# Easier for women to find someone?



## Dan iel (Feb 13, 2011)

I have always felt that women have it easier when finding someone who is attracted to them and wants them. It feels like there's always someone for a woman no matter how they are as a person.

I don't know really know who has it easier, what do you guys think?


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

there are another hundred threads about this lol, your gonna start another war about who has it easier


----------



## Dan iel (Feb 13, 2011)

Ahh bugger, I didn't know


----------



## Fenren (Sep 20, 2009)

Well it's easy to say "meh women have it easier wah wah wah" but if they have SA too then they're not giving out the signs. I mean like eye contact, a flirty smirk, a c'mon signal basically. Add in individual attractiveness, no it's not so simple!


----------



## Rixy (Oct 4, 2009)

It's hard for everyone. Let's just leave it at that. Like one of the posters said, there have been dozens of threads on this topic :b


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

Okay, so let's say that women have it easier.

Now what?


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

^Watch how millions of men will never find a woman maybe?


----------



## Hot Chocolate (Sep 29, 2008)

Ok, so they have it easier and they have someone to like them and be attracted to them but...............


for how long?


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

rednosereindeer said:


> Okay, so let's say that women have it easier.
> 
> Now what?


Now super shy guys like me go on suffering our pathetic lives, while women enjoy their connections with the men that approached them.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Hot Chocolate said:


> Ok, so they have it easier and they have someone to like them and be attracted to them but...............
> 
> for how long?


Why does that matter? The point is that men show interest in these women for periods of time. Heck, a lot of these women _connect_ with the men that go out with the woman. That's way more than guys like me get.

Just because a relationship is short doesn't mean you weren't happy throughout most of it.


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

The TFL movement is basically claiming the dating scene is rife with inequality.

I've seen plenty of Steve Hoca videos to know what their agenda is about.

So how do you fight the system?

Perhaps more importantly, what would TFL guys change about the dating scene if they had the power in order to make it more equal?

I want specifics.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

I've looked up alot on TFL as well. I think their idea of the new world order is insane but what they say about society, human behavior, and stereotypes is very accurate. I don't know how they thought up 'TFL' but it's kind of an oxymoron in a way because in reality nobody is 'forced' to be alone. From a basic view. But then again they are being 'forced' to be alone (or single) because they get rejected 100% of the time. I think Involuntary Celibacy or 'Incel' is a much more mature term to describe it.

The 'Incel' concept has been around for years. There are communities for it out there which consists of both men AND women who are trying to get mainstream awareness for it. People think these types of groups are just closet misogynists or nutcases bashing women or whatever when there ARE women who relate to them as well.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> I've looked up alot on TFL as well. I think their idea of the new world order is insane but what they say about society, human behavior, and stereotypes is very accurate.


None of the TFL stuff is accurate. Most of the TFL stuff can be disproved by the "go out and see test" and "get off the net and actually experience life" test. At the heart of it (an oxymoron as TFL has no heart or sense of feeling at all) is pure, bitter aggression against women. It's not based on anything real at all. That is an excuse. They got angry at their own choices in life and decided to blame women instead of blaming themselves or working on themselves or doing anything to make changes. It's the classic great "can't win, won't try" excuse.



> I don't know how they thought up 'TFL' but it's kind of an oxymoron in a way because in reality nobody is 'forced' to be alone. From a basic view. But then again they are being 'forced' to be alone (or single) because they get rejected 100% of the time. I think Involuntary Celibacy or 'Incel' is a much more mature term to describe it.


Nobody is forced to be alone period. And it's not the same as Love Shy or INCEL. Thought TFL people do hide amongst Love Shy and Incel people.



> The 'Incel' concept has been around for years. There are communities for it out there which consists of both men AND women who are trying to get mainstream awareness for it. People think these types of groups are just closet misogynists bashing women or whatever when there ARE women who relate to them as well.


TFL people and women bashers do lurk in forums for both Love Shy and Incel people. That is a fact. They also use such forums to encourage their own beliefs and attitudes towards women.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Ivan AG said:


> The TFL movement is basically claiming the dating scene is rife with inequality.
> 
> I've seen plenty of Steve Hoca videos to know what their agenda is about.
> 
> ...


Just because Hoca and his crew think it isn't equal doesn't mean it isn't equal. I think I recall it was Hoca rallying against women based on him having watched the fictional TV series Sex and the City. Hoca is what is known as a "crackpot". None of what he says makes rational sense and it's all filtered through an agenda of absolute nonsense.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

This thread is prob gonna get locked, just to warn you. This topic has been brought up a lot around here, and it always dissolves into a gender war.

No doubt shy guys have a hard time finding a mate. But, so do shy girls. 

The truth is that dating is just hard in general for many people. Both men and women face dating hardships, and while the reasons we struggle may be different, that doesn't mean that one necessarily has it easier or harder than the other.

There are a lot of women on this site who don't have it easy, struggle to maintain relationships, have never been on a date, etc. Threads like these just make them feel worse about themselves. 

It's important to keep in mind that many of us here struggle, not b/c of our gender, but due to our social anxiety.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Now super shy guys like me go on suffering our pathetic lives, while women enjoy their connections with the men that approached them.


With respect and love, it's not women's job to tell you that you're good enough. Women getting attention from men means absolutely nothing about how you view yourself. You are in control of that. Regardless of whether you are super shy or not, it remains possible for you to actually approach a woman or to get to a place where you could approach her or become attractive enough for her to approach you.

I am balding, shy sometimes, quiet and I can lack in confidence a bit depending on my mood. And yet I still approach, get approached etc. What's the excuse going to be this time? That I must be super good looking?

I respect and understand your frustrations. But do something about your situation. Actually make a change. If you're not going to stand up for yourself as a man, why should women?


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> Just because Hoca and his crew think it isn't equal doesn't mean it isn't equal. I think I recall it was Hoca rallying against women based on him having watched the fictional TV series Sex and the City. Hoca is what is known as a "crackpot". None of what he says makes rational sense and it's all filtered through an agenda of absolute nonsense.


I don't agree with some of his views, but wouldn't you say that there tends to be a level of hypocrisy when women express a preference for a man with certain qualities, and yet their actions go completely against that?

Cue "nice guy/bad boy" debate.

Even if there is such a preference towards "bad boys", the more important question for me is:

Does nature or society play a part in this decision?

PUA dogma tends to put it down to nature and the whole evolutionary debate. You know the drill. Greater security, social status, etc.

TFL blames feminism and the "empowerment of women" in the West for selecting against shy men.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> None of the TFL stuff is accurate. Most of the TFL stuff can be disproved by the "go out and see test" and "get off the net and actually experience life" test. At the heart of it (an oxymoron as TFL has no heart or sense of feeling at all) is pure, bitter aggression against women. It's not based on anything real at all. That is an excuse. They got angry at their own choices in life and decided to blame women instead of blaming themselves or working on themselves or doing anything to make changes. It's the classic great "can't win, won't try" excuse.
> 
> Nobody is forced to be alone period. And it's not the same as Love Shy or INCEL. Thought TFL people do hide amongst Love Shy and Incel people.
> 
> TFL people and women bashers do lurk in forums for both Love Shy and Incel people. That is a fact. They also use such forums to encourage their own beliefs and attitudes towards women.


They don't only blame women. They blame men too. They call it the "bad boy issue" or as Steve Hoca puts it, "weak heterosexual men". Basically the dating game or "mating game" is indeed unbalanced and certain men reinforce this by being desperate (which gives women the idea that they have more choice? these are his words, not mine) and using women for sex which fuels the stereotype that all men are pigs and gives a bad name to genuine guys who ultimately are just looking for a little love.

It's pretty extensive. Call it TFL or Incel. They are the same. I like Incel better because it doesn't come off so vague. Still, I just can't lump them all together because I do believe there is alot of validity to what they say again about society and human behavior.

There ARE women in these groups. So clearly it's not a one sided issue as some people claim.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

*


joinmartin said:



With respect and love, it's not women's job to tell you that you're good enough. Women getting attention from men means absolutely nothing about how you view yourself. You are in control of that. Regardless of whether you are super shy or not, it remains possible for you to actually approach a woman or to get to a place where you could approach her or become attractive enough for her to approach you.

Click to expand...

*


joinmartin said:


> It's not a woman's job to tell me I'm good enough. My complaint isn't just about intimate relationships, it's more about being ignored by women in general. Just because it's possible for me to approach a woman, doesn't mean it's going to happen.
> 
> You can play the "it's my fault that I'm alone" all you want, but that is extremely unfair to say considering I am very shy. It's not all my fault. I was born with an anxiety disorder that hurts my ability to socialize.
> 
> ...


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Ivan AG said:


> I don't agree with some of his views, but wouldn't you say that there tends to be a level of hypocrisy when women express a preference for a man with certain qualities, and yet their actions go completely against that?
> 
> Cue "nice guy/bad boy" debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan iel (Feb 13, 2011)

au Lait said:


> This thread is prob gonna get locked, just to warn you. This topic has been brought up a lot around here, and it always dissolves into a gender war.
> 
> No doubt shy guys have a hard time finding a mate. But, so do shy girls.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, it was not my intention. It's just what I was thinking and I see that many people think the same if topics like this have been started. People with social anxiety must have it hard regardless of gender.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Another thing to realise is that many people who don't have SA also struggle with the whole dating thing. I think one of the most dangerous ideas is that it's a matter of "success" or "failure". You get the girl or the guy so that means you "succeeded"? What a load of PUA inspired rubbish. It's about enjoying yourself, sharing experiences and interacting with people you love and like. Not about attempting to prove yourself to people or to yourself.


----------



## leave me alone (Apr 1, 2011)

Meh, women have it easier.

I will never find a girlfriend.


Althought i am not being serious, it is true 

Sorry for disturbing your meaningfull discussion.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

au Lait said:


> It's important to keep in mind that many of us here struggle, not b/c of our gender, but *due to our social anxiety*.


That and being complete social retards.

But why work on your social skills when you can always resent other people, drown in self-pity, and congratulate yourself for having it worse?


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

Men and women each have unique hurdles that are specific to their gender. You can debate whether one type of hurdle is worse than another.


----------



## Shauna The Dead (Jun 16, 2005)

dan iel said:


> i have always felt that women have it easier when finding someone who is attracted to them and wants them. It feels like there's always someone for a woman no matter how they are as a person.
> 
> I don't know really know who has it easier, what do you guys think?


not true!


----------



## foe (Oct 10, 2010)

Yes, definitely.


----------



## IsThereAComputerOption (Apr 15, 2011)

It's the evolutionary way humans were made, males court females. While it may be unequal it is hardwired into our genes, it's like banning sex for whatever reason, trying that would be stupid because human beings are just made that way, trying to change the dating...landscape, is futile.


----------



## madsv (Mar 19, 2010)

This dicussion is leading nowhere.

There are maybe some situations where it will be easier for some women to find "someone" and keep the word "someone" in mind, because that is actually the most important. Do you guys really think that women should just be happy because a guy approach them. Do you really think that they should just accept anything, even drunk guys whose only goal is to get this women home in his bed so he can have sex with her. 

If we start the discussion about this in regards to finding a equal partner which love the other for the way they are as a person, then come with some good arguments about it and not just these, I have heard, studies show, statistics shows etc etc. Because this is just bs imo. Statistics is really the biggest lier we have. It never shows the actual truth


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

Haha behold the amazing power of logic.

For every woman that finds a man a man also finds a woman.


----------



## Chris16 (Nov 1, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> Haha behold the amazing power of logic.
> 
> For every woman that finds a man a man also finds a woman.


...


----------



## SCV (Sep 4, 2010)

Let's try reason around it logically. The world population of females vs males is about 50-50, and almost every relationship contain one female and one male, so at any time there should be about equally many single females and males. So to find an unfair bias against men on the large scale should be hard, but sure it may still be true that a larger proportion of the SA-guys are (unhappily) single... Statistic polls would tell. I don't think statistics is bull**** but you should be careful when interpreting it. For me as an individual it's meaningless.

edit: sorry didn't have time to read all responses


----------



## TenYears (Jan 15, 2010)

I can't believe it's easier for women...I don't think it's easy for anyone, if we're all really being real here, & not trying to one-up each other.

I watched the 2 videos posted earlier in this thread. I did a little digging on the whole TFL thing, for whatever my opinion is worth.

There's no way to see into somebody's soul to find out what's lurking in there, what they're really like, what their intentions are, what their personality is like, before you meet them. You have to sort of play the game. How else do you expect to hook up with someone, how else do you expect to find the right one, how else do you expect to get to know someone well enuf to find out if your even compatible?

I get what they mean about people being pushed outside the dating circle. I understand about there being a pretense there when you first meet someone. Something has to attract you to the other person, guy or girl. To me, that's why it's not easy, that's why all the cards seem stacked against me. I understand that if you don't have the social skills, the confidence, that if you throw yourself into a social situation when you really struggle with interaction, when you have issues with SA....well, you miss opportunities to meet people. You miss chances to hook up with someone that could end up being "the one" for you.

I don't know what the answer is, but I think blaming it all on conspiracy theories (it's referenced in the last video, really), is going to get you nowhere. There is no easy way, man. Someone posted earlier that it's not easy for people without SA to hook up, to date, to meet & get to know women.

It does seem to be easier for some guys than others. I remember in college watching my roommates, & some of the women in my dorm, having no problem picking up dates, they did it effortlessly, it came naturally.

IMHO, it will never be that way for me, it will never be that easy for me, & it will never be that way for a lot of those that deal with SAD. But I think you still have to try to play the game. There's no other way. The alternative is to post yourself on youtube & blame it all on conspiracy theories, or the fact that the world isn't fair. You can sit in your room by yourself blaming everyone & everything for a very, very long time. You can grow old, watch your whole life go by, doing that.


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

IMO, it is generally easier for women to find someone, since men do the majority of the approaching. However, the secret is that generally men desire women more than women desire men. _Men get more out of a relationship._ That said, having to make the approach is a small price to pay.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I have seen so many girls hit on guys by signals or direct approach the crap is endless! I've seen shy guys do nothing and have girls approach them.

You know, I can't really answer who has it easier in dating! I would like to hear what makes it difficult to date as a woman, however. I think women have more selection generally if they are in somewhat decent shape.


----------



## jer (Jun 16, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> *
> 
> 
> joinmartin said:
> ...


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

andy1984 said:


> Haha behold the amazing power of logic.
> 
> For every woman that finds a man a man also finds a woman.


I want to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to get involved in this debate or to take sides or anything. I just want to point out a slight flaw in the above statement because it's an interesting math problem.

Let's say you have 10 blue balls and 10 pink balls, and they're all slightly sticky. The 10 pink balls are held stationary, as are 3 of the blue balls. The other 7 blue balls are flying around the container, sometimes bumping into pink balls. When a blue ball hits a pink ball, they either stick together, forming a pair, or the blue ball simply bounces away from the pink ball. This experiment continues until all the blue balls have formed pairs with pink balls.

At the end, there is exactly the same number (3) of unpaired pink balls as unpaired blue balls. However, at the beginning of the experiment, the _probability_ that any of those 3 pink balls would form a pair was 7/10. But for the 3 stationary blue balls, the probability of pair formation was precisely 0. Despite the fact that the 3 blue balls and the pink balls were both stationary, each pink ball had a higher probability of pair formation than any of the 3 blue balls. It is even possible that each pink ball was hit multiple times during the experiment, while the stationary blue balls were never hit.

Okay, now consider a slightly modified experiment. It is the same as the first experiment, except that maybe 3 of the pink balls are allowed to move and bounce around. This time, the probability that any of the 3 stationary blue balls will form a pair is approximately 3/10 (probably less than this, because it's more likely that they will collide with a fast-moving blue ball rather than a stationary blue ball). But for a stationary pink ball, the probability is still around 7/10 (maybe slightly less, because the moving pink balls have a bit of an advantage over them since they're moving), even though at the end, there are equal numbers (3) of balls of each colour that are unpaired.

Key point for both experiments: *A stationary pink ball has a higher probability of pair formation because there are more moving blue balls than moving pink balls.* The only way to make the probabilities equal is to make the number of moving pink balls equal to the number of moving blue balls.

Now I'm not here to debate whether or not this is a good analogy, etc. The point is simply that *the probability of pair formation for each colour can be different and yet the number of unpaired balls of each colour can end up to be the same*.

