Ha... the irony. Easy access to sex was once the school boy's fantasy, but as they say careful what you wish for. It seems there was a lot of wisdom in the social mores of the past. But no, we lusted after knowledge.
This is not true. For the vast majority of people, when something sudden happens, they flinch AWAY from whatever it was that startled them. There are very few people who have their reflexes naturally making them punch or shove. Most men are NOT natural-born fighters. And it serves women for men to be loyal because then they can take up as much resources from the man as they can. If the man isn't loyal, nothing happens to him.
The problem with an economic [naturalistic/ realistic] approach to women, is it reduces them to the lowest common denominator, to the meanest motives. Now you can either roll with that, or screen for women with a bit of nous. It's the difference between taking a quantitative and a qualitative approach, or again, the difference between humanizing and dehumanizing relations between the sexes. I sometimes wonder what is happening to our common humanity. If today is anything to go by, the future looks like a bleak brave new world indeed.
This is not true.... This is NOT modern evolution, we are all decedents of violent aggressive people who survived by using their heads and working together. That is the ONLY way we would have been able to compete with larger stronger faster creatures we needed to eat and wanted to eat us. Our evolutionary advantage was the ability to pass MASSIVE amounts knowledge onto the next generation with language. Language created an exponential increase in our ability to learn. This ability has allowed us to adapt into just about any circumstance. Our natural instinct is to aggression, we learn that in modern society this does not work to our advantage. But the fact that any man, given time, can be turned by the military into a heartless killing machine, is proof of this reality.. all that it takes is to strip away individuality, re-engage the tribal survival instinct and teach men that killing is in their best interest... You can undo in 10 weeks 18 years of moral conditioning. I have seen soldiers sacrifice themselves to save soldiers in their unit who I know for a fact absolutely fvcking hated... they do this because LOYALTY is a strong instinct. I have NEVER... NEVER seen a woman willing sacrifice herself for anyone except maybe her children. So I am sorry you do not know what you are talking about.
So it doesn't serve women, yet they take advantage of it? Your posts are conflicting in a lot of places.
What does this have to do with the loyalty I am yalking about? Women won't die for any cause except their children, yes. But the willingness to die for something or someone isn't the only indicator of loyalty.
First off, the government provides a safety net, it won't allow women to be homeless. So if the woman isn't supporting herself, the government assumes the male provider role.
Why are you parching language? Do you really not understand my point? Women use the loyalty of men... HOWEVER they do not have loyalty as part of their evolutionary development. Lions do not eat grass, but they understand that their prey does... so they position themselves around areas where grass grows. Do you really not understand this simple concept?
Bull sh!t. Were in the fvck do you get this!
There are too many missing links in what you say, plus you digress to other aspects of females/human nature that originally had no connection so it is confusing. I don't care enough to go back and prove a point, I can already tell you have too much passion over this subject to try to understand what I am saying. This wasn't even the original purpose of this thread anyway.
There are no missing links. You just do not understand.
It's the 20/80 rule, though probably more like 2/98 tbh
That's the thing though, we learn how to attract women, then we complain when they are attracted (because it's other men who are doing it).
Like MrAddiction said, of course not every other woman. But would you fvck a 2/10 even though you could? I would assume/hope not, we are only talking about the desirable ones here. The less desirable you are, the less sex you are likely to have. The more desirable you are the more likely you ARE having sex. Every other HOT woman probably IS sleeping around.
Create self-fulfilling prophecies. Always assume the positive. Assume she likes you. Assume she wants to talk to you. Assume she wants to go out with you. When you think positive, positive things happen.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
First men and women feel love differently. When a man loves a woman, what he 'feels' is completely different that what a woman feels when she loves a man. We can not really understand exactly what a woman feels and she can not REALLY understand what we feel. For men, sexual attraction and 'love' is almost immediate... women honestly can not understand how a man can 'fall in love' so quickly, because for them... that is IMPOSSIBLE. They can feel immediate attraction, but not love.
Someone on here once said something along the lines: a man loves a woman but a woman loves the feeling of being in love.
if the USA has a trillion dollar economy how can the average american only be making $30k-$60k a year?
Yes, you have to take the 'orthodoxy' here with a heavy grain of salt. It's a story we men like to tell ourselves in order to hype ourselves up into taking 'alpha' action.
Tell her a little about yourself, but not too much. Maintain some mystery. Give her something to think about and wonder about when she's at home.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
