News article on how people are noticing that looks don't mean sh*t to women.

[ketostix]

I think the "Looks matter tremendously" guys underestimate the impact other factors can have on actual attraction.

In other words, I don't believe women are fooling themselves into thinking they are attracted, they actually can be attracted to a less attractive man who is able to compensate in other areas.

I'm not talking about an obvious gold digger (which I believe exist in SMALL numbers) I'm talking about a hot chick with an average guy, you know, a couple of steps from what you would picture her with.

The reason for this is the fact that safety, security, and being provided for are such a big deal for women.

A good looking guy can lose a woman just the same as a less attractive one. All he has to do is act like a wussy boy. A man will be much more likely to put up with a woman's sh!t if she's hot and she fukks like a pornstar.

Look at it like this. Women are genetically programmed to seek out qualities that generally do not manifest themselves in the same man. Thus, you have the nice guy husband and the bad boy loser lover. I for one believe that a woman IS attracted to the provider husband. She has to be. She isn't holding her nose when she's drinking foul tasting medicine; her brain is programmed to believe it tastes good, if only for a period of time.

Men on the other hand......they marry their wife because she's hot. They fukk someone else on the side because it is in their genes to spread their seed. The don't seek two different types of women (for all intents and purposes) as women do. Therefore women have the ability (actually the NEED) to feel "attraction" for the guy who provides for her AND the guy who inseminates her on the side.

I don't know, I'm going to say that a girl that cheats on her BF or husband isn't really attracted to him. If she's with a guy because he's a provider and she cheats that's just more proof that the provisions don't create real attraction. If she cheats because he's lacking looks or is it because he's lacking in personality or game is a separate argument. And if whether or not a below average or average guy can get a hot girl and keep her based on game or even based on his sexual perfromance and provisions is a separate argument.

But I really think there's a difference between attraction and interest. When the money's gone, the interest is gone and she's gone. Now if a girl is physically attracted to a guy, even if she leaves him because he became a slight wussy, she still will see him as attractive.

There's too many prostitutes, sex workers, and gold diggers out there for me to believe that women don't use their pvssy as an economic tool for me to believe that women need attraction to give up the sex.

Anyway, I actually do think it takes more than looks for a guy. I think your attitude and personality is important to women. Your game and economic means do compensate and add to your looks. All I was saying is looks and appearance is the most powerful factor and is a necesity to get attractive women outside of the gold diggers who are for sale.

 

[ketostix]

I agree looks matter for cold pick-ups or sarging in bars, but not all the time. If an unattractive guy cold approaches, he has to do it with confidence, or do it with confidence and say something ****y/funny for the woman to find him attractive.

See this is where I disagree. If an unattractive guy cold approaches an attractive woman it will help to appear confident and saying something C+F might help so she doesn't blow him off, but honestly he's very unlikely to get her attracted. It can happen but it's a long shot numbers game. Unless he's one hell of a smooth talker, he's going to have to lower his standards.

 

[wayword]

Trust me...LOOKS matter. "Cute"..."Hot"..."Sexy"...are some of the words women I have met or laid tell me when talking about me.

I am 100% sure they are not using those adjectives to describe my intelligence or confidence.

Agreed, that's an overplayed stereotype.

Look around at hot girl celebs or on Myspace though - and you will notice that most do prefer good-looking guys when you examine their actual dating histories...

Kim Basinger married Alec Baldwin.
Halle Berry is with some QG model dude.
Angelina Jolie married Brad Pitt.
Anna Kournikova is with Enrique Iglesias.
Vanessa Paradis married Johnny Depp.
Etc, etc...

But somehow, everyone forgets about all the typical "attractive" couples and look for the exceptions to the rule.

Fugly men/hot women just seem more common because they are more noticeable...and perhaps, ironically less common.

 

[ketostix]

But somehow, everyone forgets about all the typical "attractive" couples and look for the exceptions to the rule.

Yeah and also they'll point out (insert attractive woman here) is with (insert average looking guy here), but leave out the point that he's also rich, famous or has a position of power, and claim it's an example of "an ugly looking guy with a hot girl because of his game". When more than likely it's an example of an average looking guy with a gold digger because of opportunity lol.

