Ok, folks. It’s intervention time. I spend a not inconsiderable amount of time checking the metrics on my site. I see which pages get shared the most, which ones people check out the most often and which people keep coming back to. And I’m going to be honest: most of you are sabotaging your own self-improvement.
I write a lot about what it takes to get better at dating, and the cold, hard truth is that social success is dependent on being a better person overall. Dating is a holistic activity; the problems you have in your dating life are reflected in your every-day life. Whether you want to be a player and rack up dozens of sex partners or find the love of a lifetime and settle down, the secret to success is to build a better life.
The problem I keep seeing, however, is the number of people who’re looking for that one thing. They believe in that one thing that’s holding them back from the life they know they could have. It’s that perfect outfit. It’s losing weight and getting the perfect body. It’s the right car, the right lines, the right dating profile, the right job, the right apartment. They’re the ones who say “I can’t date because I don’t have X”. They’re the ones who worry about women who’re “out of their league” because they don’t have the right face or the right life. It’s the people who think that if they just get more dates, more girlfriends, more sex, their lives will be better.
They’re looking for that magic feather, that ineffable object or goal that will propel them into the life they’ve always dreamed of.
They’re the ones who will never improve.
If you’ve thought to yourself that you need this one thing to make your life perfect, then you’re ruining your own self-improvement. It’s time to let go of those magic feathers and start looking into what it takes for real self-improvement.
The Transitive Property of Cool Doesn’t Exist
One of the biggest mistakes people make is the idea that there’s anything – anything at all – that’s going to unilaterally change and improve one’s life. Let me give you an example from my life:
Recently I’ve found myself drooling over a muscle car – specifically, the classic 1964 Mustang. I’m not much of a gear-head – I couldn’t tell you the substantive differences between slip differentials or the benefits of a force-air cooled engine – but there’s something about classic American muscle that makes part of me sit up and purr.
(Image credit: Lucie Lang / Shutterstock.com)
Of course, I’ll freely admit to being something of a poser; I love the exterior, but you’ll pry my satellite radio, GPS and seat-warmers from my cold, dead hands. So when I read about Revology taking classic Mustang exteriors and restoring them with modern engines and automatic transmission, bluetooth connectivity and power seats…
Ignoring the question of how I’ll be able to afford the 6-figure price tag, the idea of this car makes me feel warm and squishy and uncomfortably erect. I can imagine every facet of life with this baby – cruising down back roads across the country, pulling into a gas-station as denim-shorted, crop-topped beauties give me the eye… Except: not really. As much as I lust after this car like I’ve lusted after few things1 owning it won’t materially change my life. It won’t make me magically cooler through the transitive properties of ownership. I’ll still be me, just with a different car than the one I drive right now. Unless I make a point of bringing up my car every time I talk to somebody or never travel more than five feet away from it, nobody will even be aware that I have it. How’s that going to affect how people see me?
But hey, I’m actually pretty happy with my life right now, car lust aside. Let’s take a different approach and look at a more common magic feather: six-pack abs.
Toss a rock into any crowd and the odds are good that you’ll hit a guy who thinks that getting Brad Pitt’s Fight Club body will improve his life. This is one of those beliefs that’s continually sold to us as a sacred truth: get abs that could double as a washboard and your life will change for the better. Having six-pack abs will make you into someone who’s confident and outgoing. Having six-pack abs will make you effortlessly sexy and charismatic. Having six-pack abs will make you more adventurous.
Now, ignoring certain realities – like the fact that six-pack abs are mostly controlled by genetics and they only become noticeable through a combination of dehydration and dangerously low body-fat percentages – how, exactly will this transformation occur? How are these women you will be effortlessly seducing know that you have a six-pack? Unless you’re going around pulling a Situation every five minutes, nobody is going to notice that you have them.
But let’s be generous and assume that you’ve figured out just the right combination of clothes that will show off your physique without making you look like an asshole. Why will anyone care? How will it make you any different than you are right now? What about having a different build will make you a different person? How will it change your personality? A buff shy guy is still going to be hanging in the corner, afraid to talk to people.
You can apply this test to just about anything that you can think of that will change your life. How much will it directly affect your life? What will actually change if you get that “cool” job? Will it be more than just not living paycheck to paycheck, or will it mean that you’re a different person? Will that muscle car mean getting around town more efficiently, or that women will assume that you’re a better person than someone who owns a Volkswagen Golf? What will having a girlfriend who makes your friends jealous do for you? Will it make a difference to your daily life or will it just prop up your ego?
How Magic Feathers Sabotage Real Self-Improvement
The key to any magic feather is simple: it changes you without effort on your part. It’s the idea that this one thing will somehow transform you in the ways you’ve always wanted… as long as you don’t stop to ask yourself how that transformation will happen. We’re just given the cause and the effect: get thinner, and you’ll be a better person. Get this look and you’ll be cooler. Live this lifestyle and you’ll be more important, more socially desirable. Rack up more lays and you’ll be more respected by your peers.
The mechanics of this transformation are always conveniently ignored, because they get in the way of the fantasy. On its face, it seems obvious. Exercise isn’t going to give you a different personality. Dieting doesn’t make you charismatic. Your basement studio apartment doesn’t make you less socially skilled than a corner penthouse. Having money doesn’t make you less socially awkward or inexperienced. It’s pure magical thinking – achieve this goal and everything will just fall into place. You may as well just put pictures on your dreamboard or cross your eyes and wish really really hard; it will have the exact same effect.
Which is to say: sweet fuck-all.
It’s nice to fantasize about how things could be different, but by assigning any one object or goal the power to fix your life, you rob yourself of the ability to effect actual, meaningful change. You’re assigning responsibility for these changes to your future self to magically make it happen instead of taking steps to do it in the here and now.
More to the point: magic feathers can’t change you. If you were going to be doing something, you’d be doing it already. The things you’re doing – or not doing – now are the things that are clearly the most important to you. If you were going to be making changes to your life, you wouldn’t be fantasizing about the thing that will do the work for you, you’d be finding ways to make it happen. Saying that you need that perfect body in order to get the social life of your dreams shifts the responsibility from making those changes off of you and onto to the thing that you don’t have. Either that magic feather represents giving yourself permission to achieve something – in which case you don’t need the feather in the first place – or it’s simply “magic” and will never work in the first place, leaving you unsatisfied and looking for the next magical cure. When I was trying to be a professional artist, I collected book after book about digital art and how to market myself as an artist. What I wasn’t doing was sending my portfolio to art directors and editors. In the bad old days, I spent years of my life telling myself that I needed to learn this skill or perfect that goal in order to become the kind of guy who was good with girls. All that time trying to find the magic trick that would make me cooler and more desirable was time I wasn’t spending practicing talking to women.
The more you assign your magic feather importance to your desired goals, the more you ensure that you’ll never actually achieve those goals because there will always be something else standing in the way of your self-improvement.
You Are Never Complete
Part of what makes the magic feathers and fetish objects so appealing is the illusion of permanence. You get this one thing – whether it’s six-pack abs, that leather jacket, that tattoo, whatever – and you’re done. You’re locked into your new life and it’s champagne and blowjobs forever as angels float down with a banner reading “A Winner Is You!”
Except that’s not how life works. There are no endings in life; you are never complete because you never stop existing. Getting a perfect body, for example, doesn’t mean that you now have it forever without effort. You have to maintain it obsessively or you’ll go back to where you were before… and that’s without the simple fact that time and gravity ravage us all in the end. Muscles turn to flab without maintenance and social skills dull without use. You can get downsized from your job, you can have your landlord decline to renew your lease, your car can be wrecked or repossessed. If you’ve based your self-worth on external factors – your body, your cool car, what-have-you – then you have made lasting self-improvement impossible. You have, at best, a temporary boost that will inevitably fade. No matter how desirable your situation may be, it can be taken from you at any time.
Worse, even the mere pleasure of possessing that magic feather goes away. By charging an external object with your future happiness, you’ve essentially set yourself up for future disappointment. Humans have a great talent for habituation; we get used to just about anything. This is known as hedonic adaptation; the more exposed we are to something, the more used to it we become, which robs it of the novelty and satisfaction that comes with it. To go back to my dream Mustang: part of what makes it so cool is that I don’t have it. It’s different from my current car. But once I actually have it… it would be just my car. No matter how “cool” any one thing may be, once it becomes part of your daily life the pleasure that comes from possessing it fades quickly. You end up on a cycle of continually looking for the next thing to make you special, never able to rest because the satisfaction and cool factor is as fleeting as tears in the rain.
True Self-Improvement Comes From Within
The classic problem with magic feathers is that everybody forgets this simple truth: they’re a placebo at best. If they affect any change, then it’s because they’re a way of giving yourself permission to do something you’re already capable of doing. They can’t make you somebody else.
Right now, I want you to perform a mental exercise. I want you to imagine what life would be like with your particular magic feather – that job, that body, that car, that apartment. How will this make your life different? Not just the end results – people will like you more, you’ll be more confident – but why it will be different. If you’ll be more desirable or charismatic, then why will you be more desirable or charismatic? Will it be because you feel like it will empower you to be different? Or will it simply do the work for you?
And once you have a firm grasp on the ways you imagine your life improving, I want you to ask yourself: how can you achieve this result on your own? Magic feathers aren’t about self-improvement, they’re about fulfilling a need. They are about feeling a void within you that you have convinced yourself needs an external solution. It may be simply a way of giving yourself permission to do things that you already want to do and simply committing to doing the work to become the person you’ve always wanted to be. It may be recognizing that what you think you want isn’t what you actually want. Or it may mean learning to accept yourself as who you are instead of who you think you’re “supposed” to be, to find ways to be your best, most authentic self, which will make you far happier and more satisfied than some illusory persona.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that pursuing self-improvement is a bad thing. Wanting to be fitter and healthier is a desirable goal in and of itself. A better, more satisfying job is something to strive for.
But don’t mistake the goal for a magic cure-all. Magic feathers don’t work. The key to true, lasting improvement comes from within.
- besides Kat Dennings, anyway [↩]
To me, the worst part of the magic feather mindset is that as you come close to reaching it, it gradually looks less and less magical, until you're finally holding it, and it's just a boring mundane feather.
To use a metaphor: We are all standing in a sea of feathers. The ones off in the distance always look more interesting, because of the way the light plays off of them. So you see a shiny one, and you say, "That one! THAT one is the magic feather." So you start off towards it. But as you grow closer, the feathers you're approaching look less interesting, and you start to feel tricked. "This feather isn't magic!" you say. So you either stuff it in your pocket or throw it away, ignoring the effort it took you to get there, and you look for another feather that looks promising, and there one is, off on the horizon, glinting in the light. So you say, "That one! THAT one is the magic feather." So you start off towards it…
And infinite recursion. There are TWO traps to magic feather thinking. One is that you refuse to really improve, because the magic will do that. And the other is that you don't see how far you've traveled because the magic hasn't happened yet.
I have to disagree about the body thing. I have, over the last year, gotten into much better shape. While that alone changed nothing, I am now actually okay with my body, and even feel sexy at times. I now feel like somebody who is potentially attractive to the opposite sex, while before, I had to reason myself into thinking that. That change HAS indeed boosted my confidence when it comes to flirting and romance.
Same thing here. For a while, I lost about 60 pounds and got into better shape – and it was great for my confidence. I felt like I could see my old self there again, somebody whom girls give second looks to.
But I see what the Good Doctor is saying. It's not that I'm really after being fit – I just want to feel confident and attractive.
DNL has always advocated for exercise. I think what he's saying is that some single change to your body isn't going to change everything. People who sit wishing they had six pack Holllywood abs don't realize it's not just about the abs, but about the confidence you talked about and the health benefits and a half dozen smalls thing they aren't thinking about.
Also, if you have those abs but didn't have the confidence, or didn't know how to talk to women, or if you were fundamentally unhappy in some other aspect of your life, it really wouldn't help you pull out in front in terms of dating.
Losing weight, getting in shape, etc, gave you the confidence that helped you approach women, and DNL has talked in other articles about that. However, if you had a six pack but no confidence, you wouldn't be any further ahead. Because that exercise made you happier and more confident, that's a whole self change.
The thing is, there are plenty of confident out of shape people. That you got confidence from the exercise is great, but if your confidence is tied to that it's under threat of going away at any time. Someone who just has that confidence is still going to be attractive to people.
I know plenty of people who would classify as out of shape and even heavy to fat who have amazing luck with women, but to a person they are also confident in themselves as they are.
I think DNL is just saying beware of something that could be transitory, and don't hang that confidence and self worth on material things or even health, but health is a lot more immediate to the quality of your life…otoh, the status symbol of six pack abs is just an outside indication and not true health.
I hear you. I went vegan by accident for about two years, and lost a ton of weight almost overnight. My self-confidence surged even though I was not and will never ever be “thin” (I didn’t even make it out of the “overweight” catagory of BMI).
I started wearing clothes I would normally avoid, like short skirts and tall boots and tank tops. I started going out more, talking to people, being more active on dating sites which led to more first-time-coffees. I made more friends in RL and eventually started meeting people I clicked with, and sex partners became more than a once-every-three-years novelty.
Then I stopped eating vegan and promptly gained all the weight back, because thus is the joy of my metabolism. (Come the post-apocalypse famines, I’m set.) But weirdly, and against my own expectations, the self-confidence didn’t evaporate.
I’d just…gotten into the habit of seeing myself as cute and sexy, I guess, and that held true even when I now had a double chin. I found myself still wearing my short skirts and knee-high boots just because I liked them, as well as because I thought they looked good. What once felt like a humiliating display of how fat I was, in my head it became me showing off my personality as well as my curves. I no longer felt like I was ruining someone’s day to message them on Okcupid, and I still went out just as much and danced just as enthusiastically on the dance floor. I still clicked with people and met partners.
I’m in the middle of losing weight again right now because I’m doing a ton of gardening and I’ve got a foster dog who needs walks. I’m not actually that happy about it (I don’t want yo-yoing weight on a medical level) but I don’t feel sexier now than I did a year ago when I was 19 kilos heavier. I can now fit into a couple skirts I’d put away, but now I’m too small for one of my favorite pairs of jeans which I’m genuinely bummed about.
It’s really weird but awesome to feel like losing the initial weight rewired my whole brain, and now I’m able to find myself attractive at any size. I got my magic feather, then lost it, and discovered I never really needed it in the first place except for the initial kick in the ass it gave me. It’s pretty great.
It's Monday morning and I'm in an argumentative mood. Y'all have been sufficiently warned.
I have/had was is probably considered "magic feather" thinking in that I feel that if I was thinner/better looking, I would have had a lot more success with men. It would have done absolutely nothing to my personality; I probably wouldn't have even become more confident. (That is because, unchecked, I have the confidence of an optimistic idiot; I have pretty much no issue with striking up conversations or feeling nervous around men I find attractive.)
What it would change, however, is that by being thinner/better looking, men would finally start approaching me. No longer would I have to wonder if they found me at least somewhat attractive. No longer would I fear I had "forced" them to talk to me (by approaching them first.) No longer would I feel insecure about the fact that they were dating me because it required minimum effort, or that a guy was "out of my league." He approached ME, which means he's at least somewhat attracted, somewhat willing to do a little work, and considers me his equal.
There is absolutely nothing I can do (that I haven't already done) to get approached WITHOUT becoming more attractive. Having open body language, smiling, being in the right location, having the right number of people with you means jack-all if nobody thinks you are pretty enough to approach. Yet being approached would nip so many of my fears and insecurities right in the bud.
Would being physically attractive be a cure-all, a guarantee to a perfect relationship and happy life? No. But much like the retort of "Money doesn't buy happiness," it would sure freaking help.
PS: I am surprised about this idea that achieving something and experiencing it every day means you enjoy it less. I still felt the same happiness and love thrills over the cuteness of my cat as I did when I first got him. If we eventually become disillusioned and unhappy with everything, then why bother wanting anything, ever? Should I just prepare my cocktail of poison because life is meaningless and bleak, and happiness is forever a fleeting concept?
I think you have a point, and I think the Doctor has one as well. If you were thinner/better looking, men might start approaching you. Would they definitely do so? No, I don't think we know for sure. There are women here who describe themselves as thin and attractive who don't get approached. If you were approached, I suspect it would reduce a lot of your fears about being settled for by a guy who wasn't actually attracted to you. Would it guarantee you'd end up in a relationship with a guy who'd put forth enough effort going forward to make you happy? Again, I don't think that's clear. There are women who've been approached who've ended up in relationships with guys later treated them quite badly (or, ahem, there's at least one).
I kind of go down the same set of thoughts when I start job hunting with an eye toward moving. I think I'd be able to find several things in other areas that I think make it easier for me to find partners and particularly the kind of friendships I want to have, rather than the ones I tend to maintain now. Especially in the case of a social circle consisting of more than a small number of people, it might be necessary. But it's not all of what will get me to that point, because there are other things to deal with once that step is achieved.
I don't think that means that being thinner/more attractive isn't a huge benefit in dating. For some people it may even be a necessary step forward. But it's not really a guarantee of happiness or getting the ultimate goal that being thin or attractive was done in pursuit of.
"There are women here who describe themselves as thin and attractive who don't get approached." *raises hand* And then you're dealing with the thought of "Everyone around tells me I'm the sort of person who ought to be approached, and since I'm not what does that say about me?? How awful must I be??"
Further, forget about my particular situation and the years of self doubt and wondering what the heck was wrong with me, I know women who get approached a lot and they don't relish in the comfort that at least they were found attractive at all. They are used to that. What they aren't used to are men approaching them because they think they are smart or funny or anything to do with something that isn't an accident of birth. They just happen to be pretty. What about their accomplishments? Will they ever be appreciated for something that isn't their looks? Heck I have a friend who is a petite blonde and she has had men order her food for her on dates because they think she needs to be taken care of. I mean not ask her what she wants and make the order, I mean deciding what she will eat for her. This is a woman who runs her own successful PR company and men look at her and think she's stupid.
And of course irony of ironies, you Marty might have always wanted to know what it's like to be attractive based on your looks alone, but you are the one in the long term loving relationship. Whereas some of the most stereotypically beautiful women I know are still single, and have been for years. So sure, they get that moment of satisfaction you don't, but you get the long term results. You get what right now they can only dream of.
I understand the grass is always greener. Heck I'm shelling out a ton of money to see a trainer three times a week and work with a nutritionist to make me more competitive in the acting world aesthetically (but even then I have no idea if it will make a difference in my career, it's just an attempt). But the conclusions we draw from our side of the fence aren't actually correct. And sometimes those things we think we want don't actually get us the things we really need.
"They are used to that. What they aren't used to are men approaching them because they think they are smart or funny or anything to do with something that isn't an accident of birth. They just happen to be pretty. What about their accomplishments? Will they ever be appreciated for something that isn't their looks?"
This is probably one of those Grass-Is-Greener, because I don't really think it's all that special for guys to think your accomplishments are cool. Heck, I've even run into that, and guys certainly didn't date me cause they thought I was pretty. They could care less about my personality or my accomplishments. The furthest some guys cared about my hobbies was whether those hobbies suggested I'd be interested in THEIRS. AKA, my interest in nerd things makes it more likely that I'll put up/adopt THEIR nerdy interests. Them being interested in my nerdy things is just never a consideration.
"but you are the one in the long term loving relationship."
Perhaps too personal to talk about on a forum, so I'll just say this; it's a relationship that is still full of the same doubts and struggles as I've always had.
Definitely a grass is always greener, and not one I feel comfortable debating. I would no more say that feeling like you are just liked for no reason other than an accident of birth is more tolerable, than I would say feeling like you are liked for your accomplishments but not looks is. You don't know what it's like to have the former so you really cannot say. I have not experienced the latter, so I cannot say. (though let's be honest, for a very long time I didn't experience either, ugh)
"it's a relationship that is still full of the same doubts and struggles as I've always had." And I think this goes back to the magic feather point of this post. So many women I know think that all they need is the long term relationship that you have and then life will be all rainbows and sunshine. That's quite frankly not true. And it's the same with guys here. How many men show up here saying that if they could just have a relationship all would be well?
The internet isn't helping me clarify this, but I seem to recall Casanova being quoted as saying "Compliment the beautiful for their intelligence, and the intelligent for their beauty". People *know* what their strengths are, and reminding them of it does not impress.
As for the "same doubts and struggles", I suspect conventionally attractive women worried their partner only thinks of them as a pretty face will carry that insecurity into a long term relationship, and will need to sort it out similarly.
I must say I'm a bit at odds with Casanova on this advice. Complimenting a strength everyone else compliments is probably not going to be very memorable, but complimenting someone on a trait they don't actually possess just tends to make someone look like a flatterer or at best someone who doesn't know the person very well. Complimenting someone on a trait they do possess but that not everyone would notice or appreciate seems like a better strategy (I'll note particularly that a lot of smart women don't get admired all that much for their intelligence, especially if they spend a lot of time in environments where smart men talk over them).
I read it with the (perhaps inordinately optimistic) assumption that the big C knew enough to ferret out the specific things about a smart woman he found physically attractive and/or the things a woman who got complimented on her looks all the time had a particular depth of knowledge about, instead of rolling up in there with the generics.
