Why Looks AND Provisioning Matter

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
340
Age
56
Location
Nevada
One of the confusions about these "do looks or provisioning capacity mater more for women" threads is that the answer is 'yes' to both. Women will quite comfortably settle down with the good provider, dependable Nice Guy and still spontaneously ƒuck the hot pool boy without a dime to his name. Why?

What you have here is a classic Schedules of Mating dillema.

All this describes are methods 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. Rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by a biologicaly prompted need for security, the feminine develops social conventions and methodologies (which change as her conditions change) to effect this. In fact, the very reason these threads are started by men and the confusion at the root of it is a social convention. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries long feminine social conventions established from a time long before humans could accurately determine genetic origins (DNA tests).

I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of, is a bit naive. It also belies our own motivations - meaning that when a woman says "I don't know why I cheated on him, he was so perfect" she may actually be telling the truth; she literally doesn't know.

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 their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much genetic material as possible to the widest available pool of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for reproduction (i.e. she's gotta be hot), but this 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 women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men. Also, women only ovulate in 28 day cycles meaning that their optimal hormone levels for reproduction peak in a bell curve about once every 3 weeks.

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 lot of sexual availability). He must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. 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 with, but also to know that his exclusive progeny will benefit from both parents investment.

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" so the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" by providing women with satisfaction of their security need. She is excused for her methodology while he is shamed for his own. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are infamous villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise, are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives - and even more so when raising children they didn't sire.

This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF type 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 classic Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.

Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic (which we euphemistically call her "biological clock" - yet another social convention), so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad (Mr. Dependable) has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man (hot pool boy) has, she must either find a man that best exemplifies both these characteristics or 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, dependable (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 by means of physical prowess, 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 outside-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the classic 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 (by her perception) 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. The feminine facilitates this through invented social mores that positively affirm a man for "stepping up to the plate" and helping the "poor woman victimized by the villainous ex" share in a parental investment that was never his burden.

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. It's my belief 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 by pairing with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.
 

Rollo Tomassi

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
5,309
Reaction score
340
Age
56
Location
Nevada
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. This is why the "do looks matter less/more than provisioning" threads arise. Men become frustrated and confused by the social pressures to 'do the right thing' and are shamed into martyrdom/savior-hood and committed by implied responsibility for 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 mate's 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 can 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 forms 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 with regard to her breeding selections and schedules in exchange for short term sexual gratification. 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.
 

Mr.Positive

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
1,857
Reaction score
100
Very good read Rollo. Makes me think about how great it would be to have mandatory DNA testing. Everyone should have a right to know the truth.
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
This is very good Rollo, even brilliant, maybe one of your best. I might want to discuss some of your points later on. To emphasize the point of provider, and about DNA testing most states disallow it or ignore the results. I even heard of and personally know cases where men were order to pay child support for a women's child she had with another man years before he even met her.

Does that mean having the potential to be a provider means you will be a woman's sucker? No, but the attraction/interest of just being a provider alone for a woman will make many of them marry and stay with a guy until she's gotten most of the provisions she can extract then she's off to the next provider hoping (at least subconciously) he also has "good genes"-the one she'll likely stay with. Conversely the guy causing attraction with genes (looks) but has no provisions can have the woman for a short time, but will most likely never be able to keep her even if he really wanted to keep her. Of course there will always be exceptions, but exception to the rule do not invalidate the rule.
 

eyedogg

Don Juan
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
158
Reaction score
4
Nice work Rollo!

I was on my way to work this morning and just thinking to myself....Hmmm I wonder when we are going to get some new material from Rollo?

Ask and ye shall recieve huh?

-Eyedogg
 

John-467

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
154
Reaction score
4
Rollo,

Okay I'm going to make this in this thread, I want you, Keno, Strup, jonwon if you are around, iqqi, fvck it...I want EVERYBODY to listen to what I'm about to say.

LISTEN, okay....LISTEN for a minute

1.) You guys are TAKING THIS WAYYYYY out of context. Rollo I read your post, I read a lot of them, breaking down the "scientific/biological" functions of women and WHY they SELECT certain GUYS is GREAT for a debate, GREAT for research, BUT THE INFORMATION IS NOT VALID.

NOT VALID.

NOT VALID.

You are going on a full course road of EXPLAINING why women CHOOSE CERTAIN GUYS, and why they CHEAT on certain guys, etc. etc. You are using THIS information as a BASIS so guys can now CHANGE themselves or ADAPT themselves to this formula and procedure....however what I'm trying to say to you, strup, keno...IS THAT YOUR FORMULA IS NOT VALID.

