Dating and Sex: Double Standard

[doorik]

Something just clicked in head as I was writing my previous post. I remember reading that you are a PHD candidate in biochem? I believe it's biochem Annie?Alright I'll try using a biochem example (please forgive my rudimentary knowledge of Biochem-lol).

 

So let's say Annie that you are arguing in your dissertation that a certain biological/chemical process is initiated by the formation of a, um, amino acid chain, protein or something. Let's say a colleague of yours disagrees because he or she believes an alternative Amino Acid or protein is the causal mechanism. You begin to debate and present your case/facts. So your colleague tries to demonsrate how your examples prove his or her mechanism while at tthe same time disproving yours. Would your case be made any stronger by saying that "well you went to Monkey's Eyebrow University, so your points are invalid (Argumentum ad hominem) or if you stated your amino acid chain, protein, or whatever is involed in a totally unrelated reaction/biological process (Red herring) - would that disprove your colleague's points?

[doorik]

Pregnancy and all the other stuff isn't a red herring. Corvidae brought this all up in his original post.

 

Hello Annie - Pleasure debating you - good mental exercise

 

It is a Red Hearing in the context that you and Muneca used it. I believe that you wrote something about how women are at a disadvantage in the child rearing department because the ladies have to carry the child for 9 months, have back probs etc - Note that I completely agree with you about this and the other things you wrote about where women have a disadvantage. The problem is that it does not invalidate corvidae's post, where he states,

[Mun]

That is why, even today, it is the man's job to seduce the woman, and why women play hard to get. It's all in our instincts. Perhaps the double standard is unfair, but then so is placing the burdens of seduction entirely on men. We cannot remove one inequality while ignoring another. If women want a more equitable role, then they have to take half the bad as well as half the good.

 

I just read this again and see that Corvidae is basically saying this: the burden of seduction, which is instinctual, has been placed on man by "nature" ( evolution) and the same goes for the woman's instinctual reaction which is to "play hard to get"...

 

.....so that must mean that although we may want to try and change this behavior, our instincts will kick in and not allow us to change because this is not a behavior that can be altered...it is beyond our control.

 

This however, has nothing to do with women wanting an equitable role as in this case there is no equality to be had. Men and women will respond differently to a situation ( dating, asking out) because of our instincts. No equality there, we are "wired" very differently. Our roles are very different.. period.

 

So in a sense we can argue that nature is not fair--because it is nature ( not women) that has placed this burden on men. We can try to change our behavior (both men and women), but we are screwed because more than likely this is something that will not change as it is based on instinct.

[volution]

In the end, Women DO have the advantage.

In the end, it all boils down basically to this...

* Men are considered primarily sex-oriented

* Women are considered primarily relationship-oriented

Some might say that men have to 'prove' their worth to women, 'prove' that they want more than sex. If it were so easy to get a relationship - if it were so easy, all you had to do is go up to any single person and say 'I want a relationship' and then a relationship naturally followed on, how different would our world be?

But the truth is, men will 'prove' their worth, just so they can have sex anyway!

In the end, is everyone really looking 24 hours a day for THE ONE?

Don't tell me now that women's sex-drives are much far disconnected from men's. I know that a biological level women prefer to have one partner they can become intimate with, whilst men tend not to mind what partner it is, as long as they can get their toad in the hole.

In the end, most men and women do eventually want to find THE ONE. But both men and women WANT and NEED sex.

But when it comes to experiencing casual relationships, or physical relationships, or in fact any kind of relationships, women, I feel do have an advantage.

If a man wants sex....how many weeks and months of effort does he have to put in?

If a woman wants sex, she hardly needs to lift a finger.

 

 

How can I say this any more clearly - in my point of view, having men I don't like and I'm not interested in, having these men ask me out, DOES NOT PUT ME AT ANY SORT OF 'DATING ADVANTAGE!' You don't have to believe me. It's my opinion, and we can agree to disagree.

 

I enjoy debating this issue with you precisely because we disagree. What it all boils down to is my post where I wrote,

 

annie24 wrote:

Plenty of women I know, myself included, have gone out to "get men." I've asked plenty of guys out, but it usually doesn't lead anywhere. So, I actually decided to stop asking guys out because it wasn't really working for me.