Granted, not every dude has that level of perspicacity, certainly … and it's also going to fall flat if a dude is so insincere as to tell, say, a figure model who's a known bubblehead how brilliant she is about quantum physics.
"(I'll note particularly that a lot of smart women don't get admired all that much for their intelligence, especially if they spend a lot of time in environments where smart men talk over them)."
Can't be said enough.
That's the way I read the Casanova quote as well.
I once saw a movie about…dating? Gosh, I really don't remember much about it – anyway, there was a scene where a group of guys met a group of girls at a bar and they were checking each other out. Afterwards, the guys gabbed about the gals. They talked about a particular woman and said, "And man, did you see the tits on her?" I was like, "But…her chest was small? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but – way to give generic praise that shows you're not really paying attention…"
I also love eselle's observation about smart women getting talked over. YES.
Your last sentence resonates for me. I never thought of being in a relationship as some sort of panacea, but if I had, I'd have been sorely disappointed. I can't seem to help but bring "me" into the damned relationship. What's up with that? Please know I'm not making light of your point. In some ways my doubts increase when I'm in a relationship I care about.
Actually, I imagine that there's a guy just like me somewhere who isn't plagued by doubt. It's not that hard to imagine, really. Somewhere my mind was poisoned with a clear vision of what I should be, and it's not what I am. How, why, I'm kind of beyond caring. I'd just like to let that vision fade to black.
I wonder if imagining that less doubt ridden guy is my magic feather?
"I wonder if imagining that less doubt ridden guy is my magic feather?"
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I do think there's a whole lot of "Once I have fixed X there will BE *NO* DOUBTS" thinking.
(I also think that's a kind of toxic – and at the end of the day, downright illogical – thinking pattern our society tends to actively encourage, but that's a different discussion.)
When the reality is more that you can be the Coolest of the Cool — you can have all the Emmys and Oscars and Marvel Movies and MIT degrees — and there *will still* be doubts.
Is there someone who's starred in a Marvel movie and has an MIT degree? Because I need to meet this person! 🙂
Tony Stark.
LOLkidding.
There are some dudes on staff at both Marvel Studios and Pixar with that one-two punch, tho.
And I think a couple of those even have Oscar nominations, and IINM, one of them at Pixar in VFX even has one of those gold shiny statue-y things. Which … yeah.
So all I can say is, I hope they didn't get cameos or bit parts.
/goes through the credits again
Actually, as I think about it, RDJ Jr. could actually be a comparatively illustrative example. I mean, as brilliant as dude is, there were times when he wasn't working because no studio would insure him. And I can't imagine the drug issues that led to that situation didn't have something to do with being insecure about his talent, regardless of how many people might've been telling him for 20 or so years how fabulous & amazing he was.
Now — not everybody gets that chance at redemption, either — witness the struggle Mo'Nique is having, after having chosen to do her show that paid her as opposed to "play the Oscar game" and promote Precious for free (which she felt she couldn't afford to do even though it was expected of her), even with the email memo she produced saying that Lee Daniels offered her the "Cookie" part in Empire, whose ratings are going through the roof right now — but that might be a different discussion.
Dolph Lungren is really hoping that Kevin Feige reads this and decides to make your dreams come true.
Lundgren counts! He's got a PhD, a kickboxing championship and was !@#$ing He-Man!
@OtherRoooToo, I agree that there's no eliminating doubt, but my imagining is focused on less, which probably really means eliminating it every time it really gets in the way, which sort of makes your point. So….
You're right, though. Some people are more inclined to feel fear or anxiety or doubt, but whatever the frequency or intensity, what you do in response to those feelings determines the impact they'll have. Avoiding the feeling by avoiding the activity or situation that brings it about will certainly atrophy your will and make your world a small, even scarier place.
Or so I'm told.
Honestly, I think the biggest magic feather out there is that being in a relationship will somehow make things easier.
That there's not the worry of "does this fight mean we're breaking up?", "am I being cheated on/lied to?" or the "so this person has this trait that bugs me to pieces…is this something I can live with or do we need to break up?" Not to mention for couples who are stable but then confront other issues of life – the other partner losing a job, fertility issues, illnesses, etc.
None of this is necessarily a magic moment to happiness. Which is why I think a bigger part of DNL's post is that if you're not working to improve yourself, should you end up in a relationship – being happy in that relationship is hardly a given.
I feel like people are missing that what DNL is saying is that attaching all your confidence to something that is transitory is going to backfire.
What happens when your awesome car breaks down? What happens when you have a medical crisis and gain weight or lose that six-pack? What happens when the bloom is off the rose?
DNL isn't saying "don't exercise", and to think that ignores the years of advice he's given men telling them to go out and workout, learn how to dress, etc, but tying all your confidence up in a material possession or even a state of health that isn't going to last is a recipe for leaving you ruined when those things break down or go out.
And those six-pack abs don't mean much if you can't talk to the opposite sex.
I'm sure it's hard to talk about without getting a bit "woo-woo" sounding touchy feely, but while working towards being better is important, no single thing is going to cure anyone's dating or life woes.
"no single thing is going to cure anyone's dating or life woes."
IMO, this is the big takeaway.
I know trying to "be an attractive person" feels so exhausting some days to me personally because there are so many elements to consider.
(Not to speak of which, parts of it are transient — everybody trumpets the duckling-to-swan transformation without remembering to remind the swan that someday she's still going to turn back into the 60-year-old quite possibly tossed aside by our culture for the 16-year-old, if she hasn't chosen her environments by then to minimize that kind of thing.)
But it certainly has its benefits (occasional "chuck it all" days aside), in great part because our society rewards it so much.
So I plug away.
"while working towards being better is important, no single thing is going to cure anyone's dating or life woes."
But then that does kind of mean that most dating advice is sort of woo-woo bullshit. That most successful people actually have very little idea what made them successful; that it was probably some combination of skill, circumstance, and luck (circumstance and luck being the "woo-woo" items.) So if no single/group of things can really cure one's dating or life woes, that means that most self-improvement or advice is tantamount to railing against a storm; utterly worthless.
As far as tying up your confidence in material possessions or a state of health, isn't it less about tying one's confidence to those things and more tying them to what attracts the desired sex? And isn't that SHOULD be what your confidence is based off of, because why in the world are you confident about something that isn't attracting anyone??
I've always really struggled with this, because I was for years *absurdly* confident, with absolutely no real reason for it. I was confident in my intelligence and my wit, even though it truth, no one else found me smart OR witty. Mostly I just came across like a ignorant ass.
So confidence without self-awareness isn't useful. But that self-awareness depends on knowing what is and is not worth being confident about. And that knowledge comes from being able to articulate what other people appreciate or value about you. A = B = C, your confidence kind of DOES depend on what others think of you.
Pretty much all advice is people sharing what worked for them and can usually only be generalized at the macro level.
I am absolutely sure it worked for them, but I wonder if it's true that it can be generalized at the macro level. If success is the result of "woo-woo" factors, can it ever really be replicated or reproduced?
Well, yeah. Success is a matter of statistics, I think. Not necessarily guaranteed help on an individual level, but you can look at aggregates and find commonalities, and try those commonalities to see if it works for you.
I mean, obviously being fit, attractive and outgoing is going to correlate highly with being socially successful, but having the former factors isn't a guarantee of the latter, depending on other factors. Even with a seemingly-surefire set of skills like that, there's going to be some percentage of people who are the equivalent of the unlucky sods who die from a shark attack or the lucky sods who win the megamillions lottery.
If DNL didn't think taking actionable steps like working out, building social calibration, etc. were at least somewhat useful, he wouldn't write articles about them.
As you say, there are many different sources of variance within dating, not all of which are under one's control. Advice articles are aimed at the sources of variance that one CAN control, even if they don't explain all the variance in the outcome. It's worthwhile to change the things one can, even if they only have a partial effect on the outcome.
I suspect this particular article is not entirely applicable to everyone not-male.
PS: I'm also fairly certain that the depreciation of enjoyment is a YMMV thing, and/or is more applicable to *things* than living creatures, since living creatures do not provide the same, static experience every time.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'd agree that the depreciation of a relationship isn't quite the same. I'd also say that the depreciation idea assumes a basic starting point even when it comes to things that aren't relationships. I'm pretty sure there are studies showing that money actually does make people happy up to about $70,000. The shiny wears off of any job or new possession, but I suspect that the absence of the sort of pain caused by being unemployed or not having a car in a place where one is needed still counts for something, even if people who are lucky enough to have those things don't notice it.
Yes, money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can certainly buy the way out of a number of forms of distress.
Hear! Hear!
Ain't that the truth. As someone wiser than me put it: "The good feeling of having money is nowhere near as intense as the bad feeling of not having money."
"I suspect this particular article is not entirely applicable to everyone not-male."
True. I'm probably being unfair by not recognizing that I am not the target audience. Sometimes I have difficulty with these sorts of articles because I seem to inhibit an almost male-centric dating mindset, but socially I'm female-identified. Like I'll read an article about confidence and approaching and my initial reaction is "Yeah!" only to then remember that "confidence" and approaching have gender-flavors, and the Doc's is meant for men approaching women, not the other way around.
I think it certainly applies to women. Looks matter for both genders, but I think both genders often overrate how much their dating struggles are due to looks. Just as many men think getting six-pack abs will be a panacea, many women think losing those nagging 5-10 pounds will be a panacea.
@TheWisp
Getting a six pack will increase a man's results with many women. By no means all and there's no certainty but that's life. I wish we lived in a less shallow world but both men and women are under huge pressure these days to look good to succeed socially, in dating and in life. The PUA myths of women not caring about looks etc have gone by the wayside. Lots of my female friends point out "hot guys" they see on the street.
If I woke up tomorrow with a masculine jaw instead of my round face that makes people over estimate my weight and my hair restored, my results would improve. But such results and confidence are fleeting. There's always going to be someone better looking and so that confidence lasts until we meet that person. My ex was a size 10 (UK). She wanted to have similar curves to a mutual female friend of ours. That mutual female friend of ours wants to be a size 10 and to loose the curves.
It's hard to be happy and at ease with yourself these days. Recently in the UK, a story hit the headlines about a woman who died from taking diet pills she bought online. We live in a shallow world and the pressure she must have felt to risk her life with unknown medication (at no point am I saying she was at fault. She wasn't) must have been horrendous.
The majority of articles that shame women's body image are written by women. They appear in women's magazines staffed and edited by women. And now we have the male counterpart in men's fitness magazines and similar publications. A recent news story here revealed that many "after" photos used to advertise fitness products to men were taken two hours after the "before" picture was taken. And they were mostly photoshopped. But they were used to promote the idea that men needed to buy the product and look like the model in the "after" picture.
Looks are not everything but it's easy to see how we get tricked into not liking ourselves.
"The majority of articles that shame women's body image are written by women. They appear in women's magazines staffed and edited by women. "
All of which are published by men.
/come on, son
I always found the articles in lad mags more body shaming than the women's mags. All that glorification of whoever the "It Girl" of the moment and the cheesecake shots always made me very insecure.
Too right. If you don't look like the It Girl for whatever reason (and there are usually several, especially if you don't personally have both styling and Photoshop teams to follow you around) you are officially SOL.
At least in the ladymags, you get some instructions to at least make an attempt to fix the Mess You Are, however futile it may ultimately turn out to be.
Wait, there are magazines that objectify women AND cheesecake?
I think I just found my fetish.
I can't tell if you're joking, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin-up_girl see paragraph 2.
I think some of us are just meant to do our own thing.
Whenever I fail to make a connection with a girl I’m really attracted to, I just make that switch in my mind that “Yeah, I may have failed that one, but if there’s this one girl I find awesome, there’s bound to be more”.
Maybe if you were so called “better looking” (Which I think is utter nonsense, some of the most amazing girls I’ve lusted after did not look good, just appealing to me), you could get approached more, does that mean that you would find what you’re looking for? Probably not, unless what you’re looking for is being approached.
Maybe your way of finding what you’re looking for is doing the approaching yourself (Which I believe you’re already doing, in which case, you go, girl!).
As for the anticipation and life thing at the end, it really isn’t about goals.
I was in New Zealand a month ago, trekking for days.
A whole lot of people told me that if the view isnt that great, the trek’s not worth it.
I called bullshit, watching amazing views DOES get old, because you’ve gotten used to it.
But the way up top, the struggle, the boulder hopping, the narrow trenches, the waist deep river crossings and the evening tiny stove cooking and shitty pasta, that’s the journey and that is what makes the view so worth it.
"Which I believe you're already doing, in which case, you go, girl!"
No. No. Would people PLEASE just knock off this "Hurry you're approaching!" cheer leading stance. I can point to approaching guys as my BIGGEST dating mistake, bar none. I'd have been in less relationships (like all but one) without it, but my self-esteem and sense of worth would also be easily quadrupled to what they are now if I'd been smart enough to NOT approach.
Approaching works for some folks. Fantastic. Why is it thus inconceivable that approaching does NOT work for others, and might in fact be debilitation detrimental? This automatic assumption that Girl Approaching = Feminism = Better Relationship needs to stop.
Would getting approached mean I find what I'm looking for? Well, what I'd be looking for is a guy who considers me attractive enough to approach without me having to bribe, barter, and steal my way into anything vaguely resembling a relationship. So, uh, yeah?
What's wrong with commending someone on making approaches, regardless of gender?
Just curious.
I don't think it's a gender thing, just that the encouragement is mistarteged in Marty's individual case – she was the person the comment was directed to, after all.
People who have decided that approaching is the way to go should be commended on following through with their strategies. People like Marty, who have experimented with it and found that it wasn't either an effective or an emotionally sustainable strategy for them, understandably don't find "you go, girl!" to be very helpful.
I'd submit there's nothing "wrong" with it, per se.
However, to ignore or dismiss the fact that said approaches are, by and large, received very differently depending on which gender is initiating them, misses something very important in the analysis.
I don't think there's a lady on this forum who's made her share of approaches whose confidence hasn't been shattered to bits at least once by the Deer-in-Headlights look she got from some dude whom she could have sworn was all yammery about "Why don't more women approoooaach meeeeee?" on a forum they both frequent not just 10 minutes before she'd plucked up her courage.
And – before it even devolves here – to say "Well, that's exactly what men experience" misses both the point that
a) she got up her nerve to do it after practically being hounded into it by men who continually lament that They Have to Approach All the Time and Women Never Do, while the gender-reversed situation is much less frequent, and also
b) the attitude that permeates our culture and discussions of this kind that women's looks are the Be All End All coupled with one my personal favorites, Women Do Dating on Easy Mode and Are As A Result Bombarded With Approaches and Messages — so if these guys are shying away from her in light of all those factors, she must *really* be a troll and what's the point. After all, these dudes *asked* her to "switch up the status quo", as it were.
So I don't think the "reverse the genders in a vacuum" game can be played with this particular issue.
I'll also add that ANY forward behavior from a woman is often misinterpreted by the men they're approaching to be more than what they mean. Consider how often women in customer service who aren't flirting at all get stalkers and guys who assume she's interested just by being polite as a function of her job, imagine how it is for women in social/dating situations? Presuming the dude isn't scared off because "ew she's desperate if SHE'S approaching ME" he's more often then not going to assume that a fairly innocent "getting to know you" conversation means she MUST be DTF. (Obviously #notallmen but it happens enough to be a consideration for any woman who wants to approach.) And a lot of guys will just go along with a woman who approaches him just because it's… easy. He doesn't find her entirely offensive, but she's available, and he's horny or bored or both, and she's obviously not going to change her mind because she's desperate or wanton. And that seems to be the issue Marty has come across. She's in a fairly conservative area so there are a lot of unfair assumptions about women who approach that might not be a consideration in other regions.
I'd emphatically agree with everything you say, save the last part.
I've been in the town — or at least the state — where I think Marty is (trying not to unwittingly doxx) and I not only don't think the behavior patterns you describe are limited to that locale … but I'm an East Coaster and have encountered every single situation you describe, in various cities both here and in the West, at least once. Each.
Glad you figured out what I was saying because rereading it feels like a word salad to me.
ETA: I'm from a fairly conservative area myself so this aligns with my experiences as well, but I figured this advice must apply well to SOMEONE in SOME region since it's so common.
If it were me, I'd say that the conservative area can go F itself, that it wouldn't deserve someone like me and get the hell out.
There's nothing laudable in holding the flag for a shitpot place that works against you at every turn. If that happens you actually should "betray" that place by leaving it behind. It festers and stagnates all the better without you.
I'm not completely serious as I know it can sometimes be very impractical or even temporarily impossible (not to mention heart wrenching) to move but I always did admire people who are opportune and unsentimental enough to do it.
Eh well like OtherRoo said, I'm not sure other parts of the country are that much better. I'm not actual sure my area is that conservative, and I've seen other women approach men with perfectly fine results.
I suspect the problem is me, myself. And I'd be a problem regardless of what area of the country you stuck me in. "Move to another city and I'll automatically get better results" could be magic feather thinking too. 😛
I think it probably has more to do with the type of guy than the geography (though I'd imagine in some really traditional communities, no type of guy would be gung ho about ladies approaching) – I've had some guys who were very polite rejecters, some who clearly felt awkward, but weren't mean about it, and some who were complete shits about it
Fair enough, it is what Dr NL says and it's mostly true. "The common denominator in all past situations are you", or something to that effect.
Going places in general is often a great opportunity to break habits and try new things though, even if places are kind of similar in some regards.
Maybe alot of people are both a bit unapproachable and lax about approaching these days. Unless we possess qualities that people find extremely interesting, we're just not getting that immediate attention.
Have you thought about, instead of approaching and start from scratch, try to study the men you are interesting in beforehand and then tailor things to say that may stick in their brain and intrigue? It's sneaky but can be damn effective. Like if someone drops you first hand information "John is a bit down because X happened at work".
So you start talking casually to John and then drop "I'm sorry but you seem a bit distant. Did you have a bad day today?" like the mind reader you are. 🙂
A few well timed hits like that and then you excuse yourself (always leave them wanting more) because "something just came up". That way you can approach without approaching, plant an interest in him to act upon. He'll think it was his idea to ask for your number.
PS: Only works if you would actually find it fun to be a little manipulative (in the positive sense!). Just to try and aim for people's emotions and see how they react is also very interesting in it's own right.
I think there is some confusion about why approaching doesn't work for me. It's not that I was suffering from rejection. I mean yeah, I got rejected, sometimes kindly, sometimes subtly, sometimes cruelly. And yeah rejection sucks. But my problem may actually be that I don't get rejected *enough.*
As I mentioned below, the problem I seem to run into is that when I approach guys and ask them out, guys feel they can't refuse. The inability to refuse seems to come from multiple places (social awkwardness, desperation, feeling I'm not "safe" to say no to, laziness, fear of conflict, not having a lot of experience with saying No in a dating context.) So I end up on dates or in relationships with guys who don't want to be there but felt they had no choice.
Since I have yet to identify how I am coming across to make guys feel this way, I feel it is not safe/ethical/good for anyone for me to continue approaching. It seems that even something as subtle as what you're suggesting may cause feelings of can't-say-no-ness.
OR it has the opposite effect where the guy apparently doesn't realize I'm interested at all. Any kind of more obvious interest, however, and I run into that same can't-say-no problem.
No, I got that from the previous posts, but I must've missed the part where you said you weren't dating now nor planning to.
Ok then, just for the sake of argument then, I hold that there's other ways than just assuming the roles active or passive or approach/being approached.
You can also go under the radar and deftly influence the other part to take initiative.
It's a little in the ethical gray area but it doesn't have to be bad so long as your intentions are good.
Maybe alot of people are both a bit unapproachable and lax about approaching these days.
This is true. My suggestion would be that those people put some effort into either approaching more people or learning to be more approachable or both, rather than using energy that could be channeled in those directions into pressuring women who don't want to approach to do so and giving them advice at how to be better at the thing they've chosen not to do.
As long as women acknowledge their choice rules out some partners and may lead to them staying single, I think that choice should be respected, even if it means that some guys who fantasize about being approached won't get what they want. I do approach men sometimes, but these conversations make it seem less rather than more appealing.
And for the record, should I ever be single again, and not approaching guys meant I was single/forever alone, I'd be sad, but I think I'd end up a lot happier than if I kept approaching guys. Perhaps that hasn't been clear, so I will try to be more overt: I would be sad but ultimately much better satisfied if not approaching means I end up single.
(OR I somehow figure out what about me is causing the lack of desire/can't-say-no-ness and correct that. But I'll probably always prefer being approached over approaching.)
If it were you, I'd suggest you do just that. But for some people, the hypothetical set of norms probably works in their favor. Marty's community is not, in fact, very conservative, but I actually think she'd probably see more success in an area that did skew more toward traditional dating norms because there would be more men taking on the approacher role and fewer waiting for women to approach them.
I think there's a bit of conflating what men would like women to do with what would actually benefit Marty in this discussion generally.
I think there is nothing wrong with making approaches, *if that is what you personally want to do.* What bothers me is when "approach" is synonymous with "better." What really bothers me is when "approaching" is synonymous with "feminism" or "empowered" when talking about women.
If a woman wants to approach and it works for her personality/style/gets her results, I think that's fantastic. But approaching DOESN'T work for all women. Approaching can also be very damaging for some women, yet it's encouraged anyway in the name of equality or girl-power or whatever.
