elaine567 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 It's such a shallow world and I hate contributing to that. Yes but it is the world we live in and opting out will not get you what you desire. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
loveweary11 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I have had girlfriends. At least 2 of them are what most men would consider average looking. Both got hit on in public places and one was fit and the other had a cute face. At least one of my male friends thought one was hot. But I don't want to 'target' that or better. I just went out with a woman who most people in society would consider way below the level of either of them. And I even hate to say it that way, because it's so ****ing shallow dude. It's such a shallow world and I hate contributing to that. That is legit. I hear you. Nobody likes a shallow world, but human mate selection is at least partly based on shallow things. Top tier Chads are the example. My only point here is the Timmays of the world have a better chance than they think, if they put effort in. I started out a Timmay, improved looks to an average guy, but improved everything else (non shallow, non looks stuff) to get better girls than Chad. Anyone can improve enough to get average, decent girls. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Yes but it is the world we live in and opting out will not get you what you desire. We take none of the hot women and bank accounts and cars with us anyway. Who is to say that the women who has the hot rich husband and world travels is any happier than the 'old maid' who has none of that but enjoys walking in the woods and reading books. Judging from the demographics of people who commit suicide, I would argue probably not the former. Link to post Share on other sites
elaine567 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 We take none of the hot women and bank accounts and cars with us anyway. Who is to say that the women who has the hot rich husband and world travels is any happier than the 'old maid' who has none of that but enjoys walking in the woods and reading books. Judging from the demographics of people who commit suicide, I would argue probably not the former. Yes I agree, but do you really want to be that old bachelor walking tin the woods and reading books, or would you rather have someone to come home to each night? There are married people who happily walk in the woods and read books too. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
LookAtThisPOst Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I am not saying you didn't have to work for it, but some do not have that drive, that skill, that flair, the contacts, the ability to take risks, to get on in life and get to where you are now. Most work hard and get virtually nowhere actually. Exactly, sometimes its just how the cards are dealt. Just do what you can, and hope for the best Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Yes I agree, but do you really want to be that old bachelor walking tin the woods and reading books, or would you rather have someone to come home to each night? There are married people who happily walk in the woods and read books too. Yes, people need human relationships. When you get older, your friends and siblings have families and you won't see them as much. And your parents (assuming you even get along with them) will die. So, having a mate would be nice. But that is one of the things that had always ticked me off. I just want someone compatible to walk in the woods with. But most of the women want the best looking/successful/masculine guy, etc. So, I'm just going to not be a hypocrite myself in my own selection process and see what happens. Link to post Share on other sites
loveweary11 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Exactly, sometimes its just how the cards are dealt. Just do what you can, and hope for the best What? Lazy. That's why you are having problems. I was dealt the same, or probably worse cards than you. Then, I went through the trouble of bleaching the ink off them, creating new ink, applying new ink and making new cards. If you're happy to play with the hand you were dealt, I have nothing more to add, except this is precisely the problem. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Revolver Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Most men arent good looking and many of the guys who are have nothing going for themselves so to be honest you can't really blame women for sharing Link to post Share on other sites
LookAtThisPOst Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) What? Lazy. That's why you are having problems. I was dealt the same, or probably worse cards than you. Then, I went through the trouble of bleaching the ink off them, creating new ink, applying new ink and making new cards. If you're happy to play with the hand you were dealt, I have nothing more to add, except this is precisely the problem. Lazy? I don't think so. The last relationship I was in was a woman who didn't care about looks one bit, she told me this. So obviously she was into my personality. Probably the only reason I was able to date her was for this very reason. My ability to get a date with her was quite effortless and organic as she was enamored by my personality, sense of humor, intelligence, etc. She was average looking, but I physically found her very cute. Slender, looked great in a bikini. Also, a fellow geek. Let's just end this argument and agree to disagree. Edited May 17, 2015 by LookAtThisPOst 1 Link to post Share on other sites
DJOkawari Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) I think it is interesting that the argument has evolved into a version of the basic societal rights arguments about "privilege". There is obviously "privilege" attached to having a certain bone structure/physique structure/intellect/etc but then in line with the recent posts about "effort" there is also "privilege" attached to the ability to apply that effort. Personality withstanding, there are a number of factors that have to combine to have the upbringing, free-time, financial means, physical means, geographical means, and of course just general fortune that allow you to achieve those goals. Regarding the generally discussed societal privileges surrounding wealth there are a number of arguments made stating that if <certain groups of people> just worked harder, they would have "privilege" too. This obviously isn't the case or at least that's where civil rights discourse has taken us so far (though of course, the issue is far from settled). As a resident of USA, continuing the analogy there is no welfare or affirmative action for dating, but we still live with the relative unfairness of this arbitrary distribution of "dating privilege" and the fact that it, like wealth, can be passed down from generation to generation. I suppose that's where these gripes are coming from. On the other hand, all of us come from a long line of ancestors who managed to get laid at least once...most with significantly shorter lifespans. It shouldn't be so hard Edited May 17, 2015 by DJOkawari Link to post Share on other sites
frogs88 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I would prefer sex, but I could see myself in a strong relationship without it, yes. If I was going to die in 4 years, would I rather have a sexless relationship with a fun, kind woman or wild sex with a bitch? Since I've already had sex, I pick A. So what's the problem? Surely with those low standards, including a potentially sexless relationship, all that you need is one person who fancies you? The common consensus is that it's hard to find someone wgo floats your boat and visa versa. If you essentially remove half of those requirements it should be a walk in the park. Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 One thing that I have always wondered is that people play the game "Get the best they can get." And everybody plays that way, I'll admit. What happens when you are married with kids and somebody better comes along? Somebody better will ALWAYS come along, especially when you play the game that way. Being in love is the best. You say "everyone" plays that way, and then say someone better "always" comes along when you play that way. Then why are so many couples happily married and in love for decades? It isn't because no one better looking or richer crossed paths and showed an interest. Your view is actually far more superficial than women really are, and it's making you unnecessarily bitter and pessimistic. Look at the successful couples. Are they primarily together because they are the hottest each other could get? Or because they genuinely are in love? 2 Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Being in love is the best. You say "everyone" plays that way, and then say someone better "always" comes along when you play that way. Then why are so many couples happily married and in love for decades? It isn't because no one better looking or richer crossed paths and showed an interest. Your view is actually far more superficial than women really are, and it's making you unnecessarily bitter and pessimistic. Look at the successful couples. Are they primarily together because they are the hottest each other could get? Or because they genuinely are in love? It doesn't matter what names you call me. The way I do things is not hurting anybody. It's perhaps an exaggeration that everybody plays that way, but not that most people do. Anyway, that's not really the point. I just feel rejecting women for their looks while I hate women rejecting me for my looks is hypocritical. So I choose not to do it as much as possible. Edited May 17, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 So what's the problem? Surely with those low standards, including a potentially sexless relationship, all that you need is one person who fancies you? The common consensus is that it's hard to find someone wgo floats your boat and visa versa. If you essentially remove half of those requirements it should be a walk in the park. Just because I've largely removed the looks requirement doesn't mean it's not hard. It's still really hard because the women who will give me a chance don't necessarily click with me at all. Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) I think it is interesting that the argument has evolved into a version of the basic societal rights arguments about "privilege". There is obviously "privilege" attached to having a certain bone structure/physique structure/intellect/etc but then in line with the recent posts about "effort" there is also "privilege" attached to the ability to apply that effort. Personality withstanding, there are a number of factors that have to combine to have the upbringing, free-time, financial means, physical means, geographical means, and of course just general fortune that allow you to achieve those goals. Regarding the generally discussed societal privileges surrounding wealth there are a number of arguments made stating that if <certain groups of people> just worked harder, they would have "privilege" too. This obviously isn't the case or at least that's where civil rights discourse has taken us so far (though of course, the issue is far from settled). As a resident of USA, continuing the analogy there is no welfare or affirmative action for dating, but we still live with the relative unfairness of this arbitrary distribution of "dating privilege" and the fact that it, like wealth, can be passed down from generation to generation. I suppose that's where these gripes are coming from. On the other hand, all of us come from a long line of ancestors who managed to get laid at least once...most with significantly shorter lifespans. It shouldn't be so hard That is one way to look at it, perhaps. For me, it's more of an implementation of the Golden Rule. Edited May 17, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 I had literally none of these things when I started though. Every single aspect you are talking about, I developed through very hard work. I'm not that good looking of a guy. Just average. But I put the work in. If i can get "top tier" women through my efforts, as an average looking guy, surely they can get average women if they put a little effort in? So, as long as she's hot enough, even a woman with a huge mental health defect is considered "top tier"? Good to know. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Just because I've largely removed the looks requirement doesn't mean it's not hard. It's still really hard because the women who will give me a chance don't necessarily click with me at all. That's probably because looks were never the primary issue. Women want sex and romance. We want to feel desired, and this is not all about looks! When you talk about dating without attraction, without need for sex, for walks in the woods....this is not appealing to a woman looking for a boyfriend. That's a friend, not a romantic partner. Even a very average or unattractive woman wants to feel that her man gets aroused by her. That her man is sexually attracted to her. That she turns him on, either because of her appearance or something else. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 That's probably because looks were never the primary issue. Women want sex and romance. We want to feel desired, and this is not all about looks! Yes, a top tier man understands this intuitively and is solicitous of and engaging with women of all types. He's the type of man who can innocently seduce a lady's grandmother with his charisma and charm. When you talk about dating without attraction, without need for sex, for walks in the woods....this is not appealing to a woman looking for a boyfriend. That's a friend, not a romantic partner. Yep, and a top tier man knows how to sell this image; how to paint it with words Even a very average or unattractive woman wants to feel that her man gets aroused by her. That her man is sexually attracted to her. That she turns him on, either because of her appearance or something else.Yep, it's very important for a woman to know she 'has' her man, or a man she wants to have, and a top tier man who hoards women understands how to elicit these feelings of 'having him' whether or not he actually wants to be or can be 'had'. He's a social expert which is no surprise since he's also expert in other aspects of social life which are key to success in the world. That's why he's top tier. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Yes, a top tier man understands this intuitively and is solicitous of and engaging with women of all types. He's the type of man who can innocently seduce a lady's grandmother with his charisma and charm. For sure! Charisma and charm are a very effective place to put effort into improving one's success with women. It's not just for the top tier men, whoever they are. It's possible to be charming, charismatic, and monogamous. Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 For sure! Charisma and charm are a very effective place to put effort into improving one's success with women. It's not just for the top tier men, whoever they are. It's possible to be charming, charismatic, and monogamous. Absolutely possible and IMO that is dependent upon the interaction of the id and superego and the psychological development arising from socialization. Each of us uses the advantages in life we are afforded and achieve in our own unique ways. Also, there are top tier men and then there are top tier men women are attracted to. I presumed the OP was referring to top tier men women are attracted to. Even with their enormous worldwide recognition, philanthropy, and social success, women aren't dropping their panties for guys like Bill Gates and Ross Perot, yet these guys define top tier men in some realms. Then again, they define your assertion of a top tier man being monogamous. Interesting, isn't it. Perhaps that ties into the OP being more specific about what top tier means, since a top tier man who isn't widely sexually attractive will lack the potential of hoarding women. He may, however, have all the other attributes of top tier and be quite monogamous with one woman. Hence, perhaps the OP painted 'top tier' with too broad a brush. Since they disappeared from this thread I guess the specifics may remain a mystery. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Phoe Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Most men arent good looking and many of the guys who are have nothing going for themselves so to be honest you can't really blame women for sharing I don't care how wonderful a man is, I will NEVER share. He's either mine, and only mine, or he can kick rocks. Link to post Share on other sites
jen1447 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Hence, perhaps the OP painted 'top tier' with too broad a brush. Since they disappeared from this thread I guess the specifics may remain a mystery. Nah, it's all just "because top tier." Actually I'd have to assume to assertion would somehow shift into a denial of the existence of Bill Gates and Ross Perot in order to defend the original hypothesis, which must stand at all costs for fear the house of cards will come tumbling down. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Timshel Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Absolutely possible and IMO that is dependent upon the interaction of the id and superego and the psychological development arising from socialization. Each of us uses the advantages in life we are afforded and achieve in our own unique ways. Also, there are top tier men and then there are top tier men women are attracted to. I presumed the OP was referring to top tier men women are attracted to. Even with their enormous worldwide recognition, philanthropy, and social success, women aren't dropping their panties for guys like Bill Gates and Ross Perot, yet these guys define top tier men in some realms. Then again, they define your assertion of a top tier man being monogamous. Interesting, isn't it. Perhaps that ties into the OP being more specific about what top tier means, since a top tier man who isn't widely sexually attractive will lack the potential of hoarding women. He may, however, have all the other attributes of top tier and be quite monogamous with one woman. Hence, perhaps the OP painted 'top tier' with too broad a brush. Since they disappeared from this thread I guess the specifics may remain a mystery. ^^^Top tier men; someone with money, power, connections? Someone who can change a day with a phone call? This question is relative to the definition of top tier and is exceedingly boring. Someone who has muscles, someone with good looks? Maybe a manipulative a** looking for tidbits....on the ground. *Sir Elton John* OP, no matter wealth, looks or charm, it always comes down to love. There is no formula and I assure you, no hoarding. You may have the most coveted woman on the planet if you are her desire. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
jen1447 Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 You may have the most coveted woman on the planet if you are her desire. That was poetic. Link to post Share on other sites
JuneJulySeptember Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) That's probably because looks were never the primary issue. Women want sex and romance. We want to feel desired, and this is not all about looks! When you talk about dating without attraction, without need for sex, for walks in the woods....this is not appealing to a woman looking for a boyfriend. That's a friend, not a romantic partner. Even a very average or unattractive woman wants to feel that her man gets aroused by her. That her man is sexually attracted to her. That she turns him on, either because of her appearance or something else. Honestly, I don't care about the Cosmopolitan spiel. I'll do things my way and if no women want me, no women want me. Women should want me because the kind of person I am and because we have things in common. Not because I get their 'juices flowing'. I'm looking for a woman who appreciates me BECAUSE I'm her best friend. Not because she wants to romp in the sack with me because I'm so hot. That is the kind of woman I am looking for. I don't think anybody is more fundamentally apart than you and me, so it makes no sense for us to continue this particular conversation. Edited May 17, 2015 by JuneJulySeptember Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts