Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Roissy Is a Rude Mofo

A tweet from Holly Pervocracy (@pervocracy) sent me to Roissy's Dating Market Value test, and I have to say, Roissy is one rude mofo. Seriously fucking rude. So rude I'm reading the test with my head cocked to one side and my eyes narrowed as if perhaps I am simply not seeing it correctly.

The first questions have to do with stereotypes about jobs and cars and such (women only fuck rich guys because we use our vaginas to get stuff, not because we might like sex!), the rudeness really starts at question 22 (keep in mind, points are good, so -1 or 0 answers are bad):

22. The pickup has been going well. Later in the night she leans in and begins making out with you passionately. You feel like a king and your jeans suddenly feel much tighter. Do you:

(A) immediately grope her boob in return.
(B) continue making out with her for as long as she wishes.
(C) kiss for a little bit then push her gently away and look distracted for a second.

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

Ahem, I'd negative 1 for "boob groping", too, but only because my boobs are not for "groping". Do not grope. No groping, seriously. There are like 1,000 other things you could do to my boobs that I might enjoy, groping isn't one of them. Also, "in return" implies that she is responsible for your kingly, jean-tightening erection and the boob groping is some sort of reward. People never to have sex with: Roissy!

B) is the wrong answer, too. Keep making out for as long as you want to and she wants to. Making out is a group activity. This answer is caused by the notion that men feel desire and women don't, so men will want to make out until their lips fall off and women are just doing them a favor by making out at all.

C) is . . . weird. Um, "look distracted"? I can't even imagine what I would think was going on there. Is he questioning if he left the burner on? Is he having a stroke? Did he just remember he's married? Any way this pans out, so not hot. Do not ever give me the impression- while making out with me- that I am not tops on your mind. Not at all sexy.

23. You go to a bar. Twenty feet away are a pretty girl, a fat girl, and an average guy talking amongst themselves. The pretty girl briefly eye flirts with you. In reponse, you:

Fat girls, no one loves them. Except literally half the men I know. Seriously, in real life, I know as many men seriously turned off by my size as there are turned on by it. Fuck you, Roissy.


24. Who do you address first?

WHOM! WHOM DO YOU ADDRESS FIRST! "Who" is a subject! "Whom" is an object! The subject of that sentence is "you", therefore "whom" is the object.


25. After getting the whole group engaged in conversation and having a good time, your target blurts out “Hey nice pink shirt! Are you gay?” You:

(A) say “No, I’m not gay!”
(B) ignore her.
(C) say “OK, who brought their little sister to the bar!”


I actually agree with C) being an acceptable approach, but not for the reason Roissy does. Roissy just generally believes that being rude and dismissive to women will get you sex0red (not in my house), but the question in the example is rude, so have at it.

26. In the middle of the conversation you have to pee. You say:

(A) “I have to go to the bathroom. I’ll be right back.”
(B) “Excuse me.”
(C) nothing. Just go.


C) is the correct answer in Roissy's book, but if you did that to me, I'd simply ignore you after you got back. You don't have to tell me you're peeing, but "Excuse me" is simple manners. If you don't think I'm worthy of 2 words worth of manners, fuck off.


27. You’ve managed to get her outside your front door. There is obvious sexual tension. You want to close this deal. You say:

(A) “So, um, ah, see you around.”
(B) “Why don’t you come inside?”
(C) “I’m thirsty. Are you thirsty? Let’s go inside and taste DC’s finest tap water. But you can only stay for a minute, I have to get up early.”


C) is the correct answer, and if you tried it on me, you'd get maced. At the least. That is rapist tal- ooooh, got it. Yeah, so the correct way to use this test is to give it to prospective dates and anyone who scores over a 0 is a potential rapist, change your phone number. Useful!


In the interests of full disclosure, I tested my husband and he gets a -2: -9 to 0: Lesser beta. You don’t immediately disgust girls; they just don’t notice you. With much painful effort you can redeem yourself. My husband was quite surprised to learn that "redeem" means "turn yourself into a rapist".

