Dating Advice for Guys
geniesloki.wordpress.com
geniesloki.wordpress.com
The part about hugs might be a great idea too, at least that's the first time I've heard it.
About the article itself, it was nice. It's rare to see an article like that, read it and not feel like shit at the end. This one was hopeful and seems to give good advice.
> here’s some dating advice. It’s mostly meant for guys who want to date girls, and it’s kinda pitched assuming that you spend a lot of time on 4chan
This is an odd piece... Good for the author for blogging, but not sure why this ended up here.
Cool? And I wouldn't recommend them this article that suggests they seek therapy & deal with their latent toxic masculinity.
The author specifies "Guys who want to date girls", that makes me think we are dealing with a sales & marketing problem. So I would probably emphasize Diet, Hygiene, Exercise, Fashion and how they pitch/introduce themselves etc.
Maybe they would benefit from seeing a therapist... but I don't think what is holding them back is how they are talking about their feelings or how they feel about intimacy.
1. Be willing to be emotionally present, vulnerable and sincere
2. And keep doing that
I don’t currently have a thriving dating life, nor do I want to now. But when I have, that’s what worked.
And observing adjacent comments:
You don’t have to objectify anyone to be emotionally available.
You don’t have to go to therapy either, but if you’re hesitant you probably would benefit from it more than you think.
People who aren’t your prospective dating partners will also appreciate your growth.
When I finally started dating, it came with the acceptance that it was myself who needed to change. Addressing my insecurities was the hardest part of it. Having friends to talk about my experiences was very helpful.
'1. Turn yourself into a project that you can work on and get better at, in ways that are going to help you date better but are good even if you don’t.
2. Go to therapy. It’s much better than you’ve been told and it will probably help. This isn’t because you’re crazy or weak (no more than the rest of us) it’s because talking about your feelings with a professional who is there to help you out is really good and useful and almost everyone would benefit from it.'
It's not that therapists have the solutions to your problems. What they have is a set of tools for helping you look at your problems in different ways, and experience in applying those tools.
It's really easy to be skeptical of that. You have, after all, been working on your own problems for a long time, and you know the domain better (yourself) than they possibly could. What can they contribute?
And the answer is that they're not you, and can therefore often see what's obvious to everybody except you. You know those friends of yours who can't figure out what's wrong even though everybody else already knows, but can't figure out how to convince them? Well, it's like that? That happens to everybody, including you. And unlike your friends circle, they're paid to be objective about it, to solve the problems rather than remain your friend.
This isn't a panacea. Finding a therapist is like dating -- you need somebody who clicks with you. It can take several tries to find one who works. It's not cheap -- it's covered under many insurance plans, but sadly conventional wisdom is that the best ones are those who can avoid working under insurance.
And that makes it kind of a catch-22: you have to trust the process for it to work, but it's not trustworthy. You have to be willing to step outside your preconceptions, which sounds noble in the abstract but is really aggravating in practice, since it feels wrong and feels like it's getting worse instead of better. Which it could be -- all of those various defaults and defensive mechanisms you've got, they came about for reasons.
Still, I'd say not to dimiss the notion. If you've dismissed it as clearly unable to help, I'd say you're wrong. Which isn't the same as saying that it can help.
The best I can say, as it relates to the article, is that if you're willing to go to therapy and take on the trust involved, that alone does make you more likely to succeed at dating, because you're at least trying to think about it. Or at least, you're demonstrating that you always were that person all along.
I hope that answers your curiosity, or at least helps point it in the direction of an answer.
It should be part of your mental health care, and it sucks that we've commercialized that along with the rest of our health care. That costs a fortune in the US, and mental health care is often limited. It would be great if we had a more rational way of paying for it, freeing up our professionals to put their help where it's best used rather than for those who can best afford it.
> I see it as a positive thing that there are those who have specialized in it, and that it's a resource you can get.
