188 replies to this topic

[nupi]

Women looking better is a far more achievable goal than changing personality which is a combination of both conditioning and genetic temperament, in those terms men and women are not equals women can lose weight, use make up, get cosmetic surgery, buy nicer clothes. I've seen many women make 180 transformations, on the other hand it's not so easy for men they can't change height, cognitive aspects easily. Don't forget that a cognitive trait in men such as obsessive thinking may be useful in many fields or work but be completely unattractive to most women, most women like men which act in the moment, over analysing everything is not romantic.

Plus society AND the medical establishment seems to be much more open to help women improve what they need to get dates - looks. Hell in Europe it's not even unheard of that health insurance would pay for cosmetic surgery (usually for good reasons though). Even in my own case, the government paid what amounts to pretty damn nice car to get my teeth/jawbone fixed which definitely had medical relevance but also improved looks (the part about readjusting my chin while they were at it had very little relevance to medical problems). But good luck trying to get doctors to help you with the few things we know could improve confidence.

Testosterone? Unless you are almost down to zombie like levels, they will not prescribe it (I am going to take another shot at that in Jan).
Dopaminergics? "Uuh, they are abused by some, so no."
Opioids? "What, are you insane?" (never actually tried that one but I am sure, sadistic bastards would not even give me Tramadol or Oxycodone after splitting my jaw apart)
MAOI-B? "Selegiline is for parkinson" or "MAOI are not first line treatment options"

Instead, you can get SSRIs to your hearts content (which has some use in at least treating the negative symptoms, not that they necessarily help in overcoming the problem) and maybe benzos because, after all, there is money to be made in prolonging the problem, resolving it, not so much. Oh and yeah, you can spend as much of your health insurances' money you want on therapy that boils down to "just do it anyway".

I will have to have a hard discussion with my shrink in Jan - either he let's me try some of the more out of the box medications or I will just see to get a yearly supply of Prozac and no more overpriced sessions...

[Simen]

This thread is full of misogyny, and misanthropy in general. Women who fall for men who don't follow the traditional gentlemanly 1950s dating script are easy skanks/insecure and vulnerable, and the men are manipulative assholes? LOL. We're living in 2012, not 1912.

I agree that a magic pill for confidence and self esteem doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that drugs can't be tools that can help you develop confidence and self esteem. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps. If you have zero positive reference experiences with regards to social interaction or dating, you can't magically think yourself confident. Various tools and techniques, including drugs or even (gasp!) pickup lines can help you get those positive reference experiences, which you can then build on in order to learn how to interact without relying on such crutches.

[jeancludd]

Wow, I'm really sorry that you guys feel that way. I used to be a socially anxious introvert three years ago who thought I'd never get a pretty girl, but I have improved a lot. Through hard work and time. It's true that a lot boils down to "just fucking doing it" but first you have to get a better set of beliefs, lower your criteria for success and then trust in the process.

Say that you suffer severe amnesia and forget everything you know. Do you really think it's impossible that you'd do better without all your limiting beliefs? Imagine if children thought it was impossible/too hard to learn how to walk. Shake your limiting beliefs!

It's also important to realize that you can't take responsibility for everything that's out of your control. You have no way of telling how someone will react to something you say or do cause people are different. You probably think that you do and a lot of the times it could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (i.e assuming beforehand that you'll get rejected will cause you to behave in a way that'll get you rejected).


Example 1. You: "I like sallad" Her: "I hate sallad, you're a fag, fuck off!"
2. You: "I like sallad" Her: "Oh, I really like sallad too!"

Don't let someone's reactions dictate how you feel, your own actions (which you can take responsibility for) should be the thing that pumps you up.

Socializing is a skill, just like everything else. If you practice it you'll get good. But you have to take action, just like you can't learn basketball by sitting at home watching NBA-games.

As for not being able to take any action at all towards your goal... I don't really believe in that. I suppose you could start with meditation, it helps.

