StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In your experience, amigocabal, which has worked better?

amigocabal wrote: I have been told that a bar is the worst place to meet women, and that coffeeshops are better.

I have found little difference myself. I have met many wonderful women in coffee shops but I met my wife in a divey bar. Interestingly enough now that I think about it I met her by harassing her I guess. Walked up to her and complimented her tattoos, bought her a drink and asked her what she is all about. Best decision I ever made.

Surlethe wrote:In your experience, amigocabal, which has worked better?

Bars, of courser. They are friendlier there. (As long as it is not too crowded).

Honestly, I have heard dating advice that defies common sense, such as the idea that a grocery store is a great place to initiate contact with the opposite sex. It may happen once in a while, but going there specifically to meet people would be inefficient, to write the least.

Do you have any idea how broken you sound?

'I heard <xyz place where people are> can be a place to INITIATE FIRST CONTACT with the TARGET INDIVIDUAL with greatest EFFICIENCY'

What's the unit for contact initiations per hour?

It turns out wherever there are people, you can talk to people. Pretty stunning! You just need to be able to manage on a case-by-case basis and not follow some kind of conversation tree. Not being creepy as all fuck probably helps too.

Simon_Jester wrote:Something like 85-90% of times I go into a coffee shop, I'm there to get paperwork done, because I'm a sleep-deprived zombie who needs caffeine, or because I just got out of something stressful and want a quiet place to drink a mocha and read a book for half an hour. Occasionally, I'm there for a job interview.

Under none of those conditions am I going to be looking for potential mates. Either I have something else on my mind, I have nothing on my mind because my brain's not working, or I desperately want there to be nothing on my mind.

Granted, other people may go there for fun more often than I do- but I assume, for the sake of argument, that the numbers are about the same for women. If so, no wonder they find being hit on annoying when they go to those places.

Sorry Simon, but I really doubt that you're a representative sample of coffee shop patrons. Coffee shops have been social places for as long as they have existed, and I think people see them as a good place to meet others for the simple reason that they lack the same connotations that trying to pick people up in a bar does. I think we can all agree that the dude trying to get a girl drunk in the bar is probably pretty sleazy, but the offer of a cup of coffee is a lot more harmless. In the first example it's often someone deliberately trying to lower someones inhibitions, where as in the second it's an purely excuse to talk to someone. Although, as in everything else, context does play a huge factor, like if someone is engrossed in whatever it is they're doing or says no then don't bother them. You're a lot more likely to find receptive people in a coffee shop in a college town or say, Brooklyn, then in a busy Starbucks in a mall.

PKRudeBoy wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:Something like 85-90% of times I go into a coffee shop, I'm there to get paperwork done, because I'm a sleep-deprived zombie who needs caffeine, or because I just got out of something stressful and want a quiet place to drink a mocha and read a book for half an hour. Occasionally, I'm there for a job interview.

Sorry Simon, but I really doubt that you're a representative sample of coffee shop patrons.

I actually went looking, and couldn't find any data ( as opposed to anecdotes), but there do seem to be plenty of people who go to coffee shops to work because it's less lonely then being on your own but not too distracting. A good few also said to 'flirt with the baristas' so I guess there is an element of sex in there.

I've taken dates to a coffee shop before, but never actually 'hit on anyone' (although there a few conversations with strangers that could possibly have ended with me leaving her/him my number, had I so desired.)

One of your problems might be this: you seem to think that a "friendly wink" from a stranger is something that a woman would ever want, whereas I'm having difficulty thinking of a situation where I wouldn't find that skeezy and somewhat infantilising. Maybe if they were Chris Hemsworth it would be ok, but Chris Hemsworth gets his own rules because he's special. Now, it's not something that would put me off a guy forever, and if he turned out to be otherwise charming, then I would like him, but it would be in spite of the wink, and because of it.

Which is the problem of course, everyone thinks that they're Chris Hemsworth, or close enough.

Scrib wrote: Which is the problem of course, everyone thinks that they're Chris Hemsworth, or close enough.

Just like everyone thinks they're an above average driver?

It occurs to me that a good rule of thumb for dealing with women is to keep in mind that you are not Chris Hemsworth*, and then act in such a way that she finds dealing with you a more attractive proposition than masturbating to photos of Chris Hemsworth.