In short, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the topic of "approaches" if it wasn't ALWAYS hailed at the thing women should be doing to prove they're not snobby/true feminists.
The “you go,girl!” was said as an encouragement for the fact that women usually aren’t encouraged to do it (atleast outside DNL’s microcosmos).
As for it being better or not, it is up for debate.
If your results thus far have been kicking and screaming and shuttered confidence , its probably not for you.
I would like to know how being passive has worked for you.
You do know that there is a lot of very active work that goes into being approachable, right? Being approachable is actually more work (very active work) than just approaching. Equating "not approaching" to "passive" erases all of that very real work.
I think the work that goes into being approachable is the same work that goes into being presentable when approaching.
At the end of the day, someone’s usually got to make the first move, and that’s what I’m refering to when saying *active*.
"I think the work that goes into being approachable is the same work that goes into being presentable when approaching."
You are wrong. The work of being approachable includes that work, but also includes projecting, the whole time that you're in public, an air of being friendly and welcoming, a science of looking interesting without being so involved that you don't want to be interrupted, and a "vibe" you put off that will attract the kind of partners you're interested in.
If I'm going to a bar hoping to be approached, and I'm looking for smart, funny guys, I have to think about what to bring along to do, and how I want to stand out from the crowd. It takes planning. I am constantly aware of how I'm presenting. Like most other "feminine" roles, it's more of an endurance challenge than a burst effort.
This. This is exactly why I was never approached. If all it took was being presentable I should have been approached all the time. I'd wear in style clothes, fix my hair, do my makeup, and am generally considered to be a physically attractive person etc etc and so forth. But no one would approach me. Why? Like I said elsewhere in this conversation there is something about my expression and the way I carry myself that says "Approach me at your peril". I didn't do it on purpose, it was simply how I always carried myself and that wasn't the message I was trying to send off, it was just what my body and face naturally projected. I had no idea I was supposed to purposefully project warmth and approachability. And I never did. And to this day I still don't know how to do it.
Now I could have worked on it, but I kind of didn't realise it until later in life, and honestly now I like that strangers just leave me alone. I've only ever dated friends or people I've met through others, so cold approaches weren't necessary for me to date. So it never seemed worth it to me to work on. But yeah, being approachable is so much more than being "presentable".
Yikes, can you give me a lesson? I always figured it was the fact that I always go to parties with one guy, and it made me look taken.
That's actually probably a big part of it. The Doc had an article about this last Friday, about how if you do go out in public with a guy friend (and want to be approached) you need to be very precise in what kind of body language and signals you're giving.
"In short, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the topic of "approaches" if it wasn't ALWAYS hailed at the thing women should be doing to prove they're not snobby/true feminists."
Ahh okay, that makes a lot of sense to me. I misread the context of your original post, so my b
“Well, what I’d be looking for is a guy who considers me attractive enough to approach without me having to bribe, barter, and steal my way into anything vaguely resembling a relationship”.
I cheer on people making approaches because its a sign of people taking control of their dating lives.
Does it work for everyone? Probably not.
Does it open up possibilities for success?
Absolutely.
The whole bribing, bartering and stealing? That sounds awfully like the Backdoor Gambit, and I’m sorry you felt the need to resort to that.
Being passive doesnt have to be the only other option.
"sign of people taking control of their dating lives."
That is a very narrow interpretation of 'taking control.' Is not stopping a behavior that makes you miserable, leads to awful results, or just plain doesn't work not taking control? This is why the "approaching is synonymous with better' bothers me, because it seems like people with that mindset do not allow for the idea that approaching is not the way to fulfill certain desires or needs.
To use a not-me example, a woman who enjoys traditional gender roles and wants a traditionally-minded partner would most likely be ill-met being the approach-er/aggressor.
"Does it open up possibilities for success? Absolutely."
That is your experience. Good for you. That is not true for everyone. It especially doesn't open up possibilities for success if the very act of approaching leaves a person more dejected, more depressed, and more emotionally exhausted, and thus not able to recognize or handle whatever possibilities are even there.
"The whole bribing, bartering and stealing? That sounds awfully like the Backdoor Gambit, and I'm sorry you felt the need to resort to that. Being passive doesnt have to be the only other option."
Yeah, it wasn't. To really throw some matches on the fireworks, my observation of some gender politics suggests that the Backdoor Gambit is what women are *expected* to resort to. I've spoken before about how women's dating advice can be downright Machiavellian, because our society can still actively punish women who are too aggressive, too socially awkward in the not-cute way, or too masculine-while-straight. Some women can overcome those obstacles. I cannot.
I have almost never employed the Backdoor Gambit as defined on this site, but I have had to drag a guy nearly kicking and screaming into a relationship. The few times I didn't, I was chided for not "doing enough" (because I am not a naturally passive creature, and usually don't "do enough" passive/feminine things to guide the man into the relationship. When I try, I over-correct into being too masculine and aggressive.)
I, as a woman, am expected to find that middle ground between not being too passive, but not being too active either. Sorry, but that's an exhausting line to tread.
You had to drag a guy nearly kicking and screaming into a relationship… sweet jeebus on a stick, why did you?
Because I was told to. Because any time I gave up at signs of disinterest, I was told I was:
-insecure
-gave up too easy
-prejudiced against shy nerd guys
-too picky
Part of it is also that I didn't always REALIZE I was dragging a guy kicking and screaming. I am apparently an….. aggressive person in real life. When I think I am just articulating my desires or boundaries, guys seem to interpret me as either bullying, blackmailing, or shaming them into dating me. I rarely recognize that I'm coming across that way, and have yet to identify what specifically I'm doing to cause that impression.
So I'll walk away from a conversation thinking we are equals who both agreed to date, and he'll walk away feeling I pulled him kicking and screaming into dating me. It usually isn't until much, much later that he admits to me he just felt like he couldn't say "no."
When the majority opinion is that guys can't tell you "no" for fear of repercussions, a passive role is the very safest bet for everyone.
Jeez, you know all the ranting guys do about women giving out fake numbers? Maybe they should apply that to this kind of thing.
I'm 100% with you on this one. There's absolutely nothing that dictates a person's problems will be evenly distributed, in fact its probably very unlikely to happen that way. Plenty of people will have particular issues that hold them back more then others. Also, not all issues are equally disruptive. In my case, the "one thing" was getting a job. Even if I still run into problems to deal with, having a job still helps with them because it means I have far more resources at my disposal to work on my issues.
When I lost weight, I enjoyed it every single day. I would touch my hip bones as a reminder and tap at my collar bone. I lost the weight healthfully, but regained it when I got sad and started over-eating again. Trying to get back on track has been hard. But. I'm also happy while NOT being thin. Other improvements happened in my life, so being thin wasn't the only thing I had to hold on to. I want that back, yes, but I'm not starting up terrible crash diets anymore (which isn't even how I lost the weight in the first place) or trying to starve myself, only to fail after a month at most. Now I'm taking it slow.
But. I remember how nice it was to be thinner. The extra positive attention, even non-sexual. It IS a motivator, especially when it's not a mythical unicorn I've never achieved. I can be happy without it…but I know I'll be happier when I'm back to a healthy weight. I completely agree with your "money doesn't buy happiness" analogy. It really does help.
Reminds me of that XKCD comment, about the guy who goes through "epiphany after epiphany", none of which stick.
I'll say I disagree with two things here.
1) "Either that magic feather represents giving yourself permission to achieve something – in which case you don’t need the feather in the first place…"
So many people need that little push to get over the "I don't deserve this" hill. If a magic feather is giving you permission, I think it's a good thing. Once you achieve what you want, then you realize, that feather wasn't really the point, but it helped you get there. Then you can put the feather down, and you look back, and you realize that all you needed was a figurehead to "tell you" that the world was okay with you having what you wanted. And at that point…maybe you won't even need a feather next time. Or you'll need a smaller, plainer feather. Crutches can really help as long as you eventually become strong enough not to need them.
2) Exercise isn’t going to give you a different personality. Dieting doesn’t make you charismatic. Your basement studio apartment doesn’t make you less socially skilled than a corner penthouse.
This is only *sometimes* true. While yes, learning to accept your body how it is is a good thing, do you not think having the "wow, I lost 100 pounds of my own effort and now I look like a fucking BOSS" mentality isn't going to make people more confident? They got there. They look like something they *want* to look like. And in the end, that is powerful. Having the money to afford a corner penthouse makes some people feel on top of the world, and those emotions are going to carry over into the rest of their lives. Do you believe six pack abs are going to be a chick magnet? Then get six pack abs and you'll *act* like a chick magnet, and as the Doc has said before, acting with confidence is going to get you what you want more than being shy in a corner will.
So yes, if the magic feather is just a daydream and nothing more, it will be useless. But if the feather helps you get somewhere, sometimes achieving *does* change you, and sometimes you really do need someone's (nonexistent and ambiguous) permission to accept that change. These two things can really support some people. Not all, of course, but I wouldn't write those off in general.
Regarding #2, I think the point is that people shouldn't get caught up in thinking that the accomplishment itself is what's important, since it can be destroyed/taken away by any number of circumstances, but the mindset behind and beneath the accomplishment can survive and be used for bettering yourself again. Recognizing that better bodies or more money are just the vehicles to improvement and confidence, not the sources of improvement or confidence, goes a longer way towards maintaining self-improvement gains if/when those bodies or dollars go away.
As I read that, it sounds nice, but it's hard as hell to live out. Always has been for me, personally.
But confidence is also used as a magic feather when it shouldn’t be. I actually find over-confidence to be anathema, ESPECIALLY in men. So what if you have a penthouse and a six pack? You’re still a dick! I guess if what you want is a string of one night stands, then fine. And YES, there are some people who need that little confidence boost to get them through, but I would argue that our society places way too much emphasis on “self esteem” (ie feeling like you are a special little snowflake), when, in actuality, in RELATIONSHIPS, you have to be good at RELATING! You have to negotiate and know when to step back and give a shit about the person in front of you and not just yourself.
It seems like the trouble with self-improvement comes from the expected reward, and the expected reward almost always relate to other people, how they will see you, how they will admire you.. That's at heart of the magic feather.
I think, with the only exception of say, social skills, self-improvement should epitome SELF and other people don't matter.
Why do you want to exercise apart from the health aspects? To prove yourself, to yourself of course.
Could the exercise also help you be seen as attractive and get your love life going? Well maybe, but bury that thought so far down that you almost forget about it. I'd personally find it very hard to be motivated and value the results if it all hung on seeking the approval and admiration of others.
After all, suppose you did get yourself in mean shape and suppose you did get in a relationship shortly after, wouldn't you always have a nagging feeling that this only happened because you painstakingly reached a bar set up by others who wouldn't give you the time of day if you hadn't?
I can imagine the resentment you'd might feel to others if that was your motivation. You just achieved to please and didn't work on your center and your self-esteem. By fully giving yourself the self-improvement project instead, I think that bullet can be dodged and you can properly award yourself with the self-respect that you won.
…and that sort of thing has a tendency to make people attractive too but oops, forget that!
I think that pure self-improvement like that is… rare. I certainly agree that doing something purely to please others leads to bad things. At the same time, I think people usually want to improve themselves *in part* for the effects it will have on others. I'm not sure motivation for internal reward and external reward can be so easily untangled. It seems to me that people usually engage in self-improvement because they both want to feel better *and* because they want the external social rewards.
If you think people should be purely internally motivated, that leads to some weird dissonance: (1) you want to be more attractive so you can get laid/get dates/find a relationship, (2) the best thing you can do to get laid/get dates/find a relationship is self-improvement, (3) self-improvement works best if you are only motivated internally and not by external social rewards, (4) conclusion: if you want to be more attractive because you want to get laid/get dates/find a relationship, then you shouldn't care about getting laid/getting dates/finding a relationship.
If you are purely internally motivated to do some form of self-improvement, that's great! But, I think for the vast majority that's not the case, especially on a site specifically about getting better at dating.
Yes, I don't think it's ever going to be pure self-improvement as you say.
Social reward should just be very downplayed as a motivation so you can benefit from everything else that comes with your self-improvement.
Actually, your conclusion (4) does work for some. Again, not in the absolute sense but to healthy degree. It's heck of alot easier to flirt with people when you're not very invested in the possible outcomes but mostly just because it's fun.
Eh, but it can be. For example, I wanted a good career for me, so I'd be able to afford the things I want to do. I work on a show for me, because I need to bleed off those creative impulses or I get moody and withdrawn. I quit smoking because I hate coughing and wheezing after running a block. I exercise because I have a desk job so now I have to make time to be active instead of just getting it in the course of the day. I dress well (within a certain style) because I want other people to see me the way I see me. Even that isn't so much "this will make me irresistible" as "this will make it easier for compatible people to recognize me".
I didn't do any of that for anyone else but I'm always pleasantly surprised when someone sees the work that goes into those things and reacts well to it.
But that sounds like you are doing it right.
The primary benefits from you and for you, and the potential social rewards as secondary bonus (half expected but not focused on really).
I don't know if there's just some miscommunication going on here because I think we are saying almost the same thing.
Mostly just responding to the "pure" self-improvement thing. I just sort of did stuff then found out later that when I stopped and looked around I was living a much different, better life.
I have a lot of fun solving logical puzzles, trying out different proof styles, and making tight, clean, readable code libraries that allow other developers to safely and efficiently exploit reflection in focused ways. It's a heck of a lot easier to ace math exams and earn early promotions with that kind of mindset, even (or especially) when you aren't too invested in the financial benefit.
But I still have to envy the people I know who don't think that way, because if they ever do need or want to be able to do those kinds of things, it's entirely possible for them to just study a bit harder and learn and pass (if not necessarily with flying colors). Enjoying the work for its own sake isn't a requirement there, and there are all kinds of resources out there for people who absolutely hate doing it to learn how to be effective anyway, with no expectation that they will ever have to learn to like it.
Agreed. This whole idea of "the best way to get external rewards is genuinely not to care about external rewards" – it's conceptually a really difficult idea to get your head around.
It is if you focus on the external rewards. If you want a high status job because it'll get you women then its not really the job you want. If you want a particular job because it pays well and you enjoy it, the job itself is rewarding. Having more money for dating and/or fashion is a side effect of having more money. If you're talking to people more because you want to have a more active social life, you'll also have an easier time dating as a result. If you're talking to people just to get dates, then that expanded personal life feels like a lot of sunk time instead of what you want. That's like going to college to get a good job instead of an education. Sure its doable but its kind of a waste of time. Its about building the life, being the person, you want to be. If I want six pack abs for me, its a lot easier to put in the work than it is if I ant them so someone else will want me for them.
But that's still very results-orientated, and in my experience it's easy then to become obsessive about how where you're at is falling short of where you "should" be. You're putting in the work but still not getting the six pack abs, you're talking to people but it's still not transforming your social life..
Improvement can happen, but it's a long-term and jagged process: on a good day it feels like I've come a long way, on a bad day it feels like I'm right back at square one.
You're abstracting it a bit less than I am, although not the way I wrote it. I work out because I don't get enough exercise otherwise. I go out and do social things so I don't get stir crazy at home. Basically, you can keep granulating that forever until you end up with a zen "This exact push up/brush stroke/word is the thing I most want to be doing with my time right now and that's enough."
That's what I'm getting at. If you get talking to someone because gut feeling is telling you this situation would likely be improved by you starting a conversation, that's great. If you get talking to someone because you're trying to deliver on a goal you've set yourself (even if you've generalised it and just said I'm trying to improve my social life), you're more likely to misjudge the situation, get a bad reaction and so go backwards rather than forwards.
And yeah, going back to the original, it is difficult but its one habit worth developing because it helps so many other ones. If there's one underlying lesson, its this: Do.
I don't know if this is a concern you have, but I'm going to guess. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Are you afraid that shifting the focus away from the desired goal (social/romantic) will divert you and get you off track? If so then relax, because that usually doesn't happen. It's not like you are going to start missing opportunities when they present themselves.
Well, I had an example today, as it happens. There's a young woman who works in the same large building as I do, but I don't know her otherwise. I see her around and she's someone I'd quite like to try approaching, without much expectation.
Today, for the first time I had a chance. We were both waiting for the same lift for a minute or so, with no-one else around. But I couldn't think of anything to say, so the moment passed.
By the school of thought that I should throw everything I have into getting a girlfriend and see it as a pure numbers game, I completely failed and should have pushed through my anxiety and approached her whatever. But a more holistic view might say that I wasn't going to perform well at that moment, and her body language wasn't looking promising, so I made the right call on that occasion. I'm not really sure which it is.
My personal biggest self-improvement that I have made – was through learning dancing.
Now that I think about it, I began learning how to dance mainly because I always had at least some interest in it. I saw it as an opportunity to develop my self-confidence and interact with women on a regular basis, in a way that was also physical and interactive like that. My "crutch" when it got to this – is the thought that people who know how to dance are simply somehow "cooler" than other people and can attract a partner very easily. I'll admit this thought has occasionally popped up in my mind every now and then. But the fact that I am still dancing (and I also started to learn a new style of dance recently) for almost 3 years now without getting partners on a regular basis from it, serves as proof to myself that my motivation behind it isn't based on some sort of "magical feather crutch". It's because I enjoy it on an almost spiritual level sometimes. I feel like it is a natural extension of the ways I can express myself – like knowing how to speak another language, basically. Knowing how to talk a new language doesn't automatically make you more attractive. It's the mentality shift that you begin to radiate around you when you learn how to do so that creates the change you desire.
Wow… So much bad advice right here. I’m also with Marty (surprisingly) on this one. Will the 6 pack I have been working towards make me a different person internally? Probably not, but it would affect how attractive women perceive me. Which, in turn, will up my confidence as well as put me ahead of any competition without a 6pack, which would be a hefty majority of men.
Like Marty, I want to be approached. Considering that’s less likely to occur to me than my opposite sex counterpart, I have to stand out more. A 6 pack is definitely going to increase the probability of that happening. Same with a nice car, and alot of money. Is it a “magic feather”. No, but it increases the probability of my goals being reached as well as ups my confidence and ego.
When I hit the gym, I see the ladies checking out the hot dudes lifting in front of the mirror. I want those looks, I want that attention, I want the validation that I’m hot and hot women want to bed me. The only way to get those looks and subsequent approaches is to become one if those guys they are drooling over. No amount of “inner acceptance” is going to change the lizard part of their brains.
Summer (shirtless season) is horizon. I want the confidence a great body, and the looks of lust that go with it, brings. And I’m busting my butt to make that occur.
@BPremium
I too am working hard in the gym. And I've seen women (including my gym partner) ogle good looking guys in the gym. One thing I've not really seen is women in the gym approaching those good looking guys they have been staring at. So the women can be looking at you but it doesn't really change anything. Unless all you want is validation from complete strangers? Which is fair enough. We all like being noticed positively. I've been at social events and seen a hot guy walk in and heard the rest of the women at the event go on about how hot he is even though he's never said a word. But that doesn't mean he got approached by any woman who thought he was hot.
In all fairness, I've also met women who don't really like the big muscle look and women who don't find fitness models attractive unless they have good faces (that's an actual quote from one woman not me guessing). So it's a mixed bag. Nowhere near as level a playing field as PUA tries to suggest but it's still a mixed bag out there. There isn't one magic thing that's going to make everything better.
And what happens if a guy with an even better six pack walks into the room? I too would love to be the "hot guy" even just for a day and if I woke up with a masculine jaw instead of a round face and my hair back again my results would sky rocket. But I also know such confidence would be fragile and so would the results. There would be someone better looking than me even after the transformation.
"And what happens if a guy with an even better six pack walks into the room?"
The thing is – or at least one of the things – an 8-pack is not necessarily 'better" than a 6-pack, especially depending on who's looking.
The whole thing really isn't a contest so much as it's about whether you feel stronger & better … which is going to affect how you (universal "you") interact with people as well as how they perceive you.
I don't find a dude more attractive (even just at the gym, which obviates the whole discussion about whether or not I'm even paying attention because I'm getting my own workout on, *and* whether or not I'm amenable as a lady to being interrupted in the middle of all that even by a dude I find attractive (generally not, and I know there are more than a few other ladies who also hold that mindset)) just because his midsection is more striated.
The rest of his physique could be not so proportional (like those dudes whom a friend of mine calls "chicken legs", with all the upper-body development and, clearly, no time spent on the squat rack).
Or he could be a Chris Evans or Eduardo Morales lookalike with perfectly elegant proportions … but who's also a prize jerk (another thing that gets underplayed, particularly when it comes to the endless "attraction" discussions. Personality counts, guys!).
Similarly, there are scads of dudes who will jump out of the woodwork (not that anyone ever asks them beforehand) to say "Ew! I don't like a woman who's cut!"
All to say that the eye of the beholder is something that frequently seems to get lost and/or discounted in these kinds of conversations. (I have my theories as to why, but that too is an entirely different discussion.)
To put it another way, the "six-pack / no six pack / 'better' six pacK" kind of thing isn't a linear analysis because not everyone is attracted to the same thing.
I think that's one of the elements that kind of gets buried when this type of discussion comes up, so I thought I'd re-raise it. 🙂
Exactly! Being attracted to six-packs is hardly universal. I find them a little disturbing, myself.
