10 tips to help you get a women in bed

[Just a Shot Away]

Seal is an international musician. Why would you use a celebrity as an example? Do you have any idea how much fame can improve your sex life...

I used Seal and Heidi Klum because everybody's heard of them. I can't just say "I see hot girls with ugly dudes all the time", because then diehard "looks matter" guys would cry bloody murder. Seal's fame is irrelevant since Heidi Klum is an international supermodel and Seal has a song that was popular in the 90's. His fame didn't bag Heidi Klum.

Confidence is very important, however it only works on women that are already attracted to you.

If she isn't attracted to you, no amount of confidence with change that.

If she's into your looks or status, then confidence will determine whether or not you sleep with her.

No, see you've got it all jumbled up. Confidence is the DETERMINANT of whether or not she is attracted to you. Looks are irrelevant to women. Anybody who's studied evolution or any amount of animal mating rituals knows this. Looks don't enter the picture if the guy is confident. Female attraction is much more profound than that of males. Trust me on this one.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Looks are irrelevant to women. Anybody who's studied evolution or any amount of animal mating rituals knows this. Looks don't enter the picture if the guy is confident. Female attraction is much more profound than that of males. Trust me on this one.

In the animal kingdom, looks are FAR MORE important! Female birds usually choose the most colorful males during mating rituals, large mammals avoid fights and enforce territory mainly through appearance and aggressive displays (key word is DISPLAY). No one wants to mess with the largest and most impressive looking male in the group.

This is because in the wild, fights are deadly, so they are best avoided if possible.

You used the worst example possible for "looks don't matter".

 

[Just a Shot Away]

In the animal kingdom, looks are FAR MORE important! Female birds usually choose the most colorful males during mating rituals, large mammals avoid fights and enforce territory mainly through appearance and aggressive displays (key word is DISPLAY). No one wants to mess with the largest and most impressive looking male in the group.

You don't have to explain any of this to me. I've done my research, and this is my chosen field of study as a career. Now that we got that out of the way, let me tell you that female birds are an unusual case. Not many female animals use bright colors as a criterion for health and ability to provide for oneself.

But this isn't really a "looks" situation, anyway. The male must make an effort to display his colors and actively show off the plumage to the female. Just "having the colors" doesn't cut the mustard. Birds also mainly use more practical determinants of mate selection such as nest building, singing, and dancing. Indeed, nobody wants to mess with the largest and most impressive looking male in the group. This is why girls typically like guys with big muscles. This indicates that they are able to provide for themselves, and in turn provide for the female and her young. He is also able to defend the nest from intruders. That's an appearance issue, not looks. Gilbert Gotfried does not become good-looking by lifting weights for a little while.

 

[Rescue Mission]

APPEARANCE IS LOOKS, because how you appear affects how you look in the eyes of others.

Stop arguing stupid semantics, and stop arguing about this stupid shyt in general!

 

[Alle_Gory]

this is my chosen field of study as a career

I'm in finance myself, and I've met lots of complete idiots in my field. They can memorize a few things and think they're smart. So you chose this as a career, congratulations. That doesn't mean much.

Indeed, nobody wants to mess with the largest and most impressive looking male in the group. This is why girls typically like guys with big muscles. This indicates that they are able to provide for themselves, and in turn provide for the female and her young. He is also able to defend the nest from intruders. That's an appearance issue, not looks.

It's the SAME THING. The Oxford English Dictionary says that looks [is] the appearance of someone or something, especially as expressing a particular quality.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0480590#m_en_gb0480590

There you go point dexter.

 

[OldbutSTRONG]

No, see you've got it all jumbled up. Confidence is the DETERMINANT of whether or not she is attracted to you. Looks are irrelevant to women. Anybody who's studied evolution or any amount of animal mating rituals knows this. Looks don't enter the picture if the guy is confident. Female attraction is much more profound than that of males. Trust me on this one.

I have to say, I don't recall any poster(except you) bring up evolution and Charles Darwin on the subject of what attracts women. Very interesting and somewhat disturbing.

I guess Darwin must have slept with a lot of women back in his time because he figured out what attracts women.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

I'm in finance myself, and I've met lots of complete idiots in my field. They can memorize a few things and think they're smart. So you chose this as a career, congratulations. That doesn't mean much.

