comfort for the AFC omega male....

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by wolfie
History and society are often shaped by intelligent but very unattractive men who cannot attract women purely by force of their own body and personality, so they use their intelligence to create institutions or situations whereby they can force or induce women to come to them.

This is one of the most ignorant and simplistic things I've ever read on this forum....and that's saying a lot. Believe it or not, but the world doesn't revolve around getting women. Some people find themselves so involved in their work and research that they couldn't care less about women. They're happy doing what they love. What are you going to do? Tell them they're not happy because they don't have a wife or girlfriend? Do you honestly believe that the only reason we're as advanced of a society as we are now because some "unattractive looking" men decided to dedicate their lives to be scholars in order to make up for their looks and attract women? Ridiculous! This is a shallow notion brought on by all those shows on TV that teach you that you must be in a relationship to be happy. That is simply not true.

 

[Delta]

errrr....

well, what's the meaning of life?

what is the purpose of life?

essentially:

fvck and have offspring.

that is the prime directive - and it may even outrank self preservation.

everything else is sublimation. and hence, my argument. i can't fvck, let's build a bridge! i can't fvck, let's blow something up real good! i can't fvck, let's make the internal combustion engine!

simplified? of course. sounds like a joke? certainly. completely off the mark? hmmmmm.... i'm really not convinced that it is.

delta

 

[MetalFortress]

.....

or we could stop being so simplistic as to try to characterize everything as DJ or AFC.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Originally posted by Delta
errrr....

well, what's the meaning of life?

what is the purpose of life?

essentially:

fvck and have offspring.

that is the prime directive - and it may even outrank self preservation.

everything else is sublimation. and hence, my argument. i can't fvck, let's build a bridge! i can't fvck, let's blow something up real good! i can't fvck, let's make the internal combustion engine!

simplified? of course. sounds like a joke? certainly. completely off the mark? hmmmmm.... i'm really not convinced that it is.

delta

That's not the purpose of life. You're confusing a natural instinct with the purpose of life. They are not the same. Our natural instinct is to fvck and have offspring. This is not the meaning of life. The meaning of life is different for each person as it is seen from different perspectives.

We also have a natural instinct to just take a sh1t wherever you are standing/sitting. However we don't do that. Hence we are not completely dominated by natural instincts. This is why not all men are necessarily out on a never-ending mission to mate and have offspring.

 

[gruby]

I do think that there is some kind of substitution going when we choose to "create" something socially worthy instead of going and fuc-king a girl. Interestingly, and i noticed that only recently, whenever i create something i'm really proud off i get really turned on more so then i would nornally then when being with a girl. So go figure all those things are there to releas our sexual frustartion but then again it's just not that simple as appartently those "sabsitutions" are source of often greater pleasure.

 

[MrCode]

I think that the most joy in life can be had from maintaining a healthy balance. I definitely think we go overboard on this site with the obsessiveness over getting tail. Women are certainly an important part of a man's life, but there are many other joys in life (learning, creating, playing sports, etc.) that don't necessarily involve women. I find I'm most content when I maintain this healthy balance.

Also to address the original premise in this post, I do think there have been men in the past who re-channelled their sexual frustration into making world-changing advances, but not every important event in history was due to this. Edison was married. Great politicians and leaders of the past had wives (sometimes many in the distant past, e.g. Solomon.) So it is definitely overly simplistic to say that Omegas are solely responsible for the advances of our societies. Most modern Omegas just sit around scratching their balls all day watching MTV and never make any contribution.

 

[wolfie]

Originally posted by TillTheEndOfTime
This is one of the most ignorant and simplistic things I've ever read on this forum....and that's saying a lot. Believe it or not, but the world doesn't revolve around getting women. Some people find themselves so involved in their work and research that they couldn't care less about women. They're happy doing what they love. What are you going to do? Tell them they're not happy because they don't have a wife or girlfriend? Do you honestly believe that the only reason we're as advanced of a society as we are now because some "unattractive looking" men decided to dedicate their lives to be scholars in order to make up for their looks and attract women? Ridiculous! This is a shallow notion brought on by all those shows on TV that teach you that you must be in a relationship to be happy. That is simply not true.

Actually a good point was made some time back in an other post about intelligent low-testosterone males, who, being unable to function effectively in social situations and have fulfilling relationships with the opposite sex, retreat into pure academia and intellectualism instead.
I also didn't say that unattractiveness was purely based on appearance either, I just made the point that these men were in some way, either socially, physically or mentally, unattractive to the opposite sex, despite their intelligence.
Personally I think there is time in life to have a healthy balance of
all things - physical health, wealth/career achievement, and social relationships.
Great men like I mentioned previously - Clinton, Branson, and so on, became powerful and successful men who lead the world and can still have happy relationships.

I didn't say that the world 'revolved around getting women', but absorbing yourself wholly in one area of your life (i.e science) to the utter exclusion of others is foolish. It would seem to me that people who are 'so involved in their work' as to have no time for anything else are simply overcompensating in achievement in one area for things they lack in others.

Just like the body builder with the low IQ who validates himself through constantly improving his bulging musculature, these people throw themselves into one area that they are good at to compensate for their weaknesses in others, instead of working to try and overcome then.

 

[Parsifal]

meh wrong post

 

[karusel]

Originally posted by Delta
everything else is sublimation. and hence, my argument. i can't fvck, let's build a bridge! i can't fvck, let's blow something up real good! i can't fvck, let's make the internal combustion engine!

Ah, so that's why Americans are constantly at war with someone!

You're right about 'prime directive' though, except it's not prime, nor a directive. Actually, you're wrong. Having offspring is a necessity, just like eating food - contingency of a species, food is short term, offspring is long term. Food is obtained by farmers and food industry and everything else is a side dish, if you will, if a farmer wants a better tractor, there has to be some engineer to invent it, an engineer needs a scientist who will develop a better part of an engine etc. so behind this is the whole society in which everyone serves his purpose, not because they didn't get laid, but because this is how humans function. You sir are obviously not the brightest star in the sky.

 

[Delta]

whatever, a$$hole. let me know when you learn to construct a coherent idea in words.

delta