"The path" is a LIE!

[Scaramouche]

Dear Zunder,
"Read up on Eva Peron"So Juan Peron was an AFC fine but Eva was a woman since when does a Man Play like a Woman...Had Juan been Aenigma,Then Eva would not have got very far at all,Juan would have missed out on shagging a magic Woman and Argentina would have avoided being dragged down into poverty.

 

[Ace of Dubs]

This actually proves the point that we each and all act through selfishness and for survival FIRST.

You're talking about being a good person because you "enjoy" it.

You now avoid women who are spoken for because it has caused you more trouble than the p*s$y is worth. Risk outweighs reward, as you said.

Your mental and emotional health benefit from it. YOU are a better person, I gather, from following these personal rules. These are still policies adopted by the sovereign individual, based on his personal cost/benefit analysis.

Exactly!

The thing is I notice that other posters with a similar stance get flack here for expressing their views, in many cases religion and society are not even mentioned, but a vocal few here like to flog and crucify anyone who even mentions morality, or so much as disagrees with their views.

I have to agree with Jeff here, we are supposed to be on the same team, yet the intolerance for difference of opinions really keeps that from happening.

It's one thing to discuss and disagree, I actually enjoy that because it challenges me. but this whole "We are right and you guys are wrong so why dont you STFU?" bs really invalidates your whole view point, because at that point you are just being an insecure douchebag.

If you cant handle dissension, then why post on a discussion forum at all? Just post a blog up and turn off comments so you can be safe from the threat of people who dont agree with you.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Ahhh, another fanciful explanation .

A couple joined the dance studio recently where I teach part time. She was slim and very feminine and a HB8. JUst my type. Her guy was rather quiet and stood behind her, and it appeared to me that she was the one who led their relationship inspite of her soft, sweet demeanor. Indeed, I was unsure that there even was any 'relationship'.
Over the next few weeks she showed some attraction to me and my C&F antics. She was willing to leave her guy standing alone a few times over a few weeks and come ask me a few questions which were obviously concocted and which should have been asked by him. . Her eyes were dilated and had that glazed look that we all know well.
Eventually I suggested that she might like to have 'extra' lessons with me privately. He he. I was willing to take advantage of my position here if she was willing.. She picked up on my unstated intention and replied that she was married to the guy (no ring) and that seeing me privately was "not a good idea" .
So ,essentially, I was 'rejected'. How did I feel about her after that. I felt enormous admiration. She had married that guy (for her own reasons), and had taken her vows "to forsake others" and was now living by them.
Rather than getting annoyed at her because my ego was bruised, I felt respect for her preservation of her morals and her commitment to her husband.
After that night I resumed my teaching her by only being near her when her husband was also present.
Had I persisted in another attempt to see her alone after that night, MY morals would have been compromised by my own behavior.

What I find fvcking ironic is that you call evolutionairy psychology a crack pot theory yet lap up "dilated pupils with that glazed look" and C&F antics as something to impress the chicks with.

Quality.

I tell you what I think. I think she knew you were checking her out. I think she liked the attention. I think she pursued the attention further until the point where you pushed for isolation. Upon which she rejected you because you were never a candidate to begin with. Not because she was married to someone and was a lady of high moral standing but because she really never had any intention of fvcking you. You gave her the personal validation ANY woman loves by acting like a monkey with your "C&F antics."

No. If she was a lady of high moral standing she would never have led you to believe there was a shot in the first place. Nor would she have openly flirted with you and encouraged you in front of her "husband".

Character and morals are not the same thing.

 

[jophil28]

What I find fvcking ironic is that you call evolutionairy psychology a crack pot theory yet lap up "dilated pupils with that glazed look" and C&F antics as something to impress the chicks with.

You are confused (once again)..

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Hardly.

A natural, biological indication of attraction like "dilated pupils and that glazed look" are something you will swallow hook, line and sinker yet completely disregard evolutionary psychology when it does not suit you. Even more amusing are your C&F tactics employed to create and increase attraction. If EVER there was a way to create the illusion of SOCIAL STATUS its C&F isnt it?

