Why don't men approach women?

NickNolte

I'd have to agree with seahorse here... 'Summer of love' anyone? I wasn't born but the archived footage suggested that there was plenty of crazy hanky panky going on with young people back in the 60's.

NickNolte

NickNolte wrote: »

I'd have to agree with seahorse here... 'Summer of love' anyone? I wasn't born but the archived footage suggested that there was plenty of crazy hanky panky going on with young people back in the 60's.

Fair enough. I guess my parents and those they knew were thoroughly innocent. I understand what you're both saying though.

994

I can remember reading that in the 1950's UK, 40% of brides were virgins, now it's less than 1%.

jumpguy

47 pages later and it's a debate about divorce...

I'll try to get back on topic. Basically, I don't get when women say these things. Us males are not psychic and don't know who's single or not, who's bitchy or not. Maybe if ye wimmenz gave us a hint? A smile when someone? Heck, even a wink? If all your single friends are sitting down engrossed in ye're own little serious conversation then it's alot more difficult for a fella to come over and start talking to ye.

As a matter of interest, how easy do women find it to approach men?

Affable

When I was younger I got into a few convos with women that drifted towards, 'you feel protected with a bad boy, even though they are twats, etc...' and the hint was that I was 'nice' and there to be relied on. I don't change myself I just know not to be a mug, and used, and governed by my dick, and not to hang out with slightly common women with a common mindset. To be genuienly nice to someone I like not just for sex.

MyStubbleItches

Hey folks, new around here but this thread caught my eye. Glad to see someone brought it back on topic.

Most of my group of male friends, myself included, would have had no problem approaching girls in the past but gradually got sick of the various attitudes we encountered, as described by previous posters. I have spent a small fortune going up to a girl, starting to chat with her, buying her a drink, getting on great with her until that drink is finished, only for her to suddenly spot the boyfriend that she'd neglected to mention. A nice smile and a thank you and off she goes to the guy who looks fit to kill me!

Some posters have mentioned that 'its just a conversation, what's the big deal?' It's not just a conversation, there's a reason for it. If I approach a girl, it's because I find her attractive, a combination of looks, smile, how she carries herself, etc. I'm not handing you my dignity in the hope of finding a new friend. I have plenty friends already. I want to get to know you a little to see if you are as attractive as I hope you are and in the hope that I can sufficiently impress you by being myself. There are many polite ways to let me know that something won't happen, myriad horrible ways to do it.

As for those who say that Irish women are ugly, ignorant, stupid, blah, blah, blah - tosh. Sure, there are plenty of women like that, there are plenty more who are just lovely. Irish men suit Irish women, IMHO. Plenty of us men are ignorant, thick, up-ourselves wa**ers too and will remain literal wa**ers.

A friend of mine used to work summers in a bar in the Canaries 8 or 10 years ago and she said something that may be relevant to this topic. When she started working there, it was the stereotypical English lout who was the bane of everyone's night. After a few years, when the great Celtic Tiger had taken hold and we as a nation felt we were better than the world and had a God-given right to demand whatever we desired, it was the Irish who made her squirm. Maybe we all need to come down from our soggy pedestals and learn to be polite to one another again.

MIN2511

Mystubbleitches-welcome and thank you!
Bit of fresh air!!

I never got the whole buying a girl a drink thing. TBH I did it when I was around 18/19 and it never led anywhere. So nowadays I only buy drinks for friends, or the odd stranger (rounds), but to buy a girl a drink off the bat? Never. There is nothing to stop her from disappearing with the drink the second you buy one. Besides it comes off like you're paying for her time, and thats the wrong impression to encourage.

I'm curious to know why those guys who do buy girls drink do so? What do you expect from it?

MyStubbleItches

There's no ulterior motive or implied expectation to it, never really thought about it TBH. It has happened in the past that a girl will have the drink and offer to buy the next one. Its no big deal, call it a social prop if you need a reason.

MIN2511

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm curious to know why those guys who do buy girls drink do so? What do you expect from it?

I think buying a girl a drink is a nice gesture. It's a way to start a conversation. Tbh, i would put my hand out and say i have legged it when a guy i didn't fancy bought me drinks. Not once and it probably would happen again
But if i fancied him, i'll be sure to get the next round.

