The Girls Who Broke Your Heart Thread
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Let's be honest and discard all the constructs, all the euphemisms society overlays with coitus -- with love.
As a guy, I don't fall in love with a girl's personality. I don't fall for her because she likes the color blue, or EverQuest, or likes milano cookies. I fall in love with her body. Only after the fact -- after her body passes my criteria -- do those other attributes count as a bonus. It's biology and a driven evolutionary psychology in men to desire it for procreation's purpose.
Do the same analyses to women and you'll begin the trek to RP-awareness. Women don't care if you like blue, EverQuest, or milanos either. They care about: social dominance, social status, wealth, and a toned physique, not necessarily in that order. That's what women fall in love with -- how those attributes make her feel, not who you are as a person. It's same biological guideline, evolutionary impetus in women to crave those things.
Society pretty much tells the truth about what men want. The narrative for women, however, is markedly different: they say they want an assortment of things that have little to do with the above. It's only after their physical attributes decline do they opt for other things like agreeableness. It's never full-disclosure.
This isthe way life is. There's no value judgement in it. It's like judging the mating habits of salmon -- it's pointless to ascribe any meaning or morality to it.
As a guy, I don't fall in love with a girl's personality. I don't fall for her because she likes the color blue, or EverQuest, or likes milano cookies. I fall in love with her body. Only after the fact -- after her body passes my criteria -- do those other attributes count as a bonus. It's biology and a driven evolutionary psychology in men to desire it for procreation's purpose.
Do the same analyses to women and you'll begin the trek to RP-awareness. Women don't care if you like blue, EverQuest, or milanos either. They care about: social dominance, social status, wealth, and a toned physique, not necessarily in that order. That's what women fall in love with -- how those attributes make her feel, not who you are as a person. It's same biological guideline, evolutionary impetus in women to crave those things.
Society pretty much tells the truth about what men want. The narrative for women, however, is markedly different: they say they want an assortment of things that have little to do with the above. It's only after their physical attributes decline do they opt for other things like agreeableness. It's never full-disclosure.
This isthe way life is. There's no value judgement in it. It's like judging the mating habits of salmon -- it's pointless to ascribe any meaning or morality to it.
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 24,473
- 46,099
I'm going to regret contributing to this thread derail... a response to Dumar. no TL;DR. skip this post as you wish.
wall of text.
wall of text.
I will be using 'man' and 'woman' in this post, but let me be clear that I believe the concepts I present are universal to relationships, period, regardless of who that relationship is between, man, woman, trans, etc.
First, let's agree that 'initial physical attraction' is different from 'attraction.' You understand that it is possible and happens everyday that a man becomes attracted to a woman who did not make his radarinitially. (or vice versa)
Let's also be clear that initial physical attraction occurs BEFORE any real interpersonal interaction, and it is distinct from an attraction that fades AFTER interpersonal interactions between two people who find themselves incompatible.
Second, initial physical attraction has nothing to do with the concept of love. I want to forgo a discussion on 'what is love,' so let's call 'attraction' (again not initial physical attraction), 'the spark.' The spark is nurtured by compatibility on multiple levels, not just physical.
Suppose this. A beautiful woman (physical attributes of your choosing) is in your presence (and you're straight). You witness her smiling coyly (or however you prefer) at you. At that moment, you might imagine yourself with her, enjoying her... or maybe you just feel optimistic about her. THAT is thebeginningsof a spark... beginnings of attraction.
Let's say you approach her, smitten with her looks, and strike up a conversation. The way she laughs is endearing, her mannerisms are endearing, her smile is contagious! Yes this impression might be biased by your initial physical attraction. However, should she say something off-color, bluntly stupid, or exhibit some other behavior you find repulsive(unattractive), you might find that spark contested. Let's say you give this beautiful woman multiple benefits of the doubt, yet conversation and interpersonal interactions confirm each time that she is a leach, ignorant, stupid, shallow, or whatever combination of traits you find beneath you, below your standards.