In an aim to remain positive you have become delusional. You took her rejection as a sign of her excellent character and moral standing while completely ignoring her behaviour in front of her current "man" because you hate the idea that this woman may not have been that attracted to you. Not only does her behaviour lack congruency, your own views lack it too, although they are not lacking in ego which you seem to move mountains to protect. If you believe C&F is effective enough to use, then you have agreed that a display of social status is important in attraction haven't you? And if you agree that a womans pupils will dilate when she finds you attractive then surely that is an example of biological attraction at its most base.

You are a walking contradiction Jophil.

 

[ketostix]

A natural, biological indication of attraction like "dilated pupils and that glazed look" are something you will swallow hook, line and sinker yet completely disregard evolutionary psychology when it does not suit you.

This sure seems like a non sequitur. Physical attraction=evolutionary psychology? What?

Even more amusing are your C&F tactics employed to create and increase attraction. If EVER there was a way to create the illusion of SOCIAL STATUS its C&F isnt it?

OK C&F to further attraction and to create the illusion of social status is I think a fair assumption. But so what, it's just a choice of presentation. Jophil can't also wear nice clothes because that might create the illusion of social status? It's not like by using C&F he's lying about being a millionare or something similar.

You took her rejection as a sign of her excellent character and moral standing while completely ignoring her behaviour in front of her current "man" because you hate the idea that this woman may not have been that attracted to you. Not only does her behaviour lack congruency,

You could be right here, I think the girl in this situation did behave poorly in front of her husband, and maybe she wasn't that attracted to Jophil but you don't know for sure. But I think Jophil's premise was that a woman could be attracted to a man and may interacting with him but she still won't cross a line, in the example, placing herself where cheating would be likely. I don't think Jophil ever said that thought, ideas or attraction won't occur to someone just that they don't have to act on every impulse they have. I believe women can be attracted to many men, but that doesn't mean she sleeps with all of them. that's what separates the slvts from the non-slvts.

your own views lack it too, although they are not lacking in ego which you seem to move mountains to protect. If you believe C&F is effective enough to use, then you have agreed that a display of social status is important in attraction haven't you? And if you agree that a womans pupils will dilate when she finds you attractive then surely that is an example of biological attraction at its most base.
You are a walking contradiction Jophil.

Again, I don't see how physical attraction and the physical reactions associated with it have anything to do with really anything here. The truth is everyone has what is seemingly contradictions including evolutionary psychologist. Although it's easy to not be contradictory when your solution to and attribution for everything is some indeterminate and invisible hand of evolution. That's not too far removed from someone attributing everything to the invisible hand of a god. When in both cases are sorts of things could be afoot, nature, nurture, enviroment etc. I don't think you really demnostrated how Jophil made a contradiction.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

You have taken this out of context. This is part of a broader debate that has been going on for a while now. Jophil has outright stated that evolutionary psychology is nothing but crackpot theory and that morals and society have a larger influence over attraction than status (looks, wealth, fame, power, etc).

Im not for a minute suggesting that he should not use C&F as a way to create and build attraction. As a method it works. Its just ironic that someone who has been so vocal and completely against the concept of evolutionary psychology and the effect it has on attraction would then cite biological cues as evidence of attraction and use PUA techniques like C&F to help create the perception of social status.

Sorry Keto. Im calling a spade a spade here. You cannot in one breath deny that status has a massive influence over attraction and in the other explain your use of techniques which were actually developed to create the perception of status in the first place. It lacks congruency and it is a contradiction in his views I am afraid.

As for the chick being worthy of respect for turning him down? A woman of character, IF THEY EXIST, would surely not have put herself in that position in the first place nor would she have disrespected her current husband/bf by flirting with Jophil. If a woman can do that and still have a chance to be considered a high quality woman then Jophil needs to review his standards a little I think.