That is a positive thing but historically we haven't needed to turn to professionals for that resource. It's been provided, gratis, by community leaders and elders for most of human history. I see reliance on professionals for this sort of thing as a major negative. I'd argue that it reduces a community's ability to produce that resource for itself. Like this:
> And unlike your friends circle, they're paid to be objective about it, to solve the problems rather than remain your friend.
If you rely on a therapist to be objective with you, you don't need your friends to be, and you don't need to be that friend to other people. You can just tell them, "go to therapy, it's really helped me!" and be done with it...
Maybe I'm taking something different away from your post above than what you actually meant.
I see people talking about therapy as a way of maintaining mental fitness, rather than treating mental illness, and that bothers me.
A bit of a rambling post, but I hope you catch my drift.
I think it's wonderful that we have an outside resource for these things that:
* is not in a position of power (like community leaders and elders)
* is not compromised by pressures of friendship dynamics
* is bound to confidentiality and rules of ethical conduct.
People in positions of power and friends will still try and help, but the nature of the relationship makes it more difficult. Often, in the past, clergy would also be in the role of helping and were pseudo-professionalized... but again, this service was generally hardly "free" and the religious perspective had its own confounds.
People want to start relationships with people exhibiting signs of personal growth and change.
CBT is great - it doesn’t require an experienced therapist and the time commitment is scalable.
That being said, I really don’t think she remembered me or developed a unique emotional connection with me or anything like that. Which is fine, because that is not the point. The CBT methodology only guides the patient, and the patient must do all the work. The therapist takes notes, implements a methodology, and assigns specific work. This isn’t really all that different from a tutor or coach the way I see it.
Now, this is just my personal POV. My cognitive/emotional distortions weren’t that severe to begin with. And this was CBT which I’m pretty sure is like the vanilla HTML/JS of therapy or something along those lines. People with severe psychological issues and problems are a totally different story.
Therapy may help those guys explore why it seems so challenging. Or help them blow off some steam and process feelings a bit so they are calmer (and therefore more confident) in potential dating situations.
You don’t need therapy to do that, but you do need a certain type of personal relationship available to you, one in which you can openly and honestly discuss feelings. That might not be available to some guys, so therapy could maybe fill the need. (The article basically says this.)
Therapy IS a social setting but if its being used as an exposure technique... then there are far better alternatives.
Try recreational sports/activities you enjoy and want to improve at. Youll get a lot more confidence from those then you would therapy.
These are just random, mildly misandrist opinions. They're not all wrong, but not a magic bullet or fool-proof.
Personally, the best dating advice I ever got was "Ask for what you want", as the cliche goes "if you don't ask, the answer's no". And another important bit of advice that goes with it is when you ask for something, and someone says no, accept it gracefully and move on.
I know this will be downvoted to hell, but guys who are very successful with the opposite sex are those who objectify women the most.
Leaving aside the Dan Bilzerian types and those who see sex as transactional , some degree of objectification might be needed in order for regular guys to go for it.
When men compete for say a darts trophy they are unapologetic in declaring to themselves and to others that they are going for it....when a woman is involved on the other hand it's almost like male pride and ego takes the wheel and we don't want to look thirsty or desperate or even subordinates who don't have any other option than making the first move.
In short it's really tough to go there and admit to ourselves and to her that we need her more than they need us, that she has plenty of options , while we only have the option of going out there and expose ourselves to a potential rejection/humiliation . Ego is not having it, because we don't want to look inferior and most importantly feel inferior compared to another human being. Objectification solves this problem, in a sense, it brings us back to the darts trophy analogy and liberates the male psyche. I'd say transient objectification is the regime which has been in place ever since the beginning of the specie till the early 00s.
Transient objectification gave men enough peace of mind to approach women without much worry about ego consequences, and if the approach was successful it would disappear rather quickly and boom! In 3 months time you are a couple.
Matter of fact the most successful videos on youtube aren't about picking up, they are about helping guys become beautiful/successful/famous/wealthy enough in order to reverse the above dynamic and have women approach them instead, so women would have to swallow their pride, at that point both ego and the relationship centers in our brain can be happy with the outcome, otherwise one would have to suck it up.
