Unattractive girls are similar to most guys

[Pandora]

I was having a convo with a female friend of mine and she opened my eyes to something. She went on this rant that unattractive females ( she is unattractive and admits it) generally have the same dating success as what we will refer to as an AFC. She also stated that much of the behavior of attractive women which includes the flaking, mixed signals, ***** shields and generally manipulative behavior is not biologically motivated. It is a product of having alot of sexual options. If it were purely evolutionary even ugly chicks would behave this way. She states that many unattractive girls are frustrated by the same behaviors that guys have to learn to deal with. She also stated that many average to unattractive girls are willing to accept any half decent normal guy who is not a loser. She told me that most average girls are frustrated by guys because it seems like desirable guys are chasing all the hot girls. She claims that ugly- average girls and AFC's are plagued by many of the same problems like mixed signals and flakiness when dealing with the opposite sex.
This is interesting because we generally tend to think that all females have no real dating problems. That they can get their sexual and relationship desires fulfilled anytime they want. This may only be the case for very attractive women. Most females in the world are not attractive, its just that we do not notice them. The top 20% of attractive females must live in a reality totally divorced from the experiences of un attractive females. If my friend is correct then by changing the social forces that give attractive women so much leverage sexually, one can get them to act more like the ugly down to earth girl. According to her their selective behavior is not evolutionary but merely social conditioning. What do you guys think?

 

[Jitterbug]

She also stated that many average to unattractive girls are willing to accept any half decent normal guy who is not a loser.

Translation: she wants a guy in the top 10% (half decent). She'd rather have one from the top 1% (decent) but competition is too fierce.

Next time you hang out with her, ask her which specific guys (in your social circle or out in public) that she would accept. Or play "Fvck Marry Kill" with her.

A few things I've noticed about less attractive women:

- They pine for the same guys that the attractive ones do.
- They actually get approached by a lot of guys that they call "losers" - i.e average guys, with the occasional attractive fellas. Certain girls get many attractive guys - a friend of mine that I've posted about here is one of those.
- They're no less picky than the attractive ones, but stand out more and piss you off more because they don't have as much to offer.
- Despite having less to offer, they'd rather b!tch & whine than get off their arses and do something, like approach a guy and ask him out.

 

[survivorman]

A less attractive woman will often develop an interest a male-dominated activity, such as motorcycles or bicycles or whatever. This will elevate her status (within a select (target) group of men from, say a 2-3 to maybe 6-7 within the target audience of males.

The problem with pursuing one of these AW's is:
a) they're not that hot, and
b) there's lots of competition for them

I've experienced this first-hand a few times, and now see though this attention-getting, and deceptive behavior.

So yes, less attractive women can be as manipluative as the hotties.
Their tactics are just different.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

For as much sympathy as I can muster, at the end of the day she still has the vagina. One of the most annoying modern myths is the "women want sex as much as guys do" myth. The brutal truth is, they don't. This lower-value girl's breeding methodology is one of male identification ("I'm in the same boat you are"), but she's still a female, so until she miraculously produces 17 times the amount of testosterone her body is currently producing, then I'm sorry, but it IS biological.

Women's bio-psychological breeding imperatives are ALWAYS going to be at odds with men's - monogamy and parental investment imperative versus polygynous/polyamorous imperative. A man must sacrifice his breeding imperative for a woman to achieve her own. As frustrating as it may be for an "average" guy to deal with Flakiness, B!tch Shields and a host of other filtering tactics, even HB 4s and 5s use their own to test for intimate acceptability. In fact, it should be noted that lower sexual market value women, well aware of their station, devise more effective "holding devices" - 'accidental' pregnancy, psychological manipulations, LTR/Marriage accountability issues, etc. - to ensure that the guy they do hook up with stays locked into her. Faced with losing that long term provisioning and/or having to reenter the sexual market, it's easy to understand why lower-value women are often the most jealously (neurotically) possessive in an LTR.

 

[Proselytiser]

Having sexual options will make you act like that... this is no breakthrough here

On the other hand, conditioning clearly plays a part. If someone is continually rewarded for a behaviour, they continue it...

