I'm sure this girl was looking at me.
Pumpkinhead
In the past we have made brief eye contact in a crowded room for no apparent
reason. Today, as I was walking towards her location, I'm sure she was
looking at me. She displays this strange behaviour sometimes. She appears
to bend over slightly to her right and scratch her right knee cap while
looking at me or at least in my direction. She did it today. A minute
later, I was at a different vector. Again she was looking my way, this time
with only her head turned. A few minutes later, as I left the location, I
turned my head to look at her to see if she was looking my way. What the
fuck? She was. Coincidence? I don't know. Part of me thinks I've evolved
to be sensitive to this behaviour in females. Part of me thinks I'm just
going mad. I wonder if I've displayed any behaviour to her that I'm not
aware of.
I'm hoping for some set of circumstances to just throw us together some time
so we can verbally communicate. Then I could really make a fool of myself.
ThePuttKing
The only way you can find out anything is by talking to this woman.
Just find an excuse and take it from there.
I think the reason she scratched her knee was because she had an itch.
Sicklee
Yes, an itch for pumpkinlove.:-)
Always best to assume she likes you. Doing something about it has a
slim chance of success, while doing nothing has a zero chance of
success.
Pumpkinhead
> The only way you can find out anything is by talking to this woman.
> Just find an excuse and take it from there.
I just feel incapable for now.
> I think the reason she scratched her knee was because she had an itch.
On different occasions? I guess she could have a rash there or something.
Interestingly, Mystery talks about scratching oneself in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMRs73-2j8A
Michaela Mackenzie
> I happen to find her attractive. I hope you can excuse the lack of details.
I'm sure you'll find a reason to call her a beach within a week
though, so try not to
let us down.
- Michaela
ThePuttKing
> > The only way you can find out anything is by talking to this woman.
> > Just find an excuse and take it from there.
>
> I just feel incapable for now.
Who is she anyway ? Someone at work ?
Pumpkinhead
> Who is she anyway ? Someone at work ?
Sorry, I think I want to keep it vague for now.
nSCOURGE
If she turns out to be a beach, what else would you suggest he call
her?
> - Michaela
ThePuttKing
> > Who is she anyway ? Someone at work ?
>
> Sorry, I think I want to keep it vague for now.
Oh well , I don't think any of us can offer any help. Good luck
anyway !
Michaela Mackenzie
Even a beach has people she is good to.
In any event, you're just being silly. Ph only looks for the bad in
people once
he sees he's going to have to put effort into the situation.
He can't help who he likes, right?
- Michaela
nSCOURGE
Is it that, or is it that he would rather not invest in people who
don't like him.
Newsflash: women actually 'like' a *very* small proportion of the
male population.
This is evident to everyone here but you.
August Pamplona
>
> Michaela Mackenzie wrote:
>> On Dec 6, 10:03 am, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 4, 1:20 pm, Michaela Mackenzie
>>>
>>> <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 4, 6:20 pm, "Pumpkinhead" wrote:
>>>>> I happen to find her attractive. I hope you can excuse the lack of details.
>>>> I'm sure you'll find a reason to call her a beach within a week
>>>> though, so try not to
>>>> let us down.
>>> If she turns out to be a beach, what else would you suggest he call
>>> her?
>>>
>>>> - Michaela
>> Even a beach has people she is good to.
>>
>> In any event, you're just being silly. Ph only looks for the bad in
>> people once
>> he sees he's going to have to put effort into the situation.
>
> Is it that, or is it that he would rather not invest in people who
> don't like him.
Change that to "might not like him."
Safest not to invest in anyone at all, then?
>
> Newsflash: women actually 'like' a *very* small proportion of the
> male population.
What do you mean by "women"? What do you mean by "like"? Does
this have any relevance to the discussion?
>
> This is evident to everyone here but you.
>
>> He can't help who he likes, right?
>>
>> - Michaela
August Pamplona
--
If you could prove religious beliefs with the scientific
method, it would be science.....and nobody would believe it.
- Stephen Colbert
a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut
Proud member of the reality-based community.
The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with
individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages
reaching this address are deleted without human intervention.
In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message.
To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me,
make sure that my e-mail address is not hot.
nSCOURGE
August Pamplona wrote:
> nSCOURGE wrote:
> >
> > Michaela Mackenzie wrote:
> >> On Dec 6, 10:03 am, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Dec 4, 1:20 pm, Michaela Mackenzie
> >>>
> >>> <michaelamackenzie05072...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 4, 6:20 pm, "Pumpkinhead" wrote:
> >>>>> I happen to find her attractive. I hope you can excuse the lack of details.
> >>>> I'm sure you'll find a reason to call her a beach within a week
> >>>> though, so try not to
> >>>> let us down.
> >>> If she turns out to be a beach, what else would you suggest he call
> >>> her?
> >>>
> >>>> - Michaela
> >> Even a beach has people she is good to.
> >>
> >> In any event, you're just being silly. Ph only looks for the bad in
> >> people once
> >> he sees he's going to have to put effort into the situation.
> >
> > Is it that, or is it that he would rather not invest in people who
> > don't like him.
>
> Change that to "might not like him."
Changed to: 'unreceptive'.
> Safest not to invest in anyone at all, then?
>
> >
> > Newsflash: women actually 'like' a *very* small proportion of the
> > male population.
>
> What do you mean by "women"? What do you mean by "like"?
Shooting him 'receptive signals'; demonstrating behavior that
encourages his investment/pursuit.
> Does
> this have any relevance to the discussion?
If Michaela is implying that Pumpkin is the contrary agent in all his
interactions, then I think, yes.
Bernd Jendrissek
wrote:
> > Who is she anyway ? Someone at work ?
>
> Sorry, I think I want to keep it vague for now.
Must be a cashier chick then...
ThePuttKing
Been there, done that !, as they say.
I developed quite a few crushes on cashier girls. I was extrememly
lonely at the time. Nothing ever happened of course.
It's funny now that I'm the cashier and women get crushes on me. In
women I mean the old, lonely ones. Quite a few are now deliberately
coming to my till when they have others to go to. They talk to me,
call me their 'friend', stuff like that.
And before anybody says I should hit on these women, they are all 70
plus.
Lobsterboy
> I happen to find her attractive. I hope you can excuse the lack of details.
> In the past we have made brief eye contact in a crowded room for no apparent
> reason. Today, as I was walking towards her location, I'm sure she was
> looking at me. She displays this strange behaviour sometimes. She appears
> to bend over slightly to her right and scratch her right knee cap while
> looking at me or at least in my direction.
