Dating Profile with a Handsome Man

[Forestluv]

@Derek White I understand you are trying to use a more nuanced usage of the term "manipulation". You can use whatever non-conventional definition you want to create, yet don't be surprised if there is confusion - as is happening in this thread. . . . If we are having a discussion on domestic violence and my definition includes things like showering and cooking (violence against microorganisms) - it will cause confusion, because that's not what people mean by the term "domestic violence".

We could have a conversation contemplating "what is manipulation?". We could have a conversation about the duality between "manipulation vs. non-manipulation". We could discuss degrees, interconnections and the deconstruction of the duality. That's a great discussion, yet not the context of this discussion, imo. Yes, there are grey areas, yet there is a general agreed-upon meaning of the word, as I cited from the dictionary above. In this context, bringing up nuances and subtle forms of "manipulation" is a distraction, misleading and can be used to justify and rationalize certain behaviors. 

For example, if I'm on a date with someone and she smiles at me, I might think "Ah ha, she is trying to manipulate me. It's ok if I do the same. I can lie about my job. It's all manipulation of each other". This is a sneaky way for the ego to obfurscate manipulation and rationalize/justify it's self-serving behavior at the expense of another.

10 hours ago, Derek White said:

Idk what you mean by “energetic orientation”. I’m assuming it means mindset.

I mean... ultimately it makes YOU feel good. But I get your point. I still disagree with it. Which leads me to my next point.

This is hyper-focused on "me" and "you". That is certainly a dynamic. Yet there is a "higher" dynamic at play as well.

An energetic orientation is not simply mindset. That is too far into a thinking rationality. Direct experience is more important that analysis.

One way to think about it would be "calculating". A person is a hyper-self-serving orientation will be calculating during a date. For example, "Did she like what I said? Is she showing interest, or am I losing her? She twirled her hair, that's a sign I am moving forward. She said she like to travel, if I tell her I visited Europe, she will be impressed with me and think I am a world traveler. If I tell her I like her necklace, she might feel good and like me". That is a self-serving filter. That is one orientation. . . There is another orientation that is not calculating like this, yet based on your responses in this thread it doesn't seem like you have direct experience with this other orientation. You keep defaulting back to a "me" and "her" dynamic that is calculating to reach a self-serving objective. . . There is another orientation available.

10 hours ago, Derek White said:

I think the right orientation or mindset should be transactional. If I’m not wrong you suggest a “grow with her” mindset. Well, “the grow with her” is also transactional because you’re expecting something of her. I think in terms of spectrums so all relations are transactions imo. Realistically the type of relationship you talk about requires a lot of transactions and most people don’t want those imo. 

That will contract a mind into a "me" and "her" transactional mindset. In SD, this would be considered Orange. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, yet it will inherently have quite a bit of interpersonal conflict due to two separate people each focused on meeting their own needs. I've been in many of these relationships. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, yet when one gets into higher-level relationships, these orange-level dynamics are very unsatisfying. It would be like the difference between drinking pure mountain spring water or junky tap water.

It is not about two separate people each growing. I said mutual learning, mutual growth, mutual support and mutual bonding. There is a mutual that is transcendent to the orange-level self-centered transactions. I'm not saying personal identities and desires are eliminated, I'm saying that a new mutual dynamic appears. Almost like a "third person" entering. There is "me", "you" and a mutual "us". Yet this "us" is not some line to help meet one's selfish needs. This essence of "us" is a tangible thing and ime is much higher essence/meaning/pleasure than orange-level "me / you" binary transactional interactions. And it's not even close. 

10 hours ago, Derek White said:

I think the main point we disagree on is whether relationships should be transactional. I think they should be, fair and implicitly so. I don’t understand how it can be otherwise.

We are not disagreeing. I'm not saying relationships should be transactional or post-transactional. That would be like saying math should be algebra or calculus. It would be more accurate to say that there are different levels/maturity/depth/resonance within relationships.

