The Dating Thread

[sandwich_bird]

I'd like to throw in two of my favorite articles on the subject of dating and relationships. Not scientific, more opinion pieces.

This is how we date now. On how people are now products, and how it's a shameful reality. It posits that the Paradox of Choice is a major factor in the current state of relationship affairs.

Love is not enough. Love is strong, but you need so much more than that.

I read those before, good stuff. I disagree with one of the argument of the 2nd one though. People place too much emphasis on compatibility. It certainly makes things easier but the reality is that, in most cases, you're unlikely to find someone with an initial high level of compatibility. This is mostly because society grooms boys and girls differently and so they rarely end up having the same kind of interest, ambitions, vision of life, etc*. How many geeky/nerdy girls are there for any geeky/nerdy guy? You get the picture. You want someone highly compatible? You're gonna search for a long time. Thankfully though, humans are very adaptable mentally. So, what you should be looking for is not someone that is already made compatible for you but someone that is willing and capable of becoming compatible with you.


*Of course, similarity doesn't always equate compatibility but for interests and visions well it's pretty much the same thing.

I'm all for no commitments, but it shouldn't look like a damn football team when I drop you off

lol man your stuff is entertaining to read eco.

[Visions of Khas]

So, what you should be looking for is not someone that is already made compatible for you but someone that is willing and capable of becoming compatible with you.

This shit. This shit RIGHT HERE.

I'm all for no commitments, but it shouldn't look like a damn football team when I drop you off

Her milkshake is doing its job, quarterback.

[TheEconomist]

So, what you should be looking for is not someone that is already made compatible for you but someone that is willing and capable of becoming compatible with you.

I whole-heartedly agree, it's basically a relationship mantra of mine. Most of my long lasting relationships have been where I pretended I was a somewhat different person through 90% of it. Usually, it's me pretending to be the psycho-social, extremely extroverted, social event machine she wants me to be. Sure, I can go to your suaree but I'd really rather crunch some numbers about the stock market, because, you know, conversations about bullshit annoy me.

.. But, if you can't fit into a classy chicks life, no classy chick for you..

So, ultimately, that's male logic. We're hunters, we adapt to what it takes to get the prize. I've always said the same thing. When I talk with women about how I adapt to women as I get to know them, they think it's just the worst thing ever. They think I should just do the most natural and most 'me' thing possible at any time and to never make any slight adjustments to give a different impression, until that unpolished behavior makes me undateable then I need to make changes.

You'll find most things are a shit shoot between two extremes where getting too far to either side results in explosive results.




So, since I'm no longer going for the classy, intelligent but more for the down to fuck, I'm going to switch one of my pictures (with niece/nephew) with another selfie because, apparently, selfies are the shit for strange.

So, which of these is the best? I'm just too damn tired to get karma for Photofeeler.

20170709_135944.jpg
20170709_135946.jpg
20170709_134822.jpg
20170709_134813.jpg
IMG_20170707_131449.jpg

[Nissa]

.. But, if you can't fit into a classy chicks life, no classy chick for you..

This is actually true for any woman with standards. Can't fit into my nerdy life, no nerd for you. Of course, if a woman feels bad about herself, she'll do anything for a man...and get dumped/be unappreciated. It's pretty clear from observation that men prefer women with some vision for her own life.

Well, Econ, you made some good points in your posts, but I retain my skepticism. Given that women are more desirous of a relationship, less ambitious, and can't be direct, we have substantial disadvantages. I'll grant you that maybe I'm seeing things too much from my own perspective, being that I am an INTP female, apparently the personality type that spends the least amount of years married (INTP men are likely to marry, but also likely to divorce). Simply put, I'm too nerdy to like makeup and clothes, and apparently guys don't like it when you talk about why you don't like a movie.

That is a thing. That happened. So I guess I'm admitting I have a terrible personality.

But alas, no online dating. I've got other stuff I want to do, and again, no internet at home.

Makes sense. They're slut shamed from birth and since they get approached on the reg there's no reason to have good game if you're a girl. :\

This is actually not true. Culturally speaking, we are just as surrounded by sex and stuff as men are, like those slutty fashion mags and trashy romance novels. I have to put up a lot of crap at the bookstore where I work. I just put up a whole series of cowboy erotica yesterday (Not joking -- "Rode Hard, Put up Wet"). Not to mention that it's part of female psychology to want men to pursue, regardless of culture. It's like you may have seen in a movie or tv show. Women don't just want men to tell us that we're pretty and wonderful, we want them to do it entirely unprovoked. If they don't say it without us having to tell them to say it, we feel like it doesn't count. Not to mention that testosterone is a hormone that provokes people to action, making men more likely to pursue anyway.

douchebaguette

You, sir, have amused me.

[Gradius]

This is actually not true.

What's not true about it? I thought it was common sense. A guy that goes around spreading his seed is just a pimp/player, but find me a parent or boyfriend who enjoys the thought of their girl getting dicked down by strangers on the reg. This has pervaded human culture for millenia. Every major religion punishes women for being promiscuous and exalts virginity aka. purity.

