Only Romantics Fuck Sluts, and Vice Versa

She loves reading romance novels, and he watches porn. "She must be romantic, and he thinks with his dick"... you might say if you thought like everybody else.

But you don't.

Because you pay attention, and ask these questions:

1) In any given standard romance novel (romantic movies apply here too), who is doing the actual romancing, the man or the woman?

2) In any given standard porno, is the focus on the sexuality of the man, or the sexuality of the woman?

3) If the focus of each medium features the opposite sex of the viewer, then doesn't that say something about the opposite sex?

Or, to phrase it differently:

4) If all men view women as sexual creatures, is it more likely that men think with their dicks, or that nature has evolved for them to instinctually treat women like sexual creatures? (No, this is not a reason for you to send women a dick pic. I don't care how impressive you think you are, you aren't).

Similarly, if women fantasize about romantic men, then doesn't it stand to think that the actual romantics here are the men? Women aren't romantic - they're just sexually aroused by romance. Men don't actually think with their dicks; they're just aroused by sexual women.
Don't mistake the object for the viewer.

"But women hate to be objectified" - no, women love to be objectified, just not by the kind of guy who thinks it's appropriate to send unrequited dick pics. If you're still not sure how this works, think back to college, and finding out one of your new friends was a vocal major. "I asked her to sing for me, and she refused. She must hate singing." No, she just hates being asked to sing by people who want to user her talent for their amusement.

People respond most negatively when a primary aspect of them is abused or otherwise taken lightly.

Men love to be romantic - they just hate being treated like a watered-down romantic nicety (nice guy syndrome 101). The women complaining about being objectified are the often the same women who have no problem abusing a man's romantic instincts. Women love to be sexual - they just hate being treated like their sexuality doesn't exist, or like it is the only thing that exists.

Men are romantic. Women are sexual. It's the law of nature.

Women watch romcoms because somebody has to play the man. The part of the woman she'll play later in her mind after the movie ends. Men watch porn because somebody has to play the woman. The part of the man he plays in his mind as a lead-up to the scene.

"So what do I do, treat women like a piece of meat?" Haven't you heard of nuance before? Approach women like a romantic man would approach a sexual woman. If you're a woman, approach men like a sexual woman would approach a romantic man.

And for god's sake, stop sending dick pics

Nazis Want You to Kill Them. It Means They Matter.

➢From the passion of our convictions, convinced we are on the road to heaven, we miss the mark by a fraction of an inch and rush straight into the bowels of hell and the open grasp of our most powerful demons.

Well hold on there just a minute. Even in that sentence alone there's a lot of assumptions to unpack, and I'm concerned with what is being said, no matter how morally upright it may feel.

Nazis can be generally viewed as one of two things: a people group (roughly: Germany's culture, political power structure, and military complex as realized through the second world war), and and the underlying ideology that was used to justify their actions.

If you tell me that the best way to beat an army is to kill it, I might be inclined to agree with you there - and if you could resurrect the Nazi army from the dead I might be inclined to go on an Indiana-Jones-esque Nazi hunt with all the murder you could dream of.

...oh wait, no I wouldn't. And if you have a machine that can raise people from the dead, maybe you have better things to do than to fantasize about being a murderer.

Oh, you're not a murderer? Make sure to tell the judge that with extra conviction as you try to explain just how you designed your mind reading machine which can tell the difference between asshole LARPers who post on Stormfront for fun from the real deal, genuine Nazis.

Wait, you don't have a machine that can read minds either? At least try a magic eight ball, you can get them for cheap off Amazon, and it's more accurate than AntiFa has been in the past year.

But sure, let's keep talking about this.

The neoNazis in America have no power, social/political or otherwise, and are in absolutely zero danger of becoming powerful, no matter how long [political leader who we pretend is also a moral leader for what I can only assume to be incredibly stupid reasons] may take to condemn them. Our society simply wouldn't tolerate it. Free speech of the most heinous kind, we will tolerate. Actual murderous action, not so much. We know this because we were already tested on it once, and the entire nation leaped to battle to fight the original Nazis (albeit a bit later in the fight than may have been morally justifiable... but that's a different topic.)

If on the other hand, if you tell me that the only way to defeat the ideology of Nazism is to kill those people with those ideas, my instant reaction is to say "Here's your beer back Stalin, you' won't be showing me jack shit." Not only are you suggesting the introduction of thought crimes as an actual category in the criminal code, but you're suggesting the DEATH PENALTY for certain thought crimes, which to me is insane; we've seen where that road's led to many times, and every time it has led into the pit of hell, morally and physically - and even culturally speaking.

