Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Weird Science?

I was reading this. From there I discovered this. And that led me to this. And then this.

This makes good reading too.

Is flirting and meeting people of the opposite gender an art? Or can it be considered a science? Is it both? I'm beginning to think that perhaps it IS a science. Psychology to be more exact.

I'll be honest and say that if it does turn out to be a "science" and if it does turn out that there are certain "methods" that work in flirting with women, I'll be quite disappointed.

Disappointed as in most of the advice that I've gotten and most of the ideals that I used to believe in are all mistaken. Yes, I admit despite some of the stuff I write about this I still kind of hope that at least some of our romantic ideals would turn out to be true.

At least it work for many people I know.

One common thing I kept getting was,"Be yourself" or "Be true to yourself". Sounds good in theory doesn't it, all noble and all that. No need to change anything about yourself. You are good enough.

Are you?

In a previous post, I mentioned certain individuals that we had noticed. These individuals are so messed up and laden with so many problems, no amount of trying will be enough to get them female attention. Something to do with personality flaws from what I can see.

Be true to yourself? What do you do when being true to yourself IS actually the problem.

So you change your personality I suppose. Spank the inner moppet, get over it, identify and solve your problems. But suddenly I remember someone said a long time ago (or was that a comment someone left on this blog, I can't quite remember) changing your personality is the same as faking it, i.e you can't change who you are.

I'm confused. How far do you take "self-improvement" before it can be considered "faking"? And if a gormless, charmless, Average Frustrated Chump gradually changes into someone better and more socially adept, is he still himself or did he become someone else?

This doesn't sound like being true to yourself at all.

More importantly does it really matter?

One other thing. I get stuff like this in my mail too, i.e how to approach and get a woman's (hopefully positive) attention. The thing I don't really like about stuff like this is that at first glance it appears that it stereotypes and objectifies women. That's on one hand.

On the other hand, you have to admit (I'm sure many women will too) that some guys really do need some help when it comes to this. Some guys really need help so that they stop being creepy or being hapless chumps who can't handle themselves in company. I'm quite sure that many "creepy" guys don't want to be creepy. I know I wouldn't want to be. Likewise for people who are "annoying". For the necessary help to be conveyed sometimes abstract concepts need to be quantified, I guess.

Hence the "objectification".

This is the thing, when it comes to love, relationship and all that stuff I find myself constantly being pulled apart in two distinctly different directions. Do I let it flow naturally and be myself, which incidentally I've tried. So far it hasn't worked but I won't discuss the possible reasons here. That's a whole 10 page essay all by itself.

Or do I get a so-called "Players" Handbook" (or use a dating website or a forum) and use the "methods" therein? I haven't done this because frankly it sounds so "artificial".

I would love to fall in love again. It's been so very long since that happened and I'm not getting any younger. But when I think about it and all the confusion and potential trauma that can result from it, I wonder. Is it really worth it all.

Perhaps I've become too cold but I sometimes think that luck and fate are the ONLY things that matter and any other futile attempts are exactly that.

One final question, to women especially.

If you discovered that your husband/boyfriend whom you so adore first attracted you using a "method" or a "pickup" he found in a book/website/dating seminar/etc, would it matter? Would it upset you?

I would really like to know.

No comments: