Ugly freaks and sexual selection

[francoatgrex]

Why the peahen tends to select the best-looking peacock? Why physically attractive males and females have much more reproductive success than ugly losers? Animals including humans base their selection of the opposite sex upon beauty [The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex]. Physically attractive males do not need to resort to bull**** tricks and tactics to attract women, women flock towards them even if they don't lift a finger. If you're ugly you're doomed to failure no matter what you do, stop deluding yourselves and that's that!

 

[Drdeee]

But you take the ugliest freak and make him successful, career, own business, yachts, private planes, millions, and suddenly women flock to the ugly guy.

Natural selection favors success to beauty.

If beauty is what women are after, then they'd all be lesbians. Women are after masculinity, and a successful ugly guy is much more masculine than just a beautiful guy.

I'm sorry to say this, but the line of thought relating beauty and guys is simply gay.

 

[BigJimbo]

But you take the ugliest freak and make him successful, career, own business, yachts, private planes, millions, and suddenly women flock to the ugly guy.

Natural selection favors success to beauty.

If beauty is what women are after, then they'd all be lesbians. Women are after masculinity, and a successful ugly guy is much more masculine than just a beautiful guy.

I'm sorry to say this, but the line of thought relating beauty and guys is simply gay.

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. A golden post! Even gay men don't all flock to good looking guys. Young gay guys tend to hookup with older men with money. Older gay men with money enjoy young gay boys. Admit it, money is sexy. Hell, if you have ever stayed in an amazing hotel you would go gay if you had to.

 

[Just a Shot Away]

Stop feeding the troll, geniuses.

 

[blueline]

This guy is more or less right.

You can find out whether a woman is down to fuck without even talking to her sometimes. You know how you'll often helplessly take a quick glance when you see a woman that tickles your fancy even if she's not interacting with your current crew? Same thing happens with women. These are the girls that want you. It is your game to lose with them. Truly, you've already won, so just don't come off as a desperate loser and you're all set. You don't need to resort to any tricks/tactics to get these women as you've already won them over.

Realizing the power of looks in this game is a beautiful thing. If you start talking to a girl and she doesn't give you flirty come-on signals after 5 minutes of interaction (depending on the context surrounding your interaction, these can be subtle signals!), then you can be secure in moving onto the next girl very quickly. You also avoid flakey girls that are merely exchanging social pleasantries with you and not trying to hurt anybody's ego (remember that time a girl gave you her number and then turned you down for a date?); it will be obvious that these girls aren't interested.

My point is that when a girl is physically attracted to you, she'll let you know and that avoids all the complexity of trying to play with her psychology through tactics.

 

[francoatgrex]

But you take the ugliest freak and make him successful, career, own business, yachts, private planes, millions, and suddenly women flock to the ugly guy.

Sure, it's just as easy as that, isn't it, take an ugly guy and "make him successful"? You'll always find exceptions but know this is the rule: "Those who consoled themselves with the thought that there is more to life than being really good-looking are in for a shock. For the beautiful people are not just pleasing on the eye: it seems they are also wealthier, more successful and much easier to get on with"... read more in the article published in the Journal of Economic Psychology, and also in The Independent: "Beautiful people earn 12% more than Ugly Bettys"...

 

[francoatgrex]

also this:
"...when women though they were connected to a lie detector, they admitted being more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the men and described physically attractive men as more desirable; When they were not connected to the apparatus, the women tended to under-report the impact of the men's physical attractiveness on their preferences (Genest 1994)". Apparently, a social norm tends to inhibit women from admitting the importance of physical attraction...

[QUOTE
I'm sorry to say this, but the line of thought relating beauty and guys is simply gay.[/QUOTE]

See above; your point about success and money is true but as I mentioned in a previous post, material, social and political success and physical attractiveness are very much correlated. I hope you realize when we talk about men's physical attractiveness we're not talking about luscious lips and large hips...

 

[francoatgrex]

This guy is more or less right.

Thanks for at least considering the possibility. In fact, *I* am not right, it's what I said that is right and it's not coming from me, it's a lot of research that has proven it, therefore I can take neither credit nor blame for it... I happen to agree with what has being studied and concluded.

 

[Uberguy]

Thanks for at least considering the possibility. In fact, *I* am not right, it's what I said that is right and it's not coming from me, it's a lot of research that has proven it, therefore I can take neither credit nor blame for it... I happen to agree with what has being studied and concluded.

No.

People are not to be confused with peahens and peacocks. You'll note that in our species, it is the females that are more aesthetically showy than the males. Female humans are far more focused on a guy's status (e.g. confidence, money, title, achievements) than what he looks like.

Women like looks as a secondary characteristic, but only secondary. A fit and handsome AFC will lose out to a confident and successful plain-looking guy every time.

 

[powpow]

Troll or not, this is an interesting topic.

Sexual selection is based on the ability to recreate viable offspring, and is more or less based on functionality of traits first, then secondary "peacocking" characteristics, which have their own variation and combination of selectability based on everything from aesthetic appearance to societal norms.

For instance, a guy with three functional arms may still have a genetic advantage to us jerks with only 2, but I still foresee him having a tough time getting laid.

So, functionality of all traits are selected for. Such as say boldness and cunning. A long time ago, boldness and cunning would lead to better hunting abilities, giving him societal status, and of course real food which he could give to his family. Selection. Now, we dont hunt like that, but those traits are still selected for. An woman would much rather have the food for her and her family than a beautiful man and starve to death. Its instinctual.

 

[nismo-4]

So guys...
Chase success, not women. :rockon:

Hell Yeah! Case closed!