Nerd rant over. :teeth


----------



## madsv (Mar 19, 2010)

jer said:


> I agree with Iceman here. You cant just go about and change yourself like that. You cant just flick a switch. Most of our issues are hard wired into our brains.


No it is right it takes time but it is possible to get rid of these thoughts if you really work for it


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

jer said:


> IcemanKilmer said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Iceman here. You cant just go about and change yourself like that. You cant just flick a switch. Most of our issues are hard wired into our brains.
> ...


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

madsv said:


> No it is right it takes time but it is possible to get rid of these thoughts if you really work for it


Agreed. My first few quarters of college I could go all day without talking to anyone at all. Nowadays I'm doing stuff like this: http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f10/goal-talk-to-girl-in-friday-class-123951/

It's not exactly easy, and it did not happen overnight, and it is hard to stay consistent. There were ups and downs and I felt very embarrassed more than once. But it is possible to improve drastically!


----------



## madsv (Mar 19, 2010)

Qolselanu said:


> Agreed. My first few quarters of college I could go all day without talking to anyone at all. Nowadays I'm doing stuff like this: http://www.socialanxietysupport.com/forum/f10/goal-talk-to-girl-in-friday-class-123951/
> 
> It's not exactly easy, and it did not happen overnight, and it is hard to stay consistent. There were ups and downs and I felt very embarrassed more than once. But it is possible to improve drastically!


Excactly, it is not easy at all, but is certainly possible.

Good job!


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> They don't only blame women. They blame men too. They call it the "bad boy issue" or as Steve Hoca puts it, "weak heterosexual men". Basically the dating game or "mating game" is indeed unbalanced and certain men reinforce this by being desperate (which gives women the idea that they have more choice? these are his words, not mine) and using women for sex which fuels the stereotype that all men are pigs and gives a bad name to genuine guys who ultimately are just looking for a little love.


What you have to understand about TFL is they are not, in any shape or form, "lonely guys who are hard done by". They are bigots. They have a genuine, pure, hatred for women based on their own nonsense beliefs. They have not been hard done by. They are the lunatics on Youtube openly rejoicing in the notion of women being killed around the world. They are "led" by an unhinged lunatic and their followers just rant and rant in nonsensical gibberish that stands on nothing at all. The dating "game" is not "unbalanced". That is a perception. Not the truth.

Hocas' words are absolute gibberish. At one point on Youtube, he has a massive rant about Sex and the City. Which isn't even real. It's like the guy can't tell the difference between a TV series and real life. But then again, he spends a lot of time talking rubbish on Youtube instead of being in the real world.



> It's pretty extensive. Call it TFL or Incel. They are the same. I like Incel better because it doesn't come off so vague. Still, I just can't lump them all together because I do believe there is alot of validity to what they say again about society and human behavior.


TFL understand human behaviour about as much as I understand the rules of golf. And that's not a lot. TFL has a bunch of bigotry and nonsense ideas and constantly feeds off this gibberish and does its best to hide its pure, aggressive, hatred for women. In no way, shape or form is it a reflection of anything real like Incel or Love shy. Incel and love shy guys have real problems. TFL are bigots by choice. Which is quite ironic really. Bigot babies who don't have any friends for a reason. The reason being that they are insane.



> There ARE women in these groups. So clearly it's not a one sided issue as some people claim.


Yes, indeed, some women may be INCEL or Love Shy. If women really want to go down the self hating, talking twaddle road, they can join TFL too.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Iceman, I mean that you have to stand up for you. If you are not on your own team and giving yourself support, who is?

I get that you are shy. I've been shy in my time and still can be. Indeed, in some social circles I'm in I still get called "the quiet guy". Does that stop me with women? No, it does not. I don't necessarily have more courage than you do. I am not necessarily any less shy than you are. I just am willing to stand up for myself, to cut myself some slack and be able to summon enough confidence to actually go up and talk to a woman despite often being afraid to do so before I do it. I learnt a long time ago how to channel those nerves into a positive force that helped me approach rather than hindered me in the approach and I also learned to take the pressure off myself by detaching from the outcome.

Fact of the matter is: loads of men lack confidence when it comes approaching and talking to girls, anxiety disorder or not. Such is life. Having anxiety is not someone's fault. But not choosing to stand up for yourself is. I don't mean in a tough way. I mean in a: I am good enough way.


----------



## Harpuia (Apr 10, 2010)

I always thought Steve Hoca seemed more depressed than hating anyone. His rants remind me of that movie Zeitgeist. After listening or watching any of it, I don't even feel like doing anything for the rest of the day...

not to diverge from it all, but that's why I don't like depressing things very much, even though I don't like optimistic things just as much. I hate being told things are hopeless, there's nothing you can do about it, it's all out of your control, the NWO has you by the cojones, etc. etc... it drives me crazy. I hate being out of control of my life.


----------



## reno316 (Jun 13, 2009)

joinmartin said:


> Iceman, I mean that you have to stand up for you. If you are not on your own team and giving yourself support, who is?
> 
> I get that you are shy. I've been shy in my time and still can be. Indeed, in some social circles I'm in I still get called "the quiet guy". Does that stop me with women? No, it does not. I don't necessarily have more courage than you do. I am not necessarily any less shy than you are. I just am willing to stand up for myself, to cut myself some slack and be able to summon enough confidence to actually go up and talk to a woman despite often being afraid to do so before I do it. I learnt a long time ago how to channel those nerves into a positive force that helped me approach rather than hindered me in the approach and I also learned to take the pressure off myself by detaching from the outcome.
> 
> Fact of the matter is: loads of men lack confidence when it comes approaching and talking to girls, anxiety disorder or not. Such is life. Having anxiety is not someone's fault. But not choosing to stand up for yourself is. I don't mean in a tough way. I mean in a: I am good enough way.


you've said that you were approached by women earlier in this thread. How did that happen? We're they strangers? Did you know them at all?


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Harpuia said:


> I always thought Steve Hoca seemed more depressed than hating anyone. His rants remind me of that movie Zeitgeist. After listening or watching any of it, I don't even feel like doing anything for the rest of the day...
> 
> not to diverge from it all, but that's why I don't like depressing things very much, even though I don't like optimistic things just as much. I hate being told things are hopeless, there's nothing you can do about it, it's all out of your control, the NWO has you by the cojones, etc. etc... it drives me crazy. I hate being out of control of my life.


I get what you are saying. It actually reminds me of the political philosophies of the right vs left lol. The pessimists who think they are helpless and that all odds are against them: Life is unfair and poor people are ****ed(left wing). The optimists who think change is possible: Poor people can make things change through sacrifice and hard work (right wing). If that makes any sense, sorry for the stupid analogy.


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

Ape in space said:


> I want to preface this by saying that I'm not trying to get involved in this debate or to take sides or anything. I just want to point out a slight flaw in the above statement because it's an interesting math problem.
> 
> Let's say you have 10 blue balls and 10 pink balls, and they're all slightly sticky. The 10 pink balls are held stationary, as are 3 of the blue balls. The other 7 blue balls are flying around the container, sometimes bumping into pink balls. When a blue ball hits a pink ball, they either stick together, forming a pair, or the blue ball simply bounces away from the pink ball. This experiment continues until all the blue balls have formed pairs with pink balls.
> 
> ...


I actually think this makes sense. Quite a bit. Good job.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> No, it does not. I don't necessarily have more courage than you do.


Lol, that's exactly what you have, is more courage than me! You just told me that you are able to stand up for yourself and talk to women, which I don't do. You are totally contradicting yourself, bro.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Btw Harpuia. Steve Hoca is like a mentor to me. I discovered him quite a while back but it's good to know that others can understand this stuff.

"what you don't notice everytime you go out in public is all the single guys walking by themselves alone." - That's like me!

"being a dateless male is not an isolated case."

"I hate to judge, but when you see this you can't deny the possibility that maybe he's living the life that SO many guys are that aren't willing to admit."

"America is socially disconnected."

Is this issue, with this huge surplus of lonely guys not being able to get women, the most controversial subject of humanity?"

"We are conditioned in society to blame ourselves"

"Are ignored men a reality?"

*If things are unbalanced, how can we as humans make it equal for everyone?*











Incel or TFL?






Can Incel or TFL ruin a man's life?


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Stranger25, those vids were great. I agreed with everything Steve said. It sucks he's stopped making videos.


----------



## Harpuia (Apr 10, 2010)

stranger25 said:


> What about Winston Wu? I agree with the social disconnectedness thing.


He's a terrible human being, what he did to his Filipino wife. If I had somebody with enough of a nerve to marry me, I'd tell her how special she is every day. Not cheat on her with another girl to fulfill whatever strange fantasy that he may have.

And even if he is right, you and joinmartin are at a disconnect because he is from the UK. He wouldn't entirely understand what it's like to live in the typical US. I wouldn't even know what it's like really, as Las Vegas seems to act even more socially disconnected than the average American city.

I wonder if you mean socially disconnected by being very open with people, like how in Canada, some people don't even lock their doors and feel safe (via Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine").

I get depressed watching some of it because it's like them just telling you "it's hopeless." "Don't bother trying to get out." "you're just ahead of the curve, you'll be the new norm in 10 years". It's a terrible thing to think about especially if our human natures long for something different than what they try to tell you. If it's reality, it's a depressing reality to live in.

Great example is this finance article I read today saying that there is a projection made that *92%* of Americans aged 18-27 are projected to work until they die. This is on a basis of four factors.

1: Record low interest rates (if you take the oldest, 27, they have had an average interest rate of a whopping 1.4% since the age of 18. The lowest of any generation.)

2: Record student loans (even if you manage to save, the average person of our generation would be unable to be free from their student loan until their early to mid 30's).

3: Record credit card debt (then there's the credit card debt, which would take another 2-3 years depending).

4: Record unemployment (for 18-25 is like almost 20% right now, with the real unemployment rate nearing the 25 mark).

Depressing thought, isn't it? So if you read what analysts say. We're all (men and women) going to be slaves to the New World Order. We're all going to be socially disconnected to each other. 90% of us are going to work until we die. The only way out of financial insecurity to some is to get married and then divorce and live off the alimony (no really, some actually say this). 80% of us will never be able to buy a house. A record number of males will die single. Diseases abound. Terrorism spreads. Wars and rumors of wars abounding. Price of gold goes up and most of us of our generation are too poor to buy any to save ourselves from the falling dollar. Most of us will probably never work a job in the field of choice we chose in college. And Social Security and Medicare? Forget it. You're basically paying additional fed tax.

So at the end of the day, these people keep telling you (or me) this. As a male, especially a male of a certain ethnicity, you will most likely die poor, lonely (or divorced and even poorer), working the rest of your life and being a slave to something that you cannot see and circumstances that are completely out of your control. If you are a male and reading everything that these guys are telling you, how are you NOT going crazy?

I know I sure am. I mean, I can understand what Steve Hoca is saying. I just wish I didn't. It depresses me.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

It's like Steve says, when you're aware, at least, of what you are up against and how things are, it's just that much more beneficial. Getting a girlfriend, love, and sex isn't the only issue in my life but it is an issue and I do stand by it because it hits the pulse of my emotions and I'm only a human being who craves companionship and whatever else. By the way I think Steve is dead on when he says it's the most controversial situation ever in all of humanity.

I can confirm with you without a doubt that social disconnectedness is real. I experience it everywhere I go. Everyone is in a bubble. Nobody socializes. How often does someone walk up to you and talk? No specific gender either. It's like everybody ignores everyone. Nobody is acknowledged. I haven't researched this too much but on the tip of the iceberg I can see it out there. Steve sometimes says social disconnectedness is the MAIN problem and the dating and relationship game is just a symptom. Maybe. But I know from my own experience, it's real. 

His message.........

Lonely dateless men. Millions. Everywhere.

It's the most controversial phenomena on earth.

Can't disagree with him at all.

What if I told you, that one day laws would be made against men who are going through these situations in their life to seek other options such as going abroad or whatever. Maybe government controlled dating services or hookup practices? This is entirely different from dating seminars and PUA too. What if the powers that be realized how much of a dent this is doing to society decided to push for laws and regulations around this because they know this phenomena with lonely dateless men is going to pop someday? Against men too. Not to help. Laws against meeting women, basically.

That's only speculation and Steve mentioned this to before but it could be possible. I think it's very possible. I've talked with SO many guys who are going through this (off the record or through email etc.) who are dealing with this dilemma. I am. There lives aren't perfect, they have a disability, they have chronic social anxiety disorder, etc. Unemployed, under-achievers, downright ugly looks, not seen as attractive to anyone. 20 year old virgins, 30 year old virgins, 50 year old virgins. I spoke with one guy who was a 60 year old virgin. Never had a girlfriend in his entire life. No date. Nothing at all. This guy was on the tipping point of giving up his life completely. Guys who are my age, older, younger. Not all are from the US. Some are from UK and anywhere else out there but you get the point. Even young guys like me. I'm not going to deny that women could be infact included in this phenomena because I'm sure there is a minority but it's a reality and it needs to be looked into.


----------



## anomalous (Jun 12, 2004)

I've skimmed through some of these guys' YT videos being mentioned in the above posts. While I have a firm stance on the dating difficulties faced by shy males and males in general these days, I have to admit, a good bit of what they say makes me cringe. It's like they're correct about the magnitude of our obstacles, but at the same time they're too quick to narrow the blame to very specific aspects of our society. I really doubt that things were so much easier for shy, awkward, nerdy men 30 years ago, as Steve Hoca claims in his videos.

I guess the bottom line is that my view of our struggles is primarily biological and transcends the country and/or decade we're living in; whereas these guys want to make everything out to be "modern American society's" fault. I believe that our culture is making things harder for us in some regards, but I consider it a secondary factor in the big scheme of things.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

anomalous said:


> I've skimmed through some of these guys' YT videos being mentioned in the above posts. While I have a firm stance on the dating difficulties faced by shy males and males in general these days, I have to admit, a good bit of what they say makes me cringe. It's like they're correct about the magnitude of our obstacles, but at the same time they're too quick to narrow the blame to very specific aspects of our society. I really doubt that things were so much easier for shy, awkward, nerdy men 30 years ago, as Steve Hoca claims in his videos.
> 
> I guess the bottom line is that my view of our struggles is primarily biological and transcends the country and/or decade we're living in; whereas these guys want to make everything out to be "modern American society's" fault. I believe that our culture is making things harder for us in some regards, but I consider it a secondary factor in the big scheme of things.


Social disconnectedness and human behavior.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

Ape in space said:


> Nerd rant over. :teeth


The nerdyness of this made me sexually aroused. I'm not gonna lie.


----------



## Zetsubou (May 7, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> So, what is this? You have more courage than me, so I need to be at your level, oh great one?
> 
> I'm willing to bet that you aren't as shy as I am. I don't know many "shy" guys that have slept with 8 different women like you have. If you are shy, you definitely aren't as shy as me.


Anyone can show some guts, even extremely shy people. Choosing not to just means you chose not to. Whenever I had to stand up in front of the class at school and read something, I'd be thinking to myself "it's no big deal, nobody gives a ****, this is just some presentation I have to do and can do". So I'd go stand in front of everyone and start reading; my face would turn red, I'd be shaking, sweating, my mouth would be dry, and I'd constantly be pausing to swallow something back. Despite my willpower or what I was thinking, I couldn't stop that stuff from happening, and it would only get worse upon hearing people whisper about my red face or whatever. But I did it. I finished reading whatever I had to. 
I'm not a social person, I always kept my comments and thoughts to myself. Having the guts to force yourself to do something despite knowing you'll be making an *** of yourself sure as hell isn't something I was born with; it's highly unnatural and uncomfortable to me, but anyone can do it. It's sorta like touching your own eye; you'll probably hesitate and be extremely careful about it, but all you have to do is move your finger those few millimeters closer and it's done.

I'm just sorta average looking and a few chicks have hit on me before despite my shyness. Y'know what? I was too shy to acknowledge or pursue them even though I did like them at the time. If you're that shy, it's not like it would even help if the woman was flirting with you. You don't need courage or luck, you've just gotta have the guts to go ahead and say what's on your mind to the girl you like, win or lose. If they can't accept your social awkwardness, the relationship probably wouldn't last long, anyway. There are some girls who'd be fine with it, it's not impossible.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

In regards to getting into a relationship while you have SA, some people keep mentioning how they are shy. And fair enough. That's a big part of social anxiety. 