Well, I haven´t seen knee scratching listed as a non-verbal sign of
attraction so far, LOL. When you eventually talk to her, if there´s a
combination of smile, prolonged eye contact, body oriented towards you
and a friendly attitude, there´s a good chance she likes you.
August Pamplona
Wow, now Lobsterboy shows up!
Pumpkinhead
some scowl or dismissive eye roll in return. I feel like I would just have
some kind of nervous breakdown on the spot if that happened just once more
with a woman I like. Maybe next time I'll feel more bold.
Bernd Jendrissek
wrote:
> For fuck's sake. I can't even look at her now. Such is the fear of getting
> some scowl or dismissive eye roll in return.
Oh fuck you, Pumpkinhead. You're fucking paranoid with this stupid
scowl / dismissive eye roll thing - you've built up this dystopian
fantasy completely inside your own head.
> I feel like I would just have
> some kind of nervous breakdown on the spot if that happened just once more
> with a woman I like. Maybe next time I'll feel more bold.
Just keep telling yourself these cute little stories about what might
happen. See how far it's gotten you until now already!
Lobsterboy
>Wow, now Lobsterboy shows up!
I really nerver left. I haven´t posted almost anything in the last
years because
1) I get lazier and lazier over time.
2) My life is a total bore, there´s little worth posting.
I´ll try to correct both things :-)
Lobsterboy
wrote:
Try to start a conversation over some light, non-controversial topic,
and check those signs I mentioned before while chatting. Valerian Root
might help you with the stress. I use the Kneipp brand, works pretty
well for me.
ThePuttKing
wrote:
Daft question but how can you like her when you haven't even spoken to
her yet ?
Pumpkinhead
"Bernd Jendrissek" <bernd.je...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd806252-2365-47bd...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for your opinion.
Pumpkinhead
"ThePuttKing" <thepu...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:18b812fa-ae6a-4a91...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
When I see her, I like what I see. That's all.
Pumpkinhead
> Try to start a conversation over some light, non-controversial topic,
> and check those signs I mentioned before while chatting.
Even if I could just give her a spontaneous, friendly, funny comment, that
would be progressive. It could be with any attractive woman though. Not
just this one.
nSCOURGE
wrote:
Just keep her in your field of view, so you can observe her(defocus,
when you start to lose your nerve).
If she keeps stealing glances at you after some time, you should
consider that she does indeed 'like' you(and is signalling to embolden
your approach).
Bernd Jendrissek
wrote:
> "Bernd Jendrissek" <bernd.jendris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Don't you get it? You're already starting to project blame onto the
girl you've never even spoken to. Dishonest little shit.
nSCOURGE
Your abusive motivation hasn't done him much good either, has it?
Why don't you show him how it's done?
Michaela Mackenzie
Well after trying everything else, sometimes a little shock might help
someone
to wake up.
Billy silly.
- Michaela
Pumpkinhead
> Don't you get it? You're already starting to project blame onto the
> girl you've never even spoken to. Dishonest little shit.
What are you imagining I'm blaming her for? I can't recall receiving even
one unpleasant facial expression from her. There's a first time for
everything though. I guess I should be more giving of the benefit of the
doubt.
Being pessimistic or skeptical is not dishonest.
nSCOURGE
And what would you know?
You keep eternal vigil in A.S.S for the first sign of 'sexual
conflict', and then make your apologies, shifting the onus upon the
perceived (male)complainant at the first opportunity.
There seems to be a myth perpetuated in A.S.S that females are
universally aloof, or shy.
They aren't - their apparent detachment is conditional.
That this evades common knowledge in A.S.S, speaks to an observer-
entanglement in an experimenter effect(ie. they are not observing
receptive females, because females are not receptive to *them*).
When a female is receptive, her affections are plain to see.
If a male isn't receiving these signals, it suggests a problem that no
amount of blind 'approaching' is likely to solve.
Since handicapping focuses selection, success is indicated with ease,
not effort or prolonged difficulty.
I think Bernd likes to see Pumpkinhead as his social experiment lab-
rat, but he should know better than beating a dead horse(unless he
enjoys it).
> Billy silly.
>
> - Michaela
nSCOURGE
Edit: I meant to write 'relative ease'.
PandoraElpis
Reciprocity is fixed because it is sociality's only evolutionarily
viable form.
So, if someone notes personal rejection, they will feel a strong
tendency to reciprocate(esp where such rejection has implications for
reproductive success).
Why can't you understand that?
Bernd Jendrissek
> So, if someone notes personal rejection, they will feel a strong
> tendency to reciprocate(esp where such rejection has implications for
> reproductive success).
>
> Why can't you understand that?
This isn't just reciprocity. She hasn't rejected him. He has simply
rejected himself on her behalf - done all the work for her [1].
He's already pulling the "such is the fear" trick (subtly shifting
responsibility for his shyness onto women's [filtered-perceived]
behaviour). This girl he chose (!) not to approach is a women. It
will only be a short step for him to draw tight the string connecting
these otherwise unrelated thoughts and harbouring resentment towards
*her*.
PandoraElpis
It is obvious that he is anticipating rejection, or inferring it from
an absence of overt receptivity(verbal cues do not demonstrate as a
prevailing, or efficient communication medium in nascent courtship -
surely, you would agree).
nSCOURGE
I don't think Pumpkinhead has really given up(if that's also what you
are implying).
But I do think that after an unsuccessful history, (intelligent)males
will start to look at the problems more efficiently, looking for
cogent indications of success, rather than just blindly indulging a
rote probability fallacy, or investing in spurious/falsified seduction
theory.
Bernd Jendrissek
> It is obvious that he is anticipating rejection, or inferring it from
> an absence of overt receptivity(verbal cues do not demonstrate as a
> prevailing, or efficient communication medium in nascent courtship -
> surely, you would agree).
My bet is that he isn't even making himself visible to this girl, so
she has nothing on which to base any putative receptivity. This is
what shy people do best: we "blend in" - we become invisible. Not
because potential partners perceive us and then make a choice to not-
perceive us, but because we do everything in our power to be a bland,
amorphous part of the social background.
But it all works out okay in the end, since this very trait is an
unattractive one (if you are invisible to girls, your sons will be
too), so shy guys are really just helping women in their genetic task
of weeding out inferior mates. The species won't miss our genetic non-
contribution.
Limerent Oil
> My bet is that he isn't even making himself visible to this girl, so
> she has nothing on which to base any putative receptivity. This is
> what shy people do best: we "blend in" - we become invisible. Not
> because potential partners perceive us and then make a choice to not-
> perceive us, but because we do everything in our power to be a bland,
> amorphous part of the social background.
