Tampitump

I appreciate it. I'm pretty happy with life these days. Its not exactly what I wanted when I was a kid, but I can cope with the lack of a love life. In fact, I think it would change my life for the worse now if I started having relationships/sex etc.

Like I said before, the PE makes it impossible to work out. I have complications with breathing and pulmonary functions/restricted pathways etc. I tried to go mountain biking with one of my "friends" this summer and had to stop 10 minutes in because I was about to completely kill over. My body is just not shaped correctly to handle much work out/sport. Besides working out is pointless. My body is just too deformed. It would only look comical if I built muscles. I look better now than if I worked out, honestly. I know it sounds like I'm throwing a pity party. I'm not. I'm being objective about things. Theses are facts. And you can say all day that these things are subjective, but 25 years of every single woman I have ever seen being utterly and completely repulsed by the very sight of me proves that completely wrong. To imagine what I look like, think of what Quasimodo, Sloth off of the Goonies, and Joseph Merrick would look like combined into one, then perhaps scale back the ugliness just a little bit. There is NO WAY I could possibly ever work out/exercise to look anything like a typical attractive male. I'm ugly and hard to look at. That's simply a fact in evolutionary terms. It has been demonstrated ad nauseam via my results with females. The two roommates I lived with literally had to put zero effort into getting girls. All they had to do was walk into a room and wink at a girl and the girls were just creaming in their pants. I envied them in some ways, but it wasn't a jealous kind of envy. It was more like a type of envy in which I just stood in awe of how they could do such things. It really is amazing to witness people who, like you said, "won the genetics lottery". I guess if there was a "shitty genetics lottery" I would be the all time champion. Maybe I'm like a martyr. Pile are your shitty genetics on me, I'll suffer the bad genetics so that no one will have to suffer them. I feel like the genetics scapegoat. Lol I know you're done with this thread, but I also just wanted to ask why you keep insisting that I'm young? 25 is not young.

It would be very hard to elaborate on all of them because many of my problems begin all the way back in childhood. As far as I remember, girls always showed negative reactions towards me, even when I was young and naive. Outside of my obvious problems, there is this realm of mystery about it. I think those negative reactions I've always gotten from girls can be attributable to my looks. I also think my personality and the sound of my voice accounts for much of it too. I've been told by people who are my "friends" (if I can call them that) that I'm not a very likable person because I come off as not intellectual or awkward. I'm not sure what this means. It think what it boils down to is that the sum total of my traits and genes are undesirable and therefore nature selects against them. The female prefers the good-looking, vital, man. He doesn't necessarily have to be smart, but he must possess some type of wit in certain types of situations. Another thing is that, aside from my body being deformed and oddly-shaped, I'm very frail and weak-looking which is not conducive to what a healthy female would be attracted to. I once had roommates who were both fit, strong, men who trained/worked out and they had girl after girl all over them. It was actually a science-geek's dream living with those guys because its just fascinating to watch natural selection and evolutionary theory at work. You could predict it right down the line. The girls were always very good looking, healthy and vibrant, they were super attracted to the men, and they looked at me with pity and disgust whenever I'd walk into the room. I actually enjoyed living in that house because its amazing to watch just how accurate natural selection and sexual selection theory is. How they would melt over every little wise crack/joke the guy made and were so ready to jump in bed with him, but wished I would go roll down a hill of razor blades into the ocean. lol I also think that attraction has to initiate somewhere. It starts with sight in 99.99% of cases. A female has to see the body of the guy and see his overall look and become sexually attracted to him. I think that this problem is the single firewall that makes the whole process a non-starter for me. There are more problems with how I look and my overall essence that there's just no way a female could have this sort of desire for me upon seeing me without some serious issues of her own. The only feeling my sight could possibly provoke is that of repulsion and unease. Again, I don't mean to self-deprecate.

