Shyness vs. gynophobia

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In my observation (I've been very interested in shy men for probably about eight to ten years) the best thing you could do to get over your fear of approaching women is to go to bars and parties, and make eye contact and smile.

And just talk to them. Just say hi, or make a comment on the beer or the decor or someone's sweater. Don't hit on them, just talk. Hitting on women is a horrible way to meet women, anyway. Also, staring. No. Never stare. This might sound obvious but I had a friend who was a virgin at 38, and I actually had to tell him that staring at people creeps them the fuck out. Most shy people don't have that problem though; they have the opposite problem.

Here's the thing. You WILL experience rejection. Some women will assume you're hitting on them and will give you the brush off. But you'll also find that very often, after you've made eye contact and smiled (also a good way to make friends with same-sex people) at someone who is 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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don't even know how to find out about parties. The very concept of a "party" is alien to me.

ETA: That "HAHAHAHAHA" bit wasn't to be rude or throw your advice back in your face or anything, by the way. That was horrormirth. I have finally realized exactly how pathetic I am. Thank you. That's sincere, too. I need to know the truth if I ever want to change anything.

Sounds like you need friends! The best way to make friends is to go outside of your house and do stuff. Then, while you're doing stuff (hiking groups, gaming groups... whatever your interests are. Look at meetup.com) make eye contact and smile at people. Then, talk to them when they say hi.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel nailed it.  

I think there's a flipside, though, and I see a lot of it in my work (psychic line - ducks blows)...a lot of women view men, or rather marriage, as a commodity. They look for boyfriends like they're interviewing prospective employees (he has to make X-amount of money and be tall and blah blah) and they seem to have some kind of time frame for marriage, they'll dump a guy who doesn't live up to it because he "won't commit". All very businesslike but they consider it "love".

It seems to me that if you care enough about somebody that you'd even consider being tied to them for any length of time, you'd work out whatever was mutually agreeable and that would involve compromise...probably just live together or see each other and if you don't have a piece of paper, so what?

I could see all this in the 19th century or something when the alternative to hitting the husband lottery was indentured servitude as a governess or something like that, but it doesn't seem very thought out these days...

That absolutely exists, and it's not really a "flipside". It's just another aspect of our unhealthy culture.

However, SOME of those behaviors are not unhealthy; they're reflective of good self-esteem, especially in a young woman who plans to have children. If I was looking for a life partner, and I was with someone who was still waffling about what they want after six months or a year, if I had good self-esteem I would recognize that we were not a good match, and stop wasting both of our time with the relationship. People with low self-esteem continue in poorly-suited relationships, hoping things will change, because they don't believe they can find a better match.

Treating relationships like a shopping-list of must-haves is not realistic. ON THE OTHER HAND, having a wish list of what you think you are good enough for is healthy and reflective of high self-value. The higher genuine self-value you have (as opposed to vanity or a prince/princess complex) the more attractive you are as a mate. An attractive mate is more likely to find a good match, in the form of another person in their age range who is similarly attractive. People with low self-esteem find each other and stay together even if they aren't a good match outside of both having low self-esteem.

Why should a man who is looking to have children stay with a woman who "isn't sure if" she wants to get married or have kids after a year of being together? Why shouldn't he realize, hey, this situation means we are probably not well-matched, I will go looking for a woman whose goals are similar to mine?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, Unqualified, YOU NEED THERAPY. Your horrible self-esteem is what's blocking you from having a happy fulfilling social life.

[Triple Zero]

Everyone else is exactly as self-absorbed as you are. They're not thinking about you, except inasmuch as they're thinking about you watching them and judging them.

Trust me.

Exactly--I usually assume that people are way too busy with mostly themselves, or just have better things to worry about than to be judging me.

It's one of the reasons why I like wearing bright orange clothes, or a shiny white jacket. But even then, people just see the clothes Example, when I go running, I wear bright red jogging pance and a red shirt* but even then, as long as I'm just going through the motions of a typical jogger, nobody pays even the slightest bit of attention.

And if they do pay attention, they probably forget me in a second.

And even if they do remember me (I am after all, shockingly handsome, so it could happen) they're going to keep it to themselves, unless they have something positively nice to say.

