Shyness vs. gynophobia

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Stella, since you brought it up and seem to want to keep talking about it, please to be starting own thread for discussing/debating "love"? This thread is about shyness.

I'm all done.
Don't have a fix for shyness except "brazen it out"...that's not enough in a lot of cases.
Carry on.

[Freeky]

Here is a little contrast between the pleasure centers being stimulated by beautiful young women.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdm3T67IXdA&feature=fvwrel

...and then this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l07cMK6iWUk

...and tell me which one was more pleasurable to view.

Youtube doubler says that the girls win because there were too many colseups on glisteny chest getting rubbed in the guys'.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Helen Fisher, the speaker in the links I posted earlier, is a biological anthropologist who specializes in understanding and explaining romantic love. She has several books, and there are .pdfs of at least a couple of her studies available online... she's the expert, and does a much better job of explaining it than I ever could.

[BabylonHoruv]

I've never been shy. I can talk to strangers pretty easily and even though sometimes they are clearly looking at me and thinking "this guy's a weirdo" I tend to take that well.  I was really shy about talking to women up until my mid twenties though.  That's not really the right way to put it, since I could talk to women, including attractive women, so long as I wasn't trying to express an interest in them romantically or sexually.  if I tried to do that I'd end up acting incredibly awkward and usually freaking them out.  I was also really poor at reading whether or not she was interested in me.

I think what helped me grow out of it was interacting online in chatsites and whatnot.  People have to describe their body language when flirting there, and it let me see the parts that were likely to express interest and what to pay attention to.  I was also able to get some idea of the sorts of reactions I would get from my own body language.

I still have a far easier time flirting online than I do face to face, but I don't feel awkward or scared about it any longer.  Online makes a good place to practice, since it doesn't really matter that much if you do make a mistake, it may not be the best environment for everyone, but it helped me a lot.

[PopeTom]

Again, I  think this is a different issue from "shyness", which is a type of social phobia that can lead to isolation and misanthropy.

Along with shyness the other leading cause of misanthropy is meeting other people.

[PopeTom]

...an appropriate match for you, in your ball-park in terms of age and beauty and culture (perhaps another terminally awkward hipster) they'll come and talk to you.

Personally I don't see the point of being in a league (as the term pertains to dating) if you aren't going to play outside of it.

[PopeTom]

As far as the old dudes go- Men of all ages want to have sex with attractive women between the ages of 18 and 24. This is a constant whether your 12 or in the nursing home. The problem comes in when they realistically can't accept that they're old/fat/bald/weird looking/creepy. If I find myself single and 40, and can't snag other 40 somethings, I'm going to have a look at my self and see what I'm doing wrong, since I'm the common factor in my failure to find someone to be with. I don't know why a middle aged guy would want to date someone who is just fresh out of college anyway. They're going to be in way different places in their lives and won't look at the world in the same way.

I think the age range for most men would between the ages of 18 to (MansAge +(MansAge/10)).  With leeway of course to suit each individual man's experiences and predispositions.

[PopeTom]

girls have cooties

Sexy sexy cooties.

Plus, FACT, cooties kill chiggers.

[Don Coyote]

Stella, this thread is not about a philosophical debate about "what love is". In fact, it's not about love at all.

The biological components of love are one thing; of course psychological and behavioral components affect them. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make, and how is it relevant to the topic?

Was trying to clarify what exactly is meant by "love" for the purpose of the discussion, because it seems to jump from infatuation to dysfunction to brain chemicals to the real stuff and back again ITT.

Everything about us is chemicals.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Stella, this thread is not about a philosophical debate about "what love is". In fact, it's not about love at all.

The biological components of love are one thing; of course psychological and behavioral components affect them. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make, and how is it relevant to the topic?

Was trying to clarify what exactly is meant by "love" for the purpose of the discussion, because it seems to jump from infatuation to dysfunction to brain chemicals to the real stuff and back again ITT.

Everything about us is chemicals.

Yeah, a friend of mine once commented, "Love is nothing but a bunch of chemicals". I said, "Yeah, but so are we".

We are a bunch of chemicals with consciousness, so we get to make choices about what we do with love and how we go about loving. But love itself is still a chemical reaction in the brain, just as the brain itself is a collection of chemicals.

[Don Coyote]

Stella, this thread is not about a philosophical debate about "what love is". In fact, it's not about love at all.

The biological components of love are one thing; of course psychological and behavioral components affect them. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make, and how is it relevant to the topic?

Was trying to clarify what exactly is meant by "love" for the purpose of the discussion, because it seems to jump from infatuation to dysfunction to brain chemicals to the real stuff and back again ITT.

Everything about us is chemicals.

Yeah, a friend of mine once commented, "Love is nothing but a bunch of chemicals". I said, "Yeah, but so are we".

We are a bunch of chemicals with consciousness, so we get to make choices about what we do with love and how we go about loving. But love itself is still a chemical reaction in the brain, just as the brain itself is a collection of chemicals.

Which to me says that we should accept it and seek to understand how we work to make our lives more fulfilling.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Stella, this thread is not about a philosophical debate about "what love is". In fact, it's not about love at all.

The biological components of love are one thing; of course psychological and behavioral components affect them. What, exactly, is the point you are trying to make, and how is it relevant to the topic?

Was trying to clarify what exactly is meant by "love" for the purpose of the discussion, because it seems to jump from infatuation to dysfunction to brain chemicals to the real stuff and back again ITT.

Everything about us is chemicals.

Yeah, a friend of mine once commented, "Love is nothing but a bunch of chemicals". I said, "Yeah, but so are we".

We are a bunch of chemicals with consciousness, so we get to make choices about what we do with love and how we go about loving. But love itself is still a chemical reaction in the brain, just as the brain itself is a collection of chemicals.

Which to me says that we should accept it and seek to understand how we work to make our lives more fulfilling.

Hells to the yeah!

[Freeky]

This is really an interesting thread for me, even though I don't have anything productive to add.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is really an interesting thread for me, even though I don't have anything productive to add.

I bet you have something to add, you just haven't percolated it yet.

I know how you are, missy.

[Freeky]

This is really an interesting thread for me, even though I don't have anything productive to add.

I bet you have something to add, you just haven't percolated it yet.

I know how you are, missy.

Ain't like nuffin, miss. [/surly denial]