>
> But it all works out okay in the end, since this very trait is an
> unattractive one (if you are invisible to girls, your sons will be
> too), so shy guys are really just helping women in their genetic task
> of weeding out inferior mates. The species won't miss our genetic non-
> contribution.
It is not necessary for a given organism to reproduce in order for its
genes to "succeed". For example, you can help promote your genes by
contributing (via money, muscle, protection, etc) to the success and
well-being of your nearest blood kin (nieces, nephews, cousins). I'm
sure that with some imagination, one could come up with other ways in
which to increase the proportion of one's genes in the gene pool over
time. But when it's put into that context, the whole exercise seems kind
of pointless, at least to me. Who cares whether your genes are
ultimately "winners" or "losers"? Genes are just tiny bits of matter, so
why get all invested in their "well-being"?
nSCOURGE
Kin selection is still an evolutionary suckers bet, where it implies
Relatedness < cost/benefit(less than 1).
Also, where kin selection implies a joint tendency to unreciprocal
altruism without relatedness, it will be pose a fitness disadvantage.
PandoraElpis
Appealing to consequence?
Sorry, but if tacit female receptivity cues are determianant in
nascent courtship(my argument), then females should have evolved to
efficiently observe males.
So, shybies are socially cryptic only insofar as they have been
efficiently deemed unworthy of further attention/observation(to where
they are 'tuned-out' as background noise, so that receptivity cannot
be confounded).
And Pumpkinhead has already hinted at some acknowledgement of physical
unattractiveness.
But, you would have it that an inferior status follows from spontaneous
(?) shyness, rather than shyness that is the heuristic consequence of
determinant factors in male status.
And as only the latter lends to a comprehensive solution, why do you
insist on an vague existentialist bent in considering this problem
(beyond vicarious intrigues)?
Limerent Oil
I'm sorry, but I find your comments impenetrable.
Regardless, I don't believe that either of your (intentionally?)
abstruse points speaks to my main point, which is this: Maximizing the
fitness of your genes is not a worthwhile goal to have.
nSCOURGE
Sorry, it is a refinement of Hamilton's equation.
Bernd Jendrissek
> Sorry, but if tacit female receptivity cues are determianant in
> nascent courtship(my argument), then females should have evolved to
> efficiently observe males.
They have, and as you note they have evolved to efficiently observe
shy males - by NOT observing them. For the female's genetic interest,
this outcome is second only to actively killing socially cryptic
males.
> So, shybies are socially cryptic only insofar as they have been
> efficiently deemed unworthy of further attention/observation(to where
> they are 'tuned-out' as background noise, so that receptivity cannot
> be confounded).
My position is that socially cryptic males are unworthy precisely
because of their socially cryptic nature. You may not agree,
preferring to believe in shyness as an honest signal of inferior
genetic quality. I believe though that it is not just *genes* that
are being selected for, but *memes* - they are co-evolving. In that
sense shyness is as much a flaw as unequal limb length is. Of course
for best outcome the genetic and memetic reproduction landscapes
should be symbiotic. I'm not sure if this is the case; I do think
there is a (weak) coupling, at least.
> But, you would have it that an inferior status follows from spontaneous
> (?) shyness, rather than shyness that is the heuristic consequence of
> determinant factors in male status.
Yes, I think shyness is, in most cases, as spontaneous (but self-
reinforcing! - positive feedback cycle - all you need to start it is
an unstable amplifier and some noise) as choice of religious belief
is. (This may be a bad example. I'd rather not argue this analogy.)
> And as only the latter lends to a comprehensive solution, why do you
> insist on an vague existentialist bent in considering this problem
> (beyond vicarious intrigues)?
What comprehensive solution are accessible to an individual afflicted
with inferior determinant factors?
PandoraElpis
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:09 am, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, but if tacit female receptivity cues are determianant in
> > nascent courtship(my argument), then females should have evolved to
> > efficiently observe males.
>
> They have, and as you note they have evolved to efficiently observe
> shy males - by NOT observing them.
Only after they have already been selectively culled from further
investment(of receptivity signalling).
Neither am I claiming females are efficient to the point of
clairvoyance(female intuition should go only so far).
> For the female's genetic interest,
> this outcome is second only to actively killing socially cryptic
> males.
>
> > So, shybies are socially cryptic only insofar as they have been
> > efficiently deemed unworthy of further attention/observation(to where
> > they are 'tuned-out' as background noise, so that receptivity cannot
> > be confounded).
>
> My position is that socially cryptic males are unworthy precisely
> because of their socially cryptic nature. You may not agree,
> preferring to believe in shyness as an honest signal of inferior
> genetic quality. I believe though that it is not just *genes* that
> are being selected for, but *memes* - they are co-evolving. In that
> sense shyness is as much a flaw as unequal limb length is. Of course
> for best outcome the genetic and memetic reproduction landscapes
> should be symbiotic. I'm not sure if this is the case; I do think
> there is a (weak) coupling, at least.
>
> > But, you would have it that an inferior status follows from spontaneous
> > (?) shyness, rather than shyness that is the heuristic consequence of
> > determinant factors in male status.
>
> Yes, I think shyness is, in most cases, as spontaneous (but self-
> reinforcing! - positive feedback cycle - all you need to start it is
> an unstable amplifier and some noise) as choice of religious belief
> is. (This may be a bad example. I'd rather not argue this analogy.)
Anything which focuses selection must be preserved by some function of
selective value(if sufficiently common).
Thus, I struggle to delineate any obvious niche where shyness should
be allowed to prosper(or some vestigial form from which it should have
evolved), or transmission vector/mutation factor from which it should
propagate.
So, it seems more elegant to consider as an intrinsic signalling
handicapp, then as a meme per se.
But, maybe I'm overlooking something.
> > And as only the latter lends to a comprehensive solution, why do you
> > insist on an vague existentialist bent in considering this problem
> > (beyond vicarious intrigues)?
>
> What comprehensive solution are accessible to an individual afflicted
> with inferior determinant factors?
I was referring to problems/solutions in the sense of enquiry.
nSCOURGE
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 9, 7:09 am, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, but if tacit female receptivity cues are determianant in
> > nascent courtship(my argument), then females should have evolved to
> > efficiently observe males.
>
> They have, and as you note they have evolved to efficiently observe
> shy males - by NOT observing them. For the female's genetic interest,
> this outcome is second only to actively killing socially cryptic
> males.
>
> > So, shybies are socially cryptic only insofar as they have been
> > efficiently deemed unworthy of further attention/observation(to where
> > they are 'tuned-out' as background noise, so that receptivity cannot
> > be confounded).
