Could Women Cope With The Amount Of Sexual Rejection Men Cope With ?

I agree that insecurity can be used in a positive way but i don't really consider it a good thing overall, it's another barrier to true contentment in my opinion. I don't think you need to be insecure to be competitive since it is competition that drives our species, one can believe they will win and still want to compete to prove it to themselves.

I think it's difficult and i'd be lying if i said i was 100% secure myself but i do think it's possible and should be a goal.

Well this is about what one thinks of themselves rather than others. We've all seen the ugly guy with the hot bird because of the confidence he had in himself, the fact that others may believe one is unattractive is somewhat irrelevant when there are a mirade of factors that make somebody attractive and that self confidence can be predicated on success (i.e. your successful regardless of your looks, so you then feel attractive regardless of whether you objectively are). Though i suppose that again raises the question of what is attractive, you can have a face like a dogs ass but if you work out in the gym the rest of you can look pretty good. Personally speaking i was everything from ugly to cute a few years ago but i had a lot of success with women and so when i looked in the mirror i felt attractive, i suppose this is probably what has shaped my views (granted i was tall, skinny and had far better dress sense than most guys at the time so it's not like there was nothing good about me in appearance).

I'm certainly not suggesting that fat birds go around thinking they are hot, simply that objectively average or better people should seek to place their own opinion before others.

..

Reading back it occurs that it might be easier for men since we do the 'hunting', as opposed to women who are 'hunted'.

.

A big reason for why mean get rejected more is because they don't pursue girls that are appropriate for their position, that is, they go for girls that are out of their league. If more men dated girls that were of a similar attractiveness men would report fewer rejections.


I've rejected countless boys/men over the years and it was only because they were less attractive than I or less financially stable.

Probably the stupidest analogy of the day, congratulations.

Islamophobia: blaming SOME muslims for the actions of OTHER muslims.

sexual rejection: desperate men suffering from their OWN actions.


You see the difference? One is about what YOU do, one is about what OTHER PEOPLE do.

No body cares about men. Its Biology we are dispensable and becoming more and more so day by day.

Acquire Currency

Acquire Aesthetics

Become a borderline psychopath and voila you have reached your potential as a man.

Bang an escort while smiling at yourself in the mirror. That is the only approval you can ask for.

I think both points can be disputed.

In fact I would say most relationships start where one party is more interested than the other party. I also don't think there's mutual investment in the relationships in its initial stages: for example men are expected to cover most of the costs, make the decisions and take all rejection. In fact you could say its a pretty one sided equation if you don't take into account a woman's inherit sexual value, which may balance out the equation.

Many women will go out with a man they have no intention of dating LT just for free food and drink. Some women do this then later decide they like the man, but they certainly did not have the same intentions as the man did initially.

Some women go out on dates out of kindness or a lack of assertiveness when rejecting men they don't like. Some women even date these men they don't like.

Intentions are not always played out in behavior.

And I would certainly say that men do have to approach women unless they're very attractive. An average man could go years without being approached, such is the omnipotence of social norms in dating. Now of course you could still say that a man doesn't have to approach women - there's incidences where average men no doubt got approached by women - but the odds are the man who doesn't make approaches will be alone for a very long time and even if he did get a woman this woman would probably be of worse quality than had he been proactive.

If the world runs on numbers then you play the numbers, IE as a man you have to approach women, you don't try and beat the system because 99% of the time you lose.

I don't dispute the second point. That's self-evident. The question is whether the initial effort has to be made by men.

As to the first point: that's a matter for data. The OP suggests that men do; you suggest that men don't. I can't find studies about it after a brief search.

Have you actually dated a girl at any point in the last 50 years?

The world you describe is so far away from the UK in 2015 its hard to know where you got these ideas.

But what is the "initial effort"? Is it the first catching of the eye? first smile? The first nod? The first word? The first question? The first flirty remark?

Its always a dialogue. It has to be. This trope of active approacher hitting on passive approachee simply doesn't exist outside of unfunny movies and bad dating advice.

Initial effort could be any of those things you mentioned, but in this case I think it's referring beyond just the signaling of interest which is often done by a woman. It also refers to a myriad of activities such as flirting, or buying drinks, or making first physical contact (which are things nearly always done by a the man). So even if it's the case women do signal interest first, overall you could say men still make the dominate contribution to the formation of relationships, especially in their initial stages.

Certainly you can say one party is more passive than the other party, and you could also say the more active party is nearly always the man.

Is Hollywood really that alien to real life? Sometimes it is: but in this context I think it often plays true to real life, if only to exaggerated dimensions. Otherwise people would not be able to relate to these movies, which is the pivotal selling point of these rom-coms and whatnot.

If you're being a lot more selective and spontaneous, there's just something more genuine, personal and real about the interaction. It's all about intention really. Are you looking to get a number just because you want to have the self validation that you can get it OR do you really want to connect with that particular person and get to know them?

Seeing as this is a UK based website, and your experiences are based solely in Australia, could you try to remember to say "in Australia" after each statement to avoid confusion?

