# What makes a man unattractive?



## WyshIknew

The recent (now locked) thread on Misogyny and the Shooting thread had me wondering.
As mentioned he felt rejected by women.

What makes a man unattractive to women? Why would a guy be 'rejected' by women?

I've seen a number of threads on what makes a man attractive but never one on unattractiveness.

I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

WyshIknew said:


> The recent (now locked) thread on Misogyny and the Shooting thread had me wondering.
> As mentioned he felt rejected by women.
> 
> What makes a man unattractive to women? Why would a guy be 'rejected' by women?
> 
> I've seen a number of threads on what makes a man attractive but never one on unattractiveness.
> 
> I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


An attitude along the lines of "I have checked off all the boxes that make me attractive to women, therefore any woman should be attracted to me" (and the related belief that this attraction will lead to sex) makes a man (1) a misogynist and (2) unattractive, at least to healthy females.


----------



## over20

I'm sorry to hear of that Wysh. For me it's a man who whines and complains about life. Basically, one who has a bad attitude about everything and is always blaming others. I think having a sense of humor helps you get through the tough times.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I think it's complex and not easy to answer, for me at least. A quality that strikes me as unattractive in one man might not draw my negative attention in another. 

And I'm guessing you mean unattractive in a way that would stop me entering into a sexual relationship, right, and not just friendship? I've been friends with lots of guys who I wouldn't consider having sex with. 

Anyway, here's a list of things that generally turn me off:

trying too hard/seems desperate
lack of self confidence
too intense too fast
sense of entitlement
political or religious beliefs that clash in a certain way with my own
not self sufficient 
too solicitous 
poor listener
inability to self reflect 
not physically appealing to me
poor hygiene

Why do you think women rejected you, Wysh? Was it always a certain type of woman you were attracted to that didn't respond, or just women in general? Are you talking in your teen years and 20's? I suppose you blamed the women in one way or another, since you say you became bitter? Why is that? Don't mean to prod; just curious, mostly. I remember a few men whose response to my (polite) rejection was anger. That usually sealed the deal--big turnoff, that. On the flip side, there were guys who took it in stride and remained friendly who later became very attractive to me. As I said, it can be complex.


----------



## minimalME

Passivity.


----------



## EleGirl

A guy who acts like he's a player.

The kind of guy who thinks that he's owed things.... like Over20 said, a whiner.

A guy who takes you out on a date to a high priced club/restaurant and spends a huge amount on his own drinks, meal (more then 50% of the tab) and then complains afterwards that you owe him sex because the just spent a lot of money on you.

A guy who is too anxious to get into a relationship. For example things your an item after one or two dates.


----------



## Happyfamily

Lack of confidence.

If I say what I really think about any man peddling PUA jargon I'll be banned again. So take that under advisement. It's all about _faking_ confidence instead of actually HAVING it. I see *EleGirl* already put this at number one, and that's where I put it too. Because you have lack of confidence in a phony. A liar that acts like he is better than me, and disrespects me as *Mrs John Adams* said.

Why do you think you were rejected by women when younger, *wyshIknew*?


----------



## always_alone

I think there are a lot of possible reasons.

In Rodgers case, I'm betting it was vibe. You can't hate women that much without giving off some sort of aura of hostility or condescension. And clearly he lacked skill in covering his hate in a veneer of charm.

I also think some very wonderful people are simply overlooked just because what they have to offer isn't quite as obvious as the looks, fame, status, popularity that so many chase.


----------



## pidge70

Lack of ambition


----------



## Maricha75

A man who is c0cky, thinks he's God's gift to women, has no compassion for others. I can't stand men who constantly have to turn a conversation to focus on them. Liars, drinkers, cheaters, smokers, and for me, promiscuity.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## EleGirl

WyshIknew said:


> The recent (now locked) thread on Misogyny and the Shooting thread had me wondering.
> As mentioned he felt rejected by women.
> 
> What makes a man unattractive to women? Why would a guy be 'rejected' by women?
> 
> I've seen a number of threads on what makes a man attractive but never one on unattractiveness.
> 
> I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


By the way, Elliot Roger was not rejected by women. He would have to have actually talked to one be rejected. He seemed to expect that women should just come up to him and swoon. 

Well he was obviously creepy. Why would any woman do anything but avoid a man like that?


----------



## Giro flee

Whiner
Bossy
Bad hygiene
No attempt at style
Smoking
Drinking too much
Vulgar
Childish
Drugs
No goals
Lazy
Smug
Arrogant
Socially awkward
Ignorant
Racist

I would think these would be unattractive for a woman as well


----------



## Miss Taken

Obnoxiously LOUD, always has to be the center of attention even from strangers... I‘m not talking about people whose voices carry naturally... however those that seem to be extra loud on purpose, to draw everyone‘s ears into their conversation. You even see people do this in public on their cell phones (Oh look at me, I‘m on the bus lets talk about my POF profile really loudly so everyone can hear because I‘m interesting.) 

C0cky machismo. (The guy that shouts in front of his buddies, behind the backs of whomever he is talking about, that he can kick so-and-so‘s butt.)

Rudeness. Someone that is rude or impatient to waitstaff or cashiers isn‘t my kind of person.

This is subjective but metrosexuals don‘t do it for me. 

Blaming. Blaming everything on an ex or anyone they had conflict with and no self-awareness about their contributions to the problem.


----------



## techmom

over20 said:


> I'm sorry to hear of that Wysh. *For me it's a man who whines and complains about life. *Basically, one who has a bad attitude about everything and is always blaming others. I think having a sense of humor helps you get through the tough times.


The men who were whining in the misogyny thread were basically whining because women still felt unsafe even though they were the nicest, most gentlemanly men ever. 

Sorry, but I still can't get over the fact that the conversation was about exploring women's feelings then some men interrupted feeling offended that we were discussing our feelings. The only feelings they want to hear is the ones glorifying men, not the ones where we discuss how we can make gender relations better.

I find that the men I find most unattractive are the men who try to make "feminism" into a four letter word, like it is something to be ashamed of. It is not, we earned the right to vote and the right to support ourselves because of feminism. 

Also, men who are afraid of me expressing my emotions are unattractive. Why are my emotions too scary for you to handle?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WyshIknew said:


> I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


I seriously LOVE your honesty... on this.. 




> *Giro flee said* :
> Whiner
> Bossy
> Bad hygiene
> No attempt at style
> Smoking
> Drinking too much
> Vulgar
> Childish
> Drugs
> No goals
> Lazy
> Smug
> Arrogant
> Socially awkward
> Ignorant
> Racist


This is good...the only one I might give a little leeway to here is socially awkward.. explained more below...

I am un attracted primarily by someone who may be DANGEROUS, a USER who will throw me away.. or someone mentally ill.. if I can cross out all 3 of those.. then I would be willing to look further, as then I could put him in the "safe" basket.. 

After this , he would have to pass the "annoyance" / "compatibility" basket.. 

I am not one who worships confidence in men.. like it seems most women have on the top of their lists... I am far more concerned over their character (I know I say this constantly) over if they may be a little awkward around me .. I even find that a little a bit endearing.. Yes I am very strange I suppose.

I would take the time to get to know this sort of man..some men may seem socially awkward and they are just introverted....that works for me.. some introverts are great fun once you get to know them....

I believe by being with someone...slowly getting to know them, taking the time...this can open them up in ways you might be missing if you pre-judge too soon.. I don't think I had all that much confidence when I met my H.. nor did he....yet being together ... our confidence grew ... 

This dude who shot these people was mentally ill.. he had some serious issues .. he sounds he could not even talk.. or approach a women, anxiety on steroids... He had the looks.. He had the money, the famous Father...the mental illness, his vibe was just too obvious .. I have not been following his story since it broke though...probably so much more came out.

I look for authenticity in a man.. IF what he says lines up with what he does. ..not an excuse maker... Someone you can count on, can lay your trust in.. these things are high on my list....so take those away = serious un attractiveness regardless of how popular or funny he is or wanted by other women...


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

I don't like guys who feel they need to fill up 100% of the space they're occupying, even though there is another person it it. 
i.e. they feel the need to always be making noise that you have to respond to, or feel the need to be entertaining to a woman or kids, or to be playing a role. Life is not a sit com. People like to have empty space so that life can happen in it. If a guy is just himself, even though maybe he's slovenly a bit or has weird facial hair or tattoos, awkward, etc. he's usually attractive in some way. The more a guy is mapped onto his true self, the more attractive he is as a human being. He may not be attractive to the women that he wants to be attractive to, but he'll be attractive to someone, and somewhat likeable to all the rest. That's not to say a guy can't transform himself, over time, to evolve into being even more likeable, but you have to find a place to start, and that's making sure you're not trying to be anyone else just to be more attractive. 

I guess it's a bit like lying, advertising something that doesn't really exist on its own, only in relation to a stated goal. That's just creepy on some level, and it's the creepy that's unattractive.


----------



## heartsbeating

Unattractive and/or incompatible.... when music is considered as something for the background and there's no real connection to music - how can that be?! Being too cool for school. Not being able to laugh at yourself. Putting others down. Needing to play the big shot. Lack of demonstrating respect to others.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Interesting how many here cite passivity and lack of confidence as major turnoffs. I'll be honest, women who are turned off by men who don't exude self-confidence really tends to put me off.

"Self-confidence" is such a mixed bag. I know guys who are supremely self-confident and aren't faking it, nor are they complete egotists, but as a man, I don't find them the best as friends. On the other hand, some of the most interesting men I have ever met are the ones who aren't completely confident about themselves and their lives.


----------



## Leveret

Well there are mental/emotional things that make a man unattractive to me and of course, physical.

Mental/emotional:
* Lazy men, ones who would rather sit on their asses than get up and out of their parents' houses. 

* Men who are only after the short term relationships.

* Men who cry more than I do. This is not to be confused with a man who cries when it's humanly appropriate. Losing a loved one or beloved family pet, delving deep into himself and revealing parts of his past he never shared before, truly emotional things, these are tear worthy and not to be added to the unattractive list, but a man who literally tears up at movies, cries if you hurt his feelings or idk, anything else stupid and mundane. My ex drove me away very fast that way. I think it's ugly and unmanly.

* The ones who are emotionally distant. Some walls and mental barriers are fine. I don't need to know everything you think and imagine. But those who cant ever let you in, who block you out completely and for good...no thank you. It's unattractive: it says I don't trust you or don't want to.

* LIARS. Liars. A man who lies for his own gain against me or others, who lies at all really. I'm not saying tell me everything, but don't make **** up. Gross.

* Cheaters. This is physical in that they physically did it, but it's the person that cheats/ I could never trust a man who cheated before, whether on me or another before me. No reason is okay and Im not the forgiving type in this regard. It's so unattractive in a man, to want to cheat, to think about cheating or to do or have done it.

* Porn watchers. I find men who need to watch porn gross. No one needs the perversion in their lives and it's not needed in a marriage unless both parties both enjoy it together. H isn't isn't it and neither am I, thankfully. And I never had to ask him, another reason why we're good together.




Physically:
*Unkempt and smelly (as in doesn't care to keep clean). A hard days work makes a man sexy, but a week later he shouldn't still smell like he did day 1.

* Big fat, lazy men. I'm not perfect, I'm not looking for perfect, but I am not attracted to a man that has a big ol beer belly, who sit down on the couch all day or in the office and never do a lick of exercise. My H works out because he enjoys it and my god I love how he looks naked. I gag at the guys who just let themselves go. I'm not particularly thin, but I am shapely and am in the shape my husband likes me. If he didn't like how I looked, I would change it for him.

* Men who dress like boys. Bros, thugs, whatever. Bleh.

*Overly hairy men, like... I naturally have a lot of hair but you don't see me letting my legs go fur mess; I don't want to rub up against a hairy back. ~.~




Then there is another point altogether: I love my husband. When we get older, I will love him as he is. He's not in the same group as the rest of men who I judge harsher. I would love his flaws and his big belly if he ends up with one. If he got a little fuzzy, whatever. The physical things I don't like are like... things in place for your single mind, imo. I mean if my H let himself go and didnt care anymore, I'd have issues sure, but my love for him means I'm not going to judge him like I do other men. The emotional ones... really I think they're dealbreakers for anyone.


----------



## johny1989

May be this..

-Being mean 
-cussing 
-getting into fights 
-acting like a know it all 
-Being a jerk 
-not being humble 
-not being grateful for what you have


----------



## Cosmos

Probably some of the same things that make anyone unattractive:-

Lack of integrity
Poor values
Immaturity
Chauvinism
Bigotry
Cowardice
Uncouth language and behaviour
Poor hygiene


----------



## Omego

Internal
Taking himself too seriously (ie. "I'm better than everyone else because of job, wealth, __ etc.)
Lack of intelligence
Lack of humility
Lack of empathy
Closed-minded 

External
Not athletic/muscular


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> I think it's complex and not easy to answer, for me at least. A quality that strikes me as unattractive in one man might not draw my negative attention in another.
> 
> And I'm guessing you mean unattractive in a way that would stop me entering into a sexual relationship, right, and not just friendship? I've been friends with lots of guys who I wouldn't consider having sex with.
> 
> Anyway, here's a list of things that generally turn me off:
> 
> trying too hard/seems desperate
> lack of self confidence
> too intense too fast
> sense of entitlement
> political or religious beliefs that clash in a certain way with my own
> not self sufficient
> too solicitous
> poor listener
> inability to self reflect
> not physically appealing to me
> poor hygiene
> 
> Why do you think women rejected you, Wysh? Was it always a certain type of woman you were attracted to that didn't respond, or just women in general? Are you talking in your teen years and 20's? I suppose you blamed the women in one way or another, since you say you became bitter? Why is that? Don't mean to prod; just curious, mostly. I remember a few men whose response to my (polite) rejection was anger. That usually sealed the deal--big turnoff, that. On the flip side, there were guys who took it in stride and remained friendly who later became very attractive to me. As I said, it can be complex.




Why do you think women rejected you, Wysh? Was it always a certain type of woman you were attracted to that didn't respond, or just women in general? Are you talking in your teen years and 20's? I suppose you blamed the women in one way or another, since you say you became bitter? Why is that? Don't mean to prod; just curious, mostly. I remember a few men whose response to my (polite) rejection was anger. That usually sealed the deal--big turnoff, that. On the flip side, there were guys who took it in stride and remained friendly who later became very attractive to me. As I said, it can be complex.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure to be honest. Yes, I did get bitter about it but I got over it *shrugs*. And most of them were, like you, polite about it. Just the one laughed at me when I turned up at her house to ask her out, exit Wysh with his tail between his legs .

I think one of my main problems originally was that I was 'the bright kid' at school. Although I'd passed to the higher level school where I live my parents were persuaded that the family would struggle due to lack of money so I was sent to a far lower level school although one benefit for me was that they had an electronics lab. The girls at that school didn't seem to want 'the bright kid' they wanted the tough guys.

Yes, my teens and early 20's were a very confusing, frustrating time for me, sucked to see guys happy with their wives/girlfriends while I was alone.

I think what got me bitter were instances like the laughing, I also remember asking one girl out a few times and getting turned down, only for one of my buddies to turn up during a late night fishing session and gleefully exclaim "I just effed T... three times!" I couldn't work out why she didn't want to go out to the movies, whatever, with me but would just give it up in the back of a car to a guy who had no intentions of being her boyfriend.

I eventually figured that it wasn't the women's fault that they weren't attracted to me, it was obviously something in me that was lacking. I thought that perhaps I was pig ugly, but when I look back on old pics I didn't seem too bad to me. I even wondered if I was gay without realising it and women could somehow sense this.

On your list of turn offs, I suppose I was desperate and trying too hard. But that was because I was desperate!

And I did have confidence in my life, work and intelligence, but after being turned down several times I had very little confidence with women. I think if just one of the early askees had said yes it may have been a different story.

I'm sure I could have found some hapless woman, fooled her into thinking I cared, and used her for sex and companionship but what sort of person would that have made me? I'd have to be a pretty sh1tty guy to do that.

The funny, weird thing is that it all happened eventually (end of my 20's) without me even trying. 25 years, four children and six grandchildren (so far) later I doubt you could find many guys happier than me.


----------



## Fenix

SimplyAmorous said:


> I seriously LOVE your honesty... on this..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is good...the only one I might give a little leeway to here is socially awkward.. explained more below...
> 
> I am un attracted primarily by someone who may be DANGEROUS, a USER who will throw me away.. or someone mentally ill.. if I can cross out all 3 of those.. then I would be willing to look further, as then I could put him in the "safe" basket..
> 
> After this , he would have to pass the "annoyance" / "compatibility" basket..
> 
> I am not one who worships confidence in men.. like it seems most women have on the top of their lists... I am far more concerned over their character (I know I say this constantly) over if they may be a little awkward around me .. I even find that a little a bit endearing.. Yes I am very strange I suppose.
> 
> I would take the time to get to know this sort of man..some men may seem socially awkward and they are just introverted....that works for me.. some introverts are great fun once you get to know them....
> 
> I believe by being with someone...slowly getting to know them, taking the time...this can open them up in ways you might be missing if you pre-judge too soon.. I don't think I had all that much confidence when I met my H.. nor did he....yet being together ... our confidence grew ...
> 
> This dude who shot these people was mentally ill.. he had some serious issues .. he sounds he could not even talk.. or approach a women, anxiety on steroids... He had the looks.. He had the money, the famous Father...the mental illness, his vibe was just too obvious .. I have not been following his story since it broke though...probably so much more came out.
> 
> *I look for authenticity in a man.*. IF what he says lines up with what he does. ..not an excuse maker... Someone you can count on, can lay your trust in.. these things are high on my list....so take those away = serious un attractiveness regardless of how popular or funny he is or wanted by other women...


I agree 100% with the above. Trust in himself, being genuine are both important. 

Other things that I find unattractive are lack of kindness to animals...and, well, everyone. Arrogance. But I do like a quiet confidence, again reflected by trust in himself.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *WyshIknew said: *I think one of my main problems originally was that I was '*the bright kid*' at school. Although I'd passed to the higher level school where I live my parents were persuaded that the family would struggle due to lack of money so I was sent to a far lower level school although one benefit for me was that they had an electronics lab. *The girls at that school didn't seem to want 'the bright kid' they wanted the tough guys.*


 I have always been more turned on by intelligence and being able to have a stimulating conversation over salivating at the feet of a popular Jock -who can throw a football around...



> *Yes, my teens and early 20's were a very confusing, frustrating time for me, sucked to see guys happy with their wives/girlfriends while I was alone.*


 Jealous, Green eyed Envy is not an easy thing to struggle with...because it WAS your true hearts desire, you could taste it....... I didn't feel it over relationships, I felt it over having kids.. but it's one in the same .. you hate to feel it... it's very painful.. and you don't want to feel this way about others either.. you just want it FOR YOURSELF....it has to be dealt with ...to give us some peace of mind.. while we chug along.. waiting for that special someone...(or a positive pregnancy test- could be anything really) ....asking "when will it be our turn?"...


----------



## Anomnom

Arrogance is ugly. 
Disrespect for others.
Bad attitude and complaining about small things that really don't matter at all.


----------



## Dollystanford

Confidence with nothing to back it up
Meanness
Lack of compassion and empathy
Bigotry
Horny yellow toenails


----------



## ScarletBegonias

A lot of things make a person unattractive to me. It's impossible to make a complete list because there are some grey areas on the list that would need to be qualified. 

I'll just say the number one thing that makes a person unattractive to me. 

Behaving and speaking as though every woman/man is exactly like the person who hurt you in your past. This would include applying stereotypes of women/men to every woman and man you come across just bc a few people of their gender hurt you once upon a time.


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> Lack of confidence.
> 
> If I say what I really think about any man peddling PUA jargon I'll be banned again. So take that under advisement. It's all about _faking_ confidence instead of actually HAVING it. I see *EleGirl* already put this at number one, and that's where I put it too. Because you have lack of confidence in a phony. A liar that acts like he is better than me, and disrespects me as *Mrs John Adams* said.
> 
> Why do you think you were rejected by women when younger, *wyshIknew*?


Well as I mentioned above it is hard to maintain genuine confidence when women don't like you.

I don't really know why Happyfamily, it's something that still puzzles me.
One thing I will say is that whatever I was then, whatever qualities I had that were a turnoff seem to be a turnon now. 

Somewhat annoyingly it is too late as I am now a happily married man.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> I think there are a lot of possible reasons.
> 
> In Rodgers case, I'm betting it was vibe. You can't hate women that much without giving off some sort of aura of hostility or condescension. And clearly he lacked skill in covering his hate in a veneer of charm.
> 
> I also think some very wonderful people are simply overlooked just because what they have to offer isn't quite as obvious as the looks, fame, status, popularity that so many chase.


Yes, in this mans case I can't help but think he must have given off a bad aura.

I think this works both ways, some people of either sex are really little gems just waiting to be discovered.

I think possibly when we are younger we have a tendency to be a little shallow at times. I don't want to do the stereotype thing but I suspect us men are probably more guilty of this than women.


----------



## Giro flee

Many children, teenage girls are children, are not attracted to people for healthy reasons. A teenage girl may be attracted to the football star but a healthy woman will be attracted to a confident, competent, good man. A studious teenager grows into an ambitious and successful man, who will be attractive to women. 

I would assume boys are attracted to a pretty girl regardless of her true personality, but men will look for much more. Are we really surprised that good men and women will get increased attention as they get older? I would hope that we all have more mature standards as we grow into healthy adults.


----------



## WyshIknew

Leveret said:


> Well there are mental/emotional things that make a man unattractive to me and of course, physical.
> 
> Mental/emotional:
> * Lazy men, ones who would rather sit on their asses than get up and out of their parents' houses.
> 
> I'm not an 'action man but I do like to be busy.
> 
> * Men who are only after the short term relationships.
> 
> * Men who cry more than I do. This is not to be confused with a man who cries when it's humanly appropriate. Losing a loved one or beloved family pet, delving deep into himself and revealing parts of his past he never shared before, truly emotional things, these are tear worthy and not to be added to the unattractive list, but a man who literally tears up at movies, cries if you hurt his feelings or idk, anything else stupid and mundane. My ex drove me away very fast that way. I think it's ugly and unmanly.
> 
> I was brought up to believe that big boys don't cry, they keep it to themselves and protect their sisters/other women.
> 
> * The ones who are emotionally distant. Some walls and mental barriers are fine. I don't need to know everything you think and imagine. But those who cant ever let you in, who block you out completely and for good...no thank you. It's unattractive: it says I don't trust you or don't want to.
> 
> One of the things I've learnt in my marriage. Not to bottle things up. Mrs Wysh loves that I talk to her about whatever is bothering me even if that something is her
> 
> * LIARS. Liars. A man who lies for his own gain against me or others, who lies at all really. I'm not saying tell me everything, but don't make **** up. Gross.
> 
> I'm not a good liar.
> 
> * Cheaters. This is physical in that they physically did it, but it's the person that cheats/ I could never trust a man who cheated before, whether on me or another before me. No reason is okay and Im not the forgiving type in this regard. It's so unattractive in a man, to want to cheat, to think about cheating or to do or have done it.
> 
> Never had the chance until later in life, and besides I couldn't hurt my wife in that way.
> 
> * Porn watchers. I find men who need to watch porn gross. No one needs the perversion in their lives and it's not needed in a marriage unless both parties both enjoy it together. H isn't isn't it and neither am I, thankfully. And I never had to ask him, another reason why we're good together.
> 
> 
> Well porn was practically my only sexual experience as a very young man. Once I met my wife to be I had no need for it.
> 
> 
> Physically:
> *Unkempt and smelly (as in doesn't care to keep clean). A hard days work makes a man sexy, but a week later he shouldn't still smell like he did day 1.
> 
> Not me, I'm not a neat freak but I don't like felling dirty.
> 
> * Big fat, lazy men. I'm not perfect, I'm not looking for perfect, but I am not attracted to a man that has a big ol beer belly, who sit down on the couch all day or in the office and never do a lick of exercise. My H works out because he enjoys it and my god I love how he looks naked. I gag at the guys who just let themselves go. I'm not particularly thin, but I am shapely and am in the shape my husband likes me. If he didn't like how I looked, I would change it for him.
> 
> I'm not a muscle man but I like to keep trim.
> 
> * Men who dress like boys. Bros, thugs, whatever. Bleh.
> 
> *Overly hairy men, like... I naturally have a lot of hair but you don't see me letting my legs go fur mess; I don't want to rub up against a hairy back. ~.~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there is another point altogether: I love my husband. When we get older, I will love him as he is. He's not in the same group as the rest of men who I judge harsher. I would love his flaws and his big belly if he ends up with one. If he got a little fuzzy, whatever. The physical things I don't like are like... things in place for your single mind, imo. I mean if my H let himself go and didnt care anymore, I'd have issues sure, but my love for him means I'm not going to judge him like I do other men. The emotional ones... really I think they're dealbreakers for anyone.


----------



## WyshIknew

intheory said:


> I dislike too much confidence. It doesn't seem humanly possible. Quiet, understated confidence is believable, at least most of the time.
> 
> I have a special aversion to halitosis and dirty teeth.
> 
> I don't like overweight. I work very hard to remain thin myself.
> 
> I loathe men (or women) who are cruel to animals.
> 
> Substance abuse or overuse. I'm especially sensitive to it because of growing up with alcohol and drug abusers as parents.
> 
> I can't be sexually responsive to men who are more than a couple of inches shorter than me. I know that is stupid and superficial. It seems like this preference picked me; I didn't pick it; "hardwired", if you will.


Nothing wrong with preferences, everybody has them.


----------



## WyshIknew

Dollystanford said:


> Confidence with nothing to back it up
> Meanness
> Lack of compassion and empathy
> Bigotry
> Horny yellow toenails


I thought horny was good?


----------



## Dollystanford

Not in relation to toenails


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I kinda like a man who is a little unsure of himself. I find it endearing when he can admit his insecurities...as long as he's not a weepy little manboy about it


----------



## Omego

WyshIknew said:


> Well as I mentioned above it is hard to maintain genuine confidence when women don't like you.


Totally true and it goes both ways (meaning for girls when boys don't like them). The teenage/very young adult years are really important for building the foundation of self-confidence because your worth is largely defined by how the opposite sex reacts to you.

I remember how it was in high school. I was too tall, legs too long, too bookish, flat-chested, wore glasses, etc.. The popular, attractive guys all dated the shorter, cheerleader types. It wasn't until much later that I realized that boys had found me pretty, but by then my self-confidence had taken a huge hit. It took a long time for me to build it back up.


----------



## Jellybeans

Arrogance, angry temperament, rudeness, being unkind, selfish, stage 5 cling-ons and bad personal hygiene (yuck!).


----------



## heartsbeating

Stage 5 cling-ons? 

Does that mean Trekkie's are out?


----------



## DoF

PreRaphaelite said:


> Interesting how many here cite passivity and lack of confidence as major turnoffs. I'll be honest, women who are turned off by men who don't exude self-confidence really tends to put me off.
> 
> "Self-confidence" is such a mixed bag. I know guys who are supremely self-confident and aren't faking it, nor are they complete egotists, but as a man, I don't find them the best as friends. On the other hand, some of the most interesting men I have ever met are the ones who aren't completely confident about themselves and their lives.


Yep/agreed.

Confidence is one of those things that girls/women LOVE, yet it should probably make them turn the other way.

Most "confident" guys I have met over the years were probably the last person any woman would want to be in a LTR with.


----------



## Jellybeans

Hahahaha. Maybe. 










The DAMN truth!


----------



## Jellybeans

DoF said:


> Confidence is one of those things that girls/women LOVE, yet it should probably make them turn the other way.


I totally disagree. 

To me there is nothing attractive about a man who has zero confidence in himself. I'd venture to say most men don't want or find insecure women, or women who have zero confidence very attractive. 

With that said, confidence is not the same as arrogance. Arrogance is the biggest fcking turn off ever.


----------



## heartsbeating

^ absolutely agree. 

A quiet confidence goes a long way. 

That's not to say one doesn't still have insecurities etc. but overall, a man who knows his worth as well as his limitations is attractive. 

Arrogance and aggressiveness though....? Put it away.


----------



## Miss Taken

Jellybeans said:


> I totally disagree.
> 
> To me there is nothing attractive about a man who has zero confidence in himself. I'd venture to say most men don't want find insecure women or women who have zero confidence very attractive.
> 
> With that said, confidence is not the same as arrogance. Arrogance is the biggest fcking turn off ever.


Yes. There is a big difference between someone who is confident in himself and one who is arrogant but confuses it with confidence.

I want a man that loves himself, is sure of himself in most things and trusts himself and that he's a good person. I have dealt with the repercussions of a man with low self esteem and insecurities in my current relationship. I would prefer to not have to deal with that again in this relationship or if if this doesn't pan out, another. 

It is exhausting trying to make someone who doesn't believe that they're worthy, believe that you think they are.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScarletBegonias said:


> I kinda like a man who is a little unsure of himself. I find it endearing when he can admit his insecurities...as long as he's not a weepy little manboy about it


I have absolutely no regard or interest in those who can't show a little humility....or express some vulnerability ....even a confident person can do this..and it's no sweat off their back... none are made of stone....

So if I met one who never does this... I don't trust those types...they are too into themselves and I feel they lack self awareness...just how I see this sort of thing.


----------



## Rowan

I have a wild aversion to entitlement, self-absorption, addictive behaviors, bad hygiene, squicky toenails or teeth, and arrogance/c0ckiness. I also prefer men to be at least a couple inches taller than I am.

Oh, and I pretty quickly lose interest in a man who thinks he's too cool to wear an actual costume to Halloween costume parties.  I'm guessing that's got something to do with not taking himself too seriously.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> I think this works both ways, some people of either sex are really little gems just waiting to be discovered.
> 
> I think possibly when we are younger we have a tendency to be a little shallow at times. I don't want to do the stereotype thing but I suspect us men are probably more guilty of this than women.


Not so convinced this is true. Men often seem to only care about looks, so much so that women who would actually be happy to go out are utterly invisible to them or "friendzoned", but there's also no shortage of women who will turn down perfectly good opportunities to get to know someone because they are chasing the in crowd. 

Seems to me too much of what we learn about ourselves and our attractiveness comes from stupid high school popularity contests.


----------



## Jellybeans

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have absolutely no regard or interest in those who can't show a little humility....or express some vulnerability ....even a confident person can do this..and it's no sweat off their back... none are made of stone....
> 
> So if I met one who never does this... I don't trust those types...they are too into themselves and I feel they lack self awareness...just how I see this sort of thing.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

So true! A lack of humility/compassion is a MAJOR turn off!


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Not so convinced this is true. Men often seem to only care about looks, so much so that women who would actually be happy to go out are utterly invisible to them or "friendzoned", but there's also no shortage of women who will turn down perfectly good opportunities to get to know someone because they are chasing the in crowd.
> 
> Seems to me too much of what we learn about ourselves and our attractiveness comes from stupid high school popularity contests.


So young women are as shallow as young men? You don't think there is a prevalence?
Maybe they are shallow in different ways?


----------



## ocotillo

techmom said:


> I find that the men I find most unattractive are the men who try to make "feminism" into a four letter word, like it is something to be ashamed of.


I think a lot of men don't realize that feminism as a whole has benefited them in some ways too. I, for one, don't want to go back to the days where I would be personally responsible for any petty crime and misdemeanor my wife might commit.


----------



## Miss Taken

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have absolutely no regard or interest in those who can't show a little humility....or express some vulnerability ....even a confident person can do this..and it's no sweat off their back... none are made of stone....
> 
> So if I met one who never does this... I don't trust those types...they are too into themselves and I feel they lack self awareness...just how I see this sort of thing.


I think it takes TRUE confidence to be able to express humility or vulnerability. To me, a confident person can accept that they were wrong or made a mistake. A confident person can apologize or learn from their mistakes or strive to repair the mistake and take accountability for it. Someone that isn't confident almost needs to defend themselves as if their mistake defines who they are and is tied to their self worth.

Being vulnerable, knowing you're not perfect - that you have flaws, short-comings and being willing to expose them takes courage. Knowing that exposing yourself might result in rejection but doing it anyway and knowing you'll be okay in the end takes courage... pretty confident to me.


----------



## Jellybeans

Miss Taken said:


> I think it takes TRUE confidence to be able to express humility or vulnerability. To me, a confident person can accept that they were wrong or made a mistake. A confident person can apologize or learn from their mistakes or strive to repair the mistake and take accountability for it.
> 
> Being vulnerable, knowing you're not perfect - that you have flaws, short-comings and being willing to expose them takes courage.


:iagree:

There is nothing sexier than that!


----------



## BostonBruins32

I assumed confidence would be the common theme here from women. A swagger and high level of confidence seems to be something women admire at any age. 

With that in mind, I know many married couples where the woman feels its her way or the high way. Be it parenting style, restaraunt choice, purchase choices, and (my favorite) sexual interest with thier husband or lack there of. Just in my circle (maybe not a fair sample), there is a common theme that many wives nag, criticize, and withold sex. Most of my friends marriages are happy ones. My buddies tell me they love thier wife etc..but they still deal with the issues i listed. I realize these are common steroeotypes, but where there is a stereotype, there is an ounce of truth.(uho here comes the sh!t storm!)

The punch line:
These stereotypes could also break down confidence. That very same confidence that women find so attractive. Essentially this would be like me saying that I find thin girls attractive but then encouraging my wife to eat more ice cream at night and more potato chips with lunch.

It almost reminds me of how a spouse could lose interest in sex with a signif other, then become a porn star when they divorce and date around. Both sides of the mouth. Which is it?

Just figured I'd share this perspective. 

PS, i expect nice lashback on the stereotypes thing, but I think you all get my point.


----------



## ocotillo

WyshIknew said:


> I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


Could it have been that you were mature beyond your years? That's a social death sentence at an age when your peers are still trying to break out of their parent's orbit and looking down on anything that smacks of their parent's generation.


----------



## Jellybeans

BostonBruins32 said:


> PS, i expect nice lashback on the stereotypes thing, but I think you all get my point.


Thread topic is about what women find unattractive in men. Your post sounds like a rant about women.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> So young women are as shallow as young men? You don't think there is a prevalence?
> Maybe they are shallow in different ways?


Young people (typically) are seeking acceptance, to fit in, and this breeds conformity. It's ever so important, for example, to wear the latest trends, listen to the latest music, emulate the hottest stars.

To diverge from any of it is a kind of social suicide, and while some people may see past it or refuse to play the game, it surely does keep majority attention on superficial qualities like looks and popularity.

I've heard a lot of guys complain, for example, that girls only care about looks, and having to watch their friends succeed at dating while they struggled.


----------



## WyshIknew

ocotillo said:


> Could it have been that you were mature beyond your years? That's a social death sentence at an age when your peers are still trying to break out of their parent's orbit and looking down on anything that smacks of their parent's generation.


It could be I suppose, hence my apparent attractiveness later in life.

However, I don't want to make the thread about me, I was merely interested in this topic.

I've seen several topics on what makes a man/woman attractive and wondered what made them unattractive.

Are unattractive qualities the exact opposite of attractive qualities or are there other factors that make somebody unattractive?

One point worth making is that although as more mature people we can look past the physical to a certain extent, physical attractiveness, at least in the other persons eyes, matters.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Miss Taken said:


> I think it takes TRUE confidence to be able to express humility or vulnerability. To me, a confident person can accept that they were wrong or made a mistake. A confident person can apologize or learn from their mistakes or strive to repair the mistake and take accountability for it. Someone that isn't confident almost needs to defend themselves as if their mistake defines who they are and is tied to their self worth.
> 
> Being vulnerable, knowing you're not perfect - that you have flaws, short-comings and being willing to expose them takes courage. Knowing that exposing yourself might result in rejection but doing it anyway and knowing you'll be okay in the end takes courage... pretty confident to me.










..Actually... as much as I have read on psychology in my lifetime, so many books on my shelf.. I still get confused over ....What is True confidence and what is NOT ?? .....

Maybe I should do a thread on this...

Analyzing myself and MY dear husband in our youth.. this is how we were.. we FELT like Outcasts in some ways.. him in his high school.. me in mine..that's one of the reasons we signed up to go to a Vocational school...(to get away from the rat race of all the popular people being catered to)..... and met at the Lunch table... so it played out for good for us (both entering a new school, new surroundings , etc)...

I hate stuck up people, I did not give them the time of day -they probably thought I was stuck up..I gravitated to the NICE people, I had enough damn drama in my home life .. I needed nice people in my life... No fvcking popularity contest..and I never liked when others who have the world at their feet look down on the less popular people.. it just bothers me.. 

Back to Husband...he was bullied in early high school, he was thin, shy , he called himself scrawny... he had glasses and wasn't good at sports.. Not so great for the self esteem.. he never tried to fit in with the popular crowd, he was JUST WHO HE WAS.. a nice person.. he would help old ladies across the street -ya know... he would frown if he seen Men treating women badly.. IN fact he would think they are total Pri**s... he has told me he always LIKED HIMSELF.. (now you can chuckle)...he just didn't like everyone else ! 

Honestly I think I carried the same attitude, it's something we had in common when we met!

But obviously he KNEW he was no darn gift to women...(so this is a big shot to his self esteem, dumped twice)... then Me.. I surely didn't have the confidence in myself to think I had what it takes for a very popular guy to even have any interest in me.. I wasn't in any sport, no after school activities.. I wasn't so intelligent I was the smartest in the class, I think I was 54 out of 150 students intelligence wise...I was on the shy side myself...UNTIL someone took the time to get to know me.. then that flew out the window and I come to life.. when I feel accepted...I wasn't one to invite rejection...I have grown in this over the years. 

Both of us were able to admit our faults, shortcomings, vulnerabilities readily before each other when we met.. he was NEVER NEVER NEVER the defensive type.. Never showed the kind of insecurity some women talk about - acting like he had to control.. I can not relate to that AT ALL...

Me either I had complete faith in his want of me.. his devotion..I wouldn't even TRY to be with a guy who I didn't FEEL that with though... 

Honestly I am not sure what the heck we was.. We weren't stuck up , that's all I can say...and I'd defend my good friends in a heartbeat if someone wanted to put them down.... When I like someone, and I know they are true.. don't pi$$ with them or my horns come out.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> Young people (typically) are seeking acceptance, to fit in, and this breeds conformity. It's ever so important, for example, to wear the latest trends, listen to the latest music, emulate the hottest stars.
> 
> To diverge from any of it is a kind of social suicide, and while some people may see past it or refuse to play the game, it surely does keep majority attention on superficial qualities like looks and popularity.
> 
> I've heard a lot of guys complain, for example, that girls only care about looks, and having to watch their friends succeed at dating while they struggled.


I'll own that!

Probably that in itself is unattractive and that resentment may be why they continue to struggle.

And to be fair I have heard similar things from women.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> The recent (now locked) thread on Misogyny and the Shooting thread had me wondering.
> As mentioned he felt rejected by women.
> 
> What makes a man unattractive to women? Why would a guy be 'rejected' by women?
> 
> I've seen a number of threads on what makes a man attractive but never one on unattractiveness.
> 
> I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


Becoming bitter will make you be unattractive in itself. If you can find happiness inside of yourself and even say "I don't need a woman", not in a gay way - but you don't need one to prop you up, some will want to be closer to you to see what the hell you got.

But being rejected by one and carrying bitterness and upping your a$$hole game is not going to be attractive to other females.

One thing that is attractive is having the sex stink of another female on you, in your swagger, in your confidence to know it's normal. So I've accepted the bro science of "you need to get your c0ck wet" is a lot of times the first thing a man needs to do to up his sex rank and confidence.


----------



## Jellybeans

You are saying two very different things here:



treyvion said:


> If you can find happiness inside of yourself and even say* "I don't need a woman"*, not in a gay way - but you don't need one to prop you up, some will want to be closer to you to see what the hell you got.





treyvion said:


> *One thing that is attractive is having the sex stink of another female on you*, in your swagger, in your confidence to know it's normal. So I've accepted the bro science of *"you need to get your c0ck wet"* is a lot of times the first thing a man needs to do to up his sex rank and confidence.


Well which is it? You don't need a woman or need to wreak of vagina in order to feel better?

Neither of those men would be attractive to me. The first does not sound fond of women and the last sounds like a d0uche.


----------



## southbound

I will add a bit to the question. I might ask, "What makes a man unattractive who doesn't seem to possess any unattractive qualities? In other words, his lack of success with women is somewhat a mystery.

My brother falls into this category. He is 39, handsome, financially secure, etc. He's not arrogant, he has confidence, etc. He says women who aren't available act like he's the cream of the crop. They will say things like, "I wish my daughter could have found someone like you, or, I wish I were 20 years younger, or I have a sister.............", and they volunteer this info, he doesn't fish for compliments. Anyone available, however, isn't interested beyond a few dates.

He really doesn't care and isn't breaking his back over it, but that's how it is.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Young people (typically) are seeking acceptance, to fit in, and this breeds conformity. It's ever so important, for example, to wear the latest trends, listen to the latest music, emulate the hottest stars.
> 
> To diverge from any of it is a kind of social suicide, and while some people may see past it or refuse to play the game, it surely does keep majority attention on superficial qualities like looks and popularity.
> 
> I've heard a lot of guys complain, for example, that girls only care about looks, and having to watch their friends succeed at dating while they struggled.


No matter how much of an independent thinker you think you are there is others around the world with your style.

Certain phisod's and styles work if you want to get a lot of dates and be attractive to the opposite sex, others don't.


----------



## treyvion

southbound said:


> I will add a bit to the question. I might ask, "What makes a man unattractive who doesn't seem to possess any unattractive qualities? In other words, his lack of success with women is somewhat a mystery.
> 
> My brother falls into this category. He is 39, handsome, financially secure, etc. He's not arrogant, he has confidence, etc. He says women who aren't available act like he's the cream of the crop. They will say things like, "I wish my daughter could have found someone like you, or, I wish I were 20 years younger, or I have a sister.............", and they volunteer this info, he doesn't fish for compliments. Anyone available, however, isn't interested beyond a few dates.
> 
> He really doesn't care and isn't breaking his back over it, but that's how it is.


Imagine if he COULD get dates, but they all had systems in place to knock him down a few pegs. And after a while of seeing how that is for him, he rather be by himself?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> Young people (typically) are seeking acceptance, to fit in, and this breeds conformity. It's ever so important, for example, to wear the latest trends, listen to the latest music, emulate the hottest stars.
> 
> To diverge from any of it is a kind of social suicide, and while some people may see past it or refuse to play the game, it surely does keep majority attention on superficial qualities like looks and popularity.


 What is described in this post is what me and Husband didn't do.. we didn't play the GAME..of course we liked similar music at that time...even dressed like others (but that was cool to us)... we didn't do the partying thing though....Our kids are going through this now in high school.. they take some slack... they are in the minority to how Teens act today ...

I don't think ever in my life I have LIED or faked who I was to conform to the masses.... I would only do this If I was in DANGER or it was a safety thing.. my Husband is similar but maybe not as hard as nails as me...kinda depends on what it is..


----------



## WyshIknew

southbound said:


> I will add a bit to the question. I might ask, "What makes a man unattractive who doesn't seem to possess any unattractive qualities? In other words, his lack of success with women is somewhat a mystery.
> 
> My brother falls into this category. He is 39, handsome, financially secure, etc. He's not arrogant, he has confidence, etc. He says women who aren't available act like he's the cream of the crop. They will say things like, "I wish my daughter could have found someone like you, or, I wish I were 20 years younger, or I have a sister.............", and they volunteer this info, he doesn't fish for compliments. Anyone available, however, isn't interested beyond a few dates.
> 
> He really doesn't care and isn't breaking his back over it, but that's how it is.



Good question, I felt a little this way too.

I think some people are just good at the dating game.

Everybody is good at something, I'm good at electronics and have the kind of mind that can work out why something doesn't work. I enjoy working in fine detail and solving problems.

Faithful Wife uses the term 'sexdar', some people seem to sense other peoples availability and can also display availability.


----------



## treyvion

Jellybeans said:


> You are saying two very different things here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well which is it? You don't need a woman or need to wreak of vagina in order to feel better?
> 
> Neither of those men would be attractive to me. The first does not sound fond of women and the last sounds like a d0uche.


I was saying in a bro-science way which is not necessarily nice, that when you are in demand by one woman you are likely in demand by others. In men it gets one over the proverbial hump in confidence and swagger to simply be having sex with anyone. She doesn't have to be the prototype or fit a super long checklist. That one lady opening herself to you will open options in others.

This is how it works for many men, and I know it's not a nice thing for women to hear.


----------



## Rowan

southbound said:


> I will add a bit to the question. I might ask, "What makes a man unattractive who doesn't seem to possess any unattractive qualities? In other words, his lack of success with women is somewhat a mystery.
> 
> My brother falls into this category. He is 39, handsome, financially secure, etc. He's not arrogant, he has confidence, etc. He says women who aren't available act like he's the cream of the crop. They will say things like, "I wish my daughter could have found someone like you, or, I wish I were 20 years younger, or I have a sister.............", and they volunteer this info, he doesn't fish for compliments. *Anyone available, however, isn't interested beyond a few dates.*
> 
> He really doesn't care and isn't breaking his back over it, but that's how it is.


Then he's doing or saying something, revealing something about himself, on those dates that is signaling incompatibility to the women he's choosing to date. It might be a personality issue with him, or it may simply be that he's dating women who don't actually fit into the lifestyle he has or wants. He may be dating 20-somethings, but then later reveals he doesn't want kids, so that's likely to be a problem in that general demographic. He may be dating family-oriented women, but then turns out to be something of a workaholic, which would turn off most in that demographic. He may be dating driven career women, but actually wants a family soon, which would be a problem for many of those women. 

It's not enough to simply be attractive. He already seems able to attract women, at least initially, so that's not really his problem. To cultivate a long-term relationship, he's going to need to select women to date who are the most likely to actually be compatible with where he is in his life.


----------



## Jellybeans

Rowan said:


> To cultivate a long-term relationship, he's going to need to select women to date who are the most likely to actually be compatible with where he is in his life.


:iagree:

This is what it all boils down to. Compatibility.


----------



## antechomai

I remember at least one party I went to my first year of junior college in 1977.
I had to explain to a woman, "I didn't drink, and actually had to be at work at 12:30 am, it was nice chatting."
I had a mission in life and I really couldn't develop a relationship at the time.
I can't say it made me unattractive, but I was unavailable for a few years.
If putting my mission in life ahead of relationships made me unattractive at the time, so be it.


----------



## Jellybeans

antechomai said:


> I remember at least one party I went to my first year of junior college in 1977.
> I had to explain to a woman, "I didn't drink, and actually had to be at work at 12:30 am, it was nice chatting."
> 
> If putting my mission in life ahead of relationships made me unattractive at the time, so be it.


You just weren't compatible. Timing is important. It would never have worked anyway if your partner wanted to party 24/7 and you were concerned about your work.

Like Chris Rock says, _"Two crackheads can stay together forever."_ You've got to have sh*t in common (especially lifestyle) for it work out.


----------



## Middle of Everything

I feel pretty much the same as Wysh.

Got shot down early and harshly. Was smart. I think kind of funny. But the epitome of late bloomer. Grew more after high school I think than during. No adult muscle mass like guys that start shaving at 12. 

What confidence you do have is eaten away. 

It all worked out and seemingly one day I turned around and this pretty girl was talking to me at work. And even stranger I could TELL she actually like liked me. 15 or so years and 2 kids later I still love her and marvel at fate or luck or destiny in how I found her.

The past can hurt though. And in weak times I sometimes wonder did ANY of the girls I knew EVER think of me like that or want me? I dont know. An ego thing? 

Oh and as the ladies are being too nice and havent been blunt yet.

-short
-fat
-skinny/scrawny
-no money
-and as Ive learned from the penis thread, a small or even comically large penis


----------



## jorgegene

I was always ok in the looks department, several girls would show interest in me as a teenager, but I had no idea what to do, so I never had a woman till I was older.

So, yeah, I'm guessing it's the confidence thing. I'm a late bloomer.
It was only when I learned to be confident and make natural (but respectful) moves on women that I became attractive.

Looks by itself doesn't do it.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Middle of Everything said:


> Oh and as the ladies are being too nice and havent been blunt yet.
> 
> -short
> -fat
> -skinny/scrawny
> -no money
> -and as Ive learned from the penis thread, a small or even comically large penis


So...you're a man telling the ladies what ladies find unattractive in men? I think the ladies here have shown they don't shy away from being blunt. If no one has listed the items you did it's because they don't find those things to be unattractive or it's not high enough on the list to bother mentioning. 

It's just so nice that men know exactly what turns us off and won't hesitate to school us about it


----------



## Jellybeans

ScarletBegonias said:


> So...you're a man telling the ladies what ladies find unattractive in men? I think the ladies here have shown they don't shy away from being blunt. If no one has listed the items you did it's because they don't find those things to be unattractive or it's not high enough on the list to bother mentioning.
> 
> It's just so nice that men know exactly what turns us off and won't hesitate to school us about it


:iagree:

You said it before I could. Lol.


----------



## Omego

ScarletBegonias said:


> So...you're a man telling the ladies what ladies find unattractive in men? I think the ladies here have shown they don't shy away from being blunt. If no one has listed the items you did it's because they don't find those things to be unattractive or it's not high enough on the list to bother mentioning.
> 
> It's just so nice that men know exactly what turns us off and won't hesitate to school us about it


I dunno, I didn't see the post as telling us what we think.... :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

treyvion said:


> One thing that is attractive is having the sex stink of another female on you, in your swagger, in your confidence to know it's normal. So I've accepted the bro science of "you need to get your c0ck wet" is a lot of times the first thing a man needs to do to up his sex rank and confidence.


Men who talk about or treat women like they are wet holes that need to be "opened up" are decidedly and extremely unattractive.


----------



## Jellybeans

always_alone said:


> Men who talk about or treat women like they are wet holes that need to be "opened up" are decidedly and extremely unattractive.


:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> And to be fair I have heard similar things from women.


I will own that!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Omego said:


> I dunno, I didn't see the post as telling us what we think.... :scratchhead:


ok


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't think ever in my life I have LIED or faked who I was to conform to the masses.... I would only do this If I was in DANGER or it was a safety thing.. my Husband is similar but maybe not as hard as nails as me...kinda depends on what it is..


I too was all about the authenticity, still am.

It's worth it, I think, but the costs can be heavy. Especially when you're young and still finding out who that authentic self really is.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Men who talk about or treat women like they are wet holes that need to be "opened up" are decidedly and extremely unattractive.


You think a good deal of "Alpha" men already don't? Women won't hear it.


----------



## southbound

Rowan said:


> Then he's doing or saying something, revealing something about himself, on those dates that is signaling incompatibility to the women he's choosing to date. It might be a personality issue with him, or it may simply be that he's dating women who don't actually fit into the lifestyle he has or wants. He may be dating 20-somethings, but then later reveals he doesn't want kids, so that's likely to be a problem in that general demographic. He may be dating family-oriented women, but then turns out to be something of a workaholic, which would turn off most in that demographic. He may be dating driven career women, but actually wants a family soon, which would be a problem for many of those women.
> 
> It's not enough to simply be attractive. He already seems able to attract women, at least initially, so that's not really his problem. To cultivate a long-term relationship, he's going to need to select women to date who are the most likely to actually be compatible with where he is in his life.


You made some good points, and I would understand if that applied to a few women. but it's odd to me that someone that seems so normal could get to age 39 without a serious relationship. 

If only a select few in life seemed to be successful at relationships, then I would understand it more; however, every Tom, ****, and Harry has somebody, regardless of looks or situation. How does someone who doesn't seem to display any real negative qualities not have at least one person in life who is crazy about him? 

I see guys that I can't for the life of me figure what they have over him, yet they have a nice looking woman on their arm. 

He went out with a girl several years ago, who is very attractive. For some reason, it didn't work. Now, she is married to a guy who looks like crap and doesn't have much of a job. I don't get it.

Obviously there is "something. "To be satisfied with why he hasn't had any luck, I would have to hear something like, "he was injected with an experimental vaccine as a child, and a side effect is that his body emits an undetectable property that is unattractive to the opposite sex." That would be an explanation, but I know I'm not going to hear anything like that. 

If having a relationship is that much of a game, shame on somebody.


----------



## treyvion

southbound said:


> You made some good points, and I would understand if that applied to a few women. but it's odd to me that someone that seems so normal could get to age 39 without a serious relationship.
> 
> If only a select few in life seemed to be successful at relationships, then I would understand it more; however, every Tom, ****, and Harry has somebody, regardless of looks or situation. How does someone who doesn't seem to display any real negative qualities not have at least one person in life who is crazy about him?
> 
> I see guys that I can't for the life of me figure what they have over him, yet they have a nice looking woman on their arm.
> 
> He went out with a girl several years ago, who is very attractive. For some reason, it didn't work. Now, she is married to a guy who looks like crap and doesn't have much of a job. I don't get it.
> 
> Obviously there is "something. "To be satisfied with why he hasn't had any luck, I would have to hear something like, "he was injected with an experimental vaccine as a child, and a side effect is that his body emits an undetectable property that is unattractive to the opposite sex." That would be an explanation, but I know I'm not going to hear anything like that.
> 
> If having a relationship is that much of a game, shame on somebody.


Try to go get some sex and watch your prospects rise.

Also, going for a female just because of physical attractiveness is really weak, unless you are just trying to bang ones that look a certain way.

If you want a woman for a relationship, outer looks wouldn't be one of the top priority.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> Well as I mentioned above it is hard to maintain genuine confidence when women don't like you.


Thankfully you met your wife. And I mean nothing against you, personally. But this is attitude is the SINGLE LEADING contributor to badly lacking attraction for me and others with whom I associate. I don't want someone who wants a WOMAN. I want someone who wants ME. Not my hair. Not my boobs. Not my ass. Not my vag. He can like those too, so much the better. But ME. 

When you ask out 3, 12, 20 people that don't want to go out with you. It is not WOMEN that don't like you. It is THOSE x women. While you can make generalities about things like desperation (which goes hand in hand with the aforementioned attitude very often). But for most people, being seen as a member of a class to be acquired is just a huge turn off.


----------



## Fozzy

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am not one who worships confidence in men.. like it seems most women have on the top of their lists... I am far more concerned over their character (I know I say this constantly) over if they may be a little awkward around me .. I even find that a little a bit endearing.. Yes I am very strange I suppose.


We hear confidence is an attractive quality a lot, and it can be for both genders, but I think what you're stating here is healthy.

This will be interesting to see play out in the upcoming generation. I've heard it stated time and again that today's kids are the most self-confident anyone has ever seen, and mostly it's completely unjustified. I think being confident is great, but there's a line between confidence and delusion.


----------



## Rowan

Fozzy said:


> We hear confidence is an attractive quality a lot, and it can be for both genders, but I think what you're stating here is healthy.
> 
> This will be interesting to see play out in the upcoming generation. I've heard it stated time and again that today's kids are the most self-confident anyone has ever seen, and mostly it's completely unjustified. I think being confident is great, but there's a line between confidence and delusion.


I think there's a real need to have a balance of genuine self-confidence and honest self-awareness. A lot of the "self-confidence" I see from young people seems to actually just be c0ckiness or arrogance. There's little substance to back up what is mostly clueless bravado. It's all shirt, no trousers.


----------



## antechomai

Jellybeans said:


> You just weren't compatible. Timing is important. It would never have worked anyway if your partner wanted to party 24/7 and you were concerned about your work.
> 
> Like Chris Rock says, _"Two crackheads can stay together forever."_ You've got to have sh*t in common (especially lifestyle) for it work out.


In deed, "I" was not compatible/available in my younger years. I consider myself a "firster" in my family. First born, first to go to college, first to grad school, first post doc, first university professor (although I've moved on). That was my Mission I wanted.
I would not be involved with a woman, without a relationship, and did not have the time in my youth. 
Now I'm over booked with 5 daughters and grandchildren.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> I too was all about the authenticity, still am.
> 
> It's worth it, I think, but the costs can be heavy. Especially when you're young and still finding out who that authentic self really is.


 I feel so long as you (our kids, insert anyone )...have enough close friends to hang with (a small support circle is so important to feel accepted) ....we may go on to loose some friends along the way... but it will be Ok...

I did loose my best friend.. her & her family was like the family I didn't have.. so when she started gravitating to a more partier lifestyle, new exciting friends.....* it was VERY hard on me*.. but that wasn't who I was or the crowd I wanted to be in..

I had to stay true to myself.. I had to grieve what was lost ...and appreciate the others who were in my life.. even if they weren't as FUN (Oh I missed the memories, the laughter, the nights I slept over her house).... 

To this day... I have never been as close with a female as I was with my best friend back in my teens.. She was very precious to me.. but not as much as sacrificing myself - or doing things I didn't want to do -to be included in their circle.. to keep her close... It was a transition I had to go through... people do change.. we go our separate ways..


----------



## ocotillo

southbound said:


> I would have to hear something like, "he was injected with an experimental vaccine as a child, and a side effect is that his body emits an undetectable property that is unattractive to the opposite sex." That would be an explanation, but I know I'm not going to hear anything like that.


Haven't you ever met an unusually attractive woman, who despite being attractive had a "Sterile" quality that you couldn't quite put your finger on? Conversely, haven't you ever met a normally attractive woman and had trouble concentrating the rest of the day because thoughts of her kept popping back into your head?

I don't know why this happens. Pheromones? Subtle social cues below the level of consciousness? Mutual attraction? 

I would assume that both genders experience this, so am honestly curious what the ladies think.


----------



## southbound

ocotillo said:


> Haven't you ever met an unusually attractive woman, who despite being attractive had a "Sterile" quality that you couldn't quite put your finger on? Conversely, haven't you ever met a normally attractive woman and had trouble concentrating the rest of the day because thoughts of her kept popping back into your head?
> 
> I don't know why this happens. Pheromones? Subtle social cues below the level of consciousness? Mutual attraction?
> 
> I would assume that both genders experience this, so am honestly curious what the ladies think.


I'm curious as to what the ladies think as well. People can always come up with reasons as to why someone doesn't have success, but I've never heard one that would account for a lifetime of no relationships when there are all types of Gomer Pyles out there who have success with relationships. 

It might also help to ask, "what do some guys have?" I described my brother as appearing normal, yet there are some guys who appear to have nothing going for them. Their looks are nothing to write home about, they have no exceptional personality, yet, they have a woman. So, what do they have that outweighs everything else?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I don't know why this happens. Pheromones? Subtle social cues below the level of consciousness? Mutual attraction?
> 
> I would assume that both genders experience this, so am honestly curious what the ladies think.


I have a friend, a woman, who is awesome. She is full of adventure, loves to travel, go out dancing, have a good time. She is professional, a nurse, immensely compassionate, probably the nicest person I know, always looking out for others. She is friendly, approachable, nice to talk to. She is attractive.

And she is always single. Why? Because she doesn't want to let anyone in too close. She picks men that aren't terribly interested or available, and shuts down relationships before they ever get off the ground. I'm not sure she is really aware that she's doing this. In her mind, she just hasn't met the right person. But I think she is afraid to, and afraid to be vulnerable, and lose her independent autonomous self.

To my mind, people who are perpetually single are at some level choosing to be that way, whether it's because they insist on their unrealistic standards, are unwilling to compromise, or give up their freedom to be tied down, or simply afraid to let anyone see their inner self.


----------



## Jellybeans

southbound said:


> I'm curious as to what the ladies think as well. People can always come up with reasons as to why someone doesn't have success, but I've never heard one that would account for a lifetime of no relationships when there are all types of Gomer Pyles out there who have success with relationships.


I have to admit, I have hardly met anyone who has had a "lifetime of no relationships." To me, they would be anomalies. Most people experience relationships at some point, right?

Maybe the ones who don't are socially awkward, more focused on their career, don't want to be in a relationship or aren't "relationship people."

I dated an older man (late 40s) who had never been married/no kids and said his longest relationships were 2 and 3 yrs. Is that a red flag? What do you guys think? He had relationships though so I don't know.


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> Haven't you ever met an unusually attractive woman, who despite being attractive had a "Sterile" quality that you couldn't quite put your finger on? Conversely, haven't you ever met a normally attractive woman and had trouble concentrating the rest of the day because thoughts of her kept popping back into your head?
> 
> I don't know why this happens. Pheromones? Subtle social cues below the level of consciousness? Mutual attraction?
> 
> I would assume that both genders experience this, so am honestly curious what the ladies think.


I think to an extent it could be due to general attitude/ body language. A lot of our social cues are non-verbal.


----------



## always_alone

treyvion said:


> You think a good deal of "Alpha" men already don't? Women won't hear it.


Yes, some a$$holes are very good at hiding how much of an a$$hole they are, but they usually out themselves in the end.

You may gather from this that I do not buy into the Alpha=all things good crap that is often touted here on TAM.


----------



## Fozzy

Jellybeans said:


> I have to admit, I have hardly met anyone who has had a "lifetime of no relationships." To me, they would be anomalies. Most people experience relationships at some point, right?
> 
> Maybe the ones who don't are socially awkward, more focused on their career, don't want to be in a relationship or aren't "relationship people."
> 
> I dated an older man (late 40s) who had never been married/no kids and said his longest relationships were 2 and 3 yrs. Is that a red flag? What do you guys think? He had relationships though so I don't know.


Could be a red flag to his behavior, or could be just a guy with lousy luck, or could be someone who was conciously or unconciously picking the kind of people that would end up hurting him.


----------



## always_alone

I have another friend, a male. He was a virgin until he was 28, and while he did have at least one LTR somewhere in there, he was mostly single until his late 40s.

He is everything a woman could want and yet most would overlook him. Again it's because I think on some level he chose it that way. 

He would criticize women for being shallow and not appreciating nice guys, but he made it very tough for them to appreciate him by always holding them at a distance and having the most negative interpretation of what they said or did.