Write this down, lol....please

1.) You don't have to have the PRESENCE of status, PRESENCE of being a great provider, PRENSENCE OF SUCCESS, presence of ANYTHING. Keno I understand when you say that you just need the PRESENCE of status/success but don't have to actally PROVIDE THAT...I get it dudeeeeee lol. Okay? But what I'm trying to sAY TO YOU...is that you don't even need the PRESENCE.

Presence = The external behaviors and external things that give the perception of STATUS, SUCCESS, ETC.

Now this could include the MATERIAL THINGS (cars, boats, money) or they could include the behaviors (confidence, ****yness, etc).....

>>> FACT: 97% of people in this country make under $97,000 a year. Now, with the high azz debt here, living the LIFE OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS just isn't going to be MOST GUYS. So then WHYYYYYY are the birth rates increasing? There HAS TO BE other guys fvcking these women?

So I guess you guys NEVER HEARD of dead beat dads? There's more piece of shyt dads out there then ANYTHING.
 

John-467

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
154
Reaction score
4
>> FACT: If you go out in the field.....observeeeeee things, again, GO OUT IN THE FIELD AND OBSERVE....you'll notice a couple of things:

1.) Majority of the hot girls have boyfriends and fvck partners that are a complete piece of shyt. They are losers, have no goals, lay around playing Playstation all day, might work a part time job or a job that makes less than $25,000 a year, if that's what you call the PRESENCE of a provider I think you need to change your "definition."

Again, you have to TURN OFF YOUR COMPUTER and actually GO OUT IN THE FIELD, which I DON'T believe you guys do most of the time, because YOUR OPINIONS are so NOT VALID BASED ON ACTUAL REALITY!!!! Lol.

2.) The guys that are WELL-OFF financially and have STATUS.....they DO have women, BUTTT, and god damn it...LISTEN TO ME......

And this is a big fvcking BUT....just about all of those women are being TAKEN CARE OF BY THE GUY or are USING THE GUY FOR STATUS. Now keno, strup, rolla, I think you guys might be in this second category, and BASED ON YOUR LIFE'S EXPERIENCES....you are saying that "because" you are well-off and have the PRESENCE of a provider..then women attach themselves to you BUT you don't actually GIVE THEM SHYT and that's COOL. But you are being fvcking used.

- Used for your status
- Used for your FUN life
- Used for the ability to ride with you in your fancy car
- Used for the "possibility" of you falling in love with her and then taking care of her
- Used for your social circle
- Used for your "name recongition" for example, let's say Str8up is a "popular guy" around town...so chicks will hang with him to UP their status and say " I hung out with Str8up at the View on Saturday!"

Now listen, if you WANT to use these things to get women, YOU CAN...what I'm trying to fcking tellllllll you guys, is that it's NOT A REQUIREMENT, and ROLLO, IT'S NOT A BIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENT/THING EITHER!!!!

So you guys will CONCLUDE that I'm lying, however...I live this everyday, I seee this everyday, I experience it everyday..and ANYBODY who ACTUALLY meets, talks, and chills with women from ALL OVER...will see this situation.

Most of the hot girls have LOSER BOYFRIENDS. I'm sorry, they do. And the ONLY REASON the hot girls have these LOSER BOYFRIENDS is NOT because the male has some BIOLOGICAL PROVIDER PRESENCE TYPE bullshyt...the reason these girls have these guys is because THEY PUT IT DOWN IN THE BEDROOM.

Just say you DON'T WANT to believe that

Just say so.

But the bottom line is, if guys would develop their FVCK SKILLS, women won't be a problem...women can PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES!!! THEMSEVELS!! This is not 1945, they can get their own damn jobs.

Women TODAY, really only want a great fvck buddy.....most of them are COOL if you have nothing going on in your life, or are a complete NOBODY.

I know it's not MASUCLINE to be a loser, I know it's not...but lemme tell you something, women today have LOW FVCKING STANDARDS.

It's MEN, like you guys, who put these HIGH AZZ STANDARDS on yourself and it's the FIRST TRIP TO....INSECURE-VILLE.

>> It's where the insecurity of "I'm not good looking enough" comes from.

>> It's where the insecurity of "I'm not successful enough, funny enough, cokcy enough, social enough, etc, etc, comes from."

YOU DID IT! That's YOUR REQUIREMENT! That hot chick right there will be fvcking SATISIFED...with just a REGULAR GUY that she can FVCK with everynight!

JUST SAY lol, you just DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT......you just don't WANT to believe, that a totally fvcking loser in life can TAKE YOUR CHICK, BANG YOUR CHICK, AND USE UP ALL OF HER MONEY.
 

John-467

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
154
Reaction score
4
iqqi,

That's the problem lol, their "scientific research" is so based on their OWN OPINIONS instead of the ACTUAL FIELD AND ENIRONMENT it's a god damn shame.

