Why do girls hate shy guys?

Post Reply New Topic

I am not complaining about it... just pointing out the irony that it IS a racist statement...

I don't really care either way... sorry for bringing it up when it amused me

I don't know. But I'm a shy guy and I've never had a date ever. 24 years old and nothing so far. But I do know they hate shy girls that's one thing I'm sure of.

No, they really don't... but they may not understand that you are interested... as one, if you do no say "I like you...more than a friend like" they don't normally pick up on it

Both beliefs are correct. There are girls that hate shy guys and girls that don't But there are more girls that will not want to date a shy guy than there are that will. (studies and statistics available in psychology journals, etc., look them up if you are sincerely interested)

Coming from a purely survival, instinctive understanding. Shy and timid has less chance of survival. From sociological, Shy and timid are less likely to provide satisfaction. From a health perspective, shy and timid are less likely to be of optimal health.

BEFORE YOU START disagreeing and making false statements of "that's not true" etc. READ the paragraph and understand "LESS CHANCE" "LESS LIKELY". The fact is, probability and statistics always has exceptions, but that does not change the NORM, or the RULE, or the STANDARD. It's a fact, whether we like it or not, that the majority of those seeking healthy mates are subconsciously seeking to pass on the best genetics possible to offpsring, and are MORE LIKELY to choose a mate/partner that has the BEST PROBABILITY of doing this.

Even though we have evolved, as a species, to the point of temporary relationships, recreational and non-productive intercourse, we HAVE NOT evolved to the point of intellect overriding instinctive natures. We can at times force intellect to override instinctive, but that is an effort, or a learned response through hardships, damage, bad experiences, etc.

So, why are SHY guys less likely to get dates, sex, spouses, than the confident, healthy guys? Survival of the species. It's still ingrained into us through genetics. plain and simple. Any objections are purely subjective delusions on the part of the believer that intellect always wins over instincts, which is simply (statistically) false.

oh,please.not another evolution/cavemen reason,why shy guys don't get dates.

When science fails you, sway the masses with your indignation. That makes it factual.

a) I said "less likely", "more likely" etc. etc. You completely ignored the context in your rush to be holy and indignant. read it and if you're going to put forth any effort, at least make it more worthwhile than such a weak comment as "oh please not another . . ."

b)We all know shy guys get dates, just as shy girls do. But instinctive behavior plays a large role in social interactions, regardless.

Reject it if you will. I couldn't care less. If you're insistent on being willfully oblivious, then that is your right.

I personally don't ascribe to the caveman theories but I do see solid evidence for "survival of the species" and genetic adaptation (some consider a form of evolution). Instinctive and adaptive behaviors are facts recognized in valid science.

your wrong.it was god's plan,that human were suppose to be monogamous,one man/one women.
but because of sin,women and men are sleeping around.the reason some women sleep around
with jerks,is because of sin. see,sir. us christians can play your evolution theory game too.

btw I am not a hardcore rw christian, but rw christians and evolutionist atheist,both use their religion or beliefs
for prejudice. saying shy men have tougher time in dating because of some made up evolution reason.
is no difference from rw christians,who say women should fully submitted to men,because
of god's will.

I am glad for you that you are uber religious. I hope this works for you. You make too many arrogant assumptions though.

I believe that science supports "intelligent design" and I believe that history supports "christianity" as being the most likely faith. Not that this is any of your business as it is my personal faith and independent of this debate, unless you choose to mask the facts with religious confusion.

It is nothing less than superior arrogance to just assume that I do not believe in a God simply because I do not profess your flavor of God. Additionally, I hate to be the one to share the news, but as a believer you should realize that God has more important things to worry about than where you personally put your penis or whether you personally get a mate. God already set the rules and consequences and gave you the freedom to suffer the consequences of your actions. And God CREATED every animal (humans included) with basic instinctive behaviors, and set into motion the SCIENCE of adaptive genetics. It is written "consider the birds . . . . consider the lilies. . . . " discussing their survival, and how does that survival happen? by instinctive behavior and adaptation (some consider a form of evolution), not through some divine interference with the ignorance of animals. God doesn't assign an angel to guide each animal. If God did then why all the road kill? That would be pretty sadistic. Are you suggesting that God is a sadistic God?

Either rectify your religion with the facts or reevaluate your religious ideologies or remain indignantly ignorant. The choice is yours. It's your life. Believe how you please.