I'm not self-deprecating here. I'm perfectly fine and happy with my situation. I'm just looking at this objectively to lay out the facts. Its not about self-hate or self-love. I wasn't meaning to make this a thread about venting my problems. I don't see this as a problem anymore really. I just thought my situation was very unique and unusual and wanted to try to place it into scientific/evolutionary framework. When I say something that seems to be self-denigrating, just know that I'm being objective. Like when I say there is likely no female who would find me romantically/sexually attractive save for one who is not, herself, alright in the head, I'm not being self-denigrating or hyperbolic. I'm saying this as an objective observation. Judging by every single experience I've had with women (without exception), there is no question they want absolutely nothing to do with me even in the most minute sense. They don't even want to wait on me at a restaurant. No joke, I've literally been to restaurants with friends wherein the waitress will address all my friends problems, refill their beverages several times, etc. and never once refill my drink or ask if I need anything. Its THAT BAD. lol. It totally doesn't bother me anymore, which is why I'm able to talk about it so candidly. I've fully come to terms with it. I get it... Under no circumstances whatsoever am I to ever touch a woman, that's fine with me. I think never experiencing things like sex or having experienced women being attracted to me makes it easier for someone like me to get past it and move on. I'm an adult now and have a life to get on with. So please stop trying to turn this into a "dating/romance advice" thread. I know it seems like that's what I'm fishing for, but I'm really (like I've said a billion times by now) just trying to use my case as an example to put into a scientific explanation. That's it.

First of all, and this is the last time I will explain this, I'm not looking for dating/love advice. I'm raising this as an objective scientific case that I wish to understand scientifically. This is not a "what am I doing wrong? Help me get a girl!" discussion. And yes, you are correct in saying that I don't think a girl could find me interesting. That has already been established and is not the question of this investigation. That's already a given. What I'm getting at is what is the scientific model I can build to explain all of it? I wouldn't go so far as to say that something would have to be wrong with her if she expressed interst in me, though that is to my mind one of the most plausible propositions here and I tend to think that truly is the case. I cannot conceive of any woman who, given my sheer level of undesirability and horrible traits, could be attracted to me romantically/sexually and still be, herself, fully sound of mind or body. There would have to be another evolutionary-based explanation to account why she would feel that way given all we know about sexual selection and mating in the animal kingdom. It would be completely antithetical to the prevailing model. The Pectus Excavatum IS visable. I have a sever case of it. Its worse than the typical cases you normally see. I've had corrective sugery on mine twice. Once in 1995 and once in 2009. Mine went untreated through pubrety after the first procedure and ended up concaving worse than before. As a result my backbone and rib cage developed around it. I have terribly severe back curvature/arch, and ribs that flare. This, put together with my recessed chest make my body look as though I'm pot-bellied and hump-backed. It also restricts my respiratory function, making me short-winded and unable to exercise or play sports. I think, just judging from evolutionary terms, nature would select against my genes since they are staggeringly defective, both in terms of the physical and mental because both of them are bad. This likely explains why females are not only unintersted in me, but largely hostile to the idea of me. This is kind of my pet hypothesis. It makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms and fits perfectly within the framework. What do you guys think?

I don't think 25 is young. Its a pretty old age.

Once again, I'm not asking for dating advice, I'm just trying to understand my lifelong lack of female attention in scientific terms. iNow offered a very compelling case. I think what he/she offered there is probably the bulk of it, but there are perhaps some issues personal to me that play a role. While I am 25 years old, unemployed, and live with parents, that still doesn't account for my earlier years. The lack of attraction from women is not new, its been going on since childhood. I'll name some prominent instances I've had involving women: One incident in which three of my friends tried to take me to a party to "get me laid". There were four girls we met up with (one girl to every guy). Three of them paired with my three friends, and the fourth one went home because she did not want to be near me. There have been at least three separate incidents in which an attractive girl has come up to me at random in public and told me she thought I was unnattractive/weird-looking. No attempt at asking a girl out has been successful. In high school, the pep club (which consisted of nearly every popular kid in school) created a "parody" list of superlatives wherein I was voted "most likely to be a model". The titles were sarcastic and the opposite of their meanings. A number of other things. I can also gain some insight by how women act around me in general. I'm a very polite, well-mannered, and happy person. But the lack of respect and lack of acknowledgement of my existence is astonishing and staggering. The results I get from women are either that they flat out don't recognize me, or they go out of their way to let me know that my presence bothers them. I can't see why, I've always got a smile on my face and try to be a good person to talk to. I suppose maybe my personality is not what I perceive. So far, iNow has made a good case, but I thought I needed to add some personal details in order to provide a more informed look into my case. What do you guys think? Remember, I'm not looking for dating advice, I'm just trying to get a sense of the scientific mechanisms that are working here. I'm not personally concerned with having a mate or gf etc. Its just the topic of biology and psychology as it relates to animal mating/reproduction fascinates me. Especially when it comes to human courtship behaviors and dating. Also, another interesting thing about my case is how women will interact with other males when in my presence. I've done some of my own (secret) experimentation in these scenarios. In every case without exception, the female treats me very poorly and with disgust, but she seems to show a slightly heightened interest and sense of enjoyment towards the other males in the situation. It's to the point in which I can literally walk in and say something to a female and she will react negatively. But another male can walk in literally thirty seconds afterwards and say/do the exact same thing as I did and the female will give him a positive reaction. It really is fascinating and confusing, kind of like quantum mechanics. I don't even know where to start in figuring it out. Perhaps my own experimentation is ineffective for reasons I don't understand. It's not like this is an exact science. I think another thing that adds to my lack of desirability with females is my severe Pectus Excavatum, though I don't think this plays a huge role. I feel that the mating issues would be largely the same with or without the PE. I just thought it was worth mentioning as it could be a point of data.