MIN2511

MIN2511 wrote: »

I think buying a girl a drink is a nice gesture. It's a way to start a conversation. Tbh, i would put my hand out and say i have legged it when a guy i didn't fancy bought me drinks. Not once and it probably would happen again
But if i fancied him, i'll be sure to get the next round.

I know where you're coming from. In China, I used to hand lollipops out to women in the street or in a club. (I was a kinder English teacher, which is why I had the candy in my bag). Worked a charm to break the ice, and create a fun atmosphere. Works fairly well here in Ireland also, although you do get some strange reactions. Still fun to see those reactions... haha

seahorse

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

Some posters have mentioned that 'its just a conversation, what's the big deal?' It's not just a conversation, there's a reason for it. If I approach a girl, it's because I find her attractive, a combination of looks, smile, how she carries herself, etc. I'm not handing you my dignity in the hope of finding a new friend. I have plenty friends already.

Well thank God - a man who's being honest about what's going on when men approach women in pubs/clubs. This 'it's just a conversation' is all a load of balls and everyone knows it.

turgon

One should only buy a girl a drink when you already have her in the bag. You only do it as some may see not doing it as a negative.

scanlas

If you are going to buy a girl a drink I suggest balancing it with the phrase " first round is on me and the next one hundred are on you". I'd stay away from buying her a drink until after she is attracted to you, in fact I'd stay away from any behavour that could be seen as approval seeking.

MyStubbleItches

People seem to have very scientific/analytical attitudes on this. Why can't it just be as simple as buying a drink? Big deal. If you're going to stand around wondering about the myriad various implications of the act you're starting in a bad position anyway. It's a glass of liquid, not a marriage proposal or an informal contract with a lady of the night.

MyStubbleItches

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

People seem to have very scientific/analytical attitudes on this. Why can't it just be as simple as buying a drink? Big deal. If you're going to stand around wondering about the myriad various implications of the act you're starting in a bad position anyway. It's a glass of liquid, not a marriage proposal or an informal contract with a lady of the night.

Look if you feel more comfortable buying a girl you just met a drink, I'm not going to say you're wrong doing so. For me, its just a bit.. odd. But each to their own.

As for scientific/analytical attitudes, I tried the "natural" way of picking up girls. It rarely, if ever, worked for me. But once I taught myself to look at the psychological/sociological reasons for any response from a girl, I got a lot of success. It also taught me to understand how and why I reacted in different situations. Knowing yourself and others is never a bad thing to learn.

There's nothing wrong with either way if it works for you. If it doesn't work, then its worth examining the other method.

scanlas

You can just buy her a drink if that's what you want to do, but the reality is that it will decrease your chances of pulling her depending on circumstances. It appears as though you think you need to buy her time which indicates you believe she is above you which switches off attraction. Of course if she can tell that you are a cool guy who is just doing it to be social and you would buy guys drinks too then I don't think it is a big problem, but if you want to pull her why risk it. Also it can be a hassle going to the bar and queing, better off just continuing chatting her up.

MyStubbleItches

scanlas wrote: »

You can just buy her a drink if that's what you want to do, but the reality is that it will decrease your chances of pulling her depending on circumstances. It appears as though you think you need to buy her time which indicates you believe she is above you which switches off attraction. Of course if she can tell that you are a cool guy who is just doing it to be social and you would buy guys drinks too then I don't think it is a big problem, but if you want to pull her why risk it.

Would you believe, I never thought of that!

scanlas

Yea, women are constantly reading into subtle things the guy does, so you're better off being aware of the signals your sending women on their secret wavelength.

On the drink issue, if you think the girl thinks you are too good for her buying her a drink could be a good idea. It can bring you down closer to her level. If she is a stunning hottie when you approach you want break rapport pretty quickly because she probably sees herself way above you.

Rules of thumb for relative value:

If you tease a girl and she seems really offended she probably views you as being way too good for her.

If you tease a girl and she is laughing and giggling and enjoying it she probably views you to be a bit above her.

If you tease a girl and she gives you a sassy response back she probably views you as slightly below her

and finally if you tease a girl and she appears indifferent she views you somewhere on par with a homeless man.

MyStubbleItches

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

Would you believe, I never thought of that!

That was me being sarcastic.