----------



## Omego

treyvion said:


> You think a good deal of "Alpha" men already don't? Women won't hear it.


I just don't know. I mean any man who would think of a woman in these terms has GOT to give off some kind of unattractive vibe. It's too vile. Some things just cannot be hidden.


----------



## Anon Pink

I turned down many potential dates in my young single days. Some of them were quite good looking. What I saw in all of them was a lack of desire to know the person standing in front of them. Whether they were too wrapped up in their own nervousness and insecure, or whether they figured they had a chance of success, they all showed in some form that they were looking at the package and not at the person.

My husband, OTOH, showed interest in the person. 

Of course years later I came to realize that interest in the package is also nice...


----------



## southbound

Jellybeans said:


> I have to admit, I have hardly met anyone who has had a "lifetime of no relationships." To me, they would be anomalies. Most people experience relationships at some point, right?


Just to be clear, he has dated, but just never had a serious, long lasting relationship.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Yes, some a$$holes are very good at hiding how much of an a$$hole they are, but they usually out themselves in the end.
> 
> You may gather from this that I do not buy into the Alpha=all things good crap that is often touted here on TAM.


There is some hairy chest thumping and chatter that men do among others or in their own minds that women will never hear.

If women were just smaller actual men, and women were on another planet, men wouldn't be sacrificing their lives for women on the earth. So it is down to biology.


----------



## NobodySpecial

southbound said:


> You made some good points, and I would understand if that applied to a few women. but it's odd to me that someone that seems so normal could get to age 39 without a serious relationship.
> 
> If only a select few in life seemed to be successful at relationships, then I would understand it more; however, every Tom, ****, and Harry has somebody, regardless of looks or situation. How does someone who doesn't seem to display any real negative qualities not have at least one person in life who is crazy about him?



At least one? Forget about the RIGHT one. A NICE one. A SMART one. At least one will do.


----------



## 2ntnuf

After reading this thread, I think all men are doomed. Just give it up guys. You will never be good enough.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> After reading this thread, I think all men are doomed. Just give it up guys. You will never be good enough.


I don't think that is the take away at all! Quite the contrary. Instead of every individual woman's list aggregated as a list of everything a man has to love someone, use it to recognize that each one is a different person. Get to know individual people. And SEE if there is something there that is interesting to spark a relationship rather than just seeking a member of the female category.


----------



## Created2Write

techmom said:


> The men who were whining in the misogyny thread were basically whining because women still felt unsafe even though they were the nicest, most gentlemanly men ever.
> 
> Sorry, but I still can't get over the fact that the conversation was about exploring women's feelings then some men interrupted feeling offended that we were discussing our feelings. The only feelings they want to hear is the ones glorifying men, not the ones where we discuss how we can make gender relations better.
> 
> I find that the men I find most unattractive are the men who try to make "feminism" into a four letter word, like it is something to be ashamed of. It is not, we earned the right to vote and the right to support ourselves because of feminism.
> 
> Also, men who are afraid of me expressing my emotions are unattractive. Why are my emotions too scary for you to handle?


I agree. 

For me, a man is unattractive when he always takes things personally when they aren't meant to be; when he needs female attention so much that even negative female attention gets him off; when he tries to show off and, clearly, believes that women should be impressed by him; when he uses women to get what he wants; when he's a misogynist; when he hates women; when he weighs over 300 pounds; and a lot of other things, too.


----------



## over20

2ntnuf said:


> After reading this thread, I think all men are doomed. Just give it up guys. You will never be good enough.


Oh no 2ntnuf, not at all!


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> ....when he weighs over 300 pounds


Curious, C2W; Is that a "Fat" thing or a "Size" thing? (Or both?)

Michael Oher (The real athlete depicted in _The Blind Side_) is 315 to 320, Shaquille O'Neal is probably right around 325, Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) was right around that in his prime, Richard Kiel (The actor) was about 350 in his 30's, etc., etc.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Curious, C2W; Is that a "Fat" thing or a "Size" thing? (Or both?)
> 
> Michael Oher (The real athlete depicted in _The Blind Side_) is 315 to 320, Shaquille O'Neal is probably right around 325, Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) was right around that in his prime, Richard Kiel (The actor) was about 350 in his 30's, etc., etc.


Both. Personally, I am not attracted to "large" men. They could look like Dwayne Johnson...I'm not attracted to them. Sure, I'd be curious to know what their biceps feel like, but I am not attracted to men over a certain weight. So for me, they would be unattractive. Even if they're attractive to other people.


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> Both. Personally, I am not attracted to "large" men. They could look like Dwayne Johnson...I'm not attracted to them. Sure, I'd be curious to know what their biceps feel like, but I am not attracted to men over a certain weight. So for me, they would be unattractive. Even if they're attractive to other people.


Well there's a nail in the "Alpha Man" coffin


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Well there's a nail in the "Alpha Man" coffin


I've never bought into the Alpha Male junk. I have always wanted a man who would treat me well. A man who would respect me. A man who wouldn't treat me like crap just because he has a bunch of women swooning over him and he thinks he'll get away with it. A man who feels lucky to be with me. A man who adores me. A man who sees me as an equal, and not just a piece of @ss. A man who will take my sexual desires seriously. A man who won't write me off just because I'm unique and don't fit into a cookie-cutter female shell. A man with patience. A man with a sense of humor, capable of making me blush, but also who just likes to see me laugh. A man who can read me like a book, but never takes advantage of the fact. A man who doesn't pretend to be something he's not. And yes, a man who respects himself enough to keep himself in shape. But, unfortunately for Dwayne Johnson and those like him, if there's a chance I could be crushed during sex, I won't be attracted to them.


----------



## WyshIknew

Middle of Everything said:


> And in weak times I sometimes wonder did ANY of the girls I knew EVER think of me like that or want me? I dont know. An ego thing?


Well now they say they did. But I wonder if they see the now me and like what they see as older adults and replace the then me with the now me.

And of course one of the big unanswered questions is we will never know if while we were chasing the wrong girls there were numerous girls who we ignored who would have been the right girls.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> I will own that!


:rofl: Touché.


----------



## RandomDude

These threads are subjective, no one person can appeal to everyone's tastes. WyshIKnew, why are you asking this?

If it's this:


> I have an interest in this as I was rejected by women as a young man and became rather bitter about it.


I'd advise you not to take the subjective opinions of the replies on this thread too seriously as one of the most important aspects when it comes to attractiveness is to be confident in yourself, who you are, and what you have to offer. 

Yes, some vulnerability does help sure, along with some insecurities as it shows that you are human, and with a need that can be forfilled. However, be yourself. If you are rejected - then it's her loss, not yours - as it just means someone else will enjoy your company.


----------



## WyshIknew

NobodySpecial said:


> Thankfully you met your wife. And I mean nothing against you, personally. But this is attitude is the SINGLE LEADING contributor to badly lacking attraction for me and others with whom I associate. I don't want someone who wants a WOMAN. I want someone who wants ME. Not my hair. Not my boobs. Not my ass. Not my vag. He can like those too, so much the better. But ME.
> 
> When you ask out 3, 12, 20 people that don't want to go out with you. It is not WOMEN that don't like you. It is THOSE x women. While you can make generalities about things like desperation (which goes hand in hand with the aforementioned attitude very often). But for most people, being seen as a member of a class to be acquired is just a huge turn off.



I didn't realise I had an attitude.

I didn't want an acquisition, I wanted somebody I could share my life and my heart with, somebody I could love.

I eventually managed it, a little later than most but I got there.

Don't you think it is a vicious circle? You ask a girl out, she turns you down, you lose confidence, You ask a girl out, she turns you down, you lose more confidence and so on.

Eventually you are asking them out and expecting to fail. An attitude? Perhaps, but one born of experience.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> I didn't realise I had an attitude.
> 
> I didn't want an acquisition, I wanted somebody I could share my life and my heart with, somebody I could love.
> 
> I eventually managed it, a little later than most but I got there.
> 
> Don't you think it is a vicious circle?


You missed an important step. Get to know people. Even female people. And decide on a GOOD one that likes YOU BEFORE you get to


> You ask a girl out, she turns you down, you lose confidence, You ask a girl out, she turns you down, you lose more confidence and so on.
> 
> Eventually you are asking them out and expecting to fail. An attitude? Perhaps, but one born of experience.


----------



## WyshIknew

RandomDude said:


> These threads are subjective, no one person can appeal to everyone's tastes. WyshIKnew, why are you asking this?
> If it's this:
> 
> I'd advise you not to take the subjective opinions of the replies on this thread too seriously as one of the most important aspects when it comes to attractiveness is to be confident in yourself, who you are, and what you have to offer.
> 
> Yes, some vulnerability does help sure, along with some insecurities as it shows that you are human, and with a need that can be forfilled. However, be yourself. If you are rejected - then it's her loss, not yours - as it just means someone else will enjoy your company.


Because, as I stated, on reading the misogyny and shooting thread I wondered what could make a man unattractive to a woman.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Hmmmm, the "what is confidence" and "what is alpha" question comes up again. When I (and many other women) use those terms, they mean something a bit different than what men tend to think they mean. 

I do NOT mean ****iness, arrogance, an attitude of "I can do no wrong." What I mean by confidence is confidence in one's on worthiness, in one's own sense of self, in one's own convictions and values. The confidence to be patient because you believe that there is someone out there for you. I mean the confidence to hear my "no thanks" and not go away angry and crushed. Temporary hurt and disappointment? Yes, of course--but not totally derailed and bitter. I mean the confidence to not *need* the affirmation of "having" a woman. I mean a man who has interests and intellectual pursuits that fulfill him; not a man who cannot overcome the fact of his not having a mate at this time in his life. I mean a man who does not allow setbacks to become despair. 

Perhaps what I mean, more than confidence, is character? Dunno--but it's not bravado or overcompensating for or masking insecurity. Insecurity is fine, as long as its owned and being worked on. 

I think I tended to avoid men who appeared to be desperate or like they REALLLLLYYY needed to hear a yes from me or it was going to make them go kick a rock. And here is why: if they cannot handle disappointment, what is it going to be like if I decide after a few dates or a few weeks or months of dating that he's not the guy for me? What if he has become so reliant on the relationship, so terrified to go back into the dating pool, that it's a mess to get out of gracefully and amicably? I really don't want to be stalked by some desperate and bitter guy who now has A PARTICULAR WOMAN to blame for his disappointment.

Anyway, just trying to clear up what *I* mean by confidence, and why would be important to *me.*


----------



## Anonymous07

WyshIknew said:


> I didn't realise I had an attitude.
> 
> I didn't want an acquisition, I wanted somebody I could share my life and my heart with, somebody I could love.
> 
> I eventually managed it, a little later than most but I got there.
> 
> Don't you think it is a vicious circle? You ask a girl out, she turns you down, you lose confidence, You ask a girl out, she turns you down, you lose more confidence and so on.
> 
> Eventually you are asking them out and expecting to fail. An attitude? Perhaps, but one born of experience.


You're not going to be everyone's "cup to tea". I rarely had male interest in jr high and high school. No guy ever seemed interested in me(only went on a couple dates during that time). Was I mad at men for that? No. Those guys just weren't for me. 

In college things turned around and suddenly I was something desirable. Obviously not by everyone, but by the ones who got to know me, who were in my classes, were in the same clubs, and shared my interests. 

As NobodySpecial pointed out, you can avoid a lot of rejection by getting to know someone first to even see if they are 1) a good fit and 2) interested in you, too. 

And as for the question you asked:
I think guys who are c0cky, thinking they are hot stuff, are a turn off. I wanted a man who is humble. If he is rude(to anyone), it's a turn off. He needs to be respectful, including how he treats the waitress/waiter at a restaurant. If he is lazy and has no goals/ambitions, it's a turn off. That would include not just for work/jobs, but staying healthy/in shape, too. I also find a pessimistic attitude a turn off.


----------



## WyshIknew

NobodySpecial said:


> You missed an important step. Get to know people. Even female people. And decide on a GOOD one that likes YOU BEFORE you get to


But you still have to ask her out!

And if you wait too long before you ask to make sure she likes you there is a risk of losing her to somebody else who will move in and ask her out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> But you still have to ask her out!
> 
> And if you wait too long before you ask to make sure she likes you there is a risk of losing her to somebody else who will move in and ask her out.


I never once dated that way. By the time we were in a relationship, we had already fallen. It morphed smoothly from, hey we get along to HEY we get ALONG! And there is something inherently desperate about worrying that you are going to lose. If she wants YOU, then she wants YOU.


----------



## Anonymous07

WyshIknew said:


> But you still have to ask her out!
> 
> And if you wait too long before you ask to make sure she likes you there is a risk of losing her to somebody else who will move in and ask her out.


No, you can be friends first. 

My husband and I hung out with a group of friends. We'd go off to the side and talk and got to know each other. As I got to know him, he became more and more attractive. When he asked me out a little while later, there was no way I would want to turn him down.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't want someone who wants a WOMAN. I want someone who wants ME. Not my hair. Not my boobs. Not my ass. Not my vag. He can like those too, so much the better. But ME.


Well said.

I wonder if, in the end, men and women simply misunderstand each other more deeply than we realize? 

I know I'm not the only male to have scratched his head as a teenager and wondered why the boys who didn't seem to think any girl was truly worthwhile were the most popular. Eventually, I put two and two together enough to realize that if I was attracted to a girl, I should bury in my my mind as deeply as possible so she couldn't see it during the crucial first impression stage. And things did change after that. Hugely. 

Still and all, it is a cruel irony (From a male perspective) that the very thing that motivates a male to get up off his butt and cross the dance floor/banquette room/meeting hall/church and stick his neck out socially with a female is the very thing that can easily turn her off and make her say, "No."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anonymous07 said:


> No, you can be friends first.
> 
> My husband and I hung out with a group of friends. We'd go off to the side and talk and got to know each other. As I got to know him, he became more and more attractive. When he asked me out a little while later, there was no way I would want to turn him down.


My son just recently began a relationship with his first girlfriend. No one asked anyone out. They talked. They realized that they liked the same stuff and enjoyed being together. And that hey, look they are a "thing" or whatever middle schoolers call it now.

My husband never asked me out. None of the guys I ever dated did. We just did it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Well said.
> 
> I wonder if, in the end, men and women simply misunderstand each other more deeply than we realize?
> 
> I know I'm not the only male to have scratched his head as a teenager and wondered why the boys who didn't seem to think any girl was truly worthwhile were the most popular. Eventually, I put two and two together enough to realize that if I was attracted to a girl, I should bury in my my mind as deeply as possible so she couldn't see it during the crucial first impression stage. And things did change after that. Hugely.
> 
> Still and all, it is a cruel irony (From a male perspective) that the very thing that motivates a male to get up off his butt and cross the dance floor/banquette room/meeting hall/church and stick his neck out socially with a female is the very thing that can easily turn her off and make her say, "No."


I live in a different universe, clearly. We never danced like that. There was no room crossing. We danced to fast songs all in one big circle. When the slow song came on, he might say "wanna"? And he might not. Moving right along.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> I live in a different universe, clearly. We never danced like that. There was no room crossing. We danced to fast songs all in one big circle. When the slow song came on, he might say "wanna"? And he might not. Moving right along.


Maybe it's a generational thing too? I don't know. I met my wife at a themed party. She was the "Long cool woman in black dress." (A hit song in the early 70's) I watched her dance with other boys for at least 15 -20 minutes before I got up the courage to ask her.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Maybe it's a generational thing too? I don't know. I met my wife at a themed party. She was the "Long cool woman in black dress." (A hit song in the early 70's) I watched her dance with other boys for at least 15 -20 minutes before I got up the courage to ask her.


I was in high school in the 80s. That was still a damned long time ago! 

But yes, the guys who laid in wait to ask me to dance. I might because I was too wimpy to say no. But I readily danced with the guys in my group who were there, who were my pals.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> But yes, the guys who laid in wait to ask me to dance. I might because I was too wimpy to say no.....


So I gather that a total stranger who waits until you are available at a social gathering is unattractive too?


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> So I gather that a total stranger who waits until you are available at a social gathering is unattractive too?


Waits until I am available to do what, exactly? What is he waiting FOR? What is available? Not talking to my friends? IS he one of my friends? If so, why would he wait to talk to me? If I don't know him AND HE DOES NOT KNOW ME, and he is waiting to make a move specifically for a romantic opportunity, then the answer is yes. That is definitely unattractive to me.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> Waits until I am available to do what, exactly? What is he waiting FOR? What is available? Not talking to my friends? IS he one of my friends? If so, why would he wait to talk to me? If I don't know him AND HE DOES NOT KNOW ME, and he is waiting to make a move specifically for a romantic opportunity, then the answer is yes. That is definitely unattractive to me.


*nods*

Me too. I would never be interested in, or attracted to, a perfect stranger.


----------



## WyshIknew

Anonymous07 said:


> No, you can be friends first.
> 
> My husband and I hung out with a group of friends. We'd go off to the side and talk and got to know each other. As I got to know him, he became more and more attractive. When he asked me out a little while later, there was no way I would want to turn him down.


Well perhaps that's where I was going wrong. I might have sucked at it but I thought it was important to ask girls that I liked out.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> Well perhaps that's where I was going wrong. I might have sucked at it but I thought it was important to ask girls that I liked out.


How did you know you liked them?


----------



## Anonymous07

WyshIknew said:


> Well perhaps that's where I was going wrong. I might have sucked at it but I thought it was important to ask girls that I liked out.


What specifically did you like about them if they were basically strangers? 

To me, physical attraction came second to other aspects of a guy I liked. I fell in love with my husband, not so much because of his looks(he is attractive just to be clear), but because he was kind, respectful, fun to be around, easy to talk to, and so on. He became more physically attractive as I realized more and more of his other attributes. 

I could find a stranger handsome, but don't think I'd necessarily want to be with them. There has to be more than just the simple things I notice them do or how they look.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Waits until I am available to do what, exactly?


Well at a themed party/dance it would be waiting to introduce himself, exchange names and ask you to dance. It would be damn awkward to ask a lady to dance while she's dancing with someone else. 

I understand what you and C2W are saying, but at the time and where I lived (We were pretty rural) parties were for the express purpose of meeting people.


----------



## WyshIknew

NobodySpecial said:


> How did you know you liked them?


They were fun to be with, (to me at least) physically attractive, outgoing and they had a certain something I couldn't put my finger on, something that attracted me to them.


----------



## WyshIknew

Anonymous07 said:


> What specifically did you like about them if they were basically strangers?
> 
> To me, physical attraction came second to other aspects of a guy I liked. I fell in love with my husband, not so much because of his looks(he is attractive just to be clear), but because he was kind, respectful, fun to be around, easy to talk to, and so on. He became more physically attractive as I realized more and more of his other attributes.
> 
> I could find a stranger handsome, but don't think I'd necessarily want to be with them. There has to be more than just the simple things I notice them do or how they look.


But they weren't strangers. Initially they were girls at school. Then they were part of my wider circle of friends, women that I met as part of my hobby. I suppose the person who was the most of a stranger was somebody I had known for about a month.

I never asked strangers out. I didn't want some handy screw. I asked out girls that I liked, girls that I thought were fun and girls that I thought might like a relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> They were fun to be with, (to me at least) physically attractive, outgoing and they had a certain something I couldn't put my finger on, something that attracted me to them.


I guess I am not understanding you. I thought you were talking about someone you did not know well. If you knew someone well, then you can know if they are fun to be with! But if you knew them well, it is hard to imagine that you would not have gotten a feeling of reciprocated "something I couldn't put a finger on".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> I don't really know why Happyfamily, it's something that still puzzles me.


I've never understood my teen struggles either. Still puzzles me.


----------



## WyshIknew

Look peeps, I don't want this to be about me. It was my past, not my present.

The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

I was merely interested in what makes a man unattractive.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Well said.
> Still and all, it is a cruel irony (From a male perspective) that the very thing that motivates a male to get up off his butt and cross the dance floor/banquette room/meeting hall/church and stick his neck out socially with a female is the very thing that can easily turn her off and make her say, "No."


It's a cruel irony from the female perspective too. The one thing we want, to be treated like a person who has value beyond her parts, can only be achieved via those parts.

If we don't have them in spades, we are completely invisible, we might as well not even exist.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> *nods*
> 
> Me too. I would never be interested in, or attracted to, a perfect stranger.


So they have to be friends with your friends and contacts already?


----------



## jld

WyshIknew said:


> Look peeps, I don't want this to be about me. It was my past, not my present.
> 
> *The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.*
> 
> I was merely interested in what makes a man unattractive.


Lol on the bolded. 

I don't know what makes a man unattractive to others, but to me, it would be an inability to meet my individual needs. I did not realize these things 21 years ago, but there must have been some underlying forces at play in how dh and I got together. 

I needed someone emotionally strong and stable, and genuine. He needed my vulnerability, intensity, and transparency. I needed a life plan, and he needed a partner who would share in his life plan. I was needy, and he needed to be needed.

Some of the gals on TAM are strong enough for two men. They don't need in a man what I need. And they are with men very different from my man. And all that is as it should be. We are all meeting different needs in our partners, and they in us.

I am sure Mrs. Wysh is glad every day that your early dating life did not bring the results that, at the time, you wanted, Wysh.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> It's a cruel irony from the female perspective too. The one thing we want, to be treated like a person who has value beyond her parts, can only be achieved via those parts.
> 
> If we don't have them in spades, we are completely invisible, we might as well not even exist.


I hear what you are saying, aa, but I don't think it is as hopeless as it sounds. And I am sure some men feel the same way about women.

I think relaxing and being ourselves will attract the right person, eventually.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> It's a cruel irony from the female perspective too. The one thing we want, to be treated like a person who has value beyond her parts, can only be achieved via those parts.


You are quite right, AA that this type of thing affects all of us, although I will say that the young ladies I knew and dated had an uncanny ability to weed out the young men who seemed to be overly enamored with their bodies.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> *Lol on the bolded.*
> 
> I don't know what makes a man unattractive to others, but to me, it would be an inability to meet my individual needs. I did not realize these things 21 years ago, but there must have been some underlying forces at play in how dh and I got together.
> 
> I needed someone emotionally strong and stable, and genuine. He needed my vulnerability, intensity, and transparency. I needed a life plan, and he needed a partner who would share in his life plan. I was needy, and he needed to be needed.
> 
> Some of the gals on TAM are strong enough for two men. They don't need in a man what I need. And they are with men very different from my man. And all that is as it should be. We are all meeting different needs in our partners, and they in us.
> 
> I am sure Mrs. Wysh is glad every day that your early dating life did not bring the results that, at the time, you wanted, Wysh.


I can't take credit for it, it's the opening line from The Go-Between.

And yes, we are both very happy that we eventually found each other.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> And of course one of the big unanswered questions is we will never know if while we were chasing the wrong girls there were numerous girls who we ignored who would have been the right girls.


Of course there was. You "just didn't see them that way." Or see them at all.

Doesn't mean they were the right girls, of course, but at least somewhat righter than the ones rejecting you.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> It's a cruel irony from the female perspective too. The one thing we want, to be treated like a person who has value beyond her parts, can only be achieved via those parts.
> 
> If we don't have them in spades, we are completely invisible, we might as well not even exist.


I would like to think that this is not true of all men, especially emotionally mature men.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Homemaker_Numero_Uno said:


> An attitude along the lines of "*I have checked off all the boxes that make me attractive to women, therefore any woman should be attracted to me" (and the related belief that this attraction will lead to sex) makes a man (1) a misogynist *and (2) unattractive, at least to healthy females.


I'm wondering if that isn't a bit too low of a threshold to qualify somone as a "misogynist." might it only show that they are..I don't know...naive? unrealistic? socially misguided or non-intuitive on what women want?


----------



## heartsbeating

ocotillo said:


> Haven't you ever met an unusually attractive woman, who despite being attractive had a "Sterile" quality that you couldn't quite put your finger on? Conversely, haven't you ever met a normally attractive woman and had trouble concentrating the rest of the day because thoughts of her kept popping back into your head?
> 
> I don't know why this happens. Pheromones? Subtle social cues below the level of consciousness? Mutual attraction?
> 
> I would assume that both genders experience this, so am honestly curious what the ladies think.


Absolutely agree. 

Way, way, way back in time, there was a guy who 'on paper' would have been my type. He was a couple of years older, handsome, long haired musician, demonstrated thoughtfulness and romance... used to leave little random notes in my mailbox inviting me out on dates. I wasn't feeling it though. Based on the advise of some older friends, I went on a date with him just to see but sure enough, couldn't feel the chemistry and attraction. Was he too nice for my tough heart? Was it pheromones?

I figured he was a lovely guy, just not for me. He visited months later, I don't remember why, and with his new girlfriend who was gorgeous. I didn't think much of it but after he left, Mama Hearts said he'd brought her along along for my benefit - to show me what I'd missed out on or something. If that was the case and he was proving something to me (but really to himself), could it be that he was giving off subtle social cues related to such behavior that I'd picked up on, that had been unattractive to me? 

I wasn't the hot girl in school. Far from it. My appearance didn't fit the mold of what was attractive. My interests didn't either. But I found that I kinda thrived off that and didn't want to fit in. Maybe it was a defense mechanism, maybe it was confidence, maybe it became a blend of both. By the time I reached 17, I was into my hobbies, saving to travel and going to clubs but dating wasn't a focus for me. And that's when the interest seemed to come my way. 

My husband assertively pursued me (granted it wasn't a difficult pursuit), but he was upfront, called me on my bullsh*t, shared his vulnerabilities and was interested in mine. And we got each others goofiness. I was smitten.


----------



## WyshIknew

heartsbeating said:


> Absolutely agree.
> 
> Way, way, way back in time, there was a guy who 'on paper' would have been my type. He was a couple of years older, handsome, long haired musician, demonstrated thoughtfulness and romance... used to leave little random notes in my mailbox inviting me out on dates. I wasn't feeling it though. Based on the advise of some older friends, I went on a date with him just to see but sure enough, couldn't feel the chemistry and attraction. Was he too nice for my tough heart? Was it pheromones?
> 
> I figured he was a lovely guy, just not for me. He visited months later, I don't remember why, and with his new girlfriend who was gorgeous. I didn't think much of it but after he left, Mama Hearts said he'd brought her along along for my benefit - to show me what I'd missed out on or something. If that was the case and he was proving something to me (but really to himself), could it be that he was giving off subtle social cues related to such behavior that I'd picked up on, that had been unattractive to me?
> 
> I wasn't the hot girl in school. Far from it. My appearance didn't fit the mold of what was attractive. My interests didn't either. But I found that I kinda thrived off that and didn't want to fit in. Maybe it was a defense mechanism, maybe it was confidence, maybe it became a blend of both. By the time I reached 17, I was into my hobbies, saving to travel and going to clubs but dating wasn't a focus for me. And that's when the interest seemed to come my way.
> 
> My husband assertively pursued me (granted it wasn't a difficult pursuit), but he was upfront, called me on my bullsh*t, shared his vulnerabilities and was interested in mine. And we got each others goofiness. I was smitten.


I'm not a believer in fate, kismet or any other spiritual stuff.

However I do feel that unless you are a complete psycho there is somebody for you in this world, somebody who 'gets' you, somebody who fits you like a glove.


----------



## always_alone

treyvion said:


> There is some hairy chest thumping and chatter that men do among others or in their own minds that women will never hear.


Hairy chest-thumpers who think women are too stupid to discern their personalities and attitudes? Also very unattractive.


----------



## Ikaika

WyshIknew said:


> But they weren't strangers. Initially they were girls at school. Then they were part of my wider circle of friends, women that I met as part of my hobby. I suppose the person who was the most of a stranger was somebody I had known for about a month.
> 
> 
> 
> I never asked strangers out. I didn't want some handy screw. I asked out girls that I liked, girls that I thought were fun and girls that* I thought might like a relationship*.



You lost me at the bold remarks. When I was young, I wanted fun, but no relationship. Ugh, that sounded too confining and never got the boyfriend-girlfriend thing in HS, college or young adult. I hope that does not make me sound like a scoundrel. Cling-ons, I could not handle.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

DoF said:


> Yep/agreed.
> 
> Confidence is one of those things that girls/women LOVE, yet it should probably make them turn the other way.
> 
> Most "confident" guys I have met over the years were probably the last person any woman would want to be in a LTR with.


women have to be able to distinguish between the confidence that an emotionally healthy man projects, and the confidence of say, a sociopath. Actually I can't fault them too much when they fail - the latter type of confidence can be a very convincing knock -off of the former.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> I would like to think that this is not true of all men, especially emotionally mature men.


No, of course not. I didn't mean for that to come off as absolute as it did. It's just frustrating to be constantly told that the only thing that matters about you is your body parts.

But the problem goes both ways. Guys often complain about the friendzone, and it is exactly the same thing: she just doesn't see him that way.


----------



## jld

nuclearnightmare said:


> women have to be able to distinguish between the confidence that an emotionally healthy man projects, and the confidence of say, a sociopath. Actually I can't fault them too much when they fail - the latter type of confidence can be a very convincing knock -off of the former.


If they wait and get to know them, they'll see it. They'll feel it.


----------



## ocotillo

nuclearnightmare said:


> I'm wondering if that isn't a bit too low of a threshold to qualify somone as a "misogynist."


Yes. There is a difference between "Sexist" and "Misogynist." The former can be done out of ignorance. The latter is intentional.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I don't know what makes a man unattractive to others, but to me, it would be an inability to meet my individual needs. I did not realize these things 21 years ago, but there must have been some underlying forces at play in how dh and I got together.
> 
> I needed someone emotionally strong and stable, and genuine. He needed my vulnerability, intensity, and transparency. I needed a life plan, and he needed a partner who would share in his life plan. I was needy, and he needed to be needed.
> 
> *Some of the gals on TAM are strong enough for two men. They don't need in a man what I need. And they are with men very different from my man. And all that is as it should be. We are all meeting different needs in our partners, and they in us.*


I had to laugh reading this JLD.. I know where this conversation came from....we're in my Dining room -somehow the NEEDY dynamic got brought up... me saying I feel like I am "*needy*" and you saying "WHAT!...I've never seen you that way, you are strong, bla bla bla"....(something to this effect)..... then telling me how you THINK you are the *needy* one.. ha ha ha ..
Us arguing over who is MORE NEEDY....that has to take the cake [email protected]#







...

I look upon myself as "Needy" because I couldn't stand to be without my man for long periods of time ...LIKE YOU DO.. you are fine with it, you never complain, you say you know he loves his Job, you want him to be happy....you're not crying inside saying "OMG he is never home, I can't take it - I neeeeeeeed him!"...(Yeah that'd be ME!)

Your reasoning was...something in you NEEDS that STABLE ROCK who won't walk out when you get out of hand, who is not moved by words .his being like the Light house in your storm......whereas I wouldn't care if my Husband wasn't a pillar of un moveable Confidence, I can handle a man's sensitivity, that he can be rocked by emotion/ that I have the ability to HURT & wound him deeply.... I don't mind at all lifting him up /encouraging (not turn off to me)....I'd just want his Butt around !!

Maybe I am needy *physically*, His presence comforts me, I thrive on the togetherness - but look to our emotions going forth as "one" or something.. ..and you are needy more in the *emotional sense*.. something in you is greatly attracted to a man's presence / his masculinity ability to not be moved by female emotions of any kind...to swoop you up when you feel your lowest....

Does this make any sense !? It was a curious conversation to the differences in MEN.. (although our H's have many similarities mine is more sensitive & able to be hurt by ME , my words, what I do).. ..and really what we NEED ..or greatly desire from our Men...


----------



## kilgore

did anyone mention bad breath? that's gotta be a killer


----------



## over20

Created2Write said:


> Both. Personally, I am not attracted to "large" men. They could look like Dwayne Johnson...I'm not attracted to them. Sure, I'd be curious to know what their biceps feel like, but I am not attracted to men over a certain weight. So for me, they would be unattractive. Even if they're attractive to other people.


I respect your post. That's funny, Dwayne Johnson is my celeb crush.


----------



## Middle of Everything

ScarletBegonias said:


> So...you're a man telling the ladies what ladies find unattractive in men? I think the ladies here have shown they don't shy away from being blunt. If no one has listed the items you did it's because they don't find those things to be unattractive or it's not high enough on the list to bother mentioning.
> 
> It's just so nice that men know exactly what turns us off and won't hesitate to school us about it


Just a bit of joking in there.

And i was speaking in generalities. With some all other things being equal in there. You know, TALL dark and handsome. 666 for guys or whatever i read on here. 6' 6 figures 6" or more.

Not trying to tell women what they like. Not going all alpha machiavellian.


----------



## bobbieb65

Being a narcissist, sociopath, psychopath or BPD. Oh, and having a penis under 5" or over 8" long.


----------



## kilgore

oh, well, guess i'm not attractive


----------



## alphaomega

2galsmom said:


> Add to the short list:
> 
> Men who use terms alpha and beta unless in alphabet and beta carotene.


Lol.

That's because we could explain this till we are blue in the face what these terms actually, truly mean (ie. a true alpha doesn't mean being a dik), but as usual, you ladies only interpret it the way you want to and don't actually read the posts.


(flaming in...three..two..one...)


----------



## imtamnew

While in college and the first couple of years working...I don't really think of myself as having been a very attractive guy.

I was too happy doing stuff on my own. Riding my bike and had very little patience to socialize.

So came across as someone who was never around to actually be friends with.
A loner would be the right word to describe me.

In looks I guess I am ok. Not very harsh on the eye and my manners were drilled into me by a very particular mom and school.

After getting married (arranged) I did stumble thru life.

Putting on weight due to be not being very happy on my situation. Then after my daughter was born, I had a sort of an epiphany. Started working on my body and came back to how I looked when I was in college.

In fact the other day I had a visit with a doctor. He asked my age and did a double take saying I looked far younger than my 35.

I spend a LOT of time with my kids.

Again its just me and my kids who spend time at the playground and sand pit.

We live in a large apartment complex. So most mothers see me playing with my kids. This for some reason has seriously upped my appeal to them.

Everytime my wife goes to a birthday party with my daughter..she comes back saying that some neighbor lady was telling her how jealous she is of her.

That while other fathers are too busy, I spend time with my kids.

They also know thru the grapevine that I cook and never ever flirt with the other mothers at the sand pit etc.

So at the end of my rambling, here is what I have to say.

Be yourself.

Do what you want because you want to do it.


Any man who does not do this is bound to be unattractive to others.

and as a man, I find a man who does not like to get his hands dirty with grease very unattractive as a friend.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

alphaomega said:


> Lol.
> 
> That's because we could explain this till we are blue in the face what these terms actually, truly mean (ie. a true alpha doesn't mean being a dik), but as usual, you ladies only interpret it the way you want to and don't actually read the posts.
> 
> 
> (flaming in...three..two..one...)


awww no flames here  I know what the terms mean and that alpha isn't about being a prick or whatever. I still think the labels are kinda weird. 

If DH walked around defining himself and other dudes as alpha or beta I couldn't ever take him seriously :rofl:

So it's not the meaning.It's the ridiculousness of always putting the alpha/beta label on things especially when those labels are typically applied when speaking about wolf packs. It's like "rawr I'm a wolf!! I'm alpha!! rawr!!" Sooo cute and funny but definitely not sexy or attractive 

I guess I just call a man a man when he acts like a man  If he's acting like anything less ie:a whiny brat,then he doesn't get the privilege of being called a man.


----------



## DoF

Jellybeans said:


> I totally disagree.
> 
> To me there is nothing attractive about a man who has zero confidence in himself. I'd venture to say most men don't want or find insecure women, or women who have zero confidence very attractive.


I'm not disagreeing with you. But at the same time, you are probably better off taking chances with none confident guy than you are with a confident one.

Confidence can be built over time.

I don't mind women with little confidence. Actually I think it's kind of cute if anything.



Jellybeans said:


> With that said, confidence is not the same as arrogance. Arrogance is the biggest fcking turn off ever.


Problem is, arrogance and confidence go hand in hand.


----------



## Jellybeans

2galsmom said:


> Add to the short list:
> 
> Men who use terms alpha and beta unless in alphabet and beta carotene.


:iagree:

I hate that Alpha and Beta sh*t.


----------



## DoF

always_alone said:


> It's a cruel irony from the female perspective too. The one thing we want, to be treated like a person who has value beyond her parts, can only be achieved via those parts.
> 
> If we don't have them in spades, we are completely invisible, we might as well not even exist.


Not true at all.

If anything, this is your best **** filter.

EVERYONE has value beyond their parts, and if you find people that value "parts" or ignore you based on lack of parts, that should tell you they are not the person FOR YOU.

And in most cases, probably the person nobody should be dating/getting into LTR with.


----------



## Jellybeans

DoF said:


> you are probably better off taking chances with none confident guy than you are with a confident one.


No, thanks. People w/ no confidence in themselves are not attractive to me.

Maybe that is what you find attractive, but I can speak for myself.


----------



## always_alone

alphaomega said:


> Lol.
> 
> That's because we could explain this till we are blue in the face what these terms actually, truly mean (ie. a true alpha doesn't mean being a dik), but as usual, you ladies only interpret it the way you want to and don't actually read the posts.


Oh, we *know* what you mean. It's just that a lot of us find it very unattractive when a man desires to climb back down the evolutionary ladder, aspiring to be a herd animal -- or even worse, a salmon spreading his seed.

Now, a man who appreciates and uses his cerebral cortex, his opposable thumbs, his language skills. Now that's attractive!


----------



## 1971

*Lying*


.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

A man who has no courage or convictions. 
A man with no empathy. (Super important)
A man who will not stand up for what he believes. 

A man who is racist/sexist/elitist/right winged.


----------



## treyvion

DoF said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you. But at the same time, you are probably better off taking chances with none confident guy than you are with a confident one.
> 
> Confidence can be built over time.
> 
> I don't mind women with little confidence. Actually I think it's kind of cute if anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, arrogance and confidence go hand in hand.


Arrogance breeds success.  Just joking, but it is kind of true though. You have to be arrogant enough to believe you can do it if you haven't done it before.


----------



## Omego

treyvion said:


> Arrogance breeds success.  Just joking, but it is kind of true though. You have to be arrogant enough to believe you can do it if you haven't done it before.


I agree. You need a just a bit a bravado to pull some things off. It is attractive, but only if not taken too far.


----------



## Fenix

DoF said:


> Problem is, arrogance and confidence go hand in hand.


No, I disagree. Confidence is inwardly focused and spurs action, appropriate risk taking and success. Arrogance is outwardly focused and spurs action and often, inappropriate risk taking. It is used to set oneself apart.



*LittleDeer* said:


> A man who has no courage or convictions.
> A man with no empathy. (Super important)
> A man who will not stand up for what he believes.
> 
> A man who is racist/sexist/elitist/right winged.


YES!


----------



## treyvion

Fenix said:


> No, I disagree. Confidence is inwardly focused and spurs action, appropriate risk taking and success. Arrogance is outwardly focused and spurs action and often, inappropriate risk taking. It is used to set oneself apart.
> 
> 
> 
> YES!


Someone with a lot of confidence and repetetitive successes may appear arrogant to an outsider. If the guy knocks the socks off of 99 out of 100 females, and he can feel "i know my stuff is good", it might appear to be arrogant about it and he might even be humble about it knowing "my stuff is good", but humble enough to know he's still a man.

Still the confidence will be over filled and brimming with it. To someone who doesn't have it, it will appear to be arrogant.

And they will attack him to try to strip him down.


----------



## ocotillo

treyvion said:


> Someone with a lot of confidence and repetetitive successes may appear arrogant to an outsider.


I think it probably works the other way too. Men who are the most arrogant, unmitigated pricks to those who know them well may appear as magnetically confident to those who only know them from a distance.

Take the late Steve Jobs and the adulation that was heaped upon him as an example. Bloggers declared that, "Steve Jobs made me a better Mom" and other equally enthusiastic epitaphs. 

Yet he was notorious among those who actually knew him for firing people simply because they didn't have a brilliant idea when he thought they should, or threatening people with their jobs if they didn't go faster and faster and faster and then screaming obscenities and throwing things when mistakes inevitably happened.


----------



## NobodySpecial

alphaomega said:


> Lol.
> 
> That's because we could explain this till we are blue in the face what these terms actually, truly mean (ie. a true alpha doesn't mean being a dik), but as usual, you ladies only interpret it the way you want to and don't actually read the posts.
> 
> 
> (flaming in...three..two..one...)


I just don't agree that the majority of the posters don't understand it. I just think the majority of posters don't care for or particularly desire an alpha male even when alpha male may not equal d*ck.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I noticed several women mention that a guy should befriend a woman first, then ask her out. My experience has been exactly the opposite. The women I have had friendships with, almost always remained friendships. There is a relatively short window from having built rapport/comfort with a woman to asking her out, for the best probability of success. *Most* women do not incessantly pine for one (or any) their male friends - at a certain point, it seems male friends completely exit the picture of ever having sexual potential. The closer friend he is, the less likely the two will ever become sexual imo.

Early on, the guy might have had a shot, but his taking so long to take the shot and pursuing the friend route (passive courting) - whatever attraction was there usually erodes. I'm aware that some people become best buds and go on to live happily ever after. I don't think this is the case for most - and I think the idea of "be her friend" is terrible advice for men. This is the advice that creates hapless men who regularly get stuck in the friend zone. As a friend, when he eventually makes a move, more often than not it upsets the friendship and the woman has cause to believe his friendship was just a foot in the door to date her. Being forward and direct fairly early on, once a basic rapport and compatibility is demonstrated, is by FAR more effective. 

Wanna frustrate the hell out of a woman? Have some guy she's crazy about befriend her, spend tons of time with her, but take forever to ask her on a date. He'll go from hot to not before you know it, because she will either feel like he is not interested in her or that he is passive or even spineless. Once her view shifts to one of those, there's little chance of recovery.

Young guys also become very aware of the benefits of being "the new guy". The guy who still has distance and mystery - both of which completely disappear if he tries to be her friend, instead of boyfriend.

The happy middle is the fertile field. Women a guy isn't really friends with, but has met a few times, they seem engaged and compatible. Now ask her out before you get too much closer.

Landing a date with a stranger is hard. Landing a date with a friend is even harder - at a certain point, it just becomes weird and she's not going to think of him as a mate. He all but threw away any sexual tension that might have existed (unless she's the really chaste type or a virgin). My experience has been that eagerness is an absolute no no, and friending is even worse. Even in picking up a stranger, there is an element of keeping some distance and dangling a carrot - push and pull - advance and retreat: building rapport, hanging on to the early feelings of mystery, building tension and interest.

The friend guy, usually stays the friend guy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The unpopularity of eagerness, desperation, and trying too hard, is explained by the PUA crowd as a signal females interpret as low value. That is, she perceives that if he's so eager so early, that he'd likely go for anyone and doesn't know/hold his value. He's not picky or selective.

He is in fact telling her "I have no confidence", "other women aren't interested in me either", and "you're not special, you just said yes".

The strategy to counter this if a guy has a problem with it, is to play to a degree of aloofness and distance. Pull her in, but only to a point, and then do you own things. In guy speak - its often expressed as "care less". But creating this distance, for the otherwise needy guy, appears natural and normal to women, instead of the rude way women and nice guys tend to read such advice. The guy should have a mindset that he be able to walk away without much skin in the early going. Flirt without obsessing or attaching. Reserve attachment for later, when its not driven by need, but by actual appreciation of the person. This is also the reasoning behind ideas that a guy should not text obsessively - that her texts should outnumber his (often a 3:1 ratio is thrown out). The overall point of these isn't to be cold, but to keep balance such that a good share of the engagement is initiated and sought by HER. He shouldn't put more into it than she is. If she doesn't do anything and this obsessive needy guy just keeps bombarding her with attention anyway - BOOM... she knows she can do better and find a healthier male and attraction goes out the window.

The confident guy with high value and choices doesn't throw himself at anyone. He doesn't derive his value from her.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I noticed several women mention that a guy should befriend a woman first, then ask her out. My experience has been exactly the opposite. The women I have had friendships with, almost always remained friendships. There is a relatively short window from having built rapport/comfort with a woman to asking her out, for the best probability of success. *Most* women do not incessantly pine for one (or any) their male friends - at a certain point, it seems male friends completely exit the picture of ever having sexual potential. The closer friend he is, the less likely the two will ever become sexual imo.


Agreed 110%! Women might not even understand it. Women lovel labelling or putting categories on someone, and it is nearly impossible to remove. So that plutanic friend who would do anything for you, who you could never see in a sexual way, you usually never do. No one hardly becomes a friend and works his way up the ladder.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Early on, the guy might have had a shot, but his taking so long to take the shot and pursuing the friend route (passive courting) - whatever attraction was there usually erodes. I'm aware that some people become best buds and go on to live happily ever after. I don't think this is the case for most - and I think the idea of "be her friend" is terrible advice for men. This is the advice that creates hapless men who regularly get stuck in the friend zone. As a friend, when he eventually makes a move, more often than not it upsets the friendship and the woman has cause to believe his friendship was just a foot in the door to date her. Being forward and direct fairly early on, once a basic rapport and compatibility is demonstrated, is by FAR more effective.


It kills any fire used for passion. After this is the norm between you, it becomes literally impossible to create. It's easier to have it from the start with someone.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wanna frustrate the hell out of a woman? Have some guy she's crazy about befriend her, spend tons of time with her, but take forever to ask her on a date. He'll go from hot to not before you know it, because she will either feel like he is not interested in her or that he is passive or even spineless. Once her view shifts to one of those, there's little chance of recovery.


Agreed 110%. This is just how it is. You almost have to take shots at them, be that red blooded visceral man. Even if she is not currently accepting it. You don't want her to see you as harmless to her, because it won't light any fire.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Young guys also become very aware of the benefits of being "the new guy". The guy who still has distance and mystery - both of which completely disappear if he tries to be her friend, instead of boyfriend.
> 
> The happy middle is the fertile field. Women a guy isn't really friends with, but has met a few times, they seem engaged and compatible. Now ask her out before you get too much closer.
> 
> Landing a date with a stranger is hard. Landing a date with a friend is even harder - at a certain point, it just becomes weird and she's not going to think of him as a mate. He all but threw away any sexual tension that might have existed (unless she's the really chaste type or a virgin). My experience has been that eagerness is an absolute no no, and friending is even worse. Even in picking up a stranger, there is an element of keeping some distance and dangling a carrot - push and pull - advance and retreat: building rapport, hanging on to the early feelings of mystery, building tension and interest.


It's easier with a stranger or someone you are not "friends" with.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The friend guy, usually stays the friend guy.


Agree 110%.


----------



## Dollystanford

treyvion said:


> Women might not even understand it. Women lovel labelling or putting categories on someone, and it is nearly impossible to remove.


'.....................'

My irony-o-meter just exploded


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I just think the majority of posters don't care for or particularly desire an alpha male even when alpha male may not equal d*ck.


Are you sure about that? I think you'll notice significant overlap between beta traits and the "unattractive" traits women have listed in this thread. Some commonly associated alpha and beta traits:


Alpha:
Never puts the blame on someone else. He always faces his obstacles head on regardless of the odds of success. He never complains about problems, but aggressively works to find solutions to them. If there is something he doesn't want to do - as opposed to can't do - he offers no explanation. He owns the result and knows its all within his power to be successful.

Beta:
Makes excuses. Every time there's something he can't or won't do, he has an excuse, and feels like he needs to explain it to those around him. Its never his fault. Secretly feels powerless or victimized. <-- Elliot Rogers and blaming the world for his own inability to talk to women.

Alpha: Doesn't care what other people think of him.

Beta: Needs affirmation from others. Is obsessed with how others think of him.

Alpha: Talks slowly and more calmly. His movements are smooth. Translation: comfortable and in control.

Beta: Talks fast, always seems to be nervous, stressed or in a rush.

Alpha: Lives life passionately. Knows what he wants. He has goals - and is focused on his goals and dreams and tears down any barriers in-between.

Beta: Lives life by the day not really knowing what he wants. Will waste time on the couch, rather than doing something productive. He is lazy and passive.

Alpha: Failure is only a minor setback to the Alpha. He can look forward to failure because first of all, he is moving forward by trying something new. Resilient and even irrationally optimistic.

Beta: Gives up or becomes depressed when he fails. Sees no point in trying and is fearful of facing failure again. Pessimistic and cynical. Fearful of trying new things because they're out of his comfort zone, and worries he may look like he doesn't know what he's doing.

Alpha: Will not apologize for his desires and beliefs. Alphas do apologize, but only when they truly believe they've made a mistake - not to try and make others feel better.

Beta: Uses the word, "sorry" a lot - even when it doesn't belong in the conversation. He apologizes to others because he feels he might have offended them somehow, or to mitigate unpopular statements. "I'm sorry, but that's what I think." 

Alpha: Never feels like he must prove himself. His ego is his ally. Here is the truth: Big egos are a result of low-esteem and lack of control over emotion. A man who is truly confident in himself never needs to lash out at someone who insulted his ego. Things slide off his back.

Beta: Believe it or not - he has a big ego. But it backfires on him because he is too sensitive and insecure regarding everyone's opinion of him. So he constantly is trying to prove himself by stating his qualifications.

Alpha: Is supremely confident in his value and status with women. If his girlfriend is talking to other guys, he goes to talk with other girls. He laughs at the thought of his girlfriend choosing another guy over him.

Beta: Gets jealous really easily when he sees his girl talking or flirting with another guy.

Alpha male: On the rare occasion a woman leaves an alpha, he simply loves that there are thousands of other girls just as good or better than the girl who dumped him. His life is not centered around one girl, and he has no problem moving on.

Beta: If he loses his girl, he loses all hope in life and thinks that he cannot live without "the one" - her.

Alpha: Takes up space whenever he sits down or rests. Is in control of his surroundings. Is comfortable in his skin wherever he is. Proximity and touch doesn't unnerve him, he will readily touch both men and women. Owns his space. 

Beta: Poor body language - slouches. He stands and sits uncomfortably, as if he is nervous. Can't look people in the face without turning away or lowering his eyes. Doesn't like people in his space and will move.

Alpha: Is not only not desperate for women, he is never desperate for anything. When you are not desperate for women's attention or affection, it's implied that you have plenty of it - which puts you at ease, and is attractive to most women.

Beta: Looks to quickly get into a relationship, as if he is desperate for a girlfriend. Women are rare and precious. Puts them on a pedestal.

*most men will probably have some alpha associated traits, and some beta associated traits, but the unattractive traits listed thus far by women seem to more closely align with beta. Of the traits I listed, I have two of the beta traits: tendency to ego prove and talking too much (not really quickly); neither particularly popular, so don't think I'm just taking a shot at guys with beta traits.


----------



## WyshIknew

Dollystanford said:


> '.....................'
> 
> My irony-o-meter just exploded


Here, have a new one on me. Try not to break it!


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> Me too. I would never be interested in, or attracted to, a perfect stranger.


I was thinking about this and what follows is not because I want to be argumentative or because I think I know what women want more than they themselves do. (Obviously I don't and can't.) I'm just honestly curious about what makes people, "Tick." (Which I think can sometimes be misconstrued on TAM.)

My wife likes romance novels as much as any woman although she prefers authors like Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer to more modern writers. I've read more than a few of her books out of curiosity and would say that attraction between strangers is one of, if not the most common plot element in these books. Often there is a serious personality clash right up front, which in a weird, convoluted way seems to feed the feelings of attraction that subsequently develop

And this isn't just confined to romantic novels. You see the exact same formula at work in movies like, _You've Got Mail _and _French Kiss_ and _Baby Boom_ and T_he African Queen _and _Something's Gotta Give_ and _Beauty and the Beast_ and _Star Wars_ and _Gone With The Wind _and _The Birds_ and _The Last of the Mohicans._ 

Two people, often from very different backgrounds meet/Sparks fly/Love develops.

I'm not pointing this out because I think we should take our lessons in human relations from books and movies. That would be silly. I'm looking at it more from the other end. The idea obviously appeals to people at some level - else it wouldn't sell.

Maybe it's one of those ideas that sounds good in fiction but really doesn't work out so well in real life?


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you sure about that? I think you'll notice significant overlap between beta traits and the "unattractive" traits women have listed in this thread. Some commonly associated alpha and beta traits:
> 
> 
> Alpha:
> Never puts the blame on someone else. He always faces his obstacles head on regardless of the odds of success. He never complains about problems, but aggressively works to find solutions to them. If there is something he doesn't want to do - as opposed to can't do - he offers no explanation. He owns the result and knows its all within his power to be successful.
> 
> Beta:
> Makes excuses. Every time there's something he can't or won't do, he has an excuse, and feels like he needs to explain it to those around him. Its never his fault. Secretly feels powerless or victimized. <-- Elliot Rogers and blaming the world for his own inability to talk to women.
> 
> Alpha: Doesn't care what other people think of him.
> 
> Beta: Needs affirmation from others. Is obsessed with how others think of him.
> 
> Alpha: Talks slowly and more calmly. His movements are smooth. Translation: comfortable and in control.
> 
> Beta: Talks fast, always seems to be nervous, stressed or in a rush.
> 
> Alpha: Lives life passionately. Knows what he wants. He has goals - and is focused on his goals and dreams and tears down any barriers in-between.
> 
> Beta: Lives life by the day not really knowing what he wants. Will waste time on the couch, rather than doing something productive. He is lazy and passive.
> 
> Alpha: Failure is only a minor setback to the Alpha. He can look forward to failure because first of all, he is moving forward by trying something new. Resilient and even irrationally optimistic.
> 
> Beta: Gives up or becomes depressed when he fails. Sees no point in trying and is fearful of facing failure again. Pessimistic and cynical. Fearful of trying new things because they're out of his comfort zone, and worries he may look like he doesn't know what he's doing.
> 
> Alpha: Will not apologize for his desires and beliefs. Alphas do apologize, but only when they truly believe they've made a mistake - not to try and make others feel better.
> 
> Beta: Uses the word, "sorry" a lot - even when it doesn't belong in the conversation. He apologizes to others because he feels he might have offended them somehow, or to mitigate unpopular statements. "I'm sorry, but that's what I think."
> 
> Alpha: Never feels like he must prove himself. His ego is his ally. Here is the truth: Big egos are a result of low-esteem and lack of control over emotion. A man who is truly confident in himself never needs to lash out at someone who insulted his ego. Things slide off his back.
> 
> Beta: Believe it or not - he has a big ego. But it backfires on him because he is too sensitive and insecure regarding everyone's opinion of him. So he constantly is trying to prove himself by stating his qualifications.
> 
> Alpha: Is supremely confident in his value and status with women. If his girlfriend is talking to other guys, he goes to talk with other girls. He laughs at the thought of his girlfriend choosing another guy over him.
> 
> Beta: Gets jealous really easily when he sees his girl talking or flirting with another guy.
> 
> Alpha male: On the rare occasion a woman leaves an alpha, he simply loves that there are thousands of other girls just as good or better than the girl who dumped him. His life is not centered around one girl, and he has no problem moving on.
> 
> Beta: If he loses his girl, he loses all hope in life and thinks that he cannot live without "the one" - her.
> 
> Alpha: Takes up space whenever he sits down or rests. Is in control of his surroundings. Is comfortable in his skin wherever he is. Proximity and touch doesn't unnerve him, he will readily touch both men and women. Owns his space.
> 
> Beta: Poor body language - slouches. He stands and sits uncomfortably, as if he is nervous. Can't look people in the face without turning away or lowering his eyes. Doesn't like people in his space and will move.
> 
> Alpha: Is not only not desperate for women, he is never desperate for anything. When you are not desperate for women's attention or affection, it's implied that you have plenty of it - which puts you at ease, and is attractive to most women.
> 
> Beta: Looks to quickly get into a relationship, as if he is desperate for a girlfriend. Women are rare and precious. Puts them on a pedestal.
> 
> *most men will probably have some alpha associated traits, and some beta associated traits, but the unattractive traits listed thus far by women seem to more closely align with beta. Of the traits I listed, I have two of the beta traits: tendency to ego prove and talking too much (not really quickly); neither particularly popular, so don't think I'm just taking a shot at guys with beta traits.


You made a couple details assessments of traits and things how they are between male and female, and I made a note of it. One I titled "valuation in relationships" it was a great read. I'm going to make a note of what you described here, because it's a good map to prescribe to.

You should make a write up of how valuation and devaluation works, and it affects your psyche and self image and image to the group.

Like keep beta-orbiting a babe who has you deemed low value it will drag you down even more and re-inforce self image supporting the postion.

Having sex with some babes or having others chase you, even though it might not be the level you truly would like will add to you and your view of self. 

Etc, yada.

But I like your stuff when you break it down.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Women might not even *tend to recognize* it.


Fixed it for you.

The thing I hear all the time about friend-to-boyfriend attempts, is that she usually feels like something isn't there. Like, "I should have totally been crazy about the guy, but I just couldn't get worked up that way for him... even though he was a great looking guy and totally cool!"

The thing that isn't there, is tension... except for the inexperienced women (chaste, safe, conservative, religious, virgins etc). They seem to pull of the friend-to-boyfriend thing more often.


----------



## NobodySpecial

treyvion said:


> Agreed 110%! Women might not even understand it. Women lovel labelling or putting categories on someone, and it is nearly impossible to remove. So that plutanic friend who would do anything for you, who you could never see in a sexual way, you usually never do. No one hardly becomes a friend and works his way up the ladder.



This speaks clearly to the notion that there is no one set of things that are attractive to women. On the one hand, I have no reason to doubt your experience. But for my part, I would never go near someone who thought like this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> Maybe it's one of those ideas that sounds good in fiction but really doesn't work out so well in real life?


This. The fantasy is set in the perfect frame of mind. Its idealized. Real life rarely has that frame. So the fantastic, in reality, just feels weird.

Fantasies are, sort of by nature, the idea of disarmed inhibitions and perfect scenarios that rarely exist in life.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> ]
> 
> Two people, often from very different backgrounds meet/Sparks fly/Love develops.
> 
> I'm not pointing this out because I think we should take our lessons in human relations from books and movies. That would be silly. I'm looking at it more from the other end. The idea obviously appeals to people at some level - else it wouldn't sell.
> 
> Maybe it's one of those ideas that sounds good in fiction but really doesn't work out so well in real life?


Love at first sight is a common trope, and agree that it probably appeals to many people --and perhaps even reflects that experience of first seeing someone, and your heart starts racing, your palms sweating, and you can barely form a coherent sentence.

The rest, IMHO, is simply dramatic device. Without conflict, you only need a couple of pages/minutes, and you've got yourself some porn. So to make sure there actually is a story line, the authors/directors play on passion/fire/temperamental and dramatic characters. And the predictability of it all is just because Hollywood and Harlequin (and kin) are firm believers in the formulaic. If it makes money once, make a sequel!

That's my take, at any rate. I'm sure C2W has a different one.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Having sex with some babes or having others chase you, even though it might not be the level you truly would like will add to you and your view of self.


Its a subtle thing and I think you're not quite on the right page here. The above would be a typical beta behavior.

Alpha doesn't care. Getting laid doesn't add to his sense of value.

The important, and attractive quality, is such a strong sense of self-worth independent of women so as to not get bent out of shape or stuck/obsessed with one. Think of it as catch and release fishing. Not being so hungry you're afraid to release.

For example, something I do when I'm out single and looking... is strike up a lot of conversations with various women. Often, they're just flybys... a brief interaction in passing. I've made myself known, and I've shown I'm not doting on her (as the desperate trying to get something guy would). I may play on the previous conversation in subsequent conversations if I see her later - and build up that easy going familiarity; in some circumstances, you can even be pretty funny about it with innuendos and sexual humor. Ordinarily, early sexualization can be a turnoff - but when done with a certain innocent humor and circumstance in a flyby manner it tends to work pretty well. Rather than be offended, they think its hilarious you said that. A kind of c*cky most like because you're not still there in their face pushing. It disarms some natural defenses. I'm not sweating it if I don't see her again regardless. There are a LOT of girls. Over the course of time, you get a pretty clear picture of who is responsive - they come and go and I sort of go with the flow. You have fun conversations, show some personality, and then you move on. Catch and release. For whatever reason, the fact that you don't continue to push interaction with a given girl, makes her more likely to respond well to later interactions... and they make it a hell of a lot easier/more productive to join her or ask her to join you.

They typically don't like the guy pushing and pushing and pushing. Walk away when its natural to. Do this over the course of a night, and you'll end up with a slew of options and responsive women, because you're a friendly, playful, easy going guy.

Just enjoy the good social time and you'll feel better about yourself regardless of whether you sleep with them or not.

Sex takes care of itself. Don't make it an objective and you get a lot more of it.


----------



## Happyfamily

Oh, I understand "alpha". 

It means I want to have sex with you. 

So from your lips will trip all of the things you believe will make me want to have sex with you. 

It is coming from someone who doesn't even understand that **** Sapiens is latin for "wise man", who won the evolutionary battle for supremacy with his _brain_, not his brawn. He is not a dog that pees to mark his boundary. He is a man that can do quantum mechanics and calculate the size of the universe one millisecond after the singularity or find the event horizon of a black hole. 

Such a man has no need to tell me that I want to have sex with him. _The fact you feel the need to tell me is the reason I find you unattractive_.


----------



## WyshIknew

Oh dear, it's turned a bit 'gender wars' hasn't it?

Inevitable I suppose.


Anyways.....


----------



## TiggyBlue

Mansplaining


----------



## WyshIknew

Anonymous07 said:


> No, you can be friends first.
> 
> My husband and I hung out with a group of friends. We'd go off to the side and talk and got to know each other. As I got to know him, he became more and more attractive. When he asked me out a little while later, there was no way I would want to turn him down.





NobodySpecial said:


> My son just recently began a relationship with his first girlfriend. No one asked anyone out. They talked. They realized that they liked the same stuff and enjoyed being together. And that hey, look they are a "thing" or whatever middle schoolers call it now.
> 
> My husband never asked me out. None of the guys I ever dated did. We just did it.


