can / Deeds quite impossible for Man /
But one prize is beyond his reach / The Ogre cannot master Speech"
- W. H. Auden
Michael Sullivan
In article <4fu4nj$m...@news4.digex.net>,
Paul Probus <pro...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
>Ah, but alas it is. If you do the asking, then it is, in fact, *her*
>Again, if you sit back and wait for her to respond to you (ie. by asking you
>out), again, it is in her hands. Either way, it's in her hands.
had any idea how she felt about you.
Had she noticed *you* from across a crowded room, it would be in your
hands, no?
IME, it's usually pretty hard to know just who wants who more until you
talk about it at breakfast.
Michael
Cheezits
writes:
[the usual nonsense]
>You know, for weeks now, I've
Oh, CRAP! Censored by friggin' AOL! (Can I say "friggin'" on the air?)
Here's the rest of my reply to Mr. Chaney:
You know, for weeks now I've watched what must be some of the most patient
people in the world trying to educate you, and you just aren't getting it.
That so many people would spend so much time trying to tell you how you
can post more effectively and get along with other people should be taken
as a compliment, and a commentary on the quality of your better posts.
You may indeed have some justification for complaining about the way your
life has been. Lots of people do. But if you are perceived as whining, you
lose whatever clout you may have gained for making the world a Better
Place. You can't accomplish anything without clout.
Sue (Whiners-R-Not-Us)
-----
I wish that for just one time you could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment I could be you - Bob Dylan
Steve Chaney
>Well, if he won't listen to anyone else, maybe he'll listen to his future
>e-spouse.:-)
I hope you know that listening to you will make it harder for me to get off
the ++list, and resume my status as a ++dude. :)
>In article <4fp9uc$i...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <DMoMJ...@freenet.carleton.ca>, Andreas Tovornik
>><ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>>From my perspective, it came across like whining.
>[Chaneyisms deleted]
>>While want-for-nothing's think
>>that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
>
>Good GRIEF! You're the one who's engaged, for heaven's sake! You *are* a
>bloody want-for-nothing in my book!
Come to think of it, you're right. And I owe Brian Drummond and Dean
Edmonds for most of why that's true. (And they know why *grin*)
>You know, I haven't exactly memorized all of Andreas' posts, but nothing
>he's written that I've seen so far gives me the impression that you seem
>to be getting. He doesn't come across as someone who is so insensitive and
>sheltered as you make him out to be. I think you're reading more into his
>posts than what's really there.
Maybe I went too extreme in how I said things. These things nip at my
patience. :(
>>In other words, I doubt you even know what it's like, Andreas.
>
>I doubt you know what his life is like either.
Maybe not, but his insistent misportrayals towards the worst assumptions,
does say something Not Very Good about his ability to relate to them. Not
that he HAS to relate to them, but it takes away from the credibility of
his opinion, just like it would take away from my credibility to ignore the
presence of people like Ges Hu, an INFERNAL and living example of what most
snigglers see that is bad in desperado types.
>>Ilya's statement was one of disgust at men who push themselves on women -
>>AND the conditions which contribute partially to why this happens.
>
>Well, was he yelling at himself, or at society? Complaining about society
>is pretty useless, as far as I'm concerned, unless you're prepared to do
>something constructive about it.
I'm prepared and hard at work at it. I kind of see Ilya as being along
those lines; but time will teach me as I watch closer.
>If he's yelling at himself, then he only
>has himself to blame. And changing yourself is easier than changing
>society (not to say it isn't still hard).
Some ancient philosopher once said:
Controlling onesself is the key to controlling others.
Either that or at least others can't piss you off. ;-)
>>He's tired of having to jump through hoops for women, I'm tired of it, we
>and
>>many others have learned that this happens - the HARD way - and we're
>tired
>>of it, Andreas.
>
>So stop. Especially you - you're engaged, remember? If someone feels that
>the women he is meeting are too "hard to get", then he should move on to
>someone else. Like maybe a wallflower?
My point exactly. A common trait is to go after the life of the party
type, or the VGL (very good looking) type. I've said it before; change who
one chases, if one's current choices aren't panning out. God only knows
how often I've regurgitated this common wisdom :-)
>>We're tired of the incompassionate and the downright
>>blind, standing around and saying "Life is great, why must you paint it
>so
>>harshly?"
>
>Who said that?
In a way, Andreas and Jim almost outright say it; they strongly imply it.
>>You aren't there when computer
>>fanatics are getting laughed at in their formative, school years, while
>>brainless JOCKS who often go to college on *ball scholarships, only to
>>flunk out (oh, you didn't know that this is a serious problem for many
>>colleges?
>
>You should have gone to a different college, then. I guess you'll have to
>put me in the same category with Andreas, too - I wasn't laughed at in my
>formative years, but I wasn't a computer fanatic.then, because we didn't
>have them in those days. So maybe I was lucky that there wasn't a strong
>nerd/jock division in my high school.. Or unlucky, because I would have
>loved to have some real nerds to hang out with.
No, in college I mean these jocks often - not always, but often enough to
be a major concern in American colleges - don't get good grades while
trying to be stars in sports. They don't make the cut on a professional
team - and BAM, there they are, no skills, no job, and the cheerleader
girlfriends suddenly disappear. But they've had the run of the dating
scene, whereas the computer nerds have to wait until their mid 20's to
early 30's to realize their romantic value.
Unless they run into a woman with your attitude. Which would naturally
mean that for their sakes I hope there's a way to match them up with women
sharing something close to your personality.
>>Ah yes, in your world Jocks Are All Smart People, pthah!
>
>I have a feeling you don't know what his world is really like.
I was blanket guess his likely pool of responses. Seriously, I couldn't
believe how he could justify what he was saying, so I just threw out the
possibilities, saw that there was no WAY Andreas was piecing this together
on a sound premise, and frustration set in. Sorry about that.
>>Wake up,
>>ANDREAS - jocks often have a problem making the grade) and be unable to
>get
>>a decent job; but even so, they still get the girl in high school.
>
>Got WHAT girl? If your fiance ever reads this, you're in big trouble.
>Because you're making it look like you're still not happy with your lot,
>like you're still lusting after the cheerleaders. It may not be true, but
>that's what it looks like.
You have a point. I'm relating to the effect that it has on kids from high
school to college. Barring a campus with a lot of Sue's running around
(shall we move the kids to that town? :), on most high school campuses,
people are learning the initial do's and don'ts - both logical and
emotional - of relating to the opposite sex. And knowing how to play the
courtship scene and all that. Except for the "out" crowd, that is. And
guess who usually winds up in the out crowd? Not the drug dealers or gang
members, not the bullies - the "nerds." This turns out to be quite
unhealthy, as it leaves them ill-prepared, in the years down the line, to
deal with their first relationship, and thus they have to start learning
what everyone *else* started learning by the age of 16 or younger. It's
not me that I'm most worried about; it's people who've worn my shoes, and
still are.
I guess my strongest way of seeking revenge on the world, is simply seeking
to effect positive change. I may never live to see the day, but one day
I'll be looking down on those bullies and jocks and gangsters from my
little cloud, and snickering because they, for once, aren't getting the
dates. My happiness will be knowing I had a part, great or small, in
making that happen.
>>Likewise, at
>>my campus, the Chess team, some of whom I played with for fun, got poked,
>>joked about, and generally were relegated to the Nerd Table, which was to
>>the far right in the Cafeteria if you were coming in from the parking lot
>>(Hiram Johnson High School).
>
>I wish our high school even had a nerd table! Or even a chess club.
I wish you were at our high school!!
>>To call on
>>one made us even more like whiners.
>
>I hate to say it, but the overall tone of this post makes you look like a
>whiner, to me at least.
I'm only showing Andreas a side of reality he may have never even imagined
existed. If you've read the overall tone of my posts in general, I spend
more time getting into how to deal with these things in a positive way.
But I don't cater to casual glancers :)
>>Andreas I swear to God you redefine blind, if you cannot see how badly
>that
>>affects one's ability to socialize in GENERAL, much less with women.
>[and more of the same]
>
>You know, for weeks now, I've
hmmmm? Did I accidentally edit something or ...?
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>In article <4fvpcu$n...@cwis.isu.edu>,
>Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4fsl83$k...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>
>> [Major choppage...]
>
>[what she said...]
>
>>>But now I can make something effective from it - like
>>>advising single men who read my posts, NOT to walk off in a huff if a woman
>>>says "let's be friends" instead of taking things further (or drive off in a
>>>huff).
>
>And that's supposed to be earth-shattering advice, is it?
To some it would be. To the guy who pulled that, if he has a brain, he'd
heed those words. Sometimes the most common and unimpressive-sounding
pieces of advice, can make the most difference.
[sarcasm snipped; I guess ogre didn't notice
>>>I give them MOTIVATION, along with cold logic. Why? Because I
>>>listen to people.
>
>That's funny.
Har har. In several instances I have even noted that my advice has been
enhanced by the comments of several people, even snigglers. Yes, I do
listen - but I accept selectively. I use a bullshit filter just like
everyone else does. One could just as easily say that with the distortions
that are often used to color my words into totally alien and unrelated
meanings, certain people who criticize me, don't listen.
But you couldn't admit to that...it would be too much like admitting I
*might* be right about something. Admitting that might just break your
heart, eh?
[snippage - more of the same, unproductive, flamebaiting discussion]
I don't think I'm gonna find anything productive today. *Sigh*
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>In article <4g1uv0$4...@crl.crl.com> gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
>>In article <4g0fgi$i...@transfer.stratus.com>, John Fereira <fer...@isis.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>>>>>
>>
>>And thus, the *man*'s choice to avoid looking for love amidst his friends,
>>and *his* choice to look for it elsewhere. Quite often I've had long time
>>friends fall for someone on sight, get jerked around, and then come looking
>>to me for consolance.
>
>If you can't find consolance from your friends who *are* you suppose
>to turn to?
I dunno. Like Jim said, it's a dog eat dog world out there. No room for
whiners, eh? She keeps running into the same problem, as many men and
women do when they foolishly pick their SO's, and the same correlations
keep showing up, well then there's only so often that you can tell them,
before you finally throw up your hands and say "you keep laying in a bed
with springs sticking out of the mattress, I told you to change beds and
you won't, so lie in it, baby."
>You just said that you wanted a woman that goes out intimately with
>her friends in *your* life. The point is, it doesn't matter what you
>want. It's still her choice if she wants to become romantically involved
>with you or someone else.
Never disagreed with that. But it's my choice whether or not she can come
to me for consolance when, in many cases this did happen, it backfires in
her face. In one minute she's telling me I'm funny, rather exciting, and a
nice guy, another minute she is asking where all the nice guys went in the
world - and the next day she's back with her mentally abusive boyfriend, or
falling for someone ELSE she just met. Likewise with some guys around me;
they would sit there talking to a girl in our group, pass them off as just
"friends" - and get eaten alive by the bad egg women they fell for at bars
or whatnot.
Not always did this happen to people who gave me that "let's just be
friends" line, but it did so often that if I'd had my druthers about me,
I'd have passed it off as their having brought their own suffering.
>>And it will be my choice to, if it happens again, tell her that hey, she
>>turns me, a close friend, down for losers like that, and she wants ME to
>>help her pick up her mess? *Snort* You know what they say to us guys:
>>
>>"Stop whining."
>>
>Here's where your logic gets screwed up. She is not turning you down
>for "losers like that". If she is not romantically attracted to you she's
>just not romantically attracted to you. That's her choice. If she
>chooses to fall for someone that you consider a jerk, and she gets burned,
Then she can go to him for her consolation. I think I distinctly recall a
flamewar that erupted in my face for saying that. There's a point where
I console her as a friend; but when this becomes as chronic as it did in my
early college days with many of the women I knew, it becomes an issue of
where she's becoming emotionally clingy, becoming stuck in a rut of her own
making, and, well, tough cookies for her. Let her keep getting burned. I
have just as much choice to resort to Tough Love mode, as she has not to
be interested in me.
And yes it is 100% BAD ATTITUDE to do what might be misconstrued as
"punishing her for not dating me." But life sometimes is hard like that.
I'd rather aim those resources at a woman who will give me some play - not
NOW, as I'm spoken for - but during those days, and for all men currently
IN this situation.
-- Steve
Glenn Saunders
: "sure, women have asked me out", and a number of the women who regularly
Do you know the scope of usenet? I'm sure if you asked how many people
shove crayons up their asses while singing Stairway to Heaven backwards
you'd get a few replies. These figures are hardly large enough to even
consider.
Steve Chaney
>At the risk of getting toasted, I will venture my opinion. All of you
>'raging feminists(sic) can stop reading now. I have been 'through the mill'
>twice, and don't want to do it again, so don't bother on that line.
Hmmmm....... hmmm....*thinks*
Yeah, let's keep 'im.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>In article <4fntpg$a...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
U know, Jeff, she's right about this. IMO, no means no, and I also hold
the view that if she's playing games with me hoping I'll pursue her after
that, she's got the wrong man.