But Anxiety is more than just being shy, and not exclusively. I'm not shy as such. But when I try to make the move, I get consumed by fear. Some can see that as being shy, but I don't. I WANT to get to know people but I CAN'T. People can be shy and not have anxiety. They get a little embarrassed and blush. They don't feel an over-riding sense of terror that makes their palms sweat and heart race and fists clench. You can be in a relationship and still be consumed by that terror the whole time, like me, and have it destroy the relationship. 

I often lay awake all night, ALL NIGHT, careful about every sound I made because I was so anxious about what she might think. My breathing. My stomach churning. I'd want to move but didn't want them thinking I moved too much or disturbed them.

That poison has nothing to do with being shy but totally about social anxiety.

Shy may stop people from finding a girlfriend, because they can't make the first move and talk to them, but that's often just the start of the problem. I mention all this because it seems that some people see being shy as the only hurdle. 

I don't ask people out because I know what will happen later. More of those endless nights. More of my fear destroying everything I've been presented.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

Zetsubou said:


> I'm just sorta average looking and a few chicks have hit on me before despite my shyness. Y'know what? I was too shy to acknowledge or pursue them even though I did like them at the time. If you're that shy, it's not like it would even help if the woman was flirting with you. You don't need courage or luck, you've just gotta have the guts to go ahead and say what's on your mind to the girl you like, win or lose. If they can't accept your social awkwardness, the relationship probably wouldn't last long, anyway. There are some girls who'd be fine with it, it's not impossible.


Very true. If you can't approach a girl, more than likely if they approach you you'll still be too shy to say anything or take the chance. I've done that far more than I've had the guts to talk to them, which luckily I've also done. And you can't blame a girl for that. Some people show frustration that girls don't ask guys out. But be careful what you wish for... because not being able to say yes anymore makes me feel even worse; even more hopeless, because I don't have that excuse that I never get asked. Even being asked won't get me anywhere anymore.


----------



## heroin (Dec 10, 2010)

Selbbin said:


> Very true. If you can't approach a girl, more than likely if they approach you you'll still be too shy to say anything or take the chance. I've done that far more than I've had the guts to talk to them, which luckily I've also done. And you can't blame a girl for that. Some people show frustration that girls don't ask guys out. But be careful what you wish for... because not being able to say yes anymore makes me feel even worse; even more hopeless, because I don't have that excuse that I never get asked. Even being asked won't get me anywhere anymore.


But their "approach" means some cutesy flirting and stuff, never an outright expression of interest. There were a couple girls who did this, but never asked if I wanted to become romantically involved with them. If they did, I'd probably have said yes. I'm not shy or anything (I don't have anxiety, I am avoidant). But they didn't. So it went nowhere.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

heroin said:


> But their "approach" means some cutesy flirting and stuff, never an outright expression of interest. There were a couple girls who did this, but never asked if I wanted to become romantically involved with them. If they did, I'd probably have said yes. I'm not shy or anything (I don't have anxiety, I am avoidant). But they didn't. So it went nowhere.


It's all a mixed bag. I think everyone experiences their own variations of the problems. Which is why I can't stand the black and white statements. But I totally understand personal experiences.


----------



## au Lait (Sep 8, 2010)

Selbbin said:


> You can be in a relationship and still be consumed by that terror the whole time, like me, and have it destroy the relationship.
> 
> I often lay awake all night, ALL NIGHT, careful about every sound I made because I was so anxious about what she might think. My breathing. My stomach churning. I'd want to move but didn't want them thinking I moved too much or disturbed them.
> 
> ...


Yeah I can really relate to that.

People act like once a person gets into a relationship, suddenly all of their problems are magically cured and it's blue skies and sunshine forever. But that's simply not true. Anxiety won't go away just b/c someone stops being single.

I've done that same laying awake all night thing too. I don't know if it's just b/c I haven't met the right person yet or what, but I tend to worry a lot whenever I'm in a relationship. I constantly worry that the guy will get sick of me, that I'll say something that will change his feelings about me, that I'll somehow offend him, etc. I get so worried that I stop being myself, b/c I don't believe that just being who I am is good enough. I start to censor myself. And In doing so I unknowingly become a boring, watered down version of myself. Then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, b/c not many guys want to be with someone who basically turns into a shadow of her former self.

I can be myself once I get comfortable with them, it's just hard to find someone who is patient enough to wait for me to get to that point.

I don't want to stop trying, but at the same time I worry that I am just too weird to ever find someone who accepts me and all of my eccentricities.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

If there's one thing in the world that I'd trade genders for, it's the ability to be the pursued rather than the pursuer.

I can't really say that men have it harder as a whole, but men with SA are probably worse off than women with SA from a "getting a first date" perspective.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

Perfectionist said:


> The nerdyness of this made me sexually aroused. I'm not gonna lie.


It was all the talk about 'blue balls' that did it, wasn't it? :teeth


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

I am surprised the topic of talking in one's sleep hasn't come up - that's a whole other situation right there.

I would have to be married to get into that situation anyway - I'll just tell her right off the bat that if I try to do mathematical equations in my sleep, go with it :lol.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

anomalous said:


> I've skimmed through some of these guys' YT videos being mentioned in the above posts. While I have a firm stance on the dating difficulties faced by shy males and males in general these days, I have to admit, a good bit of what they say makes me cringe. It's like they're correct about the magnitude of our obstacles, but at the same time they're too quick to narrow the blame to very specific aspects of our society. I really doubt that things were so much easier for shy, awkward, nerdy men 30 years ago, as Steve Hoca claims in his videos.
> 
> I guess the bottom line is that my view of our struggles is primarily biological and transcends the country and/or decade we're living in; whereas these guys want to make everything out to be "modern American society's" fault. I believe that our culture is making things harder for us in some regards, but I consider it a secondary factor in the big scheme of things.


I was confused by the vids also. I didn't really get it. I kept waiting for them to get to the point, which never arrived. I don't disagree with what they said. But they just seem like a bunch of whiners content to sit in their own misery.


----------



## wmw87 (Apr 20, 2011)

> If there's one thing in the world that I'd trade genders for, it's the ability to be the pursued rather than the pursuer.


I don't mind the pursuing - it's the inevitable failure that's the hard part. :blank


----------



## Cody88 (Apr 3, 2011)

It's not really any easier for women than it is for men. A woman with SA can have just as much trouble as a guy especially when the anxiety causes them to give the wrong signals to guys who do pursue them which can make them not be interested or think the woman doesn't like them which makes them not pursue them further for a relationship.


----------



## mcmuffinme (Mar 12, 2010)

I'd like to add an important qualifier that has been overlooked. It is easier for PRETTY women to find someone. To say that women overall have it easier is simply wrong IMO.


----------



## Ryanne (Mar 1, 2011)

It's easier for girls? it doesn't feel like it..


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

reno316 said:


> you've said that you were approached by women earlier in this thread. How did that happen? We're they strangers? Did you know them at all?


Yes, pretty much all of them were strangers. I mean, yes, I know women and they approach me to but in the context I'm talking about here, they were strangers.

Sometimes I'd be out by myself or with friends and they'd just come up to me. Or they'd approach me and a friend


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> Yes, pretty much all of them were strangers. I mean, yes, I know women and they approach me to but in the context I'm talking about here, they were strangers.
> 
> Sometimes I'd be out by myself or with friends and they'd just come up to me. Or they'd approach me and a friend


So you're walking down the street and some random woman just starts a conversation with you?

Is there something more to this that we're not aware of?


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Stranger, you're entitled to your mentors. Personally, I'd really think twice about having a mentor who can't tell the difference between a TV show and real life and spends his days musing on whether women have skid marks in their underwear or not. But each to their own.

But Hoca makes a lot of assumptions that have no base to them whatsoever. He talks about going outside and seeing a man who appears to be by himself and all of a sudden there's this unbalanced dating scene and that man he's seen must be alone and be forced to be alone and...and...what a load of twaddle. For all he knows, that guy he saw could have been going out to buy some shopping for his girlfriend. Hoca makes wild, sweeping, unsubstantiated assumptions about things



> It's like Steve says, when you're aware, at least, of what you are up against and how things are, it's just that much more beneficial. Getting a girlfriend, love, and sex isn't the only issue in my life but it is an issue and I do stand by it because it hits the pulse of my emotions and I'm only a human being who craves companionship and whatever else. By the way I think Steve is dead on when he says it's the most controversial situation ever in all of humanity.


Well, it won't surprise you to know I think he's talking crap. Most controversial situation of all humanity? What is? His made up theories about the world based on some guy he saw outside?

Hoca has no idea what he or any other guy is up against because his reality is literally made up by guess work and assumptions about random guys he sees. Oh and not forgetting the wild, sweeping generalisations about life that don't stand up to common sense.



> I can confirm with you without a doubt that social disconnectedness is real.


No, with respect stranger, you can't. It may be real to you. But that doesn't make it real to the rest of the world or real in a general sense. I think my God is real. But I can't confirm that she is.



> I experience it everywhere I go. Everyone is in a bubble. Nobody socializes. How often does someone walk up to you and talk? No specific gender either. It's like everybody ignores everyone. Nobody is acknowledged. I haven't researched this too much but on the tip of the iceberg I can see it out there. Steve sometimes says social disconnectedness is the MAIN problem and the dating and relationship game is just a symptom. Maybe. But I know from my own experience, it's real.


Okay, this one fails the go outside and see test. People connect all the time. People socialise all the time. If they didn't, people on this forum wouldn't wish they were "those normal guys and girls who socialise". Lots of people acknowledge other people every single day.



> His message.........
> 
> Lonely dateless men. Millions. Everywhere.


And he knows this how? Beyond his assumptions which don't stand up?



> It's the most controversial phenomena on earth.


Ridiculous drivel from Hoca there. Real ego massage.



> What if I told you, that one day laws would be made against men who are going through these situations in their life to seek other options such as going abroad or whatever. Maybe government controlled dating services or hookup practices? This is entirely different from dating seminars and PUA too. What if the powers that be realized how much of a dent this is doing to society decided to push for laws and regulations around this because they know this phenomena with lonely dateless men is going to pop someday? Against men too. Not to help. Laws against meeting women, basically.


Sorry but, with respect, the above makes no sense. This thing is assumed to exist and suddenly it's making a dent on society?



> That's only speculation and Steve mentioned this to before but it could be possible. I think it's very possible. I've talked with SO many guys who are going through this (off the record or through email etc.) who are dealing with this dilemma. I am. There lives aren't perfect, they have a disability, they have chronic social anxiety disorder, etc. Unemployed, under-achievers, downright ugly looks, not seen as attractive to anyone. 20 year old virgins, 30 year old virgins, 50 year old virgins. I spoke with one guy who was a 60 year old virgin. Never had a girlfriend in his entire life. No date. Nothing at all. This guy was on the tipping point of giving up his life completely. Guys who are my age, older, younger. Not all are from the US. Some are from UK and anywhere else out there but you get the point. Even young guys like me. I'm not going to deny that women could be infact included in this phenomena because I'm sure there is a minority but it's a reality and it needs to be looked into.


So, this imagined group includes people who have "down right ugly looks" (a relative and subjective term) and people who are apparently seen as not attractive to anyone (another assumption).

Sorry, this is blowing things out of all proportion. Yes, being a 50 year old virgin might be bad. But it's not the result of some sort of global conspiracy or condition. That's paranoia. As sad as it may be for individual men going through whatever they may be going through, they are not entitled to women and women are not actively ignoring them or denying them anything.

No woman is obligated to date any man
No man is obligated to date any woman.

The TFL people were unattractive to most women because they hated women. And they still do hate women. That's not just me saying that. Youtube videos of them pretty much prove it. TFL are babies upset that they didn't get a woman for Christmas.

If you're shy, "nerdy" or whatever, you can get a woman.

If you hate women, it's not looking good in that department.

The brainwashing from TFL and Hoca is actually something that helps to make guys unattractive to women. Men of all shapes, sizes, mental issues, disorders, problems, disabilities etc get into relationships with all kinds of women and yet Hoca and his ilk prattle on and on about dreamed up imbalances in the dating world that they themselves invented. They get angry about stuff they made up.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Ivan AG said:


> So you're walking down the street and some random woman just starts a conversation with you?
> 
> Is there something more to this that we're not aware of?


Yes, that does happen. I'll also be in a bar or a pub and get women coming up to me. Sometimes when I'm by myself and sometimes when I'm with a group of people. Had one woman come up to me recently who wanted to read my "subconscious". Then she started touching me all over the place. It was very late at night in a bar and goodness knows what she was on about but my mate was trying to pull her friend so thought it best not to rock the boat.

But yes, random women do start conversations with me in the street sometimes.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> Social disconnectedness and human behavior.


The videos are about what Hoca THINKS and ASSUMES to be human behaviour. They are rants about human beings and the world which don't stand up to critical thinking.


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> Yes, that does happen. I'll also be in a bar or a pub and get women coming up to me. Sometimes when I'm by myself and sometimes when I'm with a group of people. Had one woman come up to me recently who wanted to read my "subconscious". Then she started touching me all over the place. It was very late at night in a bar and goodness knows what she was on about but my mate was trying to pull her friend so thought it best not to rock the boat.
> 
> But yes, random women do start conversations with me in the street sometimes.


You're in the right environment.

Night clubs are good for such encounters.

I don't like such places because of the noise.

Not much chance of meeting someone when I'm walking down the street.


----------



## wmw87 (Apr 20, 2011)

> It may be real to you. But that doesn't make it real to the rest of the world or real in a general sense.


I'm not defending Hoca since I haven't listened to everything he said, but there have been books written about the decline of social interactions in the United States. One book that I'm familiar with is called "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

wmw87 said:


> I'm not defending Hoca since I haven't listened to everything he said, but there have been books written about the decline of social interactions in the United States. One book that I'm familiar with is called "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam.


And the theories remain open to challenge. A decline, if it does exist, is not an absence.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Ivan AG said:


> You're in the right environment.
> 
> Night clubs are good for such encounters.
> 
> ...


It happens outside of nightclubs in many places. Why not much chance for u? Says u r in London on here? Loads of people to meet on the street in London.


----------



## Ivan AG (Sep 29, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> It happens outside of nightclubs in many places. Why not much chance for u? Says u r in London on here? Loads of people to meet on the street in London.


The only people I would feel comfortable approaching are schizophrenics.

The wizard of Sutton is a cool guy.


----------



## heroin (Dec 10, 2010)

I'd be totally comfortable going to clubs or bars, if it weren't for the fact that I can't dance. 

I really need to learn how to, if just for self-improvement.


----------



## Rasputin_1 (Oct 27, 2008)

heroin said:


> I'd be totally comfortable going to clubs or bars, if it weren't for the fact that I can't dance.
> 
> I really need to learn how to, if just for self-improvement.


HAHA I am 100% with you on this man. If I could dance it would man things so much easier!!! Im really really bad though. I feel like you can teach someone how to dance, but you cant teach rhythm.


----------



## gomenne (Oct 3, 2009)

Threads like this makes me feel like I'm the low of the lowest. If ny girl can get guys, what about those who can't ??????


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

I don't think it matters.

A cross section of women with similar backgrounds to men have a tougher time, statistically, finding and keeping work.

A woman is more likely than a man to struggle with her appearance to a pathological degree. 

However, many men are unemployed or underemployed, and those individuals face the same issues unemployed women face.

Individua men who have issues with their appearance struggle just like individal women do.

And women who can't connect with anyone have the same loneliness and self worth issues men with the same plight have. That this appears to happen somewhat more often to men soesn't lessen the effect on the women it does happen to.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

I think by women having the arrogance to compare their difficulties to a man's difficulties, they're downplaying the suffering of males.

You'll see, for example, one of the things women have to use to justify that they have it "as bad" is to invent new types of rejection. You'll see most women in these types of discussion define rejection as "he didn't ask me out" or "he didn't ask me out again".

Most of the time when they say they've been rejected, do they mean that they asked a guy out and he said no? Very rarely. Their definition of rejection, very often is "A guy didn't allow me the chance to reject him".


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

Cody88 said:


> It's not really any easier for women than it is for men. A woman with SA can have just as much trouble as a guy especially when the anxiety causes them to give the wrong signals to guys who do pursue them which can make them not be interested or think the woman doesn't like them which makes them not pursue them further for a relationship.


