What Women Mean by "Creepy"

Post Reply New Topic

Really? So if a guy came up to you and was staring down your shirt, refusing to leave you alone, etc, you'd be going "Well, at least his grammar is good"? (If it was good, that is.)

Really. I'd be offended, but not irritated enough to stab him in the eye.

There you have it, folks - you can check out Wiggin and leave with your vision intact

After the divorce, of course. These are very large amounts of money for a lot of people, and they'd think twice before skipping an opportunity like that.
By women, I meant a lot of women. A significant part of the female population would probably still marry for money. Hence 'by the dozen'.

Is that all you saw? Do you have an explicit definition you would like to share with the rest of us?

Is all in the application, my low-social-IQ counterparts!!

Incorrect application = creepy!

For instance, you may read and memorize all the pointers and advice from dating books, but we fail in the application. There's more to knowing what women like, you have to exude the correct body language, facial expression, verbal tone, timing, and many other ultra-fine nuances.

A woman may like and appreciate poetry, but a sloppy application (delivery), devoid of the correct nuances, will surely creep her out.

Women love and crave attention, but poor first impressions, and poor delivery of those critical nuances, will surely creep her out!!

It's all about delivery and properly analyzing when to back off!! !

Again, one more time... My low-social-IQ male friends.. Repeat out loud after me! "Incorrect application of attention towards a woman equals creepiness. I shall not be a creep, but learn the ways of the abysmal complexity in attracting a woman by proper delivery, and I shall learn to sense failure and immediately back off therefrom".

Yes! You've now learned the correct desired hue and consistency, but your using the wrong brush and using the wrong stroke!! Learn to apply your man-paint with the correct brush and stroke... Wax on, wax off!! !

LOL...

Even attractive adonises can appear creepy towards women with the wrong application (delivery) technique. Moreover, a fugly male who fell from the Ugly Redwood tree and hit every branch on the way down, can win the affection of a shallow female by delivering his attention correctly.

Back me up ladies!! And please elaborate for me!

So, what you're saying is that at least 12 women would take the offer up?

And still, the assumption that I'd marry for money would make him a d*ckhead.

In the context of speed-dating at least, self-reported mate preferences deviate markedly from actual mate choices. As with desires [e.g., for sexual variety] and fantasies, stated preferences can be useful for understanding how evolution has biased the male and female mind in different directions, but they are a fallible base for discovering the process mechanisms of real choice behavior, as Buston and Emlen aimed to do. Contrary to the concerns raised by Buston and Emlen, the mate choice patterns of men and women, as we have found by analyzing speed-dating, are very much in line with the theories of Darwin and Trivers. Furthermore, these patterns imply that the well documented phenomenon of human positive assortative mating, at least when it arises through active mate choice rather than social homogamy, is almost exclusively a result of the picky female choices, not the rather undiscriminating male ones. In this way, humans put themselves in line with most other mammals in following Darwin’s principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different.

I know of plenty of women who fantasise about a rich man, but who end up happy with Joe next door. Just as there are plenty of men who fantasise about tall, long-legged, chestily-well-endowed women, but end up happy with Jane next door. There's a difference between what you fantasise about and what you'd actually be happy with.

For a lot of individual men, that would be a very good deal.



Apparently, they had some novel research about what women were actually looking for. It's easy to say, speaking in general terms, that you'd never let money play an important role. As a theoretical rule, there are very few women who specifically address material wealth as being a crucial part of their attraction to a man. However, it is.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/1501 ... 83bf767404



It actually says it right there. I'm not saying I know what all women want, but I'm saying I know what most of them want. I've heard of other types of research along these lines - unfortunately, I'm unable to find one at the moment - where they let women judge men's attractiveness after seeing their annual income. The differences were rather enormous, to say the least. The difference between being deeply unpopular with women and being able to get married to a pretty one within months is a six-to-seven-figure annual income, to put it very bluntly.



Indeed. However, given the chance, Joe would have a beautiful girlfriend - not wife - and Jane would have a monogamous millionaire husband. The reason they don't is because the beautiful women and wealthy men wouldn't settle for the homely women or the impoverished men.

Not going to correct you. I think you can believe what you want to believe. Just know you'd be part of a minority if the things you listed actually were crucial in attracting you to a man.

I'll turn it around.

"You're male, so that means you like slender, large-breasted, long-legged blondes.

Wait, you don't? You say you actually care about whether a women is a possessive harpy? You want someone who enjoys your love of insert loved activity here?

No, all the men in my world like busty blondes. Men say they like a variety of women, but that's different from what they actually go for. I bet if you had a really nice girlfriend who was a world chess master, great in bed and a 5-star chef, you'd dump her the second a leggy blonde showed interest."

^ Accurate?

but what I truly want is to get laid.