*Unless, of course, you are Chris Hemsworth, in which case, good for you!

Except that sex is a competition. If a male isn't sexually attractive, and lives in a society that lets females choose their mates, the men are going to compensate for their sexual disadvantages - sometimes with outright begging and pleading, sometimes by ignoring modest or polite rebuffs, sometimes by trying to buy her off with gifts, sometimes by providing her with booze or drugs so that she'll voluntarily lower her own inhibitions. In any case, the majority of males will obey their instincts to compete, right up to whatever limits that society will tolerate. And farther, if they're poorly integrated into that society, or just plain bad.

Lusankya wrote:

Scrib wrote: Which is the problem of course, everyone thinks that they're Chris Hemsworth, or close enough.

Just like everyone thinks they're an above average driver?

It occurs to me that a good rule of thumb for dealing with women is to keep in mind that you are not Chris Hemsworth*, and then act in such a way that she finds dealing with you a more attractive proposition than masturbating to photos of Chris Hemsworth.

*Unless, of course, you are Chris Hemsworth, in which case, good for you!

I find it interesting that there seems to be an assumption here that women are only interested in men that are the equivalent of movie star material or men who will compensate for such a short coming somehow.

Your particular position really comes across as 'if you're not Chris Hemsworth, you seriously have your work cut out for you'. To be perfectly blunt, what makes you so fucking special?

Your position sounds no less ridiculous than some male claiming unless a women meets a particular famous model for standards, the general rule is women better remember they aren't that model and compensate for that.

SI, You don't have to come across like a towering bag of dicks just to point out that life isn't fair in both directions. For example, you could have opened up an interesting new discussion by arguing that if sex is (in many instances and to many people) a commodity, then it is women who control access to that commodity, and so they get to set the standards for the transaction, and get the final word in whether or not it takes place. And that this state of affairs seems to be so often the case that it is stunningly rare to find a man who can reverse it by being extraordinarily rich/famous/handsome. So her statement doesn't really seem all that incredible unless you had never owned testicles before.

Lagmonster wrote:SI, You don't have to come across like a towering bag of dicks just to point out that life isn't fair in both directions. For example, you could have opened up an interesting new discussion by arguing that if sex is (in many instances and to many people) a commodity, then it is women who control access to that commodity, and so they get to set the standards for the transaction, and get the final word in whether or not it takes place. And that this state of affairs seems to be so often the case that it is stunningly rare to find a man who can reverse it by being extraordinarily rich/famous/handsome. So her statement doesn't really seem all that incredible unless you had never owned testicles before.

Is this a serious post or are you from Jupiter? Culture has taken sexual power from women for thousands of years. This thread should inform people that the step from then to now is very small and can take place in a moment of selfishness or intimidation by a man, even in a public place.

And not 'poor men can't control sex unless they're rich'?

Lagmonster wrote:SI, You don't have to come across like a towering bag of dicks just to point out that life isn't fair in both directions. For example, you could have opened up an interesting new discussion by arguing that if sex is (in many instances and to many people) a commodity, then it is women who control access to that commodity, and so they get to set the standards for the transaction, and get the final word in whether or not it takes place. And that this state of affairs seems to be so often the case that it is stunningly rare to find a man who can reverse it by being extraordinarily rich/famous/handsome. So her statement doesn't really seem all that incredible unless you had never owned testicles before.

Yeah, sure. 'Unless you're comparable to my particular choice of movie star masturbation material, you need to try real hard to get my attention and be more intersting than getting off to their image'.

That's a deluded, self absorbed, and immature attitude I expect from ignorant teenagers who tolerate someone who is a complete asshole simply because they are really good looking.

I'm not suggesting anyone should throw their personal standards out the fucking window, but the position I'm responding to is absurd, regardless of what side of the gender fence you're sitting on.

You'll excuse me if have this obsolete notion that you judge people on the basis of their own merits and qualities, not how they stack up to your movie star model masturbation material.

The whole 'unless you're Chris Hemsworth' angle is nothing more than a transparent position of 'I'll tolerate shit from someone if they're pretty, otherwise I'd kick them to the curb'.

