Why Do Many Women Prefet to Fvuk Well-Built/Muscular Men?

[God_of_getting_layed]

Not so. Who told you that, man? I'm well-built, defined, and get along with 99% of the people I meet and I am a WBAFC. Believe me, the other stuff matters.

Ive seen your pics deus, I can tell from just thos pics alone that you are not built as in what women find attractive. I mean you look like your larger than average size, but your not cut by any means at all. I can tell this without you even needing to see a shirtless pic of you, that one pic of you wearing a tshirt was enough for me to tell this. Im willing to bet you have no abs, you have to flex them just to kind of see them. Im also betting you probably have "mini-man breasts"; not man breast, but where theres some visible fat deposits in that area, alot of men have these by the way. Your kind of husky looking. Not cut at all Not exacty a "hot bod".

So using youself as a counterexample really isnt going to work.

 

[DJF or John]

Okay God let's explore this so more and see if we can come to some conclusions. I do think you, Frank, ruckus, and others are pretty much experienced, but it's just a problem that even I have sometimes, as to "why" am I experienced? I think this discussion would help us if one day we wake up and all of our quote on quote, "game" is gone, we would know how to go get it back lol.

You said,
"Women have different tastes. Some women will say a given guy is good looking while another would say that same guy is ugly."

Most defiantly, so me and you agree that women will judge the same guy differently, correct? Now, as far as good looks are concerned, tell me God, Is Beyonce sexy? Majority of guys will agree on a particular chick being sexy, yet for a particular guy, he usually gets different answers across the board. So then, God, Frank, Ruckus...it must be something MORE than the visual right? I mean, we as men base our decision on if someone is sexy based on VISUAL, that's why we all would say Beyonce or a typical chick that I pick out is sexy or "I would bang that." But with chicks, they could pick out a particular guy, and the answers would vary. That would conclude that the attractive MUST be based on something OTHER than a visual, correct?

Keep going God...
"Not all women will see them (guys) as average. there will be some women who see your buddies as ugly, and some who see them as attractive."

Okay I got that point, we agree on that...but continue....

"Would it not be the case that all the women your buddies are getting are the ones who happen to see them as attracitve?"

Yes, lol, again, we agree on that....continue,

"You dont need to look like a GQ model to have women who see you as good looking. MOst men are average looking (mean score=5) and these same men also have a certain percentage of women who see them as attractive."

Okay God, well, you're starting to prove my diagnosis to be more correct.

At first you said, it's about a visual, it's about having good looks, it's about having a great body. Then now God, would you not agree with me...that a guy with a six pack, a nice handsome face, and well grooming is a GOOD LOOKING GUY? Tell me, would not that equal what is known as a GOOD LOOKING GUY?

Okay, so.....But you and me BOTH agree, that just because a guy has the six pack, nice handsome face, and well grooming, that ALONE, does not qualify him as SEXY to every girl. If it did, WOULD NOT EVERY GIRL BE ATTRACTED TO HIM, just as every guy is attracted to the GOOD LOOKIING GIRL? You know, the girl with the curves, cute face, applebottom azz, nice tits?

This would come back to the experiences that I made, that guys are the ones that require the GOOD LOOKS to fvck a chick, while girls might "like" good looks (I mean, who doesn't?) but the decision to fvck a guy is based on OTHER THINGS.

I mean God, just like a chick with GOOD LOOKS can get any guy in the room, a guy with GOOD LOOKS should be able to do the same thing....right? But you agreed with me, that a GOOD LOOKING guy is not ATTRACTIVE to every girl....so then that would conclude that GOOD LOOKS are "great" but not the "deciding factor!"

And regarding Ruckus, okay lol, this is getting funny God. Ruckus is taking about his 'GIRLFRIEND,' meaning, she already made the decision to fvck him before he evened started taking the Creatine pills and flexing like Scott Steiner (that's a joke Ruckus, I take Creatine too, that shyt works man!).

God, I await your response. Or Frank and Ruckus, or anybody else for that matter.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

You said,
"Women have different tastes. Some women will say a given guy is good looking while another would say that same guy is ugly."

Most defiantly, so me and you agree that women will judge the same guy differently, correct? Now, as far as good looks are concerned, tell me God, Is Beyonce sexy? Majority of guys will agree on a particular chick being sexy, yet for a particular guy, he usually gets different answers across the board. So then, God, Frank, Ruckus...it must be something MORE than the visual right? I mean, we as men base our decision on if someone is sexy based on VISUAL, that's why we all would say Beyonce or a typical chick that I pick out is sexy or "I would bang that." But with chicks, they could pick out a particular guy, and the answers would vary. That would conclude that the attractive MUST be based on something OTHER than a visual, correct?

Your conclusion is incorrect. please explain your logic.

assuming women do display more variance in taste than men when it comes to juding the opposite sex(I would like this to be confirmed), I dont see how this would mean that attraction is based on something other than visual. I mean, if we found that white men displayed more variance in taste when juding women than black men, would this mean white men are less visual based than black men when it comes to mate selection? I dont think so.

All this means is that men have more similar tastes in what women they like than women have in what men they like. In no way does this provide us with any information about how much looks "matter" for men or women.

I dont see where your drawing the connection here. how does "variance in tastes" among individuals=these individuals dont care about how someone looks?

explain!

"You dont need to look like a GQ model to have women who see you as good looking. MOst men are average looking (mean score=5) and these same men also have a certain percentage of women who see them as attractive."

Okay God, well, you're starting to prove my diagnosis to be more correct.

At first you said, it's about a visual, it's about having good looks, it's about having a great body. Then now God, would you not agree with me...that a guy with a six pack, a nice handsome face, and well grooming is a GOOD LOOKING GUY? Tell me, would not that equal what is known as a GOOD LOOKING GUY?

Okay, so.....But you and me BOTH agree, that just because a guy has the six pack, nice handsome face, and well grooming, that ALONE, does not qualify him as SEXY to every girl. If it did, WOULD NOT EVERY GIRL BE ATTRACTED TO HIM, just as every guy is attracted to the GOOD LOOKIING GIRL? You know, the girl with the curves, cute face, applebottom azz, nice tits?

well, most women would find these ideal men as attractive, thats why these ideal men are GQ models, thats why these ideal men would get a mean score of 9. THey wouldnt get every girl to think they look good, but they would get alot. THey would also get a few who think theyre ugly.

the answer to your question is, most women would be attracted to him, but not all. Just as most men would be attracted to beyonce, but not all. I dont see how this is helping your argument.

Well DJF, it looks like Im starting to prove your diagnosis that my diagnosis was wrong is in fact a bad diagnosis LOL.

I mean God, just like a chick with GOOD LOOKS can get any guy in the room, a guy with GOOD LOOKS should be able to do the same thing....right? But you agreed with me, that a GOOD LOOKING guy is not ATTRACTIVE to every girl....so then that would conclude that GOOD LOOKS are "great" but not the "deciding factor!"

okay, LOL, how would a "good looking guy" not being attractive to EVERY GIRL, but YET ALOT OF THEM equate to "looks not being a deciding factor." :crackup: WHERE ARE YOU DRAWING THIS CONNECTION?


The big problem in your argument is you are saying: if all women liked the GQ model, this would mean looks are a deciding factor, but if only some like the GQ model,then looks are not the deciding factor.

No offense, but that makes zero sense. the percentage of women who think the guy is hot tells us nothing about how important "good looks" are to a woman. Seriously, where are you getting this logic? how does knowing the percentage of women that like a "hot guy" tell us anything about how much a deciding factor "good looks" are? <---this is the big question you seriously need to answer, becuase your logic makes no sense.

And regarding Ruckus, okay lol, this is getting funny God. Ruckus is taking about his 'GIRLFRIEND,' meaning, she already made the decision to fvck him before he evened started taking the Creatine pills and flexing like Scott Steiner (that's a joke Ruckus, I take Creatine too, that shyt works man!).

that still doenst explain why the visual stimulus is a turn on to her. her being his GF doesnt mean anything he does will be a turn on like youd like to beleive in this case. :crackup: Try and answer it again

dont forget to answer that really important question about 13 lines above this.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Really? Then you also must know that the only words that have been used to describe my body by women have been very positive as well. Not "nice body", or "in shape". We're talking more along the lines of "perfect", "awesome", "phenomenal", and "very well-built". Your crystal ball failed you again.

...your not cut by any means at all.

9% bodyfat, that picture must not represent myself accurately.