I don't buy into all this reading the signs stuff. If a girl is nice and I'm getting on with her then its as simple as that for me. If we're not getting on, then I just leave it at that. People tend to over-complicate things. If a girl thinks that she's too good for me, that's very easily spotted and most of the time one has a fair idea before one ever approaches her.

scanlas

Thats fair enought, each to their own, but just realise that you could pull that girl who thinks she is way above you, why limit yourself to women who happen to already like you.

MyStubbleItches

scanlas wrote: »

Thats fair enought, each to their own, but just realise that you could pull that girl who thinks she is way above you, why limit yourself to women who happen to already like you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point but, FWIW, if I think a girl presumes herself to be 'above me', then she becomes immediately very unattractive and I am quite serious about that. At the end of the day, she has to wipe her arse too. This feeling of superiority that some people have is the biggest turn-off IMHO.

scanlas

MyStubbleItches wrote: »

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point but, FWIW, if I think a girl presumes herself to be 'above me', then she becomes immediately very unattractive and I am quite serious about that. At the end of the day, she has to wipe her arse too. This feeling of superiority that some people have is the biggest turn-off IMHO.

"Above you" doesn't necessarily mean superior, if you have ever felt self conscious around someone you probably thought they were "above you". You think they have more value than you, if you express yourself freely around people you probably see them as equal or beneath you on some level. It silly to pretend social status doesn't exist. When two people interact one person is almost always reacting more to the other person than the other, and thats a fact that cant be argued with. The one who reacts less is the higher value one.

Actually I have a better word for "above you". Cooler. The cooler a man is the more attractive he is. You may be cooler or less cool than someone but that does not make you superior or inferior respectively. Any thoughts of superiority and inferioriy come from the ego, you can have no ego and regard someone as cooler or less cool than you.

MyStubbleItches

I think I understand you now. That to me would mean though that you (generic) shouldn't really be approaching that type of person, they're not your type. Of course the typical drunken Irish way of stumbling from one girl to the next at the bar is going to lead to plenty of encounters with girls who are in a different (lateral) league.

Maybe its just the part of the country that I'm from. There isn't a huge selection of pubs/clubs and generally you know the exact crowd that will be in whichever place you decide to go. So if you see someone you like, chances are they're from a pretty similar background, have not vastly dissimilar interests, etc. and as such have no reason to feel in any way cooler or superior. Maybe my expectations are just different.

Edit. I can't recall ever having felt self concious around anyone. I guess I'm lucky in that respect. If talking about looks, since you refer to 'stunning hotties', I always find the more subtle good looks far more attractive. If I did go for the 'stunning hottie' maybe I would feel self-conscious, maybe not. I'll never know as they just don't do it for me.

scanlas

Being cooler or less cool isn't about being judgmental. If you feel comfortable and relaxed around someone you meet you are cooler than them, if you are nervous and self conscous you are less cool. It's not an egotisical concept. A cooler person is not superior to you the same way a person with bluer eyes isn't superior to you. Superiority is a fiction of the mind and ego. I don't regard myself superior or inferior to anyone or thing. A tree is neither superior nor inferior to me nor is Barack Obama superior or inferior to me.

MyStubbleItches

We just have different views. Possibly down to a different social status. Cool in my vocabulary is the opposite of warm. Your analysis is far too complicated for me.

scanlas

Cool in my vocabulary has two different meanings:

1. Lacking heat.

2. Description of someone who moves through the world with ease, they are calm and relaxed, it is their baseline state. They do not try to impress anyone. Comfortable in their own skin. They don't panic easily or stress over things that don't matter. They are chill. They focus their attention on things that matter.

Wibbs

scanlas wrote: »

Being cooler or less cool isn't about being judgmental.

I would say it is at a very basic level. For a start you are making a value judgement, regardless of where you place yourself within that continuum of "non cool" to "cool", or even if you don't place yourself at all.Of course one has to place themselves or the description and the label is meaningless. To label something in a social context is to judge it's merit within that social context.

If you feel comfortable and relaxed around someone you meet you are cooler than them, if you are nervous and self conscous you are less cool.

Or you're just relaxed with them or not(depending on many values at work).

It's not an egotisical concept.