It's almost like the transient objectification route has been closed off somewhere in the 90s/00s and now those who are successful are guys who either have an ego small enough to chase or with enough resources to reverse the typical dynamic and have women chase them instead.
Confidence that you're just fine on your own is waaay more important. Worst thing in my life was when i came off as desperate.
If that's the pitch to your ego, it'd quickly rebut : "then why are you going through all the rejections with the associated pain which makes me suffer so bad?"
> Worst thing in my life was when i came off as desperate
Do you think those who try and win the World Cup or the Super Bowl or even a get a loan or VC investment perceive themselves in the same way?
The above goals are not unlike a healthy dating life. As a rule of thumb if it only happens with dating, then it's in your head and you have to find a way to justify constant failures in order to keep swinging for the fences and not demoralize yourself with thoughts such as "coming off as despearate".
Cam Newton would not define himself as coming off as desperate for trying to win the Super Bowl, neither would Lionel Messi in his World Cup quest, Djokovic for the grand slam , you name it...dating isn't different, except of course the Lombardi Trophy can't publicly humiliate you with insults in the middle of the club or at the bar.
But the few men who can practice transient objectification won't be hearing insults either as they have the capability of failing fast, blocking insults out , keep moving and keep swinging for the fences
you've assumed the premise without even knowing it and it's doubly ironic because it didn't occur to you exactly because of what you represent in your first comment.
here's the answer that didn't occur to you because you just assumed you were right: lol what rejections and terrible suffering and pain?
i'm recently married but during all of the time i dated (>15 years since high school) i had maybe one or two rejections at all (and none to speak of that were painful). and i had 2 relationships a year over that time (on average - college was college...).
you know why? well for one because i did exactly what this person you responded to suggested: never objectified women and was always confident about my merits. the other thing i never did was treat dating like some kind of obsession or game, so never did i "swing for the fences".
>Cam Newton
coincidentally enough i went to college at UF and my time overlapped with Cam Newton's. if he's the guy that is a symbol of success for you (even metaphorically) in this domain then ho boy you have bigger problems than just dating.
Seems to me a failure to approach at the bar. After an intial approach (which could also be rejected outright) maybe 10 minutes will pass before the moment of truth comes and you either get the number or not see each other again. At least in big cities like NYC, LA, Chicago..that's the most frequent scenario as far as nightlife is concerned.
Not getting the number=rejection
> if he's the guy that is a symbol of success for you (even metaphorically) in this domain then ho boy you have bigger problems than just dating.
Well, luck plays a huge role in every person life..that said if you think Cam Newton is a failure where are your 100M dollar for "working" in the NFL playing football?
And of course I imagine he had so many partners he lost count (and also being sexualized by a good % of the millions of women follower he has on INstagram)
Again lots of it is luck, but it cannot be said that Cam Newton is not lving his best life according to objective metrics.
...
>Not getting the number=rejection
you're redefining success to be a very narrow, highly, contrived, outcome. i had a rich and successful dating life by any measure so you can't tell me that i wasn't successful (you're just arguing that water isn't it if you do that).
Women find power attractive, and your confidence is a huge indicator of power. Toxic/objectifying men tend to have more confidence hence why they have more success.
You can be confident without being toxic but it really doesn't matter. If she's super into you, your objectification of her takes a far back seat and is only really a factor if she intends on marrying you.
Also this article just conveniently leaves out the importance of height and physical attractiveness. Typical for a woman to leave that out. Anyway... People who have an easy time dating also happen to be taller and physically attractive... coincidence? No.
One influences the other. You have more success if you're attractive. More success makes you more confident, which makes you more attractive.
man i guess if you really want to know what hn's values are then just broach dating. jesus.
There are many areas of disconnect with people in general in what they think they want versus what they actually want.
For example: Money. Many people (men especially) think they want lots of money. They don't. What they want is happiness. There's even data to back up the fact that past a certain point money doesn't make anyone happier. Yet the drive to become successful is so strong that men will sacrifice their happiness for a shot at more money. Why does burnout even exist? Because men desire money so much that they illogically sacrifice their happiness for something that won't bring them any more happiness.
