Schedules of Mating

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male's genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she's capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries long feminine social conventions established and adapted from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins.

I've aleady detailed in many prior threads that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them (such as having the second kid with the Bad Boy). So saying that we're not subject to conditions we aren't, or are only vaguely, aware of is a bit naive.

It's simple deductive logic to follow that for a species to survive it must provide it's offspring with the best possible conditions to ensure it's survival - either that or to reproduce in such quantity that it ensures survival. The obvious application of this for women is sharing parental investment with the best possible mate her own genetics allow her to attract and who can provide long term security for her and any potential offspring. Thus women are biologically, psychologically and socially the filters of their own reproduction, where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much of his genetic material as humanly possible to the widest available quantity of sexually available females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic pairing for his reproduction (i.e. she's gotta be hot), but his criteria is certainly less discriminating than that for women (i.e. no one's ugly after 2am). This is evidenced in our own hormonal biology; men posess 17 times the amount of testosterone (primary hormone in sexual arousal) women do and women produce substantially more estrogen (instrumental in sexual caution) and oxytocin (fostering feelings of security and nurturing) than men.

That stated, both of these methodologies conflict in practice. For a woman to best ensure the survival of her young, a man must necessarily abandon his method of reproduction. This then sets an imperative for him to pair with a woman who will satisfy his methodology. A male must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. Thus, with so much genetic potential at stake on his part of the risk, he want's not only to ensure that she is the best possible candidate for breeding (and future breeding), but also to know that his progeny will benefit from both parent's involvement.

One interesting outcome of this psycho-biological dynamic is men's ability to spot their own children in a crowd of other children more quickly and with greater accuity than even their mothers. Studies have shown that men have the ability to more quickly and accurately identify their own children in a room full of kids dressed in the same uniforms than the mothers of the child. Again, this stresses the subconscious importance of this genetic trade off.

These are the rudiments of human sexual selection and reproduction. There are many other social, emotional, psychological intricacies that are associated with these fundamentals, but they are the underlying motivations and considerations that subconsciously influence sexual selection.

Social Convention

To counter this subconscious dynamic to their own genetic advantage women initiate social conventions and psychological schemas to better facilitate their own breeding methodologies. This is why women always have the "prerogative to change her mind" and the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard of responsibility to "do the right thing" which is invarably to the advantage of a woman's reproductive . This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers to pursue their innate reproduction method are villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives.

This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF rejections, women's propensity for victimhood (as they've learned that this engenders 'savior' mental schemas for men's breeding schedules - Capn' Save a Ho) and even marriage itself.

Good Dads vs Good Genes

The two greatest difficulties for women to overcome in their own methodology is that they are only at a sexually viable peak for a short window of time (generally their 20s) and the fact that the qualities that make a good long term partner (the Good Dad) and the qualities that make for good breeding stock (Good Genes) rarely manifest themselves in the same male. Provisioning and security potential are fantastic motivators for pairing with a Good Dad, but the same characteristics that make him such are generally a disadvantage when compared with the man who better exemplifies genetic, physical attraction and the risk taking qualities that would imbue her child with a better capacity to adapt to it's environment (i.e stronger, faster, more attractive than others to ensure the passing of her own genetic material to future generations). This is the Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.

Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic, so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man has, she must invent and constantly modify social conventions to keep the advantage in her biological favor.

Reproductive Schedules

This paradox then necessitates that women (and by defalut men) must subscribe to short term and long term schdules of mating. Short term schedules facilitate breeding with the Good Genes male, while long term breeding is reserved the Good Dad male. This convention and the psycho-social schemas that accompany it are precisely why women will marry the Nice Guy, stable, loyal, (preferably) doctor and still ƒuck the pool boy or the cute surfer she met on spring break. In our genetic past a male with good genes implied an ability to be a good provider, but modern convention has thwarted this so new social and mental schemas had to be developed for women.

Cheating

For this dynamic and the practicality of enjoying the best of both genetic worlds, women find it necessary to 'cheat'. This cheating can be done proactively or reactively.

In the reactive model, a woman who has already paired with her long term partner choice, engages in an extramarital or pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the cheating wife or girlfriend). That's not to say this short term opportunity cannot develop into a 2nd, long term mate, but the action itself is a method for securing better genetic stock than the committed male provider is capable of supplying.