Is there still a spark, is there still real attraction? No. Maybe you still want to fuck her, but you would no longer consider a romantic relationship. Again, no self-respecting man would be capable of pursuing a romantic relationship from there. Continuing to pursue physical contact with her is a means to a physical relationship and not a romantic one. Maybe that's all she wants, so no harm done as long as you're both using each other for what you both want.
Red pill takes it a shameful step further. Red pill preaches how to act in order to gain and maintain a physical relationshipregardlessof what the woman wants and mistakenly believes itself to describe a romantic relationship. It states 'this is what women are attracted to and if you exemplify that, she'sgetting what she wants.' but it's an act. It's a con to 'give her what she wants.' and it's degrading to both the woman and to the man. You manipulate her into thinking you are what she wants, and you disrespect yourself as you continueacting.
Yeah, that's depressing as hell. you can do that. but don't kid yourself into thinking that's what a romantic relationship is. that's a deceptive act by a man with no self-respect (puts on an act rather than be himself).
when you say the narrative, are you speaking of 'a woman wants a good, kind, gentle, giving, and polite man. a [good/nice guy].' ??? And are you saying the narrative is false because the truth is 'women like [assholes].' ??
I'm going to assume you're a [Good Guy] and lack a romantic partner.
Maybe you argue this point because it rationalizes your lack of success in a way that is kind to yourself: it's not your fault, you're a good guy and still women don't go for you, because you don't have the social dominance, status, wealth, etc theyprimitivelydesire.
Have you convinced yourself that being rejected is no reflection on your personality and traits but upon a base/primitive attraction system?
I don't know you. I don't know if you act like a [good guy].
It's another discussion entirely why 'good guys' are shitty. to put it short: 'good guys' put on an act and treat women exactly as you describe, as animals (salmon) that lack nuance in their attractions and should, SHOULD!, be attracted to the listener, the giver, the submissive friend/companion. 'good guys' fail because they dictate their actions based on what they perceive the audience to want or appreciate. They don't put forth their own individuality nor push for any self-driven goals for themselves.
it's easy to make the switch from sex-less, failing [good guy] to 'successful' [red piller] because they match the same description: putting on an act they perceive the target audience will appreciate, as opposed to being genuine and self-driven. red pill just describes a more successful act than the 'nice guy' routine.
I'm going to assume you're talking about 'initial physical attraction.' 6th grader's 'fall' for someone, and that should be irrelevant to an adult.
First, let's agree that 'initial physical attraction' is different from 'attraction.' You understand that it is possible and happens everyday that a man becomes attracted to a woman who did not make his radarinitially. (or vice versa)
Let's also be clear that initial physical attraction occurs BEFORE any real interpersonal interaction, and it is distinct from an attraction that fades AFTER interpersonal interactions between two people who find themselves incompatible.
Second, initial physical attraction has nothing to do with the concept of love. I want to forgo a discussion on 'what is love,' so let's call 'attraction' (again not initial physical attraction), 'the spark.' The spark is nurtured by compatibility on multiple levels, not just physical.
Suppose this. A beautiful woman (physical attributes of your choosing) is in your presence (and you're straight). You witness her smiling coyly (or however you prefer) at you. At that moment, you might imagine yourself with her, enjoying her... or maybe you just feel optimistic about her. THAT is thebeginningsof a spark... beginnings of attraction.
Let's say you approach her, smitten with her looks, and strike up a conversation. The way she laughs is endearing, her mannerisms are endearing, her smile is contagious! Yes this impression might be biased by your initial physical attraction. However, should she say something off-color, bluntly stupid, or exhibit some other behavior you find repulsive(unattractive), you might find that spark contested. Let's say you give this beautiful woman multiple benefits of the doubt, yet conversation and interpersonal interactions confirm each time that she is a leach, ignorant, stupid, shallow, or whatever combination of traits you find beneath you, below your standards.
Is there still a spark, is there still real attraction? No. Maybe you still want to fuck her, but you would no longer consider a romantic relationship. Again, no self-respecting man would be capable of pursuing a romantic relationship from there. Continuing to pursue physical contact with her is a means to a physical relationship and not a romantic one. Maybe that's all she wants, so no harm done as long as you're both using each other for what you both want.
