# i will never get a girlfriend



## Lawrencepa (Dec 21, 2015)

I actually had a dream last night that I was with someone that I didn't know IRL and we had a house together and i just remember being in love. She was like my perfect girl. Obviously I was disappointed when I woke up. 
Anyway when I read things online either from females pov or pua stuff I just feel like im the opposite of what girls want. I have no relationship experience beyond sex and I still suck in bed and I have no social life, very low self esteem and generally unsuccessful. I have no job and no good career in sight. Is what I read about having to be alpha the truth? I used to be a bit more of an omega in my prime but I lost my confidence and got depressed. I don't think ill end up being like I was again so I'm trying to accept I may never have a relationship like everyone else. How can I learn to accept myself enough that I will get a girlfriend? Or at least start accepting I will be single forever. I don't want lots of girls and my standards aren't exactly high so I don't want an exceptionally pretty girl. I probably sound the like 'nice guy' I hear about so much that women don't want. But what can I do?


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Lawrencepa said:


> Anyway when I read things online either from females pov or pua stuff I just feel like im the opposite of what girls want. .. what can I do?


Stop taking those sources seriously. PUA is a scam and women rarely say what they really mean or what they really want.


----------



## willtowin (Feb 1, 2017)

I have a girlfriend but I'm nowhere near an "alpha type" that these pua gurus are telling you to be..it's about finding that girl that's right for YOU, not what the general public says..


----------



## thisismeyo (Feb 15, 2013)

you have to find a girl that fits you. you dont need to be a certain way. if all guys were the same, that would be boring. girls are not all the same either. they like different types of guys


----------



## NahMean (May 19, 2014)

Not all women are into the arrogant cocky alpha males high up the social food chain. My gf is a good example of someone who hates those types of guys. Just take each day for what it is by being the best version of yourself, and sooner or later a woman will enter your life & see the unique qualities in you.


----------



## xxDark Horse (May 13, 2015)

I honestly feel the same way man, like I will never get a girlfriend. I mean let's face it i'm 22 years old and the older I get, the more a man is expected to have had some experience and hold a decent job. I feel like a lost cause as well.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

Yeah me too. Being ugly and dumb is not a good combo.


----------



## Empress_D (Jan 18, 2009)

First off, a lot of people are having problems finding a job so don't be too hard on yourself for that.

Second, don't think too much about trying to get a girl but just do things to make yourself happy. Whenever you have a lot of empty time on your hands, you'll tend to think negative thoughts.

Third, girls don't want to hear a guy talking about how much he dislikes himself because we all have insecurities. A girl wants a guy because he provides safety and stability so if you exude insecurity, we won't be attracted to you.


----------



## Destormjanina1 (Jan 9, 2017)

^I agree. When I'm dealing with a guy I'm looking for mental and emotional safety. Not an overly confident arrogant prick.


----------



## Twilightforce (Aug 7, 2016)

I won't be getting one either. I can't stand having those dreams too.


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

ya the longer you go without experience it has a negative snowball effect on you


----------



## Zozulya (Mar 24, 2016)

Twilightforce said:


> I won't be getting one either. I can't stand having those dreams too.


I hope to have those dreams but it never happened. Maybe just because my brain is not wired for it.


----------



## ivan91 (Jan 2, 2017)

Not many guys does this day. Females wants a perfect prince while demanding that guys most accept them as they are, wtf.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

Yeah you're right, you'll never get a girlfriend with that attitude.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

Empress_D said:


> Third, girls don't want to hear a guy talking about how much he dislikes himself because we all have insecurities. A girl wants a guy because he provides safety and stability so if you exude insecurity, we won't be attracted to you.


But in some strange way its okay for females to have insecurities. Thats nothing more than hypocrisy. You can not tell me to get a good self-esteem when i get mocked for my looks almost everyday and have low intellegence. From where should my good self-esteem come from?

What about this: females stop being so shallow and accept guys for who they are just like guys accept girls for who they are.



SwtSurrender said:


> Yeah you're right, you'll never get a girlfriend with that attitude.


Demands, demands, demands. All this demands all the time on guys. Who do you think you are to tell guys to get a car, 100s friends and good self-esteem while you yourself are hiding at home living on your moms money.


----------



## SwtSurrender (Nov 24, 2014)

ljubo said:


> Demands, demands, demands. All this demands all the time on guys. Who do you think you are to tell guys to get a car, 100s friends and good self-esteem while you yourself are hiding at home living on your moms money.


Uh, dad's money to be precise. I have no problem with guys who don't have cars, or 100 friends, or good self esteem as long as they're not looking to have sex with me/using me for sex/want to meet up only to have sex! Wow, you're not going to get anywhere with your attitude either.

And don't reply to me in the same message as with another user, you get us mixed up and then you think I am saying the same thing they are. Hello? We are different users here, respect us.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

SwtSurrender said:


> Uh, dad's money to be precise. I have no problem with guys who don't have cars, or 100 friends, or good self esteem as long as they're not looking to have sex with me! Wow, you're not going to get anywhere with your attitude either.


Sorry. i confused your mom and dad.

Ok, sorry, you dont demand that (or maybe you actually do in real life you know).

So let me get this right .

You demand guys to have a job and they most have great self-esteem, but females dont need to offer anything to the table, that would be misogynistic to demand, right?

My attitude is not the problem, i dont care about my attitude, my body, face and dumb brain have already destroyed all my chances so i am bitter.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster (Jun 8, 2010)

scarpia said:


> Stop taking those sources seriously. PUA is a scam and women rarely say what they really mean or what they really want.


PUA isn't a scam, I've watched those vidoes (I like RSD) and they actually offer a lot of helpful advice imo. I can give an example. I remember watching one of those videos where Julian (from RSD) was talking about how when you go approach girls you dont know, you can expect it to get awkward.

A week or two later I approached a girl and things got really awkward. Instead of panicking as I normally would, I remembered what Julien said and how he had faced tons and tons of awkward moments and it helped me recollect myself and move the conversation on rather than thinking I had to always had to be super smooth. The girl still rejected me, but at least I didn't feel traumatized like "oh there's more proof I can't talk to girls".

The reason people think PUA says you have to be this powerful outgoing alpha male character is because that does attract a lot of women and they are always going to cater to what works for most guys. lBut if you actually pay attention to the videoes, they have lots of helpful advice. You have to use your own discernment of what is helpful to you and what isn't. I am not an alpha male and I have my own way of doings things, but PUA has helped me understand some things about talking to girls better. It hasnt gotten me a girlfriend yet, but I'm a really hard case and havent put the time in pursuing girls because its just so difficult. PUA has helped me see some of the things I was doing wrong more clearly though.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Recipe For Disaster said:


> PUA isn't a scam, I've watched those vidoes (I like RSD) and they actually offer a lot of helpful advice imo.


Just because they throw in a few nuggets of good advise doesn't mean the concept isn't a scam. How to pick up women, make them comfortable in your presence, and bed them within seven hours of your first meeting! Yeah, right.

And the OP said he was looking for a gf, not just a quick lay. It looks to me like PUA is about getting laid, not getting a gf. For just getting laid I highly recommend hookers.


----------



## Empress_D (Jan 18, 2009)

ljubo said:


> What about this: females stop being so shallow and accept guys for who they are just like guys accept girls for who they are.


I'm sorry to tell you this, but guys don't accept girls for who they are either. In fact, guys tend to be more shallow due to the constant objectification of women in the media. If our boobs aren't big enough, our *** not big enough or round enough, if we don't have nice thighs, or legs or hair then guys don't think we're "sexy." How many women do you see getting plastic surgery and augmentations in comparison to men?

