Girl I like won't text me back.

[piemadd]

On 9/5/2017 at 8:57 AM, hiimFred said:

We had such a great time, almost kissed on Saturday, now she replies with stuff like "hahaha" or doesnt reply at all.

Meh, can't know women after all the women I've known.

smae here, so confusing.

 

im not a girl, but is this how they text

 

B IM SO CONFUSED

[DildorTheDecent]

>not worshipping 2D grills

>not building a sexbot

 

God damn OP step it up. 

[Teddy07]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

TL;DR, whatever kind of girl you've been "into"? Find a new type.

 

I am part of the MGTOW movement now and quite happy with it. No need for women in my life.

[Volbet]

47 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

How is it not scientifically sound? Alpha and beta are just terms for people who share some common traits.
Some of the traits I can think of at the top of my mind would be:
Confident
Extrovert
Driven
Dominant (and I don't mean forceful, I mean having a body language which indicates that you are in control)
Usually good looking (because being unattractive usually counteracts the previously mentioned traits)
Tall

Betas, on the other hand, would be the opposite.
Lack of confidence
Introverted
Not motivated/passive
Submissive
Short

And women most certainly desire the alpha traits. Of course, people are not black and white but traits from the alpha-category are desirable.

If you surveyed 1000 women who went on blind dates I am certain that people who have several of the traits from the alpha category would be rated far higher than people who have several of the beta traits.

I think it's kind of absurd that people in this thread are dismissing this as being a thing.

Becuase these traits are not necessarily constant on a persons day-to-day life. 

When biologists speak of the "alpha male", they're, for the most part, refering to patriarchal figure within a group, which is a position usually achived through dominans. 

The strongest and/or smartest gorilla gets to be the silver back, for example.

 

However, the social structures that modern humans have to navigate are infinitely more complex than those found in the rest of the animal kingdom.

While gorillas, wolfs and deers only have to navigate their singular group or pack, humans have to navigate several. 

And the individual person can have different roles within each and every group. 

 

For example, when I'm at school or at work I'm not really a talkative or extroverted, meaning I would fall into the beta category.

But when I'm off playing a live show on a Friday night I'm confident, extroverted, talkative and I would say dominant in my body language (you do have to rule the stage after all).

So my role and place in the social hierarchy is totally dependent on the social scene I'm in. 

 

There's also something to be said about the traits you listed being culturally dependent. 

Listing "tall" as an alpha trait rings very true in the West, but it's far from a constant throughout the world. 

[dizmo]

If she won't text you back or is giving you replies like that, simple fact is she's not that interested. A date can seem to go really well, when in reality the other person is just passing the time and doesn't want to upset or offend you. I've done it, I'm sure many others here have done it, and we've all had it happen to us. That's just part of the dating game, unfortunately. Don't keep texting her, just let it go. If she decides she wants to give it another shot, she'll message you. Do you two not talk in person? Seems odd if you're basing this off of text messages and not face to face interaction here you can read her body language as well.

23 hours ago, KenjiUmino said:

appreciate? a thing none of them EVER do.

if you wanna have a girl you gotta have:

• good job 
• money
• big house
• big car
• big dick

that is ALL they ever appreciate. 

that is a hard lesson I learned.

Completely false.

 

I have none of those, and I've always had excellent luck relationship wise. Thinking that way is likely what's caused you to have so many failures. That, or you've only been in a couple of relationships, and they've all been with morally bankrupt women. Or perhaps they're just girls.

 

Now, I can agree with the points, just not the way you worded them.

• Good job -> stable job
  Yeah, they want someone who works. Obviously. No one, male or female, wants to date a freeloader. That, and if they want kids then a stable job is more attractive. The same sentiment applies for the next 2 to 3 points in regards to childbearing.
• Money
  Again, same point as above. I've dated many women that make significantly more than me, and it's never been an issue.
• big house -> not living in your parents basement
  Kind of makes relations a bit hard, no?
• big car (I'll assume you mean nice) -> a car
  Now, this isn't a must, however in some places it's definitely something one would want. It's just easier to get around, meet up, etc. Where I live now, it's a real PITA to get around without one. Where I lived before, not an issue at all, and none of the women I dated cared I didn't have a car.
  How many women do you know that know a great deal about cars? That's what I thought..
• big dick -> self confidence
  Yeah, some girls chase the D, just like some guys only date well endowed women. Not all though. Self confidence and skill is better than simply having a large member.