Well is it possible your guys were attractive to women?

They didn't have to try, it just came naturally to them? Women sought them out?

They weren't *unattractive* 

You, in fact, mention that your guys are/were attractive. Now that could mean that they were attractive in general or attractive to you but from the way you have written it seems to me that you feel that they were attractive to most women.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its a subtle thing and I think you're not quite on the right page here. The above would be a typical beta behavior.
> 
> Alpha doesn't care. Getting laid doesn't add to his sense of value.
> 
> The important, and attractive quality, is such a strong sense of self-worth independent of women so as to not get bent out of shape or stuck/obsessed with one. Think of it as catch and release fishing. Not being so hungry you're afraid to release.
> 
> For example, something I do when I'm out single and looking... is strike up a lot of conversations with various women. Often, they're just flybys... a brief interaction in passing. I've made myself known, and I've shown I'm not doting on her (as the desperate trying to get something guy would). I may play on the previous conversation in subsequent conversations if I see her later - and build up that easy going familiarity; in some circumstances, you can even be pretty funny about it with innuendos and sexual humor. Ordinarily, early sexualization can be a turnoff - but when done with a certain innocent humor and circumstance in a flyby manner it tends to work pretty well. Rather than be offended, they think its hilarious you said that. A kind of c*cky most like because you're not still there in their face pushing. It disarms some natural defenses. I'm not sweating it if I don't see her again regardless. There are a LOT of girls. Over the course of time, you get a pretty clear picture of who is responsive - they come and go and I sort of go with the flow. You have fun conversations, show some personality, and then you move on. Catch and release. For whatever reason, the fact that you don't continue to push interaction with a given girl, makes her more likely to respond well to later interactions... and they make it a hell of a lot easier/more productive to join her or ask her to join you.
> 
> They typically don't like the guy pushing and pushing and pushing. Walk away when its natural to. Do this over the course of a night, and you'll end up with a slew of options and responsive women, because you're a friendly, playful, easy going guy.
> 
> Just enjoy the good social time and you'll feel better about yourself regardless of whether you sleep with them or not.
> 
> Sex takes care of itself. Don't make it an objective and you get a lot more of it.


It was kinda my style too. A ****y, testing behavior. If they didn't respond I wouldn't keep at it, because someone else would.

I didn't worry about sex either, I would take my shots and if they bit we would have sex, if not, I would talk about something else and do sex with another.

I was trying to describe something to the men who may be stuck.

When you have an "abundance" you will tend to attract an "abundance". When you have don't have a lack of, you will tend to have options.

However if you appear deprived, you will get stuck. So it's good to get your wheels greased on any babe who wants to bed you, because it will open up so many more options.


----------



## Happyfamily

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sex takes care of itself. Don't make it an objective and you get a lot more of it.


Some advice for you, from a woman. I see straight through you. Let me tell you what I hear from you:



> blah blah blah...want to have sex with you...blah blah blah...want to have sex with you...blah blah blah...want to have sex with you...blah blah blah...say anything to have sex with you...blah blah...do anything to have sex with you...blah blah...sex...blah...sex...blah...sex...blah..sex


and of COURSE you are right here above saying that your objective is not sex, so that is how you achieve your objective of getting sex.

In evolutionary terms, the most successful genetic progenitor of all time was Genghis Khan. His objective was, roughly speaking, conquering the world. So there is someone who actually WAS a warrior, whose primary objective was not getting laid, but who ended up being the most prolific breeder. Incident to conquering the world. 

He wasn't PRETENDING. He actually WAS conquering the world. That's the difference between blah blah blah, "I'm the alpha" and the real thing.


----------



## Ikaika

WyshIknew said:


> Oh dear, it's turned a bit 'gender wars' hasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> Inevitable I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways.....



Bail out now while you can. In the infamous words from the sixties, "make love not war".


----------



## TiggyBlue

drerio said:


> Bail out now while you can. In the infamous words from the sixties, "make love not war".


no no no the OP can't bail, he has to see it through to the bitter end


----------



## Ikaika

TiggyBlue said:


> no no no the OP can't bail, he has to see it through to the bitter end



OP is a stud, and as such does not even apply to him any longer. Have you seen him he looks and sounds like James Bond.


----------



## WyshIknew

TiggyBlue said:


> no no no the OP can't bail, he has to see it through to the bitter end


Meanie!

Do you know what the bitter end is?


----------



## WyshIknew

drerio said:


> OP is a stud, and as such does not even apply to him any longer. Have you seen him he looks and sounds like James Bond.


Did you not see the pic I put up of my face with several days of stubble on it?

Hardly Mr Bond.


----------



## TiggyBlue

WyshIknew said:


> Meanie!
> 
> Do you know what the bitter end is?


Yep the thread gets locked lol


----------



## Ikaika

WyshIknew said:


> Did you not see the pic I put up of my face with several days of stubble on it?
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly Mr Bond.



So Bond was held captive for a few days


----------



## TiggyBlue

drerio said:


> OP is a stud, and as such does not even apply to him any longer. Have you seen him he looks and sounds like James Bond.


Bond doesn't bail


----------



## Ikaika

Wysh, gives us a voice message, let the ladies swoon and let the old you be put to rest.


----------



## WyshIknew

drerio said:


> Wysh, gives us a voice message, let the ladies swoon and let the old you be put to rest.


There's a lot of the old me that I like.

The old me learnt valuable life lessons that have stood me in good stead.

Without the old me I may not have been the (relatively) stable, mature, passionate, caring and considerate man that I am now.


----------



## WyshIknew

So to expand on something that Middle of Everything said (I think) why is it some men are such duffers at picking up women and some so 'skilled'.

Two guys, on paper fairly similar, good jobs, ok looking etc.

One guy can pick up (some) women like that *clicks fingers*.

The other guy couldn't score if he fell into a barrel of sex.

Why? What is the difference between them?

Or is it maybe something that just can't be quantified, some guys have that special something, some don't?


----------



## always_alone

More things that make a man unattractive:

Bragging about sexual prowess 
Viewing women as interchangeable sexual conquests
Lack of authenticity in relating to others


One thing that is very attractive
-acceptance of self, foibles and all, with humility and grace


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> More things that make a man unattractive:
> 
> Bragging about sexual prowess
> Viewing women as interchangeable sexual conquests
> Lack of authenticity in relating to others
> 
> 
> One thing that is very attractive
> -acceptance of self, foibles and all, with humility and grace


Do you think this is applicable across the whole age spectrum?

In your opinion would these attributes be regarded the same by a 15 year old girl, a 20 year old, 30 year old woman and a 50 year old?


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> So to expand on something that Middle of Everything said (I think) why is it some men are such duffers at picking up women and some so 'skilled'.
> 
> Two guys, on paper fairly similar, good jobs, ok looking etc.
> 
> One guy can pick up (some) women like that *clicks fingers*.
> 
> The other guy couldn't score if he fell into a barrel of sex.
> 
> Why? What is the difference between them?


IMHO, most of the difference is superficial looks-based stuff. 

Also, some guys have a "charmer" capability about them that a lot of women will go for. So he'll act like he thinks you're something special, compliments and whatnot, stare deep into your eyes, yada, yada, and some women will buy into the fantasy that he's spinning. Others will know that he's full of it

Guys seem to admire other guys that bag lots of babes, but mostly those ones are the cheaters, liars, players, or otherwise not particularly nice or desirable people. In my experience, at any rate


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> IMHO, most of the difference is superficial looks-based stuff.
> 
> Also, some guys have a "charmer" capability about them that a lot of women will go for. So he'll act like he thinks you're something special, compliments and whatnot, stare deep into your eyes, yada, yada, and some women will buy into the fantasy that he's spinning. Others will know that he's full of it
> 
> Guys seem to admire other guys that bag lots of babes, but mostly those ones are the cheaters, liars, players, or otherwise not particularly nice or desirable people. In my experience, at any rate


Personally I can't say I admired them, in fact I didn't like the way they treated some women, but it was the women's choice to be with them.

I'm a little ashamed to say I was quite jealous of their success.


----------



## Omego

WyshIknew said:


> Or is it maybe something that just can't be quantified, some guys have that special something, some don't?


I think that's it. There's a masculine/sexual/sensual vibe that some guys just give off, and probably without trying... And then it all boils down to shared chemistry, of course.


----------



## Fenix

WyshIknew said:


> Do you think this is applicable across the whole age spectrum?
> 
> In your opinion would these attributes be regarded the same by a 15 year old girl, a 20 year old, 30 year old woman and a 50 year old?


Yes, I think it is different at different ages...just like for men. I would hope that as we age, we become less superficial. of course, this isn't the case for everyone.

To answer the other question on similar looks etc and why one guy seems to be more successful, some people just have it. They have this quality that is charismatic...when you are speaking with them, you feel like you are the only person in the room. That is pretty powerful stuff.


----------



## WyshIknew

Looking at some of the answers I strongly suspect that if the question were reversed many of the men here would give similar answers to the women regarding women.

I think some things are universal.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> Well is it possible your guys were attractive to women?
> 
> They didn't have to try, it just came naturally to them? Women sought them out?
> 
> They weren't *unattractive*
> 
> You, in fact, mention that your guys are/were attractive. Now that could mean that they were attractive in general or attractive to you but from the way you have written it seems to me that you feel that they were attractive to most women.


He is a regular guy. He had some girlfriends. He had some rejection. Then he met me.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> Do you think this is applicable across the whole age spectrum?
> 
> In your opinion would these attributes be regarded the same by a 15 year old girl, a 20 year old, 30 year old woman and a 50 year old?


My values have remained relatively constant over my life --although my ability to read people and situations has vastly improved. 

I do think --as I said before-- that younger people tend to be more superficial, more easily impressed by looks, popularity, trendy gadgets and clothes. 

So really, I'm sure the answer to that depends on the person. But I don't think too many women, young or old, appreciate being a number for a guy to acquire the "stench of sex". They just end up there because they are only seeing the surface, not the substance (or lack thereof) underneath. This is a skill that improves with age.


----------



## WyshIknew

NobodySpecial said:


> He is a regular guy. He had some girlfriends. He had some rejection. Then he met me.


Ultimately, you and I came down the same road in life, we just used different maps to get there. :smthumbup:


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> So to expand on something that Middle of Everything said (I think) why is it some men are such duffers at picking up women and some so 'skilled'.
> 
> Two guys, on paper fairly similar, good jobs, ok looking etc.
> 
> One guy can pick up (some) women like that *clicks fingers*.
> 
> The other guy couldn't score if he fell into a barrel of sex.
> 
> Why? What is the difference between them?
> 
> Or is it maybe something that just can't be quantified, some guys have that special something, some don't?


I have no idea. They are both pretty damned unattractive to me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WyshIknew said:


> Ultimately, you and I came down the same road in life, we just used different maps to get there. :smthumbup:


LOL! Pretty sure that our roads were nothing alike. But not that that is a problem. My husband is perfect. For ME.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> IMHO, most of the difference is superficial looks-based stuff.
> 
> Also, some guys have a "charmer" capability about them that a lot of women will go for. So he'll act like he thinks you're something special, compliments and whatnot, stare deep into your eyes, yada, yada, and some women will buy into the fantasy that he's spinning. Others will know that he's full of it
> 
> Guys seem to admire other guys that bag lots of babes, but mostly those ones are the cheaters, liars, players, or otherwise not particularly nice or desirable people. In my experience, at any rate


The attract them like flies to $hit. Women love a challenge and these guys do what works. Alot of it is not nice.


----------



## ocotillo

WyshIknew said:


> Two guys, on paper fairly similar, good jobs, ok looking etc.
> 
> One guy can pick up (some) women like that *clicks fingers*.
> 
> The other guy couldn't score if he fell into a barrel of sex.
> 
> Why? What is the difference between them?


I don't know if this helps or not, but my wife's younger brother falls into the former category. The biggest single difference between him and other men (That I can see) is that he doesn't have the male fixation and fascination with, "Things."

He can't reel off bore, stroke and cam bearing sequence of every V8 Ford and Chevrolet have ever made; he can't recognize every military plane since the dawn of aviation by sight; he can't tell you every wildcat Parker Ackley ever developed; in fact he's not terribly good with tools or gifted mechanically at all.

His true talent is with people (Men and women) and by that I mean a brilliant conversationalist who puts people at ease and makes them feel good.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> Oh dear, it's turned a bit 'gender wars' hasn't it?
> 
> Inevitable I suppose.
> 
> 
> Anyways.....


You're pretty good a that innocent act, Wysh.


----------



## NobodySpecial

GettingIt said:


> You're pretty good a that innocent act, Wysh.


Gee ladies, what do YOU think? 

Pages later. Didn't hear a word.


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> You're pretty good a that innocent act, Wysh.


Hmmmm? What? Sorry, did you say something?


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> Hmmmm? What? Sorry, did you say something?


I noticed you had a hiatus. Just had to get your dose of TAM drama, did you?


----------



## WyshIknew

NobodySpecial said:


> Gee ladies, what do YOU think?
> 
> Pages later. Didn't hear a word.


Not quite sure what you mean. Don't forget I am in a completely different time zone to you so may miss some activity.

And if you mean I didn't read and absorb, didn't hear what you were saying, in my defence although I am good with technical stuff, numbers I can be a bit of a clod socially.


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> I noticed you had a hiatus. Just had to get your dose of TAM drama, did you?


Yes, personally I think it is important to step away from the keyboard at times. Plus I'd been busy with building projects around the house, mad busy at work, took our eldest granddaughter away for a week and then got sick for a few days.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Mansplaining


An intellectually dishonest concept used exclusively to dismiss and cut off discussion.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> An intellectually dishonest concept used exclusively to dismiss and cut off discussion.


I don't think that's the definition of mansplaining :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

treyvion said:


> The attract them like flies to $hit. Women love a challenge and these guys do what works. Alot of it is not nice.


Mmmmm. Flies and $hit. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Me? I like people.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Things that would put me off a guy I first found attractive,
Hypocrite
Double standards 
Whiny
Entitled 
Patronizing
Poor hygiene
Liar
Disloyal 
Arrogant
Bad breath
Attention seeking


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> Personally I can't say I admired them, in fact I didn't like the way they treated some women, but it was the women's choice to be with them.
> 
> I'm a little ashamed to say I was quite jealous of their success.


You're not alone. But like most jealousy, it's seeing only the surface.

My SO had two good friends who were "babe-magnets", and in comparison he had a very hard time with women.

One of the friends basically seduced his way through all of his friend's girlfriends, plus many many more, without care for anyone's feelings. And where is he now? Hooked up with an alcoholic who cheats on him with all *his* friends, yells at him constantly, and who he is afraid to leave because of some ill-conceived concern for his child.

The other friend dumped a perfectly nice and fun woman to chase after a narcissistic drama queen (oh, but she was hot!), who strung him along for years, took money from him, treated him like dirt, and then got married to another guy (a doctor, don't you know!). All without ever having sex with him. This friend is now a workaholic who hasn't had a girlfriend, or even a date, for going on a decade.

My SO used to be a bit jealous of these guys, I think, but he sure isn't now.

Karma is a b!tch!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Oh, I understand "alpha".
> 
> It means I want to have sex with you.
> 
> So from your lips will trip all of the things you believe will make me want to have sex with you.


Funny, for understanding alpha, you just described beta. Adopting PUA techniques for example, which in the most elemental sense encourage a more alpha carefree mentality, is a beta behavior - approval seeking.

Kind of ironic really. Boiled down, the PUA theme is that people (not just women) will like you more, if you don't care so much about whether they like you. Stop trying so hard, stop being so desperate, relax, put yourself out there and let it all go. Sprinkled with some nasty language and tips that get a ton of people riled up. Oops... don't offend anyone Mr. Careful beta. To go from super beta nice guy, to the proper balanced middle, you have to know and become comfortable with obnoxious... otherwise, you're really still approval seeking. I've known guys who can't even go talk to a girl because they don't want to come off as a sleazy guy hitting on them. When you're that sensitive to being thought obnoxious, a guy needs his sense of what is actually obnoxious reset. He needs to be desensitized imo.

That sexual interest leads a man to such introspection and even potential self-improvement, well, so f-ing what? He's now focused on his issues and owning them. Elliot Rogers probably could have used some of that, instead of blaming women for his cowardice and killing them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> Yes, personally I think it is important to step away from the keyboard at times. Plus I'd been busy with building projects around the house, mad busy at work, took our eldest granddaughter away for a week and then got sick for a few days.


Alpha as f*ck.


----------



## always_alone

Lawd help us if becoming more obnoxious is considered "self-improvement"


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> You're not alone. But like most jealousy, it's seeing only the surface.
> 
> My SO had two good friends who were "babe-magnets", and in comparison he had a very hard time with women.
> 
> One of the friends basically seduced his way through all of his friend's girlfriends, plus many many more, without care for anyone's feelings. And where is he now? Hooked up with an alcoholic who cheats on him with all *his* friends, yells at him constantly, and who he is afraid to leave because of some ill-conceived concern for his child.


Wow. These were true alpha's.



always_alone said:


> The other friend dumped a perfectly nice and fun woman to chase after a narcissistic drama queen (oh, but she was hot!), who strung him along for years, took money from him, treated him like dirt, and then got married to another guy (a doctor, don't you know!). All without ever having sex with him. This friend is now a workaholic who hasn't had a girlfriend, or even a date, for going on a decade.


How the hell did he become a TAM like sexless?



always_alone said:


> My SO used to be a bit jealous of these guys, I think, but he sure isn't now.
> 
> Karma is a b!tch!


No these guys gave up on themselves. I mean the guy who used to dog women out, thats fine, but the other successful one, I can't really fault him other than getting stuck on one that wasn't going to work out.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> Yes, personally I think it is important to step away from the keyboard at times. Plus I'd been busy with building projects around the house, mad busy at work, took our eldest granddaughter away for a week and then got sick for a few days.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Alpha as f*ck.


I'll go one further and say the ability to know when to walk away is an attractive "alpha" trait . . . one not displayed nearly often enough on TAM.

ETA: Not meaning you Wysh--you DO have the ability to state a case and move on. Just realized my comment might look like it was directed at you. 'Twasn't!


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> You're not alone. But like most jealousy, it's seeing only the surface.
> 
> My SO had two good friends who were "babe-magnets", and in comparison he had a very hard time with women.
> 
> One of the friends basically seduced his way through all of his friend's girlfriends, plus many many more, without care for anyone's feelings. And where is he now? Hooked up with an alcoholic who cheats on him with all *his* friends, yells at him constantly, and who he is afraid to leave because of some ill-conceived concern for his child.
> 
> The other friend dumped a perfectly nice and fun woman to chase after a narcissistic drama queen (oh, but she was hot!), who strung him along for years, took money from him, treated him like dirt, and then got married to another guy (a doctor, don't you know!). All without ever having sex with him. This friend is now a workaholic who hasn't had a girlfriend, or even a date, for going on a decade.
> 
> My SO used to be a bit jealous of these guys, I think, but he sure isn't now.
> 
> Karma is a b!tch!


Yep, I feel we won the game of life. Got everything I wanted in life, would like a little extra dosh (who doesn't?) then I could afford an extra holiday/vacation.


----------



## ladybird

over20 said:


> I'm sorry to hear of that Wysh. For me it's a man who whines and complains about life. Basically, one who has a bad attitude about everything and is always blaming others. I think having a sense of humor helps you get through the tough times.


I agree.. and also sitting on their ass all day makes one unattractive


----------



## Personal

I just asked my wife, what makes a man unattractive.

Here's some of her list;

Unfamiliarity with soap, shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste and mouthwash.

Being needy, whiney/sulky, insipid, desperate, indecisive, patronising, rude, sleazy and creepy.

Bald and balding.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Some advice for you, from a woman. I see straight through you. Let me tell you what I hear from you:
> 
> 
> 
> and of COURSE you are right here above saying that your objective is not sex, so that is how you achieve your objective of getting sex.
> 
> In evolutionary terms, the most successful genetic progenitor of all time was Genghis Khan. His objective was, roughly speaking, conquering the world. So there is someone who actually WAS a warrior, whose primary objective was not getting laid, but who ended up being the most prolific breeder. Incident to conquering the world.
> 
> He wasn't PRETENDING. He actually WAS conquering the world. That's the difference between blah blah blah, "I'm the alpha" and the real thing.


Ooo vile and vitriol! Write me a bitter love song baby!

See, you don't actually know me from Adam... I don't claim to be Alpha. I love my blend of alpha and beta traits in fact. Its taken me quite some time to iron out a balance I'm satisfied with. Believe I'm pretending whatever you will. It doesn't change the fact that being obsessed with getting laid is the best way to not get laid. Women sniff it on you.

There is a significant difference between WANTING to get laid in the general sense, and making it THE objective of your interaction with a woman - and sole measure of success. It's putting so much investment in sex that it WILL show and likely won't happen. I'm not sure I know anyone who doesn't want to get laid. Follow?

But let's talk about Genghis Khan and his human chattle instead. Because clearly if I don't f*ck a ton of conquered human property, well, gosh... I'm such a pretender. :rofl:

This one seriously cracks me up. I just got dissed for being less Alpha than Genghis Khan. Hell yeah! smh


----------



## NobodySpecial

Personal said:


> I just asked my wife, what makes a man unattractive.
> 
> Here's some of her list;
> 
> Unfamiliarity with soap, shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste and mouthwash.
> 
> Being needy, whiney/sulky, insipid, desperate, indecisive, patronising, rude, sleazy and creepy.
> 
> Bald and balding.


I love bald!


----------



## WyshIknew

Thanks for the replies so far peeps, some good and varied answers.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> Do you think this is applicable across the whole age spectrum?
> 
> In your opinion would these attributes be regarded the same by a 15 year old girl, a 20 year old, 30 year old woman and a 50 year old?


What I would "tolerate" in a potential date now differs vastly from what I'd put up with in my 20's. I don't expect men in their 40's to behave like they did two decades ago, either. 

Perhaps part of your difficulty, Wysh, was that you had to "age into" women finding you attractive. I think I would have avoided emotionally mature men when I was younger because of the risk they'd get too serious, too fast. 

Thinking back to my 20's, I was asked out by men who were decent, interesting, intelligent, of good character, etc. But often there was a quality of intensity that set me on edge. Those men were looking for meaningful relationships--they demonstrated they liked me as a person, and cited the reasons why. I got the impression they wanted to date ME more than they just wanted a date . . . and that was too much pressure. 

Fortunately, I had a ready and honest answer: I was already in a relationship with my now husband. But that often didn't stop (friendly) persistence. These are men who I am sure went on to find wonderful women . . . women who were ready for what they had to offer. 

I know this runs counter to what many other women have said attracts them, but when I was in my late teens and 20's, starting out knowing that I mattered a lot to the other person already was . . . well, a bit of pressure. 

Maybe you gave off that vibe, Wysh?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> I'll go one further and say the ability to know when to walk away is an attractive "alpha" trait . . . one not displayed nearly often enough on TAM.
> 
> ETA: Not meaning you Wysh--you DO have the ability to state a case and move on. Just realized my comment might look like it was directed at you. 'Twasn't!


I resemble that remark! ;P
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I resemble that remark! ;P
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sometimes you really surprise me, Dvls.


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> What I would "tolerate" in a potential date now differs vastly from what I'd put up with in my 20's. I don't expect men in their 40's to behave like they did two decades ago, either.
> 
> Perhaps part of your difficulty, Wysh, was that you had to "age into" women finding you attractive. I think I would have avoided emotionally mature men when I was younger because of the risk they'd get too serious, too fast.
> 
> Thinking back to my 20's, I was asked out by men who were decent, interesting, intelligent, of good character, etc. But often there was a quality of intensity that set me on edge. Those men were looking for meaningful relationships--they demonstrated they liked me as a person, and cited the reasons why. I got the impression they wanted to date ME more than they just wanted a date . . . and that was too much pressure.
> 
> Fortunately, I had a ready and honest answer: I was already in a relationship with my now husband. But that often didn't stop (friendly) persistence. These are men who I am sure went on to find wonderful women . . . women who were ready for what they had to offer.
> 
> I know this runs counter to what many other women have said attracts them, but when I was in my late teens and 20's, starting out knowing that I mattered a lot to the other person already was . . . well, a bit of pressure.
> 
> Maybe you gave off that vibe, Wysh?


Could be, we have an expression in Britain "He wears his heart on his sleeve" don't know if that is used in America? That expression has been used regarding me.

I sometimes liken it to fishing.

You put out your bait, it is perfectly good bait but it might be out of season so you get no bites, while others fishing with different baits get bite after bite.
Later the bait you are fishing with gradually becomes desirable and you get the bites.

Don't mean to sound big headed but I know that now I am regarded as quite a catch and some of the women who turned me down have made it clear that they are interested now if I was looking or something went wrong with Mrs Wysh and I.

Life is funny sometimes, isn't it?


----------



## WyshIknew

G'night all. It's been fun.

Up the wooden hill for me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> Sometimes you really surprise me, Dvls.


Nobody's perfect. Unfortunately for you people, I get my lust for debate mostly satisfied on forums. Haha 

Things just don't get as enthusiastic and contentious in person. At least it keeps things interesting, though, sometimes I need breaks too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

DoF said:


> Problem is, arrogance and confidence go hand in hand.


I disagree. 

Arrogance stems from a place of insecurity.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> G'night all. It's been fun.
> 
> Up the wooden hill for me.


Is EVERYTHING you say a double entendre, or does my mind simply reside in the gutter?


----------



## heartsbeating

The thread has moved on way past where I was when I just posted.

And Wysh, you may not choose to believe me but as I wrote before, once a Bond, always a Bond.


----------



## murphy5

tighty whities?:rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nobody's perfect. Unfortunately for you people, I get my lust for debate mostly satisfied on forums. Haha


I just think it is funny that you think what you do on here is debate!


----------



## Personal

heartsbeating said:


> Arrogance stems from a place of insecurity.


Exactly!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Lawd help us if becoming more obnoxious is considered "self-improvement"


In one ear out the other and no processing in between with you on some subjects. Yes, if you're super sensitive to offending someone that you can't be your perfectly normal self that really isn't offensive, you could use some breaking out and not caring if someone thinks its obnoxious. To some people, my striking up a conversation with an attractive woman while pumping gas at the same pump was over the top or intrusive. That's oversensitivity imo that prevents people from acting on their interests.

You learn that its not the end of the world that someone is totally turned off by something you say. You dont have to be cautious. You're more real, colorful, unscripted and interesting as a result.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You learn that its not the end of the world that someone is totally turned off by something you say. You dont have to be cautious. You're more real, colorful, unscripted and interesting as a result.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Where's the part that considers how someone else may feel - while one is living without caution - or is that irrelevant?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I just think it is funny that you think what you do on here is debate!


I'm hurt. *tears*

But awesome example of what you do here that is so much more valuable and interesting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> Where's the part that considers how someone else may feel - while one is living without caution - or is that irrelevant?


Thats kinda the point. People don't freak out or react in the negative way such a guy expects. His sense of what's appropriate adjusts to a more normal level, rather than his formerly excessively cautious way of being. In censoring and filtering every thought through a false sense of what others will judge harshly, he's a non-personality, not even noticed. Applies to women too imo. Say what you want and be real, regardless of what others think of it. A lot of women have difficulty doing this too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Thats kinda the point. People don't freak out or react in the negative way such a guy expects. His sense of what's appropriate adjusts to a more normal level, rather than his formerly excessively cautious way of being. In censoring and filtering every thought through a false sense of what others will judge harshly, he's a non-personality, not even noticed. Applies to women too imo. Say what you want and be real, regardless of what others think of it. A lot of women have difficulty doing this too.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think it's an idealistic view.

From my own experience, there's a weighing-up of the situation and person that occurs - and this is because I'm fully aware that I'm attempting to keep myself safe and I'm speculating as to how another may react.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Another way of putting it: In trying to be inoffensive to anyone, you're interesting to almost no one. Dont censor yourself and some people wont like you, but the right people will. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like you, but if you barely have a personality because you always have to say "the right thing", you give people nothing to really potentially like either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Another way of putting it: In trying to be inoffensive to anyone, you're interesting to almost no one. Dont censor yourself and some people wont like you, but the right people will. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't like you, but if you barely have a personality because you always have to say "the right thing", you give people nothing to really potentially like either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This almost sounds like a Dr Seuss rhyme.

I feel as though I get what you're trying to say but I personally would feel ignorant if I didn't have some kind of filter at times. 

Being true to oneself, having congruence, is important, yes. I don't feel that being offensive leads one to having a more interesting personality. I'll debate and discuss topics with those I'm invested in, who I feel I can learn more about through such conversations. While our views may remain polar opposites, we can remain respectful. I'm interested in those who think, absorb, consider, and display grace. 

Have you been someone that needed to be liked and was agreeable for the sake of it in the past?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Example, I was out with a friend and was introduced to a girl. She's a busty girl and was wearing a dress that was really popping... showing out. After meeting her, I said something like "I gotta say, thats an awesome dress, but I know how you fit those puppies in there." Inappropriate? Never met her in my life. She might have thought me an @sshole. It didn't matter, Im going to be my normal playful, outspoken self, and if she doesn't like it, oh well. She can not like me, or have fun with it. I could tell she was kinda shocked by the comment, and I said "not that Im complaining", and she laughed. Ice totally smashed, our conversation ended up totally wild fun and non-PC all night that was far more fun than if Id have been generic reserved and PC. Thats a fairly light example, yet some women would find it offensive and some guys would never say it, and thus never have the hilarious no holds barred conversation the rest of the night.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes, if you're super sensitive to offending someone that you can't be your perfectly normal self that really isn't offensive, you could use some breaking out and not caring if someone thinks its obnoxious.


I'm quite capable of processing, but thanks for the ad hominem. It really helps to keep the "debate" meaningful and rational. 

I just don't happen to agree that obnoxiousness is the opposite of, or the corrective to, timid doormat. No one needs to treat women like numbers or strut around like c0ck of the walk in order to become comfortable in one's own skin.

No, I see it as the exact same insecurity wrapped up in a different blanket. An unwillingness to relate to women as people instead of pawns in your chess game.


----------



## heartsbeating

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel there's an element of daring that excites you about that type of interaction, Dvls? Almost as though you like the gamble, and the slap on the back you give yourself for placing the bet in the first place. 

I'm sure there are multiple ways of breaking the ice and having an open conversation with someone.


----------



## heartsbeating

And to me... speaking without a filter, that need for daring is because of insecurity.


----------



## Happyfamily

heartsbeating said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Arrogance stems from a place of insecurity.


Thank you. 










I loved the character he played, and it was the arrogance in particular:



> exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree;


Confidence is becoming. Arrogance is not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> I don't feel that being offensive leads one to having a more interesting personality. ?


Its not that it is necessarily offensive, its that you don't care so much if someone is offended by what you dont consider offensive; you're not being careful to avoid it, too careful to be colorful.

In HS, absolutely I was a guy who didn't really fire up conversations or provide spark. I was someone concerned with saying the wrong thing, not acting or being overt - even not making jokes that came to me - because someone might be offended. I cared too much about being nice and PC. It really devours a guys ability to show a colorful personality that in truth, people are drawn to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## heartsbeating

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> In HS, absolutely I was a guy who didn't really fire up conversations or provide spark. I was someone concerned with saying the wrong thing, not acting or being overt - even not making jokes that came to me - because someone might be offended. I cared too much about being nice and PC. It really devours a guys ability to show a colorful personality that in truth, people are drawn to.


It sounds as though you're playing and experimenting with the other end of the spectrum now - while having fun but maybe also overcompensating. 

To me, the sweet spot would be the balance in the middle.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I'm quite capable of processing, but thanks for the ad hominem. It really helps to keep the "debate" meaningful and rational.


You're right. I apologize. I had just replied to NobodySpecial's jab and carried that into my reply to you. I do feel you are dismissive of what I'm attempting to convey, which is the equivalent of exposure to irrational fear in order to desensitize to it. You can disagree about whether it works or is wrongful. I know it worked for me, and I don't think making sure nobody finds you offensive or obnoxious is a worthwhile goal.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> It sounds as though you're playing and experimenting with the other end of the spectrum now - while having fun but maybe also overcompensating.
> 
> To me, the sweet spot would be the balance in the middle.


Past tense. Ive been describing the process, most of which was years and years ago for me -and yeah, you push it sometimes. 

My example was more recent and is an example of saying something some would think inappropriate, but I found perfectly suited to the circumstances. Uptight about a guy commenting on your breasts? Don't squeeze them up to high heaven so they're in everyone's face. I was true to myself.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> And to me... speaking without a filter, that need for daring is because of insecurity.


I don't follow your reasoning.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Example, I was out with a friend and was introduced to a girl. She's a busty girl and was wearing a dress that was really popping... showing out. After meeting her, I said something like "I gotta say, thats an awesome dress, but I know how you fit those puppies in there." Inappropriate? Never met her in my life. She might have thought me an @sshole. It didn't matter, Im going to be my normal playful, outspoken self, and if she doesn't like it, oh well.


Oooooh, I get what you're saying now. Nevermind, what I said before. I will just consider myself successfully (and happily) weeded out.


----------



## heartsbeating

I guess the way I see it is that a person comfortable within him or herself has an uncanny way of automatically putting others at ease while in their company. There's personality in that. They don't have anything to prove or gain (to themselves or others) and their style will reflect that.

I'm stepping off this merry-go-round  All the best to you, Dvls.


----------



## always_alone

heartsbeating said:


> And to me... speaking without a filter, that need for daring is because of insecurity.


:iagree:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel there's an element of daring that excites you about that type of interaction, Dvls? Almost as though you like the gamble, and the slap on the back you give yourself for placing the bet in the first place.
> 
> I'm sure there are multiple ways of breaking the ice and having an open conversation with someone.


Maybe, but its not something I really think about. I'm just having fun. I instantly learn she's my kind of person.

Open conversation means different things to different people. We had what some people would consider a totally inappropriate conversation for just having met someone. Being straight, blunt, and silly as though you're already really comfortable with someone, tends to make them more comfortable too. Kinda hard to describe... its more of a nonjudgmental easy going vibe.


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> Two guys, on paper fairly similar, good jobs, ok looking etc.
> 
> One guy can pick up (some) women like that *clicks fingers*.
> 
> The other guy couldn't score if he fell into a barrel of sex.
> 
> Why? What is the difference between them?
> 
> Or is it maybe something that just can't be quantified, some guys have that special something, some don't?


You seem reasonable so I hope you have ears: this is the wrong model. In growing up, I did not see "pick-up". I saw people with _relationships_. Me too, I was almost never without a long term boyfriend. 

In my limited experience in life, people had extended family, school, work, activities/clubs, church, and so forth that resulted in knowing potential partners and whether they were available or not. So if I broke up with my boyfriend, it was nearly self-evident who would end up being my next relationship. It was also evident to everyone else. When is Bob going to ask Jean to be his _girlfriend_. Not when is Bob going to "pick up" Jean.

I have never in my life met someone "cold" in some kind of "pick-up" setting. My husband is actually the one I knew the least, but we had someone working real hard to get us together because she knew how right we were for each other. Both of us knew her, but we didn't know each other. And when we met, WOW, was she right. So even though we met "cold", we were a couple from the instant we first saw each other. It was like we had known each other all our lives. She maneuvered us into the same place at the same time, called me over to meet him as he said "no, no, no...(she had told him I had short hair so he didn't want to meet me!)" but he went to the bathroom and she snuck me over to a seat next to him, and when he came back...lol, should have seen the look on his face. Stars in his eyes. 

I just don't get "pick-up". It has to constitute some really tiny proportion of what people at large are doing, and even there a lot of them are trying for relationships but go through periods where they are dating around before they settle on someone and aren't doing "pick-up" in the sense it is meant by the people using the term. 

Focusing on what works in _relationships_ is the right framing. Unless you want to be alone, I guess. 

That brings us to this more insightful comment:



WyshIknew said:


> Looking at some of the answers I strongly suspect that if the question were reversed many of the men here would give similar answers to the women regarding women.
> 
> I think some things are universal.


Exactly. This is one of the reasons I think it so stupid to relentlessly frame men and women in this predator/prey model. We may be different physically, but a lot of it comes down to shared values, interests, and aspirations insofar as relationships are concerned. Some character traits make us a good person regardless of what gender we are. 


Since we are all individuals, we each have features of our character and personality that make certain kinds of people attractive to us but not to others. Some want deeply spiritual people. Some want atheists. Some want wealth. Some want social activism or whatever. So some traits are universal in terms of their appeal, whereas others are not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

heartsbeating said:


> I guess the way I see it is that a person comfortable within him or herself has an uncanny way of automatically putting others at ease while in their company. There's personality in that. They don't have anything to prove or gain (to themselves or others) and their style will reflect that.
> 
> I'm stepping off this merry-go-round  All the best to you, Dvls.


I agree with this. Which is actually why I don't follow your "insecurity" comment. To my thinking, Insecurity is not saying what you want to say for fear of what others will think about it. I said what I thought, very comfortably, and received exactly that: she was taken back, but then immediately became playful and uncensored. At ease, no?

Can't say I was proving anything, I was being my regular self.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> I just don't get "pick-up". It has to constitute some really tiny proportion of what people at large are doing, and even there a lot of them are trying for relationships but go through periods where they are dating around before they settle on someone and aren't doing "pick-up" in the sense it is meant by the people using the term.
> 
> Focusing on what works in _relationships_ is the right framing. Unless you want to be alone, I guess.


"Pick up" is literally nothing more than meeting someone, instigating a spark, and at least getting a number. Its about meeting and attracting, such that you may have a potential relationship, if that's what you both want.

People's experience differs. I for one know no one who knew in advance who their next relationship would be. "When is Johnny going to ask..." strikes me as 1950-something. Guys interested in a girl just went and asked her out, not circulate their interest and ruminate on it. So I can't relate.

As for pickup being a tiny proportion... hardly. It is every guy who manages to get a girls number and get something started. It happens every weekend in popular singles locations, and even right on the street... or for me, starbucks and Barnes and noble for some reason. It happens in gyms. It happens virtually anywhere. All it takes is not knowing someone, and being attracted enough to explore a date.


----------



## Happyfamily

heartsbeating said:


> Being true to oneself, having congruence, is important, yes. I don't feel that being offensive leads one to having a more interesting personality.


Another unattractive trait in people is taking a truism and distorting it in objectionable ways. You are on this one now.

When we say that a confident person, true to himself, does not worry about what others say we mean that bullies do not bother him. The slings and arrows of superficial, shallow people do not matter to him. But he listens intently to people that matter. 

If you have special expertise in something then you have rights to be true to yourself and not worry about things that might even be strong convention. Like **** Fosbury, who revolutionized the high jump. There is a very interesting man, and one to emulate for going against convention in a way that broke new records in human achievement. 

But he wasn't an offensive jerk who didn't care about other people's feelings. That is a misuse of what we mean in being true to yourself. It is a straw man too to pretend we are saying a person has to worry about what _everyone _ thinks. When I am the only person in front of you, and if you are trying to get to know me - then you damn well better worry about my feelings.


----------



## Happyfamily

always_alone said:


> I'm quite capable of processing, but thanks for the ad hominem. It really helps to keep the "debate" meaningful and rational.
> 
> I just don't happen to agree that obnoxiousness is the opposite of, or the corrective to, timid doormat. No one needs to treat women like numbers or strut around like c0ck of the walk in order to become comfortable in one's own skin.
> 
> No, I see it as the exact same insecurity wrapped up in a different blanket. An unwillingness to relate to women as people instead of pawns in your chess game.


Thanks *AA* - this is what I was trying to say. 

I see we have someone here that thinks ad hominems are a way of expressing confidence. This is "neg theory" in action: insulting me is going to make me want to have sex with you. 

No, it doesn't make a person interesting. It doesn't make them confident. It makes them offensive. 

It is tedious to deal with someone who relentlessly uses the fallacy of definition. "Oh no, you don't understand what X means..." as if they were personally in charge of language. Things mean whatever they want them to mean in the moment to get what they want. It means one thing on the creepy stalker-type sites where the terms were born, but it means something else entirely when we are busy trying to manipulate "targets".


----------



## heartsbeating

Happyfamily said:


> Another unattractive trait in people is taking a truism and distorting it in objectionable ways. You are on this one now.
> 
> When we say that a confident person, true to himself, does not worry about what others say we mean that bullies do not bother him. The slings and arrows of superficial, shallow people do not matter to him. But he listens intently to people that matter.
> 
> If you have special expertise in something then you have rights to be true to yourself and not worry about things that might even be strong convention. Like **** Fosbury, who revolutionized the high jump. There is a very interesting man, and one to emulate for going against convention in a way that broke new records in human achievement.
> 
> But he wasn't an offensive jerk who didn't care about other people's feelings. That is a misuse of what we mean in being true to yourself. It is a straw man too to pretend we are saying a person has to worry about what _everyone _ thinks. When I am the only person in front of you, and if you are trying to get to know me - then you damn well better worry about my feelings.


Well said.


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> Is EVERYTHING you say a double entendre, or does my mind simply reside in the gutter?


It's all down to you!


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> It's all down to you!


There you go again . . . :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

Happyfamily said:


> But he wasn't an offensive jerk who didn't care about other people's feelings. That is a misuse of what we mean in being true to yourself. It is a straw man too to pretend we are saying a person has to worry about what _everyone _ thinks. When I am the only person in front of you, and if you are trying to get to know me - then you damn well better worry about my feelings.


I agree. But hypothetical question: what do you do when you authentic self actually is an offensive jerk?

I was coming at it from the angle that if you're obnoxious and offensive, you probably need more self-improvement than the timid doormat. But some people actually make it a point to be an offensive jerk, indeed some even make careers out of it. They aren't likely to stop, or ever even see it as a problem.

Not attractive to me, to be sure, but some people actually go for that stuff.


----------



## Happyfamily

always_alone said:


> I agree. But hypothetical question: what do you do when you authentic self actually is an offensive jerk?
> 
> I was coming at it from the angle that if you're obnoxious and offensive, you probably need more self-improvement than the timid doormat. But some people actually make it a point to be an offensive jerk, indeed some even make careers out of it. They aren't likely to stop, or ever even see it as a problem.
> 
> Not attractive to me, to be sure, but some people actually go for that stuff.


I see. These kinds of people have one antisocial personality disorder or another. It is true too that women with low self esteem or who had abusive childhoods find themselves falling in with abusive men. So you are going to hear even a sociopath say that his tactics "work". 

Look how ridiculous the application of the principles being put forward here are for such abusive people..."I don't care what anyone thinks, why just the other day I was eating the liver of a woman I had just strangled and laughing at the people looking on with horror...that's what makes me interesting." _Confident_. 

If it feels like you are going around in circles when trying to have a conversation with people following these formulas - that is by design. It is one of the unattractive things about them. You'll hear a lot of "that's not what I'm saying... you don't understand...that's not alpha..." Really hard to pin them down. I learned to trust my radar: when you have that feeling that there is something wrong, something going on under the surface you can't quite put your finger on - run. 

Think logically about a full-grown adult seeming to not know the difference between confidence and being offensive. It's a no-brainer to a normal person. You hear this off-putting thing, and your instincts tell you it is wrong... but then comes "you don't understand" followed by a highly stylized example. Things are murky, smoke is being blown... and what a lady has to do instead of listening and being spun around is TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS. Your first impression is the right one. Off-putting.


----------



## Dollystanford

Also men who go on and on and on and on and on and on...

and on and on and on and on...


----------



## Almostrecovered

poor plating skills


----------



## Dollystanford

Do you know what 'to plate' is in South London slang?


----------



## vellocet

Dollystanford said:


> Also men who go on and on and on and on and on and on...
> 
> and on and on and on and on...


Really? Hmmm. Most men I know, including myself, would rather the talking stop for a at least a little while. I swear I can't get through a show I really want to watch without having to pause it 20 times.

Or maybe you aren't talking about talking?


----------



## WyshIknew

Almostrecovered said:


> poor plating skills


Bollocks.


----------



## WyshIknew

Dollystanford said:


> Also men who go on and on and on and on and on and on...
> 
> and on and on and on and on...


Yes.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Physically: teeth that aren't well cared for. They don't need to be perfect but regular visits to the dentist are a must.

Arrogance is personality trait that will turn me off faster than anything. Next worst would be uninteresting, unintelligent or no humor.

Whining/Negative and judgmental men are a huge turnoff.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I hate that Alpha and Beta sh*t.


What about a Lambda Lambda Lambda?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> But he wasn't an offensive jerk who didn't care about other people's feelings. That is a misuse of what we mean in being true to yourself. It is a straw man too to pretend we are saying a person has to worry about what _everyone _ thinks. When I am the only person in front of you, and if you are trying to get to know me - then you damn well better worry about my feelings.


I disagree. Its not upon me to meet your standard. Its upon me to be myself, and in doing so let you honestly evaluate. I have no duty to cater to your particular sensibilities and walk on the eggshells I'd have to imagine you have. Doing so removes so much of my color and personality - so much of the playful banter and edgy, interesting conversation, that if someone is this sensitive - they're simply not the right person for me.

If she finds me offensive for such a comment - she won't like me and will go away - its all good and best for both of us. I don't need her to like me. I'm not interested in everyone, I'm interested in compatibility. My comment on the boobs for example... its just outside the norm. Some will think it unacceptable and dislike me for it. That's fine... as those people should rightly keep walking. I'm most interested in people who aren't offended by statement of the obvious. She didn't squeeze her t*ts into muffins because she was worried about someone taking note of them. She was showing out and being overtly sexual. If she's dressed more conservatively, I make no such comment - because there's no truth. Someone legitimately concerned with such, probably isn't going to be falling out of their dress in the first place.

It just so happens, this forward, playful, sometimes a little obnoxious... maybe edgy and circumstantial bluntness, gets much more positive response than being more "proper" and PC. I'm sure a lot of it is not only what is said, but how it's said, facial expression, body language... the energy and vibe of it all.

I have a friend of mine who is really really tactful. I'm often not, but there's a way of it... a timing, place and circumstance to it. He's said something like "I can't believe you said that to her. If I said that, I'd have looked like creep. I can't believe they came to sit with us. What the f is wrong with women!?"

The truth is that those particular girls didn't find it particularly offensive... what was said was really tongue-in-cheek, and only a short hit and run banter. Bold. Colorful. Funny. Interesting. I'm not sure how to say it in a way that will be received or understand in the way I experience it, but women eat it up. You just blurt things out and before you know it, people get pretty real with you.

Just before I met my gf, I was at an after work get together and saw I girl there I'd met before, briefly (friend of a friend). She worked there and had just gotten off. We saw each other, she came and said hi, sat down... we talked, and a little while later she asked, "so what are y'all getting into later?" I said I didn't know about them, but for me, it depends. "On what?" -"On what you're doing tonight." (something like this; I'm not sure what I really said - but it was a play on what I would be "getting into", implying her). I was like *swish*, then brushing my shoulders jokingly as if I was smooth. She laughed and said "Ohhhhh... I see what you did there. Not tonight mister!" But she was grinning - she was into it. We exchanged numbers. Met my gf shortly thereafter and nothing ever happened, but it was a lock.

Do none of you here enjoy this kind of banter? Maybe its the age difference. It's usually fun fodder. I don't think its quite obnoxious, more playfully c*cky and irreverent. Ah well.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

vellocet said:


> What about a Lambda Lambda Lambda?


oooh..ahhh...alpha beta!! ooooh ahhh!!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I had the biggest crush on Lewis after watching that scene in the moon bounce thing. LOL


ETA Maybe Lewis was a true alpha  He went after the girl he wanted and did what he could to get his frat organized.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But some people actually make it a point to be an offensive jerk


I'd like to note that however you'd characterize my examples, I have very very rarely come away with the feeling that they thought I was a jerk or a creep. There's a lot to be said about the vibe and non-verbal elements.

Not always, but most of the time, I come away with the feeling that she's really into... the nerve? balls? forwardness without quite being sleazy?

I wouldn't remotely say that I'm *trying* to offend anyone. I just take a view that, if they're offended they're offended. That's their sensibility, not mine.


----------



## always_alone

Happyfamily said:


> Think logically about a full-grown adult seeming to not know the difference between confidence and being offensive. It's a no-brainer to a normal person. You hear this off-putting thing, and your instincts tell you it is wrong... but then comes "you don't understand" followed by a highly stylized example. Things are murky, smoke is being blown... and what a lady has to do instead of listening and being spun around is TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS. Your first impression is the right one. Off-putting.


Oh, I agree absolutely with your analysis. But what I was thinking of was someone like Howard Stern who makes his living off being a completely offensive jerk. So much so that I don't think even he let's his own kids listen to himself on the air.

I personally find him downright repulsive, but a lot of people eat that $hit up. Just look how much money he makes from it.

And just look how prevalent that brand of offensiveness is. Some groups proudly sing it from their rooftops.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way trying to defend it, and wish more people saw through it as clearly as you do. Just noting that this sort of offensiveness has a lot of traction in this world, and can actually (sadly) take you places.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> Well at a themed party/dance it would be waiting to introduce himself, exchange names and ask you to dance. It would be damn awkward to ask a lady to dance while she's dancing with someone else.
> 
> I understand what you and C2W are saying, but at the time and where I lived (We were pretty rural) parties were for the express purpose of meeting people.


I love meeting people. I'd never date a guy I just met, though. The thought is thrilling to a certain extent, the mystery...the intrigue...the risk, even. But not enough for me to lower my inhibitions and trust someone who hasn't earned that trust yet.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Thanks *AA* - this is what I was trying to say.
> 
> I see we have someone here that thinks ad hominems are a way of expressing confidence. This is "neg theory" in action: insulting me is going to make me want to have sex with you.
> 
> No, it doesn't make a person interesting. It doesn't make them confident. It makes them offensive.
> 
> It is tedious to deal with someone who relentlessly uses the fallacy of definition. "Oh no, you don't understand what X means..." as if they were personally in charge of language. Things mean whatever they want them to mean in the moment to get what they want. It means one thing on the creepy stalker-type sites where the terms were born, but it means something else entirely when we are busy trying to manipulate "targets".


Firstly, who said ad hominems are expressions of confidence? Its an expression of frustration. I was irritated by NobodySpecial's completely pointless jab, and let that irritation slip into my reply to AA; as such, I rightly apologized.

Secondly, and somewhat ironically, you don't seem to know what a "fallacy of definition" is. It is not wrongful authority over definition or language. The fallacy speaks to fault, or lack of merit of the definition provided. I define terms as a starting point to a discussion; to differentiate from the faulty things you improperly attach and associate with the term I'm defining. If I say "Hi, I'm DvlsAdvc8, what's your name? I think you're cute, want to go out some time? Can I have your phone number?", this is a "pickup" per my definition. Is there manipulation in this pickup attempt? I define it for this very reason. Do you disagree that this is a pickup? Manipulation is manipulation. Pickup is pickup. Pickup can include manipulation, or it may not. Have a good idea why I often define things now? You don't get anywhere talking about different things.

Your issue isn't with pickup. Your issue is with manipulation. Manipulation too, is an interesting animal. When your husband tells you you're beautiful, is he manipulating you? When a stranger on the street does it, is he manipulating you?

Pickup does not condone lying. Lying and deception are widely considered an undesirable beta behavior. How exactly are you manipulated without deception? 

Stop playing the victim. Seriously.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do none of you here enjoy this kind of banter? Maybe its the age difference. It's usually fun fodder. I don't think its quite obnoxious, more playfully c*cky and irreverent. Ah well.


Sometimes I did . . . depended on what I was looking for at the time. Not something I'd respond to if I was looking to meet someone to date long term, but for an evening of flirting or a short term fling? Yeah probably. And that might suit us both just fine. 

I guess I'm not into "playfully c0cky and irreverent" as a personality type. Like I said, fun to have that sort of back and forth in small doses or for the short term, but it strikes me in the "trying too hard" category otherwise. If I'm going to have a serious relationship, I need to know and see a man's vulnerabilities. I need to see how he handles himself when he is hurt or disappointed, or when I let him know that he has hurt or disappointed me. Otherwise I'd feel I'm dating a facade. 

But all women are different--your girlfriend must like it, for example. Her read on what you're putting forth would be different than mine. It's just simple preference, as you stated--women who aren't interested in what you have to offer will move on, either right away, or when they've had their fill.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> So they have to be friends with your friends and contacts already?


_I_ have to know them. If that means they're my friends, or friends with my friends, then yeah. Otherwise, the answer is universally "No." And even if they _are_ my friends, it doesn't mean the answer will be "Yes." I'm picky. I have certain standards. I have male friends to whom the answer would always be "No." I have male friends to whom the answer could be "Yes."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> If it feels like you are going around in circles when trying to have a conversation with people following these formulas - that is by design.


LMFAO at the hypocrisy. SMH.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you sure about that? I think you'll notice significant overlap between beta traits and the "unattractive" traits women have listed in this thread. Some commonly associated alpha and beta traits:
> 
> 
> Alpha:
> Never puts the blame on someone else. He always faces his obstacles head on regardless of the odds of success. He never complains about problems, but aggressively works to find solutions to them. If there is something he doesn't want to do - as opposed to can't do - he offers no explanation. He owns the result and knows its all within his power to be successful.
> 
> Beta:
> Makes excuses. Every time there's something he can't or won't do, he has an excuse, and feels like he needs to explain it to those around him. Its never his fault. Secretly feels powerless or victimized. <-- Elliot Rogers and blaming the world for his own inability to talk to women.
> 
> Alpha: Doesn't care what other people think of him.
> 
> Beta: Needs affirmation from others. Is obsessed with how others think of him.
> 
> Alpha: Talks slowly and more calmly. His movements are smooth. Translation: comfortable and in control.
> 
> Beta: Talks fast, always seems to be nervous, stressed or in a rush.
> 
> Alpha: Lives life passionately. Knows what he wants. He has goals - and is focused on his goals and dreams and tears down any barriers in-between.
> 
> Beta: Lives life by the day not really knowing what he wants. Will waste time on the couch, rather than doing something productive. He is lazy and passive.
> 
> Alpha: Failure is only a minor setback to the Alpha. He can look forward to failure because first of all, he is moving forward by trying something new. Resilient and even irrationally optimistic.
> 
> Beta: Gives up or becomes depressed when he fails. Sees no point in trying and is fearful of facing failure again. Pessimistic and cynical. Fearful of trying new things because they're out of his comfort zone, and worries he may look like he doesn't know what he's doing.
> 
> Alpha: Will not apologize for his desires and beliefs. Alphas do apologize, but only when they truly believe they've made a mistake - not to try and make others feel better.
> 
> Beta: Uses the word, "sorry" a lot - even when it doesn't belong in the conversation. He apologizes to others because he feels he might have offended them somehow, or to mitigate unpopular statements. "I'm sorry, but that's what I think."
> 
> Alpha: Never feels like he must prove himself. His ego is his ally. Here is the truth: Big egos are a result of low-esteem and lack of control over emotion. A man who is truly confident in himself never needs to lash out at someone who insulted his ego. Things slide off his back.
> 
> Beta: Believe it or not - he has a big ego. But it backfires on him because he is too sensitive and insecure regarding everyone's opinion of him. So he constantly is trying to prove himself by stating his qualifications.
> 
> Alpha: Is supremely confident in his value and status with women. If his girlfriend is talking to other guys, he goes to talk with other girls. He laughs at the thought of his girlfriend choosing another guy over him.
> 
> Beta: Gets jealous really easily when he sees his girl talking or flirting with another guy.
> 
> Alpha male: On the rare occasion a woman leaves an alpha, he simply loves that there are thousands of other girls just as good or better than the girl who dumped him. His life is not centered around one girl, and he has no problem moving on.
> 
> Beta: If he loses his girl, he loses all hope in life and thinks that he cannot live without "the one" - her.
> 
> Alpha: Takes up space whenever he sits down or rests. Is in control of his surroundings. Is comfortable in his skin wherever he is. Proximity and touch doesn't unnerve him, he will readily touch both men and women. Owns his space.
> 
> Beta: Poor body language - slouches. He stands and sits uncomfortably, as if he is nervous. Can't look people in the face without turning away or lowering his eyes. Doesn't like people in his space and will move.
> 
> Alpha: Is not only not desperate for women, he is never desperate for anything. When you are not desperate for women's attention or affection, it's implied that you have plenty of it - which puts you at ease, and is attractive to most women.
> 
> Beta: Looks to quickly get into a relationship, as if he is desperate for a girlfriend. Women are rare and precious. Puts them on a pedestal.
> 
> *most men will probably have some alpha associated traits, and some beta associated traits, but the unattractive traits listed thus far by women seem to more closely align with beta. Of the traits I listed, I have two of the beta traits: tendency to ego prove and talking too much (not really quickly); neither particularly popular, so don't think I'm just taking a shot at guys with beta traits.


Dvls:

I think it depends on which sources one uses as definitions of alpha and beta males - the traits they do/dont posess. Machievelli uses a particular link for the definitions in his posts. I have gone to that link, thought the definitions seemed reasonable but immediately noticed that both alpha and beta posess postiive traits that the other lacks. e.g. the beta "likes women" but the alpha does not appreciate their value as human beings so much as he enjoys them for his entertainment and status (or words to that effect.....would have to look up his link).
This is why some say that the "ideal man" would posess some optimal combination of alpha and beta traits. though this doesn't mean that this "optimal" man is the one women would initially be the most attracted to. though if one uses this particular taxonomy, she will eventually regret it if she falls for a pure alpha.


----------



## Happyfamily

always_alone said:


> Oh, I agree absolutely with your analysis. But what I was thinking of was someone like Howard Stern who makes his living off being a completely offensive jerk. So much so that I don't think even he let's his own kids listen to himself on the air.


Oh yes. They call that a "shock jock". I never listen to him. This really isn't an area I know much about. Jerry Springer maybe too, in the respect that he has trailer trash on there exposing their most revolting dirty laundry and assaulting each other on stage. I can't bear to watch stuff like that. 

The decline of civilization, lol. 

I couldn't agree more with the comment about people who go on and on and on and on. 

Our interlocutor... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. My radar went off long ago, and what this person doesn't seem to understand is that I don't need made-up examples about how all this stuff works. I have my own eyes and ears and can see what is going on right in front of my face. 

So don't tell me my eyes are deceiving me and that I am really not hearing what you are saying. If this was a social establishment I would be calling the management over and asking him to escort this person out. If he says that people over in some other establishment really dig his charm then the manger is going to say fine, go there and work your magic on them. But these ladies want you to leave.


----------



## Created2Write

2galsmom said:


> Add to the short list:
> 
> Men who use terms alpha and beta unless in alphabet and beta carotene.


ROFL! Definitely!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> Like I said, fun to have that sort of back and forth in small doses or for the short term, but it strikes me in the "trying too hard" category otherwise. If I'm going to have a serious relationship, I need to know and see a man's vulnerabilities.


No person is all one trait. Can you imagine a man who is all vulnerability? How unattractive would that be?

Seriousness, vulnerability, and many other things have a time and place. Upon meeting someone isn't really that time, imo.


----------



## Created2Write

Jellybeans said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I hate that Alpha and Beta sh*t.


Me too. One reason my husband is so attractive to me is that he doesn't have to "try" to be Alpha. He genuinely doesn't give a flying fvck what anyone thinks of him. He doesn't have to pretend to be what he's not to get others to like or accept him. If who he really is isn't enough for people, then he has the dignity and self-respect to ignore them and move on. That's not "being alpha", it's being an effing man.


----------



## treyvion

vellocet said:


> What about a Lambda Lambda Lambda?


Sex gods!


----------



## Created2Write

Jellybeans said:


> No, thanks. People w/ no confidence in themselves are not attractive to me.
> 
> Maybe that is what you find attractive, but I can speak for myself.


Yep. Arrogance is different than confidence. A lot of men think they can use arrogance as a front for confidence, but they can't. Arrogance is an obvious, and highly unattractive, trait.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> I was thinking about this and what follows is not because I want to be argumentative or because I think I know what women want more than they themselves do. (Obviously I don't and can't.) I'm just honestly curious about what makes people, "Tick." (Which I think can sometimes be misconstrued on TAM.)
> 
> My wife likes romance novels as much as any woman although she prefers authors like Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer to more modern writers. I've read more than a few of her books out of curiosity and would say that attraction between strangers is one of, if not the most common plot element in these books. Often there is a serious personality clash right up front, which in a weird, convoluted way seems to feed the feelings of attraction that subsequently develop
> 
> And this isn't just confined to romantic novels. You see the exact same formula at work in movies like, _You've Got Mail _and _French Kiss_ and _Baby Boom_ and T_he African Queen _and _Something's Gotta Give_ and _Beauty and the Beast_ and _Star Wars_ and _Gone With The Wind _and _The Birds_ and _The Last of the Mohicans._
> 
> Two people, often from very different backgrounds meet/Sparks fly/Love develops.
> 
> I'm not pointing this out because I think we should take our lessons in human relations from books and movies. That would be silly. I'm looking at it more from the other end. The idea obviously appeals to people at some level - else it wouldn't sell.
> 
> Maybe it's one of those ideas that sounds good in fiction but really doesn't work out so well in real life?


I think it genuinely works for _some_ people. I think it genuinely doesn't work for other. And I think some want it to be a universal truth, that way they can feel like they can get any person they come in contact with. For me, I would never be "into" a stranger. Not even if only from a distance. The majority of what attracts me to someone is their personality, who they really are. Anyone can pretend to be anything for a ONS. Or even for NSA sex. Not my thing. And let's even say that the guy isn't looking for either of those things, and he's genuinely interested in a relationship: he'll stick around long enough for me to get to know him if he's serious. And I've only, ever, been interested in serious relationships, long term commitments.


----------



## Happyfamily

Created2Write said:


> _I_ have to know them. If that means they're my friends, or friends with my friends, then yeah. Otherwise, the answer is universally "No."