[Major snippage]
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>jo...@math.ohio-state.edu (Joel Roberts) wrote:
>
>>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>>As for these women feeling harrassed--they are just sex objects to these
>>>guys, and I don't think the men should appologize for that.
>>
>>Wait a second. What are you saying? If men see these women as something
>>less than human this is not something to apologize for?
>
>Yes. Men have the sex role of being the initiators and suffering
>countless rejections. One defense against rejection is to turn women
>into sex objects (what a lovely thing to be), that is, it hurts less to
>be rejected by an object than by a human being. Also, since a man who
>is searching for a mate will have to be preoccupied with it, and since
>obtaining a woman's love is the goal, women do become objects. I think
>this is particularly true for men in the younger age brackets, where,
>since there is much less choice available to a man, the goal of a
>relationship might be more likely to be sex and companionship as opposed
>to lasting love, in which case women are more interchangeable.
It is always lame to look at either gender as less than human. I
(far more often than Toni "Happy Valentine's and in your face Chaney"
Anaya-Hazlip thinks, but hey, she's happily deluded, who's complaining? :)
snuggle up with a real life woman. By that I mean, she's worth more to me
than sex, way more, way WAY more. I love her for the times we share, the
times we don't share, our happy times, our arguments, and sex isn't a big
issue in our relationship, being of faith and all. I could go on forever
about all the 3-d aspects of why I love her, but bandwidth has been
screaming at me lately. :-) You get the point.
>(Likewise, I suppose that many men are "success objects".)
Yup. Don't you know it.
>Can anything be done to reverse this trend? I think so--sex roles need
>to become less pronounced--which means that women will have to initiate
>with men, both at the beginning and at the stage of physical intimacy.
Uh, this reminds me of Ges Hu's descent into autistic reasoning, Jeff... no
offense intended, but neither the world NOR the dating scene RELIES upon
whether or not a woman initiates "askout." In my opinion, and I've implied
it enough times, the man needs to take control of himself. Do not look at
women as sex objects - look at them as people. Don't get so hung up about
their "sexual value." That way you are not depending upon what women do -
you have your act together regardless. Women like men who are in control
of themselves, in the general sense; or, such a man is more attractive than
one who seems more obedient to his hormones or temper. Even if no woman
you know, reacts well to that, then well the base benefit is you become
your master. Deal with YOUR part in the sex role issue, don't wait for
someone else to leave their comfy little perch and do you a favor.
>I'm not going to hold my breath; there are reasons why male-female
>dynamics are the way they are, and I don't expect them to change
>substantially in my lifetime.
Change and control yourself, and you might cause change around you; and
that's what matters the most. Then spread the word to the next man, and
hope he catches on. In that way you'll change the world, one person at a
time.
>For further reading, see the chapter "Why Are Men So Preoccupied With
>Sex and Success" in Warren Farrell's Why Men Are the Way They Are.
Well at least you have a book to refer to :)
I'm preoccupied with success, but sex? Nah.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>In article <4g1vtp$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, chee...@aol.com (Cheezits)
>writes:
>[the usual nonsense]
>
>Here's the rest of my reply to Mr. Chaney:
>
>You know, for weeks now I've watched what must be some of the most patient
>people in the world trying to educate you, and you just aren't getting it.
Oh, I got it long ago. Quite often now, it's coming out that a lot of folks
have totally misrepresented what I said. There's no way my posts can
reasonably be marked as whining, unless there's a heavy dose of distortion.
'nuff said.
-- Steve
Angela C. Lukach
Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
> In article <4g26pd$b...@transfer.stratus.com>, John Fereira <fer...@isis.com> wrote:
>
>>You just said that you wanted a woman that goes out intimately with
>>her friends in *your* life. The point is, it doesn't matter what you
>>want. It's still her choice if she wants to become romantically involved
>>with you or someone else.
>
> Never disagreed with that. But it's my choice whether or not she can come
> to me for consolance when, in many cases this did happen, it backfires in
> her face. In one minute she's telling me I'm funny, rather exciting, and a
> nice guy, another minute she is asking where all the nice guys went in the
> world - and the next day she's back with her mentally abusive boyfriend, or
> falling for someone ELSE she just met. Likewise with some guys around me;
> they would sit there talking to a girl in our group, pass them off as just
> "friends" - and get eaten alive by the bad egg women they fell for at bars
> or whatnot.
sounds to me like you're just be a *friend* because you want her to go out
with you. that's NOT friendship, it's opportunism.
jmw
:that does not mean that you deserve her affections just because you
:consider yourself a non-jerk. She may choose another jerk, or she may
:choose someone else that may legitimately be a nice guy(tm) but she's
:not going to choose you for an intimate involvement unless she feels
:some romantic attraction.
So, once again, chemistry outweighs logic.
--
jmw
"...she was practiced at the art of deception,
well I could tell by her blood-stained hands."
An Exceedingly Well-Favored Piglet
>In article <4g26pd$b...@transfer.stratus.com> fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) writes:
>:that does not mean that you deserve her affections just because you
>:consider yourself a non-jerk. She may choose another jerk, or she may
>:choose someone else that may legitimately be a nice guy(tm) but she's
>:not going to choose you for an intimate involvement unless she feels
>:some romantic attraction.
>So, once again, chemistry outweighs logic.
Logic only carries a "no" vote. Never a "yes". Kind of like a
Presidential veto.
Piglet
Joel Roberts
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>jo...@math.ohio-state.edu (Joel Roberts) wrote:
>
>>In article <4ft56a$7...@epx.cis.umn.edu>,
>>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>>>As for these women feeling harrassed--they are just sex objects to these
>>>guys, and I don't think the men should appologize for that.
>>
>>Wait a second. What are you saying? If men see these women as something
>>less than human this is not something to apologize for?
>
>Yes. Men have the sex role of being the initiators and suffering
>countless rejections. One defense against rejection is to turn women
>into sex objects (what a lovely thing to be), that is, it hurts less to
>be rejected by an object than by a human being. Also, since a man who
>is searching for a mate will have to be preoccupied with it, and since
>obtaining a woman's love is the goal, women do become objects. I think
>this is particularly true for men in the younger age brackets, where,
>since there is much less choice available to a man, the goal of a
>relationship might be more likely to be sex and companionship as opposed
>to lasting love, in which case women are more interchangeable.
>
>
>to become less pronounced--which means that women will have to initiate
>with men, both at the beginning and at the stage of physical intimacy.
Another way to reverse this trend (of women being viewed as objects, I mean)
is for men like you to quit whining and take some responsibility for
your own outlook on life.
--
===============================================================================
Joel Roberts / "If you're so special why aren't you dead?"
jo...@math.ohio-state.edu / -The Breeders
===============================================================================
Michael Sullivan
>>Try to imagine what it would be like if all or most of the men you were
>>interested in were taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing
>>them to choose from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the
>>younger male's experience.
>If you add "or are gay", that describes my twenties in SF pretty well. So I
>know the score.
Oh yeah, sure. Woman, twenties, thin. You had guys crawling all over
you, you were just too blind to see it. Or maybe they were just too ugly
and poor for you to consider them human. If you think for a minute that
the land of sexual plenty you experienced in any way compares to what any
man but Tom Cruise must deal with in his 20s, you're simply deluded.
You're a woman, you can't possibly understand. It's people like you who
are holding back the men's rights movement in this country.
Michael
Ok, now everyone join drums in a circle and grunt.
Angela C. Lukach
Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
> In article <4g4hct$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Cheezits <chee...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Oh, CRAP! Censored by friggin' AOL! (Can I say "friggin'" on the air?)
>>Here's the rest of my reply to Mr. Chaney:
>>
>>You know, for weeks now I've watched what must be some of the most patient
>>people in the world trying to educate you, and you just aren't getting it.
>
> Oh, I got it long ago. Quite often now, it's coming out that a lot of folks
> have totally misrepresented what I said. There's no way my posts can
> reasonably be marked as whining, unless there's a heavy dose of distortion.
no one *totally* misrepresented what you were saying - then or now. what has
changed is *your* attitude - there less of that "in your face and go for the
cheap shot" than there was previously. but there are times when you appear
to be backsliding...
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
> XXX...@crl.com (XXXXX XXXXXX) writes:
>>You aren't there when computer fanatics are getting laughed at in their
>>formative, school years, while brainless JOCKS who often go to college
>>on *ball scholarships, only to flunk out (oh, you didn't know that this
>>is a serious problem for many colleges?
>>Ah yes, in your world Jocks Are All Smart People, pthah!
>>Wake up, ANDREAS - jocks often have a problem making the grade) and be
>>unable to get a decent job; but even so, they still get the girl in high
>>school.
>>The computer kids get the boot, from the women.
>>Likewise, at my campus, the Chess team, some of whom I played with for fun,
>>got poked, joked about, and generally were relegated to the Nerd Table,
>>which was to the far right in the Cafeteria if you were coming in from
>>the parking lot (Hiram Johnson High School).
>>To call on one made us even more like whiners.
>You should have gone to a different college, then. I guess you'll have to
>put me in the same category with Andreas, too - I wasn't laughed at in my
>formative years, but I wasn't a computer fanatic.then, because we didn't
>have them in those days. So maybe I was lucky that there wasn't a strong
>nerd/jock division in my high school.. Or unlucky, because I would have
>loved to have some real nerds to hang out with.
Wake up and smell the coffee, dear heart - to XXXXX you *are* a Jock.
We're *all* Jocks. He has a chip on his shoulder the size of Ayre's Rock
about all the dreadful things that happened to him in high school, all
the little snubs and social stresses everyone else survives, and he's
determined to take them out on the Jocks, the People With Everything,
the People Who Act Smarter Than Him, the People Who Won't Let Him Into
Their Cliques, The Enemy.
By definition, his, that is us. By definition, his, we are at war.
Killfile him and move *on*. He. Is. Not. Worth. *Your*. Time.
- Tony Q.
Joel Roberts
Michael Sullivan <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <4g1gqc$d...@hustle.rahul.net>,
>Charlotte L. Blackmer <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>>interested in were taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing
>>>them to choose from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the
>>>younger male's experience.
>
>>If you add "or are gay", that describes my twenties in SF pretty well. So I
>>know the score.
>
>you, you were just too blind to see it. Or maybe they were just too ugly
>and poor for you to consider them human. If you think for a minute that
>the land of sexual plenty you experienced in any way compares to what any
>man but Tom Cruise must deal with in his 20s, you're simply deluded.
>
>You're a woman, you can't possibly understand. It's people like you who
>are holding back the men's rights movement in this country.
Tom Cruise. However, I have not found my life to be the lonely wasteland
that you claim it is. This is not to say that things go my way all the time,
but I have really found little to complain about.
If you really have trouble meeting women, you might want to look in a mirror
for the reason, rather than blaming the women. Maybe the attitude you
take in your post (Women can't understand you because they live in a land
of sexual plenty...) has something to do with your problems? But quit
complaining. Do you really expect someone to be attracted to you if you
are a self-indulgent whiner?
And what is this "men's rights movement?" What do we have to complain
about? Sure, I have to deal with the fact that it will probably be me
who has to pick up the phone and ask the woman out if I want to get anything
started, but so what? Those are the rules of the game. And it means that
I get away with not having to deal with obsessed men who can't take no
for an answer, which is something that women have to deal with all the time.
Jim Dutton
>writes:
>[the usual nonsense]
>>You know, for weeks now, I've
>
>Here's the rest of my reply to Mr. Chaney:
>
>You know, for weeks now I've watched what must be some of the most patient
>people in the world trying to educate you, and you just aren't getting it.
>can post more effectively and get along with other people should be taken
>as a compliment, and a commentary on the quality of your better posts.
>
>You may indeed have some justification for complaining about the way your
>life has been. Lots of people do. But if you are perceived as whining, you
>lose whatever clout you may have gained for making the world a Better
>Place. You can't accomplish anything without clout.
Trouble in lovers paradise?
-Jeem, you two kiss and make-up
Jim Dutton
Joel Roberts <jo...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <4g8792$3...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Michael Sullivan <m...@panix.com> wrote:
>>You're a woman, you can't possibly understand. It's people like you who
>>are holding back the men's rights movement in this country.
>
>Hold on there. I am a male in my 20s (26 to be exact) and I am certainly not
>Tom Cruise. However, I have not found my life to be the lonely wasteland
>that you claim it is. This is not to say that things go my way all the time,
>but I have really found little to complain about.
>
>If you really have trouble meeting women, you might want to look in a mirror
>for the reason, rather than blaming the women. Maybe the attitude you
>take in your post (Women can't understand you because they live in a land
>of sexual plenty...) has something to do with your problems? But quit
>complaining. Do you really expect someone to be attracted to you if you
>are a self-indulgent whiner?
>
>And what is this "men's rights movement?" What do we have to complain
>about? Sure, I have to deal with the fact that it will probably be me
>who has to pick up the phone and ask the woman out if I want to get anything
>started, but so what? Those are the rules of the game. And it means that
>I get away with not having to deal with obsessed men who can't take no
>for an answer, which is something that women have to deal with all the time.
