Schedules of Mating

[Rollo Tomassi]

Are either of you reading my posts in this thread? POTATO just outlined what I've posted in the OP and post #13. All I've done is illustrate the root motivators for exactly what you've described you're observing.

Now, being a single mother, her attractiveness goes way down compared to non-mothers. Thus the next man she gets will necessarily be less attractive. Just as women who are less than 8’s, 9’s, 10’s tend to look to personality and other qualities in greater interest than raw attraction. It comes in her inability to hook up with men who she truly finds attractive. That is, single mothers tend to settle on the next man because she is no longer able to attract the type of man she most desires.

Which is exactly why I stated that as a woman's sexual marketability declines with age and/or children, the priorities for her prerequisites for intimacy shift. The physical attraction that was of primary concern in her early to mid 20's is dropped in importance in favor of a man's provisioning attributes in mate selection. That's not to say physical attraction isn't important (obviously she'll take it if she can get it), but her conditions are modifying what she'll find acceptable for intimacy as she ages. It's the type of guy she settles on, the Good Provider, for long term security that's at issue.

If you look at the children of women who have children from 2,3,4 men, the oldest tends to be the best looking with the attractiveness of each child falling off with each new father.

All you're doing is proving my Proactive/Reactive Infidelity schema here.

For the vast majority of the population, choices, real choices in mate selection tend to be rather limited. Thus a woman with children often will take whoever will have her. Fortunately for her, the men that tend to take up these women often see relationships in terms of economics (rich guys get all the hot chicks) and are willing to offer themselves as providers to get a woman. Remember that his options tend to be just as limited as hers.

How is this in any way different from what I proposed in the OP?

 

[Tazman]

Men have one criteria for intimacy - she's got to be hot - everything else is negotiable. Attractiveness and sexual availabilty are the only prerequisites necessary for him to engage in sexual behavior with a woman.

I must side with the others objecting to this comment, because it is a VAST oversimplification of what is going on.

Isn't that kind of the point though? A discussion about all the conditions involved in how a man chooses a mate would be quite long, as it has everything to do with his individual circumstances and/or ability to acquire what he wants . Bottom line is, our interests start with physical appearance as it relates to sex, all other things are secondary. I'm pretty sure you have known/know guys who would put up with crazy women because they were "hot."

Guys may say "I like intelligent women" etc, but since when does "intelligence" make your d-ck hard? We want to be with women that arouse us sexually when we look at them, intangibles like intelligence may be a preference that comes after the hook (physical attraction).

Why would all men use the same mating strategy? They wouldn't, they don't, and their's no reason to believe that we were all born with a genetic predisposition to mate just one way.

It isn't the strategy that's the same, it's the objective.

*Oops, just realized how late this post was, Rollo had already tackled this much better than I could.

 

[MatureDJ]

Guys may say "I like intelligent women" etc, but since when does "intelligence" make your d-ck hard? We want to be with women that arouse us sexually when we look at them, intangibles like intelligence may be a preference that comes after the hook (physical attraction).

Intelligence, like attitude, is like an independent criteria that has less importance than beauty, but it's still there. I will only accept a woman with a certain level of intelligence (for a relationship - of course, for wham bam thank you m'am, it's virtually not important at all.) But I had the choice between 2 women in which one was a just a little less attractive than then other, but much more intelligent, I would choose for the former. The coefficients that would be used in the analysis would be higher for beauty than for intelligence, but then once a certain level of beauty had been reached, where more beauty would not be of marginal value, then the coefficient would drop, probably to a point less than that for intelligence.

 

[TheHumanist]

I have to say potato, if you were trying to argue against Rollo's posts, your evidence seems to just back him up.

Anyways, reinterating the point of what I said, biology leads to guys who wins the attention of the girl by looks, like guys who gives attention to the hot girl, the same works the other way. Evolutionary biology also bring to the motivation of the observation of why there are single moms, they went with guys who they lust, but mistreat them, but still ignore the warning signs (hey that's like many guys when it come to hot women, despite they may have horrible personality deficiencies, they tolerate it because she's hot) and then just left them. Eventually, she will find another guy who's willing to take her in.