Not to mention that it's part of female psychology to want men to pursue, regardless of culture. It's like you may have seen in a movie or tv show. Women don't just want men to tell us that we're pretty and wonderful, we want them to do it entirely unprovoked. If they don't say it without us having to tell them to say it, we feel like it doesn't count. Not to mention that testosterone is a hormone that provokes people to action, making men more likely to pursue anyway.

Ok well I want women to pursue me too, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in. :P

[Nissa]

It's not true because current American culture (as well as others, particularly in Europe) people are surrounded by movies, magazines, blogs, romance novels, fashions trends, and TV shows which continually perpetuate trashy behavior. There are many people who do not go to church, or who go but then do whatever they want during the week. Unless you are prepared to say that everyone continually goes to church, and that movies/film/tv/the internet does not exist, then you cannot say in truth that modern culture encourages women to be pure.

Also, the desire for purity is not 100% cultural. It does have some to do with male/female psychology. And "player" and "pimp" are plenty negative words, although I do agree that men's media is just as trashy as women's.

[Gradius]

It's not true because current American culture (as well as others, particularly in Europe) people are surrounded by movies, magazines, blogs, romance novels, fashions trends, and TV shows which continually perpetuate trashy behavior.

So what? That's a non-sequitur. It's like saying that every guy in America is muscular and ripped just because that's how they're portrayed in movies and magazines.

There are many people who do not go to church, or who go but then do whatever they want during the week.

Yes, but the social pressure is there. Women probably love sex more than guys, but they worry about keeping their lay count down, whereas guys want to increase theirs. I literally had to listen to a conversation about one of my coworkers that wouldn't sleep with some dude because she didn't want her number to get into the double digits.

I'm cool with being seen as a player. Econ literally used it as a compliment in this very thread. Are you comfortable with people calling you a slut/promiscuous?

[TheEconomist]

Well, Econ, you made some good points in your posts, but I retain my skepticism.

So, basically,

"I see your common sense, verifiable facts, clean-sampled statistics, multi-generational wisdom, logic test, real-world experience and raise you my feelings about being introverted"

mmmkay

As for why the rest of the debate, consider this:

Just like we are the decedents of the most ruthless primates who were more willing to invade other primates lands (see 'Rise of the Warrior Ape'), just like we are the descendants of the humans least scared to attack first (so we're quick to aggresson,war-like), just like we are the descendants of those who figured out tools first (we are intelligent), we are also the descendants of the men who had the most children. Every person has roughly twice as much genetic variation in their female contribution as their male contribution, because men either have zero kids (no one will fuck them) or they have two children by two different women. The vaaast majority of men you come across, are the off-spring of a certain kind of man that had multiple offspring by multiple mothers. Don't let the dating habits of the last couple hundred of years fool you. Entire bloodlines of men have been dying off for thousands/millions of years because they couldn't get a single chick to fuck them because some alpha male was fucking all the available chicks.

Fuck, just look at Hispanic/Latino DNA. 70-90% of the matrilineal (mother) DNA is still native american. While the male contribution is mostly Spanish European. Why? Native American men were removed from the pool and not just by dying off, or war, or anything else, but by the women naturally selecting them as they cohabited more and more. Almost the entire male bloodline of native Americans are gone, and yet, not all of the male native Americans were wiped out, Read some excepts of a book on it, quite interesting.

Before you get into gender-selective evolution, before you get into testosterone, before you get into anything like that, you have to get into the just who we are inheriting our traits from. Again, studies show, "Narcissistic, Machiavellian, emotionally unavailable men," those aren't habits that came about because women made conscious decisions to be bagged by the men least likely to give a fuck about them.


-- So I'm talking to a girl that's pro at HotS and Overwatch. I suck at HotS and Overwatch. I'M CALLING IN BACKUP!!! At least one of you has to be good at HotS/Overwatch, RIGHT?!?!

5d85d1d89-0466-4ad1-abaa-8049da4ae124.jpg
6504ee2d4-1609-445b-92eb-4e98b3dd5537.jpg

[Visions of Khas]

Econ, your inbox is like mine: too full to take more messages.

-- So I'm talking to a girl that's pro at HotS and Overwatch. I suck at HotS and Overwatch. I'M CALLING IN BACKUP!!! At least one of you has to be good at HotS/Overwatch, RIGHT?!?!

Naw, bruh, too busy making that paper. Hell, last time I played SC 1v1 was a couple years back.

[TheEconomist]

Damn, I guess you won't be white knightin' and cock blockin' me then. Ai'ight bra, go stack them chips.

If anything entertaining happens, I'll screen shot it.

.. In all seriousness, it's about time I get back to serious shit. Been mackin' girls over the internet non-stop for the past two weeks. Feel like a loser. In my defense, I'm waiting for a closing on a property, so there's not much I could be doing anyways.