From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Keywords: lime pie
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 18:53:58 GMT

 
in <ewright.717452240@convex.convex.com>
    ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
 
] In <1992Sep25.184047.1990@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
]     tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:
]
] >Well, I've been flirting shamelessly for a lot of years now and I've
] >never gotten my face slapped--in fact, the few things that I have had
] >done to my face were actually entirely enjoyable.  It's a fun activity
] >for all concerned--you really ought to try it sometime.
]
] Well, that may be your experience, and I'll accept it as a data
] point.  However, I also hear a *lot* of women complaining about
] guys "coming on to them" all the time.  Unless, of course, it's
] the right guy coming on to them.  As I said, it seems to depend
] a lot more on *who* than *how*.
 
Sounds like your life might be improved by learning a little bit about
flirting.  Proper flirting is, by its very nature, a non-threatening,
consensual, and mutual activity; "coming on" is frequently none of these
things.
 
Consider communication on the net, for example, and compare the
reactions generated by Larry Margolis' posts (flirtatious) versus the
reactions generated by any of the [names withheld to protect the guilty]
crowd who send e-mail propositions (come-ons) to anyone with a name that
can be imagined to be female (like, for instance, "Trygve").  On the
net, we're all on a level playing field--we're all ASCII characters--yet
I've never heard anyone complain about getting a flirtatious message
from Larry while a lot of people seem to be complaining about getting
form letters from Vegas.  Content and technique matters a great deal, on
and off the net.  (Presumably, this is a tribute to Larry's skills at
written communication, though I've heard his oral abilities are at least
as good.)
 
] >As for real listening, you'd be surprised how many people don't
]
] No I wouldn't.  Not after reading soc.singles. :-)
]
] >--and just how much effect it can have on a lot of people who
] >aren't used to being listened to.
]
] Well, yeah, I hadn't considered that.  But I'm not sure I would
] be interested in the type of woman who's "not used to be listened
] to."  Sounds pretty wimpy to me.
 
Nope, actually it's pretty typical; lots of people (men especially, but
sometimes women too) seem to have trouble hearing what their romantic
partners are saying, especially after they've been in the relationship
for a while.  Of course, I can understand your feelings in this
regard--I know lots of women who probably wouldn't be interested in
anyone who devotes his life to focusing on superficial excuses for his
lack of success with women.
 
] >Not quite--defining individual physical attributes isn't that tough;
] >what's much harder is to separate them from the associational reasons
] >why you find them attractive.
]
] When you hear people discussing breast/penis size, do you often
] hear them talking about "associated behavioral and personality patterns?"
] I don't.
 
So?  Is this in any respect relevant?
 
] >Let's think for just a moment here--I've been dumped at least my share
] >of times and every time it's been for someone who had much less money
] >(and far less expectation of income in the future); each time it's been
] >for someone who had a much less impressive car (or no car at all); each
] >time it's been for someone shorter than I; each time it's been for
] >someone much less physically strong than I; and most of the time it's
] >been for someone not as "good looking" as I am.  (Hey, I've never even
] >been dumped for anyone who had a stereo even approaching the quality of
] >my fourth-best stereo.)  Now, what can we conclude from this?
]
] That you've just cornered the market on sour grapes? :-)
 
Now, to my knowlege, the term "sour grapes" refers to the casting of
aspersions on an object or goal that one has determined that one cannot
have (indeed, a quick check of the dictionaries I have nearby fails to
uncover any other definitions of the term).  Do you, perhaps, have
another definition of "sour grapes" that you would care to share with
us?
 
Incidentally, in case you're curious, I've had the good fortune of
dating really wonderful people--including the ones who have dumped me.
I've been dumped or passed over for some pretty all-around good people
too.  My point is that all of these people I've been dumped for were
people who, using the superficial standards that you seem to be saying
are all-important, appeared far less desirable.  However, (and this is
the important part--be sure to read the rest of this paragraph this time
instead of trimming it off so you can "refute" something unrelated to
the point I'm making) to the women in question, they were *more*
desirable--they made them feel better, they were a better match to their
ideal of what their lives should be like, there was more "magic" between
them; superficial considerations just aren't that important.
 