Edited by jeancludd, 17 December 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[nupi]

This thread is full of misogyny, and misanthropy in general. Women who fall for men who don't follow the traditional gentlemanly 1950s dating script are easy skanks/insecure and vulnerable, and the men are manipulative assholes? LOL. We're living in 2012, not 1912.

I am not reading (at the very least not to the degree that one would see it in the usual game blogs comments) what you are reading but fine. The way I read is that people accept that things are what they are, do not like it, may even be jaded because of it but do not necessarily blame women about it - they are responding to incentives, pure and simple (whether that is in their best interest is questionable but then again, who are we to say so...). I know I don't blame them even though that would frankly be much more attractive than blaming myself (one exception, Brainfogged's post after your own)

I agree that a magic pill for confidence and self esteem doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean that drugs can't be tools that can help you develop confidence and self esteem. You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps. If you have zero positive reference experiences with regards to social interaction or dating, you can't magically think yourself confident. Various tools and techniques, including drugs or even (gasp!) pickup lines can help you get those positive reference experiences, which you can then build on in order to learn how to interact without relying on such crutches.

Agreed. Although I do have positive experiences, the consistency that would build confidence is missing. What makes me jaded about them is that in all cases I accidentally did what game preaches (do not care too much, ignore girls every now and then). Now there is solid psychological grounding to many of these game tenets but still I would much rather play open about my feelings because frankly, I suck at lying - especially when I care. Drugs will need to take me across the initial hump, from there, by experience, I can do a semi-decent job (at the very least it was good enough for a multi year relationship), especially when I get positive feedback from the girls AND manage to avoid getting obsessed (which sadly, in my case, means managing to avoid falling in love)...

ow, I'm really sorry that you guys feel that way. I used to be a socially anxious introvert three years ago who thought I'd never get a pretty girl, but I have improved a lot. Through hard work and time. It's true that a lot boils down to "just fucking doing it" but first you have to get a better set of beliefs, lower your criteria for success and then trust in the process.

So how do you acquire those better beliefs (which seems to be the central theme of CBT - I never managed to figure out how you would actually do what that branch of psychology preaches)?

Don't let someone's reactions dictate how you feel, your own actions (which you can take responsibility for) should be the thing that pumps you up.

While outcome independence would be a cool thing to have, I fail to see how it would work - especially when you care about someone...

Edited by nupi, 17 December 2012 - 08:10 AM.

[jeancludd]

For me, it went something like this:

1. Accept that it's possible that you are wrong about something/that something is different than you previously thought.
2. Gather evidence to support it
3. Internalize

People twist and turn everything in order to make it fit with their reality, when in reality it is what it is, no matter what label you put on it.

For example, people who believe that strangers are mean will constantly gather evidence to reinforce their belief/reality. Even if they meet a really nice person, they will backwards rationalize to make it fit - they'll find a small thing that could be perceived as ill intent and blow it out of proportion. Everyone does this, but you can catch yourself doing it and keep it to a minimum.

In this example, it would be better to start gathering evidence to reinforce the belief that strangers are generally nice instead... cause they are.

It can be a bit of a grind, even painful at times, but sooner or later things go "click" and that makes it all worth it.

Edited by jeancludd, 17 December 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[nupi]

I think 1 I am fine with, quite obviously my fear of approaching women IS wrong. There's plenty of evidence: most people in the West never even got slapped much less shot for doing so.

NOW how do I internalize that - it seems like rational thought and emotional thought live on different planes in my mind, with the emotional plane being rather resilient against any attempts to change it... Maybe I need to get additional data to reinforce the evidence to change beliefs?

[platypus]

I think the advice saying that one should not go on dinner-dates with women one hasn't slept with is spot on. There are much better and less contrived ways of spending the 1st few dates when you don't know each other so well.

[jeancludd]

I think 1 I am fine with, quite obviously my fear of approaching women IS wrong. There's plenty of evidence: most people in the West never even got slapped much less shot for doing so.

