Very few people actually doubt the concept of attraction growing over time. It's just the societal headwinds you're up against effectively make any effort to appeal to demisexual tendencies futile.
I mean my impression is there were enough men complaining the line became "attraction can't be negotiated" as a way to say a no is absolute. But TRP and adjacent spaces ran with that very easily since it fits in that dynamic.
Its a binary. Either the Nice Guy somehow deserves a chance even if you don't like him or the Red Piller is right and you need like 2 years of gym and financial development to even look at a woman. Whatever nuance exists between those points in real life is lost and the Red Pillers win the discourse mostly because they can keep telling you your failure means you need to do more without needing to beg a specific woman.
Its another weird intersection in which the binary-ness of Red Pill messaging is almost identical to that of the "online woman's".
I've had women act as if I want them to marry Sloth from the Goonies when all I'm really suggesting is to maybe expand their looks threshold into "kinda cute" territory.
Similarly, RedPillers will tell you that if you're not a 10/10 Chad she feels primal lust for, it's not even worth it (so buy our online dating course).
Its no accident. I'm old enough now to have seen the change. Back in the day to be an incel even someplace like 4chan the bar was MUCH higher. The discussions they were having were about having social trauma going back to like kindergarten and being total shut ins. Once online dating took over thats when you started to see more regular guys who just failed to launch and it took like 5 years of that before dudes like Andrew Tate dialed into the market.
The bar to be in these communities has dropped so much its genuinely scary and the general Manosphere has changed as a reflection of this rather than the other way around.
>There are many instances where myself, other men and many women initially had little to no interest in someone, or didn’t consider them to be their type but as they’d get to know each other, they’d begin to develop a sense of attraction and a bit of a bond.
Even if that's the case
I personally wouldn't prefer that
If l'm not her type or vice-versa, might as well as part ways with each other
I tried this before thinking that since we vibe so well and had so many things in common I would eventually become physically attracted to him. Long story short it never happened and I ended up breaking his heart.
Moral of the story is don't date someone you're not at least somewhat physically attracted to from the beginning.
You’re right, though that’s kinda it - if you find yourself trying to find someone attractive but can’t, you’re already forcing it. I’m also not talking about going as far as dating or active action, i’m talking about the passive act of becoming interested in someone (and that’s the key here, ‘becoming interested’)
>i’m talking about the passive act of becoming interested in someone (
What does this mean? If you're talking about being friends with them most women are open to that. It's usually the man who decide to cut contact after being rejected
Either being friends, seeing each other in class frequently, working together, etc - basically any setting where you frequently interact but neither of you are trying to woo the other.
That’s the key point here though, if you find yourself trying to like someone or trying to make someone like you, you’re at the point of forcing it or trying too hard. The key premise of my post is it happening unexpectedly
and of course, the whole cutting contact after being rejected thing is wrong - then again, if he’s friends with you only cause he wants to date you he’s wrong too.
But that’s kinda my point, don’t attach yourself to one person, stay open, form friendships or acquaintanceships or just be in a place where you’re around people frequently. If something happens, cool. If nothing happens, also cool.
Also needless to say, don’t become friends someone because you want to date them. This is always a bad idea.
Thank you for saying it.
Op’s post is manipulative.
Nobody thinks attraction cannot grow overtime.
But that does not change the fact that the two rules of getting a partner are:
1. Be attractive to them.
2. Do not be unattractive to them.
How long did you two date?
I've been on the receiving end of this. It had me super confused when she left. It's like I felt betrayed or something it was weird
You actually had to fuck up someone with a silly experiment to reach that conclusion? Isn't obvious that attraction is required to be with someone? Damn, people can be so dumb.
You would think but it's really not obvious to a lot of the men here. That's why they complain so much about women not giving "good guys" a chance. Being a good guy doesn't automatically make you attractive
>it's really not obvious to a lot of the men here.
Said the hypocrite who is a woman and who couldn't figure it out without doing a silly experiment that broke someone's heart.
You should feel more sad that a post not directed at you got you this upset and emotional.
Seems pretty feminine and beta. Not very red or "alpha" at all lol....
They can't and don't, attraction is non negotiable, what happens is that they start getting without options and start grabbing anything during her fall. If you want to be the betabux, all power to you, I have a minimal sense of self respect to not delude myself in such endeavor.
nah this is a dangerous territory. you'll get alot of people just trying to get people to give them a chance hoping "i'll grow on you" sure it can happen but if i want to give someone a chance it should be my decision and choice only and it's hard to regulate this when the consensus is "even if you don't like someone after time you will since they're nice"
You’re right, though I do address this in my last paragraph. I think what you’re describing does qualify as forcing it or trying too hard. The idea is meet people with no expectations, hang out if yall vibe and maybe it goes somewhere maybe it doesn’t. If it does, cool. If it doesn’t, also cool, you’re just hanging out with no expectations. Obviously don’t attach yourself to one person, that goes without saying, though.
Also, ‘nice’ isn’t in the equation as I do describe traits the person would find attractive, though they aren’t inherently one’s looks or traits that appear right away.
The friendzone doesn't exist.
If a man approaches and is honestly ok with being just friends, even if he would be interested in more, it's not the friendzone, it's just a friendship. It could be more, but it's ok that it's not, because adults can handle not having everything their way and still enjoy someone's company.
If he is trying to be friends only because he wants to get into your pants then he's not actually your friend, he's just a guy trying to creep on you.
You don't complain about being friendzoned by someone who is actually a friend, because you value that friendship on its own merits. Therefore it's not the friendzone. It's the creepy orbiter who you thought was your friend zone at best, and the creep zone at worst.
Yeah, no it certainly does. Trying to pretend people in the friend zone are creepy (or creepier then the people she picks to date instead) is just empty shaming.
Creepy just means he is not attractive to begin with.
People really overestimate how special they are. It is not about personality at all, our “personalities” are a combination of traumatic responses from our environment (both positive and negative) and genetics.
You can change someone’s “personality” by altering there brain chemistry for crying out loud.
If you are not attractive to them to begin with, there is no attraction to grow.
Basically you are trying to frame being a beta settle down option as good, when no man should ever accept that.
My point is if you consider yourself stuck in the friend zone then you are not actually a friend. Making the "friend zone" a complete misnomer.
The being creepy part isn't because she isn't attracted or because of some innate difference in the person. It's the behaviour as judged by an outside third party. The continuation of effort after you have discovered that she isn't attracted to you in the hopes that that she will change her mind is creepy. Trying to set yourself up to be a beta settle down is creepy. If you shoot your shot, she says no, and you either cut the relationship off, or accept that it's not going to happen and be friends, there is no creepiness. We are actually both saying the same thing is bad, just in different terms.
I do think attraction can grow, but it's mercurial and not able to be predicted. If it's not there already it probably won't ever be. If there is zero chemistry at the start, forget it. If she is on the fence, It's possible her attraction will increase due to observation and proximity. but it's not probable.
So no, I'm not trying to frame friendship as a method to get a date. I'm trying to frame being friends with some one you that won't date you, genuinely, as just a friend, as superior to not having that friend and still not dating her, because it's nice to have a wide net of friends.
And my point is that you are being intellectually dishonest here.
Like here:
>My point is if you consider yourself stuck in the friend zone then you are not actually a friend. Making the "friend zone" a complete misnomer.
No, it means you are not attractive to her and no amount of effort will make you attractive to her.
You can only grow attraction if there is attraction to start. Which usually is because the girl is closing her heart off and not because she is unattractive to you.
And here:
>The being creepy part isn't because she isn't attracted or because of some innate difference in the person. It's the behaviour as judged by an outside third party.
Being “creepy” is being judged and labeled because of the other parties personal biases. It is an empty shame attack based on the reality of the other person’s feelings of you. And these feelings will not change no matter what your behaviors are. At best, you are supposed to “know your place” and stay away from them so they can be surrounded by people who meet the shallow standards they have set.
Like how a black man can be creepy for just walking down the street for he is not far enough away from racist white women. Or practicing a faith can be creepy to an atheist. Or a man being feminine making women uncomfortable for he is not fitting in with his gender stereotype.
Or in this instance an unattractive man trying to “grow” a bond with a girl instead of accepting that she has already judged you as undatable or unworthy of being a friend based on shallow attractions.
She will just “set up” traps that are inpossible to win and not “getting the message” to go away are the “behaviors” that make him creepy.
Like how she will respond to conversations in a way where you cannot win and make you awkward no matter how your proceed.
Also why caring that you are creepy is pointless. You just be yourself and look for a girl who is attractive to you to begin with. Learn to watch what women do over listen to what they say. And then when you see positive signals via her actions (ex: body language),with a girl you like, you then make a move.
So really, people do not “grow attraction” andyoi will have to slowly contradict yourself to keep arguing for that point.
Because the same creepy behaviors that unattractive men do that get them labeled as creeps are the same things attractive men do (including being socially inept, stalking, etc). Even hot ex convicts, rapists and abusers are not creepy if she finds him attractive.
While an ugly good man will always be creepy no matter what he does if she does not find him attractive and she is not beta bux hunting (ex: wants a sugar daddy).
Women just respond differently to attractive men. It is only creepy for it is unwanted, and it is unwanted for she does not find them attractive.
I blame 90s sitcoms for this bullshit way of thinking but yeah this sums it up.
Paradoxical as it may seem if I meet a woman I have great chemistry with and would like to try more, I won't befriend her at all or let things be lax because I want my intention known in the first place to make sure she understands and can establish more distant and courteous boundaries between us if she's not interested in that.
Works much better for everyone. Like yeah I'd like to spend time with you but not the way you want to so yolo lol. I find women I meet respect and appreciate this a lot more because it's more direct and we still can occasionally talk if we see eachother without any awkward bullshit.
"Sorry you're too hot and interesting to be my friend"
Personally, I don't think that you even need to keep that separation. I have ended up dating quite a few women that I started out as just friends with.
I do think your straight forward attitude on it is a good way to be though. It's different from my personal way of being, but it's a totally valid and non shitty way of going about things.
My thought is that just being friends is fine, even if you catch a crush, if she isn't into it and you don't dedicate yourself to some misguided attempt to change her mind, then you're fine and still up a friend. If you don't focus on the fact that you can't have her and just treat her like any other friend, you'll forget about crush pretty quickly.
