Oh, I just can’t resist!
“Broke-ass Fat Load seeks thin pretty trophy wife, who likes housework”.
Hey, we don’t know that. Maybe his heart is bad! Maybe his back is bad! Maybe his feet is bad! Why, he could be bad All Over! Maybe he’s worse than Brute Larson…! :eek: 
I don’t think you’re very far off. As I and other posters mentioned, even though it’s called group hiking, people often pair off or find themselves alone (at least much more so than in other sorts of co-ed activities like softball or frisbee). And even though I’m not particularly outdoorsy, I’ve seen my share of men who like to hang out in the woods with their pants down, waiting for women to pass by. Plus female joggers and even women who live on or near woodsy campuses are often encouraged to walk in pairs or carry pepper spray.
Also, bear attacks.
Bare attacks?
Oh, sorry, I misheard you. 
Maybe in a city park, but not in the mountains where most meet up groups go for hikes. I won’t say it’s never happened, but I’ve never heard of it in 30 years of hiking in NH.
Now, there have been at least two murders of women in the woods up here, but the evidence is inconclusive as to whether they were attacked by strangers of someone they knew. Safety is always a concern.
As usual, there’s an XKCD comic for this.
The last time it happened the gent in question froze his willie off while waiting for a gal to happen by, and word got around. Flashing in NH is not for the weak.
Just forget about this one. It’s a paradox: At the time I need someone to vouch for me, the women who could vouch for me won’t have anything to do with me.
This says a lot about your priorities. The purpose of a hiking club is going on hikes. A byproduct of this is sharing the experience with like-minded individuals . . . and sometimes even getting to know a special person and if the feeling is mutual, spending time with her. You seem to have skipped over all the preliminaries and gone for the kill. Yes, this is creepy.
Once many women (even the very attractive ones) get to know a man, they might come to appreciate his good qualities. Moderate smarts & humor, consideration for other people & being a good conversationalist can win somebody’s heart, over time. (Wealth is not needed; being self-supporting is.) In fact, a group setting in which “romance” is not the primary goal can be an excellent way to get to know what somebody has to offer.
But a stalker who fixates on a woman’s looks & can’t be bothered to take time to get to know her won’t get many dates; he might get a few restraining orders. And the sad little dweebs who assume that all attractive women are shallow whores won’t have much luck, either; their bitterness will also repel many of the more average-looking women.
Here’s the issue. You’re operating under the assumption that creepy means sleazy, dishonest, or indirect. That is not what it means. Creepy is the desire to skip the natural, gradual process of gaining intimacy with someone. You attempted to speed up the process unnaturally and so you were labeled correctly, thinking that being honest or direct somehow counteracted the creepiness. It does not.
Hey, he’s probably just like all the other guys on Craiglist, only honest.
To be fair, there’s nothing wrong with his priorities. He wants to date, and he also wants to hike, but he enjoys dating more. That’s perfectly fine, and it might even be true of many people in the hiking group. What is wrong is his attempt to shortcut the introduction and acquaintance process, and that based solely on a stranger’s photograph.
I’ve always found this to be the case too. Not that women are perfect little angels who never think in terms of whether a potential partner is in their league. I’d say men and women are pretty equal on expectations of their mates. But most women are much more varied in what’s a valuable trait than men are.
Men don’t have to be super wealthy, intelligent and hilarious to date most women who are more attractive than them. They just have to be decent looking, successful, and have a good sense of humor and personality. Unfortunately and unfairly, decent looking women who are successful and sort of funny don’t get the same ‘boost’ from their own endearing non-physical qualities.
Absolutely right. And don’t think I was asserting that no man would likely ever have success with a woman who is more attractive than him – far from it.
The mysterious and hilarious thing about women is the fact that your perception of them can often become reality – if you treat them as someone who would never go for a loser like you, then it’s going to be true. Whereas if you have oodles of confidence, you might get a completely different reaction. From men’s perspective, women are like someone selling a used Ferrari who will give it to you for the price of a 1988 Civic if you try to buy it in the right way.
But some guys have a hard time making that sale. So, for them the best advice is the same I’d give someone trying to buy a used car: don’t go shopping looking like you’re desperate to drive something off the lot that day, you’ll get taken to the cleaners. Put the purchase out of your mind, don’t get overly invested in any given car right away and magically you’ll end up doing a lot better. You’ll probably still never get that Ferrari for $5k, but this gives you the best chance you had.
Did you just call a vagina a Ferrari? I can’t tell whether to be flattered or insulted.
Well, yours is much more exotic. Like a Lamborghini.
If you look at what he said, only the hottest vaginas (is that how you pluralise vagina) are Ferraris.
For all we know he may rate yours as a Honda Civic or a Subaru.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines that a given woman was a Ferrari. Which would make her vagina, I don’t know, the fuel injector or maybe the radio.
Well I was actually reading this thread at 4 AM after waking up and not being able to fall back to sleep, then eventually I came back back to post in it. So I didn’t fully connect lindsaybluth’s post, which I disagree with, to your post, which I think was generally spot on. I also didn’t connect your post to Leon497’s, which of course was pretty insanely wrong.
Rereading everything in context, particularly the post I’m quoting now, I agree with you.