Shy Hard 2: Shy Harder

[CatParty]

I was listing what would theoretically work, not what would necessarily be practical or a good idea to try and instantiate for real. I mean, the volunteers would eventually have to become like sexual surrogates, or participate in a quasi-relationship with them. I say it more for an understanding of what they need, than what should be given.

It comes back to what they need is a patient girl who is willing to do most of the initiating at first, but most girls expect guys to take the lead, hence the issue.

do you think it is not as hard for a woman to feel as comfortable talking to a man? it takes the same amount of initiative and courage

 

[HipstrsGonnaHip]

the volunteers would eventually have to become like sexual surrogates, or participate in a quasi-relationship with them.

This is an escort. You're describing an escort.

 

[mooooo]

do you think it is not as hard for a woman to feel as comfortable talking to a man? it takes the same amount of initiative and courage

But most men don't have issues with this, so most women presumably wouldn't have issues either. An LS woman would have to rely on a man taking the initiative, but this already happens most of the time anyway.

We never really get LS women on the site whose issues are that men won't take the initiative for them. We only get the extreme cases where men take the initiative but they practically run away even when interested. I'm not sure this is even LS, sounds more akin to erotophobia.

This is an escort. You're describing an escort.

An escort expects to be focused on sex, whereas you'd need to start slower with an LS guy, like gentle touching, expressing sexuality verbally, etc. An an escort is paid for, so it doesn't solve the issue too well, that people will find your sexuality shameful. You've paid for her to accept it, but who knows what she feels about it really? At least if one girl really likes you, others could.

I tried to go to an escort before, but the idea that they'd secretly be disgusted with me made me too afraid to.

 

[HipstrsGonnaHip]

You've paid for her to accept it, but who knows what she feels about it really?

So you want women, under the guise of therapy, to voluntarily go on dates with shy men for free without meeting them first. This meeting could possibly turn into a "quasi-relationship" if the woman isn't completely repulsed.

That's a blind date. People who aren't toxic and have friends go on blind dates all the time.

 

[Rammspieler]

@mooooo Bringing the LS sperging to Kiwi Farms.

 

[HickoryDickory]

@mooooo I like how my question is being ignored.

 

[BriarHeart]

You haven't given a reason why it wouldn't work. Why is it avoiding it, when it's addressing it in the most direct way possible? Ever since I've had a few online successes I've improved a fair bit, because I was able to interact sexually with girls IRL who were attracted to me, and from having my advances accepted I came to not view my sexuality as shameful. I'm not sure if I could ask a girl out yet that I don't know, but I've initiated the first kiss a few times, which is progress. The first girl initiated the first kiss. And, in my current relationship, I can casually express sexuality in a playful way without difficulty now, like I can walk past and slap her ass and know she'll enjoy it, usually do the same in return. So now sexuality feels like a natural part of relating to her, and not something to hide.

You're the one making the positive assertion that this nonexistent "treatment" is the only cure for love-shies. That means that the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, you aren't addressing the problem at all, let alone in "the most direct way possible." The problem at hand doesn't originate with women, it originates in the love-shies' abysmal self-esteem, internalization of toxic societal standards, and viewing fully half of their own species as either a kind of alien lifeform or an animal to be hunted, tamed, and displayed as a trophy (among other issues). Having women "volunteers" as training-wheel dates isn't going to make any of those issues go away; it will only mask them, allowing them to crop up again in some other equally-unhealthy form. Addressing the problem in the most direct way possible means you stop trying to shift the responsibility and blame for your neuroses onto women and address them yourself with a licensed therapist.

One of the smartest people I've ever known told me that a good relationship has to be good "together, against, and apart." Both people in a relationship have to enjoy each other's company and possess at least a few shared interests, be confident enough to disagree and argue without falling to pieces or bullying their partner into submission, and (maybe most importantly) has to be secure enough to be functional and content even without a romantic relationship. If your partner doesn't satisfy those criteria, you're better off finding someone who can. If you don't satisfy those criteria, then you need to take the initiative and see a counselor, because no one can fix that except for you.

 

[mooooo]

@mooooo I like how my question is being ignored.

Because it's just some SJW crap that misses the point. I don't reply to trolls.

 

[Ti-99/4A]

I guess volunteers might work, since they're choosing to do it, and not deriving obvious material benefit for it.

I was listing what would theoretically work, not what would necessarily be practical or a good idea to try and instantiate for real. I mean, the volunteers would eventually have to become like sexual surrogates, or participate in a quasi-relationship with them. I say it more for an understanding of what they need, than what should be given.

It comes back to what they need is a patient girl who is willing to do most of the initiating at first, but most girls expect guys to take the lead, hence the issue.

