"The Friendzone" and persistence

[Tom Sawyer]

But I do sometimes wonder if its really that a guy is dealing with a vague hope of the HITSLM from what Bronzeage was saying, or if it's more of a scorecard, or maybe more of a primitive drive or some mixture.

As with almost everything about human behaviour, it's probably a mixture of different things.

Ya, it all contributes. The HITSLM is important because (rapists aside) nobody is persistent with something that they don't think they're going to get. If you buy a lottery ticket every week, it's because you think that investment is eventually going to pay off with a big score, not because you think that lotteries are a tax on idiots and you have low self-esteem so you feel you're therefore obligated. Similarly, the only real reason to keep hitting on a woman who rejects you is because you think that eventually she's going to realize her mistake / change her mind and say yes, not because you like being shot down. The why's behind that are many and varied, but there's no persistent behavior without the assumption of eventual success.

 

[Derec]

I hear the US has whined their way away from the Human Rights Council because atrocities committed by Israel don't count, because baby Jesus.

Off topic, but what the hey. If mods want, they can carve it over to PD.
No, it is that the Human Rights Council, so-called, is a useless mess that spends inordinate amount of their time and energy on Israel, condemning tiniest perceived infraction while not saying anything bad about Hamas or other terrorist organizations routinely attacking Israeli civilians. And look at the current membership - there are countries on it like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela with human rights record infinitely worse than Israel. Yet, Israel is their favorite whipping boy.

Not that the HRC was amounting to much

What does Hillary have to do with ... oh I see.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess you could say that sex is the rocket fuel, and HITSLM is the targeting program.

What then is the oxidizer?

 

[Derec]

Men and women were shown photographs of people unknown to them and asked 'would you have sex with this person?' and men strongly tended to say yes in many, many more cases.

Women were like: the photos do not show a view of the contents of their wallets.

Seriously though, I have read somewhere that women prefer different people for sex vs. for long term partners. Especially when they were ovulating they were attracted to sexy hunks (I wonder if your study differentiated by ovulation status). That would mean that women want different guys to procreate with vs. to help them raise those children. Scary!

- - - Updated - - -

I'm coming up on my 63rd birthday, and my observations are very much the same. If you don't like yourself, there's not much chance anyone else will. Better in fact to learn to love yourself; the more you can do that, the more probable it is you'll find others that will love you.

I love myself every day. It's not helping.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I fail to see why this is so hard. If you value a woman's friendship, then you're not upset to be in the "friend zone." If, on the other hand, you hold consistently repugnant views that make people balk, well, don't be surprised when they don't want to hang around you, as a friend or otherwise.

Maybe when you die you can die with the satisfaction of being "right", but you'll still die alone.

 

[Derec]

One thing I find interesting, from a book I read (and this Wikipedia page):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

In a 1988 study, Retherford and Sewell examined the association between the measured intelligence and fertility of over 9,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin in 1957, and confirmed the inverse relationship between IQ and fertility for both sexes, but much more so for females. If children had, on average, the same IQ as their parents, IQ would decline by .81 points per generation. Taking .71 for the additive heritability of IQ as given by Jinks and Fulker,[14] they calculated a dysgenic decline of .57 IQ points per generation.[15]

I'm going to take some leaps here, but the trend seems to be that smart men are in high demand, and much more likely to have kids than their female counterparts of high intelligence.

Quite a few leaps. The portion of the wiki article you quoted does not support this at all. It says that there is a inverse relationship for both sexes, albeit stronger for women. That means that both dumb men and dumb women are in demand for sex. Given that, I do not see how we can avoid idiocracy.

I'd hazard a guess that a part of this is that smart men are able approach to women in more productive ways than via persistence, and smart women are more likely to be off put by the brunt of men being persistent. So smart men usually have many women to choose from, while men of lesser intelligence are forced to bash their head against a wall until something sticks.

As we have seen from Richard Carrier, even smart men must be very persistent to get anywhere with today's women.

 

[Derec]

I fail to see why this is so hard. If you value a woman's friendship, then you're not upset to be in the "friend zone."

That's a scant consolation when you really wanted something more. Especially when it happens over and over again.

If, on the other hand, you hold consistently repugnant views that make people balk, well, don't be surprised when they don't want to hang around you, as a friend or otherwise.

 

[Derec]

How do you know anything about other people's difficulties when finding a partner?

They must not be that great because I keep seeing all these people getting together.

There is no shortage of people who help you catalog your personal flaws, but now we can add petulance to the list.

I can testify, no one has "no" trouble finding a boy/girlfriend.

I meant "no trouble" in relative terms. I understand there are always difficulties.

If one is seeking a partner for sex only, it's only a matter of dropping one's expectations(some people call this standards).

That works for women and very men, because there is a gender imbalance in the casual sex market. Not so much for men below the 80th percentile in terms of attractiveness or charm.

There are places where people go where expectations are so low, no one expects to learn the others name and the relationship lasts only as long as it takes.