37 comments:

  1. The "game" misogynists are so entertaining. While a logical person might think one could just treat a woman like a person, the primary purpose of the whole charade seems to be to establish a homosocial pecking order. The secondary purpose is to establish that wherever a man falls on the hierarchy, at least he's not a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, you're a lesser beta, but at least you don't have a vagina! Yeesh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, Roissy. Vox Day’s got a major hard-on for this guy. I guess sexist MRAs tend to flock together, especially with their “Game” nonsense.


    *pauses to take quiz for teh lulz*


    *jeez, this is long*


    K, so I'm a -6: “lesser beta”. I guess good manners and empathy don’t get you far in Roissy’s universe.

    Oh, and I can’t believe you didn’t comment on “try not to make fatty fucking a lifestyle”. Yeow. I mean, is his dash key broken? It’s “fatty-fucking”, dangit. If you’re gonna be a complete pig, at least have the grace to use proper grammar.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good to see a fellow Grammar Cop. *flashes badge*

    As I pointed out, I personally know as many men who prefer women much larger than me as I do men who go with the culturally acceptable supermodel preference.

    "Fatty-fucking" is just where some people are at, like preferring blondes or short women or women with curly hair or women with brown eyes.

    To assume that that makes one less male than whatever it is Roissy prefers (blow up dolls? I don't know) is just bizarre.

    Or, to put it another way, I once read a list of 24 guys' big turn ons. About half were totally "normal" stuff: thongs, blondes, big breasts, etc. Half were really personal things. The one I remember was "when blonde women don't shave the hair on their thighs". Now that is specific.

    Truly, no matter what it is you look like, someone is totally into it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, so the correct way to use this test is to give it to prospective dates and anyone who scores over a 0 is a potential rapist, change your phone number. Useful!

    That sounds like the right way to use it, all right. My face is still stuck at O_o over the fact that the quiz gives you points for being arrested (WTF!?) and being a fight where you wanted to kill your opponent (WTF!!??).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I took this Highly Scientific quiz too, since I'm a lesbian, and scored a +6. /said distractedly over my shoulder while rolling up my sleeves to engage in fisticuffs

    ReplyDelete
  8. While a logical person might think one could just treat a woman like a person

    That's just crazy talk...

    Actually, the "The Game" guys have something of a point. I mean, they're completely wrong about basically everything they say, their reasons for saying it, and their end game. But they have a fundamental idea that can be boiled down to, "Don't do all of the chasing," which is completely and totally valid.

    I was the pathetic puppy-dog type for a long time and the only women who really wanted to have anything to do with me were the ones who simply saw me as someone they could use. The ones I actually wanted to try to date had much better things to do than spend time with me.

    Eventually I hit a point where I didn't give a crap. I found that women were actually significantly more interested in me than they'd ever been before. My theory is pretty simple: most people are attracted to a challenge. Someone who just follows you around saying, "Please love me," is no fun, whereas someone who won't stop to give you the time of day seems like they probably are. And, of course, if that person doesn't pay attention to you then that makes them seem far more mysterious, far more interesting and, therefore, far more attractive.

    Guys intrinsically understand that, since most guys are always trying to get the attention of that woman who is, for lack of a better term, too good for them. There's also the societal conditioning that trains the men to be the chasers and the women to be the chasees. Then there's the attitude that a woman who asks a man out is somehow doing it wrong.

    So, weirdly, what the jackholes who play "The Game" are doing at a basic level is turning societal convention on its head by attempting to force the woman to be the pursuer. They're doing it completely wrong and for all the wrong reasons and ultimately, somehow, being even bigger misogynists in the processes. But if I were the type to write dating books the premise of my advice would actually start off looking disturbingly similar to a lot of the bullshit spouted by guys who play "The Game."