The only difference I see between this and Holden's abandoned Government Gets Girlfriends program is the lack of monetary compensation for the "girlfriend".

 

[mooooo]

When it comes down to it, I don't expect girls to make any effort to help LS men. Because they have no motivation. Most find passivity unattractive, and they all have many options anyway. It's like asking someone to go out of their way to assist a big hairy spider that just crawled across your foot. They'd much rather squish it.

Things will continue as they are.

 

[Chan the Wizard]

Why do you assume woman have an easy time dating or entering into a relationship?

I have an actual diagnosed anxiety disorder, and the idea that there's nothing they could do is patently false. There are tons of therapies for anxiety disorders especially social anxiety.

 

[mooooo]

If these guys are so smart and know everything about women, why they are single? (Do not include physical appearance as a factor)

Apart from the mangling of grammar in the "why they are", this is actually a reasonable question. But it's also one with a lot of nuances, and the question implies there's a simpler answer than there is.

First, in terms of IQ, I consider most people on the LS forum to be average or slightly above.

However, if we're talking about "smart"/intelligence, that's a bit more involved.
I subscribe to the MBTI model of cognition, so I view intelligence more as competencies in the 4 main areas of information processing: S,N,T,F.

IQ tests focus on measuring competency in N and T - inuition and thinking/logic. This is probably the most suitable set of functions to focus on for an overall picture of "intelligence", because they're what most people associate as intelligence. Intuition deals with pattern recognition, abstraction, symbolism etc. Of course, there's extraverted and introverted orientations of each function; Ne is "joining the dots", Ni is "filling in the blanks" etc. So logic combined with N is the obvious "intellectual" combination.

I'm an INTP so I do well in these areas, but I recognise I have weaknesses in the other areas. S is dealing with sensory information, F deals with valuations, emotional models etc. Fe is social norms, external harmony, serving others, sympathy. Fi is personal valuation - being in tune with what you believe, knowing what you want, deciding what is morally right or wrong, empathy.

I'm actually not bad on the F, but I don't value it much for determining truth (Ti). Hence I'll sometimes deliberately say something discordant to social harmony because I dislike the need for social harmony overwhelming more important aspects of free expression, so it's to "keep it in check" as such lol. People here then assume that I am just oblivious to the social rule I broke.

Anyway, I suck pretty badly on S. If you asked me what colour the wallpaper in my house is, I probably couldn't answer. Actually, I can't remember if we have wallpaper, or if it's just painted.

So you get ISFP artist types who can draw these brilliant paintings and all and express their feelings in a sensory way, but they're not likely to understand abstraction or objective logic. Are they stupid? Well, that's why I refer to IQ as a slightly separate thing to intelligence.

I'll post some more on this, but I only post here when I'm bored in work, and I need to get some work done.

Why do you assume woman have an easy time dating or entering into a relationship?

I have an actual diagnosed anxiety disorder, and the idea that there's nothing they could do is patently false. There are tons of therapies for anxiety disorders especially social anxiety.

If they have a disorder, it may be difficult for them. I never said it's always easy for them to enter into a relationship or date, just that the difficulty comes from within. Externally, things are always made easy, and it's easier to deal with the anxiety disorders because there's less pressure on women to appear confident or strong.

 

[CatParty]

If they have a disorder, it may be difficult for them. I never said it's always easy for them to enter into a relationship or date, just that the difficulty comes from within. Externally, things are always made easy, and it's easier to deal with the anxiety disorders because there's less pressure on women to appear confident or strong.

so it is more of a social anxiety rather than made up things like "love shy" or "incel"?

 

[Saney]

First, in terms of IQ, I consider most people on the LS forum to be average or slightly above.

I am talking about the anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-man, pro-gay, pro-immigrant mentality that we are seeing today. Lately I have seen young people talk (aged like 17-20 years old), and they scare me to death. These kids were heavily brainwashed by liberal propaganda since a young age, and they really seem to believe this crap. Not only that, but they are extremely intolerant and they have a propensity for violence. If you say anything they consider not acceptable by their cultural marxist standards, they will call their 200 friends and intimidate you. Also, they constantly make protests and harass people. Luckily, these people have not real power, but it might be coming soon. They are able to restrict freedom of speech more and more every day, by making protests and complaining each time someone in the medias say something they don't like, and everyone is bending over to their demands. It's ridiculous now.

This is getting out of control. Personal attacks, bullying, intimidation from cultural marxists is a daily occurrence. I can see how these people will try to gain power and make a bunch of restrictive laws to restrict speech and opinions. Are we going to soon live into some sort of cultural marxist dictatorship?

