Persistence and patience pays. Evolutionary psychology says so. did you know?

[thechosenone2190]

It is common knowledge that females have more at stake when choosing mates because females have to bear and rear the children. Due to evolution and natural selection, a female is geared to find a faithful husband who will help raise the child in the long run and not abandon the family. To accomplish this, females have developed a tendency to play "hard to get" so they can weed out men who are not likely to be faithful husbands.

Moral of the story: Don't next girls too fast. Be persistent and patient, but not needy. It's very confusing to me. You have to strike a balance between persistence and being unavailable.

The book I got this from is called "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins. Here is the original text:

“The simplest version of the domestic-bliss strategy is this. The female looks the males over, and tries to spot signs of fidelity and domesticity in advance. There is bound to be variations in the population of males in the predisposition to be faithful husbands. If females could recognize such qualities in advance, they could benefit themselves by choosing males possessing them. One way for a female to do this is to play hard to get for a long time, to be coy. Any male who is not patient enough to wait until the female eventually consents to copulate is not likely to be a good bet as a faithful husband. By insisting on a long engagement period, a female weeds out casual suitors, and only finally copulates with a male who has proved his qualities of fidelity and perseverance in advance. Feminine coyness is in fact very common among animals, and so are prolonged courtship or engagement periods. As we have already seen, a long engagement can also benefit a male where there is a danger of his being duped into caring for another male’s child."

Question: Why are females also attracted to guys who are emotionally unavailable? This is contradictory information. GRRR What is more effective in getting girls? Persistence or be a challenge to girls? Why is it also common knowledge here in the PUA community to next girls who make you wait? Is this erroneous advice?

 

[trv26]

I've read that too.

You have to remember that girls want a guy who will be faithful to her and will look after her kids. At the same time she wants her kids to have the best genes possible. So both persistence (for when she wants the dad) and being a challenge (for when she wants the "cad") likely work.

But the guy who wins through persistence has not been chosen for sex, so will get the bare minimum of it while the guy who gets chosen for being a challenge will be chosen specifically for sex.

Those are my thoughts on it.

 

[teacha]

i don't believe none of that bullshit....

 

[Serg897]

I've read that book, and I have much respect for Dawkins - but he may be missing part of the picture. Yes women want faithful partners because they have more at stake in bearing the child, but at the same time they want a masculine male with good genes who will increase the reproductive fitness of the children. A male who is a challenge, who is wanted by other females may increase the value of those genes.

 

[Kerpal]

He's right to a point but I don't think he's seeing the bigger picture. The only problem with his theory is that women generally don't

"...only finally copulates with a male who has proved his qualities of fidelity and perseverance in advance."

While one guy is being persistent and playing a guitar outside her window and **** like that, she's getting pounded out by the *******, emotionally unavailable muscular guy. She ****s (and possibly gets knocked up by) the good genes guy and cuckolds the guy with the guitar. With this strategy she secures both the resources of persistent guy and the good genes of muscular guy. Which is great for everyone involved... except persistent guy who rarely gets laid (just enough to keep him around) and who has to spend his resources caring for her and possibly another man's offspring. I know which guy I'd rather be.

 

[thechosenone2190]

Dawkins does indeed offer a second female mating strategy called Heman strategy. If females expect no help from the father of their children, females become much more choosier and pick guys with good genes. Some example indicators of good genes in males are strong muscles, height, and attractiveness. Maybe another indicator that most PUA's rely on is personality? idk

Another passage in Selfish Gene by Dawkins:

"In species where this policy is adopted the females, in effect, resign themselves to getting no help from the father of their children, and go all-out for good genes instead. Once again they use their weapon of withholding copulation. They refuse to mate with just any male, but exercise the utmost care and discrimination before they will allow a male to copulate with them. Some males undoubtedly do contain a larger number of good genes than other males, genes that would benefit the survival prospects of both sons and daughters. If a female can somehow detect good genes in males, using externally visible clues, she can benefit her own genes by allying them with good paternal genes. To use our analogy of the rowing crews, a female can minimize the chance that her genes will be dragged down through getting into bad company. She can try to hand-pick good crew-mates for her own genes."

"From the point of view of a female trying to pick good genes with which to ally her own, what is she looking for? One thing she wants is evidence of ability to survive. Obviously any potential mate who is courting her has proved his ability to survive at least into adulthood, but he has not necessarily proved that he can survive much longer. Quite a good policy for a female might be to go for old men. Whatever their shortcomings, they have at least proved they can survive, and she is likely to be allying her genes with genes for longevity. However, there is no point in ensuring that her children live long lives if they do not also give her lots of grandchildren. Longevity is not prima facie evidence of virility. Indeed a long-lived male may have survived precisely because he does not take risks in order to reproduce. A female who selects an old male is not necessarily going to have more descendants than a rival female who chooses a young one who shows some other evidence of good genes.
What other evidence? There are many possibilities. Perhaps strong muscles as evidence of ability to catch food, perhaps long legs
158 Battle of the sexes
as evidence of ability to run away from predators. A female might benefit her genes by allying them with such traits, since they might be useful qualities in both her sons and her daughters. To begin with, then, we have to imagine females choosing males on the basis of perfectly genuine labels or indicators which tend to be evidence of good underlying genes. But now here is a very interesting point realized by Darwin, and clearly enunciated by Fisher. In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren. The result of this is that one of the most desirable qualities a male can have in the eyes of a female is, quite simply, sexual attractiveness itself. A female who mates with a super-attractive he-man is more likely to have sons who are attractive to females of the next generation, and who will make lots of grandchildren for her. Originally, then, females may be thought of as selecting males on the basis of obviously useful qualities
like big muscles, but once such qualities became widely accepted as attractive among the females of the species, natural selection would continue to favour them simply because they were attractive."

Of course, females obviously stray in between both strategies. However, Dawkins claims that the domestic-bliss strategy is more dominant in females.

 

[I'm in the Mood]

Persistence helps you avoid rejecting yourself too soon based on your interpretation of her indirect cues.

You want to be persistent when women play hard to get, give you shyt tests, and when they try to make you jealous or have some kind of emotional reaction. These are all attempts to steal your power away from you.

Playing guitar outside a girl's window screams "I want you to like me!!" not "I am persistent."

That is not being persistent.
Make sure you don't misconceive the definition of persistence.

 

[Phat]

Show this to tiger woods wife.

 

[killahpl]

I guess the pertinent question is, do we, guys with not so great genes, stand a chance? :cuss:

 

[PappyS]

Women want men with good genes to breed them while they're young. They like the types of men who are most likely to be unfaithful to them. It is when they get older that they start looking for the faithful type of men- to raise the other man/men's children.