 

[STR8UP]

I don't know, I'm going to say that a girl that cheats on her BF or husband isn't really attracted to him. If she's with a guy because he's a provider and she cheats that's just more proof that the provisions don't create real attraction.

Provisions don't create attraction, they enhance it.

What I'm saying is that most women will marry down to their base level of attractiveness. There are very very few women who will marry a man she finds physically repulsive.

And as far as a woman who cheats....yea.....it's because she lost attraction, but 9 times out of 10 it was the fact that he became a slackass as a man, not that she wasn't attracted to him in the first place.

Now if a girl is physically attracted to a guy, even if she leaves him because he became a slight wussy, she still will see him as attractive.

There WAS a rift in our opinions on this subject, but now there's a crevasse

With men physical attraction is much less intertwined with emotional attraction. Hell, I'm still attracted to exes that have cheated on me....

But women? Completely different. Her physical and emotional attraction are almost inseparably intertwined. When she loses emotional interest, she loses EVERYTHING.

There's too many prostitutes, sex workers, and gold diggers out there for me to believe that women don't use their pvssy as an economic tool for me to believe that women need attraction to give up the sex.

Truer words have never been spoken. But.....

There's a difference between a pure economic exchange of money for pu$$y, where both parties go their way once the deed is done, and a relationship where a woman is going to be spending a LOT of time with the guy.

 

[edger]

The reason for this is the fact that safety, security, and being provided for are such a big deal for women.

Str8up and his "women are biologically programmed to seek out men who are providers" antics. I've beat this topic into the ground so many times, and believe I proved a perfectly valid-logical point(even my buddies and collegues outside of this forum agree). That valid point being that "man as provider" has become nothing more than a tradition nowadays, that no longer serves a purpose it once did. Women today can take care of themselves. Society and women have gotten so used to MEN for thousands of yrs serving as providers, that it still exists in our present day. ALSO, because men served as providers for thousands of yrs, women and men alike have come to believe that "this is the way it's supposed to be". From the time they are little girls, women have it drilled into their heads that men must take care of them. And they grow up believing this.

So Str8up, and others who throw out this jargon, stop giving women an excuse to sit on their a**es(because I can tell ya right now, that's exactly what they're doing, and they're laughing about it while doing so), and pathetically mooch off of men's hard earned money, and stop brainwashing others around here that what you say is truth. I'm not flaming anyone by the way. You say you want things to improve for us, do you not? Then work on making that happen.

I know I've spoken about this topic numerous times already and sound like a broken record, but I feel sorry for the hundreds of newbies who come here each day and believe the stuff you guys spit out.

I call on anybody here, if they disagree with what I just wrote, to tell me what doesn't make sense about what I said, and I will earnestly try to look at and analyze your point of view and try to agree with you. I'm here with an open mind.

 

[aliasguy]

Str8up and his "women are biologically programmed to seek out men who are providers" antics. I've beat this topic into the ground so many times, and believe I proved a perfectly valid-logical point(even my buddies and collegues outside of this forum agree). That valid point being that "man as provider" has become nothing more than a tradition nowadays, that no longer serves a purpose it once did. Women today can take care of themselves. Society and women have gotten so used to MEN for thousands of yrs serving as providers, that it still exists in our present day. ALSO, because men served as providers for thousands of yrs, women and men alike have come to believe that "this is the way it's supposed to be". From the time they are little girls, women have it drilled into their heads that men must take care of them. And they grow up believing this.

So Str8up, and others who throw out this jargon, stop giving women an excuse to sit on their a**es, and pathetically mooch off of men's hard earned money, and stop brainwashing others around here that what you say is truth. I'm not flaming anyone by the way. You say you want things to improve for us, do you not? Then work on making that happen.

I know I've spoken about this topic numerous times already and sound like a broken record, but I feel sorry for the hundreds of newbies who come here each day and believe the stuff you guys spit out.

I call on anybody here, if they disagree with what I just wrote, to tell me what doesn't make sense about what I said, and I will earnestly try to look at and analyze your point of view and try to agree with you. I'm here with an open mind.

-
--
What you have written, edger, makes ABSOLUTE, concrete, rock -hard, logical sense.

