I have seen a few threads lately where guys complain about how girls never approach them. My question is: so what?
What it means for you to approach a girl is you will have to be courageous and take a risk. You feel that there is this demand being put upon you by the female sex: if you approach you might or might not succeed, if you don't approach you are guaranteed no success. Us girls... all we have to do is sit around and let the guys come to us, so easy, so unfair!~
Except that we are being sized up and judged based on how thin our waist is, how big our boobs are, what kind of clothes we are wearing, and how pretty we are overall. It doesn't matter how intelligent a girl is, or successful, or what attitude she takes on life. I despise the thought that guys are looking at me and may be automatically rejecting me because my hair is short, I don't bother with makeup, and that I select my shoes for comfort and not sex appeal.
Sure, being judged at face value is unfair for both sexes. Which has it worse, where you are judged on your level of confidence or judged on your appearance. Which sex is the most shallow here?
>Tell me, had you already been on good terms with your partner, that is to say, you approached her and started a good conversation with her before you started dating, or did she approach you out of the blue and propose the acquaintanceship?
I didn't know her before she started hitting on me. Actually later I learned that a common friend had showed her a beach picture of me and she decided she had to meet me. We met at a party and she monopolized me for the whole evening. It was not subtle. By the third meeting she "accidentally" kissed me on the mouth when we where kissing our goodbyes. It was obvious that she was interested in me. I thought about it, decided to give it a try and asked her out. So as you may notice, although she clearly was the active party in this business, it was still up to me to officially "ask" her out, and that's where culture comes in. Although she was heavily and visibly invested into creating a relationship, officially she had made no move and expected me to do it, because that's how things are supposed to happen in our culture (fortunately this is less and less the case).
>A woman will never approach someone who's shy either or who generally keeps to himself. No, she'll be far more attracted by the actions of someone who is as loud and arrogant as possible. Even though these personality types are abominable to begin with, why take a chance and talk to the guy minding his own business in the corner?
Well, its obvious that people who stand out have more chances of being noticed that shy people who are good at passing unnoticed. And although people may stand out for the wrong reasons, this still gives them an advantage over people who are not noticed at all. In my case, she did not know me before we met, so it did not matter if I was shy or extrovert (I'm more on the introvert spectrum).
You know, in real life the last time I was approached by a guy in real life was in eighth grade. Yeah, guys do not come up to me and start hitting on me. It just never happens. Of course, I have hit on guys before, and the results have been mixed.
So really, you're living in a bubble. How do you expect a girl to approach you when you are radiating hostility and hatred? Wherever you are you are muttering to yourself, "girls are shallow, girls only want assholes, girls can't make the first move". No girl wants to approach someone with a toxic attitude like that. If a girl did approach her you would be a complete asshole to her, wouldn't you? Nobody likes you because your a snivling whiny little jerk. You are the asshole, and yet you get no girls. Get over your resentment and get a life.
>>47
This here is an admission from you that women will do everything but make their interest to you known. Even as forward as she was, she didn't make her intentions known. Why the hell is this at all acceptable period, but worse yet, acceptable for women but not guys? If a woman does it, it's expected of her. A guy? Oh no, then he's being an asshole. I don't what anything to do with this system, nor do I like the idea of even touching "people" who think they can pull this double standard bullshit on us.
>>48
Until you can explain why this little dating system of yours based on manipulative signals is justified in anyway and why think its okay for anyone to respect you while you continue this shit, I'll be happy hating you pathetic excuses for "people."
>>49 I have big news to you: human relationships are all about manipulation. That is the thing: you do things to get a certain behavior from others. There's nothing wrong with that unless you are completely egocentric, a liar and lack empathy.
However I'm thinking that you are indeed not suited for the western society dating system, because you abhor failure and rejection. You would probably fare better in a society (north Africa, Middle-East, India) where your parents arrange a marriage for you, or where you buy off a bride. What do you think?
>>50
Uhhh, see the thing with women is that they all seem to lack empathy and they all seem to be liars. They won't ever tell you directly what they want where as with all other forms of interaction you at least have an idea what you're getting. With women and their screwy system? It's basically throwing darts in a dark room. How the hell can I respect anyone who intentionally throws this sheep's wool over my eyes? This isn't about failure and rejection, it's about jumping through flaming hoops then you realize you also have to land on a platform one inch long amongst a pit of spikes just to build a relationship with another human being who thinks their shit doesn't stink enough to warrant this. It's really appropriate when you realize that women are far more unpleasant than men in general as people.
>the thing with women is that they all seem to lack empathy and they all seem to be liars.