I just feel sorry because about 80% of the guys here take their information and apply it, and will be JUST LIKE THOSE GUYS, still coming here for the next 5 years having the SAME FVCKING ISSUES.

I think it's a damn shame.

:crackup:
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
FACT: 97% of people in this country make under $97,000 a year. Now, with the high azz debt here, living the LIFE OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS just isn't going to be MOST GUYS. So then WHYYYYYY are the birth rates increasing? There HAS TO BE other guys fvcking these women?

So I guess you guys NEVER HEARD of dead beat dads? There's more piece of shyt dads out there then ANYTHING.
I think the percentage is higher is higher 3% make over 97k. I think it's over 10% but I never said you had to make over $100,000/year or X amount. I said you had to be able to make ends meet and with a comfort zone and security. I disagree the birthrate is increasing. Besides that one rich or handsome guy can father many children by many women. Just for the sake of argument, if only 10% of women are the hottest and most desirable, do you think it would be that hard for the top guys to tie all of them up?

1.) Majority of the hot girls have boyfriends and fvck partners that are a complete piece of shyt. They are losers, have no goals, lay around playing Playstation all day, might work a part time job or a job that makes less than $25,000 a year, if that's what you call the PRESENCE of a provider I think you need to change your "definition."
I disagree maybe in the ghetto but I wouldn't consider the girls hot anyway. Most girls with guys of low income are young, probably in college, and their guys are usually good looking and students too, maybe on a sports team or in a frat, maybe have well to do parents students. Basically a college guy with some looks and the potential to be a provisioner.

But the bottom line is, if guys would develop their FVCK SKILLS, women won't be a problem...women can PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES!!! THEMSEVELS!! This is not 1945, they can get their own damn jobs.
Women's instinctive nature going back thousands of years didn't change that much over 60 some years. Using your logic, due to birth control and readily acessible abortions and child support, women should be much more promiscuois than before. I don't think they're really that much more promiscuious than in various times in the past. and if you think the fact that women can get their own jobs means they'll stay with a guy that earns less than her or let alone provide for a man, then I think you're wrong.

Women TODAY, really only want a great fvck buddy.....most of them are COOL if you have nothing going on in your life, or are a complete NOBODY.
So again it's all about fvking. How is a girl suppose to know anything about your sexual ability and compatability until she's already choosed you and fvcked you? A guy ready and willing to fvck a girl well is in no short supply. I think you have too much experience with ghetto skanks.
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
iqqi said:
John... you don't want to argue with the "scientists". :crazy:

LOL.
Or argue with women :crazy: or guys that are happy with just fvcking low quality skanks :up:
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
SickAgain said:
Both Rollo and John make great points. The bottom line is that you cannot generalize a whole gender. Some women cheat, other do not. Some women don't mind loser boyfriends who are good in bed, others do. I guess it is best to find a chick who finds you somewhat physically attractive, so some of her primal urges come out on you.

This reminds me of my friend who is the most natural I've met. He's a complete loser, he's not going anywhere in life anytime soon, but he fvcks a lot of women. But these women never wanted to stay with him, because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He finally settled down with some chick who takes care of him and she's like a 2, she is grotesque, and this guy has banged girls 9+. Just goes to show.
But your friend only verifies and doesn't invalidate the "generalization" right? I always say looks or appearance primarily attracks the woman sexually, and staus and means keep her.
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
iqqi said:
Sounds like we described everyone on sosuave! Me and you make a great team, who woulda thunk it. ;)
Well I thought I was just describing only you and John, respectively. But I'm sure you're not the only woman on sosuave and John isn't the only guy here that thinks like him and fvcks only skanks :up: .
 

amoka

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
63
Yet another good post from Prophet Rollo.
 

mahon83050

Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2000
Messages
2,644
Reaction score
6
Location
Toms River,NJ United States
Rollo Tomassi said:
One of the confusions about these "do looks or provisioning capacity mater more for women" threads is that the answer is 'yes' to both. Women will quite comfortably settle down with the good provider, dependable Nice Guy and still spontaneously ƒuck the hot pool boy without a dime to his name. Why?

What you have here is a classic Schedules of Mating dillema.

All this describes are methods 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. Rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by a biologicaly prompted need for security, the feminine develops social conventions and methodologies (which change as her conditions change) to effect this. In fact, the very reason these threads are started by men and the confusion at the root of it is a social convention. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries long feminine social conventions established from a time long before humans could accurately determine genetic origins (DNA tests).