Im willing to bet you have no abs, you have to flex them just to kind of see them.

8-pack since middle school. No flexing. One of the pros of being an ectomorph.

but where theres some visible fat deposits in that area...

My metabolism's too fast to have "fat deposits". Thanks, though.

So using youself as a counterexample really isnt going to work.

Nah, it worked great. Women describe me as "well-built", "defined", and "fun to be around" which is exactly what the poster listed.

But my body isn't the subject, as much as you'd like it to be. This thread is still way longer than it needs to be. Kind of like your posts, you know?

BS! you look husky in those pictures. sorry. you dont look like an ectomorph either. you can lie to me about what women say all you want. but they arent holding up to the available evidence. ITs as if you never typed those likely BS testimonials. dont bother rebuting this unless its with a good pic.

 

[md3sign]

I haven't seen any pictures nor do I care to, but a couple things stuck out for me:

1) there's no such thing as an 8 pack. It's an illusion created by the happy trail below your belly button.

2) endo, ecto, meso is irrelevant

3) no one's metabolism is "too fast to have fat deposits". if you eat more than you burn, you WILL gain fat

 

[Soprano]

because it's hot

duh!!

 

[dynamicallyidle]

BS! you look husky in those pictures. sorry. you dont look like an ectomorph either. you can lie to me about what women say all you want. but they arent holding up to the available evidence. ITs as if you never typed those likely BS testimonials. dont bother rebuting this unless its with a good pic.

Rofl. It sounds like GUYS are the ones who prefer to do well-built men, not women.

Look at them obsess over muscle like only guys could.

 

[DJF or John]

Okay, God, let's break this down.

I think first off, I think it's great to see you more humbled and "willing" to engage in a conversation about this topic. I too, while I have success, I really would like to understand more about the WHY I have it.

Now, first things first, you said,

"Assuming women do display more variance in taste than men when it comes to juding the opposite sex(I would like this to be confirmed), I dont see how this would mean that attraction is based on something other than visual. I mean, if we found that white men displayed more variance in taste when juding women than black men, would this mean white men are less visual based than black men when it comes to mate selection? I dont think so.All this means is that men have more similar tastes in what women they like than women have in what men they like. In no way does this provide us with any information about how much looks "matter" for men or women. How does "variance in tastes" among individuals=these individuals dont care about how someone looks?"

No, no, you are twisting my words.

It is you that is saying that women display more variety in taste in men, NOT ME. You are saying that a woman will choose to screw a guy based on how good he looks, and to each woman "her own." So what you are saying is that Woman A might screw Guy A, because his LOOKS are that of rough, tough, bad boy, nice arms, nice abs. Woman B might screw Guy B, because his LOOKS are that of a cute, preppy, popular, college boy. You are saying that women base their entire decision TO FVCK A GUY, based on WHAT the guy looks like, and YOU are saying that each woman has a different taste as to what THEY require a guy to look like. Now, whether you know that you're saying that, or don't know, here's some proof that you ARE saying that, from the words of The God of Getting Laid himself,

"(From a couple replies above) 1. Women have different tastes. Some women will say a given guy is good looking while another would say that same guy is ugly. If you dont beleive me, go find a bunch of women, and ask them to score you on a scale of 1 to 10. Youll get varying scores."

God did you NOT just say that? Okay well then why do you say just now, "(I would like this to be confirmed) Assuming women do display more variance in taste than men when it comes to juding the opposite sex."
When first off, that's YOUR VIEWPOINT not mines! Lol, now you want me to "confirm" your own viewpoint, lol, God the point of our discussion is that I think your viewpoint is flawed, lol.

Let's continue.

"Well, most women would find these ideal men as attractive, thats why these ideal men are GQ models, thats why these ideal men would get a mean score of 9."

You are seriously way TOO tied up and depended on Female Praise. From the way you type, from the "requirements" you make of people, by wanting them to prove this and prove that, your whole circle, your whole life is based around a woman PRAISING YOU. That's why you put so much emphasis on this "looks" thing, you want to work out at Ballys for 20 hours a week so women can PRAISE your body, lol. You "put on an act" to be in total control, and to be totally happy, but from your behavior, you are clearly hurting on the inside. You should read Pook's Structure of Worlds and you'll know more about what I'm talking about. You might not like Pook,but I bet by reading this post you'll "see yourself" in this bunch, lol.
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77446&highlight=structure+worlds

But back to this discussion, I just had to throw that in.....