>
-Jeem
Jim Dutton
Cheezits <chee...@aol.com> wrote:
>Well, if he won't listen to anyone else, maybe he'll listen to his future
>e-spouse.:-)
>
>
>>In article <DMoMJ...@freenet.carleton.ca>, Andreas Tovornik
>><ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>>From my perspective, it came across like whining.
>[Chaneyisms deleted]
>>While want-for-nothing's think
>>that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
>
>Good GRIEF! You're the one who's engaged, for heaven's sake! You *are* a
>bloody want-for-nothing in my book!
>
>he's written that I've seen so far gives me the impression that you seem
>to be getting. He doesn't come across as someone who is so insensitive and
>sheltered as you make him out to be. I think you're reading more into his
>posts than what's really there.
>
>
>I doubt you know what his life is like either.
>
>>AND the conditions which contribute partially to why this happens.
>
>Well, was he yelling at himself, or at society? Complaining about society
>is pretty useless, as far as I'm concerned, unless you're prepared to do
Have you two ever considered getting a room?
-Jeem, Hhhhoooommmmmmmmmm hummmmmmmmmmmm.
Bill Kolstad
>In article <4ftbtq$l...@ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu>, Bill Kolstad <guc...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4fsn05$p...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>In article <mnemosyne-130...@pm3-1.pacificnet.net>, YTsai <mnem...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>>>If you're not my friend, what makes you think you're going to get much further?
>>>>My sexual partner is also my best friend. Who else am I going to trade
>>>>sexual fantasies with?
>>>
>>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>>
>>mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
>>other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
>>poor way of doing it.
>
>The b.s., I was referring to, is the back and forth "why don't women date
>their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
>forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
>intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
I doubt there are many here that do like the "yes they do"/"No they
don't" bantering. But you aren't addressing the point well in your
comment about "Why can't she be in MY life?". Why can't I find someone
that matches me 100%? Because, in reality it doesn't exist. What you
should be asking, and you do on occasion, is "How do I recognize someone
like that when I see them?" That is a far better approach to take as the
other question sounds like sour grapes. I know that deep down you don't
want to sound like that.
> >
>>>A lot of men out there have women friends (and probably vice-versa on this
>>>situation, too), but none of these friends want to take it any further.
>>
>>That can only be confirmed by asking them, don't be predisposed as to
>>mind reading as you will not be correct most of the time.
>
>*Thonk* hellooooooooooooo? Bill, listen...look... we (who complain about
>this issue) have experienced the action of having asked the woman, and the
>taste of rejection after having asked. That is why this issue is on the
>table.
If you don't like rejection, don't ask. If you are unwilling to suffer
being alone, you must risk rejection. It's basically the same if you are
dating, playing the stock market, gambling, driving during rush hour in a
snowstorm, etc. Risks have to be taken in order to have gain. If your
goal in dating is to find the best relationship you can, you must assume
the risk of rejection as well as the risk that you are wrong about your
intended.
> >
>>>I, personally, was one who suffered with that problem. What I and many
>>>other men wish, is that just *ONE* of these women would give us a try,
>>>sexual or otherwise.
>>
>>Did you ask or just assume they didn't want to?
>
>Asked.
Good.
>
>
>>So, then, it has in fact happened to you twice. Why then do you sound as
>>if you disbelieve that it happens more often?
>
>I didn't say I disbelieved it, I said it was rare for me.
That's where everyone's life experiences skew the stats.
>
>
>>>Forget about women who don't want to take it any further; I wish more women
>>>like YOU were in my social circles, when I was single.
>>
>>There likely were more women like that when you were single(actually you
>>still are), it is just that not all of them will be a match.
>
>Until the age of 22, "not all" was "none."
There is nothing inferior about starting later than others. Hey, there
are 12 year olds that have dates and sex and children out there. They
learn hard lessons at younger ages and likely make mistakes that they may
never be able to recover from. You are luckier than you realize.
Bill Kolstad
>In article <4g0fgi$i...@transfer.stratus.com>, John Fereira <fer...@isis.com> wrote:
>>>>>Let's cut the b.s. and get to the point.
>>>>
>>>>What's the b.s. above Steve, that is a valid point. There is a lot of
>>>>mistrust going on out there, as if you didn't notice. She, like many
>>>>other women, want someone to earn that trust from them and pick ups is a
>>>>poor way of doing it.
>>>
>>>The b.s., I was referring to, is the back and forth "why don't women date
>>>their friends?" "yes they do!" stuff. I was saying that I want to progress
>>>forward to a discussion about, "Okay, here is a woman who DOES only go out
>>>intimately with her friends. Why can't she be in MY life?"
>>
>
>And thus, the *man*'s choice to avoid looking for love amidst his friends,
>and *his* choice to look for it elsewhere. Quite often I've had long time
>friends fall for someone on sight, get jerked around, and then come looking
>to me for consolance.
Steve, they come to you because they are your friend and they need some
help or support. This is completely seperate from your feelings, sad
though it may be.
>
>And it will be my choice to, if it happens again, tell her that hey, she
>turns me, a close friend, down for losers like that, and she wants ME to
>help her pick up her mess? *Snort* You know what they say to us guys:
>
>"Stop whining."
See you are making an assumption above that just isn't correct. She
wants you to listen to her, not pick up her mess. She wants someone to
talk to and confide in, maybe you can get some clues as what types of
behavior are not right from listening to her. Fixing things is something
she has to do for herself. Again, it's the undertones of "I'm not happy
with the choices she made" that gets irritating.
>
>
>-- St...@my.choice,no?
It's your choice to pick her, it's her to pick someone else. One
person's choice should not bind the other's. Even though it appears as
that is what is happening here, it's not. This is a cause and effect
situation where your original choice has the effect of her choice.
Jeffrey Haber
>>Here are the answers. [according to Warren Ferrell - clb]
>
>>Quite often a man can find that he can turn a "no" into a "maybe" and
>>then into a "yes". Males, being the performers and being socialized to
>>attract women by performing, have to learn to be persuasive. Some women
>>are just looking for a man who is tenacious and confident enough to go
>>beyond their no's. Also, saying "no" removes might help, in a
>>convoluted manner, to remove any guilt she has on her part for sleeping
>>with a guy.
Charlotte, before you dismiss Farrell, who served on the NOW board for
three years, who wrote a book, The Liberated Man, which "rung true for
women" about twenty years ago, and who has interacted with over 100,000
men and women at relationships workshops, before you write him off as a
crackpot, why not read his book, Why Men Are The Way They Are. Many men
thinks it accurately describes many of their feelings and experiences.
I don't expect you to like the book since it does place some blame on
women's behaviors for some of men's adaptations which annoy women, but
you might find it insightful. I'll put it to you this way, if a woman
with a similar background and knowledge wrote "Why Women Are the Way
They Are" I'd buy it in a nanosecond.
>Wow, looks like the old "a chick doesn't really mean no unless she slaps
>you" garbage. Gag. My male friends all subscribe to the "no means no"
>school, although I have laughed with them as they told me stories of the
>women still operating under the old "rules" who got distinctly surprised
>when they _stopped_!. They're not particularly interested in guessing games,
>or in partners who can't say "yes" or even "maybe" for themselves. As one
>of them says, "I don't have time for that crap". Of course, I heartily
>agree :-)
If you think that sex roles and the associated games and behaviors which
come with them are dead, think again. Many things have changed, many
things have not changed (like men taking the initiatives and earning the
main income), and some things look like they changed on the surface when
they really didn't.
Those guys you mentioned in your initial post must have had or known
someone who had success by being persistent before or they probably
wouldn't have kept it up. I do, though, generally think of the not
taking "no" seriously in terms of sexual initiatives after a date has
already occurred, as opposed to the attempt to obtain the date in the
frist place.
>And a _lot_ of the women I know can say "yes", "no", and "maybe" and don't
>much like their no's not being taken seriously. A fellow who tries this
>with a coworker might be out of a job. I imagine it does work sometimes,
>but even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.
Good for them. When more women mean it, men will take the no's more
seriously.
>>Farrell also recounts why men turn women into sex objects--it hurts less
>>to be rejected by an object than a human being.
>
>So do the women morph back to humans when they say "yes"? Sheesh, one
>day that switch is gonna break.
I didn't say that men don't regard women as being humans, just that they
are somewhat interchangeable at the beginning--and since sex is the
goal, they are sex objects. Once a relationship is
safely established and the initial stages, where the chances of
rejection are highest, the woman becomes less interchangeable.
>>it is hard, for a male, to find someone who wants to be
>>his friend who is also attracted to him sexually as well.
>
>He sure didn't talk to _me_. I've had more than one Torrid Affair
>develop out of a friendship. I'm actually a lot more leery when a
>relationship starts out on a more romantic/sexual plane for various reasons.
Friendship isn't a bad strategy for a younger woman. I believe you.
Many men go that route, still, it's a rough road for a male to hoe if
he's actively seeking a relationship. If you read the posts on these
newsgroups, you'll find many younger guys complaining about how they
have a football stadium full of friends and women who tell them they're
nice guys, but no romances. (The reason why is that it isn't enough to
be attractive to someone intellectually, it's also important to
stimulate a woman's emotions.)
>(Akshulally, Farrell's study population doesn't include a lot of people I
>know *grin*)
Half of what you've read is my own thinking, some is Farrell's contribution. Why not read his book before making sweeping judgements like that?
>>These men who are hitting on you and your friends are probably just very
>>lonely, frustrated, decent guys.
>
>This isn't an excuse for acting like a jerk. Hey, some dude doesn't take
>my no seriously, I *know* he's not my type (and I don't think he's
>"decent", either).
How do you know that he isn't a Ph.D. candidate if you don't really know
him? How do you know he's not your "type"? Based on what?
>>The kinds of "problems" you're complaining about are beyond most men's
>>fantasy lives.
>
>There are a lot of problems and fears connected with that, for sure, and
>you're right, most men can't imagine them. Else they wouldn't pull crap
>like that.
>
>(I suppose none of your female acquaintances have told you rape or
>stalker stories, huh?)
How the hell did this get in here? Were they threatening to follow you
home or rape you?
>I would suggest that any man who carries around a load of resentment at
>some idea of women's "privilege" is probably not ever going to experience
>something like these fantasies in RL (as opposed to the mind's eye or the
>video screen).
If they can understand the reasons why they feel the way they do and
compartmentalize it, and learn to hide their feelings of resentment,
which I do think are justified, they can attract women.
>>Consider the alternative to men's hitting on you...try to imagine if
>>every offer for a date you have had never occurred.
>
>Um, Jeffrey, it's not an either/or situation. I've had plenty of offers
>that couldn't be described as being "hit on".
The problem is...if a man has asked out all the women he knows or just
doesn't know too many available women, the choices are celibacy or
purposely search for a relationship--which might well include hitting on
strange women.
>>Try to imagine what it would be like if all or most of the men you were
>>interested in were taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing
>>them to choose from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the
>>younger male's experience.
>
>If you add "or are gay", that describes my twenties in SF pretty well. So I
>know the score. This is, however, no excuse for bad behaviour, vague
>resentment, and the like. God knows it's the path of least resistance,
>but it's not the way to the other side.
This isn't too clear. Are you saying that you perceive a "male
shortage", or that you've been pursued a lot?
>>Just tell them you are unavailable, understand and emphathize with their
>>plight, and wish them well.
>
>The "unavailable" ploy does work better than the "not interested" with
>some men. Somehow they can accept "I have a boyfriend" better than "No
>thanks". Go figure.
>
>If they keep on asking me after someone has said no, though, "understanding
>and empathizing" is a bit much. I do have to say that the worst problems I
>had with someone not taking no for an answer were after I turned him down
>in an exceedingly complimentary fashion (modelled on one I'd recently
>received from someone who became a good friend). Think he'd read Farrell
>too :-).
Farrell doesn't advocate that men act like jerks. Actually, his book
wasn't really an advice book, it was actually aimed towards a female
audience, explaining, as the title suggests, why men are the way they
are.
>So, gone to the men's bar yet for your field experiments?
But I'm not gay. What is your point? That women also can feel
powerless? That the grass isn't so green on the otherside? I agree,
though I do think that women have many advantages over men given the
current socialization.
Andreas Tovornik
> Well, if he won't listen to anyone else, maybe he'll listen to his future
> e-spouse.:-)
>
> In article <4fp9uc$i...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
>
>>In article <DMoMJ...@freenet.carleton.ca>, Andreas Tovornik
>><ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>>From my perspective, it came across like whining.
> [Chaneyisms deleted]
>>While want-for-nothing's think
>>that it comes so easy and that have-not's only whine when they speak up.
>
> Good GRIEF! You're the one who's engaged, for heaven's sake! You *are* a
> bloody want-for-nothing in my book!