NOW how do I internalize that - it seems like rational thought and emotional thought live on different planes in my mind, with the emotional plane being rather resilient against any attempts to change it... Maybe I need to get additional data to reinforce the evidence to change beliefs?

You are correct in that rational thoughts (i.e your conscious mind) and your "emotional thoughts" are two different things. Emotions are really just the body's different responses to your mind that you label with things like fear and anxiety, but I know what you mean. "A mere belief doesn't make it true".

This is why you can never sit at home and ponder your problems away, you have to take action and experience things in order to fully convince yourself (you're never get used to taking a cold shower without taking cold showers). Also, if possible, whenever you get a "rush of anxiety" (which you get all the time when you push yourself outside of your comfort zone) try to fully experience what you are feeling and accept it instead of trying to shove it away/yell at yourself in your head, this will speed up the process. "You Yelling at yourself" ey...that's kinda funny as well, are there two separate entities of you?

If you think about it you'll probably realize that the fear we are speaking of here is not the fear of getting slapped. It is not of physical pain. Not fear like when you are threatened with a knife. It's psychological fear, fear of something that MIGHT happen in the future, for example the possibility of rejection in this case.

Hmm, there's not much actionable advice here... guess I'm rambling a bit.

[nupi]

It may not be actionable, but I think it's quite a valuable way of putting it. It's very true, this is not fear for your life (or even physical safety) it's much more of a totally misguided psychological phenomenon that basically seems to boil down to fear of embarassment (which I think is really at the core of social anxiety of all forms). Now fear of embarassment could be a totally rational thing (probably keeps you from running around naked among other things that are not very conducive to a happy life) but it seems like in a sub-segment of the population it seems to go above and beyond any rational level and precludes a happy life.

Confidence now could be two different things (or, more likely, a mix between the two): the conviction that you CAN do it (and hence no need for fear) or the simple not caring about the consequences (in a devil may care type attidude) - both of which are actually very attractive to women. Now I am doubtful that we can induce the conviction that we can do something using drugs but maybe we can take away the fear and instill a devil may care attitude to enable learning the activity to eventually achieve the conviction that we can do it and derive the confidence from that...

[Simen]

This thread is full of misogyny, and misanthropy in general. Women who fall for men who don't follow the traditional gentlemanly 1950s dating script are easy skanks/insecure and vulnerable, and the men are manipulative assholes? LOL. We're living in 2012, not 1912.

I am not reading (at the very least not to the degree that one would see it in the usual game blogs comments) what you are reading but fine.

I was referring to comments like: "It's true that certain insecure men use certain tactics on haughty and/or insecure women with success some of the time. (...) Trying to learn some cheap manipulative tactics to try to seduce random females is not a good idea." And: "As a man is with his money so he is with his heart. Money is largely like a lie detector test in checking a man's priorities and sincerity. That's why it is legitimate to expect him to pay for dates." And: "I really don't support deploying a bunch of manipulative tactics in the hopes that some unwary female may fall into your trap and get used by you."

All of those were made by Luminosity, the OP of this thread. The take-home message seems to be that only the sort of man who is perfectly comfortable conforming to 1950s gender stereotypes is a real, legitimate and love/sex-worthy man, and only the woman who responds to that kind of courtship and rejects all other approaches is a real, legitimate, self-confident woman. Anything else is manipulative, disgusting, a sign of insecurity, et cetera.

I hope you'll agree that that viewpoint is disrespectful and needlessly judgmental towards both genders.

[nupi]

Oh, but that I consider to be misandry if anything - the misogynism is simply there to reinforce the message.

[jeancludd]

It may not be actionable, but I think it's quite a valuable way of putting it. It's very true, this is not fear for your life (or even physical safety) it's much more of a totally misguided psychological phenomenon that basically seems to boil down to fear of embarassment (which I think is really at the core of social anxiety of all forms). Now fear of embarassment could be a totally rational thing (probably keeps you from running around naked among other things that are not very conducive to a happy life) but it seems like in a sub-segment of the population it seems to go above and beyond any rational level and precludes a happy life.