"They wouldnt get every girl to think they look good, but they would get alot. They would also get a few who think theyre ugly."

Okay.....

"The answer to your question is, most women would be attracted to him, but not all. Just as most men would be attracted to beyonce, but not all. I dont see how this is helping your argument."

The reason you can't see my point, is because you are so busy trying to find "evidence" and "facts" of things I am telling you, when the only way you can truly "see the facts" of what I'm saying is to first "come to the other side." That is, BECOME A DON JUAN.

You are trapped in a mythical world of, "Everyone should be here....at this bar....and all those who are not here, are not successful," and what you are doing is fooling yourself and hurting the people who happen to follow your advice. You are making demands of people that are not a requirement, you are making people feel that they CAN'T obtain success unless they are a certain "way," and it's just wrong, it's just bad teaching, and to quote you,

"You should just stop posting,"

I think you should shallow your own prescription pill.

"Okay, how would a "good looking guy" not being attractive to EVERY GIRL, but YET ALOT OF THEM equate to "looks not being a deciding factor." WHERE ARE YOU DRAWING THIS CONNECTION?"

Well you just said yourself, no matter how many "good looks" a guy has, not every girl will be attracted to him, do you not say that, or did you just forget you said it? The reason that "looks aren't a deciding factor," if you just look at just the facts from our little discussion you will begin to see why looks might be apart of the buying cycle, but not the reason the client brought the service.

Point Number One- We both agree, a guy that universally would be catergozied as GOOD LOOKING, or GQ, would NOT be attracted to by all women, thus he CAN'T FVCK ALL THE WOMEN.

Point Number Two- We both "should" agree, that a girl that is univerally caterogized as GOOD LOOKING, would BE ATTRACTED to by all men, thus she CAN FVCK ALL MEN. Please God, don't make a fool out of yourself and say if Beyonce crawled naked on your bed and said come fvck me right now, you wouldn't hop over and hit that. Now just don't make a fool out of yourself now.

Point Number Three- Since all Men would univerally FVCK the girl with the GOOD LOOKS, then that must CONCLUDE, that men based THEIR decisions to fvck a girl, FIRST, based only on her looks. Her personality, charm, ambition, career, health, all other stuff, at this point doesn't matter yet. Because the chick has GOOD LOOKS, the guy has already made up in his mind to fvck the chick.

Point Number Four - Now, since all Women WOULD NOT fvck the guy with the GOOD LOOKS (GQ), then that must mean, for the DON JUAN, the PUA, the PLAYER, the ALPHA MALE, or whatever you want to call a guy that gets majority of the women hot and bothered, that man MUST, MUST, MUST...contain another characteristic to himself OTHER THAN......"I just look good!"

Now God, if you're not on one accord with me yet, I don't know what thread you're reading, what planet you are on, or what's going on with you. But we are around the same age, you might be a little older than me, but we are both mature, capable, and smart enough to see, how I got to these four points.

So now, it comes down to this question? What's the other requirement? What's the other characteristic that a guy MUST HAVE, to get majority of the women hot and bothered?

From my experiences, it's come down to two things:

1. A high sexual and seductive state.

And/OR

2. Masculinity

Yet, I cannot fully explain or define just what the hell Masculinity is lol? But from my own experiences, its come down to something that is occurring WITHIN a guy, NOT ON THE OUTSIDE of the guy, as God claims with his "good looks" claim.

There's something that's going on within the guy, on the inside, that makes his outside connect with women in a very sexual, and powerful way, that no god damn scientist, no god damn doctor, and no god damn Dr. Phil can comprehend.

It's this secret that makes a guy with no job, no life, no nothing, the heartthrob, and the fat guy the heartthrob. It's this secret that from my own experiences, from the way I interact with women NOW and 2 years ago...that have led me to conclude that it's a sexual and seductive mindset. This mindset makes me behave differently, on the inside I feel this fvcking rage of fire burning between me and a woman I interact with, I can't explain it, but the chick feels it, I feel it, and there's no "closing of the sale," there's no "anti-slvt defenses," there's no bullshyt, there's just a straight chemistry with women I don't know, fvcking with women without the usual "procedures."