She's obviously talking about the idea that men should EXPECT women to react positively to their advances (as if they were rich/attractive/desirable etc) when obviously, this is not the case at all. Learning to fuck off when a woman says (politely or not) to fuck off is the first step on the road of not being a date rapist.

Maybe that's what Lagmonster meant; lonely men can be creating their loneliness by bizarre expectations ('I will make this one girl who is obviously not interested like me' 'this woman is too ugly for me' etc) because they feel they have no power in sexual relationships.

Maybe what this means is some people can't even imagine a power that isn't coercive. When I meet women, I have heaps of power - the power to look awesome and not be a shitbag. Exercising this political power materially affects my attractiveness to people. :v

Stark wrote:She's obviously talking about the idea that men should EXPECT women to react positively to their advances (as if they were rich/attractive/desirable etc) when obviously, this is not the case at all. Learning to fuck off when a woman says (politely or not) to fuck off is the first step on the road of not being a date rapist.

This borders on absurd on just how fucking obvious you'd think this should be. Perhaps I'm really out of the loop if this is how many guys act.

Maybe that's what Lagmonster meant; lonely men can be creating their loneliness by bizarre expectations ('I will make this one girl who is obviously not interested like me' 'this woman is too ugly for me' etc) because they feel they have no power in sexual relationships.

Maybe what this means is some people can't even imagine a power that isn't coercive. When I meet women, I have heaps of power - the power to look awesome and not be a shitbag. Exercising this political power materially affects my attractiveness to people. :v

I would be the first to readily agree with your claim that how you present yourself and behavior towards women, including obvious things like 'don't be creep or shithead', should matter more than just physical appearance. Unless you're Chris Hemsworth.

It's that last bit I would take issue with. Exceptionally good looking should be a bonus, not an excuse to overlook significant and painful character flaws. Like being a creep or shithead.

Heaps of people (and not even just the lonely nerd sort) have learned somehow that their feelings should inform the reactions of others. If I love you or desire you, it behooves you to respond appropriately, because.... Who knows. You've probably seen this yourself - a woman is not interested, so the guy plots (sometimes for quite some time) 'ways' or 'tricks' to 'win' her affection. Why? BECAUSE HE WANTS IT. Why won't she just do what I want?!?

This is the kind of thing I think of when people talk about sexual politics these days. When I was a kid I thought dumb shit like 'sexism = over' and 'equal rights = equal treatment in society', but it just wasn't true. We live in a world where my wife feels safer when I'm with her, because it deflects most of the creeps. Think about at - the defence against predatory men is HAVE A MAN ALREADY (possibly predatory). How terrifying would it be to live in a world like that?

Singular Intellect wrote:Your particular position really comes across as 'if you're not Chris Hemsworth, you seriously have your work cut out for you'. To be perfectly blunt, what makes you so fucking special?

It's a buyer's market for the most part. Only the most loathesome of women will find it impossible to get sex when she wants it, indeed, most women, even the average-to-homely, get more offers of sex than they want to accept. They can be choosy because they have choices.

I get the sense that young, unattached males (and some not-so-young) want a venue where they are guaranteed to have no rejection. That doesn't exist, outside of pay-for-play i.e. prostitution. That probably is one of the attractions of prostitution, that the man can purchase acceptance and not worry about the woman rejecting him.

That doesn't mean all men need to look like Chris Hemsworth to get laid. First, not every woman finds Mr. Hemsworth sexy. Second, it's not just about looks for men, it's about developing some real assets. It used to be all a man had to do was work his ass off and be "a good provider" but nowadays with most women working for a living at one point or another they don't need a provider like they used to, enabling them to be even more choosey. He can't be just "a good provider", most of the time he needs to be a better provider than the woman he's chasing. Holy shit, he's not just competing for income score with his fellow men, now he's competing with the women, too! Well, if you haven't got movie-star looks or Donald Trump's money you'll need to find another asset to bring to the table.

Here's a good rule of thumb for the clueless - if the ONLY reasons you are talking to that girl/woman in front of you is that you're horny and desperate and she looks hot there is a 50/50 chance you are harassing her. At least. If you first need to ask her for directions, or where the magazine rack is at the bookstore, or if she's regular enough at this coffee shop that she knows who the best barista is for a latte they you're going to come off a lot less skeevy - if you are sincere about that. If you're just using those lines as an "opening" or an excuse you're likely to come off phony. If EVERY interaction with women is about you trying to get a date/sex and that's the ONLY reason you ever speak to one the problem is you, not them.