And if they don't, fuck them, what a bunch of pricks, going around judging me and making shitty remarks about my awesome jogging suit.

Seriously.





(read on for amazing and incredible details about my jogging clothing, and also dogs:

* mostly because I want car traffic to see me from a distance. it also makes you go faster, due to the redshift effect. true fact. and I read some research about sports teams in red clothes and it having some sort of psychologically intimidating effect, making people more likely to get the fuck out of my way, which is always good if you're running around. except for dogs, because they are colour blind. however, I asked my girlfriend, who's seen like three full seasons of the dog whisperer and she said that I shouldn't look at the dog at all, but just at its owner, and to be calm and assertive, and so far it seems to work.

[Don Coyote]

Everyone else is exactly as self-absorbed as you are. They're not thinking about you, except inasmuch as they're thinking about you watching them and judging them.

Trust me.

Exactly--I usually assume that people are way too busy with mostly themselves, or just have better things to worry about than to be judging me.

It's one of the reasons why I like wearing bright orange clothes, or a shiny white jacket. But even then, people just see the clothes Example, when I go running, I wear bright red jogging pance and a red shirt* but even then, as long as I'm just going through the motions of a typical jogger, nobody pays even the slightest bit of attention.

And if they do pay attention, they probably forget me in a second.

And even if they do remember me (I am after all, shockingly handsome, so it could happen) they're going to keep it to themselves, unless they have something positively nice to say.

And if they don't, fuck them, what a bunch of pricks, going around judging me and making shitty remarks about my awesome jogging suit.

Seriously.





(read on for amazing and incredible details about my jogging clothing, and also dogs:

* mostly because I want car traffic to see me from a distance. it also makes you go faster, due to the redshift effect. true fact. and I read some research about sports teams in red clothes and it having some sort of psychologically intimidating effect, making people more likely to get the fuck out of my way, which is always good if you're running around. except for dogs, because they are colour blind. however, I asked my girlfriend, who's seen like three full seasons of the dog whisperer and she said that I shouldn't look at the dog at all, but just at its owner, and to be calm and assertive, and so far it seems to work.

For some reason this post has already made my day.

Mostly because of the "RED ONES GOES FASTER!!!!!"

[LMNO]

1.  Unqualified. We need to bump the "perfectly ordinary thoughts" thread. You're not alone. Some just cover it up better than others.

2. Mrs LMNO brought up the point that while externalizing/projecting the problem ducks the issue, internalizing it too much leads to body dysmorphia. Which seems to be the other side of the coin, in the "acting counter to the mainstream is still being part of the mainstream" trope.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Nigel nailed it. 

I think there's a flipside, though, and I see a lot of it in my work (psychic line - ducks blows)...a lot of women view men, or rather marriage, as a commodity. They look for boyfriends like they're interviewing prospective employees (he has to make X-amount of money and be tall and blah blah) and they seem to have some kind of time frame for marriage, they'll dump a guy who doesn't live up to it because he "won't commit". All very businesslike but they consider it "love".

It seems to me that if you care enough about somebody that you'd even consider being tied to them for any length of time, you'd work out whatever was mutually agreeable and that would involve compromise...probably just live together or see each other and if you don't have a piece of paper, so what?

I could see all this in the 19th century or something when the alternative to hitting the husband lottery wahttp://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1043756;topic=29115.0;num_replies=13;sesc=9f10863cc36962420be928aa5099117ds indentured servitude as a governess or something like that, but it doesn't seem very thought out these days...

I had a coworker like that. It was the weirdest fucking thing. It was totally alien to my way of thinking. Bit of background info: she was 27 ish, from Michigan, and I believe, Methodist, but I could be wrong about that.

She and another coworker were dating when they started working there. I guess she kinda pressured him into proposing. They were engaged for a while and she kept talking about the time frame for having a baby, which meant getting to work on it immediately. Surprise of surprises, he called off the wedding. She didn't seem sad so much as angry.

Anyway, she eventually started talking about this other guy at her church and she was talking about him like she was engaged to him. Like, she was definitely going to marry him, and she was going to have his babies. Turns out they weren't even dating yet. She was scoping him out as a sperm donor. Well, anyway she did start dating him, they did get married and they have a kid. We met the husband to be a couple of times. He looked like a deer caught in headlights. It was the weirdest thing to watch. Apparently she had been engaged before the broken off engagement too.


