eos_nyxia

Why are you zeroing in on the most dysfunctional, visible dynamics? There's some element of trauma involved in that... why focus straight on the lowest common denominator? Strength of character gives one the power to choose be vulnerable in a way that's meaningful to people. Generally, that's what's attractive. Maybe "most women" and neuronormals are not your type? If I had to do conventional online dating, I'd probably never have dated at all, lol. It's not for everyone. It's cold, superficial, and impersonal by the nature of it.

Yikes. Isn't it better for women to be alone and at least have some kind of peace of mind rather than to settle for someone so clearly settling for you? (Which again goes against RP rhetoric which acts like a bad relationship for women is better than no relationship at all. But then again, who are they fooling except for the very young, naive, and insecure?) How utterly dehumanizing though. But then, dehumanizers dehumanize themselves first.

Out of the many things I could point out in this thread, not all women who look conventionally attractive are showy extroverts, you know. (And some who are, are masking or constantly putting on a performance.) Though maybe that's what people's eyes often gravitate toward; it's understandable. Late bloomers are a thing too. Not everyone actually peaks in high school or college, man or woman. (Despite RP cope propaganda lol.)

I can't believe anyone here remembers all of this. What a trainwreck that was. A lot of the original people who were here either got booted or left of their own accord anyway.

Both Jesus and the Buddha are very... mid-tier? They got the name, the image, and the reputation... that's it. There's probably at least 1000 nameless who do not parade around advertising themselves, who know how to not be seen, as their chosen purpose isn't to ""help people"" IRL, where you'd have to nerf yourself anyway. It's barely worth it. Not to mention that both of them were very much capped by the time periods that they were living in. More powerful, more perceptive, more radiant examples of human beings existed going back in time, also mostly nameless.

Personally, I think this is acceptable as "thriftiness" rather than "cheapness" (the latter being a generosity issue). I grew up with thrifty parents, and it's something I'm more likely to suggest rather than my husband, lol. Not a big deal. Here is another issue. If he's not going to help you, is he at least going to explain how to do something "properly" in a non-condescending way? (Probably not, if he was going out of your way to criticize you for something which I assume has no real net-negative.) So then... he's just a critical person because he is. Is this good enough for you? Clearly, you can see that all dudes are this non-generous. Even if it's just helping some random woman with no likely direct benefit. Hell, I open the door for random people all the time. Men, elders, children, etc. Just curious, what are his best points, from your perspective?

So there's a few other details: 1) being happy enough to scrum off you when it comes to going to more expensive places and for various expenses, even though he was making money and you were a student. If he was just against consumption and money wastage in general, he wouldn't be pro-taking your money when you could just save it and both not go out. He would be thinking of "us" or "you" and not just "him". Splitting 50/50 is just a reasonable starting point for modern dating. It might not even be his preference. Maybe he'd just prefer that you pay for everything. This isn't cute. Say that I don't have much money for gifts myself. Why would I be generous in other ways, like making homecooked meals from scratch, learning anything and everything about a person's preferences and desires and interests (including with physical affection and sexual touch) just to be treated in this way. (Only exception I can think of is that you have some sort of explicitly agreed upon mutual cheapness of time/ energy/ money, or some sort of casual/part-time relationship.) This is a good example of a "tit-for-tat" mentality.

Among the many details and subtexts that I picked up on, I think this one here is the real kicker. I'm childfree, but everything about this on a gut level screams do not DO NOT have children with this person. There is no reason to assume that someone like this would treat his kids any better than his gf. Be prepared to pick up in a very unequal for everything, including in non-monetary ways. What evidence is there that he's particularly generous with the quality of his time, attention, and affection in other ways? Every little thing that he does for you seems like a big deal, like "tit for tat", and if you treat your relationships transactionally, a transactional quality relationship is what you're gonna get. You reap what you sow. Either that, or you'll get a woman who is either very inexperienced or has low self-esteem for whatever reason. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of people are counting on this, that you'll just take whatever you can get, which is whatever you think you deserve.