 

Your statement proves Corvidae's point. No matter how many times we get rejected we are expected to go in for more. We simply do not have the luxary of the "oh well, asking girls out doesn't work for me so I'll stop doing it" mentallity

 

All things being equal - let's 1 guy and 1 girl are at the same class/education/career level, and are attractive to the same proportion of the opposite sex, and both decide not to ask anyone out, who do you think will have more dating opportunities?

[ShySoul]

I haven't read the entire post but I'm wondering what the big deal is. Men and women, despite what society tells us, are far more similar then most think. If there are any differences then it is because society tells us there are and we buy into it. But instead of focusing on the differences, try focusing on the similarites. All of us have the same basic desires, to be loved, appreciated, and understood for who we are. We all want that connection on all levels - emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and physical. We want someone who will comfort as when we are down, who be proud of our triumphs. We want someone who carries similar values and beliefs. We want someone who stimulates out minds and challenge us to be our best. We want someone just to talk with and be a true friend. We want somone to be with, to hold.

 

And I'll just say that I am constantly searching for the one. I don't want or need sex, I want and need LOVE. Sex will only be an expression of that love. So you can't say that men are primarily sex-oriented as many are relationship-oriented. And many women will "prove their worth" just to have sex to. So they can be more sex-oriented than relationship-oriented. The debate of men vs women in this regards can't be said with any certainty since there are just to many variations and differences in people.

 

To say that men and women are so vastly different, have diffenent instincts, etc. is making a vast generalization. No one has the advantage, it's 50/50. The only reason women are preceived as having an advantage is because society and the media portray it as that way. Well, that and the fact that most men are idiots . Look at what we have in common, what unites us instead of what divides us.

[corvidae]

The nice thing about having adaptable, intelligent minds is that we can change our behaviour. Change only results once we have awareness. The next time a woman is sitting about like a lemon not approaching anyone, if she's read this thread, she'll know why and can then choose to do something about it.

 

 

That is why, even today, it is the man's job to seduce the woman, and why women play hard to get. It's all in our instincts. Perhaps the double standard is unfair, but then so is placing the burdens of seduction entirely on men. We cannot remove one inequality while ignoring another. If women want a more equitable role, then they have to take half the bad as well as half the good.

 

I just read this again and see that Corvidae is basically saying this: the burden of seduction, which is instinctual, has been placed on man by "nature" ( evolution) and the same goes for the woman's instinctual reaction which is to "play hard to get"...

 

.....so that must mean that although we may want to try and change this behavior, our instincts will kick in and not allow us to change because this is not a behavior that can be altered...it is beyond our control.

 

This however, has nothing to do with women wanting an equitable role as in this case there is no equality to be had. Men and women will respond differently to a situation ( dating, asking out) because of our instincts. No equality there, we are "wired" very differently. Our roles are very different.. period.

 

So in a sense we can argue that nature is not fair--because it is nature ( not women) that has placed this burden on men. We can try to change our behavior (both men and women), but we are screwed because more than likely this is something that will not change as it is based on instinct.

[corvidae]

What? 50/50?!? How is it 50/50? Society and the media? Who said anything about them? Look, let me use an example, a paradigm if you like. Someone asked me if I had tried computer dating and I said yes, but that I hadn't really had any contacts. This person, who was female, said that when women do those things they get something like 30 responses a day. A DAY????!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? OK, one more time 30 RESPONSES A DAY!! You know how many I got? 2 in about four months. Now, you can tell me that a lot of those guys would be rubbish...fair enough, but even if 10% are good that's 3 a day!! Even if you're chances of meeting a nice guy are 1%, that's 3 every ten days. At 0.5% that's 3 every twenty days and so on. Whatever the number it beats my 0 every 26 years. That, dear reader, is a perfect reflection of real life. Women have vast scores of men to select from. Us men have SQUAT. SQUAT I tell you. How is that even? Women have a much easier time of this. Forget about sex (easier said than done), how many women do you know that have NEVER been in a relationship? I know none. I know three men that have never had a girlfriend though. I don't hang around lonely men clubs, that's 3 people I've met by random chance through life. Anyone who thinks the situation is even isn't paying enough attention.

[corvidae]

Gee, I don't want to start discussing me, but I'll quickly answer these questions as I suppose I serve as an example of the issues discussed.

 

I'm fairly happy. I don't walk around with a 'woe is me' attitude. Outside of these forums I never discuss these issues as I don't tend to dwell on them in day to day life. If you spoke to me on MSN or something chances are I wouldn't bring it up.

