Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Charming single guy after 30 = likely sociopath.

Page 3 of 10 [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,045
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

29 Jan 2018, 6:03 am

Quote:
I disagree and believe my opinions were formed on just grounds, which I have already articulated.

I did not say that there are no men among married men with anti social or asocial traits and I am not speaking of merely dangerous traits but any trait that inhibits one's ability to form or maintain romantic relationships.

You will see if you read back that I did not say men with anti social or a social traits never married. I said they are more likely to be single after the average age of marriage than men without such traits, either as a result of never marrying or as a result of the marriage being unsuccessful.


Show us numbers by a reliable source (ie. UN) which support your claim, like I did.



Quote:
I am speaking of the entire range of antisocial and asocial traits. However I would agree that of the antisocial traits among married men, domestic abuse may be the most prevalent and this may be for social and cultural factors that work to normalize such things (at least in some societies, though not so much western ones) and the fact that leaving a violent spouse is often the point in the relationship that the spouse who is being victimized is most likely to be killed, and the resources available to the victimized spouse are often not sufficient to properly protect them. In other words, women who are married to men who hit them are more likely to be trapped in the relationship, or at least feel trapped in it. The same goes for male domestic violence victims of course.


Check again my main post, the stats of domestic violence committed by married men and boyfriends I posted are for the United Stated of America and worldwide - this country is pretty western I guess.



Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 29 Jan 2018, 6:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

kokopelli
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Nov 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,800
Location: amid the sunlight and the dust and the wind

29 Jan 2018, 6:09 am

I'm of the opinion that if someone -- male or female -- isn't married by the time they are 40, there is likely some reason why they are not forming long term relationships. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is because they are sociopaths, though.

It wouldn't surprise me if sociopaths were more likely to have been married well before 40 since, as I understand it, they have no qualms about manipulating others to do their will.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

29 Jan 2018, 6:41 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
I disagree and believe my opinions were formed on just grounds, which I have already articulated.

I did not say that there are no men among married men with anti social or asocial traits and I am not speaking of merely dangerous traits but any trait that inhibits one's ability to form or maintain romantic relationships.

You will see if you read back that I did not say men with anti social or a social traits never married. I said they are more likely to be single after the average age of marriage than men without such traits, either as a result of never marrying or as a result of the marriage being unsuccessful.


Show us numbers by a reliable source (ie. UN) which support your claim, like I did.


I wouldn't have the time to compile such stats but you are welcome to do so yourself if you are interested. Additionally you may take note of the fact that significant impairments in interpersonal relationships are a common theme among the diagnostic criteria for cluster B personality disorders along with traits that cause the person to superficially present as attractive.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Quote:
I am speaking of the entire range of antisocial and asocial traits. However I would agree that of the antisocial traits among married men, domestic abuse may be the most prevalent and this may be for social and cultural factors that work to normalize such things (at least in some societies, though not so much western ones) and the fact that leaving a violent spouse is often the point in the relationship that the spouse who is being victimized is most likely to be killed, and the resources available to the victimized spouse are often not sufficient to properly protect them. In other words, women who are married to men who hit them are more likely to be trapped in the relationship, or at least feel trapped in it. The same goes for male domestic violence victims of course.


Check again my main post, the stats of domestic violence committed by married men and boyfriends I posted are for the United Stated of America and worldwide - this country is pretty western I guess.


I don't see how it's relevant that the stats are for the U.S. because I didn't say domestic violence doesn't occur in the U.S. among married couples. However, in the U.S. it's not acceptable whereas in many parts of the world a high degree of both men and women believe that it's okay for a man to hit his wife as a form of punishment and doing so is far more a cultural issue rather than a manifestation of pathological traits.



Theamazinggeek
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 136
Location: Salinas, california

29 Jan 2018, 1:44 pm

From my research....
Its a common preception. Its opens a door of judgement with labels as : loser, idiot, moron
To as bad as ....
Undesireable, geek, dork.

The issue is its a false positive red flag for alot of nt women. They see a guy 30 not coping, no date they think dork or gay alert false red flag raises. They see a guy like that they see Garfield, s owner john arbuckle in there head and avoid. Again false positive.

Ahh the world of insta judge


_________________
*Pour a martinelli apple cider bottle into a wine glass. Puts down momentaryly poetry book next to philosophy book.

"Im search of answers, new marvels, and new questions to ask."


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Jan 2018, 2:16 pm

people are so phuqin' picky these days.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

29 Jan 2018, 5:01 pm

auntblabby wrote:
people are so phuqin' picky these days.


In what sense and compared to when?



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Jan 2018, 5:13 pm

Chronos wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
people are so phuqin' picky these days.


In what sense and compared to when?

in my dad's day, it was enough if he could be a productive provider to a household, looks and style didn't matter so much, as long as he was a nominal god-fearing gentleman. that is not enough nowadays.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

29 Jan 2018, 5:20 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Chronos wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
people are so phuqin' picky these days.


In what sense and compared to when?

in my dad's day, it was enough if he could be a productive provider to a household, looks and style didn't matter so much, as long as he was a nominal god-fearing gentleman. that is not enough nowadays.


In your dad's day women couldn't have bank accounts without their husband's signature. People have more freedom now, that means they are going to be more picky. It's a good thing.



SSJ4_PrestonGarvey
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 6 Jan 2018
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 253

03 Feb 2018, 1:09 am

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Chronos wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
people are so phuqin' picky these days.