    It would just diverge early and drastically...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Someone who just follows you around saying, "Please love me," is no fun, whereas someone who won't stop to give you the time of day seems like they probably are. And, of course, if that person doesn't pay attention to you then that makes them seem far more mysterious, far more interesting and, therefore, far more attractive.

    Bzuh? While being followed around by someone going "please love me" would be a little disturbing, why in hell would anyone pay any attention to someone who clearly has no interest in them?

    ReplyDelete
  10. why in hell would anyone pay any attention to someone who clearly has no interest in them?

    Simple human psychology. People want what they can't have.

    That's not a blanket statement. I'm not saying that the only reason that anyone becomes interested is if they see someone who isn't interested in them. That's beyond silly. But if two people are communicating and one finds the other attractive, but the other doesn't seem to indicate a reciprocal feeling the initial reaction is often to try harder, i.e. ramp up the pursuit, try harder to get a desired reaction, etc.

    This only really works well in a short time frame, though. If two people know each other reasonably well and it's a known fact that one of the people just isn't in to the other one, then it's pointless. But in those low information places, especially ones where people usually go to meet and potentially hook up, not showing interest can be an extremely useful tactic.

    In the interests of full disclosure: I mostly know this precisely because I find myself in those sorts of places and I genuinely don't care. I've never gone home from a bar with a stranger. I haven't been on a date since, um, October, maybe. The last "relationship" I was in ended more than three years ago. I simply like to sit back and observe the way people interact, so these are the things I've noticed as a somewhat disinterested observer of my own life.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh, hell, I've been sad puppy dog at guys myself, so i can't argue with what geds is saying. "Don't be so desperate, it scares people!" is good advice. Not terribly useful advice, but it's a place to start.

    Fannie- I bow before your alpha manliness.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Eventually I hit a point where I didn't give a crap. I found that women were actually significantly more interested in me than they'd ever been before. My theory is pretty simple: most people are attracted to a challenge. Someone who just follows you around saying, "Please love me," is no fun, whereas someone who won't stop to give you the time of day seems like they probably are. And, of course, if that person doesn't pay attention to you then that makes them seem far more mysterious, far more interesting and, therefore, far more attractive.

    I'm not attacking this because this is clearly your perception of the situation. From a woman's perspective it's this: women were significantly more interested in you because a)following a woman around like a puppy dog saying, "please love me", comes across as needy. It's too much pressure if a woman feels ultimately responsible for your happiness. b) what you saw as not giving a crap ultimately gives women space to be attracted to you AND makes it appear you have a life outside of her. That's what makes you look like more fun. A lot of women don't want to be joined at the hip. c) While a man shouldn't be the one doing all the pursuing, if you don't give a woman the time of day, a woman worth having isn't needy enough to hang around to beg you to spend time with her either. She feels valuable enough to find someone who values her too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have never seen that happen. Except in romantic fiction.

    Everyone I know who is in a relationship got that way because they met someone who they shared interests with - either in the process of going about those shared interests or at work. They then talked to each other about those shared interests, did things together, and the rest was history.

    Following your full disclosure: I've never been in a relationship, but I find it hard to believe that throwing myself at some random guy (or girl) who isn't interested in me would change that. Also, according to your theory of how it works, people ought to be throwing themselves at you. Are they?

    ReplyDelete
  14. depiszan;

    it's a thing that CAN work, in the right setting, for either gender.

    [have you read "Twilight"? if not, DON'T, but if you have - WHY was every guy after Bella Fucking Swann? because she was NEW and DIFFERENT and MYSTERIOUS, that's why!]

    i've had guys follow me around because i seem "mysterious" - like, i worked as a professional domme, but ALL i did was fire-play. that was interesting. that was weird. i didn't like the other aspects - i am neither top nor bottom; BDSM-wise [aside from fire] i'm neutral.

    so i was weird and different and stood out.



    the test: pretending that every time he mentioned "girl" he said "guy", i scored a +3

    [because being smart is a negative, because saying "sorry" is a negative... but i HAVE be in fights where my goal was to kill... or, at least, beat him so bad he NEVER raised his hand to me or ANY one again. looooooooooooong time ago, before the PTSD was diagnosed]



    the PROBLEM with game is that, as PF alludes to, it actually *ISN'T* about "getting laid". it's about making yourself "alpha" for other MEN. getting laid is A road to alpha-dom.
    the guys i know who work Game and get anywhere? derive almost NO pleasure from having sex. ALL they care about is another notch and another level of "manly".

    and that's SAD. [also wrong, evil, disgusting, stupid...]