Yes, this. I tried to make the point that people have all these extended networks of friends, associates, acquaintances and so forth - and in this manner we learn things about people even if we have not met them yet. 

I had not met my husband before, but my very dear friend dated his best friend so she was at his place a number of times, got to know him pretty well and told both of us she had the perfect match.

Notice how our interlocutor has contorted this into some stupid junior high thing where a guy is afraid to talk to a girl he already sees daily so he has his friend tell her friend that he likes her.

This is a very good example of someone I have just met "cold" that goes out of their way to frame me as an immature adolescent instead of a reasonable woman who protects herself from harm by requiring that she know more about a man before, say, getting into a car with him alone. 

If I meet someone cold who behaves like that, and then won't leave me alone - I am thinking stalker.


----------



## Jellybeans

vellocet said:


> What about a Lambda Lambda Lambda?


I am all over that.

Because I have always had a massive thing for nerds.

They make my heart happy.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> This speaks clearly to the notion that there is no one set of things that are attractive to women. On the one hand, I have no reason to doubt your experience. But for my part, I would never go near someone who thought like this.


Same here. There was only one relationship I had where I was attracted to the guy from the first moment I saw him, and that was the first guy I dated. All of my other relationships evolved into attraction from platonic friendships. The man I married was the man I was _never_ attracted to throughout the 10+ years I knew him before going out.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Love at first sight is a common trope, and agree that it probably appeals to many people --and perhaps even reflects that experience of first seeing someone, and your heart starts racing, your palms sweating, and you can barely form a coherent sentence.
> 
> The rest, IMHO, is simply dramatic device. Without conflict, you only need a couple of pages/minutes, and you've got yourself some porn. So to make sure there actually is a story line, the authors/directors play on passion/fire/temperamental and dramatic characters. And the predictability of it all is just because Hollywood and Harlequin (and kin) are firm believers in the formulaic. If it makes money once, make a sequel!
> 
> That's my take, at any rate. I'm sure C2W has a different one.


Actually, I agree with you. I despise romance novels. I've never been into them, never liked them. Sure, the first two were titillating. But by the third I realized it was the same story rewritten a thousand different ways. I'm not a fan of braindead literature. I think it sells because of the emotion that each and every romance novel is wrapped in. 

Oh, and I don't consider Jane Austen novels to be romance novels. Just for the record.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> Some advice for you, from a woman. I see straight through you. Let me tell you what I hear from you:
> 
> 
> 
> and of COURSE you are right here above saying that your objective is not sex, so that is how you achieve your objective of getting sex.
> 
> In evolutionary terms, the most successful genetic progenitor of all time was Genghis Khan. His objective was, roughly speaking, conquering the world. So there is someone who actually WAS a warrior, whose primary objective was not getting laid, but who ended up being the most prolific breeder. Incident to conquering the world.
> 
> He wasn't PRETENDING. He actually WAS conquering the world. That's the difference between blah blah blah, "I'm the alpha" and the real thing.


I agree. 100%


----------



## Jellybeans

Created2Write said:


> Me too. One reason my husband is so attractive to me is that he doesn't have to "try" to be Alpha. He genuinely doesn't give a flying fvck what anyone thinks of him. He doesn't have to pretend to be what he's not to get others to like or accept him. If who he really is isn't enough for people, then he has the dignity and self-respect to ignore them and move on.


Which is automaticaly sexy. Get it, Created!


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> I am all over that.
> 
> Because I have always had a massive thing for nerds.
> 
> They make my heart happy.


That's because all jocks think about is sports.

All nerds think about is sex........the binary numbering system, calculus, and algorithms


----------



## Jellybeans

vellocet said:


> That's because all jocks think about is sports.
> 
> All nerds think about is sex........the binary numbering system, calculus, and algorithms


And this is my biggest turn on. 

Talk to me about the space time continuum or how we need renewable energy and you will slowly find your way into my head (and panties).



I am a sucker for all of that scientific sex talk.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No person is all one trait. Can you imagine a man who is all vulnerability? How unattractive would that be?
> 
> Seriousness, vulnerability, and many other things have a time and place. Upon meeting someone isn't really that time, imo.


Well, I don't assume you meant you are ALL c0cky irreverence, just as you shouldn't assume I'd be attracted to total, unmitagated vulnerability. I get what you're saying, I'm familiar with the approach that stresses c0cky irreverence just ever so much, and I'm familiar with the personality types that can pull it off. I genuinely can like guys like that; indeed I'm friends with guys like that. I'm just describing what *my* response is to those personality types when it comes to attraction. I'm in it for the evening, maybe for something short term and casual, but it's not something that will keep my attention long term. 

Hey Dvls, you can't have us ALL. Accept it.


----------



## Created2Write

heartsbeating said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Arrogance stems from a place of insecurity.


I agree. Arrogance is easy. It doesn't require any self-control or consideration for others. Confidence is difficult. You choose not to cross over to arrogance, it takes self-control, discipline.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> And this is my biggest turn on.
> 
> Talk to me about the space time continuum or how we need renewable energy and you will slowly find your way into my head (and panties).


And down goes the gauntlet


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I'm quite capable of processing, but thanks for the ad hominem. It really helps to keep the "debate" meaningful and rational.
> 
> I just don't happen to agree that obnoxiousness is the opposite of, or the corrective to, timid doormat. No one needs to treat women like numbers or strut around like c0ck of the walk in order to become comfortable in one's own skin.
> 
> No, I see it as the exact same insecurity wrapped up in a different blanket. An unwillingness to relate to women as people instead of pawns in your chess game.


:iagree: True self-improvement requires humility, the ability to admit when one is wrong and then _change_. Wrapping insecurity in a blanket of fake security produces more than just an "I don't give a crap" attitude; it produces an "I don't give a crap _about anything or anyone_" attitude.


----------



## Jellybeans

Created2Write said:


> I'm not a fan of braindead literature.


So agree! :iagree: Yes!


----------



## SoWhat

I read quite a bit of this thread, and at the risk of incurring wrath for missing this question somewhere: 

Is it fair to say that what is "unattractive in a man" is generally the opposite of what is "attractive in a man." ?

That is, it differs for each person, but there might be some general trends that people tend to find unattractive (even if they aren't categorically viewed as such)? 

So, if one notices that the men who women consensually engage in casual sex with tend to be above 5'7, it might be said that men under 5'7 tend to be unattractive for the purposes of consensual casual sex? 

And if the men that women tend to marry tend to be more sympathetic/empathetic than men who women do not choose to marry, it might be said that men who lack sympathy/empathy tend to be unattractive for the purposes of marriage?

Just examples, and I'm not asserting any sort of Platonic "attractiveness/unattractiveness" with these.


----------



## Created2Write

Jellybeans said:


> Which is automaticaly sexy. Get it, Created!


I did last night.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> Same here. There was only one relationship I had where I was attracted to the guy from the first moment I saw him, and that was the first guy I dated. All of my other relationships evolved into attraction from platonic friendships. The man I married was the man I was _never_ attracted to throughout the 10+ years I knew him before going out.


I can definitely be attracted to a stranger. I am not going to DO anything about it except maybe get to know the person better. What I find unacceptable UNattractive is a guy who knows nothing about me who approaches me for a relationship.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> I can definitely be attracted to a stranger. I am not going to DO anything about it except maybe get to know the person better. What I find unacceptable UNattractive is a guy who knows nothing about me who approaches me for a relationship.


I'm probably splitting hairs here, but for me noticing an attractive guy isn't the same as _being_ attracted to them. I see guys who have attractive physical qualities all of the time, but I'm not attracted _to_ them. Even when single I was this way. The fact that he's a stranger automatically makes him unattractive. If he's willing to be a friend first, he makes the attractive list. Again, probably splitting hairs though.


----------



## SoWhat

Created2Write said:


> I'm probably splitting hairs here, but for me noticing an attractive guy isn't the same as _being_ attracted to them. I see guys who have attractive physical qualities all of the time, but I'm not attracted _to_ them. Even when single I was this way. The fact that he's a stranger automatically makes him unattractive. If he's willing to be a friend first, he makes the attractive list. Again, probably splitting hairs though.



It's an interesting set of hairs to split though. 

Are you saying that there's no sexual component to noticing an "attractive guy" ? 

Or just that being sexually attracted to someone doesn't equal "attraction" to you, because "attraction" signifies a desire to form some actual relationship (friendship and beyond) which may or may not be a necessary precursor to actually consummating any sexual attraction you feel?

I just ask because I'm thinking of people like my nieces - who have posters of "hot" guys on their bedroom walls; singers, shirtless buff actors, and the like. There's obviously a sexual component to this.

Under your labeling, would you say that you could feel similar to them and think "they're hot, mmm" (or whatever) but would nevertheless label that as finding them "unattractive" as strangers?


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I'm probably splitting hairs here, but for me noticing an attractive guy isn't the same as _being_ attracted to them. I see guys who have attractive physical qualities all of the time, but I'm not attracted _to_ them. Even when single I was this way. The fact that he's a stranger automatically makes him unattractive. If he's willing to be a friend first, he makes the attractive list. Again, probably splitting hairs though.


As Devils pointed out, for us men that's not how it normally works out. If she's not attracted to us up front and uses us as a friend we stay on this friends list.

I'm trying to think of even ONE that started out as a friend and progress was made? It usually starts out for a man that they are hot for you, or see you in a sexual light.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I'm probably splitting hairs here, but for me noticing an attractive guy isn't the same as _being_ attracted to them. I see guys who have attractive physical qualities all of the time, but I'm not attracted _to_ them. Even when single I was this way. The fact that he's a stranger automatically makes him unattractive. If he's willing to be a friend first, he makes the attractive list. Again, probably splitting hairs though.


I don't disagree with you. Just making the stronger point of how seriously UN attractive the mentioned trait is. The seeking of a "girlfriend" or something with no regard to ME.


----------



## NobodySpecial

treyvion said:


> As Devils pointed out, for us men that's not how it normally works out. If she's not attracted to us up front and uses us as a friend we stay on this friends list.
> 
> I'm trying to think of even ONE that started out as a friend and progress was made? It usually starts out for a man that they are hot for you, or see you in a sexual light.


I am guessing that men who are partnered to the women on this thread would be good examples of that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Yes, this. I tried to make the point that people have all these extended networks of friends, associates, acquaintances and so forth - and in this manner we learn things about people even if we have not met them yet.
> 
> I had not met my husband before, but my very dear friend dated his best friend so she was at his place a number of times, got to know him pretty well and told both of us she had the perfect match.
> 
> Notice how our interlocutor has contorted this into some stupid junior high thing where a guy is afraid to talk to a girl he already sees daily so he has his friend tell her friend that he likes her.
> 
> This is a very good example of someone I have just met "cold" that goes out of their way to frame me as an immature adolescent instead of a reasonable woman who protects herself from harm by requiring that she know more about a man before, say, getting into a car with him alone.
> 
> If I meet someone cold who behaves like that, and then won't leave me alone - I am thinking stalker.


Hey, I don't know what you meant, and I'm damn sure not trying to pick you up here. What you describe DOES sound old fashioned to me - the notion that you should be properly introduced or arranged. You said people knew who their next relationship would be and that's downright weird and gossipy to me. That DOES sound like junior high. What I think of your description is contorting you? Uh... I think what I think. Its not about you.

So you won't respond positively to a stranger... alrighty then... certainly your right. I talk to a lot of strangers. I enjoy it. That you imply that I'm some kind of scoundrel for striking up a conversation with a girl and getting her number is just laughable. I'm an awful person for seeking a date! Really? Heads up - she wouldn't have given me her number if she didn't feel comfortable with me. 

You also give me a strange vibe of a bunch of people afraid to meet and talk to people. It sounds so fearful. A ton of people meet via online dating and they talk awhile before they meet. In a pickup attempt, most of the time you talk fairly briefly - you have a short period to make an impression and build rapport. Most of the time, success is just a phone number. You call/text the number and continue talking before a date is ever set. Exactly like online dating, usually you meet somewhere - she drives herself. The date goes as far as the two of us want it to go. Pickup in bar and club scenarios is actually similar, in that, in my experience, it begins with relatively short witty, playful conversation, may or may not involve interruption before a more lengthy conversation where wit and playfulness give way to more seriousness, talking about yourself, then talking about whatever subject and evaluating chemistry. Its really not too dissimilar from a first date.

I'd say pickups and online dating - meeting strangers - are at least half of all relationship starts.


----------



## Created2Write

SoWhat said:


> It's an interesting set of hairs to split though.
> 
> Are you saying that there's no sexual component to noticing an "attractive guy" ?


No. Our sexuality is a part of what determines what we find attractive. But finding a man to be attractive isn't, imo, the same as actually being attracted _to_ someone.



> Or just that being sexually attracted to someone doesn't equal "attraction" to you, because "attraction" signifies a desire to form some actual relationship (friendship and beyond) which may or may not be a necessary precursor to actually consummating any sexual attraction you feel?


Kind of this. I can look at a guy and think, "He has a great sense of style" - something I find attractive in a guy - but not actually be attracted _to_ him. My sexual tastes prefers men who dress well and in a certain way, but that doesn't mean I have actual sexual thoughts or feelings for him. Example: at my last job there was a guy who dressed _extremely_ well. I mean, seriously. I've never seen a guy dress as well as he did. I loved his style choice, his clothes, even his shoes. But I couldn't have been further away from being attracted to him because he smoked. His teeth were _horrible_, his skin was yellowish, and he smelled. 



> I just ask because I'm thinking of people like my nieces - who have posters of "hot" guys on their bedroom walls; singers, shirtless buff actors, and the like. There's obviously a sexual component to this.
> 
> Under your labeling, would you say that you could feel similar to them and think "they're hot, mmm" (or whatever) but would nevertheless label that as finding them "unattractive" as strangers?


Hmmm. Good question. I think there's a difference, like you mentioned above, between finding someone really attractive(like an actor) and actually being attracted _to_ them. Based on looks alone, yes, there are actors/strangers that are very hot. I wouldn't say I was attracted _to_ them, because, for me, attraction involves so much more than the physical.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> As Devils pointed out, for us men that's not how it normally works out. If she's not attracted to us up front and uses us as a friend we stay on this friends list.
> 
> I'm trying to think of even ONE that started out as a friend and progress was made? It usually starts out for a man that they are hot for you, or see you in a sexual light.


So your experience fits his point. Mine doesn't. Out of the six relationships I've had, there was only one where I was attracted to him from the beginning and became his friend because of that attraction. In all of the other cases, we were platonic friends first where, at least on _my_ side, I saw them as friends and nothing else. 

I think, to an extent, the reason the platonic friendships don't usually go to anything else for some men is because _their_ sexual interest is too obvious. I know for me, nothing keeps a guy in the friend-zone longer than feeling like he's only friends with me for the off-chance that he can have sex with me at some point. If his ultimate goal is getting into my pants, you bet he's going to stay in the friend-zone.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> No. Our sexuality is a part of what determines what we find attractive. But finding a man to be attractive isn't, imo, the same as actually being attracted _to_ someone.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of this. I can look at a guy and think, "He has a great sense of style" - something I find attractive in a guy - but not actually be attracted _to_ him. My sexual tastes prefers men who dress well and in a certain way, but that doesn't mean I have actual sexual thoughts or feelings for him. Example: at my last job there was a guy who dressed _extremely_ well. I mean, seriously. I've never seen a guy dress as well as he did. I loved his style choice, his clothes, even his shoes. But I couldn't have been further away from being attracted to him because he smoked. His teeth were _horrible_, his skin was yellowish, and he smelled.


Could it be possible that someone you were looking at spent too much time and energy on their outer style and dress, that it was so excessive that you could not be attracted to them?



Created2Write said:


> Hmmm. Good question. I think there's a difference, like you mentioned above, between finding someone really attractive(like an actor) and actually being attracted _to_ them. Based on looks alone, yes, there are actors/strangers that are very hot. I wouldn't say I was attracted _to_ them, because, for me, attraction involves so much more than the physical.


Yes, but like "eye candy" you see it and you might like it to look at. Do you have that concept?

I"m at a age where what I think I like to look at I realize I might not want to be with.


----------



## SoWhat

Created2Write said:


> N
> 
> Hmmm. Good question. I think there's a difference, like you mentioned above, between finding someone really attractive(like an actor) and actually being attracted _to_ them. Based on looks alone, yes, there are actors/strangers that are very hot. I wouldn't say I was attracted _to_ them, because, for me, attraction involves so much more than the physical.


Thanks for the straightforward but detailed answer! 

So it would be something like saying (from a man's perspective) "Kim Kardashian is super hot! But I am not currently attracted to her (because I'm not friends with her and therefore don't know her well enough to form a deeper attraction.)" 

I think the misunderstandings a lot of men have with this perspective is they are combining "sexual attraction" with "attracted to -___." You make a distinction, whereas a man might commonly just add an additional statement: "I'm attracted to Kim Kardashian but I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with her." 

Do you think this is an accurate summary of where people might miss you - because they assume their own definitions of "attraction/attracted to" are universally shared?


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Could it be possible that someone you were looking at spent too much time and energy on their outer style and dress, that it was so excessive that you could not be attracted to them?


...Are you asking if I find vanity to be an unattractive trait? Yes. It's possible to be too concerned with one's appearance. An example: one of my former bosses used to spend hundreds of dollars every month on shoes he never wore, and then complained about not having enough money to provide for his family. That was only one of the many reasons I found him unattractive. 

Your point?



> Yes, but like "eye candy" you see it and you might like it to look at. Do you have that concept?


Liking how someone looks isn't the same as being attracted to them, imo. 



> I"m at a age where what I think I like to look at I realize I might not want to be with.


Okay...


----------



## Created2Write

SoWhat said:


> Thanks for the straightforward but detailed answer!
> 
> So it would be something like saying (from a man's perspective) "Kim Kardashian is super hot! But I am not currently attracted to her (because I'm not friends with her and therefore don't know her well enough to form a deeper attraction.)"
> 
> I think the misunderstandings a lot of men have with this perspective is they are combining "sexual attraction" with "attracted to -___." You make a distinction, whereas a man might commonly just add an additional statement: "I'm attracted to Kim Kardashian but I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with her."
> 
> Do you think this is an accurate summary of where people might miss you - because they assume their own definitions of "attraction/attracted to" are universally shared?


I think so, yes. I've also known men who didn't base their attraction on whether or not they wanted a relationship with the woman, but rather on whether or not they'd screw her. The relationship was always secondary. I also find that attitude unattractive.


----------



## kilgore

Created2Write said:


> I think so, yes. I've also known men who didn't base their attraction on whether or not they wanted a relationship with the woman, but rather on whether or not they'd screw her. The relationship was always secondary. I also find that attitude unattractive.


Even as a man, I have always found that unattractive and was never able to do that. Maybe I don't give off that vibe so I never attracted that kind of woman anyway. But, I agree - unattractive


----------



## SoWhat

I think it may just be a definitional thing. 

"I'm really attracted to Kim Kardashian" doesn't mean relationships, in general, are secondary. 

"Whether they'd screw her" is interesting because men get the mental green light ("YEP!, I would.") for probably 50-60% of women. It's almost a pointless question, because the answer is "yes" for most women they see. 

Now, whether most men over-value physical attraction for long-term relationships is another question entirely. I think the question of whether women under-value physical attraction for long-term relationships is a similar question.

But a man saying "I'm attracted to her - I'd screw her in some world where there's no strings attached and no consequences - but wouldn't be in a relationship with her" isn't one of those questions, IMO. Some men just have a more immediate sexual response than some women. Nothing categorical.


----------



## Red Sonja

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Example, I was out with a friend and was introduced to a girl. She's a busty girl and was wearing a dress that was really popping... showing out. After meeting her, I said something like "I gotta say, thats an awesome dress, but I know how you fit those puppies in there."






heartsbeating said:


> I'm sure there are multiple ways of breaking the ice and having an open conversation with someone.


Careful there DVLS … this type of “breaking the ice” may lead to other types of “breakage” if you are within range of the woman you are addressing. Wouldn't want you to get hurt.


----------



## treyvion

Red Sonja said:


> Careful there DVLS … this type of “breaking the ice” may lead to other types of “breakage” if you are within range of the woman you are addressing. Wouldn't want you to get hurt.


He'll be fine. He is sure having an adventure out there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> Well, I don't assume you meant you are ALL c0cky irreverence, just as you shouldn't assume I'd be attracted to total, unmitagated vulnerability.


I wasn't assuming that. I was pointing out the actual impossibility of each. Your post was that c*cky irreverence, while it might be fun and kind of attractive up front, would eventually be a turnoff if that's all there is to someone. I'm saying, there is more to everyone. What you get up front, isn't all you get.



GettingIt said:


> I'm in it for the evening, maybe for something short term and casual, but it's not something that will keep my attention long term.


For some reason when people discuss pickup, things beyond the bounds of pickup are always thrown in. Long term is beyond the bounds of pickup, which is about initial attraction. ie getting the first date.

If all there was to me, or anyone, was the amount of substance or depth of personality you can show in a pickup attempt, I wouldn't have a relationship that lasts longer that a week.... or it would be a FWB. 



GettingIt said:


> Hey Dvls, you can't have us ALL. Accept it.


Yeah, but I can at least have 2 -at once.   jk I've never had a 3sum, and my gf isn't the type to share.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Red Sonja said:


> Careful there DVLS … this type of “breaking the ice” may lead to other types of “breakage” if you are within range of the woman you are addressing. Wouldn't want you to get hurt.


Just noticed a typo... "*don't* know how you fit those puppies in there" was what it should be.

The statement was right to the woman. It panned out pretty well, but I really wasn't intending to break the ice... it was just the thought that came to mind. She was in fact seriously showing out. If they weren't struggling to get out, my comment would have been weird. Maybe some of it was other cues... she had a nose piecing. But anyway, she was clearly proud of the boobs. We had a good long talk about her breasts, some of which became a little clinical - handling jogging, accidentally dropping food bits into the hole... haha. I'm not a boobs guy, but it was kinda funny and a good time.

Edit: to date, I have been slapped 3 times in my life, and never for a bold comment or something rude I said. I totally deserved all three slaps.


----------



## Created2Write

SoWhat said:


> I think it may just be a definitional thing.
> 
> "I'm really attracted to Kim Kardashian" doesn't mean relationships, in general, are secondary.


I didn't say it did. There are people in life whom we find attractive, and yet, would never actually be with, either sexually or relationally. 



> "Whether they'd screw her" is interesting because men get the mental green light ("YEP!, I would.") for probably 50-60% of women. It's almost a pointless question, because the answer is "yes" for most women they see.


I don't know that I agree with the percentages you offer, but I feel I need to clarify; there's a difference between finding someone good looking enough to have a sexual response, and having the ultimate intention of trying to bed her without any desire for a relationship. 



> Now, whether most men over-value physical attraction for long-term relationships is another question entirely. I think the question of whether women under-value physical attraction for long-term relationships is a similar question.
> 
> But a man saying "I'm attracted to her - I'd screw her in some world where there's no strings attached and no consequences - but wouldn't be in a relationship with her" isn't one of those questions, IMO. Some men just have a more immediate sexual response than some women. Nothing categorical.


I don't disagree. I know that Henry Cavil is physically attractive enough that I could have sex with him. That doesn't mean I _would_ have sex with him. Even then, I still value personality and the type of person above physical appearance. That doesn't mean I don't value the physical, or that sexual attraction isn't important to me. Without attraction, there's no point to a relationship, imo. My point is that my ultimate goal in getting to know someone isn't sex. It isn't even a romantic relationship. It's actually wanting to get to know them _for them_, not want they can offer me. 

And it sometimes happens that, after I get to know someone, I find that they would make a great friend; or that they could be a potential life partner; and sometimes I get to know them and realize I wish I'd never seen them or talked to them. The latter is why I am not flattered or turned on or attracted to strangers trying to pick me up. Anyone can pretend to be charming if all they're after is a sexual tryst. Unless they genuinely want to get to know me, being friends first usually weeds out the ones with whom I'd be incompatible.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just noticed a typo... "*don't* know how you fit those puppies in there" was what it should be.
> 
> The statement was right to the woman. It panned out pretty well, but I really wasn't intending to break the ice... it was just the thought that came to mind. She was in fact seriously showing out. If they weren't struggling to get out, my comment would have been weird. Maybe some of it was other cues... she had a nose piecing. But anyway, she was clearly proud of the boobs. We had a good long talk about her breasts, some of which became a little clinical - handling jogging, accidentally dropping food bits into the hole... haha. I'm not a boobs guy, but it was kinda funny and a good time.


Sometimes those comments you know they never heard before either work or get you a conversation piece for afterwards. I'm sure that was your actual thoughts too.

It must have been some plump lively jugs over stuffed into a shirt that could barely contain them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> The seeking of a "girlfriend" or something with no regard to ME.


Now that's a split hair. I don't really follow. Of course he's seeking you because he wants a girlfriend AND wants it to be YOU. If he didn't want a girlfriend, he wouldn't be seeking you. If he didn't want YOU, he wouldn't be seeking you.

Do you mean something of opposition to "any girl will do?" In the bluntest sense, this might be true, in that we're going to move on to someone else. In seeking you, you're the current top of his list. If you decline, of course he's going to scratch you off the list and move on to explore it with #2.

I'm confused what you mean.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I wasn't assuming that. I was pointing out the actual impossibility of each. Your post was that c*cky irreverence, while it might be fun and kind of attractive up front, would eventually be a turnoff if that's all there is to someone. I'm saying, there is more to everyone. What you get up front, isn't all you get.
> 
> For some reason when people discuss pickup, things beyond the bounds of pickup are always thrown in. Long term is beyond the bounds of pickup, which is about initial attraction. ie getting the first date.
> 
> If all there was to me, or anyone, was the amount of substance or depth of personality you can show in a pickup attempt, I wouldn't have a relationship that lasts longer that a week.... or it would be a FWB.


You misunderstand. If what I'm getting "up front" is the c0cky irreverence, I know I won't want anything more than that night, or maybe a short fling. I'm sure there is more underneath; but if c0cky irreverence is the man's go-to pick up style, then he belongs to a certain personality type that I find unattractive for the long term. It's not that I wouldn't end up pals with him, but I'd lose interest as far as sex or a relationship goes. Just isn't my thing. 

I don't think pick up style shows _all_ of a man's substance, but for me the c0cky indifference style is indicative of a personality type that I've found I lose interest in quickly . At least that's been true in my experience. Who knows, perhaps I subltly judge men for their pick up styles. Either way, the end result is the same. Fun for us both short term, then buh-bye. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, but I can at least have 2 -at once.   jk I've never had a 3sum, and my gf isn't the type to share.


Huh. Well, you've got a lot of life yet to live.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

treyvion said:


> Sometimes those comments you know they never heard before either work or get you a conversation piece for afterwards. I'm sure that was your actual thoughts too.
> 
> It must have been some plump lively jugs over stuffed into a shirt that could barely contain them.


I may or may not have tossed a nacho at them at some point and may or may not have gotten an ice cube down my shirt later on. Why didn't I think of the ice cube first?!


----------



## Created2Write

Another thing I find unattractive in a man is a closed mind. While I don't want a man who'll just change his opinions on a whim, or change his opinions to fit mine just because he thinks it's what I want, I do want a man who recognizes that just because he's better than he was before, doesn't mean there aren't still improvements that can be made. And that doesn't have to be restricted to the relationship, either. Improvements could be learning new things, doing research on subjects that usually baffle him, reading more, trying new things, and other things that do apply to the relationship, like adding fuel to the sexual fire of the relationship, or adding an element to life that wasn't there before. Overall, just seeing life in general as the chance to become the best that he can be, and not expecting his worst to be enough for me. Or anyone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> You misunderstand. If what I'm getting "up front" is the c0cky irreverence, I know I won't want anything more than that night, or maybe a short fling. I'm sure there is more underneath; but if c0cky irreverence is the man's go-to pick up style, then he belongs to a certain personality type that I find unattractive for the long term. It's not that I wouldn't end up pals with him, but I'd lose interest as far as sex or a relationship goes. Just isn't my thing.


AHHH... I follow you. I can relate to that inference... there are some seemingly innocuous features I strongly associate with women I've had bad experiences with, and I won't even approach them.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> AHHH... I follow you. Seems like an awfully big inference, but I can relate... there are some seemingly innocuous features I strongly associate with women I've had bad experiences with, and I won't even approach them.


It really is about optimization.


----------



## Created2Write

Also, for me, I don't expect the man I'm with to be perfect. I think we all have some unattractive qualities that make us less than ideal people, so a man can be attractive to me _and_ have a few unattractive traits. Some have more than others. Some don't care about their bad qualities. Some understand that they need to change, and make efforts to do so. The latter is who I find most attractive. It's not that every bad or annoying quality needs fixing, but if my overall vibe from someone is negative, no amount of charm, seduction, or physical beauty will change my reaction to them.


----------



## heartsbeating

Jellybeans said:


> And this is my biggest turn on.
> 
> Talk to me about the space time continuum or how we need renewable energy and you will slowly find your way into my head (and panties).
> 
> 
> 
> I am a sucker for all of that scientific sex talk.


Time and relative dimensions in space gets my heart beating like a samba!  The geeks will know.


----------



## WyshIknew

SoWhat said:


> I read quite a bit of this thread, and at the risk of incurring wrath for missing this question somewhere:
> 
> Is it fair to say that what is "unattractive in a man" is generally the opposite of what is "attractive in a man." ?
> 
> That is, it differs for each person, but there might be some general trends that people tend to find unattractive (even if they aren't categorically viewed as such)?
> 
> So, if one notices that the men who women consensually engage in casual sex with tend to be above 5'7, it might be said that men under 5'7 tend to be unattractive for the purposes of consensual casual sex?
> 
> And if the men that women tend to marry tend to be more sympathetic/empathetic than men who women do not choose to marry, it might be said that men who lack sympathy/empathy tend to be unattractive for the purposes of marriage?
> 
> Just examples, and I'm not asserting any sort of Platonic "attractiveness/unattractiveness" with these.


Part of the reason why I started the thread.

I'm not sure that it follows that what is unattractive in a man is necessarily the direct opposite of what is attractive.

I think there is a degree of separation between _not_ attractive and _un_ attractive.

Is it not possible that the opposite of attractive is not attractive while a different set of attributes contribute to unattractive?


----------



## WyshIknew

heartsbeating said:


> Time and relative dimensions in space gets my heart beating like a samba!  The geeks will know.


Torchwood!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> And this is my biggest turn on.
> 
> Talk to me about the space time continuum or how we need renewable energy and you will slowly find your way into my head (and panties).
> 
> 
> 
> I am a sucker for all of that scientific sex talk.


I can relate... I'm putty in the hands of a woman who would like to use me in her demonstration of Bernoulli's principle.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Happyfamily said:


> Some advice for you, from a woman. I see straight through you. Let me tell you what I hear from you:
> 
> 
> 
> and of COURSE you are right here above saying that your objective is not sex, so that is how you achieve your objective of getting sex.
> 
> In evolutionary terms, the most successful genetic progenitor of all time was Genghis Khan. His objective was, roughly speaking, conquering the world. So there is someone who actually WAS a warrior, whose primary objective was not getting laid, but who ended up being the most prolific breeder. Incident to conquering the world.
> 
> He wasn't PRETENDING. He actually WAS conquering the world. That's the difference between blah blah blah, "I'm the alpha" and the real thing.


he was the real thing, and also ruthless and (probably) without conscience. I don't think you're implying that you find those things sexy.......


----------



## bandit.45

What makes a man unattractive?

Read SteveK's thread and you will find out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> I am sure Mrs. Wysh is glad every day that your early dating life did not bring the results that, at the time, you wanted, Wysh.


There is a strange kind of double standard, my wife 'put it about' a bit when she was younger, but she loves the fact that she is my first and only, she calls it a special thing between us.


----------



## WyshIknew

bandit.45 said:


> What makes a man unattractive?
> 
> Read SteveK's thread and you will find out.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yer, been a few of those, I can't believe the crap some people are prepared to take.


----------



## ocotillo

heartsbeating said:


> Time and relative dimensions in space gets my heart beating like a samba!  The geeks will know.


LOL - My wife introduced me to that in the Pertwee years.


----------



## WyshIknew

ocotillo said:


> LOL - My wife introduced me to that in the Pertwee years.


Patrick Troughton was my fave.


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Alpha as f*ck.


But I'm not alpha, nor am I beta, I'm just me. I'm a simple, complicated, emotional, logical, stupid, intelligent, rash, thoughtful human being.

I'm a myriad of things, a complex animal.


----------



## pidge70

WyshIknew said:


> But I'm not alpha, nor am I beta, I'm just me. I'm a simple, complicated, emotional, logical, stupid, intelligent, rash, thoughtful human being.
> 
> I'm a myriad of things, a complex animal.


----------



## WyshIknew

heartsbeating said:


> The thread has moved on way past where I was when I just posted.
> 
> And Wysh, you may not choose to believe me but as I wrote before, once a Bond, always a Bond.


Thanks Hearts, I must admit that I was surprised and really rather pleased with the reaction I got when I posted my 'toothbrush' pic not long after I'd started on TAM, it was quite heartening to know that I didn't have a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, I was secretly rather pleased with the compliments I received.


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> You seem reasonable so I hope you have ears: this is the wrong model. In growing up, I did not see "pick-up". I saw people with _relationships_. Me too, I was almost never without a long term boyfriend.
> 
> In my limited experience in life, people had extended family, school, work, activities/clubs, church, and so forth that resulted in knowing potential partners and whether they were available or not. So if I broke up with my boyfriend, it was nearly self-evident who would end up being my next relationship. It was also evident to everyone else. When is Bob going to ask Jean to be his _girlfriend_. Not when is Bob going to "pick up" Jean.
> 
> I have never in my life met someone "cold" in some kind of "pick-up" setting. My husband is actually the one I knew the least, but we had someone working real hard to get us together because she knew how right we were for each other. Both of us knew her, but we didn't know each other. And when we met, WOW, was she right. So even though we met "cold", we were a couple from the instant we first saw each other. It was like we had known each other all our lives. She maneuvered us into the same place at the same time, called me over to meet him as he said "no, no, no...(she had told him I had short hair so he didn't want to meet me!)" but he went to the bathroom and she snuck me over to a seat next to him, and when he came back...lol, should have seen the look on his face. Stars in his eyes.
> 
> I just don't get "pick-up". It has to constitute some really tiny proportion of what people at large are doing, and even there a lot of them are trying for relationships but go through periods where they are dating around before they settle on someone and aren't doing "pick-up" in the sense it is meant by the people using the term.
> 
> Focusing on what works in _relationships_ is the right framing. Unless you want to be alone, I guess.
> 
> That brings us to this more insightful comment:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. This is one of the reasons I think it so stupid to relentlessly frame men and women in this predator/prey model. We may be different physically, but a lot of it comes down to shared values, interests, and aspirations insofar as relationships are concerned. Some character traits make us a good person regardless of what gender we are.
> 
> 
> Since we are all individuals, we each have features of our character and personality that make certain kinds of people attractive to us but not to others. Some want deeply spiritual people. Some want atheists. Some want wealth. Some want social activism or whatever. So some traits are universal in terms of their appeal, whereas others are not.


Ack! 'Pick up'. Sorry, wrong choice of words, didn't mean it in that manner, and I agree with your post.

You had a nice friend, my friends were nice but a little misguided.


----------



## WyshIknew

Dollystanford said:


> Do you know what 'to plate' is in South London slang?


No. Do tell. I've googled and only plates of meat comes up.


----------



## Happyfamily

I have never had a one night stand. This relentless framing of men hooking up with women for one-night-stands had to be the wrong framing so I did a little googling.

Realities of One-Night Stands Revealed

or here:

Vacation Sex: 40 Percent Of Women Under 30 Had A One-Night Stand During A Trip, Says Survey

Roughly speaking, a little over half of women surveyed had ONE one-night stand. Of those doing it, looks like vacation is a time they cut loose.

You have 10% of them having five or more partners though, so this tells me a small number of women are doing the great bulk of casual sex hook-ups. I have nothing against a woman being promiscuous. That's her business. But it says something about this whole pretense of needing any skills to be a "playah". All the other guys are banging her too. The articles also point out that men are _lowering their standards _ for one-night stands. 

To have ONE one night stand in more than a decade or whatever, and half of those feeling pretty badly about it according to the articles above shows me I am normal. They feel used, degraded, cheapened - yeah. I sure get that. That's why my radar is flashing red when I spot this "playah" persona. No thanks. 

Women are interested in _relationships_. I can't speak for women as a group, obviously. There are a small number of "lowered-standards" women screwing an awful lot of guys. I want to be careful here too - there are women who are fine people, better looking than me, sexier than me, and they just like to have sex with different guys. Fine. But they are in a pretty small minority. 

Now, I did jump into bed with my husband the day I met him. Gladly. The next five days in a row too, and every day we were together afterwards. Because we both knew right away that this was going to be a permanent relationship.


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> I have never had a one night stand. This relentless framing of men hooking up with women for one-night-stands had to be the wrong framing so I did a little googling.
> 
> Realities of One-Night Stands Revealed
> 
> or here:
> 
> Vacation Sex: 40 Percent Of Women Under 30 Had A One-Night Stand During A Trip, Says Survey
> 
> Roughly speaking, a little over half of women surveyed had ONE one-night stand. Of those doing it, looks like vacation is a time they cut loose.
> 
> You have 10% of them having five or more partners though, so this tells me a small number of women are doing the great bulk of casual sex hook-ups. I have nothing against a woman being promiscuous. That's her business. But it says something about this whole pretense of needing any skills to be a "playah". All the other guys are banging her too. The articles also point out that men are _lowering their standards _ for one-night stands.
> 
> To have ONE one night stand in more than a decade or whatever, and half of those feeling pretty badly about it according to the articles above shows me I am normal. They feel used, degraded, cheapened - yeah. I sure get that. That's why my radar is flashing red when I spot this "playah" persona. No thanks.
> 
> Women are interested in _relationships_. I can't speak for women as a group, obviously. There are a small number of "lowered-standards" women screwing an awful lot of guys. I want to be careful here too - there are women who are fine people, better looking than me, sexier than me, and they just like to have sex with different guys. Fine. But they are in a pretty small minority.
> 
> Now, I did jump into bed with my husband the day I met him. Gladly. The next five days in a row too, and every day we were together afterwards. Because we both knew right away that this was going to be a permanent relationship.


I also think that what some people fail to take into account is that often these 'pick ups' are taking place in 'meat market' night clubs so people are going there for the possibility of being picked up anyway.

Factor in excessive drink or drugs, lowered inhibitions and a desire to 'have fun' and you have a recipe for success.

It's not called the walk of shame for nothing. "Oh god, did I really sleep with that?"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

What does a one-night stand have to do with anything? The vast majority of women Ive met weren't one-night stands.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> What does a one-night stand have to do with anything? The vast majority of women Ive met weren't one-night stands.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's just the normal way a TAM thread meanders along.

You could start a thread on whether you prefer real butter or margarine and by the time the thread runs its course you are discussing quantum physics and its relevance to c0ck rings.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> It's just the normal way a TAM thread meanders along.
> 
> You could start a thread on whether you prefer real butter or margarine and by the time the thread runs it's course you are discussing quantum physics and it's relevance to c0ck rings.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is a pint worthy comment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> I also think that what some people fail to take into account is that often these 'pick ups' are taking place in 'meat market' night clubs so people are going there for the possibility of being picked up anyway.
> 
> Factor in excessive drink or drugs, lowered inhibitions and a desire to 'have fun' and you have a recipe for success.
> 
> It's not called the walk of shame for nothing. "Oh god, did I really sleep with that?"


Exactly. 

I've read The Game and perused through more PUA bunk than you would believe, which is where all of this pretentious vocabulary originated from and all these ridiculous "steps". The entire marketing schema is the one-night-stand. To score. On a target. 

I found it revolting but at the same time fascinating for the antisocial conduct within. That's the irony - there seems to be a perverse idealization of antisocial behavior that is marketed to people that have problems socializing.

A guy is underconfident, so they tell him to go insult women. We're seeing that same theme here. A woman can tell the difference between confidence and arrogance. Between talent and someone "demonstrating higher value" as per PUA bunk. Etc.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Dollystanford said:


> Do you know what 'to plate' is in *South London* slang?


souf london, say it right


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> Ack! 'Pick up'. Sorry, wrong choice of words, didn't mean it in that manner, and I agree with your post.
> 
> You had a nice friend, my friends were nice but a little misguided.


Oh, thanks for that note. I actually missed it because the page advanced, and that correction is very good.

My radar does not at all go off with you. That's the reason I took it more seriously in responding to your wording "pick up". A young man in particular is very ill-advised to be looking at a model of adult behavior based on "pick up" in that sense.


----------



## WyshIknew

Well I need to slip into Morpheus's sweet embrace.

Nighty night peeps.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> The entire marketing schema is the one-night-stand. To score. On a target.


Then your selection of reading has been extremely limited. It has its origins in getting laid, no doubt about it. But the notion that it was ever limited to one-night stands is ridiculous and shows you haven't read half of what you claim.

It's fundamentally about attraction. Period. The purpose belongs to the individual, whether you're after a ONS, or just a girlfriend - the majority of authors, even the most distasteful, say this outright. Its origin comes from a recognition that some guys seem to have a certain way of being that many women respond to. Certain personality characteristics and way of carrying yourself, above and beyond plain good looks. Is this guy who unwittingly has such characteristics automatically a user and player? No. Neither is someone who learns these behaviors. Some are as simple as standing up straight and not folding your arms.

Even if the guy IS only trying to get laid, there's this amazing thing women can do: choose. If you choose to sleep with someone right off the bat, you're not a victim, you made your own choice. He doesn't owe you a lifetime for sleeping with you. He didn't con you out of your panties. Own your own damn behavior. A principle of pickup repeated in these books is to not lie. So what are you blaming? You say there's no skill to it, you all but say there is nothing of substance to it, so what are you blaming? If there's nothing there, aren't your complaints just the equivalent of being angry at the boogeyman? Angry at nothing?

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Will be out the rest of the weekend. Will probably catch up Monday. Have a good weekend everyone.


----------



## Happyfamily

Back to the OP:

Someone who spends vast amounts of time reading literature on how to manipulate women. 

I can tell from a mile off. Now that it has been confirmed, it is a lesson in trusting your gut instincts.


----------



## Personal

There are plenty of men who have significant disadvantages compared to others when it comes to attracting women.

Unfortunately for many of them that will not change, no matter how much self help literature they vociferously consume.

At the end of the day though, since finding a mate is a competitive activity. Is it a bad thing that some men are found wanting?

It is also worth noting, all of the above applies to women as well.


----------



## Trickster

I am late to the game here....

Most of the unattractive traits listed seem to be when the woman gets to know the man better. Compatability being the biggest.

The initial unattractiveness, when people meet for the first time?

Men know from the first 30 seconds if he would have sex with the woman or not. 

Do women do the same thing?


If that's the case... All the PUA tricks are important, whether we learn it or it comes natural. It takes practice. 

What about knowing how to converse, make the woman laugh?

A female friend told me about a guy chasing her. He is successful, good looking, athletic, educated... but doesn't want a relationship because he has nothing to talk about. He is boring.

Is boring a total turnoff?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Trickster said:


> Men know from the first 30 seconds if he would have sex with the woman or not.
> 
> Do women do the same thing?


So, the only thing that ever matters to a guy is how she looks in that moment he first glimpses her? Nothing she does or says makes any difference whatsoever? 

Deep.

I can't speak for other women, but my first impressions can change dramatically, even in a short time.

And, yes, I find boring unattractive. And superficial very boring.


----------



## RandomDude

Ey? From my understanding I thought women do the same thing. First impressions do change sure but the 'first 7 seconds' is pretty accurate for the most part no?

I don't see anything wrong with it, it's just tastes


----------



## Trickster

always_alone said:


> So, the only thing that ever matters to a guy is how she looks in that moment he first glimpses her? Nothing she does or says makes any difference whatsoever?
> 
> Deep.
> 
> I can't speak for other women, but my first impressions can change dramatically, even in a short time.
> 
> And, yes, I find boring unattractive. And superficial very boring.



"Deep"?

No need for sarcasm... I am very simple minded...

Not saying that. We talk all the time how a man and woman can't be friends because the man wouldn't turn down sex if that female "friend" at some point in the future wanted sex. I think if the man had zero attraction for the woman, he could be friends with. Not even saying a man can't be just friends with a woman he is attracted to, just like a female can't be friends with a man she is attracted to. 



As far as the OP... Men have to get past the first impression. If a man doesn't get past the first 7 seconds or 30 seconds, or whatever that initial length of time, nothing may happen. Friendship or otherwise.

Are we discussing what women find unattractive for a LTR or what is unattractive initially? Is it different?

The idiot who did the shooting didn't even get past that initial few seconds with anybody. Even friendships.


When I met my wife, I was shy and nervous. Over the first few lunch dates, I was still nervous... For some reason, she liked it. She thought it was cute...i know I was unattractive to many women. Because of my nervousness.

And yes, when I first met my wife in a club, I knew I wanted a relationship with her. I knew I wanted sex with her. 22 years later, we are still together and in that friend zone...it always was with her....


----------



## WyshIknew

Personal said:


> There are plenty of men who have significant disadvantages compared to others when it comes to attracting women.
> 
> Unfortunately for many of them that will not change, no matter how much self help literature they vociferously consume.
> 
> At the end of the day though, since finding a mate is a competitive activity. Is it a bad thing that some men are found wanting?
> 
> It is also worth noting, all of the above applies to women as well.


A bad thing? Probably not, it is what it is. No doubt sucks for those men who can't for whatever reason attract a partner. Especially as I think that one of our prime drives is to find a mate to share our life and love with.

I have an angling friend, one of the nicest guys you could meet. Quiet, stable, friendly, not a drinker or a gambler but painfully shy with women. He is in his early 40's and I have never seen him with a woman.

He claims not but we all think he is a virgin. His nickname is Donkey for the obvious reason although I can't confirm one way or the other.

It's such a shame because I'm sure he would make a loving husband for someone, but when I think about it I wouldn't have a clue who to match him up with, I have a feeling he is just one of life's bachelors.


----------



## southbound

WyshIknew said:


> A bad thing? Probably not, it is what it is. No doubt sucks for those men who can't for whatever reason attract a partner. Especially as I think that one of our prime drives is to find a mate to share our life and love with.
> 
> I have an angling friend, one of the nicest guys you could meet. Quiet, stable, friendly, not a drinker or a gambler but painfully shy with women. He is in his early 40's and I have never seen him with a woman.
> 
> He claims not but we all think he is a virgin. His nickname is Donkey for the obvious reason although I can't confirm one way or the other.
> 
> It's such a shame because I'm sure he would make a loving husband for someone, but when I think about it I wouldn't have a clue who to match him up with, I have a feeling he is just one of life's bachelors.


That;s the part i don't understand. I feel the same way about my brother. He would make a great husband for some woman, and he isn't even shy. I just don't get it. 

You say your friend is shy. Perhaps that has held him back, but look around at the guys that are goofy, weird, and all sorts of things that most would consider worse than being a little shy, yet, they have a woman.


----------



## WyshIknew

southbound said:


> That;s the part i don't understand. I feel the same way about my brother. He would make a great husband for some woman, and he isn't even shy. I just don't get it.
> 
> You say your friend is shy. Perhaps that has held him back, but look around at the guys that are goofy, weird, and all sorts of things that most would consider worse than being a little shy, yet, they have a woman.


I will say that he's not the brightest of guys, he drops malapropisms all over the place.
He works in a warehouse and one of his jobs is to make sure orders are ready for the delivery drivers to collect. One day there were a lot of obstacles on the floor which involved him doing a lot of weaving around in the forklift truck.

"It's like a salami in here." (Slalom he meant)

Trouble is, at his age and with his lack of meaningful contact with women, I think he runs the risk of being 'institutionalised' as a single guy.


----------



## Happyfamily

Trickster said:


> If that's the case... All the PUA tricks are important, whether we learn it or it comes natural. It takes practice.


Instant turn-off. You, right here. Not a chance you could recover from this. 

Observe again the incessant framing of men and women meeting only in "cold starts". Needing "tricks". What a surprise, coming from someone naming themselves "trickster".


One of the most offensive things to me about PUA peddlers is claiming "naturals" (people like my husband that scoff at PUA bunk) are practicing PUA "tricks". No, they aren't. Confidence is not a trick. Success is not a trick. Having a medical degree, law degree, a great business, etc. - these are not tricks. 

You guys just can't get it. "Tricks" mean you view me as someone to manipulate with deceptions. I of course expect you to say that I misunderstand. It's really the opposite of "tricks" and you just used that word to mean bona-fide confidence instead of trying to trick someone into believing you are confident.


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> I will say that he's not the brightest of guys.


I have tried explaining this to the guys peddling the "cave man" crap. 

I do not find an Orangutan attractive, even though he has the strength of five men. **** Sapiens means "wise man" in latin. **** Sapiens won the evolutionary struggle for supremacy of primates with his _brain_. 

Stupid is unattractive.


----------



## CuddleBug

I can tell you what Mrs.CuddleBug finds unattractive about me.


- burping
- gas
- if I don't shower for just one day (weekend)
- nose hair
- nails not cleaned or trimmed


That's about it, so I make the effort and take care of business with no complaints.

Funny though, how I don't complain about her that way......:scratchhead:


----------



## Trickster

Happyfamily said:


> Instant turn-off. You, right here. Not a chance you could recover from this.
> 
> Observe again the incessant framing of men and women meeting only in "cold starts". Needing "tricks". What a surprise, coming from someone naming themselves "trickster".
> 
> 
> One of the most offensive things to me about PUA peddlers is claiming "naturals" (people like my husband that scoff at PUA bunk) are practicing PUA "tricks". No, they aren't. Confidence is not a trick. Success is not a trick. Having a medical degree, law degree, a great business, etc. - these are not tricks.
> 
> You guys just can't get it. "Tricks" mean you view me as someone to manipulate with deceptions. I of course expect you to say that I misunderstand. It's really the opposite of "tricks" and you just used that word to mean bona-fide confidence instead of trying to trick someone into believing you are confident.


My first user name was Already Gone. I have a different origination for my user name. You are right because since I changed my user name to "Trickster" I have read MMSL along with so many other books to change myself to improve my marriage and to be more desireable to my wife. You are right... I can't "trick" my wife or anybody else to be more attracted to me. Not for the long term. I did have to change and its a continuous process. To make a new me...not for anybody else except me...

I do see myself as more confident... Is it a trick? My wife doesn't want to d now. Don't believe she ever did.. She is more loving, affectionate, we have better sex, she has a job now, and I am not even the "nice guy" anymore. If this is a trick, it seems to be working now that i stopped trying. Women even talk to me now when I am out walking my dog at the hike and bike trails. That wasn't happening before. 

For me, Confidence takes practice.Getting out meeting people takes practice. Talking to people takes practice.. I notice that in myself with mixers and fundraisers that I have been to several years ago vs recently. Is this bona-fide confidence? It definately doesn't come natural for me yet. I still have to force myself to introduce myself to new people, man or woman. So yes, it is an act...fake it till you make it. One day, I may not feel like the "Trickster" anymore.

Its great that confidence comes natural for some people. Thats a goal I have for myself....Making straight A's in school comes natural for some people. Others have to work at it. I had to work at that as well.

I have had my own business for 12 years now. Definitely not something I though I had the confidence to do. With practice, I am successful... Confidence in my trade helps.


----------



## WyshIknew

Trickster said:


> My first user name was Already Gone. I have a different origination for my user name. You are right because since I changed my user name to "Trickster" I have read MMSL along with so many other books to change myself to improve my marriage and to be more desireable to my wife. You are right... I can't "trick" my wife or anybody else to be more attracted to me. Not for the long term. I did have to change and its a continuous process. To make a new me...not for anybody else except me...
> 
> I do see myself as more confident... Is it a trick? My wife doesn't want to d now. Don't believe she ever did.. She is more loving, affectionate, we have better sex, she has a job now, and I am not even the "nice guy" anymore. If this is a trick, it seems to be working now that i stopped trying. Women even talk to me now when I am out walking my dog at the hike and bike trails. That wasn't happening before.
> 
> For me, Confidence takes practice.Getting out meeting people takes practice. Talking to people takes practice.. I notice that in myself with mixers and fundraisers that I have been to several years ago vs recently. Is this bona-fide confidence? It definately doesn't come natural for me yet. I still have to force myself to introduce myself to new people, man or woman. So yes, it is an act...fake it till you make it. One day, I may not feel like the "Trickster" anymore.
> 
> Its great that confidence comes natural for some people. Thats a goal I have for myself....Making straight A's in school comes natural for some people. Others have to work at it. I had to work at that as well.
> 
> I have had my own business for 12 years now. Definitely not something I though I had the confidence to do. With practice, I am successful... Confidence in my trade helps.


Can't really say as I'm the wrong sex, but if I was a woman I think the difference for me would be in the intent.

I think there is a world of difference between some creep trying to play psychological games designed to get my knickers off and add me to the notches on his bed post and somebody like yourself trying to improve yourself for your existing partner.


----------



## sinnister

always_alone said:


> So, the only thing that ever matters to a guy is how she looks in that moment he first glimpses her? Nothing she does or says makes any difference whatsoever?
> 
> Deep.
> 
> I can't speak for other women, but my first impressions can change dramatically, even in a short time.
> 
> And, yes, I find boring unattractive. And superficial very boring.


You know...not every male opinion needs a reprimand. This is pretty common knowledge for both genders.


----------



## Happyfamily

Trickster said:


> ...expected answer...


This thread is about what makes men unattractive.

I am here telling you that there is nothing you can do to recover from what you have already showed me. There is no amount of explaining you can do.

My feelings about this are facts. If you have read about how to deal with a woman's feelings, it is not something you can argue with. I am not your wife. I am not at one of your parties. If I were at one of these parties, I would make a mental note to stay away from you.

When a man tells me he doesn't like green peppers or talking about how to match drapes to carpeting I don't stuff down his throat about how he really does want to eat peppers and learn this exciting home decoration tip. If he doesn't want anal with a strap-on, I accept that. That's the end of it.

But for some reason you guys are like energizer bunnies that never shut off. On and on and on and on and on. Anything except "okay, you don't like that". 

It has never happened. Not once. I have _never_ come across a guy who has memorized all of this jargon who heard what I said in response and just said "I see how you feel" or "I accept the way you look at this". It is ALWAYS an abject refusal to even consider the possibility that my feelings are legitimate. There must be something wrong with me. 

You cannot invalidate my feelings by telling me some other person likes what you do. 

Get it?


----------



## Trickster

Happyfamily said:


> This thread is about what makes men unattractive.
> 
> I am here telling you that there is nothing you can do to recover from what you have already showed me. There is no amount of explaining you can do.
> 
> My feelings about this are facts. If you have read about how to deal with a woman's feelings, it is not something you can argue with. I am not your wife. I am not at one of your parties. If I were at one of these parties, I would make a mental note to stay away from you.
> 
> When a man tells me he doesn't like green peppers or talking about how to match drapes to carpeting I don't stuff down his throat about how he really does want to eat peppers and learn this exciting home decoration tip. If he doesn't want anal with a strap-on, I accept that. That's the end of it.
> 
> But for some reason you guys are like energizer bunnies that never shut off. On and on and on and on and on. Anything except "okay, you don't like that".
> 
> It has never happened. Not once. I have _never_ come across a guy who has memorized all of this jargon who heard what I said in response and just said "I see how you feel" or "I accept the way you look at this". It is ALWAYS an abject refusal to even consider the possibility that my feelings are legitimate. There must be something wrong with me.
> 
> You cannot invalidate my feelings by telling me some other person likes what you do.
> 
> Get it?



So, you want every body to agree with you? Your opinionis are the only ones that matters?


----------



## Holland

Unattractive:

wearing sock with sandals
no fashion sense
vulgarity
men that think house work is women's work
lazy, dull, boring men
men that cannot treat women as equals
anger
men that take no responsibility for their own actions
bogan males, no style and just plain yobbos


----------



## NobodySpecial

Happyfamily said:


> Instant turn-off. You, right here. Not a chance you could recover from this.
> 
> Observe again the incessant framing of men and women meeting only in "cold starts". Needing "tricks". What a surprise, coming from someone naming themselves "trickster".
> 
> 
> One of the most offensive things to me about PUA peddlers is claiming "naturals" (people like my husband that scoff at PUA bunk) are practicing PUA "tricks". No, they aren't. Confidence is not a trick. Success is not a trick. Having a medical degree, law degree, a great business, etc. - these are not tricks.


Humor is not a trick. A quick wit is not a trick.



> You guys just can't get it. "Tricks" mean you view me as someone to manipulate with deceptions. I of course expect you to say that I misunderstand. It's really the opposite of "tricks" and you just used that word to mean bona-fide confidence instead of trying to trick someone into believing you are confident.


Yup.


----------



## happy as a clam

*What makes a man unattractive?*

> Whiny
> Immature
> Wimpy
> Clingy
> Overly needy
> Nasal voice (sorry, triggers me back to my ex! Needs to be husky and not nasal... lol)
> Backs down from a challenge
> Not enough "masculine" interests/activities
> Can't perform simple household repairs
> Smaller than me (mostly weight-wise, not so much height)
> Skinny/scrawny/no muscle tone (remember the old Charles Atlas ads in the back of the Archie comic books about the scrawny dude getting picked on by the bully?!)










Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Happyfamily

Trickster said:


> So, you want every body to agree with you? Your opinionis are the only ones that matters?


lol. A perfect example of what is so unattractive about this.

One woman says: "I do not like PUA"

PUA peddler responds with gigantic straw man: "You want seven billion people to have the same opinion"

So this uber-defensive response is the confidence you have acquired through PUA? This is how you engage people at parties? That's exactly why I would make note to avoid you.


----------



## happy as a clam

Or how about this one?!


----------



## murphy5

happy as a clam said:


>


why am I suddenly thinking of Tim Curry singing in Rock Horror Picture Show? "In just seven days....I can make you a man"


----------



## nuclearnightmare

happy as a clam said:


> *What makes a man unattractive?*
> 
> > Whiny
> > Immature
> > Wimpy
> > Clingy
> > Overly needy
> > Nasal voice (sorry, triggers me back to my ex! Needs to be husky and not nasal... lol)
> > Backs down from a challenge
> > Not enough "masculine" interests/activities
> > Can't perform simple household repairs
> > Smaller than me (mostly weight-wise, not so much height)
> > Skinny/scrawny/no muscle tone (remember the old Charles Atlas ads in the back of the Archie comic books about the scrawny dude getting picked on by the bully?!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


Clam-
Hello. Backs down from what kind(s) of challenge(s)?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

A few people have expressed admiration for scientific expertlse.......i.e........that it is attractive in a man. How many women here find Stephen Hawking attractive?


----------



## over20

nuclearnightmare said:


> A few people have expressed admiration for scientific expertlse.......i.e........that it is attractive in a man. How many women here find Stephen Hawking attractive?


I have only shared that I do not like whiny men. Stephen Hawking is highly intelligent and struggles with his disease. I would have to talk to him and get to know him to see if I found him attractive. The fact that he so smart is already a plus in my eyes.


----------



## jld

Well, Hawking _is_ married . . .

But I get your point, nn. It is not just intelligence that appeals. It is the packaging, too.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> Well, Hawking _is_ married . . .
> 
> But I get your point, nn. It is not just intelligence that appeals. It is the packaging, too.


I see your POV jld, but can one trump another?


----------



## jld

Lol, I am surprised no one has started a similar thread in Men's Clubhouse about what makes a _woman_ unattractive.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> I see your POV jld, but can one trump another?


I think so. I could compromise on looks, but not on intelligence. And I'm sure some women feel the opposite.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> I think so. I could compromise on looks, but not on intelligence. And I'm sure some women feel the opposite.


I agree, attractiveness comes in all forms.


----------



## Thundarr

wow. Lots of responses.

needing external validation is like cancer to attractiveness. So yea some self confidence.


----------



## Personal

jld said:


> Lol, I am surprised no one has started a similar thread in Men's Clubhouse about what makes a _woman_ unattractive.


The same things surely, what is unattractive in a man is also unattractive in a woman.


----------



## over20

Personal said:


> The same things surely, what is unattractive in a man is also unattractive in a woman.


Not really, attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. What one sees as unattractive another sees as attractive. The variety in humans is mind boggling, I think


----------



## Happyfamily

jld said:


> Lol, I am surprised no one has started a similar thread in Men's Clubhouse about what makes a _woman_ unattractive.


There is also no parallel theme weaving its way through threads on how women should manipulate men for whatever it is they want. No specious terms for the top manipulators like "gamma woman". No derogatory greek term for the opposite, the "zeta woman". 

We don't talk about how men want fit, healthy women because that is the evolutionary chimpanzee attraction. We don't have "neg theory" where we cut men down in order to make them want us. No co-opting of terms where "nice" when applied to a woman means she is mindless twit that will do anything that anyone tells her to do. (Thus implying women should not be nice)

A "confident" woman is not one who swears a blue streak of profanity and leaves no tips at restaurants because she doesn't care what anyone thinks. Etc.

But I think it would be instructive to do just that as a parody of what I see so much of on this site.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> Lol, I am surprised no one has started a similar thread in Men's Clubhouse about what makes a _woman_ unattractive.





Happyfamily said:


> There is also no parallel theme weaving its way through threads on how women should manipulate men for whatever it is they want. No specious terms for the top manipulators like "gamma woman". No derogatory greek term for the opposite, the "zeta woman".
> 
> We don't talk about how men want fit, healthy women because that is the evolutionary chimpanzee attraction. We don't have "neg theory" where we cut men down in order to make them want us. No co-opting of terms where "nice" when applied to a woman means she is mindless twit that will do anything that anyone tells her to do. (Thus implying women should not be nice)
> 
> A "confident" woman is not one who swears a blue streak of profanity and leaves no tips at restaurants because she doesn't care what anyone thinks. Etc.
> 
> But I think it would be instructive to do just that as a parody of what I see so much of on this site.