Pro-tip: If Stalin bragged about it, it's probably a bad idea.

But even on the practical side, it's not plausible to enforce without killing far more innocents than the guilty. How do you discern an ACTUAL Nazi from some jackass LARPer who thinks that posting on stormfront and throwing "heil Hitler" salutes at statues is super edgy and cool? Or for that matter, people who are merely guilty of being at the rally merely to see what's going on? We've already seen dozens of people seriously injured and sent to the hospital merely for being present at rallies, so this is a VERY serious question to consider. Right now the label "Nazi" is being thrown at people from multiple view points. Dave Reuben (a gay centrist political pundit) has been called a Nazi. Milo Yiannopoulos (a gay Jew currently engaged to a black man) has been called a Nazi. This word is being thrown around with such wanton abandon that nearly anyone can be called a Nazi at this point, even for merely saying "I believe in free speech and don't want to forcibly silence Nazis. I'd rather see their ideas trashed in the public arena."


...and you want to attach a DEATH PENALTY to that label?


"But we have a death penalty for the label of 'murderer!'" You might say. And you're right, we do. Also, the average time spend on death row is 13 years. Unfortunately, that's a bit longer than it takes in your fantasy of killing Nazis, but this is your fantasy, not mine. "But Nazis were worse than murderers!" No, Nazis are murderers. Well, the ones from the 1940s, anyways. PS, those Nazis are already dead.

What a terrible irony to be had, isn't it? For the fear of a people group seizing power, we are urged to oppress - whoops, I mean - resist the Jews - wait, how did that get in there - anyone labeled "Nazi" to the point of gassing them in giant ovens killing them.

Huh, how did those typos get there? Something about how tyranny looks for any excuse, including the tyranny of others? Screw that, I'm sure you're totally morally justified; it's not like Hitler wrote a whole book morally justifying his own decisions to go on a genocidal murder-spree or anything. Wait, he did? Shit.


"But this isn't tyranny! It's self-defense!" Was the neoNazi pushing you into an oven? Shoving you in a cattle car? Forcing you to carry a bag of wet salt back and forth in a death camp clouded in the odor of moral decay and suffering? No, he was just saying stupid things? Then he wasn't attacking you, and YOU are the aggressor.


But there's one final thing to point out. And if nothing else, it is THE reason why you shouldn't punch a Nazi, let alone kill them:

One of the founding principles of Western Civilization is that of free speech. When you suggest not just the silencing, but the outright murder of people for what they say, you will force free speech advocates into the hated position of having to defend Nazis. Aligning yourself against the very spirit and will of Western Civilization is a losing battle. Not convinced? Ask Nazi Germany how well their battle went.


In the meantime, check your mailbox for a thank-you note from the nearest Nazi enclave. They want you to know how much they appreciate you pushing them into the media spotlight. After all, how else are they supposed to get new recruits?

#caring

People sure do love their astrological signs

➢Some observations on MBTI, the "16 personalities."

I don't think the MBTI is broken. I don't think it's useless in the least. I think Jung was onto something when he discussed aspects of the human mind that were later formulated into what is now the MBTI. I do, however, think that much of our understanding of the human mind has advanced significantly, so I think it's worth the time to look at the system and ask what might be done to improve it. I will skip the general introduction and move straight to the main parts of contention that I have with MBTI. Intermixed with this (or perhaps at the end) I will discuss why I think MBTI is attractive, and how it might be improved upon.

First, the (major) flaw: The claim of MBTI is that one can consistently and accurately predict a person's behavior based on knowledge of their 'neural pathways' (that is, the 'toolkit' of their mind. Keep in mind, I am using general terms here.). However, MBTI test are usually incredibly flawed, as they often do one or both of the following:

1) Ask for self-report on behavioral tendencies. This is not a direct measurement of the 'toolkit' of the mind, and questions like these give no real way to accurately test the theory behind MBTI. Moreover, since the 'toolkit of the mind' is a black box in this sense (bound by 4 arbitrary but meaningful pairs of words), MBTI is NOT actually a theory of human behavior based on ways in which the mind interprets data. When tests are based off this kind of question, MBTI is a simple word/action association with post-hoc rationalization into a theory that cannot be proven in any scientifically meaningful way.

