Post a response to this discussion thread
lentil: To be honest, when I STARTED lifting weights (13 y/o), I had a fairly muscular physique so any advice I could give you would probably do no good. I've certainly heard your complaint before and couldn't help those guys either. By the time I was your age (you're 16 or 17, right?) I was already up to 3 hours a day, 5 days a week (despite X-MAN and his followers), low repetitions on heavy weights (like 8 X 225 bench), arm-leg-arm alternations during non-football season. In other words, I know nothing about "simple exercises." The only really helpful thing I can say to you is that although my benchpress increased from 95 (my weight then, actually) to over 300 during that period of time, I never really looked much stronger than when I began. My muscles just became solid instead of elastic. Unless you gain a lot of weight at the same time (which I couldn't do because of my height), you may never look like Arnold or Lou-- but that doesn't mean you aren't getting as strong as them (figuratively speaking). There's a big difference between the work-outs you would do for bodybuilding and power/weight lifting-- which I have no time to go into but X-MAN actually covered fairly well.
monique: thanks for telling us like it is! Although I would be careful about feeling sorry for my brother. Lots of people did when he first came here! I've never really felt sorry for him (I'm also a CREEP-- I don't feel sorry for almost anyone), but besides the name, I do feel some sort of kinship. And I don't think it's right for others to maliciously attack someone who has done no real harm. That just makes them bullies.
X-MAN: And I don't think it's right for others to maliciously attack someone who has done no real harm. That just makes them bullies.
Lam Kwai Tung: I'll give you credit for once-- you are DEAD RIGHT about one of Masked Losers problems for once, and I told him such several months ago (which would make X-MAN also dead right--uggghhh). BUT the "social skills" problem is only true of MASKED Loser not CREEP FREAK Loser. All of my closest friends are females. I've NEVER had any problem making friends with women-- keeping them is another story, because eventually I get irritated by all of the "flaunting" they do of their dating life, which was of course, at my expense. Aside from our common interests (which are more so than her fiance), I have no idea why my best friend is STILL my best friend because I really let her have it the first couple of years after she rejected me as a romantic interest. And, she is one of several of my female friends who admitted that my height is probably the main difference between me having lots of female friends and me having lots of dates.
Redundant One: GIVE THIS BOY A HERO COOKIE!!!! He actually listened to what I said about height!
Veruca: This may sound odd coming from me, but I think you took that list a bit too seriously. I don't just say this as an amateur sexology researcher with a great deal of knowledge about what the *average* woman really do want, but just as a person with common sense: This list is bogus. That's not to say that a good portion of the female population does not agree with one or more the items on the list (you'd be amazed at how many don't even think a sense of humor is important), but even if this one was supported by impartial emperical research, there's no way it could cover ALL women's tastes. Calling it "scary" just seems like a bit of an overreaction. Just so everyone knows, most studies on the matter have come to the conclusion that honesty is the # 1 quality women look for in men (even that's not 100 %), followed by several other non-physical traits (like warmth, compassion, self-esteem, etc.). BUT-- and there's always a big BUT-- those are AFTER FILTER characteristics. If I have a subject of expertise in sexual sociology, it is FILTERS. Dr. Jeffrey S. Nevid was the first to really advance the filter theory in his 1984 paper "Sex Roles," and many others, including myself, have built on the idea. A quote from him: "...personal qualities may assume more prominent roles in determining partner preferences in long term relationships... physical appeal probably plays a 'filtering' role. Unless a prospective date meets minimal physical standards, we might not look beneath the surface for 'more meaningful' traits." There's always going to be an exception, and maybe you're it, but most women (and men) automatically filter out prospective dates based on physical appeal-- in most cases, these "filtered" people are stuck in the "friends" category, never with any chance to advance beyond that (but always free to be booted from it). For women, height really is the biggest filter-- I wasn't exaggerating! The problem with "handsomeness" is that it's not universal at all. Fabio and Ricky Martin aren't handsome to every woman in America (or even close). But 5'3 is SHORT to every woman in America (although apparently 6 % have no problem with a guy being that height). You don't seriously think the majority of 5'7 women are going to give me the time of day just because I have "self-esteem" and "great self-confidence," do you? It's certainly not a bad thing to have those qualities-- it can only help. But they don't prevent massive social failure by filtering.
Allow me to applaud you for being so non-shallow-- I'm not trying to berate you for being a good person. I just don't want you living in a dream world where you think you're the norm, like Chica was in that "Cookie's Fortune" thread dealing with racial relations in the South. If you only associate with people who think the way you do (even if positively), you may come to believe that *everyone* thinks the way you do. No offense meant.
Sweetness & Light: Musicians are a REALLY bad example. monique asked a very good question: "I am sure you must have some type of quality that one of the opposite sex, would find, appealing?" Musical talent is probably the most romantic quality any man can have, and if all of us had it, we'd all be swimming in chicks, because in all honesty, it overpowers the visual senses (that's the only explanation I have for Lyle Lovitt's popularity). Unfortunately, I have only song-writing talent (which itself is nothing more than an extension of my general writing ability)-- I don't have a nice singing voice and I've taken guitar, bass and drum lessons with horrible results. I can only naturally assume that Masked Loser is far worse off in that area than I am. A little bit of musical talent goes a long way in a woman's heart, and you bloody well know it. Stop giving my brother false hopes about these mythical women who would date "ugly puny men with no car and no cash" if musicians are the only example you can come up with. That's not to say I don't agree with some other things you said, including the fact that the list itself is mostly fallacy, only true a small portion of the population of females ALTHOUGH money is always a big issue, and monique actually said something that I put into a research paper I have submitted to a scientific journal. Not that I hate the women's movement, but before it occurred, the most important male trait to a woman was his ability to provide, so ugly, puny and even short men were in high demand so long as they made a good living. Once women became career-oriented and no longer NEEDED men to support them, they were free to concentrate on other characteristics in men, particularly physical attractiveness, and in essence, essentially became LIKE men in what they look for. Nonetheless, just as the traditional societal standard that the husband should be taller than the wife or else the couple looks "odd" still holds, the traditional societal standard that the husband make more than the wife or else the couple looks "odd" also still holds. It is those two conflicts that I believe causes much of the despair in modern dating. There simply aren't enough attractive men (or acceptable by other standards) who also make a good wage to meet the needs of the influx of career-oriented women into our culture. The richer guys can marry whoever they want because marrying beneath them is expected to begin with, so if an attractive one of them sees an EXTREMELY attractive woman standing on the street one day, and she's dirt poor, and he marries her-- that's one less attractive rich guy out there to balance out the number of attractive rich girls. (I also have a similar theory about height, but I'm not going to get into that right now.)
sincerely,
CreepFreakLOSER
Post a response to this discussion thread