Confidence now could be two different things (or, more likely, a mix between the two): the conviction that you CAN do it (and hence no need for fear) or the simple not caring about the consequences (in a devil may care type attidude) - both of which are actually very attractive to women. Now I am doubtful that we can induce the conviction that we can do something using drugs but maybe we can take away the fear and instill a devil may care attitude to enable learning the activity to eventually achieve the conviction that we can do it and derive the confidence from that...

Confidence is when when you assume a positive outcome/reaction. Doing the same thing a lot also gives you confidence, since after a while you know what to expect and can act accordingly (i.e trusting yourself to handle it).

Indifference is the next best thing. The worst is assuming a negative outcome.

Confidence can easily stem from indifference, given enough reference experiences, so you can start there. For example: today I'm gonna say Hi to five girls. Just say hi because you want to, and don't place any value on their reaction. Saying hi with a smile is a pure offering of value and can really change both your and their day for the better, as can a compliment (when you say it cause you mean it, not to elicit a certain reaction from her).

Start small, just do something...this in turn will give you energy and motivation to start other things.

[nupi]

But there starts the catch 22: if I am indifferent, I do not bother (even though historically that was the path to some sort of success) and if I am not, I lack the confidence...

[jeancludd]

Being indifferent about the outcome is not the same as being apathetic. Also this is where "trusting the process" comes in, you have to trust that if you do this it will benefit you in the long run even if it sucks/is scary right now.

Over simplified: I can have fun playing a video game, even though I don't care whether I win or lose. Plus I probably get better at that particular game while I'm at it. It's the same thing when talking to women, you should enjoy the conversation just for the conversation itself.

If you give it all you got, do you really think you'll feel bad afterwards? It's when you don't even try at all that you feel bad in my experience!

If you can read critically and avoid some of the more new-agey stuff I'd recommend that you give http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/1577314808 a try. It looks kinda woo-woo but it has a lot of powerful stuff when it comes to breaking negative thought loops and such. But like I said; take it with a grain of salt.

Edited by jeancludd, 17 December 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[nupi]

It should not be but it is to me - if there is no stick/carrot (sadly, stick works better by far, anyhow) I become apathetic.

As for Tolle, I tried reading him years ago but gave up half-way through, it seemed to be almost all new-agey stuff. Might try again over Christmas....

[norepinephrine]

Tolle helped me a good deal with putting words towards things I had intuitively suspected via meditation and reflection. I think what he has to say is valid not only in relationships, but life in general, and trying to piece together the neurochemical basis behind constant meditative awareness is a pretty fascinating task.

With that said, I think more than a few people could benefit greatly from reading David Deida's Way of the Superior Man. From reading this thread, it's somewhat disappointing to see self-victimization, blaming and constructed rationalizations to account for one's (lack of) success with the opposite sex, among a forum that I mostly respect for its maturity and level-headedness.

With that said, if one is looking for a substance to boost their confidence and success in relationships, dopamine and testosterone seem to be the two most fertile avenues of study.

[nupi]

I don't understand why hormones would give me confidence? There are perfectly confident women, most of the confident people I know are actually women and not men. Actually now when I think about it, I've never ever seen a woman being nervous in front of a guy or anything like that, WTF?

Two points to that,
a) It's easy to be confident if you are not interested - trust me, girls get nervous too (obviously not about the exact same things)
b) Girls are generally better at concealing their emotions

As for emulating confidence, if you do it well, that is as good as the real thing (in fact, it quickly becomes the real thing, it's one of these things where fake it till you make it really does apply). I just cannot fake it anywhere close to an useful level.