It says that I know infinitely more about biology and chemistry than you do because I've received formal training, as well having done a significant amount of research on this subject, and this is my passion so I naturally take in as much information as I can...especially when it comes to the topic of evolutionary biology and sexual selection. I don't know jack about finance, so I don't pretend like I do or try to devalue your educational background in finance.

I'm not an idiot, nor am I claiming to be smart. However, I quite clearly know considerably more about biology than you do. I mean, you can't even make it past the BASICS.

APPEARANCE IS LOOKS, because how you appear affects how you look in the eyes of others.

Stop arguing stupid semantics, and stop arguing about this stupid shyt in general!

Yes, I realize that the terms "appearance" and "looks" are very similar. Despite this, in regards to this subject there is a very clear difference. The method that I use to keep them separate is to think if Roseanne Barr switched bodies with Megan Fox, you need to ask yourself..."Is she now a good-looking woman?" The answer for most men is, of course not. She is now an ugly woman with a nice body (a.k.a. butter face.) Now, if Megan Fox got Roseanne's body, she is STILL a good-looking woman but just now has a terrible body. You see the difference? You can't change your God-given looks, i.e. facial symmetry. You can only change your appearance, i.e. body composition, grooming, style, etc.

I might also add that I would never argue this crap if people didn't keep bringing it up day in and day out. If you don't want to hear about it anymore, help me convince the mods to ban this worthless ass topic or replace each thread with an automatic redirect to the 85 page looks megathread in the Archives section.

I have to say, I don't recall any poster(except you) bring up evolution and Charles Darwin on the subject of what attracts women. Very interesting and somewhat disturbing.

Yes, well. Everyone has their own style of debating with those who hold incorrect views. Most guys that I've seen that know that looks don't matter to women usually go the route of providing specific examples, such as pictures and 3rd party encounters. That's all well and good but I choose to go the scientific route since it's non-debateable. Charles Darwin paved the way for the research done by evolutionary biologists that has now shown us how sexual selection in the animal kingdom works. Okay?

 

[OldbutSTRONG]

It says that I know infinitely more about biology and chemistry than you do because I've received formal training, as well having done a significant amount of research on this subject, and this is my passion so I naturally take in as much information as I can...especially when it comes to the topic of evolutionary biology and sexual selection.

So the best way to understand women's choices is to study biology and chemistry? Are the rest of your classmates hooking up with all the hot females because of this knowledge?

 

[Alle_Gory]

It says that I know infinitely more about biology and chemistry than you do because I've received formal training, as well having done a significant amount of research on this subject, and this is my passion so I naturally take in as much information as I can...especially when it comes to the topic of evolutionary biology and sexual selection. I don't know jack about finance, so I don't pretend like I do or try to devalue your educational background in finance.

Yuhuh. What makes you think I have no knowledge or formal training for this?

I'm not an idiot, nor am I claiming to be smart. However, I quite clearly know considerably more about biology than you do. I mean, you can't even make it past the BASICS.

Really. All I'm saying is that your background or training doesn't mean much. When you become an expert in your field, or you get significant experience and knowledge then you can talk about it. Until then, you're just another student memorizing a textbook and your professor's notes.

How do I know this? I only did a few years of biochemistry at a respectable University known for the medical sciences before choosing finance. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get excellent marks just by memorizing passages.

I guess my formal training in the biology and chemistry fields now makes me qualified to denounce your knowledge, according to your standards.

The method that I use to keep them separate is to think if Roseanne Barr switched bodies with Megan Fox, you need to ask yourself..."Is she now a good-looking woman?" The answer for most men is, of course not. She is now an ugly woman with a nice body (a.k.a. butter face.) Now, if Megan Fox got Roseanne's body, she is STILL a good-looking woman but just now has a terrible body. You see the difference?

Do you see a difference? Roseanne was never ugly, she was just fat and that made her unattractive.

Now you're confusing your own clearly defined terms on appearance and "looks".

 

[Just a Shot Away]

So the best way to understand women's choices is to study biology and chemistry? Are the rest of your classmates hooking up with all the hot females because of this knowledge?

*sigh* This is getting tiresome. I don't understand why you "looks matter" guys insist on trying to take shots at those who understand how sexual selection works. Yeah, I get it. Scientists aren't supposed to get girls; that's for the jocks. Hilarious. Back to the discussion...

