Where are all the decent guys of Dublin gone???

PrivateEye

I was one of those quiet young fellas who never got the girl and was turned down in preference to some bull****ting knob

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.

Traded it in then for a nicer one (the t-shirt that is :pac:) and got back on the horse. Not worth waiting for somebody else to realise they've made a bad choice. The feeling of 'I am wise' that comes with seeing said person have a breakdown/call an end to sham relationship and then have a breakdown/restart sham relationship is brilliant.

I've mates who've 'lost the girl' and stuck around for ages and ages to see if things'll change. I'm a romantic no doubt, but I'm not a gobsh1te.

If I wasn't good enough for them then, I'm not going to be a fall back option now after they've spent years messing around with wasters

Very wise words.

---

The exact same applies the other way 'round too no doubt.

Dave5

Darragh29 wrote: »

So I'll set out the scene, I'm out in my local Dublin suburb pub with about 5 mates last night, these two girls were sitting at the table beside us and I was standing up yapping to one of my mates, when he went up to the bar, this girl comes over from her table and starts chatting.

My first impression was that she was tall and attractive, slim, dark hair, around 5'9 or 5'10, but she seemed to have overdone the fake tan a bit. What turned me off her, was that she seemed a bit of a player, but that could have just been something that came out of the back of my head because she reminded me of a girl that my brother was going out with about a year ago, and she was an absolute tramp. She invited me back to a house party but something about her just didn't sit well with me, she seemed a bit mad, a bit too sure of herself... She also seemed a bit on the common side, which made me a bit wary, she was obviously out for a one night stand, that was my impression so we just humoured each other while one of my mates tried to convince me when she went to the bar that I should take her down the lane across from the pub 'cos she was obviously out for a "good auld root"!
:D:D

Darragh, you've come out with a few classics there mate, you strike me as having one hell of an ego, for want of a better phrase.

Just because she reminded you of a girl who your 'brother was going out with about a year ago, she was an absolute tramp' doesn't necessarily mean that this particular girl would be the same now, would it?:rolleyes:

What? just because a female came over to your table she was 'obviously looking for a one night stand'? On what basis? Was it the fact that you're so obviously incredibly handsome that you are practically guaranteed a shag every time you talk to a girl?:rolleyes:

You say she 'seemed a bit of a player'? Darragh, i hate to break it to you mate, but don't you think you may have been involved in the 'playing' by engaging in the conversation in the first place? It takes two to tango, buddy.

Bloody hell, mate...you've such a high opinion of yourself i'd say you've got mirrors adorning every room in your gaff.

Darragh29

Dave5 wrote: »

Darragh, you've come out with a few classics there mate, you strike me as having one hell of an ego, for want of a better phrase.

Dave5 wrote: »

Just because she reminded you of a girl who your 'brother was going out with about a year ago, she was an absolute tramp' doesn't necessarily mean that this particular girl would be the same now, would it?:rolleyes:

She went on the same way, skangery accent, skangery way about her. If it quacks like a duck skanger, walks like a duck skanger, sounds like a duck skanger...??? Probably is a duck skanger!

Dave5 wrote: »

What? just because a female came over to your table she was 'obviously looking for a one night stand'? On what basis? Was it the fact that you're so obviously incredibly handsome that you are practically guaranteed a shag every time you talk to a girl?:rolleyes:

Nah, it was nothing to do with her coming over to my table, it was to do with the fact that she walked up to a total stranger and asked me to go back to a party with her, also she started telling me (when she noticed I had stubble 'cos I wasn't arsed shaving that day), that I was bold for not shaving and that she ALWAYS shaved before she went out... Make whatever ya want of that, maybe you would have come to the conclusion that she was on her way to a novena or something like that, each to their own analysis I say...

Dave5 wrote: »

You say she 'seemed a bit of a player'? Darragh, i hate to break it to you mate, but don't you think you may have been involved in the 'playing' by engaging in the conversation in the first place? It takes two to tango, buddy.

Bloody hell, mate...you've such a high opinion of yourself i'd say you've got mirrors adorning every room in your gaff.

She was just out for a ride and more power to her. I had a laugh with her while I was there and I went home and she went off somewhere and I'll prrobably do the same tomorrow night, (because I am that gorgeous!).

I don't need my house adorned with mirrors, I have this new mirror screensaver ya see...!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

af_thefragile

I am decent, but as i don't looks like Brad Pitt, none of ye women bother to find out...!

Yup, ye're not gonna find a decent guy if you don't go for anyone less good looking than Brad Pitt...!

Dublin_Andy

af_thefragile wrote: »

I am decent, but as i don't looks like Brad Pitt, none of ye women bother to find out...!