In terms of not understanding how it can be otherwise, I would say the biggest factors include prior programming from family and culture of what relationships "should be". As well, the re-enforcement of this programming through cyclical thought stories, rationalizing and defending the programming. To expand and deepen, a mind would need to let go of the attachment/identification of the programming. This isn't easy to do and is a luxury in a sense. Most people don't have this opportunity. They live their whole life immersed within prior programming and never transcend it. This is often due to survival needs. Not just the survival of the body, yet also survival of the self construct (which is mostly prior programming). Letting go of this and allowing space for expansion and growth can feel insecure and threatening to a self construct. 

[Applegarden]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

Well said. All of these Incel and MGTOW guys are basing the nature of the "sexual marketplace" off of some Tinder statistics. 

But Tinder is awful for meeting someone as a woman, because you can't intuitively suss out whether or not a guy is a match. You just look at a picture, read some words, and roll the dice.

 

And reality TV dating shows e.c.t.

[Forrest Adkins]

Personality is all good but isnt it true that online dating is on the rise? People dont meet primarly through friends anymore.

Cold approaching is getting weirder and less accepted every year. Girls dont want to wait for mediocre guys to pop up in their friend circle and just pick one of hundreds superior guys online.

[Space]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Online is the lazy man's game. If you are lazy with game, don't be surprised when your results look lazy too.

I understand why you think it's lazy, but you'd be a fool to not make use of it. 3 of my closest friends have had long term (1+year) relationships through the apps. It's a completely valid method for finding a partner. I don't know how much time you've spent using dating apps, but you'd be surprised at how much time and effort goes into the whole process. You can't really be lazy, unless you're some super good looking dude. It's actually quite a serious commitment. You have to spend a lot of time actually on the app, usually every day for weeks/months depending on how attractive you are of course. You have to spend time in the initial text conversations. And then remember, you do actually end up meeting each other and going on dates. So there is still a strong 'game' aspect to online dating. You just bypass all the hours of rejections, but of course also all the growth that comes from that. Pros and cons of each I guess.

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

13 minutes ago, Forrest Adkins said:

Personality is all good but isnt it true that online dating is on the rise? People dont meet primarly through friends anymore.

Cold approaching is getting weirder and less accepted every year. Girls dont want to wait for mediocre guys to pop up in their friend circle and just pick one of hundreds superior guys online.

This is just a toxic ideology you are feeding yourself, nothing of which is grounded in truth. 

You are the one making the distinction between mediocre/superior, therefore putting yourself in the mediocre group, which is the source of your problem. If you believe these things and that you are mediocre they become your reality. Break free from this mental prison. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Space said:

I understand why you think it's lazy, but you'd be a fool to not make use of it. 3 of my closest friends have had long term (1+year) relationships through the apps. It's a completely valid method for finding a partner. I don't know how much time you've spent using dating apps,

My brother got married off OkCupid.

So of course it can work.

But if you don't have the look or you want to get the best girl possible, online isn't a good strategy.

If your look is above average or your standards are low, yes, you can gets plenty of dates online.

But you can attract much hotter girls in person. The hottest girls are not found online.

[mandyjw]

When I would scroll through dating sites with friends, the first thing we screened for was the "creepiness factor." Women intuitively know, (and a picture speaks a thousand words), if someone's intentions are off or things don't line up quite right. Then we would judge honesty, intelligence and depth of character based on how and what he wrote and his interests. We carefully combed through everything he wrote. If you want success with online dating, ask a female friend to look over your profile. And be honest first and foremost. Women see things differently than you think. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by mandyjw

[Preety_India]

On 2/26/2020 at 3:44 AM, Derek White said:

 

 

6 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Derek White I understand you are trying to use a more nuanced usage of the term "manipulation". You can use whatever non-conventional definition you want to create, yet don't be surprised if there is confusion - as is happening in this thread. . . . If we are having a discussion on domestic violence and my definition includes things like showering and cooking (violence against microorganisms) - it will cause confusion, because that's not what people mean by the term "domestic violence".