If you're gonna keep complaining about your looks, then do something about it. That's at least one thing you can change. But don't even try to bash women for being shallow when men are guilty of it too.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Empress_D said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this, but guys don't accept girls for who they are either. In fact, guys tend to be more shallow due to the constant objectification of women in the media. If our boobs aren't big enough, our *** not big enough or round enough, if we don't have nice thighs, or legs or hair then guys don't think we're "sexy." How many women do you see getting plastic surgery and augmentations in comparison to men?
> 
> If you're gonna keep complaining about your looks, then do something about it. That's at least one thing you can change. But don't even try to bash women for being shallow when men are guilty of it too.


You're right, shallowness or unrealistic preferences exist on both sides but so do people that don't fit that stereotype. Just as there are women who don't care if a man is a virgin or lacking financial success there are men who don't care if your breasts sag or if you have some cellulite/stretch marks. Don't fall for the media trap, most men don't need you to look like that and many are perfectly happy with the reality of what women actually look like.

I wish more women would believe that, it would save a lot of unnecessary heartache.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

ljubo said:


> You demand guys to have a job and they most have great self-esteem, but females dont need to offer anything to the table, that would be misogynistic to demand, right?


Women don't need to offer those things because (generalization warning) most men don't much care about anything but what a woman looks like. They'd rather date a cute part-timer at McDonald's than a Plain Jane doctor.

This isn't exactly a point in your favor. It's just a difference in how men and women view each other. Men don't care about what a woman's self-esteem is like because they care more about her appearance, and they'll take an attractive woman with terrible self-esteem over an unattractive woman with good self-esteem; but women will do the opposite.

If men want women to be held to a higher standard, it's very easy: men can choose to hold women to a higher standard. The power lies with men, not women. But I'm skeptical we'll ever see that kind of change. Men seem much too intent on chasing women's bodies to pay much attention to their character.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

truant said:


> Women don't need to offer those things because (generalization warning) most men don't much care about anything but what a woman looks like. They'd rather date a cute part-timer at McDonald's than a Plain Jane doctor.
> 
> This isn't exactly a point in your favor. It's just a difference in how men and women view each other. Men don't care about what a woman's self-esteem is like because they care more about her appearance, and they'll take an attractive woman with terrible self-esteem over an unattractive woman with good self-esteem; but women will do the opposite.
> 
> If men want women to be held to a higher standard, it's very easy: men can choose to hold women to a higher standard. The power lies with men, not women. But I'm skeptical we'll ever see that kind of change. Men seem much too intent on chasing women's bodies to pay much attention to their character.


That's a bit of a generalisation isn't it?:smile2:

I'd have to agree with you there, I've always thought that if we just stopped accepting it they would have to change. The same is true for women who complain about the types of men they continue to choose in spite of their protestations.


----------



## Neal (Jan 14, 2012)

ljubo said:


> But in some strange way its okay for females to have insecurities. Thats nothing more than hypocrisy. You can not tell me to get a good self-esteem when i get mocked for my looks almost everyday and have low intellegence. From where should my good self-esteem come from?


 A lot of guys fake it till they make it, dude. A lot of men have insecurities. The big difference is they for the most part keep all that mess hidden and put on a brave face. I mean think about all the products out there to dye greying hair, or "male enhancement" drugs. But like I said, a lot of dudes just don't advertise it or wear their insecurities on their face or how they present themselves. So a lot of those issues don't get noticed until you get close to them.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> *That's a bit of a generalisation isn't it?*:smile2:


Heh, clearly. :wink2:

I can live with male preferences being what they are; what rankles me are these illusions many men seem to have that they're somehow less shallow or more accommodating than women _because they only care about looks_. :laugh:

Men and women are equally shallow, only in different ways. I'm not going to let men have their cake and eat it, too. Either we both get cake (make self-serving generalizations), or neither of us gets cake (we face reality). If men are allowed to have preferences, so are women. So much the worse for those of us who never meet those preferences.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

truant said:


> Heh, clearly. :wink2:
> 
> I can live with male preferences being what they are; what rankles me are these illusions many men seem to have that they're somehow less shallow or more accommodating than women _because they only care about looks_. :laugh:
> 
> Men and women are equally shallow, only in different ways. I'm not going to let men have their cake and eat it, too. Either we both get cake (make self-serving generalizations), or neither of us gets cake (we face reality). If men are allowed to have preferences, so are women. So much the worse for those of us who never meet those preferences.


I can't speak for all men obviously but I wonder if the majority of men are like you describe. Personally looks are _somewhat_ important but if I met the most beautiful woman I'd ever met but had to try to stop myself from falling asleep or rolling my eyes straight out of their sockets everytime I spoke to her, I would flat out refuse to be in a relationship. No strings sex, sure (and even then only if I wouldn't have to work to get it), but I wouldn't want to spend any time just experiencing her company.

How about a gluten-free diet cake where we can accept that even though both sides have demands/preferences one side has demands/preferences that are generally easier to meet/fulfill? Even though when it really comes down to it the majority of people eventually abandon their demands/preferences and settle for whatever they can get.

I get what you're saying about not meeting the preferences, I don't meet some of the main traditional "requirements" either but I also understand the difference between that and what you're referring to as it's within my power to address those "shortcomings" should I choose to do so.


----------



## railcar82594 (Mar 1, 2016)

I never got a gf. It almost seemed like it was natural reinforcement to be this way from societal competition. No social influence/life and SA is a death sentence for relationships for guys.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> I can't speak for all men obviously but I wonder if the majority of men are like you describe. Personally looks are _somewhat_ important but if I met the most beautiful woman I'd ever met but had to try to stop myself from falling asleep or rolling my eyes straight out of their sockets everytime I spoke to her, I would flat out refuse to be in a relationship.


You would say that. And I'll take your word for it. The problem is when women make similar claims about not caring about looks, or height, or money, or [insert your preferred inadequacy] a lot of men refuse to believe them. So by believing you, I'm doing you a favor I rarely get in return.

If men are going to routinely reject the statements of women on this forum about their preferences, then why can't I reject the statements of men? If I say: "all men care about is what a woman looks like" it's no different from the endless absurd claims I hear over and over again from men about women's unrealistic standards. The standards of women are no higher than the standards of men, which you eloquently prove in your very next statement:



> No strings sex, sure (and even then only if I wouldn't have to work to get it), but I wouldn't want to spend any time just experiencing her company.


Your real standards are what you're willing to date, not what you're willing to sleep with. And men are just as picky as women when it comes to dating.

The difference is, with the way courtship works in our culture, _women are obligated to make their standards explicit before men are_. If a woman sleeps with you (most women, most of the time -- another generalization) it's because she wants a relationship; she's already decided to take a chance on you. (And maybe it won't work out, but she wouldn't even try if she wasn't hoping it would.) If you turn around and dump her after your night of glory, then you've simply made your standards explicit _after_ you got sex out of her.

Why wasn't that woman good enough for you to date? She was good enough to sleep with. Where are your easy-going standards now? [Said with love. I'm venting at men in general, not at you, personally.] Why, all of a sudden, is her intelligence and character important to you? Because now you have to make a decision about whether or not to commit -- the decision that the woman has to make when she decides whether or not to go out with you. Men can complain all they want about women's standards because women have to make them obvious, whereas men can just wait until after sex to disclose them. They can fib as much as they want because it's all hidden behind closed doors.

And please spare me all the excuses about how sex doesn't have to lead to a relationship (and all the anecdotes about women who enjoy "having a good time"). Ofc sex doesn't have to lead to a relationship; but we all know that relationships are what most women are after, most of the time, so pretending otherwise is just a bit of self-serving dissimulation. You didn't _use_ her for sex -- she wanted the sex, too, right? Just like that woman didn't use that guy for a free meal, because he wanted to eat, too. All's fair in love and war.