Of course it is unless one subscribes to the idea of the egoless being close to perfection. Personally I don't. Personally I think ego, superego and all that stuff is just another paradigm and layer of abstraction to describe something that is both complex and simple. I would also consider it out of date(then again I consider Freud an outdated thinker and somewhat of a charlatan. At best he is to the mind what Copernicus is to cosmology. He peeked beyond the veil but got a lot wrong. At worst he's a flat earther trying to make things fit to a theory. Newton or Einstein he aint. we're still waiting for them).

A cooler person is not superior to you the same way a person with bluer eyes isn't superior to you.

But they could be. In a culture that excessively valued blue eyes a brown eyed person would be inferior socially. They may compensate enough for it to be less an issue, but would still be compensating for that eye colour.

Superiority is a fiction of the mind and ego.

Not really as it is objectively measurable.

I don't regard myself superior or inferior to anyone or thing. A tree is neither superior nor inferior to me nor is Barack Obama superior or inferior to me.

A tree is superior to you in many ways, just as you are superior to a tree in many others. You can't live the same length of time as a tree. You unaided, are not as strong. The tree supports more of an ecosystem. etc. You of course have meaning. You can observe. A tree presumably does not. Barrack Obama is objectively superior to you socially. He is more successful as a social entity. He is respected more than you socially. If he and you were in the same room the chances are very very high he would be more the centre of social attention.

That's where the hippies and the self help guru's get and got it wrong. While the idea of egoless zen stylee social functioning is attractive and indeed can help many, objectively it is a construct. A construct just as ephemeral as any ego based viewpoint.

scanlas

You can have superiority in attributes but not in absolute terms. Barack Obamas social status is superior to mine, but my mathematical abilities are probably superior to his as I have a degree in mathematics. My soccer abiltities are superior to a tree but a tree's ability to grow leaves is superior to mine.

Absolute superiority doesn't exist because there areno definitive rules which determine superiority without causing a contradiction.

Is a wieght lifter superior to a swimmer? It makes no sense. Is a likeable or attractive person superior to a millionaire? The concept makes no sense. It's just an idea the ego ( Eckhart Tolle's description- Check out his web classes with Oprah on youtube ) likes to feel better or worse than other people when in reality no one is in absolute terms better than anyone else. Thats not to say people can't have different levels of social status. The attributes people use for superiority are fairly arbitrary. One might look at a talented movie star and decide that they are clearly superior to them, but that person may be a far superior table tennis player and it's just luck that a the talented actor is assigned more status, in a different reality the table tennis player could have been worshipped, or maybe he didn't feel like pursueing a career in professional table tennis.

Often times the hippies and self help gurus have bigger egos than the most materialistic of people. They identify with their beliefs. I think you are lumping Eckhart Tolle's work into one general self help pigeon hole. I don't like the hippie hocus pocus nonsense myself and see it as impractical in the real world. Tolle's work couldn't be more different.

NickNolte

I've never read so much pseudo-intellectual claptrap in my entire life.

MyStubbleItches

NickNolte wrote: »

I've never read so much pseudo-intellectual claptrap in my entire life.

That's the kind of response I was looking for. Well said, sir.

NickNolte

NickNolte wrote: »

I've never read so much pseudo-intellectual claptrap in my entire life.

Once you start reading up material to help you in your own personal life, its quite easy to look for deeper meanings in just about everything you see, do or say. I don't particularly agree with what Scanlas is saying, but I understand where he's coming from.

NickNolte

There's a difference between being learned and foolish to be honest.

Wibbs

scanlas wrote: »

You can have superiority in attributes but not in absolute terms. Barack Obamas social status is superior to mine, but my mathematical abilities are probably superior to his as I have a degree in mathematics. My soccer abiltities are superior to a tree but a tree's ability to grow leaves is superior to mine.

Absolute superiority doesn't exist because there areno definitive rules which determine superiority without causing a contradiction.

Is a wieght lifter superior to a swimmer? It makes no sense. Is a likeable or attractive person superior to a millionaire? The concept makes no sense. It's just an idea the ego ( Eckhart Tolle's description- Check out his web classes with Oprah on youtube ) likes to feel better or worse than other people when in reality no one is in absolute terms better than anyone else. Thats not to say people can't have different levels of social status. The attributes people use for superiority are fairly arbitrary. One might look at a talented movie star and decide that they are clearly superior to them, but that person may be a far superior table tennis player and it's just luck that a the talented actor is assigned more status, in a different reality the table tennis player could have been worshipped, or maybe he didn't feel like pursueing a career in professional table tennis.

There's a difference between the abstract value and the reality. Therein lies the problem. Obama is your objective superior as far as the reality goes. They may name streets after him and a few statues may be knocked up and his name will be recorded in history. Grand. It's how one reflects and reacts to such a reality/construct marks out the difference. Denying it is not much of a difference. That makes one as deluded as those who say things are absolute. Same coin, different sides.

Often times the hippies and self help gurus have bigger egos than the most materialistic of people. They identify with their beliefs. I think you are lumping Eckhart Tolle's work into one general self help pigeon hole. I don't like the hippie hocus pocus nonsense myself and see it as impractical in the real world. Tolle's work couldn't be more different.

I would have been a little more with you until Tolle got lumped into this. Tolle is just the same old same old hippie live in the now, the ego(which I don't particularly believe in) is the root of all suffering stuff. And god love him he thinks he has the "Answer". Yea right Pesky old ego again. Tide goes in tide goes out.

It's just the usual stuff dressed up for a new generation, or the old US babyboomer types smell the scent of the familiar and run with it as they face their march to oblivion and promote it as true. It fits well into the century of the individual. Where ancient concepts like Buddhism(especially Buddhism) are simplified and hijacked for the easy answer. Only there are no easy answers. There aren't even easy questions. This thread shows this well enough.

Live in the now is grand in theory. Be present in the now without thoughts of the past, nor concern for the future. Fine if you live on a mountain and go Ommmmmmm and dont interact as a healthy member of a social species. Utterly useless in reality, except as another mask to cover up the cracks. It's yet another delusion. It may even be a useful one at times, but I have found those who attempt to follow it in daily life are just as riven with doubt, but just anchor it in terms of the other, but ultimately within themselves. They run from their "ego" only to find that they're acting from the very thing they seek to run from.

IMHO the balanced person, understands their past, is mindful of their future, but lives in the present suspended between the two. Do that and life and the engagement of the opposite sex for men and women would be and is a helluva lot easier(as well as everything else).

NickNolte

NickNolte wrote: »

There's a difference between being learned and foolish to be honest.

Not really.... depends on what's being learned, and what understanding you take away with you. Look, I don't really agree with most of what Scanlas covers in this thread, but I've probably read most of the same material he has. I've taken away a different perception of what needed to be done for me, and how I perceived the world around me. Seriously, that worked for me. But what I learned, and the way that I understand it, might not work for someone else.

Some of the things I did when I was experimenting with approaches, were considered idiotic in the extreme by my friends. They said "Nothing so simplistic or wacky could ever work", and yet some of them did. The rest were forgotten in time. Although there are things I still do which my friends can never get their heads around.. haha.

If what he speaks about works for him, why knock it? Perhaps it is ringing a cord for someone that is reading this thread. If it doesn't for you, disagree and query him on it, or just shrug it off and move on with the thread. Thats what I'm doing..

NickNolte

Wow. Just wow. Hehe.

Wibbs

Reading my last guff back, now I realise why men like me shouldnt approach women. They would rightfully get thumped in the process.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Live in the now is grand in theory. Be present in the now without thoughts of the past, nor concern for the future. Fine if you live on a mountain and go Ommmmmmm and dont interact as a healthy member of a social species. Utterly useless in reality, except as another mask to cover up the cracks. It's yet another delusion. It may even be a useful one at times, but I have found those who attempt to follow it in daily life are just as riven with doubt, but just anchor it in terms of the other, but ultimately within themselves. They run from their "ego" only to find that they're acting from the very thing they seek to run from.

IMHO the balanced person, understands their past, is mindful of their future, but lives in the present suspended between the two. Do that and life and the engagement of the opposite sex for men and women would be and is a helluva lot easier(as well as everything else).

Really excellent.. Spot on.