I dont judge the woman. She is doing what woman do and its typical behaviour the majority will exhibit. Enjoying the attention of a man she is mildly attracted to, dragging a weaker safety net around with her until such time as she can replace him with something better. As long as your safety net is larger then everyone elses, she wont be going anywhere.

If Jophil was an *******, and I dont think he is, he would have continued to pursue this woman. Cudos to him for having the character not to do so. That speaks volumes about his morals, NOT HERS.

 

[jophil28]

Hardly.

A natural, biological indication of attraction like "dilated pupils and that glazed look" are something you will swallow hook, line and sinker yet completely disregard evolutionary psychology when it does not suit you.


You are a walking contradiction Jophil.

You approval or not is insignificant to me.

I suggest that you and your mentor, Str8uP acquire more life knowledge and experience before you presume to criticise anyone here.

 

[jophil28]

This sure seems like a non sequitur. Physical attraction=evolutionary psychology? What?

Hooligan apparently missed this point.
Bloated egos usually miss the essence of the issue, preferring instead to strut in the margins.

 

[Interceptor]

KontrollerX :

blah blah blah. Interceptor are teh sux!!I hate that dastardly fool!

:crackup:
Obsess much, kx?
Have you ever tried meditation??
It can help lower your stress levels. Its true. Look it up.





Great thread though.

 

[STR8UP]

You approval or not is insignificant to me.

I suggest that you and your mentor, Str8uP acquire more life knowledge and experience before you presume to criticise anyone here.

Mentor? Sh!t.....I was about to ask Harry for advice. I completely missed your obvious contradiction. And it IS an obvious contradiction.

If you were not so vehemently opposed to the idea that biology has a profound influence on our actions, and that our ability to "choose" is limited in its power to control us, you wouldn't be using or even speaking of anything that would remotely resemble evo-psych at work.

And Harry has eloquently pointed out yet another point of hypocrisy; you painted the morality target around the arrow of her deflecting your advance. If she were what you term "quality", she would never have felt the need to blatantly assert her sexuality when she was obviously off the market.

Although it's easy to not be contradictory when your solution to and attribution for everything is some indeterminate and invisible hand of evolution. That's not too far removed from someone attributing everything to the invisible hand of a god. When in both cases are sorts of things could be afoot, nature, nurture, enviroment etc.

The difference is, one invisible hand isn't so invisible (science to back it up) but the other one has never been seen by human eyes (except by a grandma on a slice of toast or a televangelist when he wants what is in your pocket).

OK C&F to further attraction and to create the illusion of social status is I think a fair assumption. But so what, it's just a choice of presentation. Jophil can't also wear nice clothes because that might create the illusion of social status? It's not like by using C&F he's lying about being a millionare or something similar.

That is essentially what displays of value are. The use of of C&F and the way you dress are cues to women as to your sexual value.

 

[guru1000]

I don’t think Jophil ignores attraction in the male/female dynamic. What he does not agree with is,

- Seduction will compensate for a man’s deficiencies
- A man or woman is SLAVE to his/her attraction
- A woman is FORCED to act on her attraction
- A woman holds no accountability because frankly she cannot help it, it’s evolutionary psychology at work
- The Tangibles (Looks, Wealth, Power) are of greater importance than the Intangibles( Integrity, Morals and Ethics) in a Man (not in attraction but in substance)


I think we can all AGREE that Looks, Wealth and Power are the primary motivators in initial attraction (Ladder Theory). I think we can also all AGREE that Looks, Wealth and Power will not make a woman RESPECT you (LT attraction) or keep a woman loyal. This is why it is important for men to focus on both, Tangibles and Intangibles. It is equally important that men do not sell out their Intangibles for Tangibles. Where the disagreements lie, is which is of greater importance. The fact remains the total package consists of both.