So no, I reject your cake, because the cake is a lie. Your standards are every bit as high as mine, you just have the luxury of keeping them to yourself until it gets to be your turn to make a decision. Courtship and gender roles dictate an alternating balance of power: men have all the power at first, because they get to look around at what's available and silently delete all the old, fat, ugly, crazy-looking women from their radar so that only the attractive ones remain. (That's where I get the ax.) Then, when they approach the chosen few, the power goes to the woman, who decides whether or not to take a gamble on a relationship. (The only phase of courtship men ever seem to focus on.)

Women need to dig up stuff about your character and resources because at that point in the process those things are important. Women don't have the luxury of just picking a guy based solely on his looks the way a man does because there are potential biological consequences for her actions. Then, after the sex, the power goes back to the man who decides whether or not to return her call. (That's where you ride off into the sunset with nary a twinge, because after all, that girl was a ditz, amirite?)

Now, you can bring up all the examples you want of women who act like men, pursue casual sex, and avoid a guy after sex, but then I can just as easily bring up examples of men who act like women, because they're every bit as common. The roles aren't hermetically sealed; there are exceptions on both sides, and this is obviously a massive simplification, but in general, this is how it works. It's utter nonsense to claim that men have lower standards than women. Their standards are only lower when it comes to sex, and sex is only the halfway point to a relationship. If a man bails after sex, odds are he's just taken advantage of a woman who wanted something more. The proverbial dine and dash.

When it comes time to commit, _both_ people are taking a good hard look at one another and passing judgment. Men do care about a woman's character, intelligence, mental stability, etc. It's just that they don't have to care about it, or disclose those standards, until the morning after. It only seems like women have an unfair advantage to some of the guys here because they never make it past round 2. Well, I never make it past round 1, but I don't get any sympathy from them.

It takes two people to be in a relationship, and for every woman in a relationship, there's a man in a relationship, so it should be obvious that neither side ever has any more success than the other. All the standards of both people come out eventually, and they're both equally severe. The way some men talk here you'd there there were 100 men for every woman. It's utterly bizarre.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

truant said:


> Women don't need to offer those things because (generalization warning) most men don't much care about anything but what a woman looks like. They'd rather date a cute part-timer at McDonald's than a Plain Jane doctor.
> 
> This isn't exactly a point in your favor. It's just a difference in how men and women view each other. Men don't care about what a woman's self-esteem is like because they care more about her appearance, and they'll take an attractive woman with terrible self-esteem over an unattractive woman with good self-esteem; but women will do the opposite.
> 
> If men want women to be held to a higher standard, it's very easy: men can choose to hold women to a higher standard. The power lies with men, not women. But I'm skeptical we'll ever see that kind of change. Men seem much too intent on chasing women's bodies to pay much attention to their character.


Females care about how a guy look like also. They might not want a hot guy all the time just average or slitghty above average, but if you are below average as a guy or ugly you will get a hard time. If a guy is extremely ugly like me the chances are 1 in million (zero basically) to get accepted.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

Empress_D said:


> I'm sorry to tell you this, but guys don't accept girls for who they are either. In fact, guys tend to be more shallow due to the constant objectification of women in the media. If our boobs aren't big enough, our *** not big enough or round enough, if we don't have nice thighs, or legs or hair then guys don't think we're "sexy." How many women do you see getting plastic surgery and augmentations in comparison to men?
> 
> If you're gonna keep complaining about your looks, then do something about it. That's at least one thing you can change. But don't even try to bash women for being shallow when men are guilty of it too.


females are more shallow, females want a guy to be not ugly and have great self-esteem, but guys only care if a women is not ugly, they dont care if she has bad self-esteem etc.

media constant objectification of guys too, take a close look, guys are always portrayed as hot, big, strong, good social skills, many friends, nice job, tall, car, great self-esteem and we have to workout and we are not allowed to have a small/skinny pen*s.

How can i do something about my looks when i am deformed? Everything with my face and body is bad.

Yes guys are shallow too, never said they where not shallow.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

ljubo said:


> Females care about how a guy look like also.


Correct. Never said they didn't. I said they have to take more than just looks into consideration.



> They might not want a hot guy all the time just average or slitghty above average, but if you are below average as a guy or ugly you will get a hard time.


Correct. You will have a hard time. Just like undesirable women have a hard time getting men to commit to relationships.

Having meaningless sex with someone who doesn't care about you is typically an unpleasant experience, not a positive experience, so the fact that some men will "**** em and chuck em" is not an argument that women have it easier. It's an argument that women have the option of either having or forgoing a potentially humiliating experience, just like men take a risk when they take a woman out for dinner. Going out for dinner is nice, right? Until it isn't. It's more degrading to be used for sex than it is to be used as a meal ticket.



> If a guy is extremely ugly like me the chances are 1 in million (zero basically) to get accepted.


If you were extremely ugly, that might be true. If your odds are 1 in a million, what are mine? 1 in 10 million? I might as well be a different species. If I want a bf I'm going to have to build one.


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

truant said:


> If your odds are 1 in a million, what are mine? 1 in 10 million? I might as well be a different species. If I want a bf I'm going to have to build one.


no! you already have partners, i never had and never will.

you dont want a gf?


----------



## 629753 (Apr 7, 2015)

Soo? It doesnt mean anything about you


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

*Part 1 of 2*

I'm probably not the right person to have this (friendly) argument with as my desires don't seem to mirror those of most men. In my life I've seen a grand total of 0 women that have made me think I would enjoy being in a relationship with them (due to compatibility, not because women are rubbish or anything like that), I definitely don't have a low barrier of entry. That's part of what I'm referring to when I say that I don't connect with people, I just don't get anything out of "standard" interactions on more than a surface level.

That said, I'll still try to answer your points as it may raise something interesting.



truant said:


> You would say that. And I'll take your word for it. The problem is when women make similar claims about not caring about looks, or height, or money, or [insert your preferred inadequacy] a lot of men refuse to believe them. So by believing you, I'm doing you a favor I rarely get in return.


You're well within your rights to refuse to believe them if you wish but I wouldn't really see the point of having the discussion if I was just going to lie to you and refuse to accept your answers (I'm not inferring that this is what you're doing). I would say that both you and they are in the wrong for not taking others in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary.



truant said:


> If men are going to routinely reject the statements of women on this forum about their preferences, then why can't I reject the statements of men? If I say: "all men care about is what a woman looks like" it's no different from the endless absurd claims I hear over and over again from men about women's unrealistic standards.


If you think they are being unreasonable in their actions you shouldn't seek to lower yourself to their level, be the bigger person.



truant said:


> The standards of women are no higher than the standards of men, which you eloquently prove in your very next statement:
> 
> Your real standards are what you're willing to date, not what you're willing to sleep with. And men are just as picky as women when it comes to dating.


The point I'm making is that physical attraction while important isn't even important enough to motivate me to pursue someone if that's the only thing they've got going for them, they would practically have to fall into my lap (I would have to be propositioned) for me to consider a purely physical encounter if I didn't enjoy their company.

I'm not really that picky in the sense that I have a long list of requirements, it's just that the thing that's a deal breaker for me seems to be unattainable, so you could be right in saying that my standards are unrealistic, but for my sake I really hope they aren't.



truant said:


> The difference is, with the way courtship works in our culture, _women are obligated to make their standards explicit before men are_. If a woman sleeps with you (most women, most of the time -- another generalization) it's because she wants a relationship; she's already decided to take a chance on you. (And maybe it won't work out, but she wouldn't even try if she wasn't hoping it would.) If you turn around and dump her after your night of glory, then you've simply made your standards explicit _after_ you got sex out of her.


Surely there are women that are open to casual sex, would you say that isn't actually the case? I'm fairly sure I could have sex without any ulterior motives, if it developed into something better, great, if not, OK. Is that purely a male trait in your opinion? If she would in fact be having sex with me in the hopes that it would snare me then she definitely wouldn't have made her standards explicit and I can't be held responsible for that.



truant said:


> Why wasn't that woman good enough for you to date? She was good enough to sleep with. Where are your easy-going standards now? [Said with love. I'm venting at men in general, not at you, personally.]


