So I decide to stop actively trying to find someone I like, and then immediately stumble into a rather acute crush. Ain't life funny.

 

The thing is, it's about as shallow of a crush as you can imagine judging that I have literally never spoken to her before. She's in a recitation and lecture of mine, and I kind of just crushed on first sight unfortunately.

 

So far I've been taking the approach of "it's creepy to make moves on someone you have literally no connections to whatsoever" approach by trying to just make the crush go away. Needless to say that isn't very pleasant though.

 

So should I attempt to take steps towards asking her out despite the creepiness factor or should I just suck it up and wait for the crush to die?

You're overanalyzing this. Just go talk to her. Don't think about how the conversation's going to go, just start it up and see what happens. Even if you get "rejected," you'll feel better than you would've if you didn't talk to her at all. Ask me how I know. :)

 

Also, erase "creep" from your vocabulary. Erase "[bleep]" too while you're at it. They're irrational, fear-mongering labels that do nothing for you.

Edited February 4, 201313 yr by Kaida23
removed censor evasion

Muggi is a creepy [bleep]!

Edited February 4, 201313 yr by Kaida23
removed censor evasion

:oops:

[bleep] got erased from my vocabulary a few months ago due to Tumblr.

 

But you're right, I'm being timid again and I need to stop doing that. I've been rejected enough times to know it isn't that bad.

 

[Rambling and answering my own question]This is going to sound weird, but....

How does one approach random people? Like I can't imagine doing it (outside of a context that explains it such as a club or something) without it being extremely weird and awkward. I guess I'm less afraid of rejection and more terrible at getting to know new people. Which is probably why my only college friends are from clubs and such....

Do I just sit near a person and start up a conversation? Yeah actually that sounds about right. Why do I over-complicate these things so much?[/Rambling and answering my own question]

 

Edit: Why are you guys able to say "[bleep]" but when I type it I get censored?

For talking to strangers, just say hi. If you're both in the same class, just start talking about that. I used to just sit down next to cute girls in lecture and ask them if they'd gotten started on assignments due later in the month and stuff, and then once you've broken the ice like that, you're free to talk about whatever. If a girl's like, "OMG WHY ARE YOU BEING FRIENDLY AND TALKING TO ME ABOUT THIS CLASS WE'RE IN?!" then there's something wrong with her, not you :P

Edited February 4, 201313 yr by Kaida23
removed censor evasion

Welp, I guess I'd better get started with starting conversations then. I'll make a point of trying to do that at least once a day until it starts to feel natural. Whether with said crush or with someone else.

 

...If I stopped posting here I managed to get arrested somehow. (Probably by rubbing a girl's arm and pulling her hair.)

Get in the habit of talking to EVERYONE-- that includes guys and ugly girls too :P Every time you're checking out at a store, just ask the cashier how their day's going or if they've done anything fun recently. In other words, just try to brighten peoples' days.

Do I just sit near a person and start up a conversation? Yeah actually that sounds about right.

Exactly. Some of the best conversations I have are with random people while sitting or waiting. Now I just need to figure out how to do it with attractive girls. lol

 

And yes, anything that lets you clearly type a word that would be otherwise filtered is censor evasion and is against the rules. I've edited the preceding posts so it no longer appears.

 

Everyone consider this your one and only rules reminder about this. There will be warnings next time. :shame:

For future reference, does that mean we aren't allowed to discuss that term at all? Or if it's allowed as long as we don't evade the censor, then how should it be discussed?

Welp, forced myself to make small talk with a girl sitting next to me in my lecture (it was coincidence that it was a pretty girl and not a guy that sat next to me, I swear) and it went smashingly. Or at least she didn't call the cops when I shoved her down, stomped on her, and then helped her back up (push pull and all that).