From reading this thread, it's somewhat disappointing to see self-victimization, blaming and constructed rationalizations to account for one's (lack of) success with the opposite sex, among a forum that I mostly respect for its maturity and level-headedness.

Given the situation, what would you expect instead? Honest question - I actually think this is surprisingly calm considering what you can get in those discussion. Personally I put blame squarely on myself.

[norepinephrine]

Personally I find myself lacking the internal mapping on how to meet someone. I tend to behave very weirdly when I need to perform or do something, I get an idea e.g having confidence and I try to simulate it which in the end is just an embarrassing moment (boy have I had those).

I don't understand why hormones would give me confidence? There are perfectly confident women, most of the confident people I know are actually women and not men. Actually now when I think about it, I've never ever seen a woman being nervous in front of a guy or anything like that, WTF?

I still find that pick up theory/spiritual bs or any kind of "new agey" crap needs to be taken out of this equation. I once saw a guy try to pull of some kind of PU scheme and it was totally ridiculous. If one sucks then pretending will just make him suck even more.

Women have testosterone too, you know.

The thing with PUA stuff is there's a fair bit of fragmentation, so just throwing out the term is basically like throwing out a word like 'religion' or 'feminism'; there's many different smaller branches connected to the larger theme.

On one hand, you have what the OP referred to as cheap manipulation; that'd be akin to what Mystery et al. got famous for espousing in the early-mid 2000's. A very formulaic, derived approach that involves step-by-step guides, canned lines and lack of spontaneity.

On the other hand, you have a moving away from that scene with the advent of 'natural game' and its related schools of thought, which essentially boil down to becoming a person other people want to be around. Some of it gets new-agey, but I think for the most part the underlying message is solid - that being one of taking responsibility for one's own successes and failures.

To do that involves taking a fairly holistic approach, and in some sense, actually embodying a few of the (mostly universal) traits that the OP was describing as desirable in males: self-reliance, confidence, strength in character.

Instead of looking to the other sex for cues, look at yourself; it's not always the comfortable thing to do, but you have to ask yourself what sorts of beliefs, habits, skills, etc. are helping or hurting your case with women, and then take action to ameliorate them. In my own case I've had the problem of being overly passive when it came down to crucial moments in an interaction, and one of the best ways to help that outside of the "just do it" approach was finding safe ways to boost testosterone (via strength training) and cut down on anxiety (via a few supplements, matcha tea and daily aerobic exercise).

Edited by norepinephrine, 18 December 2012 - 06:43 AM.

[nupi]

That's not a bad option at all - if just being who you are is something that is helpful in building towards where you want to be. In my case, it clearly is not and hence change of venues did relatively little for me (looking back, it's still good I did it even though at times I hated it), the basic issue remained. If you can force yourself to overcome the key issues, then yes, change of place might help.

As for the PUA stuff, there is a lot of different things out there. Frankly, old ASF stuff and in particular the Mystery branch (do not even get me started on the NLP stuff) is a bit far out - unless you are born actor, I would stay away from it. Heartiste's points are brilliant (and he can write), but the message is diluted by a lot of jadedness and politics that do not really help (also, some of it clearly does not apply to most of Europe). Roosh might be a decent place to start, his overall message is sound but it does not really help me address approach anxiety. Private Man is definitely worth a read (probably the most level headed of them all) as is Badger. A lot of the rest is just posturing, really.

In my own case I've had the problem of being overly passive when it came down to crucial moments in an interaction, and one of the best ways to help that outside of the "just do it" approach was finding safe ways to boost testosterone (via strength training) and cut down on anxiety (via a few supplements, matcha tea and daily aerobic exercise).

I tried that but it seems like I can push testosterone only a small bit by strength training. I think I will go see an endo early next year (I have most of the symptoms of low T except the really low blood levels).

Edited by nupi, 18 December 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[jeancludd]

Women have testosterone too, you know.

The thing with PUA stuff is there's a fair bit of fragmentation, so just throwing out the term is basically like throwing out a word like 'religion' or 'feminism'; there's many different smaller branches connected to the larger theme.

