# looking for single women on this forum.



## wyatthavens (Jul 11, 2017)

hi my name is wyatt. I'm 22 years old, I'm single and I live in Montana. I am looking for single women around my age.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)




----------



## JH1983 (Nov 14, 2013)

This should go well...


----------



## thomasjune (Apr 7, 2012)

I'm sure there's plenty of single women from Montana who suffer from social anxiety disorder and come here to meet that special someone so you probably have a shot. Good luck to you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SofaKing (May 9, 2014)




----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

Funny story time. 

A while back, another user posted a similar thread crusing for the ladies on here. Unlike your's though, his was more on the creepy side - for one, he was an older guy and he wanted someone much younger - I told him the default 'SAS is not a dating site' response that you're going to see half a dozen times in here. 

Well, turns out he didn't take kindly to what he considered to be my online cock-blocking and not to long after I got some weird messages from him both in PM and on social media. And that's why ladies and gents I no longer have my full name on my SAS profile or post photos of myself on here that I've used on other sites


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

So we are now tinder?


----------



## SFC01 (Feb 10, 2016)

we should start "SAS blind date" - I`ll be up for it


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

TheWelshOne said:


>


Perfect gif lol


----------



## Sus y (Aug 30, 2017)

SFC01 said:


> we should start "SAS blind date" - I`ll be up for it







He wasn't so good for her either... But just in case this happens we should tags or profiles as datables or not, so no one get disappointed, because seems like people have certain expectations about how their dates should look like.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

glhf


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Persephone The Dread said:


> glhf


How come that person is looking into the kitty's butthole?


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

nubly said:


> How come that person is looking into the kitty's butthole?


I'm dying. It doesn't really appear like that in the larger version


----------



## TheFighterStillRemains (Oct 3, 2010)




----------



## cckmp (Feb 6, 2016)

It's good you are trying at least. I heard some people say they met each other on this website which is kind of cool.


----------



## Dissonance (Dec 27, 2011)

doe deer said:


>


Those genitals look like a human head. How Bizarre.


----------



## HiddenFathoms (Jul 18, 2017)

wyatthavens said:


> hi my name is wyatt. I'm 22 years old, I'm single and I live in Montana. I am looking for single women around my age.


hi (smiles)

i haven't ever talked to you but i have read some of your posts. i also see you often welcoming new people in the "first step" section and think that is very kind. it's clear you really are looking for friendship and companionship.

it sucks to be lonely and i admire you are putting yourself out there. i know you mentioned some of the challenges you have had in other posts, so i am sure this wasn't easy to do.

my suggestion? try to write a bit more in general posts so people get to know you. ask people questions about themselves. and don't necessarily target single girls. you will benefit from making friends of all kinds. and it will help you practice not avoiding, and having social support.

you may also make friends with some single women your age! and friendship IS a great way to begin romance.

all the best with everything.


----------



## Overdrive (Sep 19, 2015)

Male looking for a Prophet-5 or Korg PS-3100 or both for free.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

nubly said:


> How come that person is looking into the kitty's butthole?





Persephone The Dread said:


> I'm dying. It doesn't really appear like that in the larger version


She's a veterinarian, okay? 
She's doing yoga at the same time! :lol


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> She's a veterinarian, okay?
> She's doing yoga at the same time! :lol


He.

I thought he actually looked more masculine in this photo :con my what's the word I'm looking for... Something is so off. Thanks for reminding me :lol reminds me of the time my brother thought the guy in red in this video was a woman and I thought he was the cutest one (he's done this multiple times while noticing something I'm looking at in my room we're talking at least 4 times):






And I was like really? Because I thought the lead singer was more feminine or something but no? OK.

I think I'm mildly autistic (this isn't the only reason, but lol)


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Persephone The Dread said:


> He.
> 
> I thought he actually looked more masculine in this photo :con my what's the word I'm looking for... Something is so off. Thanks for reminding me :lol reminds me of the time my brother thought the guy in red in this video was a woman and I thought he was the cutest one (he's done this multiple times while noticing something I'm looking at in my room we're talking at least 4 times):
> 
> ...


I didn't even notice the underarm hair. Small image seen from a distance.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> I didn't even notice the underarm hair. Small image seen from a distance.


You quoted a larger version of the image I posted so I thought you looked at that but I guess it makes sense if you just saw the thumbnail image.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

nubly said:


> How come that person is looking into the kitty's butthole?


Yeah. That's exactly what I thought when I saw the avatar.


----------



## Oceanid Anchoress (Aug 17, 2017)

Wrongwolfe said:


>


Oh gosh. :rofl Thank you so much for the side-splitting laughter. I really needed that!

And addressed to the original poster--I hope that you find yourself a good woman!  Perhaps you would have more luck on an internet dating site, however, because even this area of the forum appears to be mostly used for the general discussion of relationships (rather than as a place to introduce oneself to prospective partners.) Also, I agree very much with the suggestions of HiddenFathoms.

I hope that you won't be discouraged by the reactions to your thread. It's certainly not easy to find love as a socially-anxious person, but it's a big world out there with a lot of people in it. I'm sure that there is someone out there who could become your girlfriend, if you can learn to cope with the disappointments that you are likely to face while you are searching for her.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

scarpia said:


> Ignore the chick advise you get on this. Friendship is NOT a good way to begin a romantic relationship. You will get friend-zoned if you don't push for sex by date 3-4. I've had it happen to me. Really interesting Scientific American article on how men and women see friendship differently


My 4 longest relationships started as friendships, so I guess I'm just magic.

Article should have been titled: "Men See Female Friends as Potential Mates, Women Actually Understand the Concept of Friendship".

I wonder what the people who conducted the study you linked to have to say about bisexuals? Are they simply incapable of having platonic friendships with anyone? Or is it just male bisexuals who lack this ability? They must be so lonely.  Can lesbians not have female friends? Or gay men male friends?   Or is the problem restricted to heterosexual males?


----------



## Sus y (Aug 30, 2017)

truant said:


> My 4 longest relationships started as friendships, so I guess I'm just magic.
> 
> Article should have been titled: "Men See Female Friends as Potential Mates, Women Actually Understand the Concept of Friendship".
> 
> I wonder what the people who conducted the study you linked to have to say about bisexuals? Are they simply incapable of having platonic friendships with anyone? Or is it just male bisexuals who lack this ability? They must be so lonely.  Can lesbians not have female friends? Or gay men male friends?   Or is the problem restricted to heterosexual males?


Adding demisexuals here.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

scarpia said:


> Ignore the chick advise you get on this. Friendship is NOT a good way to begin a romantic relationship. You will get friend-zoned if you don't push for sex by date 3-4. I've had it happen to me. Really interesting Scientific American article on how men and women see friendship differently
> .


Interesting how you started it from "ignore the chick advice here" but then you went on to say how chicks are the ones who would friendzone him. So why would "chick advice" not reflect the way "chicks" operate? Isn't each person the best to tell about themselves?

But then again, the friendzone concept is real, so I would like to know what would female have to say if you present her with variuos friendzone scenarios and ask her to give female perspective on this, complete with why's and how's. THAT would probably be quite informative.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

truant said:


> My 4 longest relationships started as friendships, so I guess I'm just magic.
> 
> Article should have been titled: "Men See Female Friends as Potential Mates, Women Actually Understand the Concept of Friendship".
> 
> I wonder what the people who conducted the study you linked to have to say about bisexuals? Are they simply incapable of having platonic friendships with anyone? Or is it just male bisexuals who lack this ability? They must be so lonely.  Can lesbians not have female friends? Or gay men male friends?   Or is the problem restricted to heterosexual males?





Sus y said:


> Adding demisexuals here.


And asexuals!


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

I love the hopeful innocence of the OP. Well, he didn't lose anything.

I am also looking for single women on the forum, for things. Pm me asap for more details. Must be of a robust build for some of the experiments romantic outings I have planned.


----------



## Sus y (Aug 30, 2017)

splendidbob said:


> I love the hopeful innocence of the OP. Well, he didn't lose anything.
> 
> I am also looking for single women on the forum, for things. Pm me asap for more details. Must be of a robust build for some of the experiments romantic outings I have planned.


Oh!! I was wondering how to strike out text, finally I know how to. Thank you.
I'm stalking everybody lol j/k
>


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Sus y said:


> Oh!! I was wondering how to strike out text, finally I know how to. Thank you.
> I'm stalking everybody lol j/k
> >


Thanks for drawing my attention to it; I would have assumed it is complicated when just one person did it, but now that two did it, I will do it too. Striking text out


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

@Sus y @causalset it should be used whenever possible prudently though. Can't make it too much of a trend.

Also, why haven't any single women replied to my ad yet? the OP told me he got 9 within the first day.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

causalset said:


> Interesting how you started it from "ignore the chick advice here" but then you went on to say how chicks are the ones who would friendzone him. *So why would "chick advice" not reflect the way "chicks" operate? Isn't each person the best to tell about themselves?*
> 
> But then again, the friendzone concept is real, so I would like to know what would female have to say if you present her with variuos friendzone scenarios and ask her to give female perspective on this, complete with why's and how's. THAT would probably be quite informative.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

causalset said:


> Interesting how you started it from "ignore the chick advice here" but then you went on to say how chicks are the ones who would friendzone him. So why would "chick advice" not reflect the way "chicks" operate? Isn't each person the best to tell about themselves?
> 
> But then again, the friendzone concept is real, so I would like to know what would female have to say if you present her with variuos friendzone scenarios and ask her to give female perspective on this, complete with why's and how's. *THAT would probably be quite informative*.


It might be informative, if anyone listened. But people will just say "Ignore the chick advise you get on this" or something. Because everyone knows that women lie about everything. Because they're mindless biological automata responding to hormones. Like bacteria or something.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

truant said:


> It might be informative, if anyone listened. But people will just say "Ignore the chick advise you get on this" or something. Because everyone knows that women lie about everything. Because they're mindless biological automata responding to hormones. Like bacteria or something.


I would listen -- except that in my case women are the ones that don't want to talk to me. And the reason they don't is that they claim I don't listen even when I do -- I mean you seen my really long threads here, so women say I just want to argue and in their mind arguing implies not listening. But that is miscommunication: for me, when I argue, I very much DO listen, I want two-way communication: for her to write wall emails to me, and for me to respond with wall emails to her, and as they say "in argument the truth will be discovered". But then women don't want to do that.

Incidentally, I heard guys complain that women are the ones that argue too much and won't leave them alone. So I am not a typical guy then. I wish I could trade places with those guys: then I will get all the women's arguing that they don't like and I do, and they will be left alone, which I don't like but they do, and everyone is happy.

