How to make a girl see you as the prize?

I said it sounded creepy from how you put it, and I'm not necessarily wrong. Again, it's about your specific case, I didn't say that all or the vast majority of anyone are anything.

So one of my friends got a new girlfriend and I know some of her friends and they are literally so happy for her saying she’s done really well for herself getting with this guy.

A bit about this girl, she’s a part time model so she is very good looking and does have a bit of internet clout so she’s not short of options.


To be honest I don’t really see this much especially with a girl like this, see the guy as the prize and chasing him, it’s normally the other way around. How do I make girls look at me like i’m something they?

Even if this woman fits your weird model of what all women are like, she would be an exception.

It really does, and as I said, I'm not fussed whether you accept it or not. Of course you'd deny it, you're a woman. As for the second part, it should be pretty obvious: marriage is much more of a commitment than a relationship (at least, it is where I come from) and anyone who opts to get married to another person must be reasonably confident of their strengths as a romantic partner. Hence, seeing you as the prize probably becomes the case somewhere down the line of a steady relationship, even if it wasn't when you got married.

I deny it because I don't behave like that and nobody I know behaves like that. I have no idea why you think women work like that or how you're meant to be some expert on women.
That's not things changing once you get married, that's marriage as a way of indicating that things have changed. And I'm confused as to why people wouldn't see each other as a prize earlier on - if I didn't see my partner that way, I wouldn't have asked him out.

Highly, highly unlikely, as she's pretty standard as far as personality goes (for a female), at least, in most respects. Also, applying Occam's razor, it would be pretty unreasonable to suggest she was some sort of extraordinary exception, merely because she isn't aligned with your (self-referential) perspective of women. It would be far easier to assume she's quite normal for the purpose of this discussion...

Obviously, whoever agrees to marry you already saw you as the prize while you were dating (and probably before that too). I was specifically referring to any woman the OP is seeing to date, that on the balance of probabilities, it wouldn't happen as women don't tend to see other (ordinary) men as the prize, while men are much more open-minded in seeking relationships. I never claimed to be an expert on women... I'm just utilising a bit of common sense and inductive reasoning.

I deny it because I don't behave like that and nobody I know behaves like that. I have no idea why you think women work like that or how you're meant to be some expert on women.
That's not things changing once you get married, that's marriage as a way of indicating that things have changed. And I'm confused as to why people wouldn't see each other as a prize earlier on - if I didn't see my partner that way, I wouldn't have asked him out.

Note that I ignored the rest of this as the whole thing is an argument from incredulity and not worth my time.

As a philosopher, your definitions of "common sense" and "inductive reasoning" could do with a bit of work (just saying). I don't think you can generalise over who sees whom as a "prize" - many people will ask out people who they see as "kinda attractive", and many people won't ask out someone they see as a "prize" due to shyness, insecurity, gender stereotypes or other reasons.

"I can't defend my poorly formed point so I'm going to say a logical fallacy has been committed and call it a day"

I'm not sure what you mean by this now. Are you saying you're a philosopher (which registers as incredibly pretentious) or are you calling me a philosopher, which is just a little wack? I'm no philosopher, just someone who reads a decent amount and has a definitive perspective on the OP's question. I don't think arguing about the definition of terms has anything to do with the discussion, although I'm pretty sure I know, reasonably, what I'm talking about. As for the rest, you're just shifting the goalposts now as that wasn't a valid rebuttal to any of what I just said.

My point is plenty formed, which you would know if you were paying any attention, rather than sending keys flying with poorly thought out and fallacious arguments. Yes, "don't write something if it doesn't make any sense" is a perfectly valid observation to make. And your ad hominems are getting tedious now -- I thought I was pretty civil throughout although you clearly don't care for such niceties on your side.

very inspiring and optimistic if I may say so

Sorry if you read "philosopher" as some kind of pretentious claim instead of my intended meaning of "someone who studies a philosophy degree". Meaning, I know how logic works and that generalising from one case is not it, especiallyinthe face of many counterexamples. Saying that more men see woman as a prize wasn't related to what I said either, I was just pointing out how, again, you've stated something as fact that you can't prove.

Watch season 4 of 90 day fiance.

It shows a prime example of what happens when you have a guy that is a rich owner of a successful company, that has just bought a new or nearly new Audi RS8, and has spent $70,000 on his "girlfriend" before she's moved to live with him.

His wannabe model fiancee does not see him as a prize. She sees him as a schmuck!

OK this is only 1 anecdote. But it's a highly representative anecdote.

In this TV series you have a guy that is rich in money. But he doesn't have a clue how to interact with women. And he has no idea how to handle the woman that he invites over from Moscow.

Having the ability to make and handle money is an attractive trait. But it's only 1 quite small part of the jig-saw puzzle. A puzzle where you can have a few missing pieces and still be prized by women.

I see, so you're generalising all women due to your experience with a singular woman. As with many conclusions formed from such shaky evidence, you're wrong. (It's not clear that your conclusion even follows in this particular case anyway - you sound like you were exhibiting dodgy/creepy behaviour, and it's pretty likely she wasn't flirting with you.) And really, you can't expect people not to be rude to you when you're rude to an entire gender.

Even if my stance was entirely self-referential (which it isn't, I have literally met nobody like that)

I don't think you understand my meaning. Your perspective of women is, forsooth, always self-referential as you are one yourself. Perhaps you haven't covered self-reference in your philosophy course yet; in that case, I recommend reading Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter, I enjoyed what I understood from it.