    ReplyDelete
  15. i can't spell today. sorry. mysterius? mysterios? mysteryous? damnit

    ReplyDelete
  16. Full disclosures abound: I was in a marriage that for 20 years was one massive head game after another so I'm pretty much done with them. I hate head games, so if I sense that's what's going on I'm walking.

    Though I do see what Geds is saying if you keep that sort of thing short-term. I'm just not into games at all. Flirting I like. Games, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Also, according to your theory of how it works, people ought to be throwing themselves at you.

    That doesn't follow logically from what I said at all. I offered four premises:

    1. People don't find desperation attractive.

    2. People like a challenge.

    3. Societal norms place men in the active and women in the passive role when searching for mates/sex partners/whatever.

    4. Guys avoid premise 1, put women in the position to engage with premise number 2, and actively switch premise 3 around can create a situation where they seem more desirable through inactivity. The guys who play "The Game" are simply doing this, but for all the wrong reasons. But just because "The Game" is a load of horrid, misogynistic bullshit that doesn't mean there isn't a valid underlying insight in to human psychology and gender norms at play.

    But, to answer your question, yes, actually. It's only happened a couple times so all I have is anecdote and not data, but I can think of four times in the past three years where I showed a small amount of interest in a woman, then tried to distance myself and regretted the entire experience because said woman proceeded to not leave me alone. Considering that I have been on, like, nine or ten dates and haven't spent a lot of time actively seeking relationship-y stuff since May of 2008, that's interesting, to say the least. Whether they would have actively and annoyingly pursued anybody who happened to show interest is open for debate (consider that I attempted to distance myself from two of them because I immediately got the whiff of desperation).

    Of course, that then hits upon a corollary premise:

    5. Guys who play "The Game" are actively seeking someone who will simply sleep with them and can then be discarded.

    So, as D'Ma points out, you're not likely to find women worth keeping around this way. It's not a way to create anything long-term, but if your goal is to treat someone as a piece of meat for your own selfish ends, then it's not a problem.

    But, again, my original point wasn't that they were on to something valid in the whole cloth. My original point is that "The Game," in my observation, is based on valid perceptions of how people operate on a basic level. Taking it too far isn't a good idea, but there are two basic and workable lessons that can be drawn and acted upon without being an asshole:

    1. Don't be desperate.

    2. Don't do all the work.

    The other thing is this: "The Game" isn't aimed at guys who have never had a hard time meeting women. It's aimed at guys, well, like me, who couldn't get dates in high school and were desperately uncool. Guys like me needed to hear those two bullet points above because they (we) were often desperate and pathetically eager to please and holy crap who wants to be around someone like that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. Don't be desperate.

    2. Don't do all the work.


    I completely agree with that. That isn't what you said the first time 'round. What I quoted in my first response to you was what I take issue with. It shows up all the time in romantic fiction, but I can't even visualize it in real life, because, well, it doesn't actually make any sense.

    Under what circumstances in real life is a jackass who ignores people going to be "far more mysterious, far more interesting and, therefore, far more attractive" than someone who doesn't act like a self absorbed jerk? (Sure, it worked in Twilight, but that doesn't make Twilight a documentary or a recipe for a healthy relationship.)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Under what circumstances in real life is a jackass who ignores people going to be "far more mysterious, far more interesting and, therefore, far more attractive" than someone who doesn't act like a self absorbed jerk?