For example

"you can say one party is more passive than the other party, and you could also say the more active party is nearly always the man... IN AUSTRALIA"

" the signaling of interest which is often done by a woman.. IN AUSTRALIA"

"It also refers to a myriad of activities such as flirting, or buying drinks, or making first physical contact (which are things nearly always done by a the man).... IN AUSTRALIA"

"you could say men still make the dominate contribution to the formation of relationships, especially in their initial stages... IN AUSTRALIA"



Because those statements might well be true in Australia, I have never been, but I have heard it is about 30-40 years behind the UK in this kind of thing. But they're definitely NOT true in the UK.

The problem is, a man being genuine like that is more likely to be hurt by rejection. Many women seem to find that unattractive, and would actually get turned on more by a man who is emotionally distant. As a result, genuine men are more likely to be put off playing the game and trying to woo women, their confidence level being hit by rejection when they are being authentic and vulnerable. That lack of confidence is furthermore seen as unattractive. In the meat market, they are out-competed by players.

It seems a lot of women want to have their cake and eat it. They want a man who is genuine and sensitive (or they at least claim to), yet prefer the confidence and invulnerability of an emotionally distant player as that's what gets their juices flowing. They then go on to reject (and hurt) a genuine man, often imputing malicious intent on him which isn't there, and fall for player after player. Then they decide that "all men are pigs". They cry to their girlfriends who agree with them in solidarity. Yeah, men, what pigs.

They cry to the genuine men who are pursuing them, yet they find unattractive for not being enough of a cocky emotionally distant and invulnerable player, about how evil the men are they keep choosing, exploiting the genuine men's unrequited romantic interest in them for an emotional crutch.

Then those types of women have the audacity to accuse anyone who points out the unflattering truth about their behaviour of hating women. OK, here's another unflattering truth. That is psychological projection. They actually hate men.

Now, I am all for women's basic human rights. But it's for reasons like this that I could not in good conscience call myself a feminist. The contemporary feminist movement aids and abets this kind of behaviour from dysfunctional women and encourages anyone who criticises it to be mercilessly attacked for not walking on eggshells. It encourages abusive women to absolve themselves of personal responsibility while shifting all the blame onto men. That makes it morally bankrupt.

i would rate and like this post as many times as humanly possible; if i could.

why? because, i would hate to know how many years that have been spent in gathering this crucial and accurate information.

thank you, for such astounding levels of truth.

It is such an accurate post, it gives the term 'accuracy', a new definition.

If i may add anything, it would be that; the actual core feminist movement, started out as a sexual puritan movement. a man hating movement, so its' no surprise that they would act like that.

The problem is, a man being genuine like that is more likely to be hurt by rejection. Many women seem to find that unattractive, and would actually get turned on more by a man who is emotionally distant. As a result, genuine men are more likely to be put off playing the game and trying to woo women, their confidence level being hit by rejection when they are being authentic and vulnerable. That lack of confidence is furthermore seen as unattractive. In the meat market, they are out-competed by players.

It seems a lot of women want to have their cake and eat it. They want a man who is genuine and sensitive (or they at least claim to), yet prefer the confidence and invulnerability of an emotionally distant player as that's what gets their juices flowing. They then go on to reject (and hurt) a genuine man, often imputing malicious intent on him which isn't there, and fall for player after player. Then they decide that "all men are pigs". They cry to their girlfriends who agree with them in solidarity. Yeah, men, what pigs.

They cry to the genuine men who are pursuing them, yet they find unattractive for not being enough of a cocky emotionally distant and invulnerable player, about how evil the men are they keep choosing, exploiting the genuine men's unrequited romantic interest in them for an emotional crutch.

Then those types of women have the audacity to accuse anyone who points out the unflattering truth about their behaviour of hating women. OK, here's another unflattering truth. That is psychological projection. They actually hate men.

Now, I am all for women's basic human rights. But it's for reasons like this that I could not in good conscience call myself a feminist. The contemporary feminist movement aids and abets this kind of behaviour from dysfunctional women and encourages anyone who criticises it to be mercilessly attacked for not walking on eggshells. It encourages abusive women to absolve themselves of personal responsibility while shifting all the blame onto men. That makes it morally bankrupt.

Not when the studies are patriachal in nature, the dude carrying them out is a well known rape apologist yet u MRAs still fling his **** around its disgusting




LOL being female is NOT a priveledge you are very sexist for saying that. men still have massive advantages in society today, i agree about your white women post, I'm a PoC and racial priveledge intersects with gender priveledge.

To label Warren Farrell a rape apologist shows you either have not read his books nor watched his videos or perhaps you read it with a feminist mindset. I also question how a woman in a hijab can complain about patrichal societies.

Warren Farrell cares about both man and women and trys to readdreess the bias that is feminism, a movement that ignores a whole other genders issues, so cut the crap with the rape apologist nonsense.

Did they think they could change him while still keeping the privileges provided by him in terms of wealth and status?

I don't think insecurity is a problem - all of us are insecure to some degree. Insecurity is what drives us to compete and better ourselves.



On a side note:I used to see girls wearing "fat and proud" shirts around town all the time, but it's all so transparent. You can tell they don't actually believe their own propaganda.

Farrell is a genius, probably the highest authority in what makes men and women tick and how they interact with each other. He is also incredibly unbiased unlike most feminists or anti-feminists and is never sarcastic or rude to his ''opponents'' . If a proper equality movement ever emerges I couldn't think of anyone else in charge of it. He also amazingly well-spoken, just listening to him feels like a privilege .