Can I explain this, no I can't, but the reason I am having this discussion with God, is that perhaps somehow, someway, somebody, WOULD explain this to me. I would like to know, seriously.

But I welcome others to join in on this discussion, I am enjoying this by the way.

 

[belividere]

Ive seen your pics deus, I can tell from just thos pics alone that you are not built as in what women find attractive. I mean you look like your larger than average size, but your not cut by any means at all. I can tell this without you even needing to see a shirtless pic of you, that one pic of you wearing a tshirt was enough for me to tell this. Im willing to bet you have no abs, you have to flex them just to kind of see them. Im also betting you probably have "mini-man breasts"; not man breast, but where theres some visible fat deposits in that area, alot of men have these by the way. Your kind of husky looking. Not cut at all Not exacty a "hot bod".

So using youself as a counterexample really isnt going to work.

I read like 20 seconds of this thread and was reminded of why I dont come to this site anymore.

God have you posted pics of yourself or are you the guy who talks about those who have?

Without reading any of the responses so far; women like guys who are self-confident and dont care about what anonymous guys on the internet think about them.

There's too many guys around here with fictious online ego's and not enough guys who give honest realistic advice. This whole arguement is moronic. I've been big, I've been skinny, I've still gotten the same reaction when I had the same level of confidence. As a matter of fact I'm almost certain that I could fvck anyone on here's girlfriend because of my confidence. It didn't take this site to build it either, it took experience.

 

[Ripper]

Okay God let's explore this so more and see if we can come to some conclusions. I do think you, Frank, ruckus, and others are pretty much experienced, but it's just a problem that even I have sometimes, as to "why" am I experienced? I think this discussion would help us if one day we wake up and all of our quote on quote, "game" is gone, we would know how to go get it back lol.
God, I await your response. Or Frank and Ruckus, or anybody else for that matter.

Dude, this isn't a radio show...

p.s. the moment I knew this had descended into the 'looks matter' debate was when God started bollocking on about 'variance in taste'.

 

[md3sign]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Pack

2) endo, ecto, meso is irrelevant

Sure it is. It's just as easy for an ectomorph to gain fat as an endomorph! My bad.

3) no one's metabolism is "too fast to have fat deposits". if you eat more than you burn, you WILL gain fat

Well, I've never been able to eat more than I can burn...so what do you attribute this to if not my lightning fast metabolism? The work of the devil?

1) Deus, did you actually read the link you just posted?

"The Rectum is crossed by fibrous bands, three in number, which are named the tendinous inscriptions. If well-defined, the rectus abdominis is colloquially called a "six-pack.""

There are 3 insertions dude. NO ONE HAS AN 8 PACK.

2) Body type is irrelevant because any type can gain muscle or lose fat, they just have to tailor their programs and diets differently.

3) The fact that you've never eaten more than you've been able to burn just means you haven't eaten enough. Unless of course you have a hyperthyriod gland condition.

 

[skeeloo]

ok a guy with bruce lee's kinda body or a guy with the rock's body who's gonna attract mor ass?. i think bulking might be better than ripped. cuss when you are ripped no one would notice except you get your shirt off. but when youre bulking people can tell. when you got a shirt on.

 

[mrRuckus]

Ive seen your pics deus, I can tell from just thos pics alone that you are not built as in what women find attractive. I mean you look like your larger than average size, but your not cut by any means at all. I can tell this without you even needing to see a shirtless pic of you, that one pic of you wearing a tshirt was enough for me to tell this. Im willing to bet you have no abs, you have to flex them just to kind of see them.

I'm not cut but i'm fairly built. I have a gut. It's not huge but it's noticeable. Girls go "mmmm" when I take my shirt off though. They really don't care that much about abs. They'll appreciate the look of some toned up abs but not at the expense of a smaller chest, shoulders, and arms.

I was once 144 lbs about 3-4 years ago in college when i was running and riding the stationary bike every day. I'm definitely more attractive now with my gut compared to my six pack and overall smaller musculature. Guy friends who saw me both ways (currently fluctuate 190-195 lbs) have said I look better and definitely girls call me "hot" now instead of "cute."