That's a false-equivalency. Because shy men *also* have that issue. Any issues that SA women have - SA men have PLUS more.

Are you saying shy men just give clear signals to women and make their interest real clear lol  So SA men are expected to both be able to flirt and show interest (that women are required to) - but ON TOP of that, they're required to make the moves too.

What you wrote above, you wrote it as if it were only true for women, but its not. SA men get all the bad stuff that SA women get plus more.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> I think by women having the arrogance to compare their difficulties to a man's difficulties, they're downplaying the suffering of males.


Centuries of being seen as less then men, as being the cause of bad things in this world, as being property of men, of sexism and misogyny and having to put up with that all that crap kinda does give women the right to speak about the difficulties and problems they are having.

It doesn't down play anyone else's suffering for them to do that. And there's no arrogance involved in it either.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> Centuries of being seen as less then men, as being the cause of bad things in this world, as being property of men, of sexism and misogyny and having to put up with that all that crap kinda does give women the right to speak about the difficulties and problems they are having.


Except those "centuries of being seen as less than a men" is a complete fabrication. See the death lists on the titanic. Read some history. Women were always seen as the more valuable sex.

The people who fabricate stories about so called centuries of hardship do it by comparing male nobility with female peasants, not comparing male peasants with female peasants.



> It doesn't down play anyone else's suffering for them to do that. And there's no arrogance involved in it either.


Its the equivalent of Paris Hilton telling to a starving child in africa "you don't know how hard it is to be this slim and diet all the time! You at least have it easy and don't have what to eat - I have to conciously starve myself to remain a celeb aaaaah".

So yes, there is plenty of arrogance when SA women create false equivalencies to compare their difficulties with the difficulties of SA men.

I'm not saying they have no right to complain - they do. But to falsely equal their difficulties to those of men is in fact arrogant and downplays SA men's difficulties.

There is no female equivalent of pervert or creep, which are labels invented to drive SA men into suicide and shame.

And the most important thing - when SA women compare diffuculties - its not between equals. A man and woman of EQUAL attributes, both being SA - the woman will have much easier chances and less difficulties.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I would say yes, it is.


----------



## artandis (Jun 5, 2011)

I appreciate that it must be hard to be expected to pursue women, but it's not like all women are pursued equally either. If you're a very attractive or confidant girl then you will get approached a lot more than if you are not. There are gender specific challenges. Dating is hard for everyone.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

artandis said:


> I appreciate that it must be hard to be expected to pursue women, but it's not like all women are pursued equally either. If you're a very attractive or confidant girl then you will get approached a lot more than if you are not. There are gender specific challenges. Dating is hard for everyone.


False equivalency...

That's like saying:
_"I realize starving is hard in africa, but living in the USA is not easy, because we have to diet and avoid all the tasty cheap food we have around"_

The fact that some women get pursued more than others, only means that some women have it easier than men, and some women have it a LOT more easier than men.

There are no dating challenges that only women have. Relationships? Sure, there are relationship difficulties only women face, but as far as getting a date - any female-difficulty you can name, men have it too.

When women say "oh well, we have to show signals of interest to look approachable" - and men don't? Lol, men need to be both approachable *and* approaching.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

I've tried laying out all the proof to people before. Nobody believes it or wants to discuss it without dismissing it quickly as being delusional (when the person saying that it's not true is the delusional one). But alot of guys are just in denial and asleep.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

stranger25 said:


> I've tried laying out all the proof to people before. Nobody believes it or wants to discuss it without dismissing it quickly as being delusional (when the person saying that it's not true is the delusional one). But alot of guys are just in denial and asleep.


Do I argue that women don't have it easier in the dating department? *No way, women definitely have it easier.

*However, do I argue that men don't stand a chance, if they haven't been given any chances? *No, because plenty of men get chances when they're older. Plus, 20 years old is too early to give up on relationships.

*Do I believe that forced loneliness is real, and nobody cares about anybody? *Again, not true. I have seen so many people, even girls my age and younger, who have treated me and others well. Nobody is forcing you to be lonely...YOU are forcing yourself to be lonely. *


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

stranger25 said:


> I've tried laying out all the proof to people before. Nobody believes it or wants to discuss it without dismissing it quickly as being delusional (when the person saying that it's not true is the delusional one). But alot of guys are just in denial and asleep.


They don't want to believe that the world is that unfair. It hurts to know what you and I know, and is depressing.


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

I think in general (not just people suffering from SA) each gender has it's own advantages and disadvantages, so I would say it is about the same. All that it is required is to be social and attractive enough(not just physically but other attractive qualities as well) and everything takes care of itself. 

When it comes to people suffering from SA I would say women have it easier, but although they do get approached and they do get into relationships I'm not sure whether most of these relationships they have are necessarily worthwhile for them because of all of the issues they face.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

shynesshellasucks said:


> *All that it is required is to be social and attractive enough(not just physically but other attractive qualities as well) and everything takes care of itself.*


That's only true if you're a woman. As a man, you don't just need to be attractive, but you also have to deal with making the moves and rejection, tons of it, and real, direct rejection.

As a man, its not enough to "just be social", because despite being in the 21st century, unless you're hyper-attractive, women will as a rule not approach you, ask you out etc...



shynesshellasucks said:


> When it comes to people suffering from SA I would say women have it easier, but although they do get approached and they do get into relationships *I'm not sure whether most of these relationships they have are necessarily worthwhile for them because of all of the issues they face.*


As opposed to male SA's who the moment they get into a relationship, its perfect in every way? Lol.

Honestly, all people on the "its equally hard" side use a strawman. Almost all the arguments they use, are as if the men are saying "women have it perfect". They're not saying women have it perfect, just much, much, much easier. Or if they have to name female-difficulties, they start naming uni-sex difficulties as if they were female difficulties.

Side A: Women have it easier.
Side B: Its not true that life is effortless and perfect for women
Side B: Like, like, women need to cope with the pain of breakups (as if only women do)


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Alek said:


> That's only true if you're a woman. As a man, you don't just need to be attractive, but you also have to deal with making the moves and rejection, tons of it, and real, direct rejection.


Rejection only happens if you are unattractive or if you are totally socially clueless. Being socially skilled comes from being well socialized.



> As a man, its not enough to "just be social", because despite being in the 21st century, unless you're hyper-attractive, women will as a rule not approach you, ask you out etc...


 It doesn't matter if the girl doesn't approach you, if you are attractive enough, socially skilled, and you know it you will automatically have the confidence to approach.



> As opposed to male SA's who the moment they get into a relationship, its perfect in every way? Lol.
> 
> Honestly, all people on the "its equally hard" side use a strawman. Almost all the arguments they use, are as if the men are saying "women have it perfect". They're not saying women have it perfect, just much, much, much easier. Or if they have to name female-difficulties, they start naming uni-sex difficulties as if they were female difficulties.
> 
> ...


Women who suffer SA may have some advantages in relationships I didn't deny this, but it ain't the be all and end all. It's not like all guys who suffer from SA are single some guys from this forum are in relationships.

Edit: I'm not saying rejection can totally be eliminated, but if you are attractive, socially skilled and know it the rejections won't be brutal. Most guys lack confidence because most girls they approach are out of their league, best way to fix this problem is self improvement so that you are actually in their league, social skills are also important.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

shynesshellasucks said:


> Rejection only happens if you are unattractive or if you are totally socially clueless. Being socially skilled comes from being well socialized.


That'a a complete lie, lol, nobody bats a 100 :sus The best, smoothest, most charming guys at best get half the women they try to get, that is they get reject half the time.

So yes, as a man, you're always looking into rejection.



> It doesn't matter if the girl doesn't approach you, if you are attractive enough, socially skilled, and you know it you will automatically have the confidence to approach.


But you just changed the argument. Originally you claimed "you just have to be social and everything else will *automatically* solve itself". You didn't say "you'll automatically end up approaching women"... And furthermore, approaching is only the first step - its the rejection that hurts, not the approaching 

Saying "everything will handle itself if you're just socialized enough" - is like saying "you only have to work hard, and you will automatically become a millionaire". You still have to consciously ask women out, lick your wounds from the rejection etc... etc...



> Women who suffer SA may have some advantages in relationships I didn't deny this, but it ain't the be all and end all.* It's not like all guys who suffer from SA are single some guys from this forum are in relationships.*


I already pointed this strawman out twice and you did it again.

A) Nobody said that SA guys can't ever never get a gilrfriend
B) Nobody said women have it perfect or that its the "end all, be all"

Again, you keep strawmanning, and the original topic is "do women have it easier", not "do women have it perfect end all be all".



> Edit: I'm not saying rejection can totally be eliminated, but if you are attractive, socially skilled and know it the rejections won't be brutal. Most guys lack confidence because most girls they approach are out of their league, best way to fix this problem is self improvement so that you are actually in their league.


Lol, but you're still getting rejected, and women aren't (on getting a date)  Just because most of the rejections aren't brutal (if you're cool, charming and charismatic) - doesn't mean that you can discount it.

Point is, men experience all the bad stuff SA women have to deal with PLUS rejection, which is often brutal if you suffer SA.

So you're saying "nah SA guys don't have that much harder because if they become super social, cool, charming etc, the rejections won't be as brutal" lol... Well if you were all those things, then you're no longer an SA person lol. By definition.

The topic is SA men vs SA women, not "men who overcome SA vs SA women"


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> Except those "centuries of being seen as less than a men" is a complete fabrication. See the death lists on the titanic. Read some history. Women were always seen as the more valuable sex.


The death lists on the titanic somehow prove women have always been seen as the more valuable sex? Erm...what? I have read history books, yes. Also have a qualification in history and research. It's not a fabrication. They called it by it's name: sexism. Women were seen as the property of men. Women were traded as though they were or should be seen as property. It's not a fabrication. It's a fact.



> The people who fabricate stories about so called centuries of hardship do it by comparing male nobility with female peasants, not comparing male peasants with female peasants.


Actually, they look at the historical records and see it in there. And it goes far beyond nobility and peasants.



> Its the equivalent of Paris Hilton telling to a starving child in africa "you don't know how hard it is to be this slim and diet all the time! You at least have it easy and don't have what to eat - I have to conciously starve myself to remain a celeb aaaaah".


It's nothing like that at all.



> So yes, there is plenty of arrogance when SA women create false equivalencies to compare their difficulties with the difficulties of SA men.


Nope, no arrogance. Just people with difficulties.



> I'm not saying they have no right to complain - they do. But to falsely equal their difficulties to those of men is in fact arrogant and downplays SA men's difficulties.


Nope, that'd be paranoia.



> There is no female equivalent of pervert or creep, which are labels invented to drive SA men into suicide and shame.


Again, paranoia.



> And the most important thing - when SA women compare diffuculties - its not between equals. A man and woman of EQUAL attributes, both being SA - the woman will have much easier chances and less difficulties.


With respect, that's a guess. You and everybody else have no idea what might happen in different circumstances or contexts regardless of whether it's a man or a woman with SA.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> I've tried laying out all the proof to people before. Nobody believes it or wants to discuss it without dismissing it quickly as being delusional (when the person saying that it's not true is the delusional one). But alot of guys are just in denial and asleep.


You openly admitted to not having approached any girls for reasons of romantic intent. Instead, you take what Hoca and the TFL loons say to be somehow gospel truth despite the fact that reasoned argument and critical thinking makes mince meat of their drivel. Now, nobody has the right to tell you what you can and cannot believe. Your free to believe in that stuff if you want to. But it's in no way proved to be the truth of anything.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

The angry men's club (getting angrier by the hour it seems) appears to have this view that women just sit there and play no part in getting dates and or entering into relationships. That they have nor exercise no choice when the mythical hero of the "man without insecurities and or doubts" shows up on his white horse and...well...you've seen the movies.

How dose that view of the world help anything? How does it change anything? 

Women are individuals. Men are individuals. Both have individual problems and issues and it's not a competition. 

I know it will absolutely blow some people's mind to realise this but I've hung out with a lot of women on nights where no guy approached them or even looked at them. And they were very attractive girls. What? No man on a white horse approached them? How can this be? I don't know. Maybe all the men that night were busy watching TFL videos and getting cross instead of approaching girls. Who knows. The point is: a woman does not automatically get hit on when she goes out. And even if she does, that's not automatically a blessing. 

The whole "man having to be the one who approaches" thing is a stereotype. We've moved on. Women do approach guys and women do ask men out. That's a fact of life. 

But if you want to be with a woman, how is it unreasonable to ask you to actually do something about it? How unreasonable is it for a man to be asked to showcase the best of himself? 

All of this works on the negative assumption that there are these people who are automatically locked into being shy and these people automatically lack the ability to approach and or attract a woman. A guy with no arms and no legs does it but a person who acts in shy ways can't all of a sudden? Hmm...not sure on that one. 

Meet the world halfway. Take control of your life.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

joinmartin said:


> You openly admitted to not having approached any girls for reasons of romantic intent. Instead, you take what Hoca and the TFL loons say to be somehow gospel truth despite the fact that reasoned argument and critical thinking makes mince meat of their drivel. Now, nobody has the right to tell you what you can and cannot believe. Your free to believe in that stuff if you want to. But it's in no way proved to be the truth of anything.


I haven't approached or did much of anything because of the loneliness and the despair and having no options.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> I haven't approached or did much of anything because of the loneliness and the despair and having no options.


Well, you had at least two options: approach or not approach. And you chose not to approach. So there were options.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Options meaning no girls who appreciate a genuine quiet good guy who stays out of trouble and has a heart.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> Options meaning no girls who appreciate a genuine quiet good guy who stays out of trouble and has a heart.


Lots of girls would and do appreciate that. It's the assumption that they won't that holds you back. Not a lack of options. You have the option to continue believing that there are no girls out there who would like you or do like you or the option to approach girls and let real life tell you what's going to happen.


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

One Word : YES


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Alek said:


> That'a a complete lie, lol, nobody bats a 100 :sus The best, smoothest, most charming guys at best get half the women they try to get, that is they get reject half the time.


Yes I addressed this in the edit portion of my post. And I think you are wrong in saying half the time, the more attractive someone is the more success they have.



> So yes, as a man, you're always looking into rejection.


While this is somewhat true rejections don't mess with you all that much if you are attractive. Even if you are average rejections don't mean much if you just realize that there is a million different women out there so one rejection doesn't really matter. If you go out enough you learn to move on.



> But you just changed the argument. Originally you claimed "you just have to be social and everything else will *automatically* solve itself". You didn't say "you'll automatically end up approaching women"... And furthermore, approaching is only the first step - its the rejection that hurts, not the approaching


No I didn't because being attractive and socially skilled gives you confidence. So approaching girls at this stage is natural or not much of a problem. So that takes care of the problem by itself.



> Saying "everything will handle itself if you're just socialized enough" - is like saying "you only have to work hard, and you will automatically become a millionaire". You still have to consciously ask women out, lick your wounds from the rejection etc... etc...


If you are socialized, rejection isn't a big deal. I know this from talking with friends about it. They are just mediocre guys so imagine if they were actually attractive. It is a different story if you are unattractive or hit on a girl that is way out of your league. Guys with crappy social skills mess it up badly so girls can be harsh because of this too.



> I already pointed this strawman out twice and you did it again.
> A) Nobody said that SA guys can't ever never get a gilrfriend
> B) Nobody said women have it perfect or that its the "end all, be all"
> 
> Again, you keep strawmanning, and the original topic is "do women have it easier", not "do women have it perfect end all be all".


SA women have it better than SA guys that I never denied. But if you overcome it it is pretty much equal imo.



> Lol, but you're still getting rejected, and women aren't (on getting a date)  Just because most of the rejections aren't brutal (if you're cool, charming and charismatic) - doesn't mean that you can discount it.
> 
> Point is, men experience all the bad stuff SA women have to deal with PLUS rejection, which is often brutal if you suffer SA.


I already addressed this. Even if all of what your saying is true women suffer one major disadvantage in that the main criteria a man looks for in her is looks. While the guy can compensate for his looks with social status,social skills, and money or even other stuff. Guys and women have different issues that you may not be awared of.



> So you're saying "nah SA guys don't have that much harder because if they become super social, cool, charming etc, the rejections won't be as brutal" lol... Well if you were all those things, then you're no longer an SA person lol. By definition.
> 
> The topic is SA men vs SA women, not "men who overcome SA vs SA women"


The title says women and men(I took it as men and women in general not only SAers). Normal guys have no problems getting partners for the most part it comes down to being attractive enough.