>
> My position is that socially cryptic males are unworthy precisely
> because of their socially cryptic nature. You may not agree,
> preferring to believe in shyness as an honest signal of inferior
> genetic quality. I believe though that it is not just *genes* that
> are being selected for, but *memes* - they are co-evolving. In that
> sense shyness is as much a flaw as unequal limb length is.
For the sake of argument(since, like Pandora, I hold that shyness is
not the real problem being observed), why do you assume shyness is a
defect that is any easier to remedy?
Bernd Jendrissek
> Neither am I claiming females are efficient to the point of
> clairvoyance(female intuition should go only so far).
Clairvoyance might be useful as a limit taken to infinity of evo-time.
> > > But, you would have it that an inferior status follows from spontaneous
> > > (?) shyness, rather than shyness that is the heuristic consequence of
> > > determinant factors in male status.
>
> > Yes, I think shyness is, in most cases, as spontaneous (but self-
> > reinforcing! - positive feedback cycle - all you need to start it is
> > an unstable amplifier and some noise) as choice of religious belief
> > is. (This may be a bad example. I'd rather not argue this analogy.)
>
> Anything which focuses selection must be preserved by some function of
> selective value(if sufficiently common).
>
> Thus, I struggle to delineate any obvious niche where shyness should
> be allowed to prosper(or some vestigial form from which it should have
> evolved), or transmission vector/mutation factor from which it should
> propagate.
Shyness is not a fitness niche, it's a memetic defect. I don't think
it's a signifier of any hereditary fitness determinants: differences
in individual fitness are due to noise and are seldom hereditary - if
any differences were hereditary they would quickly dominate the
population, eliminating the variance.
Shyness is a meme that outcompetes other memes in an already-infected
mind. Just read this group for examples of how it defends itself
against invasion from more (meatspace-)reproductively advantageous
ideas.
The fact that shyness induces lack of influence makes it an
interesting question to ask how it propagates. I suspect it is
spontaneous: unstable amplifier + noise = oscillation or saturation.
> So, it seems more elegant to consider as an intrinsic signalling
> handicapp, then as a meme per se.
>
> But, maybe I'm overlooking something.
I disagree, and I think you are overlooking something. Can't put my
finger on what. How do you explain the apparently bizarre disconnect
between all outward appearances of a shy guy and his sexual success?
If you took the general population and had a way to magically subtract
their shyness, you would probably find two subpopulations forming
distinct bands on a physical attractiveness vs sexual success graph.
I think you're committing a fallacy whose name escapes me, that goes
like this: "They're shy, therefore there *must* be something wrong
with them besides the shyness itself".
Bernd Jendrissek
> For the sake of argument(since, like Pandora, I hold that shyness is
> not the real problem being observed), why do you assume shyness is a
> defect that is any easier to remedy?
Because there exist people who have remedied it. I didn't say it's
easy to remedy maladaptive behaviour and thought, merely possible,
unlike physical asymmetry, for example. (Though the Michael Jackson
route does, in fact, exist. I consider that harder though, not
easier.)
PandoraElpis
I'm not saying shyness cannot follow from other developmental defect
reasons other than a conventional debt in observable genetic quality.
But, your explanation begs too many naive, a priori assumptions with
respect to the memetic nexus of shyness.
So, I'm struggling with an analogy where a hypostatic(deleterious in
the presumed case of shyness) mutation must be bound to some function
of selective value, such that shyness/caahfidence is an ad-hoc
description of a continuous mimetic effect acting upon a fitness
valued neighbourhood(say, some adaptive capacity for active mediation
of evolutionary concern - even memes that are acquired/transmitted
through heuristic processes cannot be disentangled from endogenous/in
vivo factors).
Anything else can not be made agreeable to my prevailing understanding
of the way evolution works.
But, if this is the case then we're back to square one as to whether
relative shyness is more significant in confounding genetic quality,
than the other way around.
Only the latter is consistent with my observation that female sexual
choice does not trade off conventional signals of genetic quality in
consideration of shyness, unlike the reverse.
If shyness is sufficiently difficult/clumsy to quantify, it can be
argued it is difficult to observe, and thus females should not have
evolved to favor some quality signal which is relatively inefficient
to sample(which would suggest that the fitness implications of shyness
are negligible with respect to conventional signals of genetic
quality).
I think you are underestimating genetic quality signals(exclusive of
relative shyness) in the wake of the modern welfare state(but my
position is well known).
nSCOURGE
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 12, 9:06 am, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > For the sake of argument(since, like Pandora, I hold that shyness is
> > not the real problem being observed), why do you assume shyness is a
> > defect that is any easier to remedy?
>
> Because there exist people who have remedied it.
Begs the question as to why a comprehensive method is not forthcoming
(unless shyness is merely a dependent variable of some other real
problem).
nSCOURGE
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:16 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > Neither am I claiming females are efficient to the point of
> > clairvoyance(female intuition should go only so far).
>
> Clairvoyance might be useful as a limit taken to infinity of evo-time.
>
> > > > But, you would have it that an inferior status follows from spontaneous
> > > > (?) shyness, rather than shyness that is the heuristic consequence of
> > > > determinant factors in male status.
> >
> > > Yes, I think shyness is, in most cases, as spontaneous (but self-
> > > reinforcing! - positive feedback cycle - all you need to start it is
> > > an unstable amplifier and some noise) as choice of religious belief
> > > is. (This may be a bad example. I'd rather not argue this analogy.)
> >
> > Anything which focuses selection must be preserved by some function of
> > selective value(if sufficiently common).
> >
> > Thus, I struggle to delineate any obvious niche where shyness should
> > be allowed to prosper(or some vestigial form from which it should have
> > evolved), or transmission vector/mutation factor from which it should
> > propagate.
>
> Shyness is not a fitness niche, it's a memetic defect. I don't think
> it's a signifier of any hereditary fitness determinants: differences
> in individual fitness are due to noise and are seldom hereditary - if
> any differences were hereditary they would quickly dominate the
> population, eliminating the variance.
I think you're failing to consider solutions that are inclusive of
balancing selection in intralocus sexual conflict(important!), as well
as understating the role of epistasis(with respect to 'heriditary
fitness determinants') in mutation selection balance.
nSCOURGE
Forgot to add that it is through epistasis neighbourhoods that modest
mutation rates resolve the lek paradox.
nSCOURGE
It might make sense to consider shyness as a pathological state of
strategic inaction(passive choice), that empirically mediates the rate
of social traffic.
But, I agree that shyness isn't a signal debt per se, and is spurious
to consider as such.
