I have a confession to make to the world. I don't love music. In fact, I'd be hard pressed even to claim that I like music. Oh, sure, there are particular pieces that entertain me. In fact, I find music to be a pleasant background for a lot of activities. I almost never listen to music for its own sake though. And you can forget about an emotional response. Maybe to the lyrics, but never to the music.

It's a relatively recent revelation to me that this makes me an oddity. Apparently, almost everybody else finds music to be very moving. I guess in compensation, I was blessed with a deep emotional connection to words and language. I find the shape and sound of certain words to be very evocative.

Golly... Judging from my experience lately, that's the whole relationship.

Yeah. Finding somebody at church is probably going to be my best bet. I always feel REALLY weird asking a girl on a date at church, though. Ah well, looks like Real Life wins this battle, as usual. I need to be more sociable anyway, but damn, is it ever hard.

I've actually gone through all of my mutual matches. I don't really have access to all 50,000 members. One of my deal breakers, unfortunately, is that my match be reasonably local. Long-distance relationships don't work for me. Maybe that means that dating web sites are going to be of limited utility to me, but it's just the way it is.

What do you do when you've exhausted all of your prospective matches at a dating web site? Aside from changing my search criteria, which are pretty much just my "deal breakers," it seems like I've already communicated with (or been rejected) all of my matches at several different web sites. I've moved on to new sites, sort of, but the old ones remain bookmarked. Is anybody else familiar with this experience? What have you done about it?

You say that you love him, but another important question that you should ask yourself is, "Do I trust him?" I suspect that the answer is probably no because you are conflicted about this situation. It is a mistake to believe that love is sufficient. Your love can not make him change. If you do not trust that he's changed by his own will, then loving him will not make the relationship work.

EDIT:

Heh. Great minds think alike. If I'm ever in Maryland, want to go out for a burger?

I like these two. The first one is very, very wise. The second one is as well, but I've never heard of somebody "looking like a truck."

Maybe it does, but I haven't seen this specific variant before and it's better than the last variant that I read.

Even better, since they'll all know that the math is wrong SOMEWHERE, you can know who deserves a promotion by who can figure out WHERE the math is wrong.

I'm pretty sure that my opinion is going to differ considerably from the norm around here, but a variety of advice can't hurt, right?

I don't think that you find THE person for you. That idea is romantic, but I don't think it's accurate (neither logically nor pragmatically.) Certainly, some people will be more or less compatible with you, but ultimately, compatibility only takes you so far. One way or another, you're going to have to work at that perfect relationship.

So while the emotional component has to be present, choosing your spouse shouldn't be an exclusively emotional decision. You have to choose somebody with whom and for whom you are prepared to work. When you get right down to it, the decision of whom to marry is like any other decision. You weigh all of the factors and then you make a choice.

So you will know that you've found the right person when you're able to DECIDE (after weighing both the emotional AND the rational factors) that this is the person to whom you want to make the commitment of marriage. You won't "just know." In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that if you feel like you "just know," then you probably don't and you need to think about it more. Until you can say, "I have made a decision," then you're not prepared to make a commitment.

I think that I'll probably stick with "indirect game" for the time being. The specific method that we just discussed seems like it has a lot of strengths for the kind of interactions I want to have. One, it helps me to determine whether or not a particular woman is capable of engaging in an intellectual conversation. Two, by using the "neg" technique, I make her want to live up to my expectation of intellectual conversation rather than letting her cut me down for bringing up a "geeky" topic.

It's kind of funny. When a nice guy complains that women don't want to talk to him, friends often console him with the words, "It's her loss." The funny thing is that it really is her loss and this technique seems geared toward letting the woman know that (and that you know it too.)

Well, I went and read Mystery's article on neg theory. I can't say that I won't give it a try, but the ideas presented made me feel rather anxious. It was hard enough for me to get to the point where I could tell somebody something that was completely true and kind. Even just sitting in the safety of my apartment, thinking about "negs" makes me afraid that I'd say something to hurt somebody's feelings.

In any case, I'd appreciate some additional insight into some of the ideas that were mentioned. The first concept is that of ranking. Mystery wrote that a 10 might need 3 negs in rapid succession while an 8 might just need 2 and not as quickly. What, exactly, constitutes a 10 or an 8? Obviously, personal taste can't be the only factor.