I've aleady detailed in many prior posts that mate selection is a psycho-biological function that our millenias of evolution has hardwired into both sexes. So internalized and socialized is this process into our collective psyches that we rarely recognize that we're subject to these motivators even when we continually repeat the same behaviors manifested by them. So saying that we're not subject to conditions we're not, or are only vaguely aware of, is a bit naive. It also belies our own motivations - meaning that when a woman says "I don't know why I cheated on him, he was so perfect" she may actually be telling the truth; she literally doesn't know.

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 their potential offspring. Thus women are the filters of their own reproduction where as men's reproductive methodology is to scatter as much genetic material as possible to the widest available pool of fertile females. He of course has his own criteria for mating selection and determining the best genetic hosts for reproduction (i.e. she's gotta be hot), but this 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 women do and women produce substantially more estrogen and oxytocin than men. Also, women only ovulate in 28 day cycles meaning that their optimal hormone levels for reproduction peak in a bell curve about once every 3 weeks.

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 lot of sexual availability). He must sacrifice his reproduction schedule to satisfy that of the woman he pairs with. 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 with, but also to know that his exclusive progeny will benefit from both parents investment.

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" so the most fickle of behaviors become socially excusable, while men's behavior is constrained to a higher standard to "do the right thing" by providing women with satisfaction of their security need. She is excused for her methodology while he is shamed for his own. This is why guys who are 'Players', and fathers who abandon mothers and children to pursue their innate reproduction method are infamous villains, and fathers who selflessly sacrifice themselves financially, emotionally and life decision-wise, are considered heroes for complying with women's genetic imperatives - and even more so when raising children they didn't sire.

This is also the root motivation for female-specific social dynamics such as LJBF type 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 classic Jerk vs. Nice Guy paradox writ large on an evolutionary scale.

Men and women innately (though unconsciously) understand this dynamic (which we euphemistically call her "biological clock" - yet another social convention), so in order for a woman to have the best that the Good Dad (Mr. Dependable) has to offer while taking advantage of the best that the Good Genes man (hot pool boy) has, she must either find a man that best exemplifies both these characteristics or 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, dependable (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 by means of physical prowess, 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 outside-pairing, sexual intercourse with a short term partner (i.e. the classic 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 (by her perception) 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. The feminine facilitates this through invented social mores that positively affirm a man for "stepping up to the plate" and helping the "poor woman victimized by the villainous ex" share in a parental investment that was never his burden.

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. It's my belief 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 by pairing with the best provisioning partner; this is an evolutionary jackpot.

:rockon: Can't wait until Deus sees this one, he'll flip his lid. :trouble:
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
mahon83050 said:
:rockon: Can't wait until Deus sees this one, he'll flip his lid. :trouble:
LOL you always have to one-up Deus in your guy's rivalry. Just for the record I think you're more in the right than he is.
 

STR8UP

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
6,911
Reaction score
123
John-467 said:
THIS information as a BASIS so guys can now CHANGE themselves or ADAPT themselves to this formula and procedure....however what I'm trying to say to you, strup, keno...IS THAT YOUR FORMULA IS NOT VALID.

Write this down, lol....please
Yea, I'm scrambling to get a pen as we speak....

I'm just waiting for you to say something like "Women don't even care if you have a dikk or not". Oh yea, I forgot, you HAVE to have a dikk to "fukk them real good", so you can't say that!

You got some pretty good observations going on here dude. I'll bet you're exhausted from all of your "research". It takes a lot to walk out on the street, look around at a few couples and come here and post that "it has nothing to do with looks or money or anything cause all the hot women have ugly dirtball boyfriends". You should write a book or something, this is groundbreaking stuff!

This is the thing with those of you on here that like to argue that it isn't about this or that....you have no counter argument. Sorry, but your "learn to fukk them real good" argument is laughable at best.

See, somewhere along the way I picked up the ability to satisfy women sexually. This has only been in the past 4 or 5 years, but all of the women I have fukked since then have told me that it was the best sex they have ever had, hands down, bar none. How do I know they aren't just pumping up my ego? Well, one of them talks about it to anyione who will listen every time i see her, and I have had other women who were friends with other chicks I have fukked come up to me and say "Guess what I heard? I heard you are REEEEEAAAAAALLLLLY good in bed!"

So I know a thing or two about the subject.

Three of these women off the top of my head....one just got married to the other dude she started seeing WHILE I was giving her the most amazing orgasms of her life. Another one is engaged to be married next year, and still to this day tells me she thinks about the great sex we had. The third one is my ex LTR, who I recently found out is engaged as well.

The ex told me that i was the only one who had ever given her an orgasm. But she's marrying someone else! According to your "wisdom" all of these women should have been satisfied to let me fukk them for the rest of their lives, but that obviously isn't the case, is it?

So please, come up with a better explanation of what attracts women, cause nobody here buys it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top