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

[edger]

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!

Of course women should be held accountable, they should be held accountable for a ton of things..I always say that. What I was saying was, they speak the truth when they argue that women don't care or need a man to support them.

 

[ketostix]

What I was saying was, they speak the truth when they argue that women don't care or need a man to support them.

Because they commandeered men's asets, and competed for men's jobs and took about half of them whether qualified or not through affirmative action, and the list of laws and societal momentum they brainwashed into their favor is a long list.

See now we're getting somewhere. The feminist knew women had all the advantages with sex, so they wanted to take away the only advantage and incentive men had, the economic one. Now women are financially independent and independent of men.

They still biologically want a provider though. It's harder for man to become a provider with women competing for jobs and in college slots. Most men don't have their economic advantage and it's not as powerful as before. Basically men are playing a biased game and now are left with nothing much to work with but their looks. Men are basically playing the role of the woman thanks to feminism, and men are unsuitable for that role. Women still are interested in providers, confidence, and being a man, while at the same time they're making it very difficult for men to do this.

 

[aliasguy]

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.

-
-
-

Frank-----

My respect for you is LARGE, GREAT --- I've read your stuff, and almost ALWAYS agree. (I know I sound like a Rush Limbaugh seminar caller here, but bear me out, please.)

Yeah, women want to be "appreciated," just like everyone else (that is to say, MEN, TOO.) But how do MOST women "see" appreciation? Dinners, money, weddings, rocks for rings, etc. --- right. A man who "appreciates" BUYS STUFF.

We can look at it as "entitlement" or otherwise, if we wish. But they WANT what they WANT. And that's OK --- not necessarily BAD. And it might be on the first date, or somewhere thereafter, but MOST want it. (Not ALL, but let's stick to the usual case.)

And the WEDDING ----JEEZ --- I was lucky, because my ex wasn't INTO that, but MOST chicks want a great big deal. Not wrong, but wasteful, and, to most guys, STUPID. But that's what they (women) WANT, and that's what they usually GET.

The example where the woman is "taking care" of the guy is so rare that we needn't even discuss it here. Red herring.


The KIDS??? who pays child support?( after she bolts ) What married guy wants to piss off the wife over giving the kids what they need? He's gonna cough up, right?

Finally, marriages don't last because there's NO social stigma for divorce anymore, and the chick can STILL get money from the guy after the marriage is over, so she can still live her "lifestyle," and get alimony and child support, and everything for her and her kids goes on as before.

And she can STILL get another chump to pitch in later.

I'm not saying it's WRONG, or that guys are "better," or that it wouldn't be better if families stayed together, I'm just saying that THIS is how it IS.


I respect what you're saying, but reality differs.

-
-

 

[edger]

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).

Yes, women ARE weaker physically and mentally, but that hasn't hampered them from being their own providers in TODAY'S world of 2007, as we see. Again, if they were to live thousands of yrs ago in the past, they probably most likely wouldn't have been able to provide for themselves due to their poor physical strength.

 

[Latinoman]

Yes, women ARE weaker physically and mentally, but that hasn't hampered them from being their own providers in TODAY'S world of 2007, as we see. Again, if they were to live thousands of yrs ago in the past, they probably most likely wouldn't have been able to provide for themselves due to their poor physical strength.

Becoming their own providers have made them a LOT more picky on who they choose as partners. That’s why you see a lot of women in their 30s and 40s without children or husbands.

Edger…you have a LOT to learn.

And by the way…do you have a woman in your life at this moment? When was the last time you were involved in a LTR?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I respect what you're saying, but reality differs.

-

I'm missing something. I read your post a couple of times and I didn't see how its different. I didn't say that most women don't want to be taken care of, I just pointed out that it's not their ultimate goal, it's just a perk along the way.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...And by the way…do you have a woman in your life at this moment? When was the last time you were involved in a LTR?

(*sniff-sniff*) Uh-oh... I smell smoke... :nervous:

I'll add a question to all the guys; is all you feel that you can offer women for the long term is the means for her survival? If not, what else do you have to offer?

 

[ketostix]

Becoming their own providers have made them a LOT more picky on who they choose as partners. That’s why you see a lot of women in their 30s and 40s without children or husbands.

Edger…you have a LOT to learn.

And by the way…do you have a woman in your life at this moment? When was the last time you were involved in a LTR?

So true. The population is getting married less, marrying later and having children later. There's so many professional women in their 30's and 40's that never been married and have no children. Hell someone posted an article with one of these 30-something women complaining about being childless and she blamed feminism. This is pretty common to.

I love how if you say looks and having provisions matter a lot to women, then you'll have guys say, "You think it's only about looks and money and it's the end all be all!" No one said it was the end all be all. But if a woman has the choice of being with a guy who offers the perk of provisions and/or good looks and a guy who doesn't she's going to take the guy with those perks 9 times out of 10. And the woman is going to say, "I didn't pick looks and money, I picked on personality and confidence!" yeah right.

The people who claim it's all personality and confidence come in 2 classes. Ugly broke guys clutching at hope or good looking successful guys who want to act like their success with women is because of their personality and manliness. Looks and money trump personality. I haven't seen too many guys with good looks and money that didn't have confidence.