You seem to think that all guys are shy and don't have balls to approach.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

Yes, as men are usually expected to do the approaching.

Okay, now as a society and as a forum, can we like...move on?


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

Would any of women like to approach me?


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Joinmartin: How am I supposed to approach girls in a socially disconnected country. Out in the sticks. I'm not super outgoing, I'm not "tough", I'm not "bad" enough. I have no friends. I've never made a connection to ANY female in real life before. That really hurts me. I'm a loser to the world because my job and money situation sucks. Everyone tells me I'm good looking but that's still not enough. You're going to accuse me of contradicting myself but in my specific situation it's different. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not mainstream enough for girls today.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> No I didn't because being attractive and socially skilled gives you confidence. So approaching girls at this stage is natural or not much of a problem. So that takes care of the problem by itself.


Wrong way round. Confidence first, then the social skills with attraction turning up either after both or inbetween both. Or, for that matter, automatically anyway.

There is no universal standard (or standard for most) of what is and what is not good looking or attractive. Regardless of how many people have think someone is attractive, that person still gets rejected from time to time and it's not automatically less than anyone else.

You don't get the confidence from being socially skilled or from other people's opinions. You get that internally and then the external stuff has something to build itself upon.

But interesting points nonetheless.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> I respect and understand your frustrations. But do something about your situation. Actually make a change. If you're not going to stand up for yourself as a man, why should women?


That is so unfair the way you say, stand up for yourself *as a man*. I don't see you telling any women on here to stand up for themselves as a woman.

This shaming tactic makes me mad. Telling me to be a man, and do the manly thing and grab your guts and approach her. You can't use this against women, because they get approached much more often than men do.

You are using my sex against me and belittling my masculinity.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

stranger25 said:


> Joinmartin: How am I supposed to approach girls in a socially disconnected country. Out in the sticks. I'm not super outgoing, I'm not "tough", I'm not "bad" enough. I have no friends. I've never made a connection to ANY female in real life before. That really hurts me. I'm a loser to the world because my job and money situation sucks. Everyone tells me I'm good looking but that's still not enough. You're going to accuse me of contradicting myself but in my specific situation it's different. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not mainstream enough for girls today.


It's not a socially disconnected country. People talk, communicate and connect in America all the time.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do but the only person calling yourself a loser right now is you. Not the world.

You keep assuming you have to be something or someone other than you to approach girls. You don't.

Vast swathes of girls do not give a monkey's about how much money you have or what your job happens to be. People from many, many different jobs have relationships.

You don't know it's not enough because you've not approached any girls. And, until you do, all you have to go on are the assumptions you've made about yourself. That's what's not fair. The way you limit yourself.

I'm not going to sugar coat this to you: rejection will turn up every now and then like it does for most people in life. But that's a risk we all take when we connect with that source of personal power and give ourselves the credit we deserve.

Approaching and communicating with a girl won't cost you anything. If you are right and you're this horrible person no girls wants, things stay as they are. Nothing changes.

But if you approach and find out things are different from what you'd been thinking up until now, what would happen then?


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

stranger25 said:


> I've never made a connection to ANY female in real life before.


I bet you've connected with some female before, it was so long ago you may not remember it. Think back to like grade school.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> That is so unfair the way you say, stand up for yourself *as a man*. I don't see you telling any women on here to stand up for themselves as a woman.
> 
> This shaming tactic makes me mad. Telling me to be a man, and do the manly thing and grab your guts and approach her. You can't use this against women, because they get approached much more often than men do.
> 
> You are using my sex against me and belittling my masculinity.


I, a complete stranger, can, from a distance, belittle your masculinity? Interesting idea.

It's not unfair. If you're not going to stand up for yourself, who is? And I've encouraged many women on here and elsewhere to stand up for themselves too.

It's not being used against anyone and it's not a shaming tactic. How is asking someone to believe in and trust themselves as shaming tactic? The mind boggles.

If you want something in this life, I'm sorry, but life doesn't owe us anything. We have to do something about it. We have to meet the world halfway else nothing changes.


----------



## Kennnie (Oct 21, 2010)

Yes Lets All Argue Over The Internet:flush


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

joinmartin said:


> Wrong way round. Confidence first, then the social skills with attraction turning up either after both or inbetween both. Or, for that matter, automatically anyway.
> 
> There is no universal standard (or standard for most) of what is and what is not good looking or attractive. Regardless of how many people have think someone is attractive, that person still gets rejected from time to time and it's not automatically less than anyone else.
> 
> ...


I agree to disagree. If you are Michael Jordan wouldn't you be more confident dunking a basketball rather than being mini-me from Austin Powers?

Look at what's on tv. Standards like looks are set there most of the time and people follow it. Megan Fox can get attention from most guys.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> It's not a socially disconnected country. People talk, communicate and connect in America all the time.


I agree with JM here. Hoca is wrong about half the time, and he is wrong about social disconnection. Our country isn't much different than other countries as far as social connections go. The differences are small if there are differences, unless you are comparing us to Kuwait? Not sure which one or ones? (Whatever country it is where the women have to hide their faces?)

Take for example, the UK. JM lives there, so I'm sure he would agree with me that the US social life isn't too much different than the UK.

If we're so socially disconnected, then why does practically everyone have friends? I'm the outcast because i don't have friends irl, yet everyone I know does have friends. People are connecting fine here. The only reason some people say there is disconnection is because those people themselves are disconnected from society. I may be disconnected from people right now besides my job, but I haven't always been that way.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

IcemanKilmer said:


> I bet you've connected with some female before, it was so long ago you may not remember it. Think back to like grade school.


Maybe for 2 minutes.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

*


joinmartin said:



I, a complete stranger, can, from a distance, belittle your masculinity? Interesting idea.

Click to expand...

*


joinmartin said:


> Yes, that's what it sounds like you are trying to do.
> 
> *It's not unfair. If you're not going to stand up for yourself, who is? And I've encouraged many women on here and elsewhere to stand up for themselves too.
> *
> ...


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> The angry men's club (getting angrier by the hour it seems) appears to have this view that women just sit there and play no part in getting dates and or entering into relationships. That they have nor exercise no choice when the mythical hero of the "man without insecurities and or doubts" shows up on his white horse and...well...you've seen the movies.


@joinmartin

Dude, you ramble a lot, but give no evidence, just go in vague circles and you didn't answer my specific question. HOW OFTEN do women ask men out. I did an informal study of 100s of guys with the average age of 25, and THEY NEVER EVER not once ever got asked out by a woman EVER, except for one rockstar, who only got asked out once in his entire life.

Give me evidence that the stereotype is not true, you just keep repeating vague-feel-good cliches. Show me a study that women do approach men and ask men out. Please shut me up.

I say its extremely rare. To tell a person "don't believe women don't approach bla bla" is like saying "well, just wait to hit money on the lottary.

Show me the evidence. Put up or shut up. Show me the evideonce of all the supposed "work" that women do and how its not true that they wait for men to do all the work (except for exceptions as rare as a genetic mutation).



> I know it will absolutely blow some people's mind to realise this but I've hung out with a lot of women on nights where no guy approached them or even looked at them. And they were very attractive girls. What? No man on a white horse approached them? How can this be? I don't know. Maybe all the men that night were busy watching TFL videos and getting cross instead of approaching girls. Who knows. The point is: a woman does not automatically get hit on when she goes out. And even if she does, that's not automatically a blessing.


You guys just keep repeating this *STRAWMAN* - You keep just piling on this strawman because you can't defeat the original man, so you construct a STRAWMAN.

*NOBODY SAID* - that a woman just goes out and meets a man anytime she wants to every night. NOBODY SAID women get automatically hit on every single moment of every day or every night. Stop *strawmanning *- it just makes you look weak.

The claim, the actual claim is women get approached and asked out in general, men don't. NOBODY SAID they get approached every single night... sheesh.

The point is, whether she gets approached once a week or once every 6 months, that's a HELLUVA lot better than a big FAT ZERO over a lifetime for men. How do you divide by zero? That's an infinitely large difference.

Produce the evidence that men get approached and asked out. Put up or shut up. Nobody said that all women are EQUALLY better off than men, only that they're better as a group.

Some have it a little easier (they get asked out twice a year), some have it a lot easier (they get asked out weekly), but they all have it easier than men with their big fat zero times asked out.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

shynesshellasucks said:


> I agree to disagree. If you are Michael Jordan wouldn't you be more confident dunking a basketball rather than being mini-me from Austin Powers?
> 
> Look at what's on tv. Standards like looks are set there most of the time and people follow it. Megan Fox can get attention from most guys.


Respect your decision to agree to disagree as always. But Michael Jordan was not always famous nor always confident on the basketball court. In the past, he was just some random person learning how to play. He had to develop the inner confidence in order to be motivated to continue practising and learning the skills to become who he is today.

Nope, TV does not automatically set a standard for what is and what is not good looking. It broadcasts multiple messages but that's as far as it goes. And Megan Fox cannot garner attention from most guys any more than anyone else can. Some guys might like her. Some don't. Same with most people.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Alek said:


> @joinmartin
> 
> Dude, you ramble a lot, but give no evidence, just go in vague circles and you didn't answer my specific question. HOW OFTEN do women ask men out. I did an informal study of 100s of guys with the average age of 25, and THEY NEVER EVER not once ever got asked out by a woman EVER, except for one rockstar, who only got asked out once.
> 
> ...


So, even in your own study, a woman asked a guy out? Pretty much says it all.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> IcemanKilmer said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> And Megan Fox cannot garner attention from most guys any more than anyone else can.


O M G. Did you really just say that? A woman that is a 10 can't garner more attention from men??? Holy smokes, that is the craziest thing I've ever seen anyone say on here.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

^Yeah, even I don't buy that one.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> That is so unfair the way you say, stand up for yourself *as a man*. I don't see you telling any women on here to stand up for themselves as a woman.
> 
> This shaming tactic makes me mad. Telling me to be a man, and do the manly thing and grab your guts and approach her. You can't use this against women, because they get approached much more often than men do.
> 
> You are using my sex against me and belittling my masculinity.


His "mating strategy" is that of putting down, shaming and bellitling other men and glorifying and godess-ifying women as eternal victims of male evilness... Its a desperate attempt to get female approval, in a sick hope that this female approval will translate into attraction - which it doesn't.

If I were you, I wouldn't feel resentful of martin (I'm not saying you are), but I would feel sorry for the sucker, lol  He has the worst "pick up chicks routine" around, even worse than most PUA-crap.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Perfectionist said:


> ^Yeah, even I don't buy that one.


Yeah, I think JM is all alone with that thought.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> So, even in your own study, a woman asked a guy out? Pretty much says it all.


DUDE WTF!?!

I TOLD YOU ITS RARER THAN A GENETIC MUTATION.

My study involves 100 men of 25 years each, and the only one who got asked out is a minor celebrity. By that logic, if you wait (on average) 2500 years, you'll get asked out by a woman :roll

The point is dude, you're not transparent, you keep shaming, belittling and putting down men with vague feel good crap like "stop saying women don't generally approach bla bla, women are not the same".

How is it constructive advice to base your life on the 1 in 2500 years chance? Exceptions prove the rule, not disprove it.

How is it constructive for you to keep telling men that its untrue that women don't approach. IS THAT PRACTICAL and USEFUL. Would it be useful for me to tell people to play the lottary as a way of earning money?


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> O M G. Did you really just say that? A woman that is a 10 can't garner more attention from men??? Holy smokes, that is the craziest thing I've ever seen anyone say on here.


No, read what I said. She's not automatically a 10 to every man on the face of the world. A lot of men do not find Megan fox attractive and will opt for other women. If you think she's a 10, great. All fine and dandy. But other guys don't.

There's quite an old saying along the lines of: "the people in magazines, movies and TV don't look like the people in magazines and on TV and in movies so why aspire to be like them". Famous people get airbrushed, famous people get dolled up to go award shows.


----------



## rdrr (Dec 31, 2008)

The battling going on in this thread is entertaining.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> No, read what I said. She's not automatically a 10 to every man on the face of the world.


No you lier, the evidence is above on the page, its right there, here's what you said...


> *And Megan Fox cannot garner attention from most guys any more than anyone else can.*


You've been caught saying completely different things. You said megan fox can't get attention from MOST guys ANY MORE than anyone else. Its right there.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Is somebody trying to say women ask out men as much men ask out women? Ha, it's not even close. Men ask women out WAY more, it's been like that for centuries.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Alek said:


> You've been caught saying completely different things. You said megan fox can't get attention from MOST guys ANY MORE than anyone else. Its right there.


Yep, we caught him where he made an extremely false statement, and now he's trying to cover his false statement up. I've seen this b4 plenty of times.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Is somebody trying to say women ask out men as much men ask out women? Ha, it's not even close. Men ask women out WAY more, it's been like that for centuries.


Yeah, the man-shamer-in-chief, mr martin-nlp is now saying men shouldn't whine about how women don't ask men out because (according to him) its not true, because it SOMETIMES happens.

So I shouldn't tell people its unwise to wait for a lottary win as way of securing their retirement - because SOMETIMES people win the lottary... :roll

This martin guy is... just amazing...


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Alek said:


> His "mating strategy" is that of putting down, shaming and bellitling other men and glorifying and godess-ifying women as eternal victims of male evilness... Its a desperate attempt to get female approval, in a sick hope that this female approval will translate into attraction - which it doesn't.
> 
> If I were you, I wouldn't feel resentful of martin (I'm not saying you are), but I would feel sorry for the sucker, lol  He has the worst "pick up chicks routine" around, even worse than most PUA-crap.


I've got to say I find all of that very funny. It's somehow a shaming tactic and belittling for me to believe in guys, say they are good enough and suggest they stand up for the good people they actually are. Yeah, really nasty.

Women were treated badly by a lot of men throughout the ages. That's not me making it up. That's fact. Sorry to point out the truth.

I don't need to make any desperate attempts to get female approval. I already have that in my life but I'm not desperately seeking it which is one of the reasons I get it. Another one being that I don't have any anger against women.

I'm sorry if me sticking up for women and men somehow upsets you.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> I've got to say I find all of that very funny. It's somehow a shaming tactic and belittling for me to believe in guys, *say they are good enough and suggest they stand up for the good people they actually are*. Yeah, really nasty.


What's man-shaming is that you put ALL OF THE ONUS and RESPONSIBILITY on men to fit around WOMEN... You are very gyno-centric and always asking men to improve, better please women and work their butts off until they're good enough for women - but for women to change for men, you deem that "unfair".

Your male-threshold is such that if a woman has ANY LESS than perfect effortless gains, you deem it bad (poor things, my female friends sometimes don't go out and don't immediatelly get approached by the most perfect guy bohoooooo). *You don't say that they need to "woman up" and work on being more approachable, do you?*

But if men don't get approached its because they're not PERFECT enough for women. You think we're blind? You don't think we see how you put all the onus on men and how different criteria you have?



> Women were treated badly by a lot of men throughout the ages. That's not me making it up. That's fact. Sorry to point out the truth.


1) I won't go into the fact its not anymore true than vice-versa and the lies you told earlier about property which are long disproven - it would turn this forum into a whole new topic of 500 pages

2) EVEN IF it were true, how the heck does it matter? Do you believe in past lives? Because I John, in 2011 possess a male-organ, I need to have it HARD as retribution because BOB 400 years ago mistreated Jane (assuming its true) - and hey, bob had a male organ just like me, so its ok to mistreat me john today... :sus Are you a Buddhist or something?

But then again, you claimed men and women have it equally hard, so... mmm, why do you bring up how women had it hard 500 years ago (supposedly). You're trying to justify equality by bringing up an inequality haha, you're confused.

Even you don't believe your own lie that women don't have it easier. That's why you had to bring up the lie of how they supposedly had it harder - which is an argument used to justify them being given easiness today.



> I'm sorry if me sticking up for women and men somehow upsets you.


MAN UP and please women is not "sticking up for men". Telling men that they suck because they aren't perfect enough for women is not "sticking up for men".


