You came to a forum of mostly suffering people to give advice, then proceeded to make assumptions about how you are better at dealing with suffering in general than other people (even in horrible situations you've never been in), then you lied and contradicted yourself about that, and now refuse to admit doing such.

How is that someone we should take advice from? If you weren't here trying to give advice, I would feel a bit differently. But I think it's in poor taste to go to a forum of people suffering from a condition that you do not share, and then claim you're better at handling suffering you've never experienced. It makes your credibility shot.

If you would speak more from experience, that would have helped a whole lot more, than speaking for other people's experiences.

Listen, I am sorry for raking you over the coals as much as I did, but I honestly believe it's better for the people who suffer here not to listen to your advice, as you have appeared far too presumptuous and not empathetic enough for your advice to be anything other than selfish. I wanted that out in the open so no one would be mislead.

I never claimed those things you said. Repeating a lie many times does not make it a truth.

By the way, the monarch butterfly question was not making fun. They can be seen flying among the ruins in Christchurch. I was going to use them as an analogy, but I may try when you consider it appropriate to stop your childish tantrum and go back to a rational debate.

PS I gave you several examples of my own experience dealing with suffering. You obviously ignored them. Never mind, I am positive

I understand, I am not criticizing your own experiences.

I just feel you were far to eager to generalize outside of them (with a particularly horrible circumstance such as being wheelchair bound), and that is not a sign of a truly empathetic person who is really thinking about the suffering other people are feeling. You seemed more concerned with what felt good for you to say (you being Wonder Woman who is always positive), rather than really think of how much they really suffer.

I'm skeptical of your intentions, based on what you said, and I definitely think your logic is flawed if you cannot see the contradiction I pointed out.

It is you who are completely unable to see the difference between saying "in this hypothetical situation, reaction 4 is more like me" (which is what I said), and saying "if I was raped every day, tortured, had no arms and legs, was blind and deaf, I would still be much more positive than all of you mere mortals, MOHAWHAWHAW" (which is what you are accusing me of). There is no contradiction. There are simply two completely different and unrelated statements.

It's not that far off. Being wheel chair bound is devastating for people in a way we cannot really understand unless we have been there.

I know that, because of my throat situation and seeing just how little people understand. Unless you've lost the ability to eat and speak for 2 years, and live in chronic physical pain, you are very unlikely to comprehend what I go through.

All it takes is a little decency to think about what others might be experiencing, rather than toot your own horn about how badass you are and how of all "types of people" you'd handle a horrible hardship you've never faced with the most positive grace.

Si, soy colombiano, y fue una sorpresa grata saber que eres española. Muchas gracias por tus consejos, me confirman que la solución para mí es salir mas y simplemente intentar iniciar la conversación con las mujeres. Claro, es sumamente difícil enfrentar algo a lo que uno le tiene fobia, pero precisamente esa es la manera de librarse de la fobia. Acertaste en mi carrera, estudio Ingeniería Mecánica, que precisamente es la ingeniería con menor proporción de mujeres . Me gustó particularmente la idea de los grupos de lectura.

Sorry guys, you didn't understand? well, if CoolWoman and me could learn another language, so you can

Hey bernard,

I believe being LS in Colombia is probably worse than in other countries, as the Colombian girls expect the man ALWAYS to take initiative and always to be the one that invites, takes the girls to dance, calls them, and so on. Do you find this is the case? One of my friends here in New Zealand is Colombian, and she found it difficult to meet men here, because the Kiwis are actually pretty laid-back guys, and are equally happy approaching than being approached. "Asking for a date" or "asking a girl to dance" is not their thing at all. And my friend was used to sit and wait for the guys to approach her (which does not happen here).

¡Besos!

The simple fact is that most men are forced to be genuine while most women can freely send mixed signals and get away with it. Guess who will be more confused with the outcome? Women do not have any inherent advantage in communication other than the overall power imbalance of the modern dating paradigm.



No, you are not. This is why you've been dating manipulative morons all your life. You are easy to fool.



I can tell within seconds whether a woman is interested in me or not. It is really quite obvious and it almost never fails (at least it hasn't up to this point). In some rare instances, a woman might warm up to a guy who did not interest her upon initial meeting, but that is always accompanied by some significant upwards change in this guy's social status. The interesting aspect is that the change cannot come from this guy's objective personal value, rather it needs to be validated by the public perception. A woman cannot make this determination detached from a collective which tells her how to think.