Question to RT: is this the good provider you are saying or just the "good provider" in evolutionary terms? I said before it seems you have two definitions of "good provider," the man who worked hard and became high value who wins attention by a another mean, and the man who gain resources and then became a sucker to raise her children, which in the evolutionary viewpoint, is person who is the "good provider" and in the individual viewpoint, a sucker. You have not address this directly, your posts seems to have pointed both ways of the good provider is the nice guy sucker and the mature dj (in the pook sense and not in the kontrollerx sense to also point that out). Are you saying there are "good genes" men who women are attracted to while "good provider" only compete by becomming men who have enough resources to gain a women's interest so she can use him in return for intimacy and sex? This seems to indicate that good provider men are only men who are able to compete, but she will never truly want him or perhaps ever love him, just a person she can use. Not to mention of if "good genes" also include the denotation of that you have to be born with it, it also means "sucks to be you" to anyone who lack it (Wutang would have a field day, then kill himself) would have to face that after working hard to become an intellegent, mature, wealthy, etc. man, the girl he will gain will never really "love him," just there because she want the resources (or perhaps you only just meant in context of single moms, though you haven't emphasise on that).

Or are you saying there are "good genes" men who women are attracted to while "good provider" men are men who offer other qualties (good character, intellegence, fun, etc. along with resources) that women are attracted to and open to be truly attracted (and thus love) to the man like a man who have "good genes" (although this also leads to women have to be intellectually developed enough to even appreciate other qualites besides looks despite they have attraction to other qualities, this leads to also a differnence to men since women have more than one way for them to pass the thereshold while men have that if women can't pass the first door of looks (enough to want to **** her), he will not be open to her at all.

Second question is you said that we should aim to be both good genes and good providers, the DJ is both as you said earlier. However, good genes are something one is born with, unless you saying either everyone is born good enough to win the lust of women or this is one of the unintended meaning from the use of the terminology of "good genes."

Finally I want to point out that do you think shallowness is just a female social contrivance to manipulate men to take women who is not as attractive? Just devoloped so men can be ashamed into taking a less attractive girl and level the playing field with more attractive women? For me, I have to disagree partly. I am willing to agree that women have used it to rationalize themselves and used to argue with others (even shame others), but shallow have a basis in ethics and its connotations is more than just men choosing only on "hotness." Shallow applies to also depth and thinking of both men and women and not just for choosing only on looks. For example, the recent critically-panned but likely financial success (please, please, please, let the movie make the largest BO revenue drop from the first weekend and beat the Matrix sequal record) Sex and the City movie of its four protagonist are repeatedly bashed as shallow from all the flaws of being materialistic, vain, filled with entitlement, and their most tragic flaw - no thinking of taking responsibility that they might eventually mature and change their thinking. In ethics, there is the concept that people should be judged by their characters (which is seen by their actions along with actions to their word). Of course, when their come to relationships, looks have to play a part, there just have to be an attraction on both sides or how could a relationship ever work, but the argument of being shallow stemming from ethics does exist.

 

[Tazman]

Intelligence, like attitude, is like an independent criteria that has less importance than beauty, but it's still there. I will only accept a woman with a certain level of intelligence (for a relationship - of course, for wham bam thank you m'am, it's virtually not important at all.) But I had the choice between 2 women in which one was a just a little less attractive than then other, but much more intelligent, I would choose for the former. The coefficients that would be used in the analysis would be higher for beauty than for intelligence, but then once a certain level of beauty had been reached, where more beauty would not be of marginal value, then the coefficient would drop, probably to a point less than that for intelligence.

Agreed.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Question to RT: is this the good provider you are saying or just the "good provider" in evolutionary terms?

Try to bear in mind that the "Good Genes" and "Good Providers" terms are metaphors and not absolutes. The main problem I see with a lot of the criticisms on this topic (and with most "looks" threads) is that people tend to identify these as archetypes or classifications of males. Understand that both of these terms are for lack of better ones and aren't insurmountable 'locks' - meaning that human personalities are indeed malleable and change either by intent or by circumstance. The problem comes when guys refuse to accept that these 'natural dynamics' aren't significant or don't otherwise contribute to their personal condition. Thus there's a hostile rejection of it, which is encouraging on one hand, but discouraging when it's completely ignored.

That said, what about the Good Provider? Just as I explained here the Good Provider is a metaphor, not an evolutionary end unto itself. Understand now that I do not believe in predeterminism. AFCs can and do get laid, DJs and PUAs as well and everything in between - however each of us employ, to better or lesser effect coping techniques for sexual selection challenges and 'evolve' preferences based on our relative success or failures in using them. Men tend to be more deductive in their thinking and these preferences are usually modifications to what has worked in prior experience.