 

[Tazman]

I agree that attractive women display those behaviors simply because they can, but the uglies will do similar things in an effort to artificially inflate their value. The same sort of thing that is recommended to guys here in order to get what we want from women in general (although it's more like a fake-it-till-you-make-it). It works great too.

However, the less attractive women are generally more humble and easy going because they need to be. An aloof, *****y, ugly woman is going to be really low on the totem pole.

 

[ChumpNoMore]

A less attractive woman will often develop an interest a male-dominated activity, such as motorcycles or bicycles or whatever. This will elevate her status (within a select (target) group of men from, say a 2-3 to maybe 6-7 within the target audience of males.

The problem with pursuing one of these AW's is:
a) they're not that hot, and
b) there's lots of competition for them

I've experienced this first-hand a few times, and now see though this attention-getting, and deceptive behavior.

So yes, less attractive women can be as manipluative as the hotties.
Their tactics are just different.

Solid, very true!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Women have sex for ulterior motives, i.e. landing a man. Notice once a woman gets married, the sex drops. Why? She has a legal contract that binds the nuts of the guy she's married to.

I suppose I should qualify that a bit more. It's not that women don't enjoy or want sex, it's just the comparison that they want it as much as men that's a fallacy. A healthy male produces 17 times the testosterone women do - thus deeper voices, more hair, muscular growth, and higher sex drives. A woman at the peak of her testosterone production (ovulation in her menstrual cycle) will NEVER experience what men do 24-7. Women wanting sex as much as men is a biological impossibility unless she's on steroids. Anyone telling you differently is trying to sell you on something.

 

[horaholic]

Women LIKE sex as much or more than guys, but they dont have that biological 'need' that men do. I've never been with a chick that wasn't as horny as me all the time, but its definitely not on their mind all day the way it is for me.

 

[edger]

Who knows why women really flake, throw out mixed signals, throw up b*tch shields, etc., etc. These displays of behavior could be interpreted to mean different things, and you'll never really know the real answer. We can only speculate here why attractive women do what they do. I can see why they'd display these behaviors with guys they like(they want to make sure he's not an AFC), but at the same time, I can't, because it risks loosing the guy and having him walk away. Think about it, what self-respecting guy who has pride in himself is going to put up with this? OR, the other way these behaviors can be interpreted, is to mean, she's simply not interested. That's the first thing I think, and just cut my loses right there. In the case of flaking, if it happens once, no big deal(sh*t does happen), but if it persists, I'm going to start to wonder, and will break my ties and walk away. I'm not going to be made to look like an idiot.

All I can say is, thank God men have other outlets, where attractive women agree to play for pay by offering themselves to us for money, working as prostitutes/escorts. Thank God women love $$$ so much, cause if they didn't, lots of us would be up the creek and suffer from sexual frustration. So I guess guy's it's really a blessing that they're into money. As much as we complain about how much a lot of them are into money, afterall, it's a blessing and works out for us.

 

[Stagger Lee]

She also stated that much of the behavior of attractive women which includes the flaking, mixed signals, ***** shields and generally manipulative behavior is not biologically motivated. It is a product of having alot of sexual options. If it were purely evolutionary even ugly chicks would behave this way.

I thought this was a very interesting post and the above quoted part is the crux of the matter. I agree and disagree with her.

I believe that women's behavior is a mostly a product of having a lot of sexual options and just options in general and this is in large part due to society and not just biology. But it's part biology because men are driven for quantity in sexual options, while women are not. This creates the overabundance in supply of men for women in the first place.

Where I disagree the most with your friend is that "ugly" girls don't have more options too. An ugly girl nowadays still has about as much options as a top tier guy. When your friend stated, " If it were purely evolutionary even ugly chicks would behave this way", the thing is ugly girls now do behave that way. But that doesn't prove that is evolutionary or nature. It is environment and nurture because in the past ugly girls didn't have the options they have nowadays. So your friend's statement here would be true if you look at things historically.

What your friend did, typical of a woman, is to overstate the plight of "uglier" women, and downplayed how many options they actually have and how they acted similar to hot girls. Also, she failed to see that women hot or not being in more sexual demand than men are is mostly due to nature in the first place.

Women being in more demand by men than men are in demand by women is the first impetus and is primarily due to nature more than environment and society.