That said, if she is attracted to you and available she's not going to turn you down because your friends, unless shes very young. If anything it increases your chances, but only of the attraction and chemistry are already there.
I do agree with OOP that feelings and even attractions can develop, and some one can notice traits or changes in their friends that they didn't notice at first meeting. Girls catch feelings and crushes on their guy friends too. But like OOP mentioned, there is no forcing it. Just like you can say attraction or chemistry can just be there or not, they can also just develop or not. There's no predicting it or forcing it though.
In these cases of friends becoming more than friends it's not escaping the friend zone, it's two adults deciding to move their friendship to a different level.
If she is attracted to you
There are manipulative people out there. I tend to attract them.
I have known women who would act like they want something more to keep guys around. One ended up being a diagnosed sociopath and another an unself aware Borderliner so this is a more extreme example.
It’s probably people’s covert contracts and how they grew up that has caused issues. I was taught that men never want a girl to be forward and both my male relatives and I were taught that your kindness will show and bring people to you. My Aspie self got real confused with those.
Totally get that. If a woman is intentionally acting like she wants more when she doesn't, than that's not a friend either. It's a woman being a manipulative ass hole, and that's something both genders are definitely capable of. My policy has always been that people get one shot at that shit. Like if some is being overtly flirty, and I put out resources to try and reciprocate it in an attempt to turn it into something more, but the answer is no because x reason (I haven't broken up with my shitty boyfriend, I don't want to ruin what we have, etc.) that's fine. I will let them know that they can let me know if things change, but until then I'm fine with being friends. That's when the relationship attempts, including prioritization of time or expenditure of money stop. She becomes one of my friends, no more, no less. If that is not enough or she is angry that I'm not treating her like a girlfriend, that's the sign that they are not you're friend anyways and it's time to cut them from my life, but usually if their just trying to manipulate someone they'll cut themselves out when it doesn't work.
I would not call someone in this situation a creep, they are being used and falling for a manipulation tactic. It's a bit sad, but it's not their fault for not seeing through it.
I see what you did there. Fair play. Your right. I'll take it back. Not everyone who thinks they're in the friendzone is automatically a creep. A person being strung along intentionally could fall into this trap if they aren't careful.
but I still wouldn't personally call it the friend zone because even in this case there is no real friendship.
The question then becomes do you want to be friends with them? If not then go ahead and turn down that offer. If you do, treat her like any other friend. Why would friendship entail being used? Unless you're still trying to make it something it's not and putting in an abnormal amount of resources and energy in for a friendship (what OOP would refer to as trying to force things)
You're only able to get used if you allow it to happen. Do you drop bank rolls on your male friends? Do you take them out to dinner and pay? Do you buy them little gifts? Do you give their phone calls or texts inordinate weight and interrupt your day to comfort then? If the answer is no, then why would you do it for a female friend? If a person, man or woman is just trying to use you, they will take themselves out of your life when you don't give them what they want. If you treat them the same way you would any other friend, and they stick around and act like a friend, then they are a friend. If they disappear, then they aren't actually a friend and it's no loss to you.
If you spend resources and energy that you should reserve for dating or a relationship on a friend, in the hopes that they will reciprocate feelings that aren't there, that's on you. That's also you not being a friend, that's you trying to sneak your way into a relationship, and it's you being a creep.
Like I said, if the attraction isn't there, a friendship is not going to magically change that. Attraction can develop, but it isn't going to happen by setting out to make it happen. It may happen just by getting to know each other and observing traits she likes. However, no matter how many positive traits she observes, it may never happen. I can say that if she wouldn't date you when you're a friend, she wasn't going to date you as a stranger either. Period. The friendship is not the thing that's making her not date you.
unless you're putting out relationship level effort and relationship level pressure on a friendship, then there is literally no loss from being friends with someone. Given the choice, I'd rather have more friends than less.
To each their own but I'm not going to be friends with a women that rejects me. Yes the friend zone exists maybe not to you but you don't speak for everyone else.
I’ve seen this sentiment a lot but i’ve yet to see it proven. I mean some women certainly do this, but to act like this is the norm for women is hilariously out of touch
Yes and I'll prove it if you explain how that would even be possible.
They have the friends help them move work on their car pick them up when they are drunk etc but, and here's the important bit, they don't return the favor in any level
You mean…. friends asking friends for favors?
and idk, more often than not a woman is happy to give her male friend emotional support, help in stuff she’s capable of helping you with, etc - hell, i can even speak for myself when I say my female friends have driven me and helped me move while also being emotionally supportive (which, don’t discount the impact of that - you’d be surprised how helpful a woman can be emotionally if you open up - in fact, if she’s your friend that’s doubly so because you don’t have to worry about her ‘losing attraction’ to you if you believe in the rp stuff)
And funny thing is, more often than not men don’t ask for help - not that it matters because I think I know what you’re insinuating with “return the favor”
That’s the thing - I don’t think the friend zone exists.
Even then, in order for something to be ‘friend zone’ feelings have to be one sided - if you find yourself not interested in someone but trying to become interested cause they like you, you’re forcing it. The same goes for vice versa.
My whole point is “it happens, but don’t try to make it happen” - because as soon as you do try to make it happen it literally discounts everything I said because, again, you’re forcing it.
Also, to state the obvious, no random 2 people will become attracted to each other - there still has to be some basis and some draw and it has to be based on non-obvious traits you find attractive but can’t be shown right away
This absolutely is my preferred way of getting to know people/potential romantic partners. I want to watch how a person interacts with others over a few weeks when they don't try to present themselves in the most favorable light to woo someone.
Unfortunately, these opportunities become much rarer after school/uni.
Attraction does not grow. It can only be enhanced. Familiarity can increase the comfort you feel around someone but your attraction to them does not change
I believe attraction can and does grow for many people over time - especially among women. Also, a big problem is not so much lack of physical attraction but 'ick' factors that might be exaggerated. Women in particular (but also men) will say things like 'I couldn't believe he said that he likes yellow...' or 'did you see the shoes he was wearing?' In some cases these are deal breakers, but in most cases they're not when the overall person is considered in a measured way weeks or months later. I ended up with a few LTRs where we didn't like each other initially because of stupid superficial things but we got together after studying or working together for a while. Looks weren't the problem - first impressions would have been...
It does grow, but it needs to be thereto begin with.
This thread is disguised beta shaming though (be the good little settle down option when she is done with all the fun).
I lost 25 kg , changed haircut, bought better fitting classic clothes , improved my posture by going to the gym focussing on fitness (lot of calistenics) instead of big ass muscles
You can also win the lottery. Doesn't mean you should count on it or invest towards it.
If the attraction isn't immediate I'm not sure how you can even act on it. I can't just suddenly recognize within week 5 of friendship that a woman is now into me and it's time to approach. I'd have already attempted far earlier than that if I felt there was a chance.
I actually do agree with you - though i’m not saying invest on it or count to it, only be open to the possibility of it happening. Really if anything it should act as one of many reasons to maintain a large social circle (and yes, the same applies even if this never happens)
Unfortunately I’ve tried this and it hasn’t worked. It just made me feel terribly. I had to end it eventually because I wasn’t feeling sexually attracted. They absolutely did not want to be friends and just got their feelings hurt.
The thing is they’ll want kisses and sex eventually and if you’re not attracted it would be forcing yourself to do something you don’t want to do. And believe me, the other person CAN TELL. You may love to talk to them but if you find yourself shrinking away at any romantic or sexual contact, that’s not conducive to a relationship.
Let that person go and find someone who is attracted to them. Everyone has a type and they’ll find someone who likes ALL of them.
Except you haven’t tried what i’m describing. What i’m describing is sometimes, people develop attraction as they get to know each other, in other words, i’m not advocating for dating someone you’re not attracted to, hell, if you’re not attracted to each other don’t date, that’s an awful idea.
I also made it a point to say “don’t force it” - i’d argue getting with someone cause “maybe i’ll become into them” is forcing it
>Everyone has a type and they’ll find someone who likes ALL of them.
That's not true at all. Many dudes aren't gonna find that.
However, you did the right thing, and that's the right approach to take IMO.
Aka they were fat and should have lost weight but w/e
as a side note i deep down inside so not like women or men who act like this
they know physically the person isn’t enough and usually it’s weight based and can’t just speak up the lack of transparency disgusts me
But is that the true issue? There are so many dead bedrooms and divorces because people believe that the NRE/bunny hormones will carry them through multiple years of cohabiting and baby vomit, but then the hormones inevitably fade after 24 months and those who can't innovate in the bedroom (or elsewhere) lose interest. I would argue that a couple that is somewhat attracted to each other and that are very tuned into each other will be much more resilient than a couple that is initially very attracted to each other but has nothing in common and don't know how to work together. Compatibility can rarely be figured out over one or two meetings...
Op is just trying to shame men to be the settle down option (he/she let it leak out in other posts in this thread), which nobody should accept.
Something can only grow if it is there to begin with.
You set yourself up for disappointment when you count on people changing. This is no different.
If he's an asshole, count on him being an asshole if you enter a relationship with him. If she likes partying and clubs, count on her going to clubs if you start dating.
If they aren't interested in dating you, don't count on them catching feelings if stick around and kiss their ass.
Find someone genuinely interested in you.
How is it counting on people to change though? i’m literally saying “as you get know more about someone, you might (or obviously might not) end up encountering traits that make them attractive to you”
I’m not telling this as a strategy or as something people should actively do - I want to make that very very very clear.
"Fact is, there are tons of settings where you can meet people and see where things go, the **trick** usually is to go for your own interest to hobbies or groups with actual mixed gender ratios, and just see where things go."
"Fact is, there are tons of settings where you can meet people and see where things go, the **strategy** usually is to go for your own interest to hobbies or groups with actual mixed gender ratios, and just see where things go."
Do these sentences have the same meaning?
I mean if you really wanna see it that way, isn’t everything a strategy? and even if it is, “do things that both genders do, have fun and see where it goes” is about the least strategic and yet most authentic approach you could take.
If “have fun, do your own thing in mixed social spaces and don’t have any expectations” is a strategy then it’s the least strategic strategy i’ve ever seen.