If a shy guy somehow finds himself in a singles bar, females are not
screening him for shyness, lol(interestingly, I haven't observed any
angst riddled accounts of shy guys being bombarded by female
receptivity signals, but being unable to act upon them due to
inhibitory shyness).
Bernd Jendrissek
> Only the latter is consistent with my observation that female sexual
> choice does not trade off conventional signals of genetic quality in
> consideration of shyness, unlike the reverse.
I find it difficult to penetrate your use of language, but if you mean
here what I think you mean, then I disagree with your observation: IME
females *do* trade off shyness against conventional signals of genetic
quality. In fact it's blatantly obvious to me that females will
choose a caahfident slightly ugly male (conventional signals of
genetic inferiority) over a shy slightly hot male.
> If shyness is sufficiently difficult/clumsy to quantify, it can be
> argued it is difficult to observe,
That argument would be fallacious. The failure is in language, and in
communication, not in observation. Females are quite efficient at
perceiving shyness. (Not perfect though.)
> I think you are underestimating genetic quality signals(exclusive of
> relative shyness) in the wake of the modern welfare state(but my
> position is well known).
The modern welfare state has not yet made even the tiniest blip on the
evolution radar. Try again in 100000 years.
Bernd Jendrissek
> Begs the question as to why a comprehensive method is not forthcoming
But it is; in fact there are several candidates. Try ASF methods for
one. Or join the army. I think most methods will incorporate some
sort of "grow the fuck up and get over yourself" element.
> (unless shyness is merely a dependent variable of some other real
> problem).
Perhaps an innate resistance to rationality?
nSCOURGE
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:37 pm, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Begs the question as to why a comprehensive method is not forthcoming
>
> But it is; in fact there are several candidates. Try ASF methods for
> one. Or join the army. I think most methods will incorporate some
> sort of "grow the fuck up and get over yourself" element.
Subjectively, I don't think shyness is a problem beyond the parameters
I outlined - all the physically attractive male shybies I know have
gotten into relationships from females who approached *them*.
> > (unless shyness is merely a dependent variable of some other real
> > problem).
>
> Perhaps an innate resistance to rationality?
With respect to the problems under consideration, rationality is an
artifice of entangled irrational evolutionary concerns mapped onto a
justification framework of cognitive bias.
nSCOURGE
What happens then?
PandoraElpis
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:05 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > Only the latter is consistent with my observation that female sexual
> > choice does not trade off conventional signals of genetic quality in
> > consideration of shyness, unlike the reverse.
>
> I find it difficult to penetrate your use of language, but if you mean
> here what I think you mean, then I disagree with your observation: IME
> females *do* trade off shyness against conventional signals of genetic
> quality. In fact it's blatantly obvious to me that females will
> choose a caahfident slightly ugly male (conventional signals of
> genetic inferiority) over a shy slightly hot male.
Sorry, I just don't see it.
What I do see, are actually alot of successful hook-ups being
initiated by *females* (either signalling target males, or
increasingly approaching choice males who either didn't take the
'hint', or who they won't risk sleeping on), along with ostensibly
confident guys getting shot down making blind approaches(because they
didn't get the green light, due to some perceived signalling
deficiency).
> > If shyness is sufficiently difficult/clumsy to quantify, it can be
> > argued it is difficult to observe,
>
> That argument would be fallacious. The failure is in language, and in
> communication, not in observation. Females are quite efficient at
> perceiving shyness. (Not perfect though.)
I disagree, given that prevailing screening methodologies of female
sexual choice appear insensetive to such communicatory nuance -
otherwise we should see alot more people hooking up in cofee shops
than amidst the din of night clubs(and other defacto micro-leks).
> > I think you are underestimating genetic quality signals(exclusive of
> > relative shyness) in the wake of the modern welfare state(but my
> > position is well known).
>
> The modern welfare state has not yet made even the tiniest blip on the
> evolution radar. Try again in 100000 years.
You are not serious.
Females consider only two quantities of mate value - genetic benefits,
and direct/material benefits(preserved by bi-parental advantage).
So it is trivial to see how welfare state dynamics in recent history
have perturbed equilibrium(in systems that tended to long term
mating), 'unbounding' female selectivity while marginalizing direct
benefits as a determinant factor in female sexual choice - thus
eroding prevailing peaks in the fitness landscape accordingly.
You can see further evidence of this in the fitness landscape's
tendency to short term matings(which implies that the tide of
selection has shifted towards short term strategies, as an optima of
genetic quality).
PandoraElpis
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:37 pm, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Begs the question as to why a comprehensive method is not forthcoming
>
> But it is; in fact there are several candidates. Try ASF methods for
> one. Or join the army. I think most methods will incorporate some
> sort of "grow the fuck up and get over yourself" element.
Why does this group still exist then?
Why haven't the lessons you've been evangalizing for years borne fruit
yet?
nSCOURGE
Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:05 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > Only the latter is consistent with my observation that female sexual
> > choice does not trade off conventional signals of genetic quality in
> > consideration of shyness, unlike the reverse.
>
> I find it difficult to penetrate your use of language, but if you mean
> here what I think you mean, then I disagree with your observation: IME
> females *do* trade off shyness against conventional signals of genetic
> quality. In fact it's blatantly obvious to me that females will
> choose a caahfident slightly ugly male (conventional signals of
> genetic inferiority) over a shy slightly hot male.
I think in rare cases, females can trade off more conventional
signals for reduced shyness, but only after a very high threshold of
physical attractiveness has already been reached such that the ratio
of conventional signals to shyness is sufficiently low so as not to
bring conventional signals below this high threshold(which females are
most sensetive to).
This is the whole point in observing that the aforementioned case is
(prohibitively)rare with respect to an opposite case which isn't
superficially obvious(because the observational focus evades a large
population of males who have been rejected out of hand, without any
opportunity to 'sample' their shyness).
What you are really observing are entangled evolutionary problems of
female selectivity which only resolve through female pessimal solutions
(which oscillate throughout evolutionary time).
Isn't it time to abandon this ridiculous PUA/ASF line, man-up and
accept reality?
nSCOURGE
nSCOURGE wrote:
> Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 7:05 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > > Only the latter is consistent with my observation that female sexual
> > > choice does not trade off conventional signals of genetic quality in
> > > consideration of shyness, unlike the reverse.
> >
> > I find it difficult to penetrate your use of language, but if you mean
> > here what I think you mean, then I disagree with your observation: IME
> > females *do* trade off shyness against conventional signals of genetic
> > quality. In fact it's blatantly obvious to me that females will
> > choose a caahfident slightly ugly male (conventional signals of
> > genetic inferiority) over a shy slightly hot male.