Proactive cheating is the single Mommy dillema. This form of 'cheating' relies on the woman breeding with a Good Genes male, bearing his children and then abandoning him, or having him abandon her, (again through invented social conventions) in order to find a Good Dad male to provide for her and the children of her Good Genes partner to ensure their security.

I want to stress again that (most) women do not have some consciously recognized, master plan to enact this cycle and deliberately trap men into it. Rather the motivations for this behavior and the accompanying rationales invented to justify it are an unconscious process. I fervently believe that for the most part, women are unaware of this dynamic, but are nonetheless subject to it's influence. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology for breeding with the best genetic partner she's able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring's survival with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

The Cuckold

On some level of consciousness, men innately sense something is wrong with this situation, though they may not be able to place why they feel it or misunderstand it in the confusion of women's justifications for it. Or they become frustrated by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by feigned responsibility to these conventions. Nevertheless, some see it well enough to stear clear of single mothers, etiher by prior experience or observing other male cuckolds saddled with the responsibility of raising and providing for - no matter how involved or uninvolved - another man's successful reproduction efforts with this woman.

The man in this position is (or at the very least interpreted as) a Cuckold. He will never enjoy the same benefits as his mates short term partner(s) to the same degree, in the way of sexual desire or immediacy of it, while at the same time enduring the social pressures of having to provide for this Good Genes father's progeny. It could be argued that he may contibute minimally to their wellfare, but on some level, whether emotional, physical, financial or educational he will contribute some effort for another man's genetic material in exchange for limited form of sexuality/intimacy from the mother. To some degree, (even if only by his presence) he is sharing the parental investment that should be borne by the short term partner. If nothing else, he contibutes the time and effort to her he could be better invested in finding a sexual partner with which he could pursue his own genetic imperative by his own methodology. It is simply not worth his effort to couple with a single mother when compared to a woman without children.

However, needless to say, there is no shortage of men sexually deprived enough to 'see past' the long term disadvantages, and not only rewarding, but reinforcing a single mother's bad decisions (bad from his own interest's POV) with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. Furthermore, by reinforcing her behavior thusly, he reinforces the social convention for both men and women. It's important to bear in mind that in this age women are ultimately, soley responsible for the men they choose to mate with (baring rape of course) AND giving birth to their children. Men do bear responsibility for their actions no doubt, but it is ultimately the decision of the female and her judgement that decides her and her children's fate.[/QUOTE]

Rollo, you should give this a different title, like

DATING A SINGLE MOM? THINK AGAIN

Rollo Tomassi said:

rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days)

Click to expand...

Hence my theory that the percentages of women who cheat are much higher than what studies have shown.

Add to that branch swinging behavior and other types of activities women engage in that technically aren't "cheating", and we have the basis for the The Myth of The Quality Woman.

I love it when things fit together like a puzzle...

So why did George Washington marry a widow with two children?

And why are there so many single mothers who have not found a new provider now that they've left their sperm donor?

And why is there not a single source cited in this treatise on sexual relations?

A field report is one thing, grounded in the reality of what happened. But this is pure speculative philosophy -- you can't just say it all with big words and make it true.

Take your very basic notion that there are good genes and good providers, and these are rarely found in the same man. What is your evidence for that?

Even more simply, what is your definiton of "good" genes? "Good" is a normative assessment. To put it in positive terms we have to speak of "adaptive" -- conferring an evolutionary advantage. Is that what you mean? If so, whose genes are better: the geek who can perform highly-compensated intellectual tasks or the jock who can dunk? Or perhaps it's the one who has the best resistance to cancer or heart disease or flu. Which one would that be? Or perhaps it depends on culture -- in which case your biological argument, depending on evolutionary timescales, falls far short.

You're trying to advance the thesis here that women control mating, and this has a biological basis. But historically women have controlled nothing, least of all mating, so how could this biological mechanism have endured to present day when they did not have free mate selection? Considering the historical consequences, I doubt they all cheated like hell, but that's what would have to have happened for this theory to hold.

Ultimately your argument reads like a fanciful version of "women control everything" that I'd hear on "Everybody Loves Raymond." I'm not sure I'd turn to Sosuave for my evolutionary biology -- Dawkins has a lot more credibility. But if I did, I'd prefer something grounded in a little more reality, with a less paranoid slant.