Maybe putting the qualifier of 'Good' in front of each of these guys is what's throwing people off? Understand that neither of these archetypes is necessarily good or bad. I've known more than a few guys I'd call Good Genes men who were abject AFCs in their beliefs. They were the "pool boys" who had no trouble getting laid in the clubs, or with other guys' GFs, but they still clung to the soulmate mythology. I also know Good Genes guys who got trapped by "accidental" pregnancies and ruined their otherwise limitless potential lives because of it.

Conversely I know Good Provider men who've been classic AFCs that changed their minds about themselves and self-realized their own worth and value to women before they committed to damaging LTR or marriage. Not many, but I do know some.

So we may have a Good Provider who has his collective sh!t together, who's never seen the forest for the trees and marries a single mom and becomes liable for her, her decisions and the resulting children of those decisions. Or you may have an AFC Provider who opens his eyes to it and steers his boat accordingly to avoid such a situation.

You could also have a Good Genes man, who women love to "fix", who becomes forced into a role of Provider, that he may or may not be ready to accept.

Now, as I said from the outset, you have to take into consideration women's schedule of mating and how this affects sexual selection with regard to the genes and provider men. My initial premise was that women and men are, for the most part, oblivious to these 'natural' sexual selection mechanics. This is due in no small part to the created social contrivances meant to facilitate them to a greater or lesser advantage to both sexes while intentionally keeping them 'unknowable' or at least discouraging them being analyzed. In other words our focus is on the experience and not the process - similar to saying that an uninvolved person will have a more objective estimate of a situation if they themselves aren't involved.

So it's with this in mind that I think Men need to become better aware of the process and begin to use the understanding of it and the schedules to a better effect in their own lives. Equally, I think it's important to see how social contrivances discourage this. Everyone's an opportunist to some effect, and the natural, most obvious tool women possess to get to the security they seek, the attention they seek, etc. is by means of their sexuality. They learn at a very early age what effect their sexuality has on boys. And likewise they modify and build on that as they mature.

I posted this on page two, but if you have the patience, this case study might help you understand the mechanics:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/pillsworth_haseltonARSR.pdf


I'm paraphrasing, but POOK once described the Good Guy as being the DJ who embodies the best of both the Jerk and the Nice Guy without becoming either. I see this as a sort of spectrum with the extreme, abusive Jerk on one end and the doormat, supplicating Nice Guy on the other. In my experience, most guys I know (and even respect) tend to lean far too much to the Nice Guy end of the spectrum. My intent with this thread wasn't to say Good Genes = Jerk, Good Provider = Nice Guy, but rather to make guys more aware of the underlying processes and act accordingly with wherever you find yourself.

Finally I want to point out that do you think shallowness is just a female social contrivance to manipulate men to take women who is not as attractive? Just devoloped so men can be ashamed into taking a less attractive girl and level the playing field with more attractive women?

Shallow is a subjective term. Being "shallow" or "superficial" is only as valid as what your individual interpretation of the term is. I think the question about the "shallow" social contrivance is less about definition and more about it's application and how useful it is. First understand that "shallow" is not just confined to one gender so it can be used by either sex. It's use is not exclusive to just thwarting a males sexual drive, but that's the instance I use it in here. I could say "you don't want to buy that BMW do you? Only shallow, materialistic people drive those." In saying so I disqualify your choice to buy what you like and simultaneously shame you (i.e you're "shallow" if you don't think as I do). Now apply this tool to men's sexual appetites and you'll see the contrivance. "Only a 'shallow' man would want to bang that hot, blonde swimsuit model." She disqualifies the competition and calls into question your base reasons for wanting the hot piece of ass with shame.

 

[guru1000]

I have not read this thread, as I am sure this is another Looks/Provisioning theory.

The prime motivator for a woman is a Man who makes her FEEL good inside. If that is by having arm candy or by riding in a 70 foot yacht is individually based.

The problem with these THEORIES is it tries to put human interaction or prime motivators(as Rollo puts it) into a tight little equation. With all the intricacies of human behavior and thoughts, it is quite impossible to put together the LAW of human gravity.

Just as you may find a million people this holds true to, you as well will find a million people it does not. Certainly there are many men with neither traits, looks or provisioning, that have great marriages. One may argue, that is an exception. However to the contrary, it is just as popular as with the provisioners /looks.

At the end of the day, discussion is just that, a discussion. If you want to put a theory behind the "Prime Motivators" behind human interaction, here it is,

"A Man or Woman will usually take the route that provides the most pleasure and least pain."