>
> I think in rare cases, females can trade off more conventional
> signals for reduced shyness, but only after a very high threshold of
> physical attractiveness has already been reached such that the ratio
> of conventional signals to shyness
Sorry, I should clarify that as the reduction ratio.
nSCOURGE
nSCOURGE wrote:
> Bernd Jendrissek wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 7:05 pm, PandoraElpis <PandoraEl...@live.com> wrote:
> > > Only the latter is consistent with my observation that female sexual
> > > choice does not trade off conventional signals of genetic quality in
> > > consideration of shyness, unlike the reverse.
> >
> > I find it difficult to penetrate your use of language, but if you mean
> > here what I think you mean, then I disagree with your observation: IME
> > females *do* trade off shyness against conventional signals of genetic
> > quality. In fact it's blatantly obvious to me that females will
> > choose a caahfident slightly ugly male (conventional signals of
> > genetic inferiority) over a shy slightly hot male.
>
> I think in rare cases, females can trade off more conventional
> signals for reduced shyness, but only after a very high threshold of
> physical attractiveness has already been reached such that the ratio
> of conventional signals to shyness is sufficiently low so as not to
> bring conventional signals below this high threshold(which females are
> most sensetive to).
>
> This is the whole point in observing that the aforementioned case is
> (prohibitively)rare with respect to an opposite case which isn't
> superficially obvious(because the observational focus evades a large
> population of males who have been rejected out of hand
I would like to add, that in this context I take 'rejection' to mean a
case where females have already observed a male, whom she has deemed
'unworthy' of receptivity signalling.
Where they work, PUA techniques reduce to nothing more than hot guy
status hair-splitting, where sufficiently hot looks are necessary in
buying a ticket to the lek.
PandoraElpis
apparently female perspective:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.shyness/msg/72aa240c942bb65c?dmode=source
"If you could see how it's the exact same situation with "nice guys",
you'd finally get it. "Nice guy" is repeatedly used to describe
physically
unattractive and severely socially awkward guys, it's a euphemism that
doesn't
really have much to do with "nice"."
"Bitch shields" are used in situations where women are likely to be
hit on by large numbers of strangers. Women, as a rule, do not feel
comfortable around male strangers, and they are only likely to lower
their guard for guys they find extremely physically attractive."
"Yes, and the "bitch shield" is very effective in the sense that we
use it to screen out all guys who are looking for "easy sex", except
the for the guys we might actually consider having "easy sex" with.
The guys we find so extremely physically attractive that we'd maybe
(just maybe) consider for a fling. All others tend to get blown off
instantly. This is logical and it makes good sense to do this is
setting where we are likely to get bombarded by a lot of strangers who
are probably looking for "easy sex" (dance club, online personals).
I'm sure what I wrote seems shallow, but men are the same way and have
no moral high ground here. Men don't look heavily at personality and
"goodness" when considering a women for a sexual fling. It's about
looks. For women, it's about looks and sexual confidence (which
suggests he'll be good in bed)"
"OK, sure, to defeat "the bitch shield" men have "to prove themselves"
to be physically attractive and sexually confident. If a woman is even
going to consider you for a "easy sex" type of fling these are indeed
the requirements."
" Women prefer physically attractive, sexually confident guys for
flings."
This agrees with nSCOURGE's description a little better than mine, but
the obvious implication is that physical attractiveness enjoys a
primacy of consideration, and should only trade off negligibly with
respect to sexual condfidence(which is implicitly conditional upon the
first, and a less certain quantity in terms of falsifying).
Bottom line: shyness factors are a less honest quality determinant.
So, affected PUA techniques(which imply short term mating) are bound
to clash with any male whose evolutionary optima lies with long term
investment(frequently indicated through some debt of genetic quality),
which I would venture is more the case in ASS.
And given that female function is limiting, female selectivity will
tend to small(er) neighbourhoods of male quality, lending to female
pessimal solutions(as nSCOURGE pointed out).
PandoraElpis
I would also like to criticize the female whose post I cited above,
in that she apprently holds to a common delusion(in a tendency for
females to want their cake and eat it too) in that demurely temperd
females(which I am assuming implies a low risk psycho-sexual
orientation with respect to extrapair mating) aren't privileged by
provider-types(long term strategists), despite the fact that such
mates are clearly more agreeable to evolutionary optima(as opposed to
investing in the kind of sexually liberated female the author self-
identifies - which may be perfect irony if the dumb bitch genuinely
considers why a penchant for short term mating fails to yield an
'honest' man, as so many dumb bitches do).
nSCOURGE
This last part sounds like a spurious attribution, however.
First off, sex ain't rocket science.
And secondly, if some bone-headed PUA is getting lots of ass, but is a
lousy lay to begin with, then all the experience in the world won't
help him remedy his poor technique *because females will not invest
instruction in a one shot case*(unlike in a long term case, where they
are furthrer emboldened by relationship leverage).
So, there is scant reason to assume a confident PUA is actually a good
lay.
Just another example of female bullshit, and how indicators of
*genetic quality* are the real quantities females observe when
spuriously infering(rationalizing) higher characteristics.
Mxsmanic
> This agrees with nSCOURGE's description a little better than mine, but
> the obvious implication is that physical attractiveness enjoys a
> primacy of consideration, and should only trade off negligibly with
> respect to sexual condfidence(which is implicitly conditional upon the
> first, and a less certain quantity in terms of falsifying).
Both women and men make rational choices for partners unless they are
sufficiently aroused by someone physically to throw caution to the wind. How
often this happens depends mainly on the personality of the individual, and
also on conditioning.
Men are conditioned and taught to be more reckless about choosing partners on
an irrational, physical basis, so they do it more often. This is
understandable given that they have less to risk by being reckless (they
cannot become pregnant, and they are unlikely to be hurt physically or
forced).
The "bitch shield" is a myth for the most part. Most women only behave that
way as a defense against aggressive male behavior. There aren't any women
interested in having sex with me, and yet I never see any signs of a "bitch
shield" in their behavior. In fact, quite nice behavior is the rule. But I'm
not trying to persuade them to engage in sex with me against their will, so
there's no reason for them to be defensive.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> PandoraElpis writes:
>
> > This agrees with nSCOURGE's description a little better than mine, but
> > the obvious implication is that physical attractiveness enjoys a
> > primacy of consideration, and should only trade off negligibly with
> > respect to sexual condfidence(which is implicitly conditional upon the
> > first, and a less certain quantity in terms of falsifying).
>
> Both women and men make rational choices for partners unless they are
> sufficiently aroused by someone physically to throw caution to the wind. How
> often this happens depends mainly on the personality of the individual, and
> also on conditioning.