Trauma is probably the number one factor for why we attract dysfunction into our lives and it "just happens" and it just "keeps happening" over and over. This, and cultural and upbringing factors that we take for granted by default. IMO it is quite cruel to hold it against girls and women for not having a good bullshit detector at a young age, since let's be real: when you're all complaining about women, you aren't talking about women who have lived long enough to have been burnt enough to have the experience to know what to actually look for. Once you get past generic filters, we don't necessarily have a lot of skills with dealing with what comes next. We get fed a bunch of bullshit as women too, you know. A lot of us have "good girl" problems too. We aren't taught much about how to deal with someone that we have some trust in already, and we tend to give more chances than are deserved to people who do not deserve it once we do trust, while yes, sometimes aggressively filtering out other people. We aren't taught about how to deal with successful manipulators, even though they work in patterns as well. We are often told that we should give these people a chance when we really shouldn't. Often we don't actually learn how to hone our gut instinct and intuition very well, or we argue against it for some reason or another. It can and actually should be able to protect us, IMO. Alternatively, some people are relatively sheltered (both men and women) so they have no skill with recognizing and dealing with people who take advantage of them, and sometimes people want to flirt with intrigue and "risk" on purpose. Extroversion is a separate factor. It seriously can't be much of a surprise that people who are open and perpetually put themselves out there have more opportunities because they go out of their way to get them, whether they are "moral" people or not? It's the case with women as well. Even if women aren't actively approaching, men still tend to gravitate toward "shiny" women by default, whatever it is that immediately catches your eye, and have trouble noticing the rest. Like a tunnel vision. At least at first, which is where social circles tend to come more into play. For what it's worth, a lifetime of observation says that it's not just about raw physical attributes as a woman, but also how you adorn and present yourself physically, and also attitude, confidence (but not offputtingly so!), warmth and openness, receptivity, "feminine" charisma, and also being in the right place at the right time There is the everything else that goes into being an "attractive woman". Y'all not meeting women who would rather go to the library or take part in some female-centric hobby like social dancing, right? I tend to be very careful about generalizing about EVERY SINGLE PERSON who goes partying and who doesn't, but do you really think a homebody feels comfortable and safe around the sorts of men you describe? (Though it can be true that opposites attract as well.)

Is there anything physical that you enjoy doing which is also low-cost? (There are about a billion free workout videos of all sorts on Youtube, whether it's dance, yoga, pilates, calisthenics, hiit, etc.) I think someone else also mentioned walking. Do you live in a walkable area or near parks? Can you walk to do errands? (Because you do have errands to do, I assume?) All the physical stuff counts, not just the "on purpose" exercise. Likely throughout human history, we did not get most of our physical exercise through leisure physical activities, but through stuff we "had" to do, whether it was hunting, travelling on foot and on horseback, farming, fighting wars, doing domestic labour without modern appliances, etc. Human beings aren't really built to be sedentary and for this to make us as happy and healthy. The body NEEDS movement and challenge, not just for our long-term physical health, but for our mental and emotional health too. (Unless you are seriously ill and need to conserve energy, then what you actually need is proper rest.) It's natural enough to gravitate towards physical movement that you enjoy doing and to keep doing that, rather than arbitrarily forcing discipline on yourself and expecting it to stick. Though you may just have to "force" yourself to start one way or another, especially if nothing else works. Or tell yourself something like: I'll do this activity for a few minutes, if I don't like it, I'll stop. Then do this the next day, and then the day after, and on and on. Often the biggest challenge is just getting yourself started, and then everything gets easier from there. Do this long enough, and then BAM! You have a habit now. Unfortunately, the more you think and feel this way, the more you get more of the same. I've been in a sort of slump like this too for multiple points in my life. Lethargy extends to everything: physically, emotionally, mentally, energetically and spiritually. It doesn't get better by waiting for the perfect conditions to start doing the thing. What kind of comments are you looking for? I'm just taking a guess: do you find it difficult to function because you're not in a system like school/ university which forces you to manage your motivation because of external expectations? (e.g. deadlines, grades, teacher praise/ disapproval.) Is this something that you got used to having your whole life, this sense of external structure and security to regulate yourself?

