You're welcome.



I don't think your ex-partners would care much either way. There are manipulative men out there and there are decent ones. Women notoriously choose the manipulators because they are, like cats, easily distracted and drawn to superficially shiny objects.



There's no such scientific explanation other than psychologist babble, which is not true science. Women have yet to produce any concrete real-world evidence that their approach to communication actually works when the rubber meets the road. Even though women have entered the workforce in great numbers over the past few decades, their record of being productive employees, much less effective leaders, is very spotty. Women generally thrive on creating conflict and using their sexuality to try and manipulate the situation. This often works because much of the developed world is a sheltered society where failure to be effective is not a matter of life and death. Also notice how few women actually choose professions that are dangerous - there's hardly any female representation among risky occupations. There is no proof whatsoever that women are able to communicate information faster or more precisely.

The perception that women are superior communicators is completely flawed and the same is true for relationships. In any relationship, 9 times of 10 a woman will "win" an argument simply because men choose to rationally concede a petty quarrel in hopes of getting sex.



Passive-aggressiveness is not going to work on me.

You guys are shure doing your best to scare this women away

anyway, about being negative and positive, imo negative feelings like anger and frustration can be used as a motivator to achieve succes.
If someone rejects you or doesn't believe in you that pisses me off, disappoints me and frustrates me and so on but i try to use that anger as motivation, the best way to get back at someone is to be succesfull imo! An extreme example, Michael Jordan's acceptance speech for the Basketball Hall of Fame last year, he mentioned and called out all the people who didn't believe in him when he was growing up to show what he achieved, some people critices him but to me its a great example of using your anger as a motivator.

Wow, I just finished reading your elaborate advice. Thanks so much. It's pretty absurd how judgemental some are being on you in this thread while you're taking the time to help us while being in a deep crisis yourself..
I need a few days to digest this. I hope you're still around by then, since I feel I have a few more questions for you, but just need a little time to shape them.

Take care in the ruins.

You're right, the man is always the one who has to take the initiative here, so that that sucks big time if you are LS. Actually, I've been considering to try to move to New Zealand as soon as I can. I don't wanna be ungrateful with my country, but I'm realy sick of it's weather (raining 11 months a year, and at this very moment ), the rampant corruption and the culture of "ends over means". I only was reluctant to New Zealand precisely for it's geological activity; I've only felt a couple minor earthquakes in Colombia, but I'm never been so scared in my life. However, I think I'll pass that after what you said about the aproaching culture over there.

Hi Small Pink Blob, thanks for your questions:

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?"

I don't agree (or, if you understood that from my post, then I didn't mean that) that men have to live up to anyone's expectations. My advice before was for men who specifically had problems when they met women because of particular behaviours that are considered strange or "creepy". And then yes, if a behaviour of yours is causing problems in what otherwise is a normal part of life, then I do recommend to modify that particular behaviour. However, for anyone that wants to find a partner, "trying to live up to their expectations on the first date" is going to end up badly, as a partner wants to know the real you. Every woman (and man) will have their own preferences, and it is useless to try to prepare for everyone's preferences. You just have to be lucky and find someone that likes you for who you are. Non-LS people do this by trial and error, and have the advantage that they are born with an innate "confidence" (if you want to call it like this), or lack of extreme anxiety, when they meet someone from the opposite sex. So our reaction to tis is: "well, if he/she likes me, great, if not, I will keep trying".

Answering your question: I honestly never worry about this in advance. The reason is, I don't pretend when I meet a man, I just behave as I am. I wouldn't change my behaviour to adapt to what a man (or anyone else) expects of me. I am lucky in that I have never had serious behavioural problems, and my slight Asperger's traits (the ones I described in a previous post) are almost gone with age. I have no idea what a particular man I am going to meet expects of a woman, but it does not bother me. I am not anyone's expectations, I am myself and I only would want to be with a person who likes me as I am.

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

In general (as in particular it can't be analysed), I find most men I meet don't have strict requirements. This may be because I actively avoid men with strict requirements, as they usually are high maintenance, same as women with high requirements, I reckon . And men and women who have a complicated "list" in their heads about what they expect in a partner usually do not offer the same quality in return, I have found.

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

Personal preferences. There are no standard qualities any person "has to be judged for". Some people can't stand people who talk a lot. Others don't like silent people. Others want slim people, others are turned on by fat people. There really are no standards, or if they are, I have as little a clue about them as you.

I believe one big difference between non-LS and LS people (according to what I am reading here) is that LS people have an obsessive worry about these "standards" you talk about. I understand it is difficult not to obsess about the details when something that is so important for you is not working. However, most non-LS people really don't worry about these things that much, or at all. The only women I know that worry constantly about "what the man will like or not" are the ones that have a low self-esteem. I can't speak for men, because I am not one myself.