I think some of your goals for the six pack are in alignment with what a six pack can do for you, and others aren't.
You have evidence that women check out men with six-packs at the gym, and the gym provides you a context in which you can show women your six-pack. Awesome – you will probably get what you want, which are appreciative looks. It sounds like you are pretty clear about why that will make you feel good, and I love that you're taking action toward that goal!
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that "looks of lust" based on your six-pack are going to translate into approaches by women. Having a six-pack suggests a very conventional approach to masculinity; women who are willing to buck gender roles and be the approacher may see it as an active turn-off. Have you seen the guys you're modeling yourself on be approached by women?
What the Doc is critiquing here isn't the idea that one should actually, you know, do things to get what you want. He's critiquing magical thinking. I think the question to ask yourself is this: will you still be happy if you only get appreciative looks and no approaches? If the answer is yes, then I wouldn't worry too much about this article, since it's not aimed at you.
And even if you get the approaches, you need the social skills to turn an approach into a date, and then a date into…more. (I don't know what specifically BPremium's after.) There's a lot of effort involved between an attractive woman saying "Nice abs" and her hopping into bed with you.
Yes I have. I go to a Planet Fitness that’s really close to my home, and there are women that approach these good looking guys. The don’t just go up and say they want to bang the guy, but might as well. The whole “can you help me get my form right? *dude places hands on waist while she giggles and squats, rubbing up on the guy*. Or the classic ” your arms are so big, can I feel? * another giggle and puppy dog eyes*. Stuff like that. It’s gone so far as waiting for some of these dudes outside the gym to talk more.
The whole transition from nice abs to ___ is also not really an issue. I can speak well and the better looking one is, the more the halo effect plays a part. Suddenly my joke is funnier than it really is, or my sexual enuendo is met with playful banter rather than a look of disdain. Plus it doesn’t just happen at the gym. Last year I went out to the beach to take photos for my portfolio and observe the scene. The guys who were ripped had ladies asking for help with lotion on their back and the like. The larger gent not 30 ft away didn’t get asked once. Having women approach would put me at a advantage, as I would know they found me hot enough to be proactive. That is a powerful boost to ones ego and esteem.
"That is a powerful boost to ones ego and esteem."
IMO, you hang your "ego & esteem" on that at your own peril, dude.
But I don't think anybody can talk you out of it till you experience both sides of it yourself.
It is also a very very narrow kind of personality, sort of like the “showgirl”, if that is what you’re looking for, then yeah, getting ripped is *probably* going to get it.
If you’re looking for something more substancial (sp?), dont be surprised when that kind of mindset gets you dumped for the hotter guy.
Since hotness seems to be the biggest factor in that social dynamic, you are likely to be so called *upgraded*, as there’s always going to be someone hotter.
I get that everyone likes being approached and appriciated (although the first approach is all about looks, which is superficial), I fail to see the mass appeal of it compared to getting a compliment about my looks from someone I actually care about (after they figure out how awesome I am).
Yeah, when a guy goes on about how a six pack and a good job will get him a girlfriend, I can't help but think "you're not at all concerned with the fact your hypothetical girlfriend is more interested in dating six pack abs and a good job than dating *you*?"
The ones who kill me are the "Can't wait till I get that big Wall Street job so I can have all the babes!" who then do a 180 and are moaning and snarling about "All the golddiggers."
Really, dude? When you market the big six-to-seven figure job as your own main draw as a partner, and pay no attention whatever to the more odious parts of your personality? Just exactly what did you *think* was likely to happen?
RE: "the more odious parts of your personality"
A couple years ago, McSweeney's ran a series of articles by a woman who worked as a (legal) high-class escort in Toronto. I remember her saying that every time she encountered a client who was conventionally attractive, she immediately tensed up; any guy who was good-looking, had money to burn (given that he could afford an escort), and needed to pay for a woman to like him would invariably have something *seriously* wrong with him.
Patrick Bateman, right?
Or sometimes worse.
*nods*
Feed me a kitten.
Dorsia on a Friday night? How'd he swing that?
Or someone's Navy is in town. Sailors may not be rich but they're in shape and have disposable income.
Possible, but I'm guessing not a frequent occurrence in Toronto.
True, my legal call girl friend was in Australia. So Fleet Week was more of a thing.
…Ouch, man.
Holy hell, yes. People seem to be constantly baffled that the things that they market as their most positive qualities…are the ones people are going to pick up on and be attracted to. If you think that you need a six pack to attract women, then go and get one, you can't complain that "women are shallow" when you get women who are interested in six packs coming after you. Sure, those particular women who are into six packs may be shallow, but they are your target audience! And you set it up that way!
Doc's actually mentioned this in reference to his dating coach day-job; he gets tons of business from rich dudes. If all you're bringing to the table is a fat wallet, then — surprise! — the people you attract will tend to be interested mostly in said fat wallet.
Oh, yes, I saw that when I lived where you live too. I didn't see it phrased quite as blatantly, it was more something along the lines of one of these two complaints: "Ugh, why do all the [disproportionately attractive] women I go out with want to work for a few years and then settle down to be stay at home moms in the suburbs?" or "Ugh, why do all the [disproportionately attractive] women I go out with expect me to take them out clubbing and to fancy restaurants all the time?"
It's, like, no shit dude. You explicitly wanted to attract someone with your money, but it's not as if the women in question are going to go crazy over your bank account balance or your retirement account. The reason they're drawn by that money is that they want a certain lifestyle. If you want a different one, it's time to market other qualities.
First off, I do like the showgirl type and yes, that comes with the territory. But here’s the rub. How many guys have 6 packs? Very few, and as such, I would have less competition. Even if she upgraded, I would have other options other than her as to render that somewhat moot.
And those men don’t really care that they are only wanted for superficial reasons, because that’s why they are with that superficial girl to begin with.
*shrug*
Have at, buddy. Reaching into the bag of things my parents told me for a quote: "Women are sex objects, men are success objects." (They said it, they didn't endorse it, mind.) I've always found that approach to relationships vile, but I can't deny there are a lot of people who truly do believe it. If you want to devote your life to being the human equivalent of a publicly traded stock, you're welcome to it.
Just don't ever let your value slide.
Not dissing your choices, I think it's quite good that you have realised in order to get the superficial girls you have to focus on the superficial with yourself. Not every guy who wants the super hot girl realises that. But. Actually it all depends who you hang out with. I know A LOT of guys with six packs because of the industry I'm in. So, I mean, just don't hang your hat on there not being any competition.
But hey, nice to know that you feel one hot girl is interchangeable with another, should make you feel better when they exchange you for someone else. I just hope you never actually, gasp, start to care for someone.
Anybody else here feeling like BPremium watched the first 30 minutes of Don Jon, thought "That looks awesome!", and turned it off?
Sums it up pretty good.
I guess people have to experience it to realize what kind of damage it can do, To one’s self and to others.
I mean, I guess if you're seeing them all as interchangeable then this works. And aren't bothered by the fact that the women will also see you as interchangeable with Other Dudes with Six Packs…
Don't forget though, this is all in theory. He isn't there yet. I will be sincerely curious to see what happens when he finally has that six pack of his dreams. Maybe it will be exactly as he predicts, and honestly I really hope so because I think if it isn't that could be crushing, especially because he's doing all this to make himself feel better and get some of his own back after a horrible break up.
I will be frank and note that I'm a bit … amused … because dude has said elsewhere in the thread (at 342 comments now, please indulge me if I do not cite) that once he acquires said Six-Pack, he will automatically look So Much Better Than All His Competition.
I'm honestly wondering where dude resides and hangs out … because I live in a major metro, and … this place is, quite frankly, teeming with Six-Packed Dudes.
(Especially right around the US Open, when they fly in from all over the world. *smiles, looks forward to Labor Day weekend*)
Your parenthetical looks like an endorsement of the core (I just got my cleverness there) of his plan to be seen as more attractive. Maybe his competition, on some level, is men like him who haven't transformed their bodies. Maybe his competition is actually himself. Maybe the path to that realization, however clichéd, that he was always competing with himself, has to pass through the disappointment that a great body will matter, without really mattering in the way he had hoped. And maybe I'm being generous.
Whew, I got through that without typing "six pack". Oh shit.
"And maybe I'm being generous. "
Maybe.
I'm considering baking your noodle by asking you what if I told you once they all flew in there'd actually be more six-packs in town than men I found attractive, as I actually take lots of other (both physical and non-physical) attributes into consideration … and that the real point here is that maybe the point I and I suspect others are trying to make is that the six-pack won't make a pinhead's worth of difference if other issues pertaining to attractiveness of the full person aren't addressed first …
… but I'm kinda weary of the question as 350+ comments in, not only have others made that point more succinctly than I, but the principal(s) at whom said points are directed appear to be in Oppositional Categorical Refusal Mode to picking up what they're putting down …
and I don't really believe much in exercises in futility.
So there's that.
The problem with a love potion is if you need it to get her, you're going to need it to keep her.
And we've all seen that Twilight Zone episode. It never ends well.
Okay! I'm glad you have evidence to support women approaching the more ripped guys at your gym and the local beach. Assuming these are the women you want to be approached by, getting a six-pack seems like a reasonable course of action. But I'd still like you to answer my previous question. If you did this and didn't get admiring looks, or if you got admiring looks but didn't get approached, how would you react? Because nothing – no great job, no hot car, no six-pack – is a guarantee that can control how others react to you.
To answer your question, I would still be happy cause I look better than most of my competition. If I didn’t get approached, I would do it myself. Just approach those that gave me IOIs, and with a 6 pack and some other grooming I already do, I would have way more options than presently. And even if I didn’t get any IOIs, which is highly unlikely for someone good looking, the halo effect would still be in my favor.
I'm really glad that you would be happy even if things did not work out exactly the way you plan!
Since you say you'd rely on the halo effect, though, you should be aware that it doesn't quite work the way you think. It primarily affects still photographs rather than in-person interactions, and in the field the largest effects have actually been shown in reverse – when someone is seen as nasty or unpleasant, people find them much less physically attractive. The rest of your comment makes sense to me, but seriously, don't let shoddy popularizations of the halo effect guide your behavior. You are only going to end up shooting yourself in the foot.
Thanks! I’ll keep that in mind. And as photography and photoshop manipulation is a hobby of mine, that is definitely something to keep in mind 🙂
Why would anyone want to be approached in the gym? That would be really annoying and disrupting.
"Yes baby, I know I'm sexy. Now if you don't mind I need to go back to making funny faces at myself in the mirror."
Try actually exercising rather than ogling the women in the gym and maybe one day you'll actually get those abs you want, and then god help any women with low self-esteem that you find.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't necessarily think "I want to get abs to pick up gals" directly translates to "and I will be an asshole to them," at least as described by BPremium. I agree with the commentariat that it isn't a great source of self-esteem long term and that it'd be bad if he got resentful and shitty if he doesn't get the response he wants, but I've seen plenty of preying on gals with low self esteem from many ends of the male attractiveness spectrum. I think there's definitely an ethical way two people who are really just interested in each other's bodies can hook up, especially if everyone is on the same page.
"Summer (shirtless season) is horizon. I want the confidence a great body, and the looks of lust that go with it, brings. And I'm busting my butt to make that occur."
I get that. I do the same and for the same reasons. Still, hanging the entirety of your confidence on looking perfect all the time will just leave you constantly chasing the next validation and constantly assessing your faults. At some point (next year or in 30), the body will fade, and if you can't take pride in the fact that you once accomplished it because you can only take pride in actively having it, you're just going to feel like a failure for the rest of your days.
My personal example is feeling largely like a loser for not being the high-octane firefighter/paramedic I was so I can be a no-name student again. I hate it, but when I'm in a good mindset, I can take pride in what I did do for those years instead of lamenting the fact that I'm not still doing it. (It couldn't last forever, after all.) When I'm not focusing on what my identity is lacking at the moment, I find myself back in the confident mindset I had when I was actively doing something people considered a great service.
" No amount of "inner acceptance" is going to change the lizard part of their brains."
That ain't true. Everyone can spot the man/woman who needs validation and differentiate him from the man/woman who does not. And no one wants to be constantly bothered by having to provide that validation. It's not attractive.
"Everyone can spot the man/woman who needs validation and differentiate him from the man/woman who does not. "
I'm not so sure *everyone* can … because if they could, I'm not sure that kind of toxic thinking — the "one fix fixes all" thinking — would continue to exist.
But the "worth investing time & energy" people seem to be able to, which I think is both your point and also the wider point.
Fair point. Definitely an overreach on my part.
I think it's a pretty frequent human habit to start out making observations from a self-referential POV.
I also think it's a sign of pretty sophisticated social skills to have the ability to step away from it at times.
🙂
Will it though? Yeah it can’t last forever, but for the time I have it, you better believe I would relish every second I do. Why not take on the dualistic mating strategy Red pill guys think women have ( not that I necessary believe them ), and hook up with attractive women left and right, then settle down with someone before the 6 pack goes away? Seems like a best of both worlds scenario to me.
But if the woman you are settling down with was primarily attracted to that six pack, what happens when it goes away? I mean you do know that she is under no obligation to stay married to you right? So you get flabby, she's still superficial and . . . what happens then?
Who says I am interested in getting married? Until the laws about divorce change, that isn’t gonna happen.
…you're just a regular onion of dudebro attitudes. A bronion, maybe? Best I got.
I endorse the term "bronion"!
I would specifically like to use it to describe commenters who start out sounding generally shallow and awful, have extended conversations where commenters like eselle28 and Jess treat them like rational and humane people, then go on to prove themselves just as odious as their initial comments indicated.
Seriously, eselle28 and Jess, I cannot begin to approach the level of patience you demonstrate with these guys. I sometimes wonder what good it does to assume reasonableness in someone who does nothing to demonstrate it, but I suppose it pays off in a "heap burning coals upon their heads" way if nothing else.
I would say that's not really why I do it. Not everyone I engage with is reasonable, but many of them make points that are reasonable in isolation or in other contexts. I sometimes think it's worth teasing out those discussions to distinguish the reasonable from the unreasonable points and talk about other contexts that might change the ethics of something, because the people directly commenting aren't the only participants in a public conversation.
Nor should you feel obligated, IMO.
The thing that disturbs me when conversations like this are used as models is that there's this funny little inference underneath that these seemingly limitless levels of tolerance and patience is what women are *expected* to have, with *every* man, *whatever* level of ignorance, misogyny, and, as you so vividly put it, "dudebrolicious layers" he is exhibiting, under *any* circumstances … and that we're "bad women" if for whatever reason(s) we don't happen to — or choose to — have it in us.
(Don't get me started on the last time a woman was extended a similar level of tolerance & patience when even raising the topic of her dating or relationship struggles, let alone trying to discuss them in some depth. Don't remember? Neither do I.)
LOL. Now this looks weird, because it's like I'm replying to nothing.
Honestly I don't mind that here. (Other forums, yeah, I'm with you.) DNL is first and foremost an advice blog for very clueless straight men. He touches on other topics, but that's his target audience. If there is one place on the internet where those clueless men should find a lot of patience and careful talking through their more toxic beliefs, it should be here–not necessarily for the benefit of the dudes being talked to, but for the lurkers who may be on the fence between clueless and bronion.
*snicker*
Looks like "bronion" is turning into what "fetch" wanted to be.
"It's all happening!"
– the BandAids, Almost Famous
I am going to apologize in advance for my coming efforts to make "bronion" happen.
LOL, bb. That was my point — it's already happening.
You don't even have to do anything.
XD
I'm curious, though, does the bronion maintain the edible properties of the onion? Can I sautee it with butter to get my kitchen smelling all delicious?
Yes. For certain, very specific, pork-like values of "delicious".
George Costanza: "This thing is like an onion – the more layers you peel, the more it stinks!"
I would vote "no" (meant to this morning, got busy).
Because I'm just not seeing a golden-brown aromatic quality happening.
I'm thinking it's going to be more like one's first experience with durian fruit.
YMMV, tho.
🙂
Totally random sidebar 1- http://media0.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/giphy…
Totally random sidebar 2- I have an indie brand nail polish called, "That Is SO Fetch!" And it is awesome – multiple sizes of lavender glitter, square blue-iridescent glitter with a hint of shimmer. This is it over a deep blue: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ivyBApADeeM/UP1x8uXa_RI…
How can this be totally random when the Rescue Beauty "Je T'aime" collection just came out?
http://www.rescuebeauty.com/index.php/je-t-aime-j…
I know, sorry – I decided to erase it before I knew you replied
Bruh-nion
Ooh, and that kinda sounds like bunion! I like.
I suppose its better than brogre. They have layers, too, you know!
Okay, but you do know that the marriage bit is a detail, right? I get why you think your six-pack will attract superficial women who care about your body and status … but you seem to think you can just settle down with someone for the asking. How are you preparing to become someone a woman might actually want to share her life with?
Great question! I was already raised to be the long term guy. But after having an engagement broken off so my ex could be a notorious good looking womanizers “Thursday night slump” ( a quote of his I should add ), I quickly became disillusioned with that idea. So for me, the best course of action would be to become as hot as possible and hook up with attractive women. If I become so lucky as to meet someone during that time that I could consider something like marriage, then I can let those qualities I was raised with show more. But until then, I have a lot more work to do to get that six pack and other stuff that will help in the short term.
Yeah, don't expect that "be a good partner" stuff you were raised with to come back easily after you spend a few years/decades treating woman as interchangeable status signifiers.
To be fair, I do think there are ways a person can maintain or improve partnering skills while still having short term relationships. I know people who've become better partners over the years while casually dating. But I think it does require treating your short term partners reasonably well and focusing on things like being a good friend or family member.
It's absolutely possible. I would say real world experience shows it is unlikely.
And when dealing with someone who insists that getting a six-pack will be his express ticket to Mt. Lotsotail, I wager we're into "snowball in hell" territory.
I disagree with the claim it's unlikely. I know a number of people who've either started with or had a middle period of preferring casual relationships, because they were too young or still processing the pain of a breakup or just too busy with other concerns to for long term partnerships. Quite a few of them have later gone on to have happy serious relationships. Some of them had good relationship skills beforehand, and others picked them up in other ways. Generally, it required some learning with the long term partners as well. I am very wary of this angle that it's all serious or nothing, because I think it leans pretty closely toward the conclusion that people must seek out settling down type relationships or be forever doomed to be poor partners who are also doomed to other poor partners.
BPremium sounds like he's going about things in a way that's not very thoughtful and that's probably not so great on the ethics count, either, but he's also recovering from what sounds like a rough breakup. Someone in that position probably shouldn't be seeking out a serious relationship. The place I think is the problem is leaning toward this Red Pill rhetoric rather than seeking out more ethical advice about casual relationships.
I think I'm just so cynical that I agree with everything you said in your first paragraph, and still think it's overall unlikely. It's possible to pursue casual relationships in ethical and productive ways, but I feel like the Venn overlap between "have emotional/social skills to begin and maintain productive casual relationships" and "want casual relationships" is less than 50%.
On the current commenter, though, I think we're in total agreement.
I am confused. Are you saying you think there's a correlation between good social/emotional skills and desired relationship length?
I don't think so. I think Kylroy doubts from the evidence BP has presented that he in particular will be good at healthy casual relationships. And that he represents a certain kind of person (male and female) who is not good at doing them well. The speculation that more people than not are bad at such relationships . . . well that's for Kylroy to answer. But at no point has the notion that LTRs have better emotionally skilled folks in them than in casual been raised.
And honestly, I'm not sure why people are so keen to argue about how there can be healthy casual relationships when it's pretty clear Kylroy and I are talking about a very specific person and never said otherwise.
You seem to be quite clear you're just talking about BPremium. I do not think this is the case with Kylroy's comments, though, which are at least phrased very generally.
Okay, well I suppose that could be my bias showing since I thought that Kylroy and I were talking about the same thing. But I can see now how you'd make that interpretation, totally. Sorry! 😛
The first paragraph of Kylroy's post seems pretty definitely to be talking about people in general, since he follows that with talking about BPremium specifically, and frames it as a contrast to the first paragraph – it still looks that way to me on a reread, so I'm going to have to wait on clarification from Kylroy to see if I'm misunderstanding.
From the phrasing, I also thought he was implying that people who want longer-term relationships are more likely to be socially/emotionally skilled, but that wasn't stated outright, so I may well be misinterpreting. I found it an odd argument to make here, which is why I asked for clarification. (To be clear, I'm not confused about your posts, OTG, those were all pretty definitely about BPremium or people who express similar sentiments/goals. )
And I admit (as I said above) I might have been doing some interpreting myself with what Kylroy was saying, but in the opposite direction, more in line with my thinking. So I get! 🙂
To clarify, I'm saying the skills to make short term relationships work are possessed by notably fewer people than want short term relationships. And that a nontrivial portion of the people who possess such skills are not interested in short term relationships. No comparison between short and long term relationships was intended.
To be honest, I'm so pessimistic about romance in general that I probably shouldn't be weighing in on these discussions, especially when the starting point (i.e. Original poster) is so discouraging.
Okay, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.
I think you're looking at this from a rather static point in someone's life. You also seem to be assuming that the growth is from the casual relationship. There are other ways to pick up long term relationship skills, in which case a person needs only find an ethical casual relationship or casual sex partners. Combine them with people who have those skills already and just want to have casual sex, either for a period of time or permanently, and it doesn't seem like such a dire group.
