This is poetic bullshit.
The fact is, relations are entirely proximity based - with almost perfect certainty. If you know what you want, in archetypal sense, then simply go where that general expression is found. If you are unable to do that, for whatever reason, then you must either resign yourself to the environment you can inhabit or determine how much you can reasonably elevate yourself - and then do so.
Asking in internet for dollar store philosophies on sexual pairing is... Whatever. None of it will ever work if the person is socially maladapted. They will struggle no matter where they are and they drop even the lowest of low hanging fruit.
It's not about a list, it's about resonance.
Ok, goth Yoda. The question is where does one place one's self to be proximal to opportunity. So you are harping on something that is already implied in the question then failed to offer any insight on the relationship of locations and opportunities.
Obviously standing in a busy intersection maximizes your number of unique human interactions but it does that in a useless way. Ergo the deconstruction of romantic pairing down to the core concept of placing male next to female is insufficient. Crowd sourcing better strategies is not a philosophical discussion, it is aggregating wisdom from the personal life experiences of the masses.
Op is not asking for you to espouse your philosophy on human pairing, simply to chip in your 2 cents on what locations, in your personal experience, offer opportunities to talk to girls.
Shoe stores, when they are having a sale.
This is the way I read it also. I'm almost 60 and this is still a question for me. Church is a no go since the women are all married or in some problem as in medical in their lives so I ruled that out. Also I cannot talk to a woman in a personal way unless we are isolated. I can talk but it's not from the soul but the brain with others around and I'm as subtle as a nuclear bomb in a punch bowl "twisted analogy".
Either that sounded cooler in your head or you need to stop reusing digs from post to post.
I answered the question in the only way that matters, and nothing about my response is implied in the question itself. The answer is: It doesn't matter, but I was trying to be more informative as to why it doesn't matter, because unless the criteria I've set forth are met - there is no universalizable location on Earth that will produce results.
The fact is, wherever there are females is where you will meet them; that's not the question; who you are when you're seeking them is the one that will determine your chance at success.
That sounds very philosophical to me. A nihilistic philosophy reminiscent of depressed teenagers aka the goth kids.
The fact is, wherever there are females is where you will meet them;
You are incorrectly discounting a lot of variables, as I touched on with my street analogy. El guapo will have a harder time picking up girls at an abortion clinic than an average Joe will at a wedding.
Place and time are important in courtship. It is not that rare that people bat above thier average by mastering this skill.
I met my wife at the mall in 1997. We have been married since 2000.
It's been a real ride since 2000. Sounds like you really got lucky with the timing.
likely you gave the most correct answer. I've never been in a relationship with a woman I was only online with. It's always been sleeping with them the day I met them or soon there after or it doesn't ever happen. That is what happens every time for me without exception to this time and I can't deny facts and personal history so your answer is absolutely the most correct one.
I'm not saying proximity doesn't matter, and I am not saying environment doesn't matter.
What I was saying, imperfectly, is that you could enter any environment, and not matter how full of lonely horny housewives it is, you won't meet anybody willing to give you a premium blowjob if your attitude is not correct.
(post is archived)