It is the intent for those who hold integrity in high regard to teach although a woman may be prompted by physical attraction, she is not FORCED to act on her desire. With this respect, we are holding her ACCOUNTABLE for her behavior and not excusing it. Some will state an AFC uses Integrity as a buffer for Rejection or even possible tolerance to bad behavior. I make the argument that Men who incorporate integrity are less susceptible to the influence of an AFC thought process. He will hold ALL women accountable for poor behavior simply because he MUST adhere to a code which in itself SHOULD include self respect. In the event a woman disrespects him, it is an autonomous unconscious response, he walks away.

On the subject of evolutionary psychology,

Everyone agrees that we have a desire to eat, f*ck and sleep. However, it is important to note that although we all have this desire, it does not justify a married woman cheating on her husband. This is the grey area that if often manipulated by both parties generally through straw man discussions.

At the end of the day, we are all accountable for the decisions we make. And it is within this responsibility, we can choose to surrender to all our innate impulses or having the discipline to act with standards that remain congruent to our code. Most importantly is the wisdom to know the difference.

 

[Interceptor]

G1000 wrote:

Most importantly is the wisdom to know the difference

Unfortunately, many people dont value wisdom. They instead value the information, not the wisdom derived from it and the wisdom and discernment on how to use and act on that information.
But Wisdom and Information are not the same.


Nothing 'stands still'.


We are either regressing or expanding. We can certainly stagnate though..
Certain choices we make take us into one direction or the other.

 

[Zunder]

You have taken this out of context. This is part of a broader debate that has been going on for a while now. Jophil has outright stated that evolutionary psychology is nothing but crackpot theory and that morals and society have a larger influence over attraction than status (looks, wealth, fame, power, etc).

Im not for a minute suggesting that he should not use C&F as a way to create and build attraction. As a method it works. Its just ironic that someone who has been so vocal and completely against the concept of evolutionary psychology and the effect it has on attraction would then cite biological cues as evidence of attraction and use PUA techniques like C&F to help create the perception of social status.

Sorry Keto. Im calling a spade a spade here. You cannot in one breath deny that status has a massive influence over attraction and in the other explain your use of techniques which were actually developed to create the perception of status in the first place. It lacks congruency and it is a contradiction in his views I am afraid.

As for the chick being worthy of respect for turning him down? A woman of character, IF THEY EXIST, would surely not have put herself in that position in the first place nor would she have disrespected her current husband/bf by flirting with Jophil. If a woman can do that and still have a chance to be considered a high quality woman then Jophil needs to review his standards a little I think.

I dont judge the woman. She is doing what woman do and its typical behaviour the majority will exhibit. Enjoying the attention of a man she is mildly attracted to, dragging a weaker safety net around with her until such time as she can replace him with something better. As long as your safety net is larger then everyone elses, she wont be going anywhere.

If Jophil was an *******, and I dont think he is, he would have continued to pursue this woman. Cudos to him for having the character not to do so. That speaks volumes about his morals, NOT HERS.

I am with Hooligan on this.
She doesn't deserve any respect whatsover.
Her husband should have b1tch slapped her - period. She 100% disrespected him. Yet the pvssy stood back (so it seems) and did nothing but watch her flirt with Jophill.

 

[ketostix]

The difference is, one invisible hand isn't so invisible (science to back it up) but the other one has never been seen by human eyes (except by a grandma on a slice of toast or a televangelist when he wants what is in your pocket).

We are talking about human attraction and behavior here. There's very little evolutionary science to explain this invisible hand. Human behavior is what it is. It's not sloth behavior, or ant, or some species of reptile.

That is essentially what displays of value are. The use of of C&F and the way you dress are cues to women as to your sexual value.

Ok but where does evolutionary psychology play into this then? What other species uses C+F and dress style to cue the opposite sex to sexual value? Can't you see it's all speculation and apples and oranges comparisons.

Ok Samspade you made some good points.

The problem with the anti-evolution crowd is that they turn science into a competing version of God, which makes it easier to attack.