>
> You know, I haven't exactly memorized all of Andreas' posts, but nothing
> he's written that I've seen so far gives me the impression that you seem
> to be getting. He doesn't come across as someone who is so insensitive and
> sheltered as you make him out to be. I think you're reading more into his
> posts than what's really there.
>
>>In other words, I doubt you even know what it's like, Andreas.
>
> I doubt you know what his life is like either.
>
>>Ilya's statement was one of disgust at men who push themselves on women -
>>AND the conditions which contribute partially to why this happens.
>
> Well, was he yelling at himself, or at society? Complaining about society
> is pretty useless, as far as I'm concerned, unless you're prepared to do
> has himself to blame. And changing yourself is easier than changing
> society (not to say it isn't still hard).
>
> and
>>many others have learned that this happens - the HARD way - and we're
> tired
>>of it, Andreas.
>
> So stop. Especially you - you're engaged, remember? If someone feels that
> the women he is meeting are too "hard to get", then he should move on to
> someone else. Like maybe a wallflower?
>
>>blind, standing around and saying "Life is great, why must you paint it
> so
>>harshly?"
>
> Who said that?
>
>>fanatics are getting laughed at in their formative, school years, while
>>brainless JOCKS who often go to college on *ball scholarships, only to
>>colleges?
>
> put me in the same category with Andreas, too - I wasn't laughed at in my
> formative years, but I wasn't a computer fanatic.then, because we didn't
> have them in those days. So maybe I was lucky that there wasn't a strong
> nerd/jock division in my high school.. Or unlucky, because I would have
> loved to have some real nerds to hang out with.
>
>
>
>>ANDREAS - jocks often have a problem making the grade) and be unable to
> get
>>a decent job; but even so, they still get the girl in high school.
>
> Because you're making it look like you're still not happy with your lot,
> like you're still lusting after the cheerleaders. It may not be true, but
> that's what it looks like.
>
>
>
>>Likewise, at
>>my campus, the Chess team, some of whom I played with for fun, got poked,
>>joked about, and generally were relegated to the Nerd Table, which was to
>>the far right in the Cafeteria if you were coming in from the parking lot
>>(Hiram Johnson High School).
>
>
>>one made us even more like whiners.
>
> whiner, to me at least.
>
> that
>>affects one's ability to socialize in GENERAL, much less with women.
> [and more of the same]
>
Voulez-vous me marier?
--
'dreas... If you want something bad enough, you will get it.
VictoriaTaxi15 When you get it, you may wonder why you wanted it.
Jeffrey Haber
>In article <4g1gqc$d...@hustle.rahul.net>,
>Charlotte L. Blackmer <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>>>Try to imagine what it would be like if all or most of the men you were
>>>interested in were taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing
>>>them to choose from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the
>>>younger male's experience.
>
>>If you add "or are gay", that describes my twenties in SF pretty well. So I
>>know the score.
>
>Oh yeah, sure. Woman, twenties, thin. You had guys crawling all over
>you, you were just too blind to see it. Or maybe they were just too ugly
>and poor for you to consider them human. If you think for a minute that
>the land of sexual plenty you experienced in any way compares to what any
>man but Tom Cruise must deal with in his 20s, you're simply deluded.
>
>You're a woman, you can't possibly understand. It's people like you who
>are holding back the men's rights movement in this country.
>
>
>Michael
Great sarcasm!
How about some substantive arguments?
As for "men's rights"--things like fair divorce laws, "male choice"
on abortion, women aren't holding those things back, it's just that
not enough men care or know enough to care. Well, in the case of the
divorce laws, some women are probably responsible as well.
Jeffrey Haber
>Another way to reverse this trend (of women being viewed as objects, I mean)
>is for men like you to quit whining and take some responsibility for
>your own outlook on life.
Dear Joel,
I'm working on an advanced science degree and have worked to
make myself attractive to women. I also whine about things that I
do not like or think are unfair, whether they can or cannot be changed.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Regards,
Jeffrey
Steve Chaney
>
>[Warning: Long Post, all text remains for context. If you are looking
>for flames hit 'n']
What he said. Sorry about the bandwidth.
>In article <4fvi7h$2...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>In article <4ftam3$h...@ecom2.ecn.bgu.edu>, Bill Kolstad <guc...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <4fsl83$k...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <4fr6l5$n...@ecom1.ecn.bgu.edu>, Bill Kolstad <guc...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>In article <4fqodq$o...@newslink.runet.edu>, Ilya <ibel...@runet.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>Andreas Tovornik (ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>What the endless anthem of Whys? Those are answered quite easily. You
>>>>>seem to be the ones who are so up in a bunch over dating. You are the
>>>>>ones who want dates and don't seem to be willing to understand that you
>>>>>might not be attractive to those women. Those women don't owe the time
>>>>>of day to you or anyone else. They have their own set of criteria.
>>>>
>>>>Ilya was talking about guys who are persistent with women to the point of
>>>>being harassing, and how it is indicative of how far men are willing to go
>>>>for women. So far as to go TOO far. Why do they do that? Why do we put
>>>>out for women so much? Why should we? Perhaps, we should not.
>>>>
>>>>This was not "why do women not like Ilya/Steve."
>>>
>>>No it certainly wasn't. But what you claim it to be isn't correct
>>>either. Guys that harass and go too far are a different class entirely
>>>than the ones that just have had a bad time of it. It doesn't take a
>>>degree to see the difference. You could stop being so persistent in
>>>chasing women, though you will likely find that if you chase none, you
>>>won't be chased much either. Again, this is your choice.
>>
>>These super persistent guys are bad news, and noone's debating that - but
>>a root of the problem is the fact that for most men, the man has to do all
>>the initiation. Another unrelated one is the concept that if you push hard
>>enough, a button will give. That some women give like this, only fans the
>>flames, burning everyone ELSE who runs afoul of this, both the women who
>>find themselves having to deal with guys who try this, and the guys who get
>>their nads quite justly smashed in, or their asses thrown onto the pavement
>>by a bouncer.
>
>The man has to do all the initiating. No kidding! Since, from your
>perspective, the man wants attention, he has to do something to get it.
>Just being isn't enough. The manner of initiation is the variable here.
>You can go for the rude obnoxious route, the opposite of sitting silently
>staring, or try for a balance that feels right for you. Stop focusing on
>the dating aspects and have a good time, it worked for you once. Don't
>shy away from talking to people even if they aren't the ones you are
>interested in, it lets the ones you may be interested in know you are
>approachable.
Sometimes you don't have to do a thing to get approached, though, and
that's what I'm interested in knowing about. And you're right, it played a
major role in what worked for me, I did a balance of both talking to
someone and also I was approached while just sitting there (the brief time
I was in non-motion :-). I just don't think that some stupid (yes,
stupid :) beer trick, is the way to do it; by that I mean, not the only
way, the smartest way, and certainly not useful in places where, say, these
same social dynamics aren't in effect. Though I have now learned that
these beer commercials really ARE truthful, in many cases...the people DO
tend to hang around you more, in a bar in certain areas, when you're drinking
sensibly and your inhibitions are lowered.
>>Second of all, I don't suggest you NEVER hit on women; however, some guys
>>never have to, the women come to them. And my end goal is to know how to
>>do that myself - and transfer it to others...as many others as possible..
>>That was never my point.
>
>That isn't a skill that can be learned and passed on as much as it is an
>attitude that you live and it can't be faked.
But you do learn to internalize it through positive reinforcement.
>>>>But we have to listen, on soc.singles, to women who, at the same time, talk
>>>>about how they get jerked around by the Exciting Men that they reject us
>>>>for. Ever heard of that book "100 lies men tell women?" It's a
>>>>collection, IMO, of the experiences that women have when they deal with
>>>>jerks; some Nice Guys From Hell experiences, but mostly assholes they chase
>>>>in place of Nice Guy/wallflower types.
>>>
>>>Gee, how did they ever stop at 100? We all have had bad timess and
>>>people lie to us, and this only enforces the negatives of dating not how
>>>to overcome them. Hey, one person's excitement is another's boredom.
>>
>>Sad that there's no book about the lies women tell men. I know, I asked at
>>the front counter at Border's. They haven't heard of one and it isn't on
>>their HIGHLY extensive book list.
>
>I told you to write one, didn't you listen.
It only contributes to the tension; I've got a big enough task on my hands
defusing the growing attitudes about The Evil Female and how they have some
huge Conspiracy to Hold Men Down. Granted I feel that women have the run
of the dating scene until their early 30's, but it is the fault of what
guys do. They chase too hard, they place too much value on women
(collecting dirty pics, pornos...look at the
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* hierarchy!!)... not positive value, mind
you, but "objectifying" value. And of course there's the total horndog
population. Women get the idea that the men will do ANYTHING to get a hold
of their affections - and those who don't give them all that attention are
the ones women usually wind up going to, all other things equal. The men
give women the run of the dating game, and all they have to do is practice
self control. Control your hormones, and if you can't find a substitute
for chasing women, well, perhaps, maybe the best thing to do is to ... just
go out and have fun! Duh. It logically ties right into what you and Jim
have to say :) I guess my disagreement with Jim is, in having fun, if a
woman DOES come up to me, and I'm single, I'm gonna include her in my
having fun, not brush her off.
Anyways, I prefer to go out and find ways to get around any lies a Woman
might tell a Man. I prefer to go around a problem, not just stop, put up a
whining soapbox, and write books about How Evil You Are To Me. "100 lies
men tell women" sucks, and so would its opposite. So discredit both.
>>>Maybe Nice Guys are just as guilty of bad dating filters as are women.
>>
>>Ergo I advise them, if you've read my posts, to change who they go after.
>>
>Not complete enough. The ones they go after may be fine and it is their
>attitudes that need altering. Ever meet a average guy who sees a good
>looking woman and says "She'll never go out with me". Attitude. If you
>look at the dating scene in negatives like that you will find it. An
>average looking guy with a proper attitude will see the woman in question
>and say "She looks like my type, I think I'll go talk to her and find out
>some more." I know it sounds a bit like those old sales courses but
>Positive Mental Outlook is a plus in these situations. I know you'll
>probably counter with the "What if she just blows the guy off(not in a
>good way for the sick minds out there)?" question. Hey, a guy that is
>looking positively will then be able to say, "Well, guess she isn't my
>type after all, now where was I" and go on with his evening. This is
>something that has to be tried over and over and then some more before
>you get it to be natural. Practice in front of the mirror, ask some
>female friends to let you try it on them as practice, just don't expect
>that the world will change overnight, that will happen after the first
>success and your confidence builds. Setbacks are only temporary.
It's not one single situation, it's a pattern of constant rejections, that
wears down one's self-esteem. But once again you're right in another way,
there is both an attitude adjustment and a change of venue, that is needed
when one is trying to fix their love life.
Just so you know, anyone who reads what you and I have to say here, and is
still whacking about how the Evil Female Is Out To Screw Them Over, is a
whiner, and needs to get their heads out of their butts. We've been through
the stage of pointing out the problem, we've been through the stage of
explaining, in a limited sense, the possible causes (either them, or the
lonely guy, or both), and now the how-to issue is bring brought up. You
have presented your version in a very intelligent and compassionate manner,
and have even added to what I know. I didn't say you HAD to do all this,
but since you did, I thought that others who are yet unclear about my stand
in all this, might want to see what I've been looking for.
>>>>What is it about NG's that they don't like? Probably what my girlfriend
>>>>said to me: I would take the ten-foot-pole approach towards her; I would
>>>>ask before I touched her (some NG's take "no means no" so far as to say
>>>>"lack of a `touch me please' means 'no'"), I would hesitate to speak for
>>>>her, or make a decision involving her, etc. I was bad, bad bad about it;
>>>>very strongly anti-aggressive, in fact, just out of fear of being too
>>>>pushy. IMHO, along these lines, you may find the root as to why, in many
>>>>cases, it is true that women don't go for Nice Guys.
>>>
>>>No, no, no! You are thinking in extremes again. What you describe with
>>>your girlfriend is nothing but polite courtsey, not Nice Guyism. What
>>>drives women away from Nice Guys is that they try to go from 0 - 140 in
>>>the shortest possible timeframe. Trust takes time, and trust is the only
>>>thing that makes it work.
>>
>>Really...? In what ways do they go too fast? Not like a challenge or
>>anything, but my gut says you've got a point.
>
>This is tough to put into words but I'll try. A nice guy gets a girl to
>sit and have a drink with him. Many nice guys then have their brains
>rushing so frantically to figure out what's next that they blow it by
>assuming things before they are discussed. Some nice guys also try to
>move into physical contact, even what seems to be non-threatening contact
>such as hand holding, long before they should. Basically they are in a
>hurry to get to L O V E, and they scare the heck out of the woman. In
>other cases they blast their life's history into the conversation and
>then run the woman through the third degree trying to get an equal amount
>of information from them. Slow down, but not stop. Pay attention to the
>person you are talking with and take cues from them on the pace of
>conversation.