2) Ask for self-report on emotional responses and lifestyle preferences. Not only are these only vaguely related to information interpretation and behavioral pathways (emotions, like actions, are a result of the personality), but they are highly corroded by the fact that there is no strong correlation between a person's self-report of their preferences and emotions vs their actual preferences and emotions. This could be due to self-delusion, forgetfulness, lack of personal insight, or a substitution for fantasy over reality (the first point also suffers from these same issues). If you want to understand a man, don't listen to his words. Watch his actions. If unsure of his motives, look at the results of his actions. 

Note that in both cases, "self-report" is a problem in and of itself, because many people already have a fixed idea of what their personality is, and will be prone to trying to shape the answers to their questions so that they fit the preconceived notion. I've seen instances of individuals purporting to being able to accurately measure other individual's personality through observation, but such observation suffers the same exact flaws as mentioned in point #1 - from the outside, you can only observe behavior.

As an aside, when MBTI is calculated via behavioral observation, it functions in very similar form to the "Big 5" in that both simply group behaviors together under titles and use those titles to predict other behaviors (aka, "personality). Under this understanding, when it comes to observing behavior, the "Big 5" is undoubtedly a superior model for its form simply by way of its creation: via a distillation of a broad swath of words used to describe personality into 5 linguistic categories. That is to say, the Big 5 (Five Factor Model) is superior simply because its categories are much more individualized, and it's inclusion of a 5th column allows for greater detail to the personality profile Each of these columns are further broken down into greater depth, allowing for an incredibly complex look at any given human being.

NOTE: I am not *for a second* suggesting that MBTI is not useful. I am merely saying that, for all things considered, MBTI is less functional than its potential, and could be far more beneficial. Whether or not I have anything useful to add here, only my ego can confidently claim. Reality has yet to see.

A third problem that occurs to me at the moment: The fact that certain MBTI personalities are much more common than others gives two possible suggestions: First, that certain personality types are far more common than others (No reason has been given for this so far as I can tell, and there is no reason to assume that a standard bell curve distribution applies here, or which specific Jungian types of the MBTI would be within the first derivation.). The second: It is my assertion that MBTI types are so foggy in concept that certain types draw from the same pool as other types, inextricably linking them together (I will explain this shortly). This is a flaw, in that it prevents greater differentiation between personality types, and lowers the total resolution of the system's ability to make precise guesses. I strongly believe this to be the case here.

There is something I believe MBTI has gotten right: if it were possible to accurately map the neural decision pathways of the brain, I absolutely agree that MBTI would have highly increased predictive power. However, I believe that in relying on self-reported behavior to determine the "types" of a personality, the functionality of MBTI is hamstrung for this simple reason: The form does not fit the function. Of secondary note, it's important to realize that a person's experiences forge neural pathways with behaviors imprinted onto them, and new experiences, if numerous or extreme enough, can alter a person's behavior in specific areas without affecting a person's overall personality, thus further lowering the resolution of MBTI's predictive power. However, such a flaw also applies to the Big 5, so that particular aspect won't be covered here. With my winded introduction in mind, here is some commentary on the various types which make up MBTI:

Extroversion vs Introversion:

I don't have a huge critique of this specific category as a personality type. The only observation I would give is that this seems to be less a form of "mental toolkit" so much as it is a very distinct set of behavioral patterns describing how an individual relates to society, both in part and in whole. To that extent, the critique that I'd have for MBTI is that I cannot find a particular part of the MBTI theory which describes a set of mental processes that eventually lead to the behaviors of either extroversion or introversion. Personally, I don't think there necessarily should be; my supposition is that extraversion is probably highly influenced by an individual's level of socialization, but given the idea that MBTI is based on a theory of mental functions, I would expect an explanation here. The best I can find is vague references to 'paying attention to the outside vs the inside,' which is neither sufficiently reasoned nor properly evidenced. Plenty of inverted people are highly aware of their surroundings, and just as many extroverted people have internal issues they obsess over, and all I've found is an assertion that one type of being roughly matches up with the word "extraverted" and the other type of being with the word "introverted," without any data (statistical or otherwise) to prove it.

Thinking vs Feeling:

So far as I can tell, the measurement of this particular sliding scale is given by answering the following question: "What is the balance of emotions to rational thought which drive your decisions?" By my measure, this is a very shallow question to ask, for the following reason:

Emotions have a rational explanation, often rooted in deeper truths and past experiences of the person, whether known or unknown to that individual. Emotions are tools of the hypothalamus and limbic system to alert us to a deeper truth or issue, whether social or sexual or physical or mental or dominance-related, etc. Emotions do not appear out of nowhere. Emotions have their own set of logic to them. To that extent, "thinking vs feeling" would be better phrased as "logic you're aware of vs logic you're unaware of," which puts the conversation in a completely different ball park.