Yes, smartass. The best way to understand how and why females select mates is to study biology. Why? Because it's BIOLOGY. Does this necessarily equate to being able to adopt the required criteria for a female to select you? Of course not. That's a false logical deduction and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Yuhuh. What makes you think I have no knowledge or formal training for this?

Because you think that females select mates the same way males do. That's a rookie mistake. The mathematical equivalent would be thinking that 2+2=5.

All I'm saying is that your background or training doesn't mean much. When you become an expert in your field, or you get significant experience and knowledge then you can talk about it. Until then, you're just another student memorizing a textbook and your professor's notes.

See, this is why I love having facts on my side. I don't have to resort to juvenile tactics like these. I mean, actually going so far as to accuse me of deriving my entire knowledge of sexual selection from a CLASSROOM? Please. And yes, my background does mean something. Unless the medical schools I'm applying to are just playing some sort of sick joke on me and actually do NOT require the classes I spent so much time on over the years. Facts also enable me to prove my point, whereas you and those of your ilk must rely on circumstantial evidence such as third-party accounts of isolated incidents, hunches, and theory.

How do I know this? I only did a few years of biochemistry at a respectable University known for the medical sciences before choosing finance.

Good choice. You obviously didn't pay attention in class. You would've bombed the MCATs.

Do you see a difference? Roseanne was never ugly, she was just fat.

Eh, your opinion. In my opinion, Roseanne is an ugly woman. I don't even need the broad to illustrate why you're wrong, though. Just replace "Roseanne" with "ugly faced, ugly bodied woman."

 

[Alle_Gory]

Because you think that females select mates the same way males do. That's a rookie mistake. The mathematical equivalent would be thinking that 2+2=5.

Again, you're still blinded by this looks thing. You know for a "smart" guy, you're pretty slow.

Let me explain it... AGAIN. I'm arguing that looks are important, not that they're THE most important thing to women. I know when I'm with a girl, it would be REALLY hard to choose an ugly girl no matter how sweet and helpful she is to me, and most other guys I know are the same. To guys, appearance makes or breaks a relationship.

To a girl, looks are important as well, but they can be overcome if you have other qualities (and assets) in spades. But looks are STILL important despite this because women are HUMAN and appearances matter to HUMANS.

Again, for clarification. I'm talking about HUMANS and HUMAN SOCIETY, not about Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands. Myself, I only like to study human mating habits because I'm only attracted to women.

And yes, my background does mean something. Unless the medical schools I'm applying to are just playing some sort of sick joke on me and actually do NOT require the classes I spent so much time on over the years.

You'd be surprised how useless those classes you took on plant biology will server you later on, assuming you get past med school.

 

[OldbutSTRONG]

Again, you're still blinded by this looks thing. You know for a "smart" guy, you're pretty slow.
Again, for clarification. I'm talking about HUMANS and HUMAN SOCIETY, not about Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands. Myself, I only like to study human mating habits because I'm only attracted to women.

LOL. But I don't think Just A Shot Away understands the difference between Humans and lower animals.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

Again, you're still blinded by this looks thing. You know for a "smart" guy, you're pretty slow.

For a looks-matter guy, you're pretty typical. Endless personal attacks in place of hard evidence. The attack is unfounded however, since I went out of my way in my last post to tell you that I'm not saying I'm smart.

Let me explain it... AGAIN. I'm arguing that...

Yeah, dude. I know what you're arguing. You're wrong.

But looks are STILL important despite this because women are HUMAN and appearances matter to HUMANS.

Agreed. Appearance means a lot to women. It's amazing what a haircut and some nice clothes can do for your game.

Again, for clarification. I'm talking about HUMANS and HUMAN SOCIETY, not about Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands. Myself, I only like to study human mating habits because I'm only attracted to women.

That's funny, man. No, I get it...by saying that you're only attracted to women you are implying that I'm not attracted to women while simultaneously implying that Darwin's findings are useless applied to the finches. Clever. Unfortunately for you, comedy does not erase 150 years of solid scientific research. Additionally, I feel obligated to inform you that human beings are in the animal kingdom and operate based on the same carnal instincts and hardwired DNA that all the other animals do.

You'd be surprised how useless those classes you took on plant biology will server you later on, assuming you get past med school.

Never took a class on plant biology, so I don't try to speak intelligently about this subject. Hint, hint.

LOL. But I don't think Just A Shot Away understands the difference between Humans and lower animals.