Red pill takes it a shameful step further. Red pill preaches how to act in order to gain and maintain a physical relationshipregardlessof what the woman wants and mistakenly believes itself to describe a romantic relationship. It states 'this is what women are attracted to and if you exemplify that, she'sgetting what she wants.' but it's an act. It's a con to 'give her what she wants.' and it's degrading to both the woman and to the man. You manipulate her into thinking you are what she wants, and you disrespect yourself as you continueacting.
Yeah, that's depressing as hell. you can do that. but don't kid yourself into thinking that's what a romantic relationship is. that's a deceptive act by a man with no self-respect (puts on an act rather than be himself).
Do not suggest that biology counters our intellect, emotion, and whims. It is dehumanizing to both women AND men to suggest we are mathematically simple. Initial physical attraction is simple. Attraction is not.
I find your list (social dominance, etc) wanting. Let's list some more things that I believe lend to attraction for anyone: confidence, good looks, charisma, self-sufficiency, social status, wealth, and handiness.
One woman might not give a damn about your personality if you have wealth (she's pretty shitty imo), and another couldn't care less about your wealth as long as you have charisma. who you are as a person is a summation of your traits and attributes, so I disagree with the distinction you make.
'they say they want...' ?
when you say the narrative, are you speaking of 'a woman wants a good, kind, gentle, giving, and polite man. a [good/nice guy].' ??? And are you saying the narrative is false because the truth is 'women like [assholes].' ??
Are you convinced of this depressing and simple view, because of your own loneliness and lack of luck with women so far? Do you not meet minimum physical requirements for most women? Do you exhibit a manner of behavior repulsive to most women? are you a [Good Guy]?
I'm going to assume you're a [Good Guy] and lack a romantic partner.
Maybe you argue this point because it rationalizes your lack of success in a way that is kind to yourself: it's not your fault, you're a good guy and still women don't go for you, because you don't have the social dominance, status, wealth, etc theyprimitivelydesire.
Have you convinced yourself that being rejected is no reflection on your personality and traits but upon a base/primitive attraction system?
I don't know you. I don't know if you act like a [good guy].
It's another discussion entirely why 'good guys' are shitty. to put it short: 'good guys' put on an act and treat women exactly as you describe, as animals (salmon) that lack nuance in their attractions and should, SHOULD!, be attracted to the listener, the giver, the submissive friend/companion. 'good guys' fail because they dictate their actions based on what they perceive the audience to want or appreciate. They don't put forth their own individuality nor push for any self-driven goals for themselves.
it's easy to make the switch from sex-less, failing [good guy] to 'successful' [red piller] because they match the same description: putting on an act they perceive the target audience will appreciate, as opposed to being genuine and self-driven. red pill just describes a more successful act than the 'nice guy' routine.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,463
- 6,011
Got to tell you Proc you seem to have allot of contempt for your fellow man. You say nice guys fail because there not self driven then at same time say red pill is bad because some guy may trick some women into liking them. So on one hand you say nice guys fail because there not self driven while red pillers are bad because there selfish.
You don't seem to advocate a position that allows men to even attempt to improve there ability to improve there appeal the opposite sex.
I think some men don't do well in regards to women simply because they lack knowledge of how to do so. They are also inundated with a false nice guys will eventually find there true love narrative that tells them they don't actually have to change anything about there approach or themselves. I think every male at about age fifteen needs to be given the red pill version of the Tony Montana speech just so they have a basic understanding of what primitive female sexual attraction is based upon. Even if they completely disagree with red pill they should still understand the female desire for social status and power will almost certainly determine there ability to even have a chance with almost every women. Just as the fat girls need to understand there looks will determine there ability to even get to the point of having a chance with almost every man.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,463
- 6,011
I would also add that females have zero problem teaching other women how to appeal to males innate sexual attraction preferences for beauty.
Meanwhile female sexual preferences are treated as somehow taboo. As though by even acknowledging them and that they are different from male preferences somehow turns all women into sluts.
Meanwhile female sexual preferences are treated as somehow taboo. As though by even acknowledging them and that they are different from male preferences somehow turns all women into sluts.
