I have expectations for myself that dont fly out the window depending on how Im feeling in a given moment.SXS said:Are you saying that you are not ?
I have expectations for myself that dont fly out the window depending on how Im feeling in a given moment.SXS said:Are you saying that you are not ?
I dunno if it was because of the seed. She didn't find the mexican attractive and Sean was a blue eyed blond which is rearer so probably more highly valued. She said she loved the look of her child but every mother says that. Even Sean tried to convince himself that the child was his. She's just a wh*re. Remember that she said she liked to be independant and have a good time before she met Sean.STR8UP said:The lesson to be learned is that the duality of a woman's biological imperative is alive and well.
And this dude WAS higher value. Higher value for his SEED. Sean was valuable for his beta provider role. Note the way she dotes over her baby's exotic features and Sean's undying devotion. Alpha seed, beta farmer. Best of both worlds.
How often does this play out where the dad is none the wiser, raising another guys kid? How often does the cheating happen without the pregnancy?
Anyone who doubts the prevalence of this type of thing should read more of Roissy's stuff. Quite an eye opener, if you have the balls to stomach the truth.
Fine words.Danger said:The ramifications would be the same. Any man who would control his destiny wouldn't succumb to the desire he has at any particular moment in time.
What you want and what is in your best interest are very often two different things. A statement I've seen here perfectly reflects that wisdom....."anything you can't say no to is your master".
Use this knowledge to make yourself masterless. Use the same knowledge to identify the upper tier of acceptable women, those who can say NO despite whatever desire is passing through their mind at the moment.
I was talking about more in the sense that you are the master of your life, so you will do whatever you want with whomever you want, because in the end, the consequences are for yourself as well.scottfall said:I have expectations for myself that dont fly out the window depending on how Im feeling in a given moment.
What you're describing is a form of genetic opportunism that both sexes employ to some degree. Terms of convenience like 'shallow' or 'gold digger' work for men because it allows us to categorize varying extremes of women's behaviors when we're even slightly aware of them in order to protect our egos or justify a rejection. Women benefit by these terms because they're useful tools in disqualifying their genetic rivals. Remember, on a base level they're competing for the best seed and provisioning, and if they can disqualify an obviously superior female by encouraging the perception that she's a "slut", "shallow" or a "gold digger" so much the better.ketostix said:But wouldn't you say there's something off about a woman who puts genetics above the provisioning ability ("shallow"). Or a woman who puts provisioning above genetic quality ("gold digger"), or worse a woman who tries to acquire each from 2 men simultaneously instead of finding a balance in one man?
Well couldn't this also work in reverse? For convenience in protecting one's ego and justifying a selection one could fail to categorize someone as a slut, gold digger or shallow?Rollo Tomassi said:What you're describing is a form of genetic opportunism that both sexes employ to some degree. Terms of convenience like 'shallow' or 'gold digger' work for men because it allows us to categorize varying extremes of women's behaviors when we're even slightly aware of them in order to protect our egos or justify a rejection. Women benefit by these terms because they're useful tools in disqualifying their genetic rivals. Remember, on a base level they're competing for the best seed and provisioning, and if they can disqualify an obviously superior female by encouraging the perception that she's a "slut", "shallow" or a "gold digger" so much the better.
I think what I'd say is it's not so important whether her behavior is rooted in opportunistic drives by nature, enviroment or a combination of the two. I'd say things like morals come from the same place as any other drive. I don't see why people would make a big distinction between "man made" and nature. It was nature that gave the ability to reason and make decisions and a native sense of fairness in the first place. So I consider a "moralistic" drive to be of equal stature to an opportunistic drive. What I would say is people vary significantly in their personality and traits they express.Now, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the SS moralists, bear in mind, behavior is not an excuse unto itself. We can wag our finger at her for being the self-absorbed sexual opportunist, and we can equally roll our eyes at her cuckold husband, but the mechanics of her behavior are rooted in this opportunism. I'm not excusing the behavior, but it is in every Man's interest to know the motivators for it, and plan accordingly.
The objective of the application of those (perjorative) words is not to protect our egos at all... the objective is hopefully disqualify those women from the marriage pool.ketostix said:Well couldn't this also work in reverse? For convenience in protecting one's ego and justifying a selection one could fail to categorize someone as a slut, gold digger or shallow?
.
jophil28 said:The objective of the application of those (perjorative) words is not to protect our egos at all... the objective is hopefully disqualify those women from the marriage pool.
I realize that the the more liberal among us find value judgements abhorrent( " just not nice ") but those words were created by men for a purpose - self protection.
Absolutely. I'll even go so far as to agree with JOPHIL; yes, by their original intent they are most definitely terms used to define a person's character. That's why the term 'slut' is such a wonderful tool for women. Women compete for attention from men. They use attention (both in their own circle and from men) as a currency for establishing their social status and affirming (though mostly subconsciously) their self-worth. When a woman calls another a 'slut' she's essentially saying "that woman sleeps around so much that she'll never make a good long term mate" or "guys shouldn't mate with her because she can't be trusted to be loyal." It's an attack meant not only to ostracize the 'slut' from the collective, but also to disqualify her from the attentions of any desirable male they happen to be competing for.ketostix said:Well couldn't this also work in reverse? For convenience in protecting one's ego and justifying a selection one could fail to categorize someone as a slut, gold digger or shallow?