Back to the topic, I do recall some examples from my life that clearly point to the fact that I was friendzoned. But thats only in the context of women "not wanting to talk about it" and my over-analyzing the limitted information I did have. I always wanted, more than anything, for those women to tell me their own perspective on whether I was friendzoned or not, and if my interpretation was wrong to correct it. But they don't want to talk about it, so I am rather stuck.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

scarpia said:


> Ignore the chick advise you get on this. Friendship is NOT a good way to begin a romantic relationship. You will get friend-zoned if you don't push for sex by date 3-4. I've had it happen to me. Really interesting Scientific American article on how men and women see friendship differently:


No, do not ignore "chick advice." If you want to know what women like and want, listen to women. It's common sense. Men often go astray because they listen to dumb advice, which usually comes from other men.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> I would listen -- except that in my case women are the ones that don't want to talk to me. And the reason they don't is that they claim I don't listen even when I do -- I mean you seen my really long threads here, so women say I just want to argue and in their mind arguing implies not listening. But that is miscommunication: for me, when I argue, I very much DO listen, I want two-way communication: for her to write wall emails to me, and for me to respond with wall emails to her, and as they say "in argument the truth will be discovered". But then women don't want to do that.
> 
> Incidentally, I heard guys complain that women are the ones that argue too much and won't leave them alone. So I am not a typical guy then. I wish I could trade places with those guys: then I will get all the women's arguing that they don't like and I do, and they will be left alone, which I don't like but they do, and everyone is happy.
> 
> Back to the topic, I do recall some examples from my life that clearly point to the fact that I was friendzoned. But thats only in the context of women "not wanting to talk about it" and my over-analyzing the limitted information I did have. I always wanted, more than anything, for those women to tell me their own perspective on whether I was friendzoned or not, and if my interpretation was wrong to correct it. But they don't want to talk about it, so I am rather stuck.


Problems with arguing:

1. It's an adversarial process. Most people do it in a "who's right" kind of way, where one person ends up "winning" and the other losing. That's not much fun, unless you're someone who just likes to argue and be right all the time. (If you are just expressing different opinions, without trying to change each others' minds, that is fine/good, but it's not arguing).

2. When women say you don't listen, what they're saying is that you don't listen with the intent of understanding where they're coming from and how they see the situation. You're listening with the intent of evaluating their position and then coming back with a counter-argument. That's not the kind of "listening" they're talking about.

3. Argument is inherently an intellectual process. Connecting is inherently an emotional/intuitive process. Thinking is allowed, of course, but if what you're doing is engaging in intellectual debate, that's really not going to produce much of a sense of connection.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

truant said:


> It might be informative, if anyone listened. But people will just say "Ignore the chick advise you get on this" or something. Because everyone knows that women lie about everything. Because they're mindless biological automata responding to hormones. Like bacteria or something.


Right. It isn't so much that the femids purposefully fabricate their preferences which are all false, it's just that they are very hormonal. The hormones go into their minds and their brains just no longer control their behaviours.

This is backed up by hard science and psychologists call it "the long dream", and persists so long as the femid is laying eggs. The science is to follow truant.










Source becomeapowermanscience.com


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

scarpia said:


> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/men-and-women-cant-be-just-friends/


Ridiculous lack of any actual statistics in that article. Presumably they carefully removed all the stats because it wouldn't have supported the absurdly broad stereotypes... despite choosing to study the population most likely to fit the stereotypes.

In other news, "scientists" discovered that more primate species enjoy flinging their poo than not. They suggest this means it's impossible to keep your walls poo-free, and you should just give in and paint them all brown.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> Problems with arguing:
> 
> 1. It's an adversarial process. Most people do it in a "who's right" kind of way, where one person ends up "winning" and the other losing. That's not much fun, unless you're someone who just likes to argue and be right all the time. (If you are just expressing different opinions, without trying to change each others' minds, that is fine/good, but it's not arguing).


You seem to be talking about two extremes: one is when each person tries to prove themselves right and the other one is when each person just wants to hear the other opinion while remaining with their own opinion. But how about combination of both: as in, each person wants to prove themselves right IF they are indeed right OR they want to be convinced of the other person's opinion IF they are wrong. I mean, if woman agrees with me that I am right then I wont be upset any more, true; but there is another way for me not to be upset: if I end up agreeing the woman is right and see where I was wrong, then I won't be upset either. See what I mean? Its only the situation when I am convinced that I am right yet for some reason the woman doesn't see it, that makes me upset. And there are THREE ways out of this situation: either for me to believe she is right, or for her to believe I am right or for both of us to decide we were both wrong and come up with some third opinion we can both agree on. I am okay with each one of those three outcomes. The only one I don't feel okay with is "agree to disagree" but thats the one women seem to prefer which drives me crazy.



On the way said:


> 2. When women say you don't listen, what they're saying is that you don't listen with the intent of understanding where they're coming from and how they see the situation. You're listening with the intent of evaluating their position and then coming back with a counter-argument. That's not the kind of "listening" they're talking about.


My answer to point 1 covers this part as well. Its not either/or, its both. I want to understand the womans point of view and I want her to understand mine. But I also want a possibility of each person changing the other person's opinion, too. In fact, in my mind, those two things don't contradict each other but rather go together. In fact, if you talk about understanding each other's opinion without actually changing it, it is inherently illogical: I mean, if I truly understand where the woman comes from, why wouldn't I agree with her? And similarly, if she truly understands where I come from, why wouldn't she agree with me? So to me saying "I understand you but I still don't agree" sounds more like I don't truly understand you and I am just saying I understand you to be polite. But didn't you just say that by listening you mean "truly" understanding the other person? Well, if so, why wouldn't it be coupled to its logical conclusion which includes changing opinion? And if it does include changing opinion, and its two-way street, then her opinion should be open to change too. See what I mean?



On the way said:


> 3. Argument is inherently an intellectual process. Connecting is inherently an emotional/intuitive process. Thinking is allowed, of course, but if what you're doing is engaging in intellectual debate, that's really not going to produce much of a sense of connection.


Once again, you are basing it on a dichotomy: intellectual OR logical. But what if its both? In particular, the original motivation is emotional (my emotional needs weren't met, I felt emotionally hurt by woman's reaction, etc) but I approach this emotional situation from intellectual standpoint. But then again, for some mysterious reason most people don't seem to see it, and I am surprised why nobody asks themselves the following question: if I had no emotional motivation, why would I be putting that much time and energy into that "intellectual" pursuit?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> Right. It isn't so much that the femids purposefully fabricate their preferences which are all false, it's just that they are very hormonal. The hormones go into their minds and their brains just no longer control their behaviours.


If it was their hormones, then they would move guys from friendzone back into dating zone when their hormones change. The fact that once you are in friendzone you are stuck there is a proof that its not hormons but rather a conviction. And, if so, they will be able to articulate where that conviction comes from.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> You seem to be talking about two extremes: one is when each person tries to prove themselves right and the other one is when each person just wants to hear the other opinion while remaining with their own opinion. But how about combination of both: as in, each person wants to prove themselves right IF they are indeed right OR they want to be convinced of the other person's opinion IF they are wrong. I mean, if woman agrees with me that I am right then I wont be upset any more, true; but there is another way for me not to be upset: if I end up agreeing the woman is right and see where I was wrong, then I won't be upset either. See what I mean? Its only the situation when I am convinced that I am right yet for some reason the woman doesn't see it, that makes me upset. And there are THREE ways out of this situation: either for me to believe she is right, or for her to believe I am right or for both of us to decide we were both wrong and come up with some third opinion we can both agree on. I am okay with each one of those three outcomes. The only one I don't feel okay with is "agree to disagree" but thats the one women seem to prefer which drives me crazy.
> 
> My answer to point 1 covers this part as well. Its not either/or, its both. I want to understand the womans point of view and I want her to understand mine. But I also want a possibility of each person changing the other person's opinion, too. In fact, in my mind, those two things don't contradict each other but rather go together. In fact, if you talk about understanding each other's opinion without actually changing it, it is inherently illogical: I mean, if I truly understand where the woman comes from, why wouldn't I agree with her? And similarly, if she truly understands where I come from, why wouldn't she agree with me? So to me saying "I understand you but I still don't agree" sounds more like I don't truly understand you and I am just saying I understand you to be polite. But didn't you just say that by listening you mean "truly" understanding the other person? Well, if so, why wouldn't it be coupled to its logical conclusion which includes changing opinion? And if it does include changing opinion, and its two-way street, then her opinion should be open to change too. See what I mean?
> 
> Once again, you are basing it on a dichotomy: intellectual OR logical. But what if its both? In particular, the original motivation is emotional (my emotional needs weren't met, I felt emotionally hurt by woman's reaction, etc) but I approach this emotional situation from intellectual standpoint. But then again, for some mysterious reason most people don't seem to see it, and I am surprised why nobody asks themselves the following question: if I had no emotional motivation, why would I be putting that much time and energy into that "intellectual" pursuit?


I don't feel heard. 

Good luck.


----------



## MoonlitMadness (Mar 11, 2013)

Lol at someone saying don't listen to chick advice :') First of all, I don't believe women like to be referred to as "chicks" haha. I certainly don't. Also, do you think other men are more able to tell you how to get a woman, than a woman is? Most of my relationships started as friendships. I met my current boyfriend on WoW  It's best to meet people doing something you enjoy. Don't listen to any red pill bs or men who refer to women as "females" haha.


----------



## MoonlitMadness (Mar 11, 2013)

I always come back to this forum looking for support, then realise what an incel hive it can be :')


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

causalset said:


> Interesting how you started it from "ignore the chick advice here" but then you went on to say how chicks are the ones who would friendzone him. So why would "chick advice" not reflect the way "chicks" operate?


Because women often tell guys what they think they want to hear on forums like this, not the truth.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Paul said:


> Ridiculous lack of any actual statistics in that article. Presumably they carefully removed all the stats because it wouldn't have supported the absurdly broad stereotypes... despite choosing to study the population most likely to fit the stereotypes.
> 
> In other news, "scientists" discovered that more primate species enjoy flinging their poo than not. They suggest this means it's impossible to keep your walls poo-free, and you should just give in and paint them all brown.


Link to the study:
http://bleske-rechek.com/April Website Files/Bleske-Rechek et al. 2012 Benefit or Burden.pdf



Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 29(5) 569-596


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

splendidbob said:


> Right. It isn't so much that the femids purposefully fabricate their preferences which are all false, it's just that they are very hormonal. The hormones go into their minds and their brains just no longer control their behaviours.
> 
> This is backed up by hard science and psychologists call it "the long dream", and persists so long as the femid is laying eggs. The science is to follow truant.
> 
> ...





causalset said:


> If it was their hormones, then they would move guys from friendzone back into dating zone when their hormones change. The fact that once you are in friendzone you are stuck there is a proof that its not hormons but rather a conviction. And, if so, they will be able to articulate where that conviction comes from.


That you didn't notice my post was an obvious parody scares the **** out of me causal. 

Of course women aren't hormonal automatons. People are influenced by hormones, obviously, but when a woman says something like:

"I don't like x because y"

Then the most obvious and likely reason why she doesn't like x, is because of y.

I can't believe I am having to explain this though. But since someone has mistaken my post for being genuine I kinda have to.



scarpia said:


> Link to the study:
> http://bleske-rechek.com/April Website Files/Bleske-Rechek et al. 2012 Benefit or Burden.pdf
> 
> 
> ...


Remind me what this was supposed to demonstrate again?