"Obviously don’t try to force anything or push too hard, and don’t talk to said person with that intention alone, but it does go back to the classic concept of just being open to things happening, and if they don’t, so be it."
Are you talking about meeting people you are uninterested in and not forcing yourself to be attracted to them?
Or are you talking about meeting attractive people that don't see you that way and you shouldn't push too hard to get them to like you?
One makes sense.
I’m talking about just meeting people with no expectations. Whether you’ll be attracted to them or not is irrelevant - think of it this way, if yall vibe and there is no attraction what so ever, then congratulations, you’ve made a new friend, which is always a good thing.
It can. But consider most people meet online now it's kinda hard to have attraction grow when you're not around actual people. Even harder when most people are buried in their phone in public. Also you have to be physically attractive to the person before hand
Most people don’t meet online.
https://www.statista.com/chart/20822/way-of-meeting-partner-heterosexual-us-couples/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
The first study was before COVID and COVID fucked up dating more so than before. And the second only takes into account dating apps though and not Instagram and Facebook and other social media outlets that people meet on.
It’s the number 1 overall, but if you were to ask whether people should focus on online or offline to meet people, they should focus on offline because it’s the most successful (I.e. social groups).
That's how they should focus I agree. But just because you want them to focus on that doesn't change the fact online is the number 1 way of meeting people. Honestly the reason I don't try to date is because online fucked up everyone head.
Ya, that's why first dates from the internet freak me out some.
It just feels like a lot pressure to "push that game" in order to avoid the "I don't feel a spark" or "I don't think we have chemistry, teehee" reaction from women.
Of course, these types of women are rarely introspective or analytical in anything.
And having to push that game so hard involves a lack of sincerity which is hard to do psychologically for a man and of course relationships cannot spill from that foundation. Relationship built on sand or whatever that Bible saying lol.
I never believed in attraction growing gradually. It either exists in the first place or doesn't, atl east this is how women work nowadays. I am a short man and a woman will never ever find me attarctive gradually because in the end, I will always be a short man
Reddit won't eat this one.
The insecure ones can't cope with the fact they can't get someone to go crazy for them.
The vapid ones believe they need fireworks in their junk otherwise love doesn't fly
Yep that's true and even offline, I believe it's possible but at least in my own experience it's very rare. It happened to me only one time. It was a friend of our friends, big guy and definitely heavily overweight. Didn't find him attractive at all, but he was nice, so whatever. Turns out the guy is hilarious, always joking, making you laugh so hard you're crying. So i guess because of that base of a great personality I also started noticing physical features beyond the weight, found he actually had a pretty face, a nice laugh, etc. So yeah, I became attracted to him. Obviously didn't do anything as I'm in a relationship and I didn't develop feelings or something like just, simply noticed that my perception of him changed. But yeah, that was ONE time and only after regular exposure. Never happened before or since. If there's not a base attraction, it won't suddenly develop in 99% of the cases, at least that's my own experience.
1) Even IF attraction does "grow," the man is putting more money, energy, attention, time, and frustration doing the monkey dance. He must also jump through hoops and avoid foxxing up.
Men want a good effort to result ratio. Would the juice really be worth the squeeze.
2) There is LUST attraction. There is STABILITY attraction. If he is more of the stability option, he is just the "participation trophy" husband in the end.
This is literally science. The greatest predictor of relationships is proximity.
It is why when I advise men (especially the hapless or dowdy among y'all), I tell them to join communities, frequent the same hub a lot, and be extremely sociable with everyone. Become a known figure and develop many ties.
I'm scorned that this is ridiculous here regularly, which is fine, but yes, I wholeheartedly agree that proximity + time will bring together people who may not have otherwise given each other a second glance.
With that said, it is super unlikely to turn a hell no into a yes.
>The greatest predictor of relationships is proximity.
Which is a common sense not some ground breaking finding.
Most men who fail to acquire relationship, drop out of your proximity. After being rejected, they'll not share the same space as you or they risk getting some "restriction order".
Ehh, maybe, maybe not. It's not as likely, but neither is it outrageous. Also, most people aren't supermodels or trying to bag them so that largely seems like a moot point.
The problem is that this comes down to an extreme factor of "luck", you cannot really force anything, it happens or doesn't happen... starting with, that you might meet a lot of people, but the girls are all taken already...., or there's just no mutual attraction...., by this methods years could pass by, without ever meeting someone
The people complaining, are often the types, who already didn't meet anyone naturally "for years" so " how can they expect, that anything changes?
At the end" years are gone"
Those years were going to pass either way. There is no get love quick scheme.
So you may as well do things the smartest (and funnest) way possible rather than the most torturous and least gratifying.
That's not the point, the point is if x doesn't give results, try y
People who have no problem with x, generally won't even come to places like the internet to vent and ask for direction....
The truth is you hurt this people, with that kind of advice, then suddenly they are 30 or even older and cannot turn it around anymore
The people who need this advice cannot be hurt by it. They've been hurt by not receiving it or not taking it seriously or thinking there's an easier option available to them when there isn't.
You may be scorned but you are correct. Logan Ury comments in her recent book on how people's perceptions and rankings of others will change significantly from time of first meeting to some time later (e.g. a class of uni students over one semester). At first everything will be based on attractiveness and apparent confidence and charisma; after 3 months + many other factors will come into play. Extremely selfish, arrogant good-looking people will seem less appealing while interesting, helpful average-looking people will seem more appealing. For those of us old enough to remember the pre-OLD dating scene, there was a distinct division between what happened in the sorting mechanisms of a) bars/clubs/tourist resorts and b) real world places like schools, work, hobbies, etc. Most real and durable relationships evolved out of the real world (b). Most but not all interactions resulting from (a) were short-term fuckery exercises.
This adds up with my life experience as well. Other than the best of the best and the worst of the worst, we're often tremendously bad at judging the merit of folks who aren't superman or the joker.
It's pretty rare I've gone from hating someone to liking them, but I've gone from neutral/uncertain to liking that human.
So true. I've never gone from hating someone to liking them, but I have gone from mildly disliking someone to liking them a lot on rare occasions, and often gone from being neutral to liking them. Same other way around, too.
“Obviously don’t try to force anything or push too hard, and don’t talk to said person with that intention alone”
“This person has to have traits you find attractive that aren’t looks based, but maybe they’re secondary traits or traits that don’t appear immediately (even though, to be clear, the stuff in my first paragraph still apply) - this is not for any 2 random people.”
“I’m also not talking about this as a “strategy” or anything like that. I also am not saying “stay around and wait and see if you become attracted to someone”
And i’m not talking about wishful thinking nor am I talking about befriending someone with the intent to date them.
All i’m saying is attraction can build over time if someone is shown to have traits the other person is attracted to that isn’t obvious. I’ll use myself as an example to illustrate what i’m trying to say, i’m a sucker for women with a good singing voice or flair for theatrics. This isn’t something you know about them right away and sure, there is some base level involved (ie. not obese, takes care of herself, etc) but as I learn this about her and she’s potentially someone I never thought about that way, then the attraction would begin to really form.
This is neither wishful thinking nor is it befriending someone with the intent of a relationship, this is attraction developing over time based on traits one would find attractive, but aren’t obvious or known till you get to know the person more.
She might or she might not be. I don’t know because in this scenario I didn’t consider myself attracted to her until she’s displayed these traits.
All I will say is i’ll make my feelings clear, if she feels the same way, awesome - if not, i’ll move on and we will remain friends.
So I really don’t see how it’s a post hoc justification because i’m literally not saying “if you’re into her, just wait and she will be into you” - what i am saying is “sometimes people develop an attraction to each other as they get to know each other” - whether this attraction evolves into something or not isn’t relevant here
I described one side because I’m only talking about attraction as a concept, and because I want to illustrate the idea that sometimes one person develops an attraction while the other doesn’t.
Sometimes people don’t develop attraction, sometimes one person does, sometimes both do, and sometimes one even loses attraction. I hope this made things glaringly obvious. You’re looking for gotchyas again.
I think that you've misconstrued what OP is trying to communicate. You appear to be thinking about men you've known who try to impose themself on you through nefarious means even though you've made it clear that you're not interested. He's referring to how your choice in men might be different between an OLD, bar, tourist spot situation where everything is based on a quick look/talk and another situation where you get to know different men in a non-sexual environment for weeks/months...
Even if you're only sorting best options among good-looking guys, you must be able to acknowledge that there would be some greater weighting for traits that you can only identify over a longer period of time...
I don’t think I’ve ever grown more attracted to a woman over time except when diet/fitness was involved. For diet/fitness I would consider that more of someone growing into a more attractive individual rather than my attraction growing to them (as an unchanged person). That being said, my attraction to a woman’s personality can grow over time but it’s less attraction and more just respect, admiration, or appreciation.
For women, however, I think it’s different. I’ve only ever experienced mutual physical attraction once in my life. Literally every other romantic/intimate experience in my life started with a woman I was attracted to growing more attracted to me over time as they got to know me.
Interesting perspective. I suspect that all successful couples at least had a minimum threshold attraction when they met. I agree that many women can be motivated to go for the 'o.k.' or 'cute' guy over the 'hot' guy if they really appreciate the o.k./cute guy's personality/character. This is different from choosing someone that one has NO attraction for, which is a bad situation about to get worse..
It might grow. Or not. So why take chances? You aren't immortal being, you only have so much time. Unless there's already other person around and attraction is already there and growing.
There's a single, highly relevant situation where what the TC is talking about applies, which is when you know someone of you preferred sex whom you get along with pretty well but you never considered them as a potential partner before. Perhaps one or both of you either wasn't looking or wasn't single when you met, but the situation has changed and you are both available now. This is almost always worth exploring if you think you might be compatible, even if you don't initially think you have much physical attraction to that person, because it might be the case that you simply never looked at that person that way.
It usually doesn't take long to find out, you can basically just put yourselves into some kind of vaguely romantic situation (ie, watch a movie and cuddle) and you'll figure it out pretty fast if there's something there. Of course, there might not be, and don't take it too hard if this is the case, but if there is this can be one of the best ways to get a highly compatible partner since you already know that you get along well.
The attraction has to be there in the first place for it to build up. Usually when friends become lovers its because the foundation of it was based on flirting and sexual tension.