I am currently reading Mein Kampf. I wondered why Hitler is held up as the ultimate evil. I personally have good reason to hate him since he exterminated most of my family. But this doesn't explain why people who have no such connection hate him. A far as being a murderer goes, Stalin ties Hitler and Mao far exceeds him, yet neither is nearly so hated. Mein Kampf makes it clear why Hitler was so hated, it is because he told the truth about Liberalism (which he called Marxism) and he told the truth about international bankers. Hitler was the last significant force in the West to oppose Liberalism, and this is why he is so hated. Of course Hitler had many flaws. One was his lack of humanity which allowed him to be a mass murderer, but others were worse. His other major flaw was his racism. But in this he is tied by every Jew who defines a Jew as one who has Jewish mother. So Hitler was no more racist than most Jews are. In many ways Hitler was much like an Orthodox rabbi, struggling to save his race from Liberalism while ignoring the fate of people of other races. I now see the Holocaust as a far greater tragedy than I did before, the biggest tragedy not being those who died, but rather the tragedy being that if Hitler had allied with conservative Jews, he would have won the war and saved Western civilization from the death spiral of Liberalism, and the tragedy is that Hitler's racism prevented this from happening.

So the raped person can never be responsible for the rape? They can never be at fault it seems. No matter how much they seem to desire being truly dominated and no matter how much they 'let it happen', they are never the one to blame? You can never say she was 'asking for it'. . . but to be raped, that's the gift of ulitmate control, complete dominance and complete submission.

And what is that difference? Interestingly I'm actually discussing rape with another new poster as well. . . since the difference between rape and domination is 'consent', what gives consent? Attraction, just with animals and their mating rituals of sexual display - if you are attractive, good sperm, then it's not rape.

really sad that womyn got to be this way, it was better a few decades ago... at this point I honestly think a husband needs to be legally allowed to hit his wife once in a while when she misbehaves, it's hard coded in womyn's DNA that a strong man worthy of respect will hit her and severely scold her whenever she tries messing with him, in the end they love their husband a lot more for it... they subconsciously want to be hit and be told to shut up... sad that feminists have screwed this up because it only means that womyn will do all kind of nasty shit that will go completely unchecked and they think they're entitled to it

this is what happens in every third world country, and marriages are really stable there, because the man is the true chief of the family and he is allowed to be a man... this is the un-politically correct truth

Women are not free thinkers.
Women are not creative.
Women do not innovate.

QUICK! (without looking something up) Name 3 famous female inventors.

Too hard? name ONE.

Give up? Yeah,....thats what I fuckin thought.

I don't.
(Hedy Lamarr, Gertrude Elion, Stephanie Kwolek).

 

[AP 297]

When it comes down to it, I don't expect girls to make any effort to help LS men. Because they have no motivation. Most find passivity unattractive, and they all have many options anyway. It's like asking someone to go out of their way to assist a big hairy spider that just crawled across your foot. They'd much rather squish it.

Things will continue as they are.

Apart from the mangling of grammar in the "why they are", this is actually a reasonable question. But it's also one with a lot of nuances, and the question implies there's a simpler answer than there is.

First, in terms of IQ, I consider most people on the LS forum to be average or slightly above.

However, if we're talking about "smart"/intelligence, that's a bit more involved.
I subscribe to the MBTI model of cognition, so I view intelligence more as competencies in the 4 main areas of information processing: S,N,T,F.

IQ tests focus on measuring competency in N and T - inuition and thinking/logic. This is probably the most suitable set of functions to focus on for an overall picture of "intelligence", because they're what most people associate as intelligence. Intuition deals with pattern recognition, abstraction, symbolism etc. Of course, there's extraverted and introverted orientations of each function; Ne is "joining the dots", Ni is "filling in the blanks" etc. So logic combined with N is the obvious "intellectual" combination.

I'm an INTP so I do well in these areas, but I recognise I have weaknesses in the other areas. S is dealing with sensory information, F deals with valuations, emotional models etc. Fe is social norms, external harmony, serving others, sympathy. Fi is personal valuation - being in tune with what you believe, knowing what you want, deciding what is morally right or wrong, empathy.

I'm actually not bad on the F, but I don't value it much for determining truth (Ti). Hence I'll sometimes deliberately say something discordant to social harmony because I dislike the need for social harmony overwhelming more important aspects of free expression, so it's to "keep it in check" as such lol. People here then assume that I am just oblivious to the social rule I broke.

Anyway, I suck pretty badly on S. If you asked me what colour the wallpaper in my house is, I probably couldn't answer. Actually, I can't remember if we have wallpaper, or if it's just painted.

So you get ISFP artist types who can draw these brilliant paintings and all and express their feelings in a sensory way, but they're not likely to understand abstraction or objective logic. Are they stupid? Well, that's why I refer to IQ as a slightly separate thing to intelligence.