On one hand, you have what the OP referred to as cheap manipulation; that'd be akin to what Mystery et al. got famous for espousing in the early-mid 2000's. A very formulaic, derived approach that involves step-by-step guides, canned lines and lack of spontaneity.

On the other hand, you have a moving away from that scene with the advent of 'natural game' and its related schools of thought, which essentially boil down to becoming a person other people want to be around. Some of it gets new-agey, but I think for the most part the underlying message is solid - that being one of taking responsibility for one's own successes and failures.

To do that involves taking a fairly holistic approach, and in some sense, actually embodying a few of the (mostly universal) traits that the OP was describing as desirable in males: self-reliance, confidence, strength in character.

Instead of looking to the other sex for cues, look at yourself; it's not always the comfortable thing to do, but you have to ask yourself what sorts of beliefs, habits, skills, etc. are helping or hurting your case with women, and then take action to ameliorate them. In my own case I've had the problem of being overly passive when it came down to crucial moments in an interaction, and one of the best ways to help that outside of the "just do it" approach was finding safe ways to boost testosterone (via strength training) and cut down on anxiety (via a few supplements, matcha tea and daily aerobic exercise).

This. It's about increasing your quality of life and expanding your comfort zone. Nothing to do with "trying to fake it" or manipulate people.

[nupi]

Expanding your comfort zone almost by definition will mean faking it - because you will be unlikely to know what to do outside your comfort zone...

[jeancludd]

Expanding your comfort zone almost by definition will mean faking it - because you will be unlikely to know what to do outside your comfort zone...

Of course you will feel uncomfortable when you're outside your comfort zone/doing something outside of your reality. That's totally fine, you just have to see what it's like and learn from it.

You don't have to fake anything, you don't HAVE TO DO WELL. There really isn't any failure, there's just success or a lesson learned.

No matter how much you suck, you're on your way to doing it better the next time - trust in the process. Eventually you'll even grow to like the thrill of being outside your comfort zone.

Edited by jeancludd, 18 December 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[nupi]

No matter how much you suck, you're on your way to doing it better the next tim

Except if your anxiety sends you into a downward spiral - it happens, not pretty. And ultimately, the question is really of how you manage to push yourself far enough out of the comfort zone so that learning can occur...

Edited by nupi, 18 December 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[nowayout]

Confidence can easily stem from indifference, given enough reference experiences, so you can start there. For example: today I'm gonna say Hi to five girls. Just say hi because you want to, and don't place any value on their reaction. Saying hi with a smile is a pure offering of value and can really change both your and their day for the better, as can a compliment (when you say it cause you mean it, not to elicit a certain reaction from her).

Start small, just do something...this in turn will give you energy and motivation to start other things.

Great post. Probably the most useful post in the thread. What you are describing is some CBT/graded exposure tricks.

Many of the people here complain about the uselessness of therapy and seem to lean towards wanting drugs for a quick fix. However, there are different kinds of therapy, and certainly I think these kinds of cognitive-behavioral tricks can actually be quite useful. In my experience, I doubt traditional psychotherapy has much to offer, and most of the anti-anxiety drugs take away your drive (hormonal and otherwise) to put yourself out there, so I think these CBT approaches are the most promising.

However, since CBT requires a personal investment of effort and most people are a bit passive and lazy, it never really seems to catch on.

Edited by viveutvivas, 18 December 2012 - 05:24 PM.

[nupi]

How is being indifferent akin to CBT (unless of course you argue that you would be using a CBT toolkit to create the indifference, which is exactly where I see CBT failing whenever I read about it)? Out of all the strange things to come out of psychology, CBT sure sounds like the most workable but to this day nobody could explain me in a way that I could actually use - which is exactly why I wrote about the disconnect between the rational and the emotional plane earlier on...

