Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.
The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)
Hi Lauren,
I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.
Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.
By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.
Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.
I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.
Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.
Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.
And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:
Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:
-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.
You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!
-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.
Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????
-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.
Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again. If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.
-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.
We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!
In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship.
Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?
I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.
Gain utility? Really? DATING IS NOT MICROECONOMICS!
In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.
Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.
If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.
So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?
Way to sell yourself, dude.
If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.
Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.
We have a number of things in common.
Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.
I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.
Um, what?
I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.
According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.
YOU ARE RIGHT AGE. INTERNET SAYS SO. THEREFORE YOU MUST DATE ME.
I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.
Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?
I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.
Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.
Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.
You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.
In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.
And I’m the Queen of Denmark.
That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.
Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.
I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)
This last bit I have no trouble believing.
I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.
I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.
Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.
So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?
If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.
Now you’re just making my skin crawl.
I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.
Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.
If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.
I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.
If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).
Now we’re back on this again.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.
Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!
I would like to talk to you on the phone.
I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.
Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.
Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.
Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.
And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.
Viscaria: I don’t usually have enough room for dessert after roast and pudding, but for those so inclined, that’s perfectly acceptable.
“Can our mra’s point to a woman who they respect and admire in this regard? (no DKM this does not mean being fluffy)”
Kavette –
DKM in a previous conversation where I tried to pull something like this out, mentioned famous Important Libertarian/Free Marketeer/Anarchist Women like Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, Zora Neale Hurston, Ayn Rand, “maybe Emma Goldman” etc, but also claimed that they were, basically, genetic freaks and most women are inherently anti freedom and not worth educating, so you can’t judge other women by their example
. It’s good they got to do those things, but it doesn’t mean most women are like them, or should be educated. Something like that. So a woman’s great and important contributions to society, politics, charity, science… Well, they’re not normal, and they don’t count. But by him even mentioning them you should give him credit.
Brandon [email protected]:
“I find it hard to believe that women have no options in preventing rape. Clothing, owning a gun, moving to safer cities, etc… I am not saying what will work and what wouldn’t, just that there has to be something besides feminists chanting “men don’t rape”.
Most of us do some or all of the things you mention. Hell most of us are paranoid about it. We go to ridiculous lengths to avoid being raped. It gets to the point where for some of us it gets really, really restrictive. We know all the advice and most of us follow it but the problem is that none of it actually works. It still happens in spite of all the efforts we go to. Even if we do what we’re told, follow all the advice, we are often still blamed and people move the goalposts in order to do so because, with hindsight, there’s always something more that could have been done that we didn’t think of. There’s also the point that most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances, friends, lovers or spouses. In other words people we trust. If someone I consider to be a good friend knocks on my door when I’m alone would I let him in? Would I be safe with him? Is he likely to try anything? Should I keep the door closed and pretend I’m not here? I don’t want to live like that, I’ll open the door and put the kettle on but the risk is still there and I’m always aware of it. I’m also aware that if he does rape me the first thing people will say is “Why did you let him in in the first place? That was just asking for trouble.” At least, that’s what happened last time and the person I told was my father.
Frankly, we’ve tried everything. The only thing left that most of us can think of is peer pressure from other men, because these arseholes have made it perfectly clear that they don’t care what women think, want and don’t want.
Brandon said@ 12.44pm:
“@Molly: I have owned a gun. I also fired a variety of weapons while in the Army. I also know a few women that own pistols and keep them in their purse. They don’t seem to walk around like paranoid schizophrenics. They actually have said they feel more at ease and safer. Plus, on a side note, girls owning guns is a massive turn-on for me. So I always support more gun ownership for law-abiding women. Hell, I might even MARRY a girl that can clean a AR-15 properly.”
You do realize, I hope that in some places in the world carrying a gun is illegal? I can’t carry one, no matter how much safer I might feel if I did because I’d be arrested.
“Yes…and people have died in a car accident while wearing a seat belt. That doesn’t change the fact that wearing a seat belt reduces your risk of dying in a car crash. This isn’t about “ending all rape”, it is about making you a less vulnerable target. Rape exists, it most likely isn’t going to end any time soon (hey, we are still murdering each other!).”
We have tried taking precautions and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference. Rape still happens. What are we supposed to do? Lock ourselves away and never leave our houses? Oh wait, that wouldn’t help either because women are often raped in their own homes.
“@Kyrie:Those were just examples I thought of off the top of my head. Moving to another city is extreme, but it is an option.”
You ha e to be kidding!
“Do you know what a lot of men do to protect themselves from assault? They lift weights, conceal carry, learn a martial art, etc… A lot of men I know have the attitude of “Fuck you, I won’t let you make me a victim”. I think this is good, since they are taking a proactive and not reactive position on danger, risk and self protection.”
There’s nothing wrong with doing that if you want to. Obviously if you know how to fight you may have an advantage as long as they don’t have a weapon. However you shouldn’t have to do that if you’d rather not. Also: escalation.
“Clothing matters. I wouldn’t walk into a feminist group wearing a “I Love Single Moms, Cause They’re Easy” T-shirt thinking that everything will be fine and dandy. It would most likely draw a lot of attention and I might get into a few heated arguments. I most likely wouldn’t get shot or raped, but I could get slapped or assaulted because of it. So the idea that clothing is a non-issue is absurd.”
And many women are raped while dressed in seriously unsexy clothing.
It gets the point that, according to society, the only way women will truly be safe is to assume that all men are rapists (because rapists don’t go around with that fact tattooed across their foreheads and in spite of what some people think we don’t have some kind of intuition that gives us the heads up) and lock our doors, bar our windows and never let anyone in and who wants to live like that?
It’s2011-WhereRSexBots:
But they’re saying this in order to demonstrate that there are so many exceptions to your supposedly absolute theories that they make them meaningless. I myself rank intelligence, wit, personality and a wide range of interests way ahead of looks – as, demonstrably do loads of my friends of either gender.
That doesn’t fit my experience at all. In fact, I still have very fond memories of a time that must have been about twenty years ago when I was having a Christmas dinner party and one of the guests asked if she could bring her new boyfriend. My immediate reaction was “oh God, no!”, because all her boyfriends going back years had been… well, douchebaggy dudes who looked like underwear models, who’d treat her as some kind of fuck toy and then dump her in tears. So I asked a mutual friend whether she’d met him, and she said “Actually, he’s surprisingly nice”.
And he was surprisingly nice – in fact a completely normal, average guy with visibly thinning hair even by his mid-twenties. The relationship kept going, and we wondered whether it would really last, because he was so different from his predecessors – but they started living together, got engaged, then married… and are still married about 17 years on.
And I suspect a major reason for the success of this relationship is that while the douchebaggy underwear models may have provided a few quick thrills, it was obvious to an intelligent woman such as my friend that they weren’t long-term partner material – and that she’d be far better off with someone solid and reliable, with a secure if not spectacularly high-earning job, who’d stand by her through thick and thin and be a perfect father to her children. And she’s got that, and seems to be blissfully happy – and this is someone I’ve known for a quarter century, so I suspect I’d be able to detect any bullshit.
I don’t think any of the women posting here are shallow – and the regulars certainly aren’t. I wouldn’t hang out here if they were.
And this “it really is only about looks for women” is such absolute drivel that I’m amazed that you can write it with a straight face. When I met my wife, she was seeing someone else – and while I never met him, I got the distinct impression from her description that he was a lot closer to the “underwear model” stereotype. So why did she pick me? Because I was apparently more intelligent, wittier, a better conversationalist, had a wider range of interests, and therefore offered better prospects as someone she could live with long term without getting bored. Looks genuinely had nothing to do with it.
So what was my “in”? I’m a good listener, and I show a genuine interest in the people I’m talking to, demonstrated by asking what I hope are intelligent questions about their own lives and interests. From what my female friends tell me, that is indeed “some odd talent” – odd in the sense of being all too rare – but it’s not exactly a difficult one to develop.
I’ve never thought that my various partners were “giving me a chance” – but then again, I can’t imagine adopting that mindset. Not least because it’s such a negative, despairing one that it’s likely to doom the relationship from the outset.
There have been many times in my life when I’ve been presented with a choice, and the idea that I’m wealthy or a potential underwear model is hilarious – at the moment, I earn less than half what my wife does, and even when we were both full-time I never earned more than her on an hourly basis.
In fact, just over ten years ago, I had a three-way choice between sticking with a long-term fuckbuddy who didn’t want to settle down and have kids in a monogamous relationship, a woman who turned out to be a dangerously flaky liar (who was dumped both as a partner and as a friend the moment I found this out), and the woman to whom I’m now married.
But maybe my perception of “the dating market” is fundamentally different from yours, owing to the fact that I’ve had close female friends since my teens, and therefore have a fair amount of insight into the fact that they are often just as lonely and keen to find a long-term partner. And these would make – and in lots of cases have indeed made – excellent partners, so what are they doing wrong? It must be something pretty serious given that they apparently “have the dating market cornered”.
The answers are all in this thread, if you care to look for them and take a long, hard look at yourself. In fact, many of them are in the excerpts that I quote in this very post.
Seriously, if you haven’t got laid in four years, and there’s no obvious reason for this to do with your looks, then the problem is 99.9% certain to be the rest of you. So your fundamental question shouldn’t be “what’s wrong with women?” (a pointlessly vague notion in any case), it should be “what’s wrong with me?”
The good news is that you may well be able to do something about it. The bad news is that it requires intensive and brutally honest self-criticism.
Sexbotdude:
You really have swallowed that PUA crap hook, line and sinker.
It really is not easy to follow a discussion when everybody speak when you sleep. So, Brandon has left the conversation without explaining more why he defended Meller in his claim that our comment could lead a man to rape. Shocking.
Several time you said “tongue in cheek” So, if it was ironical, that mean you hold the position opposed to what you said, and “women should all live alone” is funny because it’s so ridiculous?If your mother had been raped, before you go to jail for murder would you advise her to stop wearing skirts for her own good? Do you also advise not to wear sexy clothes to women you date?
SexBot: I don’t know what you looks like or how many you earn. But I can tell you I wouldn’t date you in real life, just based on the few messages you posted. You sound bitter and resentful to women, which is very unattractive. I get that you’re resentful because you can’t get laid, but that makes you the proverbial snake biting it’s own tail; the more bitter you sound the smaller the odds of getting laid. (They might be plenty of other reasons, but even on line this is an obvious one)
NAWALT game time! (not a very long list, because I’m young, shy and not very sexual)
First boy I kissed: conventionally attractive but dumb like a rock. Wanted to date me, I said no, partly because I lived in an other town partly because he was so dumb.
Second guy who wanted to date me: chubby, average size, student but will probably have a well payed job, loved to tell misogynistic jokes and so shy he would talk more by text messages than by voice. Guess why I said no. Hint, not because “chubby”.
Third guy who wanted to date me: tall, conventionally attractive in a very geeky way, dream guy for me on the paper. Sadly, our conversations had more blank than anything else. Is a good friend now.
Current boyfriend is chubby, not very conventionally attractive (but very cute according to me), nerdy, doing a thesis in mathematic (Not many chance of getting rich with that, unless he gets the Fields medal) and very funny. Also, has a British accent with is uber sexy.
Only model (not Calvin though, and not underwear from what I know) I ever met: very conventionally attractive, very fit, tall, etc. I said “Hi” and did not flirt with him, none the less because I didn’t find him attractive. And that was in feminist land – Sweden! – while I was away from my boyfriend! I had options and was faithful!
Other empirical proof: get out. Go in a street, a park or a mall and look at people! There are couple with not-Calvin-models all over the place, and I don’t know who settled for whom, but they have girlfriends!
This is what I mean by “intensive and brutally honest self-criticism”. SexBot needs to recognize:
1) that he sounds bitter, resentful and desperate (i.e. acknowledging the problem);
2) what it is that makes him sound bitter, resentful and desperate (i.e. analyzing the problem);
3) how to modify his behavior and language so that this is no longer the case (i.e. resolving the problem).
It can certainly be done, but it requires a fundamental change of approach. I also strongly recommend no longer reading MRA/PUA sites, as it’s blindingly clear that they’re part of the problem, and that their suggestions will only reinforce existing prejudices – which, because they’re generally based on bullshit, paranoia and wilful ignorance, is precisely the last thing that should happen.