It is currently fad, as this is written in 2005, for boys to think they need a "six pack," although most of them don't have an ice chest to put it in. The psychology of this particular historical phenomenon is best left to others to investigate and explain, but the coach must cope with objections among his trainees to the obvious necessity of weight gain for skinny athletes. Aesthetics aside, heavier is necessary if stronger is to occur, and once they see that weight gain actually makes them look better (amazingly enough), they become less resistant to the idea.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

DJF, your crazy for writing long posts when
1. youre so horribly wrong in the argument
2. You know youre wrong, but dont want ot admit it
3. You dont know how to argue at all, your posts arent even making sense. Atleast most of the people I argue with have the common courtesy to make some sense.

okay, moving along now.....

Now, first things first, you said,

"Assuming women do display more variance in taste than men when it comes to juding the opposite sex(I would like this to be confirmed), I dont see how this would mean that attraction is based on something other than visual. I mean, if we found that white men displayed more variance in taste when juding women than black men, would this mean white men are less visual based than black men when it comes to mate selection? I dont think so....

No, no, you are twisting my words.

It is you that is saying that women display more variety in taste in men, NOT ME. You are saying that a woman will choose to screw a guy based on how good he looks, and to each woman "her own." So what you are saying is that Woman A might screw Guy A, because his LOOKS are that of rough, tough, bad boy, nice arms, nice abs. Woman B might screw Guy B, because his LOOKS are that of a cute, preppy, popular, college boy.

What you are saying is that women display more variance in taste than men do. Basically what you are saying is that men display similar taste in what women they find attractive, and women display more variety. Heres a quote from you:

Majority of guys will agree on a particular chick being sexy, yet for a particular guy, he usually gets different answers across the board. So then, God, Frank, Ruckus...it must be something MORE than the visual right? I mean, we as men base our decision on if someone is sexy based on VISUAL, that's why we all would say Beyonce or a typical chick that I pick out is sexy or "I would bang that." But with chicks, they could pick out a particular guy, and the answers would vary.

There you have it, pointing out that women dont all have the same taste in men. And you are saying that these tastes differ more from woman to woman than men's taste differ from man to man. Those are your very own words above.

Then you go on to make a really stupid conclusion that makes no sense. what you go on to say is that the "hottest girl" can get all men to fvck her and the "hottest guy" can only get some, but not all women to fvck him. Then you go on by saying that the fact that the guy only got less than 100% of women to fvck him, this some how means looks dont matter. Im amazed at how you could draw such a rediculous conclusion. Theres also some problems with your assumption.

Your assuming that the "hot girl" can get any guy. WRONG. As with the GQ model, there will be some men that think the hottest girl is ugly to them. Not all men think Pamela Anderson is hot, some think she is ugly. yet she can walk into a room and get most guys to look at her. Bottom line, the hottest women cant get all men to fvck her any more than the GQ model. Although even if they could ,it still doesnt help your argument, becuase your conclusion makes no sense anyway.

God did you NOT just say that? Okay well then why do you say just now, "(I would like this to be confirmed) Assuming women do display more variance in taste than men when it comes to juding the opposite sex."
When first off, that's YOUR VIEWPOINT not mines! Lol, now you want me to "confirm" your own viewpoint, lol, God the point of our discussion is that I think your viewpoint is flawed, lol.

When I said "I would like this to be confirmed", I was refering to your assumption that women's taste differ more than men, as in women have more disagreement on a guy looking good than men do.I didnt ask to confirm that women actually have different tastes. I already know this. Im asking it to be confirmed that their difference in taste VARIES MORE COMPARED TO MEN's variance in taste. This was a response to your comment that women's taste varies more than men. For example, basically you say that if men were to score a woman, they would all give her a similar score, but if women are to score a man, the scores would be very different. I say that men's scores for the woman will be pretty different too, you are saying they wont. I want this to be confirmed. Sorry if I confused you.

"Okay, how would a "good looking guy" not being attractive to EVERY GIRL, but YET ALOT OF THEM equate to "looks not being a deciding factor." WHERE ARE YOU DRAWING THIS CONNECTION?"

Well you just said yourself, no matter how many "good looks" a guy has, not every girl will be attracted to him, do you not say that, or did you just forget you said it? The reason that "looks aren't a deciding factor," if you just look at just the facts from our little discussion you will begin to see why looks might be apart of the buying cycle, but not the reason the client brought the service.

um, still failed to explain your logic buddy. Your market analagy is horrible. how does knowing weither or not a GQ model can get all women or some to think hes hot tell us if women make "good looks" the deciding factor or not?