 

As for women, well, I've asked out about a dozen that I knew, and also 'tried it on' with about a dozen others who I didn't know but met at parties, pubs, events etc... The last woman I asked out worked here in my department and just shook her head sadly. Then she didn't talk to me for about 3 months. I think she's a bit odd. That was two Christmases ago. The women I knew were either off my course or in the same interest group (like the theatre group I was in). Now-a-days I don't really meet any women. Whether or not women have been interested in me in the past is uncertain. I MAY have had some ambiguous signals by people who then expected me to do something, but what the hell? I'm shy and bashful, but I managed to pull the courage out of somewhere to get off my behind and make some effort with others, so I don't see why someone else shouldn't do that for me.

 

Dating might be fun for women because they can get a date like a glass of water, but I think the burden is on the men.

[AzureSkyes69]

I didn't mean to just complain. I thought that if women understood the difficulties faced by men, then it might make the whole process easier. Communication leads to better understanding after all. Oh well.

 

 

I have read over all the posts under this topic(gee there was allot to read..lol,but very interesting) and I concur with pretty much with what

corvidae wrote.

 

I do think it it is much more difficult for men they are the ones supposed to be(as society looks at it) : the bread winners,the protector,the aggressive one,the pursuer..etc...and there is tons of competition out there testosterone exploding all over the place.

 

not sure if this part really relates too much or not..oh!well...

I am not saying this is what I do but some women do look for these things big time.1) lots of money2) handsome 3)good body 4) tall..and

the list of examples can go on and on,Some men also take the superficial way about looking for a women.I myself believe yes you yourself have to find them attractive..but beauty does fade with time,that is why I prefer

intelligence and personality over someone who looks like Leonardo DiCaprio.the long conversations,the charm,the sweet nature of

a person,the personality.These are the things that stand the

test of time.

 

 

Corvidae,

It is my opinion that from what you wrote I can conclude that you would need someone as intelligent as yourself as well for stimulating conversations

I myself can be shy around men but as I have gotten older and a little

more bold I do take more risks,now I will not downright ask a man out but I will smile and flirt and if he catches my fancy I will talk to him.just by talking and getting to know someone may lead to something more that is why I now make an effort.It takes some of the pressure of off the man for a change.

Dont loose hope you seem really nice and if that is your picture quite attractive if I do say so myself(sorry not meaning to flirt,haha)

I know it can be very lonley out there by yourself and quite discouraging.I have been there and believe me it is not fun.

Dont give up I was always told there is someone out there for everybody.

Always have hope.

 

Take Care

-Sue

[x0skarlette0x]

I agree but then again I disagree. Women go out and try to find men too. Yes, women are selective but that's because they have learned from others or their own experiences that men can be dogs because they as you said want to spread their genes with any woman possible.

Jaiva

 

i agree, i think it can be just as hard for girls latley in highschool alot of the guys have been becoming players and cheating on theire girlfriends more than normal and the girls become highly upset and depressed thinking that it was all there falt. then it leads us to be insecure about our selves and thereforeeee we become more slective because we dont want to be used again or at least turn out like othergirls who have been used

[x0skarlette0x]

quote

Dating might be fun for women because they can get a date like a glass of water, but I think the burden is on the men.

 

not when the girl is also shy and bashful most men can sense it and most of them back off once they do sense it

[corvidae]

You're 15, trust me, things change.

 

Dating might be fun for women because they can get a date like a glass of water, but I think the burden is on the men.

 

not when the girl is also shy and bashful most men can sense it and most of them back off once they do sense it

[ShySoul]

corvidae,

 

I know there have been posts of girls who haven't had relationships before, so there are women out there in the same position. It doesn't seem like that because of society's gender stereotypes. Men are suppose to be the ones who get a girl and your looked at as less if you don't. Likewise, women should sit back and be courted by guys. But you should realize thats nonsense in this age. Women can ask out men, men can be just as picky about women. Anything is fair game.