Have you read the book "The Neverending Story"? At one point, the child-warrior Atreyu has to cross three doors. Each of them involve passing a very difficult test as a person. He gets to the third one, and the test is the following: this door will only open when the person does not want to cross it. He really needs to cross the door to save his World, and he spends hours and hours trying "not to want it to open", and of course, the more he tries, the more impossible it is.

This is the very, very unfair thing I see about people with difficulties to find a partner. other people really don't worry about some things, really don't even think about them at all. They are not interested in pushing that door open, they just go there, and the door opens. I realize how terribly unfair it is. Some of you will have to do like Atreyu, which in the end does cross the door. You have to figure an alternative way to get what for others is easy. But the fact that it is easy for others does not make other people "bastards" and "whores". It makes you unlucky, and it forces you to find alternative ways. The rest of the World does expect a date to be mildly stressing, but not a big deal. They expect having sex to be sometimes a bit of a challenge, but not that hard.

Disclaimer: I am not going to tell you how Atreyu crosses the door, because The Neverending Story is a great book and I wouldn't like to spoil it for anyone whose curiosity has been picked and would like to read it. I will just say it has nothing to do with LS at all, I just used the idea as an analogy.

The neverending story is my favourite book, and the analogy with the third door has crossed my mind before. I particularly love what the lion Greograman said about the meaning of "do what you want" on the amulet. Don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like:

Atreyu: So that means I should just go and do whatever the heck I feel like? Isn't that too easy?
Greograman: No, it means that you should do what you really want deep inside. Nothing is harder.

CAPSLOCK, feel free to send me a private msg if you want to ask questions about private things. Some users are doing this and I am happy talking to you this way.

Hugs!

no but a little more understanding and empathy from those people would be nice, the fact of the matter is that women don't like insecure men, men with low-selfesteem so what are we supposed to do then? That ain't something you can't change like that or maybe at all... I have dated women and things didn't work out and i'm shure that me being insecure, shy at times played a big part in things not working out whereass if it was the other way around i wouldn't mind that much. And yes i do hold that against them.

Mitchell, if, for whichever reason, you just don't feel attracted to someone, there is nothing you can do to change that. If a person finds an insecure man or woman not attractive, that's how it is. You cannot force yourself to feel attracted to a person. All the empathy in the world won't help, unless you expect people to date someone out of pity.

Hey CoolWoman,

Thanks for replying to my questions honestly and I hope that the situation in New Zealand is improving. I can't imagine what that would be like.

I have a few more general questions. I have a habit of putting on a sort of goofy-front to cope with my awkwardness in social situations. It will involve doing things such as slapping friends on the ass, dishing out wet-willies and noogies way too much and telling really lame overtly sexual jokes. Also by behaving like this if people insult me they are only really insulting a 'fake personality' rather than the real me. It's how I try to protect myself from emotional harm because I don't trust people. (Of course, I'm way too nervous to do any of those pranks to women, but I have done some of them to my male friends in front of women.)

1.) How obvious do you think that it tends to be if somebody is behaving as they are because of a defense mechanism such as in my example? In other words, would you think that somebody behaving like that is most likely just very immature, is extremely socially awkward and distrusting of others or some combination of the above?
2.) Also, how big of a problem is an extreme lack of confidence going to be for a man? For example, would you be repulsed by a guy who clearly did not have faith in himself? (I for one do not agree with the so called 'looksists' who insist that all that women really care about is a man's physical appearance. In my opinion confidence is a much bigger issue, but I wanted to hear (or more accurately read) what your thoughts on this matter were.)

You're attributing a lot of things to CW that she never said. Just chill out, take a deep breath, and organize your thoughts a bit more.

That's true to an extent, but I think life circumstances can very much influence and change people's minds about issues over time.

A change like generally doesn't happen immediately, but can happen gradually. Say for example, a woman is born extremely beautiful and confident in her appearance? And becomes a badly burned victim and then lives 10 years suffering the consequences of the lack of beauty? Where as a woman living prior to that condition might scorn others who are insecure in their appearance, after living through such a condition, she might see other's insecurities, in a different light.

I know if I had never suffered from acne, for example, I'd probably feel a lot differently about how other people suffer with self esteem issues that surround their appearances. Now that I've suffered with something that was uncontrollable and considered universally unattractive, women insecure in their appearances are not at all unattractive to me, as I totally understand.

Another thing, is long term celibacy also influences your tastes. Back when I was in junior high school as a kid, I remembered thinking cheerleaders were sexy. After years and years of experience afterward, I find the stereotypical cheerleader's attitude very unattractive and prefer vastly more intellectual people. Preferably those with more experience, empathy and understanding in suffering.

In some sense it can relate to how people think about food. They might prefer an ice cream cone now, but if they are starving for long enough, their preferences in food might change. Unless you've been willing to live that lifestyle long enough, you might not understand that process.