Why is this STICKIED?!

iqqi said:

Why is this STICKIED?!

Click to expand...

Are you saying Rollo's a moderator-bator? Is a man not entitled to sticky his own post?

thedeparted said:

Are you saying Rollo's a moderator-bator? Is a man not entitled to sticky his own post?

Click to expand...

Lol.

I'd never say such a thing! WHERE would I get that idea from...



:bows down:

women could have this game down pat:

-make the man see himself as the womans sexual desire,

-give the man an outlet for his ego, in all shapes and sizes!

Holy ****, this is stickied now. I afraid to say it, but I have to ask why sticky this one. In the past when others get sticked, it is usually of a post of uncontroversial fame. This I must say can be take in so many ways. If it just to say to not date single mommies while indentifying the pressure of men, then very well, but with the evolutionary-biology as the backing argument, this can taken in so many ways that I must ask why?

Outlining the essay, it says takes the evolutionary-biology of the recent findings that women have a cycle of the types of guys they want. This eventually leads to the development of society's structure formed from the women's biological desires of the cycle: The ability to change their mind while creating a social contruct of men have to be loyal. This leads to the reason of women cheating as well as going single mommie then getting a provider.

Now, my objection to this is this can be taken in so many ways including ways that may not be positive. To list it, I can immediately gain from this essay:

1. Women are never loyal and never to be trusted. Even if their intentions were good and never meant to hurt, they can't helpt it, its not concious. Infact, they cheat all the time, you just don't know about it (refer to St8up's post above for example). It is not because they are immature or the american women argument or lack character or anything like that. It just you are only the good provider (aww, it's the nice guy).

2. It might not be concious, so it lessens the wound by being involuntary, but you may never be a person she will ever really like you. After all, being like is being desired, and being desired is having good genes and you have to be born with it. So if you are not tall, dark, and hansome and born with intellegence to become a good provider (rich), you're out of luck. If she act all warm and so on, it because she giving a token interest to keep you around. I'll be honest, that would include me (5'5" or 5-6"), so I guess it is arguable there is a personal stake here.

3. A social contruct have been created entirely to brainwash you to thinking that loyalty, empathy, understanding, and all those stuff is good. In actuality, it is created (subconciously of course) so guys can get married and provide to the female with children he never fathered. And women get to change their minds all they want (awesome)!

4. Men are pressured to go after single mommies in the thinking of the "savior schema." It is a trap made to ensare men to give women the biological jackpot. Nevermind thinking the women have the desire to have someone around her, subconciously, it doesn't matter.


Ok, the above is obviously on the extreme side and maybe I'm making a strawman argument, but in the past you don't shy from making extreme examples (like in the joint-account thread). I remember your oft-repeated argument that the reason you write this is because we need to understand the whole dynamic (isn't the matrix is really not avoiding social norms or something like that, but understanding why things are like this? good or bad is up to discern).

Recently when I remember your repeated argument, I made a connection to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel where he argued the reason why human civilization have become so European-centric and the world got colonized by Europeans instead of something like the Native American colonized Europe is by the very underlying source rather than individualistic or collective inginuity. It is not because European have developed a stronger work ethic, genetically better or "god is on our side," but Europeans have better terrain with more domestic animals and plants. Those three factors leads to growing faster, developing techonology faster, and well this diagram does better. Your argument is similar by that women with that biological imperative would lead by the influence on their free will, nudge them to do such actions and leads to today's social contruction.

Yet, I must ask questions on grounds of what about the individual context? What about the individual context of chracter, upbringing, and individual decisions? From my knowledge, b!tchy, flakey, hostile women are always like this and can be seen from a mile away, they will not hesitate to hurt others and anyone who is willing to admit it would. If you agree there is a place for this, it should be mentioned in this thread, as while you gave an indepth thesis of the biological grounds of the female perogative which leads to how society is structured, for a stickied thread, it should factored that in or else risk taken out of context.

Originally (well maybe there's an earlier one, I don't know), this was in response to Soutnern Gal's posts. It was written in context. Now as a stand alone thread, hence the above. As a sticky thread, that is a bit dangerous.