In what sense and compared to when?

in my dad's day, it was enough if he could be a productive provider to a household, looks and style didn't matter so much, as long as he was a nominal god-fearing gentleman. that is not enough nowadays.


In your dad's day women couldn't have bank accounts without their husband's signature. People have more freedom now, that means they are going to be more picky. It's a good thing.

I would like to ask, in your opinions what percentage of adult men deserve to(Deserve in this sense referring towards their individual merit or sexual value) involuntarily remain as lifelong singles? Like if you had only these men as possible choices you would choose to stay single permanently rather than try dating any of them, as in below the minimum value you'd consider tolerating. Below minimum value means it isn't even worth the baseline effort that's required to date someone, also factoring in that “low-grade” men will typically require less from you than in in-demand man.

I think what auntblabby was getting at is back in his dad's days a very low percentage ended up having to stay as singles involuntarily because everyone refuses them as a partner. I would say that the number was likely 5% or less for most of the 1900’s, but from what I observe I would say that a much larger number would be stated by women today. My best guess for this number would be ⅓ men may be considered by women today as “undateable”.

And if a guy is bottom of the barrel what can they do about it? Let's say if I am in this category: Is there any kind of personal change, development or anything else that can be done if I want to take responsibility and do something about it or is it my destiny?


_________________
My account is often forced to do Captchas so I may be slow to reply or perhaps even unable to reply.


karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

03 Feb 2018, 2:04 am

SSJ4_PrestonGarvey wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Chronos wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
people are so phuqin' picky these days.


In what sense and compared to when?

in my dad's day, it was enough if he could be a productive provider to a household, looks and style didn't matter so much, as long as he was a nominal god-fearing gentleman. that is not enough nowadays.


In your dad's day women couldn't have bank accounts without their husband's signature. People have more freedom now, that means they are going to be more picky. It's a good thing.

I would like to ask, in your opinions what percentage of adult men deserve to(Deserve in this sense referring towards their individual merit or sexual value) involuntarily remain as lifelong singles? Like if you had only these men as possible choices you would choose to stay single permanently rather than try dating any of them, as in below the minimum value you'd consider tolerating. Below minimum value means it isn't even worth the baseline effort that's required to date someone, also factoring in that “low-grade” men will typically require less from you than in in-demand man.

I think what auntblabby was getting at is back in his dad's days a very low percentage ended up having to stay as singles involuntarily because everyone refuses them as a partner. I would say that the number was likely 5% or less for most of the 1900’s, but from what I observe I would say that a much larger number would be stated by women today. My best guess for this number would be ⅓ men may be considered by women today as “undateable”.

And if a guy is bottom of the barrel what can they do about it? Let's say if I am in this category: Is there any kind of personal change, development or anything else that can be done if I want to take responsibility and do something about it or is it my destiny?


I don't believe in destiny, so I really don't know how to answer most of your questions. All I can really say is I think that a world in which women have just as much freedom of choice as men do is the kind of world I want to live in, so I think women becoming more picky as a reflection of having more life choices than they used to is a net good for society. Maybe some people will remain alone instead of pairing up. I think that's to be expected in any population, not everyone is going to find their match. People who never had the distraction of a partner have achieved great things and can add value to society without pairing up and reproducing. Take Isaac Newton, for example. There are many ways to contribute to society other than pairing up.

I can't tell you what your "destiny" is, I can only say what I believe about life based on my own experiences.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Feb 2018, 2:07 am

IOW "not my problem."



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

03 Feb 2018, 2:34 am

SSJ4_PrestonGarvey wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Chronos wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
people are so phuqin' picky these days.


In what sense and compared to when?

in my dad's day, it was enough if he could be a productive provider to a household, looks and style didn't matter so much, as long as he was a nominal god-fearing gentleman. that is not enough nowadays.


In your dad's day women couldn't have bank accounts without their husband's signature. People have more freedom now, that means they are going to be more picky. It's a good thing.

I would like to ask, in your opinions what percentage of adult men deserve to(Deserve in this sense referring towards their individual merit or sexual value) involuntarily remain as lifelong singles? Like if you had only these men as possible choices you would choose to stay single permanently rather than try dating any of them, as in below the minimum value you'd consider tolerating. Below minimum value means it isn't even worth the baseline effort that's required to date someone, also factoring in that “low-grade” men will typically require less from you than in in-demand man.

I think what auntblabby was getting at is back in his dad's days a very low percentage ended up having to stay as singles involuntarily because everyone refuses them as a partner. I would say that the number was likely 5% or less for most of the 1900’s, but from what I observe I would say that a much larger number would be stated by women today. My best guess for this number would be ⅓ men may be considered by women today as “undateable”.

And if a guy is bottom of the barrel what can they do about it? Let's say if I am in this category: Is there any kind of personal change, development or anything else that can be done if I want to take responsibility and do something about it or is it my destiny?


I don't date men who have notions of deserving romantic or sexual relationships. It implies an unreasonable expectation of the other party.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Feb 2018, 2:39 am

a dirty little secret that I try to convince as many people here as possible, of the ultimate truth of it, is that very few people are worth all this trouble.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,045
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

03 Feb 2018, 3:18 am

It’s funny how women avoid to answer SSJ4’s questions clearly.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,555
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Feb 2018, 3:19 am

not their problem.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,045
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

03 Feb 2018, 6:06 am

It will become their problem too when they end up forever alone.