 

Don't but into the idea that women have it easier. I was just talking about this with a girl. According to her, the men have the power. From what she's seen, the girls are the ones going gaga over guys and the guys are the ones who hold their hearts captive. So it can happen both ways. Why generalize one way or the other. That just seems like an easy out for your frustrations, saying that men have it so much harder when it isn't easy for either sex.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again: quality, not quantity. Through all the statistics and numbers around you want, it doesn't mean anything. Ok, so a woman gets 30 messages in a day. But if none of them pan out, is she any better off than when she started? Is she any closer than a man getting 2 in four months? No, it didn't work for either of you. Furthermore, past realtionships, or lack thereof, shouldn't be a factor. Someone can get dates with 100 different people and end up alone and miserable, maybe moreso because she is so frustrated at having found no one out of all those people. Meanwhile, someone can meet just one person and spend the rest of their lives together. It isn't a numbers game, its all about you finding someone who is right for you. What matters is if you two like each other. There are so many possibilites that it shouldn't be something to worry or think about.

[corvidae]

I must disagree with you there Shysoul, I think it is a numbers game based on probability. Unless you believe in fate or some other unseen power, then whether or not you run into someone 'right' for you is a matter of chance and probability, nothing more. thereforeeee the more people you have interested in you, the more likely you find someone right for you. Quality not quantity! For goodness sakes the two are inextricably related! If a woman gets 30 guys interested in her and not ONE of them is right, then what's the chance that one of the two women in four months is right for the guy!! It's like saying to someone 'you get a hundred lottery tickets a week, I get one a month, but I'm more likely to win because it's quality not quantity.' What? It doesn't make sense? Why are the two women every four months better quality? Why would all 30 men be rubbish? The laws of probability apply to both men and women my friend.

 

Secondly, you say that now-a-days gender stereotypes don't apply, and that women ask men out just as often as men ask out women. Well, let me firstly say that everything I have said in previous posts is based on empirical evidence, not me just saying how I think things are based on what I saw on TV. My housemate Katherine, when I lived with her, used to get asked out about twice a month. The last girl I asked out had also been asked out by another guy at the same time. I don't know one girl I've been interested in that hasn't had at least one other guy after her. Even the most unattractive girls I have known have had some attention. I know three guys who are in their mid-twenties and have never had girlfriends, I know no such women. I will accept the challenge from anyone, anywhere to go out to a bar/club/anywhere and do a tally of who approaches who, and if it isn't 90% men making the first move I'll eat my own kidneys. In fact, I throw down the gauntlet right here and now, I'm off to start a thread asking people how many people they've asked out and we'll see if it comes up even!

[doorik]

That is why, even today, it is the man's job to seduce the woman, and why women play hard to get. It's all in our instincts. Perhaps the double standard is unfair, but then so is placing the burdens of seduction entirely on men. We cannot remove one inequality while ignoring another. If women want a more equitable role, then they have to take half the bad as well as half the good.

 

I just read this again and see that Corvidae is basically saying this: the burden of seduction, which is instinctual, has been placed on man by "nature" ( evolution) and the same goes for the woman's instinctual reaction which is to "play hard to get"...

 

.....so that must mean that although we may want to try and change this behavior, our instincts will kick in and not allow us to change because this is not a behavior that can be altered...it is beyond our control.

 

This however, has nothing to do with women wanting an equitable role as in this case there is no equality to be had. Men and women will respond differently to a situation ( dating, asking out) because of our instincts. No equality there, we are "wired" very differently. Our roles are very different.. period.

 

So in a sense we can argue that nature is not fair--because it is nature ( not women) that has placed this burden on men. We can try to change our behavior (both men and women), but we are screwed because more than likely this is something that will not change as it is based on instinct.

 

Be very careful about this line of argument Muneca, it is an extremely slippery slope you are treading on. Think about it, through millennia upon millennia we evolved in a way where males were the hunters/protectors/bread winners, while women gathered and tended to the family. If what you say is true, then women should instinctlively want to stay home while the men go out to work This is no longer applicable to modern society. Women stood up for and demanded equality. Now in no way am I comparing the huge leaps made for gender equality in the past century with Corvidae's post. However, I think Corvidae point is clear when he writes,

 

The nice thing about having adaptable, intelligent minds is that we can change our behaviour. Change only results once we have awareness. The next time a woman is sitting about like a lemon not approaching anyone, if she's read this thread, she'll know why and can then choose to do something about it.

[doorik]

To say that men and women are so vastly different, have diffenent instincts, etc. is making a vast generalization

 

This is followed immediately by three vast generalizations...

First

No one has the advantage, it's 50/50

 

then,

The only reason women are preceived as having an advantage is because society and the media portray it as that way

 

finally,

Well, that and the fact that most men are idiots

[doorik]

All things being equal - let's say 1 guy and 1 girl are at the same class/education/career level, and are attractive to the same proportion of the opposite sex, and both decide not to ask anyone out, who do you think will have more dating opportunities?

 

Anyone? Anyone? Peterson? Frye? Bueller?.......

[ShySoul]

doorik,

 

Your definition of a generalization must be very broad. First, the line of about men being idiots was a joke. Have a sense of humor. Second, it is 50/50. In a lasting relationship things should be equal, anyone should tell you that. As far as dating, again, it should be equal. The only reason it seems any other was is because we keep getting this idea pounded into us that people are suppose to follow set gender roles. The guy has to be aggresive and seek out a girl while the girl is passiveand chooses among the potentials. But why limit ourselves to these roles? Why not break the cycle and change the way things our done.

 

corvidae,

 

I'll argue that its not a numbers game. Your lottery ticket example shows my point. Someone can buy 100 tickets a week but the numbers still have to match. If they don't then you still lose out. You could say your odds are improved, but they are still pretty astronomical. One in a billion vs 100 in a billion. Odds are still slim. On the other hand, someone could buy just one ticket and win. Once I entered a raffle at school, bought only one ticket and won. Other people bought a bunch and got nothing. Just because you try to increase your odds doesn't mean it will pay off. I'll apply this to dating. I'm around 30 or so girls on a daily basis in my classes, probably more but I'll be conservative. There's no chance of anything between one of them and me. In four years of college where's there's more girls than guys, only one has actually sparked my interest. Yet, in the past 9 months online I've only spoken to like four girls and bam, theres something there with one of them. If it was a matter of odds wouldn't I have got something out of my college experience? Yet, it only took four girls online to find someone special. But really, the very notion of it being a numbers game demeans the whole idea of dating, love and romance. Don't seek love, love will come to you.

 

Gender stereotypes don't have to apply. Your right in saying that most people are still stuck on old ways like that. But it's gradually changing. Men will still make the first move because its been engrained in them through people constantly saying they have to. But it doesn't have to be like that. Women are making strives elsewhere, why shouldn't women be the aggressors in dating. Then again, does it even matter who asks the other out? Does it matter how many times you ask someone out? Or is what matters the end result? Ask out 50 people and you'll face more rejection. On the other hand, try just talking and really getting to know the person. If something develops, it will be clear and then your most likely to get that yes.

[doorik]

Corvidae wrote:

It's like saying to someone 'you get a hundred lottery tickets a week, I get one a month, but I'm more likely to win because it's quality not quantity.' What? It doesn't make sense? Why are the two women every four months better quality? Why would all 30 men be rubbish? The laws of probability apply to both men and women my friend.

 

To which Shysoul responded with:

I'll argue that its not a numbers game. Your lottery ticket example shows my point. Someone can buy 100 tickets a week but the numbers still have to match. If they don't then you still lose out. You could say your odds are improved, but they are still pretty astronomical. One in a billion vs 100 in a billion. Odds are still slim. On the other hand, someone could buy just one ticket and win.

 

 

Corvidae does not explicitly state winning the entire jackpot (the analogy would be soulmate would it not?) there are other prizes as well (free ticket = 1 date, small sum of money = several dates, larger sums of money = relationships) So the lady who receives 100 tickets has a better chance of winning than the fella who buys one. Corvidae's analogy is still valid.

 

Shysoul, if you read all of the posts on the topic the issue is not who has a better chance of meeting their soulmate, it's who has a better chance of getting a date.

[doorik]

it is 50/50. In a lasting relationship things should be equal, anyone should tell you that. As far as dating, again, it should be equal.

 

You argue that it is 50/50 correct? Then why did you write should

twice. The word should indicates that the situation that is being addressed is not the way it ought to be. Your argument should say

"In ideal relationships it would be 50/50".

 

The guy has to be aggresive and seek out a girl while the girl is passiveand chooses among the potentials. But why limit ourselves to these roles? Why not break the cycle and change the way things our done.

 

If you read the posts, this is exactly what Corvidae is advocating.

[Mun]

You're funny doorik.

What I was addressing in my previous post was Corvidae's stance that out behavior is based on instinct --that would mean it is beyond our control. It's what Corvidae said ( I quoted him)--not my personal opinion. Then he went on to say we can change our behavior??.. me so confused now

 

The nice thing about having adaptable, intelligent minds is that we can change our behaviour.