Some y'all spend too much time with imaginary women in your heads. Spinning and cobbling a whole worldview based off of one brief interaction or another. It's like fairy tales... for men. Apparently, that's one essential use of the internet, to find narratives which suit you and reinforce what you were already inclined to believe anyway, because it makes you feel vindicated. Can't you just accept that you're dealing with the wrong people, and that not all social groups are the same, because people and their values differ wildly? Yes, there can still be serious issues with culture and socialization at large. Reality and people share a lot in common, but we are also complex and intricate in the many, many particulars. Yes. And there is still the risk of pregnancy with casual sex. Abortion and Plan B isn't a walk in the park, lol. If you live in the States, it's not even legal everywhere. Not wanting to have to deal with any of this for subpar sex with a rando (or even a "friend") is pretty rational IMO. Unfortunately, men tend to be blind (willfully or otherwise) to the predatory actions of other men. Tons of stuff flies under the radar all the time. And the reality is that being a thirsty, nerdy dude doesn't mean that you don't have predator energy in you, especially if given the opportunity with someone vulnerable enough. It does not automatically make you a safe person, and the reality is that people don't know you. That people make bad (aka. women) judgements about other people, especially because they're young and inexperienced and impulsive, that's a separate issue. That people reject people just based on vibe or their feelings at that moment, that's also a separate issue. You are living with tropes of people, not actual people. All sorts of people can do harmful, life-destroying things. Not just the people who look so obviously "bad". But if we're talking about tropes of people, there have been at least a few incel shooters... "Bad people" seldom identify as "bad" people, you know. Though I would say if you are taking joy in innocent people, like little girls, being ruined in the future because you have a chip on your shoulder with women. That IS sick. In what world is that a "good person" thing by any stretch of the imagination, even if you're not going up to women and harassing them IRL?

And I have no idea how common this actually is, but I married the person who ended up being the best friend of all the friends I've ever had. Seriously though, a LTR with someone with that you can't get along with on a personal level that you would otherwise never be friends and do friend things with... I know that people do it, but I don't get it personally. So I wouldn't be the person to ask. IMO you need to be able to actually talk to the person, to enjoy it, and to feel like they -get- you. Genuine camaraderie is just as important as the "spark". Because when life and being with someone gets more difficult, that is the foundation. (Assuming here that we're not just talking about sex and short-term relationships, like 2-3 years or under.) But he neither hid his attraction from me in the beginning, nor did he have weird hang-ups about being my friend with some explicit obsession of getting something in return. If he had thrown a mantrum about it, that would have been the end of our connection a very long time ago.

Is this something you have experience with personally, or are you close with people who have had this experience personally? Or is this part of some pickup community doctrine? Otherwise, where is your bias coming from? That's what isn't clear to me and what I'm asking about. Hey. Reading biases which I don't have into what I said isn't a great look. This wasn't a statement of blame, which is to say that I wasn't endorsing people getting kicked out, or saying that they deserved to be kicked out. Straight up, there are lots of people who deserve to be ostracized who are not being ostracized. Like actual predators. How many social groups have you been a part of, both growing up and otherwise? I'm not that social with either larger groups of people or strangers at the moment, but seriously... I've been part of friend groups where mostly everyone dated or messed around with everyone else at some point or another, because everyone is more sexually and emotionally open, they have liberal values, and they're pretty creative and impulsive people, etc. (Though I would not partake because it's wayyyy too messy for me.) And I've been friends with groups of people who would never do this, ever. How do you know what's actually possible with people if you just don't deal with them for extended periods of time? All you have is other people's hearsay and a bunch of things that you've already decided has to be true. Does telling yourself that this is definitely, absolutely true make you feel more secure in this world? Haha. Lots of women are disappointed by their fake-ass non-friends, or being "fuckzoned". So I've heard, anyway. A "friend" whose primary basis for being your friend is wanting and needing "something more" isn't much of a friend. Personally, this used to not bother me so much (knowing that a male "friend" was attracted to me), but I find this energy to be a huge drag to be around these days because feels cloying and underhanded. Because it is, if you are obscuring your intentions on purpose and are waiting patiently and like such a good boy for your sex ATM cashouts from women. I guess... don't waste time being friends with women if it doesn't actually interest you for its own sake, even if nothing goes any further? It's not like you're doing anyone any favours anyway.