Second, if I don't miss my guess, keen observation seems important here. I don't think I've ever actively noticed a girl's nails before, for example. Observing and then improvising a neg seems like it would be really hard. In the example he gave, 2/3 of the negs were based on her appearance. Would a backhanded compliment of any sort work?

Maybe, for example, ask her, "Tell me what you thought about Catch 22." If she's read it and has something to say about it, disagree and play the devil's advocate. If she doesn't have anything to say about it, say, "Huh. You struck me as the kind of lady who'd enjoy smart literature."

My sign is Caution: High Voltage.

Ohhh! My sign of the zodiac? Leo with Virgin influences. (21 Aug.)

I would not especially like to meet or date anybody from this web site. Honestly, there's too much community here and not enough dating web site. I'm okay with being part of the community, but the advice I always get when I mention that I have a hard time getting a response to emails is, "Post in the forums more." No, thanks.

I think that the best use of a dating web site is to orchestrate RL meetings. You establish the bare minimum of shared interest and then set up a date. This whole business of trying to gauge compatibility via cyberspace seems like a poor idea to me.

Okay, let's talk about A2 - Female to Male Interest then. I broached the subject early on in the discussion and I ended up getting a little bit defensive over you advice. I hope that you can forgive me. I think that since then, I've developed a little bit more insight into the matter.

I was concerned about push/pull requiring dishonesty on my part, but if I haven't yet seen the "real her" then it can hardly be dishonest to express disinterest along with interest. All I will be doing is expressing the ambiguity that really is there.

Help me figure out HOW to do that, though. As I noted before, sarcasm and subtlety do not come naturally to me. In situations such as these, I am literally forthright to a fault.

I play a little bit of chess, but I more typically use it as an exemplar of pursuits that are more intellectual and less romantic. I could as well want to discuss the Communist Manifesto, go shopping at a book store, or watch a political debate on TV.

(Regarding chess in particular, I'm not a very strong player. I play casually, but any serious player will beat me handily.)

ChiefPUA, I appreciate your response. I know that the steretype of manipulation is one that you probably have to address frequently. I think that you've provided a very solid reply, though.


...


I find these points to be especially interesting. Although I DON'T elevate women in particular to a position higher than myself, I DO tend to elevate people, in general. This is one of the key mental blocks I've striven to overcome in the past year. I am getting better at addressing my false belief that I am weird or otherwise unfit to interact with "normal people." Recognizing that everybody else is probably at least as neurotic as I am and possibly moreso has helped me both to build confidence and also to take it in stride when I'm rejected. (Chances are, I'm not being rejected because the other person is supremely confident; I'm probably being rejected because the other person is rather insecure.)

The second point, though, touches upon a topic that I've thought about at some length. I, too, treat other people with respect, courtesy, and kindness, without regard for what I might stand to gain. Interestingly, I have found that people do not always react well to this kind of behaviour. I hypothesize two reasons for this. One, I believe that people are conditioned to assume that I have a selfish motivation for behaving that way. Two, I believe that people are so wound up in their patterns of defensive self-preservation that kindness feels dangerous to them because it exposes a vulnerability in a social armour/facade designed to deflect unkindness.

I have a question for you gentlemen. From what I've seen, a lot of pickup relies on a combination of conversational rhythm and emotional momentum to fascinate a woman. In most cases, the intended result is physical intimacy.

As I've mentioned in the past, this is not an acceptable outcome for me. I appreciate the ability to approach a woman more confidently, but I have moral apprehension about using even marginally manipulative means to achieve physical intimacy (not even so much as a makeout.)

Suppose that instead of using pickup to entice a woman into physical intimacy, I wanted to entice her to do something else, like play a game of chess (or some equally improbable pursuit.) How much of pickup relies on sexual cues to maintain momentum? Or is asking how to use pickup to get a girl to play chess just trying to use the pickup tool in the wrong way?

It isn't lack of creativity. It is an inevitable product of our culture. By their nature, it is an uncomfortable experience to discuss taboo topics directly. Countercultures do so without censure, but in the mainstream, humour is often used as a means of addressing the common experience without broaching the taboo subject in an uncomfortable way.

You'd think that people would know to avoid certain combinations of names for their children. There was a gym teacher at my high school whose name was Patrick Michael Hunt (Pat Mike Hunt.)

On a similar note...

http://xkcd.com/275/