[ShySoul]

doorik,

 

Sorry if I don't have time to read through 15 pages, I just wanted to state my opinion on things. From what I did read it sounded as if the argument was that such behavior is instinctual and will always be that way. I disagree and wanted to show that wasn't the case, that girls can be just as aggressive as guys. Hey, the girl I mentioned was the one who first showed interest in me. So it is happening, probably more than you think. Just be aware of it and not get caught in the trap of thinking anykind of double standard exists.

 

I wrote should because I try not to speak in absolutes, leaving room for exceptions. Yes, it should be 50/50 and in the relationships that work it is. But I won't deny it isn't always like that. Hence I write should.

 

Is getting a date really what's important? Or is it getting a date with the right person? I would rather only have a handful of dates ever and make sure their good ones with some girl I really like then have all kinds of dates with girls where there is nothing there. Unless I feel there is something there I would rather not waste my time.

 

What do most people do with those mini prizes? They squander them. You get a dollar back, it goes right to another ticket where you don't win anything. And considering your investing so much in these tickets you need a large payoff just to break even. Relating that to dating, you put in so much time, effort, and concern into getting dates. Your going to want a large payoff to justify that effort or you are just going to feel discouraged and wonder what the point is. That is likely to hurt your chances in the long run as you start to lose hope and wonder why nothing ever works out. More chances doesn't equate success on any level, it may be helpful, it may be harmful. No guarantees one way or the other.

[corvidae]

What? What's the problem with that? We have instincts and we have intelligent minds, the two can sometimes conflict. What are you having trouble with? We love fatty foods because we have evolved to seek fat as it helps us survive, in this day and age where food is no longer scarce, we can eat what we want so our conscious mind has to alter our instinctive behaviour so we don't get obese. Similarly women can make the conscious effort not to act like lemons. Not meaning to be rude, but it's a pretty simple concept isn't it?

 

You're funny doorik.

What I was addressing in my previous post was Corvidae's stance that out behavior is based on instinct --that would mean it is beyond our control. It's what Corvidae said ( I quoted him)--not my personal opinion. Then he went on to say we can change our behavior??.. me so confused now

 

The nice thing about having adaptable, intelligent minds is that we can change our behaviour.

[corvidae]

Why not break the cycle and change the way things our done.

 

Isn't that what I'm asking women to do?

 

 

corvidae,

 

I'll argue that its not a numbers game. Your lottery ticket example shows my point. Someone can buy 100 tickets a week but the numbers still have to match. If they don't then you still lose out. You could say your odds are improved, but they are still pretty astronomical.

 

It was a metaphor not a literal comparison. I'll state my point again, pay attention: UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OR FATE THEN THE CHANCES OF FINDING A PARTNER IS BASED PURELY ON PROBABILITY. Ergo, it's a numbers game. You found your dream woman first time? Well done, so what's your advice then? Wander merrily through life and the person will just turn up? No offense, but for the rest of us that live in the real world that doesn't work.

 

 

Women are making strives elsewhere, why shouldn't women be the aggressors in dating. Then again, does it even matter who asks the other out? Does it matter how many times you ask someone out? Or is what matters the end result? Ask out 50 people and you'll face more rejection. On the other hand, try just talking and really getting to know the person. If something develops, it will be clear and then your most likely to get that yes.

 

Of course it matters how many times you're rejected!! What are you a robot! Humans have feelings, we need to feel good about ourselves to be confident and if you've been rejected 200 times you're going to feel like s**t and that will affect your life.

 

Look, I'm going to stop arguing with you now because I think that you've found your dream woman or whatever, and you don't understand why it isn't like that for other people. Love will find you!! Ha ha ha ha ha HA HA. Sounds like the plot to a Hugh Grant movie.

[AzureSkyes69]

I agree with Corvidae about being rejected we are all human and have feelings(well most of us do) and everytime someone is rejected it cuts like a knife into your soul and makes you feel horrible about yourself and with that you won't have much confidence(if any).

I am sure we have all heard the line"there is someone out there for everybody" and I say where?

Love unfortunatlly does not come up and bite you on the bum,If that were the case we would all have someone.

 

You tend to give up and loose hope after awhile.I

know most of us do that have been searching and searching to no avail,I seem to find people that think the grass is greener and leave me to find someone pretter,thinner and the list goes on.

That I have to tell you does not fair to well on a persons self esteem either.