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.

[Don Coyote]

Nigel nailed it.  

I think there's a flipside, though, and I see a lot of it in my work (psychic line - ducks blows)...a lot of women view men, or rather marriage, as a commodity. They look for boyfriends like they're interviewing prospective employees (he has to make X-amount of money and be tall and blah blah) and they seem to have some kind of time frame for marriage, they'll dump a guy who doesn't live up to it because he "won't commit". All very businesslike but they consider it "love".

It seems to me that if you care enough about somebody that you'd even consider being tied to them for any length of time, you'd work out whatever was mutually agreeable and that would involve compromise...probably just live together or see each other and if you don't have a piece of paper, so what?

I could see all this in the 19th century or something when the alternative to hitting the husband lottery was indentured servitude as a governess or something like that, but it doesn't seem very thought out these days...

That absolutely exists, and it's not really a "flipside". It's just another aspect of our unhealthy culture.

However, SOME of those behaviors are not unhealthy; they're reflective of good self-esteem, especially in a young woman who plans to have children. If I was looking for a life partner, and I was with someone who was still waffling about what they want after six months or a year, if I had good self-esteem I would recognize that we were not a good match, and stop wasting both of our time with the relationship. People with low self-esteem continue in poorly-suited relationships, hoping things will change, because they don't believe they can find a better match.

Treating relationships like a shopping-list of must-haves is not realistic. ON THE OTHER HAND, having a wish list of what you think you are good enough for is healthy and reflective of high self-value. The higher genuine self-value you have (as opposed to vanity or a prince/princess complex) the more attractive you are as a mate. An attractive mate is more likely to find a good match, in the form of another person in their age range who is similarly attractive. People with low self-esteem find each other and stay together even if they aren't a good match outside of both having low self-esteem.

Why should a man who is looking to have children stay with a woman who "isn't sure if" she wants to get married or have kids after a year of being together? Why shouldn't he realize, hey, this situation means we are probably not well-matched, I will go looking for a woman whose goals are similar to mine?

THis is the primary reason why I broke up with my 'fiance' after dating her for 2 years. She hadn't managed to get divorced during those 2 years or the 2-3 years before we met. She might have honestly wanted to marry me and have kids, but fuck all if I was going to continue to fucking wait.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I see what you're saying, Nigel...a person with healthy self-esteem obviously isn't going to put up with certain things, like abuse, chronic alcoholism, chronially out-of-work guys. And there's nothing inherently wrong with saying "I want a family at some point and I'm going to make that a priority". I just find it odd that these people throw the L word around so much. Didn't TGRR once define it as "the state or condition of caring about somebody more than you care about yourself"? Not out of low self-esteem, any more than you put your kids first out of low self-esteem. It's just the way it is. You don't grant it to somebody who's going to turn you into a human speed bump, there has to be some trust involved, but it involves accepting a person exactly the way they are without trying to force-fit them to some anachronistic relationship mold.

[Triple Zero]

2. Mrs LMNO brought up the point that while externalizing/projecting the problem ducks the issue, internalizing it too much leads to body dysmorphia. Which seems to be the other side of the coin, in the "acting counter to the mainstream is still being part of the mainstream" trope.

I have re-read this five times now and I still can't figure out what it means. Halp?

[Don Coyote]

2. Mrs LMNO brought up the point that while externalizing/projecting the problem ducks the issue, internalizing it too much leads to body dysmorphia. Which seems to be the other side of the coin, in the "acting counter to the mainstream is still being part of the mainstream" trope.

I have re-read this five times now and I still can't figure out what it means. Halp?

Internalizing it might lead to eating disorders?

nevermind WIKI TO THE RESCUE!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder

Thinking everything is because you are ugly.

[Triple Zero]

I give up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It is totally normal and natural for both men and women to want to have sex with beautiful people in their prime of life. But yes, as you've said, it only becomes a problem when the, say, 45-year-old slightly overweight, somewhat plain woman ONLY approaches 26-year-old hot hard-bodied men for dating and sex, and is then bitter and angry because "men don't want her", and then blames her loneliness on something external, rather than going, "shit, I'm going to be as awesome a person as I can be and see if I can find an awesome 45-year-old guy who might not be much to look at, but is a blast to be with and makes me feel good."