    Ah, see, here's the problem: you inserted the part about self-absorbed jackass in to your own narrative of what I said.

    My actual quote was this: And, of course, if that person doesn't pay attention to you then that makes them seem far more mysterious, far more interesting and, therefore, far more attractive.

    I gave no reason why that person wouldn't pay attention. I can understand how in context it would seem like I'm drawing a straight line to guys playing "The Game," but I'm not. Literally all I was saying was that someone you know nothing about is more mysterious and we tend to pour our own hopes, dreams, and interests in to empty vessels. The applied lesson of that, then, is don't find someone, follow them around, and tell them everything about your life. Get them to try to learn about you.

    Again, it didn't occur to me until later that I am in the key demo that these jackasses target with their shenanigans, so I intrinsically understand what they are saying, why it makes a certain amount of sense, and how it's possible to translate that into useful lessons that guys really should learn but not all do. So I put my rebuttal together from the wrong direction.

    But, whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nope, doesn't involve the Game at all. Words mean things. You described a person who "won't stop to give you the time of day " and "doesn't pay attention to you."

    What did you mean? The most positive spin I can possibly put on those phrases is that of someone completely engrossed in their work or a book or whatever, who is literally paying attention to no one. Obviously "self absorbed jackass" would fit as well, though is less flattering. What flattering and desirable reason did you see for this theoretical person who is oblivious to the world around them?

    Though, frankly, I still have a ton of trouble believing that there is a reality in which the non-social people get invited to more social activities than the social people. Take my work place - it's the people who talk and joke around with each other who go out to lunch together, not the people who do their work and interact very little with their coworkers.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Though, frankly, I still have a ton of trouble believing that there is a reality in which the non-social people get invited to more social activities than the social people. Take my work place - it's the people who talk and joke around with each other who go out to lunch together, not the people who do their work and interact very little with their coworkers.

    That's your life, then. I moved from Chicago to Dallas in January of last year with one goal and one goal only: to get the fuck out of Texas as soon as possible. I had no intention of setting down roots or doing anything that would even remotely invite sentimentality.

    I'd always been desperate for the approval and acceptance of others before. When I came down here I was finally free to not give a fuck. And you know what? For some reason I have more friends here than I had in Chicago. Most crazy shit involving women not leaving me alone that I've experienced has come since I moved. I don't know why. I'm anti-social at best, a raging asshole at worst, my favorite facial expression is a scowl, and when I meet new people I pretty much offer a boilerplate disclaimer to that effect.

    Yet, again, I have a more active social life here than I did in Chicago. So there you go.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It might be that you don't act like an anti-social raging asshole (judging from our perfectly civil debate) and the disconnect between your disclaimer and how you actually act is what's intriguing people. It might also be that you're attractive and the fact that you don't feel the usual pressure to be accepted actually made you a more social person.

    It might be that people in Texas are weird.

    (It might also be a gender thing. Men who aren't social still get asked out. Women who aren't social don't. I don't know.)

    I am still rather curious as to what you thought you were describing with those phrases, though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Meh. I'm more attractive than some, less attractive than others. It's not really an issue, as most of my friends are in some sort of committed relationship with, y'know, not-me.

    And Texans are weird.

    Anyway, you probably won't believe this, but I wasn't putting any particular meaning in to the stuff that you're so put off by. It was simply a couple of thematically connected ideas in my mind.

    All else being equal, people who aren't looking for the path of least resistance are more interested by a potential mate who is a challenge than someone who does the pathetic eager to please thing. People also tend to be more fascinated by and attracted to the mysterious because they tend to pour their own hopes and desires in to that empty vessel. So someone who isn't going out of their way to show interest (which is closer to what I meant than the original phraseology of "wouldn't give the time of day," but I was I was using it in terms of observing another person and thinking, "Wow, she's amazing. But there's no way she'd ever give me the time of day").

    As to why they aren't paying attention, I don't know. Maybe that person hasn't noticed [the editorial] you. Maybe that person has, but they're trying to play it cool. Maybe you're in a place where you think meeting potential mates is in the script but they don't. I don't know.