In the end, you may say it is unconcious, say this only looks into the biological motives. However, since this is a sticky thread and does still contain the thought that women and even society is completely hostile by their very core natures, unless you happen to have both genes. Traditionally, you have stated your aim is to keep men from doing AFC actions which you have listed (come to think of it, can be categorized as acts of desperation with no self-respect), this risks making a statement of women at their core (biology is seen as the core nature of humanity) only wants you as a provider or a donator which I say life have way more factors than that.

It is an interesting theory which RT is seeking to develop/explore. It will be a long time in the evolutionary day before intelligent nerds with thick lens glasses and bad skin are viewed with lust by women. Some basic physical qualities are desirable on a universal basis. Facial symmetry, certain features for men and women, regardless of culture, and those qualities equal "good genes".

"It is an interesting theory which RT is seeking to develop/explore."

Lol at that. I hope he really isn't claiming he came up with it.

First off, why did I sticky this?

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=145686

Post #2

Relax. I'll unsticky after a bit.

Before anyone goes off the deep end, I revised and edited this OP from a response I offered a while back and I thought it had legs since people quoted it so often. Thus I made a thread for it.

Now then,..

So why did George Washington marry a widow with two children?

Click to expand...

Perhaps he was a chump. I didn't know him personally, maybe you did?

And why are there so many single mothers who have not found a new provider now that they've left their sperm donor?

Click to expand...

Any number of reasons. Less sexually viable / marketable due to having had children, due to feeling that they've completed their biological imperative. Their socially reinforced victimhood. Perhaps they have less motivation to do so because of the social and financial support they receive.

And why is there not a single source cited in this treatise on sexual relations?

Click to expand...

What would you like cited?

what is your definiton of "good" genes? "Good" is a normative assessment. To put it in positive terms we have to speak of "adaptive" -- conferring an evolutionary advantage. Is that what you mean? If so, whose genes are better: the geek who can perform highly-compensated intellectual tasks or the jock who can dunk?

Click to expand...

What I mean by a "Good Genes" assessment is what our biology has evolved to find sexually arousing. On the part of males, impressive physical prowess and appearance are genetic determinantes that are associated with good gene-stock on a subconscious level. There are numerous cross-culture/cross-racial studies that bear this out which have found consistent attracting commonalities in body & facial symetry as well as gender specific attributes each sex found not just attractive, but physically arousing (heart rate increase, pupil dialation, ect.) in the opposite sex (i.e. broad shoulders, square jaw, chest to waist ratio, etc. for men and breast size, fullness of lips, hip to waist ratio, etc. for women).

The root of this is found in our evolutionary history and the psycho-biological development that began in our hunter-gatherer beginnings. Physical traits associated with a higher capacity to provide long term security (for men) and better reproductive capacity (i.e. survive childbirth and nuturement of children for women) and their association are what's at issue. Are we slaves to these impulses? No. Are we powerless to recondition them? No. However these are the underpinnings of what prompts us. You see a naked woman in Playboy with full breasts, a flat stomach and great hips - environmental stimulus, psychological processing and association, glandular hormonal response, physical manifestation - you get a hard on and are ready to breed. That's the raw, albeit simplified mechanics of it.

Good Genes isn't a master race, eugenics thing - that would be catering it to an agenda - it's what our subconscious, hardwired, biological perception is. Sexual arousal happens to varying degrees among higher order animals based on how closely an individual meets with the physical associations that indicate genetic potential. Whether this is actualized or not isn't the issue, it's the perception that leads to the arousal. The male peacock with the biggest and brightest plumes, who jumps higher and fights off all rivals may carry a genetic disorder that dooms his entire species, but the female still wants to ƒuck him because his appearance and prowess are what trigger her hormonal responses.

"Well, we're not animals Rollo, we're people", to which I say, yes, most definitely. Which is why both sexes intelligently establish social conventions to compensate for, or entirely circumvent this very raw, uncomfortable truth.

Now I've outlined the Good Genes idea, but there's still some questions left:

What about the Good Provider?
Why do some women still love a musician or an artist?
How does the nature of women's cyclic sexuality play into there mating selection?
How does sexual viability affect this over a prolonged period?

I outlined the Good Dad male in the OP and the reasons for choosing him in the long term, but he still deserves a better description. The question was asked:

Take your very basic notion that there are good genes and good providers, and these are rarely found in the same man. What is your evidence for that?

Click to expand...

