So I have decided to start going for less attractive women. I have had very little success with the hot ones, and therefore I am still a virgin.
I just want to find a girl who does not think that she is too good for me and then try dating her for a while and then try some sex out.
The question is: how much do I lower my standards? Is it even worth dating ( and sleeping with girls that you are not physically attracted to) should I just go for the first one that comes along just to get this virgin monkey off my back?
I have waited around and searched for love for my whole adult life, but it just does not seem to be happening and I am very worried about that. I only wanted to have sex with a girl that I was in love with, but time has ticked away and I no longer think that it is a wise choice.
I wish I could go back in time and begin having random sex when I was still an acceptable age. I am 28 now and my whole story scares the shit out of me.:eek::eek:
If the standards you have been measuring against deal only with physical beauty, you have identified your problem.
At 28 it is not too late to date around. You may be surprised.
It's a pretty common problem, actually.
I don't think it's fair to deride the guy for judging women by their physical beauty. He didn't say it was the only standard he was judging them by. If there are any men (or, for that matter any women) who don't take physical beauty of potential partners into account at all, I'd like to to know about it.
How different people consider physical attractiveness varies, I suspect. A common model, it seems, is that a potential partner must meet some standard before she's even physically attractive at all, and beyond that it's just one factor among several: and perhaps a very minor one. In other words, there are some women who just aren't attractive to a particular guy and thus aren't potential partners no matter how wonderful they might otherwise be. On the other hand, among those who are at least slightly physically attractive, how attractive they are physically might take a back seat to how funny, kindhearted, self-confident, accomplished, whatever they are.
Clearly, it sounds like the OP's minimum standard is, as a purely practical matter, way too high. Either that, or he's doing something wrong (like never meeting any women at all, or cultivating a resemblance to Charles Manson), though -- even if that is the case -- it might be no more correctable than the "standards too high" problem.
How does one lower his or her standards? I don't know, exactly. Some thoughts: make an effort actually to talk to and be friendly with women who don't seem attractive to you ... they might grow on you; avoid habituating yourself to unusually attractive women (don't look at men's magazines, try to watch movies and TV shows with ordinary people in them, rather than solely the sleek); try do identify characteristics that you find attractive that are idiosyncratic (i.e. that every other man in the world isn't attracted to); every time you look at an ordinary-looking woman, immediately identify her most attractive feature or characteristic. I don't know ... watch amateur porn? That one might be counter-productive, I fear.
NizeGie, are you a guy?
Uh ... yeah. :confused:
[QUOTE=NizeGie;230629]It's a pretty common problem, actually.
I don't think it's fair to deride the guy for judging women by their physical beauty. He didn't say it was the only standard he was judging them by. If there are any men (or, for that matter any women) who don't take physical beauty of potential partners into account at all, I'd like to to know about it.
How different people consider physical attractiveness varies, I suspect. A common model, it seems, is that a potential partner must meet some standard before she's even physically attractive at all, and beyond that it's just one factor among several: and perhaps a very minor one. In other words, there are some women who just aren't attractive to a particular guy and thus aren't potential partners no matter how wonderful they might otherwise be. On the other hand, among those who are at least slightly physically attractive, how attractive they are physically might take a back seat to how funny, kindhearted, self-confident, accomplished, whatever they are.
Clearly, it sounds like the OP's minimum standard is, as a purely practical matter, way too high. Either that, or he's doing something wrong (like never meeting any women at all, or cultivating a resemblance to Charles Manson), though -- even if that is the case -- it might be no more correctable than the "standards too high" problem.
How does one lower his or her standards? I don't know, exactly. Some thoughts: make an effort actually to talk to and be friendly with women who don't seem attractive to you ... they might grow on you; avoid habituating yourself to unusually attractive women (don't look at men's magazines, try to watch movies and TV shows with ordinary people in them, rather than solely the sleek); try do identify characteristics that you find attractive that are idiosyncratic (i.e. that every other man in the world isn't attracted to); every time you look at an ordinary-looking woman, immediately identify her most attractive feature or characteristic. I don't know ... watch amateur porn? That one might be counter-productive, I fear.[/QUOTE]
I think you have a good understanding of what I am on about. I am simply saying that the way my brain works, the physical attraction is the first thing that draws me to a girl. Obviously I am aware that women have other great qualities. I am not that stupid or shallow.