Before Rollo states" Thanks for helping prove my point", be aware pleasure cannot be described with a consensus opinion of what FEELS GOOD. For this reason and reason alone, provisioning itself will not be pleasure/pain dynamic for every single mother.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

couple of points for consideration:

1)the social basis for our mating drives was about 100 or so people in a group, that existed largely before a rich expressive language was fully developed.
Men generally want to bang the best woman, and women want to generally bang the most alpha. both qualities designed to make sure junior can grow up and make more little juniors. Thats pretty much it. With only a 100 people, there wasn't much variety, and not much going on except for grunting and howling.

2)Because of our large brains and womens relatively small hips, humans take several years to reach an age mature enough to leave the nest. This is becuase our brains are largely undeveloped when we are born, which means we have lost a lot of "instincts" and must learn most everything. Which means we have the capacity to believe in a lot of fukked up chit AND change our beliefs based our experiences.

3)The whole "man is monogymous with a tendency towards polygamy" is really only valid in describing the species AS A WHOLE, and has little bearing in a case by case basis. I don't want to get too deep into statistics, but saying that X% of population Y will do Z does NOT NOT NOT mean that EVERY individual in population in Y has an X% chance of doing Z. It says absolutely nothing about what causes each person in group Y does Z, or how to identify people in Y that will do Z, or how to safegaurd yourself against Z etc. It only is a method of looking at the group as a whole.


The great thing about human interaction is, is that while people are generally predictable AS A WHOLE, individually we are as varied as the beach has sand. And with point number 2 above, whatever your beliefs are, how frikking ****amamy they are, you will find evidence to support it. Which is good, because if you don't like your world, just change your beliefs and change your results.

 

[potato]

I have to say potato, if you were trying to argue against Rollo's posts, your evidence seems to just back him up.

Actually not. As I understand it Rollo is saying that a woman consciously decides the type of man. My contention is that it is not that she chooses but rather that she gets what she gets as a consequence of being able to attract who she can attract, often due to the baggage (including children) that she has accumulated.

 

[wayword]

The OP is just a bunch of garrulous writing.

Shouldn't be STICKIED, my god.

I take it you're a single mom seeking cuckold?

:crackup:

Everything RT says makes perfect sense in the greater scheme of things...

In the old days when men had more selective leverage, men wouldn't even marriage a virgin, much less a single mom. Unfortunately, those golden days are over now and men will settle for the best they can get, but that doesn't mean it was their ideal preference by a long shot!

 

[Dergz]

The great thing about human interaction is, is that while people are generally predictable AS A WHOLE, individually we are as varied as the beach has sand. And with point number 2 above, whatever your beliefs are, how frikking ****amamy they are, you will find evidence to support it. Which is good, because if you don't like your world, just change your beliefs and change your results.

that pretty much wraps this whole petty squabble up...

 

[Dergz]

So Rollo, do you consider yourself to be the man of good genes or a good provider? How long have you been married? Sex must be pretty rare by now?

...btw, RT, u didn't answer that question.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

...btw, RT, u didn't answer that question.

Potato is generally not worth answering directly as her life interpretations tend to be more concerned with romance novels and soft porn, but since you asked,...

So Rollo, do you consider yourself to be the man of good genes or a good provider? How long have you been married? Sex must be pretty rare by now?

Actually I consider myself to be both a good provider AND a good genes father - and that's by design. I've been married 12 years and we knock it out 2-3 times a week, plus the requisite hummer on Mrs. Tomassi's 'red weeks'.

 

[bigjohnson]

... rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days)

It always amuses me when someone thinks they have some way to take genetic donor 'A' and 'B' and determine which is 'better'. It looks like Hispanic single moms have the best genes at the moment, but I'm not sure that's what we think of when we see the phrase "best genes" here at sosuave ....

 

[SamePendo]

So it's with this in mind that I think Men need to become better aware of the process and begin to use the understanding of it and the schedules to a better effect in their own lives. Equally, I think it's important to see how social contrivances discourage this. Everyone's an opportunist to some effect, and the natural, most obvious tool women possess to get to the security they seek, the attention they seek, etc. is by means of their sexuality.

This was where my question was going to be aimed at.Ok, we (I) understand this.

How do I use this knowledge to my advantage?

... I'm still formulating my question regarding the "shallow" stuff.

 

[Proselytiser]

In regards to good dads vs. good genes, has anyone ever considered Joseph deferring to God to father Jesus via Mary in light of this?