Humm, I advise you to stay away from women. They are not suited to you, and you are not suited to them. Don't worry, there are plenty of other things to do in life, besides having to deal with them. Of course, you may try men, as an alternative.
So Mr. Asshole, how should a woman approach you? Do you want her to be the one to ask you out? Or do you want her to slam you against a wall and start raping you? It sounds like what you want is to be the submissive one in the relationship. You want the girl to be the dominate one and to be the one that does the work.
In the real world that lies outside of the mind there is a give and take. Women do approach men, women ask men out, women sometimes pay the bill for the date, but we are not going to do everything. A woman is not going to just start making out with you and give you a blow job, you're going to have to ask first.
Let me tell you, the problem isn't every woman on the face of the earth. The problem you have with girls is caused by YOU.
>>53
Because clearly relationship roles need to be defined by extremes. No, what I want is someone who has the decency to be honest with me. In all honesty sometimes I do get women sending their signals at me. But it's precisely because they're using signals and not actually talking to me that I get angry. It's dishonesty by definition, even when someone does have an interest in you.
>>54
Exactly.
As they say, don't hate the players, hate the game.
I actually told that once to somebody. "Excuse me if I don't respond to your bullshit, but I clearly hate the game. Don't make me hate you."
>>53
Ok, I'm going to see if I can understand where your coming from. What you see is a girl giving you a signal, and what you take from that is she expects you to approach her. She expects you to walk up and initiate the conversation. Am I correct or incorrect here? I'm just going to assume I'm correct and you can tell me if I'm wrong in a reply.
The problem with this is there are girls that don't expect you to walk up to them, they just want to see if you like them or not. If I was interested in a guy I would send a signal, which would actually be asking "I think you're cute, do you think I'm cute?" The response I'm looking for is just a smile and maybe a nod. If I get a smile I will go up to him and start talking to him.
My other option would be to tap him on the shoulder and start talking to him. His response is he could look at me and say, "hi", pause for a moment and then say to a friend of his, "excuse me, I need to use the restroom." Aka a polite rejection. I would feel humiliate if I approached someone like that and had them beat a hasty retreat. At least if I send a signal and he scowls at me the rejection is silent. So please inform me how a signal is being dishonest? I'm just seeing if a guy is interested in me or not.
Oh, and BTW, guys send signals too. Yup. Never had a guy tap me on the shoulder or just come out of nowhere and talk to me. They will do a gesture or a look that says that they are interested in me and look for my reaction. So this signal thing works both ways.
>>56
Whoops, prior thread was meant to address post #54. Sorry, wish they allowed editing on these boards.
>>56
A smile and a nod can mean anything. They don't necessarily have to be connected to a romantic context. People usually tell me I look extremely gloomy so when I see people smile at me or try to start a conversation, I assume they're trying to cheer me up or something, not necessarily anything else. Or even if that weren't the case, maybe they're just being friendly. In any case, it's hardly means romance. And if you do end up misinterpreting things, then you're setting yourself up for a massive humiliation. In the case of someone just talking to you, well you understand the person was just being a deceitful asshole and you're done with it. You're still humiliated but not to the extent that you'd want to quit this dating game both out of disgust and humiliation entirely since signals are so ambiguous.
But even then, when the sole basis of this communication is based on signals, I wonder how anyone can put up with it. It's entirely antithetical to any normal means of communication. I don't like beating around the bush or hinting at things, I want actual direct communication. Some of the signals you've mentioned I've noticed are utilized rarely by people. Instead you have people fooling around and what we're dealing with then isn't real communication, it's a game involving people beating around the bush. For any relationship to be reduced to that is an affront. And even then if you don't notice these signals, no matter how direct they are, or play along, then there's essentially no relationship. If the foundation of a relationship is established upon such shaky grounds, then the whole premise of romance seems farcical.
>>when I see people smile at me or try to start a conversation, I assume they're trying to cheer me up or something, not necessarily anything else. Or even if that weren't the case, maybe they're just being friendly. In any case, it's hardly means romance. And if you do end up misinterpreting things, then you're setting yourself up for a massive humiliation.
THIS. Girls have smiled at me before, but I never respond with anything more than a smile back. I can never tell when a smile is supposed to mean more than just a smile, and if I presume incorrectly, I might have a sexual-harrassment suit on my hands.
I mean, it's simple math. If she only means the smile and I only smile back, then that's it -- there's nothing between us. If she means the smile to mean more than just a smile and I only smile back, I've lost my chance. If she means it only as a smile and I mistakenly interpret it as something more, I put myself at risk for a harrassment charge.