You might actually be onto something. Maybe that's the core of it...not having anything to offer (or at least not sufficient). I'm not sure exactly what that would entail. Would you mind elaborating? I suppose the only known scientific framework to discuss this issue in would be evolutionary terms. I'm not very educated on evolution outside of the basics (common ancestry, natural selection, etc.). I know there are certain evolutionary processes that govern most of the mating selection (I'm probably using erroneous language and have it all wrong). I'm not really wanting to turn this into a thread discussing the personal implications of my dating life (or lack thereof). I'm merely using my case as an example of an outlier and trying to understand it scientifically because it fascinates me. Also, when I say I'm not trying to get a girlfriend, what I mean is that's not the point of this. You're looking at it the wrong way. While I AM trying to figure out and understand this problem, I'm not looking to get a girlfriend for the purpose of "having a girlfriend" and being "happily ever after" etc. I'm not asking people here to give me advice on how to get a girlfriend and pep talk etc. I'm merely trying to understand my situation scientifically. Everything I say here should be taken

Those are some very good points. If someone set me up on a blind date tomorrow night, my reaction would first be to ask some questions about her probably. I wouldn't bee afraid or nervous I don't think, but I would have little to no confidence she would like me or be attracted/interested in me. I would say that in my adulthood I have grown more insecure, more depressed, and more socially awkward. I'm not sure if I always was, but I know that there was a time when I at least was not aware of being both insecure or socially awkward. I suppose now that I'm cognizant of it, Its likely gotten worse. I'm not necessarily interested in gaining a gf at this point, save for probably attaining one temporarily as part of the experiment to figure this out. I don't think I would resort to online dating for many reasons. For one, it doesn't solve or address my problem because online dating is, in most cases, a cop out. Its what you use when you can't get a date the real way. If I got a girlfriend online, so what? I can order a certificate online that looks like a college degree, doesn't make it a real college degree that I actually achieved the correct way. I'm not trying to get myself a girlfriend. I'm just trying to figure out this problem. I'm not really desirous of a gf.

After reviewing your hypotheses, I can unequivocally rule out the following: Abusive childhood Addiction No access to females Imprisonment And paralysis I'm not sure what "challenging upbringing" would entail. All the others are possible depending on your definitions of them and what you mean by them.

Hey guys, I'm 25 years old and a virgin. I've also never dated and my contact with women has been little to none all my life. I recently started thinking about this, and from an evolutionary standpoint, this does not seem good to me. I figured I would try to figure out what the reason for this is, but I wanted to approach it 100% scientifically. What are some scientific reasons a guy may have gone his first 25 years without female interaction? Or without any interest from females at all? I thought the people here could help me figure it out. Thanks.

Just forget I asked anything.

Not only do I not understand these two answers, but neither of them address my question.

I'll be graduating next year with my AS in computer science. I consider this an indictment rather than an achievement. I don't really want the degree itself. What should I do with it? Can I throw it away. I'd like to just tell the college I don't want it and not to give it to me. I won't need it will I? Can I just throw it away?

I heard, I believe it was Michael Shermer say during an interview that we know more about evolution than we do electricity and magnetism. Now, I fully accept evolution and am completely a naturalist. I understand (though I'm certainly no expert) that our understanding of evolution is very high by this point so as to make it a fact. But I was kind of dubious of Shermer's statement about knowing more about it than magnetism or electricity. For one, it seems to me (a non-expert) that there is much more involved in the theory of evolution and there are many more mechanisms/degrees of freedom that comprise the theory than there is in electricity and magnetism. I was wondering if it is indeed the case that we know more about evolution than electricity and magnetism? If so, can someone explain how this is so and set me straight on these topics? Thanks!

I am a computer science major. Actually, I just recently decided to pursue this field. The subject matter has grown so much on me that I'm very drawn to it, but I'm still a newb to computers and the field of computation and I haven't even got into the computer science part of the program. I will be attending my state's flagship school after graduating from my current community college. I definitely plan to go to graduate school and am looking to immerse myself into the study. My question is what are some good publications (magazines, etc.) on computer science? I want to read frequently on the topic and learn about the research being done in the field. I'm also interested in perhaps transitioning into something like cognitive science, psychology, or computational neuroscience as a possible Phd and I have some questions there. 1) Would computer science be a relevant degree for Phds in any of these fields? I'm very interested in AI, am also into philosophy of mind and many things involving the brain/nervous system. Also, I have a past of poor grades from my first college attempt a few years back. Will this damn my chances of getting into top graduate schools like Vanderbilt, Duke, or other top universities? My first choice is Vanderbilt. What do I need to do to get into schools like this? What do I need to be doing now to make myself an easy choice for top grad programs? Am I already past the point in which I can't redeem myself enough to get accepted? I just started back to school this fall after a 4-year hiatus and terrible grades from that forst experience. My GPA for the first semester back was 3.6. Thanks for any helpful answers!

God Bless! It deleted my entire freaking response to your post! That thing was very long and I don't feel like writing it again! Just forget it! UGGHHHH!!!

The creation for example. The universe took 6 days to create according to the Torah/Bible. It doesn't just say 6 days, it is specific about what happened on each day. This includes the creation of light on Earth before the creation of the sun. This conflicts with the evidence we now have regarding the age of the universe and how things happened. So in order to keep their beliefs, religious people will claim these particular passages are not meant to be taken literally but "metaphorically". The Bible also claims there was a global flood, for which not only is there not evidence, but the evidence we have negates this claim. It also claims that bats are birds and that rabbits chew their cud, both of which are false. So when these books get the answer totally wrong it becomes a "metaphor" or "not to be taken literally". Doing this ensures religious people that they can keep their beliefs and still accept science.The beliefs then become elastic and useless. When there is a conflict between what these holy books say and what science says, science always ends up being correct and the books have to have their "meaning" shifted accordingly in order to scale with science. This is how religious scientists must go about things if they are to be any kind of scientist and remain religious.

This, I think, almost intentionally misses the point. The idea of skeptical thinking means not accepting claims which lack evidentiary support. It is one thing to say that you "believe in some higher power" or a "god" even, but its something else entirely to go the whole nine yards and name a specific God who has specific attributes whom you claim existed and interacted with our ancestors in history in supernatural ways. It seems to me that in order to make books like the Torah/Bible compatible with science, you have to nuance and reinterpret what the books say so that they seem to fit with the evidence. When the books say something that is just demonstrably incorrect, religious people say it must be understood "metaphorically" or "not literally", but when they say things that seem correct in both scientific and moral terms, no one says it is meant to be a metaphor, they usually take it as literal. At this point the religious belief becomes elastic and useless. If you're just going to bend and stretch what it says to conform with the evidence and what we understand from science, then the belief is USELESS and is not really providing you with anything worthwhile.

I had to post this because this topic just bugs me to no end. As an atheist with no scientific training, It sometimes seems as though I understand how evidence, science, and skepticism works better than some of the most distinguished scientists do. I guess Francis Collins would be the first one that would come to most people's minds. But there are others like Mayim Bialik (from the Big Bang Theory and other TV shows), whom I would consider more of an actor than a scientist, but she nonetheless has a Phd in neuroscience from UCLA. Despite this she is still a staunch Zionist and Orthodox Jew whom, if I'm not mistaking, was not born a Jew, but converted to Judaism later in life. I just don't understand how these people can have such profound cognitive dissonance. How can you be exposed to the arguments and evidence of all of this and still walk away thinking that the Torah or the Bible is the least bit credible? I just don't get it. I really don't get it. It does not take a genius to look at something like religion and notice how flawed, absurd, and unworthy of your daily attention it is. The people who are perceived as scientifically educated by the public who are also religious make religion look credible in the eyes of laypeople IMO. They think "Look, Francis Collins believes in it, and he's a genius, so therefore its valid". At that point you basically become defenseless because you have to admit that, yes, he is more educated than me, but he's still wrong about this. It makes you look like the stubborn, unreasonable one. I find it a very inconvenient part of our history that religion had to infringe upon humanity. It has placed a burden upon us that we just cannot seem to work out of our system. It crops up everywhere. Even the scientific community is not entirely barren of it. I can understand why uneducated people tend to cling to it. But I just don't get how the well-educated people who should know better still hold onto erroneous, unsupported nonsense when they know full well that it does not meet the standards of evidence they have been trained to fully understand. Gosh! Its just MIND BLOGGING! I just wondered what the community here thought about this? Thanks.