If we follow your conclusion, it's not just cynical. It ends up being quite shaming of anyone who doesn't follow dating patterns associated mostly with conservative religious groups, and tends to suggest that anyone past a certain age should give up seeking a partner.
Absolutely.
Here's my thing, I don't think BP is evil or bad for wanting casual sex with hot women. What makes me feel uncomfortable are the notions that such women are interchangeable, and that having hot women will give him status. Because this doesn't show much sensitivity towards women and I can't really imagine such a guy treating women well since he really doesn't see them as people.
But what concerns me further is that BP has not actually put any of his theories into practice. And that he has been seriously hurt by someone and has decided to shut off his heart and the kind generous part of himself, turn off the values taught him by his family (which he implies are positive values). To me none of this sounds like he'll be able to engage with women in a kind generous way and learn positive partnering skills. It sounds to me like someone who is scared, very self focused, and just wants to fuck to make himself feel better.
I could be completely and utterly wrong. But this is why I doubt that what you suggest is possible with him.
"But I think it does require treating your short term partners reasonably well and focusing on things like being a good friend or family member."
That's the key part right there. And I'm not sure this system of "get the hot gym girls, get passed on for hotter guy, pick different hotter interchangeable girl" is going to look like that.
If what BPremium does is treat women as interchangeable status signifiers, then I agree. But he can have short-term casual relationships that are about being mutually hot for each other and still treat the women he's with respectfully and ethically. If he does, I don't think he's necessarily shooting himself in the foot.
My bigger concern – and BPremium, no need to address this if it's uncomfortable – is that there might have been underlying partner-skills reasons for the engagement ending, even if that's just "trouble picking partners who value the same things I do." That might be something to keep in mind while dating around – you can look for opportunities to practice.
Quoth BPremium:
"Even if she upgraded, I would have other options other than her as to render that somewhat moot."
I think that it's fair to say he is regarding these hypothetical hot women as interchangeable.
It doesn't read quite that way to me, but I'd say that it's definitely something for BPremium to keep an eye on.
Level 10 Upgrade Unlocked! Abs of +3 Charisma now available in all shops.
I wouldn’t be treating them as interchangeable at all. By my remark about others, I simply meant that there would be a multitude of women that would find me attractive with said 6 pack vs the body I currently possess. So if the unfortunate circumstance occurred that one individual woman left, I may be bummed but I would be able to move on quickly as I would, undoubtedly, have other options. It isn’t interchangeable, just the ability to be in demand.
Commentariat, this sure sounds to me like the abundance mentality DNL advocates.
BPremium, while I think you do have a point in terms of approaches/ogling, I second Jess in suggesting you think about what will happen if things don't work out that way.
Also, I feel like a lot of commenters have talked about this, but not to you, but be nice to these hot women! Please don't ditch them to "upgrade!" Everyone seems to imply any woman who'd want to hook up with a guy with a six pack is completely heartless, but that definitely isn't true. Many of them (even the hot ones! even the ones who have lots of casual sex!) are still going to be bummed if a guy ditches them, especially out of nowhere and with poor communication.
" but not to you, but be nice to these hot women! Please don't ditch them to "upgrade!"
Cosigning to this. Especially since it seems like this is what happened to BP with the previous relationship – be careful not to use anger at your ex as an excuse to treat future women like crap. Just because someone did something shitty to you doesn't mean it's okay for you to do that, too.
In addition to what Kylroy said, the kind of person who likes just the superficial vs the kind of person who likes what lies underneath might not be one and the same. And the hot women who like what is underneath will not likely be interested in a hot man who is only interested in sleeping with as many hot women as he can. (as one such woman, I can tell you I would never have any interest in dating a man with your attitude towards sex and women – not saying you need to have me date you, just offering myself up as an example of what I'm talking about) So. How are you going to get that woman who you will be free to show the qualities you were raised with to?
Also, to restate the obvious, you were hurt, and deeply. I have some experience on that front – my ex-wife left me for my best friend. My reaction was to not date for a few years, then…luck into an old friend asking me out, okay I admit that wasn't the best plan. But dating in the aftermath of my divorce would have been no fun for me or the women I inflicted myself on.
I accept that other people might effectively fuck the pain away, but from your statements here it looks like you are looking to go about it in a way where you getting laid by hot chicks is the first and damn near only priority. Even if you succeed with that approach, I strongly suspect it will make it near impossible for you to have other kinds of romantic relationships.
You’re welcome to your opinion brotha. But I know myself and I can, as you eloquently put it, fuck the pain away. It’s the abundance mentality amplified. With a 6 pack, and the attention that brings, I will be the one that’s wanted. The confidence that comes from being sexually desirable to a large portion of attractive women would be immense. Knowing, for once in my life, I’d be the one on the pedestal. To be lusted after, pined after, wanted… For me, that’s the dream.
"To be lusted after, pined after, wanted… For me, that's the dream."
The single major thing that will turn your life around, one might say?
"To be lusted after, pined after, wanted… For me, that's the dream."
Hey, that's my dream too. But, you really think that just getting a six-pack and changing nothing else will get you that? Did you read the article?
He did, he just disagreed with it.
So, it sounds like the main payoff you're looking forward to is basically a status bump. Are you at least also looking forward to the pleasure of the sex itself? That's the kind of thing you'll need to be careful about– sex that you don't really want for its own sake can be pretty miserable for everyone involved.
Heh, sorry man, but I just can't help but picture you perched on a rooftop shouting into the night sky- "GAZE into my RIPPLY TORSO!…SWOON for my BUMPY BELLY!…LUST after my LUSCIOUS GUT LUMPS! ALL the ATTRACTIVE WOMEN will be MINE! MINE all MINE!!
NO ONE will RESIST the AWESOME abdominal POWER of – – –
CAPTAIN 6-PACK-ION!! A-HA-HA-HA-HAHA!!!"
Yeah and let me show you the future; you'll get the body of your dreams, achieve women and looks in mirror thinking you are the shit.
Still, there's always room for improvement; you could have a bigger chest, bigger traps and shoulders, biceps obviously, triceps quads and calfs they all need some attention. Ah who you are kidding, you're fucking small.
You said "settle down", I assumed that meant a long term arrangement. So forget marriage. I'll ask again:
But if the woman you are settling down with was primarily attracted to that six pack, what happens when it goes away? I mean you do know that she is under no obligation to stay in a LTR with you right? So you get flabby, she's still superficial and . . . what happens then?
*crickets*
Plenty of women will talk about the guy with the six pack they dated who turned out to be a real douchebag. But the point is that six pack guy got to date her, and a less attractive guy is more likely to be told "I'm busy" when approached.
Consider that the average person has to date 10-20 people before finding someone who turns out be a great match for a relationship. By great match I do mean all the qualities other than attractiveness that make up a good relationship, If a guy is brushed off by 8 out 10 women he approaches, he's going to either approach a lot more women or wait a much longer time before finding that great relationship than an attractive guy for whom 8 out 10 women are receptive when he approaches.
Now this is not a magic feather. A tight lean gym body doesn't guarantee success with all women and it's at best a minor factor in the long-term success of a relationship, But you can't hit a home run if you're never up to bat, and the hunk guys get up to bat much more often.
Wow. I really need to refine my dating strategy, then. I go out with 10 people to find one I want to go out with again. Clearly I'm fishing in the wrong pond if people can find a stable relationship after dating 10 people.
Also, getting up to bat is something that's your choice. To really strain this metaphor your six pack might improve your batting average against pitchers with a particularly good fastball but there are lots of other ways to approach the game.
And if you're a switch hitter who's got good hands and enough foot speed to steal home…sorry, I threw together every baseball double entendre I could think of, and it ended poorly.
You bring up an interesting point. We can agree that if you go on one date with one person and it doesn't lead to anything, it doesn't mean anything. Maybe you're not what she's looking for or she wasn't what you were looking for, but it doesn't mean you did anything wrong. But if you approach 100 people over 10 years and nothing leads to a relationship, then you're in "the only thing in common with all those prospects is YOU" territory. I picked 10 because it sounded to me like an average of how many people one might date before finding a good relationship match. So if dating 10 people with no relationship means you're fishing from the wrong pond, then how many non-starters do you think means one should look at changing something, whether it's their looks, approach or whatever?
I dont think there's a hard and fast rule.
Some approaches will automatically filter for the type of people you want to date while some approaches are almost never gonna work–hitting on a woman on the bus is a terrible idea; if that's your method of approaching you shouldn't wait to be rejected at all.
But if you're looking for a very specific type of person, online dating may be your best bet. And OLD requires a higher level of approaches (first messages) and first dates than other methods. Or maybe you do better with people you meet "warmly", that is through acquaintances or social groups. In that case, the amount of "non starts" would be different.
As far as looks go, I'm of the opinion that you should change things that will make you happier–but recognize there's a limit to what you can change about your body and appearance.
I think that you should look at changing something when you've gotten frustrated with the way things are going. If that take 100 approaches or 2, whatever. That being said, I'm a big proponent of targeting your changes to what's actually going to be helpful. But that's a whole 'nother topic
How about:
Asking a person you've known for years, after you both just finished a volunteer-club activity?
Talking to someone who was next to you in line at a bookstore, with one of the same books, and then asking about following up outside?
Asking a person you've occasionally met at the park/grocer?
Asking a classmate, after class?
When those don't work, and then you also literally run out of single female acquaintances to try a "warm approach" on, seems like there has to be something else going on.
If you're counting someone who was next to you in line at a bookstore as a warm approach and are still running out of women who you could potentially warm approach, I'd say you need to put yourself in more situations where you might encounter women.
I wouldn't say three rejections from fairly similar levels of acquaintanceship, plus one fairly different one (I'm taking 'known for years' as the odd one out, though you could also group bookstore and park/grocer together and classmate and known for years together and call it two and two), is a large enough set to make a pattern, unless you're getting fairly striking similar responses (such as 'avoids you ever after'). There may be something going on, there may not be.
It's more like five "close" and forty-ish "distant", though the latter set contains an unknown but positive number of people who actually were already in some form of relationship that I didn't know about at the time. The former group is, I agree, too small to identify a pattern, though none of them avoided me ever after. In the latter group, the pattern is rejection. If it had been more specific than that, it wouldn't be so damned confusing ->demoralizing -> frustrating -> upsetting.
Online? Yeah, I know it takes a lot more "approaches" to find one willing to go on a date, which is why I've sent hundreds. Literally hundreds. No pastes, no templates, no one-liners. Tens of kilobytes of data. But five of the eleven messages in my inbox (haven't cleared it since 2012) are from pimpbots that want me to text them. Bet their numbers aren't even toll-free.
Even then, I think there can be different things going wrong there. It could be that the approach itself isn't appealing to these women – either the words said or body language. It could be zoning in on women who aren't good matches. Sometimes it might even be something like your tone of voice. Or your lack of deodorant (not you specifically, but general you). Any number of things could be appealing to that particular set of women.
Yes, I think there is. But I think that the something else that's going on is that your single female acquaintances tend to be mostly interested in men who aren't very much like you, with some possible complications caused by asexuality.
Asking out people you don't know very well has a very, very high failure rate. It's not quite as tough as it would be if you were trying to approach women in very cold places like the street, but even very desirable guys who are employing PUA techniques are going to be rejected by a lot of women from places like book clubs. There's a whole set of criteria that need to be met (is she available? interested in men? interested in dating anyone?) before you even get to the part where she thinks about whether she might be interested in dating you specifically.
Well, this is more like over a year, year-and-a-half. I'd say I go on 10-20 dates to find someone I want to go on a second with. Have had a couple of second dates and a couple of short term things that never quite rose to the level of "relationship" (say 3rd-10th date with occasional staying the night). Now a lot of that comes from OLD, where you really can't know much about a person going in, so I expect it to be inefficient at finding a good match.
The thing is, as far as changing something, the lack of interest is almost always on my part. Its like "yeah, that was fun, have a nice day" not "OMG when can I see this person again". I don't think I'm that picky but there's a particular. . .attitude. . .vitality. . . that I mesh with very well but is uncommon enough to be difficult to find. So on the one hand its a question of "go where those people go" and on the other its a matter of "well if I knew that, I'd be going there because those are cool people to hang out with" and on the third hand (radiation is a hell of a thing) I know plenty of people like that, they're just involved with someone else or in my current cast, both of which place them off limits for romantic relationships.
Yes, the people we feel would be the best matches are usually already married or in relationships. That's how it appeared to me. I suspect that's because people are more comfortable bantering with the opposite sex when they both know dating is off-the-table because one of them is in a relationship.
Sigh that was so my problem. I'd fall head over heels for guys in relationships (not knowing they were in relationships) because, as you say, they were comfortable and easy to talk to. And weren't being predatory. They liked talking to me as a person, not just because I was a woman. I felt respected.
It's definitely a real thing, and a very frustrating thing 😛 .
Very frustrating thing.
*nods along with you*
Everyone already has a boyfriend syndrome, I've definitely known that. It's a bit like in sport, where people perform brilliantly in practice and then fall apart when it actually matters.
I have found that nice women who have boyfriends (or girlfriends) do at least make that clear at an early stage – if anything they won't shut up about their partner, who's they'll say is annoying in many ways but is wonderful really. What's really annoying is when they don't mention it until far too late – it is much easier to subtly drop the fact that you have a partner into the conversation than it is to ask directly " are you single?".
What's really annoying is when they don't mention it until far too late – it is much easier to subtly drop the fact that you have a partner into the conversation than it is to ask directly " are you single?".
This is a really hard one for women – and men, who do it too! – to figure out how to handle. If you wait too long, the other person may resent you for wasting their time. If you announce it immediately, you run the risk of alienating someone who really was just making friendly conversation and who's insulted by your assumption. You don't even get a positive response from people who were romantically interested. After all, look at your language – instead of "kindly mention" it's "won't shut up about," and you react to whatever the revelation is by reading hypocrisy into the relationship story and describing it with contempt. There isn't really any way of handling it that tends to attract a positive or often even a neutral response.
It's really not as easy to calibrate revealing you have a partner to a person who you're not entirely sure is interested you in the first place and who's probably going to be resentful if rejected however you handle it. As such, I'd say the burden is on the person who's romantically interested. If you don't want to ask if someone's single, I suggest asking her on a date. If she's taken and monogamous, she can say no.
And sometimes, if you're me and just aren't used to having relationships, you aren't used to talking about things you do with your boyfriend and you certainly aren't used to having to drop the hint that you have one just in case the guy is interested. If I'm talking politics with someone let's say, I'm not going to think "Oh shoot, pause this great conversation . . . is he into me? I better say something about my boyfriend." No I'm more likely to be so totally into the conversation and not remember I have a "duty" to let people know I"m taken.
My point is, yes it's great if people can slip that in there (as a girl who fell for taken guys all the time, see above, I'd have really appreciated it), but we're human, and we make mistakes. And let's not get mad at the object of our affection for "leading us on" just because they were having a great conversation they were really into with us and therefore didn't even think about social propriety etc.
Or, likewise, if you're me, you try to keep your romantic and work relationships very separate because you have some bad experiences with the way single, dating women are perceived professionally, so it isn't really on your radar that someone you're talking about work with might be thinking about you romantically and your relationship is similarly the very last thing on your mind when you've just been thinking about loan agreement terms.
So, yeah, basically what you said. If someone notices some flirting and thinks it's wise and safe to mention their relationship, that's a good thing. But it's not like people who aren't single spend all day thinking about relationships, either their own or anyone else's interest in them. That's a pretty high burden to impose for the crime of Potentially Being Attractive to Others in Public.
The "won't shut up" bit was meant to be a joke, though I guessed it might not come across properly in writing.
I've known plenty of people who've done it well, dropping it in subtly, not "I have a boyfriend so don't even think about it!". It may have been disappointing information for me, but I really couldn't criticise them in any way.
It doesn't help that I had a seriously bad experience on this early in my career of dating failures. Someone where it really was crystal clear that I was interested, over an extended period, and she carried on leading me on and on, with language and behaviour that crossed well past the line of friendship. Then when she finally started to tell the truth it was in stages – first she just mentioned a friend, then was this friend who doesn't like her meeting with me, then eventually she admitted he was her boyfriend. What really hurt about that wasn't the rejection itself so much, it was the implication that she couldn't possibly imagine me as someone women could like in that way.
Sure, some women can do it well and subtly. Most can't. This is a task that involves a very high level of social calibration, and it comes with absolutely no rewards for the person you're asking it of and without any flexibility about when she does it or if she does it at all. After all, she has to avoid waiting "too long" to meet your standard. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience, but it's just not a reasonable thing to ask.
On the other side of things, asking a woman out is something you can choose if you do and when you do it, and it actually comes with a reward, since you might get a date out of the deal. So, yeah, I'm going to put the burden on the interested person to clarify things.
"I'm sorry you've had a bad experience, but it's just not a reasonable thing to ask. "
Not only that?
But a man / person in that position also always has the choice of *finding someone else to date.*
I do not think the person in that position gets to hang around hang around hang around and, in so doing, position the woman / other person in the role of Blameworthy Vixen while positioning himself as the NiceGuy™ martyr.
No no no. *Two* people have alternate behavior choices in that situation, not just one.
It's so odd to me, because as someone who was heartbroken many many times not knowing someone was in a relationship, who had boys/men touch me in what seemed a more than just friendly manner and talk with me in ways I thought meant we had something meaningful and when I found out I went home and cried into my pillow about how stupid I was. I never once blamed the guy (though it sounds like whitepier had a specifically manipulative person so that I do understand being angry about). I got mad at myself for not better understanding social cues, and for being presumptuous and why oh why can't I get dating right????
I never once thought that the guy owed me something. Owed it to me to tell me he was in a relationship. Owed something that made me feel better. I blamed myself wholly.
Which is why I repeat that I think it's great if people go out of their way to do something nice by sharing that info, and I attempt to do it when I remember to, but I don't blame someone for not.
I do think that person was specifically manipulative. For example, she was talking about a holiday she'd been on. I said "who did you go with?", gently trying to establish her status. She said "just with friends" – which later on, when she showed me the photos, turned out to have meant "with my boyfriend and no-one else".
She had appeal – she was highly intelligent, attractive, cultured etc. But you really couldn't believe a word she said on anything. In fact, when the situation fully came out and I was obviously heartbroken, she pretty much said I shouldn't feel I'd missed out too much because she wasn't actually a very nice person. Even towards the point where I finally walked away, she was still swinging between flirting with me one moment and going on about how her boyfriend was cheating on her and she didn't like him, and the next minute saying she loved him and wasn't really friends even with me.
Yes I should have walked away sooner, but I was in a country far away from home, with a very restricted social set, so it's not that surprising that I was feeling very lonely and as if there weren't better options.
Ugh what an unpleasant person. I'm so sorry you had to deal with that. And I don't blame you for staying and hoping, that's what manipulation is all about, you didn't know what she was doing to you until later.
All that being said, I just hope the takeaway you get from this is to not wait for someone to tell you that they are taken, but taking the initiative sooner. And not to blame all women should another one not tell you right away for far more innocent human reasons.
Thank you. I do unfortunately find initiating a direct "difficult" conversation very, very hard. Some of that is probably just a natural weakness (no-one can be great at everything, after all), but a fair amount is from times I've tried it and got a bad reaction and bad consequences.
To go right back to the age when boys and girls start interacting in that way, at that point I was at a school where vile bullying was endemic, so to be seen showing any interest in a girl, that was a weakness for other people to use against you. It was only recently that I recognised all this as bullying, actually – for a long time I just assumed that was how people treat each other.
A fundamental issue for me is that I'm always much happier trying to meet people through clubs and societies or mutual friendships. To an extent I include work in that too: the topic is controversial, my personal view is that while some work situations are definitely very dodgy (positions of trust, conflicts of interest), if your job for example involves getting out and meeting lots of people from other organisations at big conferences, I think to blanket write off anyone you might meet as a result of your job, that really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Although I have tried and will try again with online and other forms of formal dating, it's always felt like I'm not naturally suited to these methods of getting to know people.
But clubs & societies etc. have a couple of big problems. As you correctly say, there's no obligation on the other person to even consider that you might be finding her or him attractive, and they might not want their personal life to bleed into this context. And also, if you do ask the person out and get a bad reaction, you may nonetheless have to continue interacting with them. (Something I read once and agree with is that managers don't care if two people are making flirty eyes at each other on the margins of a meeting; what they care about is if those two people then fall out and want to kill each other, yet still have to work together.)
So believe me, I absolutely wish I could have that level of social calibration to know exactly when it is or isn't right to make a move, but it's not easy.
I'm going to agree with eselle. This involves very good soical calibration: knowing the magic time frame when it's not awkward to mention but it's not too late cause then you've been leading them on…that's a tricky thing to manage for the most socially calibrated women.
If it helps, most women I know do TRY to be honest about their relationship status. But that means they're sometimes awkward or brusque about it.
" But the point is that six pack guy got to date her, and a less attractive guy is more likely to be told "I'm busy" when approached. "
You are — as I feel like I and others say ad infinitum ad nauseam when this comparison comes up — isolating a single factor in what is actually a multifactorial analysis.