That certainly was me. I've been unlearning the life history thing because
of friendly suggestions by friends, and though I don't go for physical
contact, if I were single I would be guilty of that, too, as I used to do
it, unfortunately.
>>>Overrating women is not the problem, merely a symptom. The problem is in
>>>each person not the opposite sex. Underrating women is not the answer
>>>either, treating women as the people they are is.
>>
>>Noone said to underrate women.
>
>Implied.
Really? I kind of thought I got across that you neither over or under rate
women or men, but the issue was "overrating" so I sort of "brought it
under," so to speak.
>>>>There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
>>>>thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
>>>>(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
>>>>to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
>>>>doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
>>>>are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
>>>>call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
>>>>for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
>>>>step, no?)
>>>
>>>Couldn't stand to calmy discuss without going back to your tired old
>>>slams, eh? If you think you know what I think about dating problems, you
>>>are sadly mistaken. Your biggest error above is going back to step one.
>>>That is called regression not progression. Move forward from where you
>>>are. Learning from past mistakes is not an Universal, you have to learn
>>>from your own mistakes as those are the ones hindering your progress.
>>
>>There is a lot of moving forward involved, but sometimes, see, you wind up
>>at LA-X, and someone needs to go to Bakersfield. So you go back to the
>>101/405 junction, take the 101 back, and head up North. Analogously,
>>that's what needs to be done here. Unless you can afford a helicopter to
>>skip all those steps.
>
>Wrong analogy. When you are talking about patterns in a person's makeup,
>you can't just wipe the slate clean and start over. Many things can't be
>added and deleted as easily as they can be modified. I wouldn't, for
>instance, take the motor out of a car because I was getting bad milage,
>I'd tune it up.
Hmmm....well maybe it was a bad analogy. I don't replace the engine, I
examine the whole thing to make sure that I know what exactly is wrong, and
then fix it. Which may mean a whole engine, or a tune up, or a partial
tuneup. :)
>>>You might get insight from others but it is your own internal systems
>>>that need to be debugged. Life isn't Windows '95 and there is no upgrade.
>>
>>That has nothing to do with what I said. But there are general wisdoms
>>involved, some do's and dont's, that are valid to just about anyone.
>>Starting with "no means no."
>
>And maybe fix yourself before fixing others.
My version was control yourself before trying to handle others. :)
>>><sigh> Again you presume things about me that you have no knowledge of.
>>>You actually think that I don't see the adversarial games in action?
>>
>>Then why are Ilya and I being ribbed for it? If you've seen it, then why
>>all this...?
>
>Because what you say and what I see aren't matching up. You are trying
>to apply a solution wholesale in a retail market.
Well if the situation is not one of ambiguities and hard to read body
language, and in which the man and woman are being up front with their
attitudes, great! That's a whole other ball game. Maybe we can discuss
the dynamics of that, too. But this was a discussion in the assumption
that we're dealing with a situation in which there is a lot of guessing as
to the other person's intents. Meaning, "does she really mean no?"
For me, if she says no, and she wants me to chase her more, she's not going
to get her fantasy fulfilled. For all I know she really MEANS no, and for
my personal integrity and safety, that's how I'm going to act. Pushing
myself on a woman removes all possible gratification for me, and
furthermore there are legal issues involved.
>>>I bet I've seen more than you have. What I don't do is assume that there
>>>is a network of these games being played but some set of rules. You
>>>can't do anything more than take each case individually. If you try to,
>>>you will be less than successful.
>>
>>Noone's talking about a network. However, many of these things are quite
>>common, not seldom, and while noone's passing around a manual or training
>>people to do this, IMO it is possibly someting Nature does. There is a
>>perfectly rational, psychological reason which drives men and women to play
>>these ambiguous games, it just hasn't been discussed yet as far as I've
>>seen.
>
>Hard to describe what some people have tried to figure out for thousands
>of years, and still come up way too short. You need to get more specific
>with each person and combination that is involved to get workable
>answers. No blankets.
I think I've said this before, but there is a universal answer to the
dating scene; it just vaires from person to person. :)
>>>>Where do you get *THAT* from? You're reaching into a grab bag for this
>>>>stuff, Kolstad. Neither Ilya nor I wish to sit idle, nor do we sit idle
>>>>about it. I suspect that, like me, he's a man of action, a man of going
>>>>out into that world and going for a piece of the action.
>>>
>>>From your implied statements about not chasing women, not paying them the
>>>attention, and not playing games because you want women to be more active
>>>in dating. Well, you can't have it both ways. You either have to play
>>>with the hands you are dealt or fold. You won't change the entire scope
>>>of dating in your lifetime. Bank on it.
>>
>>No, but I can do what I can and pass it on. Aggressively. And my point
>>about not chasing is, there are many women who play the "opposites" -
>>meaning, if you're NOT the one chasing her, or you're one of the guys who
>>aren't treating her like an object(ive), then she will wonder why, and will
>>come to you to see why. In my (in?)famous dating advice file, I pointed
>>out the fact that in many cases, if you just talk to her and treat her as a
>>companion and such, she'll start pushing your buttons to see how to get
>>you. By that point you're likely to get asked out, among other things.
>>Not all women react like this...but enough do that if you cultivate this
>>and provide a reason for someone to be interested in you, you're going to
>>be quite a ladies' man.
>
>I do not see this happening all that often. Unless you draw some kind of
>attention you will get none because people aren't there looking for you.
>They come to hang out and maybe meet friends that they already know.
>Unless you are going to the meat market places, which I don't.
I go to 'em all. It's not an issue of Humans go to "normal bars" and Evil
Martians go to "meat markets." Some good men and women go to the meat
market places as a last resort. Some jerks go to night clubs and Jazz
festivals. To get a healthier look at things, I check out both, and I've
checked out places far removed from the context of either. Though not in
amateurish research mode at the time, hell I even checked out a miniboink
:) And similarly, there are people at night clubs and bars and what have
you, who are there to be with their friends - but, Bill, you must
understand, there are people who are also there to meet someone, or who are
open to the idea, or who are there WITH friends to meet someone, or with
friends and who are open to meeting someone new, etc. You take your
chances, find a way to be an attention-catcher, both subtle and overtly,
and combine that with a little bit of talking to others.
>>How do you become interesting....? Probably the answer lies in the issue
>>of tapping what ignites one's passions. In fact, I was handed a book for
>>my philosophical troubles, by someone else who is also, in real life,
>>interested in the solution-finding part of this dilemma. "Friends and
>>Lovers: How to meet the people you want to meet" by Bhaerman and McMillan,
>>at the bottom of page 11, a woman was talking to a man and the conversation
>>was VERY dull; until she asked him what turns him on...and he said sailing.
>>He went off into a long animated discussion about it, and even though she'd
>>never sailed in her life, she was attracted to his passion.
>>
>>The end lesson: get into that which ignites your passions - and hope that
>>there are single women involved also. And then apply your lesson in not
>>being overly aggressive. Don't approach her until you've had some time
>>amidst this group; if things work out like they should and often do, either
>>she'll come to you, or when you DO come to her, it'll be a lot better.
>>
>>Therein lies a dilemma in which the individual is left on their own to
>>combine the element of passion and the presence of women.
>
>Now this makes much more sense. It is more along the lines of
>customizing to your personality and the one of the person you are
>interested in. Don't think it is easy, because it isn't. Mistakes will
>be made and hopefully learned from. It's like A+B=C where A,B, and C are
>unknowns. Experiment and don't take it too seriously.
I'll tell you one thing, though! I had spent the first few months of my
time here, looking for a crowd to hang with, and it wasn't panning out at
all. I mean, they had anime' nights where crowds of anime' fans would go
and hang out, but yet when I went, noone showed up. This happened a lot,
up until I checked out Calvary, a church up the street from my job, and
went to a Singles Night. The tables are six people apiece, and what they
do is start out the night by asking three thought-provoking questions.
Each question is thrown to the group, and this encourages each person to
put up their own opinion. This had the effect of giving me, and half of
the rest of the 120 people there, a chance to get in with the crowd.
(They've had to, since then, split up the Contenders nights, due to its
overwhelming popularity.)
It also helps when you are in a singles' night place which does something
that causes even total newcomers to have an equal shot. They totally
defuse the "walking in and seeing 100 people in their own groups"
situation. That was my first Westlake social circle, and my first contact,
since early college, with a gender-balanced group. But since not everyone
is Christian, I can't recommend this very good place, universally, nor have
I seen the likes of it ANYWHERE else.
>>>>And don't even assume you know what action I'm talking about; chances are,
>>>>you're going to be off-mark, especially if you're thinking about sex.
>>>
>>>Your mind reading abilities leave much to be desired.
>>
>>I said "if" - I didn't presume you were.
>>
>>
>>>It doesn't matter if you are still The Guy She Doesn't Want to Attract.
>>>You have to get your filters fixed and be more exciting, (no Steve,
>>>exciting is not a bad thing nor is being a good conversationalist),
>>
>>Never said being exciting or good at conversation, was a bad thing.
>
>Implied in much of your posts. Blaming Mr. Exciting or Smooth Talkers is
>not an endorsement.
I don't think I implied it either.. I've maintained for quite some time
that the Exciting and Smooth Talking traits have GOOD as well as BAD sides
to them. Being exciting can be just as much the product of honest,
unfeigned passion, as it can be the product of a personality lacking any
further depth. Smooth talking can be the result of one being relaxed, as
well as one with a practiced attitude, but who may be something totally
different underneath. In fact, if you look through what I've been posting
recently, it's all about the good side of being exciting or smooth -
particularly, what positive traits give rise to it, and how a single and
lonely guy can progress to that point.
>>It isn't the best of filters, but the world isn't perfect either. Terrible
>>traits should be avoided, less terrible things should be avoided or put up
>>with, inversely proportional to how idiotic it is. Women who look for rich
>>men, and men who date only beauty queens, are to be avoided, IMO; people
>>who only go after the life-of-the-party types, should be avoided or put up
>>with at discretion; people who don't want to deal with unpassionate,
>>neither-hot-nor-cold types, aren't bad people, and their filter is
>>"borderline okay."
>>
>These aren't traits of the filtering mechanism. These are personality
>issues that will vary immensely between people. You won't be able to
>spot them that easily. This is where the advice about being yourself
>comes in. If you are true to yourself, not the self that you are cast
>as, you will attract people that are your type. I can't put it any
>plainer than that.
You don't need to, I already understand that; I don't even go for
situations where you do any less than be true to yourself.
>>>if you aren't doing well with the way you are proceeding at present,
>>>reevaluate it. Don't swing to the opposite view because these types of
>>>extreme swings don't show you to be your own person but an inconsistent
>>>one.
>>
>>I'm not going to extremes.
>>
>Then tone down the extremes in your advice and look for balance.
I don't think it's extremism as much as it is intense enthusiasm. :)
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>In article <4fsl83$k...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You see, neither Ilya nor I are sitting on our asses about this, Kolstad.
>>I disregard and ignore NO ADVICE...consider that I have harnessed the
>>advice of some people here. Eugenia gave me the insight to the Fairy Tale
>>perception of relationships, from which I am able to deal better with the
>>"you'll just have to wait" philosophy.
>
> "Insight"? "INSIGHT"?!
>
> I remember getting at least two posts from a certain person
> along the lines of: "It was stupid, unrealistic, and has no
> bearing on real life situations." Almost to the point of
> "Gee, that person just lives in fantasy land."
But like Ross Jeffries and ++ (well, the good elements just packed up and
fled from his rhetoric, at which time I gave up on the kid), there's SOME
good to be sifted out of your posts.
If, for nothing else, a warning. For those who fit your description, they
need a reality check. Life ain't a fairy tale. Also, it pointed me to
realize that people are TOLD by their parents and by friends to "wait! true
love will come!" instead of recognizing that this person simply needs a few
DATES in their lives, not The One And Only, right this minute. Further
contemplation led me to realize that people - like me - who didn't have a
dating life when one day Twoo Wuv shows up, don't have the critical
experience necessary to deal with the occasional dark sides of a long
lasting relationship. To hell with Toni's megalomania, if I did not sit
down and realize that inexperience was just as critically a part of the
problem, I would still be unprepared for the woman who came to love me
after The Bitch left my life. And whaddyou know, I'd be in another
breakup, whereas that relationship should have lasted but for my bumblings
(Which didn't happen, and thus we're still an Item :), thank God).
In short, while largely irrelevant to your error-filled post, your post did
alert me to the wisdom that yes, it is necessary for one to have a dating
life, so when Cinderella DOES show up...they're ready to handle it.
Furthermore, your post alerted me to how I could better communicate my gut
feeling: these guys aren't all looking for Twoo Wuv right this minute -
they're looking for DATES..which leads to bigger things.
> Anybody watch "Politically Incorrect" last night?
> (It reruns today; It's the "Valentine's day edition".)
>
> Was like watching this group:
>
> "Women can have sex anytime they want while men
> can't. For a man to pick up a woman in a bar he
> has to be World Conqueror; for a woman to pick up
> a man in a bar she has to do her hair."