Basically, interact with women like the human beings they are. Meet them during normal social interactions. The more you interact with women the easier it will get, the less desperate pervy you'll come across, and then you actually do ask them for a date they're less likely to shut you down immediately.

However, you will always risk rejection. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Men are forced to risk rejection. Women are forced to risk that a man won't take "no" for answer and rape her (or worse). Both situations suck, but biology isn't fair.

Stark wrote:We live in a world where my wife feels safer when I'm with her, because it deflects most of the creeps. Think about at - the defence against predatory men is HAVE A MAN ALREADY (possibly predatory). How terrifying would it be to live in a world like that?

Pretty fucking terrifying.

I suspect that this is one reason for the all-too-common scenario of a woman staying with a physically abusive man. In a world where the strong man takes what he wants (which still exists in some pockets today, and was even more common in the past) then the only defense against the majority of men is to have a man strong enough and mean enough to fight off the rest. Trading an occasional black eye or sore jaw or busted tooth for a "protector" who will keep you from being gang-raped and keep your kids safe enough to live to adulthood might, in some circumstances, be a reasonable strategy. Just keep your particular bully happy and he'll fight off the rest for you, so you only have to deal with one man taking from you instead of a whole village full. Which is not to say any of these women sit down and reason all this out, it's just that if women who do that have more surviving offspring than those who don't that strategy is going to be maintained and even become more common.

That's also why one of the most common ways of deflecting unwanted male attention is for a woman to say she's already taken: "I have a boyfriend" or "I have a husband". I've known single women who wear a faux wedding band when they work as bartenders or waitresses in order to cut down (not eliminate, just reduce) the unwanted offers.

The fact that a lot of the time, a guy won't listen to the woman saying no but will listen to a hypothetical man saying that this woman is already his should be a pretty stark indicator of the imbalance in power between the genders here.

You see similar stuff in how these things are treated in fiction, too. When a male character won't take no for an answer and tries to win over a woman's heart, it's usually treated as romantic and charming. When a female character won't take no for an answer for a man's affection, she's a crazy stalker. Why? Because the man's decision is what matters :L

Absolutely, and it's in those ways these cultural mores are transmitted and maintained. Is like when you watch a film from the 70s where the tough man shags the bird, and you react with a 2013 'holy shit this is basically date rape' and not the 70s 'haha you go pal slam that bitch'.

Christ, SI, how tedious a person are you that you think it's difficult to be more interesting than a picture of Chris Hemsworth? I mean, pictures of Chris Hemsworth are great and all, but they can't talk, and they don't give you hugs when you're feeling lonely. Hell, they don't even have real penisis, if all you're interested in is sex. On the other hand, a picture of a chris Hemsworth won't rape you. It won't call you a slutty whore. It won't push you harder for sex if you aren't that into it. It won't lean out a car window and yell at you to show you your tits. It won't act like a self-entitled dickhead, and it won't act all butthurt if you don't give it the level of "respect" it has decided it deserves. And it won't try to belittle your issues or completely miss the point when you try to discuss your problems either. If you're going to treat me like I owe you shit just because you consider me attractive, then hells yeah, you're not going to be as good as a photo of Chris Hemsworth, but if you're going to be a pleasant and at least mildly interesting person, who treats me as a real person and not a conquest, then I will put my Chris Hemsworth photos away for a while and see where it goes.

This is literally one of the lowest standards I could possibly put out, but apparently it's too hard for you. Seriously, if you think it's difficult to be better than a photo of Chris Hemsworth, then there's a problem - but it sure as hell isn't with my standards. And even if I did have completely unrealistic standards, why should I feel forced to lower them just for your sake? If I was comparing men to Chris Hemsworth and then complaining that I couldn't get a boyfriend, then you'd have a point. But I'm not doing that. If my photos of Chris Hemsworth make me happier than being with you, then why the hell isn't that fine? It's not like I owe you company or anything.