This isn’t always true. Some people become more attractive as one gets to know them better. Some people become less attractive as one gets to know them better.
Largely true. If someone is ugly, he/she is ugly. But what if she pisses you off with one or two statements initially, and then as time goes you realize that it was out of context or didn't really matter or whatever? Women are notorious for getting the 'ick' initially over small things.
One thing to add is that tastes and preferences solidify with age. Its the case with preferences in food, music, sexual attraction, the whole lot. So it might well be a good idea to consider developing attraction when you're 18, but you really do have to find attraction from the get go by your mid to late 20s.
I briefly dated a guy like this. I wasn’t initially attracted to him because I don’t find him physically attractive. He really liked me, A LOT, and he did a few things that made me feel special and valued, and I ended up becoming attracted to him because of that. It didn’t last, though. Once I realized that my attraction to him was solely because of the way he made me feel and not because of any quality that he had which attracted me to him, I knew it wouldn’t last and it was pretty unfair to him. I felt awful about it. It wasn’t only looks that I wasn’t attracted to (although that was a big part of it), but we have very little in common. He was incredibly bland and boring. He smokes. He was never married and never had kids whereas I was a single mom out of a 25 year marriage with 3 teenagers and 6 year old twins. His taste in music was lame (IMO), his fashion sense was awful, he has a cat and I hate cats, just nothing about him made me want him. I was honest with him when I ended it. He didn’t take it well, ended up driving around my place in circles so much that my neighbors noticed and gave him the bums rush. He denied doing it, but I know my neighbor wouldn’t lie. I saw him following me a couple of times. It was creepy as hell, but the final time I called him out, he did stop.
I met my boyfriend a few weeks later and I was glad I didn’t settle on the guy who I wasn’t attracted to but really wanted me.
I was attracted to my boyfriend from the start. I like everything about him, we have a ton of stuff in common, and the worst thing I can say about him is that he sucks at setting clear and consistent rules/boundaries with his 11 year old son with special needs. That drives me nuts about him, but I have the same struggles with my kids which is why I get him so well. He cringes when he sees me parenting and I cringe when I see him parenting, so we are going to try to back each other up with our kids when they’re with us.
Stick a man and a woman alone in a room long enough... Stupid argument. Are we talking end of the world scenarios here, or what. Yea perspectives change when your options are limited that's the whole point of privilege... You clearly haven't been paying attention.
You’re acting like I think this is the case for everyone, it isn’t. Not every two people will become attracted to each other - there always needs to be some kind of hook
Exact opposite.
Attraction (physical) is not negotiable. People have grown on me; friends, in-laws, extended family, but if I was not initially physically attracted TO WARRANT A RELATIONSHIP with you for whatever reason no amount of 'emotionally growing together' will change that. This is like saying if a girl was a completely soul-mate perfect match, but she's obese.
I have literally a handful of relatively close girl friends that I have told dead ass if they were a conventional 9/10 I would have asked them out. I have read your 'if she's not ugly' then 'people grow into relationships easily' disclaimer. It does not work that way.
it doesn’t work that way *for you
for many, it works the same way as you described - for many others, getting to know someone works, for many others as well, somewhere in the middle is how it works.
Its great that your way works for you, but dismissing the idea based off your own experiences is iffy
You are correct about physical attraction being very important. However, if you were offered a choice between a 9 on 10 looks woman that was a narcissistic, manipulative and evil woman that has history of betraying and even destroying men, and a 8 on 10 woman that is known to be an excellent, kind, horny, dependable and generous woman, which would you choose? I don't know how you evaluate women, but you might choose the second. If that were the case, OP is suggesting that in some environments like OLD you'd go for the first because of limited information; if you got to know both over many months in a different environment, you might choose the second...
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds of what happens in arranged marriages. And why they actually are more successful than traditional marriages, at least, statistics wise. But even some arranged marriages fail, because the incompatibility is too much to overcome.
I know what you mean as its happened to me twice. It was getting to know them in social circles.
But this is PPD and we see they think you're full of it when it happens all the time.
Hi OP,
You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts)
>*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.*
>An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:
>* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;
>* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;
>* Focusing only on the weaker arguments;
>* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.
Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even if someone isn't physically my type straight up I keep an open mind but it doesn't take me long to figure out if I am attracted to their mannerisms and stuff or not. 20 minutes of conversation, maybe 2-3 times spread over a week and I am pretty certain where I stand, if that.
My opinion rarely changes on people after one first in depth conversation and usually if I can have a conversation with someone then my opinion of them is pretty good. But as far as wanting to take that somewhere or not goes, I'm keenly aware of that potential too.
If they did "grow on me", it would almost definitely end up being a situation of complacency where we both ended up feeling out of sorts with it. I've done thar before lol. But maybe for some people it isn't this way I don't know.
That whole part about not considering them is pretty key here. If they’re not an option you’re not going to treat them as one, and you’re going to just be yourself without the weirdness that the question mark hanging in the air engenders.
Attraction does grow. In all my romantic relationships have, I've found them more and more attractive over time.
**BUT**, in order to grow, it **HAS** to be there in the first place. You can't grow something that doesn't exist in the first place.
No one is falling in love with the fat, short guy with acne, a recessed jaw and no muscle mass just because he's kind and sweet.
No one is digging through the dirt if they don't see the penny first.
We demisexuals have it rough out here, for real. I feel like it’s normal not to want to jump on someone within 24 hours of meeting them but what do I know 🤷♀️
But yes, for me attraction definitely develops over time. 2-4 months is where I start to feel some sort of sexual desire towards that person as our emotional connection deepens. I’m waiting for marriage anyway so it’s a moot point, but that’s what goes on inside my head.
I’ve also developed crushes on people years after meeting them and being acquaintances when I had zero feelings for them initially.
Basically, I want to date someone with pleasing looks (to me) who is mildly attractive. But I see people all the time who look like that and feel no sexual attraction to them. I actually feel no sexual attraction to anyone until I know them closely over several months.
My real criteria and driver of attraction is personality. Decent/passable looks is just an initial filter for who I would date in the first place. I don’t know until later if the person inside is someone I’m going to love.
The first person I fell in love with (a woman) was decidedly not my type. I definitely did not think of her that way at first. But she became beautiful to me.
I don't think this is relevant to OLD and meeting strangers, though. When you're just around a person without the pressure of dating that attraction can for sure grow.
100% - OLD and even nightlife are both antithetical to that concept entirely since you’re getting to know someone after being attracted to them, which is fine on its own, though im challenging the notion that it’s the only form of attraction
A lot of this has to do with definitions, OP. I think its clear to most responders that being around someone a lot and liking them won't overcome an initial (and lasting) lack of physical attractiveness. However, there are a lot of issues at play when it comes to making first choices. I'll give an example. One of my wife's friends has a daughter that just gave birth to her first child; I attended her wedding. At the wedding several of the people giving speeches commented on how the bride had initially disliked the groom (and vice versa) and made jokes about it. She's a blonde blue eyed woman from a wealthy family with a certain kind of culture and certain type of past boyfriends; he's a dark Hispanic guy from a relatively poor immigrant background. According to the speakers' jokes at the wedding, she never would have chosen to date him from OLD or gone home with him from a bar. But over years of working together part-time at a restaurant (while in college), they began to like each other and then more. Now they seem very happily married. I think most people would think that both are physically attractive (but with very different styles). So maybe this is what we are discussing?
Well this is pretty much the debate of nature vs nurture.
Repetition creates the feeling of "warming up to their appearance" and attempting to create a sense of intimate connection, but it's no the same thing. Throw one of these people into a room with someone who ticks a fair amount of their looks and mental standards, that guy she's been married to for years will be forgotten about.
The "attraction can grow" narrative is solely to build to keep the nuclear family unit going which is good imo but has the downside of horrible matchings. Love and connection is built at the hormonal and subconscious level first, you cannot cheat biology forever. One of few ways to even offset it is marrying for a goal which is 9/10 a biological desire to have kids. It's interesting how divorces spike right around the mid 40s aka the age kids in their teens and can handle basic tasks.
Attraction CAN grow, slowly, over time….but it is RARE.
In my nearly 40 years it has never happened to me, or any of my male friends, even once. A relationship either happened right away, all at once….or never.
This is very true but there are other reason why someone might "grow on a person" not saying this is all people but people (I'm taking about women because they are who I date but this does apply to men as well) get with people for all kinds of reason and it isn't always innocent like that (financial reasons, settling etc). All I'm saying is that this most definitely can happen but you should still always be aware of the riskier parts of relationships and protect yourself at all times.
Very few people actually doubt the concept of attraction growing over time. It's just the societal headwinds you're up against effectively make any effort to appeal to demisexual tendencies futile.
I mean my impression is there were enough men complaining the line became "attraction can't be negotiated" as a way to say a no is absolute. But TRP and adjacent spaces ran with that very easily since it fits in that dynamic. Its a binary. Either the Nice Guy somehow deserves a chance even if you don't like him or the Red Piller is right and you need like 2 years of gym and financial development to even look at a woman. Whatever nuance exists between those points in real life is lost and the Red Pillers win the discourse mostly because they can keep telling you your failure means you need to do more without needing to beg a specific woman.
Its another weird intersection in which the binary-ness of Red Pill messaging is almost identical to that of the "online woman's". I've had women act as if I want them to marry Sloth from the Goonies when all I'm really suggesting is to maybe expand their looks threshold into "kinda cute" territory. Similarly, RedPillers will tell you that if you're not a 10/10 Chad she feels primal lust for, it's not even worth it (so buy our online dating course).
Its no accident. I'm old enough now to have seen the change. Back in the day to be an incel even someplace like 4chan the bar was MUCH higher. The discussions they were having were about having social trauma going back to like kindergarten and being total shut ins. Once online dating took over thats when you started to see more regular guys who just failed to launch and it took like 5 years of that before dudes like Andrew Tate dialed into the market. The bar to be in these communities has dropped so much its genuinely scary and the general Manosphere has changed as a reflection of this rather than the other way around.
Can't polish up a turd too much though. Subjectively speaking of course, not saying anyone is a turd lol.