But it still is wrong.


Because WOMEN still want to be "taken care of," right or wrong. They still marry "up," right or wrong.

We, as men, can't CHANGE that by refusing to play a role. IT'S EXPECTED. And women are NOT going to give up this entitlement, no matter WHAT we do. We are not giving them an excuse to "sit on their ass*s," the whole of SOCIETY is. This is a lost cause, dude, and we won't win it. Your argument is correct, but the realities DIFFER. Why should women give this gravy train up? They're not going to. ("golden p*ssy," etc. --- some wuss is GONNA "pay.")

They still will be attracted to "provider" type guys (as well as "good gene" guys, and "alpha" guys, etc.). Arguing that finances are irrelevant won't change the FACT.


Wishing it away won't work.

-
-
-

 

[edger]

I also wanna say, as I've said before, I've known quite a few women(hot ones) in my day that have married men who couldn't "provide" for them. I see it go on often. So what it comes down to is some women go for the provider, and some don't care.

 

[edger]

double posted, my bad

 

[ketostix]

Provisions don't create attraction, they enhance it.

What I'm saying is that most women will marry down to their base level of attractiveness. There are very very few women who will marry a man she finds physically repulsive.

And as far as a woman who cheats....yea.....it's because she lost attraction, but 9 times out of 10 it was the fact that he became a slackass as a man, not that she wasn't attracted to him in the first place.



There WAS a rift in our opinions on this subject, but now there's a crevasse

With men physical attraction is much less intertwined with emotional attraction. Hell, I'm still attracted to exes that have cheated on me....

But women? Completely different. Her physical and emotional attraction are almost inseparably intertwined. When she loses emotional interest, she loses EVERYTHING.



Truer words have never been spoken. But.....

There's a difference between a pure economic exchange of money for pu$$y, where both parties go their way once the deed is done, and a relationship where a woman is going to be spending a LOT of time with the guy.

I think we basically agree. Let's see, how can I connect my opinion. I agree that women's attraction and emotion are inseperably intertwined. I agree a guy's means enhances attraction. Where I disagree is that a woman needs physical attraction to have interest. Now it sounds like I'm backtracking on physical attraction being key, but I'm not at all. If you go through my post in this thread, you'll see why it's not a back track.

See, women can be interested in a guy for various reasons like his provisions and women even fool themselves, and the man, into believing there's real attraction. The woman has the same emotional response to a guy's status, power and wealth as attraction. The difference is one is built on real attraction and another is built on interest. The relationship is a facade, a house built on shifting sand or whatever metaphor.

Also I don't really see a fundamental difference between a prostitute and a gold digger, other than the gold digger is less honest. As you say it's in a woman's genetics to be an opportunist. I truely believe many a woman will give up her pvssy and stay in a relationship with an "AFC" provider she has no real attraction for, but she won't be loyal to him.

I also agree when a woman's emotions are gone she's gone, but let's be honest here. The guy becoming an AFC was partly her doing. Granted he allowed her shananigans to drive him to AFCism, but in 90% cases, before she was putting the screws to him and he responded to it she was ready to branch swing to the next BBD. In most cases it wasn't him becoming an AFC that ran her off, she was leaving anyway and he was clutching at straws.

Str8up, I think we agree more than it might seem.

Edger, where does one start? Can there be any debate that it's in women's instincts and DNA to be opportunists, chase after the famous, rich and poweful, and to try to take control over men and the fortune? It seems to me you're rejecting something that's so obvious and everywhere. It's like you're arguing the earth is flat.

 

[ketostix]

I also wanna say, as I've said before, I've known quite a few women(hot ones) in my day that have married men who couldn't "provide" for them. I see it go on often. So what it comes down to is some women go for the provider, and some don't care.

And my answer to this is the women were physically attracted to the guys. I got to say though, I don't know of too many hot girls marrying bums. I've known of a few very few hot girls being in relationship with broke guys or guys that weren't making much money, but they were very young, like early 20's. Anyway, I attribute it to them being attracted physically to the guy.

 

[edger]

Edger, where does one start? Can there be any debate that it's in women's instincts and DNA to be opportunists, chase after the famous, rich and poweful, and to try to take control over men and the fortune? It seems to me you're rejecting something that's so obvious and everywhere. It's like you're arguing the earth is flat.

There is no proof or evidence that it's in a woman's instincts or DNA to go for men who can "provide" for them.

I really wish a research study were conducted, where a bunch of female children grew up in an environment where "man as provider" wasn't preached to them. I would love to see the results. I would love to see if those females would grow up expecting men to earn more and support them. To my knowledge such a study has never been conducted, but I would absolutely love to see it done one day. This would prove whether I'm right or you're right.

 

[STR8UP]

I also wanna say, as I've said before, I've known quite a few women(hot ones) in my day that have married men who couldn't "provide" for them. I see it go on often. So what it comes down to is some women go for the provider, and some don't care.

I will address your longer reply, but first let me touch on this.

First off, it's very rare for a woman with high value to be with a man of low value. In other words, there aren't a lot of hot, sane, intelligent, well spoken women living in trailer parks and ghettos.

And you are absolutely wrong when you say that "some women don't care". 100% wrong. ALL women care. The hardest of the hard of the feminist lot are LYING when they say they don't want anything from a man.

Which brings us to the reason why you might notice a variation in this pattern from time to time.

The reason why you sometimes see a hot woman with a loser is simple.

MOST of the time when you see this happen it is because women don't directly seek a man with lots of money and a full time armed security staff, they seek the qualities in a man that has the potential to provide her with safety, security, and resources. The odd decent woman you do see with a "poor provider" is usually with a jerk off deadbeat that has qualities that turn her on. And most of the time the woman is probably a little off kilter for not being able to realize that she was sold damaged goods.

 

[edger]

I don't know of too many hot girls marrying bums.

Ah, ok, so any guy who can't "provide" for a woman is a "bum"? You've got the wrong outlook Ketostix.

 

[ketostix]

Ah, ok, so any guy who can't "provide" for a woman is a "bum"? You've got the wrong outlook Ketostix.

No I'm saying a bum is a bum and I've never seen a hot girl marry one. Maybe I've seen one or two examples of a very young slightly above average girl that's disfunctional marrying something that was near a bum.

I never said a guy that can't provide or refused to provide for a woman is a bum. I never put bum and provider in the same sentence. You cut and past excerpts and make a conclusion I never made. I said I don't really see any hot girls with low income guys that don't have the potential to be a provider.

 

[STR8UP]

There is no proof or evidence that it's in a woman's instincts or DNA to go for men who can "provide" for them.

You don't have to go any further than to realize that women are the WEAKER sex. Physically AND mentally (not intelligence, but the ability to reason).

Men are not disposable sperm donors, regardless of what modern women would like you to believe.

Sure, we no longer live in caves. And most of us live in areas where we don't have to worry about bullets whizzing by our heads every night when we sleep. BUT.....men always have and always will serve as protectors and more than 50% providers.

Men don't have babies. Babies make a person dependent upon fellow human beings to ensure a child's survival. A woman is generally weakened by pregnancy and child rearing. Thus, a woman who seeks to have a family (99% of them) will always, always, ALWAYS have the desire and the need for a partner who brings something to the table.

Oh, and another thing.

I rent out condos in the most expensive part of town. I would say that at least 60% of the calls I get are from women. And most of them are single.

Do you know what EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM asks me? They ask about SECURITY. Despite the fact that the heighborhood couldn't be any safer.

By far their biggest concern when they rent a place is how safe they will be at night. They ask if it's on an upper floor. They ask if it is access controlled. They ask if it has an alarm. They ask if there is a security guard.

Men and couples? they could care less. Security (or perception thereof) is taken care of.

So do you think for ONE SECOND that any of these single women spend a day in their life not thinking about the day when they will have a man there to provide them with "security"? They aren't dreaming about security guards and alarm systems, they are dreaming about a MAN to take care of that for them.

Think about it.

 

[edger]

I will address your longer reply, but first let me touch on this.

First off, it's very rare for a woman with high value to be with a man of low value. In other words, there aren't a lot of hot, sane, intelligent, well spoken women living in trailer parks and ghettos.

And first off..there aren't a lot of hot, sane, intelligent, well spoken women living in wealthy areas either if you take a look around you.