    But you're reading way more in to it than I was putting there. If you're going to continue to do so, feel free, but I have no urge to discuss this anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I was going to do the quiz and type up my own mini-fisking, but Joe McKen said this "Oh, Roissy. Vox Day’s got a major hard-on for this guy."

    Okay, that's all I needed to know. Where the hell's the holy water, garlic and five gallon drum of industral grade soap? (the last is for me: it's the only way I can feel clean after going near someone who Vox Day approves of)

    "... it's the people who talk and joke around with each other who go out to lunch together, not the people who do their work and interact very little with their coworkers..."

    Just want to put my hand up and say "this describes my life". I think I need to find a superextroverted friend who drags me along to social gatherings, but all my friends at the moment are as introverted as I am, if not more. I never go anywhere.

    On the bright side, that gives me time to work on personal projects despite having a full time job. :)

    "(It might also be a gender thing. Men who aren't social still get asked out. Women who aren't social don't. I don't know.)"

    Uh, no. No. Really, no. The first part of this (Men who aren't social still get asked out) is definately not true in my experience. But confidence is a difference scale to sociability, so maybe we're measuring different things.

    My only comment to Geds is: I wish I knew how that works for you. Being quiet and not talking to people or showing emotion just gets me ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Expanding on the subject of "confidence on a different scale to sociability" (because I think it's relevant and because I like fleshing out idea's like this), this results in four corners to the axis. I'll provide a stereotypical and slightly-offensive example for each:

    Low Confidence, Low Sociability

    Shy. Very shy, has trouble talking to others when they attempt it (which is rarely).

    Low Confidence, High Sociability

    Loud. Gets in your face talking about things you have no interest in, usually awkward to be around.

    High Confidence, Low Sociability

    Aloof. Chooses not to speak much, but talks smoothly and confidently when approached. Comes across as self-absorbed.

    High Confidence, High Sociability

    Charismatic. Talks to everyone, organises parties and encourages others to be social. Can be nerve-grating to be around.

    ..........................................

    So, I think Geds has achieved the Aloof personality type, while I'm closer to the Shy one. Since it's easy to conflate confidence with sociability, a Shy personality trying to be Charismatic will often come across as simply Loud.

    ReplyDelete
  27. My only comment to Geds is: I wish I knew how that works for you.

    I do, too. Believe me, if I could bottle this shit and sell it, I would.

    Aloof. Chooses not to speak much, but talks smoothly and confidently when approached. Comes across as self-absorbed.

    Sounds about right. Weirdly, I'm the sort of person who is actually far, far more comfortable (and prefer) engaging in public speaking than figuring out how to do the small talk at parties thing. Seeing as how most people fear public speaking more than death, that makes me statistically anomalous.

    But, by the same token, when I'm doing the public speaking thing, I get to separate myself from everyone else and I get to talk about whatever the hell I want. I can't think of a better definition of aloof.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Where is "Erratic Confidence, Erratic Sociability" and what is my adjective? I think it might be "Twitchy."

    And for the record, I agree that it's definitely not a gendered thing, the whole, "what? is the chase over? kthxbai!" thing. At least if my younger self was any indication.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hmm... I share Geds affinity for public speaking: heck, I once volunteered to give a public speech (for a first-year university group-assignment on sustainable energy) when I didn't have to. Seriously, we weren't offered better grades for it or anything, and my group members refused to join me, but since I'd done 90% of the work and was interested in the subject matter I figured "what the hell". Public speaking is like batman: given enough preperation there's no way you can fail.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Public speaking is like batman: given enough preperation there's no way you can fail.

    I've been known to do it extemporaneously. I'm actually only now beginning to learn the fine art of preparation, as I've learned the hard way that it's possible to really embarrass yourself if you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry, but I must disagree here. I don't see that the hyphen in "fatty-fucking" is necessary. Context will tell you whether "fatty" is adverbial or nominative. Besides, James Joyce never used hyphens this way, and it's always fun to try to figure out what he meant.

