Girl I like won't text me back.

[FuzzyYellow]

@hiimFred In all honesty, don't look desperate. If she doesn't seem too interested stop texting for a bit and see if she will make a move to continue contact.

[amancalledoss]

talking from a point of being married for nearly 9 years , avoid her avoid them all its a trap you think they like you but they dont they just try to change everything about you once they have you , all your money will go on handbags and shoes next they will give up on you and want a mini you they can mold to their whim then all your money will go on nappies and buggies then clothes then into a bank to pay for their education .

One day you will wake up and you will be 46 living in the corner of a house you're paying for with big and small hands constantly emptying your wallet and praying that death will come soon .

 

[IKnight]

10 minutes ago, amancalledoss said:

talking from a point of being married for nearly 9 years , avoid her avoid them all its a trap you think they like you but they dont they just try to change everything about you once they have you , all your money will go on handbags and shoes next they will give up on you and want a mini you they can mold to their whim then all your money will go on nappies and buggies then clothes then into a bank to pay for their education .

One day you will wake up and you will be 46 living in the corner of a house you're paying for with big and small hands constantly emptying your wallet and praying that death will come soon .

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/rant/ <-- Wrong website pal. 

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed... 

[amancalledoss]

Just now, ImadKnight said:

 

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed... 

 

 

no Im always this miserable

[cluelessgenius]

54 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

We're not saying not to have confidence. We're saying Alpha/beta/friendzone are made up concepts that don't apply in a scientific way to humans .  Minds and relationships aren't black and white like that.

 

They're made up words born out of a need to overcompensate or a lack of confidence.

 

When I see a guy talk about being 'alpha' or a guy complaining about friendzone I see a lack of understanding and confidence.

I believe they are called metaphors

[Guest]

Just now, cluelessgenius said:

I believe they are called metaphors

Keyword being 'I'. These terms are generally taken too literally.

[Unhelpful]

1 hour ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Meh, it's true though women prefer alphas which are usually tall, extroverted, and have decent bodies or great bodies. Men have other things that women have to deal with which is wanting someone shorter, who doesn't nag, who's not fat, and has a good personality. If any of these things aren't met to the degree the person wants it's not going to work. An yes, all women want money that's why you see perfect 10's will million and billionaire that are short fat and nasty looking. Can't get rid of our lizard cave man brains evolution made us to have certain wants and dislikes on both sides of the genders.

Are those old stereotypes really all that true? I mean, maybe the slight majority... Like 51%, but I think a lot of those stereotypes were amplified by nerds who couldn't accept that they were single due to their shitty "nice guy" personalities.

 

Most people have a "type." Most people have specific things that attract them to other people, and certain things that make them get the fuuuuuck away. The more check-boxes you hit for "attract" and the less for "run" the more compatible you are. I would say that there are checkboxes under 2 columns, one is personality and the other is appearance. One of those is much easier to tell within a few minutes whether or not you hit a check box, which is why people put so much importance on appearance. But I would argue that the ones for personality can eventually drastically outweigh the ones for appearance, as long as you don't actually find your partner gross or completely repulsive.

 

For me the most important part of forming a romantic bond with somebody is personality. Roughly 75% personality 25% looks. Let's also remember that a part of personality is humor, and humor can make a Quasimodo-looking dude appealing, even if he isn't sexy. I think that most people just want to be with someone that makes them feel secure and happy, and those things are primarily gained by having compatible personalities. Some people also find different types of people attractive, although there are some obscenely and undeniably ugly people out there, but I believe they are very far out of the norm.

 

 I would agree that the very stereotypical "type" that most (I'm not sure I agree with most tbh) women are attracted to is the classic Tall, Dark, and Handsome. But let's also remember that looks aren't really the be-all-end-all, they're more of a foot in the door. Looks let you stay around long enough to determine whether or not your personalities are compatible and whether or not you can actually see the other person as a romantic partner. Also people have totally different types; and while are more common "types" I don't think it's ever fair to say "Women like x and Men like y."