Only if she means the smile as something more AND I correctly interpret it and respond appropriately does the signal lead anywhere.
That's only a 25% chance of success, and we're just talking theory, here. Factor in real-world variables, and the percentage chance of success is even less.
With signals, you've got such slim odds that it's not even worth trying, especially when the risks for screwing up can be much worse than mere humiliation.
>>59
Assuming that by "respond appropriately" you don't mean "pin her down and screw her right there", what's needed is for judges to smack down women who think they need to cry to the courts just because a guy came up and said hi. Sadly, most of the local judges are elected, and they'd lose their job if they weren't tough on "crime" and the women's organizations would have their heads if they didn't bend over backwards for every woman who was offended by a man.
Man, all I can say is that you guys are really resentful. But have you forgotten that dating is difficult for most of us? You guys are bitter about getting unclear signals from girls. I'm sure there are plenty of women out there that see guys as insincere, only looking to get a one night stand. I will say that for the most part I ignore guys because I think most of them are only looking for a fuck. Both sexes can point fingers and blame each other for shortcomings. Women tend to be passive-aggressive, making false rape charges or playing mind games. Men tend to be violent and end up raping and beating their girlfriend.
Stereotyping other people based on gender or age or race or religion or occupation or intelligence or political party affiliation or anything means you are not seeing people as they are: a person. Sure there are psycho bitches that will play games, but there are plenty of sincere people out there. And everyone out there, whether they will admit it or not want the appreciation and approval of others. While you complain about the agenda of females what you really want is to be noticed and appreciated by a girl.
How about instead of trying to find out what a girl means with a signal you just try talking to her? Try being a nice person and just see what happens.
Okay, this probably has not convinced you in the least, you're probably still suspecting that women are all plotting to dash your dreams of romantic love to the dirt. Because when it comes down to it women shouldn't be so cryptic right? They should be approaching men too. However, women do approach men. There are girls that will just start hitting on guys. There are girls that will ask guys out. The problem is that girls that are confident and outgoing tend to want the same from the guys they approach. So yes, girls approach guys, they just aren't approaching you.
>>So yes, girls ... just aren't approaching you.
This thread's truth in a nutshell.
I wonder... why do you expect anyone to approach you? For anyone to lean against a wall and expect the person they're interested in to approach them is delusional. The reality is whether you are a girl or a guy if you want to spark a relationship with anyone you are going to have to take a risk. You're going to have to go out there and start a conversation, or try flirting or ask them to dance. This is not a sex based concept, it applies to everyone.
So if you see a girl showing signals then try to approach her. You might start something. And if you get rejected there are plenty of other girls out there. The same goes for the chicks. If a guy gives me a signal and I don't follow up on it I missed my chance. That's not the other person's fault, that was mine for being a coward.
Stop blaming 50% of the world's population for your problem and face the facts. You don't have the balls to approach girls. It's not their problem, it's YOUR problem. You know, if you weren't such a coward you wouldn't have the problem you're faced with. Girls don't like cowards, so grow a little confidence. Have some faith in yourself, don't wuss out. Get some confidence in yourself and stop giving all the power to the girl. Seriously, girls should be the same way too, they should approach people the are interested as well. But you can't blame girls for your own cowardace.
Courage and confidence to all!!
>>63
Yes, clearly my lack of approaching girls means I lack confidence. It couldn't be that I'm generally not a take charge person in general or that I'm somewhat awkward when it comes to social situations, namely romance, and facing a sexual harassment lawsuit or generally making a fool out of myself. Never mind that this assertion leads away from the original problem which is that women rarely make their intents known to guys as is. Granted there have been girls who have bluntly made their interests known to me but these were few.
Your assertion that women only ask out confident guys is a false dichotomy saying that every guy who doesn't take charge or is outgoing is automatically spineless. It's why women go around complaining about their jerk boyfriend while they fail to notice that some of their friends are equally good relationship material or that there are people who they fail to notice period that are good relationship material. Granted such decency alone should not entail a date and you say that women should approach guys too, but when you say that I should automatically respond to the most obscure of signals, it does reinforce the notion of guys not only approaching first, but also that signals are acceptable in the first place when direct communication comes from someone respectable.
>>Yes, clearly my lack of approaching girls means I lack confidence. It couldn't be that I'm generally not a take charge person in general or that I'm somewhat awkward when it comes to social situations, namely romance, and facing a sexual harassment lawsuit or generally making a fool out of myself.
I think all that >>63 is trying to say is that we shouldn't assume that women will change their enculturated behavior just to suit those of us who happen to be awkward in social situations. Taking umbrage at the situation won't change the basic facts of the matter.