But of course, I'm not taking any of this personally.:smile2:



truant said:


> Why, all of a sudden, is her intelligence and character important to you? Because now you have to make a decision about whether or not to commit -- the decision that the woman has to make when she decides whether or not to go out with you. Men can complain all they want about women's standards because women have to make them obvious, whereas men can just wait until after sex to disclose them. They can fib as much as they want because it's all hidden behind closed doors.


Well for me casual sex and a relationship are 2 different things, sex within a relationship would be different as it would be a physical expression of my feelings towards her. As I see them as 2 different things I have 2 different standards applied to them, for casual sex all I would need is lust, for a relationship I would need a connection (or at the very least a reason to believe we could develop a connection). It's like saying why wasn't that man good enough to marry, he was good enough to date, 2 different levels of commitment (much like you said).

I wouldn't lead somebody on even though I know many people (not just men) do just that.

Both men and women seem to lie about what they want (or at the very least fail to disclose), as I mentioned in another thread I find the games men and women play to be profoundly stupid, I'm not willing to play using those rules (hence my absence of a love life, but that's *my* decision and I don't blame others for that).

If a woman told me that she was interested in having sex with me but only if it could potentially lead to a relationship I'm more than capable of having that conversation. I might end up talking myself out of sex but I'm not desperate so that wouldn't bother me.



truant said:


> And please spare me all the excuses about how sex doesn't have to lead to a relationship (and all the anecdotes about women who enjoy "having a good time"). Ofc sex doesn't have to lead to a relationship; but we all know that relationships are what most women are after, most of the time, so pretending otherwise is just a bit of self-serving dissimulation. You didn't _use_ her for sex -- she wanted the sex, too, right? Just like that woman didn't use that guy for a free meal, because he wanted to eat, too. All's fair in love and war.


If women truly aren't interested in casual sex then they should refuse to offer sex until they have reason to believe a relationship is on the table. As for the free meals, you can easily date without having sex it's harder to do so without doing anything that costs money, the only way around that would be for women to start sharing the financial burden (if they aren't already).

To be continued...(the tension is killing me)


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

*Part 2 of 2*



truant said:


> So no, I reject your cake, because the cake is a lie.


:smile2:



truant said:


> Your standards are every bit as high as mine, you just have the luxury of keeping them to yourself until it gets to be your turn to make a decision. Courtship and gender roles dictate an alternating balance of power: men have all the power at first, because they get to look around at what's available and silently delete all the old, fat, ugly, crazy-looking women from their radar so that only the attractive ones remain. (That's where I get the ax.) Then, when they approach the chosen few, the power goes to the woman, who decides whether or not to take a gamble on a relationship. (The only phase of courtship men ever seem to focus on.)


My standards are essentially as follows (if I'm expected to initiate / if she is initiating):

1) I'm physically attracted to her / I don't find her unattractive.
2) She appears to have a good sense of humour, I could joke around with her / She hasn't given me a reason to suspect that she doesn't have a good sense of humour.
3) I'm drawn to her, I actively want to spend time with her (not just sex), I feel a connection / She hasn't given me a reason to suspect I wouldn't enjoy her company.

That's pretty much it. As you can see the bar is actually lower if she approaches me as in order for me to approach (considering I don't particularly enjoy "standard" conversation) I would need a reason to believe she would be different but in order to accept a request I just have to lack a reason not to (and I'd just have to see where it goes). It's like the difference between deciding to buy something and whether to accept a gift (don't even try to say I view women as property:smile2

Well, maybe it's time for those who are unhappy with the current rules of courtship and gender roles to refuse to follow them, it's lonely over here.

Conventionally attractive women aren't the only ones who have relationships so men as a whole might not be as picky as you suggest. Conversely handsome, rich men aren't the only ones who have relationships so women as a whole might not be as picky as some men might suggest.



truant said:


> Women need to dig up stuff about your character and resources because at that point in the process those things are important. Women don't have the luxury of just picking a guy based solely on his looks the way a man does because there are potential biological consequences for her actions. Then, after the sex, the power goes back to the man who decides whether or not to return her call. (That's where you ride off into the sunset with nary a twinge, because after all, that girl was a ditz, amirite?)


And that's why I suspect it's harder to meet the "standard" female requirements than the "standard" male ones, both are considering looks and character but most men aren't considering resources. In addition to the general expectation that men should initiate this is why I would say that men's standards are lower. There may be perfectly reasonable reasons for the disparity but the disparity remains. I'm not upset at women for things being the way they are, it is what it is, I can either accept it and comply or reject it and abstain, either way that would be my decision to make and the consequences would be mine to bear.

Simple solution, wait to have sex. That way I'll just mosey along without the sex thank you very much.



truant said:


> Now, you can bring up all the examples you want of women who act like men, pursue casual sex, and avoid a guy after sex, but then I can just as easily bring up examples of men who act like women, because they're every bit as common. The roles aren't hermetically sealed; there are exceptions on both sides, and this is obviously a massive simplification, but in general, this is how it works. It's utter nonsense to claim that men have lower standards than women. Their standards are only lower when it comes to sex, and sex is only the halfway point to a relationship. If a man bails after sex, odds are he's just taken advantage of a woman who wanted something more. The proverbial dine and dash.


If the woman was pretending to be alright with that (having sex before establishing a relationship) then that's her fault, if the man was leading her on by promising a relationship then it's his. The same is true for a man who continues to spend money dating a woman without any reciprocation, that's his fault, if the woman was leading him on by feigning interest then it's hers.

In both cases, if they weren't upfront about what they wanted, they were taking a risk, if it didn't pay off well that's just the nature of risk taking isn't it.



truant said:


> When it comes time to commit, _both_ people are taking a good hard look at one another and passing judgment. Men do care about a woman's character, intelligence, mental stability, etc. It's just that they don't have to care about it, or disclose those standards, until the morning after. It only seems like women have an unfair advantage to some of the guys here because they never make it past round 2. Well, I never make it past round 1, but I don't get any sympathy from them.


If you remove the night before you don't have to worry about the morning after. I'm not one of the men that complain about women so I can't really answer that part.

I won't give you my sympathy as that seems patronising but I imagine that it would be very hurtful to believe that you're unattractive to all of the gender you're attracted to, so I'll empathise instead.



truant said:


> It takes two people to be in a relationship, and for every woman in a relationship, there's a man in a relationship,


Not necessarily, but I understand what you're getting at.



truant said:


> so it should be obvious that neither side ever has any more success than the other. All the standards of both people come out eventually, and they're both equally severe.


Again, not necessarily. But I'm genuinely open to hearing about any issues women run into due to men's standards that I'm overlooking, I could be convinced to change my mind.



truant said:


> The way some men talk here you'd there there were 100 men for every woman. It's utterly bizarre.


I agree, that was a good note to end on.:wink2:


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> I'm probably not the right person to have this (friendly) argument


I'm probably not either. I'm on the outside looking in, trying to understand it ethnologically, like an alien.



> I wouldn't really see the point of having the discussion if I was just going to lie to you and refuse to accept your answers ... I would say that both you and they are in the wrong for not taking others in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary.


I don't see the point either. I've tried many times to explain things from a woman's perspective, but as those explanations habitually fall on deaf ears, I often no longer bother making serious replies. If everyone's just going to shout at the top of their lungs and throw feces at the walls, well then count me in. I'm just trying to fit in.



> If you think they are being unreasonable in their actions you shouldn't seek to lower yourself to their level, be the bigger person.


I've spent my whole life being the bigger person. It doesn't agree with me.



> Surely there are women that are open to casual sex, would you say that isn't actually the case?


I said that there were. But they tend to be the exception. Like men who are looking for a relationship and have no interest in casual sex.