I get why you'd be bitter if you've only had bad experiences, but not all women are the same.
You've just got to find some good ones, not the ones you've found thus far.

15 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

I could not agree more. That´s why stopped dating women altogether. The hassle is not worth the result.

Or maybe thinking that way is the reason you've had so much trouble when it comes to relationships

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

It is funny see so many singles blaming on others for they being single... A relationship when real happens due to strong reciprocity provoked by mutual beneficial feelings... that's it... if you stay all your life only in the internet without socializing it isn't the girl's fault at all...

Hahaha, so true. Not only that, but it'll take (often) many failed attempts before you find a person you're truly compatible with.

55 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how, if women only date for money, that poor people or even just lower middle class people manage to form pairings and produce children.

Not only that, you'd think that being a woman yourself they'd put a little more weight into what you're saying.

[AshleyAshes]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Hahaha, so true. Not only that, but it'll take (often) many failed attempts before you find a person you're truly compatible with.

Not only that, you'd think that being a woman yourself they'd put a little more weight into what you're saying.

I actually likely make more money and have less debt than a good number of the men, of working age, on this forum.

[LAwLz]

27 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Becuase these traits are not necessarily constant on a persons day-to-day life. 

When biologists speak of the "alpha male", they're, for the most part, refering to patriarchal figure within a group, which is a position usually achived through dominans. 

The strongest and/or smartest gorilla gets to be the silver back, for example.

 

However, the social structures that modern humans have to navigate are infinitely more complex than those found in the rest of the animal kingdom.

While gorillas, wolfs and deers only have to navigate their singular group or pack, humans have to navigate several. 

And the individual person can have different roles within each and every group. 

 

For example, when I'm at school or at work I'm not really a talkative or extroverted, meaning I would fall into the beta category.

But when I'm off playing a live show on a Friday night I'm confident, extroverted, talkative and I would say dominant in my body language (you do have to rule the stage after all).

So my role and place in the social hierarchy is totally dependent on the social scene I'm in. 

 

There's also something to be said about the traits you listed being culturally dependent. 

Listeing tall as an alpha trait rings very true in the West, but it's far from a constant throughout the world. 

Yes... and?

I don't see how anything you said refutes my point.

 

Saying that alphas and betas doesn't exist because it is situational is like saying nobody is kind, because it is situational.

 

If I think of a guy as alpha I don't expect him to wake up like an alpha, brush his teeth like an alpha, tie his shoes as an alpha, pour milk on his cereals as an alpha, etc. It just means that my perception of him, based on the things I have seen or heard, makes him suit the alpha category.

 

Alphas and betas are not one-dimensional characters. It's a collection of character traits.

[Volbet]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes... and?

I don't see how anything you said refutes my point.

 

Saying that alphas and betas doesn't exist because it is situational is like saying nobody is kind, because it is situational.

 

If I think of a guy as alpha I don't expect him to wake up like an alpha, brush his teeth like an alpha, tie his shoes as an alpha, pour milk on his cereals as an alpha, etc. It just means that my perception of him, based on the things I have seen or heard, makes him suit the alpha category.

In that case you're making the assessment based on subjective criteria and your own subjective experience. 

Which goes back to my point about the "alpha-beta" dichotomy being unscientific.

[dizmo]

5 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

I actually likely make more money and have less debt that a lot of the men, of working age, on this forum.

Better watch out, that might trigger some of them You know, all 8 or 9 of us.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, Volbet said:

In that case you're making the assessment based on subjective criteria and your own subjective experience. 

Which goes back to my point about the "alpha-beta" dichotomy being unscientific.

It's not so much "unscientific" as a matter of definitions.

Different people have different opinions on what does and doesn't qualify as "kind" either, but saying that nobody in the world is kind is not exactly the "scientific" stance to have either. There is no scientific definition of being tall either, but that does not mean the "dichotomy of tall-short" is false.

 

It seems to me like the people who use the words alpha and beta are more or less in agreement with which traits belongs in which category (as a whole), and at the end of the day that's what defines words.

[Volbet]

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's not so much "unscientific" as a matter of definitions.

Different people have different opinions on what does and doesn't qualify as "kind" either, but saying that nobody in the world is kind is not exactly the "scientific" stance to have either. There is no scientific definition of being tall either, but that does not mean the "dichotomy of tall-short" is false.

 

It seems to me like the people who use the words alpha and beta are more or less in agreement with which traits belongs in which category (as a whole), and at the end of the day that's what defines words.

I didn't say the "alpha-beta" dichotomy was false, I said it was unscientific. I do recognize that people are using the words and that they're applying a meaning and definition to those words. 

What I'm challenging is the validity behind those meanings and definitions, and questioning the wrong dichotomy they create. 

 

If we go by the criteria you listed, then I've already examplified how those descriptors aren't necessarily descriptive of a person in any and all social situations. 

That means that the criteria, as it is applied to a person, are pretty much meaningless as concrete and complete desciptions.

As descriped earlier, a person could easily be descriped as "beta" in certain social circles, while being descriped as an "alpha" in other social sitations. 

In that case, what would the person be classified as? Since the "alpha-beta" dichotomy is usually presented as an all encompassing desciption, the person can't be considered both at the same time. You have to be one or the other for the definition to have any meaning.

 

It also doesn't help that the definitions of both "alpha" and "beta" are already well established within biology, leading to uncertainty about the descriptors and how they're supposed to be observed within a social group. 

[KenjiUmino]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Now, I can agree with the points, just not the way you worded them.

well, i agree on your explaination of these points, however, you can word it any way you want. it boils down to the same outcome. 

 

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

How many women do you know that know a great deal about cars?

all they need to know to make their decision is that a mercedes costs more than a ford focus.

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Hahaha, so true. Not only that, but it'll take (often) many failed attempts before you find a person you're truly compatible with.

i am 31 now so you could say i been dealing with this shit for half my life now.

how many "failed attempts" do you think it takes before it is one too many?

 

i think i heard almost every lousy excuse, every shitty lie and played every fucked up game a girl can come up with. but then again, whatever i had to put up with might just be the tip of the iceberg

 

and it's not just me. I look around and I see all these dudes in relationships be like: 

Quote

oh my GF is not like that, she loves me for who i am. we been together for X years now, yadda yadda

... and then I see shit going down and what happens when shit goes down and WHY it goes down. and guess what?

 

it's always about money and their beloved wife who is oh-so-different than all the others turns into a greedy ass whore trying to take the dudes house she just threw him out of ... and the next thing you see is her selling the house and running off with a new guy that has a bigger car and bigger house. 

 

it's ALWAYS the same old story. 

 

thinking about it now, i should consider myself lucky that i am neither rich nor pretty and never found someone. otherwise the same shit would have happened to me by now. 

 

i do what i can to keep this from happening.

a good way to prevent this is to keep socializing down to a minimum, i guess

i rarely go out and even quit chatrooms in 2015 for a start. 

 

another important thing is to not give in to any sort of feelings that might trick me into making a move. been to 2 festivals this summer but managed to not start talking to any girls i might have considered interesting.

 

i'm kinda proud of that. need to repeat that until it has burned in. 

 

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, Volbet said:

I didn't say the "alpha-beta" dichotomy was false, I said it was unscientific. I do recognize that people are using the words and that they're applying a meaning and definition to those words. 

Again, I think that's like saying "tall" is unscientific, or "kind" is unscientific.

Calling it unscientific is kind of meaningless.

 

11 minutes ago, Volbet said:

If we go by the criteria you listed, then I've already examplified how those descriptors aren't necessarily descriptive of a person in any and all social situations. 

And they don't have to be, because people are not 1 dimensional.

 

12 minutes ago, Volbet said:

That means that the criteria, as it is applied to a person, are pretty much meaningless as concrete and complete desciptions.

As descriped earlier, a person could easily be descriped as "beta" in certain social circles, while being descriped as an "alpha" in other social sitations. 

In that case, what would the person be classified as? Since the "alpha-beta" dichotomy is usually presented as an all encompassing desciption, the person can't be considered both at the same time. You have to be one or the other for the definition to have any meaning.

6

That person would be classified as an alpha, or a beta depending on the situation... You know, just like how you described yourself as alpha in some situations and beta in some.

Or like how one person can be kind in some situations, but not so kind in other situations.

If someone has only seen the kind side of a person then they will perceive that person as being kind.

 

This really isn't complicated stuff...

Again, alpha and beta are just collections of character traits. Is someone who is confident always confident? If he is confident 90% of the time then would you say that you can't say he is confident because of the remaining 10% of the situations? Of course not, because that would be silly.

It's the same deal here. Nobody acts a certain way in 100% of the situations, but we can still describe that person with terms based on our perception of them in general.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Volbet said:

It also doesn't help that the definitions of both "alpha" and "beta" are already well established within biology, leading to uncertainty about the descriptors and how they're supposed to be observed within a social group. 