God forbid she should feel slightly pressured.



Men have been strongly conditioned to ask women open ended questions during dates and focusing on female interests for the better part of the past two decades. It hasn't worked and it's not going to. Also, what is so wrong about men talking about hobbies they are passionate about? Is it boring for you and therefore irrelevant?



That's a good set of rules for a sex offender to follow.



This is just a convenient excuse for why the top 20% of men can make approaches while the remaining 80% are liable to be prosecuted.

SmoothRide thanks for your... erm... contribution, and for letting a woman know how women think and behave. I think I must have been mislead for 34 years



Thanks for the personal counselling, I am sure my ex-partners will love the diagnose... but wait... weren't we women the manipulative ones?



You're wrong. I could give you the long and boring scientific dissertation, but my manipulative moron partner has just finished cooking and dinner is ready!

Don't really think there is anything else worth commenting about your post. Love and hugs!

Wow, I just watched this episode yesterday

Thanks for telling us all about your wonderful sex life and how you've induldged in loads of great casual sex as well. It's sure made us all feel a lot better.

Thanks for the answer, CW. I currently don't have time to read it carefully, will do so later. At first glance I noticed that I made a mistake in my own post however:



Correction, I had meant to say, does a woman expect you to touch her [during a first / second date]?

You disgust me. Your "love and hugs" approach to questions you don't like because they could uncover dirty secrets is useless and condescending.

Following your kind of dating advice has never brought me anywhere. On-line I had a minimum of success by being an annoying asshole. However, it only lasted until the chick saw my picture. So, my social skills are insufficient to compensate for the lack in looks, and in real-life I don't even have to try. I am successful in basically everything else, because apparently I am not so stupid and men like my personality - in my adult life, they have always accepted me, and also accepted me as a potential leader, and friend. Women have never given me a chance.

I am not your typical looksist, though. It's not -everything- about looks. It's just that the effort a man of average looks would have to put into becoming interesting for women is way too much. Just for some dirty little cunt, which can be bought.

For the record, I don't like the way you avoided thechak's questioning. Your reaction was inappropriate. Still, I hope you will see my questions as legitimate and not as emotional outbursts. I've worded them carefully to avoid any kind of biases (aside from this paragraph):

1) You've stated that men have to live up to a series of expectations in order to be approved (body language cues, emotional intelligence, positivity, confidence, not being egocentric). In your experience, what are men's requirements for women? What do they expect you to do, say, act like, look like?

2) About the previous question: Would you say their requirements are too strict or too loose?

3) If they are too strict: What qualities should women be judged for? What should be the minimum common denominator for women?

I'm asking this because my standards have been fluctuating a lot lately. There are moments where I would happily hug or kiss any girl no matter how unattractive/incompatible, but in other instances I'm much pickier than I can afford to be. I reject between 95% and 100% of my matches on dating sites and I always end up alone. I know exactly what kind of woman I want, but I'm not sure if my requirements are justified or if I should just lower my expectations.

Thanks in advance (if you answer).

Hey, I'm far from misogynistic myself. I can read Lonelycommunist's post, and see how he would feel that way based on how he was treated in the past, but I honestly believe that women are unique and can't be generalized in that way, accurately. Even if the vast majority of women are cruel, there would still likely be exceptions that would make misogyny unfair.

But I believe Cool Woman would need to seriously reconsider her views about positivity, if she has any intent whatsoever of helping people who are sick or suffer from ill fortune in any way and isn't just here to toot her own horn. Unless she was willing to do so, I can't really defend her in this circumstance, and you're probably right to not trust her.

http://www.humansideofcancer.com/chapter2/chapter.2.htm It's quite well documented that people who suffer from cancer are treated like shit, and told to "be more positive" by the people in their lives (friends, family, doctors, etc). If they refuse to feign positivity, they are often rejected, and even blamed for their cancer if they display even a moment's sadness or weakness.

As that article says, positivity is a literal tyranny that well people in our society hold over the ill and unfortunate. It's a way to be condescending and selfish, a way to rebuff the opportunity to feel any empathy for someone's pain, especially if feeling empathy might be slightly depressing. It's the opposite of caring about people, really.