It is all irrational - these rational justifications are confounded by
irrational evolutionary concerns.
>
> Men are conditioned and taught to be more reckless about choosing partners on
> an irrational, physical basis, so they do it more often. This is
> understandable given that they have less to risk by being reckless (they
> cannot become pregnant, and they are unlikely to be hurt physically or
> forced).
Males are no more irrational than females.
> The "bitch shield" is a myth for the most part. Most women only behave that
> way as a defense against aggressive male behavior. There aren't any women
> interested in having sex with me, and yet I never see any signs of a "bitch
> shield" in their behavior. In fact, quite nice behavior is the rule. But I'm
> not trying to persuade them to engage in sex with me against their will, so
> there's no reason for them to be defensive.
Yes, females don't see you as a sexual entity(not something you should
be pleased with), but most males find little redeeming quality in
females beyond their sexual utility(and justifiably so).
Bernd Jendrissek
> So, there is scant reason to assume a confident PUA is actually a good
> lay.
No, he's a good lay *because* he's sexually confident. It's the
sexual confidence that triggers the woman's attraction circuits, which
trigger her post-rationalization circuits, which make her say things
(if only to herself) like "he's good-looking", "he's nice" (NOT the
"nice" of "nice guy"), "wow, this is a good lay".
Bernd Jendrissek
> Both women and men make rational choices for partners
ROTFLMAOWTF because I know what you mean here with the word
"rational".
> Men are conditioned and taught to be more reckless about choosing partners on
> an irrational, physical basis, so they do it more often.
BS. You're measuring the rationality of one sex's behaviours by the
outcomes it would have yielded for the opposite sex.
> The "bitch shield" is a myth for the most part. Most women only behave that
> way as a defense against aggressive male behavior.
BS again. It's a defense against incongruent males. Males whose
"inner game" is weak, you could say. If it is ever desireable that it
screen out a particular [sic] aggressively behaving male, it is
because that male's aggression is not congruent with the rest of his
behaviour. For example, if a guy is being overtly aggressive but
shows subtly submissive body language or approval-seeking behaviours,
that would be an incongruent male to be screened out. The flaw is
lack of character immersion, not any one particular trait of the
character (here aggression).
> There aren't any women
> interested in having sex with me, and yet I never see any signs of a "bitch
> shield" in their behavior. In fact, quite nice behavior is the rule.
You're so far off the sexual radar for them (and you seem to encourage
this conclusion by your behaviour) that you never trigger a sexual
response - neither a positive nor negative one. You're basically like
a child, or a pet, to them.
> But I'm
> not trying to persuade them to engage in sex with me against their will, so
> there's no reason for them to be defensive.
How can you "persuade" someone to "engage in sex with [you] against
their will"? Which is it - persuasion or against their will?
nSCOURGE
If sexual confidence is more prone to fraud(which is the crux of your
advocacy), then it is a relatively dishonest signal.
Mxsmanic
> It is all irrational - these rational justifications are confounded by
> irrational evolutionary concerns.
There's nothing irrational about forming relationships based on psychological
compatibility.
> Males are no more irrational than females.
And no less. However, they are more vulnerable to strong emotion than women.
> Yes, females don't see you as a sexual entity(not something you should
> be pleased with), but most males find little redeeming quality in
> females beyond their sexual utility(and justifiably so).
I'm pleased with my relationships with women. I don't think I'd be very good
at sex or enjoy it. Most of the redeeming qualities that women have for me are
non-sexual. Their relatively calm behavior, rational thought, and
disinclination to violence and gratuitously aggressive behavior all work in
their favor.
Mxsmanic
> You're so far off the sexual radar for them (and you seem to encourage
> this conclusion by your behaviour) that you never trigger a sexual
> response - neither a positive nor negative one. You're basically like
> a child, or a pet, to them.
Yes. "Like a brother" is what I usually hear, though.
> How can you "persuade" someone to "engage in sex with [you] against
> their will"?
By lying to them, for example.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > It is all irrational - these rational justifications are confounded by
> > irrational evolutionary concerns.
>
> There's nothing irrational about forming relationships based on psychological
> compatibility.
Sounds irrational to me.
> > Males are no more irrational than females.
>
> And no less. However, they are more vulnerable to strong emotion than women.
Since male function is non-limiting, they are pretty much more
'vulnerable' to everything.
> > Yes, females don't see you as a sexual entity(not something you should
> > be pleased with), but most males find little redeeming quality in
> > females beyond their sexual utility(and justifiably so).
>
> I'm pleased with my relationships with women. I don't think I'd be very good
> at sex or enjoy it. Most of the redeeming qualities that women have for me are
> non-sexual. Their relatively calm behavior, rational thought, and
> disinclination to violence and gratuitously aggressive behavior all work in
> their favor.
With handicapps like yours, evolution doesn't have to work so hard in
culling defect.
nSCOURGE
You are clearly equivocating around the difference between persuasion
and *coercion*.
Mxsmanic
> Sounds irrational to me.
Well, you seem to treat women as mere sex objects, which also sounds
irrational to me.
> With handicapps like yours, evolution doesn't have to work so hard in
> culling defect.
I'm not concerned with passing on my genes. I have no obligation to procreate.
You can have fun ... or you can have kids.
Mxsmanic
> You are clearly equivocating around the difference between persuasion
> and *coercion*.
No. There's a sharp distinction between the two and I see it demonstrated all
the time. Fortunately persuasion seems to be a lot more common than coercion.
nSCOURGE
But that's the whole fucking point you abject simpleton!
You can't *persuade* someone *against their will*(like you wrote).
That isn't persuasion, it's *coercion*.
So, you clearly *don't* know the difference(or at least your writing
doesn't reflect it).
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > Sounds irrational to me.
>
> Well, you seem to treat women as mere sex objects, which also sounds
> irrational to me.
Why shouldn't he, when sex is the only real dichotomy in human
morphology?
It is not (evolutionarily)viable for males to privilege asexual female
function(as you would have it).
> > With handicapps like yours, evolution doesn't have to work so hard in
> > culling defect.
>
> I'm not concerned with passing on my genes. I have no obligation to procreate.
> You can have fun ... or you can have kids.
Doesn't sound like you're having much fun, but whatever.
Mxsmanic
> Doesn't sound like you're having much fun, but whatever.
I'd be much more unhappy with kids. Of that I have absolutely no doubt.
Mxsmanic
> You can't *persuade* someone *against their will*(like you wrote).