Of course this is all my own personal beliefs based on my readings and study. Research it yourself, accept or reject it as you will. Your choices in this should not interfere with my life in the least, unless you're one of those stalkers of course .

whatever you call yourself,your ideal of shy men failure rate in dating,because of survival of fitness theory is
faulty. you know men with std have kids,fat guys have kids, mentally ill guys have kids.
if your survival of fitness theory is true,then only healthy men should only have kids.
funny,a man be shy but have good genes, and very healthy.
where,a player can have bad genes,uses drugs,and have a family history
of heart diseases. this is where your theory fail.

a) these AREN'T my ideas nor theories. They are psychological profiles, studies, SCIENCE, etc.
b) We have not evolved yet to telepathy (some may argue otherwise), where one can simply look at an individual and "sense" every imperfection. thus it is not intuitive, but instinctive.
c) just like the rest of the animal kingdom, It is based on perceptions and appearances. The brightest tail feathers, the biggest mane, the strongest alpha male, etc. Consider deer. The Buck who survives the battle to mate with the doe may not be the most genetically pure. He is simply the one who survived the battle, and thus the doe BELIEVES he will be the best choice for the strongest children. this may or may not be true, depending on circumstances. but one thing is true. The buck that doesnt fight doesnt f***, (rare exceptions not withstanding)
d) Your logic is flawed. you expect the lack exact simple results from random chance and circumstance to disprove complex facts.

It's not too difficult to understand, but it's not as easy as a woman sniffing a man's butt and saying "ooh your genetics smells nice, lets go screw and have babies." Such simplistic ideas of "super advanced telepathic abilities" causing a woman to "magically" know the man is perfect genetically is simply fodder for science fiction and fantasy shows.

No where does the survival of the species claim that only the most pure genetics will survive. This is yet another assumption based on willful ignorance. Of your own choice, you reject anything that disagrees with your preconceived notions without considering the facts, without attempting to understand the science.

EDIT:
e) because of the survival of the species with the advanced intellect and emotions of humans we also see that even the "less than seemingly perfect" of the species often find partners and mate (exceptions not withstanding. Some people call it "settling" or "adjusting ones expectations" because companionship, even under less than ideal circumstances, is emotionally better, and more condusive to survival of the species, than not mating

still faulty,a wide range of men get married,most men are married,divorce,are in or have been relationship.
yes,shy men don't do that well,but it has nothing to do with survival of fitness.
it's all culture and society,men are expect to approach women.
if a shy man overcomes his shyness and start approaching women,he
has a good chance of getting a date. but the shy man didn't become
an alpha male.he just overcame shyness. so,your theory is faulty.

I'd say this thread has actually "evolved" into something interesting. It was useless up untill the last few pages as it continues to perpetuate the spread of misinormation and Tyri0n should be ashamed of making it........

Flanmaster, your arguments are reasonably presented and based on actual evolutionary theory and it's clear you aren't a stubborn idealogue.

Billiscool, your reasoning is complete and utter-horses*** based upon zealotry and your ignorance of what evolution really is. It doesn't surprise me because religious nutjobs use the same strawman argument all the time. Evolutionary theory would never claim that mentally i'll, shy or out of shape people would never reproduce (just that they are statisticly less likely to do so by a slight margin) or deny that there is a social/cultural element as well. If you actually read Flanmaster's posts you'd see that.

This is why science and religion are incompatible. Science relies on facts and data (or at least the pursuit of them.) Religion relies on faith and is dynmetrically opposed to facts (as actual facts would remove the need for faith.) I'm not saying evolutionist/darwinist are infalible by any means. Athiests make thier bold claims (that everything can be explained scientifically) despite the fact that humanity could never know everything so therefore it really is about faith. They are just as obnoxious as people like billiscool who state thier stubborn faith based opinion as fact.

I believe in evolution 100% because I can see it represented tangibly in our daily lives. From goliath beasts to germs, only the willfully ignorant can claim it doesn't exist. At the same time claiming that there can be nothing beyond that is true zealotry. I definetly believe there are things that can't be (and never will be) explained by science as well.

All the more reason why us Agnostics are awesome! We get the best of both worlds.

Last edited by Geekonychus on 09 Aug 2013, 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bill, he address all that in the second half of his post which I assume you must have skipped over for same strange reason.I am reposting it for you here. You're welcome.



It's almost like you purposely ignored the second half of his post in order to blatently misrepressent what he was trying to say.........You wouldn't do that would you, Bill?

You shy guys are insulting other shy guys and telling them shy guys don't have a good chance of getting married and having kids? What a bunch of irony! I know one good fact: If you stop being shy and become more adventurous (ughh I don't wanna-stfu), you will have a better chance. Guess what? If you are a man, there is a good chance you will have sex with a woman! Be glad you are not a rock.

f**k the shy shite! I'm going to practice dancing in public!

evolution is not a problem,but when you start using evolution to promote bias,racism,sexism then
it become a problem. using made up stories about cavemen 10,000 years ago,to explain
why women won't date shy men (or short men,or any unpopular type of men)
is a problem.

evolutionist,your the left wing version of the christian right.