Now at age 28 I see clearly the harsh reality of life. When I was a teenager some hot girls did like me, but the reality of life is...... as girls like that grow up, they use their beauty to find really rich men and guys like me are pushed aside in their quest for financial security.
Even some girls I grew up with (who have more confidence in their looks than they should have) are playing that "Marry the rich guy game". There is no love in those relationships and I feel that those type of people are even worse off than me.
I guess I just need to keep trying, because I don't think I am ugly or an asshole. I just need to change the game plan. That is why I post threads like this asking for some help or good advice from people. My friends and parents were no help at all for me growing up. I have been trying to figure stuff out on my own, and I just need some good advice.
Johnnymac - ask EVERY reasonably cute woman you find out for coffee and then date as many of those as you can talk into it. Your only standard should be, at this point, BREATHING & DOESN'T MAKE YOU PHYSICALLY ILL. Get the monkey off your back and stop thinking you're made out of gold yourself.
You would be surprised at who finds whom physically attractive because most of it is a subconcious pheromone driven thing. Some of the most commonplace men have built in "babe magnets" which have nothing to do with their bank balance or their looks. There are women of average looks who come similarly equipped. Such women cannot move without tripping over eager men. (Damn! Wish I had that! But oh well!)
Now get out there!
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230671]Johnnymac - ask EVERY reasonably cute woman you find out for coffee and then date as many of those as you can talk into it. Your only standard should be, at this point, BREATHING & DOESN'T MAKE YOU PHYSICALLY ILL. Get the monkey off your back and stop thinking you're made out of gold yourself.
You would be surprised at who finds whom physically attractive because most of it is a subconcious pheromone driven thing. Some of the most commonplace men have built in "babe magnets" which have nothing to do with their bank balance or their looks. There are women of average looks who come similarly equipped. Such women cannot move without tripping over eager men. (Damn! Wish I had that! But oh well!)
Now get out there![/QUOTE]
Thanks.
I don't think I am made of gold though. I am sorry if I am coming across like that. I will try my best. I hope soon to be talking about new topics with you that are not "virgin" related. My time is coming soon. I will do everything to make it happen.
Thanks for all your help, even though sometimes I have sounded ridiculous. You are getting through to me know. Thanks
None of us are so bad and none of us are so good - so you have to go with what you have and with whom you can find. Anything else just leads to disappointment and discontent.
Gotta slay a few dragons to get to the princess...
And kiss frogs to get the prince.
Exactly...
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230671]Some of the most commonplace men have built in "babe magnets" which have nothing to do with their bank balance or their looks. There are women of average looks who come similarly equipped. Such women cannot move without tripping over eager men. (Damn! Wish I had that! But oh well!)
Now get out there![/QUOTE]
Ha Evil Evil Kitten you aren't tripping OVER eager men because you are tripping them! After which you probably trample them under foot-in a soft dommely way of course:p
Johnnymacs, You have two very bright experienced women here so far, Brandye and Evil Evil Kitten, who have given you great and sound advice.
As one of the pickiest, most self centered, stuck up assholes on the planet I can tell you that it is pretty much impossible to find "the perfect woman" and if you do she has so many more alternatives than you that your chances with her are down around 1 in 3,000,000,000 and that is if she actually prefers men to women!
Looks are only one of the criteria when looking for a partner. Intelligence, caring about you (meaning she must be less self centered than you and willing to deal with that ), sexual compatibility, fun factor for non sex issues...
The 6's and 7's are often much better than the 8's and 9's. I won't award anyone a 10. And I'll use the word that probably everyone else is afraid to use now---They say the UGLY ones make the best lovers. Maybe there is something to it. Yes physical attraction is important but saying that you are "lowering your standards" by deciding to pursue less attractive women is unbecoming of a gentleman and a self respecting stud.
Geez I had better get to work before I offer to show Evil Evil Kitten some of those rope techniques she is always looking down her nose at just so she can trample you in a not-so-soft-domme way with her stilletos while Brandye brandishes a scalpel in the direction of your groin.
You see what happens when I go three days without coffee? OK thee last two paragraphs are just my quirkier side. I'm just kidding. But the first 5 paragraphs I am serious. Now go chat up some nice women , no matter what they look like.
No I use a tranq dart gun on them and then man-nap them. How else am I to get playmates? Men are just sooo damn shy and timid any more! And all I want to do is ....well.....ahem.....you know. *looking all innocent & fluffy*
OK, I am digging back for this. Way back to my University days - before many here were born.
Economists coined the word "satisficing" to describe a situation in which a person will accept less than maximum payoff in order to get some payoff. Then, of course, sociologists and psychologists, in that order, picked up the word and applied in their disciplines. I recall reading an experiment in which a man would describe his ideal date. Then they would line up ten women (this is what psych undergrads are for; they will do demeaning things for a grade) from the most closely matching the ideal on one end of the line and a really unattractive (stringy hair, unwashed, terrible clothes, overweight) at the other and have him pick whom he wanted to ask out. Then they assigned likelihoods of his request being accepted. I am not certain whether the big sex question was in there. The results were most men would satisfice rather than go for the max.
[QUOTE=dlb;230721]The 6's and 7's are often much better than the 8's and 9's. [/QUOTE]
See, here's the problem. If I may be slightly more rigorously formal than you probably intended:
The majority of people aren't 6s or 7s: they're lower. The average man is a 5. He dreams about going out with a woman who's a 6 or 7. What's readily available is 2s and 3s. What's available with patience and persistence is 4s and 5s. The same is true going the other way.
The overly-high-standards problem, in this hypothetical "average guy" case, is not that a 2 or 3 (or even a 4 or 5) is less attractive ... she's not attractive at all. Zero. The only solutions are: (i) become more attractive, (ii) wait and wait for a woman with an unusual taste in men (ala the fictionalized Jamie Lyn Siegler on "Entourage") or (iii) actively work to modify what you inherently find attractive. All three are kind of daunting tasks, though none of them are technically impossible.
This is, of course, simplifying. To be accurate, the "score" should really be based on overall attractiveness, not just physical. And, fortunately, not everyone has exactly the same tastes (one person's 5 might be another's 7), though within the cultural and socio-economic groups we typically spend the vast majority of our time, they don't vary enormously.
[QUOTE=NizeGie;230774]See, here's the problem. If I may be slightly more rigorously formal than you probably intended:
The majority of people aren't 6s or 7s: they're lower. The average man is a 5. He dreams about going out with a woman who's a 6 or 7. What's readily available is 2s and 3s. What's available with patience and persistence is 4s and 5s. The same is true going the other way.
The overly-high-standards problem, in this hypothetical "average guy" case, is not that a 2 or 3 (or even a 4 or 5) is less attractive ... she's not attractive at all. Zero. The only solutions are: (i) become more attractive, (ii) wait and wait for a woman with an unusual taste in men (ala the fictionalized Jamie Lyn Siegler on "Entourage") or (iii) actively work to modify what you inherently find attractive. All three are kind of daunting tasks, though none of them are technically impossible.
This is, of course, simplifying. To be accurate, the "score" should really be based on overall attractiveness, not just physical. And, fortunately, not everyone has exactly the same tastes (one person's 5 might be another's 7), though within the cultural and socio-economic groups we typically spend the vast majority of our time, they don't vary enormously.[/QUOTE]
NizeGie I am having trouble deciding whether you address the main topic of the discussion. You forgot bring up the factor of beer goggles BTW. A numerical system for rating physical attractiveness is purely arbitrary and varies as you say from person to person. I have always felt that most young men always give an additional point or two to young women who look easy. Am I allowed to write slutty here?
My argument, and roughly that of some other forum members, is that JohnnyMacs should not put so much emphasis on the merely physical because he might find that some of the women he considers a "drop in (his) standards" are actually a step up.
When I was about 14 I had a discussion with my best friend about attractiveness in women. Our conclusion: we want to date pretty girls to please everyone else, to win the approval of others. And when I was 14 Farah Fawcett and whoever else was supposed to be beautiful in the mid 70s were all below my standards-except Cheryl Tiegs!
dlb - you can write slutty - but NOT as if its a bad thing. Because it isn't.
Ego is the number one killer of young men's chances. "The groundless self-satisfaction of the male sex." - as I have heard it said. Witness johnnymac here - who was chasing those 9's and 10's "empty-handed" instead of realistically going after 5's, 6's, and 7's as a beginner should. Then when he failed, did he rethink his game plan? No, he blamed the girls - calling them snooty or some such. Pffft. Silly man was trying to catch fish using the wrong bait.
Which is why I have been telling him to go out and find himself a nice cougar to teach him a few things.
NizeGie, I thought so... Now I understand your name, nice guy!
Mate, it kind of sounds like this is a massive deal to you.
So, stop beating yourself up over it.. and go do something about it. I assure you that women will not be beating your door in at the moment; so you must go find them!
First things.. you said you've had no luck with good looking birds.. are you pricing yourself out of the game mate?
Secondly, from how you come across it seems that right now, you talk to women and come present like a rotweiler on heat. This is not great for any hopes of fornication we have. So, get yourself an 'I dont give a f*ck' attitude (sometimes known as the process of 'growing a set'), stop putting an emphasis on your drought and start talking to women not to pick them up but just purely to have fun talking to them. As many of them as you can. And at some stage, somewhere, of all the women youre going to talk to.. just one needs like what she sees and your on the board!
Evil Evil Kitten, I know that you know that I know that you know the context in which I use "slutty." It was almost a rhetorical question. I figured I could get away with it.
And I believe we both know that in the right context and in certain circles slut is a most endearing term.
Ahhhh cougars. A relatively new term, that of course I have learned from younger associates who watch way too much internet porn. I remember when I set 27 as the youngest woman I would consider becoming involved with. Now that I am waaaaaaayyyyy to the right of 27 I am greatly amused, and flattered, by the undergrads who do not even study with me yet drop by to visit my office.:)
One of the things that younger men don't realize they have to look forward to;)
The nice thing about being grown up now ( well sort of ) is that now I am most turned on by women in their 40s and 50s. But I am rambling off subject.....
Some of us 40 year old women can be a lot of fun! :D
<--is considered somewhat entertaining by some people.
[QUOTE=sera300;230829]Some of us 40 year old women can be a lot of fun! :D[/QUOTE]
Yes we are;):p:D
I just bet you can be and then some.....................................
Can you say; sexy, classy, fun, entertaining, wild, uninhibited, passionate, and classical/conservative all in one??? With a body which can still beat those much younger?
Overall, yes we are much fun and can be a good friend as well!
As once said; "Come on baby & take a walk on the wild side".
And the white boys go-
Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
Doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo, doo
alright. I could not help myself
"And she said; Come on baby take a walk on the wild side...." :D
:p
A hustle here and a hustle there
New york city is the place where they said
Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side
I said hey joe, take a walk on the wild side
"Went to the Apollo
You should have seen him go go go
They said, hey sugar, take a walk on the wild side
I said, hey babe, take a walk on the wild side
All right, huh...."
:D
Is the Apollo still open?
[quote=dlb;230884]Is the Apollo still open?[/quote]
Gosh yes! It's the heart of Harlem and many still return to perform! Been there a few times! :)
Next time I am in NYC perhaps.
OMG you're all older than me!! LOL
Oh I don't think so. I am just mature beyond my years.:p
Then I must be younger than mine.
I bet you are.
Ah! A sportsman! How much are you betting? *has the book out*
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;230919]Then I must be younger than mine. dlb I bet you are. EvilEvilKitten Ah! A sportsman! How much are you betting? *has the book out* [/QUOTE]
Now let me get this straight. You now are willing to bet that you are not younger than your years? :rolleyes:
No, I'm pulling your leg.
Oh, about which part?:D
Left big toe.
Men are always betting their left testicle. So with women it's left big toe?
No, that's the part of your leg I'm pulling.
that would explain the arousal I have been feeling.
Undoubtedly.
But this fatal allure I have was inherited from my ancestresses. Dangereuse de L'Isle Bouchard de Rochefoucauld was one of them. Such an interesting character.
Yes. Well. That you have an ancestress by that name would explain so much:)
*looking suspiciously over my shoulder for the arrival of the anti thread-hijack marshalls*
I'll protect you.
The two of you in the same room would be hysterical!
I have sore abs from giggling as it is sera:D
<--very good at rubbing tummies
Pages