I believe that a person is the sum of their experiences. The wonderful thing I have learned is that you can choose what experiences you wish to retain to guide you in the future. (Takes practice, and the learned ability to forgive yourself) The past is your guide to show you what worked in the past, or what felt right/wrong to you... The past helps you to shape the present, and the future is just a planning phase. The present is where life is.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Reading my last guff back, now I realise why men like me shouldnt approach women. They would rightfully get thumped in the process.

haha.. I know a few Goth & "new age" girls that would eat you up if you spoke like the above with them... (Eat you up in a good way, lol)

Wibbs

"The present is a hammock suspended between the tree of the past and the tree of the future. It must be anchored at both or the hammock will fall to the ground of failure". (c)TM Wibbs 2009

See how easy this guff is? Hell I should be on Oprah. I've got lots of those. Make a bleedin fortune I would. Doesn't make it true mind. Hey since when did the truth get in the way of a good line.

It's the same with why men don't...., women don't.... Blah blah. What are seen as difficult questions aren't really. The pattern and the reality is both complex and really bloody simple. Just like the best art and music.

scanlas

When you tell people about Tolle's work and being present you often hear people saying that isn't practical. Being present is the most practical thing you can do. Eckhart Tolle never says don't concern yourself with the future and never think about the past. He never says don't think.
His point is don't become preoccupied with the past and future. Don't cycle the same useless repetitive thoughts over and over in your head. When you are present you get greatest access to your faculties, very practical. Tolle never says go out and sit on a mountain being present. People often misinterpret being egoless as being a wimp, completely incorrect, if the situation requires you to smash someone's face in then that's what you do, but your actions are coming from a place of necessity and what makes sense for you to do. You don't smash someone's face in because they diminished your ego by mocking you, in many people the ego makes them violent for insane reasons.

To say the ego doesn't exist is plain wrong. If you ever feel the need to be right or felt anger over someone's disagreement that was probably the ego in you reacting. If you have ever been offended that is the ego in you. The ego is your mind made concept of who you think you are. So if you see yourself as a funny person and you don't get the reactions you are looking for from people you will feel a diminished sense of self and feel bad. Or if you see yourself as someone who is good with women and you get rejected the rejection will hurt badly, you feel your sense of self is diminished. The ego is the reason you get people who get so offended if you say the music they listen to is poor. They have identified with their choice of music.

Perfect example coming up..........get ready......if you have ever been driving and been beeped at and felt the sudden urge to shout, beep back or give the fingers you have been in the grips of the ego. Whether the driver who beeped you was right or wrong didn't matter to your ego and you know it deep down, your ego felt diminished and gave you the impulse to react. If you were ever in a heated argument and only wanted to win it whether you were right or wrong that was the ego controlling you. If you have ever been insulted and felt suddent rage inside you, that was the ego controlling you. The best sports players such as Tiger Woods who have incredible focus are present and in the moment when they play, hardly impractical.

And to bring this back on topic.....why don't men approach women? To protect their mind made image of themselves, that is, protect their ego.

Wibbs

scanlas wrote: »

And to bring this back on topic.....why don't men approach women? To protect their mind made image of themselves, that is, protect their ego.

Well leaving aside my issues with (IMHO)the simplistic notion of the ego(and Tolle for that matter. Then again I got a troubling vibe from the Dalai Lama when I met him so.... ), I would agree for the most part.

There are other things going on too, particularly when it comes to a successful romantic interaction. There are deeper animalistic processes at play. This stuff is subtle and can change very fast. For example, the notion, much espoused by the self help/PUA community that any woman is open to any man who is in control of his "ego" and fully realised I would contend is patently false.

There are simply times when no matter how slick or honest a picture is painted by a man, the woman is just not going to be interested. Many women out there will have been attracted by a man, sexually, romantically, emotionally, intellectually etc and then when they kiss, no spark. Nada. As a man I've felt that before. One could argue that the intimacy of the kiss told the people involved(or one of them) that they were too close genetically in their immune system makeup(which experimentally seems to make a big diff). Could be any number of reasons. The man could simply not be her type. No matter how "centered" he is. Many experiments have shown that female attraction just based on facial structure over their menstrual cycle can vary. It's very complex.

This is one of the big problems I have with all or most self help mantras out there, from the Secret to much of the PUA output. It's simplistic, it's objectively delusional in many areas and it always puts the blame on the self that fails. You didn't get what you want ergo your technique/ego/your need wasn't strong enough. My take is that yes that can be the case, yes it is good to improve oneself, but sometimes, and even a lot of the time, shít just happens. No ones "fault".