I think the term you might also be looking for is "homosocial". As in, you're primarily attracted to the emotional and mental qualities that are typically associated with and have been bound to "masculinity", and you exclude "femininity". You want be around that sort of energy, you're obsessed with "masculine values". "Femininity" exists primarily to validate your masculinity, and you don't want to feel or to live within "feminine" energy. Not really. Not too much, not for too long, not in any way that makes you feel uncontrolled, lest you be overwhelmed and subsumed... and transformed into something more feminine yourself. Maybe it's a bit physical too sometimes though, I also get that vibe sometimes (but not always). It makes me think of all these dudes who look up to GI Joe caricatures of "hyper-masculine" men, yet very few women would pick these men for themselves and they actually lack charming qualities. The admiration does feel almost queer, lol.

People who look at women as human beings already have a leg up over people who don't. When all people can think about is what they want or need from someone, including what's in it for them (especially if only in the short term because you're so thirsty), it hampers your ability to be a functional human being around other human beings. Unless you are very good at acting and have some classically narcissistic qualities, then I guess you're stuck having to fake giving a shit. This is probably where you're going to run into antagonism from women once your agenda becomes clear. BTW, this isn't a recipe for happiness and fulfillment either (narcissistic qualities and faking it).... These people are thirsty too, just in a different way. Though I guess it doesn't make much difference to the super-thirsty. The immediacy of your thirstiness controls you and so it ends up defining your whole entire personality and values in its way. This is sad to me, because this type of suffering of being utterly at the mercy of external circumstances beyond your immediate control, it's at least theoretically avoidable. IMO one reason why natural, confident extroverts are pleasing to talk to, even if it's obvious enough that they also want something from you, is that it's obvious that they enjoy being social. They get something out of it intrinsically, so you could say that they're intrinsically motivated almost on an impulsive or gut level. Emotionally present and receptive human beings tend to notice this at the gut level too, even if not always consciously. It's contagious. You could say this is all just "being a natural" as a result of practice. Sure. Just like anything else, really. You have to pay good $$$$$ for GFE because emotional labour is still labour, unless you convince someone to give it to (""game"") you or else they feel inspired to give it freely for whatever reason. That's the thing though. Sex is never enough, and it never was for the most part, was it? Y'all crave emotional validation or some suitable facsimile of it. You want to be affirmed that you are a fundamentally worthwhile human being, that you matter and your existence has a purpose, and it's not all that fun to do so much of that affirmation for ourselves. Perhaps in some cases with some people, it is practically impossible. That really is, truly, honestly sad. No irony or sarcasm here. This is a sex ATM mindset though. Do you give money to every person who asks for it or who you know would like it, or benefit from it in some way?(I didn't think so.) Some people can make it worthwhile for those who approach them, I guess. At least at the moment, anyway. I will say as a woman though, being selected by a stranger based on my physical attributes for sex and emotional validation offers a very poor ROI, even (and especially) from a purely logical perspective. If all I cared about was getting off, anyway. Orgasm gap, etc. This doesn't even take into account the emotional and physical risks. Things like sexual assault, STDs, pregnancy, etc.

Since when did "developed character" become "career" anyway? Thanks capitalism.

This is true for everyone, is it not? People generally like to be around people who enjoy being themselves openly around others, who are expressive, warm, light and who are effortlessly confident (or at least appear to be). At the very least, this is the easiest thing, and perhaps the most instinctive thing. People in general tend to be quite picky about what are acceptable displays of vulnerability, and what are not. (I mean, broody charm is a thing too, lol.) Perhaps moreso if you are a man, you will be rejected and get an immediate negative reaction if you don't have "the vibe". You may be socially ostracized from specific groups of people and society at large if you really just can't get it. Perhaps moreso if you are a woman, people may think you're unfriendly and difficult ("bitchy"). You may be less likely to be completely ostracized, but you invite use and abuse into your life when coming from a "compensation" vibe, period, because active predators and people who can't or won't consider a basic sense of human well-being are everywhere. This is an extremely high price to pay for the simple human desire to be recognized and wanted IMO. Also, if you're not deemed sufficiently attractive to be of use, there are lots of people who will treat you like you're subhuman or like you don't even exist. At least if you're a man, society is more apt to tell you that you are allowed to have fundamental self-worth for something beyond whether your physical appearance is pleasing enough. It's a human thing, not just a woman thing.