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Fall for her as in falling in love, no. But your initial attractions to a woman are certainly physical. I don't see how any man can deny this. If you're smart you will choose a girl who you can get along with over a hotter one who is a dumb bitch, but there's lots of lonely land whales out there with great personalities.
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Women's socio-sexual strategies thrive partly on a paradigm of keeping this false sense of mystery alive. "Oh don't even try to understand women guys! LOL!" But other women understand each other just fine, they aren't mythical beasts, they have motivations and biological imperatives just like men. I first heard of this "mysterious woman" cliche in a women's studies class that I took as an elective in college way back in the 90's, its not some misogynistic made up crap.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
When a person stops thinking about sex it's time to worry.
It justisan indicator of general health.
I don't mean they have to be Deuce Bigalow or Pedobear levels of horny or anything like that. It may be that they think about sex with their wife who died 10 years ago. That still counts.
It justisan indicator of general health.
I don't mean they have to be Deuce Bigalow or Pedobear levels of horny or anything like that. It may be that they think about sex with their wife who died 10 years ago. That still counts.
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 24,473
- 46,099
response to siddar
wall of text.
when I say 'nice guys,' I put that in brackets or single quotes specifically because there is a plague of so-called 'nice guys' who put on adisingenuous front(acting) to 'win over' a woman. For example, I'm talking about the guy who listens to a woman complain about her current boyfriend, cry on his shoulder, always has time for her, and goes out of his way to do things for her, all the while thinking once she is single she'll recognize the 'nice guy' as an awesome dude she should be with.
pay close attention to [putting on adisingenuous front(acting) to 'win over' a woman]. Red pill guides these same men plagued with lack of self-respect (putting pussy on a pedestal) to drop their nice guy routine and switch to a more effective, but still very much disingenuous, routine. This routine and studied method of behavior for a man is again not self-driven. It is not 'how do I want to act, to be me, to express me.' It is 'how do I act to get pussy. How can I act such that she finds me more attractive?'
red pill is fine for physical relationships and getting sexual experience. but again, it has NO PLACE in a discussion of two romantic partners.
I advocate for men and women to:
1] pursue physical fitness and become interested in aesthetics (clothes, hair, hygiene etc) in order to improve their self-image and confidence.
2] pursue their personal short-term and long-term goals, putting some of those goals in line or above a personal relationship.
3] challenge themselves by trying new things,finding new hobbies, acquiring new skills or honing old ones, getting themselves out there and meeting more and more people.
4] work towards being the best version of themselves for their own pride.
and more.
working towards these things will naturally and genuinely make you more attractive to some women (not necessarily all) out there.
how is this any different from red pill? I DO NOT advocate 'it's depressing, but the truth is, men and women are animals, and here's exactly the behavior women are looking for.'
fuck that noise. If the primary motivator behind your behavior is: 'other behavior isn't attractive to a woman,' then that's absolutely disrespectful to yourself. again, I advocate self-respect.
you can be a fit, clean, and well-groomed individual, sky-rocketing your initial physical attraction, WITHOUT studying and then following a pattern of behavior. You'll have success as long as you aren't an absolute dick.
Why should a man strive for or even expect to have a chance with EVERY or even MOST women? Romance isn't hunting, 'shoot buckshot and you're more likely to get one.' Romance is weeding through many incompatible women and finding the right sort of crazy that lines up with your own personal crazy.
My stance on fat people is simple: the vast majority of fat people CAN exercise and eat right and see an improvement in their aesthetics, mobility, and energy. Why wouldn't you want that for yourself? Motivation can be tough, but the trend of fat people giving up on fitness is ignorant as fuck. No, you are not 'eating very little.'
My issue is with lines of thinking like yours that allow you to type and believe statements like "they should still understand the female desire for social status and power." It boggles my mind that you have so distinctly separated yourself from women and at the same time believe you understand women.
Bottom line.
Approaching any woman, thinking you understand women, by default means you have cast away any chances of a romantic relationship. You cannot both 'understand' women and respect a woman. You cannot have a romantic relationship with someone you do not respect.