Yanno? I'm pretty hot for 40. I'm not going to find a gorgeous 30-year-old mate to spend the rest of my life with... that's unrealistic, but more to the point, it's unappealing. I want someone who is my peer, someone I can relate to, so I'm going to look for a guy who kind of lives my lifestyle, who is also pretty hot for 40. It's not that it's "unfair" that I won't give fat suburban 40-somethings a chance, it's that they are ALREADY NOT A GOOD MATCH. If I have any kind of self-esteem, there is no reason at all for me to even consider it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel nailed it.  

I think there's a flipside, though, and I see a lot of it in my work (psychic line - ducks blows)...a lot of women view men, or rather marriage, as a commodity. They look for boyfriends like they're interviewing prospective employees (he has to make X-amount of money and be tall and blah blah) and they seem to have some kind of time frame for marriage, they'll dump a guy who doesn't live up to it because he "won't commit". All very businesslike but they consider it "love".

It seems to me that if you care enough about somebody that you'd even consider being tied to them for any length of time, you'd work out whatever was mutually agreeable and that would involve compromise...probably just live together or see each other and if you don't have a piece of paper, so what?

I could see all this in the 19th century or something when the alternative to hitting the husband lottery was indentured servitude as a governess or something like that, but it doesn't seem very thought out these days...

That absolutely exists, and it's not really a "flipside". It's just another aspect of our unhealthy culture.

However, SOME of those behaviors are not unhealthy; they're reflective of good self-esteem, especially in a young woman who plans to have children. If I was looking for a life partner, and I was with someone who was still waffling about what they want after six months or a year, if I had good self-esteem I would recognize that we were not a good match, and stop wasting both of our time with the relationship. People with low self-esteem continue in poorly-suited relationships, hoping things will change, because they don't believe they can find a better match.

Treating relationships like a shopping-list of must-haves is not realistic. ON THE OTHER HAND, having a wish list of what you think you are good enough for is healthy and reflective of high self-value. The higher genuine self-value you have (as opposed to vanity or a prince/princess complex) the more attractive you are as a mate. An attractive mate is more likely to find a good match, in the form of another person in their age range who is similarly attractive. People with low self-esteem find each other and stay together even if they aren't a good match outside of both having low self-esteem.

Why should a man who is looking to have children stay with a woman who "isn't sure if" she wants to get married or have kids after a year of being together? Why shouldn't he realize, hey, this situation means we are probably not well-matched, I will go looking for a woman whose goals are similar to mine?

THis is the primary reason why I broke up with my 'fiance' after dating her for 2 years. She hadn't managed to get divorced during those 2 years or the 2-3 years before we met. She might have honestly wanted to marry me and have kids, but fuck all if I was going to continue to fucking wait.

Yep.

There's no good reason, if you value yourself, your life, and your time, to wait around for someone who isn't SHOWING you that they are on the same page, through their actions. Even if you love them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I see what you're saying, Nigel...a person with healthy self-esteem obviously isn't going to put up with certain things, like abuse, chronic alcoholism, chronially out-of-work guys. And there's nothing inherently wrong with saying "I want a family at some point and I'm going to make that a priority". I just find it odd that these people throw the L word around so much. Didn't TGRR once define it as "the state or condition of caring about somebody more than you care about yourself"? Not out of low self-esteem, any more than you put your kids first out of low self-esteem. It's just the way it is. You don't grant it to somebody who's going to turn you into a human speed bump, there has to be some trust involved, but it involves accepting a person exactly the way they are without trying to force-fit them to some anachronistic relationship mold.

A person with healthy self-esteem won't put up with life with someone who is fundamentally incompatible with them, either. Even if they love them. "Falling in love" is a chemical state. Making a life commitment to love is something you should do not because you "fall in love" (because that can happen over and over and over again for as long as you're alive) but because you know you have found a good match for your love. A LOT of people stay together miserably because they're "in love" when they would be happier if they moved on and found a COMPATIBLE partner to fall in love with.