Yes, but you have to put effort into it, unless your only friends are the people you grew up around and your mutual extended social circle. You have to go out of your way to be in circumstances where making connections is possible, and also where there are actual women. Ideally, ones who are not perpetually unavailable. It's not like this magically happens without effort for other people as well. I guess I don't understand why this is less effort/ less worthwhile than what is basically the dating version of cold calling, where it's understandable that you'd have to put hundreds, if not thousands (?) of hours into being "good enough", because people's barriers towards total strangers tend to be much higher, especially if you're not in a social environment that is conducive towards being open toward strangers. (For example: when all or most people are new to a specific place, and you're all explicitly there because you're open to meeting new people and doing -new people things- with them. For example, a meetup group of any kind, especially based on a shared interest or goal.) Is keeping and forming human connections, especially if it's not funnelled explicitly toward one specific goal (sex and relationships) but rather another (friendship, acquaintances)...is that alien of a concept? Does it have so little value in and of itself? Honestly, this is probably part of the issue of why men are so emotionally impoverished. It's really not that surprising if you have trouble relating and empathizing with women (or any other group of people, really), especially if you just don't actually enjoy it and you have no real interest in it and it's purely a means toward an end, where there is no appreciation for the journey of "experiencing" and "becoming", particularly WITH people... let alone with men who actively resent everything that feels like "hoop jumping" in order to get to the human sex ATM women. You mean like getting kicked out of your friend groups? This makes me wonder what's being done for people to get kicked out, and what type of people are doing the kicking.

Why are people here so stubbornly resistant to this? I don't get it.

There are a lot of positive qualities and values that don't have to be placed in intrinsic contradiction to each other, even if they seem to appear spontaneously in the wild that way. (Let's say by "positive", I mean that it creates win-win outcomes for both people.) There is no divine immovable law which makes it so. People generally want some balance of stability (a factor in creating trust) and novelty (a factor in creating excitement), but people's preferences and what they'll tolerate are variable. What makes you think that you can't find someone with a similar or compatible appetite for stability vs. novelty? To me, there seem to be many people of all genders who highly prioritize these qualities which people sometimes think of as "square", at least if they show up on their own, and would like a nice quiet, stable life with a loving partner (assuming that there are not serious problems which extend from emotional illiteracy).

Someone give me a TL;DR summary of this video; I'm not quite "1 1/2 hours" curious.

"The Fool" is the first tarot card in the major arcana for a reason, thematically speaking.

@bebotalk Many people never get to this point you described at all, which is a sort of cognitive empathy. (Which may or may not be accompanied by the classic "feeler" empathy!) People are people are people. Sometimes hardship and adversity become an opportunity to expand one's perspective and build character and fortitude, no matter what the hardship is. Sometimes people instead succumb to bitterness and cling to their dogma and all their preconceptions and "truths" for dear life. Some people have so little empathy of any sort that it is inconceivable that any experience could or would be worse than their experience, or experience which is categorically enough like their own experience. Like what do you even say to a bunch of dudes who think that being rejected or ignored by women (whether imaginary or actual rejection) is on par with being SA'd by your family members, or think that any of the issues you mentioned are nonexistent because apparently being "hot" magically fixes everything?? Their world is tiny, constrictive, and goes about as far as their imagination reaches. And yet, the suffering is real enough. I would not mock or pity people simply for suffering, but everyone makes at least some choices in response to truly uncontrollable factors and unfavourable odds. For loud and proud (?) self-identified incels: it's hard to help people who aren't willing to accept help, or do not recognize the "help" as being such. People will defend their right to be stubborn, etc. They certainly don't want my "help" as a woman, unless by "help" they mean "engaging in their self-hating echo chamber".

You could just be grateful that there are women who are not as superficial as you might be in their situation, haha.

I used to be pretty nice to people who approached me to talk to me randomly, even if I had no interest in them and their motives were transparent enough. I consider this to be an act of grace and openness since: 1) attention is not owed just because you think it is, and modern "first world" societies tend to be emotionally closed to strangers and insular. Is it emotionally healthy for human beings overall? Probably not. 2) I don't want anything in that way from people who approach me, especially now more than ever. But I'm also "old" whether I look it or not, so I think I deserve a break, lol.... But surely, it's not that hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes and to see why having a rando treat you as a sex ATM, "nice" or not, is not of great interest to many people. Especially if these people are just going about their business in their day-to-day lives. Sorry that you're not getting your needs and desires met.