And the sad fact at the heart of it all is that, in our society, men are expected to take risks. We're supposed to be bold, pioneering entrepreneurs. That's what society expects of us; so it should come as little surprise that if we prefer to be conservative and avoid risk, society assumes that something is wrong with us. And what rational woman would want to date a malfunctioning guy?
Righteous indignation is all well and good, but it won't change hearts and minds. This is the hand we're dealt; our options are either to ante up, or fold and go home. Personally, I choose to give up, but I know perfectly well where that will lead me. I've resigned myself to a life lived alone.
But you, of course, are free to do what you want. Just don't expect society to change just to suit your convenience.
>>we shouldn't assume that women will change their enculturated behavior just to suit those of us who happen to be awkward in social situations. Taking umbrage at the situation won't change the basic facts of the matter...if we prefer to be conservative and avoid risk, society assumes that something is wrong with us. And what rational woman would want to date a malfunctioning guy?
Then according to this reasoning, why the hell should I respect women when they've made it clear they don't respect me? OP says that women shouldn't be blamed, that they should be respected, but this shoddy reasoning is essentially an admission that women don't deserve respect, since men refusing to take the initiative don't deserve respect either. Yet she says that men deserve the greater blame here and she sounds like the supposed sexists she denounces. She ignores that outgoing guys ask shy or generally less outgoing girls out all the time. Clearly when she says that men should man up and approach women because they lack confidence otherwise, there couldn't be any alternatives to why refuse to take initiative. Never mind that approaching someone is not necessarily connected to taking initiative.
Furthermore the issue isn't that I'm a coward, it's that women really can be obtuse with their intentions sometimes, yet this is acceptable, even encouraged. The ultimate irony is that her argument promotes deceit and for men to possibly not take the initiative, since men should apparently be free to send vague signals too, to women who do approach, without actually, you know, DOING anything. The position contradicts itself.
This deceitful behavior is unacceptable and tells a lot about someone. It's akin to being in a classroom where the teacher has a childish mentality and is always playing a game of, "Guess the word!" except I thought we were supposed to be more mature than that.
I don't feel like sorting through the details of your argument, but hey, if you want to hate the game and bitch and whine and never get any, go right on ahead.
Don't worry, some of us value our dignity over being a sellout to copulate with some retard's incapable vagina.
What I don't get, though, is why you bother to keep arguing. Yes, society expects men to be assertive, and if you aren't, society says that there is something wrong with you, not with itself. But seriously, any truly worthwhile relationship isn't going to be based on being a sellout to society anyway. Arguing to prove a point isn't going to change the situation.
>>67
Wow, ignorance and blindness are rife with you. First of all you are totally forgetting the context of history. For the past several thousands of years women were expected to be completely submissive to men and take absolutely no initiative. Often times women couldn't even say no to an arranged marriage. Only since the sexual revolution of the 1960s could women really have any say in the realm of dating.
You're looking at a cultural shift here. We have only been able to take an active role in sex and dating in the past forty years. And things are changing, women are being more aggressive and communicating their intentions more, and yet culture changes slowly. Women are still expected to be passive, men are still expected to be the aggressive one that initiates. No it is not fair for either sex, but that's the way it is. It is shifting, but it's not going to change tomorrow.
I fully understand that the sexes should be equal and are not, but I accept that. Societies change slowly. I wish each sex approached one another equally, but that won't be the case for decades. Either you are going to have to accept the world as it is and play the game as it is or you should just label yourself a women hater. Ranting and raving about the circumstances of the world won't do you any good.
>>71
Hey, I never said I was a woman hater. I said I despise this behavior of playing games and that anyone who utilizes it is essentially telling me they don't deserve respect. Likewise, any woman who labels me a pussy or less of a man because I refuse to play the game or because I think it's stupid can go straight to Hell too. Nevertheless, you cannot in any rational manner defend the game without admitting it for the bullshite it is. Granted as I've said before, I have had girls be honest with me about their intentions so the idea of me hating women is farcical. And it seems you got carried away some posts ago, ignoring the original complaint I've issued which is against the behavior itself and the notion of this behavior being acceptable.
You're right, the game is bullshit, and I was never defending it. My point was that saying the game is bullshit doesn't change that fact, and neither does complaining about it. I didn't say play along with it.
>>74
My point wasn't so much about whether or not the game should be played, but whether those who play the game dogmatically should be respected.
Well, outside of rare circumstances, playing the game is really the only way to get anywhere, romantically speaking.