Point Number One- We both agree, a guy that universally would be catergozied as GOOD LOOKING, or GQ, would NOT be attracted to by all women, thus he CAN'T FVCK ALL THE WOMEN.

uhuh

Point Number Two- We both "should" agree, that a girl that is univerally caterogized as GOOD LOOKING, would BE ATTRACTED to by all men, thus she CAN FVCK ALL MEN. Please God, don't make a fool out of yourself and say if Beyonce crawled naked on your bed and said come fvck me right now, you wouldn't hop over and hit that. Now just don't make a fool out of yourself now.

uhh, no!! not all men will agree the "universally attractive" women will be hot. Some will think shes ugly. This is may be part of the reason your logic is so fvcked up. ie, not all men think Carmen electra or pamela anderson is hot, nor do they all think Beyonce is hot. I know plenty of men that think Beyonce is fugly.

Point Number Three- Since all Men would univerally FVCK the girl with the GOOD LOOKS, then that must CONCLUDE, that men based THEIR decisions to fvck a girl, FIRST, based only on her looks. Her personality, charm, ambition, career, health, all other stuff, at this point doesn't matter yet. Because the chick has GOOD LOOKS, the guy has already made up in his mind to fvck the chick.

well, besides the fact that your wrong about all men wanting to fvck the "hottest girl", knowing this anyway wont tell us if looks are a deciding factor or not. 2 different things my friend.

Point Number Four - Now, since all Women WOULD NOT fvck the guy with the GOOD LOOKS (GQ), then that must mean, for the DON JUAN, the PUA, the PLAYER, the ALPHA MALE, or whatever you want to call a guy that gets majority of the women hot and bothered, that man MUST, MUST, MUST...contain another characteristic to himself OTHER THAN......"I just look good!"

lol, no!! no it would not mean that. Just becuase some women dont think the GQ guy is hot, doesnt mean that looks are a deciding factor. and these so called players and don juans you speak of are only getting layed because they have become good at playing the numbers game. They have become good at hooking up with women who happen to find them physically attractive. Anyways, these players arent getting all the women anyway.

 

[mrRuckus]

Most defiantly, so me and you agree that women will judge the same guy differently, correct? Now, as far as good looks are concerned, tell me God, Is Beyonce sexy? Majority of guys will agree on a particular chick being sexy, yet for a particular guy, he usually gets different answers across the board. So then, God, Frank, Ruckus...it must be something MORE than the visual right? I mean, we as men base our decision on if someone is sexy based on VISUAL, that's why we all would say Beyonce or a typical chick that I pick out is sexy or "I would bang that." But with chicks, they could pick out a particular guy, and the answers would vary. That would conclude that the attractive MUST be based on something OTHER than a visual, correct?

Your premise is wrong to begin with. I don't solely choose a woman based on looks anymore than she chooses me solely on looks. But i won't even give her a shot if she isn't fairly attractive and most attractive women will look right by you if you aren't attractive and don't obviously display something else exceptional in some way to make up for it. Women aren't as picky with looks as men, but they're hardly going around looking for inner beauty above all else.

There are plenty of 7s I'd want to have sex and be with over 8s, 9s, and 10s.

I'm not arguing either side of this. I'm stating my observations. It really doesn't matter to me which side is true... since both are.

 

[mrRuckus]

Your assuming that the "hot girl" can get any guy. WRONG. As with the GQ model, there will be some men that think the hottest girl is ugly to them. Not all men think Pamela Anderson is hot, some think she is ugly. yet she can walk into a room and get most guys to look at her.

Pamela Anderson is ugly.


And Paris Hilton and all women of her ilk are hideous to me. Her looks are atrocious and her personality worse. I haven't the slightest clue why anyone says she is hot. I actually debated with my ex about this and for the life of me i can't see how anyone can see her as the slightest bit attractive.

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

Pamela Anderson is ugly.


And Paris Hilton and all women of her ilk are hideous to me. Her looks are atrocious and her personality worse. I haven't the slightest clue why anyone says she is hot. I actually debated with my ex about this and for the life of me i can't see how anyone can see her as the slightest bit attractive.