I did think of this shortly after starting this thread but didn't think it was my place to start it.

I suspect as mentioned that the responses would be similar to those on this thread. It would be interesting to see if there were any glaring differences.

As Happyfamily says there's no parallel theme on TAM for how to try and manipulate men.

However there is a cultural, populist theme (not sure of the correct term to use) used in the Western world. Play hard to get, play men off each other, keep 'em guessing, wear this or that clothing to tantalise him etc.

Is this a type of 'game'? I certainly don't think it is used in the same crass manner as the PUA but it is a type of manipulation nevertheless, it is something done to elicit a response from somebody else.


----------



## southbound

over20 said:


> Not really, attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. What one sees as unattractive another sees as attractive. The variety in humans is mind boggling, I think


True. You may be referring to physical traits, but when it comes to personality, I'm sure I am attracted to what a lot of men aren't.

In this day and age, a lot want someone who is adventurous and on the go all the time. Personally, I find a sweet woman who likes sitting on the porch in the evenings very attractive. She doesn't have to be a doctor and want to go mountain climbing for me to think she is attractive.


----------



## ocotillo

WyshIknew can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was grasping at something much more elusive and much less crass that PUA. 

I'm sure he's not the first man to have wondered how and why women seem to judge men so very differently than we as men judge each other.


----------



## WyshIknew

ocotillo said:


> WyshIknew can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he was grasping at something much more elusive and much less crass that PUA.
> 
> I'm sure he's not the first man to have wondered how and why women seem to judge men so very differently than we as men judge each other.


Yes, while I am all for any man trying to improve himself I am not a supporter of the tenets of PUA. Learning some psychological tricks that are supposed to get some girls knickers off and then brag about it on some pimply teenagers website? No thanks, I'd rather die a virgin.

And please can I just reiterate I am not the young me. Any references to the past are just that, the past. I think people like Getting It are the only ones who are getting it.

I am now a mature, confident man and should something happen to or with Mrs Wysh and I, I am absolutely certain that I would find another high quality woman to share my life with.

Yes, my young adulthood obviously influenced me in some respects when asking this question, but the main influence was seeing the news story and wondering why some men are rejected by women as partners.


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> However there is a cultural, populist theme (not sure of the correct term to use) used in the Western world. Play hard to get, play men off each other, keep 'em guessing, wear this or that clothing to tantalise him etc.
> 
> Is this a type of 'game'? I certainly don't think it is used in the same crass manner as the PUA but it is a type of manipulation nevertheless, it is something done to elicit a response from somebody else.


We have to start with the parallel crass framing. Maybe it should be money? The numbers represent thousands we can dupe a guy into spending on us before we dump him. So a 10 is $10K. 

And when a man says he is offended that we would manipulate them for money and couldn't care less about their feelings (because we're confident women) - we'll just chirp along about how it _works_. When we were younger we just didn't know how to stiff a guy for cash, but with the help of this literature we've been able to soak men for six figures. Men want to be providers, you know - so bankrupting them is giving them what they want...


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> We have to start with the parallel crass framing. Maybe it should be money? The numbers represent thousands we can dupe a guy into spending on us before we dump him. So a 10 is $10K.
> 
> And when a man says he is offended that we would manipulate them for money and couldn't care less about their feelings (because we're confident women) - we'll just chirp along about how it _works_. When we were younger we just didn't know how to stiff a guy for cash, but with the help of this literature we've been able to soak men for six figures. Men want to be providers, you know - so bankrupting them is giving them what they want...


Ouch.


----------



## ocotillo

WyshIknew said:


> And please can I just reiterate I am not the young me. Any references to the past are just that, the past.


Well, I've understood that from the beginning and would say much the same about myself. 

It is still one of life's mysteries that I can have two friends of roughly the same age, body build, economic station, and looks: One is openly flirted with everywhere he goes while the other is utterly spurned.


----------



## Happyfamily

I doubt there is any mystery. If they were the same, the results would be the same. When I hear this about some guy who doesn't have the interest of women, it takes very little time to understand why. 

...see list of unattractive traits above.


right *wysh*... and of course I get a lot more money out of guys by acting like I don't want money from them. 

etc.


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> I doubt there is any mystery. If they were the same, the results would be the same. When I hear this about some guy who doesn't have the interest of women, it takes very little time to understand why.
> 
> ...see list of unattractive traits above.



Irrespective of unattractive traits do you completely discount that some men have 'it' while some don't?

Or perhaps is it more that some men are better at spotting and exploiting weaker, more vulnerable women?


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Well, I've understood that from the beginning and would say much the same about myself.
> 
> It is still one of life's mysteries that I can have two friends of roughly the same age, body build, economic station, and looks: One is openly flirted with everywhere he goes while the other is utterly spurned.


At that point, when all is really "equal", it is all about the vibe.

But IMHO, it is rarely equal. All the men I know who have ongoing troubles with women, it is for very good and obvious reason. 

Some traits that come to mind that perhaps you, as a man, might not notice:
-very controlling about how women should be or ought to behave
-expects women to follow a specified script as to how to properly adore him
-overly high estimation of himself, 
-objectifies women, treats them as less than human
-all talk, bragging, but no action

All of these describe, fairly accurately, some chronically single men that I know. And it is probably more difficult for other men to see because it is largely about how they relate to women, rather than men.


----------



## always_alone

Happyfamily said:


> right *wysh*... and of course I get a lot more money out of guys by acting like I don't want money from them.
> 
> etc.


And of course, the efforts you are going to are simply about self-improvement. Some women are too timid and too much like doormats to take a man for everything he's got. Whereas you are just developing self-confidence.

Which we all know is *very* attractive.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> At that point, when all is really "equal", it is all about the vibe.
> 
> But IMHO, it is rarely equal. All the men I know who have ongoing troubles with women, it is for very good and obvious reason.
> 
> Some traits that come to mind that perhaps you, as a man, might not notice:
> -very controlling about how women should be or ought to behave
> -expects women to follow a specified script as to how to properly adore him
> -overly high estimation of himself,
> -objectifies women, treats them as less than human
> -all talk, bragging, but no action
> 
> All of these describe, fairly accurately, some chronically single men that I know. And it is probably more difficult for other men to see because it is largely about how they relate to women, rather than men.


That makes sense.

The "Vibe" (Or whatever we want to call it) even extends to my wife's attitudes about my friends. "There's something about _____ I just don't like" is a statement I've heard more than once.


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> Irrespective of unattractive traits do you completely discount that some men have 'it' while some don't?
> 
> Or perhaps is it more that some men are better at spotting and exploiting weaker, more vulnerable women?


That's a tautology, isn't it? That some men "have it"? But I agree with the ladies here that say there are a lot of individual tastes involved. Some women go for the bodybuilder type and others want the long lanky types. Some want artsy and some want the hard-nosed, no-frills guy. That's why there isn't a "formula" that works on all of us. 

I've always liked older guys. Experience. Poise. Stable. They always know what to do. How to handle things. They don't argue with me about my feelings. My husband, from the first day would tell me "this is how you feel". My reaction was "Sure, and I know how you feel too - let me just crawl on top of you." My God, I never did such a shameless thing before. 

Absolutely yes, you have men who target women with low self-esteem. It isn't so much that they are experts in spotting them. It's that other men have a conscience and aren't taking advantage of them in order to get sex.


----------



## WyshIknew

always_alone said:


> At that point, when all is really "equal", it is all about the vibe.
> 
> But IMHO, it is rarely equal. All the men I know who have ongoing troubles with women, it is for very good and obvious reason.
> 
> Some traits that come to mind that perhaps you, as a man, might not notice:
> -very controlling about how women should be or ought to behave
> -expects women to follow a specified script as to how to properly adore him
> -overly high estimation of himself,
> -objectifies women, treats them as less than human
> -all talk, bragging, but no action
> 
> All of these describe, fairly accurately, some chronically single men that I know. And it is probably more difficult for other men to see because it is largely about how they relate to women, rather than men.


Good point, there are many similarities between the two sexes but also many differences.

I think, as you say, it is very hard for either sex to see life through the others eyes. The best we can do is embrace the differences that enhance our relationships and do our best to understand those that don't.


----------



## ocotillo

Happyfamily said:


> That's a tautology, isn't it? That some men "have it"?


I think the expression is attributed to Kipling: "_It isn't beauty, so to speak, nor good talk necessarily. It's just 'It'._" I would say it's not tautological insofar as what constitutes an attractive woman is concerned. Some things I suspect may be below the level of consciousness.

I floated the idea earlier on this thread that the reverse is also true and a few ladies seemed to agree with it.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> The "Vibe" (Or whatever we want to call it) even extends to my wife's attitudes about my friends. "There's something about _____ I just don't like" is a statement I've heard more than once.


Indeed. One has to be careful with "the vibe" because it can be used simply as a way of reinforcing one's prejudices. But it's also a very good way to tap into non-verbal and subtle communications that can save a lot of grief.

I had this sort of reaction to one of my SO's old friends. Turns out that despite his proclamations about how much he loved and idolized his gf, he was systematically emotionally abusing her to "toughen her up" and "teach her how to love properly". She is still traumatized by it years after leaving him. Even he has grown enough to admit what an ******* he was to her. But he still has problems with women.


----------



## Happyfamily

When I think about "vibe" I can usually figure out what it is.

The grocery store is an example of seeing people "cold". Guys check out the ladies in some pretty predictable ways. As I pass by, I can tell you who is going to turn around for a peek at my rear. It isn't going to be the guy who looks me directly in the eye and smiles "hello". It's the guy pretending not to notice me, but he's not actually focusing on where he is pretending to look. He is using his peripherals to time the turn-around. 

Then there's the old "I'm not really looking at you, I'm reading this label or pretending to check out this banana for ripeness..." Well, guys don't read labels or know bananas from kiwi. lol. I can tell they're watching me to see when they can catch a look. 

They pull their cart up behind me even though the cashier next to us only has a customer with four items. And he's going to pretend to be interested in Cosmopolitan. He never looks over to the row with less people or items. Maybe some women just have a "feeling" that something is not quite right with what he's doing. But I can think through a lot of it. 

There are different levels of "creepy" with this behavior. You can see it in the eyes. Furtive glancing, the "you caught me" worried look, then down at the floor or else the "what should I pretend to be doing now" look. The creepiest are going to come right back for more looks, and when they maneuver for my aisle they are locating me, not the salad dressing shelf. 

I can go on. But to me, vibe is about what I see not matching up with what someone wants me to think is going on.


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> When I think about "vibe" I can usually figure out what it is.
> 
> The grocery store is an example of seeing people "cold". Guys check out the ladies in some pretty predictable ways. As I pass by, I can tell you who is going to turn around for a peek at my rear. It isn't going to be the guy who looks me directly in the eye and smiles "hello". It's the guy pretending not to notice me, but he's not actually focusing on where he is pretending to look. He is using his peripherals to time the turn-around.
> 
> Then there's the old "I'm not really looking at you, I'm reading this label or pretending to check out this banana for ripeness..." Well, guys don't read labels or know bananas from kiwi. lol. I can tell they're watching me to see when they can catch a look.
> 
> They pull their cart up behind me even though the cashier next to us only has a customer with four items. And he's going to pretend to be interested in Cosmopolitan. He never looks over to the row with less people or items. Maybe some women just have a "feeling" that something is not quite right with what he's doing. But I can think through a lot of it.
> 
> There are different levels of "creepy" with this behavior. You can see it in the eyes. Furtive glancing, the "you caught me" worried look, then down at the floor or else the "what should I pretend to be doing now" look. The creepiest are going to come right back for more looks, and when they maneuver for my aisle they are locating me, not the salad dressing shelf.
> 
> I can go on. But to me, vibe is about what I see not matching up with what someone wants me to think is going on.


I can honestly say that is not me, furtive glances seem creepy to me.

If I am shopping in the supermarket and I happen to see a woman who looks nice to my eyes, has taken some care in her appearance etc I will smile and say hello.

Geez, if you see a woman that you think looks nice, and you appreciate the way she wears her femininity, be a man about it and respond in a polite and appropriate manner.


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> If I am shopping in the supermarket and I happen to see a woman who looks nice to my eyes, has taken some care in her appearance etc I will smile and say hello.


Exactly. I won't get the creepy vibe from you.

The most fundamental principle in PUA though is to pretend you are not interested when you actually are. You are supposed to ignore me and chat up someone else. You get more sex by pretending you don't want sex. If you think I am a 10, tell me I am a 2. 

But at the same time when people call you on that, you say no... I'm really the guy who is like *WyshIknew* with the confidence to say "hello" to a lady who strikes him as attractive. 

They don't seem to understand that I can spot this chameleon-like morphing just as easily as I can see through these guys in the grocery store. Sometimes they're with their wives, and what's interesting about that is the ones who are direct don't get the dirty looks from their wives. It's the ones trying to be sneaky about it. We all know what you are doing, bub.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Back to the OP:
> 
> Someone who *spent (the last thing I read was MMSL some two years ago, and the rest, many years prior)* vast amounts of time reading literature on *how/why some guys incessantly draw women's interest*.
> 
> I can tell from a mile off. Now that it has been confirmed, it is a lesson in trusting your gut instincts.


Fixed it for you. If you're fishing and not catching anything, while the guy in the next boat is pulling in one after another, you find out he's doing differently. You don't keep doing what you're doing.

Yes, by all means trust your instincts. Its exactly those instincts that one learns to work with - instead of coming off creepy, needy, socially awkward etc.

For just about every unattractive trait listed in this thread, I could show you specific actions, behaviors, mannerisms and mindset that are used to mitigate, or change them. How to avoid coming across needy; how to be assertive without being a creep; prescriptions for navigating anxiety and nervousness that lead to awkwardness. These aren't the exclusive domain of Pickup - there's significant overlap here with a wide variety of books aimed at developing better social skills and social presence. These are just narrowly focused on male/female interaction. With the exception of a few areas of overlap, the mainstream dating books for men are *terrible* (at least for the typical 20-something dating scene).

Just as women wear makeup and dress it up to drive more attraction from men, men can make certain adjustments to drive more attraction from women. I get the hostility to some of the attitudes and language, but I'll never understand the hostility to a guy addressing the elements that make him appear needy etc.

I've thought about writing my own book without the attitude and language - but then I wonder, can you take on a guy's anxiety, clinginess, neediness, excessive pleasing, and woman worshipping without it? Those are the most common reasons a perfectly good guy gets rejected. Can you convince a guy who thinks women are porcelain, that he's better off being less cautious without all the attitude in these books? I don't know.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trickster said:


> Do women do the same thing?


I think they do. But its more that they *would* have sex with him, than they *will* have sex with him. It basically just means you've passed the first bar. More often, I think the judgment is somewhat indifferent - a sort of maybe. Its not a rejection, but not a "yeah, I want that". This is where certain behaviors can make a big difference. If she thinks you're a "no" on pure physical attraction, there's not much short of being a rockstar that's going to change that. But if you're a maybe, persona/personality/attitude and the ability to make people feel comfortable and at ease is huge. Even if she thinks you're an initial "hell yes", doesn't mean its a done deal... but the path there is a lot easier.

It's not uncommon to see very attractive men who suck with women because while women think they're attractive, *they* themselves don't - and they're blind to the variety of indicators otherwise. The attention they actually get isn't overt enough or they delude themselves.



Trickster said:


> A female friend told me about a guy chasing her. He is successful, good looking, athletic, educated... but doesn't want a relationship because he has nothing to talk about. He is boring.


This is the number one skill to have imo. Easy, playful and interesting conversation skills without being a suck up. It's a skill like any other. PUA books will give you an idea of where to start (this is where female hostility to scripts and canned material come from; and some people never get past this), but in the end, they virtually all say the only way to develop it is to go out and talk more.

If you're naturally social, you don't need this and probably aren't reading a PUA book.


----------



## ocotillo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> These aren't the exclusive domain of Pickup - there's significant overlap here with a wide variety of books aimed at developing better social skills and social presence.


How long has it been since Dale Carnegie's _How To Win Friends and Influence People_ was published? Nearly 80 years? A lot of what he said is just common sense when you think about it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> So, the only thing that ever matters to a guy is how she looks in that moment he first glimpses her? Nothing she does or says makes any difference whatsoever?


The hotter she is relative to what he normally attracts, the more unattractive/uninteresting behavior many/most? guys will put up with.

I've always suspected this is one of the reasons women find it unattractive of a man to be too enamored by her looks - and kinda informative to why I don't compliment early on. There are a variety of behaviors that show her that he's used to women as attractive as her, she doesn't intimidate him; that he's discerning and wants to see more than just a pretty face.

The guy with no game harps on about how beautiful she is. For some reason, this is like saying "You're way better looking than women I'm usually with. You don't have to do anything else, I'm already sold." -THAT is what PUAs mean by not holding your value, not some sense of one person being better/worse, more valuable or less valuable than another.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The guy with no game harps on about how beautiful she is.


wow...my husband must have OODLES of game then. He never said anything about my looks when we were first dating.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> How long has it been since Dale Carnegie's _How To Win Friends and Influence People_ was published? Nearly 80 years? A lot of what he said is just common sense when you think about it.


It is, and it isn't. Introverts have a hard time digesting a lot of it.

For example, Carnegie says that you should become genuinely interested in other people, common sense right? But pretty difficult for your average introvert to *really* do. Introverts typically only take genuine interest in a select few people.

There is one aspect about the book that I didn't like, but probably because it was focused on getting *everyone* to like you. I don't think one should try to get everyone to like you. I think its important to be distinctive and opinionated, taking clear unmitigated stands even when unpopular; though doing so will cost you plenty of people, it will win you others. 

While there IS a lot of overlap, I've found that some of his more passive suggestions, while generally accomplishing the stated goal, are losers in terms of mating attraction.

There are a variety of things I've found to be distinctly different about seduction, that I've always suspected to be related to some kind of male/female dynamic - akin to her wanting a measure of leadership or his sureness. Carnegie all too often comes off as insisting that one shouldn't take definitive stands, or that those stands should be really passive and softened. In seduction, I've found the hard stance to be valuable. Instead of someone who always tippie toes and softens things, a woman has a clear idea of who you are and what you think and can make a more confident choice about you. The direct nature of it inspires trust I think. Carnegie had a political correctness to him that I think most people will find superficial or artificial in the dating world.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Instant turn-off.  You, right here. Not a chance you could recover from this.
> 
> Observe again the incessant framing of men and women meeting only in "cold starts". Needing "tricks". What a surprise, coming from someone naming themselves "trickster".
> 
> 
> One of the most offensive things to me about PUA peddlers is claiming "naturals" (people like my husband that scoff at PUA bunk) are practicing PUA "tricks". No, they aren't. Confidence is not a trick. Success is not a trick. Having a medical degree, law degree, a great business, etc. - these are not tricks.
> 
> You guys just can't get it. "Tricks" mean you view me as someone to manipulate with deceptions. I of course expect you to say that I misunderstand. It's really the opposite of "tricks" and you just used that word to mean bona-fide confidence instead of trying to trick someone into believing you are confident.


You get way too caught up in terms. Trick/technique/play etc, all just describe a nugget of beneficial wisdom. No one is actually being "tricked", as trick implies deception, and there is no deception. As I've said, you will find the words "don't lie" explicitly stated in virtually every PUA book there is.

To understand the jargon, here's a totally innocuous example: I do all my own maintenance on my vehicles. One particularly pita thing I have to do regularly is change my motorcycle's spark plugs. The service manual says I should remove the seat, remove the gas tank, remove the air box... all just TO GET TO the ignition coils and spark plugs.

I have a nifty TRICK: I remove the radiator mount bolts, push the radiator down a little bit, and poof... I have access to the coils and plugs without having to disassemble half the bike to get there.

See what I mean?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> This thread is about what makes men unattractive.
> 
> I am here telling you that there is nothing you can do to recover from what you have already showed me. There is no amount of explaining you can do.
> 
> But for some reason you guys are like energizer bunnies that never shut off. On and on and on and on and on. Anything except "okay, you don't like that".


Here's the problem as I see it. What is it exactly that you're pointing out that YOU don't like. Whatever you point out, is perfectly fine to me. The closest I can discern is your rejection of "pickup", without seemingly having a good understanding of the specific things it is advising. 

Is it that you don't like a man who addresses the elements of himself that have made him unattractive?

Is it that you don't like meeting people?

Is it that you don't like playful and engaging conversations?

What I see in this thread, are a list of things that most of these books directly address. X behavior is unattractive to most women. Stop it. Do Y, change your mindset, try this or that... etc.



Happyfamily said:


> It has never happened. Not once. I have _never_ come across a guy who has memorized all of this jargon who heard what I said in response and just said "I see how you feel" or "I accept the way you look at this". It is ALWAYS an abject refusal to even consider the possibility that my feelings are legitimate. There must be something wrong with me.


Your feelings about what exactly though? This is what I don't get. You're attacking a cloud. Fundamentally, pickup skills are elements that make a guy more attractive to a woman he just met. There's no deception. There's no lying. They're very closely related to social skills in general, with some subtle differences. So what exactly are you objecting to?



Happyfamily said:


> You cannot invalidate my feelings by telling me some other person likes what you do.
> 
> Get it?


I have no interest in invalidating your feelings. The only concrete thing I've gotten from this discussion is that YOU don't like men, you don't at least tangentially know, coming up and talking to you. That's your right, so you don't accept the advance. But don't blame and pretend he's done something wrong in talking to you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> lol. A perfect example of what is so unattractive about this.
> 
> One woman says: "I do not like PUA"


That's not the objection. PUA is a collection of traits that a lot of experience has born out as being widely attractive.

It makes zero sense to say "I do not like PUA".

You don't like standing up straight, not biting your nails and avoiding fidgeting?

PUA advocates a mindset and certain behaviors that help a guy avoid a perception of being clingy or needy. Do you like needy/clingy?

PUA advocates a mindset that helps a guy shrug off rejection without care, taking affront, or losing confidence. Do you like bitterness and pouting?

Can you see what I'm saying?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The guy with no game harps on about how beautiful she is. For some reason, this is like saying "You're way better looking than women I'm usually with. You don't have to do anything else, I'm already sold." -THAT is what PUAs mean by not holding your value, not some sense of one person being better/worse, more valuable or less valuable than another.


Your reasoning is a$$-backwards, IMHO.

Women don't like it when men focus on their looks because they are tired of being treated like sexual objects that exist only for his sexual gratification. It has nothing to do with machinations about whether he is "holding his value" or dates comparably pretty women, and everything to do with being treated like an actual human being, you know, with a personality, thoughts and feelings and all.

But I gather that is too much of a PITA for the PUA crowd, and so you just go with pretending that you aren't obsessed with her looks? Cuz that isn't lying?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> There is also no parallel theme weaving its way through threads on how women should manipulate men for whatever it is they want.


Because men generally don't consider makeup, revealing clothes and pushup bras to be manipulation.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just as women wear makeup and dress it up to drive more attraction from men, men can make certain adjustments to drive more attraction from women.


I would think the comparable to a woman wearing make-up and nice clothes would be a man who was well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than one focusing on boosting himself up by putting others down.

One thing that makes men very unattractive that you have not at all addressed in any way is the obnoxious, overly arrogant, c0cky jerks that treat women like meat instead of people. Those are ultimately the ones who end up chronically single, not the shy boys in high school.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Is it that you don't like playful and engaging conversations?


If by "playful and engaging" you mean barroom conversations about my tits, with some dude flinging nachos at them, then yeah, I have to say, I'd take a pass.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Your reasoning is a$$-backwards, IMHO.
> 
> Women don't like it when men focus on their looks because they are tired of being treated like sexual objects that exist only for his sexual gratification. It has nothing to do with machinations about whether he is "holding his value" or dates comparably pretty women, and everything to do with being treated like an actual human being, you know, with a personality, thoughts and feelings and all.
> 
> But I gather that you you find that too much of a PITA for the PUA crowd, and so you just go with pretending that you aren't obsessed with her looks? Cuz that isn't lying?


You're presenting a strawman that I'm obsessed with her looks. I obsess about no woman's looks. I have my physical preferences and several women to choose from. Your view is literally OPPOSITE to the mindset encouraged by these books - obsessing over any woman.

In terms of looks alone, my view isn't at all different than that you've previously expressed yours to be. You have a certain physical standard that must be met no? So do I. In fact, so do most people.

To your point - you're not disagreeing with me. You're just viewing it through the eyes of a victim rather than a woman out picking too. Yes, one motivation is that you want him to be not only enamored by your beauty. Yep, you want him to like you for you. But you're also evaluating HIS status. Is he the best YOU can get, not just "what does he like about me". His being enamored with you too eagerly (an apparent sell out, quick offer) signals that you can do better. It is thus less attractive to you. It is a major contributor to how we determine our own sexual value - or how we learn what offers are good vs what offers are bad.

Everyone has innate preferences, but no one innately knows their own sexual value. This value is inferred from the offers you receive. Imagine everyone you see has a number you can see from 1-10 with 10 being most attractive; they don't know their number, according to your preferences. You too have a number, according to their preferences that you can't see. Do you take the first offer you get? Do you hold out for the 10, since that's what you're most attracted to?

Here's what happens: everyone goes for their 10... and because concepts of what is attractive are largely shared, the 10 gets inundated with offers - they learn they must be pretty high value, so they shouldn't accept an offer from a low value mate. From there, everyone works their way down, informed of their value by the return interest of those they pursue. The feeling that, "The ones I want, don't want me" - is a surefire sign that you're selecting up. You either accept a lower offer, or find a way to bump your attractiveness. Everyone is trying to find that to which they're most attracted, and with so many attractive qualities overlapping across people's preferences, the tendency is for people of like value to accept one another.

The really eager guy who is already making an offering on little but looks, is signaling to you that he's discovered you're significantly up from him. That he's so quick to offer, signals your value is higher, and makes you less inclined to accept. In other words, it is less attractive. You had him ranked high on appearance, maybe even some personality, but that eagerness shuts it all down - whether you perceive it because of looks or anything else. Even if he were enamored with something other than your looks, you'll still reject the over eager guy.

That's the logic behind value. What's crazy, is you rated him high enough - you might have been attracted to him... but for whatever reason, he's rated himself low, so he thinks you're a major catch for him; he's really eager and excited you've shown interest because few or none like you have before.

When we say, "hold your value", its literally about not selling yourself out with this eagerness. Its a change in mindset from "OMG she likes me!" to "Why should I really like her?" The difference between desperate and selective.

Do you see how this explains exactly *why* his eagerness is unattractive? Even if the guy wasn't selling out over looks, you'd still find such eagerness unattractive. Because who you're attracted to isn't a judgment you make in a vacuum, it has a relative component... a part influenced by everyone else's choices and mechanisms aimed at figuring out what the best you can get is.

The she was perfect for me, he was perfect for me, destiny stuff is just romantic icing that dismisses why.


----------



## TiggyBlue

always_alone said:


> I would think the comparable to a woman wearing make-up and nice clothes would be a man who was well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than one focusing on boosting himself up by putting others down.


:iagree:
I've never seen a women describe man with a waxed chest as him doing it to be manipulative.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're presenting a strawman that I'm obsessed with her looks. I obsess about no woman's looks.


If you or the many/most men that you cited above are not obsessed with looks, then why do you say this:



> The hotter she is relative to what he normally attracts, the more unattractive/uninteresting behavior many/most? guys will put up with.


If that isn't looks-obsessed, then nothing is.

The rest is just gobbledygook as far as I'm concerned. My SO was very eager to get to know me, and it did not lead me to devalue him one whit. Indeed, quite the opposite, as he was genuinely interested in me, a whole person with thoughts and feelings and all.

Yes, yes I am disagreeing with you.


----------



## Happyfamily

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> there is no deception.


You are the perfect example of deception, on the one hand ranking women by looks, but pretending not to care about looks...obsessed with sex but pretending not to care about sex...

...arguing that words don't have meanings, except for the meanings you want me to believe when you are trying to convince me of something...

*Always Alone* - exactly:



> I would think the comparable to a woman wearing make-up and nice clothes would be a man who was well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than one focusing on boosting himself up by putting others down.



There are many women contributing here that feel the same way, and you are telling all of us that we're wrong, we don't understand, you are doing the same thing we are doing...

It's unattractive. It is telling us we are stupid. We should not have minds of our own. Seems to me this is over-controlling behavior. Do I want to be a wife or even date someone who tells me how to think? Nope.


----------



## Happyfamily

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Can you see what I'm saying?


Sure can. It's unattractive. 

All these books you assert to have read seem to have put you into an alternate reality. This reminds me of discussions I have had with Scientologists. 

They have the same pretentious vocabulary, all based upon science fiction writings by L. Ron Hubbard. It's my engrams interfering in my valance so my thetan can't be perceptic.

I am not buying into PUA jargon and world-view. That doesn't make me stupid. It doesn't mean I can't "understand".

It means I can't be indoctrinated. Brainwashed. A compliant cult member. Engaging with you has all the same feel of engaging with a Scientologist trying to recruit me.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> So, the only thing that ever matters to a guy is how she looks in that moment he first glimpses her? Nothing she does or says makes any difference whatsoever?
> 
> Deep.
> 
> I can't speak for other women, but my first impressions can change dramatically, even in a short time.
> 
> And, yes, I find boring unattractive. And superficial very boring.


I both agree and disagree with you. Ugh, my opinion on the "30 seconds he knows if he'd have sex with her" comment is so jumbled...let's see if I can organize here. 

There are times when I know in a very short amount of time whether or not I want to get to know someone better. Certain people give off certain vibes, and those vibes will either pique my interest, or make me want to be as far away from them as possible. There are men I've seen where I just know, even on the first look without any conversation, that I wouldn't be interested in _any_ kind of acquaintance with. Sometimes, you just know. So, to an extent, I can understand the idea of knowing how much you're attracted to or interested in someone within 30 seconds. 

However, I also agree with your position. Some men are entirely shallow and have absolutely no interest in the woman's personality, her interests, her profession...they care only about her looks and how great she'd be to screw, so instead of judging her as a person, they base their intentions on her looks alone. So the idea that, for some men, a woman is no better than her physical appearance is repulsive. And men like that _are_ unattractive. But they will never have a meaningful relationship with an intelligent, self-respecting woman, and it is important not to lump the men in the first paragraph in with those of the second.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> One of the most offensive things to me about PUA peddlers is claiming "naturals" (people like my husband that scoff at PUA bunk) are practicing PUA "tricks". No, they aren't. Confidence is not a trick. Success is not a trick. Having a medical degree, law degree, a great business, etc. - these are not tricks.


This I agree with.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> . . . . it is very hard for either sex to see life through the others eyes. The best we can do is embrace the differences that enhance our relationships and *do our best to understand those that don't.*


I'll give you an "amen brother" on this.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> At that point, when all is really "equal", it is all about the vibe.
> 
> But IMHO, it is rarely equal. All the men I know who have ongoing troubles with women, it is for very good and obvious reason.


I've have troubles with women in the past, so I'll address one by one.



> Some traits that come to mind that perhaps you, as a man, might not notice:
> -very controlling about how women should be or ought to behave


Nope, never ever controlled or desired to control any woman. Now after being cheated on I had an expectation on how someone should behave if they want to keep me, but I never really ever conveyed my expectations because I simply broke up.




> -expects women to follow a specified script as to how to properly adore him


Really? I don't even know what that would look like.




> -overly high estimation of himself,


Nope. I have always been confident, but also confident on how to treat a woman right. Not exactly sure what this high estimation means.



> -objectifies women, treats them as less than human


Not at all.



> -all talk, bragging, but no action


I was never a bragger. I believe in humility, modesty and being humble.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> This thread is about what makes men unattractive.
> 
> I am here telling you that there is nothing you can do to recover from what you have already showed me. There is no amount of explaining you can do.
> 
> My feelings about this are facts. If you have read about how to deal with a woman's feelings, it is not something you can argue with. I am not your wife. I am not at one of your parties. If I were at one of these parties, I would make a mental note to stay away from you.
> 
> When a man tells me he doesn't like green peppers or talking about how to match drapes to carpeting I don't stuff down his throat about how he really does want to eat peppers and learn this exciting home decoration tip. If he doesn't want anal with a strap-on, I accept that. That's the end of it.
> 
> But for some reason you guys are like energizer bunnies that never shut off. On and on and on and on and on. Anything except "okay, you don't like that".
> 
> *It has never happened. Not once. I have never come across a guy who has memorized all of this jargon who heard what I said in response and just said "I see how you feel" or "I accept the way you look at this". It is ALWAYS an abject refusal to even consider the possibility that my feelings are legitimate. There must be something wrong with me. *
> 
> You cannot invalidate my feelings by telling me some other person likes what you do.
> 
> Get it?


Although I think you're taking Tricksters posts too personally, I agree with the paragraph in bold. If a man believes that his way into a woman's life(and/or bed) is to manipulate her, without regard for her feelings or desires, he's a selfish jerk. No amount of rephrasing or debate or conversation is going to convince me otherwise. There are plenty of women ready and willing to have sex without being manipulated or deceived, so I don't believe that manipulation is necessary at all. And this applies to both genders.


----------



## Created2Write

Personal said:


> I am not a fan of the pick up artist, and have never felt compelled to trick women into bedding me. I prefer to wear my own skin than wear another. I would rather a woman not to have a sexual experience with me, than coerce her into something through false pretence.
> 
> I might add that not wanting to coerce a woman into sex is a position of strength, not one of weakness.
> 
> 
> 
> Very!


Your attitude with regards to manipulation is HIGHLY attractive. You would rather not have sex with a woman, than have sex with her under a false pretense. I respect that attitude SO much. It's refreshing to see, quite honestly. Likewise, I would rather not go out/have a relationship with a guy I'm crazy about, than use sex as a means to real him in.


----------



## Created2Write

jld said:


> Well, Hawking _is_ married . . .
> 
> But I get your point, nn. It is not just intelligence that appeals. It is the packaging, too.


For me, personality and intelligence are more important than looks. That doesn't mean looks are _un_important to me, because I do have standards. But the man I was most in love with besides my husband was the most physically unattractive guy I dated, and yet, based on his personality, intelligence, sense of humor, and the way he respected me and treated me, he was the first guy I wanted to have sex with. Had we dated longer, I'd have given him my virginity. I was crazy about him, deeply in love with him, and extremely sexually attracted to him.


----------



## Created2Write

ScarletBegonias said:


> wow...my husband must have OODLES of game then. He never said anything about my looks when we were first dating.


You know, my husband didn't either. But I don't attribute it to his "game". (I also don't think that a man who compliment a woman has less game just because he compliments her, but I digress...) But I didn't really need or expect him to compliment me on my looks. Other guys did that all of the time, and I was far more interested in what he thought of me as a person, and where he wanted the relationship to go, rather than whether or not he thought I was beautiful.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Your reasoning is a$$-backwards, IMHO.
> 
> Women don't like it when men focus on their looks because they are tired of being treated like sexual objects that exist only for his sexual gratification. It has nothing to do with machinations about whether he is "holding his value" or dates comparably pretty women, and everything to do with being treated like an actual human being, you know, with a personality, thoughts and feelings and all.
> 
> But I gather that is too much of a PITA for the PUA crowd, and so you just go with pretending that you aren't obsessed with her looks? Cuz that isn't lying?


Well, when someone's primary goal is landing awesome sex with someone out of their league, just so they can brag that they did it, personality really doesn't come into play. In my opinion, only people who are immature and insecure behave that way. Plenty of people want NSA sex and get it without being manipulative and shallow.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> If by "playful and engaging" you mean barroom conversations about my tits, with some dude flinging nachos at them, then yeah, I have to say, I'd take a pass.


You probably wouldn't be pushing your tits up to high heaven either would you? Its all proportional.

I don't know what you'd consider playful and engaging. To be honest, I can't picture much playful about you because your posts seem to only contain bitterness. Engaging, sure... but as a guy, if all you have is serious intellectualism... good luck.

Teasing, joking and pranking play an important part in relationships imo.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I've read a fair number of these back-and-forths about PUA behaviors and I wonder: 

1. Do they work?

and 

2. If so, why is that a bad thing?

If a guy wants to improve himself, he should. If a woman sees those behaviors as attractive, then she can respond to them positively. If not, she can move on. You can't "know" someone in one date, or five dates, or ten dates. Relationships unfold over time, so if, by date 5 or 6 or whatever, you feel like you were "tricked" or "duped" by the guy back at date one . . . um, then dump him. 

I must need to read up on some PUA literature, I guess. Maybe I'm not getting what's so onerous about PUA behavior for women. I can see right through it, most of the time. Sometimes I find it disgusting (in which case the guy wouldn't get my number), other times I find it attractive, in which case he would. 

I don't think PUA behavior disenfranchises me from any sort of choice. If I think you're a jerk--for PUA behavior, for the way you treat your dog, for the bumper stickers on your car--then I don't have to give you the time of day.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I would think the comparable to a woman wearing make-up and nice clothes would be a man who was well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than one focusing on boosting himself up by putting others down.
> 
> One thing that makes men very unattractive that you have not at all addressed in any way is the obnoxious, overly arrogant, c0cky jerks that treat women like meat instead of people. Those are ultimately the ones who end up chronically single, not the shy boys in high school.


:iagree:

Some people want to believe that everything we do as individuals is a direct result of our desire to manipulate others; a woman who is into fashion and conscious of her appearance _must_ be doing it to manipulate men into being attracted to her. It's impossible for it to be for any other reason. This stance and others like it is nothing more than a far-reaching desire to justify actions and choices that many people find unattractive, and seems to run rampant in those who can't accept being unattractive to anyone.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> If by "playful and engaging" you mean barroom conversations about my tits, with some dude flinging nachos at them, then yeah, I have to say, I'd take a pass.


ROFL. No kidding. :iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> You are the perfect example of deception, on the one hand ranking women by looks, but pretending not to care about looks...obsessed with sex but pretending not to care about sex...
> 
> ...arguing that words don't have meanings, except for the meanings you want me to believe when you are trying to convince me of something...


Oh my gosh, absolutely perfect diagnosis! 



> There are many women contributing here that feel the same way, and you are telling all of us that we're wrong, we don't understand, you are doing the same thing we are doing...
> 
> It's unattractive. It is telling us we are stupid. We should not have minds of our own. Seems to me this is over-controlling behavior. Do I want to be a wife or even date someone who tells me how to think? Nope.


Exactly! It's a hidden desire for all women to be the same in a few key was, so that all women can be predictable and, this, fvckable...so that no woman is ever out of reach, regardless of how intelligent, successful, or good looking she is. I've seen it all over the PUA websites...men who are in their thirties and forties and still living with their parents, who believe they can get any woman out there because women, supposedly, all respond to the same basic attributes in a guy. It's sick.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> And of course, the efforts you are going to are simply about self-improvement. Some women are too timid and too much like doormats to take a man for everything he's got. Whereas you are just developing self-confidence.
> 
> Which we all know is *very* attractive.


Your gold-digger would have to be willing to be obvious about only wanting him for money for a comparison to be valid. Being obvious as such, only a guy who doesn't care will accept that.

You start from the faulty assumption that her doing so is "taking a man for everything he's got" or some kind of crime to him. She can't do so overtly without his approval.

Pickup is overt. It doesn't involve lying. Oh, and on the attractiveness of a woman who will exchange sex for money... well, abhorrent as it may be to you, there are apparently plenty of men happy to do so.


----------



## MEM2020

I'm in this shopping center near home and start to walk towards my car, take a couple steps and realize it's a shorter path going around the building in the opposite direction. 

So I stop and reverse course. Just as I do that a woman who I had just walked passed going in the opposite direction finishes a conversation with friends and sets off a couple steps ahead of me in the same direction I'm now going. 

Corner of the building she turns left, which was what I was going to do. 

Moment of assessment:
1. There's no one on this side street and the parking lot is mostly deserted of people. 
2. The timing of me switching directions might have made it seem like I was following her.
3. It had just gotten dark.
4. If I'm her I am definitely not going to like having a strange guy at my heels walking to my car at night.

I take a longer route to my car. 

Basic courtesy 101. If she'd been a he, I wouldn't have done that. 





techmom said:


> The men who were whining in the misogyny thread were basically whining because women still felt unsafe even though they were the nicest, most gentlemanly men ever.
> 
> Sorry, but I still can't get over the fact that the conversation was about exploring women's feelings then some men interrupted feeling offended that we were discussing our feelings. The only feelings they want to hear is the ones glorifying men, not the ones where we discuss how we can make gender relations better.
> 
> I find that the men I find most unattractive are the men who try to make "feminism" into a four letter word, like it is something to be ashamed of. It is not, we earned the right to vote and the right to support ourselves because of feminism.
> 
> Also, men who are afraid of me expressing my emotions are unattractive. Why are my emotions too scary for you to handle?


----------



## NobodySpecial

GettingIt said:


> I've read a fair number of these back-and-forths about PUA behaviors and I wonder:
> 
> 1. Do they work?


It always comes back to this. Work to achieve WHAT?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You probably wouldn't be pushing your tits up to high heaven either would you? Its all proportional.
> 
> I don't know what you'd consider playful and engaging. To be honest, I can't picture much playful about you because your posts seem to only contain bitterness. Engaging, sure... but as a guy, if all you have is serious intellectualism... good luck.
> 
> Teasing, joking and pranking play an important part in relationships imo.


Different strokes for different folks, and I suppose water seeps to its own level. "Playful" does not need to be equivalent to classless. I think it is great that you get whatever it is you want with people or person whom you want it. Your experience is very much not representative, I'm afraid, despite your ridiculous protestations to how worldly you are. 

Humor was the first and continues to be the best thing about my husband. Making a "tit" reference to a stranger would never occur to him.


----------



## GettingIt_2

NobodySpecial said:


> It always comes back to this. Work to achieve WHAT?


Whatever the dude's objective is . . . get a date, get a phone number, get laid. Do enough women respond to make it worthwhile behavior for the guy to adopt?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> You are the perfect example of deception, on the one hand ranking women by looks, but pretending not to care about looks...obsessed with sex but pretending not to care about sex...
> 
> ...arguing that words don't have meanings, except for the meanings you want me to believe when you are trying to convince me of something.


I never said I don't care about looks. There are women I find physically attractive and women I don't. The point is there are plenty of women who meet my standard of physical attraction. There is absolutely no reason to obsess over a woman's looks.

I'm not remotely obsessed with sex, but damn right I care about it. I like sex, why shouldn't I want to have it? Gimme a break with your straw men.



Happyfamily said:


> There are many women contributing here that feel the same way, and you are telling all of us that we're wrong, we don't understand, you are doing the same thing we are doing...
> 
> It's unattractive. It is telling us we are stupid. We should not have minds of our own. Seems to me this is over-controlling behavior. Do I want to be a wife or even date someone who tells me how to think? Nope.


I am not telling you what to think. I am trying to understand WHAT YOU THINK. To me, you're attacking a cloud, because PUAs have an answer to just about every trait listed in this thread as unattractive. So not doing these unattractive things is unattractive? lol for serious?

You took issue with it being deception. These books explicitly say be honest, direct and assertive.

You took issue with use of the word "trick", as if it were a deception. So I answered. Its trick as in "short cut", or effective appeal. A trick in same manner as my way of changing my spark plugs is a trick. Its lesser known and effective. This isn't a matter of claiming words have no meaning, but pointing out that words are used in many more ways than their dictionary meanings. Are you saying this isn't true?

Also, bear in mind, I'm not trying to attract ANY of you here. I'm discussing the subject. I couldn't care less that you find my expressing my views as controlling or unattractive. It's a stupidly pointless position. I could say the very same about you! You insist on a view that is different from mine! Why are you so controlling!?

When you say, "needy is unattractive", and PUAs say "Do x to not be needy", then it literally makes ZERO LOGICAL SENSE for you to say you disagree with PUAs. Do you understand what I'm saying? You just validated what they say.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> It always comes back to this. Work to achieve WHAT?


Great question. Self-improvement is always a good thing if done solely because the individual genuinely needs/wants to improve. Myself, I'm not very good at personal discipline. I don't work to improve myself to get something from other people, I improve myself because I genuinely want to be better. This automatically effects my personal relationships without me manipulating anyone.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Happyfamily said:


> You are the perfect example of deception, on the one hand ranking women by looks, but pretending not to care about looks...obsessed with sex but pretending not to care about sex...


To be honest, I really don't think he even knows. I think his sideways word meaning alteration allows him to believe every word he says as he perceived he is saying them.


----------



## Cosmos

nuclearnightmare said:


> A few people have expressed admiration for scientific expertlse.......i.e........that it is attractive in a man. How many women here find Stephen Hawking attractive?


Carl Sagan used to make me swoon (hence my username), as does Brian Cox Not so much their looks, mind you, but their uber-enthusiasm for their fascinating work.


----------



## Happyfamily

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I am not telling you what to think.


lol. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. 

Just another example of doing the opposite of what you are saying.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I would think the comparable to a woman wearing make-up and nice clothes would be a man who was well-dressed and well-groomed...


Do you think male clothing styles emphasize sexuality to the degree that female clothing styles do? 

I guess this is something I can't really know for sure, because I don't see men as women do, but looking at it simply from the standpoint of a parent, there does seem to be a difference. 

For example, it is perfectly acceptable to dress a little boy as an exact mirror image of his Daddy, complete with a little suit and tie. 

It is not usually socially acceptable to dress a little girl as an exact mirror image of her Mommy. With little girls, parents usually end up setting age boundaries for when they will be allowed to wear the dress lengths, high heels, hosiery, make up, etc. of a grown woman. 

To me, the reason seems to be that Western standards of dress and grooming accentuate a woman's body sexually. High heels, for example, subtlety alter a woman's gait and force her to lean just very slightly forward in a way that emphasizes her buttocks and bosom and I have a hard time imagining that's an accident.


----------



## Happyfamily

Created2Write said:


> Great question. Self-improvement is always a good thing if done solely because the individual genuinely needs/wants to improve. Myself, I'm not very good at personal discipline. I don't work to improve myself to get something from other people, I improve myself because I genuinely want to be better. This automatically effects my personal relationships without me manipulating anyone.


Yeah, this brings to mind Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" as a very different counterpoint to the PUA manipulation.

Carnegie's book is all about accomplishing mutual objectives as a team, and although he wrote it primarily in a business setting it has a lot of value in other contexts as well.

PUA is adversarial, and the terminology reflects that, with women being "targets" for conquest rather than team-mates. Dale talks about lifting people up instead of putting them down. Being true to your word is important in Carnegie's setting vs. my eyes watching someone here do the exact opposite of what he is saying. 

Our interlocutor is going to say that it is all the same of course, despite a lot of ladies here demonstrating it is completely different.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> The grocery store is an example of seeing people "cold". Guys check out the ladies in some pretty predictable ways. As I pass by, I can tell you who is going to turn around for a peek at my rear. It isn't going to be the guy who looks me directly in the eye and smiles "hello". It's the guy pretending not to notice me, but he's not actually focusing on where he is pretending to look. He is using his peripherals to time the turn-around.


ha... I look her in the eyes, smile and say hi AND turn to check out her ass if I want. The only reason to do so on the sly is if you're an unassertive puss.



Happyfamily said:


> There are different levels of "creepy" with this behavior. You can see it in the eyes. Furtive glancing, the "you caught me" worried look, then down at the floor or else the "what should I pretend to be doing now" look. The creepiest are going to come right back for more looks, and when they maneuver for my aisle they are locating me, not the salad dressing shelf.


All of these are passive behaviors PUAs preach against. In fact, there's a rule of thumb advocated: If you find a woman attractive, go smile and say hello... right then and there. Right now. Delaying to work yourself up to it, or indirectly loitering around her is passive and creepy. Talk to her for as long as feels natural (which may only be hello if you find nothing else to go on), then, you're done. If there's no reciprocal vibe, there's no where to take it... and its advocated to end it before she does. Doing so sends some kind of signal... "Oh, ok... he wasn't creepy". I've had several women approach me after my initial approach didn't have the vibe. Which really meant, they were off guard and defensive. My moving on revealed that the defense was unnecessary.

You know how Super Target has a Starbucks in the front? A lot of people get coffee and then do their shopping. I've met someone from having a brief interaction in the Starbucks after getting polite disinterest - a brush off half-smile that said "I'm acknowledging you, but I think you're trying to get something from me"; there was no vibe/receptivity, so I let it go and wandered off to do my shopping, only to get a comment and bright smile from her later when we cross paths on the same isle. Her comment led to more conversation and landed me a date. Without my initial approach and walking away, she probably never says anything to me in the isle.

PUA advocates always talking to her right away, and walk away when it feels natural to. Knowing what to say... well, you never really *know* what to say... you say whatever comes to you. That's why some PUAs will advise having some canned material to get started. The more you engage in these sudden conversations with strangers however, the better you get at it and the more natural it feels to everyone.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I am not telling you what to think. I am trying to understand WHAT YOU THINK. To me, you're attacking a cloud, because PUAs have an answer to just about every trait listed in this thread as unattractive. So not doing these unattractive things is unattractive? lol for serious?


It's not the doing. It's the goal. It's the intentions behind the actions. You have been told this about 1,000 times. Which is part of why you have the rep of being disingenuous.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> ha... I look her in the eyes, smile and say hi AND turn to check out her ass if I want. The only reason to do so on the sly is if you're an unassertive puss.


Ew. Really? Just yuck. And from this someone is supposed to believe that you have ANY motivation other than sex? I mean, aside from being just low brow and dumb, I find it hard to imagine you are going to convince ANYONE that this kind of tripe is not geared at scoring with likewise low brow ho's.


----------



## WyshIknew

ocotillo said:


> Do you think male clothing styles emphasize sexuality to the degree that female clothing styles do?
> 
> I guess this is something I can't really know for sure, because I don't see men as women do, but looking at it simply from the standpoint of a parent, there does seem to be a difference.
> 
> For example, it is perfectly acceptable to dress a little boy as an exact mirror image of his Daddy, complete with a little suit and tie.
> 
> It is not usually socially acceptable to dress a little girl as an exact mirror image of her Mommy. With little girls, parents usually end up setting age boundaries for when they will be allowed to wear the dress lengths, high heels, hosiery, make up, etc. of a grown woman.
> 
> To me, the reason seems to be that Western standards of dress and grooming accentuate a woman's body sexually. High heels, for example, subtlety alter a woman's gait and force her to lean just very slightly forward in a way that emphasizes her buttocks and bosom and I have a hard time imagining that's an accident.


I think my clothing at times accentuates my sexuality, I might be an older guy but I'm not dead.

I like to wear shirts that accentuate my V shape such as it is.

I like to wear CK undies, they are comfortable and they make the most of my package.

I also like to wear fairly tight trousers when I go out.

I don't see why my wife should put up with a shambling lump of a man just because I'm older.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I would think the comparable to a woman wearing make-up and nice clothes would be a man who was well-dressed and well-groomed, rather than one focusing on boosting himself up by putting others down.


Come on AA... make-up and push-up bras aren't basic grooming and dress. A single woman is trying to up her attractiveness to the max. There simply isn't as much room as far as appearance goes, for men to play up their looks anyway. There is enormous room to play up personality.

Where did I say boost yourself by putting others down? Do you consider a tease to be self-promotion at the expense of others? Socially adept people tease and get teased regularly. You roll with it and have fun and everyone builds comfort from it. Its the people who take it seriously because they're very insecure that don't enjoy it. I personally find no harm in it and really enjoy when a woman throws some jabs. I enjoy making a comment and getting that punch in the arm in response... in fact, I kinda get the vibe they LIKE punching me in the arm.

Male and female play these games from childhood... and I don't think they ever stop.



always_alone said:


> One thing that makes men very unattractive that you have not at all addressed in any way is the obnoxious, overly arrogant, c0cky jerks that treat women like meat instead of people. Those are ultimately the ones who end up chronically single, not the shy boys in high school.


I can only speak to what I've seen. The former gets more interest from women than the later. The shy guys will typically admit this. Its even popular lament: "why do the jerks get all the girls!?!?"

The shy guy ends up with little experience with women, and tends to settle down quickly (women are rare, commit early). The jerk has more volatile relationships and takes longer to settle down (women are common, don't need to commit), but has no shortage of experience.

Do you disagree?


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> I've read a fair number of these back-and-forths about PUA behaviors and I wonder:
> 
> 1. Do they work?
> 
> and
> 
> 2. If so, why is that a bad thing?
> 
> If a guy wants to improve himself, he should. If a woman sees those behaviors as attractive, then she can respond to them positively. If not, she can move on. You can't "know" someone in one date, or five dates, or ten dates. Relationships unfold over time, so if, by date 5 or 6 or whatever, you feel like you were "tricked" or "duped" by the guy back at date one . . . um, then dump him.
> 
> I must need to read up on some PUA literature, I guess. Maybe I'm not getting what's so onerous about PUA behavior for women. I can see right through it, most of the time. Sometimes I find it disgusting (in which case the guy wouldn't get my number), other times I find it attractive, in which case he would.
> 
> I don't think PUA behavior disenfranchises me from any sort of choice. If I think you're a jerk--for PUA behavior, for the way you treat your dog, for the bumper stickers on your car--then I don't have to give you the time of day.


For me the worst thing about this stuff are the websites set up to further the cause.

I have no problems with men or women improving themselves but what kind of insecure sad sack of a man must you be to brag on a website about some woman you've humped and dumped?


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Do you think male clothing styles emphasize sexuality to the degree that female clothing styles do?
> 
> I guess this is something I can't really know for sure, because I don't see men as women do, but looking at it simply from the standpoint of a parent, there does seem to be a difference.
> 
> For example, it is perfectly acceptable to dress a little boy as an exact mirror image of his Daddy, complete with a little suit and tie.
> 
> It is not usually socially acceptable to dress a little girl as an exact mirror image of her Mommy. With little girls, parents usually end up setting age boundaries for when they will be allowed to wear the dress lengths, high heels, hosiery, make up, etc. of a grown woman.
> 
> To me, the reason seems to be that Western standards of dress and grooming accentuate a woman's body sexually. High heels, for example, subtlety alter a woman's gait and force her to lean just very slightly forward in a way that emphasizes her buttocks and bosom and I have a hard time imagining that's an accident.


Even women's clothing styles don't always accentuate sexuality. For casual, I wear these cute capri pants and a cap sleeved tee that my husband loves. For summer a sundress is cool and nice looking. Back in the day when suits were worn to work, I had this great charcoal grey suit that made me look like something that belonged on the cover of Fortune. Where I live, you see lots of nicely dressed women whose outfits don't suggest sexuality at all. In fact, if I was 6 inches taller, I would love to shop in my colleague's closet.

Every once in a blue moon, I will wear something provocative when out with DH, because he likes it. Usually this is somewhere not near our home. But mostly the boots, shoes, costumes and outfits stay at home.

I never dressed that way as a younger woman either because it attracted all the most dirt bag attention. As a young Catholic woman, I had a pretty bad reputation since I was as DTF as anyone with a bad reputation might be. But I definitely insisted on FWB since I could not stomach the neanderthals even when young and stupid.


----------



## NobodySpecial

AH! Who remembers "Let's talk about sex" by Salt n Peppah??? I think it was Wysh's "humped and dumped" comment.


----------



## Happyfamily

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> PUA advocates always talking to her right away.


Another untruthful statement. The Game even has a diagram showing how to approach _someone else _and ignore the "target". I see this called the "aloofness" principle:



> Paradoxically, a pick-up artist can make people like him and become fascinated with him simply by ignoring them. This is another crucial part of the seduction process, and the black mirror technique. People want things that are scarce, and things that they cannot have. If you are aloof to a person, and don't seem particularly interested, that person will want your attention, and become more interested


More exactly:




> The pick-up artist is in a bar, and sees a group of people with a girl he is interested in and thinks he might want to seduce. He then approaches the group in an easy, upright manner to convey confidence and high social status. He gets the group's attention with stories and impressive feats, and talks to them for a while, all the time ignoring the girl he likes.



That's why this is all so much bunk: talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are supposed to approach directly, but not approach directly and ignore instead. You have proven in spades how what you say cannot be trusted. This is a CRUCIAL part of PUA: ignoring. So you are totally wrong in asserting it ALWAYS advocates talking to her right away. You think we can't look this up on our own. 

This is highly unattractive in a person: a chameleon where the only thing you can count on is them not being genuine. You are going to see whatever face they want to show in order to get something from you at that moment.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Happyfamily said:


> Another untruthful statement. The Game even has a diagram showing how to approach _someone else _and ignore the "target". I see this called the "aloofness" principle:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why this is all so much bunk: talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are supposed to approach directly, but not approach directly and ignore instead.
> 
> This is highly unattractive in a person: a chameleon where the only thing you can count on is them not being genuine. You are going to see whatever face they want to show in order to get something from you at that moment.


The thing that sickens me is that it can and does "work". With people who are already broken and could really stand better treatment than some asshat getting in some ****.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Huh. Sounds to me like everyone is talking about different behaviors here . . . all of them called "PUA." At one end of the spectrum, we have legit "self improvement." At the other we have immature (at best) assh*le behavior. 

I don't think anyone here is defending the sort of behavior that Wysh referenced in his last post. 

Nonetheless, if a guy gets what he wants through a certain set of behaviors (be they judged reprehensible or not by some women), he's got no motivation to stop such behaviors. 

That's why I asked, "Do PUA tactics work?" Obviously, on some women. Does that make the women "victims?" I'm a caveat emporium type of gal when it comes to being out in the meat market, but there ARE vulnerable individuals out there--of both genders--who will fall victim to unscrupulous jerks in one way or another.


----------



## NobodySpecial

GettingIt said:


> Huh. Sounds to me like everyone is talking about different behaviors here . . . all of them called "PUA." At one end of the spectrum, we have legit "self improvement." At the other we have immature (at best) assh*le behavior.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is defending the sort of behavior that Wysh referenced in his last post.


Are you kidding? Did you READ Dvl's post?



> Nonetheless, if a guy gets what he wants through a certain set of behaviors (be they judged reprehensible or not by some women), he's got no motivation to stop such behaviors.
> 
> That's why I asked, "Do PUA tactics work?" Obviously, on some women.


They do. And that itself is what is reprehensible. They work on broken women whose self esteem does not allow them to recognize that they are just objects. That is the point.




> Does that make the women "victims?" I'm a caveat emporium type of gal when it comes to being out in the meat market, but there ARE vulnerable individuals out there--of both genders--who will fall victim to unscrupulous jerks in one way or another.


Indeed.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. Really? Just yuck. And from this someone is supposed to believe that you have ANY motivation other than sex? I mean, aside from being just low brow and dumb, I find it hard to imagine you are going to convince ANYONE that this kind of tripe is not geared at scoring with likewise low brow ho's.


Looking at a woman's ass is low brow and dumb? Shame on me to look at what I find attractive. Let me cover my eyes and pretend I don't want to see it? This is just silly.

Nah, if I want to look, I look. I don't stare though... I've seen enough nice asses, there's no need to burn one into my retina. Its just dumb to say we shouldn't look imo. There's nothing wrong with either sex checking out the others body. The reverse happens too... notice a nice body from behind, walk past and check out her face. Physical elements play a role in almost everyone's attraction so its just stupid to pretend we shouldn't look.

I've caught women eye my package or turn to check out my butt. The tattoo on my left arm gets a lot of attention. So what. I didn't think "ew". I thought, "haha, I saw you look" (because y'all are so damn good at being subtle!). To my mind though, so what if someone looks. We're human, and I think we're all looking, or we want to and are too afraid of judgment.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Looking at a woman's ass is low brow and dumb? Shame on me to look at what I find attractive. Let me cover my eyes and pretend I don't want to see it? This is just silly.
> 
> Nah, if I want to look, I look. I don't stare though... I've seen enough nice asses, there's no need to burn one into my retina. Its just dumb to say we shouldn't look imo. There's nothing wrong with either sex checking out the others body. The reverse happens too... notice a nice body from behind, walk past and check out her face. Physical elements play a role in almost everyone's attraction so its just stupid to pretend we shouldn't look.
> 
> I've caught women eye my package or turn to check out my butt. The tattoo on my left arm gets a lot of attention. So what. I didn't think "ew". I thought, "haha, I saw you look" (because y'all are so damn good at being subtle!). To my mind though, so what if someone looks. We're human, and I think we're all looking, or we want to and are too afraid of judgment.


You just live in a tawdry and yucky meat land that I am completely glad I am not part of. Have a nice life. Low brow? Oh yah.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Where I live, you see lots of nicely dressed women whose outfits don't suggest sexuality at all.


Not at all? Maybe you're not "Seeing" women as men do? 

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not talking about scantily clad or revealing here. I'm talking about standards of attire you would see in any upscale professional office in the Western world. 

The effect that high heels have on a woman's pelvic articulation is one example, but there are plenty of others. Western standards of dress and grooming forbid a man to show his legs in formal situations. Office dress codes may regulate how much leg a woman may show, but she can almost always show at least some.

I don't *know *that there are not counterparts to this in male attire, but I am having trouble thinking of any. --Certainly not something that we would deem inappropriate on a little boy.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Ew. Really? Just yuck. And from this someone is supposed to believe that you have ANY motivation other than sex? I mean, aside from being just low brow and dumb, I find it hard to imagine you are going to convince ANYONE that this kind of tripe is not geared at scoring with likewise low brow ho's.


So you are saying you have never checked out a guy's butt, or enjoyed a glimpse of a fit guy with his shirt off ever?


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I both agree and disagree with you. Ugh, my opinion on the "30 seconds he knows if he'd have sex with her" comment is so jumbled...let's see if I can organize here.


We all say this, as if they stirred up a fantasy in our heads. The fantasy may be well away from the reality however.



