Rollo Tomassi and the Good Dad vs. Good Genes Discussion

[Frank2500]

Rollo Tomassi,

In my previous post on divorced women, you mentioned that the main reason women are attracted to the so-called jerks is because of the physical attraction. While I'm not trying to question your "expertise" in the area of dating and relationships, I disagree with your claim because it gives the wrong impression that only the so-called jerks have the physical attraction thing going for them.


At 29, I know much better than to get involved with women who go after such men. I have been through enough pain and hurt for 11 years from women with no substance who are superficial and empty, and I don't take any crap from such women or give them a chance to disrespect me. We both live in separate worlds. Once I get a hint a woman is attracted to such a man, I avoid her like the plague.


I don't consider myself a jerk, but I get a lot of attention from the so-called hot women 20-35. Women with their boyfriends look, men with their girlfriends sometimes say "did you see that?" etc., when I walk by, even when I'm just minding my business. Could it be that they think I have good genes now because they seem to see a tall, huge and muscular man with huge biceps, chest and triceps? I don't know...maybe. I walked into a restaurant once and the waitress basically acted like she was hypnotized. Again, I was just minding my business and I'm not one who necessarily likes to be noticed or who enjoys attention. And I got into lifting weights to better myself, not to do it for women.


In my personal opinion, from the point of view of someone from another country, I think American culture gives women 20-29 too much power when it comes to dating and relationships and the playing field isn't very leveled at all. And I do agree with a previous poster who blamed the media because it makes these young women grow up believing that they are not accountable for their actions and that no matter what they do, men will continue to die for them and put them on pedestals. A lot of them are just very cold-hearted and shallow, and I want someone who's better than that.


Your response also gave the false impression that I am seeking to be a father figure to the 32 year old divorced woman's kids and once again, you like the many other men on here, continued to throw the AFC label and lack of confidence label on me. Please stop it. I don't appreciate that. Don't mislabel me. Those of you who are content with simply having a series of one-night stands with a whole bunch of women...good luck and more power to you. That's not what I'm looking for. Sleep with as many women as you want...good for you. It's not my lifestyle.

 

[insidious]

You can blame the media, the culture, whatever, I blame the "men" who have spawned these little girls with adult bodies.

Sure, the media, the culture, pop culture, yada yada, they are the primary means young girls have as far as socialization. Values (or lack of them) are instilled early on. However, men, by and large, control these media which we bemoan.

It is the rare woman who rises above this, who leaves the herd, and dares to be what her girlfriends are not: strong, independent, individualistic, opinionated, while simultaneously realizing her female role in nature without unleashing her bitterness about it by trying to reduce men to simpering wusses.

I digress...carry on!

 

[Luthor Rex]

In my personal opinion, from the point of view of someone from another country, I think American culture gives women 20-29 too much power when it comes to dating and relationships and the playing field isn't very leveled at all. And I do agree with a previous poster who blamed the media because it makes these young women grow up believing that they are not accountable for their actions and that no matter what they do, men will continue to die for them and put them on pedestals. A lot of them are just very cold-hearted and shallow, and I want someone who's better than that.

This seems to be a pretty fair and accurate judgement of the situation. The only thing I might add is that women and the media are more in a feedback loop than anything else. The skanks who watch the shows and the shows that encourage skanky-ness are feeding one another. Otherwise I think you have a pretty good view of what's going on.

What exactly is the problem here?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Alright FRANK lets clear the air a bit here:

In my previous post on divorced women, you mentioned that the main reason women are attracted to the so-called jerks is because of the physical attraction. While I'm not trying to question your "expertise" in the area of dating and relationships, I disagree with your claim because it gives the wrong impression that only the so-called jerks have the physical attraction thing going for them.

Not at all, and this is a very common, binary, all-or-nothing approach to what I point out when I spell out how our biology works. No where did I state that being a Jerk was synonymous with physical prowess. In fact, I'd argue that generally, it's the guys who are in the best physical shape that are also AFCs who end up in the hottest water in life. Be careful in assuming that Jerk = physically impressive, or Nice Guy = doughboy slouch. What is true is that impressive physical prowess and appearance are genetic determinantes that are associated with good gene-stock on a subconscious level. There are numerous cross-culture/cross-racial studies that bear this out which have found consistent attracting commonalities in body & facial symetry as well as gender specific attributes each sex found not just attractive, but physically arousing (heart rate increase, pupil dialation, ect.) in the opposite sex (i.e. broad shoulders, square jaw, chest to waist ratio, etc. for men and breast size, fullness of lips, hip to waist ratio, etc. for women).