And you are absolutely wrong when you say that "some women don't care". 100% wrong. ALL women care. The hardest of the hard of the feminist lot are LYING when they say they don't want anything from a man.

I love it..the feminists are always lying. While I think feminists suck, there is some truth to what they argue. It seems to be a common thing on here that whenever some of you guys are faced with the truth about certain things pertaining to women, you're always ready to blame it on "feminist propaganda" to justify yourselves.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

-
--
What you have written, edger, makes ABSOLUTE, concrete, rock -hard, logical sense.

But it still is wrong.


Because WOMEN still want to be "taken care of," right or wrong. They still marry "up," right or wrong.

Actually, not quite.

Yes, there are a ton of women in the world who want to be taken care of but it's just a means to another end. What women really want is to be appreciated. This can take several forms, including taken care of.

Think about another challenged belief which is being debated, should guys be obligated to buy things on the first date. The reason why women enjoy receiving gifts is because they feel that their mere presence on a date merits such appreciation that a guy will buy her gifts be it flowers, dinner, movies, cars, homes, islands, whatever. These are the women who want to be treated like princesses just to feed their ego that someone appreciates (or wants) them. It's kinda like a gender based entitlement to some.

Also consider marriage :nervous:. A guy goes into huge debt in order to buy a ring, pay for rehearsal dinner, the wedding and whatever incidentals (I'm not sure of the percentage of brides parents who still foot the bill). But even more than the wedding, a man pledges his undying devotion to the woman. Is she being taken care of? "Yes," but it's just the means which she wants to feel appreciated (or wanted).

Another example; a couple, married or not, where the woman is taking care of a guy. She doesn't necessarily have a great job, she could be a cashier but yet she's paying the rent, buying the food, raising the kids (you know that they have a few) and any other bills including giving her mooch of a man money to go out with the boys on the weekend? Who's taking care of who here? Her feels appreciation not from him but from the knowledge that he couldn't survive without her (or so she believes).

One last example, children. Why do you think so many women have such a maternal instinct? Oh they say that they do everything for their kids but they are doing it for a reason. You got it, they feel the appreciation of giving the kids whatever they need including spoiling them. As long as the little ones are happy, she's happy. Sure, hubby is taking care of the family by working overtime to pay the mortgage, two car payments and tuition for private school but face it, he's not around to appreciate what his wife does, but the kids are there waiting for her to do for them.

What puts the icing on the cake is that if women really wanted to be taken care of, wouldn't more couples get married? Wouldn't you think marriages would last? I mean, a portion of her ex's income after a divorce would pale in comparison to having him in her life so that he could take care of her, wouldn't it?

As for trading up, it's a factor when the relationship is based on what can be traded for her attention. If it's not a mutual exchange in fair trade the chance of her trading in for a model with more options can be greater. However, if the fair exchange is based on something intangible, the chance of each person sticking around is greater.

Just something to consider.

 

[ketostix]

And first off..there aren't a lot of hot, sane, intelligent, well spoken women living in wealthy areas either if you take a lok around you.

I don't know where you live, but ever where I've ever lived the hottest, intelligent and articulate women are HIGHLY distributed in wealthy areas, cosmopolitan cities etc.

I love it..the feminists are always lying. While I think feminists suck, there is some truth to what they argue.

What truth? That a woman is a man is a woman? Women should have priviledges but no accountability or responsibility? Everything's men's fault and women are faultless? There's no truth in anything feminist say!

 

[ketostix]

What puts the icing on the cake is that if women really wanted to be taken care of, wouldn't more couples get married? Wouldn't you think marriages would last? I mean, a portion of her ex's income after a divorce would pale in comparison to having him in her life so that he could take care of her, wouldn't it?

Just something to consider

.

Well I would say the statistics are that a woman that's a house wife to man who really has the means to support her and the family without her working, don't generally get a divorce UNLESS you guessed it she's swing to another provider. Rarely does a woman leave her husband to go live in a homeless shelter or back at her mom's. Most of this 50% divorce stuff you're hearing is working women who have an income and make out like bandits in a divorce and find a new provider fairly quickly. I've personally seen this several times.