> We propose that, because cross-sex friendships are a historically recent phenomenon, men's and women's evolved mating strategies impinge on their friendship experiences. In *our first study involving pairs of friends, emerging adult males reported more attraction to their friend than emerging adult females did, regardless of their own or their friend's current relationship status*. In our second study, both emerging and middle-aged adult males and females nominated attraction to their cross-sex friend as a cost more often than as a benefit. Younger females and middle-aged participants who reported more attraction to a current cross-sex friend reported less satisfaction in their current romantic relationship. Our findings implicate attraction in cross-sex friendship as both common and of potential negative consequence for individuals' long-term mateships.


So males tend to be more attracted to female friends than females are attracted to males so there is a friend zone? I just see something saying that men are deluding themselves about whether women find them attractive, that seems to argue against the concept. i.e. the woman never found you attractive, you just deluded yourself into thinking she did, tried to befriend her to get into a relationship / sex, it didn't work and rather than admit she never found you attractive at all, "friendzone happened". So basically friendzoning is just a concept dreamed up to protect the male ego, more or less.

It also doesn't say anything about friendship being a good way to initiate a relationship btw, it is just talking about attraction to friends. It doesn't mention how attraction changes when friendship is initiated, or how it might progress over time.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

splendidbob said:


> So males tend to be more attracted to female friends than females are attracted to males so there is a friend zone? I just see something saying that men are deluding themselves about whether women find them attractive, that seems to argue against the concept. i.e. the woman never found you attractive, you just deluded yourself into thinking she did, tried to befriend her to get into a relationship / sex, it didn't work and rather than admit she never found you attractive at all, "friendzone happened". So basically friendzoning is just a concept dreamed up to protect the male ego, more or less.
> 
> It also doesn't say anything about friendship being a good way to initiate a relationship btw, it is just talking about attraction to friends. It doesn't mention how attraction changes when friendship is initiated, or how it might progress over time.


Delude is too strong a term. In the article they just say it's misguided. Delusion implies psychosis.



> The results suggest large gender differences in how men and women experience opposite-sex friendships. Men were much more attracted to their female friends than vice versa. Men were also more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them-a clearly misguided belief. In fact, men's estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt-basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends. Women, too, were blind to the mindset of their opposite-sex friends; because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual. As a result, men consistently _overestimated_ the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently _underestimated_ the level of attraction felt by their male friends.





> de·lu·sion·al
> dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
> _adjective_
> adjective: *delusional*
> ...


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

scarpia said:


> Delude is too strong a term. In the article they just say it's misguided. Delusion implies psychosis.


I think its fair to say that you plucked out the least important part of what I was saying there Scarpy. But yeh, sure, delusion might be too strong a word .

Friend zone is still likely non existant, which is more to the point .


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> So males tend to be more attracted to female friends than females are attracted to males so there is a friend zone? I just see something saying that men are deluding themselves about whether women find them attractive, that seems to argue against the concept. i.e. the woman never found you attractive, you just deluded yourself into thinking she did, tried to befriend her to get into a relationship / sex, it didn't work and rather than admit she never found you attractive at all, "friendzone happened". So basically friendzoning is just a concept dreamed up to protect the male ego, more or less.


Then we use the word friendzone differently. In my mind, friendzone means that "from this point onward" the woman decided to never date me. This, obviously, doesn't mention the past, which means that there are two possibilities: either she liked me at some point and then stopped liking me, or she never liked me on the first place. Both are friendzone. I guess there is term for it in order to describe mystery behind this whole phenomenon that there seem to be a "rule" that once she decided we are just friends she won't date me ever since. I mean, if I am not attracted to a woman, I would be able to articulate why. And my reason would never be "I was thinking of her as a friend"; rather I would say something like "she is a lot less educated than me; she seems shallow, etc etc etc" But in women's case they often times DO say they don't like someone because they think of him as a friend, and that is pretty mysterious to me: isn't friendship supposed to be a good thing? Now, I am not saying that it being a "good thing" would imply that it is "supposed" to lead to a date. Not at all. But why would it prevent a date?! But in the way they phrse it, it sounds like they act like it prevents a date. They don't say "I don't want to date him and, *by the way,* he is a friend"; rather they say "I don't want to date him *because* I am thinking of him as a friend". The former is fine; the latter implies the concept of friend zone. Oh here is another example. If they say "I want to be friends, nothing more", then thats fine: they didn't say that "nothing more" part is "because" of a friend part; those are just two separate statements both happened to be true. But if they say "I want to be friends" and IMPLY that this means they don't want to date me, then yes there is a friend zone: why would that implication work otherwise?

And then of course the other part of the mystery is why do they require just one date (or worse -- as some papers say -- only first 30 seconds of a date) to decide whether they like the person or not. Like I said, its not the only situation where I would use the word friendzone: even if the first date never occurred and they never liked the guy to begin with thats also a friendzone for above reasons. But still, the situation when first date DID occur would be a subset of a friendzone cenario, and it would illustrate part of the mystery of it. So, if, as you say, they weren't attracted on the first place, why would the date take place? So obviously they did like him on some level, they just found him incompatible based on how he acted on that date. But how do they kow he didn't simply have a bad day and/or its not some bad habbit that he can easily change once he knows its important for a woman he is with? And even if he is in fact incompatible, what is there to lose by double-checking it by going on few more dates? Thats where it seems like they are follwoing hard and fast rules, which is the integral part of the concept of friend zone. Yes friendship is a good thing, but the rule says you don't date your friends. Yes it takes weeks or months to truly understand the person, but the rule says you have to make a decision within one date. See what I mean?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> I don't feel heard.
> 
> Good luck.


That was a surprise. Okay on my end I DID appreciate the fact that YOU clearly heard me as evident from the fact that you responded to my points, and I also DID notice some truth in what you wrote: in particular, that you described quite accurately of what is going on in other people's minds -- whether I agree with them or not. So could it be that my problem is that I didn't explicitly acknowledge those two points before asking further questions? I mean, on my end, those two points seemed self-evident, which is why I didn't acknowledge them. But perhaps on your end it wasn't evident that I noticed them even though I did? But then its miscommuication.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

@causalset, I will keep my words down to reply.

1. Never liking you at all is a weird way to describe a friendzone. It's better described with the word friend.
2. Women (and men) can alter their perceptions of whether someone is sexually attractive. For example, I might find a woman very physically attractive, until she starts going on about how immigrants are ruining the country and then my fully enraged 3 incher would retract to its baseline 1.5 inch. There isn't any magical "zone" here.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

splendidbob said:


> I think its fair to say that you plucked out the least important part of what I was saying there Scarpy. But yeh, sure, delusion might be too strong a word .
> 
> Friend zone is still likely non existant, which is more to the point .


Here's an article that cites more recent studies.



> *Study explains why it's so hard to escape the 'friend zone'
> 
> *I've always had a lot of male friends. This means that I have both _put_ men in the "friend zone" and _been put_ in the zone myself. I've uttered the words "I just don't want to risk losing the friendship," and I've had them shoved back in my face. Regardless of which side of equation I was on, however, the result was always the same: None of these friendships turned romantic. Ever.
> From _When Harry Met Sally&#8230;_ to Jim and Pam's will-they-or-won't they relationship on _The Office,_ we've all absorbed the cultural message that transitioning from friends to romantic partners can be difficult. And unlike in movies and TV, in real life, dating your friend doesn't always have a happy ending. Why? Perhaps the simplest reason is that, in most cases, friends are "just friends" for a reason-even if one party is hopelessly in love, the other simply isn't interested and will look elsewhere for romance.
> ...


http://splinternews.com/study-explains-why-its-so-hard-to-escape-the-friend-zon-1793857410


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> That was a surprise. Okay on my end I DID appreciate the fact that YOU clearly heard me as evident from the fact that you responded to my points, and I also DID notice some truth in what you wrote: in particular, that you described quite accurately of what is going on in other people's minds -- whether I agree with them or not. So could it be that my problem is that I didn't explicitly acknowledge those two points before asking further questions? I mean, on my end, those two points seemed self-evident, which is why I didn't acknowledge them. But perhaps on your end it wasn't evident that I noticed them even though I did? But then its miscommuication.


Well, let me put it this way. I didn't get the sense that you had grasped what I was getting at. I don't necessarily need you to explicitly say, "Yes, I acknowledge the accuracy of what you are saying." It's more that what follows makes it clear that you didn't take it in, or it went past you somehow.

For instance, I talked about arguing about right vs. wrong being an unhelpful orientation (if your goal is to connect), and a better orientation just trying to understand where the other person is coming from, without being invested in getting them to change. You respond that there is a third alternative, which is to "try to prove you're right, assuming you're right." That's not a new alternative, just a twist on the first. Everyone assumes they are right in an argument.

You then go on to say I'm being illogical by suggesting you can understand someone's position without needing to change your own. That's another indication you didn't grasp what I was getting at. You can understand why someone thinks a certain way without feeling agreeing with them. I do that all the time. We're different people, we have different experiences and different perspectives. I can understand why you think X or Y without having to adopt your position.

And that was just the first point. The others were similar, but I won't belabor it.

I don't mean that it's all your fault. I probably did not spell it out with as much care and precision as I could have. I made general statements and hoped that you could get the gist. I don't think your mind works like that, though.

I just encourage you to question your own assumptions around the value of arguing. If your goal is intellectual discourse, fine. If your goal is to train to be a lawyer, fine. If your goal is to change people's opinions or flex your intellectual muscles, fine. But if your goal is connection, you are defeating your own purpose.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> 1. Never liking you at all is a weird way to describe a friendzone. It's better described with the word friend.


If you describe it with the word "friend" that would only confirm my point. Why would saying the word "friend" be sufficient in order to communicate that she doesn't like someone in a sexual way? So the assumption is that the two things are mutually excluded. But what is this assumption based upon, unless there is a phenomenon of a friend zone -- whether that term is being used or not?



splendidbob said:


> 2. Women (and men) can alter their perceptions of whether someone is sexually attractive. For example, I might find a woman very physically attractive, until she starts going on about how immigrants are ruining the country and then my fully enraged 3 incher would retract to its baseline 1.5 inch. There isn't any magical "zone" here.


In the above example, you wouldn't think of her as a friend either, so that won't be a friend zone. What puzzles me is why certain personality characteristics women find desirable in a friend yet at the same time they find them to be turnoffs when it comes to dating. That is a lot more puzzling.

On a separate note, you haven't mentioned whether you would be attracted to her tomorrow or not; you just said how you felt at that moment. Now, from my perspective, if I get turned off at the moment yet later on might be turned on by something else, thats reasonable; but if a certain deal breaker would make a woman decide that she will never be turned on no matter what, then it isn't. I mean, in case of your example, if I disagree with woman's political views regarding ONE topic, would it really be sufficient to outweigh the fact that I am a devoted graduate student, that we both like the same things, and so forth? And, even if she doesn't care about my education, how does she know there can't be anything else in my entire LIFE that she does care about which would outweigh the one turnoff? But like I said, it is perfectly reasonable if she gets turned off at that moment: I mean attraction is a fluid thing it goes back and forth (yes I do want a committed relationship, but even when people are in a committed relationship they aren't constantly attracted to each other every second of every single day) but if she decides not to date me based off of one thing then its different. Now I realize that there are SOME things that would be turn offs: like for instance if we have different religious beliefs, then obviously it might be a big deal. But you see, the list of those deal breakers is pretty short, and it should NOT include things like I had a bad day or I forgot to take a shower.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> Well, let me put it this way. I didn't get the sense that you had grasped what I was getting at. I don't necessarily need you to explicitly say, "Yes, I acknowledge the accuracy of what you are saying." It's more that what follows makes it clear that you didn't take it in, or it went past you somehow.
> 
> For instance, I talked about arguing about right vs. wrong being an unhelpful orientation (if your goal is to connect), and a better orientation just trying to understand where the other person is coming from, without being invested in getting them to change. You respond that there is a third alternative, which is to "try to prove you're right, assuming you're right." That's not a new alternative, just a twist on the first. Everyone assumes they are right in an argument.
> 
> ...