Not to speak of which, you do the whole false equivalence thing right out of the box. You try to pit "six pack" up against "less attractive" when it's really "six pack" versus "non-six pack". Why? Because a whole box of things go into the "attractive" determination (Tom Cruise — all other things being equal — still has a six-pack; but he doesn't have a V-shape, so I'd probably run after Roger Federer or Grigor Dimitrov before Ethan Hunt, just on body shape alone).
Not to speak of which, you completely eliminate the eye of the beholder — not every woman looks for the same thing in a man, even from the physical POV — but I've already squeaked a bit about that downthread.
Six pack guy may also be *charming*, which is *also* a (frequently overlooked) element of "attractiveness". By contrast, non-six-pack guy may never have bothered to work on his approach and as a result has no conversational skills.
Did non-six-pack guy comb his hair this morning? Brush his teeth? (It's gross, but you'd be amazed how people try to go out in public and are then surprised because they're rebuffed).
Did non-six-pack guy dress to make the most of the assets he has? (I'll bet six-pack guy did; and even if he didn't, the rest of his physique actually lends shape to the way his clothes hang. Has non-six-pack guy even thought it through that far?)
Or has non-six-pack guy just run out of the house looking like an unmade bed … all the while thinking "She should like me because of my personalityyyyy!!!" as he then proceeds to approach the lady in question with no conversational skills and halitosis on top of it?
You are not doing a point-to-point analysis here. But if this remains your hyperfocus
" the hunk guys get up to bat much more often."
then the takeaway is not "That's unfaaaaaiir."
The takeaway, at that point, is instead "Then go to the gym, and stock up on those protein shakes."
It's not rocket science.
First, let's stop saying 6-pack. My feeling is that for most women, if a guy has an athletic muscular build and smooth stomach, they're not going to be turned off.
Yes, there are multiple things that trigger attraction in women. In my opinion it's a combination of 1) physical appearance, both face & body, 2) Charisma/charm, and 3) money/status. The stronger a guy is in each of these, the better he'll do. In fact, if he is very strong in any two of these areas, he can draw attractive women even if he is completely lacking in the third. I've seen jocks and body builder types with poor social skills, and sometimes even poor hygiene, but women will overlook that if they think he looks good enough.
So I think one has to look at each of these areas and look to where he can improve. If you have the genes that support having big muscles and low body fat, then hit the gym. If you have the skills for a good paying job or and an entrepreneurial spirit, go that way. Or study DNL and work on social calibration. They'll all means to the same end, and the more you can strengthen yourself in each of the three areas the easier time you will have with women.
"Then go to the gym, and stock up on those protein shakes."
Wasn't this the point of his comment? He stated an obvious fact. Men in better shape have a bigger dating pool. He never once claimed that it was unfair. If i'm not mistaken he was making a case for why you should strive for a better body. Not to mention that being in shape gives one way more sartorial choices, than a portly man. In fact almost all men's fashion is built around building the in shape silhouette. Which might be easier to achieve if you are in shape.
Also what is it with this annoying assumption that a guy is striking out because he is a complete slob, and not you know that he has a body that only appeals to very few people.
I don't much get into the muscle look, so I may be the wrong audience for this, but there are plenty of guys with six packs who I don't find remotely attractive, even before we get into personality/dress. Because people have faces, and maybe it's just me, but faces are damn important for attraction. In shape guy with non-expressive face? No thanks. Not quite as in shape guy with lots of different, animated facial expressions? Yes, please.
Sure, and I agree, but you can change your body more easily than your face.
Well, bone structure, yes, but I talked mostly about expressions here, which is absolutely something that can be worked on!
I'd also say that expressions are something that people like in considerably less predictable ways than bone structure or body type, or at least I find that the "I like the way his eyes crinkle up when he smiles" factor correlates pretty strongly with whether I like the personality of the man in question.
Oh, I enjoy a good eye crinkle. Or particular laugh lines. Even those things seem pretty connected to personality/demeanor, though. And those are all bonuses, rather than requirements. Being expressive at all, though, that's a necessity.
I know what you mean.
Like Poker Face = No, generally.
Even though men – and women, too, to a lesser extent – are coached heavily to maintain that poker face in business, and "be impressive".
But my favorite men tenistas have crinkles. Rafa's ( & Roger's, & Feli's, & Dimi's, LOL) crinkles are to swoon.
🙂
Whereas, I like Milos Raonic's game very much — he works hard to improve, but even his hair is serious — but I have a harder time warming up to him (even though I think his PR team has had a word with him, because those outrageous neon colors he wears in his kit and those loud designs on his Serve Arm Sleeve are probably designed to counterbalance his serious countenance with a Sense of Fun for just that reason).
I think this discussion has focused too much on abs. One of the three major components of what triggers attraction in women is appearance, which includes facial features. The other two component, charisma and money/status, have nothing to do with looks and a man who is strong in the latter two areas will be found attractive by many women even if his looks are completely lacking.
Am I womaning wrong? Not only do none of the guys I've dated/been very attracted to have much (if any) in the way of muscle tone, and while they have been decent one-on-one conversationalists, I wouldn't call any of them charismatic. Now, the money/status part for me only goes as far as "has job that he likes or is looking for said job", but I don't think that's quite the same thing. In fact, my "attractive qualities for dudes" list goes, in this order: 1. Kindness, 2. Intelligence, 3. Similar sense of humor and 4. Attractiveness (I can't really say appearance, because to me this is heavily influenced by 1, 2, and 3). So the top three things your saying trigger women's attraction don't even make it to my top 3
You are clearly womaning wrong. This is a class 7 offense! Please submit yourself to the Board of Objective Attractiveness for re-education.
Wait, so this dude? Muscles + charisma + status? Did I get that right?
Why does that picture inspire nothing but secondhand embarrassment. Clearly I'm irrevocably broken.
And lots of cringing.
" Please submit yourself to the Board of Objective Attractiveness for re-education."
So that's what's in all those letters in white business envelopes I've been getting.
/shakes head sadly
Your 1, 2, and 3 come under charisma, or personality factors, and what triggers the attraction response varies somewhat from person to person. Just like appearance. Some women like huge bodybuilder types, some don't and prefer someone leaner, or maybe a more rounded "teddy bear" physique. But on average most women are attracted to body types within the range of physically fit. Same way with how men are attracted to women. Some like huge fake boobs, some don't, but on average men respond to fit & feminine more than ultra thin anorexic or obese body types.
So now "personality factors" has been added to the list along with charisma, appearance, and money/status? I'd also say that kindness strikes me as a component of moral character rather than personality, and that nothing on that list comes under the heading of charisma.
Yeah, if you're just translating charisma as "personality traits that the particular woman finds attractive", then I'm not even sure why you're trying to make the list. That's like saying…women are attracted to the things/qualities that they're attracted to.
Women are attracted to men for physical and non-physical reasons? I'll sign on to that one.
(ETA: Actually, even that needs a caveat of not all women are attracted to men.)
Right? This reminds of the Christmas lights that are "for indoor or outdoor use only". For the record, though, I'm only attracted to men for metaphysical reasons 🙂
Inorite? You'd think it was rocket science, with a side order of transfinite mathematics.
I think a lot of what DNL writes about is how to develop charisma – a.k.a. charm, or "social coordination."
Some of it is – that doesn't mean that those other things are not important, they just aren't particularly easy to develop – and some are impossible.
I think its more that they have the most nuance. How to dress well, basic hygiene, hair styles, beauty products, good dates, those can be covered in one article each and done. Social calibration, respect, not being a misogynist, those seem to take more time and dedication to get through because they're challenging established internal "truths".
Blasphemy.
/runs away
charisma = women are attracted to the things women are attracted to
high status = successful men are successful at the things they're successful at
alpha = charisma+high status
Also, circular reasoning is circular.
Charisma is not an umbrella term for all personality/character traits. There are lots of charismatic people without above-average intelligence. There are lots of charismatic people who aren't particularly kind.
Yup – lots of psychopaths are actually really good at manipulating people…because they're so charismatic!
But charismatic people can be good at feigning kindness.
They can. So can uncharismatic people. Charisma is a skill more than a personality trait and strongly based on the ability to understand and relate to the person/people in front of you in a split second and project the qualities you have that they value.
Like any skill, it can be acquired by both good and bad people (defined however) and used for good, neutral, or bad. Are there charismatic jerks? Yes. There are also uncharismatic jerks. And their jerkiness is independent of their charisma. And their jerkiness is just as harmful to those they apply it to and just as unexpected by those that let them close enough to deploy it.
I should also point out that while most women say some variation of what you said – looks don't matter, just kindness, being smart and a having a sense of humor. Yet we consistently see that guys on the upper side of conventionally attractive are preferred even when they are lacking in the personality factors women claim to be attracted to. This is how the whole "nice guy" and friendzone thing started.
I didn't actually say that looks don't matter. Just that for me, those first things are the filters before I even consider whether or not the guy's attractive. And no one said that conventionally attractive people don't have an easier time – this is true of conventionally attractive men, though, also. There's a roughly equal percentage of people from all genders who base their interest primarily in looks. So why isn't there the same "nice girl" phenomenon? Why am I not running around bemoaning how I developed this great personality but men don't want to date me because I'm not conventionally attractive?
"Why am I not running around bemoaning how I developed this great personality but men don't want to date me because I'm not conventionally attractive?'
I think this is actually fairly common, just less so in the geek-sphere, perhaps. Complaints like "men are just shallow pigs who won't even consider dating a woman who's even a little overweight" are practically cliche.
Eh, I was taught by my peers/elders pretty early on that the fault for this lay with me for not being attractive enough, not with men for not being attracted to me.
Agreed. I know what TheWisp is talking about, but it seems to me that sentiment arose to push back against the long-held, dominant narrative that You Clearly Did Something Wrong, Woman. It still relies on harmful gender essentialism, which is why it's NOT a good societal attitude for the long-haul. It WAS beneficial* in that it made people (especially women) see that the dominant belief might not actually be A Universal Truth.
It serve(s/d) as a kind of first step away from a toxic cultural narrative and towards a better one. We still aren't there yet, but we're closer than we used to be.
* and still is, on a greatly reduced scale, as long as the dominant belief is still around — and it is (though reduced in scale due to the impact of the attitude in question).
I totally believe you and jcorozza when you say women are taught to internalize a lot of this stuff. It's just interesting because growing up I swear I heard variations on "men are pigs for not dating fat women" or "if you don't have modelesque looks you are just going to be used for sex" *all the time* and never heard women blaming themselves for dating failures. Maybe this is because women talk differently around men or I just had a negativity bias or something.
I agree it could be due to how women talk in mixed gender groups vs with just other women. The longstanding narrative is (toxically) gendered (as well as heteronormative) and is part of the attitude that relationships are adversarial or "gender wars" should be a thing.
So discussion of relationship issues in mixed-gender groups tends to retain a bit of that adversarial attitude. It'd make sense that their approach would be more blustery or full of bravado to present a strong front. It's like how the Doobieville Banana Slugs basketball team will have team practices where they agree their defense strategy SUCKS and they really need a better free thrower… but on the court they say their defense will DESTROY that team and they better hope we don't get many free throw opportunities!
The female equivalent of the "nice guy" or friend zone does exist. I've been reading postings/letters about dating problems on and off for a long time, and there are women who say they're always the friend and never the girlfriend, or they get passed over because someone else was better looking, or they feel men are intimidated by smart women.
It's almost as if…many of the same problems exist for both men and women in dating! And that some types of people are just more/less appealing across genders.
Yeah, almost. Doesn't that understanding render moot any dating advice beyond "control what you can", though? Which would sorta shut this little enterprise down. Sorry DNL.
And I'll include this next bit here, buried deep in a dying set of comments. So what is the most likely outcome for people who are not very attractive, however we define that? It seems to me that those so described have limited options for romance, and those options are mostly other people who themselves have fewer options. Which needn't be a source of angst. The way I'm defining it, most people have some limitations, and lots of nice folks have pretty severe ones. Finding love among those masses isn't really so bad, is it?
Someone mentioned Danny DeVito somewhere in this thread as an example of a man who's a bit challenged in this regard. Does anyone think Rhea Perlman brushed off Ted Danson and Woody Harrelson, or even Christopher Lloyd, to get to DeVito? I doubt those men or men like them were realistic options for her. When they met, DeVito wasn't a power in Hollywood, and all he had to offer Rhea was himself, and likewise for her. I think he got the better end of that deal, but my point is that they lasted for about 40 years, so something worked and they found each other despite their less than stellar looks. In fricking Hollywood.
A select few people have such life hindering problems that dating anyone is a huge challenge, and perhaps a bad idea. I think those people are rare. Then there are people who simply aren't head turners. Some of those more ordinary people seamlessly adjust to choosing from the options actually available to them romantically. Some struggle a bit but then see the value in the options, the actual flesh and blood people those options describe, and move on happily enough. Others can't make that adjustment. That latter group, who keep asking for items not on their menu and who keep getting disappointed by "no", seem especially susceptible to the caress of the magic feather.
I think it just means that…a lot of the advice that is good for men is also good advice for women.
There's a difference between saying that "conventionally attractive people have an easier time" and saying that "non-conventionally attractive people have no options". Fewer, sure. But that's true for a lot of things. People who are Jewish and want to date/marry other Jewish people (in the US, at least) are going to have a smaller pool. Some introverts might have a more limited pool. The pool still exists, though. I don't know – I'm definitely not conventionally attractive, and while I realize that my pool is smaller, I've still found people to date, and people who are attracted to me who I don't want to date.
As far as that other category – I think many of the things that make dating very challenging are things that aren't permanent, and can often be worked on. But sometimes they're a lot of work.
"men are intimidated by smart women" = / = FriendZone BS / NiceGuy™.
Tho I sense the futility in advance of making the request, please stop with those kinds of false equivalences.
The fact that this culture undervalues women's intelligences relative to men's, especially when it comes to "attractive" qualities for dating & relationships, is in *no credible way whatsoever* an equivalent situation to your persistent drumbeating of "Women should be dating Sad Sack Eeyore McSchlubb (as someone else memorably put it downthread) even though he has no intention of putting in any effort to improve anything about himself ever."
Stahp.
No. SOME WOMEN prefer more conventionally attractive guys, even when they lack personality factors. If those are the women you want to date, then yeah, better work on getting more conventionally attractive. OTHER WOMEN wouldn't look twice at a super-hot guy if he were dumb, or unkind, or dull.
(For me the thing that could intoxicate me into dating a guy who wasn't kind or smart was smell. God I was sucker for great-smelling guys, no matter how they looked! But that never lasted more than a week, and I sure wasn't having sex with them during that week.)
You know, I actually don't know ANY women who say looks don't matter. I do know several men who say that women say that looks don't matter. I think you guys must be telling one another. Either that, or you're only half-listening when you listen to women.
I suspect the latter is often the case. It definitely is with you, since what jcorozza said was that *kindness matters more than looks* NOT looks don't matter.
I think there's another message, which I hear a lot, which is, "What you think is attractive is not what matters to me." I think that may get interpreted as "looks don't matter," when that's not really it.
If you have a thing for short, squishy, snarky guys, and you say, "No, actually, I'm more a Danny DeVito type than a Brad Pitt type," some people will read that as saying looks don't matter, when what you're really saying is you prefer his look.
Yes! The other thing that I've had happen there is guys decide since you like Danny DeVito, you must therefore be attracted to all bald, fat men, you must therefore be willing to date Sad Sack Eeyore McSchlubb who doesn't shower on a regular basis.
Oh, the resentment when I insist I am allowed to be attracted to some fat men, but not others!
Or worse, if I find Danny DeVito attractive, then I am morally obligated to be attracted to anyone the speaker considers more attractive than Danny DeVito. "He's MUCH better-looking than Paul was, and you dated Paul for seven months!"
"… guys decide since you like Danny DeVito, you must therefore be attracted to all bald, fat men, you must therefore be willing to date Sad Sack Eeyore McSchlubb who doesn't shower on a regular basis. "
/breathless with laughter
But as I've said there are three factors that trigger attractiveness in women, 1) Appearance, 2) Charisma/charm/"magnetic personality" and 3) Money/status.
While Danny DeVito may not be the best looking actor in Hollywood, he has charm and charisma which makes him a compelling actor to watch in films, which means he also earns a lot of money. So factors 2 and 3 make DeVito attractive to many women.
Now imagine a guy who looks like Danny DeVito but has an average personality and average income trying to get a date, compared to another guy with average personality and income who looks like George Clooney.
Really? You think Danny DeVito has charm?
He has a sense of humor that appeals to some people (not me, incidentally), but I don't think most people that find his brand of humor attractive would describe him as "charming". Eliza Jane described him as snarky, which is about the exact opposite of charming.
I find charm and charisma appealing in the same way I do pretty muscley boys. Fun for an hour's flirtation, not enough to build a substantial attraction on. It's worth a two-day crush, tops. If I'm going to be attracted to someone enough to actually date them, they've got to have a lot more than charm or charisma.
You do realize that charm and charisma don't cover the kinds of personality and character traits that the women here are bringing up as counterexamples to your trichotomy? It's weird, but I feel like if a woman said that they found honesty very attractive, you'd say that fell under charisma.
Also: NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE PEOPLE AREN'T FOUND ATTRACTIVE MORE OFTEN.
For the love of marshmallows, please stop acting like that's countering anything that anyone anywhere has said. It's fucking definitional.
It's so tiring to have people come in and tell us this as if it's some big new controversial statement. People like attractive people. Nobody disagrees with that. We're disagreeing with the other things that supposedly universally create attraction for women.
Wow.
LOOK, GUYS! It's JUST what I was talking about!! Right here!
What I said, "If you have a thing for short, squishy, snarky guys, and you say, "No, actually, I'm more a Danny DeVito type than a Brad Pitt type," some people will read that as saying looks don't matter, when what you're really saying is you prefer his look."
What you said, "Yeah, but you clearly like Danny DeVito because of other things: if he looked this way, and didn't have his other traits, then blah blah blah."
I am saying this: there are some women who will find Danny DeVito OBJECTIVELY more attractive than George Clooney. Who, if offered Danny DeVito's personality in Clooney's body, would say, "Nope! Short and stocky, please!"
I am not saying "Looks don't matter." I am saying, "I am attracted to someone else." And you are reading as — wait for it — "Looks don't matter."
EXACTLY LIKE I WAS SAYING PEOPLE DO.
I mean, seriously. Were you doing this on purpose? BRAVO.
Yeah…
I don't find Danny DeVito attractive, but I'm not sure how much of that is due to the fact that I find his usual persona so off-putting. (I'm pretty sure that it's not entirely due to that, but I'll admit it gets blurry once you have an idea of someone's personality.)
Now, Gabriel Iglesias… that's someone who definitely does do it for me. But I do really enjoy his humor, so I suppose that would just attract the "you're really attracted to his personality and would like it better in George Clooney" argument.
So I did a google image search for "fat actor", looking for ones I found attractive (as I've said more than once, there are many fat men that I find attractive, but that doesn't mean I am attracted to all fat men), that I didn't have any prior experience with. And now I present this guy: https://tvrecappersanonymous.files.wordpress.com/…
That guy approaches me, and I promise you I'll be all "Why…hello there…" and yes, I'm basing that exclusively on his appearance.
You realize Danny DeVito is a stand-in example because people know what he looks like, right? And that, in that example, Danny DeVito is STILL preferred over Brad Pitt, who has more money, probably some charm, and is much more conventionally attractive???
OK, let's try an alternate example. Given equivalent personalities and income, I prefer the Vasquez Always Dies types (Linda Hamilton in T2, Michelle Rodriguez always, Dina Meyer etc) to the standard waif fu stars they die for. . . except Summer Glau who looks strangely like Signourney Weaver's young clone lately. In real life, this translates to someone with a build based on activity rather than sculpting for pretty. Put Dina Meyer and a Bond Girl in the same room (oh wait, that's Starship Troopers) and my attention will gravitate to the former every time.
Yes, I've seen quite a lot of that, and I think it gets misinterpreted. The woman who doesn't actively prefer short (or whatever other trait) men but doesn't prefer tall ones either gets grouped in there as well.
I think there's also a message that isn't true for me but is true for a good number of women that's along the lines of, "I'm not really attracted to men until I get to know them a bit. For me attraction is something that grows over time." I think sometimes that gets understood as a statement about whether appearances matter rather than one about the time table for developing attraction.
Yup, this is me. I mean, there's a pretty broad range of guys I could potentially find attractive, and from there, their personality either augments or detracts from that to make them attractive/unattractive…TO ME.
People also forget that you can find a person aesthetically attractive but have no interest in a relationship of any sort or even have an urge to know the person at all. "Wow! He/She is hot"=/= " Wow I want to _________ him/her!"
I adore Jeremy Renner. There is something so sexy about him, even though he doesn't have a typically attractive face. And I think he's a marvellous (lol, MARVELlous) actor. But. The more I learn about him the more convinced I am that should I ever in a million years be in a situation to be with him romantically (and I was single etc), I wouldn't want to. It's not that he's a bad person, it's just our personalities don't mesh at all. But I will still swoon watching him on the big screen.