We could have a conversation contemplating "what is manipulation?". We could have a conversation about the duality between "manipulation vs. non-manipulation". We could discuss degrees, interconnections and the deconstruction of the duality. That's a great discussion, yet not the context of this discussion, imo. Yes, there are grey areas, yet there is a general agreed-upon meaning of the word, as I cited from the dictionary above. In this context, bringing up nuances and subtle forms of "manipulation" is a distraction, misleading and can be used to justify and rationalize certain behaviors. 

For example, if I'm on a date with someone and she smiles at me, I might think "Ah ha, she is trying to manipulate me. It's ok if I do the same. I can lie about my job. It's all manipulation of each other". This is a sneaky way for the ego to obfurscate manipulation and rationalize/justify it's self-serving behavior at the expense of another.

This is hyper-focused on "me" and "you". That is certainly a dynamic. Yet there is a "higher" dynamic at play as well.

An energetic orientation is not simply mindset. That is too far into a thinking rationality. Direct experience is more important that analysis.

One way to think about it would be "calculating". A person is a hyper-self-serving orientation will be calculating during a date. For example, "Did she like what I said? Is she showing interest, or am I losing her? She twirled her hair, that's a sign I am moving forward. She said she like to travel, if I tell her I visited Europe, she will be impressed with me and think I am a world traveler. If I tell her I like her necklace, she might feel good and like me". That is a self-serving filter. That is one orientation. . . There is another orientation that is not calculating like this, yet based on your responses in this thread it doesn't seem like you have direct experience with this other orientation. You keep defaulting back to a "me" and "her" dynamic that is calculating to reach a self-serving objective. . . There is another orientation available.

That will contract a mind into a "me" and "her" transactional mindset. In SD, this would be considered Orange. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, yet it will inherently have quite a bit of interpersonal conflict due to two separate people each focused on meeting their own needs. I've been in many of these relationships. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, yet when one gets into higher-level relationships, these orange-level dynamics are very unsatisfying. It would be like the difference between drinking pure mountain spring water or junky tap water.

It is not about two separate people each growing. I said mutual learning, mutual growth, mutual support and mutual bonding. There is a mutual that is transcendent to the orange-level self-centered transactions. I'm not saying personal identities and desires are eliminated, I'm saying that a new mutual dynamic appears. Almost like a "third person" entering. There is "me", "you" and a mutual "us". Yet this "us" is not some line to help meet one's selfish needs. This essence of "us" is a tangible thing and ime is much higher essence/meaning/pleasure than orange-level "me / you" binary transactional interactions. And it's not even close. 

We are not disagreeing. I'm not saying relationships should be transactional or post-transactional. That would be like saying math should be algebra or calculus. It would be more accurate to say that there are different levels/maturity/depth/resonance within relationships.

In terms of not understanding how it can be otherwise, I would say the biggest factors include prior programming from family and culture of what relationships "should be". As well, the re-enforcement of this programming through cyclical thought stories, rationalizing and defending the programming. To expand and deepen, a mind would need to let go of the attachment/identification of the programming. This isn't easy to do and is a luxury in a sense. Most people don't have this opportunity. They live their whole life immersed within prior programming and never transcend it. This is often due to survival needs. Not just the survival of the body, yet also survival of the self construct (which is mostly prior programming). Letting go of this and allowing space for expansion and growth can feel insecure and threatening to a self construct. 

You really went to the deepest core of the issue. Great insight. 

I'll put this in my journal. 

 

[Gili Trawangan]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

My brother got married off OkCupid.

So of course it can work.

But if you don't have the look or you want to get the best girl possible, online isn't a good strategy.

If your look is above average or your standards are low, yes, you can gets plenty of dates online.

But you can attract much hotter girls in person. The hottest girls are not found online.

Yes, absolutely.