While I could make a case that the very nature of this forum is evidence enough, that doesn't quite cover the whole picture. Particularly in this era, there are plenty of social conditions to consider why these two rarely exist in the same male, but there's more to it than that. The Good Genes male and the Good Provider male tend to mature, acculturate and become socialized along different lines. The idea is that from early adolescence the Good Genes male is socially rewarded and reinforced by the attention he receives for his physical prowess and/or the perception of him more closely matching a biological, physical ideal. This then prompts the Good Genes male to pursue the things that he's more often socially rewarded for (i.e the dumb Jock stereotype). Because he's more consistently rewarded with female attention, his motivation for the intellectual pursuits and creative endeavors that would make him a better Good Provider male in the future are, to varying degrees, neglected.

The Good Provider male must compensate for the lack of attention the Good Genes male receives from adolescence. His sexual impetus is identical to the Good Genes male, but he must creatively improvise methods to garner female attention. In other words, he must devise ways to cover his deficit. For the record, I think it's wrong to presume the Good Genes male would be the "Alpha" and the Good Provider male as the "Beta." These are far too narrow a description in general (they tend to be used as binaries) and at this early in maturity, the cunning, creative and decisive Good Provider can be every bit as competitive IF he is patient. It's his ingenuity, his innovativeness and his necessity to compensate that makes him successful according to his measure. It's precisely this measure, and this overall understanding that separates a solid Good Provider male from an AFC.

It's important to note now that this isn't to say there aren't Good Genes males that can learn to be Providers or don't enrich themselves with creative or intellectual pursuits. Nor is it to say that Good Providers don't work out and improve their physiques (in fact that'd be a compensation strategy). It is to say that their initial motivations and prompts sets them on differing paths that is modified by women's Schedules of Mating and their own sexual imperatives; the priorities of which change over their own maturation.

The creative and intellectual pursuits that make for the Good Provider male, more often than not, happen to bear fruit at precisely the time a woman's sexual marketability begins to wane. One very uncomfortable truth that women must constantly confront is that as she ages her sexual value declines while a man's (should) increases. The Good Provider male had to make sacrifices that made him a Good Provider during the time at which her sexual value was at it's highest. So while the Doctor or Attorney is busy studying to become what he will be, she is enjoying her prime sexual years. It's only later when her sexual value declines - and yes, this may be hastened by motherhood - that her sexual priorities switch.

It's during this period that she develops a new appreciation for what the Good Provider offers - long term financial provisioning, empathy, stability, loyalty, dependability, intellectual and creative capacity. All of which are there for the taking with a Good Provider male, who's been deprived of intimacy, sexuality and companionship long enough to make him thank his lucky stars his sexual dream has come true - or at least close enough for him to overlook her past indiscretions and settle on her.

Now, it should also be noted that the qualities that make for the Good Provider male, are in and of themselves desirable traits that put a her offspring at a long term advantage. While it is debatable, these traits are ones developed and conditioned over a period of time. A creative and intellectual capacity definitely have a genetic basis, but they are traits that must be demonstrable and require time to perfect to be appreciated. They also require a woman to have a matured capacity to appreciate them - also, this takes time. This then creates a conflict when taken in contrast to her own schedules of mating. Thus you have a very identifiable rarity of males who exemplify both the Good Genes aspect of sexual attraction, but also make for Good Providers. This is compounded by a woman's capacity to identify and appreciate this rare male.

Rollo Tomassi said:

"Well, we're not animals Rollo, we're people", to which I say, yes, most definitely. Which is why both sexes intelligently establish social conventions to compensate for, or entirely circumvent this very raw, uncomfortable truth.

Click to expand...

This is a HUGE part of so many men's issues even after they have stepped out of CHUMP-dom.

Most men STILL deny the truth. They cast stones at the bearer of the unpleasant truth. That's why I get tarred and feathered around here. Rollo explains it a bit more scientifically, I just tell it like it is, raw and uncensored.

Open your eyes fellas. Underneath all the cheap talk and pleasantries lies an undercurrent of cut-throat competition. Both between men and women and men and other men.

Face it, you are alone in this world. Consider yourself lucky if you have good family who cares about you and a few friends you can count on. Consider yourself VERY fortunate if you are able to find a compatible mate who places a high value on loyalty and integrity, because these qualities often contradict what we as humans are biologically programmed to do, and as such are very difficult to find in a partner.

iqqi said:

Why is this STICKIED?!