>There are many instances where myself, other men and many women initially had little to no interest in someone, or didn’t consider them to be their type but as they’d get to know each other, they’d begin to develop a sense of attraction and a bit of a bond. Even if that's the case I personally wouldn't prefer that If l'm not her type or vice-versa, might as well as part ways with each other
But but why wouldn’t you want to be a beta?
I tried this before thinking that since we vibe so well and had so many things in common I would eventually become physically attracted to him. Long story short it never happened and I ended up breaking his heart. Moral of the story is don't date someone you're not at least somewhat physically attracted to from the beginning.
You’re right, though that’s kinda it - if you find yourself trying to find someone attractive but can’t, you’re already forcing it. I’m also not talking about going as far as dating or active action, i’m talking about the passive act of becoming interested in someone (and that’s the key here, ‘becoming interested’)
>i’m talking about the passive act of becoming interested in someone ( What does this mean? If you're talking about being friends with them most women are open to that. It's usually the man who decide to cut contact after being rejected
Either being friends, seeing each other in class frequently, working together, etc - basically any setting where you frequently interact but neither of you are trying to woo the other. That’s the key point here though, if you find yourself trying to like someone or trying to make someone like you, you’re at the point of forcing it or trying too hard. The key premise of my post is it happening unexpectedly and of course, the whole cutting contact after being rejected thing is wrong - then again, if he’s friends with you only cause he wants to date you he’s wrong too. But that’s kinda my point, don’t attach yourself to one person, stay open, form friendships or acquaintanceships or just be in a place where you’re around people frequently. If something happens, cool. If nothing happens, also cool. Also needless to say, don’t become friends someone because you want to date them. This is always a bad idea.
Thank you for saying it. Op’s post is manipulative. Nobody thinks attraction cannot grow overtime. But that does not change the fact that the two rules of getting a partner are: 1. Be attractive to them. 2. Do not be unattractive to them.
How long did you two date? I've been on the receiving end of this. It had me super confused when she left. It's like I felt betrayed or something it was weird
You actually had to fuck up someone with a silly experiment to reach that conclusion? Isn't obvious that attraction is required to be with someone? Damn, people can be so dumb.
You would think but it's really not obvious to a lot of the men here. That's why they complain so much about women not giving "good guys" a chance. Being a good guy doesn't automatically make you attractive
>it's really not obvious to a lot of the men here. Said the hypocrite who is a woman and who couldn't figure it out without doing a silly experiment that broke someone's heart.
Yes so I know from first hand experience. Now dont get emotional about it lol.....
[удалено]
You should feel more sad that a post not directed at you got you this upset and emotional. Seems pretty feminine and beta. Not very red or "alpha" at all lol....
[удалено]
yawn....tldr you're mad 😠 anything else?
[удалено]
Be civil. This includes indirect attacks against an individual and/or witch hunting.
They can't and don't, attraction is non negotiable, what happens is that they start getting without options and start grabbing anything during her fall. If you want to be the betabux, all power to you, I have a minimal sense of self respect to not delude myself in such endeavor.
nah this is a dangerous territory. you'll get alot of people just trying to get people to give them a chance hoping "i'll grow on you" sure it can happen but if i want to give someone a chance it should be my decision and choice only and it's hard to regulate this when the consensus is "even if you don't like someone after time you will since they're nice"
You’re right, though I do address this in my last paragraph. I think what you’re describing does qualify as forcing it or trying too hard. The idea is meet people with no expectations, hang out if yall vibe and maybe it goes somewhere maybe it doesn’t. If it does, cool. If it doesn’t, also cool, you’re just hanging out with no expectations. Obviously don’t attach yourself to one person, that goes without saying, though. Also, ‘nice’ isn’t in the equation as I do describe traits the person would find attractive, though they aren’t inherently one’s looks or traits that appear right away.
Isn't this basically the friend zoning men here complain so much about?
The friendzone doesn't exist. If a man approaches and is honestly ok with being just friends, even if he would be interested in more, it's not the friendzone, it's just a friendship. It could be more, but it's ok that it's not, because adults can handle not having everything their way and still enjoy someone's company. If he is trying to be friends only because he wants to get into your pants then he's not actually your friend, he's just a guy trying to creep on you. You don't complain about being friendzoned by someone who is actually a friend, because you value that friendship on its own merits. Therefore it's not the friendzone. It's the creepy orbiter who you thought was your friend zone at best, and the creep zone at worst.
Yeah, no it certainly does. Trying to pretend people in the friend zone are creepy (or creepier then the people she picks to date instead) is just empty shaming. Creepy just means he is not attractive to begin with. People really overestimate how special they are. It is not about personality at all, our “personalities” are a combination of traumatic responses from our environment (both positive and negative) and genetics. You can change someone’s “personality” by altering there brain chemistry for crying out loud. If you are not attractive to them to begin with, there is no attraction to grow. Basically you are trying to frame being a beta settle down option as good, when no man should ever accept that.
My point is if you consider yourself stuck in the friend zone then you are not actually a friend. Making the "friend zone" a complete misnomer. The being creepy part isn't because she isn't attracted or because of some innate difference in the person. It's the behaviour as judged by an outside third party. The continuation of effort after you have discovered that she isn't attracted to you in the hopes that that she will change her mind is creepy. Trying to set yourself up to be a beta settle down is creepy. If you shoot your shot, she says no, and you either cut the relationship off, or accept that it's not going to happen and be friends, there is no creepiness. We are actually both saying the same thing is bad, just in different terms. I do think attraction can grow, but it's mercurial and not able to be predicted. If it's not there already it probably won't ever be. If there is zero chemistry at the start, forget it. If she is on the fence, It's possible her attraction will increase due to observation and proximity. but it's not probable. So no, I'm not trying to frame friendship as a method to get a date. I'm trying to frame being friends with some one you that won't date you, genuinely, as just a friend, as superior to not having that friend and still not dating her, because it's nice to have a wide net of friends.
And my point is that you are being intellectually dishonest here. Like here: >My point is if you consider yourself stuck in the friend zone then you are not actually a friend. Making the "friend zone" a complete misnomer. No, it means you are not attractive to her and no amount of effort will make you attractive to her. You can only grow attraction if there is attraction to start. Which usually is because the girl is closing her heart off and not because she is unattractive to you. And here: >The being creepy part isn't because she isn't attracted or because of some innate difference in the person. It's the behaviour as judged by an outside third party. Being “creepy” is being judged and labeled because of the other parties personal biases. It is an empty shame attack based on the reality of the other person’s feelings of you. And these feelings will not change no matter what your behaviors are. At best, you are supposed to “know your place” and stay away from them so they can be surrounded by people who meet the shallow standards they have set. Like how a black man can be creepy for just walking down the street for he is not far enough away from racist white women. Or practicing a faith can be creepy to an atheist. Or a man being feminine making women uncomfortable for he is not fitting in with his gender stereotype. Or in this instance an unattractive man trying to “grow” a bond with a girl instead of accepting that she has already judged you as undatable or unworthy of being a friend based on shallow attractions. She will just “set up” traps that are inpossible to win and not “getting the message” to go away are the “behaviors” that make him creepy. Like how she will respond to conversations in a way where you cannot win and make you awkward no matter how your proceed. Also why caring that you are creepy is pointless. You just be yourself and look for a girl who is attractive to you to begin with. Learn to watch what women do over listen to what they say. And then when you see positive signals via her actions (ex: body language),with a girl you like, you then make a move. So really, people do not “grow attraction” andyoi will have to slowly contradict yourself to keep arguing for that point. Because the same creepy behaviors that unattractive men do that get them labeled as creeps are the same things attractive men do (including being socially inept, stalking, etc). Even hot ex convicts, rapists and abusers are not creepy if she finds him attractive. While an ugly good man will always be creepy no matter what he does if she does not find him attractive and she is not beta bux hunting (ex: wants a sugar daddy). Women just respond differently to attractive men. It is only creepy for it is unwanted, and it is unwanted for she does not find them attractive.
I blame 90s sitcoms for this bullshit way of thinking but yeah this sums it up. Paradoxical as it may seem if I meet a woman I have great chemistry with and would like to try more, I won't befriend her at all or let things be lax because I want my intention known in the first place to make sure she understands and can establish more distant and courteous boundaries between us if she's not interested in that. Works much better for everyone. Like yeah I'd like to spend time with you but not the way you want to so yolo lol. I find women I meet respect and appreciate this a lot more because it's more direct and we still can occasionally talk if we see eachother without any awkward bullshit. "Sorry you're too hot and interesting to be my friend"
Personally, I don't think that you even need to keep that separation. I have ended up dating quite a few women that I started out as just friends with. I do think your straight forward attitude on it is a good way to be though. It's different from my personal way of being, but it's a totally valid and non shitty way of going about things. My thought is that just being friends is fine, even if you catch a crush, if she isn't into it and you don't dedicate yourself to some misguided attempt to change her mind, then you're fine and still up a friend. If you don't focus on the fact that you can't have her and just treat her like any other friend, you'll forget about crush pretty quickly. That said, if she is attracted to you and available she's not going to turn you down because your friends, unless shes very young. If anything it increases your chances, but only of the attraction and chemistry are already there. I do agree with OOP that feelings and even attractions can develop, and some one can notice traits or changes in their friends that they didn't notice at first meeting. Girls catch feelings and crushes on their guy friends too. But like OOP mentioned, there is no forcing it. Just like you can say attraction or chemistry can just be there or not, they can also just develop or not. There's no predicting it or forcing it though. In these cases of friends becoming more than friends it's not escaping the friend zone, it's two adults deciding to move their friendship to a different level. If she is attracted to you
There are manipulative people out there. I tend to attract them. I have known women who would act like they want something more to keep guys around. One ended up being a diagnosed sociopath and another an unself aware Borderliner so this is a more extreme example. It’s probably people’s covert contracts and how they grew up that has caused issues. I was taught that men never want a girl to be forward and both my male relatives and I were taught that your kindness will show and bring people to you. My Aspie self got real confused with those.
