Post #326,998
5/28/10 9:59:03 AM
5/28/10 10:12:09 AM
|
Written by a woman.
They are genetically not able to see the problem. It's just as invisible to them as most nice guys are. They are running on a set of hormones that was obsolete in the Paleolithic.
True. most of the nice guys I know are married, and most of them are married to homely overweight ladies or ladies who are really pretty strange - because those are the ones who aren't confident they can land a real jerk.
And she's talking "geeks" anyway. Most of her points do not apply to the nice guys I know (the only geeks I know are on this board).
Oh, yeah, one other thing. Most women can see a nice guy once he, or she, is married, but not before.
|
Post #327,006
5/28/10 11:18:01 AM
|
You hit the core requirement without addressing it.
But I'll digress for a bit.
True. most of the nice guys I know are married, and most of them are married to homely overweight ladies
Dude, you're not that pretty. You are (hmm, maybe a 4-6). Maybe less, who knows how good the pictures are that I've seen. What do you weigh? How tall are you? How old are you? How long can you run on the elliptical machine? How many minutes, hours, or days can you delay your own satisfaction to ensure your partner's? How much effort do you put into your own attractiveness?
What about repulsion factors? I hate the word, but it is a good opposite of attract. What things about yourself, that you can change, are you willing to? Are you willing to ask multiple people, and press, and get bad news, since it is unlikely you can see them yourself.
So maybe you want to determine where you fit on the attractiveness scale before insulting 90% of your possible physical match group.
Now, off to the main point.
because those are the ones who aren't confident they can land a real jerk.
Confidence is key, as pointed out in the article. It seems you don't have any. It seems you target people out of your range (if trying at all), expect to be shot down all the time, and I doubt you are very confident in the process.
And yes, I'm about 80% supportive of your argument. There ARE evolutionary pressures that push reproducing women in the direction you indicate. When they hit 40 or so, they are DONE. They have a new viewpoint. And those that have their own income, their own profession, and have been making their own decisions for years, are NOT falling for the assholes, at least most of them. But the vulnerable ones, the ones with financial problems, the broken ones, well, they are looking for someone to take care of them.
Stay away from them.
But the key fact remains a lot of people end up happy, at least for a while. And you seem to want what they have. And it hasn't been working for you. So maybe you should re-examine your attitude and your goals.
|
Post #327,011
5/28/10 12:13:14 PM
|
Actually, I have only one real problem . . .
. . my success at getting women to bed has not been all that bad - apparently I'm not that nice a guy.
The problem I've had with women is that I've attracted independent women who really only want dinner and good sex (and yes, I can find that thing most men can't find), and not a committed relationship.
Unfortunately I didn't achieve the goal of having a Friday, Saturday and Sunday woman until an age when it was no longer a thrill, but rather a bother.
Yes, I've encountered desperate types and rejected them. There's usually a very clear reason why they're desperate.
No, the problem I have these days is simple. To have women you have to meet women. Single women my age simply don't exist. Well, everyone tells me there are zillions of them. When I ask where they are, I'm told "You just have to go out and find them" - in other words, they don't know either.
I see zillions of women too young, and too old out there in the world, but none in my age range that aren't sporting a ring. The single ones must all be huddled in some caffé complaining to each other there are no men.
|
Post #327,024
5/29/10 12:00:03 AM
|
if they were worth a spit they would already have someone
that is a huge problem that I hope I never have to face
|
Post #327,045
5/29/10 3:26:14 PM
|
Actually, I think not.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of good quality single women in my age group out there - it's just that they have no more idea how to find me than I have how to find them.
|
Post #327,022
5/28/10 10:27:51 PM
|
Nice rant. But Lore is a man.
|
Post #327,044
5/29/10 2:37:50 PM
|
Ah, that resolves a number of troubling inconsistencies . .
. . with the usual line from women.
First of all, talking to geeks. Women don't generally talk to geeks, or anyone who might be one. Like women I meet at . . . well, anywhere.
"So you have your own business. That's nice, what kind of business is it?"
"Well it involves network and computer technology."
"Oooh, excuse me, I see someone across the room I need to talk to - nice meeting you."
Works every time - so I've learned never to reveal what my current business is, and I carry CloveGarden business cards.
|
Post #327,063
5/30/10 2:41:03 AM
|
The 'computer' modifier seems to be the pheromone
inhibitor.
Maybe 'geek' (now) is generally associated with anything cerebral(?) and with attendant minutiae, lore which must be stuffed into brain-pan ... all deathly stuff to the casual mind in search of simple pleasures, mostly.
But computer-geek multiplies the amount of lore stuffed into such folks' vocabularies -- with new armies of inscrutable TLAs / onion layers of complexity, akin to codebreaking with no plaintext in sight:
impossible to 'explain' in KISS manner -- yet so many have tried. (Usually artlessly IME.)
Big Science membership OTOH might be thought to produce that earlier 'nerd' (of Fast Times at Ridgemont High and successor flic.)
My experience has been, when queried and the accelerator word arose: you still get a break, if your 'explanation' makes suitably cute use of the baseball-on-a-string analogy, and you don't segue into anything which sounds tutorial. The girlfriends of my SO thought the topic even interesting-enough to want to see the place, etc. ('Course too, SO was enroute to a marine bio degree, so no culure clash there.)
Not yet very clear why the computer add-on is so stifling; could be that the picture of the field is an imagining that it's all head-work with arcane logical shorthands (as, of course it mostly is)
-- maybe akin to the Chess Master game (entirely in-head.) It's an alien concept to anyone who has never delved deeply into how Anything 'works'
-- you know -- all those biz-majors who couldn't grok basic algebra, can't replace a plastic light cover (never mind change the switch.)
These fast/dumb machines are just too abstruse for being, literally, The Universal Machine (is my guess.)
General science things can be related to say ... going to moon; you can show someone a circuit board (even!) and they will look with fascination when you say:
this is going into space, eventually beyond the solar system: to count mesons, when we've calibrated the sucker. Ooooh!!
Not long ago - -
Someone who had at least grokked how Greek stuff like milli-, micro-, nano ... gets to --> pico: was fascinated to *see*, on a scope: a rise time of half a nSec or so (TD pulser)
-- when explained that this 'pulse' had changed from 0 to 1 volt: and you could SEE that happening in "half a billionth of a second!" (actually the scope cart was in my kitchen, in the event..)
'Course: to someone who can't ÷1000 in-head: the above would go ^Zoooom^.
Maybe play the intro to 2nd Brandenburg instead, if you happen to have a clarino handy?
It's ALL Theatre! doncha know??
Guess computer types need to come up with some much better choreography ... before they get Respect. Eh?
|