Bitch is also a well-established term within biology (for dogs). Doesn't mean it translates 100% when applied to humans.

Alpha and beta are terms for humans are borrowed because they vague represent the differences even in humans, plus it is easy to picture what each group is like even though people don't literally think of an alpha male as a furry beast who walks on 4 legs.

[Drak3]

Be yourself.

 

By yourself.

 

 

Stay away from me.

 

 

 

A leason learned in life.

 

 

 

 

Known from the dawn of time.

 

Respect.

 

Walk.

 

 

Pyo.

[Volbet]

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That person would be classified as an alpha, or a beta depending on the situation... You know, just like how you described yourself as alpha in some situations and beta in some.

I didn't describe myself as either a beta or alpha. I said I would fit into some of the criteria, but I wouldn't say I would fit into either group in any situation. 

 

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Again, I think that's like saying "tall" is unscientific, or "kind" is unscientific.

Calling it unscientific is kind of meaningless.

I would also say that "tall" and "kind" are unscientific. Both are loose descriptions and not concrete staments.

One would be a description of height as compared to the people surrounding them (be it a larger or smaller group) and one is a moral judgement that depends on the cultural landscape the person is working in.  

 

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That person would be classified as an alpha, or a beta depending on the situation... You know, just like how you described yourself as alpha in some situations and beta in some.

Or like how one person can be kind in some situations, but not so kind in other situations.

If someone has only seen the kind side of a person then they will perceive that person as being kind.

 

This really isn't complicated stuff...

Again, alpha and beta are just collections of character traits. Is someone who is confident always confident? If he is confident 90% of the time then would you say that you can't say he is confident because of the remaining 10% of the situations? Of course not, because that would be silly.

It's the same deal here. Nobody acts a certain way in 100% of the situations, but we can still describe that person with terms based on our perception of them in general.

In that case you're going against the common usage of the meaning of both alpha and beta.

The classification is usually used as a all encompassing the desciption of a person, I.E. classifying the person as a biologist would classify members of group of baboons or a pack of wolves. A person that's a beta in one situation is assumed to be a beta in all situations. 

The phrase "He's a beta male in certain situations" is rarely uttered. It's usually just "He's a beta male".  

 

If you want to use the idea of the alpha and the beta on a case-to-case basis, and based on observations in a given social situation, then be my guest. 

I would still find the definitions to be rather reductionistic, but whatever. 

 

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Bitch is also a well-established term within biology (for dogs). Doesn't mean it translates 100% when applied to humans.

Alpha and beta are terms for humans are borrowed because they vague represent the differences even in humans, plus it is easy to picture what each group is like even though people don't literally think of an alpha male as a furry beast who walks on 4 legs.

Problem with this example is that the definition of "bitch" as it applies to dogs is quite different from the way it is applied to humans, while the idea of the alpha and beta individual isn't. 

This in turn leads to the defitions being much easier to confuse.   

[dizmo]

47 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

well, i agree on your explaination of these points, however, you can word it any way you want. it boils down to the same outcome.
-snip-

Not quite, because they're not quite the same, and they don't apply to every situation. You can't lump women in as one category, as they're all individuals, and all have differences in needs and wants.

If you choose to give up, that's your own issue. Many people will try until they succeed.

You're the same age as me, so you can't really use that as a reason.

If you have to play games at all, that's part of the problem. You're simply going after the wrong kind of woman, time and time again.

Sure, there's always failed relationships, and as I said, sometimes it'll be for that reason. But that's not all of them. I have tons of friends who are happily married or engaged. Guess what. Some of them work barely above minimum wage jobs.

 

Quote

i do what i can to keep this from happening.

a good way to prevent this is to keep socializing down to a minimum, i guess

i rarely go out and even quit chatrooms in 2015 for a start. 

If you're meeting people in chat rooms, there's part of the problem.

If you're not socializing as much, there's part of the problem. If you lack social skills you'll likely continue to meet people of the same type, who also lack them, and thus can't function properly in a relationship. Social skills are something you have to work on, just like any other skill.

Quote

another important thing is to not give in to any sort of feelings that might trick me into making a move. been to 2 festivals this summer but managed to not start talking to any girls i might have considered interesting.

Seems like you attitude is already tainted, so you can never really expect a good outcome. The last thing you should be offering is relationship advice.

 

You know, when it really comes down to it, if you're continuously failing...maybe the problem isn't with them, but is instead with you.

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, KenjiUmino said:

thinking about it now, i should consider myself lucky that i am neither rich nor pretty and never found someone. otherwise the same shit would have happened to me by now. 