I wouldn't say the "anti-evolution" crowd here goes that far, but the evolution crowd sure goes to the other extreme. They basically say that what ever a woman does must be because of evolution, and it's the invisible hand of evolution's master plan, so it's inevitable and they throw their arms in the air. But just maybe they are engaging in some faulty attribution. Maybe it's also part of evolution's master plan to for men to dislike hors etc. Point is, the reasons humans differ from other species in the sexual behavior isn't because of reasons pulled out of thin air. Isn't the ability to reason itself part of the plan for humans? Personally I consider evolution indeterminate. If anything it's the evolution crowd that turns "science" into a competing version of God to make it easier to attack any criticism. Take the "science" of psychology itself. EV Psy is not the only way of analyzing human behavior.

 

[ketostix]

You have taken this out of context. This is part of a broader debate that has been going on for a while now. Jophil has outright stated that evolutionary psychology is nothing but crackpot theory and that morals and society have a larger influence over attraction than status (looks, wealth, fame, power, etc).

OK fine but I did not take your post out of context. I'm not here to defend Jophil or anyone else. I am commenting what you said. To put it in a broader context than that to me is taking things out of context.

Im not for a minute suggesting that he should not use C&F as a way to create and build attraction. As a method it works. Its just ironic that someone who has been so vocal and completely against the concept of evolutionary psychology and the effect it has on attraction would then cite biological cues as evidence of attraction and use PUA techniques like C&F to help create the perception of social status.

I still say this is a non sequitur. Biological cues and C+F=evolutionary psychology. I just think you are creating a strawman.

Sorry Keto. Im calling a spade a spade here. You cannot in one breath deny that status has a massive influence over attraction and in the other explain your use of techniques which were actually developed to create the perception of status in the first place. It lacks congruency and it is a contradiction in his views I am afraid.

The only way it is maybe a contradiction is because you and Jophil's fundamental beliefs differ. You are saying creating the perception of status through techniques is Ev psy at work, and I'm sure Jophil will say it represents something else. That's not a contradiction, that's a disagreement. Who is right is another matter. I'm just not seeing the contradiction you claim.

As for the chick being worthy of respect for turning him down? A woman of character, IF THEY EXIST, would surely not have put herself in that position in the first place nor would she have disrespected her current husband/bf by flirting with Jophil. If a woman can do that and still have a chance to be considered a high quality woman then Jophil needs to review his standards a little I think.

OK this is a difference in what you consider a woman of character constituting. One person might set the bar at "perfection" another might set it a little lower "as long as she doesn't cheat" for instance. I tend to agree with you that this woman's character is suspect.

I dont judge the woman. She is doing what woman do and its typical behaviour the majority will exhibit. Enjoying the attention of a man she is mildly attracted to, dragging a weaker safety net around with her until such time as she can replace him with something better. As long as your safety net is larger then everyone elses, she wont be going anywhere.

If Jophil was an *******, and I dont think he is, he would have continued to pursue this woman. Cudos to him for having the character not to do so. That speaks volumes about his morals, NOT HERS.

Here's where I think you are contradictory. You say you don't judge the woman, yet you judge her to a fairly high standard. While I agree that Jophil showed more character than the girl did, why would you give him kudos for having character, and say he has good morals? Why would you give him kudos for doing something that is consider against ev psy "plan"?

 

[STR8UP]

We are talking about human attraction and behavior here. There's very little evolutionary science to explain this invisible hand. Human behavior is what it is. It's not sloth behavior, or ant, or some species of reptile.

Forget about "evolution" here, the real argument is biology.

"Is nature exerting control on our behaviors?"

I don't understand how you could reach any conclusion other than "yes".

Aside from the research that HAS been done that supports the idea of say, a woman dressing "sexier" when she is ovulating, all you have to do is look around you and you will see patterns of behavior. It's pretty damn easy to draw your own conclusions about things based upon observing the world around you.

Ok but where does evolutionary psychology play into this then? What other species uses C+F and dress style to cue the opposite sex to sexual value? Can't you see it's all speculation and apples and oranges comparisons.

