"There Is Nothing Wrong With You": For the Single Ladies

[TheBigQuestion]

Because they won't date me.

 

How do you know? Want to know for srs.

[Els]

Hrm. The article does sound a little 'angry' and 'overemphatic' for my liking, but I do think it emphasizes a very important point that you, V, personally need to understand. And it is that 'there really isn't necessarily anything wrong with anyone who is single'.

 

I wish it had been written to include both sexes instead, because this way, it's certain to prompt a gender war (oops, already has). But yes, I do think there is nothing wrong with what it advocates.

[joystickd]

As I said in the previous thread, sarcasm and BJ's.

 

How about instead of diagnosing what is wrong with me, and why I'm chasing ALL the boys away, we just focus on the article... which is that just because I'm single doesn't mean I'm either awful, pathetic, or in some way "wrong," and my worth should not center around being attractive to men.

I know there is more to you than sarcasm and BJs. I bet you have great qualities about you and you really need to let them shine.

[verhrzn]

How do you know? Want to know for srs.

 

Because they're not dating me? They don't approach me, they don't respond when I approach them, they don't message me online, they don't respond to my messages online.

 

Also, all the ones I've met through friends, are already taken.

 

What more proof do you need?

[dasein]

And the article IS positive in one way... I can finally stop internalizing all of the nasty, hateful, shallow, awful things men have said about my looks and my body, and realize it's not my fault, it's theirs. It's theirs, and society's view of how women should be.

 

Wait, so you are actually going to claim here that -this article- led you to blaming men for your personal dating problems, and that you are just now getting around to that attitude based on reading it?

 

Sometimes I feel like Marty McFly. Anybody got a spare flux capacitor?

 

Seriously, just rehashed female >>> male blameshift #... women have an apparently bottomless capacity for wallowing in one of the near infinite permutations of it.

 

Men are indeed responsible... for about ~50%, I have no problem admitting this at all, nor do others here. It's the other side of the aisle that somehow finds accountability such an outrageously unfair cross to bear.

[Els]

I'm a "beta" for pointing out that verhrzn is doing is the same as what posters like SD81 do? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

 

Because you missed the entire point of the article.

 

The article is about being happy with who you are and realizing that you don't need a relationship to make you happy about who you are. What is wrong with that thought? Why are you ragging on V for it? It's a huge improvement for her IMO, and I wish you and the others wouldn't try to shoot it down.

 

If SD had posted this exact article with the genders reversed, I would be SO HAPPY for him. The main reason people constantly nag him is because he posts about how his genes suck, his life sucks, he's doomed to lifelong unhappiness because he has no gf, etc. He really only has two options in that scenario: Make himself more dateable (poster's suggestions) or love himself the way he is and let relationships fall where they may (article's suggestions). Constantly complaining is not a real option.

[dasein]

If SD had posted this exact article with the genders reversed, I would be SO HAPPY for him.

 

You'd be -SO HAPPY- if SD posted an article that said "don't blame yourself that you can't get a woman, blame women because women are liars!?" and you wouldn't pile on in a tut-tut lecture orgy about his "bad attitude?"

Edited April 26, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Didn't need that equine excrement; really.

[verhrzn]

You'd be -SO HAPPY- if SD posted an article that said "don't blame yourself that you can't get a woman, blame women because women are liars!?" and you wouldn't pile on in a tut-tut lecture orgy about his "bad attitude?"

 

 

Where does it say that men are liars in the article??

 

The ONLY point the article makes about men is that women shouldn't build our lives around them. That we should stop shaping ourselves to men's expectations of who we should be. That we should stop blaming ourselves if we don't live up to some expectation of a random dude.

 

If SD posted an article with the genders reversed, you'd be ECSTATIC. Yay, no more "women holding down the poor men!" But put it in reverse, and suddenly we're blaming men for everything??

 

You live in black and white, and this article is all gray.

Edited April 26, 2012 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Edited quote

[dasein]

Where does it say that men are liars in the article??

 

"Stop trying to be what men want you to be, because men are lying to you."

 

Thanks for wasting my time. Here's some more advice for you in addition to that given in your thread about improving your social skills. Stop getting your news of the world and understanding of current events from sources such as Jezebel. It is doing you no good at all.

 

If SD posted an article with the genders reversed, you'd be ECSTATIC.