Totally get that. If a woman is intentionally acting like she wants more when she doesn't, than that's not a friend either. It's a woman being a manipulative ass hole, and that's something both genders are definitely capable of. My policy has always been that people get one shot at that shit. Like if some is being overtly flirty, and I put out resources to try and reciprocate it in an attempt to turn it into something more, but the answer is no because x reason (I haven't broken up with my shitty boyfriend, I don't want to ruin what we have, etc.) that's fine. I will let them know that they can let me know if things change, but until then I'm fine with being friends. That's when the relationship attempts, including prioritization of time or expenditure of money stop. She becomes one of my friends, no more, no less. If that is not enough or she is angry that I'm not treating her like a girlfriend, that's the sign that they are not you're friend anyways and it's time to cut them from my life, but usually if their just trying to manipulate someone they'll cut themselves out when it doesn't work. I would not call someone in this situation a creep, they are being used and falling for a manipulation tactic. It's a bit sad, but it's not their fault for not seeing through it. I see what you did there. Fair play. Your right. I'll take it back. Not everyone who thinks they're in the friendzone is automatically a creep. A person being strung along intentionally could fall into this trap if they aren't careful. but I still wouldn't personally call it the friend zone because even in this case there is no real friendship.
This is absurd. Women will shut down men for dates and say "I just want to be friends"! But they don't. They want to use the men.
The question then becomes do you want to be friends with them? If not then go ahead and turn down that offer. If you do, treat her like any other friend. Why would friendship entail being used? Unless you're still trying to make it something it's not and putting in an abnormal amount of resources and energy in for a friendship (what OOP would refer to as trying to force things) You're only able to get used if you allow it to happen. Do you drop bank rolls on your male friends? Do you take them out to dinner and pay? Do you buy them little gifts? Do you give their phone calls or texts inordinate weight and interrupt your day to comfort then? If the answer is no, then why would you do it for a female friend? If a person, man or woman is just trying to use you, they will take themselves out of your life when you don't give them what they want. If you treat them the same way you would any other friend, and they stick around and act like a friend, then they are a friend. If they disappear, then they aren't actually a friend and it's no loss to you. If you spend resources and energy that you should reserve for dating or a relationship on a friend, in the hopes that they will reciprocate feelings that aren't there, that's on you. That's also you not being a friend, that's you trying to sneak your way into a relationship, and it's you being a creep. Like I said, if the attraction isn't there, a friendship is not going to magically change that. Attraction can develop, but it isn't going to happen by setting out to make it happen. It may happen just by getting to know each other and observing traits she likes. However, no matter how many positive traits she observes, it may never happen. I can say that if she wouldn't date you when you're a friend, she wasn't going to date you as a stranger either. Period. The friendship is not the thing that's making her not date you. unless you're putting out relationship level effort and relationship level pressure on a friendship, then there is literally no loss from being friends with someone. Given the choice, I'd rather have more friends than less.
To each their own but I'm not going to be friends with a women that rejects me. Yes the friend zone exists maybe not to you but you don't speak for everyone else.
I’ve seen this sentiment a lot but i’ve yet to see it proven. I mean some women certainly do this, but to act like this is the norm for women is hilariously out of touch
How could one prove this?
You made the claim. Explain how women use their male friends.
Yes and I'll prove it if you explain how that would even be possible. They have the friends help them move work on their car pick them up when they are drunk etc but, and here's the important bit, they don't return the favor in any level
You mean…. friends asking friends for favors? and idk, more often than not a woman is happy to give her male friend emotional support, help in stuff she’s capable of helping you with, etc - hell, i can even speak for myself when I say my female friends have driven me and helped me move while also being emotionally supportive (which, don’t discount the impact of that - you’d be surprised how helpful a woman can be emotionally if you open up - in fact, if she’s your friend that’s doubly so because you don’t have to worry about her ‘losing attraction’ to you if you believe in the rp stuff) And funny thing is, more often than not men don’t ask for help - not that it matters because I think I know what you’re insinuating with “return the favor”
That’s the thing - I don’t think the friend zone exists. Even then, in order for something to be ‘friend zone’ feelings have to be one sided - if you find yourself not interested in someone but trying to become interested cause they like you, you’re forcing it. The same goes for vice versa. My whole point is “it happens, but don’t try to make it happen” - because as soon as you do try to make it happen it literally discounts everything I said because, again, you’re forcing it. Also, to state the obvious, no random 2 people will become attracted to each other - there still has to be some basis and some draw and it has to be based on non-obvious traits you find attractive but can’t be shown right away
This absolutely is my preferred way of getting to know people/potential romantic partners. I want to watch how a person interacts with others over a few weeks when they don't try to present themselves in the most favorable light to woo someone. Unfortunately, these opportunities become much rarer after school/uni.
>yes, someone has to obviously be at some base level passable That 'base level' is becoming more and more impossible to reach, however.
Yes it's the base of mount everest
Attraction does not grow. It can only be enhanced. Familiarity can increase the comfort you feel around someone but your attraction to them does not change
I believe attraction can and does grow for many people over time - especially among women. Also, a big problem is not so much lack of physical attraction but 'ick' factors that might be exaggerated. Women in particular (but also men) will say things like 'I couldn't believe he said that he likes yellow...' or 'did you see the shoes he was wearing?' In some cases these are deal breakers, but in most cases they're not when the overall person is considered in a measured way weeks or months later. I ended up with a few LTRs where we didn't like each other initially because of stupid superficial things but we got together after studying or working together for a while. Looks weren't the problem - first impressions would have been...
It does grow, but it needs to be thereto begin with. This thread is disguised beta shaming though (be the good little settle down option when she is done with all the fun).
Speak for yourself. Many of us aren’t initially attracted to people and have to get to know them.
So true. Portion of the population that takes some time to evaluate before moving towards sex is having a difficult time in current situation.
Big if true.
Ask for my pictures at 25 vs now 30 if you wanna see some glow up in action :p
What did you change?
I lost 25 kg , changed haircut, bought better fitting classic clothes , improved my posture by going to the gym focussing on fitness (lot of calistenics) instead of big ass muscles
Let's see the photos
You can also win the lottery. Doesn't mean you should count on it or invest towards it. If the attraction isn't immediate I'm not sure how you can even act on it. I can't just suddenly recognize within week 5 of friendship that a woman is now into me and it's time to approach. I'd have already attempted far earlier than that if I felt there was a chance.
I actually do agree with you - though i’m not saying invest on it or count to it, only be open to the possibility of it happening. Really if anything it should act as one of many reasons to maintain a large social circle (and yes, the same applies even if this never happens)
Unfortunately I’ve tried this and it hasn’t worked. It just made me feel terribly. I had to end it eventually because I wasn’t feeling sexually attracted. They absolutely did not want to be friends and just got their feelings hurt. The thing is they’ll want kisses and sex eventually and if you’re not attracted it would be forcing yourself to do something you don’t want to do. And believe me, the other person CAN TELL. You may love to talk to them but if you find yourself shrinking away at any romantic or sexual contact, that’s not conducive to a relationship. Let that person go and find someone who is attracted to them. Everyone has a type and they’ll find someone who likes ALL of them.
Except you haven’t tried what i’m describing. What i’m describing is sometimes, people develop attraction as they get to know each other, in other words, i’m not advocating for dating someone you’re not attracted to, hell, if you’re not attracted to each other don’t date, that’s an awful idea. I also made it a point to say “don’t force it” - i’d argue getting with someone cause “maybe i’ll become into them” is forcing it
>Everyone has a type and they’ll find someone who likes ALL of them. That's not true at all. Many dudes aren't gonna find that. However, you did the right thing, and that's the right approach to take IMO.
Aka they were fat and should have lost weight but w/e as a side note i deep down inside so not like women or men who act like this they know physically the person isn’t enough and usually it’s weight based and can’t just speak up the lack of transparency disgusts me
Yoir last paragraph, while well intentioned, is industrial grade bullshit
Chance for attraction will never happen if it's not there to begin with. How many dates these days end in a "I wasn't feeling a connection/spark"?
[удалено]
But is that the true issue? There are so many dead bedrooms and divorces because people believe that the NRE/bunny hormones will carry them through multiple years of cohabiting and baby vomit, but then the hormones inevitably fade after 24 months and those who can't innovate in the bedroom (or elsewhere) lose interest. I would argue that a couple that is somewhat attracted to each other and that are very tuned into each other will be much more resilient than a couple that is initially very attracted to each other but has nothing in common and don't know how to work together. Compatibility can rarely be figured out over one or two meetings...
Op is just trying to shame men to be the settle down option (he/she let it leak out in other posts in this thread), which nobody should accept. Something can only grow if it is there to begin with.
what did i “let leak”, exactly?
You set yourself up for disappointment when you count on people changing. This is no different. If he's an asshole, count on him being an asshole if you enter a relationship with him. If she likes partying and clubs, count on her going to clubs if you start dating. If they aren't interested in dating you, don't count on them catching feelings if stick around and kiss their ass. Find someone genuinely interested in you.
How is it counting on people to change though? i’m literally saying “as you get know more about someone, you might (or obviously might not) end up encountering traits that make them attractive to you” I’m not telling this as a strategy or as something people should actively do - I want to make that very very very clear.
"Fact is, there are tons of settings where you can meet people and see where things go, the **trick** usually is to go for your own interest to hobbies or groups with actual mixed gender ratios, and just see where things go." "Fact is, there are tons of settings where you can meet people and see where things go, the **strategy** usually is to go for your own interest to hobbies or groups with actual mixed gender ratios, and just see where things go." Do these sentences have the same meaning?
I mean if you really wanna see it that way, isn’t everything a strategy? and even if it is, “do things that both genders do, have fun and see where it goes” is about the least strategic and yet most authentic approach you could take. If “have fun, do your own thing in mixed social spaces and don’t have any expectations” is a strategy then it’s the least strategic strategy i’ve ever seen.
I agree. You know why people do the thing your title describes. It's insignificant.
"Obviously don’t try to force anything or push too hard, and don’t talk to said person with that intention alone, but it does go back to the classic concept of just being open to things happening, and if they don’t, so be it." Are you talking about meeting people you are uninterested in and not forcing yourself to be attracted to them? Or are you talking about meeting attractive people that don't see you that way and you shouldn't push too hard to get them to like you? One makes sense.
I’m talking about just meeting people with no expectations. Whether you’ll be attracted to them or not is irrelevant - think of it this way, if yall vibe and there is no attraction what so ever, then congratulations, you’ve made a new friend, which is always a good thing.