Actually you can, through deception.
nSCOURGE
A statement of belief(inclusive of deception) says *nothing* about a
faculty for free choice(which is all that is contextually relevant to
this discussion), while persuasion itself implies freedom of choice
(which, again, is the only relevant consideration given the context).
Busted(again)!
Mxsmanic
> A statement of belief(inclusive of deception) says *nothing* about a
> faculty for free choice(which is all that is contextually relevant to
> this discussion), while persuasion itself implies freedom of choice
> (which, again, is the only relevant consideration given the context).
When people freely choose to believe lies, they can be persuaded. People
believed Mr. Madoff and were persuaded in consequence; they were not coerced
into investing.
Mxsmanic
> A bit nosy but have you ever been on a date with a woman ?
As far as I know, no.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > A statement of belief(inclusive of deception) says *nothing* about a
> > faculty for free choice(which is all that is contextually relevant to
> > this discussion), while persuasion itself implies freedom of choice
> > (which, again, is the only relevant consideration given the context).
>
> When people freely choose to believe lies, they can be persuaded.
Then it is not *AGAINST THEIR WILL*!!!
Bernd Jendrissek
> If sexual confidence is more prone to fraud(which is the crux of your
> advocacy), then it is a relatively dishonest signal.
Think of it as an honest signal of mental flexibility.
nSCOURGE
OK, fine.
A signal that is negligible everywhere but at the slightest margins of
physical attractiveness.
ThePuttKing
What do you mean by that ?
As far as you know ?
Is it because you've been out with a woman as a friend and you didn't
consider it a date ?
nSCOURGE
No, it's because he's obtuse.
Mxsmanic
> Then it is not *AGAINST THEIR WILL*!!!
If they don't know that someone is lying, then they may be persuaded against
their will.
Mxsmanic
> What do you mean by that ?
Just what I said.
> As far as you know ?
Yes.
> Is it because you've been out with a woman as a friend and you didn't
> consider it a date ?
Since I'm not sure what defines a date, I don't really know.
I've certainly not been out for dinner and dancing with women, like in the
movies, but at the same time I interact with women regularly, so it depends on
what you consider a date. I've not engaged in activities like dinners, clubs,
and stuff like that as far as I can remember. And of course, no sex. Nor have
I asked anyone out on a date.
ThePuttKing
All because you are ugly. (or you say you are !)
I think it's a shame. I've asked quite a number of women out on dates.
I don't now but at least I had a go.
If you have time why don't you do a 'google' on a ex british solider
called Simon Weston. He suffered terrible burns in combat yet he later
got married and had 3 kids. Obviously a woman saw thru his uglyiness
and got to know him as a person.
nSCOURGE
Argument from assertion.
Mxsmanic
> All because you are ugly. (or you say you are !)
In part, yes, although I think that official dates would be pretty boring,
from what I understand of the way they work. If you go to a restaurant, you
can't talk because your mouths are full. If you go to a cinema, you can't talk
because you are watching a film. If you go dancing, you can't talk because you
are drowned out by loud music. And so on.
So in part I don't ask anyone out because I'm too ugly, and in part I don't
ask anyone out because I'm not even sure that a date would be interesting. And
of course nobody asks me out, although I've gotten invitations to social
events from time to time (which I usually turn down).
> I think it's a shame. I've asked quite a number of women out on dates.
> I don't now but at least I had a go.
What did you do on these dates?
> If you have time why don't you do a 'google' on a ex british solider
> called Simon Weston. He suffered terrible burns in combat yet he later
> got married and had 3 kids. Obviously a woman saw thru his uglyiness
> and got to know him as a person.
Both sexes ultimately like attractive partners. It's not anyone's fault,
that's just the way things are. A few ugly people might find partners
(especially if they are willing to settle for ugly partners), but those are
exceptions to the rule. I have no illusions. Apparently I was not meant for
sexual relationships. Fortunately, there's more to life than sex.
PandoraElpis
Free will is independent of subjective consequence, so you are wrong
(again).
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> ThePuttKing writes:
>
> > All because you are ugly. (or you say you are !)
>
> In part, yes, although I think that official dates would be pretty boring,
> from what I understand of the way they work. If you go to a restaurant, you
> can't talk because your mouths are full. If you go to a cinema, you can't talk
> because you are watching a film. If you go dancing, you can't talk because you
> are drowned out by loud music. And so on.
Such formalities are usually just a pretext for sexual interest(when
the guy is 'hot' enough to fuck), or just an auxiliary means of
courtship benefit/largesse(when a guy isn't hot enough to fuck, but
neither is the spectacle of his company particularly damaging to
social proof).
nSCOURGE
Confounded by compensatory honest signals, or proton decay(I like
that!).
ThePuttKing
> ThePuttKing writes:
> > All because you are ugly. (or you say you are !)
>
> In part, yes, although I think that official dates would be pretty boring,
> from what I understand of the way they work. If you go to a restaurant, you
> can't talk because your mouths are full. If you go to a cinema, you can't talk
> because you are watching a film. If you go dancing, you can't talk because you
> are drowned out by loud music. And so on.
>
> So in part I don't ask anyone out because I'm too ugly, and in part I don't
> ask anyone out because I'm not even sure that a date would be interesting. And
> of course nobody asks me out, although I've gotten invitations to social
> events from time to time (which I usually turn down).
Sounds like you don't like people.
>
> > I think it's a shame. I've asked quite a number of women out on dates.
> > I don't now but at least I had a go.
>
> What did you do on these dates?
None of the women said 'yes'
I went out with this girl for a month or so. We went to the pub for a
drink mostly.
jackfrost
I am surprised you dont just simulate sex and call it real sex. Not
meant for sexual relationships?
so you were you born without genitals?
PandoraElpis
Like I alluded to in the other thread, the nexus of male grievance is
that at an intermediate and lower attractiveness strata, males do
*not* have access to an equivalent female population(you may be the
exception, but most loser males would be perfectly content with access
to their dimorphic equivalent - consider Darkfalz' laments, for
example), because sexual opportunities are being hoarded by a very
select group of males in an obvious way that somehow still manages to
evade public discourse(perhaps because no pareto improvement solution
exists, and disadvantaged males lack the ability to circumvent
internicine competetive tendencies and close ranks in pursuit of real
female pessimal solutions - which will resolve anyway, over a near
interval of evolutionary time).
Mxsmanic
> Such formalities are usually just a pretext for sexual interest(when
> the guy is 'hot' enough to fuck), or just an auxiliary means of
> courtship benefit/largesse(when a guy isn't hot enough to fuck, but
> neither is the spectacle of his company particularly damaging to
> social proof).
Perhaps, but I'm not interested in sex, either.