> I'm fairly sure I could have sex without any ulterior motives, if it developed into something better, great, if not, OK. Is that purely a male trait in your opinion? If she would in fact be having sex with me in the hopes that it would snare me then she definitely wouldn't have made her standards explicit and I can't be held responsible for that.


"If it developed into something better." And how would it develop? I'm guessing it would develop because you would decide that she met all your standards. "If not, OK." You move on. This is exactly what I've been saying all along.

A man's standards for a relationship are just as high as a woman's; the difference is that a woman has to decide whether or not he meets them when she decides whether or not to have sex, and a man gets to decide after they have sex. This is why women's standards _appear_ higher -- because they come _first_. And then the man drops the hammer after he's had his fun and decided that she's boring, or a slob, or clingy and she never sees him again; ie. he brings in exactly all the same criteria women use before deciding whether or not to have sex.

Men focus on what an onerous burden it is having to pass this test, but once they pass it, they say "Welp, not my fault if she fails all my tests. I have no reason to feel like a hypocrite for post-coital rejection. She shouldn't have expected a relationship just because we had sex." How good you all are at your rationalizations.

The woman's role as the gatekeeper to sex is to decide whether or not to gamble on trying a relationship. How else is she going to know if a relationship will work in the long term until after the sex and she finds out what kind of man he really is? Sure, she can put him off, and put him off, and put him off ... and that worked well in 1890 (when all the men went to visit prostitutes). But these days he'll just move on to someone else after 3 dates or 5 (sex is free these days -- thank God for progress). And then what? Is she supposed to just keep throwing away what might be perfectly good men because they're too impatient to play Courtship, Victorian Style? Women have to decide whether or not a man is worth the risk, and she has no way of knowing whether or not he'll stick around until after they have sex. Because a man who's only interested in sex probably isn't going to just blurt it out (unless he's very confident he can easily score someone else) -- he might miss out on the sex. We can't have him missing out on the sex now, can we?



> Well for me casual sex and a relationship are 2 different things, sex within a relationship would be different as it would be a physical expression of my feelings towards her. As I see them as 2 different things I have 2 different standards applied to them, for casual sex all I would need is lust, for a relationship I would need a connection (or at the very least a reason to believe we could develop a connection).


I rest my case.


```
A Man's Standards:

Before Sex (is she doable? if yes, sex; if no, ignore);
After Sex (is she interesting? smart? funny? is she of good character? (insert every other criteria women use) if yes, wife; if no, ride off into the sunset like a cowboy)
```



> It's like saying why wasn't that man good enough to marry, he was good enough to date, 2 different levels of commitment (much like you said).


Courtship goes back and forth. The power shifts. It takes time to get to know what someone is really like. Sometimes years.



> I wouldn't lead somebody on even though I know many people (not just men) do just that.


I'm sure you have no intention of leading anyone on. I'm sure the vast majority of men see absolutely no problem with their behavior. And I'm not saying it's wrong. What I'm saying is that it's incorrect to claim that women have higher standards for relationships, and that dividing sex from relationships is just self-serving propaganda to maintain the myth that women have higher standards and men have it rougher. They don't. Not when it comes to establishing a satisfying relationship.

Go and have sex with women you have no intention of dating, but don't pretend you're not every bit as picky as women and make them jump through just as many hoops. Men apply their standards after the sex; they decide a woman isn't good enough to date and never call her again. And then pat themselves on the back for being so forgiving of women's foibles and complain about how ridiculous women's standards are.



> Both men and women seem to lie about what they want (or at the very least fail to disclose), as I mentioned in another thread I find the games men and women play to be profoundly stupid, I'm not willing to play using those rules ... If a woman told me that she was interested in having sex with me but only if it could potentially lead to a relationship I'm more than capable of having that conversation. I might end up talking myself out of sex but I'm not desperate so that wouldn't bother me.


Yes, they do lie. Women aren't going to tell a man they want a relationship because they'll scare him off (see, you'll just "talk yourself out of sex", since you had no intention of dating her); and men aren't going to tell a woman they just want sex because they'll scare _them_ off. I hope you're sitting down with women before you have sex and explaining to them you have no intention of dating them if you have no intention of dating them. You can't expect a woman to be upfront about her intentions unless you're going to be upfront about yours. In reality, everyone keeps mum and hopes for the best. All the games come from trying to figure out what the other person is actually up to. Women make men jump through hoops to get sex; men just walk away after the sex.



> If women truly aren't interested in casual sex then they should refuse to offer sex until they have reason to believe a relationship is on the table.


Iow, it's the woman's fault if she can't predict whether or not a man has any intention of dating her, even when he's lying through his teeth to get her into bed. Why is it the woman's responsibility? Why isn't it the man's responsibility to determine whether or not he'd be exploiting her for sex and do the honorable thing and decline to sleep with her if he has some reason to believe that she wants a relationship? Shouldn't he ask her beforehand? "Are you expecting a relationship? Because I have no intention of dating you. I'm just here for sex? Is that okay with you?" There's your script. It's the honorable thing. Best of luck.



> As for the free meals, you can easily date without having sex it's harder to do so without doing anything that costs money, the only way around that would be for women to start sharing the financial burden (if they aren't already)


I think couples should split the bills. But I think men should stop complaining about being taken advantage of financially unless they're also going to deplore the way women are exploited sexually and avoid exploiting women for sex in turn. If you would never exploit a woman for sex, then you have my permission to complain about being exploited for dinner.

continued...


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

LonelyLurker said:


> My standards are essentially as follows (if I'm expected to initiate / if she is initiating):
> 
> 1) I'm physically attracted to her / I don't find her unattractive.
> 2) She appears to have a good sense of humour, I could joke around with her / She hasn't given me a reason to suspect that she doesn't have a good sense of humour.
> ...


No one turns down a free meal. Your standards before sex don't matter; it's your relationship standards that matter. Because those are the standards women are forced to employ and that make it seem like their standards are higher.



> Well, maybe it's time for those who are unhappy with the current rules of courtship and gender roles to refuse to follow them, it's lonely over here.


I couldn't follow the current rules of courtship if I wanted to.



> Conventionally attractive women aren't the only ones who have relationships so men as a whole might not be as picky as you suggest. Conversely handsome, rich men aren't the only ones who have relationships so women as a whole might not be as picky as some men might suggest.


No, this seems to suggest that their standards are more or less the same, doesn't it? Which is what I've been saying all along.



> And that's why I suspect it's harder to meet the "standard" female requirements than the "standard" male ones, both are considering looks and character but most men aren't considering resources.


This doesn't follow. So what if there are things that men place less emphasis on? You have to prove that they don't place more emphasis on other things. I don't believe there's any difference in the severity of the standards, only where the emphasis is placed. Some women are wife material, some aren't. Men don't care so much about money (though I've heard plenty of men express contrary opinions) but they sure do care a lot about a woman's sexual history.



> In addition to the general expectation that men should initiate this is why I would say that men's standards are lower.


Yes, men are expected to initiate. It makes dating very difficult for men who have SA. All women have to do is sit there and look pretty. (As long as they're alright with never having a relationship and just being endlessly exploited for sex. If they want a relationship, then suddenly all those other things matter.)



> There may be perfectly reasonable reasons for the disparity but the disparity remains.


The disparity has been explained: courtship roles and stages.



> I'm not upset at women for things being the way they are, it is what it is, I can either accept it and comply or reject it and abstain, either way that would be my decision to make and the consequences would be mine to bear.


I agree. Women have to deal with reality the way it is, too. But that doesn't mean we have to tolerate subjectively biased propaganda from men.



> Simple solution, wait to have sex.


How long? What do you think will happen if all women did this? I can make a prediction based on Victorian mores. If the tide ever changes, I'm opening a brothel.



> That way I'll just mosey along without the sex thank you very much.


You're a paragon of virtue.



> If the woman was pretending to be alright with that (having sex before establishing a relationship) then that's her fault, if the man was leading her on by promising a relationship then it's his.