You need to read this

Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at University College-London, argues that much of human character and culture arose for the same reason peacocks have beautiful tails: mating purposes. A peacock that can find enough to eat and avoid being eaten despite such an enormous appendage must have very good genes; by displaying its tail, then, a peacock displays its potential to be a good mate. Miller looks at several kinds of sexual selection. "Romantic" behavior like the making of complex art wouldn't have helped our ancestors find more food or avoid predators. It might, however, have helped display the fitness of proto-men for the proto-women with whom they wanted to mate--and vice versa. If we like to show off our large vocabularies, it's at least in part because our ancestors sought smart partners.

You talked about "choice of presentation". Where does that "choice" stem from? When you buy fashionable clothes and interact with a woman with a C&F attitude, you think that's random? No, it comes from a man who wishes to create higher value in the eyes of a potential mate, no different than the guy who buffs up at the gym or the super rich entreprenuer who throws lavish parties. It all goes back to biological urges to get laid. And it does so whether you are aware of your motives or not.

Maybe it's also evolution's natural plan to for men to dislike hors etc.

It is.

 

[STR8UP]

I still say this is a non sequitur. Biological cues and C+F=evolutionary psychology. I just think you are creating a strawman.

Get rid of the evolution stuff already. Bad choice of words. It's BIOLOGY that we are talking about. Not "how it evolved" which is another topic altogether (see the link in my last post). Jophil categorically denounces the role of biology, yet brings up experiences in his life that are obviously biologically driven. THAT is the issue.

The only way it is maybe a contradiction is because you and Jophil's fundamental beliefs differ. You are saying creating the perception of status through techniques is Ev psy at work, and I'm sure Jophil will say it represents something else.

That's the problem with the counter argument. It is "belief" based, there is no science whatsoever behind it, and when pressed for an explanation that is BETTER than "biology is a primary motivator for human behavior" all they can do is refer to the "higher self" argument that states that are behavior is driven by our upbringing.

"Life" exists long before the individual is cognizant of much of anything. "Biology" put you on the planet in the first place. People tend to overlook or forget that.

 

[ketostix]

Get rid of the evolution stuff already. Bad choice of words. It's BIOLOGY that we are talking about. Not "how it evolved" which is another topic altogether (see the link in my last post).

I'm fine with that and agree. How female behavior exactly came into existence is a separate question and is not really relevant to what it actually is now. What is relevant is what it actually is. But in this case Hooligan Harry cleary said attraction=biology=evolutionary psychology. Let's forget about the word biology for now, and simply make it about female and human behavior and attraction. That's where the contention most likely lies. Just what is ideal human behavior or even common, dominant behavior? What really causes attraction? It's not cut and dry. Looking to a peacock's tail in itself does not lead to the conclusion that women are attracted to a 3-piece suit. It's a valid conclusion only after looking at it after attributing (possibly faulty) the suit to female attraction. I'm not really sure how to word it but it simply takes every observation and assumes it's part of some evolutionary master plan. Feminism can even be part of the master evolutionary plan. Do you see the slippery slope I'm getting at?

Jophil categorically denounces the role of biology, yet brings up experiences in his life that are obviously biologically driven. THAT is the issue.

I don't know that he does this or if he just differs on just what is biologically driven.

That's the problem with the counter argument. It is "belief" based, there is no science whatsoever behind it, and when pressed for an explanation that is BETTER than "biology is a primary motivator for human behavior" all they can do is refer to the "higher self" argument that states that are behavior is driven by our upbringing.

"Life" exists long before the individual is cognizant of much of anything. "Biology" put you on the planet in the first place. People tend to overlook or forget that.

Biology gave a few higher order species and humans conscience and self-awareness too. The question is just what is the true nature of this. What I said is it's not very scientific to answer the question by attributing everything to an invisible evolutionary hand and master plan. Neither is anecdotal stories. We would need to apply statistical analysis to a lot of things we simply don't have enough information about before we can say a conclusion on human behavior is scientific.