He also needs to develop some sort of sense of what he wants in a partner beyond “is not very fat, is not retired”. The whole concept of compatibility doesn’t seem to have even occurred to him, ie. that he might end up meeting a woman who meets his very minimal criteria who wants to date him and then, lo and behold, find out that he doesn’t actually like her very much. If his attitude is that it doesn’t matter, well, what sane woman would want to be in a situation like that?
“Are you not yet eligible for a pension? Do you have a pulse? Awesome! Let’s shack up.”
…and of course one of the great things about “compatibility” is that this is almost impossible to predict in advance, certainly not via any kind of formula.
If someone had told me fifteen years ago that I’d end up marrying someone who shared hardly any of my really in-depth interests (indeed, whose lack of interest in music was almost total) and who was significantly shorter than me and visibly overweight, I’d probably have reacted with some skepticism if not outright denial. After all, all my partners up to then had had very strong shared cultural interests, and with hardly any exceptions had tended towards the tall and slim.
But that is indeed what happened, and I don’t regret it for a millisecond.
In fact, it’s often the experience of going out with someone who doesn’t tick many of the boxes that you’ve previously regarded as essential that makes you rethink your whole notion of what constitutes a good relationship. Often very much for the better.
I will admit that I’m probably the most shallow person here in the sense of how inflexible I am in terms of looks, but even for me, fitting my type is a necessary but not sufficient kind of thing. And it’s a lot harder to put into words what makes for a compatible personality than it is with looks. With looks you can point at a picture and say “like that”. Personalities are complicated things, and when you put 2 of them together it’s hard to say in advance how well they’ll fit. Anyone who thinks that they could potentially be happy with anyone who meets certain basic physical criteria ie either a. not experienced enough with relationships to know that this just isn’t true or b. basically saying that they’ll take anyone with the appropriate genitalia. Which does tend to give the impression that access to that genitalia is the only thing they’re really interested in, which tends to put off most potential partners.
“And it’s a lot harder to put into words what makes for a compatible personality than it is with looks”
Not necessarily. Having a good sense of geeky humor (Monthy Python like) would a necessity to be boy/girl friend material for me. However, I would incapable to define my “type”, or physical traits that I need to find someone hot.
And it can change too. After knowing a person, my opinion of their physic can change a lot. Not that I find sexy everybody I like and ugly everybody I dislike, but it’s not written in stone.
For example, when I was a teenager I had a good summer-camp male friend. His eyebrows were a bit like that http://www.mexique-fr.com/Frida/fridasinges.jpg
At day 1, I found him unattractive. At week 3, it was the cutest thing evaaar.
You can, but I’d never reach a definitive judgement of anyone’s attractiveness from a photo. One of the most attractive people I know tends to photograph really badly for some reason – she’s got such an animated, vibrant personality that freeze-framing it completely fails to capture its essence. Conversely… well, the British satirical magazine Private Eye used to run a cruel but very funny feature in which a journalist or columnist’s byline photo would be run alongside a much more casual snap of them, often taken at a party. The differences were sometimes startling, and the lengths to which they went to conceal certain features – for instance, ensuring that the byline photo was taken at exactly the right angle to conceal, say, a big or crooked nose – often hilarious.
Which is why I need to meet someone face to face before I can reliably judge whether or not they’re attractive.
It’s not so much hard as generally impossible to predict with any useful accuracy. I’ve seen people who appeared almost comically perfect for each other fail to strike sparks, even in situations that were explicitly designed to offer them every opportunity. Conversely, I’ve seen plenty of intense and sometimes lifelong relationships spring from deeply unpromising beginnings – sometimes even between people who really didn’t think much of each other at first. My first date with my wife wasn’t any kind of blinding revelation – we had a good enough time to agree to see each other again, but neither of us would have predicted we’d be engaged in less than four months.
Which is why I generally point and laugh at people who try to box everything neatly into generalized “theories” about how people are supposed to react in any given situation – because it usually reveals far more about them than anything useful.
Absolutely. When MRAL recently mentioned his desire to “stick my dick into” a potential date, I suspect this would have been obvious to the date from his body language alone, and must therefore have been profoundly off-putting. If you objectify a potential partner from the start, you’ve almost certainly got off on the wrong foot – instant physical attraction is great, but it’s nowhere near enough, and often far less important than you might think.
Also, “I want to stick my dick in you” and “I am really attracted to you and would love to have sex with you” aren’t actually the same thing. I get the sense that he really, truly does not realize this. Nor do a lot of MRAs. For me, men who see sex as something a man does to a woman tend to be rather obvious and easy to identify, usually within a very short time. I’m willing to bet that MRAL is positively radiating that attitude, and it’s putting most women off far more than his height and supposedly wonky eye are. I’ve met men who were exactly my type who had that attitude towards sex, and the effect on the libido is somewhat akin to dumping a bucket of ice water on a cat, no matter how physically attractive they are.
On the difference between photos and reality – yep. Some people are super photogenic and not nearly as attractive in real life, others photograph horribly even though they’re actually very attractive. In fact I think people with very animated facial expressions often photograph badly, because the camera keeps catching them making awkward faces. Photoshop has made the differences even more exaggerated.
I’m always rather surprised when I meet celebrities and they look exactly like they do in photos, especially if they’re very attractive in both senses. Even in those cases, though, once you actually start talking to them your sense of how attractive they are shifts based on their personality, body language, etc. Even the best, most true to life photograph can’t capture chemistry.
I don’t think most MRAs even believe that chemistry exists, which I guess makes sense if you think of women as things that you do stuff to, or that do stuff for you, rather than as people who you interact with.
“I’m willing to bet that MRAL is positively radiating that attitude”
I bet the same thing is true for Its2011! And PUA too, except for those who are good at hiding it.
I completely agree. The distinction between doing something “to” or “with” someone appears insignificantly tiny, but it’s critically important here.
It’s one of the reasons that I could never rape anyone. For me, mutual consent, expressed clearly and unambiguously, without any alcohol or drugs-related “assistance”, is as fundamental to a satisfying sexual relationship as physical arousal. In fact, it’s arguably more fundamental.
His height is almost certainly completely irrelevant to his lack of dating success, and I suspect the wonky eye may be too. Indeed, what people often think of as appalling physical defects on their own bodies may well be actively appealing to someone else – it’s a distinguishing mark, and sometimes even a cute one at that. Can you seriously imagine anyone refusing to date Stephen Fry because he has a bent nose?
No, in MRAL’s case it’s because he regards women’s bodies as receptacles, because he finds their sexual organs repulsive, and because he has a profoundly immature attitude towards human relationships in general. All of which, I suspect, becomes very obvious very quickly on meeting him in person, even if he doesn’t state it outright.
Sexbot Dude said @8.02pm:
“Yes, women are hypergameous, it’s a fact. Stating a fact is creepy to you? I guess you only like liars or idiots then right?”
It’s not a fact, it’s a particularly stupid generalization. When you make that kind of generalization it only takes one or two exceptions and your assertion comes tumbling down around your ears.
I’ve been married for twenty seven years. I’ve never slept with anyone but my husband and although I’ve had plenty of opportunity I’ve never been tempted to. This woman, at least, is not hypergamous. My husband is no Adonis and never was, but he has many qualities that I find more important than appearance. Things like character, kindness, empathy and intelligence. Does that make me shallow? Or are you going to accuse me of lying through my teeth? I chose him mainly for three unusual qualities 1. I’m an anxious person and he knew how to calm me. 2. I felt safe in his company 3. He was a very good conversationalist. Nope, looks and money were non issues.
“I haven’t invented any standards. It’s the standards you make for yourself, the ones which are heavily media influenced. Most every woman denies being shallow, although some don’t. And the ones that do, say things almost verbatim to what you’re saying. “I had sex with an overweight guy before’, “My BF is not an underwear model”, “I just want someone ‘who’s fun to be around, who loves and respects’ me”, “I like personality over looks”, etc.
But, the proof is in the pudding. The women who say these admirable things usually just end up chasing after the same douche bags anyways. And the non-dbaggy type dudes who don’t look like underwear models or movie stars get left to be lonely.”
That’s a load of crap. The problem is that you haven’t been able to attract a partner and you want to blame women for that rather than changing your own behaviour. There are lots of people out there who aren’t conventionally attractive but still attract partners because they realize that they can be loved for things that are less tangible that good looks or money. They develop other personal qualities, like humor, education, skills that will attract attention, gaining a reputation for being a good and reliable friend, gaining social skills, being interested in and caring for other people, being interesting and fun to be around (and I promise you, someone who kvetches about your lack of sex life is not fun to be around) and about a million other things. But that takes work and it doesn’t look to me like you’re prepared to make the effort so you remain mateless and angry with women, who don’t value you as you think you deserve.
“Sure, I see people who are dating men who don’t look “attractive” but then I remember that most of those guy’s had an “in” of some sort. Like growing up with the woman, or some odd talent that he has that initially attracted her to him in spite of his not being “attractive” at first. Then they “grow on you” and so on and so forth. It really is only about looks for women. I will find the scientific studies that prove this fact later, but I’m sure it won’t convince anyone that they are shallow, because it “can’t be me!”
The “in” is called friendship. Lots of really good relationships start that way. You should try it.
” Just because I can’t choose who I would like to date (most men are in this situation actually) doesn’t mean i don’t care about the people who are nice enough to give me a chance! That’d be really cold of someone to not care about a person who is giving them a chance. I’ve never even thought of it like that, what makes you think in this manner?
Before people respond to the “most men can’t choose” part. It’s reality, most men cannot choose (unless they have underwear model looks or are quite wealthy) who they date. They are the one’s chosen by the women who’ve accepted their invitation. they are given the illusion of choice (kind of like the US electoral process) and most people are fooled by this illusion. But I, as a critical thinker, am not fooled. I see that it’s women who have the dating market cornered any way one logically looks looks at it.”
No, that’s the way you choose to look at it because it explains your lack of success and allows you to blame others for it. This is not critical thought, you’ve just taken on the PUA mentality Which is simplistic in the extreme and makes you sound like a self-absorbed adolescent.
Its2011
Oh, I forgot that! So know, having developed talents (like, I guess magic tricks, being able to tell good jokes or a sweet personality ^_^) is an unfair advantage and we are all shallow whores (no disrespect to sex workers intended) for being attracted to men’s talents. I think the only way to be a proper lady is to let your father chose your husband. That way, all jealous lonely men can only direct their anger at your father, not you! Or work in Meller’s not-a-brothel and don’t discriminate your clients.
Welllllllllllll,pretty much all men DO have a choice to accept/reject a woman who shows interest in them. But it’s true, women get first pick at the guys in this land. When people are free to choose their mates, women are the ones who have the upper hand in the dating game. In societies with arranged marriages, pretty much every man is guaranteed a woman and vice versa. But that’s not favorable to women, who very well might end up stick with an unattractive guy that her family chooses for her when if she had a choice she’d marry futher up.
But of course none of the stuff you’re saying is true. It’s just the story the MGTOW guys tell you to keep you in your tent all night and make sure you don’t bother the grownups.
When people are free to choose their mates, people are free to choose their mates. It’s a pretty easy concept, unless you’re obsessed with proving that the wimmenz are out to get you.
Tis a tautology and it does not in any way contradict what I said about women getting first pick. Logic Fail. Come to think of it, I honestly wish sometimes that women were out to get me. :-p
FYI: I don’t know a damn thing about MGTOW nor do I give a shit.
“Tis a tautology “:
NO flies on Monsieur sans Nom!
I don’t see how this is specifically “not favorable to women”. Surely exactly the same scenario could be played out with men getting hitched to a woman that they don’t find attractive?
Monsieur,
Given a choice most men would choose to marry a swimsuit model.
But this is not the way the real world works. Reality is that people marry within their own stations in life almost all the time. When they do not it more often then not doesn’t work out. Reality is fake french man: the vast (over 90% if not 99%) majority of marriages are people who come from similar backgrounds similar cultures and similar attractiveness levels.
I’m familiar with the culture of arranged marriages. Its not something that I favor but I have met couples who are happily married.
Here is a couple of facts about arranged marriages in India (which is what I’m familiar with). The bride and groom will come from the same social economic background (ie: the chaste system) , the parents who are arranging the marriage are well aware that you do not match a 10 with a 2 on a attractiveness scale, and the marriage at it’s finest increases both families wealth.
Another point.
Mra’s are quite notorious for stating that women are used up by the age of 30. I find one of them trying to say that women only care about looks to be at best disingenuous.