Created2Write said:


> There are times when I know in a very short amount of time whether or not I want to get to know someone better. Certain people give off certain vibes, and those vibes will either pique my interest, or make me want to be as far away from them as possible.


Yeah, but how do you analyze where they have one vibe at one moment but typically have another overall vibe.



Created2Write said:


> There are men I've seen where I just know, even on the first look without any conversation, that I wouldn't be interested in _any_ kind of acquaintance with. Sometimes, you just know. So, to an extent, I can understand the idea of knowing how much you're attracted to or interested in someone within 30 seconds.


I think I'm starting to go away from this 30 second rule. There are many types of people on this earth. I've had some grow on me the more they talk and interact, you get a feeling of breath and depth. Where others have that huge up front "hit".

However going through the situations it's like Forrest Gump, you never know what your gonna get.



Created2Write said:


> However, I also agree with your position. Some men are entirely shallow and have absolutely no interest in the woman's personality, her interests, her profession...they care only about her looks and how great she'd be to screw, so instead of judging her as a person, they base their intentions on her looks alone.


It's kind of stupid.



Created2Write said:


> So the idea that, for some men, a woman is no better than her physical appearance is repulsive. And men like that _are_ unattractive. But they will never have a meaningful relationship with an intelligent, self-respecting woman, and it is important not to lump the men in the first paragraph in with those of the second.


Sure they would have a relationship with a self respecting woman. But she has to pass his physical attraction bar.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> So you are saying you have never checked out a guy's butt, or enjoyed a glimpse of a fit guy with his shirt off ever?


Certainly not that anyone would see!


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Cosmos said:


> Carl Sagan used to make me swoon (hence my username), as does Brian Cox Not so much their looks, mind you, but their uber-enthusiasm for their fascinating work.


men do not do it for me in terms of attraction. that said just wanted to agree that Brian Cox is indeed a great actor. I always notice him in even the smallest part. I probably haven't even seen him in his best role to date.


----------



## TiggyBlue

NobodySpecial said:


> Certainly not that anyone would see!


The perk of having Peripheral vision


----------



## NobodySpecial

TiggyBlue said:


> The perk of having Peripheral vision


Which is well and good. And very much not what was being discussed in the post to which I responded.


----------



## TiggyBlue

NobodySpecial said:


> Which is well and good. And very much not what was being discussed in the post to which I responded.


It was just a joke.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> Not at all? Maybe you're not "Seeing" women as men do?
> 
> Please don't misunderstand. I'm not talking about scantily clad or revealing here. I'm talking about standards of attire you would see in any upscale professional office in the Western world.
> 
> The effect that high heels have on a woman's pelvic articulation is one example, but there are plenty of others.


Wtf? Are we talking white collar? When I worked, years ago, as an affiliate to Price Waterhouse, high heels were inappropriate. Your average "white collar" job nowadays is more like khakis and the like. I did a little mental inventory of my office and cannot bring forward a single woman wearing anything even remotely sexual, and high heals? Nope. Not sure where you work. Though I have observed more high heels in bigger cities.



> Western standards of dress and grooming forbid a man to show his legs in formal situations.


Thank goodness! So few men bear legs worth showing! 



> Office dress codes may regulate how much leg a woman may show, but she can almost always show at least some.
> 
> I don't *know *that there are not counterparts to this in male attire, but I am having trouble thinking of any. --Certainly not something that we would deem inappropriate on a little boy.


There is nothing I wear outside of the house, saving those rare date nights, that would be inappropriate for my daughter. CERTAINLY not at work where my goal is to do a good job not get a mate.


----------



## GettingIt_2

NobodySpecial said:


> Are you kidding? Did you READ Dvl's post?


Uh, which one? There are quite a few, and I admit to resorting to skimming some of them (sorry Dvls--you DO go on!) Is there one you can point me to in particular that you feel shows he advocates bragging about "pumping and dumping" or similar behaviors? 



NobodySpecial said:


> They do. And that itself is what is reprehensible. They work on broken women whose self esteem does not allow them to recognize that they are just objects. That is the point.


But which PUA tactics do you mean work on "broken women?" The self-improvement sort of PUA tactics? Can you be specific about which behaviors you're referring to? I think just because a woman responds to a guy's pick up doesn't mean she's broken. I know plenty of guys who work on their "pick up," none of which would prey on a women they thought was broken. And I know lots of women who are happy to be receptive to a guy's pick up, and those women are far from broken. 

Or are you saying the definition of "broken woman" is a woman who find any sort of pick up attractive? :scratchhead:

People who purposely prey on weak and vulnerable women are horrible people because they are horrible people . . . not because they use PUA tactics. Horrible people use and exploit and distort all sort of otherwise "legit" systems. There is value, to many men, in some of the suggested ways to make themselves more attractive to women. Can it be taken too far? Yes, obviously. But I do see a difference between the baby and the bath water here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> Another untruthful statement. The Game even has a diagram showing how to approach _someone else _and ignore the "target". I see this called the "aloofness" principle.


It is a true statement. Don't call me a liar. 

You never *ignore* a girl you're interested in. Ever. Period. This exists in NO PUA book. She always gets some attention. The behavior you're referring to isn't aloofness, its a way to get around defensiveness and increase comfort. It is used to approach a girl who is with her friends, particularly if she's significantly more attractive than her friends. These girls often won't entertain any direct approach to them specifically, because they don't want to make their friends feel left out. Instead of focusing attention one the one you're most interested in, you engage all of them, involve all of them, hit on all of them. I'm not trying to get anything from any of them apart from fun conversation. Connections that lead to more come, or they don't. No skin off my back. I still had some laughs and a good time. Some say to show the one you're most interested in the least attention in such scenarios. If its a case of her being obviously more attractive, the thinking goes that she's used to being the center of attention. Receiving less attention than everyone else, she may try to muscle in. Women are competitive too. You couldn't approach her directly, but you can induce her to seek more from you.

I don't believe the latter is very reliable, at least, not in my experience. I do just fine talking to the whole table equally, and isolating the girl I'm most interested in later. Its not unlike approaching a room full of women... you don't focus your whole night on one woman that you just HAVE to have... hounding her to the end of the world expecting her to relent. You talk to everyone.

Aloofness refers to not obsessing on just the girl you're most interested in. You spoke to her when you first saw her. You leave when it feels natural too. Aloofness is about not committing to an endless conversation with her. Aloofness is having other things to do and other people to talk to. She isn't the only one here.

Women respond extremely well to the guy who is able to casually walk away. The guy who can banter, and let it go. They respond so well to it that most often, they'll find another way to talk to me. I doubt half the coincidental re-meetings I have a little later on are actually coincidental. Some, are even overt. The "walking away", the "aloofness", has something to do with making her less defensive I think. She feels more comfortable with me knowing I'm not pressing to all hell.



Happyfamily said:


> This is a CRUCIAL part of PUA: ignoring. So you are totally wrong in asserting it ALWAYS advocates talking to her right away. You think we can't look this up on our own.


This is false. Yes, look it up. 

No where does any of it say to totally ignore the girl you're interested in. You're misconstruing how to approach a girl amongst a group of her friends - and if you did completely ignore someone, the person, AND the other members of the group would find it offensive. When people are in groups, you engage the group as a whole, or bounce from member to member inclusively, until you're accepted by the group (you kinda become a part of the group). It does not mean ignore the girl you're interested in.

I prefer women in groups honestly. Women are less defensive and timid in groups, and will readily engage a guy that interacts with the whole group. As such, some of the automatic "stranger" defense that pops up for some women when alone, never pops up and a connection is more easily made.



Happyfamily said:


> This is highly unattractive in a person: a chameleon where the only thing you can count on is them not being genuine. You are going to see whatever face they want to show in order to get something from you at that moment.


I am a chameleon, I'll give you that... but every single color is genuinely me. What is expressed most, depends on what the people I'm with evoke. Its still all me. I'd argue many people are this way. It goes fairly hand in hand with INTP and ENTP personality types. Its why I have such a diverse array of friends. I'm get nothing from them but friendship.

You don't have to be attracted to it. Some aren't. Others are, and find it brings a ridiculously diverse set of experiences and interests to the relationship.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> Uh, which one? There are quite a few, and I admit to resorting to skimming some of them (sorry Dvls--you DO go on!)


I'm sorry!!!!  

Concise is not my strong suit.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Some people want to believe that everything we do as individuals is a direct result of our desire to manipulate others; a woman who is into fashion and conscious of her appearance _must_ be doing it to manipulate men into being attracted to her. It's impossible for it to be for any other reason. This stance and others like it is nothing more than a far-reaching desire to justify actions and choices that many people find unattractive, and seems to run rampant in those who can't accept being unattractive to anyone.


If that was true no women would have wore high waist jeans when they came back in fashion for a while, I heard many guys complain about how ugly high waist jeans where, did that get women who where wearing them to burn their jeans?
Nope.


----------



## Deejo

GettingIt said:


> I've read a fair number of these back-and-forths about PUA behaviors and I wonder:
> 
> 1. Do they work?
> 
> and
> 
> 2. If so, why is that a bad thing?


Depends upon the audience to whom you are addressing the question.

In the context of taking a man that has generally recognized 'unattractive qualities' such as socially awkward, unengaging, poor hygiene, poor boundaries, or is in the habit of putting women on a pedestal far above himself ... I don't see that many of the tenets of PUA are terrible.

The execution of some, certainly are. Equating a man that wants to simply be better at relating to women, as a misogynist for reading a dating or pickup book isn't terribly helpful. Nor are the websites where wannabe twentysomethings post pickup stories like they are talking about video game scores.

But for all of the vitriol that gets bandied about here regarding the subject, whether we call it inner game, self improvement, or pickup, there is a painfully simple fact; if a man isn't happy with himself or his experience with women, he is going to be better served by looking to change it. Change doesn't have to mean manipulation.

And ironically, for all of the times I read this content, and understand that women utterly loathe the concept of being manipulated into anything ... the corollary is that they basically say they are attracted to attractive men.

And apparently if you aren't attractive ... you suck even more if you try to actually BE attractive, because it's false ... because you are trying to be something you aren't. Funny that.

It's an interesting dichotomy.

Several individuals on this thread have posted about having friends or knowing men with remarkably similar traits and stats both physically and mentally, one is very interesting to the opposite sex. The other is persona non grata.


Oh, and yes. It works.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm sorry!!!!
> 
> Concise is not my strong suit.


Meh, throw it in with the other things you're working on. Think about how mysterious and self-assured you'll be to women if only you can smile and nod knowingly instead of saying, "But, but, but . . . "


----------



## NobodySpecial

GettingIt said:


> Uh, which one? There are quite a few, and I admit to resorting to skimming some of them (sorry Dvls--you DO go on!) Is there one you can point me to in particular that you feel shows he advocates bragging about "pumping and dumping" or similar behaviors?


You were replying to a post of mine which was a reply to a post of his.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> It is not usually socially acceptable to dress a little girl as an exact mirror image of her Mommy. With little girls, parents usually end up setting age boundaries for when they will be allowed to wear the dress lengths, high heels, hosiery, make up, etc. of a grown woman.


Little girls dress like Mommy all the time: they wear skirts, sometimes quite short, dresses, pretty shoes, even with a small heel on dress-up occasions. Strappy t-shirts, bikini at the beach.

Very high heels are bad for the feet. They can cripple adult women, and so would be close to abusive to have a young growing girl wearing them. And while it's true that many women will prevent their daughters from totally tramping it up, they too will not dress that way except for special and sexy occasions.

And you've pointed to some differences what's appropriate dress for men (long pants vs shorts). And there are others as well. That's why you see so few little boys wearing skin tight pants or muscle t-shirts, or whatnot.


----------



## GettingIt_2

NobodySpecial said:


> You were replying to a post of mine which was a reply to a post of his.


:scratchhead:No, I was referring to your response to me, in post #499. You asked if I'd read Dvls posts, and I was wondering if there was one that your found particularly onerous, since I admitted I might have skimmed a few.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Wtf? Are we talking white collar? When I worked, years ago, as an affiliate to Price Waterhouse, high heels were inappropriate. Your average "white collar" job nowadays is more like khakis and the like. I did a little mental inventory of my office and cannot bring forward a single woman wearing anything even remotely sexual, and high heals? Nope. Not sure where you work. Though I have observed more high heels in bigger cities.


I'm in I.T. and usually see a lot of people during the course of a week. Female attorneys in law offices seem to dress the most lavishly, but maybe that's a skewed sample and there's a reason that I'm not sophisticated enough to grasp. My wife is in academia. I know exactly how she dresses for work, especially when she was younger. Maybe consciously or unconsciously she was fighting a stereotype so she's not a typical example either. 

Additionally, we raised three daughters. We tried to dress them modestly when they were younger, but since they were all tall, it became really tough right around 11 or so with even upscale department stores, like Macy's carrying brands like, "Porn Star" in their Juniors department. I've yet to hear parents of boys have anything remotely like this kind of problem dressing their sons....


----------



## NobodySpecial

GettingIt said:


> :scratchhead:No, I was referring to your response to me, in post #499. You asked if I'd read Dvls posts, and I was wondering if there was one that your found particularly onerous, since I admitted I might have skimmed a few.


Head slap.


----------



## lovelygirl

Irresponsibility/Immaturity.
Selfishness.
Arrogance.
Lack of communication.


----------



## GettingIt_2

NobodySpecial said:


> Head slap.


What am I missing! What am I missing! (running around in circles waving arms.)

Wait . . . who is the head slap for? me or you? :rofl:

omg i'm so lost . . .


----------



## Trickster

Many many years ago when I was in my early 20's, I went out to the clubs, hoping to get lucky....That's why most people were there....right? Men and women both want the samevthing...For me, I would find the hottest woman there and ask her to dance. Usually, they would dance with me... From that point on, EVERY woman I asked to dance followedvme to the dancd floor...I wasnt even a good dancer...Other times , if I was rejected initially, EVERY woman after rejected me.

Why was that?


----------



## NobodySpecial

GettingIt said:


> What am I missing! What am I missing! (running around in circles waving arms.)
> 
> Wait . . . who is the head slap for? me or you? :rofl:
> 
> omg i'm so lost . . .


Me too, apparently. I thought you were the poster who basically said I did not read most of the thread. Nothing more frustrating than hearing that after having expressed oneself for a while!


----------



## Happyfamily

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You never *ignore* a girl you're interested in. Ever. Period. This exists in NO PUA book.


The most famous book of all is The Game. I read a copy from an extremely creepy PUA cultist - a deadbeat renter my husband evicted so I have to use the internet to cite from it here:

The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - Everything2.com

Here is proof you are wrong:



> Don't pay immediate attention to the target. First gain the approval, respect, and attention of the group she is with to demonstrate value. Once she realizes this, it will pique her interest.


You also are flat wrong about deception. Here are some examples:



> •Early on, mention a* false time constraint* to quell the unspoken fear in the target that you're going to be a burden who will need shaking. This will create comfort on her part, and if you find no indicators of interest, you can refer to it at any time to make your departure.
> •Alternately, make a *false social constraint* that makes her feel safe.


This deceptive behavior is so extreme that men are supposed to get other people to lie for them too:



> make sure to have your "wing man" (guy who came with you and knows your tricks) or "pivot" (gal doing the same) walk by and say, "hey" and back you up in some way. This also gives you an excuse to exercise your false time or social constraint if you want to get out of there.


See how the most famous PUA book of all time says to lie, deceive, and to ignore the "target" while boasting in front of her friends?

We can read all this ourselves instead of being manipulated by you.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Male and female play these games from childhood... and I don't think they ever stop.


Maybe not, but even at age 7, I wasn't impressed by or attracted to the boys who put worms in my hair. I definitely expect more now.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The shy guy ends up with little experience with women, and tends to settle down quickly (women are rare, commit early). The jerk has more volatile relationships and takes longer to settle down (women are common, don't need to commit), but has no shortage of experience.
> 
> Do you disagree?


Yes, I absolutely disagree and find it quite telling that you automatically view a guy getting into an LTR as a failure, and the guy who is chronically chasing women a success.

Of course you're also assuming that it's his "choice" to be that way, and that every guy in the world naturally wants to be hitting on every girl he can until he eventually finds one willing to bed him.


----------



## treyvion

Trickster said:


> Many many years ago when I was in my early 20's, I went out to the clubs, hoping to get lucky....That's why most people were there....right? Men and women both want the samevthing...For me, I would find the hottest woman there and ask her to dance. Usually, they would dance with me... From that point on, EVERY woman I asked to dance followedvme to the dancd floor...I wasnt even a good dancer...Other times , if I was rejected initially, EVERY woman after rejected me.
> 
> Why was that?


Haha. That's how it works. Were the other women aware that you had been rejected previously?

Or was it that you know and you where putting off a unattractive vibe for subsequent attempts. Maybe on those bad days you didn't brush it off and on the good days it looked like it would be fun whether or not you are good at it.

I tell you what though. Success begats success.


----------



## Trickster

FWIW. I never read and PUA books. I read some of the on line stuff but thatsvit. I have read the Dale Carnegie, How to win friends and influence people.

It talks about tools, ideas, attitudes, confidence, "tricks" on how to do that. Some of you have taken the word to be a negative. 

The Carnegie book says to repeat peoples names back to them and use it 3X to remember their names. I see that as a "trick". I notice that all the time from other people when I attend the functions. They will repeat my name several times..I am meeting many executives and I am so far less experienced than they are...

What is wrong with a book that tells men to work out, get in shape, dress better to attract a woman or get our spouse to desire us?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> And apparently if you aren't attractive ... you suck even more if you try to actually BE attractive, because it's false ... because you are trying to be something you aren't. Funny that.


You are for sure missing the point of the vitriol against PUA, if that's what you think.

No one, I mean absolutely no one, is complaining about self-improvement.


----------



## Thundarr

Some of this blind hatred toward PUA concepts isn't logical. It's caricature based. No one is telling you ladies that a douche bad bragging on his PUA skills while wearing his PUA shirts is gong the charm the panties off of anyone.

Some poor guy who reads PUA stuff learns that other guys get more action do things very differently. He's been over thinking how to approach girls and thinks rejection will be the end of him. He reads some PUA stuff and it's like his dating 180. He didn't change into a caveman when he picked a an idea or two that makes him more confident. Might even get a girl interested in him that he really likes.


----------



## Trickster

treyvion said:


> Haha. That's how it works. Were the other women aware that you had been rejected previously?
> 
> Or was it that you know and you where putting off a unattractive vibe for subsequent attempts. Maybe on those bad days you didn't brush it off and on the good days it looked like it would be fun whether or not you are good at it.
> 
> I tell you what though. Success begats success.



Yes! Everybody pays attention to the hot girl. I was scared to death initially, but it was worth the risk. EVERYBODY knew when I was rejected and EVERYBODY knew when the hot chic said yes.

I don't know if I gave off the rejection vibe. After the 3rd rejection, I usually left... My night was over.


----------



## Happyfamily

Trickster said:


> FWIW. I never read and PUA books.


Followed by the immediate contradiction:



> What is wrong with a book that tells men to work out, get in shape, dress better to attract a woman or get our spouse to desire us?


Since you claim not to have read any, you can't turn around and defend what you have not read.

Name the book you have not read that is restricted to working out, getting in shape, and dressing better as a PUA book.

You can't. 

I predicted Dale Carnegie would be used as a false equivalency. You just did that too.


----------



## SteveK

Happyfamily said:


> The most famous book of all is The Game. I read a copy from an extremely creepy PUA cultist - a deadbeat renter my husband evicted so I have to use the internet to cite from it here:
> 
> The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - Everything2.com
> 
> Here is proof you are wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> You also are flat wrong about deception. Here are some examples:
> 
> 
> 
> This deceptive behavior is so extreme that men are supposed to get other people to lie for them too:
> 
> 
> 
> See how the most famous PUA book of all time says to lie, deceive, and to ignore the "target" while boasting in front of her friends?
> 
> We can read all this ourselves instead of being manipulated by you.



After reading this link I realized that the author probably used a fake name, why because

It has to be my WAW's , AP!

Who really wrote it!


----------



## Trickster

Happyfamily said:


> Followed by the immediate contradiction:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you claim not to have read any, you can't turn around and defend what you have not read.
> 
> Name the book you have not read that is restricted to working out, getting in shape, and dressing better as a PUA book.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> I predicted Dale Carnegie would be used as a false equivalency. You just did that too.


Isn't that the 180 preached here on TAM?


----------



## SteveK

Trickster said:


> Yes! Everybody pays attention to the hot girl. I was scared to death initially, but it was worth the risk. EVERYBODY knew when I was rejected and EVERYBODY knew when the hot chic said yes.
> 
> I don't know if I gave off the rejection vibe. After the 3rd rejection, I usually left... My night was over.


Never gong for the hottest girl in the,room if me and Wifey split...

Did it once and look,where it got me!


----------



## treyvion

SteveK said:


> Never gong for the hottest girl in the,room if me and Wifey split...
> 
> Did it once and look,where it got me!


Super "hot" is that "hot" for a reason. Like playing "hot potatoes", she plays a game of "you can't handle me" with guys. It's nothing to try to handle.

The game goes that you let some poor fool take care of her, while you as an external paramor get to have sex with her if she is attracted.


----------



## Trickster

I am not defending PUA. Some of the ideas/tricks/attitudes work to improve our confidence. When women wear nicer clothes and make-up, they feel more confident and attract more me. Yes women do that to feel better about them self, but the end result/side effect is more confidence and more attention.

I have a new neighbor and I met her while walking my dog... Average looking....and we kind of crossed paths. She very confidently introduced herself. She usually waves to me first and says hello. Her confidence and attitude improves her attractiveness. Some men need to learn confidence...


----------



## treyvion

Trickster said:


> I am not defending PUA. Some of the ideas/tricks/attitudes work to improve our confidence. When women wear nicer clothes and make-up, they feel more confident and attract more me. Yes women do that to feel better about them self, but the end result/side effect is more confidence and more attention.
> 
> I have a new neighbor and I met her while walking my dog... Average looking....and we kind of crossed paths. She very confidently introduced herself. She usually waves to me first and says hello. Her confidence and attitude improves her attractiveness. Some men need to learn confidence...


Women do it...


----------



## heartsbeating

Cosmos said:


> Carl Sagan used to make me swoon (hence my username), as does Brian Cox Not so much their looks, mind you, but their uber-enthusiasm for their fascinating work.


Brian Cox is much hotter talking about the universe than he ever was playing keyboards with D:Ream.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Little girls dress like Mommy all the time: they wear skirts, sometimes quite short, dresses, pretty shoes, even with a small heel on dress-up occasions. Strappy t-shirts, bikini at the beach.


Not where I live.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: What makes a man unattractive?*



always_alone said:


> You are for sure missing the point of the vitriol against PUA, if that's what you think.
> 
> No one, I mean absolutely no one, is complaining about self-improvement.


I have been around long enough to know that I am distinctly not missing the point.

Dale Carnegie is seen as self improvement. Neil Strauss is seen as sleazy manipulation. 

I'm saying they are the exact same thing. They are about social dynamics and interpersonal interaction. Unless you believe that no one has ever used the tenets from How to Win Friends, for their own personal gain.

I don't see either as distinctly good or bad. I see them as tools that can be utilized to accomplish a desired end, be it greater social graces, and more fulfilling interactions, or notches in a bed post.

Here is my point ... most of the ladies that despise pickup have had the displeasure of interacting with men who REALLY sucked at it. And displaying poor behavior in any context, pickup or otherwise, is most certainly unattractive.


----------



## lovelygirl

DVLs, please free your inbox! 

Back on topic, another thing is the inability to seduce a woman and having sex always on the top of his mind.


----------



## treyvion

lovelygirl said:


> DVLs, please free your inbox!
> 
> Back on topic, another thing is the inability to seduce a woman and having sex always on the top of his mind.


He needs to have the opposite on the top of his mind. His confidence and successes at seducing women on the top of his mind. That is attractive versus the alternative.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: What makes a man unattractive?*



lovelygirl said:


> DVLs, please free your inbox!
> 
> Back on topic, another thing is the inability to seduce a woman and having sex always on the top of his mind.


Yes. Very unattractive. Which is why, cofidence, sparkling conversation and actually making an effort to understand and meet your partners needs is seen as attractive, and seductive ... at least until it isn't.


----------



## lovelygirl

Deejo said:


> Yes. Very unattractive. Which is why, cofidence, sparkling conversation and actually making an effort to understand and meet your partners needs is seen as attractive, and seductive ... at least until it isn't.


Seduction is really important. It has to do with attitude, the right level of confidence, communication, self-respect, personality and a little bit of fine flirting. 

A man who has all that knows the art of seduction! 

The lack of it is simply very unattractive.


----------



## Thundarr

Trickster said:


> Yes! Everybody pays attention to the hot girl. I was scared to death initially, but it was worth the risk. EVERYBODY knew when I was rejected and EVERYBODY knew when the hot chic said yes.
> 
> I don't know if I gave off the rejection vibe. After the 3rd rejection, I usually left... My night was over.


From memory and personal experience, having a girl show interest in you somehow validates you. It doesn't have to be the hottest one. I didn't read that in PUA by the way.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: What makes a man unattractive?*



lovelygirl said:


> Seduction is really important. It has to do with attitude, the right level of confidence, communication, self-respect, personality and a little bit of fine flirting.
> 
> A man who has all that knows the art of seduction!
> 
> The lack of it is simply very unattractive.


Seduction is about influencing the outcome of an emotional transaction. I'm doing something that makes you want me. And depending upon the context we are putting seduction in, this is one of the biggest issues people have. You cannot seduce someone who isn't attracted to you. Whether it's upon first meeting, or you have been together for over a decade.


----------



## Trickster

Thundarr said:


> From memory and personal experience, having a girl show interest in you somehow validates you. It doesn't have to be the hottest one. I didn't read that in PUA by the way.


On occasion, a woman would ask me to dance. It always made me feel good, even average looking women.

I was nowhere near a hunk back then. I was always amazed when they wanted to dance..

I did say dance... Not come home with me for sex.


----------



## Trickster

SteveK said:


> Never gong for the hottest girl in the,room if me and Wifey split...
> 
> Did it once and look,where it got me!



I my goal was to dance with the hot chicks. Not marry them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

happyfamily said:


> The most famous book of all is The Game. I read a copy from an extremely creepy PUA cultist - a deadbeat renter my husband evicted so I have to use the internet to cite from it here:
> 
> The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - Everything2.com


"The Game" is an entertaining read. It is NOT however, a foundational text expressing even half of the principles of attraction on which pickup is based. It is rather, one man's chronicle of his experience with these principles. In fact, it was written about a decade AFTER I began my reading and making changes to my social life.

The fundamental principles of pickup have been evolving and being refined since the 70s with Weber. 



happyfamily said:


> Here is proof you are wrong:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Don't pay immediate attention to the target. First gain the approval, respect, and attention of the group she is with to demonstrate value. Once she realizes this, it will pique her interest.



Firstly, I've read the language you're quoting. You are reading a second hand account. A paraphrasing of the content of the book. No where does the book, or any PUA book I've read, even imply that the girl one is most interested in should be ignored. The instruction is quite clear - do not give her your undue attention. Even your quote here seems to understand this: "don't pay *IMMEDIATE* attention" to her. It is 100% accurate advice.



happyfamily said:


> You also are flat wrong about deception. Here are some examples:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> •Early on, mention a false time constraint to quell the unspoken fear in the target that you're going to be a burden who will need shaking. This will create comfort on her part, and if you find no indicators of interest, you can refer to it at any time to make your departure.
> •Alternately, make a false social constraint that makes her feel safe.
> 
> This deceptive behavior is so extreme that men are supposed to get other people to lie for them too:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> make sure to have your "wing man" (guy who came with you and knows your tricks) or "pivot" (gal doing the same) walk by and say, "hey" and back you up in some way. This also gives you an excuse to exercise your false time or social constraint if you want to get out of there.


Again, you have a second hand expression of the principle. The principle is keeping the interaction constrained. Being able to leave, and not hell bent on an outcome with her. How do I know? I've read the preceding books. The constraints serve everyone, but most importantly, it makes her feel better that she knows she isn't going to have to shut a guy down. He's going to leave all on his own. He doesn't have to get anything from her.

How an individual applies the principle is up to him. Your reviewer thinks this is done with deception, but its typically not and the foundational texts advise against deception. The principle isn't "make some constraint up". It is ONLY, constrain the interaction. Another principle directly stated is to not lie. Often, there is a gray area where humor/snark could be construed as a lie, and this is where your reviewer or whatever they are gets his/her poor interpretation. By that standard, a whole myriad of wit could be interpreted as lying and I think any reasonable person can see the difference. For example, one witty reply to a woman who totally inappropriately disrupts innocuous conversation with "I have a boyfriend" is to say something like, "Really? Me too. Don't tell him you saw me." A lie? This is a lot more gray than you let on. 

The principle stands up well. HAVE something else to do and move on. You don't have to lie to do that, and no one I've read says to lie. 



happyfamily said:


> See how the most famous PUA book of all time says to lie, deceive, and to ignore the "target" while boasting in front of her friends?


No, actually. I see: "Be inclusive, and have something else to do than pester one woman all night."



happyfamily said:


> We can read all this ourselves instead of being manipulated by you.


Oh? You've got a lot of reading to do then. You didn't really think this stuff started with The Game, or that The Game was an important seminal text on pickup did you?? To be honest, I'm not sure I could pick out ONE text that says it all. No one book defines everything. There are however, truths that run commonly through them all. One of these is the importance of maintaining aloofness - constraining initial interactions - to relieve the pressure, expectation and guard a woman feels. It is important to signal that you're not going to hound her.

Btw, while you're attacking PUA on the basis of one reviewer's interpretation of one book, have you any problem with any way I, someone who has read FAR more than The Game and practiced it all quite a bit, have expressed these principles? I say it says don't lie, and I've distilled that advice in spite of reading far more of it than you.

A man can lie his way to the same ends, but nothing about anything PUA says lying is necessary, and in fact, it is repeatedly stated that lying is poor game. What happens when she sees you later when you said you were leaving? Another lie? Plan to keep track of dozens of lies to dozens of girls? Its unrealistic. You won't remember who you told what. So even if you do see her again and she's interested, she's going to sniff you out. Don't lie about having something to go do. Have something to go do. Its a choice. The principles of attraction are still there and quite accurate in my experience.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

With that, I'm going to bow out of this thread. Everyone have a good evening.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

lovelygirl said:


> DVLs, please free your inbox!
> 
> Back on topic, another thing is the inability to seduce a woman and having sex always on the top of his mind.


Got it, freed some up now. Every time I'm in a thread that goes controversial, my inbox blows UP!


----------



## lovelygirl

Deejo said:


> Seduction is about influencing the outcome of an emotional transaction. I'm doing something that makes you want me. And depending upon the context we are putting seduction in, this is one of the biggest issues people have. *You cannot seduce someone who isn't attracted to you.* Whether it's upon first meeting, or you have been together for over a decade.


Hmm...I wouldn't be so sure about it.
There are cases where people fell for someone they never thought could be a possible partner. Seduction played an important role. 

I know at least one example from my real life.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I have been around long enough to know that I am distinctly not missing the point.
> 
> Dale Carnegie is seen as self improvement. Neil Strauss is seen as sleazy manipulation.
> 
> I'm saying they are the exact same thing.


OMG, really? You can't see any difference at all between

-"become genuinely interested in people" and "when talking, ignore the target for the most part"

-"Make the other person feel important--and do it sincerely" and "Neg the target with one of the slew of negs we came up with "

-"Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view" and "blast past her resistance"?

-"To be interesting, be interested", and "pea**** theory" 

You really see no difference at all between the social dynamics, attitudes towards people, and paths to self-confidence outlined in these two books?

Yikes! The attitudes Strauss displays towards women are nothing less than appalling, IMHO. 

It makes me sad that anyone would defend it.


----------



## lovelygirl

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Got it, freed some up now. Every time I'm in a thread that goes controversial, my inbox blows UP!


Let me know if you already got the message automatically by freeing your inbox. 

If not, I'll have to send it again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Send again, I have nothing. Sorry.


----------



## Deejo

They are no different. They are both socio-behavioral dynamics geared towards creating an outcome. 

I am saying, that the application of the principles of EITHER of those titles can assist an unattractive man in becoming 'less unattractive'.

And importantly, I'm not defending either one.

I don't believe in victimizing someone, or willfully looking to harm them for my own benefit, whether I'm genuinely interested, or casually flirting. 



always_alone said:


> OMG, really? You can't see any difference at all between
> 
> -"become genuinely interested in people" and "when talking, ignore the target for the most part"
> 
> -"Make the other person feel important--and do it sincerely" and "Neg the target with one of the slew of negs we came up with "
> 
> -"Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view" and "blast past her resistance"?
> 
> -"To be interesting, be interested", and "pea**** theory"
> 
> You really see no difference at all between the social dynamics, attitudes towards people, and paths to self-confidence outlined in these two books?
> 
> Yikes! The attitudes Strauss displays towards women are nothing less than appalling, IMHO.
> 
> It makes me sad that anyone would defend it.


----------



## Deejo

Watch the movie Groundhog Day and tell me if it is about a man taking advantage of and manipulating others, or a man that decides to better himself, to be more attractive to the woman he wants.


----------



## WyshIknew

Happyfamily said:


> The most famous book of all is The Game. I read a copy from an extremely creepy PUA cultist - a deadbeat renter my husband evicted so I have to use the internet to cite from it here:
> 
> The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - Everything2.com
> 
> Here is proof you are wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> You also are flat wrong about deception. Here are some examples:
> 
> 
> 
> This deceptive behavior is so extreme that men are supposed to get other people to lie for them too:
> 
> 
> 
> See how the most famous PUA book of all time says to lie, deceive, and to ignore the "target" while boasting in front of her friends?
> 
> We can read all this ourselves instead of being manipulated by you.


There is at least one example of this working (possibly) on TAM. A poster called tears was 'picked up' by a guy using this exact technique.
She even said that she thought he wasn't interested in her at first, he was talking to her friends more than her then suddenly zoomed in on her.

Really effed her marriage up good and proper.


----------



## Cosmos

nuclearnightmare said:


> men do not do it for me in terms of attraction. that said just wanted to agree that Brian Cox is indeed a great actor. I always notice him in even the smallest part. I probably haven't even seen him in his best role to date.


Prof. Brian Cox the physicist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TQ28aA9gGo


----------



## WyshIknew

A bar is a little like a football match, you struggle to score for 90 minutes then you go home with nothing!


----------



## FormerSelf

In my own theorizing...I call it "setting the hook." 

In fishing, you throw out the line, the fish gets attracted, and then when you know you have a bite, you jerk back on the line to set the hook in, insuring the fish is truly snagged. I know it sounds dumb, but I definitely can recognize game playing when a girl comes on strong, makes sure you have interest, and then sets the hook by feigning a sudden non-interest.

PUA seek a way to upstage their own social value...while making a ding on the object of affection/ target...get them to question their value and then come running to you for validation...which you sparingly give...keeping them baited. It is manipulation.

I know many people want the feeling of being seduced and swept off their feet, but if you are being engaged by someone and you suddenly can't think straight and you are feeling entangled in someone's spell and you struggle with setting boundaries when you aren't even sure if you even like said person, then that means someone is probably trying to cast a spell of seduction upon you like a pushy car salesman. Stay away, IMHO. Buyer beware.


----------



## WyshIknew

Trickster said:


> FWIW. I never read and PUA books. I read some of the on line stuff but thatsvit. I have read the Dale Carnegie, How to win friends and influence people.
> 
> It talks about tools, ideas, attitudes, confidence, "tricks" on how to do that. Some of you have taken the word to be a negative.
> 
> The Carnegie book says to repeat peoples names back to them and use it 3X to remember their names. I see that as a "trick". I notice that all the time from other people when I attend the functions. They will repeat my name several times..I am meeting many executives and I am so far less experienced than they are...
> 
> What is wrong with a book that tells men to work out, get in shape, dress better to attract a woman or get our spouse to desire us?



I think you are referring to Married Mans Sex Life Primer here.

Ostensibly not a PUA book but more on how to be an attractive man to your wife.

One of the main messages of the book which you have mentioned is the Male Action Plan.

I find it rather puzzling that it takes a book for some men to realise that (in general, YMMV) their women tend to prefer their men to look after themselves, dress well, keep fit, be confident, be a man about the house, make the most of their earning potential etc.

How any man could think his wife prefers him to scoff burgers and pizzas, swill beer till he gets a nice big beer belly, and stay in the basement playing World Of Warcraft all night is beyond me.

Even as a young man I did notice that the guys getting the girls were generally smart, trim, good looking and confident.


----------



## Omego

WyshIknew said:


> I find it rather puzzling that it takes a book for some men to realise that (in general, YMMV) their women tend to prefer their men to look after themselves, dress well, keep fit, be confident, be a man about the house, make the most of their earning potential etc.
> 
> How any man could think his wife prefers him to scoff burgers and pizzas, swill beer till he gets a nice big beer belly, and stay in the basement playing World Of Warcraft all night is beyond me.


LOL! Seems like a no brainer doesn't it!


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> They are no different. They are both socio-behavioral dynamics geared towards creating an outcome.
> 
> I am saying, that the application of the principles of EITHER of those titles can assist an unattractive man in becoming 'less unattractive'.


I couldn't disagree more. One is all about being genuine in your interest in others, listening, caring; the other is all about running routines, being a showy pea****, and treating women like dirt.

The former is just good principles of socializing and persuading; the latter is turning oneself into a d*ck to up your conquests.

It's just not attractive. It's dismaying that a seemingly smart person like yourself can't or simply won't see through it. It makes me doubt you when you say you respect women.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> I couldn't disagree more. One is all about being genuine in your interest in others, listening, caring; the other is all about running routines, being a showy pea****, and treating women like dirt.
> 
> The former is just good principles of socializing and persuading; the latter is turning oneself into a d*ck to up your conquests.
> 
> It's just not attractive. It's dismaying that a seemingly smart person like yourself can't or simply won't see through it. It makes me doubt you when you say you respect women.


Thing about it is they have always had these books as long as pickup scene has existed. I remember stuff from the 70's that my dad had on how to seduce women. It doesn't matter what the style was it was the same thing. They just have more information now days.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> A bar is a little like a football match, you struggle to score for 90 minutes then you go home with nothing!


Some nights you score and others you don't and it was all fun either way. Back in the saddle another time.


----------



## WyshIknew

treyvion said:


> Some nights you score and others you don't and it was all fun either way. Back in the saddle another time.


Or you meet the right contestant and play the game for the rest of your life.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Or you meet the right contestant and play the game for the rest of your life.


All us that been through the cheated on experience could benefit from not having to tie up with someone and being able to be out there and enjoy the entire thing. Not a bad thing to realize you really don't NEED to have a permenant partner, but it is a choice that you can make.


----------



## vellocet

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The shy guy ends up with little experience with women, and tends to settle down quickly (women are rare, commit early). The jerk has more volatile relationships and takes longer to settle down (women are common, don't need to commit), but has no shortage of experience.





always_alone said:


> Yes, I absolutely disagree and find it quite telling that you automatically view a guy getting into an LTR as a failure, and the guy who is chronically chasing women a success.


Where in any of that is he saying this?

All he is saying is that the "jerk" is getting more experience. The fact that the jerk's experience isn't as fulfilling, IMO, is beside the point. Nowhere is he saying that the guy in the LTR is a failure.


----------



## lovelygirl

Just because a guy has had many women in the past doen't make him automatically more experienced. 
He could be a player and knows nothing about treating a woman properly. Not until he gets into a serious relationship himself.


----------



## vellocet

lovelygirl said:


> Just because a guy has had many women in the past doen't make him automatically more experienced.
> He could be a player and knows nothing about treated a woman properly. Not until he gets into a serious relationship himself.


I can agree with that. The "experience" is in the form of experienced with MORE women. As you stated, that's not necessarily experience because its not good experience.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Certainly not that anyone would see!


That's what I thought. Ok for you, but not for DvlsAdvc8? Woman does it then its natural? Man does it and he's a pig?


----------



## WyshIknew

lovelygirl said:


> Just because a guy has had many women in the past doen't make him automatically more experienced.
> He could be a player and knows nothing about treating a woman properly. Not until he gets into a serious relationship himself.


And yet you have stated that you would like an experienced man to 'take' your virginity (apologies to you if I am thinking of another poster)

Not trying to be argumentative just highlighting a dichotomy in your post. Some of the ladies here have said that some of the best, most profound sex they have had has been with an inexperienced guy.

I would rate myself as extremely experienced. it's just that my experience has been with one woman.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> That's what I thought. Ok for you, but not for DvlsAdvc8? Woman does it then its natural? Man does it and he's a pig?


When a woman does it, it is completely tasteless. When a man does it, it is completely tasteless. 


Edit... Dvl did it expressly to be seen doing it.I have done it subconsciously and discreetly.

But that only speaks to what I have said about a zillion times about these threads that try to lump men and women. I would not touch Dvl with a ten foot pole. That is fair enough. He would not want me either. 

There simply is no one set of attributes or behaviors that make a man or woman attractive to other men or women in the general sense.

The only commonality is that treating another human being as a bunch of consumables is wrong, whether you are a gold digger or a player.


----------



## Cosmos

treyvion said:


> Thing about it is they have always had these books as long as pickup scene has existed. I remember stuff from the 70's that my dad had on how to seduce women. It doesn't matter what the style was it was the same thing. They just have more information now days.


I think you'll find that those books were more about how to get an actual date rather than how to manipulate a woman into having sex on the first / second date... Big difference, IMO.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Where in any of that is he saying this?
> 
> All he is saying is that the "jerk" is getting more experience. The fact that the jerk's experience isn't as fulfilling, IMO, is beside the point. Nowhere is he saying that the guy in the LTR is a failure.


He is clearly implying that the guy who commits early does so out of fear and a sense of scarcity, so he just "settles" for what he can get as quickly as possible. Inconceivable that he actually found someone ultra special that he *wants* to be with.

And inconceivable that the man who bounces from girl to girl is the one being dumped and rejected by them. 

All part of the PUA handbook we know as Dvl's.


----------



## ocotillo

Deejo said:


> Watch the movie Groundhog Day and tell me if it is about a man taking advantage of and manipulating others, or a man that decides to better himself, to be more attractive to the woman he wants.


One of my favorite movies, but I think you and AA could probably debate its meaning without reaching agreement. Like any well written screenplay, the story is embedded with multiple messages to appeal to different demographics.

Phil Conners (Bill Murray) actually starts off as the popular stereotype of a sleazy, narcissistic pickup artist who will use any cheap trick to get a woman into bed. And no one can deny that he's good at it. The ease with which he manipulates Nancy (Marita Geraghty) will make every woman in the room shake her head and say, "Dumb."

Women who watch this movie will therefore see a man being educated *out* of the manipulative mentality that seems to be associated with any and all male oriented dating advice. This happens via interaction with Rita, (Andie MacDowell) a superior female character who is too sophisticated and too smart not to spot insincerity from a mile away. And every time she does, the evening ends abruptly with a loud slap.

This isn't to say that I disagree with you at all here. Phil Conner's journey of self discovery and personal improvement is real. He confronts the inevitability of death via the homeless man who cannot be saved no matter how hard he tries and out of this arc comes a greater capacity to love and feel compassion. Despite how profound this may be, his attraction to Rita is still the catalyst driving this transformation and the harsh mistress of rejection is still the teacher exposing the weaknesses he must work on. It's a point I've tried to make multiple times by relating how I met my wife.

It's also worthy of note how Rita's attitude towards Phil gradually transforms from a reluctant mother figure who must arrange his rooming and see to it that he's picked up at the proper time, to one of romantic interest. 

Or how Larry (Chris Elliot) is still as awkward and obtuse around women by the end of the movie as he was at the beginning. We can have an absolute ball with this story here on TAM, because it touches on so many themes that are discussed here.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> When a woman does it, it is completely tasteless. When a man does it, it is completely tasteless.
> 
> 
> Edit... Dvl did it expressly to be seen doing it.I have done it subconsciously and discreetly.


So the difference between him and you is that he doesn't care if she sees him checking her out.

He checks out women, you check out men.



> The only commonality is that treating another human being as a bunch of consumables is wrong


If you look at a guy's ass you are guilty of the same "objectification" that we are hearing.

Look, everyone is going to look. Its natural. Men will look at women, women will look at men. And yes, I can concede there is a SLIGHT difference between a woman that drools over a guy on the inside and a guy that does it outright (although that is not what D said he was doing in his example).

But what I see is that its ok for a woman to check out a guy, but not for a guy to do the same on the basis of discreteness or lack of. And no, I'm not talking about the guy that goes out of his way to fall over himself looking at a woman and makes cat calls. That's completely different and piss poor behavior.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> He is clearly implying that the guy who commits early does so out of fear and a sense of scarcity, so he just "settles" for what he can get as quickly as possible.


I don't disagree. But that's not what you said earlier. You said D was saying that guy wasn't as successful. Obviously if he can gain a LTR he is, in his own way.




> All part of the PUA handbook we know as Dvl's.


Well that son of a *****!!!


----------



## Adelais

Miss Taken said:


> I think it takes TRUE confidence to be able to express humility or vulnerability. To me, a confident person can accept that they were wrong or made a mistake. A confident person can apologize or learn from their mistakes or strive to repair the mistake and take accountability for it. Someone that isn't confident almost needs to defend themselves as if their mistake defines who they are and is tied to their self worth.
> 
> Being vulnerable, knowing you're not perfect - that you have flaws, short-comings and being willing to expose them takes courage. Knowing that exposing yourself might result in rejection but doing it anyway and knowing you'll be okay in the end takes courage... pretty confident to me.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: What makes a man unattractive?*

You summed up my point elegantly. He's both guys. Simply comes down to what he chooses to do with what he learns. The tools are the same. Based upon how he uses them, the outcome and how he is perceived is different. 

And no, AA and I are never going to agree, but we occasionally have agreement drive-bys, where we nod, wave, and smile at each other.




ocotillo said:


> One of my favorite movies, but I think you and AA could probably debate its meaning without reaching agreement. Like any well written screenplay, the story is embedded with multiple messages to appeal to different demographics.
> 
> Phil Conners (Bill Murray) actually starts off as the popular stereotype of a sleazy, narcissistic pickup artist who will use any cheap trick to get a woman into bed. And no one can deny that he's good at it. The ease with which he manipulates Nancy (Marita Geraghty) will make every woman in the room shake her head and say, "Dumb."
> 
> Women who watch this movie will therefore see a man being educated *out* of the manipulative mentality that seems to be associated with any and all male oriented dating advice. This happens via interaction with Rita, (Andie MacDowell) a superior female character who is too sophisticated and too smart not to spot insincerity from a mile away. And every time she does, the evening ends abruptly with a loud slap.
> 
> This isn't to say that I disagree with you at all here. Phil Conner's journey of self discovery and personal improvement is real. He confronts the inevitability of death via the homeless man who cannot be saved no matter how hard he tries and out of this arc comes a greater capacity to love and feel compassion. Despite how profound this may be, his attraction to Rita is still the catalyst driving this transformation and the harsh mistress of rejection is still the teacher exposing the weaknesses he must work on. It's a point I've tried to make multiple times by relating how I met my wife.
> 
> It's also worthy of note how Rita's attitude towards Phil gradually transforms from a reluctant mother figure who must arrange his rooming and see to it that he's picked up at the proper time, to one of romantic interest.
> 
> Or how Larry (Chris Elliot) is still as awkward and obtuse around women by the end of the movie as he was at the beginning. We can have an absolute ball with this story here on TAM, because it touches on so many themes that are discussed here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Dvl did it expressly to be seen doing it.I have done it subconsciously and discreetly.


I'll reply because this is incorrect. I couldn't care less if she saw me do it or not. It wasn't done to be seen doing it. It wasn't done in a manner to avoid being seen. It was done plainly and unashamedly. There's nothing shameful or offensive about checking someone out imo.

You know what's really cool? When you smile and say hi, pass ways, and both looked back for another view. How offensive. 



NobodySpecial said:


> I would not touch Dvl with a ten foot pole. That is fair enough. He would not want me either.


Actually, I wouldn't judge you from your opinions on a forum. What is discussed here is significantly abstract or conceptual, often hypothetical, and hyper analyzed in a lot of odd contexts. The natural character of real life cannot be properly expressed in this format. Vibe and body language fail to capture it. I have little to no doubt that almost anyone would have had fun if present for the nacho affair. Text inadequately captures the energy that people have, and the synergy of a group. It was purposefully juvenile and it was enjoyed by all. At first, I not so sneakily tossed rolled up napkin corners at her boob basket. OMG! I'm so immature! She stomped my foot. She continually tried to put tabasco in my drink... leaving me suspicious of my own drink every time I got up from the table. OMG! She's so immature! It was a lot of fun, all because of a willingness to break convention and be more colorful. 

The nacho I threw stuck like a ninja star. It was totally luck, but everyone at our table immediately bust out laughing, including her... followed by this half smile half pursed lips faux meanie face and threats of revenge. Everyone laughed their @sses off again when I jumped out of my skin because she put an ice cube down my shirt.

What you judge low brow, I call an extremely fun night that everyone enjoyed. Its amazing what fun can be had when people aren't uptight.




NobodySpecial said:


> There simply is no one set of attributes or behaviors that make a man or woman attractive to other men or women in the general sense.


This very thread is proof against this. Notice how common certain unattractive traits are across multiple women? Attractive traits follow that same pattern.

They're not all precise, and each won't apply to every single person, but they are very, very common.

Look at the most common quality listed by women on dating sites: SOH.

Ok... will be gone from the thread again. I have a bunch of work to get done today.


----------



## Happyfamily

When a man says that that my dislike of PUA stems from guys not doing it right, there is no chance of recovery for him. 

Because he's the one "doing it right".


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> So the difference between him and you is that he doesn't care if she sees him checking her out.
> 
> He checks out women, you check out men.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at a guy's ass you are guilty of the same "objectification" that we are hearing.
> 
> Look, everyone is going to look. Its natural. Men will look at women, women will look at men. And yes, I can concede there is a SLIGHT difference between a woman that drools over a guy on the inside and a guy that does it outright (although that is not what D said he was doing in his example).
> 
> But what I see is that its ok for a woman to check out a guy, but not for a guy to do the same on the basis of discreteness or lack of. And no, I'm not talking about the guy that goes out of his way to fall over himself looking at a woman and makes cat calls. That's completely different and piss poor behavior.


I guess there is not a lot of point to writing an opinion. Doesn't seem much like they get read. You go ahead and keep repeating what you like. Not sure why you are doing it in response to what I said.

Cheers.


----------



## Adelais

Miss Taken said:


> I think it takes TRUE confidence to be able to express humility or vulnerability. To me, a confident person can accept that they were wrong or made a mistake. A confident person can apologize or learn from their mistakes or strive to repair the mistake and take accountability for it. Someone that isn't confident almost needs to defend themselves as if their mistake defines who they are and is tied to their self worth.
> 
> Being vulnerable, knowing you're not perfect - that you have flaws, short-comings and being willing to expose them takes courage. Knowing that exposing yourself might result in rejection but doing it anyway and knowing you'll be okay in the end takes courage... pretty confident to me.


Deleted my response. I hadn't read all the responses to the last post, and I didn't realize that by the time I posted I was butting into a private conversation about this question, mostly between men.

So was the question directed to the women about makes men unattractive, or to the men about what they "think" makes them unattractive to women?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> He is clearly implying that the guy who commits early does so out of fear and a sense of scarcity, so he just "settles" for what he can get as quickly as possible. Inconceivable that he actually found someone ultra special that he *wants* to be with.
> 
> And inconceivable that the man who bounces from girl to girl is the one being dumped and rejected by them.
> 
> All part of the PUA handbook we know as Dvl's.


Lunch break post... don't expect a quick reply.

I don't make the judgment of it as either positive or negative - like I'm dissing guys who settle down quickly. I just note the correlation. Do you disagree with it? You'd think that the more able to attract women one is, the greater the likelihood of finding the special one right? Or are you saying, women are attracted to one thing and want to settle with something else. 

A simple explanation of this correlation is the economics of supply. One is less likely to become enamored with or highly value the common. One is very likely to become enamored with or highly value the rare. A judgment is made - that this *one* is special enough, good enough, and we don't find much value in seeking any longer. We all settle in that, we value the person above the continued search, BASED ON our search experience and understand of what's out there for us. The more plentiful your choices, the longer I think it will take to really think *this one* is really special vs other possibilities.

As for the women dumping the guy who attracts a lot of women but doesn't settle down, sure... I'll accept that as a possibility. That makes an interesting statement on female attraction though. -That they're all drawn to this guy, but nobody wants to stay with him. Sounds a lot like being attracted to certain qualities and wanting to settle down with different qualities. Reminds me a bit of the old adage that women choose a man hoping he will change. Or the inverse of "attractive but constantly getting dumped guy" -> "unattractive but rarely dumped guy".

Sounds plausible. It does kinda reflect the idea of dichotomy in female attraction that often draws complaints from men: drawn to this, but want to settle with that. I like the fit. I wonder if you really do.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> If you look at a guy's ass you are guilty of the same "objectification" that we are hearing.


I *consumed* her @ss... with my *eyes*.











This reminds me of "How to train your dragon". I just took my kids to see part 2. Anyways, in the first one, snotlout? says something like "I'm going to avenge your beautiful hand and your beautiful feet. I'm going to cut off the legs of every dragon I meet... with my *FACE*."


----------



## Cosmos

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> Deleted my response. I hadn't read all the responses to the last post, and I didn't realize that by the time I posted I was butting into a private conversation about this question, mostly between men.
> 
> So was the question directed to the women about makes men unattractive, or to the men about what they "think" makes them unattractive to women?


It was directed at women, but most threads like this devolve into a point scoring bickering match on TAM.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Cosmos said:


> It was directed at women, but most threads like this devolve into a point scoring bickering match on TAM.


the men's thread on the matter is going at a much more peaceful and topic oriented pace. Maybe there aren't too many ladies jumping in to defend themselves and their sex over the things men find unattractive?


----------



## Dollystanford

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Lunch break post... don't expect a quick reply.


And there was me expecting a pithy one-liner


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> the men's thread on the matter is going at a much more peaceful and topic oriented pace. Maybe there aren't too many ladies jumping in to defend themselves and their sex over the things men find unattractive?


The contention isn't about what is or isn't unattractive. The contention is over the notion that much of what you find in pickup is directly aimed at altering many of these traits women have listed here as unattractive.

I perceive it as, "X is unattractive! But if you correct it, that's unattractive too! Now you're fake and manipulative!"

Its actually pretty funny.


----------



## Deejo

Happyfamily said:


> When a man says that that my dislike of PUA stems from guys not doing it right, there is no chance of recovery for him.
> 
> Because he's the one "doing it right".


Check. So ... most of the men that have chosen to participate in this thread are irrecoverable, intractable, unattractive, a-holes.

I can live with that.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing about the kinds of traits or behaviors that can make a man unattractive.

Don't think we are ever going to agree upon the context of how a man can shift out of that category to have the kinds of relationships he wants. That's fine too.

I'm curious if everyone in Alaska has read pickup books? You aren't by any chance WiserForIt's wife?


----------



## Almostrecovered

big gaping oozing open wounds that smell bad


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Almostrecovered said:


> big gaping oozing open wounds that smell bad


That's what air fresheners and antibiotics are for,silly


----------



## Almostrecovered

Betty Boop facial tattoos


----------



## Cosmos

ScarletBegonias said:


> the men's thread on the matter is going at a much more peaceful and topic oriented pace. Maybe there aren't too many ladies jumping in to defend themselves and their sex over the things men find unattractive?


And quite rightly so, IMO. 

I wouldn't presume to debate what men should find attractive / unattractive. It is what it is - and vice versa.


----------



## Almostrecovered

a man who never quite got the trick of potty training


----------



## Almostrecovered

a man with two or three lampreys attached to his back and chest


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The contention isn't about what is or isn't unattractive. The contention is over the notion that much of what you find in pickup is directly aimed at altering many of these traits women have listed here as unattractive.
> 
> I perceive it as, "X is unattractive! But if you correct it, that's unattractive too! Now you're fake and manipulative!"
> 
> Its actually pretty funny.


But the thread is about what ladies find unattractive in a man. Period.

If a lady comments she finds PUA or whatever unattractive then why not let her feel that way? If she misses a great man bc she feels he's running game on her then that's her loss. 

The thread isn't about how men use game or pick ups to get the relationship they want. It isn't about getting women to change what they feel is unattractive. It's just a simple question asking what we feel is unattractive about men. Who cares if you're trying to correct unattractive X but so and so finds it unattractive that you're trying to correct X? That's not what the thread is about.

ETA: I don't mean to minimize the work men do to try and improve themselves and find the relationship they need. I'm sorry if my last two sentences came off that way.


----------



## Deejo

Almostrecovered said:


> big gaping oozing open wounds that smell bad


*Points*

Turtle ...


----------



## Deejo

You're so damn reasonable ...

I like to debate, I don't like to derail. Especially seeing as I'm supposed to prevent that kind of thing.

I apologize. I don't feel compelled to try and convince anyone that their feelings aren't valid.



ScarletBegonias said:


> But the thread is about what ladies find unattractive in a man. Period.
> 
> If a lady comments she finds PUA or whatever unattractive then why not let her feel that way? If she misses a great man bc she feels he's running game on her then that's her loss.
> 
> The thread isn't about how men use game or pick ups to get the relationship they want. It isn't about getting women to change what they feel is unattractive. It's just a simple question asking what we feel is unattractive about men. Who cares if you're trying to correct unattractive X but so and so finds it unattractive that you're trying to correct X? That's not what the thread is about.


----------



## Cosmos

ScarletBegonias said:


> But the thread is about what ladies find unattractive in a man. Period.
> 
> If a lady comments she finds PUA or whatever unattractive then why not let her feel that way? If she misses a great man bc she feels he's running game on her then that's her loss.
> 
> The thread isn't about how men use game or pick ups to get the relationship they want. It isn't about getting women to change what they feel is unattractive. It's just a simple question asking what we feel is unattractive about men. Who cares if you're trying to correct unattractive X but so and so finds it unattractive that you're trying to correct X? That's not what the thread is about.


Exactly.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Deejo said:


> You're so damn reasonable ...



rofl oh I don't know about all that


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> Check. So ... most of the men that have chosen to participate in this thread are .


I by no means think that all the men who have participated on this thread are "irrecoverable, intractable, unattractive, a-holes". But one thing that a LOT of guys don't want to consider is that if this problem is as prevalent as WE women think it is, then some of them probably actually are. If you are that guy who is chasing women without success thinking you are the greatest thing since sliced bread, guess what? You MIGHT be that *******. (Rhetorical you there in case that is not obvious.)




> I can live with that.
> 
> I don't think anyone is disagreeing about the kinds of traits or behaviors that can make a man unattractive.



Aside from the fact that you have equated some things that I don't find equivalent at all, I have never seen you post some of the disagreeable stuff some of the other posters have.


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> I by no means think that all the men who have participated on this thread are "irrecoverable, intractable, unattractive, a-holes". But one thing that a LOT of guys don't want to consider is that if this problem is as prevalent as WE women think it is, then some of them probably actually are. If you are that guy who is chasing women without success thinking you are the greatest thing since sliced bread, guess what? You MIGHT be that *******. (Rhetorical you there in case that is not obvious.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from the fact that you have equated some things that I don't find equivalent at all, I have never seen you post some of the disagreeable stuff some of the other posters have.


I think where we (the men) get stuck is that the obvious solution to many of the agreed upon unattractive traits is, to stop doing them and do something else instead.

The 'something else' seems to be the point of contention.

Many men WANT to be attractive to the opposite sex. And the simple truth is ... they don't know how.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> I think where we (the men) get stuck is that the obvious solution to many of the agreed upon unattractive traits is, to stop doing them and do something else instead.
> 
> The 'something else' seems to be the point of contention.
> 
> Many men WANT to be attractive *to the opposite sex*. And the simple truth is ... they don't know how.


Which ones of us??????


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ This is my point. Step 1 is recognize that we ARE individuals. And that seeking us as a group is like the number one thing likely to make you unattractive AND needy.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Lunch break post... don't expect a quick reply.
> 
> I don't make the judgment of it as either positive or negative - like I'm dissing guys who settle down quickly. I just note the correlation. Do you disagree with it? You'd think that the more able to attract women one is, the greater the likelihood of finding the special one right? Or are you saying, women are attracted to one thing and want to settle with something else.


What I think is that you are stuck echoing the PUA handbook, ad nauseum, without any real attention to actual people, with actual thoughts and feelings.

I do not assume that someone who got married or into an LTR at a young age did so because they just "settled" for someone "common", or even that he was unsuccessful or unattractive in any way. 

Nor do I assume that the guy who constantly plays the field is just holding out for the rare "10", or that he is in any way attractive or successful. I believe it's just as likely that he's emotionally immature, and extremely unattractive. Certainly, I've known a few who cruised on their looks in high school or college but just ended up sad old men with no one who ever gave two ****s about them.

And last, but not least, I do not assume that a guy who is a perfect 10 in both looks and personality will always choose boinking hordes of girls over an LTR with someone he loves and adores. Some of the most attractive men I know got hitched quite early on to women that make them happy.


----------



## ocotillo

ScarletBegonias said:


> the men's thread on the matter is going at a much more peaceful and topic oriented pace. Maybe there aren't too many ladies jumping in to defend themselves and their sex over the things men find unattractive?


Well to be fair, the OP in this thread attached some nuances to the question.


----------



## always_alone

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ This is my point. Step 1 is recognize that we ARE individuals. And that seeking us as a group is like the number one thing likely to make you unattractive AND needy.


:iagree:. 

And were there actually any traits at all came out in this thread or elsewhere that all women find attractive?