(and for you guys who would insist that I'm lying, that any girl would say yes if a movie/TV star propositioned them, you're wrong – I've actually been in that very position [not with Renner, but another actor I find quite attractive on screen] and said no quite easily)
BLASPHEMY!
These two bits:
= ME, 100%. It's infuriating when men essentially say that I don't know what makes someone ACTUALLY attractive to me, relationship-wise (they know, of course, despite not being me or even having met me before).
I've mentioned my Shemar Moore obsession here. That man is, for me, physical and sexual attractiveness personified: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e3… But candid shots of him tend to be on hot beaches or poolside with tons of people partying and really extroverted. That's basically the exact opposite of my personality. Like One_True_Guest with Jeremy Renner, I still swoon at his appearance, but that's entirely separate from being relationship (romantic and/or sexual) attractive, which he isn't, for me.
"This is how the whole "nice guy" and friendzone thing started."
Noooo. It is not.
It started when NiceGuy™'s outsize fears of rejection caused them to hang around hang around hang around the women to whom they were attracted and never actually ask them out on dates because they – the NiceGuy™s – were too passive to do so and also too fearful.
And/or they continued to hang around hang around hang around the lady in question after she said "I don't have feelings for you like that, but we can be friends though" in "hopes" that the woman would change her mind.
It emphatically did not *start* the way you have characterized it.
Stahp. With. That. Nonsense.
Look there's no need to be jealous that you aren't invited to more hunk parties okay.
But if you're nice to him, you might get invited to a Hulk Party. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/003/f/f/hu…
I want Hulk Parties, like GJ said. You know I don't have enough of those in my life.
You know when Age of Ultron features the Hulk and even Furious 7 gives the old Hulk a cameo, that these are Signs for Me.
Plus, you've seen me dance. You know what kind of mayhem can ensue.
"But you can't hit a home run if you're never up to bat, and the hunk guys get up to bat much more often."
I agree with this more than I would like to. The better body is going to expand your dating pool. Having a tight body is going to give you more opportunities.
I think that's the wrong way to use the metaphor. You can get "up to bat" every time you meet anyone of your preferred gender. If the type of woman you're looking for likes guys with a lot of muscle mass, you'll have a better batting average with a six pack. In my social circles a vague sort of "in shape" is enough to put you above the average guy by a notch.
Batting average or up at bat, irrelevant. The point is that being in better shape is going have a much better shot all else equal.
True. Absolutely.
But when are all things equal?
I think the point so many people are trying to make isn't that looks don't matter, it's that focusing all your self improvement on that one thing and not also working to make oneself an interesting decent human being, is not necessarily going to actually get you what you want. That some people here might be attempting to pursue their goals incorrectly. Sometimes getting in shape is precisely what one particular person needs to attract the particular kind of person they want. Sometimes it's not. And thinking that it is the magical answer to all one's problems is not particularly accurate or true.
"But when are all things equal?"
Bad phrasing. The point is that if you put a fat guy and a guy that's in shape in a space to meet women. If they are both presentable, about as funny, charming, charismatic as the average person; The in shape person is going to do better.
When the fat guy is working on his personality, body language, fashion etc. he is doing damage control. When the guy who is in shape is doing those things, he is enhancing himself. Fashion is one of my passions so I'll use that as my metaphor. When larger men are dressing themselves they are dressing to create a more in slimming silhouette. This means their choices are limited to dark solids. Better built men have a range of options from colors, to patterns, and fits. DNL says that he loves Dan Savage. I've read a lot of Savages advice at the Stranger, chances are Savage would say lose weight.
"isn't that looks don't matter"
It feels that way when the push back against people who seem to think that their looks keeps them from dating. The reaction when someone says their looks( weight, height, etc) is holding them back the intimidate reaction is that you are a sad, slob, with an acerbic personality, who hates women. It feels like a complete erasure of your experience from people who have never met you. Maybe that is the case for a lot of the commenters here or nerds in general. I don't really know, I don't spend a lot of time around nerds and I'm kind of new here.
The difference between damage control and enhancing yourself is all in your head.
What if the "fat guy" has money and the "guy who is in shape" is working 28 hours a week at minimum wage? Do you think that no one has ever said, "When the broke guy is working on his looks and personality, he is doing damage control. When the guy who makes six figures is doing those things, he is enhancing himself"?
So how do you square those? Rich overweight person. Penniless fit person. Which of them is doing damage control with fashion and personality, and which is enhancing himself?
Those are kind of false equivalency. Being poor, much to the chagrin of red pillers, is not an impediment to attraction. Being fat however is. Everything you are doing as a fat person in your presentation is to hide your fatness, or prove stereotypes wrong. There are not larges populations of women who are demanding men be rich. There are way more women that are comfortable with dating someone who is poor than someone who is fat.
Honestly, the people who tend to blame solely their looks on their lack of love life here tend to demonstrate through show not tell that there are many qualities lacking in their personality. Or at least that's what I've always felt. There is usually a lot of anger, bitterness and resentment towards women that also goes along with it. As an example there was a man posting here that confidence didn't actually get you girls and he had all these confident friends who never got the girl. After much discussion it turned out that these friends of his were bitter and not at all confident when it came to approaching women (though they were in their professional lives) and that even worse, they only were interested in having sex with hot women to prove some kind of status symbol. It became rather obvious why women would have no interest in such men.
Also yes I agree that generally the better fit man in the all other things being equal thing will tend to do better on average, but you also need to know your audience. Because I know some women who prefer larger men to fit men. Who find the former more physically attractive. So I guess the point is, yes work out and be fit if that is a) what you want to do for yourself, and b) if you want to attract someone for whom that's important. But there ARE other qualities that women like too, that many women like even better than a perfect physique. That's all. It's actually a hopeful message.
It's not that I can believe in the plausibility that their are women out there who find fat men attractive. It's just that I think they are way less common than women who prefer men who are in shape or even just average. We don't exactly live in a society that thinks fat men are lust worthy. I don't really think women are falling for the fat husband hot wife trope as much as men are.
"Because I know some women who prefer larger men to fit men. Who find the former more physically attractive. So I guess the point is, yes work out and be fit if that is"
Look at the push back against the dad bod post on Jezebel. I'm not talking about the double standard push back, because it is. I mean the "why would anyone find these men attractive push back". There are 1000's of disparaging comments about the larger men in talked about in the article. The population of women that like larger men are so minuscule and small that it might as well not exist to a larger man looking to go on dates. So much so it would be easier to lose weight.
"But there ARE other qualities that women like too, that many women like even better than a perfect physique."
I would never deny this. But these qualities only matter if someone finds you physically attractive. "I'm dating someone hot, but ultimately has nothing else going on" is way more common than "He's great in every other aspect but his body is gross".
I'd say "a different set of opportunities, which may or may not be larger in practice depending on how you spend your time and who you are looking for." For example, signals that someone spends a lot of time at the gym would be an active signal of incompatibility for me, no matter how much I appreciate a six-pack in theory. For other women, it might be a must-have. So whether it's an asset depends on who you want to date!
I said larger set of opportunities, because we live in a society where being in shape body type accepted by more people than the reverse.
If you feel you'd enjoy that, then fine enough. All I think is really being advised is for people to be thoughtful about what their short term and long term goals are and make sure their efforts align with those goals.
In the case of someone who aims for a "dualistic mating strategy," I would suggest that in addition to making yourself as appealing as possible as a short term partner now, you also think about what kind of long term partner you might want, consider how to identify that person, and also consider cultivating some traits that would be attractive to that person (or at least avoid accumulating ones that would repel them) when the time comes.
I am absolutely the last person to urge settling down early and chastely, but I can admit that the drawback of intentionally seeking short term relationships for a number of years and then deciding to seek out long term ones is that you may not have the tools to identify good long term partners, attract them, and maintain relationships with them. I know I've struggled with it. EDIT: And to expand on this for the virginity harpers, it's not because I think either gender necessarily loses anything from dating short term partners. It's more that choosing good long term partners and being a good partner in return have a skill component the same way finding short term ones does, and that either an 18-year-old hoping to meet that one true love at college or a 40-year-old who's decided it's time to settle down will probably find that it won't happen quite on the right timetable and will probably take some work of various sorts.
The thing about the Red Pill story is that it's supposed to be a depressing one. The woman has her past sexual experiences to look back on, but is stuck with a man the story frames as being unappealing to her and who in turn is only with her because he can't find anyone better. I think the story is a very particular one from a very particular negative mindset, but it's probably also a good idea to think about ways to avoid falling into the unhappily ever after.
" hook up with attractive women left and right, then settle down with someone before the 6 pack goes away? Seems like a best of both worlds scenario to me."
Um, except Red Pill presents it as awful, because the woman (according to them) is less attractive and settling down with an equally unattractive "beta male." If you settle down with a super attractive woman who was only attracted to your 6 pack, when you lose it, you lose her. If you settle down with someone who doesn't care about the 6 pack, in your Red Pill world, she's going to be significantly less attractive, and you'll resent that you're having to settle (because if there's one thing I learned from Red Pill and PUA, it's that there are never, ever enough hot ladies to feel like you've been "laid enough.")
So actually lose/lose scenario for you either way.
oh, God, that makes my brain hurt. How do people LIVE like this??
In their heads, mostly.
If your goal is to hook up with a lot of women before settling down, I would advise you to be very mindful about your sexual ethics and what kinds of relationship habits you develop. Like eselle, I'm not advocating settling down early, but you can also get yourself into a situation where you become extremely unappealing to women who would make good long-term partners. I would suggest being very hard-core about treating your short-term partners with respect, particularly treating them as human beings instead of objects to be used and discarded. Those are habits that are hard to break, and even if you do change them, for many relationship-oriented women a past history of user behavior will rule you out completely.
I don't have much guidance on short-term relationships other than to be respectful and ethical, but if you want advice about choosing a long-term partner for a marriage that stays both hot and happy, I'm glad to help.
Because having a nice body isn't a free pass for ass? You still have to talk to people, you know.
You mean I can't just show them my Objective Attractiveness Card and say "nice form. Wanna go back to my place?" Shit! I've been doing it wrong this whole time! Back to the archives. . .
Nah, that's still talking. Hot people just give a bit of a head nod, and then sexytimes.
Except they are disadvantaged in the event of a hunk draft.
:'(
I'm just a bullet in the barrel of my best guy's gun.
I want to produce that number with my crew SO BAD!
I feel like this should be on a t-shirt
But you just know it would end up on a muscle shirt or skimpy women's tank top.
BPremium. Are you really sure you want to do this?
The women you attract will have a primary interest of looking awesome, and looking awesome with you, for others to see. That's not to say they wouldn't care about you too as a person but it would come second. For it to work, you must kind of regard her the same way, place her second as she does you.
You better make sure you are on the same level of interest, and that it remains even after you get involved with someone. Because you're likely not going to be able to kick back but keep the streneous exercise and diet, shovel money on changing your wardrobe often enough. She'd expect this, and she'd be right because she's putting a shit load of effort on looking great and she chose you because you have the same priorities (supposedly).
And no, it doesn't end with age either. The priorities change a bit from working on your body to maintaining a cool ass home that invited guests can marvel at, but ultimately it's the same thing. I hope you're not the kind to collapse under stress, are you?
You'll basically be stuck in a situation where you potentially feel inadequate all the time and that you aren't doing enough. So be honest about yourself and your needs. Is this what you actually want?
Ok, I know my example is going to an extreme, but it's just me trying to highlight that that type of life you envision may not be all it's cracked up to be, and many, if not most people would not feel that their actual needs are met in that type of scenario.
EDIT: OK, BP you were talking about hooking up and then settle, but most people can't 100% decide that they are just going to do short term. Short term has a strong tendency to become long term anyway so I think my argument stands.
This is sort of an observation on this whole line of discussion: what's with the excessive focus on six pack abs? I don't mean you, BPremium, since it sounds like you're specifically seeking out venues where it's appropriate for you to have your shirt off.
But generally, I feel there's way more focus on this from men than from women, and I find it kind of odd. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't lots of women who are fans of muscular men. There are plenty of them. I'm more pointing to the fact that outside of fairly specific venues, it's not something a woman is necessarily going to be in a position to observe. All that goes doubly if you live in a relatively chilly climate. It sort of seems like a guy who wants to impress a woman by being fit and muscular might want to go for something a little more well-rounded and that a woman he encounters at a bar or while walking his dog might be able to observe -especially since few women I know talk about muscularity in such specific terms and a six pack isn't something everyone is able to achieve depending on body structure.
I would say that guys' focus on the six-pack has to do with two things:
1) The fact that being muscular is, for a complicated mix of reasons, way more valorized for men than for women.
and
2) A six-pack is a form of muscularity that most guys can imagine themselves having. A lot of the named, easily express muscular achievements out there require a guy to get big. For a lot of the more ectomorphic among us, that's just not going to happen. If I wanted to have a chest like Henry Cavill's, I would probably need to gain at least, forty or fifty pounds while simultaneously doing lots of intense exercise to make sure that that new mass is going to muscle rather than to fat, and I couldn't eat in the way that I would need to to do that without making myself sick. But I could easily imagine myself living in a body which is fundamentally mostly like the one I have, just with more defined musculature. And six-pack abs are a muscle thing which people talk about which is purely about definition, not about size. So, if a guy like me talks about getting muscular, he's probably going to be talking about definition,and also probably going to be talking about a six-pack.
Okay, that makes sense to me. I can certainly understand that toned is something that's easier to visualize than massively changing your body structure, and I suppose a six pack ab is a more…culturally visible?…way of being toned than having toned arms or something of that nature.
It seems unfortunate for those who aren't able to achieve definition in that particular area, though, because it seems like it isn't as universally achievable as pictured.
Oh, definitely! I would agree that imagination and reality definitely do diverge on this– it's one of the things where the plausibility and possibility diverge somewhat.
Gah, sorry about the redundancy– I'm just finishing up comprehensive exams right now, so my brain is fried.
I think to men, six packs are the most legitimizing part of a "hot" body, maybe even the only criterion for being considered hot. Anything less, and there's always the possibility that an observer (man or woman) will say, "yeah, nice shoulders/arms/legs, but…"
A six pack is an easy benchmark because it's more black and white than other body parts. It's a recognizable shape that is only visible with a LOT of work (and some genetics). Increasing the definition of your biceps, delts, etc. generally only further enhances lines and shapes that are visible long before you get a six pack.
However, waaaaaaaay too many gym bros completely ignore their legs because they only care about abs, pecs and arms. http://cdn.cavemancircus.com//wp-content/uploads/… A defined six pack is great, buuuuut… http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/images/2013/milit…
LOL, were those images real?
I can't say for sure since I didn't take them myself, but I've seen a LOT of muscle bros with chicken legs (and guys: a LOT of women notice it, heh). I think it's most common when their goal is more aesthetics than functional strength; the only areas worth working are the areas they specifically think are aesthetically important (abs, pecs, arms).
When I went to my uni's gym, it was fun to apparently pwn these dudes on leg exercises. That's right, a GIRL (insert eyeroll here)! I still remember one dudes face when I used the multi hip machine for the first time. I was doing hip extensions (number 2 here http://www.pulseresale.com/images/515_action1.gif ) and kept increasing the weight. I no joke maxed out the weight at 270lbs/122kg and I still easily did 3 sets of 15. Thanks, ten years of dance classes!
"with chicken legs (and guys: a LOT of women notice it, heh)"
Chicken legs! Chicken legs!
Hahaha. How many of us do they need to poll to actually acknowledge that's a thing?
BIG CALVES 4 LYFE
Those images may not be, but it's a definite thing in the workout world. Just type "never skip leg day" into google and you'll see what I mean.
Also, No Cardio! http://4gains.com/wp-content/uploads/cardio-gains…
As someone who LOVES nicely shaped legs, this makes me sad….
I think alot of men probably know it's not actually a requirement or anything most women even care about but it's very seductive to keep to an absolute and fatalistic belief and then pursue the imagined criteria with an almost self-destructive zeal.
At the bottom of it all there's some old unmanaged pain warped into a challenge "Look, what I'm doing to myself because of you. See how I'm hurting myself? You're making me do this".
There's people who subconsiously take the same approach to dieting "You called me fat before. Now look at me almost starving myself. Do you want this on your conscience, huh? HUH?"
My sis is a gym coach but not a therapist. She says that she wish she had that training since it would be easier to spot some people before they get hurt or even cause themselves permanent damage.
I share your confusion with the 6-pack obsession, Eselle. Even the ladies I know who love muscle guys kind of skim over the 6-pack. They seem to enjoy: muscular arms, muscular chests, that "V" shape right around the hips (which you can get without having a 6 pack), and legs.
Seriously, the legs. Why do so many guys neglect the legs? I'm not a fan of the muscle look EXCEPT when it comes to legs. Shapely calves and strong thighs? Mmmm. Plus, legs are much easier to show off.
Six packs are over rated; how about a pair of legs that'll kick a hole right through them? But seriously if you want to look good, I highly recommend you ditch PF yesterday; they will kick you out before you even get close to looking decent.
I hated the lack of barbells. And the lunk alarm is just ridiculous.
Ive never seen women check out hot guys at the gym. Women at the gym keep their eyes foreward and their earbuds up.
To be honest, I haven't seen that either.
I have seen it and done it, but it is usually coming and going from the building or while waiting for something rather than during an active workout. Not much else to look at while waiting for the leg press
We are much more stealth about it.
Also I personally try to limit it for reasons of reciprocal respect because I hate hate hate it when dudes stare.
Did I mention I hate it when they stare? I've worked out at studios where the window shades are wide up because they want clients to come in and look. I've been so uncomfortable on occasion I've gotten up and pulled down the shade.
When I've done it – even when the class wasn't all ladies – not one single person objected.
There are better ways to do your marketing, studio owners, than to make current clients uncomfortable.
I have, both obviously (at a place that was known to be a meat market and where seemingly everyone was paying more attention to each other than the equipment) and discreetly (most other gyms). I think women tend to be a little more subtle about checking out men in general, especially in environments where they don't actually want to be approached by them.
Some women are vocal/flirtatious, but it doesn't imply that they want to have sex with the men in question necessarily, just that they appreciate the eye candy.
Recently, I've been going to the gym several days each week and have a weekly PT session. It has been very hard and painful muscle wise and there were times when I wanted to stop and not do it. My gym partner finds it fun but I don't really. I am in better shape, much fitter than I've been for a very long while and my upper body apparently looks really good. Just the belly to work on really and maintaining the rest.
Does it give me more confidence? Yes and no. The master insecurity in my head draws my self image so I don't see much of what others see. I've had been tell me I'm an ugly piece of crap from the age of about five, been called fat by charity shop assistants and by chinese takeaway waiters and had so much negative comments about my looks that it stopped being funny a long time ago. I probably won't be at ease with myself anytime soon.
But it has improved how women respond to me, the looks I get from women etc. Working on my body has made me more attractive to women. I don't know if it's enough and there's still plenty of better looking competition out there. But it does work.
I've put a lot of effort in before now to changing my behaviour, acting with fake confidence and even the belief in magic itself, PUA. All of those didn't really make any changes. Going to the gym did. In fact my last girlfriend wanted me to go the gym and told me she'd give me "points" if I went. But then again, she was a bit "different".
A few weeks ago I was out meeting new people and a woman who had sat beside me got up and went to sit at the other end of the table with the younger, much better looking guy. But I guess that bothered me more than it should because I'd just had the brush off from a woman I had been dating. Someone who had told mutual friends of ours that she liked me a lot. To say nothing of my most recent girlfriend flirting with her ex when we were out for new years to the point where I wondered if all of us (me and her ex and her) were part of some game or drama.
I don't like myself and have a rather aggressive (at times) self hatred. Doesn't impact on dating because dating success is different to social success . But it can impact on my general mood, what I'm like meeting new people socially etc. There is no evidence that women pick up on this. Most women I know think of me as a "gentlemen". Which kinda depresses me because getting a title like that basically makes you mayor of the friendzone but I do like it as well. I'm not the bad boy, self absorbed guy who is top of the dating success tree and liked a lot by many women but I'm not a creepy asshole either.
Therapy for the psychological issue would take forever. I'm not even sure there is an answer to it. A friend of mine a few weeks ago said it would "destroy me" but it won't. It won't kill the host. That's not how it works. Being more at ease with myself and able to face the dwindling but still present sometimes negative feedback from people about how I look would probably be good. I don't know. Such a thing is a strange concept. It wouldn't make me any more attractive to women but I guess it might make me happier. No idea where to begin on that one.
No jokes, no bullshit, Trix: this is the most positive, most realistic I've heard you be in a long time. Yeah, you're still working on it, that's clear but you've come a long way, dude.
Like the post and like the site. Sharing! Once you get the car or the abs or the whatever, if someone "likes" you because of that, it could very well be just that "thing" they like, not you. If you lose the car or someone with a better car comes along, would this person who so values that Thing instead of you as a package stick around? That magic feather can also become a vulnerability. A jab that you're gaining weight can become a reason to doubt your worth instead of a reminder that you're not meeting your fitness expectations. Or maybe you're too afraid to pursue a goal because you give it so much power that you're afraid to achieve it and find out that it really is your personality, not your extra weight, that keeps you from being in a relationship.
" Once you get the car or the abs or the whatever, if someone "likes" you because of that, it could very well be just that "thing" they like, not you."