Yup, ye're not gonna find a decent guy if you don't go for anyone less good looking than Brad Pitt...!

thats the problem. they base it too much on image really...

CoachBoone

blindjustice wrote: »

Im funny, outgoing, respectful, love life and always treat a woman right. I work out and have a good body - not overweight, big biceps. Im also the kind of guy who brings flowers and chocolates . . .
However - I am in the process of changing career. A year and a half left in college. I know exactly what I am doing.

I do find women are definitely less interested in me since I went back. The way I saw it when I started back was:
Hypothetically if I met my wife to be it could take 2 years to get to the stage where marriage could be considered - I would be back working by that time - the women I meet dont seem to look ahead though
I sold my house and made a nice profit before I went back. I dont tell people I date this.............

I know for a fact some people see this as "throwing it all away" as you put it but its their loss ....... can always see it in their faces "what do you do?"
ans : "Im a mature student" - lose interest..............

lol

A_SN

I'm more than decent, dare I admit, I'm quite awesome, but I only go out of my house to buy food (I work from home), and I walk fast, so Dublin women can't catch me.

Extrapolating entirely from that, I'd say the decent guys are out there, but you couldn't catch them even if you camped at their front door. Fortunately these days the Internet is there to help.

shellyboo

af_thefragile wrote: »

I am decent, but as i don't looks like Brad Pitt, none of ye women bother to find out...!

Yup, ye're not gonna find a decent guy if you don't go for anyone less good looking than Brad Pitt...!

Of course! This is where we've been going wrong. I forgot that good looks and a good personality are mutually exclusive concepts, and that every less than gorgeous guy is a total catch, just hiding away waiting to be discovered.

Sweeping generalisation much?

Dublin_Andy wrote: »

thats the problem. they base it too much on image really...

Sigh... women are shallow?! That's awful. I feel bad for all the poor men out there, willing to date anyone, regardless of how they look...

On the whole, men are much, much, much more concerned with looks. Check out PI for a host of threads on the topic - this, this, this, and this are excellent examples, and that's just off the top of my head.

Women could care less about how much hair you have, a few extra pounds, your less-than-perfect facial arrangement, or the fact that you're a few cms shorter than her - if you have the personality to make up for it. This isn't always equally true for men.

Galvasean

shellyboo wrote: »

Women could care less about how much hair you have, a few extra pounds, your less-than-perfect facial arrangement, or the fact that you're a few cms shorter than her - if you have the personality to make up for it. This isn't always equally true for men.

I'm gonna stop you right there and say by and large women are just as shallow as men. Saying one sex is more likely to be less shallow than the other is nonsense. I read the posts here, plenty of women care about looks, just like plenty of men.

Dragan

af_thefragile wrote: »

I am decent, but as i don't looks like Brad Pitt, none of ye women bother to find out...!

Yup, ye're not gonna find a decent guy if you don't go for anyone less good looking than Brad Pitt...!

Do you know what women don't tend to find attractive? People with a crap self image who thinks that all women are wrong.

Ring any bells?

BKtje

Gotta agree with Galvasean. Both sexes are by and large equally bad.

A_SN

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm gonna stop you right there and say by and large women are just as shallow as men. Saying one sex is more likely to be less shallow than the other is nonsense. I read the posts here, plenty of women care about looks, just like plenty of men.

I have to disagree there. Yes, there's some of both on both sides, but looks are usually more important more often for men. Why would it be nonsense to say one sex is more likely? Why would you claim that both sex *have* to be equally likely?

Galvasean

A_SN wrote: »

I have to disagree there. Yes, there's some of both on both sides, but looks are usually more important more often for men.

Proof?

A_SN wrote: »

Why would it be nonsense to say one sex is more likely?

Lack of proof.

A_SN wrote: »

Why would you claim that both sex *have* to be equally likely?

I never said they *have* to be, but from personal experience both sexes are prone to it. I still stand by that there is no valid reason to suggest that one sex overall values looks above the other.

shellyboo

Galvasean wrote: »

Proof?

Personal experience? I've had pretty much every boyfriend I've had tell me that my appearance is an issue for them, and none of them looked anything remotely like Brad Pitt themselves

I would never see appearance as an issue as long as I was attracted to the person - yet I know that men, despite being attracted to me and wanting to have sex with me, would not go out with me because I'm overweight for fear of what others would think. For me - and for a lot of women - that's not an issue. I can't think of any woman that I know who would be ashamed or reluctant to date a man because he's not Brad Pitt.