Again, gender imbalance. Great deal for women desiring a hookup though.

One of the expectations you'll have to lose is expecting to have sex with a woman, but once you get over that, it's really just a matter of timing.

If you are a heterosexual man, what is the point if it's not with a woman?

]Since you used the term boy/girlfriend, instead of random casual sex partner, we'll skip the tutorial on public parks after dark.

You have some experience with cruising? And since I am not interested in sex with dudes, I'd rather visit a professional ...

Finding a boy/girlfriend requires only one thing, and that is the person must want to be a boy/girlfriend.

That's not the only thing. Somebody must want you to be their boyfriend as well, and you would want to have that person as a girlfriend.

I'm coming up on my 62nd birthday, so I have roughly 60 years of observing my male friends and their problems with finding female friends. In earlier days, we didn't know what a neckbeard was, but my neckbeard friends had girlfriends. None of them were likely to make the cover of Teen Vogue, but everyone of them was happy to have him. After decades of observation, I have concluded, physical appearance and attraction is one of the smallest elements of why a woman likes a man. It almost doesn't matter. It still helps to wear a clean shirt.

I doubt that very much.

The only guys who didn't have girlfriends(we'll exclude the ones who wanted boyfriends), had a common problem. They didn't like themselves. Call it self esteem or whatever, they looked at themselves and concluded that either no one would want them, or worse, only someone as disgusting as themselves would have them. They didn't want to be a boyfriend and no one could make them do it.

It's not that they didn't want to be a boyfriend, it's that they thought nobody wanted them. Now why do you think the causality runs from thinking nobody wants to have you as a boyfriend to not getting a girlfriend? I think it is much more likely that the causality runs in the other direction - nobody wanted them, so they developed low self-esteem and correctly concluded nobody wants them.

There is no rule that says you have to have a girlfriend. No one will stop you at the border and demand to see your girlfriend. Girlfriends can be a lot of work, but on the whole, usually worth it. There's always the chance of getting a bad girlfriend, but that's easy to remedy, and it makes a good girlfriend easier to identify.

Lot of work? Like what for example?

The worse thing that can happen is to become numb. Numbness drops the pain level to just below the level that makes us want to do something. This means being stuck there forever.

Given how long I have been girlfriendless, I am very well numbed by now.

 

[Derec]

Or, maybe I should learn whatever language is spoken in that one remote town in China, where women make all the rules, run the town government, choose their partners and/or husbands, and its her family that raises, if any, all the kids.

How come societies where men run everything are seen as oppressive and worst thing ever, but societies where women run everything are seen as this progressive, feminist utopia.

There's been literally no rape , the ladies took over, nor even attempted rape since except by one outside visitor who was not Chinese but was attempting to become a citizen I think, and they threatended to castrate him if he ever set foot back in the town again after physically throwing him out.

Yeah, because women never lie about rape, right?

Of curse, they're all dirt poor and wouldn't know what to do with any tech if you gave it to them with a its of instructions.

It could have a lot to do with their sexist system

 

[rousseau]

Quite a few leaps. The portion of the wiki article you quoted does not support this at all. It says that there is a inverse relationship for both sexes, albeit stronger for women. That means that both dumb men and dumb women are in demand for sex. Given that, I do not see how we can avoid idiocracy.

I'd hazard a guess that a part of this is that smart men are able approach to women in more productive ways than via persistence, and smart women are more likely to be off put by the brunt of men being persistent. So smart men usually have many women to choose from, while men of lesser intelligence are forced to bash their head against a wall until something sticks.

You've misread the study. It's talking about fertility, not pair-bonding. Arguments I've read attribute this to intelligence. The argument there would be that really smart women think to themselves.. 'hey.. I can just not do this and still have a fulfilling relationship', and also 'I can't find a man I respect'. Smart men are more likely to want to avoid children, but less able to find partners who are willing to go along with it. So for smart men it's often either have kids or be alone.

Less intelligent people have more kids than their more intelligent counterparts because they're more likely to want to have them. The brunt of the IQ curve should, in theory, have no problem finding a mate, people would just usually pair with people who are appropriate partners for them.

As we have seen from Richard Carrier, even smart men must be very persistent to get anywhere with today's women.

Do you just deliberately troll the forum now, or is this what you actually think?

 

[Derec]

You've misread the study. It's talking about fertility, not pair-bonding. Arguments I've read attribute this to intelligence. The argument there would be that really smart women think to themselves.. 'hey.. I can just not do this and still have a fulfilling relationship', and also 'I can't find a man I respect'. Smart men are more likely to want to avoid children, but less able to find partners who are willing to go along with it. So for smart men it's often either have kids or be alone.

Interesting interpretation. It shows again that in the dating/relationship game, women are far better off then men. That sucks!

As we have seen from Richard Carrier, even smart men must be very persistent to get anywhere with today's women.

Do you just deliberately troll the forum now, or is this what you actually think?

Not trolling. I am curious which part of my sentence you have an issue with. Do you think Carrier is not smart? Or do you deny that he had to be persistent to get anywhere with women he was interested in?