If you aim to curse everyone who plays the game, I hope you realize you're basically declaring unilateral war on the Western world.
>>73
I think you and I might actually be very similar. There are arrogant assholes out there that are after a one night stand and not interested in a relationship of substance, nor are they interested in women with substance. I avoid these types of men, and I see them as not worth any sort of effort approaching.
Perhaps similarly you dislike women that want to feel in control by making men do everything for her like making the man approach her, buy her drinks, cover the bill, etc.
And these two types of people play games with each other and you want to have the game end, and have these women be straightforward instead of manipulative.
But I find that the game is an extension of their lives, an extension of their personality. Everyone with these deficient characteristics will play the game as though the game was the meaning of life.
This is from "don't hate the player, hate the game"
Don't hate, cause my game's much, tighter than yours
My girls, finer than yours
My jewels shine, brighter than yours
You look me dead in my face
then you act like you don't see me
You wanna be me, you hate my motherfuckin' guts
Lickin' nuts - what's the deal?
It's a level playin' field, my games' against yours, hustlin' wars
Roll the dice, risk your motherfuckin' life
Bank rolls and low hoes, anything goes...
I don't know why a player wanna hate T
I didn't choose the game, the game chose me"
The players are people that see all life as a game and do everything to keep image. In a way I pity the player. But there is the fact that dating and sex is a game too.
The way I approach "the game" is I am not looking for the player, but the person that doesn't see life as a game. I look for a potential partner that will be an equal to me, and treat me as an equal and will stick with me. But am I going to go up to him and ask him to marry me? Nope, I have to play the game and see if there is interest, determine if there is chemistry, go out on dates and see if there is a connection. One has to start with flirting and build up to conversation, and to kissing and to a relationship.
The point I am making is you should not hate the game but hate the player. You hate both. But if you are ever going to find a good relationship you need to find a girl that strikes your interest and doesn't want to play the game for the sake of playing the game but plays for keeps. And then you would have to play the game, you will need to ask her out, talk to her, flatter her and see if she is worth your effort. Everyone that wants a partner has to make an effort, and has to play the game. We need a process that determines whether a potential mate is right for us, or if they are not. That is the purpose of the game, and the game is over once you find the right person.
So stop hating the game and avoid the girls that play for the sake of playing. If you are going to hate the game then give up on finding the girl.
Which is an entirely valid point- if you're just playing the game for the sake of playing the game, you're a retard, but like >>76 and >>77 said, it's basically the only way to start a relationship in Western society because we don't really do arranged marriages here. (I'm sure there are still some, but I have yet to hear of any.)
I actually dislike both genders of "players." I am female myself, and I don't want a guy to do every last little thing for me just because I'm a woman. It actually rather bothers me when he does- I can open my own car door, thank you. However, if he insists on paying, I won't stop him if that makes him feel better about himself, because hey, more money I get to keep. Shallow, possibly, but if all he can pay for is the dollar theatre and Wendy's, I'm fine with that too.
>>78 what the heck is Wendy's, for the non-USians around here?
Besides the trivia, I wonder how Mr. Player-Hater suggests we should play the game, in his ideal world? This is a serious question, I hope we can get an interesting answer...
>>what the heck is Wendy's, for the non-USians around here?
It's a fast-food chain, comparable to McDonald's or Burger King.
I may be wrong, but I would think that Mr. Player-Hater, as you call him, would rather that people just directly say "Hey, I like you. Date me plz?" to which they would receive a response of "Hey, I like you too. Sure I'll date you." or "No offense, but I don't really see you as dateable." Or perhaps an even more straightforward yes or no.
>>77
>>78
No when I say play the game dogmatically, I mean that's the only way they'll ever communicate their desires to you initially. It's bullshit and an affront to any kind of real social interaction. If I acted this way around making new friends, it'd be frustrating as hell and they'd probably get tired of me quickly. Why is it okay for romance? The whole thing is nothing more than a set of cheap ploys and half-assed gestures that have ridiculously arbitrary meanings. You want a coffee date? Oh then you don't like her in that way or you don't respect her enough to take her to a real fine establishment. Please. Grow up and get over yourself. The whole thing feels like prolonged entrance fees for a longer span of fucking a prostitute. If you don't respect me enough to be honest with me or that you gauge my worth as a mate based on where I take you, I feel like I'm dealing with a goddamn gold digger. You can find out plenty about people and their compatibility for you without beating around the bush and essentially wasting your time. I always love how you have to wait X number of days before calling someone. It's not like you could just be really into them from the beginning without being clingy, right?