Tried and tested, online gets you girls who are relatively less attractive than you. Online girls are shooting for the most good looking guys because it's what they have to go on, and they can get away with it. 

With cold approaching, you can get girls who are more (physically) attractive than you.

 

5 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

Personality is all good but isnt it true that online dating is on the rise? People dont meet primarly through friends anymore.

Cold approaching is getting weirder and less accepted every year. Girls dont want to wait for mediocre guys to pop up in their friend circle and just pick one of hundreds superior guys online.

This sort of mentality, which seems to be prevalent, is why when I approach a girl, and if I do it right, she immediately perceives me as different, high value. Because very few are doing it. I've had girls thank me, warmly, for having the balls to approach. You don't know what you're missing.

[Arcangelo]

A female cousin of mine got married through Tinder.

Here is another experiment guys>

A woman shared her data from a dating app. She swiped left and right 10 000 times, she right swiped 1081 out of those 870 matched with her, She messaged or got messaged 498 and ghosted or got ghosted the other 372. Out of those 498 she responded or got a response to/from 307. Out of those 307 she decided to meet with 21.

Your odds for online dating are around 0.2%

Conclusion: OLD is a big waste of time.

6 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

Cold approaching is getting weirder and less accepted every year. Girls dont want to wait for mediocre guys to pop up in their friend circle and just pick one of hundreds superior guys online.

I kinda agree.

Same could be said about us guys: We don't want to wait for mediocre girls to pop up in our friend circle and just pick one of hundreds superior girls online (or the street, bar, club, supermarket, bookstore, cafe, bus stop, bus etc. you name it)

That's what I love about pick up you are choosing exactly what you want.

 

 

Arc

[Preety_India]

Maybe some people just aren't very comfortable with cold approaching and I can understand why. 

Sometimes it can be confused with sexual harassment and guys don't want that trouble. 

So they might be comfortable online because there is a chance to approach a lot of women without the fears of being reported or embarrassed in public and much better option for those who suffer social anxiety. 

In my personal experience, I found both online and offline dating to be useful. With online dating communication is much simpler and no waste of currency. Meeting someone offline means taking time out of your schedule to fix a date, traveling, expenses and the exhaustion of meeting several people. It's a lot of raw hard work. 

If you're physically active good for you, if you are a lazy cat like me, you would go online just for the time being before you're fully prepared to meet that person in real life. 

I had met my ex online. He was great but things didn't go well so I broke off. My current boyfriend I found at a meditation retreat and he is perfect. 

But I can't be biased against online dating because I'm not the type who wants the best of the best. I'm someone who can settle for the average as long as there is high compatibility and as long as I'm happy. I will strike out my other expectations. 

Maybe people who expect too much in a partner go looking out for them because they get too skeptical about an online profile. 

To me it's like do what best suits your needs and don't think that something is good or bad 

Who knows, you might get lucky and hit the jackpot online. Never be negative about an outcome

There are always pros and cons to everything. 

 

[Derek White]

@Serotoninluv Alright, I’ll try to see it in DE.

Shouldn’t be that hard to understand what I’m saying. I use the word all the time, eg manipulating the landscape, nature, matter, substances, ideas etc. It means to change. Whatever ?‍♂️

On 2020-02-25 at 11:46 PM, Preety_India said:

Learning how to talk properly is no manipulation at all. Nor is better clothing. Improving oneself to get a better chance in the dating market was never called manipulation... It's called self improvement. 

Manipulation is when you invent lies and stories and your intentions are hidden. So the other person has no idea what your actual plan is because you are not honest to them.. That's called manipulation. 

My point in a nutshell. 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Derek White said:

@Serotoninluv 

Shouldn’t be that hard to understand what I’m saying. I use the word all the time, eg manipulating the landscape, nature, matter, substances, ideas etc. It means to change. 

There are different meanings based on context. An artist saying he is manipulating a mound of clay as he creates a statue is not the same thing as a scammer manipulating elderly people out of their money. Context matters. 