Thanks for trying to spell it out. I guess I see some examples where I can understand the other point of view yet not agree with it. Politics and religion would be really good examples of where it happens: I can actually see the point of view of both Republicans and Democrats, both Christians and atheists, etc. but it is more or less my "choice" to side with Christian and Republican/Libertarian side, and then it doesn't bother me that much because I was the one who made my choice, and I can still see where everyone else is coming from. But in case of interpersonal relationships, its not nearly as easy. I mean, a certain girl whom I met back in 2005 had a "point of view" that since my mom shelters me it means I actually want to be sheltered which she couldn't handle. But you see, I knew for a fact that I despised the way my mom shelters me; so I couldn't understand why she would assume I want the exact thing I despise? Or, more recently, some people had "point of view" that I can't be happy in a relationship unless I am happy with myself, and it just made no sense: I mean if the "exact" source of my unhappiness is that I am single then its a matter of simple logic that being in a relaitonship "would" help for the simple fact that it would "undo" whatever I am unhappy about on the first place?

I guess maybe it does have to do with the fact that in case of politics and religion I see the other people's point of view and here I don't. But, at the same time, the whole entire reason I don't see the other persons point of view is that people don't want to articulate it -- hence the value of arguing. In case of politics and religion I have the whole internet to read different sides elaborating on what they think and why; but in case of relationships people don't do that, not even on the internet. I mean, yes, on the internet they do talk, and even rant, about their preferences; but they always do that under some set of assumptions (similar to the ones that I mentioned) without daring to question them. So maybe it WOULD HAVE helped if people were to approach the interpersonal relationships in the same way they approach politics and religion. If all the sides of the argument were articulated, I wouldn't feel driven up the wall thinking that I could have easily date such and such girl if only she were to see such and such really simple point. But unfortunately people don't want to talk about those things which is probably the source of my frustration -- and notice that the word "frustration" pertains to emotion, NOT to logical exercize; so obviously I do have emoitions and emotional things is what drives me to those intellectual discussions.

And when you said that if my goal is to connect then logic isn't the way to go, that also puzzles me. So are you saying that, in the above example, it would have helped if I were to simply "agree to disagree" with that girl regarding her opinion that I want to be sheltered? I guess TO SOME EXTEND I see where you are coming from: she was willing to be my friend (close friend in fact) and the friendship dissipated because I got offended at what she said; so if I were to "agree to disagree" with her, it would have saved the friendship. But fact remains: she wouldn't have dated me. I guess I can see that being in a friend zone is better than being completely alone (although some guys would disagree) and I can also see that trying to argue with her about her belief didn't help me persuade her to date me anyway. So on those two points I agree with you. But then the question is: what else would you suggest? Do you want me to just accept the fact that she completely misunderstands some "factual" thing about me, such as whether or not I want to be sheltered? Or do you want me to hope that, as our friendship continues, she gets to know me better and eventually sees on her own her perception of me wasn't accurate? Or what would you suggest?


----------



## acidicwithpanic (May 14, 2014)

MoonlitMadness said:


> Lol at someone saying don't listen to chick advice :') First of all, I don't believe women like to be referred to as "chicks" haha. I certainly don't. Also, do you think other men are more able to tell you how to get a woman, than a woman is? Most of my relationships started as friendships. I met my current boyfriend on WoW  It's best to meet people doing something you enjoy. Don't listen to any red pill bs or men who refer to women as "females" haha.


Well your argument does not abide by SAS guidelines because

1) Women don't play WoW. They play with men's feelings instead. 
2) According to the all-knowledgeable men, we may not enjoy being referred to as "chicks." But we certainly do like being referred to as *****es, hoes, and ****s. 
3) You have a boyfriend so your input is invalid. 
4) It's a known fact that women can't be nerds and therefore can't be attracted to nerds. Also, good-looking guys with nerd interests don't qualify as nerds. Such a creature would break physics.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

causalset said:


> I would listen -- except that in my case women are the ones that don't want to talk to me.


My opinions on dating/relationships are worthless to men, so I can't help you. Best of luck on your search.



splendidbob said:


> Right. It isn't so much that the femids purposefully fabricate their preferences which are all false, it's just that they are very hormonal. The hormones go into their minds and their brains just no longer control their behaviours.
> 
> This is backed up by hard science and psychologists call it "the long dream", and persists so long as the femid is laying eggs. The science is to follow truant.
> 
> ...


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> If you describe it with the word "friend" that would only confirm my point. Why would saying the word "friend" be sufficient in order to communicate that she doesn't like someone in a sexual way? So the assumption is that the two things are mutually excluded. But what is this assumption based upon, unless there is a phenomenon of a friend zone -- whether that term is being used or not?


Bob: "Ima try to stuff this apple up"
Causalset: "you mean the applezone"
Bob: "No, the apple"
Causalset: "its an applezone, you are using it sexually"
Bob: "why would it even be a zone?"
Causalset: "because of the sexual use"
Bob: "its not even sexual, I just don't fancy toilets today"
Causalset: "toilets are sexual, so its an applezone"



causalset said:


> In the above example, you wouldn't think of her as a friend either, so that won't be a friend zone. What puzzles me is why certain personality characteristics women find desirable in a friend yet at the same time they find them to be turnoffs when it comes to dating. That is a lot more puzzling.


Those characteristics are only for womenfolk to decide. You must trust your guts on this. A woman decides only once, and then you can't ride on that train anymore until you reach the station and the train is refitted.



causalset said:


> On a separate note, you haven't mentioned whether you would be attracted to her tomorrow or not; you just said how you felt at that moment. Now, from my perspective, if I get turned off at the moment yet later on might be turned on by something else, thats reasonable; but if a certain deal breaker would make a woman decide that she will never be turned on no matter what, then it isn't.


Well what if she went out with you and never got turned on? Would you not struggle to be turned on also?



causalset said:


> I mean, in case of your example, if I disagree with woman's political views regarding ONE topic, would it really be sufficient to outweigh the fact that I am a devoted graduate student, that we both like the same things, and so forth? And, even if she doesn't care about my education, how does she know there can't be anything else in my entire LIFE that she does care about which would outweigh the one turnoff? But like I said, it is perfectly reasonable if she gets turned off at that moment: I mean attraction is a fluid thing it goes back and forth (yes I do want a committed relationship, but even when people are in a committed relationship they aren't constantly attracted to each other every second of every single day) but if she decides not to date me based off of one thing then its different. Now I realize that there are SOME things that would be turn offs: like for instance if we have different religious beliefs, then obviously it might be a big deal. But you see, the list of those deal breakers is pretty short, and it should NOT include things like I had a bad day or I forgot to take a shower.


We can't really know though can we? Truly. At the end of the day you have women and men, and they are different. So if a man is to enter into a committed relationship how can the woman be sure she even likes him? It's a matter of perspective alright and that can only come from within the femular mindset. Who can really know how one might think?

Showering is a different topic tho, we can explore that more if you like as it interests me quite a bit. Why shouldn't showering be mandatory for women and yet not mandatory for men?


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

@truant its hard science. Like maths and ****. The long dream is real.


----------



## tehuti88 (Jun 19, 2005)

acidicwithpanic said:


> Well your argument does not abide by SAS guidelines because
> 
> 1) Women don't play WoW. They play with men's feelings instead.
> 2) According to the all-knowledgeable men, we may not enjoy being referred to as "chicks." But we certainly do like being referred to as *****es, hoes, and ****s.
> ...


:lol :lol :lol

Perfection.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

scarpia said:


> Because women often tell guys what they think they want to hear on forums like this, not the truth.


Why would they tell guys they mostly dislike and find annoying what they want to hear? It's pretty obvious what most guys on this forum want to hear lol, they want to hear confirmation of what they personally think whatever that might be.

I know a lot of female posters don't comment at all anymore because they were tired of having their personal opinions invalidated. For some reason many posters don't care to differentiate between what individuals and people in general want. Too unintelligent I guess.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

acidicwithpanic said:


> 1) Women don't play WoW. They play with men's feelings instead.


I am not sure what WoW is. I just googled it, it says "World of Warcraft". Anyway, I am not into video games either, I guess I am not a typical guy. And back to your point, no I don't think women play with men's feelings. I think there are a lot of miscommunication that women don't bother to address. I guess it might have something to do with the fact that some men are jerks and then socially awkward people like myself get confused with jerks even though I am not.



acidicwithpanic said:


> 2) According to the all-knowledgeable men, we may not enjoy being referred to as "chicks." But we certainly do like being referred to as *****es, hoes, and ****s.


I personally don't use those words unless I lose my temper. And when I do lose my temper I say lots of things I don't mean, most of which aren't sexist.



acidicwithpanic said:


> 3) You have a boyfriend so your input is invalid.


I am not sure what you are getting at. Personally, if I am friends with the women that are already in a relationship that takes away a whole lot of drama, since I don't have to obsess as to whether or not she would date me, whether or not I did anything wrong to lose the chance and so forth. And no, I am not into stealing people's girlfriends, even if I could, I would feel horrible if I did that. So that allows me to be myself around her and enjoy the friendship (including advice she can give and so forth).

Of course, if she first rejected me while single and then got into relationship with someone else afterwords thats entirely different animal.



acidicwithpanic said:


> 4) It's a known fact that women can't be nerds and therefore can't be attracted to nerds.


Maybe different people use the word "nerd" differently. I remember on a dating site I told some woman that I am a nerd but then she later told me that she felt mislead by that statement because I am not into star trek. So apparently she thinks star trek is a nerd thing to do; I think just the opposite: being a nerd means completely ignoring all the pop culture, including star trek.

Or here is another example: there was another girl I was talking to who made a facebook post about the way nerds -- like herself -- don't like small talk. I happened to be pissed at her for the fact that she plays video games AND talks to a certain man on there while she is supposed to be skyping with me. So I responded to that facebook post saying "yes you do like small talk: you constantly do small talk with that guy on the video games". Of course she got mad at it, and took it up with me privately; so what she told me was that she doesn't consider a discussion about video games to be small talk. Well I do. On the other hand, she DOES consider video games to be a nerd thing to do, and I certainly don't.



acidicwithpanic said:


> Also, good-looking guys with nerd interests don't qualify as nerds. Such a creature would break physics.