 

i do what i can to keep this from happening.

a good way to prevent this is to keep socializing down to a minimum, i guess

i rarely go out and even quit chatrooms in 2015 for a start. 

Do you even have, like, friends?

[KenjiUmino]

49 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Do you even have, like, friends?

i do, i can count them with one hand but i have friends. (and i mean friends i met IRL, not ppl i happen to know online only)

 

most of 'em don't live nearby tho, so going out together does not happen very often (that's why i rarely do it - i never go out alone just for the sake of going out)

 

what i also have is a bunch of brothers so i don't feel lonely because i also moved back home (to get even moar negative points to attractiveness)

 

i got tired of paying rent for a 60m² two bedroom appartment where i lived on my own. (the only thing i miss is having a balcony next to the living room)

[AshleyAshes]

52 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

i do, i can count them with one hand but i have friends. (and i mean friends i met IRL, not ppl i happen to know online only)

 

most of 'em don't live nearby tho, so going out together does not happen very often (that's why i rarely do it - i never go out alone just for the sake of going out)

 

what i also have is a bunch of brothers so i don't feel lonely because i also moved back home (to get even moar negative points to attractiveness)

 

i got tired of paying rent for a 60m² two bedroom appartment where i lived on my own. (the only thing i miss is having a balcony next to the living room)

So... You just work all day, go home, don't socialize and even avoid online chatrooms so as to keep online socialization to a minimum...

 

That's sad...

[KenjiUmino]

34 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So... You just work all day, go home, don't socialize and even avoid online chatrooms so as to keep online socialization to a minimum...

 

That's sad...

yeah ... those chatrooms are full of shitty girls ... i better stay as far away from any potential source of bullshit as i can. live is so much easier without chit chat and BS.

 

i do stream on twitch 2-3 evenings a week and i have a tech youtube channel where i upload a video every once in a while - one upload a month or more depending on if i find interesting things to make a video about or not. 

 

success of both is questionable but it's some distraction

[MadModder]

If you thought everything was going great but she is ignoring you now, you might be making assumptions based on what you want, not what the situation really is. She may like you as a friend, and that's all. It's also possible she thought about the situation, and decided to not take it any further. It's also possible you're moving too fast. If you push it, you will push her away. Slow down, take a step back, and see if she does anything to move your friendship to another level. If not, then be happy with having her as a friend, assuming you actually like her as a person and not just a possible "hookup".

[Akolyte]

On 9/13/2017 at 6:26 PM, Volbet said:

 

The whole idea of the "alpha-beta" - hierarchy is not really scientifically sound, especially in the way it's portrayed in modern internet culture and the way it's applied to humans and the social structures humans create. 

Haha.  No if you're happy and unobstructed that's all that matters (and of course your partner is too).  

 

I don't take alpha, beta omegas etc litterally as such, but I look at them as roles we play in social situations.  And what general orientation your personality is.  

 

I don't like how it's applied in culture.  It's wrong.  Betas are not weak, or pushovers.  They just don't take social leadership positions naturally. 

 

In fact, I wouldn't consider 'players' alphas either.  Players are sexualised omegas, the alphas are at get togethers, hanging out, working out, building a business etc. 

On 9/13/2017 at 5:56 PM, coolkingler1 said:

If you mean 'a relationship should be an addition to your life, not your other half' then yeah that's a good thing.

Yes. Otherwise it's litterally the definition of co-dependence.  Not good. 

[dalekphalm]

On 13/09/2017 at 1:56 AM, coolkingler1 said:

If you mean 'a relationship should be an addition to your life, not your other half' then yeah that's a good thing.

 

14 minutes ago, Mike_The_B0ss said:

Yes. Otherwise it's litterally the definition of co-dependence.  Not good. 

I would add a caveat that a co-dependent relationship is not inherently a bad thing. It's a bad thing when both people are not on the same page, or if someone hasn't really thought it through and/or doesn't actually know what they want.

 

Some people relish and prefer a true co-dependent relationship. If two well matched people prefer that, there's nothing wrong with them going in together in a co-dependent relationship.

 

The problem is when one person wants that, and the other doesn't, and there's imbalance - which is very easy to happen.

[MadyTehWolfie]

Why the hell is this thread still going 0.o crazy people

[PlayStation 2]

2 hours ago, MadyTehWolfie said:

Why the hell is this thread still going 0.o crazy people

you have two academics trying to outshine each other by bitching

par for the course for this forum, really