How does one have a sexual/romantic relationship without sex? Having sex is how dating turns into a relationship. It's how she finds out how he really feels about her, since he's not likely to be forthcoming about only wanting sex and having no other interest in her as a person.

Again: why is it the woman's responsibility to try to figure out what a man's real intentions are? Why isn't he expected to be upfront about how he feels about her? Wouldn't that be the honorable thing? Isn't it just as much his fault for not telling her he has no interest in having a relationship with her as it's her fault for not telling him she wants a relationship? Oh, right, I remember now: "because I might be talking myself out of sex".

We wouldn't want that now, would we?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

truant said:


> You would say that. And I'll take your word for it. The problem is when women make similar claims about not caring about looks, or height, or money, or [insert your preferred inadequacy] a lot of men refuse to believe them. So by believing you, I'm doing you a favor I rarely get in return.
> 
> [SNIP]


Great post.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

truant said:


> . The way some men talk here you'd there there were 100 men for every woman. It's utterly bizarre.


When you look on dating sites the male to female ration is usually 2:1. 
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/17/mobile-dating-apps-tinder-two-thirds-men


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

scarpia said:


> When you look on dating sites the male to female ration is usually 2:1.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/17/mobile-dating-apps-tinder-two-thirds-men


A large percentage of guys on dating sites are married or in relationships. They are just looking for extra ***** on the side.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

komorikun said:


> A large percentage of guys on dating sites are married or in relationships. They are just looking for extra ***** on the side.


I also think it's because the breeding age for men is about 18-55 but the breeding age for women is more like 18-37. More men in society are of breeding age than women- and more often it's the breeders who are looking to date. And in the 15-40 age men do outnumber women. Women outnumber men in the senior years. So I guess horny teen guys should be dating 70 year old chicks!










http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html


----------



## ljubo (Jul 26, 2015)

komorikun said:


> A large percentage of guys on dating sites are married or in relationships. They are just looking for extra ***** on the side.


its not hard to know who is married and who is not, look if he has a ring on his finger.


----------



## Neal (Jan 14, 2012)

scarpia said:


> Women outnumber men in the senior years. So I guess horny teen guys should be dating 70 year old chicks!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They'll have to fight past the horny old dudes first. They've been having STD outbreaks in nursing homes because the old folks there have too much free time and nothing to lose lmao. Im not even kidding look it up.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

If you just enjoy giving them a taste of their own medicine then I can understand that, fair enough.



truant said:


> "If it developed into something better." And how would it develop? I'm guessing it would develop because you would decide that she met all your standards. "If not, OK." You move on. This is exactly what I've been saying all along.


You have to remember I was using an extreme example. If I met a normal woman, we flirted, one thing lead to another and after the act she showed interest in seeing me again, I'd be open to the possibility as I wouldn't have a reason not to (as I wouldn't know anything about her personality yet).



truant said:


> This is why women's standards _appear_ higher -- because they come _first_. And then the man drops the hammer after he's had his fun and decided that she's boring, or a slob, or clingy and she never sees him again; ie. he brings in exactly all the same criteria women use before deciding whether or not to have sex.


Again, I can't speak for men in general but I would have to disagree as all of my criteria are to do with who she is (looks and personality) but many (not all) women's criteria are to do with who he is *and* what he has. Therefore the criteria aren't equal, I would happily disclose my criteria immediately, but I'm aware enough to know that isn't acceptable.



truant said:


> The woman's role as the gatekeeper to sex is to decide whether or not to gamble on trying a relationship. How else is she going to know if a relationship will work in the long term until after the sex and she finds out what kind of man he really is?


She could ask him, he might lie but that would still be the case even if he doesn't ghost her, she *can't* know if the relationship will work in the long term, that's just life.



truant said:


> Because a man who's only interested in sex probably isn't going to just blurt it out (unless he's very confident he can easily score someone else) -- he might miss out on the sex. We can't have him missing out on the sex now, can we?


I must be a unicorn, I'd tell her if she asked. Using my fictitious example from earlier, if she asked me I'd just say something like "I don't think we would be compatible, we can have some fun if you want but if you're only interested in a relationship I understand" (I wouldn't say "No, I can't stand talking to you"). I doubt most people (not just men) are willing to be as honest as I am though so I take your point.



truant said:


> Go and have sex with women you have no intention of dating,...


Fine, I will.:smile2:



truant said:


> ...but don't pretend you're not every bit as picky as women and make them jump through just as many hoops. Men apply their standards after the sex; they decide a woman isn't good enough to date and never call her again. And then pat themselves on the back for being so forgiving of women's foibles and complain about how ridiculous women's standards are.


Again, I may be an exception but it's not a matter of time, it's a matter of what's being offered. If you're offering a relationship (by asking me out on a date) I'll apply my standards for a relationship, if you're offering sex (by propositioning me) I'll apply my standards for casual sex. If after the casual sex she says that she'd like to see me again, then something else is now being offered and I will apply the relevant standards.



truant said:


> Yes, they do lie. Women aren't going to tell a man they want a relationship because they'll scare him off (see, you'll just "talk yourself out of sex", since you had no intention of dating her); and men aren't going to tell a woman they just want sex because they'll scare _them_ off.


I don't know if you'll believe me but that wouldn't scare me off, in fact it would make me think that I might not have to play silly games with her as she'll actually communicate her wishes and/or concerns. I'd think more of her.



truant said:


> I hope you're sitting down with women before you have sex and explaining to them you have no intention of dating them if you have no intention of dating them. You can't expect a woman to be upfront about her intentions unless you're going to be upfront about yours.


I believe that women are adults and as such should practise personal responsibility, if sex is offered the only thing I need to be upfront about is whether or not I wish to accept. If she would only want to have sex based on the condition that I would want to have a relationship afterwards, she should make that clear.



truant said:


> In reality, everyone keeps mum and hopes for the best. All the games come from trying to figure out what the other person is actually up to.


Which is stupid.



truant said:


> Iow,...


What does that mean? (Edit - I'm pretty sure it's In Other Words)



truant said:


> ...it's the woman's fault if she can't predict whether or not a man has any intention of dating her, even when he's lying through his teeth to get her into bed. Why is it the woman's responsibility?


It's her fault if she doesn't ask, it's not her fault if he lies. It's her responsibility to ask because she's offering and apparently the offer is conditional.



truant said:


> That wouldn't be Why isn't it the man's responsibility to determine whether or not he'd be exploiting her for sex and do the honorable thing and decline to sleep with her if he has some reason to believe that she wants a relationship? Shouldn't he ask her beforehand? "Are you expecting a relationship? Because I have no intention of dating you. I'm just here for sex? Is that okay with you?" There's your script. It's the honorable thing. Best of luck.


Because _he's_ responsible for what _he_ does/offers, and his acceptance _isn't_ conditional.



truant said:


> I think couples should split the bills. But I think men should stop complaining about being taken advantage of financially unless they're also going to deplore the way women are exploited sexually and avoid exploiting women for sex in turn. If you would never exploit a woman for sex, then you have my permission to complain about being exploited for dinner.
> 
> continued...


I believe that women are capable of enjoying sex even if it isn't part of a relationship so I wouldn't see it as exploitation. Clearly we disagree on this point, maybe you're right, who knows. I personally wouldn't be prepared to continue making an effort if it wasn't being reciprocated so I won't be complaining about being exploited myself.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

truant said:


> No, this seems to suggest that their standards are more or less the same, doesn't it? Which is what I've been saying all along.


No, it would suggest that the results are more or less the same, just because 2 people achieve an identical result doesn't necessarily mean that they've made an identical effort.



truant said:


> Men don't care so much about money (though I've heard plenty of men express contrary opinions) but they sure do care a lot about a woman's sexual history.