When I visit my mom and she gets frustrated over the fact that I wouldn't tuck in my shirt, won't brush my hair, won't tie my shoes, and won't cut my finger nails, she tells me "there are men that weren't born good looking at all, but they are doing all kinds of things to make themselves better looking; but here is you who was born with such a beautiful face, and such fine features, yet you make yourself look like a monster because you aren't taking care of your appearance". She also says similar things about my voice. My voice is naturally very loud, but she claims that during rare occasions when its not, it is actually very beautiful, so she says "what a pity that you have such a beautiful voice yet nobody knows it because you are constantly screaming". So I guess its true that nerds don't look attractive, since nerds aren't paying attention to their appearance like brushing their hair.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

@acidicwithpanic

Here, next time, use this:


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

I wish I could justify playing WoW again.

The main pro is it's cheaper than crack and I need some drugs and another layer between me and reality.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> @acidicwithpanic
> 
> Here, next time, use this:


I knew she was sarcastic. But sarcasm is used as a tool to make a point, and I was addressing the point she was making by showing her that my mindset isn't as stupid as the one of the guys she talks about.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Persephone The Dread said:


> I wish I could justify playing WoW again.
> 
> The main pro is it's cheaper than crack and I need some drugs.


I played on a private vanilla server a couple of years back *and* was mostly a bit high on kratom at the time. Was good fun. I consider it occasionally but its not the right time heh. It would persuade me to sit though and endure neck discomfort which I probably need to do at some point soon.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I knew she was sarcastic. But sarcasm is used as a tool to make a point, and I was addressing the point she was making by showing her that my mindset isn't as stupid as the one of the guys she talks about.


I still think we need to see a picture of you, man. See what we're working with here. Any chance you'd post one?


----------



## Overdrive (Sep 19, 2015)




----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> When I visit my mom and she gets frustrated over the fact that I wouldn't tuck in my shirt, won't brush my hair, won't tie my shoes, and won't cut my finger nails, she tells me "there are men that weren't born good looking at all, but they are doing all kinds of things to make themselves better looking; but here is you who was born with such a beautiful face, and such fine features, yet you make yourself look like a monster because you aren't taking care of your appearance". She also says similar things about my voice. My voice is naturally very loud, but she claims that during rare occasions when its not, it is actually very beautiful, so she says "what a pity that you have such a beautiful voice yet nobody knows it because you are constantly screaming". So I guess its true that nerds don't look attractive, since nerds aren't paying attention to their appearance like brushing their hair.


Listen to your mum lmao. So I am getting the idea that you are actually ok looking but you are so slack with your appearance you just look below average and smell and stuff because you don't shower and you go around doing the whole manly screaming thing.

Amazing.

"I want a man with ****ty personal hygiene and makes no effort with his appearance and screams a lot" said no woman ever.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Wait, you don't tie your shoes?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> I still think we need to see a picture of you, man. See what we're working with here. Any chance you'd post one?


Posting a pic is akin to using my real name, both of which would violate my privacy. I can PM you the pic if I can trust you not to post it, and in the same way I can PM my pic to other members here. I mean I don't mind if the members here see my pic. I just don't want general public to see it.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Posting a pic is akin to using my real name, both of which would violate my privacy. I can PM you the pic if I can trust you not to post it, and in the same way I can PM my pic to other members here. I mean I don't mind if the members here see my pic. I just don't want general public to see it.


IIRC, non-members can't see the photo threads. You could post in one of those. But I don't mind a PM either.

ETA: This thread isn't visible to non-members either. If they want to read it, they have to join.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> [....] But in case of interpersonal relationships, its not nearly as easy. I mean, a certain girl whom I met back in 2005 had a "point of view" that since my mom shelters me it means I actually want to be sheltered which she couldn't handle. But you see, I knew for a fact that I despised the way my mom shelters me; so I couldn't understand why she would assume I want the exact thing I despise?


Yeah, I think she was being insulting in several ways. Her message is insulting ("you want to be coddled by your mommy"). She is implying that she knows you better than you know yourself. I assume she also did not change her mind when you told her she was wrong, and that's also insulting (since she's not accepting your word for what you feel).

In that case, I would not be aiming for connection; I would be aiming to set a clear boundary. I'd avoid arguing because it would probably just end up making her more convinced she was right (the end result of most dualistic arguments is that each person walks away more convinced than ever of their original position). I'd tell her non-defensively that she was completely off-base, her behavior is insulting, I'm angry about it, and I want her to stop with the psychologizing about my internal processes. It's a sick thing; therapists would call it mind-reading (back in the 70s, Perls would call it "mind-fu**ing"). I'd probably throw in a few choice phrases to help her understand how pissed I was.

But I wouldn't be interested in arguing the point. I'm interested in stopping her from doing that (or getting away from her if she won't stop).

[....]


> I guess maybe it does have to do with the fact that in case of politics and religion I see the other people's point of view and here I don't.


Or maybe because politics and religion seem like topics you can analyze more or less objectively, whereas the girl's comments and your concerns about being coupled are too personal to have that same kind of detachment from?



> But, at the same time, the whole entire reason I don't see the other persons point of view is that people don't want to articulate it -- hence the value of arguing.


Let me be clear -- I don't think there's anything wrong with arguing. Furthermore, argument can be a great way to flesh out a subject; it can be the source of really interesting discussions. In fact, I love to argue (even with myself).

Also, "argument" doesn't necessarily mean a win/lose, zero sum game. "Argument" at its base just means a rational discussion of different points of view. It can be a process where both people get the chance to articulate their points of view, and reach a deeper understanding of what they think and the other person's perspective. They learn things. Sometimes, being exposed to a good argument can be a life-altering event (it has been for me).

I'm not anti-argument. Even in relationships, arguing can be fun sometimes. It depends on how you do it, of course. There is a win-lose, "I'm right, you're wrong" type argument that is rarely much fun. But there is also a style where people passionately express what they think and feel, but they respect and can "hold" their differences.

Which is a side-point ... In immature people, there is a pressure for people to have the same opinion. You can see this in immature groups and people a lot. They can't tolerate differences of opinion. The more mature/developed you get, the more you can "hold" or tolerate differences without trying to pressure the other person to conform to your views.



> And when you said that if my goal is to connect then logic isn't the way to go, that also puzzles me. So are you saying that, in the above example, it would have helped if I were to simply "agree to disagree" with that girl regarding her opinion that I want to be sheltered?


No. See above. But this is a situation where emotion can help -- being aware of it, using it to motivate you, and expressing it. Besides, it's not really a situation that calls for a logical discussion -- "I disagree, and here is why I believe you are mistaken." It is more an emotional thing, and an issue with her behavior. At least that's how I would see it. I would have anger, I'd listen to that, I'd use that as a signal that I needed to stand up for myself, and I'd inject some of it into my body language, when I told her she needed to stop it. 
[....]



> Then the question is: what else would you suggest? Do you want me to just accept the fact that she completely misunderstands some "factual" thing about me, such as whether or not I want to be sheltered? Or do you want me to hope that, as our friendship continues, she gets to know me better and eventually sees on her own her perception of me wasn't accurate? Or what would you suggest?


You did fine. You don't need to agree with someone who condescends to tell you about your own internal life, as if she knows you better than you know yourself. You need to tell them to knock it off.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

splendidbob said:


> I played on a private vanilla server a couple of years back *and* was mostly a bit high on kratom at the time. Was good fun. I consider it occasionally but its not the right time heh. It would persuade me to sit though and endure neck discomfort which I probably need to do at some point soon.


I never played on a private server, didn't really play enough to consider that (also wasn't doing the nostalgia thing since I started playing halfway through the WotLK era, didn't even have broadband internet till 2009 lmao) but I can see some advantages to that. The last expansion I bought was Cataclysm so I am way behind now (from my position of already years behind when I started.) I feel like I have to play Mysts of Pandaria one day just because of the joke Facebook group I made for them to be playable and then it happened.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> Yeah, I think she was being insulting in several ways. Her message is insulting ("you want to be coddled by your mommy"). She is implying that she knows you better than you know yourself. I assume she also did not change her mind when you told her she was wrong, and that's also insulting (since she's not accepting your word for what you feel).


WOW, you are the first person who FINALLY understood precisely what drives me. And it was not just her, she is just one example of it. It happens with MOST people when they are telling me what I feel which isn't true. More recent examples include telling me that I am the one disinterested in them which isn't true either (if I was disinterested why would I be complaining). In fact I would go as far as to say that every single time I argue it is either WITH the person who "told me what I feel" or ABOUT that person (well that person doesn't want to talk about it, so what else am I to do other than to talk to other people ABOUT that person which is the second best choice to talking to that person directly which that person doesn't let me do).



On the way said:


> You need to tell them to knock it off.


Actually, *they* are the ones telling *me* to knock it off, because they "don't want to talk about it" when I am trying to challenge their assertions. But "not talking about it" doesn't make those assertions go away. Thats why I don't want to knock it off, I want to argue with them, but they aren't letting me. And yes, this applies to that girl too, among many other people.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> WOW, you are the first person who FINALLY understood precisely what drives me. And it was not just her, she is just one example of it. It happens with MOST people when they are telling me what I feel which isn't true. More recent examples include telling me that I am the one disinterested in them which isn't true either (if I was disinterested why would I be complaining). In fact I would go as far as to say that every single time I argue it is either WITH the person who "told me what I feel" or ABOUT that person.


A suggestion...

Clarification first: I'm not talking here about the girl who insists you want to be coddled -- you're probably well rid of her. I'm talking about these other examples and the fact you're saying it happens with "most people," where they are saying something about you that does not seem true to you.

I'd suggest that in some situations (your choice), rather than arguing with the person ("I'm not feeling that," "No, I'm not that way," etc.), explore with the person why they have that impression. For instance: "What makes you say that?" "What am I doing that makes you think I'm ___?"

That might give you some interesting information about how you come across to people, without realizing it. This happens a lot, btw -- we come across to others in ways that we are not aware of. Their reactions seem off-base to us, because we're not aware of some aspect of our behavior (or at least how they are interpreting it).

For instance, if a woman says "you aren't interested in me," instead of arguing that you are, express puzzlement and ask her what makes her say that -- what are you doing, that gives her the impression you aren't interested?

Go in with the assumption that there is _something_ you are doing (that you are unaware of) that is creating that impression in the other person. Get curious about what that is and how that works. You can learn a lot that way.

Some of it, you discard of course, because it'll be more about her than you. But sometimes, questions like that (vs. argument) can help you learn how you come across to other people.

Or, to take it back to your original example, if a woman complains that "you aren't listening," instead of arguing that you are listening, try asking her instead what makes her say that. What am I doing that gives you that impression? Not in an argumentative/challenging way, but genuinely curious.



> Actually, *they* are the ones telling *me* to knock it off, because they "don't want to talk about it" when I am trying to challenge their assertions. But "not talking about it" doesn't make those assertions go away. Thats why I don't want to knock it off, I want to argue with them, but they aren't letting me. And yes, this applies to that girl too, among many other people.


Hmm. Well, I'm sure you know, if they don't want to talk about it, you're not going to be able to argue them out of their perceptions. So that's not going to work.