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

These videos are classic. Steve describes it to a T.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

^I didn't play the videos, but I'm assuming they are some guy monologuing on youtube? Listening to those things and basing some of your views on youtube vids doesn't seem to..healthy, for lack of a better word.



joinmartin said:


> I don't need to make any desperate attempts to get female approval. I already have that in my life but I'm not desperately seeking it which is one of the reasons I get it. Another one being that I don't have any anger against women.


I do agree with this. Somehow, I don't know how, but it seems the more you want female attention the less you get it. Maybe we can sense the needyness or something, I don't know.

I also agree that being resentful towards woman and the lot men have in this life also affects things. Again, I don't know how, since I am assuming you guys don't bring up this topic with every woman on the street, but it seems to have an impact.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

@Perfectionist

That is in fact true. Focusing on the fact you have it harder as a man is not constructive or useful (in most cases, unless as a temporary exercise)

But its equally unconstructive to shame and make fools out of men and tell them the sky isn't blue "no dude, you have it all wrong, the sky isn't blue, its never been blue".

Its a lot more constructive to say what you did "well yeah, women have it easier, but, let's skip that part coz its not a useful thing to focus on".

However, telling people "nah, women have it just as hard" is nonconstructive and just makes men defensive and gets them trying to prove the "women have it easier" truth even more, which in turn makes them focus on it even more.

For being NLP trained, this martin dude is pretty sucky at influence. If he wanted people to not focus on "women have it easier", he wouldn't be doing the exact thing that causes people to argue for that belief


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> What's man-shaming is that you put ALL OF THE ONUS and RESPONSIBILITY on men to fit around WOMEN... You are very gyno-centric and always asking men to improve, better please women and work their butts off until they're good enough for women - but for women to change for men, you deem that "unfair".


Nope. You're putting words in my mouth and having an argument with yourself. I am suggesting men stand up for themselves. Note those words. Not improve themselves, not work themselves until they are good enough for women etc. But to stand up for who they are right now because that is good enough for women. I'm asking that a man and indeed a woman be proud of who they are.



> 1) I won't go into the fact its not anymore true than vice-versa and the lies you told earlier about property which are long disproven - it would turn this forum into a whole new topic of 500 pages


Not lies. Facts. Women were traded as property and seen as property by men in history. Historical fact.



> 2) EVEN IF it were true, how the heck does it matter? Do you believe in past lives? Because I John, in 2011 possess a male-organ, I need to have it HARD as retribution because BOB 400 years ago mistreated Jane (assuming its true) - and hey, bob had a male organ just like me, so its ok to mistreat me john today... Are you a Buddhist or something?


No I don't really believe in past lives but then I don't know. And I think you're anger might be getting to you a bit here. I've never asked you to suffer for the stuff that happened to women in history. I've just pointed out historical fact. I've pointed out that women have been mistreated in history and that they have every right to stand up for themselves and point out and discuss their issues and problems because those problems and issues matter as much as men's do. But I've never asked men to suffer for what men did in the past. That's stuff you came up with in your head.



> MAN UP and please women is not "sticking up for men". Telling men that they suck because they aren't perfect enough for women is not "sticking up for men".


I'm not saying that. The one dishing out personal attacks here is you. I'm not telling men they suck or that they are not perfect enough for women. I'm asking them to man up and recognise that they are good enough. I believe every man here can get to a place where he can approach and attract girls. Maybe some guys don't believe that about themselves. That's fine. But in a place where people place a lot of importance on external validation from others, I thought I'd provide them with some even if it contravened their word view and view of themselves.


----------



## rdrr (Dec 31, 2008)

I think the reason for this debate solely lies on lack of positive experiences for men/women in the dating world, combined with fear of rejection, low self-worth and low self esteem, and that equals the thought patterns shown by many on this site in regards to relationships and dating. 

It is true "You get what you give", but hypothetically, what if you actually HAVE tried... and continue to have negative experiences... After a pattern ensues this starts to take a psychological toll on someone. How can you expect someone to just 'man up'?

Sweeping generalizations and comparisons are not going to solve anything. Essentially things fall into place, by luck or by one's own doing. The counter-argument for everything is not always "Why not"?


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Alek said:


> @Perfectionist
> 
> That is in fact true. Focusing on the fact you have it harder as a man is not constructive or useful (in most cases, unless as a temporary exercise)
> 
> ...


Thank you for about the fourth personal attack on me this evening. I'd get that anger issue seen to. Happen to know a good therapist as it happens.

You interpret my words however you want to, get cross at your own interpretations then shout at me for daring to not agree with you and your beliefs. NLP does wonders but I'm sure you realise it can't force new perspectives on a closed mind?


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> Thank you for about the fourth personal attack on me this evening. I'd get that anger issue seen to. Happen to know a good therapist as it happens.
> 
> You interpret my words however you want to, get cross at your own interpretations then shout at me for daring to not agree with you and your beliefs. NLP does wonders but I'm sure you realise it can't force new perspectives on a closed mind?


Another shaming tactic. You are trying to point out that he's mad, and using that he's mad as a way to take away his validation of his argument. Hoca talked about this.

You are basically saying, because he's mad, he can't be right.

Well guess what JM? People can still speak the truth when they are angry. It happens a lot. Just because someone is angry, that doesn't mean they aren't right.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> Nope. You're putting words in my mouth and having an argument with yourself. I am suggesting men stand up for themselves. Note those words. Not improve themselves, not work themselves until they are good enough for women etc. But to stand up for who they are right now because that is good enough for women. I'm asking that a man and indeed a woman be proud of who they are.


That was not in this topic. In this topic you kept telling men LIES about how they should believe in approaching and shaming them for DARING to believe that women don't approach as a general rule.

You also keep telling people to MAN UP and do what women expect them to. Please point me to references of you telling women to "stick up for themselves and start approaching men".

You basically told a lie (that women approach as a general rule), as a way to brush aside men's unique difficulty, that of being the approacher.

Here's what you said...



> The whole "man having to be the one who approaches" thing is a stereotype. We've moved on. Women do approach guys and women do ask men out. That's a fact of life.


And people win the lottary? Again, you're trying to brush-aside female privilege by using something as rare as genetic mutation, AS IF it were an everyday occurrence.



> But if you want to be with a woman, how is it unreasonable to ask you to actually do something about it?


*STRAWMAN ALERT* - nobody said its unreasonable to ask men to do something about it.

The issue is you keep sweeping it under the rug that society expects men to do almost all of the work.



> How unreasonable is it for a man to be asked to showcase the best of himself?


The unreasonable part is your gynocentric view of it - not saying that to women. Where are you telling women to charismatically approach men? And that if they don't - they deserve all that they get?



> Not lies. Facts. Women were traded as property and seen as property by men in history. Historical fact.


So were men. PEOPLE for 99.9999% of history were traded as property, duh. Its called slavery.



> No I don't really believe in past lives but then I don't know. And I think you're anger might be getting to you a bit here. I've never asked you to suffer for the stuff that happened to women in history. I've just pointed out historical fact.* I've pointed out that women have been mistreated in history and that they have every right to stand up for themselves and point out and discuss their issues* and problems because those problems and issues matter as much as men's do. But I've never asked men to suffer for what men did in the past. That's stuff you came up with in your head.


Another strawman. Who here has said that women don't have a right to discuss their issues?

The lie we mind is liers coming in here and saying that women have an equal amount of issues - and you keep downplaying and trying to erase all the extra work and issues handed to men and SA-men in dating.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Another shaming tactic. You are trying to point out that he's mad, and using that he's mad as a way to take away his validation of his argument. Hoca talked about this.
> 
> You are basically saying, because he's mad, he can't be right.
> 
> Well guess what JM? People can still speak the truth when they are angry. It happens a lot. Just because someone is angry, that doesn't mean they aren't right.


His shaming tactics are just sooo, classical and straight out of the textbook. Arguing against the gynocentric world-view is always "anger".

If you point out the flaws and dislogic in his arguments or attack him personally, you are "angry" and need to take therapy.

If he points out the flaws in your logic and arguments and attacks you personally, he's "caring and sticking up for you".


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Alek said:


> You also keep telling people to MAN UP and do what women expect them to. Please point me to references of you telling women to "stick up for themselves and start approaching men".


I'm starting to think he's never told a woman to approach a man. This contradicts what he tells us, that women are willing to make the first move.

Maybe you should start practicing what you preach JM, and start telling the women to make the first move, since you think they make the first move more often than we think.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Another shaming tactic. You are trying to point out that he's mad, and using that he's mad as a way to take away his validation of his argument. Hoca talked about this.
> 
> You are basically saying, because he's mad, he can't be right.
> 
> Well guess what JM? People can still speak the truth when they are angry. It happens a lot. Just because someone is angry, that doesn't mean they aren't right.


If you people spent as much time approaching and interacting with girls as you do launching random attacks against me you'd be on easy street.

And before you start, no, pointing out a truth is not a shaming tactic.

I am simply reflecting on the notion that a person who has made several personal attacks on me this evening might be a little cross and that's it's probably not good for his health to be in such a state. I am, after all, a random stranger.

My favourite Hoca video is the one where he can't tell the difference between real life and an episode of Sex and the City. That one is very funny.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Alek said:


> His shaming tactics are just sooo, classical and straight out of the textbook. Arguing against the gynocentric world-view is always "anger".
> 
> If you point out the flaws and dislogic in his arguments or attack him personally, you are "angry" and need to take therapy.
> 
> If he points out the flaws in your logic and arguments and attacks you personally, he's "caring and sticking up for you".


No, I suggested that the fact that you've made several, rather aggressive personal attacks on me and my life (something you know nothing about) might mean you are angry and that, if that is a problem for you, therapy might be a good idea. Anger is, after all, rarely a good thing.

Again, asking you as a man to stand up for yourself is not attacking you. It's asking you to see the good things in you and be proud of them. Stand up for who you are now. If my believing in men upsets you, I'm sorry, I can't do anything about that.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> If you people spent as much time approaching and interacting with girls as you do launching random attacks against me you'd be on easy street.


I've approached more women, and gotten more dates out of clubs, streets and malls than all people on this forum combined and even more than most members combined on your average dating forum. This was back in my "pua" days, and yes, I succesfully did all of that despite still having SA. These days I promote meeting women in more natural ways... but again, you failed... again...

The reason I'm here is because I hate bold-faced lies and lying, and especially male-shaming.



> And before you start, no, pointing out a truth is not a shaming tactic.


What's shaming is you expressing your *opinion*, proclaiming your opinion universal truth, and that anyone who disagrees with it needs therapy, isn't a real man or needs to grow up etc.



> I am simply reflecting on the notion that a person who has made several personal attacks on me this evening might be a little cross and that's it's probably not good for his health to be in such a state. I am, after all, a random stranger.


Dude, you personally man-shamed and attacked people, and to one person told they need therapy. Don't be playing the victim. You started the shaming, and several people called you out on it.



> My favourite Hoca video is the one where he can't tell the difference between real life and an episode of Sex and the City. That one is very funny.


I'm new here, I don't even know who hoca is.



joinmartin said:


> No, I suggested that the fact that you've made several, rather aggressive personal attacks on me and my life (something you know nothing about) might mean you are angry and that, if that is a problem for you, therapy might be a good idea. Anger is, after all, rarely a good thing.


You did the same thing several times on this thread, projecting qualities onto men and man-shaming them without knowing anything about their lives. But when you do it, its supposedly not a personal attack, but "helping men stick up for themselves".

You were even caught lying in one instance about what you said previously when caught, and then just skipped it over.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Steve Hoca is a mentor for men who are dating challenged, lonely, dissapointed with their life, society, people, etc. You really have to be open minded to grasp the points he makes.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> Again, asking you as a man to stand up for yourself is not attacking you.


Yes, it is! That's why this whole disagreement began in the first place. You don't understand when you are insulting us, JM.

Let me break this down for you, JM. When you say stand up for yourself as a man, it sounds like you are saying stuff like, "You aren't man enough, that's why you aren't getting women." "You need to man up."

It also sounds like you are saying, "It is your duty as a man to control your destiny, but women get to sit back and wait for you." "You must be the stronger sex because you are a man."

That's why people are getting mad, bro. You are telling them they aren't man enough but in different words.

Like I told you before, I have no complaints if you tell me I need to believe in myself as a person. But you keep using the words "man" and "stand up" in your advice. And I've never ever seen you tell a woman to STAND UP AS A WOMAN. Never.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Yes, it is! That's why this whole disagreement began in the first place. You don't understand when you are insulting us, JM.
> 
> Let me break this down for you, JM. When you say stand up for yourself as a man, it sounds like you are saying stuff like, "You aren't man enough, that's why you aren't getting women." "You need to man up."
> 
> ...


Yep, exactly. But he'll never admit it. He skipped over the megan-fox lie when we caught him red-handed 

The reason its man-shaming is simple

1) He has higher criteria for men than he does women

2) He lies and misleads to erase the extra difficulties and hoops men need to jump through, so he can justify shaming men and supposedly "reaching up to the level of the women they want"... Which is a lie

In our society, the average man has to do a lot more work to get an average woman than vice-versa. So, if an average man isn't getting dates with an average woman - telling him to "work up to that point" is telling him to do more work than her.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

*


Alek said:



Yep, exactly. But he'll never admit it. He skipped over the megan-fox lie when we caught him red-handed 

Click to expand...

*


Alek said:


> I know, right? He totally tried to drop that as soon as we caught him and hasn't brought it up since.
> 
> *The reason its man-shaming is simple
> 
> ...


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

> I've approached more women, and gotten more dates out of clubs, streets and malls than all people on this forum combined and even more than most members combined on your average dating forum. This was back in my "pua" days, and yes, I succesfully did all of that despite still having SA. These days I promote meeting women in more natural ways... but again, you failed... again...
> 
> The reason I'm here is because I hate bold-faced lies and lying, and especially male-shaming.


I haven't failed once this evening. How do you know you've gotten more dates than all people on this forum combined and more than most members on average dating forums? Bit of an assumption isn't it?



> What's shaming is you expressing your opinion, proclaiming your opinion universal truth, and that anyone who disagrees with it needs therapy, isn't a real man or needs to grow up etc.


You've been proclaiming your opinion as universal truth all night. I didn't say anyone who disagrees with me needs therapy. I suggested that, if you had an anger problem (which the multiple personal attacks on me would seem to demonstrate) it might be an idea to get it checked out and dealt with.

I'm not saying their not real men. I am saying that they ARE real men. I realise what I write is utterly hopeless at this point because someone has dared to disagree with the " we men have it harder" creed and is now getting aggressively attacked for doing so. Whatever I say, people on here will twist it, interpret it their own way and end up getting cross at me for stuff they just invented in their heads. Fine way to spend an evening if that is your sort of thing.

I ask that men stand up for themselves. I suggest it because I believe those men are good people and good enough. I believe in them. That's not shaming someone.



> Dude, you personally man-shamed and attacked people, and to one person told they need therapy. Don't be playing the victim. You started the shaming, and several people called you out on it.


Man shamed? That's not even a real term. I didn't shame anyone. I suggested men stand up for themselves. You seem to think believing in men is shaming them so you got cross.



> You did the same thing several times on this thread, projecting qualities onto men and man-shaming them without knowing anything about their lives. But when you do it, its supposedly not a personal attack, but "helping men stick up for themselves".


Forgive me for believing men are good enough as they are. It's not a personal attack because I'm assuming and believing they are good enough as they are whereas you've so far called me a liar and insulted me several times. If you're going to make assumptions about someone's life, make them positive ones. It does help.



> You were even caught lying in one instance about what you said previously when caught, and then just skipped it over.


No I wasn't and no I didn't. But then again, I have nothing to prove to you. Anything I write will no doubt be twisted and pounced upon as some male shaming tactic or some other drivel.

I'm sorry if my rejecting your belief that men have it harder upsets you. One has to ask how secure your belief is if I get to upset you this much simply by disagreeing with it. But each to their own.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

Here's what martin said in another thread. He tried shaming stranger25 for not asking women out...



joinmartin said:


> Well, are not the lack of kisses, sex, dates a direct result of not asking a girl out? And the female friends, did you introduce yourself to any women?


Until he produces evidence of telling women they have no right to feel rejected until they ask out enough men, martin is one big fat hypocrite.

He claims women supposedly already ask men out, and how supposedly we're long past the time when men did the asking out - but here he is, minutes earlier in another thread saying this contradictory thing above.

If women supposedly ask men out, than why point out to stranger the fact he needs to ask out and how its the source of never having had a date? Don't women ask men out?