Gee, obviously the real world is echoing the same things, Eugenia. Maybe
it's time that, due to its constant and incessant spillage into here, we
chose a different tactic towards dealing with it? Obviously the "YOU
SUCK!" method ain't working.
[etc]
>>There are no mantras to this, Kolstad; Ilya and I discovered, in this
>>thread, another, unresolved branch in the tree of dating scene problems
>>(you probably think there are no problems, oh Blind one). We're going back
>>to square one, and working our way down that unresolved branch, and we're
>>doing it aloud for the crowd. You are perfectly free to call what you feel
>>are errors. But, next time, be like Dean Edmons - be on target when you
>>call an error, more often than you are. (It'd take a tenfold improvement
>>for you to get to his level, but hey, a thousand mile trip begins with one
>>step, no?)
>
> Has anyone ever brought up that people are individuals
> with different preferences in a potential "romantic
> partner", different likings for how fast a relationship
> develops, in different phases of their lives, etc.?
> What works for one person is a disaster for another.
And who's contradicting that?
> And that the people who found a mate by chance, fate,
> family introduction, whatever and are happily coupled
> are not usually represented in these discussions?
> As unfair as it may seem, probably just as many people
> DON'T have a problem finding a date. EVER. Have people
> LINED UP waiting for a chance.
Duh. And while you may disapprove of it, I'd like to know how this happens
for them, and how to recreate it for less fortunate folks. You may think
of that as a lost cause, but I'm more optimistic.
> And most of them probably couldn't tell you what they
> did (if anything) that was "right".
That's why there's that word called "observation."
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
back.
In article <DMz9A...@freenet.carleton.ca>, Angela C. Lukach <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
No, it has nothing to do with going out with her or not; the issue of tough
love, of his or her repeated cluelessness, comes to the forefront.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
>
>Steve Chaney (gun...@crl.com) writes:
>>>Oh, CRAP! Censored by friggin' AOL! (Can I say "friggin'" on the air?)
>>>Here's the rest of my reply to Mr. Chaney:
>>>
>>>You know, for weeks now I've watched what must be some of the most patient
>>>people in the world trying to educate you, and you just aren't getting it.
>>
>> have totally misrepresented what I said. There's no way my posts can
>> reasonably be marked as whining, unless there's a heavy dose of distortion.
>
>no one *totally* misrepresented what you were saying - then or now. what has
>changed is *your* attitude - there less of that "in your face and go for the
>cheap shot" than there was previously. but there are times when you appear
>to be backsliding...
Angela, I have never, ever endorsed just sitting around and saying "women
don't ask guys out, women don't ask guys out!!" - I helped defend that Ges
Hu was RIGHT in that respect (mostly; I've been asked out a few times
myself, so it isn't ALWAYS true). But after a while, I got disdainful,
according to my desire to Move On, and left him behind. And about blaming
women - I've posted an advice file which specifically explains that WHOLE
issue, that there's two sides to the common and generally correct belief that
women have an advantage in the dating scene in the 20-29 age group. The
other side being that so many men give them the advantage by their own
foolishness. But, Angela, I have nevertheless been pegged as being the
supporter of incessant whiners, woman-haters, etc. - when nothing could be
FARTHER from the truth!
That my attitude has changed, is true, but it has no bearing on the fact
that much of what I've said, has not only been misrepresented, with great
vigor, but apologies are extremely rare against the percentage.
I'm the most mature-acting one in this whole situation, and it looks like
I'm getting screwed over. Now everyone is clamoring to say "See? Chaney's
seen the light, I told you we were better than him!" Fuck that, anyone who
tries to say that is fantasizing. You've been put on notice - I'm not
selling out.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
Wake up, Tony, you're ranting about an age that is past, and hopefully not
to return, furthermore, while everyone here comes from different
backgrounds, I have been telling Sue that her background is QUITE a
desirable one and that I wish there were more like her where *I* went to
school.
-- Steve "This wasn't primarily about jocks or Evil Cabals" Chaney
Jim Dutton
Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>jo...@math.ohio-state.edu (Joel Roberts) wrote:
>
>>Another way to reverse this trend (of women being viewed as objects, I mean)
>>is for men like you to quit whining and take some responsibility for
>>your own outlook on life.
>
>
>Dear Joel,
>
> I'm working on an advanced science degree and have worked to
>make myself attractive to women. I also whine about things that I
>do not like or think are unfair, whether they can or cannot be changed.
Tell us something we don't know.
> Tell me I'm wrong.
You are wrong...and a pathetic, whiney, edu-breath{tm} who has never
gotten over his mothers rejection which you could work out with the
help of your father if you knew who he was or when his ship would be in port.
-Jeem, Haber is dutch for hermaphrodite, pass it on.
========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
"His integrity was a matter of character, not law."
========================================================================
heck
> In article <4g1vtp$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Cheezits
<chee...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>We're tired of the incompassionate and the downright
> >>blind, standing around and saying "Life is great, why must you paint it
> >so
> >>harshly?"
> >
> >Who said that?
>
Um, no, you misunderstand.
Life is harsh and it sucks. You can stand around complaining about it, or
you can get on with life.
Your choice.
Don't expect me to stand around and listen to you complain. I'm busy trying
to find one of the rare good times. Gotta go.
- heck
John Fereira
>In article <4g26pd$b...@transfer.stratus.com> fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) writes:
>:that does not mean that you deserve her affections just because you
>:consider yourself a non-jerk. She may choose another jerk, or she may
>:choose someone else that may legitimately be a nice guy(tm) but she's
>:not going to choose you for an intimate involvement unless she feels
>:some romantic attraction.
>
>So, once again, chemistry outweighs logic.
And your point is...?
--
John Fereira
fer...@isis.com
Isis Distributed Systems - Ithaca, NY
Trish Roberts
>>You should have gone to a different college, then. I guess you'll have to
>>put me in the same category with Andreas, too - I wasn't laughed at in my
>>formative years, but I wasn't a computer fanatic.then, because we didn't
>>have them in those days. So maybe I was lucky that there wasn't a strong
>>nerd/jock division in my high school.. Or unlucky, because I would have
>>loved to have some real nerds to hang out with.
> Wake up and smell the coffee, dear heart - to XXXXX you *are* a Jock.
*snork* Besides *he* should have gone to a different college. He tries
to pretend that he was one of the smart kids in high school. But, if so,
why did he go to such an unbelievably bad college? (Last time I checked,
it required something like a 2.5 high school GPA.)
(And this is in California, with a stellar public university system for
quite a good price. That's one thing I'll say for that state--if you are
a good student, you can get into a fabulous college for not a lot of
money.)
> Killfile him and move *on*. He. Is. Not. Worth. *Your*. Time.
I know, but laughing about Sad Sack State is good entertainment for a
night.
--
Trish Roberts eng...@showme.missouri.edu [standard disclaimer applies]
Though just men are reviled/ When cravens cry them down,
The brave keep undefiled/ A wisdom of their own." (T. Roethke)
Andy Williams
>In article <4g1uv0$4...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
[snips.]
>>And it will be my choice to, if it happens again, tell her that hey, she
>>turns me, a close friend, down for losers like that, and she wants ME to
>>help her pick up her mess?
[small snip.]
>See you are making an assumption above that just isn't correct. She
>wants you to listen to her, not pick up her mess. She wants someone to
>talk to and confide in, maybe you can get some clues as what types of
>behavior are not right from listening to her. Fixing things is something
>she has to do for herself.
[more small snips.]
Words of wisdom above. Often what women want when they have a
problem is simply a sympathetic ear. Men sometimes don't understand
that, as many seem to think "action" is required to solve the problem.
The woman can generally solve the problem herself, she just wants to
talk about it. Or vent, if you prefer.
Andy Williams <Team OS/2>
andy...@esslink.com http://www.esslink.com/~andywlms/
Brian Drummond
>In article <DMvuz...@iglou.com>, Ogre <og...@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>>In article <4fvpcu$n...@cwis.isu.edu>,
>>Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <4fsl83$k...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.com> wrote:
>>> [Major choppage...]
>>>>But now I can make something effective from it - like
>>>>advising single men who read my posts, NOT to walk off in a huff if a woman
>>>>says "let's be friends" instead of taking things further (or drive off in a
>>>>huff).
>>
>>And that's supposed to be earth-shattering advice, is it?
>To some it would be. To the guy who pulled that, if he has a brain, he'd
>heed those words. Sometimes the most common and unimpressive-sounding
>pieces of advice, can make the most difference.
That last sentence bears repetition. Sometimes we all forget the basics. Or
we forget that someone else might not know our basics.
- Brian
Jim Dutton
>In article <4g1gqc$d...@hustle.rahul.net>, Charlotte L. Blackmer <c...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>Jeffrey Haber <habe...@gold.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>
>U know, Jeff, she's right about this. IMO, no means no, and I also hold
>the view that if she's playing games with me hoping I'll pursue her after
>that, she's got the wrong man.
>
>-- Steve
Steve? Jeff? Have you two ever thought of maybe going camping together?
Rumour has it a full moon is kinda romantic. Maybe by a lake? Two guys
tieing each others flys? A little coconut oil massaging. Then maybe
going off to Borneo and declaring your love for each other.
-Jeem, cute couple, I'll bet they like greasy food!
============================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
Cheezits
In article <4g5nmh$p...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
[deleted for brevity]
>Maybe I went too extreme in how I said things. These things nip at my
>patience. :(
Same thing probably happened to me.
>Maybe not, but his insistent misportrayals towards the worst assumptions,
>does say something Not Very Good about his ability to relate to them.
Are they the *worst* assumptions? Are they better than the assumptions you
make about other people?
[etc.]
>I'm prepared and hard at work at it. I kind of see Ilya as being along
>those lines; but time will teach me as I watch closer.
From what I've seen, you really *do* work at it, which is what makes your
better posts so interesting. I haven't seen enough of Ilya to comment.
[things I pretty much agree with deleted]
>>>We're tired of the incompassionate and the downright
>>>blind, standing around and saying "Life is great, why must you paint it
>>>so harshly?"
>>Who said that?
>In a way, Andreas and Jim almost outright say it; they strongly imply it.
I don't think I've seen that attitude. Does anybody *ever* think life is
great? Especially when it comes to dating.
[on jocks]
>They don't make the cut on a professional
>team - and BAM, there they are, no skills, no job, and the cheerleader
>girlfriends suddenly disappear.
That sounds like a bummer for the jocks, if that is really what happens to
them.
>But they've had the run of the dating
>scene, whereas the computer nerds have to wait until their mid 20's to
>early 30's to realize their romantic value.
Better late than never, as far as I'm concerned.
>Unless they run into a woman with your attitude.
They should be so lucky! :-) They don't run into me for the same reason I
don't run into them - we're hiding behind our keyboards most of the time.
>Which would naturally
>mean that for their sakes I hope there's a way to match them up with
women
>sharing something close to your personality.
That's what the internet is for - getting the nerds and nerdettes
together, right? :-) I think these type of people need counseling,
support, etc. They do NOT need someone fighting battles on their behalf,
and setting anm example as someone who wants revenge on his detractors.
>I was blanket guess his likely pool of responses. ... Sorry about that.
Now, if only you had realized it before you posted!
>>Because you're making it look like you're still not happy with your lot,
>>like you're still lusting after the cheerleaders.
>You have a point. I'm relating to the effect that it has on kids from
high
>school to college. Barring a campus with a lot of Sue's running around
>(shall we move the kids to that town? :),
Most of the Sues are over thirty now. :-) Actually, I don't know how many
younger versions of me are out there - they may be a minority. And if
they're like I was, they simply haven't realized their romantic value or
whatever it's called. And in between the cheerleaders and the nerdettes
are most of the girls - neither popular nor unpopular, some dating jerks,
some dating nice guys.
>...on most high school campuses,
>people are learning the initial do's and don'ts - both logical and
>emotional - of relating to the opposite sex. And knowing how to play the
>courtship scene and all that. Except for the "out" crowd, that is.
[etc.]
Well, that's life as I know it. And I don't know what you have to complain
about - how old are you, anyway? I know guys who didn't date *at all*
until they were 25, 27, or even over 30, and they don't have your
attitude.
>I guess my strongest way of seeking revenge on the world, is simply
seeking
>to effect positive change. I may never live to see the day, but one day
>I'll be looking down on those bullies and jocks and gangsters from my
>little cloud, and snickering because they, for once, aren't getting the
>dates.
Ah, trying to redistribute the wealth, are we? To me, that woul
Cheezits
>Oh, I got it long ago. Quite often now, it's coming out that a lot of
folks
>have totally misrepresented what I said. There's no way my posts can
>reasonably be marked as whining, unless there's a heavy dose of
distortion.
Well, here is where I think you're not getting the point. You see, if
*that many* people are misrepresenting what you say, then there may be
something wrong in the way you present yourself. Now, a couple of my posts
have been read by a few people as whining, when in fact, I was merely
sulking. I can't help that. I don't consider you to be a true whiner, like
those people who keep saying things like "Gee, I guess there aren't any
Good Women out there". But you do tend to sympathize more than anyone else
with those people who come across as whining, or at least have an annoying
attitude. Annoying attitudes kind of get lumped together with "whiners".