Maybe they sense that you want to argue them out of their perceptions, and maybe that's why they don't want to talk about it.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> I'd suggest that in some situations (your choice), rather than arguing with the person ("I'm not feeling that," "No, I'm not that way," etc.), explore with the person why they have that impression. For instance: "What makes you say that?" "What am I doing that makes you think I'm ___?"


Actually I have some of the answers:

1. As far as the mom thing it was because

a) I told her how I keep stuff from my mom. And I guess in her book it meant that I am not independent from her but in my book it meant just the opposite: wouldn't it be an additional reason why I want to be as far from my mom as possilbe and then it would be easiest to keep things from her?

b) I kept telling her how I feel ostracized by other people which made her feel I am too emotionally dependent when in actuality I have the same needs as others do they are just not being met

c) I wouldn't eat unless she reminds me to. Actually when I am on my own I eat just fine, its just that I can't take initiative when I am with someone, but she didn't know it

d) I was asking her to find mistakes in my calculations for my physics projects. By the way I couldn't have possibly been asking my mom to find them since my mom doesn't know math and physics, but in that girls eyes it was confirmation of the fact that I am not independent.

2. As far as girls claiming I am not liking them, it was

a) Because I kept talking about my ex-s
b) Because I kept talking about myself more than listening to what they had to say about themselves. 
c) Because some of the things that I said came across as insensitive
d) Because I never mentioned ever dating anyone before which lead a certain girl to decide I lack interest in dating altogether (ironically enough, it contradicts "a", but I guess both is true since that refers to different audiences: the girls that thought I talk too much about ex-s were the ones at dating sites, and the girl that thought i never talk about them was the one at church)
e) Because I never initiate connversation myself which makes people think I don't wnat to talk (actually the reason I don't want to initiate conversation is because I want people to talk to me first -- desperately so -- but they aren't getting it)
f) Because people with Asperger presumably are incapable of love, and then they don't believe me when I say its not the case. 
g) I don't smile

3. As far as my coming across as unsafe or aggressive its because

a) My voice is naturally fast and loud (actually it takes physical effort to control my voice, so its not that I want to be loud I just have to constantly pay attention)
b) I don't pay attention to my hygine
c) I ask direct questions which makes people uncomfortable (incidentally it contradicts 2b: so if I talk about myself (due to 2b), then its bad, and if I talk about other people then its also bad (due to 3c) so I can never win)
d) Again, I don't smile

Now, as far as 1 and 2 is concerned, none of it answers the following question: why are they believing their own conjectures over what I SAY I actually feel? I mean, if I truly didn't like them, what would I have to gain by telling them that I do? Being with someone I don't like isn't a "gain" so I don't see any insentive to lie. They never answered this question. As far as 3, I guess if I were agressive I "would" have insentive to lie that I am not; but the fact is, I honestly am not aggressive and its really frustrating when people assume I am something I am not.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> Now, as far as 1 and 2 is concerned, none of it answers the following question: why are they believing their own conjectures over what I SAY I actually feel? I mean, if I truly didn't like them, what would I have to gain by telling them that I do?


They struggle to believe you care about them or just don't believe what you are saying because:



causalset said:


> 1. As far as the mom thing it was because
> 
> a) I told her how I keep stuff from my mom. And I guess in her book it meant that I am not independent from her but in my book it meant just the opposite: wouldn't it be an additional reason why I want to be as far from my mom as possilbe and then it would be easiest to keep things from her?
> 
> ...


Well that or all of the manly shouting.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> Actually I have some of the answers: [long snip]


My point wasn't about the answers you have; it was about the answers you don't.

The problem with having everything figured out is that you never learn anything.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> My point wasn't about the answers you have; it was about the answers you don't.
> 
> The problem with having everything figured out is that you never learn anything.


Those aren't the answers I came up with on my own but rather those are the answers that various people were telling me (in fact I could write a list of names of few of the people behind each answer -- except that its pointless because you don't know who those people are unless I make separate long post describing interaction with each one of them). Now, you told me to ask people to give me the feedback, so I told you I already have the feedback from people I talked with in the past.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

Ok.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> Ok.


Don't just ****en say okay. Thats the exact ****en thing 90% of people ****en telling me (with the exception of the remaining 10% that told me the above answers -- and then they too resorted to ok when I dind't like those answers)


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> Don't just ****en say okay. Thats the exact ****en thing 90% of people ****en telling me (with the exception of the remaining 10% that told me the above answers -- and then they too resorted to ok when I dind't like those answers)


Well, I thought "ok" would be a polite way to disengage. That's probably what other people think, too.

The more complete answer is, I'm getting tired of the conversation. It seems to be going around in circles. I feel like my time and words are being wasted. I feel like I'm having to make a lot of effort to get you to understand what I'm saying. You write very long posts. I've taken the time to read and digest them, and come up with what I think are helpful suggestions, but your responses repeatedly show me that you aren't grasping what I'm saying.

Maybe it's my fault. Maybe I'm "going around too many corners," as an old therapist used to say -- that is, getting too far ahead of where you are now, so what I'm saying doesn't make sense from your framework.

Anyhow, I've said my piece. I think it's time for me to move on.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> Well, I thought "ok" would be a polite way to disengage. That's probably what other people think, too.
> 
> The more complete answer is, I'm getting tired of the conversation. It seems to be going around in circles. I feel like my time and words are being wasted. I feel like I'm having to make a lot of effort to get you to understand what I'm saying. You write very long posts. I've taken the time to read and digest them, and come up with what I think are helpful suggestions, but your responses repeatedly show me that you aren't grasping what I'm saying.
> 
> ...


How the fauck was you not getting through when it comes to my last response? You asked me to get the feedback from others, I told you the feedback I was getting past couple of years. Sure, it wasn't the feedback I got AFTER you asked me to get it, but its the one I got BEFORE that. What difference does it make WHEN I got it, if the fact is that I got it. And, speaking of time, I also put up some time composing that email with the list of things people said, yet all you got in response was that you weren't getting through.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

Okay fine, you asked me to ask people for feedback. How about I ask YOU for feedback: why the **** you decided you weren't getting through to me PRECISELY after I did EXACTLY what you asked me (list the feedback I got from others)?! It makes no ****en sense what so ever!!!


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> Don't just ****en say okay. Thats the exact ****en thing 90% of people ****en telling me (with the exception of the remaining 10% that told me the above answers -- and then they too resorted to ok when I dind't like those answers)


Ok



causalset said:


> How the fauck was you not getting through when it comes to my last response? You asked me to get the feedback from others, I told you the feedback I was getting past couple of years. Sure, it wasn't the feedback I got AFTER you asked me to get it, but its the one I got BEFORE that. What difference does it make WHEN I got it, if the fact is that I got it. And, speaking of time, I also put up some time composing that email with the list of things people said, yet all you got in response was that you weren't getting through.


Read all of the posts back. I saw someone very genuinely, compassionately and articulately trying to help you (and actually answering you, with the correct damn answers), and then you react like this, because you just want to argue the same crap over and over. I don't know what it is you want, or expect to happen. That people will agree with you, and then what? Everyone in the world who doesn't act in the way that you want sees the thread and changes how they interact with you?

Ask yourself this question:

"Am I going to be able to persuade all of the women in the world to come around to my way of thinking?"

What exactly do you want from these posts? What is your ideal outcome, I am genuinely curious why you make them and what you expect to happen.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> Ok
> 
> Read all of the posts back. I saw someone very genuinely, compassionately and articulately trying to help you (and actually answering you, with the correct damn answers), and then you react like this, because you just want to argue the same crap over and over. I don't know what it is you want, or expect to happen. That people will agree with you, and then what? Everyone in the world who doesn't act in the way that you want sees the thread and changes how they interact with you?
> 
> ...


I know that poster was trying to help me. I am just at loss as to why they suddenly gave up in the response to a SPECIFIC post of mine where I did NOT argue with them.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> I know that poster was trying to help me. I am just at loss as to why they suddenly gave up in the response to a SPECIFIC post of mine where I did NOT argue with them.


Because it became totally evident you weren't listening. They decided it was pointless to engage with you because you weren't taking on board what they were saying, in any way.

It is the same thing that happens to anyone who tries to help you. You just wtf wall of text them, don't listen, and they eventually realise you aren't open to being helped at all and give up. You haven't noticed this pattern? Why do you think this keeps happening?

And don't wall of text me in response, because I know you are thinking about it.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> Because it became totally evident you weren't listening.


They asked me to ask others feedback as to why I make the impression I do. It just happened that I been asking those questions before so I gave them the answers I already got from before. How is it not listening if I did almost exactly what they asked me (with one little exception that the answers happened to be from the past)?


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> They asked me to ask others feedback as to why I make the impression I do. It just happened that I been asking those questions before so I gave them the answers I already got from before. How is it not listening if I did almost exactly what they asked me (with one little exception that the answers happened to be from the past)?


I believe the point was to change your future behaviour. If someone says something to you and you don't understand their reasoning, you should politely ask them why the feel that way and see if it presents the opportunity to change their mind.

Note the word *'politely'.* Not 'wtf are you talking about, why would you think that, I'm tired of everyone ****ing thinking that about me, you're all ****ing idiots, nobody's helping me.'

You've been given plenty of feedback on how to change yourself but you aren't doing it. It's common for people on this forum. At some point, people get tired of saying 'This is what you should do' when they're just saying the same things over and over again. If you want people to help you, listen to what they say, appreciate their words, and calm your temper.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

Thanks, splendidbob. You got it. WelshOne as well. 

Casual, I don't feel like explaining any more. I'm not sure what's going on exactly, and I'm not saying it's all your fault. All I am saying is that I am tired of talking. It feels like I'm spending too much time on it, and I'm not getting anywhere. I feel like it could go on forever, and I wouldn't get very far. 

I wish you the best. Maybe get a therapist, if you don't already have one. That's not an insult -- a good therapist can help with this sort of thing, although it'll take a while.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> I believe the point was to change your future behaviour. If someone says something to you and you don't understand their reasoning, you should politely ask them why the feel that way and see if it presents the opportunity to change their mind.
> 
> Note the word *'politely'.* Not 'wtf are you talking about, why would you think that, I'm tired of everyone ****ing thinking that about me, you're all ****ing idiots, nobody's helping me.'
> 
> You've been given plenty of feedback on how to change yourself but you aren't doing it. It's common for people on this forum. At some point, people get tired of saying 'This is what you should do' when they're just saying the same things over and over again. If you want people to help you, listen to what they say, appreciate their words, and calm your temper.


Notice the time sequence: I lashed out AFTER they said I wasn't getting it, not before. So you can't say they said it because they somehow foresaw I would lash out on the post afterwords. So the question remains: speaking of the post BEFORE they gave up -- namely the one where I provided the list of feedback I received -- how exactly did I lash out there? If you re-read that post, it sounds really calm.