Duckling to (alleged) swan, can confirm.
Not sure what's worse, being consistently overlooked because people apparently think you're ugly, or being overvalued just for your looks and having dudes edge away and/or look uncomfortable — or even get angry (that's fun) — the minute you open your mouth and actually have an opinion. Or because you don't "appreciate" the "nice *ss" comments. (Really, guys? Really??)
Pretty much feels like six of one half a dozen of the other to me, honestly.
Especially since those outer evaluations can change at any point depending on where you are geographically (had it happen) and who's looking.
The sad truth is that superficial qualities – what someone looks like – are very important during the initial stages. The intrinsic qualities – who someone really is on the inside – become the more important later and the most important for a relationship to be a long term success.
The problem is that a person can have the greatest intrinsic qualities in the world, but he doesn't generate enough physical attraction in the initial phase, the relationship never gets started and any potential for a great relationship that outlasts the abs remains untapped.
I have a feeling you missed this.
(Possibly on purpose.)
Honestly, what's more attractive — whining about how your preferred gender finds you unattractive, or taking action to become more attractive?
(This is not a trick question.)
Reading the comments on this article, I wonder if there's a counterpart to the "magic feather" which I'll call the "evil curse."
It feels like a lot of people see a single thing about themselves as so bad or awful that it's sabotaging their lives. Because they think that's happening, it actually DOES happen — a self-fulfilling prophecy. You see your weight as being an issue, so when people look at you, you assume it's disgust instead of interest, so you say something rude. Or your teeth are bad, so you never smile, so you come across as unfriendly. Or you know that you're too nerdy for mainstream girls, so you view them as the enemy and make cutting remarks.
Sometimes, in those cases, I think lifting the "evil curse" can give you freedom from a lot of the baggage that goes with it. When I got my (really bad) teeth fixed, it was like the world was open again. I could smile without feeling self-conscious; I didn't spend every conversation terrified that I was being judged; I could relax. And it made everything easier.
Were my teeth ever really that big a problem? Maybe not. I don't actually think I'm treated that much differently by people around me. But to me, they were a wall in the way of success. I think "getting in shape," or "moving out of my parents' house," or "getting a real job," can do the same thing sometimes.
"You see your weight as being an issue, so when people look at you, you assume it's disgust instead of interest" Oh my goodness so true. Back in the day I used myself as an example with Trix about this very thing. I have Resting Bitch Face (don't love the term, but it's a useful descriptor). Trix was talking about how some strange woman gave him a dirty look and how that confirmed he was so ugly. But I pointed out that some of us with RBF would give off the exact same impression when really we're just sitting there glancing around the bus seeing who else is there. I once had a friend tell me he'd seen me on the bus and didn't come and say hi because I had an expression that said, "Leave me alone." That's literally just what my face looks like. I actually think people are stunned when I start talking because suddenly I have a big grin and dimples and I've actually seen people looked shocked for a moment assuming I'm going to be some stuck up mean person.
So yeah. The point is. I have probably confirmed many negative biases over the years for a whole host of people without even having any opinion on them at all.
What if people have told you, directly, repeatedly, many, many times that X absolutely IS the problem? Then can a person finally point to X as an issue without being told it's secretly something else?
Well, I think I'm arguing that it doesn't necessarily matter if it's objectively true or not. When something is your "evil curse," sometimes fixing it is going to help whether or not it's what your problem is. If that makes sense. I don't really want to dub myself the arbiter of other people's realities, just to point out that sometimes shaking the monkey off your back can be legitimately freeing, whether it's a real physical monkey that everyone can see or an imaginary monkey that just confuses people because they can't figure out why you're hissing at your shoulder to stop flinging poo.
Some of us got really attached to that poo flinging monkey, and the future partner's going to have to learn to accept it, same as we did.
But I guess accepting the monkey is also a way to get it off your back…
Its a monkeyception!
I don't necessarily think that saying "sometimes things can hold one back psychologically, even if they wouldn't hold one back through their direct effect on others" precludes the idea that sometimes X is the problem in both ways. Sorry if I'm speaking for Eliza Jane too much, but not all observations are applicable to every situation.
"You see your weight as being an issue, so when people look at you, you assume it's disgust instead of interest, so you say something rude. Or your teeth are bad, so you never smile, so you come across as unfriendly. Or you know that you're too nerdy for mainstream girls, so you view them as the enemy and make cutting remarks."
Hey-o, it's me! On every count, no less, save for saying rude things regarding perception of my weight. No, I just make jokes about it all the time when I'm secretly dying inside.
But to be serious, I feel like the "evil curse" resonates with me far better than any "magic feather". The latter screams of optimism I simply do not have. But they seem like different sides of the same coin.
EDIT: I cannot analogy today. Sides, not heads, of the same coin.
Yup. There are non-magical reasons why if I "just got more dates,…[my life] would be better"—better information about what I'm actually looking for, and better information about what others are actually looking for, being the most obvious—but I'd count on seeing some "magical" side-effects as well.
Not least because right now it seems like fixing it—which I define as going on a first date with anyone, no matter how badly that turns out—would actually require some literal magic (or miracle). :/
Definitely. My own evil curse is my baldness. I hate it. [Jerkbrain says] it makes me a disgusting hideous troll whom no one could possibly be attracted to even if I had the face & body of a greek god. It's very difficult for me because I hate my baldness in and of itself; when I was younger I had very long hair and I loved it. So even if people tell me that a shaved head can be sexy it doesn't matter because *I* hate it, irrespective of what others think.
This is why I have an assortment of understated cool hats.
This is almost exactly what I mean! If your evil curse is your baldness, which is making you feel self-conscious, then cultivate a look involving something that hides it: a hoodie, a baseball cap, a cowboy hat, whatever it is. Then you can know that whoever you're talking too isn't revolted by your baldness, and you can have a conversation more naturally.
Will some women later reject you when they find out? Maybe. Some women are assholes. And some women just really love running their fingers through hair. And some women have hair-braiding fetishes that are really important to them. But you know, some men will reject me when they see my gross toes, too, and I don't feel the need to brandish them when meeting people.
If you make your goal a fun, flirty conversation and you hide your evil curse, it lets you be free to be you, and some of the problem will be resolved. You can have your fun conversation, and you don't need to worry that she's thinking, "ew, why is this non-haired person in my space??"
Well, I also have the advantage of being fairly tall. I've got a couple of "evil curses" that I cover up even though I know that most people barely notice/care when they're not. It makes me feel better about it and that's what matters.
It's montage time! What song should accompany it? I'm leaning towards clichéd with, "So Happy Together", representing you and that bitchin' Mustang.
Please. “Back In Black”.<p style=”color:#000;”>
LOL. Almost.
Greyscale said ♪♫ "Cruisin' down the back roads" ♪♫ — that rhythm & imagery don't ping something for you?
Right group, but …
🙂
I was going for camp, but I dig it!
(You reminded me of something hilarious and AC-DC related from my high school/college part time job. I was a garage tech at a service station, where the radio was was always tuned to the rock&metal station (duh). One day, "Big Balls" came on. Dave (a mechanic) danced over to the radio and cranked it up, yelling "I LOVE THIS SONG!!!"
He was loudly singing along, working on a car up on a hoist… when a little oooold lady, a regular customer, stepped into the garage area to talk to Ron, the owner. Instead of finding Ron, she sees a mechanic dancing around under a car, yell-singing
"I'VE GOT BIG BALLS
OH I'VE GOT BIG BALLS
AND THEY'RE SUCH BIG BALLS
DIRTY BIG BALLS
AND HE'S GOT BIG BALLS
AND SHE'S GOT BIG BALLS
BUT WE'VE GOT THE BIGGEST BALLS OF THEM ALL"
— using a wrench for a microphone. She was … nonplussed, to say the least.)
Regarding the Magic Feather of Permission, sometimes it's a sign you're just not ready. In my own experience, I would put off meeting and dating men because I wanted to first focus on college and get my degree, then I'd have enough free time to date. Then after graduating, I wanted to get a steady job so then I'll be independent enough to be in a healthy relationship. Now I want to move out of my parents' house into my own place, which I'm expecting to do within the summer. If the building allowed pets, my next goal would have been to get a dog. My Magic Feather changed with each goal I met.
All this talk of magic feathers has just made me think of a Phoenix Down that will actually revive Aerith.
Them potions…they always look greener on the other side, but really anyone who tells you they can help with being impaled is just preying on your fears and insecurities. ^_^
The big problem with them is you can't use them in cut scenes and we all know the most important moments in life happen in cut scenes.
Aeriiiiiiiiiiiiiiith!
Even if you do use them in cutscenes, they don't work. Remember Galuf's death in FF5?
I'm going to have to disagree with the body thing. Having a great body expands your dating pool. The guy who is in better shape is going to find more women who are receptive to him. Is it a magic bullet no? Does it help tremendously? Yes. Someone with a better physique is going to have more opportunities.
Sure, but that doesn't mean people never treat having a better body as a magic bullet. "There are good odds that I will increase the number of women receptive to an initial advance" is way different from "I will never feel sad, lonely, or hurt again."
Absolutely! That wasn't so much my point. I feel like the article framed it as it won't do much for you or it's a waste of time. A lot of other commenters are kind of echoing that sentiment. When a commenter claims their physique is holding them back. There seems to be the assumption that the average larger man is striking out because, he is poorly socialized, poor sartorial choices, poor hygiene, completely clueless, toxic or a all around slob. For that person it could very well be that they have limited dating options because of their bodies. I think for them, getting in better shape could solve quite a few of their problems.
I think the point, or at least the point I've made in the comments is this: if having a better body is itself going to make you happy (and regular exercise does help with depression), then you should do that. If you think that hitting the gym for a few months to get six pack abs will sole all your dating problems EVAR, you are not only not right but are setting yourself up for trouble when your milkshake doesn't immediately bring all the girls to the yard.
Item:
WRT your last sentence – I have now learned I cannot read what you write and simultaneously eat fruit without running the risk of choking to death laughing.
http://i.imgur.com/wfYHpGz.jpg
I think people are falling into the false dichotomy trap. There's a whole lot of room in between "this will solve all your problems forever" and "this will have no measurable impact on your quality of life."
Unless you're already reasonably well off, making more money (to go with a very common example) will absolutely improve your quality of life. But to those prone to magical thinking, it's easy to make the leap from "if I made more money I could buy a bed that doesn't aggravate my back pain and get the broken air conditioning in my car fixed before the days hit 100 degrees" to "if I made more money, everything would be better and women would all love me."
So much this. I even think it's reasonable to say something like, "If I made more money, I'd have the gas money to drive into the city more often, which would give me some more opportunities to meet new people." The part where things seem to fall apart is when people predict other people's reactions.
I think that's the key, really. Having a thing might be awesome, but that doesn't automatically mean that other people are going to react in any certain way.
"But let’s be generous and assume that you’ve figured out just the right combination of clothes that will show off your physique without making you look like an asshole."
Genuine question, why would showing your physique through clothes make you look like an asshole?
I'm getting vibes of male slut shaming here, but if there's a decent explanation I'd love to hear it.
I think its a matter of context.
For instance, I work as a guide, and today, around one of the many educational treks I was guiding, I saw another guide walking around with a REALLY REALLY tight dry fit shirt.
Instintively I got an asshole vibe.
I couldn’t help it, I mean, dude, we’re all here guiding kids on a trek, do you REALLY need to look like a ripped cyclist?
These kids are 15, what’s the point?
Mind you, I dont mind it much, it just rubs off wrong on some.
He could be an awesome dude for all I know…
I think I'm with Azazel on this one. How would it sound if you made a similar statement about a woman: "she gives such an asshole vibe wearing a tight shirt guiding 15 year olds, wants the point?" That sound sslit shamey to me.
I think again, it’s a matter of context, they can do as they please, and I do encourage wearing whatever it is you want to wear.
But there’s always a question of when and where.
Getting a super tight dryfit costs a lot of money, more than most regular dryfit shirts, and it is also not the best for trekking, mostly cycling.
So wearing something like that when it isnt necessary feels like one is showing off.
I guess I’m not a big fan of people showing off.
Wow.
They're not dressing up for you. They're not dressing up for the 15 year olds. They're dressing up for /them/.
They like looking good, and saying "everyone who wears [piece of clothing] just wants attention" (the implication of you calling it unnecessary to wear those clothes in that context) is entitled and deeply problematic IMO.
Oh dear, no one is dressing up for anyone, nor should they.
But clothes carry a meaning, if you like it or not.
When I wear a poncho, I wear it because it keeps me warm and I like the feeling of a blanket over me.
I still know some people are going to look at me funny, thinking I'm doing it for attention and what not.
Does that mean I am an asshole for wearing it? No.
Does it mean they're assholes for thinking it? No (unless they express it in some way).
Will I give off asshole vibes to some people? Hell yes, and I'm willing to deal with it.
Nothing happens in a vacuum, and we all get reactions from our jerk brains.
Thinking something does not automatically makes you an asshole, expressing it, acting it out and shaming others for it, THAT is being an asshole.
You can look like an asshole without showing off your figure, too. http://puaartist.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012…
1. I'm unsure of how this post is relevant. Obviously it's possible to look like an asshole. Just make sure your appearance matches that of a hate group.
2. Honestly? What exactly screams asshole to you from that picture? We /know/ they're assholes from what they write, but their outfits are more tame than what you regularly seem to wear.
Simply, I think the interpretation was off base its not that showing off your physique makes you look like an asshole. Its that its easy to look like an asshole starting from "how do I show off my physique". Looking like an asshole is acausally related but often correlative. The picture was mostly humorous punctuation.
Edit: since you want to pick my personal style as an example, I'd note there's a pretty big difference between what I wear on stage and what I wear when I'm going out. The red coat and the top hat are specifically costume parts. That said, Mystery's outfit is not too far off of something I'd wear and from the outside I can see it being "the same thing". To me its little differences that make a huge difference but that's really neither here nor there.
I read that as a calibration issue. It's not "showing off your body makes you an asshole by default," it's "having a great body doesn't substitute for calibration in dressing it."
Can you expand?
It's rather unclear to me what you meant.
I /think/ you're changing Harris' words from "not looking like an asshole while showing off your physique is difficult", to "not looking like an asshole is difficult, and having a great physique doesn't make it easier".
/If/ that's what you meant, I'd argue that those sentences are not equivalent of each other, and Harris clearly is saying the former.
No, I'm saying something different from either. I think what he's trying to say is "one might think that having a great physique and dressing in a way that considers context and audience to be substitutes for one another, but they are not." And I think he's being (unnecessarily) snarky about it because he's run into one too many guys who believes they ARE interchangeable.
I am happy to answer further questions about what I mean, but I am neither interested in convincing you that my reading is correct (boring, stupid, pointless) nor in having you try to convince me that my reading is wrong (boring, stupid, pointless AND insulting).
I agree that good judgement is key.
But I had this thought the other day at the gym: why do so many people react to a guy working out shirtless with "ugh?" It seems to set off the asshole alarm. It's very common for women in my gym to wear revealing shorts and sports bras, and no one says a word (even the guys) or bats an eye.
It just strikes me as odd, because at least this nudity has a purpose. (It's a hot gym with no AC.) I'd like to do it occasionally, but I don't want to be "that guy."
Interesting. I've never thought that myself. Although I admit, I always avoid looking at anyone much when I did go to the gym, and don't belong to one right now. I do live in a college town, and have multiple shirtless 18-22-year-olds that jog past my house every day (I'm conveniently positioned between campus and a river/nature preserve). I've never thought any of them looked assholish, but maybe outdoor jogging is exempt?
Is this something you get from women, as well as other men?
Well, I've never had it directed at me, since I've never done it. But I've heard it from women and men.
Even when comments about "hulking out of your clothes" (or something) are made as jokes, I've only seen them directed at men. I think those reasons are obvious–I'd like to think I could pull off the same joke I would make to a man with a woman, but I feel like it would just come off as super awkward.
"But I had this thought the other day at the gym: why do so many people react to a guy working out shirtless with "ugh?""
I think this is partly contextual.
I'm sure lots of folks are quite sick of me referencing tennis, but it has a specific purpose this time, LOL.
At Slams and Masters tournaments, shirtless practice for the dudes is almost part of the sport's branding (also, it's a summer sport, for the most part, even though it's played year round, so the assumption is that people are going to be sweaty and hot; even the ladies play in sleeveless outfits with very short skirts).
But indoors, in "pedestrian" gyms, where more clothes are expected, the presumption among dudes is that it's "showing off" the physique.
(I wonder sometimes if the ostensible disgust among ladies is sometimes put on, to an extent, for purposes of social conformity … as it's considered "unseemly", even now, for us women to express desire in public. So if you're pushed to remark, you're "forced" to respond with disdain; otherwise it's like those covert looks people have been describing throughout the thread — if you're a lady who likes what you see, you keep your thoughts to yourself.)
I also suspect that on the parts of those gentlemen who've spent less time & energy developing their V-shapes, there's some good old-fashioned envy going on that contributes to that … though I can't imagine there are going to be too many who admit to it.
I also suspect that on the parts of those gentlemen who've spent less time & energy developing their V-shapes, there's some good old-fashioned envy going on that contributes to that … though I can't imagine there are going to be too many who admit to it.
Yeah, I've heard some guys say it looks a bit "tryhard," but if they're anything like me, they're itching to get out of their sweat-soaked UnderArmor too.
I wonder sometimes if the ostensible disgust among ladies is sometimes put on, to an extent, for purposes of social conformity … as it's considered "unseemly", even now, for us women to express desire in public.
I could see that. Is there no acceptable neutral response for a woman? I feel like my response to a woman's removal of clothing would have to be neither approving, nor disparaging; in fact, I shouldn't let on that I notice at all. (That seems to be the prevailing culture in my gym, anyway. I've never heard a sexualized remark about any woman in my gym from any guy.)
"I've never heard a sexualized remark about any woman in my gym from any guy."
Well … all I can say to that is "You're a dude."
Just because *you* haven't heard them, it doesn't necessarily follow that dudes aren't making them.
If you put this phrase in the Google
"women harassment in the gym"
I'm sure it'll make my point more eloquently than I could myself.
That's not surprising. Harassment in the gym focuses on a guy directly harassing or hitting on a woman. The goal is either wanting to date/fuck her OR wanting to intimidate her with shitty dominance games. If his efforts aren't successful, he doesn't want to look foolish to other guys.
There ARE sexual remarks made bro-to-bro, but it tends to be between guys who are friends or acquaintances, not strangers.* Yes, you sometimes hear them (accidentally or intentionally), but they're easier to ignore/don't require a response because they aren't TO you, just ABOUT you. They're still gross and disheartening, though.
"Damn, bro, check out those titties!"
(Woman using the hip machine: http://workoutlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/waterma… ) "aw yeah, baby, gotta get ready for TONIGHT with me!" **
"Shit, check out that fine ass on the elliptical over there. You know I'd like to see the view from behind!"
( also, notice how often the remark is actually about the body part, not the woman herself. Gross).
* so if you aren't friends with these guys, you won't be included.
** this is superficially directed to the woman, but not really, because the intended audience is still his bro.
A little help. As he did here, the Doc has often said that the best way to improve the love life would be to focus on working to Be A Better Person. Sounds good, sign me up, I just don't understand what that means. Better than what? Better at what? Better to whom?
Better than your current self. Better at many things (ethics, health, self esteem, etc.). Better to the people around you, and especially to yourself.
It's not that making more money or getting in better physical shape won't improve your life. It will. But that doesn't mean that once you hit a certain annual income or body fat percentage, the rest of your problems will disappear.
So pick something to work on that you want to work on. If it's physical fitness, work on it because you want to be more fit, not because you want the benefits that the media have told you fitness will bring.
The magic feather is not always a placebo. It may be overrated in most people, but there's still something to it. (usually)
A magic feather is one of the most common (and legitimate) complaints people have about the self-improvement arena.
Having loved self-improvement most of my life I set out to find an exact method to producing change. Little did I know when I started what a development it would be for me. Over twenty-five years later I can finally describe how change actually takes place within us.
Gutap – the system to achieving core level change of any limiting belief.
If you were programmed you can now be reprogrammed.
The self-improvement steps:
1. Feel the feeling of your false belief to know it.
You have to feel your feelings in order to change them.
2. Find what the false or limiting belief truly wants you to know to be better.
What does the false belief actually want you to know that is positive?
3. Connect that feeling of the positive answer (not necessarily the concept or picture) to the negative feeling of the false belief to let it flow into negative feeling to change it.
The positive feelings change it – you don’t.
The example I use for proof of Gutap is anger. Forgive. Forgiveness cures anger almost instantly. When you are angry and you forgive them your anger is gone. It takes one feeling to heal another. Every “negative” feeling has its own positive healing feeling.
the feather thing is interesting if a little depressing, vibe i get from that is anything i do will inevitably be a let down if i succeed.
id rather think that some feathers are worth more chasing than others if i could do a rerun i would be running for that career feather and going for that sexuality feather later because my sexuality is fairly ott and more just fetishistic basically very self defeating only just realising it now at age 25 though bottom line is prioritise your feathers in order of physical importance rather than personal image
by that i mean the personal image you want to exaggerate