Dragan

A_SN wrote: »

I have to disagree there. Yes, there's some of both on both sides, but looks are usually more important more often for men. Why would it be nonsense to say one sex is more likely? Why would you claim that both sex *have* to be equally likely?

Because Statistics only work one way, and opinion has **** all to do with.

To start with, you are not comparing like with like. Somethings is either important, or not important and the wording is the key.

If i ask someone "Do you think looks are very important in your attraction to the opposite sex" the majority of people will say no, because they don't want to appear shallow. Remove the word "very" and you get a lot more "yes" answers as the weight is lessened and in their head they can allow for things like personality etc being just as important, but that wasn't the question, right?

Secondly, the more people you poll, the higher your groups and controls the more likely you are to hit averages and commonalities between the groups.

If i ask 10 men and 10 women the same question, the groups are small enough to be completely skewed in one direction or the other depending on how i picked my target group.

If i bumb that up to 10,000, or 100,000 or 1,000,000 then i get closer and closer to each group having an even split between those people who think looks are, or are not, important.

Singular answers invariable come with a skew, with a point of deviation that is not actually experience but more driven opinion caused by events in your life etc etc.

For example, a woman is exposed to a lot of male friends and coworkers. Of these, 20% are loud, outgoing and vocal. When asked a question they answer it. Of these 20%, 14% say that looks are important, so the majority of men think that way, right? Wrong, you still have 80% of your group that haven't added their opinion yet.

In short, statistically, everything is average and everything is even until you applies the correct metrics and limits to actually drill down to what is you want to know.

And even then, these can be applied in a way that skews the numbers to want you want to see.

Edit : The end result is that people will very rarely, if ever, end up with someone that they consider to be ugly. It doesn't tend to happen, so this whole "looks are not important line" is totally bogus. They are important, it's just the person you are with, while they may not be your ideal physical specimen, is also not near your cut off point for ugliness either.

il gatto

Women see someone self assured when they're actually an assh@le. Women see someone with a whiff of danger and they're actually and assh@le. Women see a "really friendly" guy and he's actually an assh@le. Conclusion, women don't know men anywhere near as much as they think.
Women list confidence as an attribute they like. I'm confident in myself, my abilities, my intelligence and even my prowess in the sack (albeit I keep that confidence to myself:)). Having said that, I've rarely (once maybe) asked anyone out and only chatted up women about 3-4 times. I find it tough. They always had to ask me, or at least make it very easy for me to. (I'm engaged so it doesn't matter any more).
Guys fall for odd looking girls all the time. Women always seem to want the pretty boys. They know that and they abuse it like f@ck. If his eyebrows are thinner than yours, his haircuts cost more than yours and he spends as long in the bathroom, he's probably going to turn out to be an assh@le. Forgive the sweeping generalisations, but my advice is required, nay, demanded elsewhere. You'll find it's all mostly true though.

Galvasean

shellyboo wrote: »

Personal experience? I've had pretty much every boyfriend I've had tell me that my appearance is an issue for them, and none of them looked anything remotely like Brad Pitt themselves

I can sympathise. However, that is just your own personal experience. Perhaps you have just been unfortunate enough to end up with the wrong type of guy.

shellyboo wrote: »

I can't think of any woman that I know who would be ashamed or reluctant to date a man because he's not Brad Pitt.

Again, personal experience. You associate with women that are like that. It doesn't necessarily mean all women are of the same mind set.
Just because you yourself have experiences such people (the aforementioned men and women) doesn't mean that is the way people are across the entire human race.

Oh and can we all stop using the Brad Pittisms? You can be very attractive without looking like just like Brad Pitt.

edit: great post by Dragan. Everyone should read it.

il gatto

Not being a gay and all that, surely Brad Pitt is a bit punchable to be handsome, no? Daniel Craig. Now there's a man. You could strike a match on his craggy jaw, then light cigars a smoke them over a whiskey and a chat about rugby, warfare and your stock portfolio.

Snowie

Tragedy wrote: »

If a man is confident, well grounded, funny and has everything in life going for him, why would he be a long term single?

quite simple because he wants to be....

A_SN

Galvasean wrote: »

Proof?



Lack of proof.



I never said they *have* to be, but from personal experience both sexes are prone to it. I still stand by that there is no valid reason to suggest that one sex overall values looks above the other.

I don't have any proof of it, only anecdotal evidence and vague memories of reading stuff about it, however there's no reason to reasonably assume that odds are equal, considered the disparities between sexes on such topics, or to verify that assumption.

Galvasean

A_SN wrote: »

I don't have any proof of it, only anecdotal evidence and vague memories of reading stuff about it, however there's no reason to reasonably assume that odds are equal, considered the disparities between sexes on such topics, or to verify that assumption.