Sue
-----
Eat me and God bless. - djv...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Cheezits
>Trouble in lovers paradise?
All right, *now* I'm steamed. That remark was totally unoriginal and
predictable. And you've been giving all your best material to that Jeff
Haber guy, and he doesn't whine half as much as I do! Sheesh!
Sue (going off in a huff)
Jim Dutton
Cheezits <chee...@aol.com> wrote:
>From what I've seen, you really *do* work at it, which is what makes your
>better posts so interesting. I haven't seen enough of Ilya to comment.
>[on jocks]
>>They don't make the cut on a professional
>>team - and BAM, there they are, no skills, no job, and the cheerleader
>>girlfriends suddenly disappear.
>
>That sounds like a bummer for the jocks, if that is really what happens to
>them.
Excuse me stereotypical losers. Many jocks get straight A's. LAnd good jobs.
Have successful relationships. But if it makes your inadequacy's easier to
live with go for it. I don't suppose it could be your stilted attempts to
not address your own rather deep seated problems that results in
your stereotyping which enables you too hide behind your shell of a coccoon.
-Jeem, whiners and victims have no desire to solve the problem
========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================
John Fereira
>In article <4gafes$1...@Venus.mcs.com>, j...@MCS.COM (Jim Dutton) writes:
>
>>Trouble in lovers paradise?
>
>All right, *now* I'm steamed.
I suppose that's better then being broiled, baked, or fried. Now
all we need is a nice hollendaise sauce.
Eugenia Horne
>In article <4fvpcu$n...@cwis.isu.edu>,
>Eugenia Horne <horn...@cwis.isu.edu> wrote:
>In short, while largely irrelevant to your error-filled post, your post did
>alert me to the wisdom that yes, it is necessary for one to have a dating
>life, so when Cinderella DOES show up...they're ready to handle it.
My opinions are not "error-filled".
My "observations" are not "error-filled".
>Gee, obviously the real world is echoing the same things, Eugenia. Maybe
>it's time that, due to its constant and incessant spillage into here, we
>chose a different tactic towards dealing with it? Obviously the "YOU
>SUCK!" method ain't working.
I haven't gotten to the "YOU SUCK!" point yet.
Leave my name and my opinions out of other threads; what I
write is my opinion in that context of that thread.
>> Has anyone ever brought up that people are individuals
>> with different preferences in a potential "romantic
>> partner", different likings for how fast a relationship
>> develops, in different phases of their lives, etc.?
>> What works for one person is a disaster for another.
>
>And who's contradicting that?
Why are you looking for "how this happens for them,
and how to recreate it for less fortunate folks"?
It implies you are looking for "THE ANSWER" which
doesn't exist. Shakespeare couldn't define it;
Freud couldn't define it; neither could Byron, Donizetti,
John Grey, Victoria & Albert, etc, etc, etc.
All they could do was expressed WHAT WORKED FOR THEM.
>> And that the people who found a mate by chance, fate,
>> family introduction, whatever and are happily coupled
>> are not usually represented in these discussions?
>> As unfair as it may seem, probably just as many people
>> DON'T have a problem finding a date. EVER. Have people
>> LINED UP waiting for a chance.
>
>Duh. And while you may disapprove of it, I'd like to know how this happens
>for them, and how to recreate it for less fortunate folks. You may think
>of that as a lost cause, but I'm more optimistic.
Did I say I "disapprove of it"?
Nope, think not. Maybe because I saw the "dark side" of
"being popular". Yeah, usually involves compromising
individual principles. Wasn't particularly pleasant underneath.
>> And most of them probably couldn't tell you what they
>> did (if anything) that was "right".
>
>That's why there's that word called "observation."
Which you called (MY "observations") "error-filled" for
little reason that they didn't fit in neatly with your
own "observations".
My "observation" is that a person (monogamous heterosexual)
is usually quite happy with ONE other person; the methods
and circumstances of MEETING that person being as individual
and diverse as the people out there.
My father had exactly zero girlfriends and zero standardly
defined "romantic dates" before he got married.
That's one of my "observations" and since my parents are
pretty happy, as far as I'm concerned it's as valid and logical
as the "dress up, make lots of small talk, do things that
you don't really want to do in hope of finding a date, etc."
model that tends to be shoved down my throat as THE way to
find a mate.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On every side there is nothing but a network of cabals and intrigues, and
parties are arrayed against each other in the most inexplicable manner."
- Prince Albert
Paul Probus
>
>
>In article <4fu4nj$m...@news4.digex.net>,
>Paul Probus <pro...@cnj.digex.net> wrote:
>
>>Ah, but alas it is. If you do the asking, then it is, in fact, *her*
>decision$
>>Again, if you sit back and wait for her to respond to you (ie. by asking you
>>out), again, it is in her hands. Either way, it's in her hands.
>
>Only because you put it there by wanting something from her before you
>had any idea how she felt about you.
When I wrote my followup, I was referring to the guy who got bent out of shape
and said why can't women do the asking. I may have mis-read his post, but I
took it to mean that he was waiting for women to ask him out, which puts the
control in their hands. Yes, he'd still have some control, but if he (and/or
others) were to stick with the "sit back and wait" philosophy, then he is
giving up his control. That's, basically what I was talking about.
Also, I was not necessarily talking about one woman you are attracted to. I
was thinking more generally, like going to a party, hanging out and waiting for
*any* woman to notice you (see below) and ask you out, not necessarily someone
in particular.
>
>Had she noticed *you* from across a crowded room, it would be in your
>hands, no?
>
You're quite correct, I did not think of that but while it's true that you do
have control over getting a woman's (or many women's) attention, by dressing in
a way that you are noticed (in a flattering way, not by dressing up like Bozo
the Clown) and by flirting, you *are* giving up control if you are going to let
her, or any of the women in the area, do the asking.
>IME, it's usually pretty hard to know just who wants who more until you
>talk about it at breakfast.
That's true. :)
Paul Probus
pro...@cnj.digex.net
Paul Probus
tgil...@news.abq.bdm.com says...
>
>In article <4fu4nj$m...@news4.digex.net>, pro...@cnj.digex.net (Paul
>Probus) wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, but alas it is. If you do the asking, then it is, in fact, *her*
>> out), again, it is in her hands. Either way, it's in her hands.
>
>does the asking she has control? [all together now] BZZZZZZZT.
>
>Perhaps what you meant is she has _some_ control. She can say no.
>She can opt not to ask you out. But of course, the same is true for
>you. You seem to be suggesting at least one of the following:
>
> You'll go out with anyone and you ask _everyone_
>
> (inferring from your tone) You wish that merely wanting
> a woman would make her yours.
>Clearly neither of these is healthy. Resolve it/them and
>you'll probably do better in the dating arena.
WRONG!!
First, if you ask a woman out, she *is* in control, once you have asked her
out, I don't see any ambiguity in that. If she says yes, that means she'll
date you at least once. If she says no, then she will not go out with you,
period. Obviously, you can elect to not ask her out, then you are
giving her the control by allowing her to ask you out (see my next point) or
you are not attracted to her. But once you *ask*, not that you are attracted
to her but actually *ask*, the control is hers.
Second, if you sit back and "wait" for a woman to ask you out, again, you are
putting her in control. If she's attracted to you and she asks you out, then
*you* are now have some control (you can say yes or no). However, if you are
waiting for her to ask you out, then it is totally in her control. Yes, you
could ask her out, if you get desparate later, and take some control, but she
has the final word. If you elect to not ask her out taking the fact that she
did not ask you out as her way of telling you she's not attracted to you, then
you are in her control.
Third, I never said I asked out *everyone*, admittedly, my shyness has kept me
from asking out women I was attracted to. I never said I'd go out with
*anyone*, I would go out with any woman who *asked me out*, I figure that I
have nothing to lose, however, I would not ask out a woman that I was not, at
least, acquainted with and had a feeling of what kind of person she is.
Fourth, you absolutely inferred wrong. I never said that I wished wanting a
woman would make her mine. I don't know where you pulled this out of but you
were obviously stretching. I feel that it's perfectly fine for a woman to turn
down whoever they are not attracted to (yes, even me), just like I will not ask
out a woman I'm not attracted to.
Learn to read before make a leap of logic next time (the leap of logic is what
I rebutted in "Fourth"). While I admit that there were some ambiguities in my
"control" statements, I hope I took them out.
Paul Probus
pro...@cnj.digex.net
Charlotte L. Blackmer
(Jeffrey writes all the triple-indented stuff - attribs were gone)
>>>Here are the answers. [according to Warren Ferrell - clb]
>>>Quite often a man can find that he can turn a "no" into a "maybe" and
>>>then into a "yes". Males, being the performers and being socialized to
>>>attract women by performing, have to learn to be persuasive. Some women
>>>are just looking for a man who is tenacious and confident enough to go
>>>beyond their no's. Also, saying "no" removes might help, in a
>>>convoluted manner, to remove any guilt she has on her part for sleeping
>>>with a guy.
>Charlotte, before you dismiss Farrell, who served on the NOW board for
>three years, who wrote a book, The Liberated Man, which "rung true for
>women" about twenty years ago,
Jeffrey, quite frankly, I don't give the proverbial flying fuck at a rolling
donut who is or was on the NOW board, nor is what some random comment
about some book twenty years ago terribly interesting to me.
> why not read his book, Why Men Are The Way They Are. Many men
>thinks it accurately describes many of their feelings and experiences.
I'm rather behind on my reading, but I will sound out the guys I know to
see whether 1) they agree with this assessment and 2) have a copy I could
borrow.
>I don't expect you to like the book since it does place some blame on
>women's behaviors for some of men's adaptations which annoy women,
Well, Jeffrey, since you've recommended some reading, I'd like to return
the favor: please do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts before
making statements about what you expect me to like and not like. Keep
rereading my original and see and see where I roll my eyes, laugh, and
point at the game-playing variety of double-X. Just because I am female
doesn't mean that I think that women can do no wrong, and I find your
assumption that I would feel that way out of line.
Since you often complain about people resorting to ad hom attacks or
sarcasm instead of "discussing substance", I'd appreciate the hell out of
it if you would do something about that cranio-rectal inversion that
seems to be impinging on your reading ability, drop your ad homs and
preconceived notions, and actually *discuss* *substance*.
>>Wow, looks like the old "a chick doesn't really mean no unless she slaps
>>you" garbage. Gag. My male friends all subscribe to the "no means no"
>>school, although I have laughed with them as they told me stories of the
>>women still operating under the old "rules" who got distinctly surprised
>>when they _stopped_!. They're not particularly interested in guessing games,
>>or in partners who can't say "yes" or even "maybe" for themselves. As one
>>of them says, "I don't have time for that crap". Of course, I heartily
>>agree :-)
>If you think that sex roles and the associated games and behaviors which
>come with them are dead, think again.
Haven't claimed such, so I'll just hand back your slightly used straw man
here. (snip snip snip)
>Those guys you mentioned in your initial post must have had or known
>someone who had success by being persistent before or they probably
>wouldn't have kept it up.
If it was the initial post about guys who wouldn't take no for an
answer, _I_ didn't write it. _I_ said that _my_ male friends took "no"
very seriously and were not interested in this sort of guessing game.
_I_ agreed with the original female poster that women who said "no" when
they really meant "talk me into this" were not worth a sensible guy's
time and effort. _You_ might want to get a threaded newsreader. I also
have a clue why the other guys might be doing what they're doing, but I
still think it bad behaviour. I can grok the "explanation" but don't
think it an "excuse".
(Hey, I heard a story about a guy who grabbed the tits of every woman he
met. After some years, one woman didn't slap him and they married. If
this is not just an UL, it "worked" for him, but I wouldn't recommend it
as a "strategy". Might lose valuable body parts that way.)
>I do, though, generally think of the not
>taking "no" seriously in terms of sexual initiatives after a date has
>already occurred, as opposed to the attempt to obtain the date in the
>frist place.
That's nice for you, but the initial poster and I were thinking of the
attempt to obtain the date in the first place. (For what you have in
mind, no still means no, though, unless the two people involved have worked
out another word for no.)
>>And a _lot_ of the women I know can say "yes", "no", and "maybe" and don't
>>much like their no's not being taken seriously. A fellow who tries this
>>with a coworker might be out of a job. I imagine it does work sometimes,
>>but even a blind pig finds an acorn every once in a while.
>Good for them. When more women mean it, men will take the no's more
>seriously.
Sounds like you're trying to make some women's bad behaviour into an
*excuse* for some men's bad behaviour. (If you aren't, you're coming across
that way to me.)
The women I know who mean it who do don't care about those who don't, and
indeed, usually have very little respect for them. I don't care what
games some popsie is playing. I mean it, and I *expect* to be taken
seriously when I say "no" to a date or sex. Someone who doesn't is an
Raging Jerk in my book. Period, end of story.