>>81
Something like that. I think the whole notion of dating is absurd and that people should be free to spend romantic time alone without any bullshit pretense of going out, that time spent in a restaurant is somehow more meaningful than simply interacting normally with each other. People need to be more direct and honest with each other.
>>81
Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone was just straight forward about everything? Unfortunately people hide things because they want to protect themselves from the consequences. One person will be furious at someone else but will pretend everything is fine. Someone will not tell something that happened in the past that is relivent today. And one person will not approach another because they are afraid of being rejected.
I must say I have it easy, not because I'm a girl but because I can tell if someone likes me. It's just so obvious to me. Maybe I could give my ability to Mr. Player-Hater so he can tell when a girl likes him and have the confidence to approach her.
I do find it contradictory that he doesn't approach other people, but gets upset about no one approaching him.
>>82
... but, but, I met my boyfriend on a coffee date. And we take each other out to dinner. One date he'll treat and the next date I'll treat.
I must agree that paying the tab for every date is bullshit, but I would expect a girl to pay her share too. That's the way I am with dates. I wonder if you are constantly running into a specific class of females or if I'm really rare. Maybe you're just attracted to the wrong types of girls?
>The way I approach "the game" is I am not looking for the player, but the person that doesn't see life as a game. I look for a potential partner that will be an equal to me, and treat me as an equal and will stick with me. But am I going to go up to him and ask him to marry me? Nope, I have to play the game and see if there is interest, determine if there is chemistry, go out on dates and see if there is a connection. One has to start with flirting and build up to conversation, and to kissing and to a relationship.
Why do you have to "play the game"? This is what I don't get. I like to spend time with people. Talk to them. Get to know them. I'm a very social person (even if I'm kinda shy, seriously). The bad thing is I often "decide" I like someone after some time. But no, "the game" requires us guys to play moves quickly. Why? because otherwise here comes the dreaded friendzone, and before you know it you're the very cool guy everyone likes, and yet without relationship. See what I mean?
Okay, story time. After my last romantic screw-up (waited too long, got too close without "playing" the girl, and she ended up with a player friend of mine), I decided "oh hell no never again". I think this is where the "I have to" entered on stage for me. For some time, I started almost every encounter with scheming - subtle inner workings of my strategy-inclined mind - and considered almost every new girl I met as a potential partner. Then two things happened. First, I realized that it was a different way to adopt a comportment I've been forbidding myself to have: manipulation. Although it was in the frame of "playing the game", I was doing not much more than playing with attitudes, words and so much more with the only goal of manipulating people.
And then, I realized that it didn't work well for me. Because as much as I liked the idea of having people in my pocket, I knew that they didn't like me as I, deep down, would have liked them. When you "cheat" a feeling, it doesn't bear much value, does it?
So now, I just do the minimum, and don't care much about the rest. The sad thing is that a lot of people and, worse, the very concept of a relationship have lost a lot of value in my eyes in the process.
Yeah, I think I'd like a world where you can just hang around people, and when you'd feel you like them a lot you could just tell them knowing it could work. But as you said... In our time and place, it doesn't work like this.
Oh well, I might be doomed to friendzone for life. At least I feel I'm honest with myself. If it's the price to pay, so be it. Don't throw me stones if you find me apathetic and a bit cynical about relationships now. And if, as it happened to me before, a female friend asks me "I don't get it, why doesn't a guy like you have a girlfriend?", now I know what to answer: "Because I despise the game". This probably sounds arrogant, but it's not my problem.
>>83
...No I get upset at the manipulative "signals" used by women. If you want me, fucking say it and let it out. Don't dick around with bullshit that nobody in their right mind would care to sift through. If I see a woman giving me "signals", I get the idea that I'm going to be manipulated or have to deal with bullshite in general and my interest is lessened. Seriously, I can understand having reluctance to make your interest known but the game takes it to a whole new level of idiocy. Of course even if I did want women to approach me, there's nothing contradictory with it, not when the idiocy of the game and stupid signals are taken into account. Or in an ideal world without any bullshit, men and women would be free to be assertive with each other, and therefore my complaints that women always need to have the man ask them out directly would be nullified. If I'm shy, in an ideal world it's okay because I know a woman will take interest in me anyway and make her interest known. Not today though. That is what bothers me.
Then again, your rationale for defending the game is unsatisfactory since ultimately the game culminates with people revealing their feelings for each other. Rejection is a non-issue and doesn't justify why people play the game. Why waste time instead of solving the problem quickly? Is it to try and gauge interest, to see how determined a guy is to love you? Really if that's all it is, grow the fuck up. You don't do this shit when it comes to making new friends. There's no excuse for manipulation period.