This is why in order there to be equality as the feminist claimed they wanted things would had to been the way they were before feminism. Men would have to hold an economic advantage to redress the sexual advantage women naturally hold. Feminism got rid of men's economic advantage so now women are holding all the cards.

 

[zekko]

Where I disagree the most with your friend is that "ugly" girls don't have more options too. An ugly girl nowadays still has about as much options as a top tier guy.

If you're talking about just getting laid that's probably true. But as much as girls enjoy sex, what I think the ugly girls really want is to be appreciated as an attractive individual by someone of the opposite sex. More of a relationship option, rather than just the pump and dump. I don't think that many girls go out saying "oh, I must get fvcked by some strange man tonight". I know some do, but I think they're the exceptions.

And that's where I really see ugly girls getting the short end of the stick. Some luck into some desperate guy, true. But I know some hosebeasts and I can't believe any guy even gives them the time of day. Most of the uglier girls I know have to settle for the "bottom of the barrel" guys, molester type alcoholics, trailer park trash, etc. These are the only guys who are willing to commit to these girls long term.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Who knows why women really flake, throw out mixed signals, throw up b*tch shields, etc., etc. These displays of behavior could be interpreted to mean different things, and you'll never really know the real answer.

All you're doing here is perpetuating the myth of the feminine mystique (i.e. women are unknowable, random, capricious, ambiguous, etc.) What you think is arbitrary behavior is actually very calculated behavior, with specific, latent purposes. ALL women will filter men for intimate acceptability, even men they've been married and intimate with for years.

Women will sh!t test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman's big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they're aware of doing it themselves they'll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence. This is innate and 'hard-wired', not some random occurrence.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I suppose I should qualify that a bit more. It's not that women don't enjoy or want sex, it's just the comparison that they want it as much as men that's a fallacy. A healthy male produces 17 times the testosterone women do - thus deeper voices, more hair, muscular growth, and higher sex drives. A woman at the peak of her testosterone production (ovulation in her menstrual cycle) will NEVER experience what men do 24-7. Women wanting sex as much as men is a biological impossibility unless she's on steroids. Anyone telling you differently is trying to sell you on something.

Everything in your analysis is biology and chemistry, but what about psychology? The girls I have had the most sex with were never quite right in the head: OCD, BPD, bipolar, low self-esteem, history of past abuse. They had a psychological need for the emotional validation of sex. That may not be the same as saying they want it on a chemical level, but from my perspective it ends up the same.

 

[mrRuckus]

Most women's problems are solved by eating less cups of noodles and exercising more.

 

[Stagger Lee]

If you're talking about just getting laid that's probably true. But as much as girls enjoy sex, what I think the ugly girls really want is to be appreciated as an attractive individual by someone of the opposite sex. More of a relationship option, rather than just the pump and dump. I don't think that many girls go out saying "oh, I must get fvcked by some strange man tonight". I know some do, but I think they're the exceptions.

You know that's what women say too, but I don't buy it. It doesn't really matter what the motives are for a guy's interest in a girl, but it's not all just hump and dump. Men will give up a lot just for that anyway. So it is a lot better than not being wanted/needed for anything like the average male is. I would not buy women just want a guy that genuinely is attracted to her. Women will lose all interst in a guy once they know he is genuinely interested in them. I don't believe that "ugly" girls are wanted for just a hump and dump or that's all that men are offering these girls. I don't really buy that all women really want is to be considered attractive.

And that's where I really see ugly girls getting the short end of the stick. Some luck into some desperate guy, true. But I know some hosebeasts and I can't believe any guy even gives them the time of day. Most of the uglier girls I know have to settle for the "bottom of the barrel" guys, molester type alcoholics, trailer park trash, etc. These are the only guys who are willing to commit to these girls long term.

Well I disagree. I see more hot girls with truely bottom of the barrel guys than anything. And I also see plenty of handsome in shape guys with ugly. fat girls. You are trying to say women do not have the sexual/relationship advantage but they do. What your saying might have been more true 20, 30 or more eyars ago, but certainly not now.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Everything in your analysis is biology and chemistry, but what about psychology? The girls I have had the most sex with were never quite right in the head: OCD, BPD, bipolar, low self-esteem, history of past abuse. They had a psychological need for the emotional validation of sex. That may not be the same as saying they want it on a chemical level, but from my perspective it ends up the same.

What I believe is sex drive is not as simple as high testosterone=high sex drive and high estrogen/low T=low sex drive. I believe sex drive has other pathways. While not totally similar, for example what hormone drives people to use drugs? None particuallarly but the drive is there. Sex is like a drug to women and women can tend to be junkies.

I think T if anything makes men more driven to sexual variety and to have sex for its own sake. And estrogen may have effects that do not drive for variety or sex for its own sake. But that doesn't mean a woman can't have as high or higher sex drive. If a woman is attracted and has a "relationship" or at least comfort/connection with a man, many of them have a sex drive exceeding most men.

I think testosterone and estrogen mostly affect sexual expression more so than just the drive. For instance men are driven to seeing naked women and having sex with them while women are driven by talking and and imagining scenarios with a specific man. It's just two different types of sex drives and two types of expression but not necesarily to differnt levels of intensity.

 

[wait_out]

I lost you there?????

Found.

http://www.uncoached.com/2009/12/10/women-as-horny-as-men/

And I think the whole seduction community operates on this cycle as well. Arousal before desire. Science is cool eh?

http://www.arhp.org/uploadImages/nynfigure3.gif

 

[SAYNO]

I thought this was a very interesting post and the above quoted part is the crux of the matter. I agree and disagree with her.

I believe that women's behavior is a mostly a product of having a lot of sexual options and just options in general and this is in large part due to society and not just biology. But it's part biology because men are driven for quantity in sexual options, while women are not. This creates the overabundance in supply of men for women in the first place.

Where I disagree the most with your friend is that "ugly" girls don't have more options too. An ugly girl nowadays still has about as much options as a top tier guy. When your friend stated, " If it were purely evolutionary even ugly chicks would behave this way", the thing is ugly girls now do behave that way. But that doesn't prove that is evolutionary or nature. It is environment and nurture because in the past ugly girls didn't have the options they have nowadays. So your friend's statement here would be true if you look at things historically.

What your friend did, typical of a woman, is to overstate the plight of "uglier" women, and downplayed how many options they actually have and how they acted similar to hot girls. Also, she failed to see that women hot or not being in more sexual demand than men are is mostly due to nature in the first place.

Women being in more demand by men than men are in demand by women is the first impetus and is primarily due to nature more than environment and society.

This is why in order there to be equality as the feminist claimed they wanted things would had to been the way they were before feminism. Men would have to hold an economic advantage to redress the sexual advantage women naturally hold. Feminism got rid of men's economic advantage so now women are holding all the cards.

Bingo, Bango!

Your post is accurate and to the point..

Bravo!

Best post on this subject here so far!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

What I believe is sex drive is not as simple as high testosterone=high sex drive and high estrogen/low T=low sex drive. I believe sex drive has other pathways. While not totally similar, for example what hormone drives people to use drugs? None particuallarly but the drive is there. Sex is like a drug to women and women can tend to be junkies.

Women's sex drive is set in a cyclic pattern that matches their monthly ovulatory cycle, whereas men's reamains realitively constant and subject to environemental arousal. Women are significantly more prone to arousal (and sexual activity) when they're at the peak of their fertility in their ovulatory cycle (i.e. their highest point of testosterone production) - usually week 2 after their last menstruation. A parallel to this is the daily "morning wood" cycle in men. The highest testosterone levels men experience is within the first hours before and after waking from sleep. This is due to the body's buildup of hormones and endocrines (serotonin, melotonin, etc.) needed to produce recouperative, restful sleep. Thus the tendency to wake up with a raging hard-on.

That's not to say environmental or psychological factors don't apply to women's sexual arousal, but it is to say that the comparison of the female libido being equitable to male libido is fantasy. The biological comparison of sex drive to what prompts drug abuse is completely misleading. There are no unconditioned environmental prompts that motivate a person to use drugs - uneducated, a person doesn't instinctively know that a certain herb or mushroom will get them high, but they will instinctually become sexually aroused by environmental prompts. The Playboy centerfold is still going to give you a hard-on whether you've previously experienced one or not.