Click to expand...

Why not - this is an awesome post! Well done Rollo - I have just forwarded the link to this to all my single male friends. Struck a nerve with me after an an ex HB9 (single mum) contacted me over the weekend to go for a drink. No chance.

Its stickied because it needs to be stickied iqqi.

Too many symps and AFC's here are operating under the self defeating presumption that establishing a relationship with a single mommy as opposed to simply knocking it out with one and then moving on to the next chick is the way to go.

The guys making these garbage posts likely have no options so when a single mommy out daddy shopping feigns genuine interest in them these morons suddenly think they've won the lottery.

Then they come here and try to get us to go along and agree that having a relationship with such a woman is a good thing for them.

They do this because they have very serious doubts about it being a good thing for them and want those doubts relieved by us patting them on the back and telling them to go for it.

And we can't do that because its not a good thing for them and it never will be.

Almost any guy that makes an excuse for why he settled for a single mommie has no game.

Period.

The only guy that can even begin to hope to make a case for shacking up with this type of woman is a guy who has a ton of options and the single mommy literally stood head and shoulders above the rest of the pack. She would have to be a truly exceptional woman and prove herself over a long period of time for a guy who has options to even consider having a relationship with her much less marrying her.

Penkitten is one such woman and because other posters like to bring her up when I make this argument I instead have brought her up first this time.

Gio was one such man with a ton of options but Penny just stood head and shoulders above the rest but you know what?

I think Gio and Penny won the lottery finding eachother.

I truly believe that most single mommies out there are simply looking to settle with a man that is not their "A guy" as Str8up puts it because this guy is at the very least tolerable to them and most importantly sees no problem with raising another man's offspring. The single mommy of course finding such a catch in a man in the sense he's cool with raising another man's kids will feign like she is insanely in love with him to keep him happy and ensure her and her children's two parent family future. This is wrong and manipulative because no matter how good it is for the kids it is based on lying to the man to get what she wants.

I think Gio won the lottery by finding Penkitten because Penkitten was one such single mommy truly searching for love not just a new daddy for the kids.

I think Penkitten is the exception rather than the rule hence the "lottery win" analogy.

KontrollerX said:

I think Gio won the lottery by finding Penkitten because Penkitten was one such single mommy truly searching for love not just a new daddy for the kids.

I think Penkitten is the exception rather than the rule hence the "lottery win" analogy.

Click to expand...

There are exceptions to every rule, that's why I try to never say "never".

It's good as a general rule to avoid going the single mommy route, but i would hate to miss a golden opportunity with a one in a million woman just for that reason.

kontroller, thank you for posting the kind words about gio and i.
i do feel as if i won the lottery when i met gio.

however, there are alot of new people on the site since way back then, so perhaps i should tell everyone that we started out just as friends who talked, and he really was not looking to date a single mother at the time, let alone a single mother from another state.
he led a busy life and he had other gf's that were interested in him.

i am not sure what it was that i said, or did, that made him become interested in me in the first place.

all i know is we talked more and more and then we met and we have been together ever since.
we will celebrate another anniversary this year, and on one hand it still feels brand new and on the other hand, i can barely remember life before he was a part of it.

Thank you RT for the elaboration.

You know, unless I'm missing something, the basic unconfortable truth in the second post is like guys who find certain girls hot and some not, it is no different in girls. There are hot guys and hot girls, and then there are not. If I apply just my own thinking in the female's shoes just flipped to thinking what would be attractive or even lustful, it is quite fathomable. I can even see how despite that while a certain person may not be the hottest of the bunch, an ltr is still desirable as a person is still attractive and have other qualities that make one wonder why leave such a person just because she a 6 or 7 and not an 8 or 9? Putting that thinking in a woman (though it seems women go in a cycle of what type would be attractive), it is not that hard to think. It not even really that unconfortable of a truth viewing as such, after all, you think the same way, right?