Hey guys, I'm 25 years old and considering transferring to a different college out of state. The school I'm looking to transfer to is very prestigious and is expensive for out of state students. Should I transfet, I will be going to a community college that is partnered with the school first, then transferring to this school as part of an agreement between the two schools. So I will only be paying two years of the big school's rates. Their out of state tuition is $41,000 per year. Assuming I get the full aid I qualify for, I will be left with roughly $17,000 per year unaccounted for which I will have to find some way to pay off. According to the school's financial aid calculator, part of the chunk taken off of that is $7,400 worth of "self-help" aid (i.e. Loans, work study, etc.). This means I'll have to take out more loans on top of those to cover the rest. Altogether, my total loans for the whole shebang is roughly $40k-$45 give or take. On the other hand, I could stay in my home state where I am currently enrolled in community college which is also guaranteed to transfer to any public school in my state. I will get in-state tuition here and have little to no debt afterwards. However, none of the schools in my state are very good. The school I'm wanting to go to in the other state is my dream school and is very prestigious and I really want to go there. I figure this guarantee deal they have with the CC system is my best shot at an elite education. So I guess my question is, how much is the average starting salary for a comp science major with a BS degree? Will it provide adequately so as to comfortably pay off $40-$45k in debt? And do you think $40-$45k is too much student debt? Or is it worth it for the opportunity of attending a dream school? One good thing about this program I'm wanting to get into is that you are co-enrolled between the community college and the university so you take some classes at the elite university for the same price the CC courses cost (just a couple thousand) during your first two years. I'm dying to get into this but am reserved as hell because I've never had debt and don't want to make a HUGE mistake! And tips, advice, info, links, remarks, stories, or concerns will be GREATLY appreciated!

I just stumbled onto this thread and I would like to ask the OP a question, and I expect an answer. The reason I say this is because there are so many positive assertions in his OP about atheism that are just flat out wrong. So here's the question: Since we are dealing with the question of which side has the burden of proof here, I must ask you this. If you come to me claiming that leprechauns live in your backyard and possess magical powers, which person has the burden of proof, you or me? If I ask you for evidence and you don't provide it, and there is no apparent reason for me to think you have good justification for your belief in these leprechauns, which one is engaging in faith-based belief, you or me? The lack of belief in things for which there is no sound empirical evidence is called reason. In fact, empiricism is the very lifeblood of logic and reason. You basically rattled off a list of things in your original post that atheists DON'T think or say, so if that was your purpose then thanks for pointing that out! Atheists don't believe in God(s) simply because the evidence is not forthcoming. When we ask for evidence, usually the type of evidence that is given are things like emotional appeals, faith, and the words of poorly-written and highly-discrepant ancient books. Religions don't present evidence to their subscribers. Instead they present themselves as an authority in people's lives, commanding that a certain lifestyle be lived, and certain propitiations be made at the threat of eternal torture. There is just no evidence for such things, so at the end of the day, there is no reason to adopt beliefs like that, in much the same way as there is no good reason to adopt beliefs in things like Atlantis, unicorns, fairies, or any other mythological things of which there is no evidence for. Don't put words in our mouths. Hardly any of us say that "no god exists" as if it were a known fact. As many people here have pointed out already, religions don't provide testable, falsifiable evidence which science can evaluate or investigate. Instead, they offer a bunch of botched, incoherent scriptures which attest to outlandish events that supposedly happened in ancient times for which there are no contemporaneous accounts or physical evidence. I would argue that the people who created these religions knew that what they were writing was total BS. When claims scale with the evidence and are logically sound, there is no need for threats of Hell or damnation in order to get people to subscribe to them. Religions know this, and they understand that the claims they make, when put under the microscope of proper scrutiny and investigation, fall flat on their face. This is why they play on people's fear of the unknown by proposing things like hell in order to gain adherents. The people who dare think for themselves know that Christianity and other big religions today are just like any other nonsense claim. They are unreasonable and immoral, and they pose a direct threat to civilization as attested to by exhausting evidence that occurs daily. This is why I don't like the term Atheism in some cases. It sounds like a type of cult or faith, when really it is just an unnecessary word describing an aspect of other people's minds which is not an aspect of mine. I don't need to label myself an "a-Santa Clausist", I just don't believe in him.