I mean, I know what the PUA say about this, but at best, they're identifying what appeals to a small subset of women


----------



## Deejo

NobodySpecial said:


> Which ones of us??????


The hot, crazy ones that will use and reject us, and make us bitter about women of course ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> But the thread is about what ladies find unattractive in a man. Period.
> 
> If a lady comments she finds PUA or whatever unattractive then why not let her feel that way? If she misses a great man bc she feels he's running game on her then that's her loss.


You're right of course and my posting wasn't aimed at dismissing what anyone finds unattractive. I was rather poking at the notion that pickup advice is literally aimed at helping a guy undo many of these traits. From there it snowballed. If say, clinginess, is unattractive, and pickup advice shows one how to avoid being clingy (seems intuitive, but no, many guys dont realize they're being clingy or what it entails), then why the vitriolic responses to everything pickup? Thats something I dont really get. How something that specifically addresses means by which to not fall into these unattractive behaviors can be thought poorly. Dont do x, do y instead... and this earns cries of lying and manipulation, while at the same time claiming it doesn't work to undo the unattractive behavior.

Perhaps I should have created another thread. My apologies.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> :iagree:.
> 
> And were there actually any traits at all came out in this thread or elsewhere that all women find attractive?
> 
> I mean, I know what the PUA say about this, but at best, they're identifying what appeals to a small subset of women


The point of the OP is not so much what IS attractive, but for those guys who seem to be stuck, what ISN'T. That is what is more universally UNattractive. Attractive varies wildly. 

When I think back to dating for me and my friends, the number one creep factor were the guys who did not see you as a person. They wanted a "girl friend". WHO that was was pretty irrelevant.

You DO need to be confident. But when the confidence is a fake in order to achieve the end of the girl friend (again not caring that much who she is as long as she is hawt!) We Can Sniff That BS a Mile Away. It is NOT attractive. It Is Creepy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> The hot, crazy ones that will use and reject us, and make us bitter about women of course ...


I laughed out loud!


----------



## WyshIknew

ScarletBegonias said:


> But the thread is about what ladies find unattractive in a man. Period.
> 
> If a lady comments she finds PUA or whatever unattractive then why not let her feel that way? If she misses a great man bc she feels he's running game on her then that's her loss.
> 
> The thread isn't about how men use game or pick ups to get the relationship they want. It isn't about getting women to change what they feel is unattractive. It's just a simple question asking what we feel is unattractive about men. Who cares if you're trying to correct unattractive X but so and so finds it unattractive that you're trying to correct X? That's not what the thread is about.
> 
> ETA: I don't mean to minimize the work men do to try and improve themselves and find the relationship they need. I'm sorry if my last two sentences came off that way.


O.
M.
G.

ch anawesome post


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^ Don't pretend confidence through swagger and bravado, BE confident.

Don't act happy and content through aloof games and ignoring tactic, BE happy and content through genuinely valuing your own self worth, FOR YOURSELF.

She will feel it. And she will come running.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> What I think is that you are stuck echoing the PUA handbook, ad nauseum, without any real attention to actual people, with actual thoughts and feelings.


AA, nothing in the post you are replying to has anything to do with pickup.

People are people, but that doesn't change the fact that what you'll accept isn't just anyone. Everyone isn't equal in this thing, even though they have thoughts and feelings. What we want and what we will accept are highly influenced by the feedback we get on our own attractiveness, and even others perceptions of attractiveness with certain limitations. You're not actually picking in a vacuum, you're tastes are the sum of all these things, and then nature itself.

If someone gets a lot of attention from the opposite sex, I believe the conditions in which they'll commit are more strict. If they get little, I believe they'll be more apt to commit on a given offer. Whatever she is, whatever his ideal is, meets reality of what his realistic options are. If you get little interest, its easier to think any one of them is special.

It has nothing to do with pickup. Its just how we come to value, and how we determine what to value.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WyshIknew

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> Deleted my response. I hadn't read all the responses to the last post, and I didn't realize that by the time I posted I was butting into a private conversation about this question, mostly between men.
> 
> So was the question directed to the women about makes men unattractive, or to the men about what they "think" makes them unattractive to women?


To be onest, Botjh.
I'm /drunk.

The simple premise was that any given situation was that there are some men who women find attractive and some they don't, or is this merely a figent of mens imaination


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ Don't pretend confidence through swagger and bravado, BE confident.


BE confident, isn't a prescriptive behavior. What exactly are you asking him to do? When you start detailing it, you'll realize they are exactly the behaviors pua promotes. If someone is under confident, telling them to be confident it utterly meaningless. Tell them that X behaviors demonstrate confidence, and they have something to emulate... and that demonstration yields greater success, and success breeds actual confidence.

If you've always failed, very few people are going to stay confident.

Even non-pua self help books will tell you to build confidence on your successes, however small, and if something fails, adjust your approach.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I guess there is not a lot of point to writing an opinion. Doesn't seem much like they get read.


Oh no, your posts are read alright. Just letting you know that hypocrisy won't go unchallenged.


----------



## vellocet

ScarletBegonias said:


> But the thread is about what ladies find unattractive in a man. Period.
> 
> If a lady comments she finds PUA or whatever unattractive then why not let her feel that way?


That's all fine and dandy. But if the hypocrisy is obvious, they shouldn't expect to NOT be called out on it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> That's all fine and dandy. But if the hypocrisy is obvious, they shouldn't expect to NOT be called out on it.


Alrighty then.


----------



## over20

WyshIknew said:


> To be onest, Botjh.
> I'm /drunk.
> 
> The simple premise was that any given situation was that there are some men who women find attractive and some they don't, or is this merely a figent of mens imaination


:rofl::rofl:

Whatcha drinking Wysh?


----------



## vellocet

It will be a double of Lagavulin for me tonight :smthumbup:


----------



## WyshIknew

over20 said:


> :rofl::rofl:
> 
> Whatcha drinking Wysh?


Lager, The last of my Meerlot. Amarula. Something wine.

I hX=VE TO BE CAREFL When drunk as I havwe friends etc.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Everyone isn't equal in this thing, even though they have thoughts and feelings. What we want and what we will accept are highly influenced by the feedback we get on our own attractiveness, and even others perceptions of attractiveness with certain limitations. You're not actually picking in a vacuum, you're tastes are the sum of all these things, and then nature itself.
> 
> If someone gets a lot of attention from the opposite sex, I believe the conditions in which they'll commit are more strict. If they get little, I believe they'll be more apt to commit on a given offer.


What we value is what we value. I may be a hideous troll with an acid personality, unfeminine, and all things unattractive to men, and it still doesn't mean I'm going to fall into the arms of the first guy who comes along. No, I'm going to hang in there until I find someone who I honestly appreciate, and who appreciates me in return. 

Someone who is supremely attractive and has all the choice in the world may still be with a high-school sweetheart.

"Special" has little to do with popularity, or competitions for champion of the dating game, and everything to do with meeting very individual values, attitudes, and needs.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> The simple premise was that any given situation was that there are some men who women find attractive and some they don't, or is this merely a figent of mens imaination


Just reverse the genders, Wysh, and you can answer the question yourself:

Do you think there are some women who men find attractive and others who they don't?

There's your answer in a nutshell. Works both ways.


----------



## lovelygirl

WyshIknew said:


> And yet you have stated that you would like an experienced man to 'take' your virginity (apologies to you if I am thinking of another poster)
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative just highlighting a dichotomy in your post. Some of the ladies here have said that some of the best, most profound sex they have had has been with an inexperienced guy.
> 
> I would rate myself as extremely experienced. it's just that my experience has been with one woman.


Yes, I was the one who have said it and I stand by that.
As much as I don't like virgin guys, experienced guys are not the ones who necessarily have had 100 girlfriends.
He could have had only 1 for a long time and still he knows how to treat a lady inside and outside the bedroom.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> What we value is what we value. I may be a hideous troll with an acid personality, unfeminine, and all things unattractive to men, and it still doesn't mean I'm going to fall into the arms of the first guy who comes along. No, I'm going to hang in there until I find someone who I honestly appreciate, and who appreciates me in return.



Uh, didn't I see you post in another thread that you were married? Maybe I'm mistaken. Thought I saw that. But did see you claim to have a SO that is a great man. So I guess I wonder why you'd have to hang in there until you find someone you honestly appreciate.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Uh, didn't I see you post in another thread that you were married? Maybe I'm mistaken.


Yes, together for 17 years now. But he was not the first to come along, nor did I settle out of fear of scarcity or desperation.


----------



## WyshIknew

lovelygirl said:


> Yes, I was the one who have said it and I stand by that.
> As much as I don't like virgin guys, experienced guys are not the ones who necessarily have had 100 girlfriends.
> He could have had only 1 for a long time and still he knows how to treat a lady inside and outside the bedroom.


Yes.

Exactly.

I seem to recall pm ing you as to why one guy with many partners would be preferred to one guy with one previous partner.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Yes, together for 17 years now. But he was not the first to come along, nor did I settle out of fear of scarcity or desperation.


Ok, so perhaps when you said this:


> No, I'm going to hang in there until I find someone who I honestly appreciate, and who appreciates me in return


You meant that is how you are, and that you are not hanging in there looking for someone currently I take it.

But I have to ask, if you are married, why is your handle "always_alone"? Just curious


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> You meant that is how you are, and that you are not hanging in there looking for someone currently I take it.
> 
> But I have to ask, if you are married, why is your handle "always_alone"? Just curious


No, not currently looking. I was merely using myself as an example to make a more general point about attraction. Maybe some people choose to settle for the first thing that comes along out of desperation sense of scarcity, but I don't agree it's a norm, even for those judged unattractive.

My username is simply a reflection of what I was thinking when I signed up to TAM. And somewhat descriptive, at least of one side of me.


----------



## heartsbeating

I think the conclusion to this thread is that it's Wysh's round.


----------



## Thundarr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> BE confident, isn't a prescriptive behavior. What exactly are you asking him to do? When you start detailing it, you'll realize they are exactly the behaviors pua promotes. If someone is under confident, telling them to be confident it utterly meaningless. Tell them that X behaviors demonstrate confidence, and they have something to emulate... and that demonstration yields greater success, and success breeds actual confidence.
> 
> If you've always failed, very few people are going to stay confident.
> 
> Even non-pua self help books will tell you to build confidence on your successes, however small, and if something fails, adjust your approach.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


because DvlsAdvc8 posted this, some just see bla bla bla; but it's a valid point. It's very observable at TAM that "be confident" without words and thoughts wrapped around it means ZERO to someone who's not confident.

I think it comes down the lack of intelligence being unattractive. Women (I speculate) feel that if a man doesn't figure out how to be confident on his own then he's not socially intelligent. Maybe PUA comes across as false advertising or cheating.


----------



## Cosmos

Thundarr said:


> because DvlsAdvc8 posted this, some just see bla bla bla; but it's a valid point. It's very observable at TAM that "be confident" without words and thoughts wrapped around it means ZERO to someone who's not confident.
> 
> I think it comes down the lack of intelligence being unattractive. Women (I speculate) feel that if a man doesn't figure out how to be confident on his own then he's not socially intelligent. Maybe PUA comes across as false advertising or cheating.


It must be tough for someone who lacks confidence to hear that they're not going to be attractive to the opposite sex unless they _are_ confident. I just feel that there are better ways of building _real_ confidence than some of the things I've read on the PUA sites. For example:-

How to Increase Confidence | The Art of Manliness

Our true, inner confidence cannot depend on how popular we manage to make ourselves with members of the opposite sex. Learning to make the very best of ourselves from the inside out creates healthy self-esteem and the sort of lasting confidence that is truly attractive to those around us.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> because DvlsAdvc8 posted this, some just see bla bla bla; but it's a valid point. It's very observable at TAM that "be confident" without words and thoughts wrapped around it means ZERO to someone who's not confident.


Here is the applicable definition. 

"a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities"

How is that hard? The real issue is that these folk want to LOOK confident to achieve their ends. So actually BEING confident, and the process that bridging that gap, would never occur to them.



> I think it comes down the lack of intelligence being unattractive. Women (I speculate) feel that if a man doesn't figure out how to be confident on his own then he's not socially intelligent. Maybe PUA comes across as false advertising or cheating.


Many adults have to figure out how to build their own self esteem, because unfortunately common child rearing understanding of self esteem in children is whacked. Anyone with small kids who wants to help prevent that dilemma should read 

Discipline for Life: Getting it Right with Children: Madelyn Swift: 9781887069069: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> It must be tough for someone who lacks confidence to hear that they're not going to be attractive to the opposite sex unless they _are_ confident. I just feel that there are better ways of building _real_ confidence than some of the things I've read on the PUA sites. For example:-
> 
> How to Increase Confidence | The Art of Manliness
> 
> Our true, inner confidence cannot depend on how popular we manage to make ourselves with members of the opposite sex. Learning to make the very best of ourselves from the inside out creates healthy self-esteem and the sort of lasting confidence that is truly attractive to those around us.


From the comments section on that very good article:

Larryedit • 6 years ago
_These princliples are time-tested and true. I would add, "Ignore popular culture." *Base your values on those of your father or grandfather. If they weren't present in your formative years, find someone now who's calm, confident, and rock-solid. Ask them to discuss their values with you. *Start looking at your local church._

I think this is helpful. Some things have changed in our time, but many things have stayed the same. I think many women would appreciate "calm, confident, and rock-solid" men.


----------



## Thundarr

Cosmos said:


> It must be tough for someone who lacks confidence to hear that they're not going to be attractive to the opposite sex unless they _are_ confident. I just feel that there are better ways of building _real_ confidence than some of the things I've read on the PUA sites. For example:-
> 
> How to Increase Confidence | The Art of Manliness
> 
> Our true, inner confidence cannot depend on how popular we manage to make ourselves with members of the opposite sex. Learning to make the very best of ourselves from the inside out creates healthy self-esteem and the sort of lasting confidence that is truly attractive to those around us.


I agree completely Cosmos. To me that's more useful information than most (well all) PUA lit. I just thought the point he made would be lost.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> What we value is what we value. I may be a hideous troll with an acid personality, unfeminine, and all things unattractive to men, and it still doesn't mean I'm going to fall into the arms of the first guy who comes along. No, I'm going to hang in there until I find someone who I honestly appreciate, and who appreciates me in return.
> 
> Someone who is supremely attractive and has all the choice in the world may still be with a high-school sweetheart.


I did say *tend*. Exceptionally few people are going to "hang in there" for long periods of time or forever. Scarcity lowers standards. You, for example, aren't going to have the same standards as Adriana Lima. I'm not going to have the same standards as Brad Pitt. Standards amazingly adapt to a reasonable expectation of what we can get, given feedback on our own attractiveness. If we're hotter, we typical want hotter. The higher the standard, as a result of having always had a lot of interest from the opposite sex, means the special one is the rarer but reasonably attainable one out of the many options. 1 out of 100, vs 1 out of 5, if you will.

If I give you a ton to choose from on almost anything, if its not rare and you know the next will be good too, you're probably going to take longer to make a choice. There is no pressure of rarity, no inflation of them as special.

The same psychology is used in sales: Here's a great deal! But only if you buy now. You wont find this deal tomorrow. Taking the deal or holding out depends on just how good a deal (how special) you perceive it to be vs what you've already seen (experience) and reasonably expect future deals to be.

This is why most people want to date a good few people before settling down,even when the like one of them just fine. They want to know where they figure in the market in addition to experiencing a variety of traits and determining preferences. If you have a lot of good options, you might do a lot of that. You can afford to be choosier.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> No, not currently looking. I was merely using myself as an example to make a more general point about attraction. Maybe some people choose to settle for the first thing that comes along out of desperation sense of scarcity, but I don't agree it's a norm, even for those judged unattractive.


The *first* thing perhaps not. But apt to settle sooner than someone who gets a lot of interest?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I did say *tend*. Exceptionally few people are going to "hang in there" for long periods of time or forever. Scarcity lowers standards. You, for example, aren't going to have the same standards as Adriana Lima. I'm not going to have the same standards as Brad Pitt. Standards amazingly adapt to a reasonable expectation of what we can get, given feedback on our own attractiveness. If we're hotter, we typical want hotter. The higher the standard, as a result of having always had a lot of interest from the opposite sex, means the special one is the rarer but reasonably attainable one out of the many options. 1 out of 100, vs 1 out of 5, if you will.


I guess I have higher standards than Angelina Jolie herself, then, and any number of super beautiful celebrities for that matter, because I wouldn't be caught dead with their bfs. Awesome!


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If I give you a ton to choose from on almost anything,


I also don't assume that people are mostly interchangeable "sale" items.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is the applicable definition.
> 
> "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities"
> 
> How is that hard? The real issue is that these folk want to LOOK confident to achieve their ends. So actually BEING confident, and the process that bridging that gap, would never occur to them.


I get it. NBS and you're right. It's not complicated. It's tied to emotion though so it defies simple logic. Sometimes fake it until you make it is what is takes for people. We all have times in life where our emotion drag us around by the nose until we make a stand. In my case my first marriage. Then we read something or just wake up knowing something and want to kick ourselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> from the inside out creates healthy self-esteem and the sort of lasting confidence that is truly attractive to those around us.


Confidence is a strange animal. Just because you have it in spades in one area of life, doesn't mean you have any in another. You're getting at self-esteem. Confidence is rather driven by prediction of our likelihood to succeed at the task. Even a very confident person otherwise, will tend to lack confidence in new areas or in areas in which they've always failed.

From the onset of adolescence until my mid teens, I went to military school. I graduated second highest rank. I was brimming with confidence. Unfortunately, there were all of two girls in the entire school. I had extremely few interactions with girls until 9th/10th grade, and learned pretty quickly, what I was doing wasn't working. What girls said they wanted in a guy, wasn't what they went for. Pickup filled the gap, and explained much of my frustration. More importantly, it worked. I even remember thinking "this is retarded" way more than once... but sure enough, if I cared less, they were more interested. "this is retarded" becomes, "women are retarded", because, well... this crap works. It took a long time for it to dawn on me how women were responding to what certain behaviors signal more than the actual behavior itself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is the applicable definition.
> 
> "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities"
> 
> How is that hard?


Key words "arising from one's abilities". If one has no luck with women, if the lacking of ability is clearly demonstrated, how are they to have confidence? How are you to derive self assurance in face of ample evidence of inability?

Telling such a person to be confident is just a plain slap in the face.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## John Lee

Confidence is something that you can develop, but it's not something that you can just decide to have. It takes a lot of work.


----------



## Cosmos

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Confidence is a strange animal. Just because you have it in spades in one area of life, doesn't mean you have any in another. You're getting at self-esteem. Confidence is rather driven by prediction of our likelihood to succeed at the task. Even a very confident person otherwise, will tend to lack confidence in new areas or in areas in which they've always failed.
> 
> From the onset of adolescence until my mid teens, I went to military school. I graduated second highest rank. I was brimming with confidence. Unfortunately, there were all of two girls in the entire school. I had extremely few interactions with girls until 9th/10th grade, and learned pretty quickly, what I was doing wasn't working. What girls said they wanted in a guy, wasn't what they went for. Pickup filled the gap, and explained much of my frustration. More importantly, it worked. I even remember thinking "this is retarded" way more than once... but sure enough, if I cared less, they were more interested. "this is retarded" becomes, "women are retarded", because, well... this crap works. It took a long time for it to dawn on me how women were responding to what certain behaviors signal more than the actual behavior itself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, I can see how PU might fill the gap and work on some women, but I can assure you it won't work on all. Particularly those who value themselves and have healthy self-esteem.

Even as a very inexperienced young woman I had a sixth sense when it came to PUAs, and it rarely failed in helping me to make the right choices.

As for PUAs themselves, I battle to see how manipulating women into having sex is character / self-esteem building... By it's very nature, the confidence it might bring is very limiting, IMO.


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> Here is the applicable definition.
> 
> "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities"
> 
> How is that hard?



I would guess that it's hard for someone who does not have the abilities or qualities in sufficient quantity for a feeling of self-assurance to arise from them


----------



## over20

WyshIknew said:


> Lager, The last of my Meerlot. Amarula. Something wine.
> 
> I hX=VE TO BE CAREFL When drunk as I havwe friends etc.


LOL, you rock Wysh...drink lots of water my friend....


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> Yes, I can see how PU might fill the gap and work on some women, but I can assure you it won't work on all. Particularly those who value themselves and have healthy self-esteem.


Does a guy who is not being clingy/needy/desperate appeal more to virtually all women in comparison to the clingy/needy/desperate guy? 

The notion that only unhealthy women find such things more appealin is not true. No one will appeal to absolutely everyone, because changing these traits doesn't completely change the person; if the guy's a conservative and you don't like conservatives, you're still not going to find him appealing even if he's following the principles. pickup isn't an attempt to get every woman, but you will attract more women. Pickup principles work on all those traits and signals that, imo, dont define a person... but are men are still judged on.

Is someone less attractive for complimenting you in introducing himself? Seems dumb, but it actually is less attractive. It's dumb, but true... and has nothing to do with unhealthy women.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Cosmos said:


> As for PUAs themselves, I battle to see how manipulating women into having sex with is character / self-esteem building...


It's not about sex. It's about attraction. When you ask for dates, do they always say no? Unless you're going for people way more attractive than you, you're probably unknowingly sending some poor signals. Pickup makes you aware of some of these, teaches how to signal what you want to signal, and recommends building upon small successes to build up confidence, and practice to build comfort and social presence. It does not build, nor harm character. You have the character you brought to it. Although, I will say that more success reduces the temptation to deceive. You realize you can attract someone who wants what you want, and there's no need to deceive.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

I can't be bothered doing a round with you Dvls. I'll leave it to someone else.


----------



## Dollystanford

The inability to just LET THINGS GO


----------



## WyshIknew

heartsbeating said:


> I think the conclusion to this thread is that it's Wysh's round.


My head hurts.


----------



## WyshIknew

Dollystanford said:


> The inability to just LET THINGS GO


Well I didn't let go of the bottle.


----------



## Rowan

WyshIknew said:


> My head hurts.


LOL! I'll bet!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> I get it. NBS and you're right. It's not complicated. It's tied to emotion though so it defies simple logic. Sometimes fake it until you make it is what is takes for people.


I was not trying to belittle the effort required to develop genuine self esteem and confidence. While the definition is simple, the change in thought process is hard. BUT if what one is really trying to do is something else entirely, like acquire a female, they are going to be confused. You never solve a problem by aiming at the wrong end goal.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I guess I have higher standards than Angelina Jolie herself, then, and any number of super beautiful celebrities for that matter, because I wouldn't be caught dead with their bfs. Awesome!


Really? By all accounts Brad Pitt is a great guy. I'm not specifically referring to looks.

Regardless of how you subdivide the population based on your preferences, the principle still holds true. Its a big world, there are lots of "your type". And your acceptance of one vs continuing to look for better, is apt to directly relate to how much interest from them you get.

In fact, men and women often go wrong in evaluating their attractiveness... for the very reason that the interest of those who "aren't their type", don't even seem to figure into the equation. If you don't get much interest from the type you want, you'll still be more likely to settle down sooner with one of the few of that type that does show interest.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> I guess I have higher standards than Angelina Jolie herself,


I would hope so. She disgusts me.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> I would hope so. She disgusts me.


What? You have higher standards than Brad Pitt? 

Awesome.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I also don't assume that people are mostly interchangeable "sale" items.


Don't go there and dismiss me on some value of people thing. The intrinsic value of a person doesn't make you like them. What you like or dislike about any person, including basic characteristics of their personality or character, is for all intents and purposes a feature of that person. Not all cars are the same and interchangeable either - they come with different features, costs and benefits.

People have feelings, but that doesn't mean you purchase just because how THEY feel about you. You fall in love with them because you loved those features, heavily influenced by the rarity of those features in your experience trying to get them.

The exact same scenario plays out in something as simple as a car purchase. Once upon a time, I bought a late 90s Firebird and thought it was the best. thing. ever. It was the peak of attainability for me at the time, and everything I wanted in a car. I picked it from a pool of similar attainable cars, Mustangs, Camaros, etc. I loved that car. 

Today, I have a lot more money, and lo and behold, I'm not even half interested in those cars. With the increase in attainability, so too went my interest in cars. Today, its Porsche, Mercedes AMG, Lexus, etc.

The same goes for most things we're interested in. Its why so many people say, "with more money, comes more bills". It applies to people and gives rise to problems such as one spouse's perception of their attractiveness rising (receiving greater feedback than they used to), causing them to rethink their choice of mate based on what is now attainable to them and become dissatisfied in the relationship (sometimes, inexplicably, to themselves). The value of being in the market looking for better starts to exceed the value of the partner, because of a change in the sense of attainability.

This is human nature, even if we're good enough people to deny action on it and keep our commitments.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Dollystanford said:


> The inability to just LET THINGS GO


Yes, a discussion forum where everyone lets everything go. That's going to be a busy place. 

The irony of being on a forum and not wanting to talk about things.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

A compulsion to beat dead horses.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> BUT if what one is really trying to do is something else entirely, like acquire a female, they are going to be confused. You never solve a problem by aiming at the wrong end goal.


Confidence means nothing in a vacuum. If you're the only person, confidence literally means nothing. Therefore, confidence can't be an end of its own. Why seek it for its own sake?

The end, is what confidence brings you.

The only area of my life I can recall lacking confidence in was girls. If I didn't want a girl, I wouldn't have cared at all.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> What? You have higher standards than Brad Pitt?
> 
> Awesome.


Yup, Brad thinks with the little head. He, like Angelina, doesn't go for substance or character. They are all about the looks.

Physical attraction is important, but for people like them, its the ONLY thing that seems to be important.


----------



## vellocet

Dollystanford said:


> The inability to just LET THINGS GO


That statement is probably just directed at one person, but it applies to many more that participate in this thread, and not on just one side of the gender fence.


----------



## Jellybeans

*What makes a man unattractive?
*
All of this:


----------



## WyshIknew

Jellybeans said:


> *What makes a man unattractive?
> *
> All of this:


Hey!

Where'd you get my pic from?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> Yup, Brad thinks with the little head. He, like Angelina, doesn't go for substance or character. They are all about the looks.
> 
> Physical attraction is important, but for people like them, its the ONLY thing that seems to be important.


Wow... that's not what I've gathered about Brad at all. He didn't pick Angelina over Jennifer because Angelina was hotter. Jennifer didn't want to put her acting career on hold for kids, and Brad wanted to have kids. Brad's actually quite the family man.

As for Angelina, I read a story recently courtesy my gf, that she had a preventative double mastectomy because a test result said she was above average risk of future breast cancer.

They've adopted a bunch of children and are very active in charity work. From all I've read, they're both far from superficial people.

Amazing how quick we are to judge people widely thought to be physically attractive as superficial.


----------



## Jellybeans

WyshIknew said:


> Hey!
> 
> Where'd you get my pic from?


:rofl: Laughed SO hard, Wysh.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wow... that's not what I've gathered about Brad at all. He didn't pick Angelina over Jennifer because Angelina was hotter.


I see this thread has derailed into celebrity. I thought the topic was what makes a man unattractive, not if Angie or Jen is hotter.


----------



## Deejo

Jellybeans said:


> *What makes a man unattractive?
> *
> All of this:


I think he looks very sensitive and like a great listener ...

You might cut yourself if you run your hands through his hair, and I think he's wearing lip gloss but we all have foibles.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> *What makes a man unattractive?
> *
> All of this:


Why does this remind me of the lead singer of Loverboy?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> I see this thread has derailed into celebrity. I thought the topic was what makes a man unattractive, not if Angie or Jen is hotter.


Pretty soon it will be "quantum mechanics and its relationship to c0ckrings."


----------



## Jellybeans

Deejo said:


> I think he looks very sensitive and like a great listener ...
> 
> You might cut yourself if you run your hands through his hair, and I think he's wearing lip gloss but we all have foibles.


Hehe. Even better for when I run out of my own gloss.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Don't go there and dismiss me on some value of people thing.


Oops, silly me, thinking that people were individuals and all, with individual value.

Maybe I need to trade up my SO? I've always wanted one with a better stereo.

I assume your gf knows you'll soon be looking to trade her in for a newer, sleeker model?


----------



## vellocet

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wow... that's not what I've gathered about Brad at all. He didn't pick Angelina over Jennifer because Angelina was hotter. Jennifer didn't want to put her acting career on hold for kids, and Brad wanted to have kids.



With a woman that would rather adopt babies overseas?

Nah, Angelina, sorry to say in my opinion, is a ho that basically gave Brad what he wanted. Freaky wh0rish sex. She hasn't had the best track record of keeping her hands of her leading male costars (IF you believe the tabloids)

And IF what you said is true, then Brad could have gotten a divorce before cheating, and Angelina could have kept her hands off a married man.



> They've adopted a bunch of children and are very active in charity work. From all I've read, they're both far from superficial people.


You think Brad would have jet setted around the world adopting all these children if he never hooked up with Angelina? In my mind she whipped him and he'll do whatever she wants.



> Amazing how quick we are to judge people widely thought to be physically attractive as superficial.


Not at all. But when two people, one of which is married, have sex while off filming somewhere and both don't care if they break up a marriage and get involved in an affair before the marriage is over, the no, it has nothing to do with being physically attractive.

And there are numerous reports that they both cheat on each other. Again that is if you believe the tabloids. And with the two of them and their track records, I have no reason to doubt the reports.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> We all say this, as if they stirred up a fantasy in our heads. The fantasy may be well away from the reality however.


The only reason I take issue with the phrase, "I know I'd do her in 30 seconds" is because it implies that the woman is good for nothing but sex, and that a man cares only about her appearance. It sounds extremely shallow and always will, no matter how many men try and wrap it up in nice ribbons of justification. 



> Yeah, but how do you analyze where they have one vibe at one moment but typically have another overall vibe.


Sometimes the initial vibe prevents me from seeing their overall vibe, and sometimes they don't. If a guy comes right out and says, "I want to have sex with you", you can bet that his overall vibe won't matter to me at all. His initial vibe is enough to tell me that I don't want to get to know this guy. On the other hand, some of the PUAs on this website had friendly initial vibes that made me want to be friends, and now I don't talk to them at all because their overall vibe has made their initial vibe moot. Anyone can pretend to be nice and friendly when it suits them. It's when debates have depth that their true self comes out, and that trumps momentary niceness. 



> I think I'm starting to go away from this 30 second rule. There are many types of people on this earth. I've had some grow on me the more they talk and interact, you get a feeling of breath and depth. Where others have that huge up front "hit".
> 
> However going through the situations it's like Forrest Gump, you never know what your gonna get.


This is why I believe getting to know someone builds healthy attraction and standards. Building the foundation of an acquaintance on how hot someone is is an almost definite way of building an unhealthy, codependent, shallow relationship. In my opinion, anyway. 



> Sure they would have a relationship with a self respecting woman. But she has to pass his physical attraction bar.


See, this is another peeve of mine. Just because I don't place looks in the #1 slot on my priorities list of what I want in a partner, doesn't mean I don't value them at all. A great personality doesn't always make up for a physically unhealthy individual. However, a horrible personality will _always_ make a man unattractive, even if he's in extremely good shape. Muscles aren't enough to hide a jerk.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> The most famous book of all is The Game. I read a copy from an extremely creepy PUA cultist - a deadbeat renter my husband evicted so I have to use the internet to cite from it here:
> 
> The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - Everything2.com
> 
> Here is proof you are wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> You also are flat wrong about deception. Here are some examples:
> 
> 
> 
> This deceptive behavior is so extreme that men are supposed to get other people to lie for them too:
> 
> 
> 
> See how the most famous PUA book of all time says to lie, deceive, and to ignore the "target" while boasting in front of her friends?
> 
> We can read all this ourselves instead of being manipulated by you.


Precisely. 

If PUA were only about self-improvement(genuine self-improvement...a shy guy turning into a manipulative @ss isn't improvement of any kind), I'd have no issue with it. It's that everything about PUA is a _game_, not a genuine search into an individuals flaws and how to correct them to find fulfilling, long-term commitment. It's about how to get what they want at someone else's expense. 

Girl doesn't want to have sex on the first date? Gotta get her to lower her inhibitions...whether that's through alcohol, flirting, lying, pretending not to be interested in her so she's suddenly interested in you...it's sick.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Maybe not, but even at age 7, I wasn't impressed by or attracted to the boys who put worms in my hair. I definitely expect more now.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely disagree and find it quite telling that you automatically view a guy getting into an LTR as a failure, and the guy who is chronically chasing women a success.
> 
> Of course you're also assuming that it's his "choice" to be that way, and that every guy in the world naturally wants to be hitting on every girl he can until he eventually finds one willing to bed him.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

SO true!


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> OMG, really? You can't see any difference at all between
> 
> -"become genuinely interested in people" and "when talking, ignore the target for the most part"
> 
> -"Make the other person feel important--and do it sincerely" and "Neg the target with one of the slew of negs we came up with "
> 
> -"Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view" and "blast past her resistance"?
> 
> -"To be interesting, be interested", and "pea**** theory"
> 
> You really see no difference at all between the social dynamics, attitudes towards people, and paths to self-confidence outlined in these two books?
> 
> Yikes! The attitudes Strauss displays towards women are nothing less than appalling, IMHO.
> 
> It makes me sad that anyone would defend it.


QFT!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Oops, silly me, thinking that people were individuals and all.
> 
> Maybe I need to trade up my SO? I've always wanted one with a better stereo.
> 
> I assume your gf knows you'll soon be looking to trade her in for a newer, sleeker model?


Ah, the fun part. Do you think you can do better than your SO?

I'm with my gf, because I love her features, and she's my Porsche. If I could soon trade up to a Lamborghini, I wouldn't have bought the Porsche in the first place, I'd have held out for the Lamborghini. I held out for the Porsche, for the very reason that it was the top of my perception of attainability. Large imbalances will erode even love of a person's special uniqueness. That's human nature, we have had several people come to TAM feeling more attractive, and finding their spouse less and less attractive, who can testify to it. When your attainability rises, the tendency is to devalue that which used to be the height of your attainability.

Its why we should always continuing building and maintaining our attractiveness to our spouses/SOs imo. If she hits the gym and gets sexier, woe to me if I don't and she values fitness (replace physical trait with whatever trait you will).


----------



## Created2Write

lovelygirl said:


> Just because a guy has had many women in the past doen't make him automatically more experienced.
> He could be a player and knows nothing about treating a woman properly. Not until he gets into a serious relationship himself.


I think that's the point, though...PUA isn't about how to have a relationship, how to make oneself long-term material, how to treat women right...it's about intentionally treating women poorly to get as much sex as possible. 

Sex can be a priority without it being someone's driving factor to intermingle with the opposite sex. Someone can be looking for one-night-stands and no-strings-attached sex without treating their person of interest like garbage. 

These tactics work on women who have no self-respect. And those who get really good at it know how to wrap it in socially acceptable niceness to try and trick those women are _do_ have self-respect. But the moment that self-respecting woman actually sees the tricks, the horrible views of women, the guy who _was_ nice is now not so nice. 

Successful PUAs are just jerks who know how to act nice with they benefit.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> He is clearly implying that the guy who commits early does so out of fear and a sense of scarcity, so he just "settles" for what he can get as quickly as possible. Inconceivable that he actually found someone ultra special that he *wants* to be with.
> 
> And inconceivable that the man who bounces from girl to girl is the one being dumped and rejected by them.
> 
> All part of the PUA handbook we know as Dvl's.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> ^^ This is my point. Step 1 is recognize that we ARE individuals. And that seeking us as a group is like the number one thing likely to make you unattractive AND needy.


Pretty much my entire issue with PUA summed up right here. 

I don't know how many times men have tried to convince me that my individuality really isn't all that unique. Because a group of women across the country find a set of attributes in a guy attractive, it must mean that I also find those attributes attractive, which must mean that any guy who has(or pretends to have) those attributes would be able to lay me. 

Unfreakingbelievable.


----------



## WyshIknew

Jellybeans said:


> I see this thread has derailed into celebrity. I thought the topic was what makes a man unattractive, not if Angie or Jen is hotter.


It was derailed some time ago, it sort of slid into PUA territory.

It's cool though because I think my original question was answered.


----------



## Dollystanford

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes, a discussion forum where everyone lets everything go. That's going to be a busy place.
> 
> The irony of being on a forum and not wanting to talk about things.


Who said anything about 'everyone letting everything go'? I was talking about you


----------



## Thundarr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Ah, the fun part. Do you think you can do better than your SO?
> 
> I'm with my gf, because I love her features, and she's my Porsche. If I could soon trade up to a Lamborghini, I wouldn't have bought the Porsche in the first place, I'd have held out for the Lamborghini. I held out for the Porsche, for the very reason that it was the top of my perception of attainability. Large imbalances will erode even love of a person's special uniqueness. That's human nature, we have had several people come to TAM feeling more attractive, and finding their spouse less and less attractive, who can testify to it. When your attainability rises, the tendency is to devalue that which used to be the height of your attainability.
> 
> Its why we should always continuing building and maintaining our attractiveness to our spouses/SOs imo. If she hits the gym and gets sexier, woe to me if I don't and she values fitness (replace physical trait with whatever trait you will).


I don't think you've owned the right car just yet. Some classics are worth more as time passes.


----------



## Jellybeans

vellocet said:


> With a woman that would rather adopt babies overseas?


What is wrong with adopting babies overseas? What did they ever do to you?!
_
(Starts sh*t and leaves thread)_


----------



## Jellybeans

WyshIknew said:


> It was derailed some time ago, it sort of slid into PUA territory.
> 
> It's cool though because I think my original question was answered.


That ALWAYS happens as soon as someone starts with that Alpha/Beta sh*t and then the PUA mess. 

Ugh.


----------



## always_alone

Thundarr said:


> I don't think you've owned the right car just yet. Some classics are worth more as time passes.


Model T. I just saw a guy driving one down the road the other day. 

Now that's a rare score. He must be something fierce hawt!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Thundarr said:


> I don't think you've owned the right car just yet. Some classics are worth more as time passes.


Indeed. I didn't mean to imply newer is better. Better is better. haha 

I'll drive the wheels off a 1957 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa. 










Please forgive my lack of resizing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> That ALWAYS happens as soon as someone starts with that Alpha/Beta sh*t and then the PUA mess.
> 
> Ugh.


Guilty. I'd rather talk about cars anyway.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

To put the thread back on topic....

You know what I think is most unattractive about a man?

Penises. haha

Yeah yeah, my opinion doesn't count.


----------



## Dollystanford

Nonsense, penises are awesome. Flaccid not so much but there's not much that beats a hard one. So to speak


----------



## WyshIknew

Beat a hard one.


*Chortle*


----------



## WyshIknew

Penises. Beauty is in the eye of the holder.


----------



## treyvion

Dollystanford said:


> Nonsense, penises are awesome. Flaccid not so much but there's not much that beats a hard one. So to speak


How do you feel about showers and growers? There's a story about this lady talking to her guy friends about the "biggest guy" she knows about. She said he's almost 1.5" longer than the next guy, he grows like a beanstalk. So they ask the guys name, and she tells him the name. They are all talking about how in the h3ll is that possible, because he's one of the smallest ones in the football changing locker room and they've been teasing him for years about being "small". And she's like well he grows alot. Those guys sheepishly bent over learning they were truly dominated in the c0ck size department. She later told her guy friend, the grower that he was the biggest and he was surprised because all these years he thought he was the smallest, thinking that if they all grew as much as him they would be almost a foot!

Anyway how do you feel about showers and growers? Some ladies will not respect a grower and will not allow him a chance to become erect because they will assume he is small. Of course women who have been with quite a few will know that some of the small flaccids grow very very large.


----------



## TiggyBlue

:rofl: That's disturbing.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> What we value is what we value. I may be a hideous troll with an acid personality, unfeminine, and all things unattractive to men, and it still doesn't mean I'm going to fall into the arms of the first guy who comes along. No, I'm going to hang in there until I find someone who I honestly appreciate, and who appreciates me in return.
> 
> Someone who is supremely attractive and has all the choice in the world may still be with a high-school sweetheart.
> 
> "Special" has little to do with popularity, or competitions for champion of the dating game, and everything to do with meeting very individual values, attitudes, and needs.


I absolutely agree. I've always gotten a lot of attention from the opposite sex, both before puberty and after. I had a lot of female friends, I was girly, but I also got a long great with boys. I can't remember a time of my life when I didn't have, at least, three friends who were boys. One of my first close friends was a boy, and I knew him when I was three and four years of age. Boys/guys always had crushes on me and made it obvious. 

Could I have had any guy I wanted? Yes. I could have played to their weaknesses, manipulated them, tossed sex around like it was candy, compromised my personal interests and tastes and values to see which guy would run to me the fastest...I was never tall, uber thin or blonde, but I had a wonderful figure and big boobs and all I would've had to do was use them. But I didn't.

I wanted a guy who wanted to be with me for _me_, for who I was. I was short, outgoing, overly talkative, kind of critical, awkward at times, opinionated, and had high ideals about life that were, more often than not, naive. I wanted a guy who would look at me and see beyond my pant size and cup size, or the color of my hair, or my fashion choices, and take an interest in who I was and who I was maturing into. I've always been proud of who I am and I wasn't about to commit to a guy who judged me according to a physical standard I'd never measure up to. For me, romance/dating/sex have _always_ been about the end goal, a long-term committed relationship. Any guy who wanted to use me as his short-term sex toy was unattractive.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> Yes, I can see how PU might fill the gap and work on some women, but I can assure you it won't work on all. Particularly those who value themselves and have healthy self-esteem.
> 
> Even as a very inexperienced young woman I had a sixth sense when it came to PUAs, and it rarely failed in helping me to make the right choices.
> 
> As for PUAs themselves, I battle to see how manipulating women into having sex with is character / self-esteem building... By it's very nature, the confidence it might bring is very limiting, IMO.


:iagree:

I think someone already posted this definition, but confidence is defined as "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities", and basing one's confidence on something that is entirely dependent on _someone else_(like having sex with a certain number of hot women) is setting oneself up to fail and crash. This is why I believe the confidence in many PUAs, including some on this forum, is fake. Skin deep. A front to make dimwitted and/or insecure females feel protected or safe with the man pursuing them. It's also why I believe so many of these PUAs want most women to be the same. The moment that female attraction becomes based on an individuals tastes and preferences, so many of those men get automatically defensive, and some get downright cruel. It's clear that they're still insecure and afraid, and it's unfortunate that they have to be.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Oops, silly me, thinking that people were individuals and all, with individual value.
> 
> Maybe I need to trade up my SO? I've always wanted one with a better stereo.
> 
> I assume your gf knows you'll soon be looking to trade her in for a newer, sleeker model?


QFT!

And it's ironic that he dodged the point entirely. But, not surprised. lol.


----------



## Deejo

WyshIknew said:


> It was derailed some time ago, it sort of slid into PUA territory.
> 
> It's cool though because I think my original question was answered.


If I think back to high school, women were indifferent towards me, not necessarily that they found me unattractive.

Most of the traits that were listed in the thread are pretty much slam-dunks when it comes to what ISN'T attractive. But whether or not a girl/woman finds herself drawn to a guy goes beyond what she finds 'icky', a word expressed several times in this thread.

My 12 year old son is truly an exceptionally handsome kid. Way better looking than I ever was. I worry about what his teen years are going to be like. He's handsome, he has a heart of gold, and a fundamentally joyful and kind soul. But ... I can guarantee that as far as high school goes, a girl is NEVER going to be attracted to him. My fear is that it will be quite the opposite.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> I wanted a guy who wanted to be with me for _me_, for who I was. I was short, outgoing, overly talkative, kind of critical, awkward at times, opinionated, and had high ideals about life that were, more often than not, naive. I wanted a guy who would look at me and see beyond my pant size and cup size, or the color of my hair, or my fashion choices, and take an interest in who I was and who I was maturing into. I've always been proud of who I am and I wasn't about to commit to a guy who judged me according to a physical standard I'd never measure up to.


I agree with you, C2W, but in all fairness to Dvl's point, what I think he was getting at was what if you weren't gorgeous, fun, and appealing? What if you were a warty crone with a bad case of halitosis, greasy hair, and a personality that could turn strip paint?

Such people, presumably, would have fewer people lining up at their doors, asking them out, and I even agree with Dvl's as far as that goes.

Where I disagree, though, is with the idea that dating is a competitive numbers game, where "value" and "standards" are externally defined or based on abundance and scarcity.

Dating is about people, not numbers, or Porsches. And like you, I've always sought only the rarest and highest quality.

Never mind if I am a warty old crone.


----------



## WyshIknew

Deejo said:


> If I think back to high school, women were indifferent towards me, not necessarily that they found me unattractive.
> 
> Most of the traits that were listed in the thread are pretty much slam-dunks when it comes to what ISN'T attractive. But whether or not a girl/woman finds herself drawn to a guy goes beyond what she finds 'icky', a word expressed several times in this thread.
> 
> My 12 year old son is truly an exceptionally handsome kid. Way better looking than I ever was. I worry about what his teen years are going to be like. He's handsome, he has a heart of gold, and a fundamentally joyful and kind soul. But ... I can guarantee that as far as high school goes, a girl is NEVER going to be attracted to him. My fear is that it will be quite the opposite.


Well what he will have to realise, and of course you have the knowledge to let him know, is those very same traits that may not be attractive to a young, immature girl will be likely to stand him in good stead later on in life and may be very attractive to a mature woman.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I agree with you, C2W, but in all fairness to Dvl's point, what I think he was getting at was what if you weren't gorgeous, fun, and appealing?What if you were a warty crone with a bad case of halitosis, greasy hair, and a personality that could turn strip paint?
> 
> Such people, presumably, would have fewer people lining up at their doors, asking them out, and I even agree with Dvl's as far as that goes.


See, the issue I even take with this is that it uses a gross exaggeration to make a point that no one is arguing against. (I know it's not your opinion, btw.) Yeah, there are ugly people in the world. And yeah, they're not going to be pursued as much as those who aren't hideous. No one has said that looks don't matter. What _has_ been said by you, myself, FW and others is that attraction is based on more than looks. For whatever reason he takes issue with that statement. 

He makes the comment a lot that people base their attraction on how hot they are themselves...hot people tend to pursue hot people. Then bring in the PUA junk about ways to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex, and it's supposed to "improve" the level of person you could attract. It's an oversimplification of attraction, which you address below. 



> Where I disagree, though, is with the idea that dating is a competitive numbers game, where "value" and "standards" are externally defined or based on abundance and scarcity.


I absolutely agree. Every guy I dated, beside my husband, would have "ranked" lower than me in looks and intelligence. I didn't even care. I made the choice as a teen that I didn't give two craps if anyone else was attracted to the guy I was with, just to long as _I_ was attracted to him. I remember a friend of mine was dumbfounded when she saw two of the guys I dated. She looked at me like, "Seriously? You dated _them_?" I remember getting really angry because I really was in love with the least good-looking one, and when he broke up with me, I was devastated. I would have married him if he'd asked, I loved and respected him so much. He was also the first guy to ever illicit a sexual feeling in me. And I never, once, looked around at all of the guys who were more attractive and thought, "Oh man...that guy's checking me out and he's hot...If I weren't with Adam, I could land that guy. Stupid me. Should have held out for a hotter guy." 



> Dating is about people, not numbers, or Porsches. And like you, I've always sought only the rarest and highest quality.


Precisely. I saw when guys were fake, and sometimes it was after I'd started dating them. I learned my lesson...go for the guys who treat me well, and even if the relationship ends, I will _always_ look back on those relationships with fondness. And I do.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Could I have had any guy I wanted? Yes. I could have played to their weaknesses, manipulated them, tossed sex around like it was candy, compromised my personal interests and tastes and values to see which guy would run to me the fastest...I was never tall, uber thin or blonde, but I had a wonderful figure and big boobs and all I would've had to do was use them. But I didn't.


And she calls me arrogant and c*cky. haha

You're cute, but able to get ANY guy you want, even doing all those things... no.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> The moment that female attraction becomes based on an individuals tastes and preferences, so many of those men get automatically defensive, and some get downright cruel.


This is bunk. I'm balding to the degree that I shave my head. If a woman isn't into bald dudes, which is by far the most common rejection I've received in the past two years, it doesn't bother me at all. Its not a trait I can control, therefore it is accepted. It is an intrinsic quality of ME.

There are some women who like clingy guys, even though most women prefer that a guy not be clingy. This *is* within one's control, and changing the behavior is not fakery. Its not being clingy. Being clingy is not an instrinsic quality. It is not an essential element of what it is to be that person anymore than smoking is.

Its not about individual preferences because you haven't met the individual yet. Its adopting behaviors that favor your chances - none of which are intrinsic qualities.

Please excuse me, I have to go fake not smoking.


----------



## Created2Write

Roflol! 

Classic. :rofl:


----------



## VermisciousKnid

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And she calls me arrogant and c*cky. haha
> 
> You're cute, but able to get ANY guy you want, even doing all those things... no.


Seriously! Just as you can take any of People Magazine's Hottest Man Alive winners for the last ten years and some women will look at a few of them and say, "Meh", the same it is for the "hottest" women. No one is a 10 in everyone's book. It's a mathematical certainty.


----------



## treyvion

VermisciousKnid said:


> Seriously! Just as you can take any of People Magazine's Hottest Man Alive winners for the last ten years and some women will look at a few of them and say, "Meh", the same it is for the "hottest" women. No one is a 10 in everyone's book. It's a mathematical certainty.


Right, they might not like that style or like that look.


----------



## Nynaeve

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And she calls me arrogant and c*cky. haha
> 
> You're cute, but able to get ANY guy you want, even doing all those things... no.


Ooh, are we negging now?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Where I disagree, though, is with the idea that dating is a competitive numbers game, where "value" and "standards" are externally defined or based on abundance and scarcity.


Solid phrasing of exactly where we disagree. 

This value or standard is not some fixed thing instrinsic to you as a person. It is value relative to what was available to you. Our standards adjust to the interest we receive. Its one of the reasons we tend to end up with mates of roughly the same attractiveness, and its rare to see a really ugly person with a really beautiful one (<-- and such a thing can only even be said and readily understood, because we all share significant notions of beauty in common).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nynaeve said:


> Ooh, are we negging now?


I've seen that cartoon. 

And no, just stating the obvious, or do you actually disagree?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Wait. I could have used my big boobs to get any guy I wanted?! Why didn't anyone tell me that?!


  j/k... 


I obviously already knew that since I have the man I want
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

Nynaeve said:


> Ooh, are we negging now?


"Now"? If it's an indicator of a seduction technique, both sides have spent the bulk of this thread trying to pick each other up.


----------



## Created2Write

Nynaeve said:


> Ooh, are we negging now?


BAHAHAHA! 


Awesome!


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> What is wrong with adopting babies overseas? What did they ever do to you?!
> _
> (Starts sh*t and leaves thread)_


Not a thing. The argument was that he supposedly left Jennifer because she didn't want kids just yet. If that was the case, Brad could have adopted any time he wanted to.


----------



## Nynaeve

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've seen that cartoon.
> 
> And no, just stating the obvious, or do you actually disagree?


She was obviously being hyperbolic; she didn't mean literally ANY man.

You just wanted to brush by her point and insult her in a passive-aggressive kind of way.


----------



## WyshIknew

So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?

I like to keep myself reasonably trim with a slight V shape, because it's healthy and because I think it is more attractive than a beer belly or somebody with muscles like over inflated balloons.
My wife prefers me slim and doesn't like it if I put on a little weight.

So big boobs and wiggly butt = crotch bulge and V shape?


----------



## ocotillo

Maybe it's just age, but I don't understand the bowling ball thing. :scratchhead: 



Nynaeve said:


>


----------



## WyshIknew

Nynaeve said:


> Ooh, are we negging now?


Gawd, I'd be so destroyed. :rofl:


I think I'd slink out and lick my wounds!


----------



## Created2Write

Nynaeve said:


> She was obviously being hyperbolic; she didn't mean literally ANY man.
> 
> You just wanted to brush by her point and insult her in a passive-aggressive kind of way.


Yep. Pretty much!


----------



## vellocet

ocotillo said:


> Maybe it's just age, but I don't understand the bowling ball thing. :scratchhead:


Uh oh, you are on a sh*t list now if that's the only thing you came away with from that toon


----------



## Created2Write

WyshIknew said:


> So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?
> 
> I like to keep myself reasonably trim with a slight V shape, because it's healthy and because I think it is more attractive than a beer belly or somebody with muscles like over inflated balloons.
> My wife prefers me slim and doesn't like it if I put on a little weight.
> 
> So big boobs and wiggly butt = crotch bulge and V shape?


Wiggly butt?  lol. 

For me, defined shoulders and wonderful quads. Mmmmmmmm.


----------



## vellocet

Nynaeve said:


> She was obviously being hyperbolic; she didn't mean literally ANY man.
> 
> You just wanted to brush by her point and insult her in a passive-aggressive kind of way.


And the insult prior to that by calling him c*cky? You have nothing to say about that obviously.

Look, I know you are biased, and that's ok, D is I'm sure as well as I, but why does almost every thread you and the 3 other usual suspects participate in end up in man rants?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> With a woman that would rather adopt babies overseas?


Rather? She did give birth to Pitt's child.



vellocet said:


> And IF what you said is true, then Brad could have gotten a divorce before cheating, and Angelina could have kept her hands off a married man.


Assuming he cheated (which I don't know, I'm not some follower), do you mean to imply no good person ever cheats? If I recall, (and holy sh*t, we're talking details about celebrities), Brad/Jenn's marriage was on the rocks prior to Brad's meeting Angelina - not that that justifies cheating.



vellocet said:


> You think Brad would have jet setted around the world adopting all these children if he never hooked up with Angelina? In my mind she whipped him and he'll do whatever she wants.


Quite likely. He's reportedly a total hippie bent on saving Africa, well before he met Angelina.



vellocet said:


> And there are numerous reports that they both cheat on each other. Again that is if you believe the tabloids. And with the two of them and their track records, I have no reason to doubt the reports.


Wha? You don't doubt the reports of tabloids based on the track records reported by the tabloids?

Hey, I don't know! I literally only threw his name out there cuz I saw a pic of him in some hippie looking hat the other day and he's just one of the names commonly associated with attractive males. lol


----------



## Thundarr

WyshIknew said:


> So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?


My guess is proportion. An athletic physique will be proportioned similar whether slim or stocky. I certainly won't argue if corrected on this though.


----------



## Nynaeve

WyshIknew said:


> So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?


For me, a nice smile and a sense of humor.


----------



## Created2Write

Nynaeve said:


> For me, a nice smile and a sense of humor.


Also wonderful qualities.


----------



## Nynaeve

vellocet said:


> And the insult prior to that by calling him c*cky? You have nothing to say about that obviously.
> 
> Look, I know you are biased, and that's ok, D is I'm sure as well as I, but why does almost every thread you and the 3 other usual suspects participate in end up in man rants?


LOL, I've participated in maybe 10 threads in this forum. Lots and lots of threads that get controversial and heated have not had the pleasure of my participation.

Why do you feel the need to call me out? Why are you involved in those very same threads?

Pots and kettles. Pots. And. Kettles.


----------



## Nynaeve

ocotillo said:


> Maybe it's just age, but I don't understand the bowling ball thing. :scratchhead:


I think it's just meant to be random. If there's an inside joke there, I'm missing it too.


----------



## vellocet

Nynaeve said:


> LOL, I've participated in maybe 10 threads in this forum. Lots and lots of threads that get controversial and heated have not had the pleasure of my participation.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to call me out?


Why do you feel the need to call D out when he was simply responding to someone that called him c*cky first?

And really? You are going to ask me why I feel the need to call you out when in the misogyny thread I was agreeing with women, but just took exception of those that put words in our mouths? Hypocrisy at its finest.




> Why are you involved in those very same threads?


The threads are fine until it turns into baseless man ranting.



> Pots and kettles. Pots. And. Kettles.


Nope. I don't rant against women. I don't try to make them look like pieces of sh*t. But I will call someone out if they try to turn it into a man rant thread. Because you know damn well if there was a woman rant thread, it just wouldn't be right.


----------



## Created2Write

rofl. Not buying what a few guys keep trying to sell on here over and over is "man ranting"? Wow. 

And he readily admits that he's c0cky and arrogant, by the way. Don't paint him as a victim when he's not.


----------



## Nynaeve

vellocet said:


> Why do you feel the need to call D out when he was simply responding to someone that called him c*cky first?


Because his post reminded me of the comic.



> The threads are fine until it turns into baseless man ranting.


You do realize that "man ranting" means men who are ranting, right?

I have a feeling that's not what you mean to say.

Anyway... No one is ranting against men in this thread, chicken little.



> Nope. I don't rant against women. I don't try to make them look like pieces of sh*t. But I will call someone out if they try to turn it into a man rant thread. Because you know damn well if there was a woman rant thread, it just wouldn't be right.


So you're accusing me of "man ranting?"

Because I posted a comic about negging.

Okay.


----------



## vellocet

Please, anytime there is a civil discussion between adults on these threads, a select few come in and turn it into a gender war. Cheese and f'in rice.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The bowling ball thing is meant to demonstrate that he truly doesn't give sh*t, he's going to have his fun, even if it makes him an @sshole. In other words, he's an actual alpha jerk.

Whereas neg dude is trying to get a girl.

The cartoon more subtly mocks women's taste in men.


----------



## vellocet

Nynaeve said:


> You do realize that "man ranting" means men who are ranting, right?


Not the way I'm looking at it no. Ok, let me rephrase, "badmouthing men", how about that?




> Anyway... No one is ranting against men in this thread, chicken little.


Nah, only taking what a man says and trying to make him look like a jackass. That's ok, though, D can handle it.




> So you're accusing me of "man ranting?"
> 
> Because I posted a comic about negging.
> 
> Okay.


Because you and a few others have a one track mind when posting on this site with your negative views towards men. 

Ya I know, you don't have a negative view towards men


----------



## Nynaeve

vellocet said:


> Not the way I'm looking at it no. Ok, let me rephrase, "badmouthing men", how about that?


It makes more grammatical sense. It's still not what is happening here. But at least you're now conveying the thought you intend to convey.




> Nah, only taking what a man says and trying to make him look like a jackass. That's ok, though, D can handle it.


Oh I don't have to try to make PUA's look like jackasses. They do that all by themselves.



> Because you and a few others have a one track mind when posting on this site with your negative views towards men.
> 
> Ya I know, you don't have a negative view towards men


And you follow certain women around and argue with them anytime they express their opinion. And by "argue" I mean use ad hominem and poisoning the well.

Please. I think we can all see who is and who is not "ranting" at this point.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nynaeve said:


> OMG, it's like word diarrhea with you.
> 
> Saying "I could have any man I wanted" is like saying "I'm starving."
> 
> It's used commonly and everyone except the most obtuse internet warriors knows it's not literal.


Hyperbole makes NO SENSE in the context of the discussion. She was arguing against the perception of a value ascribed to a given mate being influenced by the availability of mates.

So do you mean to say she actually meant, "I couldn't have them all, I could have a lot, and I thought hubby was most attractive overall"? If so, well I'll be damned, she agrees with me and might as well have said nothing at all! That every man isn't actually available to her is important to my point - not an insult. She's a good looking girl, she had options. He's a good looking guy, he had options. They chose each other because they were each at the other's upper end of available mates. If there were a myriad distinctly more attractive (over all, I'm not limiting to the physical) mates available to her, one of THEM would've been chosen, and she wouldn't deem her husband as attractive as she presently thinks he is.

The value perceived is relative to what is available to us.


----------



## vellocet

Nynaeve said:


> And you follow certain women around and argue with them anytime they express their opinion. And by "argue" I mean use ad hominem and poisoning the well.


Take a look at the misogyny rampage thread again and my latest posts there. I pretty much agreed with what the women were saying 100%, but it obviously wasn't good enough. All they knew was there was a man talking and even though he agreed, there had to be something about what I was saying they could find fault with. So I just gave up.



> Please. I think we can all see who is and who is not "ranting" at this point.


Nope, just want you to be consistent. If you are going to jump D for supposedly "insulting" C2W, then you would need to take into consideration her portrayal of him as well.

But of course you won't. She isn't a man. This thread was void of man ranting, and although its not quite gotten to that point yet, the subtle comments point to that it will sooner or later.


----------



## WyshIknew

Nynaeve said:


> For me, a nice smile and a sense of humor.


There is nothing physical that can attract your attention?


----------



## Cosmos

And yet another thread in the Ladies Lounge is likely to be closed before too long

Why does everything become men vs women, alpha vs beta and blasted PUA?

I'm utterly sick of this forum.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Nah, only taking what a man says and trying to make him look like a jackass. That's ok, though, D can handle it.


Nobody is *making* anyone look like a jacka$$. Interesting that you should judge that anyone does in fact come across that way.

And nobody is bad mouthing men either. I don't suppose you'd care to point to an example of where the alleged bad mouthing took place?


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Nobody is *making* anyone look like a jacka$$. Interesting that you should judge that anyone does in fact come across that way.
> 
> And nobody is bad mouthing men either. I don't suppose you'd care to point to an example of where the alleged bad mouthing took place?


Not so much in this thread, but with recent arguments I can see it starting to morph down the road of the misogyny rampage thread, and the "dissection" thread.

And sorry, but you don't get to ask for examples since you never rose to the challenge when you accused men of saying things they never said.


----------



## Nynaeve

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hyperbole makes NO SENSE in the context of the discussion.


Yes, it does. And, really, it's a rather pathetic attempt to force her words into literalism just because you think it doesn't make sense to use hyperbole in a certain context. Regardless of whether you think hyperbole would be appropriate, context indicates that such word usage is generally hyperbolic.

The meaning that was intended was that she could have had a lot of men if she had chosen.

Serious question for you dvls.... Are you capable of just admitting that you're wrong? Or letting something go? 



> She was arguing against the perception of a value ascribed to a given mate being influenced by the availability of mates.