Of course I do. Humans have baseball caps, automatic weapons, iPods, and Facebook. "Lower" animals do not.

 

[ArcBound]

OK like I have two **** ugly looking friends who both score in LTRs and one night stands. I'm talking balding, the other lots of acne, skinny beer gut, nerds. And they get plenty.

This is how I see it: if you have 1 billion dollars it will definitely help a lot. Yet you could be a high school student living off your parents and scoring or in a position of NO money at all yet still score. So yes if you look "hot" it will help a lot. But at the same time you can game with NO good looks at all and still score. Just be sexual, just be confident and tighten your game and even if you're like a 3 in looks you will get women. Look at it this way, 6 billion people in the world, what percent do you actually think looks good? Ugly people get laid all the time theyre ones that arent crying into a mirror all the time to realize they can get laid and they can get women period.

 

[Alle_Gory]

For a looks-matter guy, you're pretty typical. Endless personal attacks in place of hard evidence. The attack is unfounded however, since I went out of my way in my last post to tell you that I'm not saying I'm smart.

Maybe I'm blind, but you're still smug... not that you have anything to be smug about.

Unfortunately for you, comedy does not erase 150 years of solid scientific research. Additionally, I feel obligated to inform you that human beings are in the animal kingdom and operate based on the same carnal instincts and hardwired DNA that all the other animals do.

Human beings are not part of the animal kingdom. We've removed ourselves from that a long time ago and created our own playground. We call it society.

Now while we might have some of those carnal desires, we're not ruled by them and it takes quite a bit of work to bring them out. Don't believe me? Take a girl on a date. You're gonna have to do alot of work getting past her defenses to get her warmed up and ready to rip your clothes off. Sure she might have those animal desires buried deep down, but that doesn't make her a monkey or whatever else you're thinking about.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

Maybe I'm blind, but you're still smug... not that you have anything to be smug about.

Fine, I'm smug. I'm human; it's hard not to be smug when you're arguing with someone that you know for a fact to be misinformed.

Human beings are not part of the animal kingdom. We've removed ourselves from that a long time ago and created our own playground. We call it society.

I see what you're saying, but Steve Jobs can't erase 200,00+ years of evolution in one fell swoop by releasing the iPad. Yes, we've become domesticated but does that mean that we still don't have our animal instincts in our DNA that operate every facet of our everyday life? Of course not. Take away electricity nationwide for a little while. Think there might be a little chaos? Remember Katrina? Children under 10 being raped in the streets, people shooting each other for no reason, looting galore, fighting over scraps of food...a complete embrace of animal instinct. The order and government you see in your everyday life is all an illusion, my friend. We're all suppressing our carnal desires throughout the day. Trust me when I say that human beings are still very much animals. It's one thing to say that it takes work to get a girl to "rip your clothes off", but it's quite different to understand WHY she wants to in the first place. But I will tell you that having a defined jawline and prominent cheekbones will not get you there.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Fine, I'm smug. I'm human; it's hard not to be smug when you're arguing with someone that you know for a fact to be misinformed.

I like your facts:

1. Charles Darwin
2. 150 years
3. Evolution
4. "Trust me"

Those are your "facts". I like to call them phrases or talking points. You just like to repeat those 4 things with some fluff in between. Are you a chat bot?

I see what you're saying, but Steve Jobs can't erase 200,00+ years of evolution in one fell swoop by releasing the iPad.

What?

It's one thing to say that it takes work to get a girl to "rip your clothes off", but it's quite different to understand WHY she wants to in the first place. But I will tell you that having a defined jawline and prominent cheekbones will not get you there.

We're not discussing the why, we're discussing the what. And you seem to have some skewed version of what is. Sure a defined jaw line and nice muscles by themselves won't get a chick into bed, but it certainly helps.

There is no magic bullet. It's a package deal. It's always a package deal.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

I like your facts:

1. Charles Darwin
2. 150 years
3. Evolution
4. "Trust me"

Those are your "facts". I like to call them phrases or talking points.

You can call science whatever you like, man. You can call the ocean orange, north south, right left...makes no difference to me as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Just don't run around SoSuave trying to convince new guys that they can't get hot girls if they're not at a certain level of physical attractiveness. If you do this, then I will step in and make the appropriate corrections.

What?