 

On a more serious note:

An old childhood friend of mine sent me a letter today (just read it now), and this has left me feeling pretty guilty. She sends me 1-2 letters a year, usually updating me on how her life's going and such, but due to a combination of procrastination and forgetfulness I only reply once every other year or so. In this one she mentioned driving down to visit me (she lives several states away), and while I can understand wanting to see an old friend again I can't quite get how a person would still be trying to gain contact after being ignored for so long.

...Then there's the fact that after rambling about games we played as kids she said "I hope we can hang out as adults someday" (yes with it bolded like that). I honestly hope that isn't implying what I think it is. She hasn't even seen me since I was a 6th grader.

 

Most of me wants to do what I always do when stuff from my childhood pops up, which is ignore it until it goes away. But on the other hand I feel like I've been being a dick in that fashion for way too long. I dunno.

...is she hot???

I haven't seen her since 6th grade, so who knows. She asked me to add her on Facebook, but there're approximately 10000000000000 people with her name so I never found her account.

I haven't seen her since 6th grade, so who knows. She asked me to add her on Facebook, but there're approximately 10000000000000 people with her name so I never found her account.

Tried looking up the school and the class year?

 

...You're not very familiar with the Golden Rules of Facebook Stalking, are you?

For future reference, does that mean we aren't allowed to discuss that term at all? Or if it's allowed as long as we don't evade the censor, then how should it be discussed?

I think everyone in here has a pretty good handle on what and how things should be discussed. Despite its subject matter (which according to internet logic should have devolved into obscene photos and language within 3 seconds of its inception), I think this might have the least moderator interference of any longstanding topic in OT.

 

Just don't go bypassing the censor, and we should be all good. :grin:

Well I don't know the name of her school, and her hometown is too dinky to register on Facebook. My hometown had a population of ~2000 (not a typo), and hers isn't much bigger.

Just have her give you the URL of her FB page. Or give her yours and tell her to add you. If she's hot, give me the URL to her FB page too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

This doesn't have much to do with this thread. Still interesting though. I was just wondering where you stand politically, actually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE

This doesn't have much to do with this thread. Still interesting though. I was just wondering where you stand politically, actually.

 

Well with regards to this thread, a few points I took from it:

 

The agent-object dichotomy is similar to the alpha-beta or lover-provider dichotomy as far as men go. The "agent" like Genghis Khan was only able to be "successful" with women by "playing the field" constantly. The "object" plays it safe and pretty much becomes a woman's pawn (friendzone). More interestingly, I think it gave some insights as to why women have a tendency to "betaize" men in relationships. If a man's an alpha/lover/agent when the relationship begins, the woman will try and convert him into a beta/provider/object because objects are/were much more useful to her from an evolutionary standpoint. Hope that makes sense >_> "Betaization" is something that hasn't really been discussed in this thread before AFAIK.

 

I don't really have any political views and I generally choose to remain blissfully ignorant as far as politics are concerned. Mostly because I've never met anyone who was happier as a result of their knowledge of politics. :P From what I hear, things are [bleep]ed up and it's not going to change any time soon >_>

For future reference, does that mean we aren't allowed to discuss that term at all? Or if it's allowed as long as we don't evade the censor, then how should it be discussed?

 

The problem inherent with the censor, one of the reasons I fought against it so hard when I was a mod. Unfortunately only scored one minor victory iirc (uncensoring "shit").

 

On topic: GWW's stuff is always very interesting. Can't say I agree with all of it, but it definitely makes you think...

The agent-object dichotomy is similar to the alpha-beta or lover-provider dichotomy as far as men go. The "agent" like Genghis Khan was only able to be "successful" with women by "playing the field" constantly. The "object" plays it safe and pretty much becomes a woman's pawn (friendzone). More interestingly, I think it gave some insights as to why women have a tendency to "betaize" men in relationships. If a man's an alpha/lover/agent when the relationship begins, the woman will try and convert him into a beta/provider/object because objects are/were much more useful to her from an evolutionary standpoint. Hope that makes sense >_> "Betaization" is something that hasn't really been discussed in this thread before AFAIK.