Yeah.



> So do you mean to say she actually meant, "I couldn't have them all, I could have a lot, and I thought hubby was most attractive overall"? If so, well I'll be damned, she agrees with me and might as well have said nothing at all!


It doesn't _necessarily follow_ that because she couldn't have had literally ANY man (just nearly any man) that she wanted then she is agreeing with your premise.

You are making erroneous assumptions. You _assume_ that because some men wouldn't want her those men would have been more attractive to her than her husband. That's not necessarily true.



> That every man isn't actually available to her is important to my point - not an insult. She's a good looking girl, she had options. He's a good looking guy, he had options. They chose each other because they were each at the other's upper end of available mates.


More assumptions that aren't necessarily true. 



> If there were a myriad distinctly more attractive (over all, I'm not limiting to the physical) mates available to her, one of THEM would've been chosen, and she wouldn't deem her husband as attractive as she presently thinks he is.
> 
> The value perceived is relative to what is available to us.


This is circular reasoning. And confusing cause and effect.

Of course she would have chosen a different man if her husband wasn't the most attractive to her. 

That doesn't mean that her husband is only the most attractive to her _because_ other men were unavailable to her.

There were LOTS of other men available to her and yet she chose her husband because to her, he is most attractive.

I don't think anyone is saying that we don't each seek to be with people we perceive as attractive, or even the most attractive to us (not just talking about appearance but personality, etc). 

But to suggest that she would have to have literally EVERY man EVER available to her before she can disagree with your premise is just silly.


----------



## Nynaeve

WyshIknew said:


> There is nothing physical that can attract your attention?



A smile is physical. 

I was thinking in terms of the way men talk about women's boobs and butts making men turn to putty or what have you.

A nice smile can melt my insides. lol.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They chose each other because they were each at the other's upper end of available mates. If there were a myriad distinctly more attractive (over all, I'm not limiting to the physical) mates available to her, one of THEM would've been chosen, and she wouldn't deem her husband as attractive as she presently thinks he is.


Now you're just spinning tautologies. Yes, if she wanted someone else, she would've chosen someone else.

None of that demonstrates that attraction is externally defined or relative to the attention we gather in the slightest.


----------



## Nynaeve

always_alone said:


> Now you're just spinning tautologies. Yes, if she wanted someone else, she would've chosen someone else.
> 
> None of that demonstrates that attraction is externally defined or relative to the attention we gather in the slightest.


You said it better. :iagree:


----------



## Happyfamily

WyshIknew said:


> So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?
> 
> I like to keep myself reasonably trim with a slight V shape, because it's healthy and because I think it is more attractive than a beer belly or somebody with muscles like over inflated balloons.
> My wife prefers me slim and doesn't like it if I put on a little weight.
> 
> So big boobs and wiggly butt = crotch bulge and V shape?


For me, it is _ability_ not so much as looks. 

Look at the wide variation amongst elite athletes - distance runners or soccer vs. football players for example. Sumo in Japan, lol. Physical prowess can come in a lot of different forms.


----------



## always_alone

WyshIknew said:


> So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?


Height, pecs, abs, biceps, a$$, dong.

Not necessarily in that order.


----------



## always_alone

Nynaeve said:


> You said it better. :iagree:


Heh. I didn't see your post until after mine. Seems to me, we said the same thing!


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> And sorry, but you don't get to ask for examples since you never rose to the challenge when you accused men of saying things they never said.


Oh, but I gave you tons of examples. You even agreed with one of them!


----------



## Happyfamily

VermisciousKnid said:


> you can take any of People Magazine's Hottest Man Alive winners for the last ten years and some women will look at a few of them and say, "Meh", the same it is for the "hottest" women. No one is a 10 in everyone's book. It's a mathematical certainty.


I'd go further than that. A 10 in some books is a 3 or 4 in others. 

A bodybuilder turns me off in the same way fashion models turn my husband off. But others swoon over those types. When I see a bodybuilder my first impression is a preening doof who is mostly interested in looking at himself in the mirror.


----------



## treyvion

Happyfamily said:


> For me, it is _ability_ not so much as looks.
> 
> Look at the wide variation amongst elite athletes - distance runners or soccer vs. football players for example. Sumo in Japan, lol. Physical prowess can come in a lot of different forms.


It can.

But a a point guard, a middle weight boxer or defensive back in football will typically be the typically more attractive body forms.

The bigger guys will have people that like them bigger too.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ocotillo said:


> I've got a question for the ladies, hopefully more in the spirit of the thread.
> 
> If you go back just 70 to 80 years in the United States, the stereotype of a big, strong man being somewhat brutish, dull witted and stupid was much more firmly entrenched in people's minds.
> 
> The "Ideal" man as presented in popular culture at the time was far more manicured. So much so as to be considered effeminate by today's standards.
> 
> You can see this, for example, in the evolution of heroes in comics that ran for many decades. Compare, for example an early Prince Valiant (Top) with a much later Prince Valiant (Bottom):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is more attractive today?


They are comics! Neither of them!


----------



## ocotillo

NobodySpecial said:


> They are comics! Neither of them!


LOL - Okay 

I could make the point with pictures, but it's not quite as striking because we'd be comparing different people.


----------



## Cosmos

ocotillo said:


> I've got a question for the ladies, hopefully more in the spirit of the thread.
> 
> If you go back just 70 to 80 years in the United States, the stereotype of a big, strong man being somewhat brutish, dull witted and stupid was much more firmly entrenched in people's minds.
> 
> The "Ideal" man as presented in popular culture at the time was far more manicured. So much so as to be considered effeminate by today's standards.
> 
> You can see this, for example, in the evolution of heroes in comics that ran for many decades. Compare, for example an early Prince Valiant (Top) with a much later Prince Valiant (Bottom):
> 
> 
> Which is more attractive today?


Neither. The first one looks like a 1930s housewife, and the second looks as though he's either very moody or in pain.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Now you're just spinning tautologies. Yes, if she wanted someone else, she would've chosen someone else.
> 
> None of that demonstrates that attraction is externally defined or relative to the attention we gather in the slightest.


It's not a tautology. *Better* wasn't available to her. Again, if a whole bunch of more attractive men were available to her, she wouldn't have thought her husband was all that. Its relative.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## treyvion

Cosmos said:


> Neither. The first one looks like a 1930s housewife, and the second looks as though he's either very moody or in pain.


The second one looks like the Malbaro man. Attractive to some, not attractive to many.


----------



## ocotillo

Cosmos said:


> Neither. The first one looks like a 1930s housewife, and the second looks as though he's either very moody or in pain.


I can see I should have been more specific with the question. My bad.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It's not a tautology. *Better* wasn't available to her. Again, if a whole bunch of more attractive men were available to her, she wouldn't have thought her husband was all that. Its relative.


Tautology! She could be boffing god himself, and you'd be here making the same argument. Not hot enough to attract super-meta god.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Nobody is *making* anyone look like a jacka$$. Interesting that you should judge that anyone does in fact come across that way.
> 
> And nobody is bad mouthing men either. I don't suppose you'd care to point to an example of where the alleged bad mouthing took place?


Does word diarrhea and obtuse internet warrior count? lol

Nynaeve got her panties in a twist and I wasn't even insulting c2w. She in fact can't have any man she wants, and this is pertinent to my point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Tautology! She could be boffing god himself, and you'd be here making the same argument. Not hot enough to attract super-meta god.


The funny thing about looks, for me, is that they are not at all an enduring indicator of attraction. I was talking to someone about this guy she thought was super handsome. I had to think. I remember thinking when I met him that he was handsome. But it took about 1/2 hour of his talking to over come that. After knowing him (and the way he treated his GD) and I cannot even SEE him as handsome. "Hot", for me, is a lot different after an hour, a day, a week, a year, 2 decades.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Tautology! She could be boffing god himself, and you'd be here making the same argument. Not hot enough to attract super-meta god.


Annnnd... now you see why her not being able to have any man is an important thing. There are men she would want more than she did her husband, that she can't get. If she could get them, she wouldn't have valued the guy that became her husband as much. So much for the individuals! argument. Its also why I dont date fat chicks (oh, I know, I'm so shallow and mean). I can do better. If all the interest I got was from fat chicks, I'd pick the best fat chick and think she's awesome.

Not a tautology; relative. Quick note since someone is bound to get uptight about a fat comment, I dont limit this to looks. They're just easier to discuss.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I've got a question for the ladies, hopefully more in the spirit of the thread.
> 
> If you go back just 70 to 80 years in the United States, the stereotype of a big, strong man being somewhat brutish, dull witted and stupid was much more firmly entrenched in people's minds.
> 
> The "Ideal" man as presented in popular culture at the time was far more manicured. So much so as to be considered effeminate by today's standards.


Today's standards strike me as all over the map. We still see the hulking, not too bright, Rambo characters. And we still have the suave, witty, and debonair James Bond heroes. And some sensitive artistic heroes.

Dandy, though, seems to be mostly out, except in certain select circles. 

But maybe I'm just clueless about fashion.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Does word diarrhea and obtuse internet warrior count? lol


Oh, yes, there has definitely been bad mouthing going on. No doubt. But it's been reserved for select individuals, not applied across the board.

Which was how I interpreted the post I was responding to.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> They are comics! Neither of them!


Yea those were hideous weren't they. 

To Ocotillo's question, many of the leading mean from decades past would be swooned over today.
Cary Grant, Marlin Brando, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable. Later on James Dean, Elvis, etc. Then Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, Frank Sinatra, to mention the ones I can think of.


Personally I don't get the stick figure women that some entertainment tries to tell us is sexy. It seems like the industry has a fetish with it or something. Sorry but we're not buying it. Someone needs to give these fashion models a cheeseburger or something.

I used to watch old movies on occasion. I don't remember which movie it was but I remember seeing Ingrid Bergman in an early 1930s movie and she was hot then and would be hot now. It doesn't change.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> So what's the guy equivalent of big boobs and a wiggly butt?
> 
> I like to keep myself reasonably trim with a slight V shape, because it's healthy and because I think it is more attractive than a beer belly or somebody with muscles like over inflated balloons.
> My wife prefers me slim and doesn't like it if I put on a little weight.
> 
> So big boobs and wiggly butt = crotch bulge and V shape?


Overall fitness grabs me every time, and I find very fit 50+ men to be the best of the best. 

Also, am I the only gal who checks out hot women? I swear I oogle women more than I do men. I just love beautiful bodies. Maybe I figure it's safer to check out women because I don't get caught at it as often? I'm constantly getting into "glancing matches" with women . . . with men I tend to force myself to look elsewhere because if I get caught, it's going to be pretty obvious why.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Today's standards strike me as all over the map. We still see the hulking, not too bright, Rambo characters. And we still have the suave, witty, and debonair James Bond heroes. And some sensitive artistic heroes.
> 
> Dandy, though, seems to be mostly out, except in certain select circles.
> 
> But maybe I'm just clueless about fashion.


"Dandy" is a good word to describe the ideal of yesteryear. Thank you. 

If I'm not mistaken, there's been quite a bit of evolution even with the James Bond character with Daniel Craig, although not a young man, still being the most physically fit actor to play the role in recent history.


----------



## Adeline

lack of empathy.


----------



## ocotillo

Thundarr said:


> To Ocotillo's question, many of the leading mean from decades past would be swooned over today.
> Cary Grant, Marlin Brando, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable. Later on James Dean, Elvis, etc. Then Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery, Frank Sinatra, to mention the ones I can think of.


Cary Grant would be the oldest of the actors you list above, but even he came a little after what I had in mind, which has its roots in European notions of nobility vs. commoners. 

Manual labor, like being a blacksmith, was beneath nobility, so a man with the physical stature of a blacksmith was considered inferior by default. The idea can be found everywhere, from early pulp fiction like Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote to German forays into eugenics. 

But it's interesting that none of the actors you mention really compares physically to a lot of actors today, including Hugh Jackman, Chris Hemsworth, Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Jeremy Renner, etc.


----------



## treyvion

ocotillo said:


> Cary Grant would be the oldest of the actors you list above, but even he came a little after what I had in mind, which has its roots in European notions of nobility vs. commoners.
> 
> Manual labor, like being a blacksmith, was beneath nobility, so a man with the physical stature of a blacksmith was considered inferior by default. The idea can be found everywhere, from early pulp fiction like Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote to German forays into eugenics.
> 
> But it's interesting that none of the actors you mention really compares physically to a lot of actors today, including Hugh Jackman, Chris Hemsworth, Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Jeremy Renner, etc.


Some of them more trim and debonaire early actors do signify more purity and intelligence in them...

I'm a bigger guy too, but I can see that. It's less physical mass on some of these small guys, but if they have confidence it is bigger than them.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Now you're just spinning tautologies. Yes, if she wanted someone else, she would've chosen someone else.
> 
> None of that demonstrates that attraction is externally defined or relative to the attention we gather in the slightest.


Exactly. Otherwise the only option is that no one will ever be good enough for anyone, ever. If there's always "someone better", it means we're all just settling for what we can get, which is nonsense.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not a tautology; relative.


What you're basically saying is there has to be someone better out there that she can't have because there is someone better out there, and she can't have him.

Sounds pretty tautological to me.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> Exactly. Otherwise the only option is that no one will ever be good enough for anyone, ever. If there's always "someone better", it means we're all just settling for what we can get, which is nonsense.


Yes, this is what I've been trying to get across.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> What you're basically saying is there has to be someone better out there that she can't have because there is someone better out there, and she can't have him.
> 
> Sounds pretty tautological to me.


that's how the perpetual singles who say they can't find anyone good enough are. It be 40 years past and they passed hundreds of people who would have fit well with them in a LTR.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> What you're basically saying is there has to be someone better out there that she can't have because there is someone better out there, and she can't have him.
> 
> Sounds pretty tautological to me.


I agree. It implies that I only chose my husband because there was no one "better" to choose from. God forbid that I actually fell in love, or that I chose him because I genuinely believed him to be the best guy I would, or could, ever find. I didn't stand at the altar thinking, "I guess this is as good as it's gonna get...hope I don't regret it." 

I don't believe that any man could be better than my husband. He has his faults, some of them difficult to deal with, but I still consider myself lucky that the faults I have to deal with aren't ones others have to deal with. A friend of mine's husband is extremely LD. No motivation. Refuses to go to the doctor to be tested. Takes his frustrations out on her. Yells, shouts, throws things. I don't have to deal with those issues. Another friend of mine's husband shuts down when he's upset, get's frustrated easily, won't talk to her. I don't have to deal with those issues. He has no addictions, no financial problems, he's not lazy, he's not pessimistic, he doesn't have anger issues, he doesn't view porn, he doesn't lie, he doesn't treat me like garbage or view me like garbage, he's never called me a name, he's never shouted, he's been there for me when it's been the hardest in our relationship and when I've been at my worst, he loves me and does his best to show me everyday. 

I wouldn't leave him if Chris Hemsworth asked me to marry him. 

Dvls places much more value on looks than I do. My husband wasn't just the best in my life at that time, he really is the best man I have ever known, and I believe he's the best I ever will know. SO MUCH makes him sexy and attractive to me that his looks, really, play a minor role. They matter, but not nearly as much as Dvls thinks. For me, at least. For my husband looks were high in his priorities. That's how I know I'm wicked hot.  But they weren't for me.


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> I wouldn't leave him if Chris Hemsworth asked me to marry him.


That's inspiring. I kinda think my wife would trade me for Chris Hemsworth in a heart beat.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nynaeve said:


> Yes, it does. And, really, it's a rather pathetic attempt to force her words into literalism just because you think it doesn't make sense to use hyperbole in a certain context. Regardless of whether you think hyperbole would be appropriate, context indicates that such word usage is generally hyperbolic.


It only has relevance to the point I was making IF its not hyperbolic. If there are men she would want, that wouldn't want her, my point stands. So it was utterly pointless of her to say.



Nynaeve said:


> The meaning that was intended was that she could have had a lot of men if she had chosen.


Doesn't contradict my argument.



Nynaeve said:


> Serious question for you dvls.... Are you capable of just admitting that you're wrong? Or letting something go?


Yep. Did it earlier in this thread when I admitted to taking a jab at AA out of irritation with someone else... I was in the wrong and apologized. Did it again in this thread when Scarlet mentioned the derailment of the thread. I was wrong. I should have spun off a separate thread. I conceded I was wrong yesterday in a physics discussion related to schroedinger's cat on another forum. I've tripped up in my understanding of quantum wave/particle duality being used as the basis of another point I was trying to argue and admitted to being wrong. Wrong is cool. Every time I'm wrong, I'm closer to being right. Serious question for you? Do you?



Nynaeve said:


> It doesn't _necessarily follow_ that because she couldn't have had literally ANY man (just nearly any man) that she wanted then she is agreeing with your premise.


If men she would find significantly more attractive than her husband to be actually showed interest in her, then she would have thought less of her current husband. Her opinion of her husband is relative to the men who were available to her.



Nynaeve said:


> You are making erroneous assumptions. You _assume_ that because some men wouldn't want her those men would have been more attractive to her than her husband. That's not necessarily true.


That's not my position. My position assumes that her husband is not the most attractive man she has ever seen or can conceive of existing - that there are in fact, men who she finds or would find more attractive (not a wild assumption I should think). Her value of her husband is conditioned upon these men not showing her interest. If they did, she wouldn't think as highly of her husband. She would have picked one of these other men. 

Its counter to AA's view, that its all about the individual. Its not. Its relative to what you can get.



Nynaeve said:


> This is circular reasoning. And confusing cause and effect.
> 
> Of course she would have chosen a different man if her husband wasn't the most attractive to her.


No, she wouldn't. Because the man she would find more attractive doesn't choose HER. She is constrained by their choices. She is constrained by what is attainable... what is available to her. Everyone is.



Nynaeve said:


> That doesn't mean that her husband is only the most attractive to her _because_ other men were unavailable to her.


So its more reasonable to assume that she finds or would find no man or set of qualities likely to exist more attractive than those of her husband? I already know this is untrue from private conversations as to his faults that I won't share here. There are plenty of people she would find more attractive. If they were plentiful even, her present husband might not even have registered on her radar... just like overweight women don't register on mine. If all the interest I got was overweight women, I'd value the most attractive of them.

Standards adjust to the interest received, or you adjust to receive more interest. Very few people will just go without. 



Nynaeve said:


> There were LOTS of other men available to her and yet she chose her husband because to her, he is most attractive.


Of the men interested in her. We can fairly safely assume he's not Adonis. He was the best of those interested in her. How amazingly attractive she finds him, is not the sole product of her preferences, but influenced by who showed her interest. If a plethora of more attractive men showed interest, hubs isn't special anymore... even though nobody changed at all. 



Nynaeve said:


> But to suggest that she would have to have literally EVERY man EVER available to her before she can disagree with your premise is just silly.


Hardly, she could just demonstrate that she chose her husband over significantly more attractive men who showed her interest (doesn't make much sense to do, but hey...).

There are no men more attractive than her husband, regardless of their lack of interest in her (this one is flawed though, considering she's judging from a position of already having bonded with hubby).

If there are more attractive guys, why didn't she choose one of them? Because she couldn't. The more attractive guys would opt for more attractive girls. Judging her husband as really attractive, was relative to those interested, even if there were a lot of them. This is how we get every **** and Jane thinking they scored. The person is special, to THEM; not because of intrinsic quality, but relative to the interest they received. Or do you really think a fat woman thinks her fat best available option bf is really more attractive than Ryan Gosling?

If you'd like, I'll try to restate this in more concise formal notation. But by all means, prove me wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Or, we can drop it.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> That's inspiring. I kinda think my wife would trade me for Chris Hemsworth in a heart beat.


She'd be crazy then. Cause you're a great guy.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> She'd be crazy then. Cause you're a great guy.


Oh ... like we haven't heard that one before ...


----------



## Created2Write

You can mock it if you want, Deej. But I happen to be one of those women are really _did_ want a great guy, and I actually chose one too. So I don't say that he's a great guy just to make him feel better, I really mean that a woman who leaves a great guy for someone who might be better looking, is crazy.


----------



## Thundarr

ocotillo said:


> But it's interesting that none of the actors you mention really compares physically to a lot of actors today, including Hugh Jackman, Chris Hemsworth, Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Jeremy Renner, etc.


I'm not sure that the science of building muscle mass while still staying slim existed 70-80 years ago, not to mention the supplements. ehh but what do I know? You may be right. The ladies can answer that question. I just know the pics you presented were not accurate of leading men of the time. Who knows the dynamics at play with random comic book caricatures.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Oh the frustration of writing a post and your tablet battery finally giving up the ghost... *poof goes your post*. Goodnight y'all.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> Oh ... like we haven't heard that one before ...


This is the best photo ever. It can and has been used for everything.

*One does NOT simply....FILL IN THE BLANK...*


----------



## Created2Write

Night all. Time for me to sleep with my uber sexy husband who really is the sh1t.


----------



## ocotillo

Thundarr said:


> I just know the pics you presented were not accurate of leading men of the time. Who knows the dynamics at play with random comic book caricatures.


Well some of this is certainly subjective, but I would say that Ramon Novarro, John Gilbert and youthful versions of Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power, Buster Crabbe and Rudolf Valentino all fell within the slender fencer body type that was considered ideal.


----------



## Happyfamily

always_alone said:


> What you're basically saying is there has to be someone better out there that she can't have because there is someone better out there, and she can't have him.
> 
> Sounds pretty tautological to me.


I was saying in another thread that a prime feature of cults is the invention of pretentious vocabulary/jargon that gives a false impression of elite status and special understanding or insight. Along with the jargon comes a whole set of other baffling practices such as circular reasoning, compartmentalized thinking in the face of glaring contradictions, etc. 

You can't be brainwashed if you object to the jargon, circular reasoning, fallacy of definition, or notice contradictions and etc. The great irony is in holding out promise of great powers like attaining "clear" in Scientology or levitation in Transcendental Meditation or getting on a space ship behind a comet in Heaven's Gate, etc. - what ends up happening instead is things that are not just useless but even destructive to the member. They need de-programming to interact normally with non-cult members. 

All of them are going to swear that what they are doing "works". A person from the outside can say "I do not see you levitating" or "you can't be a clear if you catch colds" or "what you are doing is unattractive" and they will always say that you don't understand. Just get deeper into the jargon honey... believe what I tell you to believe...


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> You can mock it if you want, Deej. But I happen to be one of those women are really _did_ want a great guy, and I actually chose one too. So I don't say that he's a great guy just to make him feel better, I really mean that a woman who leaves a great guy for someone who might be better looking, is crazy.


Not mocking you. Just couldn't resist the urge to throw up that photo.

She doesn't post here anymore that I'm aware of, but I'm sure you remember The Real Brighteyes?

She came to the site not long after I did. Wanted to fix her relationship with her husband. She would gush about him. Tall, handsome, Mensa member, very successful businessman. Good father.

She WANTED to remain attracted to him. Desperately. I admired her for that. I can remember feeling similar about my ex wife. But the problem was ... that her handsome, successful husband kept poisoning the well. He consistently behaved in a way that was baffling. He wouldn't meet her needs. She wanted sex more than he did. He would forget things that were important to her. Frequently, he would just do some incredibly stupid and insensitive stuff. 

So here is the thing that is glaringly clear to me in these discussions.

Nothing is static. What is attractive, what is unattractive. Even in a relationship, the terms are subject to change.

Attraction is important. Behaving in a manner that fosters it in your partner is paramount to a long term, satisfying relationship. Behaving in a manner that torpedoes it, will rot the foundation of your relationship and eventually it will become, irrecoverable.

Happens all of the time. Happens in some way shape or form in virtually every struggling marriage that we can read about here.

Attraction is the fuel that makes a relationship hum along. There are plenty of other important moving parts to be sure, but take attraction out of the equation and those other parts are likely to become stuck.

Which is why, in my opinion, these topics always engender a tremendous amount of debate. I don't for a moment believe that men and women are attracted to one another in the same manner.

But regardless of how it manifests in either gender, if you want long term success, and that feeling of 'magic' then attraction needs to be present, fostered, and maintained.

And most folks simply don't know that. Which ... invariably becomes unattractive.


----------



## heartsbeating

Personal said:


> That's funny, my wife would probably trade me for David Tennant.


Time-lords are whole other consideration.


----------



## heartsbeating

Deejo said:


> Nothing is static. What is attractive, what is unattractive. Even in a relationship, the terms are subject to change.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

oh yay we're still on this topic!! Woohoo!!


----------



## Omego

ocotillo said:


> That's inspiring. I kinda think my wife would trade me for Chris Hemsworth in a heart beat.


:rofl::rofl: I think anyone would trade anyone in for Chris Hemsworth.


----------



## Dollystanford

Someone who seeks to blame you for being pissed off about their crappy behaviour. It's incredibly unattractive


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> That's inspiring. I kinda think my wife would trade me for Chris Hemsworth in a heart beat.


Just out of curiousity, would you trade her in for [insert celebrity name] in a heartbeat.

Have to say, I just don't get the celebrity worship thing at all. They're just people with good make-up artists and script writers.


----------



## Omego

always_alone said:


> Just out of curiousity, would you trade her in for [insert celebrity name] in a heartbeat.
> 
> Have to say, I just don't get the celebrity worship thing at all. They're just people with good make-up artists and script writers.


It's just a joke. We're not serious!


----------



## Dollystanford

I wouldn't trade a partner in for the Fassdong but I'd like a go on him. Just once!


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Nothing is static. What is attractive, what is unattractive. Even in a relationship, the terms are subject to change.


Well, yes, because you can't distill attraction down to a few simple variables isolated from the whole of the person. A person can be a 10 in looks, and still be quite unattractive to many. A person can have it all, and still not be able to attract the person they wish to. There is no formula.

Now you can try to play by numbers and appeal to the most possible people, but this isn't necessarily going to help much. So what if you can attract a bunch of people that you aren't attracted to yourself?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Deejo said:


> Not mocking you. Just couldn't resist the urge to throw up that photo.
> 
> She doesn't post here anymore that I'm aware of, but I'm sure you remember The Real Brighteyes?
> 
> She came to the site not long after I did. Wanted to fix her relationship with her husband. She would gush about him. Tall, handsome, Mensa member, very successful businessman. Good father.
> 
> She WANTED to remain attracted to him. Desperately. I admired her for that. I can remember feeling similar about my ex wife. But the problem was ... that her handsome, successful husband kept poisoning the well. He consistently behaved in a way that was baffling. He wouldn't meet her needs. She wanted sex more than he did. He would forget things that were important to her. Frequently, he would just do some incredibly stupid and insensitive stuff.
> 
> So here is the thing that is glaringly clear to me in these discussions.
> 
> Nothing is static. What is attractive, what is unattractive. Even in a relationship, the terms are subject to change.
> 
> *Attraction is important. Behaving in a manner that fosters it in your partner is paramount to a long term, satisfying relationship. *Behaving in a manner that torpedoes it, will rot the foundation of your relationship and eventually it will become, irrecoverable.
> 
> Happens all of the time. Happens in some way shape or form in virtually every struggling marriage that we can read about here.
> 
> *Attraction is the fuel that makes a relationship hum along. *There are plenty of other important moving parts to be sure, but take attraction out of the equation and those other parts are likely to become stuck.
> 
> Which is why, in my opinion, these topics always engender a tremendous amount of debate. I don't for a moment believe that men and women are attracted to one another in the same manner.
> 
> But regardless of how it manifests in either gender, if you want long term success, and that feeling of 'magic' then attraction needs to be present, fostered, and maintained.
> 
> And most folks simply don't know that. Which ... invariably becomes unattractive.


This pretty much sums up the "eureka!" that my husband and I arrived at after ten years of struggle. If I'm not sexually attracted to him, then he can't be happy, which means our marriage can't be happy. We're both much happier when I'm attracted to him, which took a certain amount of work on both our parts to reestablish, but it's back and we're cookin'.


----------



## Trickster

GettingIt said:


> This pretty much sums up the "eureka!" that my husband and I arrived at after ten years of struggle. If I'm not sexually attracted to him, then he can't be happy, which means our marriage can't be happy. We're both much happier when I'm attracted to him, which took a certain amount of work on both our parts to reestablish, but it's back and we're cookin'.


What did your husband change to relight that passion/fire?

Did he change or did you just have that "eureka" moment?


----------



## Jellybeans

Dollystanford said:


> I wouldn't trade a partner in for the Fassdong but I'd like a go on him. Just once!


Michael Fassbender?

He is my movie boyfriend. Swoon!


----------



## Trickster

Created2Write said:


> You can mock it if you want, Deej. But I happen to be one of those women are really _did_ want a great guy, and I actually chose one too. So I don't say that he's a great guy just to make him feel better, I really mean that a woman who leaves a great guy for someone who might be better looking, is crazy.


My wife thinks I am a "great" guy. She even thinks I am handsome. She is just not sexually attracted to me. She is willing to stay forever because most of the time, I am that "great/nice" guy...She will even have sex. I know that sexual attraction is not there. 

Does that make me unattractive?

You say your husband is a great guy. Are you sexually attracted to him? You must be...even if it's just a little...


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: What makes a man unattractive?*



always_alone said:


> Well, yes, because you can't distill attraction down to a few simple variables isolated from the whole of the person. A person can be a 10 in looks, and still be quite unattractive to many. A person can have it all, and still not be able to attract the person they wish to. There is no formula.
> 
> Now you can try to play by numbers and appeal to the most possible people, but this isn't necessarily going to help much. So what if you can attract a bunch of people that you aren't attracted to yourself?


So you agree but you disagree? That's so, you.

I'll sum up my personal perspective, free of any of the polarizing concepts.

What is unattractive isn't random. Beyond the scope of not finding someone physically attractive, we're generally talking about belief systems and behaviors. 

Attraction is a fundamentally selfish concept. Your partner, or the object of your desire triggers something in you ... that makes them desirable.

Your attraction to them isn't really about them, it's about you. Which in turn means that if your partner is also attracted to you, then you are flipping their switches as well.

We could bring, dedication and commitment into the picture, but those qualities although admirable, have exactly jack-squat to do with attraction ... unless you are already attracted, in which case they feed the attraction engine in a LTR. Take them away, and you start to feel uncertain, replaceable, undervalued.

The single biggest difference between who I am now, and who I was 6 years ago is that I pay attention to attraction. Emphasis on paying attention.

I don't change who I am or become some kind of chameleon to keep a woman around. If I am attracted to her, I pay attention to her responses. I try to meet her needs. I also pay attention to her responses in terms of meeting mine.

I simply no longer believe that there comes a point where you can sit back and be passive in a relationship.

One of the singular best pieces of advice I have taken in from this board was how to behave as a man in a relationship, and it all seems so simple when you hear it. "Bring your A game, every single day."

Therefore the corollary becomes a no-brainer as well. If you are being, and giving your best in a relationship, and your partner isn't giving back, or isn't into you as a result, it's time to move on.

And the cornerstone of getting into that relationship in the first place, is attraction. That's what lights the fire. You can pay attention and keep it lit, or ignore it, take it for granted and watch it die.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: What makes a man unattractive?*



GettingIt said:


> This pretty much sums up the "eureka!" that my husband and I arrived at after ten years of struggle. If I'm not sexually attracted to him, then he can't be happy, which means our marriage can't be happy. We're both much happier when I'm attracted to him, which took a certain amount of work on both our parts to reestablish, but it's back and we're cookin'.


LOL, and your concise and validating post sums up my wall of text above.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Happyfamily said:


> I was saying in another thread that a prime feature of cults is the invention of pretentious vocabulary/jargon that gives a false impression of elite status and special understanding or insight. Along with the jargon comes a whole set of other baffling practices such as circular reasoning, compartmentalized thinking in the face of glaring contradictions, etc.


That's funny, because I don't care about the vocabulary. I've repeatedly said on this forum I consider "negging" to be little more than a pretentious name for teasing. It didn't need another name.



Happyfamily said:


> All of them are going to swear that what they are doing "works". A person from the outside can say "I do not see you levitating" or "you can't be a clear if you catch colds" or "what you are doing is unattractive" and they will always say that you don't understand. Just get deeper into the jargon honey... believe what I tell you to believe...


Actually the response from "outsiders" rolleyes, is generally, "What did you say? How do you do that?" or a funny "I hate you."

---wall-o-text warning--- ...but really I think its worth reading if you'd like to know how it actually goes down.

Approaching a woman in a group is one such obvious demonstration. I've watched friends try to talk to such a woman and get the cold shoulder. I've done it myself way back and gotten the same. The group reacts negatively, even trying to deflect attention from her (especially male friends, if present). Its very common, as women don't tend to be out alone in the singles scene. You come back thinking those people are unfriendly @ssholes. In truth, you appeared to be a creep... even though you didn't really do anything creepy.

They're not actually @ssholes. You're the @sshole for not respecting the group. I now talk to the whole group. The group is my focus, not the girl. Gain acceptance from the group, become part of the group, before flirting with the woman. The group acts as a proxy for her ordinary stranger caution. If present, I actually give most attention to the males (which you won't find in any pickup book I've read... this is something I've learned)... starting a conversation on something about them (sports attire is the easiest - so many guys love to talk about their team). The girls might be into sports. If they're bored and excluded by sports talk, you can play on how bored they are and self-deprecate. Unlike the females, connecting with just one guy will usually get you an introduction to everyone else. If its a group of girls, you can't focus on any of them. You let the conversation naturally drift and don't force it. 

You keep your ears open to the sub-conversations you're not active in, and jump in with your own affirming anecdotes, "Are you talking about such and such!? That just happened to me the other day! I can't believe how blah blah blah" - you relate. You shift from person to person and get involved with them. Once accepted by the group, I'm not the scary stranger I was. Her friends have effectively vouched for me, and she's more receptive to my flirtation and increase in attention. At no point do I ignore her... she's just not the focus.

Depending on circumstances, I might say I've got to go back to my table... "before my friends ditch me" (minor self-deprecation... I don't take myself too seriously). I'm very likely to come back at some point. Or, I'll mention that I have some friends at another table and ask if they mind if we (my friends) join them. Often, when I mention having to go back to my friends, or buddy, they'll offer... "Why don't yall come hang?" My favorite invite has been a girl who said "Bring them! Sit with us! Creepy guys keep talking to us!" Objective accomplished. Flirt at will. 

Sometimes I'll end up liking a different woman more than the one I was motivated to pursue. But now I increase the attention. It feels to me more like I'm signaling to her, "You've sold me... I'm more and more attracted to you." Sometimes I'll get a number, sometimes I won't. When I've asked, I usually get it... other times a girl will ask ME for my fb (which kinda sucked for me a couple years ago, because I had deleted my fb around the time of my divorce, and so many women were asking for fb accounts! Not having one is suspicious apparently). Regardless, success isn't bedding her that night. Success is getting her interest, and keeping contact so you can set up another go. I've gotten a lot of dates this way. Other times, there's strong chemistry and she's responsive to my attempt to isolate her and change the location. In my experience if she accepts, its almost universally signaling "Hell yes I'll have sex with you." Most common net result either way: a relationship of some sort. ONSs are less common.

I don't need someone to understand *why* I think it works, to have ample evidence that this does in fact work. It's not levitation or magic. Anyone can do this. I don't have special powers.

Sorry for the long post. Word diarrhea... I'll try not to breath on anyone. But this is the whole process, and there's nothing deceitful or manipulative about it. I approach in a manner in which they will be receptive to the approach and see me for me, rather than defensively dismiss me. Most of pickup is focused on this rapport building.

Oh, one more thing... friends I make with the guys in the group, often outlast the relationship. I've made quite a few friends this way. Approaching groups is the best. Even if you don't get the girl, you make friends and have a good time.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I simply no longer believe that there comes a point where you can sit back and be passive in a relationship.


Oh, there it is: Drive by agreement!

Smile. Nod. Wave.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Oh, there it is: Drive by agreement!
> 
> Smile. Nod. Wave.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> Not mocking you. Just couldn't resist the urge to throw up that photo.
> 
> She doesn't post here anymore that I'm aware of, but I'm sure you remember The Real Brighteyes?
> 
> She came to the site not long after I did. Wanted to fix her relationship with her husband. She would gush about him. Tall, handsome, Mensa member, very successful businessman. Good father.
> 
> She WANTED to remain attracted to him. Desperately. I admired her for that. I can remember feeling similar about my ex wife. But the problem was ... that her handsome, successful husband kept poisoning the well. He consistently behaved in a way that was baffling. He wouldn't meet her needs. She wanted sex more than he did. He would forget things that were important to her. Frequently, he would just do some incredibly stupid and insensitive stuff.
> 
> So here is the thing that is glaringly clear to me in these discussions.
> 
> Nothing is static. What is attractive, what is unattractive. Even in a relationship, the terms are subject to change.
> 
> Attraction is important. Behaving in a manner that fosters it in your partner is paramount to a long term, satisfying relationship. Behaving in a manner that torpedoes it, will rot the foundation of your relationship and eventually it will become, irrecoverable.
> 
> Happens all of the time. Happens in some way shape or form in virtually every struggling marriage that we can read about here.
> 
> Attraction is the fuel that makes a relationship hum along. There are plenty of other important moving parts to be sure, but take attraction out of the equation and those other parts are likely to become stuck.
> 
> Which is why, in my opinion, these topics always engender a tremendous amount of debate. I don't for a moment believe that men and women are attracted to one another in the same manner.
> 
> But regardless of how it manifests in either gender, if you want long term success, and that feeling of 'magic' then attraction needs to be present, fostered, and maintained.
> 
> And most folks simply don't know that. Which ... invariably becomes unattractive.


I don't disagree.


----------



## Deejo

I'm on a roll.


----------



## Created2Write

Trickster said:


> My wife thinks I am a "great" guy. She even thinks I am handsome. She is just not sexually attracted to me. She is willing to stay forever because most of the time, I am that "great/nice" guy...She will even have sex. I know that sexual attraction is not there.
> 
> Does that make me unattractive?


You should ask your wife that question. I don't know you and can't comment. 



> You say your husband is a great guy. Are you sexually attracted to him? You must be...even if it's just a little...


I am extremely sexually attracted to him _because_ he's such a great guy. He has his faults, and I have mine. Life happens. He's stuck with me through it all, on top of working hard to provide for us both, and supporting me through loss. Maybe I'm odd, but I actually value those things. And yes, they make me hot for him.


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Just out of curiousity, would you trade her in for [insert celebrity name] in a heartbeat.


Well Hollywood's infatuation with youth makes things a little awkward at my age when leading ladies tend to be younger than my youngest child 

But the answer to your question is an unqualified, "No." 



always_alone said:


> Have to say, I just don't get the celebrity worship thing at all. They're just people with good make-up artists and script writers.


I think some people enjoy books and movies at a level that might qualify as mild hypnosis. My wife has enjoyed Laura Ingalls Wilder since she was a child and once in a while when she's bored, she'll blow through one of the books again. When she reads _The Long Winter_, she has to get up several times and go outside in the 100+ degree heat to, in her words, "Warm up." --That's how deeply she gets immersed in the story. 

I don't know, maybe that would help explain infatuation with movie characters too.... (?)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I don't have an infatuation with celebs, they're just people we all recognize and they're typically thought attractive - discussion aids.


----------



## treyvion

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't have an infatuation with celebs, they're just people we all recognize and they're typically thought attractive - discussion aids.


Yeah it's just discussion points. There are some in "real" life who may be even physically more presentable than some of the actors we mention. But each of the actors will have different type of looks and we can use them for frame of reference.


----------



## Trickster

I've been in my new office building a little over 6 months. There is an investment firm I pass buy every day to get to my door. Once or twice a week, I see the women hanging out in their reception area...usually I am always in a hurry and I would give a quick wave and be gone. There are four women, three out of the four are drop dead gorgeous. 

So yesterday, I passed by their door and saw them all again.. So this time, I turned around and went it. I said something like "I've been here forever and thought it was time to introduce myself". one said "its about time"...

I talked about mutual clients we have and they all new them right away. They knew where I worked. Then I asked them if they actually work or do they just hang out. I said other things I don't remember. I know they all laughed at whatever I was saying...I was a little nervous. I don't know if they noticed. It was a short introduction and I cut it short because I really had somewhere else to be...

It seemed they knew all about me and my work.. I think I may have made new friends ... I wonder why I waited so long too...

No matter how beautiful people are, *"they are all just people" *All these lady's were so sweet. The older I get, the more I realize that.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I think some people enjoy books and movies at a level that might qualify as mild hypnosis.


Yeah, escapism I get; it's the streams of drool I find surprising. Maybe just because I'm terrible at suspending my disbelief.


----------



## WyshIknew

Trickster said:


> I've been in my new office building a little over 6 months. There is an investment firm I pass buy every day to get to my door. Once or twice a week, I see the women hanging out in their reception area...usually I am always in a hurry and I would give a quick wave and be gone. There are four women, three out of the four are drop dead gorgeous.
> 
> So yesterday, I passed by their door and saw them all again.. So this time, I turned around and went it. I said something like "I've been here forever and thought it was time to introduce myself". one said "its about time"...
> 
> I talked about mutual clients we have and they all new them right away. They knew where I worked. Then I asked them if they actually work or do they just hang out. I said other things I don't remember. I know they all laughed at whatever I was saying...I was a little nervous. I don't know if they noticed. It was a short introduction and I cut it short because I really had somewhere else to be...
> 
> It seemed they knew all about me and my work.. I think I may have made new friends ... I wonder why I waited so long too...
> 
> No matter how beautiful people are, *"they are all just people" *All these lady's were so sweet. The older I get, the more I realize that.


Trickster, there are millions upon millions of beautiful, pretty women, they are ten a penny they are not some special breed apart.
What matters is finding a good 'un.


----------



## WyshIknew

I've just realised something, _in my opinion_ I have none of the unattractive traits that have been mentioned in this thread. Therefore I am stunningly attractive by dint of having no unattractive traits.

Frankly I'm amazed that women don't swoon and throw their underwear at me as I walk down the street.







Sadly, reality bites. 

TBH, I am happy to be a good, average, reasonable looking man for my age and strive to be a good husband and good lover for my wife and be a good provider and leader for my family.

In many ways I've ended up winning this game of life, it truly is a marathon not a sprint.


----------



## that_girl

Lies, deceitfulness, shadiness, can't hold a promise or his word.

Saggy pants, hairy neck, body odor.

Lewd jokes, inappropriate conversations, out of style glasses.


----------



## WyshIknew

that_girl said:


> Lies, deceitfulness, shadiness, can't hold a promise or his word.
> 
> Saggy pants, hairy neck, body odor.
> 
> Lewd jokes, inappropriate conversations, out of style glasses.


Well maybe I do have some unattractive traits.


Damn!


----------



## VermisciousKnid

that_girl said:


> Lies, deceitfulness, shadiness, can't hold a promise or his word.
> 
> Saggy pants, hairy neck, body odor.
> 
> Lewd jokes, inappropriate conversations, *out of style glasses*.


Out of style glasses! 

That's why I never buy "in style" glasses - they just go out of style in a couple of years. 

Some wire frames are just classic and seem to always be in style. Or do you require that the glasses are the latest style?


----------



## that_girl

VermisciousKnid said:


> Out of style glasses!
> 
> That's why I never buy "in style" glasses - they just go out of style in a couple of years.
> 
> Some wire frames are just classic and seem to always be in style. Or do you require that the glasses are the latest style?


Not the latest style but certainly something since 1989.

I have seen many men with the ugliest glasses and they, themselves, are good looking people.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Trickster said:


> What did your husband change to relight that passion/fire?
> 
> Did he change or did you just have that "eureka" moment?


I changed first, with the realization that infrequent sex and poor intimacy in our marriage really was at the core of his unhappiness. Coming to understand that his wanting sex with me was more than a physical need was all that I needed to feel a huge surge in my desire. 

Once the sex came back, the intimacy came back, and our ability to communicate honestly about these issues allowed us to really take a close look at how I lost desire, and what I needed to in order to feel it. 

Mostly what I need is to feel that I can trust him to always be presenting his wants and needs and desires--and not trying to guess what I want and then change his behavior accordingly. I needed him to be confident in himself, and stop needing me to be happy with him all the time. It's very much the stuff preached in NMMNG and MMSL. He read NMMNG and the forums on the MMSL website, and he found it very helpful that I was basically echoing all the same things he was learning there.

It wasn't an easy road at first--lots of ups and downs. We both had ten years of bad habits and conditioning and triggers to overcome. It took most of a year, but our new dynamic is finally becoming second nature. We rarely fight, and when we do, it resolves quickly. Sex went from two or three times a month 4-5 days a week, or as often as he wants it. I do not turn him down; in fact, I think I'm actually the higher drive partner now. 

The ability to lay our souls bare to one another was so foundational to this. To drop all boundaries and just risk everything . . . not easy, but the only path to really some to an understanding of yourself and your partner.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

If the sunglasses I like are out of style, I'd wear them anyway and help bring them back into style. lol


----------



## ocotillo

that_girl said:


> out of style glasses.


The great big 80's glasses were kinda cute on ladies, but they made men all look like Napoleon Dynamite and his brother, Kip. - LOL


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> The great big 80's glasses were kinda cute on ladies, but they made men all look like Napoleon Dynamite - LOL


They always make me think "child molester!"


----------



## that_girl

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They always make me think "child molester!"


YES! lmao.

Chester molester.


----------



## VermisciousKnid

Not so good?


----------



## that_girl

Actually, those are funky. Cool.

I was thinking more like this:










I dunno. He's not an ugly dude. But those glasses creep me out. Maybe it's just me LOL! But he'd look much better in some dark rimmed frames. He'd look younger.


----------



## Jellybeans

*What makes a man unattractive?*


----------



## that_girl

:rofl:


----------



## Happyfamily

Cruelty to animals. Bad treatment of people who are in what society deems menial positions. 

Saggy pants, yeah. I saw someone in McDonald's the other day and I noticed he had these little clips attached to his underpants to keep the pants from falling down all the way to his ankles.


----------



## LVF

Being too insecure and a pessismist (beyond reasonable for any person, man or woman), and gossiping/saying negative things about others just by the sake of being mean.


----------



## Happyfamily

LVF said:


> Being too insecure and a pessismist (beyond reasonable for any person, man or woman), and gossiping/saying negative things about others just by the sake of being mean.


That's another PUA tactic that is supposed to attract us. Especially with what they call an AMOG - Alpha Male Other Guy.

Here is some wonderful insight on this juvenile behavior:

Pickup artists: How to deal with an AMOG (PUA style) | Seduction Blog - Pick up artist info!


----------



## sidney2718

that_girl said:


> Not the latest style but certainly something since 1989.
> 
> I have seen many men with the ugliest glasses and they, themselves, are good looking people.


And yet those glasses were all the style when the men bought them.


----------



## that_girl

sidney2718 said:


> And yet those glasses were all the style when the men bought them.


Well, I'm sure in 20 years, prescriptions needed to be updated lol.

Oh and also...white tennies. Just...no.


----------



## tech-novelist

Trickster said:


> Many many years ago when I was in my early 20's, I went out to the clubs, hoping to get lucky....That's why most people were there....right? Men and women both want the samevthing...For me, I would find the hottest woman there and ask her to dance. Usually, they would dance with me... From that point on, EVERY woman I asked to dance followedvme to the dancd floor...I wasnt even a good dancer...Other times , if I was rejected initially, EVERY woman after rejected me.
> 
> Why was that?


That's called "pre-selection". Google is your friend.


----------



## jld

What makes a man unattractive to me is a lack of emotional strength. Basically, insecurity. 

A secure man doesn't get rocked by a woman's emotions. He is solid, and doesn't take her words or actions personally. He is able to reach out to her in her emotional storms, to calm her, and reassure her of her worth.

A secure man is a compassionate, understanding man.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> What makes a man unattractive to me is a lack of emotional strength. Basically, insecurity.
> 
> A secure man doesn't get rocked by a woman's emotions. He is solid, and doesn't take her words or actions personally. He is able to reach out to her in her emotional storms, to calm her, and reassure her of her worth.
> 
> A secure man is a compassionate, understanding man.


I agree....he is a loving leader.


----------



## Trickster

technovelist said:


> That's called "pre-selection". Google is your friend.


Guess that's true...

I've been walking my dog daily for the past year. Usually I see the same people. Some jogging, some walking their dog as well, and others just walking.

For about a year, I occasionally see this amazingly attractive woman. I usually would just smile and say hello. She would say hello in return. She was always running and that's all we had time for.

Two weeks ago, I started to walk my dog with another woman who I've seen there many many times as well. My dog was always crazy so we always went different ways. This time however, I just wanted to see if my dog would calm down. After a few minutes, my dog was fine...We talked a lot. Should of tried it sooner.

Well the attractive woman comes running by again and said "crazy runner passing".

Since then, this woman is more talkative each time we cross paths.we get a complete sentence now...A couple of other times since, she has seen me with this other woman. Most people are very friendly anyway. We all see the same people.

As it was in the clubs 22 years ago, I don't know if she is more open to me because of this other woman or if I appear more confident because of this other woman.

Maybe I seem "safe" now.

As she was running by today, I asked her if she ever just walks. "Yes, I walk when I get too hot"...Then turns her head toward me as she runs by and smiles the biggest smile....If she doesn't walk with me soon, I am going have to run and kill myself to keep up with her. She is one of those crazy runners training for the marathon...

It all changed when she saw me with another woman....Pre-selection? Must be.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'd vote for "safe" in this circumstance. Another woman sort of vouches for "he's not going to drag me off the running path into the woods. I can relax a bit." haha


----------



## that_girl

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'd vote for "safe" in this circumstance. Another woman sort of vouches for "he's not going to drag me off the running path into the woods. I can relax a bit." haha


Yes. This.

There's always a bit of "wtf" when a random man talks to me. I'm not going to lie, my mind goes places and my guard is up.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

that_girl said:


> There's always a bit of "wtf" when a random man talks to me. I'm not going to lie, my mind goes places and my guard is up.


Yep. Its my number one obstacle. haha

And for getting around it and building comfort/rapport... I'm thought manipulative around these parts.


----------



## Trickster

that_girl said:


> Yes. This.
> 
> There's always a bit of "wtf" when a random man talks to me. I'm not going to lie, my mind goes places and my guard is up.


I am not really a random man. We have crossed paths many times over the past year. Way more this past month because she is training for the marathon. I have always said good morning and smile like I do to most people. Hopefully I dont have a creepy smile. 

The change came when she saw me walking my dog with the other woman with her dog...We are conversing now even though its very brief.


----------



## Trickster

Dvls-

My head is also shaved. I am half bald, so shaving my head works...Most people like it way more than it was before.. I would never do a combover...


----------



## over20

Trickster said:


> Dvls-
> 
> My head is also shaved. I am half bald, so shaving my head works...Most people like it way more than it was before.. I would never do a combover...


You made me chuckle, when hubs started losing his hair about 7 yrs ago....he refused to have the "island" or do a comb over...he wanted to shave it all off.......I was hesitant if I would like the shaved head/mustache/beard combo....but now I am so sold on it.....very, very sexy IMO.....very macho/bad azz looking....


----------



## Thundarr

over20 said:


> You made me chuckle, when hubs started losing his hair about 7 yrs ago....he refused to have the "island" or do a comb over...he wanted to shave it all off.......I was hesitant if I would like the shaved head/mustache/beard combo....but now I am so sold on it.....very, very sexy IMO.....very macho/bad azz looking....


My wife likes mine buzzed with no guard but she doesn't like it if I take the razor to it and make it shiny.


----------



## over20

Yes, hubs hasn't shaved it ALL down.but he is about ready to..and I am to....I would love to see his head all nice and shiny......


----------



## kilgore

over20 said:


> Yes, hubs hasn't shaved it ALL down.but he is about ready to..and I am to....I would love to see his head all nice and shiny......


i haven't gone that route yet. eventually, probably a very close cut. never a comb over.

but, the pubes stay!


----------



## over20

I regretted the last sentence when I sent it.....and how did i know you would see it......:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## kilgore

over20 said:


> I regretted the last sentence when I sent it.....and how did i know you would see it......:rofl::rofl::rofl:


lol.

seriously, i admire the guys who can shave the head. i just haven't taken the leap b/c there will be no turning back.

as for the body/private hair - that must stay; i'd look like a boy otherwise.


----------



## Trickster

I see pics of me before I started shaving my head. At that time, I used clippers and it was short anyway. I hated that fact that i was losing mt hair. I just embraced my baldness. I look 10 years younger than my real age... I think shaving my head helps with that. 

I did thee goatee thing for a while. The wife didn't like it, so I got rid of it....At this point, it doesn't matter what she wants. My goatee was white/gray....the much older people I know said it made me look more distinguished... "Professor Trickster".

I have a friend with a hairline like mine. He uses clippers like I used to. His wife won't let him shave it. 

I just call him a " candyass". What's funny is that he uses #1 clippers.... He might as well shave it...that is the look now.


God gave brains to just a small percentage of men. The rest, he gave them a full head of hair.


----------



## over20

You should....a lot of women find it very attractive...it's a bad boy look.


----------



## kilgore

over20 said:


> You should....a lot of women find it very attractive...it's a bad boy look.


the shaved body/pube hair?


----------



## over20

Baldness in Men Because of the Style - Bald Haircut for Men | Romance Hairstyles


My fav is the first and third look


----------



## over20

kilgore said:


> the shaved body/pube hair?


No silly, the shiny bald TOP head...:rofl:


----------



## kilgore

over20 said:


> Baldness in Men Because of the Style - Bald Haircut for Men | Romance Hairstyles
> i like #2
> 
> 
> My fav is the first and third look


----------



## kilgore

over20 said:


> No silly, the shiny bald TOP head...:rofl:


ohhhh. makes more sense. baldness down there would i think heighten the pimple-ness


----------



## over20

Trickster said:


> I see pics of me before I started shaving my head. At that time, I used clippers and it was short anyway. I hated that fact that i was losing mt hair. I just embraced my baldness. I look 10 years younger than my real age... I think shaving my head helps with that.
> 
> I did thee goatee thing for a while. The wife didn't like it, so I got rid of it....At this point, it doesn't matter what she wants. My goatee was white/gray....the much older people I know said it made me look more distinguished... "Professor Trickster".
> 
> I have a friend with a hairline like mine. He uses clippers like I used to. His wife won't let him shave it.
> 
> I just call him a " candyass". What's funny is that he uses #1 clippers.... He might as well shave it...that is the look now.
> 
> 
> God gave brains to just a small percentage of men. The rest, he gave them a full head of hair.


My husband has grey in his beard and I love it....he looks so masculine


----------



## Trickster

over20 said:


> Baldness in Men Because of the Style - Bald Haircut for Men | Romance Hairstyles
> 
> 
> My fav is the first and third look


the 3rd guy waxes his eye brows. My brows are pretty thick


----------



## kilgore

over20 said:


> My husband has grey in his beard and I love it....he looks so masculine


i have that too. i like how it looks


----------



## kilgore

Trickster said:


> the 3rd guy waxes his eye brows. My brows are pretty thick


ditto


----------



## Trickster

over20 said:


> My husband has grey in his beard and I love it....he looks so masculine



Does it make him look older?


----------



## over20

It does, but I like it. We are both 43. He has aged wonderfully


----------



## over20

Trickster said:


> the 3rd guy waxes his eye brows. My brows are pretty thick


Your right he does wax and shape his brows......ick...to metrosexual for me...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trickster said:


> Dvls-
> 
> My head is also shaved. I am half bald, so shaving my head works...Most people like it way more than it was before.. I would never do a combover...


Yep. Its one of those things you gotta own.


----------



## Dollystanford

I haven't boinked a man with hair for about 22 years


----------



## Jellybeans

Trickster said:


> God gave brains to just a small percentage of men. The rest, he gave them a full head of hair.


Meh. Why the put down at the men with hair? 

I love a man with a full head of beautiful hair.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

He's an actor and a race car driver. Everyone knows they don't have brains. 

I'm sure Trickster was totally joking.


----------



## Dollystanford

Problem is, male hair can go so wrong that it's best for all concerned if it comes right off


----------



## Trickster

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> He's an actor and a race car driver. Everyone knows they don't have brains.
> 
> I'm sure Trickster was totally joking.


Yes, that's part of my nutty personality....

Oh the tricks I play on April Fools Day....


----------



## Trickster

Jellybeans said:


> Meh. Why the put down at the men with hair?
> 
> I love a man with a full head of beautiful hair.


He is my twin. Minus the full head of hair, near perfect veneer teeth, his ability to drive at high speeds, and all his money.


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've never understood my teen struggles either. Still puzzles me.


I honestly think that some people are just late bloomers.

Perhaps it just takes some people a little longer to grow into their skin, physically, mentally and emotionally.

If it is confidence then perhaps they can't display that confidence until they have matured and become men?

Or perhaps they are just butt ugly.


----------



## WyshIknew

Trickster said:


> God gave brains to just a small percentage of men. The rest, he gave them a full head of hair.





over20 said:


> You should....a lot of women find it very attractive...it's a bad boy look.





Dollystanford said:


> Problem is, male hair can go so wrong that it's best for all concerned if it comes right off


Well I guess I'm knackered then. My hair grows like weeds.

It gets on my wick when it gets too long so I get it cut regularly.

It also has this weird twist or spiral to my fringe and I get a faint Mohican down the middle.

When I was a boy (blonde and blue eyed) little old ladies used to say "Oh isn't your hair lovely and fine, just like a girls."

"Ummm, thanks I think."

Anyway, it's my hair, it's unruly as hell and grey but it's mine and it's staying there.


----------



## Thundarr

WyshIknew said:


>


Curse you Wysh.


----------



## WyshIknew

*crosses fingers to combat curse*


----------



## Thundarr

WyshIknew said:


> *crosses fingers to combat curse*


It's an "envy curse". Those never work anyway so you're safe.


----------



## WyshIknew

Thundarr said:


> It's an "envy curse". Those never work anyway so you're safe.


Envy? :scratchhead:

I look like a bulldog chewing a wasp.


----------



## over20

Personal said:


> Nice!
> 
> Over many years since I was a kid, I have consistently tested at the top of highly gifted or at the bottom of genius. Yet at 43 (this year) I still have a full head of hair that grows rather fast.
> 
> Best.
> 
> P.S. I wouldn't wish a high IQ on anyone, being average and working hard is probably a great place to be.


You are very blessed, don't discount it.


----------



## over20

Personal said:


> Thanks over20,
> 
> My parents and former school teachers would argue otherwise. Since I didn't fit easily into normal schooling, I was quite a pain while growing up.


We all were a pain in the neck to teachers and parents...that's what kids do....


----------



## OhGeesh

Who doesn't lov a guy with a full head of hair DUUUUUH. 

What makes a man unattractive?

His appearance


----------



## Dollystanford

OhGeesh said:


> Who doesn't lov a guy with a full head of hair DUUUUUH.


Me


----------



## Almostrecovered

Dollystanford said:


> Me



https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101216172100AAAy2jm


----------



## Dollystanford

I like hair in other places


----------



## WyshIknew

Dollystanford said:


> I like hair in other places







Ears, nose, toes. Palms of their hands?


----------



## that_girl

:rofl: Grossssss.

I dated a bald man for so long, dating a man with hair was so weird to me!


----------



## Almostrecovered

Dollystanford said:


> I like hair in other places


Your perfect man


----------



## that_girl

:wtf:

:rofl:


----------



## WyshIknew

OhGeesh said:


> Who doesn't lov a guy with a full head of hair DUUUUUH.
> 
> What makes a man unattractive?
> 
> His appearance


His appearance as in whether he is handsome?

Or as in whether he keeps himself neat, tidy and well groomed?


----------



## Dollystanford

I'm more into this. And I'm pretty sure a lot of women on here would go 'ewwww'


----------



## treyvion

Dollystanford said:


> I'm more into this. And I'm pretty sure a lot of women on here would go 'ewwww'


Well many won't like this style of man, their choice.


----------



## WyshIknew

Heck.

I wouldn't like to have him pissed of at me.


----------



## treyvion

WyshIknew said:


> Heck.
> 
> I wouldn't like to have him pissed of at me.


His face looks like one of his primary emotions is anger. I wonder how that is for a female?


----------



## WyshIknew

He's a bad boy!


----------



## heartsbeating

Can I add ....being a d!ckhead. Highly unattractive. This goes for both genders. 


The driveway at the childcare center was busy with mothers picking up their kids. One woman was awaiting another car to leave and meant her car was temporarily in the drive and the road (just slightly). Another car with two guys was approaching and they were beeping from a distance. They stopped behind her, one got out and approached her car. I was walking with the dogs. Looked to the lanes and wondered why the hell they couldn't have just indicated around in the other empty lane. He signaled for her to wind her window down. She did. He started swearing at her to move her car. She apologized and took off around the corner. He looked at me as he was walking back to his car and I thought, "What a frickn d!ck-head." 

Ladies, please don't unwind your windows just because someone tells you to.


----------



## treyvion

heartsbeating said:


> Can I add ....being a d!ckhead. Highly unattractive. This goes for both genders.
> 
> 
> The driveway at the childcare center was busy with mothers picking up their kids. One woman was awaiting another car to leave and meant her car was temporarily in the drive and the road (just slightly). Another car with two guys was approaching and they were beeping from a distance. They stopped behind her, one got out and approached her car. I was walking with the dogs. Looked to the lanes and wondered why the hell they couldn't have just indicated around in the other empty lane. He signaled for her to wind her window down. She did. He started swearing at her to move her car. She apologized and took off around the corner. He looked at me as he was walking back to his car and I thought, "What a frickn d!ck-head."
> 
> Ladies, please don't unwind your windows just because someone tells you to.


He probably looked like one too.


----------



## Thundarr

heartsbeating said:


> Can I add ....being a d!ckhead. Highly unattractive. This goes for both genders.


So bald with a double chin is bad. I'll have to keep hitting the gym.


----------



## heartsbeating

^ so terrible, I laughed!


----------