You seem to think that humans aren't animals anymore because we have technology. I used the iPad example to illustrate how absurd it sounds to say that technology somehow magically erases 2.2 million years of evolution.

We're not discussing the why, we're discussing the what. And you seem to have some skewed version of what is. Sure a defined jaw line and nice muscles by themselves won't get a chick into bed, but it certainly helps.

Well, this whole debate has been whether or not looks matter to women. Since you unaware that they do NOT, I need to start at square one and explain to you why women are attracted to certain men and not others. Sure good-looks CAN help in certain situations, and in others they will hurt you. Same with your shoelaces being tied, or having an accent, or enjoying romantic comedies and hating action movies. Anything can help or hurt you; it all depends on the girl. Confusing, right? But the good news is that the lack of or possession of any of these qualities can be overcome with the right combination of confidence, game, and personality. These are the things that female animals (whether you like it or not, homo sapiens sapiens is an animal species) have evolved to look for in a mate. Not facial symmetry.

There is no magic bullet. It's a package deal. It's always a package deal.

Agreed. If getting a girl in bed was likened to giving her the right package, good looks would be the the texture of the ribbon, while confidence would be the contents of the package.

 

[nismo-4]

You can call science whatever you like, man. You can call the ocean orange, north south, right left...makes no difference to me as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Just don't run around SoSuave trying to convince new guys that they can't get hot girls if they're not at a certain level of physical attractiveness. If you do this, then I will step in and make the appropriate corrections.



You seem to think that humans aren't animals anymore because we have technology. I used the iPad example to illustrate how absurd it sounds to say that technology somehow magically erases 2.2 million years of evolution.



Well, this whole debate has been whether or not looks matter to women. Since you unaware that they do NOT, I need to start at square one and explain to you why women are attracted to certain men and not others. Sure good-looks CAN help in certain situations, and in others they will hurt you. Same with your shoelaces being tied, or having an accent, or enjoying romantic comedies and hating action movies. Anything can help or hurt you; it all depends on the girl. Confusing, right? But the good news is that the lack of or possession of any of these qualities can be overcome with the right combination of confidence, game, and personality. These are the things that female animals (whether you like it or not, homo sapiens sapiens is an animal species) have evolved to look for in a mate. Not facial symmetry.



Agreed. If getting a girl in bed was likened to giving her the right package, good looks would be the the texture of the ribbon, while confidence would be the contents of the package.

Oh, goddamn it. If you appear good on the outside of the package, the inside of the package might see daylight!

Confidence is cool and all, but the less attractiveness you have, the more game, fame, and money you better have!

Doesn't anybody realize that women have a high market value and that pu$$y has a high market value? Women are choosing the guys, they have a long line of guys they can hook up with from their iPhone, and they choose who to give sex to. Even fat, old, and ugly women are being put on pedestals! The guys who look like they have (or actually do) have high market value have it easier getting women, but keeping them is a different ball game.

This sh*t is gonna go to at least page 5, but reality bites!

 

[Alle_Gory]

Just don't run around SoSuave trying to convince new guys that they can't get hot girls if they're not at a certain level of physical attractiveness. If you do this, then I will step in and make the appropriate corrections.

Wow, you are really stupid. I mean duuuuuumb.

I never said you need a certain level of physical attractiveness. I always say that it makes it easier.

Can you understand the difference? I don't think you can. I guess it seems that you like repetition. That seems to be the only way you understand things.

You seem to think that humans aren't animals anymore because we have technology. I used the iPad example to illustrate how absurd it sounds to say that technology somehow magically erases 2.2 million years of evolution.

You don't know it's 2.2 million years. The jury's still out on that. The first thing you should learn in science is that there are no facts, just theories. Some are more accurate than others and things are always revised.

And technology has affected humanity. There's very little natural selection anymore thanks to medical technology. Idiots survive to procreate and children that shouldn't be born survive. You think this has no influence whatsoever?

LOL.

These are the things that female animals (whether you like it or not, homo sapiens sapiens is an animal species) have evolved to look for in a mate. Not facial symmetry.

Oh, looks like I missed one. Add that to your list of talking points.

5. Facial symmetry.

Agreed. If getting a girl in bed was likened to giving her the right package, good looks would be the the texture of the ribbon, while confidence would be the contents of the package.

Confidence is not a magic bullet. You better have more than just confidence to be interesting. Might land you some one night stands but that's about it.