I advocate self-respect. if a partner can say of their partner 'he pursues his goals and we have a lot of fun together,' the rest will fall into place.
wall of text.
self-driven and having self-respect are different from selfish. selfish automatically refers to a lack of reasonable generosity. self-respect allows you to be reasonably generous, maybe go out on a limb for someone, and IF they screw you over, you let them know in no uncertain terms their behavior was unacceptable and you don't tolerate that shit. A [nice guy] lacks this self-respect and bends over double to give and give, with ideas of being owed an affectionate bond.
when I say 'nice guys,' I put that in brackets or single quotes specifically because there is a plague of so-called 'nice guys' who put on adisingenuous front(acting) to 'win over' a woman. For example, I'm talking about the guy who listens to a woman complain about her current boyfriend, cry on his shoulder, always has time for her, and goes out of his way to do things for her, all the while thinking once she is single she'll recognize the 'nice guy' as an awesome dude she should be with.
pay close attention to [putting on adisingenuous front(acting) to 'win over' a woman]. Red pill guides these same men plagued with lack of self-respect (putting pussy on a pedestal) to drop their nice guy routine and switch to a more effective, but still very much disingenuous, routine. This routine and studied method of behavior for a man is again not self-driven. It is not 'how do I want to act, to be me, to express me.' It is 'how do I act to get pussy. How can I act such that she finds me more attractive?'
red pill is fine for physical relationships and getting sexual experience. but again, it has NO PLACE in a discussion of two romantic partners.
Well allow me to clear that up. I advocate self-respect.
I advocate for men and women to:
1] pursue physical fitness and become interested in aesthetics (clothes, hair, hygiene etc) in order to improve their self-image and confidence.
2] pursue their personal short-term and long-term goals, putting some of those goals in line or above a personal relationship.
3] challenge themselves by trying new things,finding new hobbies, acquiring new skills or honing old ones, getting themselves out there and meeting more and more people.
4] work towards being the best version of themselves for their own pride.
and more.
working towards these things will naturally and genuinely make you more attractive to some women (not necessarily all) out there.
how is this any different from red pill? I DO NOT advocate 'it's depressing, but the truth is, men and women are animals, and here's exactly the behavior women are looking for.'
fuck that noise. If the primary motivator behind your behavior is: 'other behavior isn't attractive to a woman,' then that's absolutely disrespectful to yourself. again, I advocate self-respect.
you can be a fit, clean, and well-groomed individual, sky-rocketing your initial physical attraction, WITHOUT studying and then following a pattern of behavior. You'll have success as long as you aren't an absolute dick.
Their version of a 'nice guy' has no self-respect. Teach self-respect. Teach self-respect and encourage youth to try new things, join groups, etc. No need for red pill 'this is how women think.'
No. just no. attraction is complex and full of compromises. Both men and women have their own minimum life-style preferences, so yeah, if you're broke and aren't making a real effort to change that.... she or he should pass.
Why should a man strive for or even expect to have a chance with EVERY or even MOST women? Romance isn't hunting, 'shoot buckshot and you're more likely to get one.' Romance is weeding through many incompatible women and finding the right sort of crazy that lines up with your own personal crazy.
teach fat girls self-respect and maybe they'll start working on themselves.... you know, for themselves. getting a man will follow.
My stance on fat people is simple: the vast majority of fat people CAN exercise and eat right and see an improvement in their aesthetics, mobility, and energy. Why wouldn't you want that for yourself? Motivation can be tough, but the trend of fat people giving up on fitness is ignorant as fuck. No, you are not 'eating very little.'
Giving aesthetic and behavior advice is one thing, and the person receiving that advice will get varying mileage from it. My issue is with red pill GUIDEs to a woman or a man's desire: 'here's the behavior men like and how to exemplify it.'
My issue is with lines of thinking like yours that allow you to type and believe statements like "they should still understand the female desire for social status and power." It boggles my mind that you have so distinctly separated yourself from women and at the same time believe you understand women.
Approaching any woman, thinking you understand women, by default means you have cast away any chances of a romantic relationship. You cannot both 'understand' women and respect a woman. You cannot have a romantic relationship with someone you do not respect.
I advocate self-respect. if a partner can say of their partner 'he pursues his goals and we have a lot of fun together,' the rest will fall into place.