 

[rousseau]

Interesting interpretation. It shows again that in the dating/relationship game, women are far better off then men. That sucks!

Debatable. Women have more partners to choose from, but a harder time finding a partner they like. Smart, likable men can pretty much take their pick because most women make good partners.

But you can't generalize either gender. A subset of both men and women struggle, while a subset of both of them have easy success. They're just different parts of the spectrum.

Do you just deliberately troll the forum now, or is this what you actually think?

Not trolling. I am curious which part of my sentence you have an issue with. Do you think Carrier is not smart? Or do you deny that he had to be persistent to get anywhere with women he was interested in?

I don't know the details about what happened with Richard Carrier, but if he was accused of sexual harassment he's probably not too bright.

 

[Derec]

Um, I don't "find" boyfriends or potential lovers, they saunter up to me in parking lots/libraries/diners or shout at me from car windows, and I ignore them.

Oh, it must be really horrible to be attractive like that! And to have the luxury of being able to ignore people interested in you!

I could not care even if I went the rest of my life without friend, boyfriend, or anything else, as humans are fucked up even before they claim to care about somebody else, which isn't really true since its more of a "you give me and I'll give you' kinda thing they actually want, and that mor akin to a business transaction or trade, not a relationship.

Are you asexual then?

Fuck it, I'd say, if no guy ever pestered me, insulted me, or dehumanized me about it, but they do. A lot. And it's annoying.

It's still better than being ignored by all women.

 

[Derec]

Debatable. Women have more partners to choose from, but a harder time finding a partner they like.

If they have more partners to choose from, then they are just too picky.

Smart, likable men can pretty much take their pick

Even if they are bald, fat and ugly?

because most women make good partners.

[Citation needed]

But you can't generalize either gender. A subset of both men and women struggle, while a subset of both of them have easy success. They're just different parts of the spectrum.

But more men struggle. I know an obese woman, a few years younger than me, who is extremely promiscuous, but only fucks very attractive men with perfect BMIs.

I don't know the details about what happened with Richard Carrier, but if he was accused of sexual harassment he's probably not too bright.

These days "sexual harassment" is just about anything some woman finds offensive. Remember, these atheist conventions gave us Elevatorgate.

 

[rousseau]

If they have more partners to choose from, then they are just too picky.


Even if they are bald, fat and ugly?

because most women make good partners.

[Citation needed]

But you can't generalize either gender. A subset of both men and women struggle, while a subset of both of them have easy success. They're just different parts of the spectrum.

But more men struggle. I know an obese woman, a few years younger than me, who is extremely promiscuous, but only fucks very attractive men with perfect BMIs.

I don't know the details about what happened with Richard Carrier, but if he was accused of sexual harassment he's probably not too bright.

These days "sexual harassment" is just about anything some woman finds offensive. Remember, these atheist conventions gave us Elevatorgate.

Bring this post back to reality and I'll continue.

 

[Derec]

Bring this post back to reality and I'll continue.

What in particular do you think is unrealistic?

 

[rousseau]

Bring this post back to reality and I'll continue.

What in particular do you think is unrealistic?

All of the disingenuous parts, mostly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I fail to see why this is so hard. If you value a woman's friendship, then you're not upset to be in the "friend zone." If, on the other hand, you hold consistently repugnant views that make people balk, well, don't be surprised when they don't want to hang around you, as a friend or otherwise.

Maybe when you die you can die with the satisfaction of being "right", but you'll still die alone.

My understanding of the usual beef with being friendzoned is the friend meets the criteria the woman says they want in a partner, but then they go date guys who are nowhere near that.

 

[Bronzeage]

Bring this post back to reality and I'll continue.

What in particular do you think is unrealistic?

All of the disingenuous parts, mostly.

 

[fast]

Yes, even if they are bald, fat, and ugly.

Personality!!!!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I fail to see why this is so hard. If you value a woman's friendship, then you're not upset to be in the "friend zone." If, on the other hand, you hold consistently repugnant views that make people balk, well, don't be surprised when they don't want to hang around you, as a friend or otherwise.

Maybe when you die you can die with the satisfaction of being "right", but you'll still die alone.

But if you want more than friendship with the woman, then you should be upset if you end up in the friend zone, because it's not what you wanted from the relationship and that's a disappointment. It's like if you go to a particular restaurant because you want to eat their steak and they tell you that they're out of steak tonight, but the pasta is quite nice. There's nothing wrong with pasta and there are other restaurants you enjoy going to for the purposes of ordering it, but it's upsetting that you didn't get the steak you were looking for that night and had to settle for your second choice of meal.

When somebody you have feelings for does not reciprocate those feelings, it's a blow to you and it is correct to feel upset in that situation. Sure, you need to put on your big boy pants and move on and not harass the woman or anything like that, but I strongly disagree with the statement that getting put in the friend zone when that's not where you want the relationship to be is something you shouldn't be upset about in the first place.