[nowayout]

How is being indifferent akin to CBT (unless of course you argue that you would be using a CBT toolkit to create the indifference, which is exactly where I see CBT failing whenever I read about it)? Out of all the strange things to come out of psychology, CBT sure sounds like the most workable but to this day nobody could explain me in a way that I could actually use - which is exactly why I wrote about the disconnect between the rational and the emotional plane earlier on...

Don't fixate on the "being indifferent" wording - I think what he was trying to describe is a CBT graded-exposure technique that consists of first exercising social interactions in situations where the stakes are low, so it is not as if you are totally indifferent but you are not emotionally invested, so you won't catastrophize "failure".

If nobody has been able to explain CBT in a useful way to you, maybe you could try to find a therapist who can.

[Luminosity]

Although I do have positive experiences, the consistency that would build confidence is missing. What makes me jaded about them is that in all cases I accidentally did what game preaches (do not care too much, ignore girls every now and then). . . . Drugs will need to take me across the initial hump . . . . ---- Nupi

We cannot guarantee positive outcomes. You need to develop the resilience to go out there without guarantees. Drugs aren't the answer. You show a lot of signs of potentially having Mommy problems. Talk therapy with a good therapist would probably help. Acting cool isn't a bad strategy, as long as your intentions are good, but you need more help to get out there.

The take-home message seems to be that only the sort of man who is perfectly comfortable conforming to 1950s gender stereotypes is a real, legitimate and love/sex-worthy man, and only the woman who responds to that kind of courtship and rejects all other approaches is a real, legitimate, self-confident woman. Anything else is manipulative, disgusting, a sign of insecurity, et cetera.

I hope you'll agree that that viewpoint is disrespectful and needlessly judgmental towards both genders. ---- Simen

I didn't say that, Simen. I am basing my posts on a half-century of experience. I tried it the other way. I asked men out, etc. I think that certain things help sort out sincere men from opportunists. If a man has to spend the equivalent of a day or two day's salary on a date, he has to think about whether he is really interested in a woman. I certainly didn't denigrate women who don't demand such a thing, but I think they are uniformed. I was. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.

You are in Norway. That is probably a different place from most. Still, you might want to try it my way before you judge.

Edited by Luminosity, 19 December 2012 - 06:16 AM.

[nupi]

Not quite sure where you get the idea that I have mommy issues (whatever that even means).

But this one is golden

If a man has to spend the equivalent of a day or two day's salary on a date, he has to think about whether he is really interested in a woman.

Any man dumb enough to do that deserves the disastrous divorce settlement he will invariably get. It also shows a basic misunderstanding of math - high quality escorts would be cheaper than that. And do not even get me started on the silliness of spending a couple of monthly salaries on a piece of carbon...

[jeancludd]

Not quite sure where you get the idea that I have mommy issues (whatever that even means).

But this one is golden

If a man has to spend the equivalent of a day or two day's salary on a date, he has to think about whether he is really interested in a woman.

Any man dumb enough to do that deserves the disastrous divorce settlement he will invariably get. It also shows a basic misunderstanding of math - high quality escorts would be cheaper than that. And do not even get me started on the silliness of spending a couple of monthly salaries on a piece of carbon...

I agree. But I probably wouldn't date a girl that expected me to pay in the first place.

You should be so quick to judge though, since it's really not their fault. They are just victims of years of social conditioning through movies, magazines and whatnot.

I think you will do well and can achieve success on your own, if you just find a way to get started.

Edited by jeancludd, 19 December 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[nupi]

I agree. But I probably wouldn't date a girl that expected me to pay in the first place.

Amen to that. Not that this ever even has come up when going on dates with girls who were working (it can happen with students but there it's a different thing, really). If you already know you are going to see each other again, it's usually just down to taking turns because splitting bills is a pain (or whomever is responsible for picking the overpriced place ...

I am not blaming them, I just won't deal with them on that terms. Want to be a gold digger? Sure, but not on my claim you wont.