But perfectly reasonable for people to say 'men do it more' with no proper basis?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (as much as I hate that phrase) since there is no conclusive proof either way.

A_SN

Dragan wrote: »

Dragan, I'm not sure I actually followed you on the statistics thing, and yet I work in signal processing! Hehe, anyways, it seems you're saying that the more people you ask, the closer you'll get to a 50% result? If so that's bogus. As for the bias thing, well of course you don't want to ask a biased group of people, you want to ask a random group representative of the population you're trying to characterise. As for asking more and more people, it only makes the error rate/variance by the square root of how many times more you ask (i.e., ask 100 times more people, your result will be 10 times more precise). So, I have no idea what was your point actually...

As for people not being with people they find ugly, I guess that's true, but usually as your feelings grow for someone you find them increasingly attractive, ain't that right? In other words if you really love someone you can hardly find them ugly, even if you found them ugly when you didn't know them. I guess..

il_gatto : I guess that's why you see so many hot chicks with douchebags hehe.

Galvasean : yeah, like I said, anecdotal evidence and vague recollections. I couldn't find any poll on the topic on Google or anything on Wikipedia. I have no scientific proof but I'm pretty sure this is true. Call it gut feeling .

Dragan

A_SN wrote: »

I don't have any proof of it, only anecdotal evidence and vague memories of reading stuff about it, however there's no reason to reasonably assume that odds are equal, considered the disparities between sexes on such topics, or to verify that assumption.

Incorrect. Unless you conclusively prove otherwise the odds are ALWAYS equal.

As i already stated, anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a thing. Far too many variables for misinformation and limited world view to have an impact.

A_SN

Dragan wrote: »

Incorrect. Unless you conclusively prove otherwise the odds are ALWAYS equal.

Well, that's strongly worded, I mean, you can very well stick to a claim as long as it hasn't been disproven, but I think the arguability of the fact that we can assume it to be equal to start with is sufficient to not feel certain of anything until something's proven. Therefore nothing's incorrect until proven otherwise, and it's all still arguable .

Dragan

A_SN wrote: »

Hehe, anyways, it seems you're saying that the more people you ask, the closer you'll get to a 50% result? If so that's bogus.

LoL, care to offer any kind of proof or counter argument?

Gut feelings don't really apply on this one i fear.

A_SN

Dragan wrote: »

LoL, care to offer any kind of proof or counter argument?

Oh, you meant in that particular case? Wait wait.. I thought your claim was that women were as likely as men to attach a lot of importance to physical attractiveness. But here we're talking about the percentage of people of each sex to adhere to that claim, right? So why should that be evenly split as well?

shellyboo

Dragan wrote: »

LoL, care to offer any kind of proof or counter argument?

Gut feelings don't really apply on this one i fear.

A_SN wrote: »

Oh, you meant in that particular case? Wait wait.. I thought your claim was that women were as likely as men to attach a lot of importance to physical attractiveness. But here we're talking about the percentage of people of each sex to adhere to that claim, right? So why should that be evenly split as well?

OK, we've gone waaaaaaaaaaaaay OT considering that my post was actually in response to two of the guys saying that unless a guy looks like Brad Pitt, women aren't interested - which was far more of a sweeping generalisation that the one I made :pac:

So even if men and women aren't equally shallow, they seem to be about equal in thinking that the opposite sex are shallower than them.

A_SN

shellyboo wrote: »

So even if men and women aren't equally shallow, they seem to be about equal in thinking that the opposite sex are shallower than them.

No they're not, do you have any proof? kidding kidding. I agree.

Dragan

shellyboo wrote: »

So even if men and women aren't equally shallow, they seem to be about equal in thinking that the opposite sex are shallower than them.

Bingo!

shellyboo

Dragan wrote: »

Bingo!

Yay! Do I get a prize?

Anyhoodles, back on topic... there are loads of decent men in Dublin, and I have the good fortune to be friends with some of them

I also have the good fortune to be friends with a lot of fantastic single women... but even I think that they're too picky when it comes to men. If one little thing isn't perfect, then the guy is written off with much sighing and lamenting that there's no decent men around.

My propensity to compromise when it comes to guys (and by compromise I mean dating someone who I think may not be 100% perfect for me) means that I've had my fair share of failed relationships - but hey, I'm getting laid on a semi-regular basis and at least I haven't been single for years on end! No, all joking aside - I'm getting valuable dating experience, I'm getting better at knowing what I want from a guy and what's important to me, what my dealbreakers are, and I'm learning about myself... these are things which I think (hope) will help me when it comes to meeting the guy of my dreams!