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Shall I even bother replying anymore or do you two want to have an argument over what you think I've said? 

Asking and or suggesting a man stand up for himself is not saying anything is his fault.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Perfectionist said:


> ^Yeah, even I don't buy that one.


I do. I find Megan Fox and Angelina Jolie to be ugly.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Here is a picture of someone who is a 10, at least to me:










Of course, I may be prejudiced, because I think her music rocks! But as far as hotness, Avril is a pretty hot 26 year old.

Compare that to Megan Fox-Fish Face


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> Shall I even bother replying anymore or do you two want to have an argument over what you think I've said?
> 
> Asking and or suggesting a man stand up for himself is not saying anything is his fault.


You'd make a great spin-doctor or a politican.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Alek said:


> You'd make a great spin-doctor or a politican.


He makes a great psychologist.

Try to argue with a therapist. Either you'll go crazy, or he will. :b


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

> You've been proclaiming your opinion as universal truth all night. I didn't say anyone who disagrees with me needs therapy. I suggested that, if you had an anger problem (which the multiple personal attacks on me would seem to demonstrate) it might be an idea to get it checked out and dealt with.


Your denial of reality like claiming that women approaching and asking out men is a common occurence - could be a sign of schizophrenia, but I'd never suggest that you are schizophrenic and might need therapy for it.

I take the kinder route of assuming you're just lying, which you've been caught doing already.



> I'm not saying their not real men. I am saying that they ARE real men. I realise what I write is utterly hopeless at this point because someone has dared to disagree with the " we men have it harder" creed and is now getting aggressively attacked for doing so. Whatever I say, people on here will twist it, interpret it their own way and end up getting cross at me for stuff they just invented in their heads. Fine way to spend an evening if that is your sort of thing.


You spent an evening telling men that the sky is really brown... And then when challenged you say "no no dude, I was just saying I love your shoes"



> I ask that men stand up for themselves. I suggest it because I believe those men are good people and good enough. I believe in them. That's not shaming someone.


Really. Did you not suggest to stranger25 that he's not good enough because he's not approaching women?

You tell men a gazillion things they need to change, but then claim they're "good enough as they are". If they're good enough as they are, that contradicts your telling them what to change.

In fact, the reason you need to lie about women approaching is so that you don't have to tell women what *they* need to change, like for example to start approaching guys like stranger25.


----------



## zookeeper (Jun 3, 2009)

opcorn


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Alek: 

You were in the pua scene, picked up girls, dated them, so why are you in an SA forum? Under these circumstances I would expect you to come to this forum and give some advice or something. I don't get why you are so emotional with arguing that men have it worse than woman. Was the pua scene brutal or something?


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

joinmartin said:


> Asking and or suggesting a man stand up for himself is not saying anything is his fault.


JM, if you are going to say this, you have to be fair with it. You have to tell women the same thing, to STAND UP FOR HERSELF. You have yet to do that, bud. You need to make it equal, too.

You can't just say it to one or two girls and call it even, you have to say it in the same manner and the quantity of times that you say it to the men in here.

I just looked at your posting history, and the majority of your thread posts are targeted at the shy men in these forums who are struggling in the dating world.

What you are doing is hunting for shy man prey, and attacking them because they complain about their dating failures to make yourself feel better about yourself. I bet you feel all high and mighty, don't you? What you are doing is bullying, pal. Somehow you've tricked some people on here into believing that you are trying to help people. The only person you are really trying to help is yourself and boost your own self-esteem, selfishly.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

shynesshellasucks said:


> Alek:
> 
> You were in the pua scene, picked up girls, dated them, so why are you in an SA forum? Under these circumstances I would expect you to come to this forum and give some advice or something.


It is. I believe that the PUA scene is damaging and the worst thing an SA guy can do. It prolonged my SA instead of solving it.

I had to leave that scene, and take a break from everything, and do everything from the ground up - only then did I solve my SA.

PUA scene just makes SA worse...



> I don't get why you are so emotional with arguing that men have it worse than woman. Was the pua scene brutal or something?


*Because shaming and lying to men in their face will just keep them confused and stuck longer.*

The responsible thing to say would be* "sure, women have it easier, you need to do all the approaching, do some sedona to release any hangups about that, and learn how to approach".*

Telling men a lie about reality just makes them doubt their own eyes and drives them to confusion and insanity. Telling a man who has a fear of swimming "dude, the pool water is green,dude, the water is green, oh and its made out of foam" - is not helpful.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> JM, if you are going to say this, you have to be fair with it. You have to tell women the same thing, to STAND UP FOR HERSELF. You have yet to do that, bud. You need to make it equal, too.
> 
> You can't just say it to one or two girls and call it even, you have to say it in the same manner and the quantity of times that you say it to the men in here.
> 
> ...


His history does seem to show this bullying pattern of finding low-self-esteem men and telling them to man up so he can feel better about his grandiose evolved manly self - and doesn't seem to show him doing an equivalent for women.

He's been caught again...


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

Guys, this is getting a little ridiculous now. This is becoming a rather personal, heated JM bashing thread and personally I think it's over the line.

Maybe, um, perhaps, agree to disagree?


----------



## shynesshellasucks (May 10, 2008)

Alek said:


> It is. I believe that the PUA scene is damaging and the worst thing an SA guy can do. It prolonged my SA instead of solving it.
> 
> I had to leave that scene, and take a break from everything, and do everything from the ground up - only then did I solve my SA.
> 
> ...


Of course men have to approach. But not the way pua preaches like cold approach in malls garbage. You don't even have to cold approach to meet women you can just meet them through your social circle. Meeting women through work or even school is easier and doesn't come off as creepy. If you can get your social skills up you can approach girls in bars and clubs.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

what if you don't have a social circle? what if you're one of those guys who people just don't accept, and you're stuck in this perpetual loner matrix?


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

shynesshellasucks said:


> Of course men have to approach. But not the way pua preaches like cold approach in malls garbage. You don't even have to cold approach to meet women you can just meet them through your social circle. Meeting women through work or even school is easier and doesn't come off as creepy. If you can get your social skills up you can approach girls in bars and clubs.


Well that's what I did when I left the PUA scene. I started from scratch, as if I was your regular SA guy, and then built my social skills and social circles from scratch and started meeting women in this more natural and healthy way.

Even though you meet a smaller quantity of women, its a lot healthier for you and more satisfying.

And the funny thing is, I now meet women in those "pua locations" again, but this time its not from a PUA-frame. Its from a "social guy" frame. I've gone full circle.

SA-filled pua, plain SA, social circled non-sa guy, non-sa guy in clubs, non-sa guy in malls, streets etc. But again, its very different than a PUA guy... I am just being social everywhere, not "picking up chicks".


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

stranger25 said:


> what if you don't have a social circle? what if you're one of those guys who people just don't accept, and you're stuck in this perpetual loner matrix?


I think you are being too negative. Yes, it's very hard for a shy male in this world socially and dating-wise, but that doesn't mean you can't get friends.

The secret is to get friends first, then use the social confidence and social status from your friends to get a g/f.

When you are with friends, there will usually be a guy that talks to women and you can be a wing-man per say, and voila, you meet a friend (woman) of a friend, and you got yourself a g/f.

It's a lot easier to ask a girl out after you've already talked to her for at least a little bit.

It doesn't always work like the movies, where the confident good-looking guy has to walk up to the woman with this perfect line and bedazzle her with confidence.

Your friends are the building block to getting women. I'd say getting friends is far more important right now than getting laid.

That's how I got the 1 g/f i've ever had.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

stranger25 said:


> what if you don't have a social circle? what if you're one of those guys who people just don't accept, and you're stuck in this perpetual loner matrix?


You're just 20 dude, I don't think I even knew I had SA back at 20 hahaha :d

The reason it feels like you're stuck in a rut is because you're viewing it as one big project. I know, coz I did that too.

And hey, even though I am treated like the charismatic guy everywhere, I still remember and resent all the people who cast me out and turned their backs on me back in my SA days - so I know what its like.

When you have SA, most people think you're REJECTING THEM. Its ironic but true. They see SA as rudeness and arrogance, so they reject you as a form of "rejecting you back.

Here's a simple magic-bullet trick to get you started. Just learn to smile a LOT. Even if you're the quiet guy that doesn't talk to everyone, but you have a smile the whole time, you will no longer be seen as the reject/rejector.

Start with just that, and test that out until you can go into any social place and be smiling the whole time. You'll see how people no longer reject you and cast you out. Work on it until you can do it. It took me 6 months just to learn how to smile - boy it feels weird to even say it took me 6 months just to unparalyze myself of the ability to smile.

I'm not saying people will become your best friends. I'm just saying they'll no longer reject you and cast you out. Its a good start, do that until its normal, and then look for the next steps after that.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

I hate it how people throw out the "you just wanna get laid" stereotype against guys like me. I think companionship is alot more important in the long run.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

stranger25 said:


> I hate it how people throw out the "you just wanna get laid" stereotype against guys like me. I think companionship is alot more important in the long run.


Out of that super-constructive post he took the time and energy to write for you, the only thing you got is "get laid"?

He specifically mentioned it was a plan he used to "get a GF". The term get laid isn't always used to mean "just get laid". It can also mean getting a serious loving girlfriend.

Try to re-read his super-constructive roadmap and plan without a focus on finding what's negative in it.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

stranger25 said:


> I hate it how people throw out the "you just wanna get laid" stereotype against guys like me. I think companionship is alot more important in the long run.


I hope you aren't talking about what I said. I was just trying to say that you are a good guy and I believe that it's possible for you to make friends and a g/f.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Alek and Stranger, are you the same with psychologists you see? No wonder you never solve your mental problems, or SA...

This attacking joinmartin is just getting ridiculous. Yes, he's pompous. Yes, he's arrogant.

But he's also right, and anybody in the psychology department _anywhere_ would tell you the same things he is.

*Oh, and the Megan Fox thing...the reason I agreed with him is that I also don't find her all that attractive. Beauty is subjective, and Megan is not universally attractive. I personally find her a bit plain. *


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

Iceman: Nah not what you said. But have you noticed like whenever a guy like me or you says something about not being able to get a girlfriend for the life of us people will say "you just wanna get laid" or "you're a woman hater" and all that stuff. It's like a taboo subject where everybody shames you and throws it all back onto you and says "no, it's you". Like what Steve Hoca says.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> Alek and Stranger, are you the same with psychologists you see? No wonder you never solve your mental problems, or SA...
> 
> This attacking joinmartin is just getting ridiculous. Yes, he's pompous. Yes, he's arrogant.
> 
> ...


So every psychologist would tell us to man up and that the dating world is even for both sexes? I've had 5 different psychologists, and not one said that stuff to me.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> Alek and Stranger, are you the same with psychologists you see? No wonder you never solve your mental problems, or SA...


I overcame SA about half a decade ago I think.



> But he's also right, and anybody in the psychology department _anywhere_ would tell you the same things he is.


You're saying that half the psychology department would tell you that women approach men just as much!?!? And that its a regular occurrence and that women do just as much work and that supposedly men can just wait around to be approached and asked out? REALLY. Please link me to those studies and departments... Thanks...

Weird... Because that was my main gripe with him. Did you read my posts or assume what I'm arguing him about? This, the above was my main gripe with him. He was lying that women do just as much work. I've heard of no study or psychologists claiming this.



> Oh, and the Megan Fox thing...the reason I agreed with him is that I also don't find her all that attractive. Beauty is subjective, and Megan is not universally attractive. I personally find her a bit plain.


As do I. Megan fox is not my type, and actually I'm just like you. I also find Lavrigne to be my perfect 10. No i'm not kidding you, really.

Martin didn't however say that "tastes are subjective". He said that Megan Fox gets as little attention as anyone else, and then lied to cover it up among many contradictory things he says, but then has to backtrack and invent new things to cover older contradictions.

He also lied that he props up and demands women grow up equally, but clicking on his name shows no such thing, and he basically hunts for low-self-esteem men to tell to man-up, and there's nothing close to an equal gender distribution to his targetting. He targets men.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

IcemanKilmer said:


> So every psychologist would tell us to man up and that the dating world is even for both sexes? I've had 5 different psychologists, and not one said that stuff to me.


Pay attention! JM never said any of that stuff.

In fact, in the last post he made, JM said that the responsible thing to do is to accept that both genders are not the same, made a pool comparison (pool is made up of water, not foam), and told you guys to "just jump in" (just ask out a girl.)

I wonder if you have attention defecit disorder, because you are. not. paying. attention.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

All JM is proving to you is that he wouldn't make a good therapist for you. 

To you, you hear psychobabble. To me, I actually hear constructive advice. 

If you are that butt hurt over his posts, ignore or block him on here.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> All JM is proving to you is that he wouldn't make a good therapist for you.
> 
> To you, you hear psychobabble. To me, I actually hear constructive advice.
> 
> If you are that butt hurt over his posts, ignore or block him on here.


If you are that butt hurt over our posts, ignore or block us on here.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

IcemanKilmer said:


> If you are that butt hurt over our posts, ignore or block us on here.


I have no problem with your posts, except when you act like a spoiled baby whining, "But that's not true! Mommy! Mommy!"

Same with stranger25. I have no problem with him, except when he goes into his TFL (Total F*cking Loonies) rant. And he doesn't listen to the thousands of people that ignore or disagree with him, so he is, in fact, forcing himself to be alone. It is his own creation.

If you guys don't want to be treated like lepers, don't act like ones. There, problem solved!


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

IcemanKilmer said:


> If you are that butt hurt over our posts, ignore or block us on here.


By your own suggestion, 97% of the forum disagree with you.

So should they block you, and you talk to the other 3%? That's like 30 or so people, ya know...?


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> Pay attention! JM never said any of that stuff.
> 
> In fact, in the last post he made, JM said that the responsible thing to do is to accept that both genders are not the same, made a pool comparison (pool is made up of water, not foam), and told you guys to "just jump in" (just ask out a girl.)
> 
> I wonder if you have attention defecit disorder, because you are. not. paying. attention.


What? JM never said both genders are not the same. That's exactly what we're mad about. JM thinks the dating world is even for both sexes. If anything, he tries to claim that women have it harder than men by bringing up meaningless past history of women's hardships.

I wonder if YOU have attention deficit disorder, because you are. not. paying. attention.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> Pay attention! JM never said any of that stuff.
> 
> In fact, in the last post he made, JM said that the responsible thing to do is to accept that both genders are not the same, made a pool comparison (pool is made up of water, not foam), and told you guys to "just jump in" (just ask out a girl.)
> 
> I wonder if you have attention defecit disorder, because you are. not. paying. attention.


Are you sure you've read the same thread. Because you're ascribing what WE said to martin, and you're ascribing what HE said to us.

He specifically lied several times about men and women being the same, with us arguing that they're not. And he never admitted that they're different, despite being challenged scientifically. He just went on from the assumption that we're the same.

WE are the ones saying the genders are different. HE says we're fools for daring to say the genders are different and calls that a "stereotype".


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> By your own suggestion, 97% of the forum disagree with you.
> 
> So should they block you, and you talk to the other 3%? That's like 30 or so people, ya know...?


97% of people disagree with me? I don't think so, bud. That's a bit high.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

IcemanKilmer said:


> 97% of people disagree with me? I don't think so, bud. That's a bit high.


You believe in TFL.

I'd say that 97% of the forum, maybe even higher, disagree with those concepts.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

What's TFL?


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Alek said:


> What's TFL?


True Forced Loneliness.

Or Total F'ing Loonies. Amounts to the same thing.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> You believe in TFL.
> 
> I'd say that 97% of the forum, maybe even higher, disagree with those concepts.


Lol, 97%? That's ridiculous. You're telling me only 3% of the world thinks women have it easier than men in the dating world?

Btw, I believe in about half of what TFL says. They can be over the top and i don't agree with any of those guys when they say they hate women. That's what people don't get. I don't hate women. Never have, never will.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Lol, 97%? That's ridiculous. You're telling me only 3% of the world thinks women have it easier than men in the dating world?
> 
> Btw, I believe in about half of what TFL says. They can be over the top and i don't agree with any of those guys when they say they hate women. That's what people don't get. I don't hate women. Never have, never will.


All of what they say is insane. Bill should be commited to a psychiatric ward. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the next Sodini.

And where did I say that only 3% believes that women don't have it easier? I didn't say that! Twisting my words again.