It's a bit of a laugh, really. In the context of a conversation about men making women uncomfortable when they approach them ininvited, your response to "you're not a movie star, so make us you bring something else of value to the conversation" is "no way, women should just lower their freaking standards". This is the kind of entitled attitude that makes women distrust men.

And I chose Chris Hemsworth for a reason - aside from being incredibly good-looking, he is very good at giving this look that makes me feel as though he completely respects women. If he came up to chat to me, I wouldn't just think "wow, this guy is pretty darn good-lookin'," I'd also think "wow, this guy is interested in a conversation!" Now, that could just be an act, and maybe he's a complete douchebag in real life but here's the kicker - even Chris Hemsworth can screw it up. Being Chris Hemsworth might give you an in (and yeah, that's unfair, but suck it), but you've still got to have the other merits and qualities

Stark wrote:Heaps of people (and not even just the lonely nerd sort) have learned somehow that their feelings should inform the reactions of others. If I love you or desire you, it behooves you to respond appropriately, because.... Who knows. You've probably seen this yourself - a woman is not interested, so the guy plots (sometimes for quite some time) 'ways' or 'tricks' to 'win' her affection. Why? BECAUSE HE WANTS IT. Why won't she just do what I want?!?

This is the kind of thing I think of when people talk about sexual politics these days. When I was a kid I thought dumb shit like 'sexism = over' and 'equal rights = equal treatment in society', but it just wasn't true. We live in a world where my wife feels safer when I'm with her, because it deflects most of the creeps. Think about at - the defence against predatory men is HAVE A MAN ALREADY (possibly predatory). How terrifying would it be to live in a world like that?

So what can be done to change it?

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote: You see similar stuff in how these things are treated in fiction, too. When a male character won't take no for an answer and tries to win over a woman's heart, it's usually treated as romantic and charming. When a female character won't take no for an answer for a man's affection, she's a crazy stalker. Why? Because the man's decision is what matters :L

Which is the problem. The line between romantic and charming and dangerously creepy there seems so thin to me. Ultimately in those movies it boils down to the fact that it's Chris Hemsworth and we want him to win. I can sympathise with people who see that as some sort of example, given how successful it is in media.

A conscious effort to change cultural attitudes towards women would probably help: it worked for smoking, drinking, black people, homosexuals, etc. Unfortunately, this is an issue so pervasive (and in ways that many people don't even notice) that its more difficult than any of those changes.

After all, we live in a world where people become angry when you point out that most women in video games are tits-out sexual objects for the player.

amigocabal wrote:

Stark wrote:This is the kind of thing I think of when people talk about sexual politics these days. When I was a kid I thought dumb shit like 'sexism = over' and 'equal rights = equal treatment in society', but it just wasn't true. We live in a world where my wife feels safer when I'm with her, because it deflects most of the creeps. Think about at - the defence against predatory men is HAVE A MAN ALREADY (possibly predatory). How terrifying would it be to live in a world like that?

So what can be done to change it?

Well, as a society, this:

• Fostering general equality. The knock-on effects of inequality tend to work along preexisting fault lines in society, so that a widening class divide also magnifies hostile attitudes toward immigrants and women (this is one reason why Sweden has dropped from first place to fourth place when it comes to gender equality during the last ten years. Thanks, SD).
• Encouraging a free, open and continuing discussion on gender, power and privilege.
• Halting the advance of reactionary organizations and attitudes.

As a person, this:

• Recognizing that just by being here and having Internet access, we're privileged people ("OMG how can you say i have it good just because i has internetz?! i worked hard for everything1!").
• Reading up on what privilege means, and then realizing that it doesn't mean you're a bad person ("lol he just said privilege i never asked for special treatment lol their saying i cheated").
• Recognizing that people merely pointing out -- describing -- their viewpoints doesn't mean they're attacking yours, and that if doing that offends you, then that's part of the problem of an imbalance of power ("you can't call it rape culture! you're saying every man is a rapist ever! why do you hate all men?").
• Recognizing that the best thing one can do in many of these circumstances is to be respectful -- to not employ minimizing strategies, and to resist the impulse to take the lead and make the discussion all about yourself ("you say you're paid less and work harder because you're black when really you should be grateful for not having to live in a prison camp in Rwanda. those guys have it much worse so quit your whining").