I'll post some more on this, but I only post here when I'm bored in work, and I need to get some work done.

If they have a disorder, it may be difficult for them. I never said it's always easy for them to enter into a relationship or date, just that the difficulty comes from within. Externally, things are always made easy, and it's easier to deal with the anxiety disorders because there's less pressure on women to appear confident or strong.

Or another way to put it, It stems from some men having difficulty living up to preconceived gender roles.

For example: The idea that men must make the first move an ask a woman out on a date.

This anxiety though is the thing to me that seems, strange. If you feel that you are incapable of living up to a particular archetype, then why not adapt to it or better yet find those of the opposite sex who also do not want to live according to that archetype. Women have the same types of Archetypal pressures. They are just different in form and execution.

There are probably lots of women out there who want men who are smart and that they can be the stronger more aggressive athletic figure. You have an entire generation of girls brought up playing sports and living professional lives. Is it realistic to expect that they would all want an "archtype" born of a long past era?

If there are male love shy's, then why not female love shy's. If one half of the world's population is also female, then is it reasonable to expect that many of them would also be looking for men as well. Not every woman is a princess waiting for her Prince Chad. If women have changed in how they behave and live. Then why would their desires not change as well.

I don't.
(Hedy Lamarr, Gertrude Elion, Stephanie Kwolek).

@Saney , I really think it is about time to put FSchmidt under the microscope. Now that @Holden is not here, there will be no more distractions. This guy concerns me far more than Marjan.

 

[mooooo]

so it is more of a social anxiety rather than made up things like "love shy" or "incel"?

She was referring to general social anxiety, so I responded as such.

Or another way to put it, It stems from some men having difficulty living up to preconceived gender roles.

For example: The idea that men must make the first move an ask a woman out on a date.

This anxiety though is the thing to me that seems, strange. If you feel that you are incapable of living up to a particular archetype, then why not adapt to it or better yet find those of the opposite sex who also do not want to live according to that archetype. Women have the same types of Archetypal pressures. They are just different in form and execution.

There are probably lots of women out there who want men who are smart and that they can be the stronger more aggressive athletic figure. You have an entire generation of girls brought up playing sports and living professional lives. Is it realistic to expect that they would all want an "archtype" born of a long past era?

If there are male love shy's, then why not female love shy's. If one half of the world's population is also female, then is it reasonable to expect that many of them would also be looking for men as well. Not every woman is a princess waiting for her Prince Chad. If women have changed in how they behave and live. Then why would their desires not change as well.

The issue is that for 2 people who are LS to connect, you'd have to meet online, because IRL neither of you would express that you like the other. I advocate the internet to LS guys. But online dating sucks because every girl is spammed by desperate guys. You have to be a model. So then you have to resort to meeting people on forums and things. I did that, and it turned out the girl was in Singapore. We're together now, but it wasn't easy at all.

 

[Saney]

I really think it is about time to put FSchmidt under the microscope. Now that @Holden is not here, there will be no more distractions. This guy concerns me far more than Marjan.

Understandable, considering that most of Marjan's philosophy is crap he's just parroting from Fschmidt. Sadly, I don't think he's coming back, he's too much of a pussy for that. On the plus side, we have @Rammspieler and @Satan, who know him pretty well.

 

[Chan the Wizard]

She was referring to general social anxiety, so I responded as such.

Not female. Just wondering why it's assumed women have it easy on the relationship front. It really seems like loveshies, incels, and other like groups see woman as objects. You put in the coin and out pops a wife/sex. Women aren't vending machines, they're people with hopes, dreams and their own personalities.

 

[CatParty]

You have to be a model.

not really.

 

[mooooo]

Not female. Just wondering why it's assumed women have it easy on the relationship front. It really seems like loveshies, incels, and other like groups see woman as objects. You put in the coin and out pops a wife/sex. Women aren't vending machines, they're people with hopes, dreams and their own personalities.

Your statements are irrational, unconnected, and vague.
Firstly, what do you mean by "easy"? I'm sure they have the same issues within relationships, we just hold the position that it's easier to secure one.
Secondly, you offer no connection between the first statements and the second one. In fact, they contradict each other. If you could pop in a coin and a wife came out, then relationships would be easy for us to achieve. We're saying it's the opposite. Can you explain how we have implied women are objects?

not really.

True, sometimes being an asshole can compensate.

My alcoholic father who physically abused my mother and still wears shades everywhere at ~50 went on a dating site to cheat on his new wife, and had much more success than I ever did.

I don't.
(Hedy Lamarr, Gertrude Elion, Stephanie Kwolek).

This tells me that you determine a person's intelligence based on to what extent they agree with you.
I respect the intelligence of those I disagree with if I can see the basis for their reasoning.