 

I don't think the betas are objects and become a woman's pawn according to girlwriteswhat. The point in the video is that women have incentives to be objects and to select less risk-averse partners, because they'll put themselves on the line to provide. Men who don't aren't pawns; it's the contrary, in that those who want to have children are "forced" to provide for the women (by proving that they're capable of defending them, for example). The others aren't being "used", but they don't reproduce.

 

As far as politics go, you're right, everything is [bleep]ed up and it's not getting better, but anyone will tell you that regardless of their alignment. I don't believe politics makes you unhappy though. This sounds like I'm trying to get you to join the ranks of the Libertarian party or something (maybe I am), but considering how much you value your freedom, I expect you'd find a lot of meaning in defending it in the political sphere. Not the right thread though.

 

The problem inherent with the censor, one of the reasons I fought against it so hard when I was a mod. Unfortunately only scored one minor victory iirc (uncensoring "shit").

Are we allowed to use censored words if we use [hide] tags to keep them out of sight?

Are we allowed to use censored words if we use [hide] tags to keep them out of sight?

 

No.

The agent-object dichotomy is similar to the alpha-beta or lover-provider dichotomy as far as men go. The "agent" like Genghis Khan was only able to be "successful" with women by "playing the field" constantly. The "object" plays it safe and pretty much becomes a woman's pawn (friendzone). More interestingly, I think it gave some insights as to why women have a tendency to "betaize" men in relationships. If a man's an alpha/lover/agent when the relationship begins, the woman will try and convert him into a beta/provider/object because objects are/were much more useful to her from an evolutionary standpoint. Hope that makes sense >_> "Betaization" is something that hasn't really been discussed in this thread before AFAIK.

 

I don't think the betas are objects and become a woman's pawn according to girlwriteswhat. The point in the video is that women have incentives to be objects and to select less risk-averse partners, because they'll put themselves on the line to provide.

 

But according to her, the less risk-averse men are the "objects," right?

 

Men who don't aren't pawns; it's the contrary, in that those who want to have children are "forced" to provide for the women (by proving that they're capable of defending them, for example).

 

I think this provokes the question of whether or not men back then "wanted" children, or at least understood the implications of it. Sex? Yes. Children? Probably. Responsibility attached to children? Not sure. In her Genghis Khan example, he just banged hundreds of women and had hundreds of kids, without the responsibility of raising them. He just played it like a numbers game. The kids' upbringing was dependent upon the mothers and how quickly they could find some poor chumps to help them raise the kids :P

 

The others aren't being "used", but they don't reproduce.

 

If the men are raising a kid that isn't their own, then they're being used. But if they're also having sex with the mother, then who knows.

 

Kind of a grey area to think about >_>

 

As far as politics go, you're right, everything is [bleep]ed up and it's not getting better, but anyone will tell you that regardless of their alignment. I don't believe politics makes you unhappy though. This sounds like I'm trying to get you to join the ranks of the Libertarian party or something (maybe I am), but considering how much you value your freedom, I expect you'd find a lot of meaning in defending it in the political sphere. Not the right thread though.

 

Well from what little I know, I align most closely to the libertarian party apparently. Whether or not their beliefs are actually practical, I don't know. I know very little about history and politics so I can't speak much on the subject.

Are we allowed to use censored words if we use [hide] tags to keep them out of sight?

 

No.

 

I've posted a lot of images with bad language here but kept them in hide tags with "language warnings." Is that ok? I think you've even "liked" some of them :P

Are we allowed to use censored words if we use [hide] tags to keep them out of sight?

 

No.

 

I've posted a lot of images with bad language here but kept them in hide tags with "language warnings." Is that ok? I think you've even "liked" some of them :P

 

You may post videos and pictures that contain profanity provided that it is minimal and not highly offensive and the video(s)/picture(s) must be in hide tags with a vulgarity warning. This applies to posts only; profanity is not permitted in avatars, signatures, or profile pages.

http://forum.tip.it/topic/48092-tipit-forum-rules/#flaming