>>84
I think you need to get rid of the concept of dates entirely and just talk to people in a normal social interaction. I would never go out on a date with a woman, not because I think the game is stupid anyway, but because I don't have a car as is. Guess that's not enough for women to consider me as a partner, right?
Mr. Player-Hater, there are several problems in your stance, which boil down to the fact that language is an imperfect way of communicating, and basing your expectations exclusively on spoken language will bring you little:
>>87
Not the one you call Player-Hater, I'm >>85.
Language may not be a perfect way of communicating, it's still the best (and probably only) way to formulate abstract thoughts.
>"hi Mr. Player-Hater, i don't know if you're interesting at all for me, but how about chatting a bit? I'm bored anyways!"
I really don't see what kind of problem you have with that behaviour. Do you only talk to people you want to bone?
>Why do you think some people resist so much saying "I love you" while at the same time going out together?
Because they're hypocrites? This isn't a problem in itself, actually.
>few people can stomach the level of sincerity you are requiring
You can be straightforward and honest without being rude, you know.
>it's still the best (and probably only) way to formulate abstract thoughts.
Sadly for you, that's theory. In practice people use acts, gestures, emotions to convey their unconscious abstract thoughts. Unconscious thoughts by definition can't be conveyed through language, because language is mostly under voluntary control. That's just how humanity works, for complaints address yourself to the Maker, please.
>Do you only talk to people you want to bone?
Mr. Player-Hater is speaking about people who might end up going out with him, not about friendzone interactions.
Besides, people often don't say "I love you" because they are NOT hypocrites. Because they don't know or understand their feelings, they don't want to say something they are not certain about.
>You can be straightforward and honest without being rude, you know.
You completely missed the point, if by rudeness you mean slang. But of course there is a level of honesty that is extremely aggressive and acid. Just try saying EVERYTHING that comes to your mind to people, and you will quickly lose all your friends. No one is so perfectly frank, but some manage to get quite close to that.
>Sadly for you, that's theory. In practice people use acts, gestures, emotions to convey their unconscious abstract thoughts. Unconscious thoughts by definition can't be conveyed through language, because language is mostly under voluntary control.
I was talking about conscious thoughts. Of course unconscious thoughts will translate into attitude, gesture and also language - intonation, use of that word and not this one, etc. Then again, I'm talking about my case here, attraction is mostly created through intellectual connection, and thus, conscious development of feelings.
>Mr. Player-Hater is speaking about people who might end up going out with him, not about friendzone interactions.
I get that. Again, in my case, I usually don't know if I'm interested in people (besides basic "she's cute" and other "omg look at this rack", that don't matter that much for me) before I talk to them. Hence, if I want to adopt that method, I'm forced to approach everyone like they're possible mates. This is obviously not a healthy way to interact with people.
>Besides, people often don't say "I love you" because they are NOT hypocrites. Because they don't know or understand their feelings, they don't want to say something they are not certain about.
Yeah, I can agree to that. I was saying it's not really a problem because, in the hypothetical world we're talking about, people would have to be able to handle things such as "I really like you, and I can see myself in a relationship with you for now, but you're obviously not 'the one' and I might leave you if I find better". Then you choose wether or not this suits you. I know some people don't mind.
>You completely missed the point, if by rudeness you mean slang.
I don't mean slang, I mean lack of tact and compassion. Empathy, if you prefer. "You have a passable face, but god what an horrible hair cut and detached ears! Also, please stop with those terrible jokes and donkey laughter" might be what you're really thinking, but "you're not my type" and variants are as efficient without being harsh. It's not because you are honest that you have to be cruel. Then if the person insist, you can start by behaviour (things they're partly responsible for), ie "I don't like your sense of humor", and if they still insist and you find them really horrible, you can still say "no, your appearence really isn't my thing". Then if they continue to bother you, you can kick them in the guts, of course.
For the book thing, why not just try to change the subject of conversation? Why not just "oh, this isn't really my thing" (yes, again). See what I mean? Of course, this isn't the blunt truth, but you still get the message across in a semi-direct way, and achieve your goal - turn down the person or change the conversation. Now you probably think that I am the hypocrite, advocating the truth then saying you should somewhat disguise it. But when you take medicine to recover from some disease, it's not because it's aimed at curing you that we can't add sugar and flavor to it so you can down it easier, heh?
>attraction is mostly created through intellectual connection, and thus, conscious development of feelings.