What I said is that 97% of the forum disagree with you guys on TFL. Alek is okay, because he didn't know what it was (I didn't know this, since you lumped all three of you guys in together.)


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

I don't know what TFL is yet, I'll google it now based on what you gave me... But seeing the languaging that winterstale used "the next sodini" etc, I'm immediatelly assuming its not as evil as he claims.

Sodini-shaming (comparing people to sodini) is ussually used to bash anything that challenges gender roles and tries to tell men its ok to not have to spend their lives "manning up", that is working their butts off to please society and fit a tight male-role.

I don't know if its true in this case, but ussually if a person has to resort to "sodini-shaming" - they're not a reliable source. Its ussually similar to people comparing things to nazis and hitler and what not.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Alek said:


> I don't know what TFL is yet, I'll google it now based on what you gave me... But seeing the languaging that winterstale used "the next sodini" etc, I'm immediatelly assuming its not as evil as he claims.
> 
> Sodini-shaming is ussually used to bash anything that challenges gender roles and tries to tell men its ok to not have to spend their lives "manning up", that is working their butts off to please women.
> 
> I don't know if its true in this case, but ussually if a person has to resort to "sodini-shaming" - they're not a reliable source.


I take my words back. He belongs blocked with the other two of you. :|


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

I just googled it, gives me a bunch of videos from old guys. Where do I start?



WintersTale said:


> And where did I say that only 3% believes that women don't have it easier? I didn't say that! Twisting my words again.


Because that's the subject we're debating. You keep saying "you guys are wrong about everything/martin is right" = that is the equivalent of you saying that women have it easier.

You also said earlier that 97% of people disagree with him, and what he believes. He just stated that the only thing he agrees with these doods is that they apparently say women have it easier.

So 2+2=4, what you've said so far is the equivalent of saying "97% of the forum says you're wrong about women having it easier".

You managed to miss that's what we've been debating all along and even ascribed who said what.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

Yeah, that's me, I'm crazy. A raging psycho. Just because I believe women have it easier than men in the dating world. Lock me up. I'm a danger to society. 

I think it's funny how when someone has an opinion that questions whether something such as dating is fair or not, they are immediately labeled as either a mean person or an insane freak. 

I'm sorry I've questioned this "perfect" world we live in, where everything is "fair."


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Yeah, that's me, I'm crazy. A raging psycho. Just because I believe women have it easier than men in the dating world. Lock me up. I'm a danger to society.
> 
> I think it's funny how when someone has an opinion that questions whether something such as dating is fair or not, they are immediately labeled as either a mean person or an insane freak.
> 
> I'm sorry I've questioned this "perfect" world we live in, where everything is "fair."


Any man who questions the gender-role for males is an angry psycho just waiting to blow up :afr lol Just shut up and ask out 3 billion women, lol. If you don't, you will turn into hitler, because as we know male biology turns men into serial murderers if they don't ask out enough women hahahah.

Despite the fact that buddhist monks and similar layers of the population of every culture in history have disproven this claim. Its just a shaming tactic to get men to do what they're told. Buddhist monks are doing fine, thank you very much.


----------



## Alek (Jun 11, 2011)

*I got several PMs regarding this topic, and I'll anonymously run the last one.*



> I usually avoid reading the relationship/dating topics on here, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your recent posts. I think Joinmartin's shaming language aimed strictly at males with anxiety (on SAS and several other boards as well) is seriously harmful, and I'm glad to see more people who are unafraid to stand against it.


To the guys who sent me PMs, and are about to send me PMs thanking me for standing up for you - dudes, stop waiting for someone else to stand up for you. Not one of you posted in this topic, but you PM-ed me.

I'm on this forum just today, I stumbled on by accident, and I'll be gone by tommorow. If you don't stand up to these guys who try to feel better by bullying you - who will? Again, I was just here for one day to kill an afternoon. You guys have to start standing up to the likes of martin yourselves.There's plenty of these predators around looking for prey, don't feed them.


----------



## nmpennea (May 16, 2011)

For every male that thinks it is easier for women, there is a woman that thinks men have it easier.

Me on the other hand, I think dating if difficult regardless of gender. Each gender has their own set of issues and expectations, there are double standards for men and women. So I think it is the same. And women are not just expected to sit and wait, there has to be effort on both parts. But in all fairness I did not read this whole thread.


----------



## add2list (Nov 10, 2010)

nmpennea said:


> For every male that thinks it is easier for women, there is a woman that thinks men have it easier.
> 
> Me on the other hand, I think dating if difficult regardless of gender. Each gender has their own set of issues and expectations, there are double standards for men and women. So I think it is the same. And women are not just expected to sit and wait, there has to be effort on both parts. But in all fairness I did not read this whole thread.


I agree dating is hard regardless of gender. Being approached doesn't mean you get approached by people you want to date/have a relationship with.

One good thing about reading through all this is that apparently as someone who has been approached by women (many times) I found out I must be "hyper-attractive" according to one poster (thanks sweetie you made my day ) so at least I feel good about that. Shame the rampant misogyny makes me feel sick to my stomach...but you can't have everything.

It doesn't matter who makes the approach. the man or the woman, one of you makes contact, one of you starts flirting, if the other flirts back you keep going and either leave it a bit of fun, or swap numbers and maybe date. Of course maybe that's just been my experience.


----------



## Charizard (Feb 16, 2011)

I've never heard of a girl asking a guy out in my area. Maybe it happens in other places, but not here. 

From an SA perspective, guys have it harder when it comes to getting into a relationship. When it comes to maintaining one, both genders are SOL though.


----------



## nmpennea (May 16, 2011)

Charizard said:


> I've never heard of a girl asking a guy out in my area. Maybe it happens in other places, but not here.
> 
> From an SA perspective, guys have it harder when it comes to getting into a relationship. When it comes to maintaining one, both genders are SOL though.


That may not be true. I think it depends on the severity of SA. There have been times that I was so bad if I was approached I would not be able to speak. I had this whole wall around me where I just was not receptive, now I am receptive and it only happens by people who I don't want to date. It all happens when it happens. I think it is all on an individual level.

Oh and girls ask guys out all the time.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

Charizard said:


> I've never heard of a girl asking a guy out in my area. Maybe it happens in other places, but not here.
> 
> From an SA perspective, guys have it harder when it comes to getting into a relationship. When it comes to maintaining one, both genders are SOL though.


I have heard and seen MANY, MANY girls/women flirt and ask out men. Sometimes women won't approach, however, but will instead obviously flirt or give invitation for the man to make the move, but really getting that approval takes much the anxiety away from the guy, so it isn't like it is harder to flirt or to make the direct move. It is typically the unknown people fear because it has greater risks of rejection or failure. An invitation from a man or women takes a high percentage of the "unknown" away. From this perspective, it almost seems scarier for a woman to make the "unknown" plunge to send an open invitation to the man to make a move because she is going into the "unknown" while the man is simply reciprocating her invitation. In other words, she is going 100% into the "unknown" by flirting or sending signals and the man is going maybe 30% or less into the "unknown" because he can tell by her signals she is interested. With this said, the woman has a harder time. However, as I've stated earlier, both women and men approach flirt/send signals, etc, so it seems about equal. From my experience, it does appear women have more options, and I won't go into why right now.


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

I've never seen it and if it's so common as everyone says it is surely I would have seen it happening. In my experience and in my "section" of life I just don't believe that to be true.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

stranger25 said:


> I've never seen it and if it's so common as everyone says it is surely I would have seen it happening. In my experience and in my "section" of life I just don't believe that to be true.


Then you are blind or haven't experienced enough. I don't say things here to get approval. I've had it happen to me many times, and that is just me. I won't argue with you though because I don't care enough.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

bwidger85 said:


> Then you are blind or haven't experienced enough. I don't say things here to get approval. I've had it happen to me many times, and that is just me. I won't argue with you though because I don't care enough.


I have also.

It doesn't mean an advantage doesn't tip one way.

Perhaps is it is the terminology. Women(in general) can get "a date" more easily, with less effort. However "dating" may not be easier for them.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

Dating is equally hard for both genders.

Now, getting into a relationship is easier for women. But actually being in a relationship? Same for both genders.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

VanDamMan said:


> Women(in general) can get "a date" more easily, with less effort. However "dating" may not be easier for them.


That makes dating easier for them. Don't you see, you just said it yourself.

Since it's easier for them to get a date, they have more opportunities. The more chances and practicing you get at dating, the easier it makes dating.

It's like anything else in life, the more practice you get at something, the better you get at it.

It's not just that, but there is so much less pressure. They always know that they won't have to be socially aggressive, and walk up and talk to a guy, because he's will willing to come up to them.

There's even more than that. If women ever don't have a guy, they don't have to listen to shaming tactics like "man up," "you have no game," or "you gotta have confidence, dude." Instead they are more likely to get sympathy from their lady friends and even male friends will give them sympathy.

I don't really get how you are trying to say it's not easier. You said yourself women have it easier getting a date, and then that it's the same for both sexes once the dating begins. Well, those are the two hardest aspects of dating, getting a date and holding on to one. If women have it easier on one of those aspects, which they do, then they obviously have the upper hand in dating.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

All I can say is it appears they have more options. This is just one example, but all you have to do is go an online dating site to see why.

Without trying to be all technical and stuff, there is a biological reason for this. Biology states that the one who invests the most in a relationship (child bearing, etc) will be the chooser and the one who invests less will typically compete and have less options. With this said, if males were to have the most investment in a relationship (child bearing, etc) then they would be more likely to choose while the females competed, and it even goes even further to describe the size differences among males and females for most species.

Last year I had a biology class that taught this, but I googled some info on it and you can probably find it all here (I just skimmed through it):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
*(READ SEXUAL DIMORPHISM)*


----------



## stranger25 (Apr 29, 2010)

bwidger85 said:


> All I can say is it appears they have more options. This is just one example, but all you have to do is go an online dating site to see why.


Boom!


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

^^^^
Once again, it probably has to do with sexual biology.

I'll say it one more time and as of now this is my current viewpoint on the whole matter: Women have more options but also encounter similar yet different problems on varying scales compared to males.

Some would argue that a super unattractive woman or obese woman has no options either, but what they don't seem to see is that a woman can be uglier in her sex and still receive, at best, MORE attention than a male of the same caliber (I could be wrong, but this is what I understand at least), whereas a male can be in the same position and receive no attention. BUT before you use this as evidence, just realize that wants and needs are subjective to most people, and while some argue physical attractive is subjective, I disagree.

Or, it probably isn't even as complicated as that. Biology also states that couples tend to pair up with the opposite sex that matches their level of physical attraction, which I feel is probably more toward the truth without subjection getting in the way (naturally attracted without subjections to alter one's choice). You don't always see this happen, but more than likely I believe this to be more likely. (READ "Similarity [like-attracts-like", or also, "matching hypothesis")

Summed up: yes, I do think women have more options, but they also have different obstacles.


----------



## Monroee (Aug 26, 2009)

Yup. I ain't gonna lie. It's easier for women because men are expected to do the approaching.

Now.. when it comes to bisexual or lesbian women, things get a bit more complicated.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> That makes dating easier for them. Don't you see, you just said it yourself.
> 
> Since it's easier for them to get a date, they have more opportunities. The more chances and practicing you get at dating, the easier it makes dating.
> 
> ...


I was trying to find some common ground between the two positions. I think when guys say "easy", we are referring to first date and possibly sex. But women have a more complex view of what dating is. There is a whole structure/system to it that most guys don't even know about. They think a little more long term, not just the first date.

So yeah, the beginning stages may be easier. But when you think longer-term, it gets a bit murkier.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

bwidger85 said:


> ^^^^
> Once again, it probably has to do with sexual biology.


Right you are sir, it is human biology. This is another place where Steve Hoca is wrong.

Hoca once said in his video that a shaming tactic is biology doesn't favor shy men. Well, guess what Steve, these people are right. Biology doesn't favor shy men, and that's why a large percentage of shy men suffer in the dating world.

It's not a shaming tactic, it's just an accurate observation of why socially anxious men tend to struggle in the dating world.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

VanDamMan said:


> I was trying to find some common ground between the two positions. I think when guys say "easy", we are referring to first date and possibly sex. But women have a more complex view of what dating is. There is a whole structure/system to it that most guys don't even know about. They think a little more long term, not just the first date.
> 
> So yeah, the beginning stages may be easier. But when you think longer-term, it gets a bit murkier.


I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit sexist. The way you word that, it sounds like you are saying most guys just want to get laid.

Don't get me wrong, men tend to want sex more than women because of biology (we think about sex more, and yes this has been statistically proven), but if what you were saying was true, then why do 96% of people get married at least once in their lifetime in the USA? You wanna talk about commitment, that's long-term commitment. That's a lot of dudes taking the plunge.


----------



## VanDamMan (Nov 2, 2009)

IcemanKilmer said:


> I'm sorry, but that sounds a bit sexist. The way you word that, it sounds like you are saying most guys just want to get laid.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, men tend to want sex more than women because of biology (we think about sex more, and yes this has been statistically proven), but if what you were saying was true, then why do 96% of people get married at least once in their lifetime in the USA? You wanna talk about commitment, that's long-term commitment. That's a lot of dudes taking the plunge.


Once a relationship is established, I don't think women have an inherent advantage. Its usually the guy that dictates when marriage happens.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

IcemanKilmer said:


> Right you are sir, it is human biology. This is another place where Steve Hoca is wrong.
> 
> Hoca once said in his video that a shaming tactic is biology doesn't favor shy men. Well, guess what Steve, these people are right. Biology doesn't favor shy men, and that's why a large percentage of shy men suffer in the dating world.
> 
> It's not a shaming tactic, it's just an accurate observation of why socially anxious men tend to struggle in the dating world.


I agree with you, to some extent.

Although I think shy men can compensate. Bill Gates is very nerdy and shy, yet he became a billionaire. So he's got an attractive wife, and kids.

However, if you're not Bill Gates, but Bill Yates (the unemployed plumber), expect no woman to show up at your door.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

VanDamMan said:


> Once a relationship is established, I don't think women have an inherent advantage. Its usually the guy that dictates when marriage happens.


Oh really? I find that odd considering 66% of divorces are initiated by women in the USA.


----------



## IcemanKilmer (Feb 20, 2011)

WintersTale said:


> I agree with you, to some extent.
> 
> Although I think shy men can compensate. Bill Gates is very nerdy and shy, yet he became a billionaire. So he's got an attractive wife, and kids.
> 
> However, if you're not Bill Gates, but Bill Yates (the unemployed plumber), expect no woman to show up at your door.


Yes, money matters, especially with women over 25 years old.


----------



## nervousman (Jun 9, 2010)

Yes and no. Men are supposed to be the hunter and the agresser. So, if you are awkward, it's alot harder to accomplish that. Women, on the other hand, can be awkward, but guys will still go after them. Problem is, the awkwardness might draw the wrong kind of guy to them.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

****Thread Lock *Watch*****
There seems to be a lot of bickering going on here. Chill out!


----------



## nmpennea (May 16, 2011)

nervousman said:


> Yes and no. Men are supposed to be the hunter and the agresser. So, if you are awkward, it's alot harder to accomplish that. Women, on the other hand, can be awkward, but guys will still go after them. Problem is, the awkwardness might draw the wrong kind of guy to them.


It does, attract the wrong kind of guy. Well only speaking from personal experience.

But that is why I said it was more of an individual thing.

And I can see why some men would think it would be easier for women in general to have dates, but then there are those dumb expectations on women, you have to have sex by a certain time or you aren't worth time, to many guys.

And then women put expectations on men too, and I think a lot of them are stupid.

I don't know, I don't think there is really a clear yes or no answer here.


----------



## UndreamingAwake (Apr 11, 2011)

My previous therapist once told me that we (men) have the advantage that we can pick the women we approach. And I agree with what was previously posted, that women may, especially if they are good looking, be approached by all sorts of different guys, including many creeps. As my date told me, she's 22 and she's constantly approached by guys in their 40s, but only a few times by guys her own age. 

So in a way, it can be hard for women too, in that they need to be discerning whom they date. Now, I know a lot of you guys are probably going to say "I wish I had women, any type of women swarm to me and give me attention", and I hear you, but maybe it's something to think about.


----------



## gomenne (Oct 3, 2009)

I wish it was the case :/
You offend so many people by this thread


----------