If two people go on a date and one person smiles and the other person lies about still being married, that is not two people manipulating each other (by conventional use of the word). 

[outlandish]

Wait a second here...

You mean to tell me that women prefer attractive men?  ?

/s

[Preety_India]

@Etherial Cat  

I prefer attractive men. 

But I don't go exclusively for looks alone. That would be like objectification to me. 

I don't see any problem in liking attractive guys. In fact one of my ex boyfriends was not at all attractive yet I still was loving to him. It means I can compromise if I saw good virtues. 

The problem really lies when you want looks exclusively and give the okay signal to a shitty personality. To men both men and women who do that are kinda shallow but it's okay, it's their way, whatever rides their boat. 

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong in liking someone who is attractive because love is not just love its also sex and when sex comes, a bit of sexual attractiveness is necessary for the biology to get activated or stimulated. 

I can't tell a man "hey don't like an attractive woman".... Similarly if a man shamed me for liking or admiring an attractive man, I would liken to sexual oppression or repression of my sexual desires. Why shouldn't I choose if men can choose?...is the question that comes to my mind, I find it hypocritical for a man to admire a woman's looks and consider this to be wooing and admiration while if a woman did the same thing then she is a bimbo or shallow or low lying. That too me is not women empowerment, more like telling her she cannot like what she wants. This is usually used as a shame tactic in oppressive societies. Men in oppressive societies feel very challenged if a woman decides to express her desire or interest. They feel they're losing their hold. So shaming a woman is a legitimate way for them to get her to be submissive in which case they no longer have to conform to her desire or even validate it, they can easily force her to be with them and if she doesn't agree then she is a bitch because she is asking for sexual freedom. 

At least I see it this way. Of course I know that liking a person solely for external qualities appears like objectification and this should apply to both gender. I don't deny that. If I called a man shallow for liking a woman only for looks, I should call a woman the same if she did the same. 

However me living an attractive man is slightly different from how men express their desires for women. And I'm only talking about these specific men. They solely base their admiration on looks and personality doesn't matter to them at all. Meanwhile if like a man, it's both looks and personality. Which means I want a more wholesome male as a boyfriend /partner. I wouldn't take a guy with a shitty personality or attitude but great looks. I do value qualities. And in fact if I meet a less attractive average man who has wonderful qualities then I would happily compromise on the looks part because at least I'm getting a good Hearted person.. 

I'm not sure about other women but I can tell that most women would be happier with a wholesome man, looks, success, personality etc. 

Which does not make women callous or lousy or shallow. I think the reason for women to choose a more wholesome man is also evolutionary and biological.. She cares for the offspring and so she wants the best daddy for the offspring. So why will she settle for less. So shaming a woman for what she likes is kinda anti-evolutionary. 

Whereas men could care less for the offspring, they can easily divorce the mother of their children and move in with a younger hot mistress who may not be a good stepmother to his kids. Here I'm not trying to demonize men but by looking at general trends in both men and women, I have derived the conclusion that women are more oriented towards the happiness and best interests  of their family than  men. It simply means women are better  biologically wired for a successful procreation than men. 

However in real life a woman has very few choices because most men who approach aren't standard since the standard guys are already taken, so she has to make the decision when her biological clock is ticking and settle for a man who may not be her real best choice but better among the options offered to her. That's the best that she can do given her circumstances.

I think the chances for a man to get a woman will be narrowed down even further and very pathetically if women have standard or best quality men approach them and if they have total sexual freedom to make their pick out of these men. I guess that's what men were always afraid of and so they decided to control, manipulate and oppress female sexuality by over moralizing them so that they could at least win some chance at sex  by oppressing women. If they didn't do that, they would be fastly replaced (most females would run after the  successful attractive healthy male) and driven extinct  by a small group of the most attractive wholesome successful good alpha males and that would be a pity. 

 

 

.. 

[DrewNows]