The truth is you need all 3 looks, means, and personality. Guys with just personality might make friends but not many lovers, and if he tries to be the lover he won't have friends or lovers. The thing is a person's personality has a lot ot do with his apearance anyway.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Think about this for a second; why is it that there should be such a dispute as to whether or not women place a primary importance on a man's looks? What social/psychological advantage is there for women to maintain this confusion for men? I ask this because you rarely hear women debating this amongst themselves. For the most part it's men who contemplate this most - and probably with good reason.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The opportunity for her to become what she was naturally born to be…..a woman.

:nervous: She's not already a woman? Seriously, is that something that something that's unique to you that you could give her? What specifically is your value to her?

 

[ketostix]

Well I'll give you one reason Rollo. I saw the good looking, younger guys getting all the hot young girls, and they were doing it while acting somewhat AFC and doing texts book mistakes. Then I know average looking guys having to use every trick in the PU book to get just mostly average girls. I know some of these goodlooking guys had "game" too, but women were more responsive to the same game and less responsive to it if an average or below average guy was running it. So it kind of irks me when I hear guys saying looks aren't a big factor. And I'm not even saying "pretty boy" looks either. I'm talking about just appearance, and more subtle things like expressiveness and facial symmetry. A small almost conciously imperceptiple difference between two guys appearance can make a world of difference.

 

[squirrels]

Think about this for a second; why is it that there should be such a dispute as to whether or not women place a primary importance on a man's looks? What social/psychological advantage is there for women to maintain this confusion for men? I ask this because you rarely hear women debating this amongst themselves. For the most part it's men who contemplate this most - and probably with good reason.

Kinda reminds me of that South Park episode where the girls make the list of "cutest boys".

 

[bigjohnson]

Come on Aliasguy, no wealthy man wants to pay for p*ssy

If you could have a beautiful woman do as you wish for $0.10 and leave without a trace after would you do it? Money has a vastly different value to some people compared to others. Personally my time is worth a lot and eventually, as Rollo says, everyone pays one way or another.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.


As far as whether looks "matter" or not, that's like asking if people like chocolate.

 

[aliasguy]

I'm missing something. I read your post a couple of times and I didn't see how its different. I didn't say that most women don't want to be taken care of, I just pointed out that it's not their ultimate goal, it's just a perk along the way.

Yeah, sorry. That post sucked. I wasn't clear.

 

[edger]

Becoming their own providers have made them a LOT more picky on who they choose as partners. That’s why you see a lot of women in their 30s and 40s without children or husbands.

Oh absolutely, I agree.

Edger…you have a LOT to learn.

Whatever dude. Like I've said before, I see what I see out there with my own 2 eyes, and I hear what I hear from people(who've been there) with my own 2 ears..I won't come to this forum and write about something that I'm not sure of, because that's only misleading people on here, and that's not what I wanna do. Maybe your experiences have been different, what can I say to that, it happens I guess...we all have different experiences to relate here on the forum..I can only speak on behalf of what I've heard(from the people who've been there) and seen, and that is what I'll do.

by the way…do you have a woman in your life at this moment? When was the last time you were involved in a LTR?

No chicky in my life right now..last long term relationship was exactly a year and nine months ago. Why?

 

[STR8UP]

Becoming their own providers have made them a LOT more picky on who they choose as partners. That’s why you see a lot of women in their 30s and 40s without children or husbands.

I agree. But it never took away the fact that women STILL seek a man who brings resources to the table. Every single one of them do, if only on a subconscious level. Al things being equal they WILL choose the man with the best means to give them a good life.

 

[edger]

I agree. But it never took away the fact that women STILL seek a man who brings resources to the table. Every single one of them do, if only on a subconscious level. Al things being equal they WILL choose the man with the best means to give them a good life.

Str8up, I really have to say, you are brainwashed. Whatever has been said about the "man and provider" thing, you have taken religiously.

 

[aliasguy]

Str8up, I really have to say, you are brainwashed. Whatever has been said about "the man and provider" thing, you have taken religiously.

-
-

Is this argument about who they f*ck or who they choose for a LTR?

Back to basics?

-
-
-

 

[STR8UP]

Str8up, I really have to say, you are brainwashed. Whatever has been said about the "man and provider" thing, you have taken religiously.

I'm not brainwashed about anything. This is science.

There are core behaviors that women have that have been around ever since the existence of man. Just because life has gotten "cushier" over the last couple of hundred years doesn't mean that our monkey brains are going to keep in step.

The PUA community has formulas that WORK to attract women. One of the key components to building attraction is building VALUE.

Value has nothing to do with looks, and EVERYTHING to do with what kind of man you are. Once you meet a woman's minimum physical criteria you will be judged on a myriad of other things such as social standing, confidence and several other, most of which are indicators of a man's NON physical suitability as a mate. In other words, she is looking for CUES to a man's ability to bring something to the table OTHER than just looks.

Why do women throw out sh!t tests? It isn't to see if you are "hot", that's for sure.

 

[edger]

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.

I never got a chance to respond to this. Yes, a woman who seeks to have kids, should be with a parttner who will bring something(money) to the table. But she should be bringing money to the table also. Of course when she is pregnant and has the kids, it would be hard for her to work, so that's excusable, but if a woman is not pregnant or has to take care of her kids, she should be out there working in some kind of career job like us, or at least be aspiring to find a career job.

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.

I never disputed anything about their "security" issue. I only am disputing the "provider" issue with you. Of course, a woman will be more concerned about safety(security) than a man, because she is the weaker sex physically.