The above isn't absolutely true but it's a generality that people understand to be generally true.
Like men and money... women and dating is one of these psychological disconnects humans have.
The problem with many people and with you is that everyone has all these psychological triggers that are always on the look out for anything sexist or racist. Relax man, not many people are racist or sexist and HN should foster an environment where people are able to talk about real biological gender differences without getting cancelled.
There's no holocaust denial here or anything like that. Also women and dating advice isn't even some kind of controversial hard hitting topic that effects anything.
We can have mature discussion about the merits and disgusting parts of a death penalty which directly influences human lives but we can't do so about women dishing out bad dating advice? Come on man.
It's not about the money, it's about the winning, money is just the trophy
The process is:
Winning > money trophy > brain juices > inflating ego > happiness
> Women find power attractive
This is peculiar because both statements are true but the first one trumps the second.
They find power attractive but they also can't approach to save their lives, so at least some minimal work still has to be done by the man, regardless of his power.
Obama in 2008 at the peak of his popularity was also a pretty tall dude with blinding white teeth and an ability to mix and match Harvard vernacular and speaking to people's hearts
Could have had any woman in America but besides hanging out in his proximity and maybe try to show off some skin, no woman in America would approach him.
That's a reason why I think those guys trying to subvert the laws of romantic approach and be chased instead of chasing are looking to become unicorns. Groupies are the only women who approach and it's a rare phenomenon limited to the music industry and movies.
Tinder and many other similar dating apps eliminated this possibility. Pre-tinder most people had more of a chance simply by having more balls to approach. Now tinder makes it so all women can approach the GigaChad at the same time.
If gigachad is messaging her then they'd shoo you away at the bar and immerse themselves in the texting, otherwise the game stays the same, they have a protective mechanism which prevent them from getting too invested if a male doesn't provide them attention (regardless of power and attractiveness and fame)
Nature installed this mechanism because even though gigachad is everything, and you are just something...it's better to get 100% of something than 0% of everything.
It goes back to the African praries where it was necessary to also secure resources and protection for pregnancy and later on, not just healthy sperm
But for a one night stand women will approach the unicorn. This is the mode groupies are sort of operating under.
I have never seen this happen in real life with 0 alcohol involvement except for groupies in the music/film industry.
Most I have seen is that they try to show off and hangout in the very proximity, hoping that an organic conversation ensues, but they won't offer to buy a drink or be direct about it.
If the girl is like an 8 or a 9 she's never going to approach solely based off the fact that she never had to in her life.
Either way all women are swiping right only for the unicorns when on tinder. It's the modern equivalent of an approach and it tips the game in their favor. Prior to tinder women just got whoever approached them, with tinder they signal their intentions to the unicorns.
What this means is that only a few men are getting all the matches on tinder. The actual statistics, in fact, pan out this way.
But matches don't matter, even unicorns only have 24 hours in a day and 16 waking hours.
time spent having sex/cuddling/making out and sharing intimacy. That is what matters.
Of course in a perfect world you'd be the one on the receiving end of all those matches, but as I said not even unicorns can possibly take women out of circulation, it's a matter of physics and time, can't get around that.
The fact that from time to time a woman you are involved with will also be seeing or texting a unicorn can't be a reason to throw away the baby out with the bathwater.
At the end of the day it's the reason why we are anatomically shaped in the way we are, nature knew that an attractive woman would be seeing multiple men so it equipped us not to compete just physically or psychologically to secure exclusive access but also anatomically should that not be possible. Gotta trust your apparatus and your soldiers to do the job they were built to do, better than the opposition.
This. When women give dating advice they imagine themselves being asked out by an attractive guy. The thing is, the same exact action yields to two drastically different reaction depending on whether she considers the guy as a potential sexual partner or not.
For example, saying a little innuendo from the attractive male will be seen as flirting. The same remark from someone she's not attracted will be labeled as sexual harassment. And this is the case with every possible action. Touching her butt? Totally ok if she's into you. Better have a good lawyer otherwise.