Ultimately, many aspects of sexual preference are conditioned into people through societal conditioning (norms, rewards, etc), and life circumstances. If you change the life circumstance and societal conditioning, or consciously reject them, over time the preferences can and do change. I am proof of that, as it's been a life goal of mine to remove my culture's influence on me as much as possible and replace such with good intentions. I've spent years breaking down society's influence over what I'm "supposed" to find attractive. Such change is rarely immediate though, I'd agree with that.

The one preference that unfortunately is hardest to shake, is physical attraction. Things like severe deformity aren't mere philosophical concepts that you can be pro or against, but physical realities that cause biologically negative reactions in general. That would be something I would be able to conquer in an ideal world, but in this world I have failed to conquer my programming in that manner.

I just wanted to point out, that whatever you find attractive now, is not set in stone. An example of that, I have a friend who finds full sleeve arm tattoos a near requirement in her partners. From the outsider looking in, it's obvious that if she grew up in a society where arm tattoos were not "cool" (or even one where arm tattoos never existed) she would never think even twice about tattoos. Yet in her current society, they are such strong status symbols that she demands them.

That's an example of a weak, conditioned preference that is subject to change, and not a reflection of true biological, unchangeable reality. Many preferences fall into those categories, and they are often as much for the sake of being agreeable with your culture, showing the right kind status symbol, etc. So in a sense, there is an element of choice too, you just often have to deprogram over time things indoctrinated into you.

I quoted her as claiming she would handle living life permanently confined in a wheel chair, better and more positively than people who are actually currently forced to live with the condition.

She said precisely that. I am not exaggerating on this. It's similar to walking into a room of cancer patients and claiming that you would handle it better than many of them.

I know what I read, and I quoted it, so do not give me shit on that. I am speaking up for chronically ill and disadvantaged people in this case. If you haven't been there, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CLUE how bad it is, and talking about how much better you would handle a situation you have never had to face, is flat out disrespectful.

If you want to make a statement about the chronically ill and disadvantaged, and how much "better" you'd handle their situation when you've never been in it and are currently well, you have to accept that people will call you out on that. I will call her out on that, and am proud to speak up for ill people everywhere who are being abused by the well in this manner.

Disadvantaged people go through enough shit as it is, without the advantaged telling them how much better they would handle being disadvantaged.

You're getting a bit hysterical, try and calm yourself down. You're not doing yourself any favors by getting so upset.

As I recall, she didn't make herself out to be a better person, just that she tends to react to adversity with a positivity that's tempered by realistic thinking. It doesn't make her an inherently superior person, that's just the way she usually handles problems. If something horrible happens to you and you want to be hopelessly gloomy and miserable, well, you can go ahead and do that. Incessant negativity isn't going to serve you very well with others though, especially if that negativity is unrealistic. People find that attitude very uncomfortable, and with good reason. Whether it's direct or indirect, that vibe is essentially punishing others for what is not their fault.

I am far from hysterical. I have witnessed abuses by the positivity police throughout my entire life and will stand up to them.

Claiming that you are a more positive person because you have more "positive thoughts" in general is abuse. You have no right to make that claim as if it is a fact just because others suffer more than you do.

Negativity and positivity are SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENTS. People in bad circumstances know a lot more than people who are not in them about what is negative and positive in their lives than selfish bystanders making passing (inaccurate) value judgments about their suffering.

Stop blaming the victims. Rape victims are no less positive people, if they feel negatively throughout their lives about the experience and don't spew positive attitudes about it. Same with people stuck in wheelchairs, or struggling with cancer, or anything. It's the same with anyone suffering misfortune.

You are no less a positive person, or realistic person, for being HONEST about things that are negative in your life. Being honest about what is negative in your life, and being understanding to other people's negative situations, instead of lying about it, IS being a positive person.

Positivity bias is a recognized cognitive distortion. Stop abusing people with it, just because they suffer different realities than you do.

You should really read a bit about cognitive biases, and how they are often used to blame victims for things that are out of their control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

I believe both you and Cool Girl displayed all these biases, and used them against those who have had their illusions shattered by reality in this thread. Just because your illusion isn't shattered by pain, disadvantage or disability, doesn't mean other's are not, or that yours couldn't be too one day.

Why not be happy you are not disadvantaged like other people and count your blessings, instead of bragging about your positive attitudes and whining about how negative you think other people's attitudes are when they are in different circumstances than you?

You are not a more positive person for suffering cognitive illusions, that your current reality isn't painful enough to break. You are not a more positive person for blaming victims for having "negative" attitudes about things you've never experienced. Their attitudes likely aren't even negative, you just view them that way, because of your cognitive distortions and selfish desires to not be exposed to potentially depressing realities.

If you don't like people who are honest when in pain, then that is fine. Say so, but generalizing these people as "negative" just because they have different experiences than you do, is abusive and bullshit.