Perhaps a better direction to go with this involves a question like: "What level of truth does the person most strongly respond to and prioritize when they make a decision about their behavior?" Also relevant, "How much self-awareness and self-control does the person have in choosing which levels of truth they want to prioritize in any given situation?" A story example might be a hero who puts aside revenge to work with a villain (temporarily) for a greater good. Despite the strong emotion of desiring revenge (anger, intent) he instead prioritizes a deeper moral good. Our hero prioritizes the fundamental truth of "the greater good" over that of "physically re-establishing a violated dominance hierarchy  (or 'revenge' for short).

Sensing vs Intuition:

The broad-brush differentiation between these two sides of the scale seems to be a matter of mindedness. "Is the person present-minded, or future-minded? Does he focus on strict information, or does he abstract information into larger ideas?"

A primary problem I see with this category: In order to a person to intuit, they must first sense. One cannot abstract principles from information he does not have. Moreover, because the ability to have abstract thoughts, be imaginative, etc is linked to an ability to see multiple ways of being in the world, this category is permanently linked to the Thinking/Feeling category. To phrase it another way: The same depth to which a person is cognizant of the multiple layers of truth in their own psyche in T/F is the same potential depth they can delve into abstraction for S/N. In this sense, these two categories have low resolution because they are not describing separate things, they are describing interrelated things. Because one category partially describes another, this limits the ability of MBTI to properly categorize people. This also seems a decent explanation for why so many people tend to fall into a few specific types. Of the 16 types, the top 4 account for nearly 50% of the population.  The bottom 4 account for less than 10%. As far as I can tell, this implies that MBTI has failed to properly differentiate the more common mbti types, while over-differentiating the less common.

A secondary problem (aside from the two I listed so far) is this: the ability to abstract is in part a question of intelligence: the higher an IQ, the greater the capacity of an individual to see multiple layers of meaning in an idea, etc. To that extent, the category of S/N is further muddled in that it partially measures IQ - which would be brilliant, except that IQ is wholly separate from personality. IQ merely affects a person's ability to implement their personality in the world, it should not be a factor of the personality itself.

To take this to a deeper level, I think the question this category tries to answer may be the wrong question to ask. The question is one of how people process data. Of course, the problem here is this: how people process data depends highly on what problem they're trying to solve! Perhaps a different approach to this question might be along the lines of:

"When fixing a flaw, does the person simply seek to minimize damage, or restore the situation to it's prior condition, or seek to completely improve the system?"

A plausible second way of giving the category greater clarity is to replace it with a different question: what is the person's consistent level of situational awareness? That is to say, what is their ability to 'filter out' unnecessary information, and what is their ability to take in large quantities of information on multiple levels and handle multiple levels of informational analysis?

Judging vs Perceiving:

This scale seems to describe the tendency of a person's mind towards informational order or chaos. Specifically, the habit of mentally categorizing information and preferring those categories to remain unchanged. In truth, I don't really have a real problem with this category (or "type" if you will). It seems to me to be sufficiently distinct from the other categories so as to not need any measured change, though perhaps the names could do with some revising, perhaps "Ordered" vs "Chaotic."

Concluding thoughts:

If MBTI truly wants to form a metric for accurately predicting behavior in humans, perhaps the questionnaires for MBTI should stop asking users about their behaviors (which they can hardly accurately predict anyways) and instead ask a different, more fundamental set of questions. I don't think the person being graded should be asked to describe himself. First, it largely robs the system of it's predictive power (see: my comparison of MBTI to the Big 5). Second, the current system attempts to extrapolate mental processes from self-reports, which is highly flawed for all the reasons I mentioned at the start of this writing, and even more. I think that if we are to measure the specific ways the mind processes information, we must first categorize that information, then find ways to get the person to relate that information with as little corruption as possible. Perhaps one way of doing this is to gather reactions to different scenarios. Perhaps the best way to accurately get a mental profile of a person is to tell them stories with deep symbolic meaning, and get feedback from the reader regarding their immediate reactions to those stories.

If we are to make a map of the mind based on how the mind intakes, interprets, and then processes data, I think it might be interesting to ask a different set of questions about the person.

1) What categories of data does the person routinely look for?

2) What truth heirarchies does that data fit into?

3) What is the person's values in those relevant truth heirarchies?

Time Lapse: Brutal Honesty

➢They paused at the top of the hill; he stared off into the distance.

"You can't trust me."

He finally broke the silence.

"You can't trust me to hold back or play nice. The first opportunity I get I will fuck you, I will fuck you into oblivion. I will take your body and fill you with pleasure until your your eyes roll into the back of your head with pleasure and you can't remember your own name."

She blinked. Silence surrounded them again; the slightest breeze carried with it the chill of autumn to raise goosebumps on her arm. Her voice came out in a small squeak:

"You promise?" 

"...On that, and that alone, you can trust me." 

Passion and Intent

➢They were lovers, but not yet. Madly in love, they had pledged to remain virgins until marriage, and each day that pledge became harder and harder to keep. His hands explored, his lips tasted, the touching sent thrills through her body that she'd never before experienced.

"I'm going to marry you."

The words were iron, dropped out of nowhere. He looked deep into her eyes, his slight smile betraying the mountain of strength and warmth she'd already set her heart upon months ago. The wind played lightly at her hair, brushing it across the cleavage showing from her sun dress, her body still tingling from where his hands had been a moment ago, her neck yearning to feel his lips again, her hips swaying lightly, firey with the wet itch of desire. Her heart had stopped for a moment at his words.

"Im going to marry you," he repeated, his body closing the gap between them, his voice dropping to a whisper near her ear, "and when we do I'm going to claim you, claim you in a way that you've always wanted but never had before. I'm going to take care of that itch, that desire deep inside; I'm going to fill your heart with light until you can't take it any more, and you're mine."

She flooded. Her arms pulled her desperately to him, her lips guided to his by his hand, his other arm slid securely across her lower back, just grazing the top of her butt as she kissed him, hard. Through the heat and wet and passion a single thought managed to claw its way out of the frenzied kisses. 

Oh why can't we be married now? 

The Booty-Blinded Curse

➢The following short twitter conversation is entirely relevant to what I have to say.

1/ If you are a guy and want to spike feelings of desire in your relationship:

- Be assertive and confident
- Be mentally present

— Pat Stedman (@Pat_Stedman) September 4, 2016

@Pat_Stedman If it can be solved, I think being more present solves it 90%.Showing up makes all the difference when difference is possible!

— Kathryn Hogan (@KathrynmHogan) September 4, 2016

Exactly. During pursuit of a girl, men focus due to new chemistry/sex. Lack of attention later kills her attraction. https://t.co/Jh6a65Yp1E

— Pat Stedman (@Pat_Stedman) September 7, 2016

@Pat_Stedman @KathrynmHogan worse yet, getting trapped in the head obsessing about the girl.... Then 'becoming present' feels dangerous

— General Cusswords (@yaycapitalism) September 7, 2016

@yaycapitalism @Pat_Stedman beautifully said. I'd love to understand that more! Are you willing to share?

— Kathryn Hogan (@KathrynmHogan) September 7, 2016

➢I swear, this shit happens all the time - guy meets girl, guy is entranced by girl, girl is initially attracted but starts paying the guy less and less attention. Meanwhile the guy gets a sinking feeling deep in his gut, a sense of desperation and anguish. Some call it romantic...

I call it romantic dipshittiness

I can't condemn it entirely; I've been in this exact scenario - I won't lie about this in the least. I think at this point in our culture, this is an experience most men can identify with, and for some men, it's the story of their lives. But for the sake of me not being a dick, and also for patting myself on the back for my linguistic elegance, let's go with a more proper term: Drowning In Beauty.

Drowning In Beauty is what happens when a man comes across a woman who is so beautiful, it 'short-circuits' his brain and overwhelms his ability to act like a normal human being. In movies, this is typified by the guy sputtering and acting like a fool; in my experience the most common symptom is one most girls can identify with easily: the guy goes into "interviewer" mode, asking bland and boring questions, without having any real conversation:

Hey, so uh, what's your major? Cool. Yeah, um what's your job? Neat. Cool. What's your sign?

Etc, etc, somebody shove a gun in my mouth already. "Interviewer mode" is the most common symptom, but other manifestations exist as well: "total asshole," and "oddly silent." For the purposes of me being too lazy to explain everything thoroughly, we'll assume that even though three symptoms are completely unalike, their root cause is essentially the same:

The girl is so beautiful that the guy finds himself completely incapable of being himself. Not only can he not act like himself, he's forgotten how to be himself, for all intents and purposes.

By the way, before I brand myself as a total asshole, let me state again for the record: I've been there. On very rare occasion, I still find myself there (but only because I'm dumb and flirt over twitter). So understand, me writing this post is a case of, "I want you to fix this. Seriously, random guy on the internet. As much as I'm an asshole, I'm at least a(n) (mostly) honest one."