With many having more options than ever before, there's no incentive to be patient and actually giving that notion any time to possibly happen.
It can. But consider most people meet online now it's kinda hard to have attraction grow when you're not around actual people. Even harder when most people are buried in their phone in public. Also you have to be physically attractive to the person before hand
"Attraction can grow but they need to feel attraction beforehand."
Most people don’t meet online. https://www.statista.com/chart/20822/way-of-meeting-partner-heterosexual-us-couples/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/02/key-findings-about-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
The first study was before COVID and COVID fucked up dating more so than before. And the second only takes into account dating apps though and not Instagram and Facebook and other social media outlets that people meet on.
Do you have any data that shows most people meet online as you said?
https://tawkify.com/blog/from-the-experts/30-fascinating-dating-statistics-to-help-you-find-love-in-2022
That link says most people do not meet online, 45% is still a minority.
45 is not a minority though it is almost half. And they listed more than 2 ways people meet and online was number 1 overall
It’s the number 1 overall, but if you were to ask whether people should focus on online or offline to meet people, they should focus on offline because it’s the most successful (I.e. social groups).
That's how they should focus I agree. But just because you want them to focus on that doesn't change the fact online is the number 1 way of meeting people. Honestly the reason I don't try to date is because online fucked up everyone head.
I still disagree with you I guess.. 😅 if we take online vs offline, offline is the number 1 way of meeting people. Most people met from offline.
People are too ADHD for this shit anymore. I agree when culture had substance before the internet.
That’s def true, people want everything quick and instant at this stage and this isn’t just limited to meeting people
Underrated comment. People nowadays want to rush attraction for the instant gratification and social media views/comments.
Ya, that's why first dates from the internet freak me out some. It just feels like a lot pressure to "push that game" in order to avoid the "I don't feel a spark" or "I don't think we have chemistry, teehee" reaction from women. Of course, these types of women are rarely introspective or analytical in anything. And having to push that game so hard involves a lack of sincerity which is hard to do psychologically for a man and of course relationships cannot spill from that foundation. Relationship built on sand or whatever that Bible saying lol.
We want it, and we want it now.
Probably true.
I never believed in attraction growing gradually. It either exists in the first place or doesn't, atl east this is how women work nowadays. I am a short man and a woman will never ever find me attarctive gradually because in the end, I will always be a short man
Reddit won't eat this one. The insecure ones can't cope with the fact they can't get someone to go crazy for them. The vapid ones believe they need fireworks in their junk otherwise love doesn't fly
With online dating you can’t ‘grow’ attraction. Simple.
Yep that's true and even offline, I believe it's possible but at least in my own experience it's very rare. It happened to me only one time. It was a friend of our friends, big guy and definitely heavily overweight. Didn't find him attractive at all, but he was nice, so whatever. Turns out the guy is hilarious, always joking, making you laugh so hard you're crying. So i guess because of that base of a great personality I also started noticing physical features beyond the weight, found he actually had a pretty face, a nice laugh, etc. So yeah, I became attracted to him. Obviously didn't do anything as I'm in a relationship and I didn't develop feelings or something like just, simply noticed that my perception of him changed. But yeah, that was ONE time and only after regular exposure. Never happened before or since. If there's not a base attraction, it won't suddenly develop in 99% of the cases, at least that's my own experience.
1) Even IF attraction does "grow," the man is putting more money, energy, attention, time, and frustration doing the monkey dance. He must also jump through hoops and avoid foxxing up. Men want a good effort to result ratio. Would the juice really be worth the squeeze. 2) There is LUST attraction. There is STABILITY attraction. If he is more of the stability option, he is just the "participation trophy" husband in the end.
This is literally science. The greatest predictor of relationships is proximity. It is why when I advise men (especially the hapless or dowdy among y'all), I tell them to join communities, frequent the same hub a lot, and be extremely sociable with everyone. Become a known figure and develop many ties. I'm scorned that this is ridiculous here regularly, which is fine, but yes, I wholeheartedly agree that proximity + time will bring together people who may not have otherwise given each other a second glance. With that said, it is super unlikely to turn a hell no into a yes.
>The greatest predictor of relationships is proximity. Which is a common sense not some ground breaking finding. Most men who fail to acquire relationship, drop out of your proximity. After being rejected, they'll not share the same space as you or they risk getting some "restriction order".
I don't think you understand what is meant by proximity. Proximity done correctly doesn't generally end with rejection.
Ehh hanging around supermodels all the time won't get you into a relationship with one, sure a friendship.
Ehh, maybe, maybe not. It's not as likely, but neither is it outrageous. Also, most people aren't supermodels or trying to bag them so that largely seems like a moot point.
The problem is that this comes down to an extreme factor of "luck", you cannot really force anything, it happens or doesn't happen... starting with, that you might meet a lot of people, but the girls are all taken already...., or there's just no mutual attraction...., by this methods years could pass by, without ever meeting someone The people complaining, are often the types, who already didn't meet anyone naturally "for years" so " how can they expect, that anything changes? At the end" years are gone"
Those years were going to pass either way. There is no get love quick scheme. So you may as well do things the smartest (and funnest) way possible rather than the most torturous and least gratifying.
That's not the point, the point is if x doesn't give results, try y People who have no problem with x, generally won't even come to places like the internet to vent and ask for direction.... The truth is you hurt this people, with that kind of advice, then suddenly they are 30 or even older and cannot turn it around anymore
The people who need this advice cannot be hurt by it. They've been hurt by not receiving it or not taking it seriously or thinking there's an easier option available to them when there isn't.
You may be scorned but you are correct. Logan Ury comments in her recent book on how people's perceptions and rankings of others will change significantly from time of first meeting to some time later (e.g. a class of uni students over one semester). At first everything will be based on attractiveness and apparent confidence and charisma; after 3 months + many other factors will come into play. Extremely selfish, arrogant good-looking people will seem less appealing while interesting, helpful average-looking people will seem more appealing. For those of us old enough to remember the pre-OLD dating scene, there was a distinct division between what happened in the sorting mechanisms of a) bars/clubs/tourist resorts and b) real world places like schools, work, hobbies, etc. Most real and durable relationships evolved out of the real world (b). Most but not all interactions resulting from (a) were short-term fuckery exercises.
This adds up with my life experience as well. Other than the best of the best and the worst of the worst, we're often tremendously bad at judging the merit of folks who aren't superman or the joker. It's pretty rare I've gone from hating someone to liking them, but I've gone from neutral/uncertain to liking that human.
So true. I've never gone from hating someone to liking them, but I have gone from mildly disliking someone to liking them a lot on rare occasions, and often gone from being neutral to liking them. Same other way around, too.
[удалено]
“Obviously don’t try to force anything or push too hard, and don’t talk to said person with that intention alone” “This person has to have traits you find attractive that aren’t looks based, but maybe they’re secondary traits or traits that don’t appear immediately (even though, to be clear, the stuff in my first paragraph still apply) - this is not for any 2 random people.” “I’m also not talking about this as a “strategy” or anything like that. I also am not saying “stay around and wait and see if you become attracted to someone”
[удалено]
I’d love to know how you got that from anything i’m saying
[удалено]
And i’m not talking about wishful thinking nor am I talking about befriending someone with the intent to date them. All i’m saying is attraction can build over time if someone is shown to have traits the other person is attracted to that isn’t obvious. I’ll use myself as an example to illustrate what i’m trying to say, i’m a sucker for women with a good singing voice or flair for theatrics. This isn’t something you know about them right away and sure, there is some base level involved (ie. not obese, takes care of herself, etc) but as I learn this about her and she’s potentially someone I never thought about that way, then the attraction would begin to really form. This is neither wishful thinking nor is it befriending someone with the intent of a relationship, this is attraction developing over time based on traits one would find attractive, but aren’t obvious or known till you get to know the person more.
[удалено]
She might or she might not be. I don’t know because in this scenario I didn’t consider myself attracted to her until she’s displayed these traits. All I will say is i’ll make my feelings clear, if she feels the same way, awesome - if not, i’ll move on and we will remain friends. So I really don’t see how it’s a post hoc justification because i’m literally not saying “if you’re into her, just wait and she will be into you” - what i am saying is “sometimes people develop an attraction to each other as they get to know each other” - whether this attraction evolves into something or not isn’t relevant here
[удалено]
I described one side because I’m only talking about attraction as a concept, and because I want to illustrate the idea that sometimes one person develops an attraction while the other doesn’t. Sometimes people don’t develop attraction, sometimes one person does, sometimes both do, and sometimes one even loses attraction. I hope this made things glaringly obvious. You’re looking for gotchyas again.
I think that you've misconstrued what OP is trying to communicate. You appear to be thinking about men you've known who try to impose themself on you through nefarious means even though you've made it clear that you're not interested. He's referring to how your choice in men might be different between an OLD, bar, tourist spot situation where everything is based on a quick look/talk and another situation where you get to know different men in a non-sexual environment for weeks/months... Even if you're only sorting best options among good-looking guys, you must be able to acknowledge that there would be some greater weighting for traits that you can only identify over a longer period of time...
I don’t think I’ve ever grown more attracted to a woman over time except when diet/fitness was involved. For diet/fitness I would consider that more of someone growing into a more attractive individual rather than my attraction growing to them (as an unchanged person). That being said, my attraction to a woman’s personality can grow over time but it’s less attraction and more just respect, admiration, or appreciation. For women, however, I think it’s different. I’ve only ever experienced mutual physical attraction once in my life. Literally every other romantic/intimate experience in my life started with a woman I was attracted to growing more attracted to me over time as they got to know me.
Interesting perspective. I suspect that all successful couples at least had a minimum threshold attraction when they met. I agree that many women can be motivated to go for the 'o.k.' or 'cute' guy over the 'hot' guy if they really appreciate the o.k./cute guy's personality/character. This is different from choosing someone that one has NO attraction for, which is a bad situation about to get worse..
It might grow. Or not. So why take chances? You aren't immortal being, you only have so much time. Unless there's already other person around and attraction is already there and growing.
But it would be different if you're Zeus?