I wouldn't care about sexual history (not in terms of numbers anyway), I don't know what to tell you. Maybe one of those guys can chime in.



truant said:


> Yes, men are expected to initiate. It makes dating very difficult for men who have SA. All women have to do is sit there and look pretty. (As long as they're alright with never having a relationship and just being endlessly exploited for sex. If they want a relationship, then suddenly all those other things matter.)


I would assume that the vast majority of women in relationships were approached so clearly being exploited for sex isn't the only possible outcome.

Women could always start approaching too, what's stopping them?



truant said:


> The disparity has been explained: courtship roles and stages.


So you accept that there is a disparity?:smile2:



truant said:


> I agree. Women have to deal with reality the way it is, too. But that doesn't mean we have to tolerate subjectively biased propaganda from men.


Agreed.



truant said:


> How long? What do you think will happen if all women did this? I can make a prediction based on Victorian mores. If the tide ever changes, I'm opening a brothel.


Depends on the two people involved, in my ideal world (which I'm aware I'm not living in) they would actually...talk...about...it.



truant said:


> You're a paragon of virtue.


That's very kind of you to say.



truant said:


> How does one have a sexual/romantic relationship without sex? Having sex is how dating turns into a relationship. It's how she finds out how he really feels about her, since he's not likely to be forthcoming about only wanting sex and having no other interest in her as a person.


Only if she's unwilling to ask questions or he's unwilling to answer them honestly. You can have a relationship without sex but how far that relationship can progress or for how long depends on the participants. I would personally consider prolonged dating the start of a relationship, maybe that's yet another odd thing about me to add to the list.



truant said:


> Oh, right, I remember now: "because I might be talking myself out of sex".
> 
> We wouldn't want that now, would we?


I'm advocating being prepared to talk yourself out of sex (I know this will never actually happen) I hate that we're supposed to just accept that we have to lie to each other all the time. Maybe that's just me.


----------



## MobiusX (Nov 14, 2008)

what about transexuals? they are women too and male at the same time so they will understand you more than women could,


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

LonelyLurker said:


> I wouldn't care about sexual history (not in terms of numbers anyway), I don't know what to tell you. Maybe one of those guys can chime in.
> 
> Women could always start approaching too, what's stopping them?


You should care about sexual history. It says if a person has been reckless or not, tends to have unstable relationships or not, and strongly influences having STDs or not.

Women make men approach as a way of testing the man. Is he brave enough? Does he have the social skills to smoothly introduce himself to a stranger? Does he have the self-confidence to not sulk and whine if the approach doesn't go his way? This directly reflects the type of man he is.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Qolselanu said:


> You should care about sexual history. It says if a person has been reckless or not, tends to have unstable relationships or not, and strongly influences having STDs or not.


I guess so, but the end result is more likely to be women lying about their numbers than them having less sex. If I was that concerned about STD's I'd refuse to have unprotected sex until we both agreed to get tested, I need to take the same personal responsibility that I'm saying should be expected of women.



Qolselanu said:


> Women make men approach as a way of testing the man. Is he brave enough? Does he have the social skills to smoothly introduce himself to a stranger? Does he have the self-confidence to not sulk and whine if the approach doesn't go his way? This directly reflects the type of man he is.


Sure, I think some women use "attitude" in the same way. I can deal with attitude fairly easily but I'm not willing to so I guess I'd just fail that test. I guess my test would be if she makes me want to approach her (which for me is going to take more than looks alone), if she does then I'll take her test.


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

LonelyLurker said:


> I guess so, but the end result is more likely to be women lying about their numbers than them having less sex. If I was that concerned about STD's I'd refuse to have unprotected sex until we both agreed to get tested, I need to take the same personal responsibility that I'm saying should be expected of women.


You can also glean her sexual history from her friends and whatnot.



LonelyLurker said:


> Sure, I think some women use "attitude" in the same way. I can deal with attitude fairly easily but I'm not willing to so I guess I'd just fail that test. I guess my test would be if she makes me want to approach her (which for me is going to take more than looks alone), if she does then I'll take her test.


I'm not sure how that will work. Take a girl sitting at a coffee shop. You almost have nothing but looks to go off of. Sure you can glean some of her personality from her style of dress/hair and how she interacts with the employees there but that is nothing compared to the information you gain about her personality from actually talking to her. Lastly, if you fail at the approach test, you're gonna fail a lot with girl.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

Qolselanu said:


> I'm not sure how that will work. Take a girl sitting at a coffee shop. You almost have nothing but looks to go off of. Sure you can glean some of her personality from her style of dress/hair and how she interacts with the employees there but that is nothing compared to the information you gain about her personality from actually talking to her. Lastly, if you fail at the approach test, you're gonna fail a lot with girl.


Well that's my problem. I don't like small talk and at this point in my life that's what I've come to expect from conversations as that's been my experience of them. So I'm unlikely to make a cold approach (as I'm not a glutton for punishment) which in turn means I'm unlikely to be in a relationship.

But if I was more normal, yes, I would probably approach based purely on looks, I'd think it was unfair but I'd still do it.

Yes, if you can't make a good first impression you're likely to have a harder time getting relationships. I agree.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

truant said:


> I'm probably not either. I'm on the outside looking in, trying to understand it ethnologically, like an alien.
> 
> I don't see the point either. I've tried many times to explain things from a woman's perspective, but as those explanations habitually fall on deaf ears, I often no longer bother making serious replies. If everyone's just going to shout at the top of their lungs and throw feces at the walls, well then count me in. I'm just trying to fit in.
> 
> ...


Where do you get all these ideas? Some seem reasonable, but some are way off base. Free sex??? Where???? If free sex was so easy for men to get then why are there so many sex workers? I see stories about cops who run stings and put ads for hookers up - they get inundated with messages within 15 minutes.

"...they tend to be the exception. Like men who are looking for a relationship and have no interest in casual sex." This also looks like an untrue stereotype. Aren't women just as interested in casual sex as men? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-the-numbers/201106/when-are-women-casual-sex


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

scarpia said:


> Where do you get all these ideas? Some seem reasonable, but some are way off base. Free sex??? Where???? If free sex was so easy for men to get then why are there so many sex workers? I see stories about cops who run stings and put ads for hookers up - they get inundated with messages within 15 minutes.


Most of the sex people are having outside of relationships is free. Which do you think is more likely: all the men that are having sex outside of a relationship are having sex with hookers? or most of the men having sex outside of a relationship are having ONSs or have FWBs or extramarital affairs? Seriously. Just because you aren't having sex without paying for it doesn't mean most men have to pay for sex. That's what hookup culture is: sex without commitment (or payment).



> "...they tend to be the exception. Like men who are looking for a relationship and have no interest in casual sex." This also looks like an untrue stereotype. Aren't women just as interested in casual sex as men? https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-the-numbers/201106/when-are-women-casual-sex


Did you even read the article? I'm aware that men and women have comparable interest in casual sex _when all the countervailing conditions are eliminated_. I've read the research.

When you factor out: differences in the likelihood of achieving orgasm (women are much, much less likely to have an orgasm during a ONS than a man); fear of physical safety (a condition men rarely even think about, let alone worry about); and fear of damaging their reputation (s***-shaming); there is a small difference left, which is probably fear of pregnancy. That difference was probably much larger prior to birth control. I'm sorry the actual research doesn't support your bias.

We don't live in an abstract world, but a real world with real consequences for women (unsatisfying sex, date rape, social shaming). It's not that women don't want sex; it's that they want _satisfying_ sex. Sex is more satisfying in a relationship, where: a man has interest in her pleasure and time to learn what she finds satisfying; she feels safe because the man is well known to her (a very important condition which allows her to relax and enjoy the experience); and there is no risk of s***-shaming.