What is unconfortable is how much focus on the evolutionary-biolgical view and view actions of people in that light. RT, maybe you disagree, which I would like to hear on that, but is there no place to pursue such goods for the sake of the pursuit? Arguably, the compasationary focus grains against one of the central pillars of many ideas of the forum which is to pursue to live life well and women should be a by-product of the pursuit, not the goal. In your biological argument, it seems to be actually contradictary that thinking that in the light that the reason why the young man aims to become a lawyer is to compensate the fact he lacks the good genes to be desirable. Isn't viewing from this point a bit too reductionist (I hope I'm using that word correctly), ignoring all the other possible motivations of pursuit except that the guy want to make himself into something that catches a woman's attention? Of course, this is meant to explore biology with humans, but the thread risks making the statement as above.

What is equally as unconfortable is the fruitation of the investment. Basically the guy's value goes up after all that hard work and he gets the girl, at the point when she have began to lose her value and therefore she was just desperate. Sounds like second-hand trash rather than rising to compete by having other things to offer to the women. How ironic, all that effort and the trophy is given after it been used, the shine is gone, and the cheering fans have faded away.

Perhaps, this is the part is are talking about the single mom, such a good waste of value especially the man is now in a position to compete but traded in immediately with the desperate women looking to cling to someone to leech. However, I'm not sure you meant that, it seems the others are taking the meaning to be that, but all I can be sure you meant was the words you did said, which the man gains value and the woman's sexual priorities switch. To me, it doesn't empahsis that much on the lost value mommy with the high value man now allow himself to be used, but a statement that the nice guy gets the girl... after the other guys are done with her... and its not that great either.

Finally, the largest thing I find troublesome when Str8up put his two cent saying RT's post supports his view on humanity. I'm sorry, but the programming seems to say a type of people who are immediately attractive to lustful. Not say that we are program with objective that leads to not just we have to compete, but it is cuttroat. The pleasantries are only skin-deep and the reality a very few people with loyal and integrity, that's because the biological programming goes against that. I would write more but it is already 1:29, I spent a long time typing this (hopefully readable, I don't feel like proofreading). My point is, I think there is more to life than just sexuality and biological evolution, if your view of people is they are that hostile that you sound, I must disagree.

TheHumanist said:

Finally, the largest thing I find troublesome when Str8up put his two cent saying RT's post supports his view on humanity. I'm sorry, but the programming seems to say a type of people who are immediately attractive to lustful. Not say that we are program with objective that leads to not just we have to compete, but it is cuttroat. The pleasantries are only skin-deep and the reality a very few people with loyal and integrity, that's because the biological programming goes against that. I would write more but it is already 1:29, I spent a long time typing this (hopefully readable, I don't feel like proofreading). My point is, I think there is more to life than just sexuality and biological evolution, if your view of people is they are that hostile that you sound, I must disagree.

Click to expand...

Trust me, you aren't the only one who notices this. Some of the stuff I read here is really sad, and a lot of it comes from this forum, and I've spent a good deal of posts trying to wake people up from this. I used to read it and try to ignore it, but recently, I've actually felt flat out pity for some posters here, and now I would feel bad if I just sat here and watched while not say anything. Some people here have a disturbingly ultra-dark perspective on life. I don't know if it is just plain bitterness, or if people are taking the 48 Laws of Power book too seriously (which seems to be popular here now), or if it's just a complete destruction of any moral/spiritual sense, or what. But this has got to stop, it's an embarrassment for all of us who walk the DJ path. Hopefully everyone came here to improve themselves, not spew out all this bitter negativity. Back then it used to be "focus on yourself!", now I hear more "be selfish!" or justifications for being so. I don't know how some of you interpret it that way, but whatever it is, snap out of it. Not only will you be hurting others, but your going to end up hurting yourself.

And TheHumanist, I agree when you use the word 'reductionist'. Way back, Pook used to talk a lot about the bad side of intellectualism and philosophers. I really believe the reductionist mindset stems from too much intellectualism, which is something this forum can do with a little less of. But really my beef with it is it leads to a very simple, dark, and meaningless perspective on the world and life itself. That should be the opposite of sosuave. You know the phrase "being able to see things with the eyes of a child" (Pook used to say that a lot too), well all I've been witnessing is the opposite here, from people who sound like life chewed them up and spit them back out.

Really guys, please snap out of it. If this is what you achieved by coming to sosuave, then I have to question if it was worth it in the first place.

This post isn't intended for everyone, nor is it intended for anyone in particular. I just hope it serves as a warning for people going down this path.
Let it be said that you were at least warned.