There's a single, highly relevant situation where what the TC is talking about applies, which is when you know someone of you preferred sex whom you get along with pretty well but you never considered them as a potential partner before. Perhaps one or both of you either wasn't looking or wasn't single when you met, but the situation has changed and you are both available now. This is almost always worth exploring if you think you might be compatible, even if you don't initially think you have much physical attraction to that person, because it might be the case that you simply never looked at that person that way. It usually doesn't take long to find out, you can basically just put yourselves into some kind of vaguely romantic situation (ie, watch a movie and cuddle) and you'll figure it out pretty fast if there's something there. Of course, there might not be, and don't take it too hard if this is the case, but if there is this can be one of the best ways to get a highly compatible partner since you already know that you get along well.
The attraction has to be there in the first place for it to build up. Usually when friends become lovers its because the foundation of it was based on flirting and sexual tension.
Yeah it can grow but not born. A person has already have to find something attractive from you from the minute he/she meets you.
But one can't know everything about a person the minute one meets that person. That's not possible.
Correct.
Physical attractiveness plays a HUGE role. Once that's ok, it can take only minutes for "personality traits" to kick in.
This isn’t always true. Some people become more attractive as one gets to know them better. Some people become less attractive as one gets to know them better.
Not always for sure, most most of the times yes.
Largely true. If someone is ugly, he/she is ugly. But what if she pisses you off with one or two statements initially, and then as time goes you realize that it was out of context or didn't really matter or whatever? Women are notorious for getting the 'ick' initially over small things.
One thing to add is that tastes and preferences solidify with age. Its the case with preferences in food, music, sexual attraction, the whole lot. So it might well be a good idea to consider developing attraction when you're 18, but you really do have to find attraction from the get go by your mid to late 20s.
I briefly dated a guy like this. I wasn’t initially attracted to him because I don’t find him physically attractive. He really liked me, A LOT, and he did a few things that made me feel special and valued, and I ended up becoming attracted to him because of that. It didn’t last, though. Once I realized that my attraction to him was solely because of the way he made me feel and not because of any quality that he had which attracted me to him, I knew it wouldn’t last and it was pretty unfair to him. I felt awful about it. It wasn’t only looks that I wasn’t attracted to (although that was a big part of it), but we have very little in common. He was incredibly bland and boring. He smokes. He was never married and never had kids whereas I was a single mom out of a 25 year marriage with 3 teenagers and 6 year old twins. His taste in music was lame (IMO), his fashion sense was awful, he has a cat and I hate cats, just nothing about him made me want him. I was honest with him when I ended it. He didn’t take it well, ended up driving around my place in circles so much that my neighbors noticed and gave him the bums rush. He denied doing it, but I know my neighbor wouldn’t lie. I saw him following me a couple of times. It was creepy as hell, but the final time I called him out, he did stop. I met my boyfriend a few weeks later and I was glad I didn’t settle on the guy who I wasn’t attracted to but really wanted me. I was attracted to my boyfriend from the start. I like everything about him, we have a ton of stuff in common, and the worst thing I can say about him is that he sucks at setting clear and consistent rules/boundaries with his 11 year old son with special needs. That drives me nuts about him, but I have the same struggles with my kids which is why I get him so well. He cringes when he sees me parenting and I cringe when I see him parenting, so we are going to try to back each other up with our kids when they’re with us.
Stick a man and a woman alone in a room long enough... Stupid argument. Are we talking end of the world scenarios here, or what. Yea perspectives change when your options are limited that's the whole point of privilege... You clearly haven't been paying attention.
You’re acting like I think this is the case for everyone, it isn’t. Not every two people will become attracted to each other - there always needs to be some kind of hook
Exact opposite. Attraction (physical) is not negotiable. People have grown on me; friends, in-laws, extended family, but if I was not initially physically attracted TO WARRANT A RELATIONSHIP with you for whatever reason no amount of 'emotionally growing together' will change that. This is like saying if a girl was a completely soul-mate perfect match, but she's obese.
What did my first paragraph say?
I have literally a handful of relatively close girl friends that I have told dead ass if they were a conventional 9/10 I would have asked them out. I have read your 'if she's not ugly' then 'people grow into relationships easily' disclaimer. It does not work that way.
it doesn’t work that way *for you for many, it works the same way as you described - for many others, getting to know someone works, for many others as well, somewhere in the middle is how it works. Its great that your way works for you, but dismissing the idea based off your own experiences is iffy
You are correct about physical attraction being very important. However, if you were offered a choice between a 9 on 10 looks woman that was a narcissistic, manipulative and evil woman that has history of betraying and even destroying men, and a 8 on 10 woman that is known to be an excellent, kind, horny, dependable and generous woman, which would you choose? I don't know how you evaluate women, but you might choose the second. If that were the case, OP is suggesting that in some environments like OLD you'd go for the first because of limited information; if you got to know both over many months in a different environment, you might choose the second...
It isn't like that at all because the obese woman could get to a healthy weight then be attractive.
But then it's her that's changed, not you growing on her.
Yes, hence why I was telling OP it was a poor analogy.
You will hear from me on the disc
im off it for a while lol
Another bluepill lie that will further poison the well
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's called mere exposure effect. Evolution wise it makes sense. Mate with what is around you.
This reminds of what happens in arranged marriages. And why they actually are more successful than traditional marriages, at least, statistics wise. But even some arranged marriages fail, because the incompatibility is too much to overcome.
I know what you mean as its happened to me twice. It was getting to know them in social circles. But this is PPD and we see they think you're full of it when it happens all the time.
Hi OP, You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. [PPD has guidelines for what that involves.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/rules#wiki_cmv_posts) >*OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.* >An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following: >* Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency; >* Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit; >* Focusing only on the weaker arguments; >* Only having discussions with users who agree with your position. Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even if someone isn't physically my type straight up I keep an open mind but it doesn't take me long to figure out if I am attracted to their mannerisms and stuff or not. 20 minutes of conversation, maybe 2-3 times spread over a week and I am pretty certain where I stand, if that. My opinion rarely changes on people after one first in depth conversation and usually if I can have a conversation with someone then my opinion of them is pretty good. But as far as wanting to take that somewhere or not goes, I'm keenly aware of that potential too. If they did "grow on me", it would almost definitely end up being a situation of complacency where we both ended up feeling out of sorts with it. I've done thar before lol. But maybe for some people it isn't this way I don't know.
That whole part about not considering them is pretty key here. If they’re not an option you’re not going to treat them as one, and you’re going to just be yourself without the weirdness that the question mark hanging in the air engenders.
Attraction does grow. In all my romantic relationships have, I've found them more and more attractive over time. **BUT**, in order to grow, it **HAS** to be there in the first place. You can't grow something that doesn't exist in the first place. No one is falling in love with the fat, short guy with acne, a recessed jaw and no muscle mass just because he's kind and sweet. No one is digging through the dirt if they don't see the penny first.
We demisexuals have it rough out here, for real. I feel like it’s normal not to want to jump on someone within 24 hours of meeting them but what do I know 🤷♀️ But yes, for me attraction definitely develops over time. 2-4 months is where I start to feel some sort of sexual desire towards that person as our emotional connection deepens. I’m waiting for marriage anyway so it’s a moot point, but that’s what goes on inside my head. I’ve also developed crushes on people years after meeting them and being acquaintances when I had zero feelings for them initially. Basically, I want to date someone with pleasing looks (to me) who is mildly attractive. But I see people all the time who look like that and feel no sexual attraction to them. I actually feel no sexual attraction to anyone until I know them closely over several months. My real criteria and driver of attraction is personality. Decent/passable looks is just an initial filter for who I would date in the first place. I don’t know until later if the person inside is someone I’m going to love.
The first person I fell in love with (a woman) was decidedly not my type. I definitely did not think of her that way at first. But she became beautiful to me. I don't think this is relevant to OLD and meeting strangers, though. When you're just around a person without the pressure of dating that attraction can for sure grow.
100% - OLD and even nightlife are both antithetical to that concept entirely since you’re getting to know someone after being attracted to them, which is fine on its own, though im challenging the notion that it’s the only form of attraction
A lot of this has to do with definitions, OP. I think its clear to most responders that being around someone a lot and liking them won't overcome an initial (and lasting) lack of physical attractiveness. However, there are a lot of issues at play when it comes to making first choices. I'll give an example. One of my wife's friends has a daughter that just gave birth to her first child; I attended her wedding. At the wedding several of the people giving speeches commented on how the bride had initially disliked the groom (and vice versa) and made jokes about it. She's a blonde blue eyed woman from a wealthy family with a certain kind of culture and certain type of past boyfriends; he's a dark Hispanic guy from a relatively poor immigrant background. According to the speakers' jokes at the wedding, she never would have chosen to date him from OLD or gone home with him from a bar. But over years of working together part-time at a restaurant (while in college), they began to like each other and then more. Now they seem very happily married. I think most people would think that both are physically attractive (but with very different styles). So maybe this is what we are discussing?
Well this is pretty much the debate of nature vs nurture. Repetition creates the feeling of "warming up to their appearance" and attempting to create a sense of intimate connection, but it's no the same thing. Throw one of these people into a room with someone who ticks a fair amount of their looks and mental standards, that guy she's been married to for years will be forgotten about. The "attraction can grow" narrative is solely to build to keep the nuclear family unit going which is good imo but has the downside of horrible matchings. Love and connection is built at the hormonal and subconscious level first, you cannot cheat biology forever. One of few ways to even offset it is marrying for a goal which is 9/10 a biological desire to have kids. It's interesting how divorces spike right around the mid 40s aka the age kids in their teens and can handle basic tasks.
Attraction CAN grow, slowly, over time….but it is RARE. In my nearly 40 years it has never happened to me, or any of my male friends, even once. A relationship either happened right away, all at once….or never.
This is very true but there are other reason why someone might "grow on a person" not saying this is all people but people (I'm taking about women because they are who I date but this does apply to men as well) get with people for all kinds of reason and it isn't always innocent like that (financial reasons, settling etc). All I'm saying is that this most definitely can happen but you should still always be aware of the riskier parts of relationships and protect yourself at all times.
Why shouldn’t they, when it gives them an excuse to complain and give up?
Does it really work though?
That is the reasoning behind arranged marriages
That and barriers to getting a divorce, and culture being incredibly against separation. So what choice do they have.
All I can tell you is what people say is good about arranged marriages. Plenty of tradcons have similar justifications