 

The hell I would.

[TheBigQuestion]

Because you missed the entire point of the article.

 

The article is about being happy with who you are and realizing that you don't need a relationship to make you happy about who you are. What is wrong with that thought? Why are you ragging on V for it? It's a huge improvement for her IMO, and I wish you and the others wouldn't try to shoot it down.

 

If SD had posted this exact article with the genders reversed, I would be SO HAPPY for him. The main reason people constantly nag him is because he posts about how his genes suck, his life sucks, he's doomed to lifelong unhappiness because he has no gf, etc. He really only has two options in that scenario: Make himself more dateable (poster's suggestions) or love himself the way he is and let relationships fall where they may (article's suggestions). Constantly complaining is not a real option.

 

I don't contest the article's conclusion that one does not need to be in a relationship to be happy. What I took issue with is the reasoning through which that conclusion was reached. It spent an inordinate amount of time blaming society at large for many of the highly individualized issues that usually cause one to have dating problems, and it encouraged its readers to do so as well. Most of any one person's dating issues have precious little to do with "society," the "patriarchy," "advertising,' or whatever. The article was a poorly written, childish diatribe chock-full of empty platitudes.

[verhrzn]

I don't contest the article's conclusion that one does not need to be in a relationship to be happy. What I took issue with is the reasoning through which that conclusion was reached. It spent an inordinate amount of time blaming society at large for many of the highly individualized issues that usually cause one to have dating problems, and it encouraged its readers to do so as well. Most of any one person's dating issues have precious little to do with "society," the "patriarchy," "advertising,' or whatever. The article was a poorly written, childish diatribe chock-full of empty platitudes.

 

Yeah all of those academic studies that come out of psychology, anthropology, and economics that demonstrate that social values play a HUGE impact on an individual's sense of well-being, and all that money being poured into advertising because it's demonstrated over and over again it actually DOES have an effect on people, are totally wrong because I say so!

 

People do not exist in a vacuum. The environment you grew up in... society, in other words... strongly influences you. When it comes to interactions with other people, it's doubly so. Every book on communication, every book on understanding social signals says the same thing... it's cultural.

 

Styles of communication, values, social signals, and internalized attitudes (see self-hating gays; why are they self hating?, because they grew up in an ultra-conservative environment that told them how disgusting they are) have huge impacts on individuals. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

For me, personally, I've spent years beating myself up because I'm not what guys want. I am not what guys are taught they SHOULD want (and yes, beauty ideals are culturally influenced as well. Different cultures across different time periods have found different things attractive.) And that obviously impacts my lack of success in dating.

 

But I am done blaming myself because I don't live up to some social expectation of what a woman "should" be. You take that as me "blaming the men" or whatever, fine, so be it. At least I'm not beating myself up for something I have no control over anymore.

[Els]

I don't contest the article's conclusion that one does not need to be in a relationship to be happy. What I took issue with is the reasoning through which that conclusion was reached. It spent an inordinate amount of time blaming society at large for many of the highly individualized issues that usually cause one to have dating problems, and it encouraged its readers to do so as well. Most of any one person's dating issues have precious little to do with "society," the "patriarchy," "advertising,' or whatever. The article was a poorly written, childish diatribe chock-full of empty platitudes.

 

I agree that it was poorly-written.

 

I still think that the basic premise could be useful for anyone suffering from perpetual low self-esteem, in this case, V and SD.

[TheBigQuestion]

I agree that it was poorly-written.

 

I still think that the basic premise could be useful for anyone suffering from perpetual low self-esteem, in this case, V and SD.

 

In any event, your initial response to me was you quoting someone else's completely unprovoked and unnecessary insult towards me. Interesting how that works.

[Els]

No, I simply quoted you saying that V is doing the same thing SD is doing. In actual fact, by believing this article's premise, V is doing the exact opposite from what SD is doing.

[mesmerized]

Yeah all of those academic studies that come out of psychology, anthropology, and economics that demonstrate that social values play a HUGE impact on an individual's sense of well-being, and all that money being poured into advertising because it's demonstrated over and over again it actually DOES have an effect on people, are totally wrong because I say so!

 

People do not exist in a vacuum. The environment you grew up in... society, in other words... strongly influences you. When it comes to interactions with other people, it's doubly so. Every book on communication, every book on understanding social signals says the same thing... it's cultural.