>>>Farrell also recounts why men turn women into sex objects--it hurts less
>>>to be rejected by an object than a human being.
>>So do the women morph back to humans when they say "yes"? Sheesh, one
>>day that switch is gonna break.
>I didn't say that men don't regard women as being humans,
Then try to be a little clearer about your choice of words - I've left
your original in to show you where someone could easily misinterpret it.
>>>it is hard, for a male, to find someone who wants to be
>>>his friend who is also attracted to him sexually as well.
>>He sure didn't talk to _me_. I've had more than one Torrid Affair
>>develop out of a friendship. I'm actually a lot more leery when a
>>relationship starts out on a more romantic/sexual plane for various reasons.
>Friendship isn't a bad strategy for a younger woman.
Even for one who's pushing 35, like I am. I met some of these guys some
years back, though.
(Ennyhoo, 'twasn't a "strategy", it just was. Most of the guys were
"taken" when I first met them :-)
>I believe you.
It's real (*very big grin*).
>Many men go that route,
Hey, I'm not hearing any complaints from the exen (I'm still friends with
them, by the way).
>still, it's a rough road for a male to hoe if he's actively seeking
>a relationship.
Same with women, hon. I've had my share of it. That's just life.
>>(Akshulally, Farrell's study population doesn't include a lot of people I
>>know *grin*)
>Half of what you've read is my own thinking, some is Farrell's contribution.
>Why not read his book before making sweeping judgements like that?
Um, well, that gently humorous remark was based on my assumption that you
were paraphrasing Farrell for my benefit and the remark about "it is hard
for a male to find friends who are sexually attracted to him" was his.
If it's not, my apologies, and my opinion of him has raised a notch or
two since I thought that was a silly thing to say :-) Please do me the
favor next time of clearly labelling what's yours and what's his since I
do like to keep sources straight. I suppose a humor transplant would be
a bit difficult to arrange on short notice.
>>>These men who are hitting on you and your friends are probably just very
>>>lonely, frustrated, decent guys.
>>This isn't an excuse for acting like a jerk. Hey, some dude doesn't take
>>my no seriously, I *know* he's not my type (and I don't think he's
>>"decent", either).
>How do you know that he isn't a Ph.D. candidate if you don't really know
>him?
Ph.D. candidate? Where did that come from? Being a Ph.D. candidate does
not imply niceness, decency, or even what my grampa used to call horse
sense. (I work for a large American biotechnology company and deal
with Ph.D.s every business day.)
>How do you know he's not your "type"? Based on what?
His disrespect for my stated boundaries.
>>>The kinds of "problems" you're complaining about are beyond most men's
>>>fantasy lives.
>>There are a lot of problems and fears connected with that, for sure, and
>>you're right, most men can't imagine them. Else they wouldn't pull crap
>>like that.
>>(I suppose none of your female acquaintances have told you rape or
>>stalker stories, huh?)
>How the hell did this get in here?
Well, we were talking about men who won't take women's no's seriously,
and problems women have with that.
>Were they threatening to follow you home or rape you?
Not often (once or twice was scary enough, though), but most of the ones
who do that kind of stuff don't telegraph their intentions quite as obviously
as that. (Looks like I guessed right about the stories, or lack thereof.)
>>I would suggest that any man who carries around a load of resentment at
>>some idea of women's "privilege" is probably not ever going to experience
>>something like these fantasies in RL (as opposed to the mind's eye or the
>>video screen).
>If they can understand the reasons why they feel the way they do and
>compartmentalize it, and learn to hide their feelings of resentment,
>which I do think are justified, they can attract women.
I don't think the resentment can be *hidden*. IMO, it always bubbles out
in various ways that are usually only perceived by others (who proceed to
give the resentor a wide berth). I've had this conversation before with
people who think that they are successful in hiding it on a conscious
level; the unconscious vibes can usually be felt better by others, and
only the person who thinks s/he is "hiding" it is fooled. I think
resentment needs to be *abandoned*. Life is not perfectly fair.
The wise change what they can and learn to deal with the rest. I
certainly don't like all the cards I've been dealt but walking around
with a chip on my shoulder about it is only going to drag me down.
>>>Consider the alternative to men's hitting on you...try to imagine if
>>>every offer for a date you have had never occurred.
>>Um, Jeffrey, it's not an either/or situation. I've had plenty of offers
>>that couldn't be described as being "hit on".
>The problem is...if a man has asked out all the women he knows or just
>doesn't know too many available women, the choices are celibacy or
>purposely search for a relationship--which might well include hitting on
>strange women.
His choice, but he shouldn't expect warm fluffies from all the "strange
women" he hits on. And if he won't take no for an answer, he can start
expecting outright hostility (and/or charges).
If he really resents women, celibacy is an honorable choice (much
healthier for all involved).
>>>Try to imagine what it would be like if all or most of the men you were
>>>interested in were taken or had a large selection of decent women pursuing
>>>them to choose from. Perhaps then you will gain some insight into the
>>>younger male's experience.
>>If you add "or are gay", that describes my twenties in SF pretty well. So I
>>know the score. This is, however, no excuse for bad behaviour, vague
>>resentment, and the like. God knows it's the path of least resistance,
>>but it's not the way to the other side.
>This isn't too clear. Are you saying that you perceive a "male
>shortage", or that you've been pursued a lot?
Hmmm, thought "been there, done that" was pretty clear. But here goes:
I'm saying that when I was young, cute, and living in San Francisco, most
of the younger guys (I wasn't interested in older) were busy chasing each
other. There weren't a lot of heterosexual males around, and most of
them were pretty "busy". Got it?
>>>Just tell them you are unavailable, understand and emphathize with their
>>>plight, and wish them well.
>>The "unavailable" ploy does work better than the "not interested" with
>>some men. Somehow they can accept "I have a boyfriend" better than "No
>>thanks". Go figure.
>>If they keep on asking me after someone has said no, though, "understanding
>>and empathizing" is a bit much. I do have to say that the worst problems I
>>had with someone not taking no for an answer were after I turned him down
>>in an exceedingly complimentary fashion (modelled on one I'd recently
>>received from someone who became a good friend). Think he'd read Farrell
>>too :-).
>Farrell doesn't advocate that men act like jerks.
Qool!
So, do you have any comment on the substance, or are you going to confine
yourself to taking my throw-away jokes way too seriously?
>>So, gone to the men's bar yet for your field experiments?
>But I'm not gay.
As I said before, orientation doesn't matter that much. I mean, Jim
Heck's friends weren't out to "pick up" guys - just to have a drink with
friends and a good time.
>What is your point?
Once again:
You said that women should be happy even when dweebs hit on them since it
was the stuff of fantasy for most guys to be such a focus of sexual
interest by strangers.
You think you might like being "hit on"? Fine. I'm telling you where
your odds are better of this happening.
Orientation and plumbing doesn't make that much of a difference for this
experiment since it is about "people who you are not interested in
sexually hitting on you". The meat market type of men's bar might put
the shoe on the other foot.
>That women also can feel powerless?
Scared that some dweeb who won't take no for an answer is going
to try to hurt and/or scare them is more like it for some. It's a big
part of the reason why I don't much like your suggestion that women should
enjoy being "hit on".
>That the grass isn't so green on the otherside? I agree,
>though I do think that women have many advantages over men given the
>current socialization.
And I have described some of the disadvantages for women inherent in this
model; the green grass has plenty of weeds. I have been given enough
reasons to distrust and resent the male gender: I've been raped (talked
myself out of being killed), harassed, stalked, lived years as everybody's
friend and nobody's girlfriend, and I still have to be careful about
urban life in ways that most men don't. But it ain't no use keeping score
(all it wins me is an official "victim" hat) and life is just too short
to carry a bundle of resentment around. I don't need that kind of baggage.
If you want to carry your resentment (and your demographic theories,
etc.) around like a blanket, it's your life to waste; just keep in mind
that a lot of women can sense these things and will avoid you for that
very reason. IME, it becomes a "self-fulfilling prophecy". But for the
present time, since you seem to be putting words into my mouth, not
paying attention to what I am actually saying, AND don't seem to be much
interested in discussion, I don't see much more point in spending much
more of my time on this. Let me know when you get a sense of humor and a
Clue (tm), though.
CLB
------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte L. Blackmer c...@rahul.net
Berkeley Farm and Pleasure Palace (under construction)
Ogre
[at Eugenia]
>But like Ross Jeffries and ++
Eugenia, Ross Jeffries, and ++Albert. They're three of a
kind, all right.
>there's SOME
>good to be sifted out of your posts.
In your opinion. Others out here might think there's a LOT of
good stuff in her posts.
Ogre, one of the "Others"
--
"The Ogre does what ogres can / Deeds quite impossible for Man /
But one prize is beyond his reach / The Ogre cannot master Speech"
- W. H. Auden
Jim Dutton
Cheezits <chee...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4gafes$1...@Venus.mcs.com>, j...@MCS.COM (Jim Dutton) writes:
>
>>Trouble in lovers paradise?
>
>predictable. And you've been giving all your best material to that Jeff
>Haber guy, and he doesn't whine half as much as I do! Sheesh!
>
>Sue (going off in a huff)
I'm sorry. Please come back. I can change.
-Jeem, I don't know what I was thinking..
========================================================================
http://www.mcs.net/~jjd
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more
"I love my country -- I fear my government" -- ??
========================================================================
Cheezits
out of this thread. If I have any long replies after this I'll email them
to you (much to the disappointment of our audience). Continued from
another article:
In article <4g5nmh$p...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
>I guess my strongest way of seeking revenge on the world, is simply
seeking
>to effect positive change. I may never live to see the day, but one day
>I'll be looking down on those bullies and jocks and gangsters from my
>little cloud, and snickering because they, for once, aren't getting the
>dates.
This is not my idea of a positive attitude. I'd rather live in a world
where everyone gets dates with someone they are compatible with. Including
jocks. Gangsters I don't know about. Revenge: BAD. Love & Peace &
Understanding: GOOD.
>>I wish our high school even had a nerd table! Or even a chess club.
>I wish you were at our high school!!
It probably wouldn't have made a difference if I had been. Chances are,
there was another version of me there, and you just didn't know it,
especially if you were always looking at the girls hanging around the
jocks.
>If you've read the overall tone of my posts in general, I spend
>more time getting into how to deal with these things in a positive way.
I've got no problem with that. If you can stick to the how-to-deal sort of
post, you would accomplish more than by engaging in flame warfare. If
anything you've written has actually helped someone, then that's all that
matters, not what those cutthroat snigglers think about it. :-) If worst
comes to worst, you can always get to people through private email.
Sue
-----
You wouldn't know what morality was if it walked up and bit
your ass. - Ted Holden
Cheezits
LS...@cnsvax.albany.edu (Lorremiddye) writes:
> fer...@isis.com (John Fereira) writes:
>> chee...@aol.com (Cheezits)
>>writes:
>>>All right, *now* I'm steamed.
>>I suppose that's better then being broiled, baked, or fried. Now
>>all we need is a nice hollendaise sauce.
>Bechamel, please, for me. It'll go well with that cheezits flavor!!!
How come I always get hungry when I read soc.singles?
Gotta go. I hear a box of crackers calling me.
Sue
-----
"Mmmm, bacon!" - Homer Simpson
An Exceedingly Well-Favored Piglet
>Sue (going off in a huff)
Hey, why leave in a huff, when you can take an Oldsmobile?!
Pig...@retreads.are.the.best
Charlotte L. Blackmer
Glenn Saunders <kri...@primenet.com> wrote:
>The mortal Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
>: "sure, women have asked me out", and a number of the women who regularly
>: post here have said "sure, I've asked guys out".
>
>Do you know the scope of usenet?
Nope, nor have I claimed to. You snipped some of where I said I was
talking about here in soc.singles, but there is that "who regularly post
here" in the excerpt above.
>I'm sure if you asked how many people shove crayons up their asses while
>singing Stairway to Heaven backwards you'd get a few replies.
Given the snarky answers I've seen here in response to similar
stupid/troll questions, I wouldn't be surprised. (Might even believe a
couple of folks :-)
>These figures are hardly large enough to even consider.
Au contraire - on soc.singles the population of regular male posters who
have been asked out by women and women posters who have asked me out is
definitely a non-empty set and indeed is plenty large enough to consider
seriously. And soc.singles is the place I was talking about.
I can totally believe that no woman has ever asked you out, and if you
continue to display the same charming demeanor in future, I think it more
likely that you would be kidnapped by aliens and spirited away in a UFO
first. (Speaking purely for myself as a Woman Who Has Asked Men Out, given
the choice between you and celibacy, I'd be in a convent so fast that a
grass fire would start in my wake.) But I stand by my observations, and
cordially invite you to stick your preemptory dismissals where the sun
don't shine, bite me hard, and wank right off to alt.support.men.who.hate.
women.but.desperately.want.to.bone.them.