 

I'm a 6'4-ish, very slightly overweight (just 5 lbs to go until I'm normal weight!), super-pale, weird curly-hair having, glasses-wearing, slightly introverted nerd. Nothing particularly ugly about me, facial structure is perfectly normal. I'm just not conventionally attractive to most people (I.E. I think I'm ugly), but my girlfriend oddly finds me very, very, very physically attractive. I'm her type: a super-tall, overly sarcastic, nit-picky nerd with curly blonde hair, blue eyes, and very slight introversion. The person who introduced us told me months before we ever met that I am exactly her type, and this person didn't know, but she's exactly my type as well. She's gorgeous and we have extremely compatible / complementary personalities. Now to be fair, she is definitely the outlier in that she finds me attractive.. But you'll never hear me complain! 

 

All of this is ignoring one night stands, the above rant is more about romantic relationships.

 

Sorry if this is too much of an essay, I've just been thinking about it a lot recently now that I've found someone who I'm unbelievably compatible with and who is unbelievably compatible with me, in regards to both personality and looks.

[Unhelpful]

28 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

Keyword being 'I'. These terms are generally taken too literally.

Alpha-males definitely, categorically, exist. It's just a person with a collection of certain traits. That isn't better or worse than somebody who isn't an alpha male, just different. The stereotype of all women liking alpha males is too broad, but it has been traditionally appealing to people. What you're thinking of is the idea of "objectively manly."

 

The 'friendzone' is a sad coping mechanism made up by lonely "nice guys" who don't understand that kindness and friendship aren't just tools to get laid, and that entitlement doesn't actually exist when it comes to relationships with other people. Sex and relationships aren't like oil changes where you get a stamp for each good deed, and get a girlfriend and as much sex as you want at the end.

[Guest]

Just now, JoeyDM said:

Alpha-males definitely, categorically, exist. It's a person with a collection of certain traits. That isn't better or worse than somebody who isn't an alpha male, just different. The stereotype of all women liking alpha males is too broad, but it has been traditionally appealing to people.

 

The 'friendzone' is a sad coping mechanism made up by lonely "nice guys" who don't understand that kindness and friendship aren't just tools to get laid. Sex and relationships aren't like oil changes where you get a stamp for each good deed, and get a girlfriend at the end.

I agree with what you say and at the same time disagree with your first statement on certain points. 

 

It is all very situational when you're 'an alpha'. There are many nuances and people like different things like you yourself said. There is no factual 'best'. A good look and confidence are 100% working in your favour for initial attraction. That does not mean it's the end-all-be-all ultimate dealbreaker or maker due to massive differences in preferences. (though, obviously the vast majority want to have confidence in a potential partner for sure, the point is that looks are not make or break unless one is actually really ugly, confidence can definitely be a dealbreaker at certain low points)

 

With that comes nuances in varying places. Are you the best guy at the gym but boring in class? Are you more comfortable while practicing a certain sport or skill? It can vary an awful lot. (assuming you have a decent baseline confidence)

[Unhelpful]

4 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

 

That's what I'm saying. 'Alpha' doesn't mean better or worse, good or bad. All it typically means is an ENTJ personality type, if you are willing to put any stock into not-in-depth, very broad, personality categories. There are subjective advantages and disadvantages to it.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

That's what I'm saying. 'Alpha' doesn't mean better or worse, good or bad. All it typically means is an ENTJ personality type, if you are willing to put any stock into not-in-depth, very broad, personality categories. There are subjective advantages and disadvantages to it.

I definitely do not put stock in the personality type tests, way too generalizing to be taken seriously.  That being said, right. we can agree on that. 

[Unhelpful]

8 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

I definitely do not put stock in the personality type tests, way too generalizing to be taken seriously.  That being said, right. we can agree on that. 

I didn't always, but they are basically the same as BMI: Useful taken 1000 steps back while looking at a broad population, but fall apart close up due to a lack of granularity. They do have a legitimate use when talking about populations, which we are right now.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

I didn't always, but they are basically the same as BMI: Useful taken 1000 steps back while looking at a broad population, but fall apart close up due to a lack of granularity. They do have a legitimate use when talking about populations, which we are right now.

I don't think it's comparable to BMI, BMI is actually a good measure for the vast 'average' population. Top level bodybuilders are about the only ones who skew it and they are few. 

