Post: #51

(06-24-2018 04:25 PM)Checkmat Wrote:  

(06-20-2018 12:28 AM)Roardog Wrote:  [quote='the Thing' pid='1804520' dateline='1529451610']
[quote='Roardog' pid='1803989' dateline='1529391631']

As you say, this may not reflect the reality. You may just not have had good enough game to get her on the first date but a tonne of other guys have before you. Or she could be a reformed party girl and you're just the first schmuck to be subjected to her arbitrary "no more sex on the first date" rule.
Your caveman brain doesn't take any of that into consideration, it just takes the present events and translates that into a feeling of attraction or not.

What about a girl that is young enough to be in her party years but maintains a 2-3 date rule for sex? For instance, an 18-year old is too young to be a reformed slut. I guess she COULD have been a slut from 16-18 and now she's going to be more "responsible" but that's pretty rare IMO.

I'm going to have to disagree with this point. I've interviewed many, many women who were highly promiscuous in their high school years and, subsequently, decided to "clean up their act" when they got to college. Just so we all know what level of promiscuity I am talking about, I was seeing women who had double-digit sexual partner counts before 18. Once in college, they decided to reinvent themselves and went on a no sex until X variables are satisfied. In this case X could be anything from a number of dates or a certain period of time to exclusive dating. Without the information provided by the girl's background (which would be known wherever she came from) the girls were free to rewrite the rules. And, the men in her new social circle were none the wiser. It wasn't exactly 90% of women, but this was a very common situation.

Post: #52

(10-29-2018 06:57 AM)griffinmill Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 05:28 AM)Obermarschall Wrote:  

(10-28-2018 01:06 AM)Chief Tamanaco Wrote:  I suppose I could tolerate ugly feet...

For me that would be a no-go; if her feet are ugly, she's out.
I can tolerate some liberal/left-wing views.

Feet are probably one of the first things I want to assess.

Smashed a pretty hot chick 3-4 years ago, blonde with an insane rack, decent personality despite being a social work major/flaming shitlib, but she had feet like Gollum and man, until you see some gnarly feet for yourself, you really can't understand what a huge deal breaker it is

Post: #53

Selfies/duck face. Part of me thinks it’s fucking puke-inducing to be that narcissistic and vain. Another part of me knows that it’s just the way of the world these days. Particularly if you’re a hot piece of ass. So it comes with the territory.
I still hate it and honesty if I was seeing a chick seriously I would start to poke fun at her for it, and escalate it to a full on “dude... seriously?!”
If she didn’t get where i was coming from I fear I’d give her the boot

Post: #54

Just realized I never answered the question.

I've become more strict with my rules for girls as I've aged. With that said, I can tolerate a girl who has a bad relationship with her family. But, that is only under one condition. The family has to be the problem - an actual problem. And, I need to see it with my own eyes. I'm not just taking her word for it.

It isn't an ideal situation. But, I have met some fairly solid girls who honestly come from a batshit crazy family situation.

Post: #55

I can't get involved with a girl who has had a bad/no relationship with her father at this point in my life. In my early 20's, I would run into beautiful 7-9's with daddy issues, and was too new to the game myself to see the glaring red flags. Now, at the first glimpse I usually eject.

The only other would be women who view their pets (dog/cat) as a child. It's pretty normal for a single woman with no kids to have a dog, but to be obsessed with them to a point they call it their child, or treat it as if it's their offspring is strange.