 

Styles of communication, values, social signals, and internalized attitudes (see self-hating gays; why are they self hating?, because they grew up in an ultra-conservative environment that told them how disgusting they are) have huge impacts on individuals. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

For me, personally, I've spent years beating myself up because I'm not what guys want. I am not what guys are taught they SHOULD want (and yes, beauty ideals are culturally influenced as well. Different cultures across different time periods have found different things attractive.) And that obviously impacts my lack of success in dating.

 

But I am done blaming myself because I don't live up to some social expectation of what a woman "should" be. You take that as me "blaming the men" or whatever, fine, so be it. At least I'm not beating myself up for something I have no control over anymore.

 

Definitely don't blame yourself for something you have no control over. In areas that you think you can get better though, definitely do your best. And I think you have a lot more going on than BJs and sarcasm. I like reading a lot of your posts because you're actually a smart girl!

[TheBigQuestion]

Definitely don't blame yourself for something you have no control over. In areas that you think you can get better though, definitely do your best. And I think you have a lot more going on than BJs and sarcasm. I like reading a lot of your posts because you're actually a smart girl!

 

There doesn't really need to be any "blaming" going on at all. Whether you internalize or externalize blame, you still lose.

[TheBigQuestion]

Yeah all of those academic studies that come out of psychology, anthropology, and economics that demonstrate that social values play a HUGE impact on an individual's sense of well-being, and all that money being poured into advertising because it's demonstrated over and over again it actually DOES have an effect on people, are totally wrong because I say so!

 

People do not exist in a vacuum. The environment you grew up in... society, in other words... strongly influences you. When it comes to interactions with other people, it's doubly so. Every book on communication, every book on understanding social signals says the same thing... it's cultural.

 

Styles of communication, values, social signals, and internalized attitudes (see self-hating gays; why are they self hating?, because they grew up in an ultra-conservative environment that told them how disgusting they are) have huge impacts on individuals. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

For me, personally, I've spent years beating myself up because I'm not what guys want. I am not what guys are taught they SHOULD want (and yes, beauty ideals are culturally influenced as well. Different cultures across different time periods have found different things attractive.) And that obviously impacts my lack of success in dating.

 

But I am done blaming myself because I don't live up to some social expectation of what a woman "should" be. You take that as me "blaming the men" or whatever, fine, so be it. At least I'm not beating myself up for something I have no control over anymore.

 

Your lack of success in dating extends far beyond your perceived lack of physical attraction. That much has been established in conversations between you and many other board regulars. You have been beating yourself up for years far more because of what's happened within your family life than anything directly involving society's expectations of female beauty.

 

I mean, if what you've gotten out of this article is that you don't need a man to make you happy, I sincerely congratulate you. But that proposition has comprised the subtext of pretty much every suggestion you've gotten here since you started posting, and is also at the heart of almost all female-oriented dating advice.

[William]

Thread starter, my apologies for letting this get so far afield of the topic.

 

 

Dasein and joystickd - thin ice and I highly suggest use of the ignore feature.

 

I'll thank a kind reader to use the alert button if this goes astray again. Carry on.

[joystickd]

Thread starter, my apologies for letting this get so far afield of the topic.

 

 

Dasein and joystickd - thin ice and I highly suggest use of the ignore feature.

 

I'll thank a kind reader to use the alert button if this goes astray again. Carry on.

Will do

[zengirl]

The "Men are lying to you" line didn't struck me as individual men actually lying, but rather the standards portrayed for male attraction are lies. I wouldn't take issue with an article that said "Women are lying to you" in that way, either. In most case, the standards portrayed for attraction (male & female) by the media and pop culture ARE lies. Total lies. If the article had go on to say male standards for attraction were actually baser or grosser, I could see, but it basically said that men, like women, appreciate confidence, agency, and being a person . . . I really don't see how that could insult men. I think it's actually quite true --- most men I know aren't looking for some big-boobed, perfect-haired media ideal; they're looking for a real person who gets them and whom they get.

 

In order to be that person, you have to first be A PERSON, and stop feeling like you're "80% of X ideal" and so forth. Essentially, stop reading magazines. I don't know that the article even "blames" society, so much as says, "Stop taking society's messages so seriously -- that's not real life."

 

That is the ideal situation for everyone. Its easy and no effort is required, just wake up each day and just go about your business and have single members of the opposite sex express interest in you fairly regulary, or marry someone who still loves you 5-10-50 yrs on no matter what...and for tons of people this is the way it is.

 

A lot of effort in life is still required, as is a lot of effort in a good relationship, even if someone loves you exactly as you are. Love isn't the only essential component of a relationship. At any rate, if someone does not love you as you are, but imagines they love some 'upgraded' version of you, then you are not actually loved. . . so it really is the only way to be loved.

 

For some people their combination of looks & personality & lifestyle does not interest the vast majority of single members of the opposite sex, and just 'being who you are' is bad strategy.

 

Well, you can decide to evolve who you are in a positive direction. The notion that "being who you are" means "never changing or improving" is just incorrect. But every single minute, if you want any kind of success with people, you need to be a person -- that's something the author of that article gets right (I don't think she gets it all right fwiw). You (general you -- all of these are) need to stop with the "less-thans" and be who you are, own it, and value it. It's the only you that you have. That doesn't mean you can never make improvements, but don't make them for someone else --- make them for you and because you see the value in them.

 

I had that impression too. I did find this line weird...."I'm too smart/too pretty/too successful/too interesting/too funny/too outspoken to bag a man!" Too smart or too interesting or too pretty....yeah right!

 

The article basically agrees with you on this and says the problem isn't being "too" anything but is rather something else -- not being a person, but instead being an imperfect, incomplete 'version' of some ideal that a real person will never live up to. That's the whole point of those lines.

[LZ2000]

I'm a single man, and I can perfectly say, that my self-assuredness comes from loving, appreciating and respecting myself for who i am.

[january2011]

But I am done blaming myself because I don't live up to some social expectation of what a woman "should" be. You take that as me "blaming the men" or whatever, fine, so be it. At least I'm not beating myself up for something I have no control over anymore.

 

If I could 'like' this paragraph x100, I would do so.

 

Verhrzn - I am glad you found this article and shared it with us. While, it's not going to make a peer-reviewed academic journal, who cares? Sometimes important life lessons are found in all kinds of places. And I'm glad that the article has helped you to come to a realisation that's going to move you further forward with your life. I know you've been given a hard time over the last few pages of this thread, but I'm still happy for you and excited to see where this realisation is going to take you.

Edited April 26, 2012 by january2011

[AD1980]

I think it is important for those of us who cant attract the opposite sex to realize it doesnt mean theyres something wrong with us or that were not good people..

 

Regardless of what some say here we really have no control over wheter people find us attractive or not..we can make steps to help but its no guarantee

 

Society has made it seem like your life is meainglss unles you get married have kids etc i know plenty of people in that situation who are not happy at all and some who are..

 

 

Just like i know some single people who are happy and some who are miserable..being in a relationship or not shouldnt define anyone as a person..

[verhrzn]

If I could 'like' this paragraph x100, I would do so.

 

Verhrzn - I am glad you found this article and shared it with us. While, it's not going to make a peer-reviewed academic journal, who cares? Sometimes important life lessons are found in all kinds of places. And I'm glad that the article has helped you to come to a realisation that's going to move you further forward with your life. I know you've been given a hard time over the last few pages of this thread, but I'm still happy for you and excited to see where this realisation is going to take you.

 

Oh it's definitely a "funny" article, more along the lines of Cracked (or AVClub, where the writer originates from.) And I'm not totally surprised certain posters were so very offended by the tone.

 

But I feel empowered by the combative tone. This comment off the original article really sums up my feelings:

 

There is an entire economic system constantly profiting by making women they are not good enough, and I don't think guys really understand how oppressive and exhausting it is to be constantly told to lose 10 pounds / gain 10 pounds / be more assertive / be more demure / curl you hair / straighten your hair / tan your skin / bleach your skin, etc. to be more attractive to the opposite sex.

 

I am done being exhausted and confused. I am done constantly questioning other people's (men's, in the case of the dating world) expectations about what I should be, expectations that I could never live up to! Why should I tie myself in knots over the unrealistic expectations of strangers?

 

I don't get why this is such an offensive position to some people in this thread.

[Content]

You conveniently didnt take in the part that theyre's average and unattractive people in couples all around so the excuse that its only your looks holding you back is false