 

This is due to lean mass being about the same in most average people of the same height and other things. Frames don't really come into account. And racial bone density differences do, hence Asians for example having to adhere to a different BMI scale.  Though even that is not very much. 

[Unhelpful]

4 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

 

That's just it, averages and statistics apply to populations, not to people. But they are valid to use across populations.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

That's just it, averages and statistics apply to populations, not to people. 

Of which the vast majority is 'average' so it is typically a good measure of healthy/unhealthy general boundaries. Sure you won't know their body composition but considering we are talking about an 'average' population the compositions won't differ much. 

 

Most people with a too high BMI are just too fat and not bodybuilders.

 

 

[Unhelpful]

9 minutes ago, coolkingler1 said:

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm referring to people that use BMI as a be-all-end-all for health, not people who use it to mean whether or not they're in an acceptable weight category (also assuming a relatively healthy diet). Sorry for being unclear. It works as a very general broad "Is this person overweight?" but you can't use it for "Is this person healthy?" It's just too broad for that, like the Myers-Briggs personality tests. But like the Myers-Briggs personality tests, it's still generally accurate and somewhat useful when referring to populations.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JoeyDM said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm referring to people that use BMI as a be-all-end-all for health, not people who use it to mean whether or not they're in an acceptable weight category (also assuming a relatively healthy diet). Sorry for being unclear. It works as a very general broad "Is this person overweight?" but you can't use it for "Is this person healthy?" It's just too broad for that, like the Myers-Briggs personality tests. But like the Myers-Briggs personality tests, it's still generally accurate and somewhat useful when referring to populations.

That I can agree with. Health measurement requires numbers like BP and cholesterol consistently. 

[Unhelpful]

Just now, coolkingler1 said:

That I can agree with. Health measurement requires numbers like BP and cholesterol consistently. 

And a physical by a qualified professional  

 

I'm referring to the idiots who have a great metabolism and eat a family bag of cheetos a day, but believe they're healthy because they have a BMI of 22.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

And a physical by a qualified professional  

 

I'm referring to the idiots who have a great metabolism and eat a family bag of cheetos a day, but believe they're healthy because they have a BMI of 22.

They eat at an acceptable calorie range (fast metabolism is very very rare, most say they eat a lot but they undereat in terms of kcal, just like slow metabolism for being fat excuse),  but no nutrients, or, not much. I mean they can be healthy, but not for long while eating like that. Get your greens and proteins.

 

Very interesting field actually, I study this an awful lot in my free time. 

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, JoeyDM said:

Are those old stereotypes really all that true? I mean, maybe the slight majority... Like 51%, but I think a lot of those stereotypes were amplified by nerds who couldn't accept that they were single due to their shitty "nice guy" personalities.

 

Most people have a "type." Most people have specific things that attract them to other people, and certain things that make them get the fuuuuuck away. The more check-boxes you hit for "attract" and the less for "run" the more compatible you are. I would say that there are checkboxes under 2 columns, one is personality and the other is appearance. One of those is much easier to tell within a few minutes whether or not you hit a check box, which is why people put so much importance on appearance. But I would argue that the ones for personality can eventually drastically outweigh the ones for appearance, as long as you don't actually find your partner gross or completely repulsive.

 

For me the most important part of forming a romantic bond with somebody is personality. Roughly 75% personality 25% looks. Let's also remember that a part of personality is humor, and humor can make a Quasimodo-looking dude appealing, even if he isn't sexy. I think that most people just want to be with someone that makes them feel secure and happy, and those things are primarily gained by having compatible personalities. Some people also find different types of people attractive, although there are some obscenely and undeniably ugly people out there, but I believe they are very far out of the norm.

 

 I would agree that the very stereotypical "type" that most (I'm not sure I agree with most tbh) women are attracted to is the classic Tall, Dark, and Handsome. But let's also remember that looks aren't really the be-all-end-all, they're more of a foot in the door. Looks let you stay around long enough to determine whether or not your personalities are compatible and whether or not you can actually see the other person as a romantic partner. Also people have totally different types; and while are more common "types" I don't think it's ever fair to say "Women like x and Men like y."