Or are you trying to say that their message is that "all the advice you received before doesn't count because you were lashing out at those people, so lets try for the very first time to ask for advice without lashing out"? Well in this case let me point out that

a) The fact that I was lashing out often doesn't mean I was lashing out every single time

b) I can tell the difference between the time when people say something to get rid of me and when they actually mean it, and I was only listing the latter

Let me give you an example. One of the items I listed was that I talk about myself too much. Now, there was a certain girl from dating site that was trying to get me to change for the duration of few months and then gave up at the end. The main thing she was trying to get me to change was not to talk about my life so much and to pay attention more to when she talks about hers. Did I lash out at her? Sure. But it is pretty hard to believe that calling me out on talking about myself too much for the duration of *few months* is just a stage she was putting in order to get rid of me for lashing out. So, temper tantrums or not, her complaint about my talking about myself too much sounds pretty genuine.

Or let me give you another example. A girl that didn't like me because I talked about ex-s. Okay in her case it wasn't several months: it was only a couple of days. But still, her very first answer as to why she didn't like me was the ex-s thing; and only after I didn't like that answer did she start saying something else such as "oh I just have hard time trusting men in general, and as far as ex-s go thats just my advice for you for the future it has nothing to do with why I didn't like you". Well to me it seems pretty obvious ex-s thing is the reason why she didn't like me, and her denial of it is a response to my arguing.

Apart from that, both of those things I heard from several people, not just those two. As far as talking about myself too much, thats what my mom keeps calling me out on when she has friends coming over; and also when I got pastoral consultation a couple of years ago the pastor was focusing on this as well. As far as talking about ex-s, I heard this from several different girls, it just didn't hit as hard as that specific girl I mentioned. And that is just two examples that are the most obvious; I can similarly substantiate other things I was told that I listed but, like others said, I will avoid the wall of text.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

On the way said:


> Casual, I don't feel like explaining any more. *I'm not sure what's going on exactly,*


What is there not to understand? You asked me to get feedback from others. I gave it to you. Pretty straightforward. Then all of a sudden you bolt. I am the one who doesn't understand what is going on exactly on your end!


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Notice the time sequence: I lashed out AFTER they said I wasn't getting it, not before. So you can't say they said it because they somehow foresaw I would lash out on the post afterwords. So the question remains: speaking of the post BEFORE they gave up -- namely the one where I provided the list of feedback I received -- how exactly did I lash out there? If you re-read that post, it sounds really calm.
> 
> Or are you trying to say that their message is that "all the advice you received before doesn't count because you were lashing out at those people, so lets try for the very first time to ask for advice without lashing out"? Well in this case let me point out that
> 
> ...


On the way has spent the last few days attempting to understand your way of thinking and trying to help you change that. They've given you advice as much as is possible for a non-professional and it's something that they chose to do for no other reason than they wanted to be kind to someone who was having trouble.

You've already seen from the replies on this site, and replies that you've had in real life, that you are hard to understand. You write walls of text when a few sentences will do. You needlessly bring up details that have no bearing on the essence of a person's reply. It seems like you simply don't understand the point that people are trying to make, and so you bring up more issues or start arguments.

On the way suggested a way forward for you, in order to help you in the future. You responded with examples of how that had happened in the past. And if you had truly listened and accepted the advice given to you, you'd know that there were things you should be changing about yourself. Your hygiene, your voice volume, your preoccupation with talking about yourself, your temper. These are the answers you've been given, and you're not attempting to fix them.

So why should anyone waste their time giving you the same advice over and over again, when you're not going to listen? It's not about the fact that you lashed out this time, that's simply something else for you to work on. I know that you liked this guy because he agreed with you, which doesn't happen very often on here and I'm sure that's very frustrating for you. But he has no obligation to continue a conversation with you.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> You've already seen from the replies on this site, and replies that you've had in real life, that you are hard to understand. You write walls of text when a few sentences will do. You needlessly bring up details that have no bearing on the essence of a person's reply. It seems like you simply don't understand the point that people are trying to make, and so you bring up more issues or start arguments.


Making walls of text doesn't mean not understanding. On the contrary, if I don't understand I would hardly say anything at all. And he wasn't put off by walls of text (plural), he was put off by a *specific* wall of text; and the reason for that wall of text is self-explanatory: I was making a list of items people have said to me. If you read it, I spent a couple of sentences per each item. The reason its a wall is that there are a lot of them. Simple as that.



TheWelshOne said:


> On the way suggested a way forward for you, in order to help you in the future. You responded with examples of how that had happened in the past.


If he told me to do something in future, and I happened to have already done it in the past, why wouldn't it be relevent? For example, if he were to say "get a counselor" in the future, and I say "I already have a conselor", is it a bad answer? Would a better answer be to get rid of current counselor and get new one, just to make sure its in the future? Same goes for advice: if he tells me to get advice in the future, but I happened to have already gotten it, why wouldn't it be relevent to mention it?



TheWelshOne said:


> And if you had truly listened and accepted the advice given to you, you'd know that there were things you should be changing about yourself. Your hygiene, your voice volume, your preoccupation with talking about yourself, your temper. These are the answers you've been given, and you're not attempting to fix them.


Notice that it was *not* the advice he gave. On the contrary, for some reason, he happened to really dislike my mentioning that advice, which seems to suggest he doesn't think its a good advice. And he didn't even say why not, all he did was stop talking.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

causalset said:


> What is there not to understand? You asked me to get feedback from others. I gave it to you. Pretty straightforward.


As usual, you've got it all figured out.



> Then all of a sudden you bolt. I am the one who doesn't understand what is going on exactly on your end!


I didn't "bolt." I said I was tired, and I wanted to break off the conversation. Is this how you usually respond when someone does that -- by cursing, stamping your feet, and demanding that the other person explain themselves? Controlling much?

Anyhow, no, I'm not going to explain myself further, especially given how you're acting. I do agree with your last sentence: you don't understand where I'm coming from. That's kind of where this conversation began, iirc.

I'm out.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

On the way said:


> Is this how you usually respond when someone does that -- by cursing, stamping your feet, and demanding that the other person explain themselves?


Yes it is.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> If he told me to do something in future, and I happened to have already done it in the past, why wouldn't it be relevent? For example, if he were to say "get a counselor" in the future, and I say "I already have a conselor", is it a bad answer? Would a better answer be to get rid of current counselor and get new one, just to make sure its in the future? Same goes for advice: if he tells me to get advice in the future, but I happened to have already gotten it, why wouldn't it be relevent to mention it?


Yes but the point was 'Get feedback, then you'll know what to work on'. We can't do everything for you. You've had feedback from people, you know what is off-putting, you refuse to change because you don't understand *why* it's off-putting. So you throw a tantrum and say that everyone else is wrong, instead of considering that maybe you should be attempting to do what they suggest.

If you find yourself in a situation, in the future, where someone says something that you feel is wrong, what you should do is ask why they think that. This will open up a potential for a conversation, to dispel any misunderstandings, and to learn things about yourself. It may even lessen the pressure on certain friendships/relationships and allow them to blossom more than they would previously.

Example:
Me: 'Causal, you're not listening to what I'm saying.'
You, utilising the advice that he gave you: 'What makes you think that?'
[And then we discuss those ideas, openly and honestly, and maybe make some headway]

*Not:*
Me: 'Causal, you're not listening to what I'm saying.'
You: 'Of course I'm listening. I just think [wall of text explaining x, y and z, with multiple examples from previous girls you've known and previous advice people have given you].'
Me: 'OK, I can see I'm not getting anywhere, good luck.'

Do you see the difference?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Yes but the point was 'Get feedback, then you'll know what to work on'. We can't do everything for you. You've had feedback from people, you know what is off-putting, you refuse to change because you don't understand *why* it's off-putting. So you throw a tantrum and say that everyone else is wrong, instead of considering that maybe you should be attempting to do what they suggest.


Thats a good point, but thats not what he seems to be saying. He keeps using the phrase that I have all the answers and he first used it in reference to my listing the things others said. So it sounds like he wants me to pretend that I don't know what they said? And, if so, how can I act on the advice he wants me to pretend I don't have? I am actually pretty confused by that comment altogether. So what would have happened if I were to go and ask some people advice right now, rahter than remembering what I heard in the past. Would he also say I have all the answers when, after people finished their advice, I were to come back and tell you guys what I heard?


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Thats a good point, but thats not what he seems to be saying. He keeps using the phrase that I have all the answers and he first used it in reference to my listing the things others said. So it sounds like he wants me to pretend that I don't know what they said? And, if so, how can I act on the advice he wants me to pretend I don't have? I am actually pretty confused by that comment altogether. So what would have happened if I were to go and ask some people advice right now, rahter than remembering what I heard in the past. Would he also say I have all the answers when, after people finished their advice, I were to come back and tell you guys what I heard?


No actually that's not what he said at all. He said that you *don't* have all the answers.

From an outside perspective, here's what happened:

He said you should be asking for feedback when you're confused as to someone's reaction. That you should do this politely and with the intent of learning how you come across and possibly setting their mind at ease.
You gave a long list of things that people have told you in the past, which you haven't done anything about.

I don't know what you expected him to do with that information. He's not a therapist, he's someone using his own time to offer advice - the advice was 'ask for feedback in future'. That's it. The advice was for future interactions, and trying to make them go better than they have in the past.

And as others have said, if you have the feedback that you already have, you have more than one way forward. You know what people find uncomfortable or disconcerting about you, so why would you not be trying to fix those things and see if it makes any difference?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> No actually that's not what he said at all. He said that you *don't* have all the answers.


I get that part, which is precisely why I feel like he was invalidating all the past feedback that I have. Yet you are telling me he is upset I am not following the feedback that he wants to invalidate? It just makes no sense.



TheWelshOne said:


> From an outside perspective, here's what happened:
> 
> He said you should be asking for feedback when you're confused as to someone's reaction. That you should do this politely and with the intent of learning how you come across and possibly setting their mind at ease.
> You gave a long list of things that people have told you in the past, which you haven't done anything about.


He wasn't upset about the fact that I didn't do anything about it. He was upset that I act like I have all the answers. So that makes it seem like he wanted me to forget the feedback that I have? But then whats the point of forgetting that feedback and then asking for new one? If he were to say "okay that feedback doesn't sound good for such and such reasons how about you ask for better one" then it would make a little bit more sense. But he didn't do it, he just dismissed the whole entire thing with "don't act like you have all the answers" when I did little more than simply answering his question.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I get that part, which is precisely why I feel like he was invalidating all the past feedback that I have. Yet you are telling me he is upset I am not following the feedback that he wants to invalidate? It just makes no sense.
> 
> He wasn't upset about the fact that I didn't do anything about it. He was upset that I act like I have all the answers. So that makes it seem like he wanted me to forget the feedback that I have? But then whats the point of forgetting that feedback and then asking for new one? If he were to say "okay that feedback doesn't sound good for such and such reasons how about you ask for better one" then it would make a little bit more sense. But he didn't do it, he just dismissed the whole entire thing with "don't act like you have all the answers" when I did little more than simply answering his question.


I don't think he was upset, I think he just decided he couldn't help any further.