Now, that said, bear in mind that classic Jerk is termed as such because he tends to have more available options open to him and therefore presents the appearance of being self-concerned or selfish. It's almost a cliche now, but there's no shortage of guys in the world (let a lone on SoSuave) who still wonder why Jerks seem to get more play from women, or guys throwing their hands up in disgust over the "fickle, contradictory, hypocritical behaviors of women" when they run back to the same Jerk they cry about for hours on the phone with their male-friend (see surrogate boyfriend).

At 29, I know much better than to get involved with women who go after such men. I have been through enough pain and hurt for 11 years from women with no substance who are superficial and empty, and I don't take any crap from such women or give them a chance to disrespect me. We both live in separate worlds. Once I get a hint a woman is attracted to such a man, I avoid her like the plague.

Why? Women (and men) are only going to do what it is their personal conditions are dictating for them at that period in their lives. You can call a woman "superficial", "empty", "low quality" and any other names you want to, but keep in mind that the "superficial" b!tch who blew you off at 22 because you were too nerdy or not in as good a shape as the guy she opted on instead of you, or maybe because you lacked confidence, suddenly finds you to be the perfect "husband material" at 32. I'm not saying that's you personally, but you see the mechanics in that scenario?

Now, are there exceptions to this rule? Absolutely, but even in those exceptions there will ALWAYS, be an element of opportunism. Human beings (of both sexes) are natural opportunists, we make comparisons and judgements every day and the vast majority of these we're unaware of and most others we're only pereipherally aware of. We innately know that eating a big apple has more survival value than eating the small one, and we know if we take the best short cut to work we can beat the traffic and get to work on time. It's foolish to think that women wouldn't want, on a base level of awareness, to have their genetic cake and eat it too. Which is why it is all the more incumbent upon men to see through the feminine social contrivance that have been so deftly erected over the centuries to keep this opportunism foggy and ambiguous. Start looking at the mechanics and you can make more pragmatic choices in life.

I don't consider myself a jerk, but I get a lot of attention from the so-called hot women 20-35. Women with their boyfriends look, men with their girlfriends sometimes say "did you see that?" etc., when I walk by, even when I'm just minding my business. Could it be that they think I have good genes now because they seem to see a tall, huge and muscular man with huge biceps, chest and triceps? I don't know...maybe. I walked into a restaurant once and the waitress basically acted like she was hypnotized.

You realize you're only making my point for me here, right?

Again, I was just minding my business and I'm not one who necessarily likes to be noticed or who enjoys attention. And I got into lifting weights to better myself, not to do it for women.

Of course you like to be noticed, we all like to be noticed, but we have to maintain the self-notion that we don't for fear of coming off as "superficial." Really, it's OK, you can like to be noticed and not be a narcissist, but even in me stating this I'm sure it not only puts readers hair on end, but also gives the impression that I too must be "conceited", "superficial" or "narcissistic." There's nothing wrong with wanting to be noticed, it's a source of confidence when you are.

In my personal opinion, from the point of view of someone from another country, I think American culture gives women 20-29 too much power when it comes to dating and relationships and the playing field isn't very leveled at all. And I do agree with a previous poster who blamed the media because it makes these young women grow up believing that they are not accountable for their actions and that no matter what they do, men will continue to die for them and put them on pedestals. A lot of them are just very cold-hearted and shallow, and I want someone who's better than that.

Agreed. But once again, what you've been conditioned to interpret as "shallow", I call innate opportunism. We're all "shallow" FRANK, and we're all hypocrites - we'll say one thing and do another and our behavior will make us liars more often than not. I'm sure that will sound cynical to a few people reading this, but all I do is hold up a mirror, people have to want to look at themselves. Deprive a guy of sex and intimacy for long enough and you'll see how readily he's willing to change his convictions. Deprive a woman of security (and there are many variations of security) long enough and you'll see how readily she changes her priorities for a man to warrant her attentions. And both will tell you it was never any different before then.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Your response also gave the false impression that I am seeking to be a father figure to the 32 year old divorced woman's kids and once again, you like the many other men on here, continued to throw the AFC label and lack of confidence label on me.

I should certainly hope you weren't, that was at least half of my old post. What I did point out for you though was a warning to be aware of the mechanics behind a "divorced woman with baggage" as you stated it. No divorced, single mommie of two in her right mind would ever entertain the idea that what I elaborated for you was an underlying motivator for them. The 'Today's Woman' crowd will spell out for you in no uncertain terms that they're all entirely capable of taking care of their kids solo - this of course is yet another operative social convention, but that's another thread. Whether or not a woman is consciously or unconsciously seeking a new male to help her in her parental investment responsibilities, the undeniable truth is that engaging in an LTR with women in this demographic comes with liabilities that single, never-married women simply don't have.

The contrivance is this; a guy either dates a divorcee and ignores her baggage to have a more "deep" (see opposite of 'shallow') meaningfull relationship (because she's perceived as older and better rounded in her maturity) or he can continue to date the vapid masses of bimbos his own age or younger and have meaningless ONSs with them. That's an extreme illustration, but do you see the mechanics behind this? It levels the playingfield for women who've already made their bed and now have to lay in it. Women in this demographic have to get men to come to them, to come to their way of thinking in order to get to the emotional, financial, familial security that they want in life.

Now before I get the standard all-or-nothing flame for making single mommies out to be bad people, let me emphatically say 'not all of them.' In fact a good majority are wonderful human beings, it's not a question of the quality of their souls or the goodness in their hearts. What I am pointing out is, again, the mechanics of this contrivance. Even in the best of all circumstances you could have with a single mother a woman can never, and will never fully appreciate the sacrifices a man must make when he assumes a parental investment responsibility that was never his. You want to complain about American women now? This is the height of hypocrisy that men should be conditioned to feel a moral sense of obligation - for no other reason than he was born with a penis - to share in a life-long investment, including all the responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities, that were never his doing, all while a woman can be morally absolved of feeling any guilt for doing so (it's his noble duty remember?) or even an expectation of appreciating it. That is the contrivance; to make a guy a villain for not wanting to take part in it - to any degree, including dating. As I stated in my old post, you become a retroactive cuckold, and what's worse is that most guys volunteer for it after being deprived of female intimacy long enough for them to internalize this contrivance as part of their own personalities - to believe it's just how they've always been.

Those of you who are content with simply having a series of one-night stands with a whole bunch of women...good luck and more power to you. That's not what I'm looking for. Sleep with as many women as you want...good for you. It's not my lifestyle.

You need to read Plate Theory. It's not about ONSs or sleeping with your own personal harem - it's about maintaining your options.

 

[Wyldfire]

Personally, Frank, I think you sound like a very wise man. You don't present yourself as being phony at all...in fact, you don't seem like someone who would ever associate with someone who wasn't worth your time or who misrepresented who they really were to you.

 

[RedPill]

Wyld in that new signature of yours there's nothing that hasn't already been disclosed on this forum. I'm not sure on what basis you're making your fraud claim against RT. It is a violation of the TOS however as you're making a personal attack in each thread that contains that sig. You're on thin ice as it is, I wouldn't push things.

Your new tactic of "it's MY party and I'll cry if I want to" is rich. It's interesting how you work from the frame that the criticisms and subsequent attacks against you are hostile and unfair pile-on acts against poor innocent you. They have nothing to do with the abrasive voice, argumentative posture, in-your-face reminders of your self-validated expertise, or the self-serving lens through which you write.

It's nice to know that we have at least a couple upstanding mods who aren't afraid to use their mod power to keep you in check. Lucky for you there IS a double-standard of rules enforement, otherwise your status as a magnet for drama, fighting, and topic derailment would have gotten you banned half a decade ago. Believe you me, it's working in your favor.

It's also nice to see you taking the high road in this whole affair. Please keep it up, it will ensure that due process happens sooner rather than later. It'll be nice when we can go back to having mature discussions without all your domineering, attention-grabbing rants.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

On the good side, I've had about a hundred friend requests in just the last hour,...um, thanks WYLD. Heheh,..

 

[Wyldfire]

Wyld in that new signature of yours there's nothing that hasn't already been disclosed on this forum. I'm not sure on what basis you're making your fraud claim against RT. It is a violation of the TOS however as you're making a personal attack in each thread that contains that sig. You're on thin ice as it is, I wouldn't push things.

Your new tactic of "it's MY party and I'll cry if I want to" is rich. It's interesting how you work from the frame that the criticisms and subsequent attacks against you are hostile and unfair pile-on acts against poor innocent you. They have nothing to do with the abrasive voice, argumentative posture, in-your-face reminders of your self-validated expertise, or the self-serving lens through which you write.

It's nice to know that we have at least a couple upstanding mods who aren't afraid to use their mod power to keep you in check. Lucky for you there IS a double-standard of rules enforement, otherwise your status as a magnet for drama, fighting, and topic derailment would have gotten you banned half a decade ago. Believe you me, it's working in your favor.

It's also nice to see you taking the high road in this whole affair. Please keep it up, it will ensure that due process happens sooner rather than later. It'll be nice when we can go back to having mature discussions without all your domineering, attention-grabbing rants.

Not to worry...thanks to the weekend organized effort of Rollo and Desdinova and a few others. I am going to be banned in a couple of days. Allen doesn't want to ban me, mind you...what Gio started during his time as a moderator Rollo and Desdinova have continued. They've just worn him down because all they ever do is biotch about me being here and the controversy around me. f course...there would never have been any controversy if they just enforced the rules...but no...can't do that. They may have won...but I'm going to go down swinging...and EVERYONE is going to know why I got banned before it happens.

 

[Cesare Cardinali]

closed.