So men approaching women. Some may be more successful than others and yes being confident etc are all good additions. Hell just making the approach should be the first step, but sometimes it's not your fault it goes south. It's not hers either.

Henry Chinaski

Interesting stuff here...


http://news.yahoo.com/us

http://georgesodini.com/20090804.htm

Henry Chinaski

Henry Chinaski wrote: »

Interesting stuff here...


http://news.yahoo.com/us

http://georgesodini.com/20090804.htm

Completely useless. Yahoo homepage, and some strange guys blog who keeps talking about not having sex with a girlfriend since 1982. :rolleyes:

Henry Chinaski

Try this instead..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_re_us/us_health_club_shooting

Húrin

T real deal J wrote: »

Hello Eve and Loula, you guys seem fun. I think you should join Scanlas and I for a drink in Diceys (eur3 per drink all night) this THursday. It would be fun and interesting to continue this chat and observe all of this in operation. Also, Nicknolte and Klaz should come to Diceys to represent their side, then we can all finish this topic together and have a good time.

Haha brilliant, asking them out in a discussion about asking them out!

donster79 wrote: »

No offence dude but your full of sh1t. I bet your a wannabe psychiatrist who fantasises about sitting in the psychiatrists chair, with the jacket that has patches on the sleeves, explaining the ways of the world to lesser mortals.

I bet you even have the stupid, well groomed beard.

haha, the last line made the post. you're great! How do I subscribe to all your posts?!

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Once again, this is not directed at anyone in here but there has been the occasional post on this thread commenting on the looks of Irish women and usually in a negative manner. Their whole argument was that they wouldn't go near us because we're fat and ugly and caked in fake tan etc compared to "foreign" women. Fine. That's cool. Freedom of speech and all that but I really doubt there'd be as much vitriol directed at Irish women if we resembled, say, all the beautiful women from Sweden, Brazil and Italy put together.

We really can't help what we look like and don't forget, your mothers are our mothers too.

What do you guys think? Maybe I'm wrong.

I've noticed that many Irish women have a preference for foreign men. I suspect that this results from the subconscious belief that Ireland is in bred (this may or may not be true) and there is a need to diversify the gene pool. Humans have an instinct to choose partners that are genetically different to some degree.

I don't see the fascination with asian women though. American men seem to be well into them.

PANADOL

Not sure of the reasons the same is true of women in the family courts talk to any barristor although it outside the scope of this topic the amount of men in this country walking around on egg shells in this country as all their wife has to say is things are not working and the guy moves out she gets the house etc for years they were underdogs they are now it seems out for revenge , where does this high opinion they have of themselves come from even the ugly ones i have no idea , brother lives in nyc professional skirt chaser and very good at it always remarks how cold they are in ireland ,i have to agree, you would want to be out of your mind to marry any of them espec with irish family law however not all like that however it seems to be the majority :mad:

donster79

Here is a radical theory---maybe its because they are ugly and not so attractive as they might think???

If the OP's friends are around the 30ish mark then this is almost certainly true.

Harsh but true.

Dudess

What if they were around the 40-ish mark?

Your constant emphasis on specifically 30 (your age) whenever you troll that stuff about women just makes it more and more obvious that a woman in your social circle screwed you over. Aw...

Or else you've seen every 30-year-old woman ever, which of course you haven't. By the way, you must be really grossed out by being bombarded by pictures of: Charlize Theron, Penelope Cruz, Shakira, Angelina Jolie, Rachel McAdams...

I haven't read this thread but plenty of men do approach women - how has it got to 700+ posts?

donster79

Dudess wrote: »

What if they were around the 40-ish mark?

Your constant emphasis on specifically 30 (your age) whenever you troll that stuff about women just makes it more and more obvious that a woman in your social circle screwed you over. Aw...

Or else you've seen every 30-year-old woman ever, which of course you haven't. By the way, you must be really grossed out by being bombarded by pictures of: Charlize Theron, Penelope Cruz, Shakira, Angelina Jolie, Rachel McAdams...

I haven't read this thread but plenty of men do approach women - how has it got to 700+ posts?

A pity that not too many Irish women maintain themselves as well as that group of fine ladies Dudess. Nobody screwed me over by the way but it pleases me to know that I have aroused your ire. I feel like there is some chemistry between us, do you..