 

I'm a 6'4-ish, very slightly overweight (just 5 lbs to go until I'm normal weight!), super-pale, weird curly-hair having, glasses-wearing, slightly introverted nerd. Nothing particularly ugly about me, facial structure is perfectly normal. I'm just not conventionally attractive to most people (I.E. I think I'm ugly), but my girlfriend oddly finds me very, very, very physically attractive. I'm her type: a super-tall, overly sarcastic, nit-picky nerd with curly blonde hair, blue eyes, and very slight introversion. The person who introduced us told me months before we ever met that I am exactly her type, and this person didn't know, but she's exactly my type as well. She's gorgeous and we have extremely compatible / complementary personalities. Now to be fair, she is definitely the outlier in that she finds me attractive.. But you'll never hear me complain! 

 

All of this is ignoring one night stands, the above rant is more about romantic relationships.

 

Sorry if this is too much of an essay, I've just been thinking about it a lot recently now that I've found someone who I'm unbelievably compatible with and who is unbelievably compatible with me, in regards to both personality and looks.

Wouldn't say its just nerds and stuff saying it. It's not something people go out and do it's something that happens subconsciously by people and isn't meant to be negetive or positive it simply is just how the lizard part of our brains work. Some more then others in certain areas. Well every person chooses someone not just for one reason and not just because they are the best in one category an you can't rule out personality being a big factor unless the dude has billions or millions cause women will literally go to them to be shared on for cash and prizes believe they have a name for Instagram models who do this forget what it was though.

[Unhelpful]

14 minutes ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

 

I honestly don't know a ton of people who would be with someone purely for money. Maybe I just make sure that I don't surround myself by shit?  

[MadyTehWolfie]

1 hour ago, JoeyDM said:

I honestly don't know a ton of people who would be with someone purely for money. Maybe I just make sure that I don't surround myself by shit?  

Usually to catch the eye of a million/billionaire you have to look better then most women. I had one girl say to another "well he has money you should date him" shit was hilarious. I was like mmn sorry if I have "money" and that's the sole reason you'd date me you better look better then you do.

[AshleyAshes]

3 hours ago, JoeyDM said:

Are those old stereotypes really all that true? I mean, maybe the slight majority... Like 51%, but I think a lot of those stereotypes were amplified by nerds who couldn't accept that they were single due to their shitty "nice guy" personalities.

Nah.  But you're dead on that people like 'easy answers' and look for someone to blame.

 

They also like to exaggerate to scapegoat problems.  'Oh, women only want to date totally hot guys'.  Usually, you just have to look pretty 'Ok' and just about everyone can manage 'Ok' if they just put themselves together.  If you look like you don't even know how to brush your own hair or know how to put a shirt on straight, that tends to say A LOT about you in many other areas of your life.  But it's a lot easier to blame 'women who are only into hot guys' rather than 'I'm incapable of even looking like I have my shit together.'.

 

Same thing goes for conversation.  Declaring it's 'About being an alpha male' when in any continued human interaction, success basically comes from keeping up an interesting conversation.  Why would ANYONE date someone who's as interesting as wallpaper paste to the other party?

 

Money?  There's a huge difference between 'not rich' and 'Slowly being killed by debt and stupid spending habits' or something else like that.  Lots of people are just doing 'Okay' and finances are normally not a problem.  It's a whole different thing when you're entire life is a money pit and you just bought something stupid while ignoring that the rent is due next week.

 

All the cheesy reasons people come up with to fault women for not dating them don't work when you actually look at people and their relationships and you realize that there are people who easily fit all of these traits that should make them 'undatable' yet those people are in relationships.

[Evolution.]

4 hours ago, amancalledoss said:

talking from a point of being married for nearly 9 years , avoid her avoid them all its a trap you think they like you but they dont they just try to change everything about you once they have you , all your money will go on handbags and shoes next they will give up on you and want a mini you they can mold to their whim then all your money will go on nappies and buggies then clothes then into a bank to pay for their education .

One day you will wake up and you will be 46 living in the corner of a house you're paying for with big and small hands constantly emptying your wallet and praying that death will come soon .

 

r/mgtow

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

Yif in hell bro