Staggering,... I hate myself for sounding so snotty, but let's just say that you have a LOT to learn about human relationships. Your naive beliefs are on par with those of Prince Charming. Look, either you learn from experience, or else I suggest you read some books on psychology. I don't think you'll believe me when I tell you that most of seduction goes through unconscious channels (body language, etc). Actually it would be cool if attraction was mostly decided on intellectual grounds. The world would be a much simpler place ^_^
>I usually don't know if I'm interested in people [...] before I talk to them
Hey, then we agree, right?
>in the hypothetical world we're talking about, people would have to be able to handle things such as "I really like you, and I can see myself in a relationship with you for now, but you're obviously not 'the one' and I might leave you if I find better". Then you choose wether or not this suits you. I know some people don't mind.
Experience tells me that people who don't mind are vanishingly rare. They do exist though, since I'm one of them, and I am with an exceptionally frank woman. On the other hand, she would not be able to stand someone with her own level of frankness. How about that? ^_^
>I don't mean slang, I mean lack of tact and compassion. Empathy, if you prefer.
Well, that's where things start to get complicated: because of empathy, tact or compassion, people will soften their thoughts and opinions. What is the limit? I think you may have a lower threshold of tolerance than other people, and that's what makes you uneasy, but no one survives without a bit of social greasing (tact, if you prefer).
Besides, the terrible haircut and detached comments where from the hypothetical girl who is interested in the guy. She finds lots of defects in him, but somehow is still interested. Basically that's why people have such an easy time teasing and hurting a former lover as soon as their feelings are broken. They noticed the blemishes all the time, they were just pushing them below conscious level. As soon as the loving feelings go away, all those bad parts come up to their attention with a vengeance.
>>87
Because everything needs to be defined by extremes right? Jesus Christ.
>>92 Mr. Player-Hater, you are the one who seems to have some extreme conceptions. I'm merely trying to convey their absurdity by spelling them out. But you are welcome to inform me on your ideal world situation.
>Staggering,... I hate myself for sounding so snotty, but let's just say that you have a LOT to learn about human relationships. [...]
Don't think I'm stupid and talking out of nowhere... I have experience, and I read quite a lot of psychology. If you read my sentence well, you skipped an important part: I precised "I'm talking about my case here". And yeah, that might be Prince Charming-ish or whatever cheezy comparison you think suits me best. Of course, attitude and body language etc. play an important part for me too. The thing is, it's not because somebody will seduce me that way that I'll develop feelings. Actually, this could be my "problem" (if it is indeed one in regard to norm). Oh, and I'm very conscious that I'm not "like everybody else" on that level, for the best or the worst...
>Actually it would be cool if attraction was mostly decided on intellectual grounds. The world would be a much simpler place ^_^
Well, that's exactly my point. And yes I know that trying to hold up to it is doomed to failure.
>>I usually don't know if I'm interested in people [...] before I talk to them
>Hey, then we agree, right?
Agree on what?
>Experience tells me that people who don't mind are vanishingly rare. They do exist though, since I'm one of them, [...]
Yeah, I'm one of them too, even if I tend to attach myself a bit too much and would be hurt in the process, it's something I can honestly accept, suffering included.
>Well, that's where things start to get complicated: because of empathy, tact or compassion, people will soften their thoughts and opinions. What is the limit?
Hehe, I knew someone would give me that. Yes, it's a slippery slope. I'm not saying you have to soften your thoughts or opinions through empathy - rather, you should find the right way to formulate it without being harsh. I agree that flaws in a companion are often disregarded while positive points are in majority, and then come back strongly when said positive points fade away, though.
>>93
Uhhh, if the only options you see are either giving out random manipulative signals or being the most blunt douche bag imaginable, you are only seeing in extremes. It's not like people can simply say they make their attraction for each other clear. Like simply say, "I like you, wanna hang out?" If not say, "No thanks," or if so say, "Sure!" Things like saying that you might leave somebody if you find better is not only rude, it leads to the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy and if that's the case, why bother period? Nevertheless, the game is essentially akin to bluntly being the greatest douche bag possible since it's all open manipulation and ploys.
Mr. Player-Hater, I am wondering something. I am a somewhat picky person when it comes to men I like. The guy that pumps iron too much, the guy that looks to be too self assured (aka cocky), as well as a guy that can't carry on a conversation I will end up ignoring. I don't tell them they're obsessed with their looks, or they need to stop being an asshole and grow a personality or need to read a book. I just part ways and let them lead their life as they please.
It seems that you are on a crusade against a type of behavior you do not like. Why are you making such a big deal about it? Why not just ignore the girls who act in a way you don't like?