    Otherwise, yes I said yes I will yes.

    ReplyDelete
  32. depizan

    i think what you missed in what i said was that it works for BOTH genders, as a way to attract people [you often don't want to attract]

    the women i know who are "chased" the most AREN'T the most beautiful or social or fashionable - they are "cute" and "polite" and wear things that flatter THEM - and a bit "apart" from it all.

    i tell you - once i decided i didn't CARE about having a boyfriend, and stopped actively looking, i was veritably innudated! seriously - a guy would flirt with me, i'd MILDLY flirt back [polite level] and disengage - and suddenly said guy couldn't seem to leave me alone.

    it was actually sort of creepy, really.

    but i'm sort of mid-social, mid-confident [although i apparantly come off as MUCH more confident than i feel. i think because when i'm in public, i have a THING that i'm doing - whether it's karaoke or was dancing or fire-play or whatever, so i kind of focus on what i'm doing and that's my MAIN THING - talking to people is fun, and i do it, but i'm not there to talk to people, i'm there to sing or whatever. so this somehow translates into "really laid back and confident". somehow]

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Geds & PersonalFailure,

    Do ya'll mind if I use part of the exchange here in the comments in a post for my blog?

    ReplyDelete
  34. -6 Almost all of my positive points were because of physical attributes I can't change.

    I like that you lose points if your IQ is too high.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Do ya'll mind if I use part of the exchange here in the comments in a post for my blog?

    Um, it kinda depends. I said a lot of things in this conversation that were far more obfuscatory than I'd intended.

    So, hey, if you're writing a post about the dangers of stringing somewhat connected thoughts together and assuming everyone else will make the same logical leaps you do, have at...

    I like that you lose points if your IQ is too high.

    Yeah. That made me laugh. "Be smart enough to tie your own shoe laces, but not that much smarter..."

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Geds,

    LOL! That's not exactly what I had in mind, but you can check it out for yourself. It's up now. I don't think I used any of the parts that one would have to make a humongous leap to follow, but you never know. :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. I know I'm late to the party, but Geds, if you happen to be back here ever again:

    From a woman's perspective it's this: women were significantly more interested in you because a)following a woman around like a puppy dog saying, "please love me", comes across as needy. It's too much pressure if a woman feels ultimately responsible for your happiness. b) what you saw as not giving a crap ultimately gives women space to be attracted to you AND makes it appear you have a life outside of her. That's what makes you look like more fun. A lot of women don't want to be joined at the hip. c) While a man shouldn't be the one doing all the pursuing, if you don't give a woman the time of day, a woman worth having isn't needy enough to hang around to beg you to spend time with her either.

    YES! This, a thousand times over. And it works for all genders: I drove guys off by being too clingy and puppyish, too, but when I got to a point of not caring so much, apparently I became intriguing.

    And re: women enjoying a challenge: mmmmaybe? I've certainly gotten all fired up when a guy I was interested in seemed maybe-kind-of interested back but didn't actually pursue me. But if a guy didn't pay any attention to me at all? Meh. I don't need that.

    And if I knew two equally attractive and interesting men, one of whom was infuriatingly vague in his intentions and the other of whom said "I have so much fun talking to you! Would you like to go for coffee sometime?" I would forget about the first guy entirely and enthusiastically go out with guy #2.

    So to sum up: there's a range of behaviours that makes me want to pursue someone. That range goes from "politely and openly expresses interest" to "he flirts with me but then he goes off and talks to other people and never even looks over, WTF?" And - all else being equal - I very much prefer the former. I'm thirty-eight fucking years old; I have a low tolerance for drama and games.

    Feeling like someone literally doesn't know you exist, or feeling like someone's entire happiness hinges on your accepting a date with him, is generally not attractive. I think this is true not just of me but of most emotionally healthy people over 18.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.