What happens, IN HER MIND, is that she comes to see you as WORTHLESS simply because she hasn't had to INVEST anything in you in order to get you or to keep you.
You were an interesting diversion while she had nothing else to do. But now that someone a little more valuable has come along, someone who expects her to treat him very well, she'll have no problem at all dropping you or demoting you to lowly "friendship" status.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Firstly, there is no evidence that ALL American women ( or Australian or British) are " all sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees" ....Sure, most women prefer that "their man" has the material resouces or the ability to acquire resouces to provide for her needs, (and perhaps the needs of her future children) . That does not make her a gold digger. That describes a woman who has a well developed sense of self protection and survival.ketostix said:For example I set the criteria on behavior and I could label all American women sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees. How does that put me in more hazard of being duped by a woman than someone who says it's all gray and indeterminate if a woman is a slut or gold digger?
:rockon: :rockon: :rockon: :rockon:All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.
When I said I could label all American women xyz, I was meaning hypothetically I could do that and it wouldn't change reality of whether it was true or not. Only standards for behavior and the person's actions make it reality or not. I was responding to RT's point that people label or judge as a means to protect their ego, but my point was it's what a woman actually does that matters. I wasn't saying I actually believed that all women were sluts or gold diggers. I do believe a large percentage of them cross that line though. I've said before that some percentage of women do not cheat or run off the minute financial hardship sets in.jophil28 said:Firstly, there is no evidence that ALL American women ( or Australian or British) are " all sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees" ....Sure, most women prefer that "their man" has the material resouces or the ability to acquire resouces to provide for her needs, (and perhaps the needs of her future children) . That does not make her a gold digger. That describes a woman who has a well developed sense of self protection and survival.
What makes her a gold digger (and ultimately unsuitable for an LTR ) is her compulsive need to mate with a wealthy man who will provide for her personal whims and her superficial wants. His ability to provide her with "a magic carpet ride" is her primary criterion for selection.
All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.
There is no argument that some people judge others to protect their ego. IT is also true that many of us judge and condemn some people because their behavior warrants it. Their actions are destuctive,or threaten our wellbeing.ketostix said:. I was responding to RT's point that people label or judge as a means to protect their ego, but my point was it's what a woman actually does that matters.
.
You essentially upped your VALUE in her eyes by showing her that, if she wants you, she has to at times do things that you like to do. You are SOMETHING after all. You are NOT FREE. If she wants to hang with you, it's going to cost her something — time, effort, money.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
jophil28 said:I realize that the the more liberal among us find value judgements abhorrent( " just not nice ") but those words were created by men for a purpose - self protection.
The sentence I highlighted above is quite telling. It shows that your ego has the best of you. You honestly believe that you are THAT good? So good that you can unequivocally state that you know of "many" women who have never cheated on you or your friends and NEVER would?All "sluts to varying degrees" ? Again ,not true. There are woman out there who would NEVER cheat on their boyfriend on a GNO or that Pacific cruise that she took with the girls from the tennis club or when their man is in Iraq. Why not? Because their ingrained, or acquired, sense of morality acts as a powerful brake. I could offer many examples from my past of women who never cheated (on me or my male friends) and never would.
That's the whole issue with the quality woman debate. For too many men, it's nothing more than an illusion, a "manufactured reality" that allows him to believe that his particular woman (or the one he dreams of one day meeting) is utterly incapable of falling victim to whim or emotion. That she cannot possibly have any skeletons in her closet and is and always will remain strong enough to stand firmly behind her moral convictions in the face of all adversity.Rollo Tomassi said:I realize how comforting it would be to live in a world of reliable absolutes where a slut is a slut and gold digger is a gold digger, but we don't............I'm sure the woman in this article didn't have a scarlet letter stitched to her making her an easily identifiable "slut", but most likely the cuckold created his own rationalization for why she was worth being cuckolded for. To him, she was a "Quality Woman" if a bit confused.
We could point a finger and say "what an idiot, chump" the guy is from our objective view, but to his manufactured reality she's worth it.
When I read that I see six of one half dozen of another.ketostix said:For example I set the criteria on behavior and I could label all American women sluts and gold diggers to varying degrees. How does that put me in more hazard of being duped by a woman than someone who says it's all gray and indeterminate if a woman is a slut or gold digger?
I can state that I have many friends, males and females, who have never cheated on their partners. And it has little to do with how good I may think I am...The sentence I highlighted above is quite telling. It shows that your ego has the best of you. You honestly believe that you are THAT good? So good that you can unequivocally state that you know of "many" women who have never cheated on you or your friends and NEVER would?
NO, it means that I mostly chose quality woman because I instinctively knew what 'style' is, and what qualities to look for in a prospect.. The majority of women whom I have dated have been good women. I filtered a lot along the way after the first date.STR8UP said:The sentence I highlighted above is quite telling. It shows that your ego has the best of you.
.
More confused words. Lets call it by it correct name.STR8UP said:That's the whole issue with the quality woman debate. For too many men, it's nothing more than an illusion, a "manufactured reality" that allows him to believe..
If you want to talk, talk to your friends. If you want a girl to like you, listen to her, ask questions, and act like you are on the edge of your seat.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.