Like my recent post about getting out of the Friend Zone (which totally applies in this situation too), most guys turn into assholes, interviewers, or mutes for the simple reason that they don't know what else to do. They literally are missing the linguistic programming necessary in order for them to not come off like a total weirdo.

This may sound counter-intuitive, like "dude just talk to her like a normal human being, duh" but it's important to understand, social habits are complex programmed behaviors which are often astoundingly resilient to any form of logic. Everything from simple behaviors like shaking hands to complex behaviors like deep conversations have mental programming involved. The same mechanism that allows us to tie our shoes without thinking also allows us to hold conversations without having to preplan the first twenty seconds of each response we give.


When a man is drowning in a woman's beauty, it is often because he's not used to relating to beautiful women in a healthy way. The programming in terms of body language, vocal tonality, speech patterns, etc. is completely missing, for whatever reason. And so, in a very real sense, the guy doesn't know how to be genuine, because he is in unfamiliar territory where he doesn't have control of his own neurological responses. In this way, telling a guy "just be yourself!" is akin to blindfolding him, tossing him in a room full of furniture, and yelling at him, "it's easy to get out, just walk out the door!"

Well duh, he'd walk out the door if he could see it, asshole.

This is the essence of why advice like "just be yourself" is often completely unhelpful. FYI, girls: if you've ever been on a date with a man who seems determined to force you to lead no matter how many times you practically beg him to be a man, this is generally the reason why. Asking a man to lead when he has no idea what he's doing is like taking a teen who's never driven before, throwing them in the car, and saying, "Okay take me to the other end of the country" without a single bit of instruction. Most teens who had never driven before would be scared, and I wouldn't blame them. The same is true with men who are drowning in beauty. A man who is drowning in beauty cannot be honest, because his mind is dominated by the beauty of the woman he is with.

A man in this situation is afraid to admit the truth, because to admit the truth is to admit his inadequacy. Most guys end up running the opposite way, pretending everything is okay, and becoming a liar.

SIDE NOTE GUYS: STOP LYING TO WOMEN. THEY GENERALLY CAN SENSE WHEN YOU'RE LYING TO THEM IN BEHAVIOR OR WORD, AND IT'S A SHITTY THING TO DO.

Guys in this place are in real danger of my other favorite term: Fear of Engagement. Because the guy is so overwhelmed by her beauty, he decides that the woman is qualified to be his mate, and thus everything he does is devoted to getting that same decision from her. All his standards instantly go out the window, and he becomes practically immune to any red flags she might give off.

Pay attention to the next thing I say, fellas, it's important:

PRE-QUALIFYING WOMEN AND REFUSING TO HOLD THEM TO YOUR STANDARDS IS NOT ONLY BULLSHIT, BUT IT'S COMPLETELY UNATTRACTIVE.

Seriously, what woman wants to be around a guy who handles her with kid gloves? What woman wants to be with a guy with no standards? If you lack the capacity to reject a woman you're with based on her bad behavior, then she cannot respect you.

So let's fix this issue. Pay attention again guys, because here is the gold. This is how you get out of your head when you're stuck there, when you're busy being 'booty blinded,' and you realize you're losing the girl.

Stop the conversation. Get her attention. Take a deep breath, let the silence hang for a moment. And try something like this:

"Listen, I've been stuck in my head for the past bit and it's been killing me, because I feel like I can't give you the attention you deserve. Give me a minute here, I need to take a moment to get rid of any expectations or neediness, okay?"

Chances are she will be dumbstruck, but either way nearly any girl who's a decent human being will give you that space. Take that moment, take a few deep breaths, and..

Let go of any expectations or neediness

Stop expecting her to be perfect

Stop needing her to like you

Nobody is perfect, and the only person who needs to like you is you.

Now go out there and make her speechless. 

Update, 08/05/2017: This post is in serious need of revision. While some of what I say is accurate, it's important to note that generally the following is true:

The higher the fear of rejection by a woman, the more a guy is likely to act like a fool. Generally, the more beautiful the girl is, the higher the fear of rejection.

On Death

➢Death is simple for me. The pain of death is the price we pay for the joy of love. We can ask how it's possible for us to hurt so much, but the why is very simple. The more you love someone, the more it hurts to lose them. And the more it hurts, the better. It means that you really loved them, and that what you had was worth the having. And there is little more that you can ask for than that.