You don't have to forget the feedback that you have, but the point is ask for the feedback *and then do something about it.* You've had lots of feedback, but you don't know what will happen in the future. If you get into a conversation or a relationship and it goes wrong somehow, the point is to ask *calmly* what happened. Don't just think 'Oh well it was my loud voice' or 'I talked about my exes too much'. You have to have specific feedback tailored to each interaction in the future. And then fix it.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> I don't think he was upset, I think he just decided he couldn't help any further.
> 
> You don't have to forget the feedback that you have, but the point is ask for the feedback *and then do something about it.* You've had lots of feedback, but you don't know what will happen in the future. If you get into a conversation or a relationship and it goes wrong somehow, the point is to ask *calmly* what happened. Don't just think 'Oh well it was my loud voice' or 'I talked about my exes too much'. You have to have specific feedback tailored to each interaction in the future. And then fix it.


I just fail to see how am I guilty of "having all the answers" if all I did was just paraphrase the feedback that I have. He didn't call me out on not doing anything about it. He called me out on "having all the answers" and I don't see how I was guilty of that.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I just fail to see how am I guilty of "having all the answers" if all I did was just paraphrase the feedback that I have. He didn't call me out on not doing anything about it. He called me out on "having all the answers" and I don't see how I was guilty of that.





On the way said:


> My point wasn't about the answers you have; *it was about the answers you don't. *
> 
> The problem with having everything figured out is that you never learn anything.


Again, you're getting it mixed up. He's telling you that you *don't* have all the answers, so his advice is still relevant. And he wasn't calling you out on anything. People are not always being hostile to you, you don't have to respond with anger every time someone contradicts you.

Which is feedback, btw. And something that's been made clear in this thread. Therefore you now know that you have a problem with responding with anger whenever you're contradicted. This is something you can work on, and will be one less thing that is off-putting about being around you.

Do you see?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Again, you're getting it mixed up. He's telling you that you *don't* have all the answers, so his advice is still relevant. And he wasn't calling you out on anything. People are not always being hostile to you, you don't have to respond with anger every time someone contradicts you.
> 
> Which is feedback, btw. And something that's been made clear in this thread. Therefore you now know that you have a problem with responding with anger whenever you're contradicted. This is something you can work on, and will be one less thing that is off-putting about being around you.
> 
> Do you see?


When I used the phrase "having all the answers" I gave it the same exact meaning as he did: namely the sarcastic one. Lets rephrase the same question: "why does paraphrasing the answers I got in the past makes me guilty of know-it-all attitude?"

And I didn't get angry when I was contradicted; I got angry when he said "ok", and I was right because, as his further replies confirmed, "ok" had the same meaning as I suspected it did.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> When I used the phrase "having all the answers" I gave it the same exact meaning as he did: namely the sarcastic one. Lets rephrase the same question: "why does paraphrasing the answers I got in the past makes me guilty of know-it-all attitude?"
> 
> And I didn't get angry when I was contradicted; I got angry when he said "ok", and I was right because, as his further replies confirmed, "ok" had the same meaning as I suspected it did.


Alright, so what would you have wanted him to say? How *should* the conversation have gone, after you listed all of the feedback you'd been given in the past?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Alright, so what would you have wanted him to say? How *should* the conversation have gone, after you listed all of the feedback you'd been given in the past?


Well, he was the one who asked me to get feedback from others. So, in his mind, he has some next step after I were to do it. So I guess I would have expected him to say whatever his next step was going to be. Obviously I can't know what it is: if I did, then there wouldn't be a point of him saying it. But I am sure he would have had "something" to say, whatever it is he was having in his mind when he was asking me to get a feedback.

Also, being surprised/shocked by what he actually said (namely accused me of having know it all attitude) isn't the same thing as expecting him to say something in particular. Kind of like if I just accuse you out of the blue of hacking this forum, and you get defensive, that wouldn't mean you expected me to say something specific, it just means that whatever I ended up saying you found shocking.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> Well, he was the one who asked me to get feedback from others. So, in his mind, he has some next step after I were to do it. So I guess I would have expected him to say whatever his next step was going to be. Obviously I can't know what it is: if I did, then there wouldn't be a point of him saying it. But I am sure he would have had "something" to say, whatever it is he was having in his mind when he was asking me to get a feedback.
> 
> Also, being surprised/shocked by what he actually said (namely accused me of having know it all attitude) isn't the same thing as expecting him to say something in particular. Kind of like if I just accuse you out of the blue of hacking this forum, and you get defensive, that wouldn't mean you expected me to say something specific, it just means that whatever I ended up saying you found shocking.


You really can't imagine what the next step would be? 'Find out what you're doing wrong', 'OK, I've done that, what now?' Really?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> You really can't imagine what the next step would be? 'Find out what you're doing wrong', 'OK, I've done that, what now?' Really?


I mean its not even that he couldn't think of next step, it was more that he accused me of acting like "know it all" for answering his question. Kind of like me saying "would you evaluate this integral" then you evaluate it and me responding "what an arrogant person you are for evaluating it".


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I mean its not even that he couldn't think of next step, it was more that he accused me of acting like "know it all" for answering his question. Kind of like me saying "would you evaluate this integral" then you evaluate it and me responding "what an arrogant person you are for evaluating it".


Dude, seriously.

Nobody owes you ****. He assumed the next step was obvious, because it is - when you find out you're doing something off-putting, you fix it. I've said it like ten times today and you're arguing about minutiae. You know what you have to do, why are you wasting your time *****ing about some wording?


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Dude, seriously.
> 
> Nobody owes you ****. He assumed the next step was obvious, because it is - when you find out you're doing something off-putting, you fix it. I've said it like ten times today and you're arguing about minutiae. You know what you have to do, why are you wasting your time *****ing about some wording?


I know the advice you gave me, I am saying I don't know his. You and him are two different people and the advice you gave are different. Incidentally, I agree with your advice. I will try and change those things on the list (I already been changing the hygine part, so I guess its time to get to other things). I am still confused when it comes to *his* advice though.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> I know the advice you gave me, I am saying I don't know his. You and him are two different people and the advice you gave are different. Incidentally, I agree with your advice. I will try and change those things on the list (I already been changing the hygine part, so I guess its time to get to other things). I am still confused when it comes to *his* advice though.


That *is* his advice. There is only one reason someone would want you to get feedback on what you are doing wrong. It's blatantly obvious.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> That *is* his advice. There is only one reason someone would want you to get feedback on what you are doing wrong. It's blatantly obvious.


He told me I am "know it all" for making that list, which seems to imply he doesn't think that list valid and, therefore, doesn't believe I should follow it. Apparently when he asked me to get an advice he had in mind something else, thats not on that list, that he wants me to follow, and isn't telling me what it is.


----------



## On the way (Feb 9, 2006)

lol

I can't believe this is still going on.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> He told me I am "know it all" for making that list, which seems to imply he doesn't think that list valid and, therefore, doesn't believe I should follow it. Apparently when he asked me to get an advice he had in mind something else, thats not on that list, that he wants me to follow, and isn't telling me what it is.


No he didn't. That's what you read into it.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> No he didn't. That's what you read into it.


He clearly didn't like that list though, as evident from his sarcastic statement that I have all the answers. Why he doesn't like it is a big mystery to me though.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> He clearly didn't like that list though, as evident from his sarcastic statement that I have all the answers. Why he doesn't like it is a big mystery to me though.


Because, once again, it makes no difference what answers that you've been given in the past. If you understood the point that he was trying to make, you'd have understood why the answers you've already had aren't necessarily relevant.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

TheWelshOne said:


> Because, once again, it makes no difference what answers that you've been given in the past. If you understood the point that he was trying to make, you'd have understood why the answers you've already had aren't necessarily relevant.


How can they be irrelevent if I should be following them? Obviously I have to pay attention to "what" they are in order to follow up with actions.


----------



## TheWelshOne (Sep 29, 2013)

causalset said:


> How can they be irrelevent if I should be following them? Obviously I have to pay attention to "what" they are in order to follow up with actions.


OK, you started this thread saying that there wasn't just two extremes for things. I used the words 'not necessarily relevant'. That doesn't mean 'irrelevant'. Plus, this was all about how to make a connection with people going forward, wasn't it?


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

@causalset answer me:

What is it that you want from all of your threads and posts here? *What exactly is the outcome that you want that will make you happy?*. What is it that you want to happen as a result of you posting this stuff?

1 paragraph only please.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> @causalset answer me:
> 
> What is it that you want from all of your threads and posts here? *What exactly is the outcome that you want that will make you happy?*. What is it that you want to happen as a result of you posting this stuff?
> 
> 1 paragraph only please.


To me the way society operates seem counter-intuitive, so if somehow I could find a way to see how my intuition and other people's intuition can agree that would help me in two ways: I would be less angry to rejections I had in the past AND I would know what to do in order to avoid future rejections.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

causalset said:


> To me the way society operates seem counter-intuitive, so if somehow I could find a way to see how my intuition and other people's intuition can agree that would help me in two ways: I would be less angry to rejections I had in the past AND I would know what to do in order to avoid future rejections.


And do you acknowledge that society isn't going to change the way it operates if you explain it to people here on the forum?

If so (which seems totally unarguable) then your only solution is to alter yourself to fit in with society, to accept its counter-intuitiveness and modify how you behave in order to *make the best outcome for you*.

There isn't anything anyone can say here that can convince you that society operates in the way you want it to, it doesn't. You have to fit in with society, that's it. *That is the only ****ing option you actually have, its all there is*. I don't like the way society works either, frankly, but when something is literally unalterable, as per the above, which you *must* accept, trying to alter it is pointless.

Take showers.


----------



## causalset (Sep 11, 2016)

splendidbob said:


> And do you acknowledge that society isn't going to change the way it operates if you explain it to people here on the forum?
> 
> If so (which seems totally unarguable) then your only solution is to alter yourself to fit in with society, to accept its counter-intuitiveness and modify how you behave in order to *make the best outcome for you*.
> 
> ...


I see what you are saying. But you see, this applies to lots and lots of my posts, but not that specific one where I made the list of things people say. I mean how exactly were I implying in that list that I want people to change their ways? Yet that one post is the one that he was upset by.


----------



## wyatthavens (Jul 11, 2017)

this is a picture of me.


----------



## mt moyt (Jul 29, 2015)

wyatthavens said:


> this is a picture of me.


haha your thread really got derailed :b

also, i cant see your picture


----------



## wyatthavens (Jul 11, 2017)

yeah. lol its the same one as my profile picture.


----------



## elonius (Sep 29, 2017)

Thread gone weird... :b


----------



## Post_Punk_Proclivity (Oct 12, 2008)

Wrongwolfe said:


>





bowen said:


> If you are looking for a good girlfriend/boyfriend? I recommend you join DateAMillionaire.org . It is an app download page for singles looking for millionaires online.
> - Discover real rich and attractive singles near you
> - Connect with Certified Millionaires
> - Chat with wealthy singles online
> ...


Dead.


----------



## uziq (Apr 9, 2012)

doe deer said:


>


h3h3 has snapchat?


----------



## LoneWolfForLife111 (Oct 14, 2017)

It?s not impossible. I met a wonderful woman on here and she is flying to see me soon. We just hit it off right away.


----------



## LoneWolfForLife111 (Oct 14, 2017)

The thing is a lot of people on here men and women are more alike than they would admit it?s a great place to meet people of the opposite sex who are similar and can relate


----------