When women do engage in casual sex, their standards are much more similar to a man's: they care mostly about what he looks like, and whether or not he'd be good in bed (confidence, popularity). That's where all the horror stories on this site come from about alpha males and cock carousels: because when women want free sex, they're every bit as shallow about it as men are. But most women, most of the time, would prefer to have sex in the context of a committed relationship. At least, almost every woman I've ever spoken to about it has felt that way. Women who feel differently are welcome to comment.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

@LonelyLurker I disagree with you. I really don't believe for one second that women are actually choosier about long term relationships than men are, and I don't buy your argument that sex and relationships can be considered separate categories of experience.

Women have higher standards than men when it comes to sex, on average, _because they're considering long term relationship prospects_. You can't separate sex and relationships without distorting what's actually happening. Men might be fine keeping them separate, but most women don't. When women _are_ only looking for casual sex, then their standards are comparable to a man's standards when a man is only interested in having sex; ie. they are equally shallow.

Men and women have different outlooks on casual sex vs relationships because the outcomes of casual sex are not comparable. Women have to worry about whether or not the guy is going to try to make it good for her; whether or not she's physically safe; how it's going to affect her reputation -- those are all things a man doesn't worry about. You can't blame women for raising the bar and trying to channel sex into relationships when that's the most likely route to safe, satisfying, socially acceptable sex. But at the end of the day, the man's standards are going to come down hard once she's agreed to sleep with him. Then suddenly all those other things matter.

But I doubt I'm going to change your mind, so I'm done trying to convince you.


----------



## LonelyLurker (Sep 24, 2016)

truant said:


> @LonelyLurker I disagree with you. I really don't believe for one second that women are actually choosier about long term relationships than men are, and I don't buy your argument that sex and relationships can be considered separate categories of experience.
> 
> Women have higher standards than men when it comes to sex, on average, _because they're considering long term relationship prospects_. You can't separate sex and relationships without distorting what's actually happening. Men might be fine keeping them separate, but most women don't. When women _are_ only looking for casual sex, then their standards are comparable to a man's standards when a man is only interested in having sex; ie. they are equally shallow.
> 
> ...


That's fine, disagreement can be healthy.

You're right, I still remain unconvinced of your overall hypothesis but I would fully agree with the fact that women are at greater risk both in terms of physical safety and not being satisfied sexually, so we at least have some common ground.

Maybe we'll get into it again some other time.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

truant said:


> Most of the sex people are having outside of relationships is free. Which do you think is more likely: all the men that are having sex outside of a relationship are having sex with hookers? or most of the men having sex outside of a relationship are having ONSs or have FWBs or extramarital affairs? Seriously. Just because you aren't having sex without paying for it doesn't mean most men have to pay for sex. That's what hookup culture is: sex without commitment (or payment).


I think hooker sex is vastly under-reported by men. Even rich powerful men like Eliot Spitzer do hookers.



truant said:


> Did you even read the article? I'm aware that men and women have comparable interest in casual sex _when all the countervailing conditions are eliminated_. I've read the research.
> 
> When you factor out: differences in the likelihood of achieving orgasm (women are much, much less likely to have an orgasm during a ONS than a man); fear of physical safety (a condition men rarely even think about, let alone worry about); and fear of damaging their reputation (s***-shaming); there is a small difference left, which is probably fear of pregnancy. That difference was probably much larger prior to birth control. I'm sorry the actual research doesn't support your bias.
> 
> ...


 Do you have links to the research? I want to learn more about these women who want casual sex. Is it a certain subset of women or do many women go through a stage where they want casual sex? I had a women offer me casual NS sex - but it was not true. She was looking for a relationship and wanted to use sex to get me into it. Isn't that a motive for women who offer this casual sex in many cases?

I see an interesting paper that says:



> The differences between males and females in sexual behavior and attitudes may not be as large as is often portrayed.





> Although men and women are both selective and share similarities in what they seek in long-term relationship partners, there are also some key differences. Women care more than men about their partner's social status and ability to acquire resources, while men care more than women about their partner's physical attractiveness


http://www.mysmu.edu/faculty/normanli/ValentineLi2012.pdf


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

scarpia said:


> I think hooker sex is vastly under-reported by men. Even rich powerful men like Eliot Spitzer do hookers.


Prostitution only makes up a tiny percentage of the sex being had:



> About 14 percent of American men said they paid for sex at some point in their lives, but just 1 percent said they visited a prostitute in the past year


Even if those numbers were double, pretty sure more than 2% of men are getting free sex through ONSs, or by sleeping with someone and just not calling them back, or by cheating with someone. Half the men visiting prostitutes are married or in a relationship, so seeing a prostitute on a regular basis, even as a single man, is not remotely common.



scarpia said:


> Do you have links to the research? I want to learn more about these women who want casual sex. Is it a certain subset of women or do many women go through a stage where they want casual sex? I had a women offer me casual NS sex - but it was not true. She was looking for a relationship and wanted to use sex to get me into it. Isn't that a motive for women who offer this casual sex in many cases?


There is no separate demographic of "women who want casual sex". Women Want Casual Sex As Much As Men:



> Baranowski and Hecht concluded that maybe women were less likely to respond positively to pick-ups by strangers because of fear. Fear of sexual assault. Fear of judgement. In a world that so obviously treats women differently than men, women fear that their reputations will be damaged. After all, s***-shaming is most definitely a thing.
> 
> In order for Baranowski and Hecht to check whether women were just held back by fear when it came to sexual encounters, they changed up their study once again. This time, they made participants believe that they could say yes to sex without the fear of anyone finding out or the fear of physical danger. Participants were brought into a lab where they were told that they would be helping out a dating company evaluate their compatibility rating system. They were presented with pictures of members of the opposite sex and were told that the people in the picture had agreed to meet with them for a date or for sex. Baranowski and Hecht hoped that in this new kind of setting, the participants would be able to freely reveal their true feelings toward dating and casual hookups without outside fears.
> 
> Their experiment adjustments were met with astounding results. They found that 100 percent of men and 97 percent of the women in the study would say yes to meeting up for a date or sex. This led researchers to conclude that women may project themselves as being sexually choosy and more conservative than men, but under the right circumstances, women's sex drives are actually comparable to men's.


Women try to channel sex into relationships because it's less dangerous for them to have sex with someone they know that cares about them than it is for them to keep having random sex with strangers. And feeling safe is a prerequisite for satisfying sex. In addition, the more partners a woman has, the less likely a man is to commit to her, yet another reason to avoid it. Men who expect women to be as open to casual sex as themselves are being irrational.

So sure, some women use sex to try to lure you into a relationship. How horrifying. Imagine having to have a relationship with someone? It's enough to send a chill down your spine. Perfectly acceptable for a man to make it seem like he's interested in a relationship just to get sex, though. Nothing wrong with that. Just because he goes on and on about how wonderful you are, there's no reason for a woman to assume he wants more than a quick lay. That's just women being crazy and irrational and probably hormonal, amirite?


----------



## iAmCodeMonkey (May 23, 2010)

Yes, you will. Don't be so pessimistic.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

truant said:


> Prostitution only makes up a tiny percentage of the sex being had:
> 
> Even if those numbers were double, pretty sure more than 2% of men are getting free sex through ONSs, or by sleeping with someone and just not calling them back, or by cheating with someone. Half the men visiting prostitutes are married or in a relationship, so seeing a prostitute on a regular basis, even as a single man, is not remotely common.
> 
> ...












Try to tone it down a notch.


----------



## truant (Jul 4, 2014)

scarpia said:


> Try to tone it down a notch.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

truant said:


>


That's better!


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

Henry Ford's famous quote makes sense but hard to feel that way when you haven't had any past success, especially the type you want


----------



## Equine24 (Nov 13, 2016)

I probably won't either. Not because I don't want one, but more of terrible experiences with women in general keeps me from even wanting to approach them. Along with the apparent cellphone addiction most have around here, they seem boring and uninterested in actual social situations. I'll just wait for a real woman.


----------



## JaegerLover217 (Feb 23, 2016)

hard to have confidence when you don't have the past success that you want


----------