] >In case it makes you feel any better, I know several people
] >who are much, much further from the cultural ideal of "good looks"
] >than you describe yourself as being who are quite successful in
] >getting dates (and in getting serious relationships).
]
] But what kind of dates?  As I've said before, looks per se are
] only part of it.  But the sports/fitness craze is a cultural thing.
] What do people do when they go out on a date?  They go out running,
] or biking, or play tennis, or golf, or racketball.  Or maybe they
] go to a baseball or basketball game.
 
All of those are pretty darned atypical--most people I know are more
into things like dinner, movies, plays, or just hanging out.  (Oh, yeah,
wild nights of passion and lust are pretty popular--though if you do
nothing but that things can get a bit stale after a while:  wild days of
passion and lust are important too.)
 
] Or maybe they just go to a
] restaurant and talk.  And when they do, they're more likely to be
] talking about sports than about Shakespeare or tensor calculus.
 
Not the people I know--we tend to talk about people we both know, about
ourselves, about philosophy, politics, what we've done lately, and even
(gasp) theoretical mathematics and physics.  I know several women who
can run rings around me when discussing Shakespeare and who are quite
conversant in calculus (yes, the same women).
 
] Even people who are involved in occupations that are considered
] "nerdy," such as science or engineering, usually don't like to
] talk about those things outside of work.  The number of women
] this leaves, who I could even consider having a serious relationship
] with, is quite small.
 
Well, considering the number of women I know who will happilly discuss
"nerdy" subjects (and are quite conversant in them), I'd venture to say
that such people aren't nearly so rare.  However, it should be noted
that they also tend to like to discuss other things--feelings, for
instance, or get a reasonable amount of shameless flirtation in, so you
have to be willing to discuss subjects that are more emotionally "risky"
than purely technical ones.
 
] The upshot of this is, I am not compatible with most women either
] because they want someone who is more physical/handome/athletic
] than I am or because I want someone who is less physical and more
] intellectual than they are -- more often the latter than the former.
] For some reason, though, whenever I say this, the discussion always
] zeroes in on the narrower issue of looks.
 
OK, well, that might eliminate most women--however, this is not
critical, since it is doubtful that you have the time and energy
required to date most women (let's see, 1.3 billion women, with only ten
minutes per date...).  If these two considerations were, in fact, what
were holding you back, you wouldn't be having a problem.
 
Consider, for a moment, the reactions you elicit from people who
contribute to soc.singles.  Note that they are surprisingly uniform and
not positive.  Note that you have no advantage or disadvantage with
respect to the other writers--we all have only our words to communicate.
 
You seem to have a perfectly good command of the English language
(except for the misuse of an occasional term, but that is certainly
forgivable), so that couldn't be the problem.  There are, however,
several real qualities about your posts that are entirely capable of
turning off your audience--first of all, your posts have a fairly
uniform strident, petulant, and snotty quality to them.  I don't know if
you project that image off the net, but if you do, that is bound to hurt
you a lot more than simply being unathletic can.
 
You also come across as very judgmental--if this corresponds to your
off-net image, this would make others uncomfortable about expressing
romantic interest towards you as well as make them uncomfortable with
any romantic overtures you might issue.
 
On the net, you appear very high-strung, reacting to even the slightest
miscommunication (a very common occurance in this medium) with
considerable hostility.
 
Finally, on the net you exhibit the frustrating quality of seeming to
intentionally avoid the points that others are trying to make, attacking
instead an exaggerated (or apparently deliberately misunderstood)
version of incidental remarks that others have made and doing it in
insolent and abusive manner.  It's rather as if I met you on the street
at, say, 5:30 PM, and said, "you look cheerful today"--to which you
would reply, "day!?!  Can't you see it's evening?"
 
Each of these characteristics is far more important than your lack of
fondness for tennis.  After reading a few of your messages, if I were
female, I know I wouldn't be likely to date you--and it wouldn't have a
thing to do with your lack of athletic inclination or your desire to
discuss tensor calculus over dinner.  If, however, these aspects of your
net persona are reflections of your real-world personality and you chose
to work on them instead of endlessly restating the same complaints that
you have been, I suspect that your dating problems would evaporate much
faster than if you miraculously were to transform into a <insert your
favorite male media sex-symbol here> look-alike.
 
Trygve

Newsgroups: soc.singles