Thank you for proving my point.

No matter what women you take, carmen electra, any playboy playmate, they will be some men that just think theyre ugly. Men's taste in women vary from man to man. Same goes with women. Women's tastevary from woman to woman. THere is no guy all women will think is hot, nor any women all men think are hot.

Becuase of this very reason, its possible for almost all men to get laid in a universe where looks matter.

 

[DJF or John]

Okay, this is hilarious lol. I'll try to not make this one long.

(btw god, did you read that pook post. Structure of Worlds)

And God also let's reframe from the "name-calling," we are both mature individuals so let's act like it and continue our discussion without name calling.

You said,

"What you are saying is that women display more variety in taste than men do. Basically what you are saying is that men display similar taste in what women they find attractive, and women display more variety."

NO.

This is what I'm saying.

I'm saying you and Ruckus and others are diagnosing the wrong problem, thus you can only lead to prescribing to other guys on the board the wrong solution.

Here's what you are doing currently God.

In your part of town, you go out and observe all the guys in the room or area that have the women hanging over them. You don't really understand how this is happening, you don't really know nor understand what's happening underneath the surface, so you can only drop down to the lowest common demoniator, "What the guy looks like."

And if he looks like a thug, you conclude all thugs get women. If he looks like a jerk/bad boy, we concluded all bad boys get women. If he looks like Ne-yo, we conclude that. If he looks good, you conclude that. And so on, and so on.

What happens is that soon your "theory" becomes a fallacy, when a guy that looks a different way now becomes the life of the party. Now you pull out your notepad and start over, now, since this guy is dressed like Donald Duck, you conclude, you should dress up like cartoon characters to get laid.

Because of the lack of understanding of "why" you drop down to only what you can "see" on the outside. When the real success, the real seduction, the real "connection" was made from something occurring on the inside of the man, not the outside.

It's like in Acting. An actor has a great performance, and all actors now try and imitate that guy's performance based on what the actor looked like on the outside, based on how the actor moved on the outside, dressed, etc. What they "don't get" is that, the reason the actor's performance was so powerful was because of what was occurring on the inside of the actor, it was this power occurring and connecting with the audience from the inside that was unseen, un-understood, a "secret." But we all want the success of that actor right? So people write theories based on how that actors "performed" and "looked" rather than on the "world" and "events" occurring inside of the actor.

When you are judging an ideal guy to follow to "get laid" from the outside and based on what he looks like, you are indeed diagnosing the wrong area, thus leading to prescribing the wrong solution. Instead of diagnosing what he looks like on the outside, try diagnosing and finding out what he looks like on the inside. By doing so, you then can lead yourself to a proper solution, that when every guy on this forum implements, will equal a high level of success for a higher number of individuals.

Plus, your "way" God brings up many problems.

1. I go to the club, to school, to college, and notice that all the black women are hanging on the thugs. So now I conclude, "I'm going to turn myself into a thug, because all black women are fvckign the thugs and gangstas." I want to obtain women in my life too right? Well, so what I did was I tried to figure out what my problem was and prescribe a solution. But look at what I'm doing wrong, I'm focusing on what the guy looks or what's occurring on the outside, instead of what he looks like or what's occurring on the inside. This leads me to prescribe a wrong solution in, "Turning myself into a thug." And we all know the problems associated with that.

Does your theory God not lead to the same troubles?
I go to the club, to school, to college, and notice that all the women are hanging on the good looking guys that work out alot ("the jocks" lol. Just joking). So now, I prescribe my solution to my problem as:
"I must work out, have a great body, have great looks, or I don't stand a chance."
Now, I kill myself in the gym, trying to turn my body into something great. But there comes some problems.

What about genetics?
I'm working on my 6 pack, I have a 4 pack now, but as I think about it, I will never look GQ. I will have a nice round about body, but nothing that's spectular. And my looks, hell, my head is shaped funny lol. Shyt, what can I do, cut it off and go buy another one? My ears are funny, my nose is a little big, lol, what do I do, go and buy a couple ears and a nose on a discount....lol, can they take a Visa? I need glasses, contacts make me feel uncomfortable, but those good looking guys didn't have glasses on, what do I do now?

What about time?
I'm building my career, building my business, looking to accomplish my goals. I have no time to go and work out and focus on getting a great body right now. I could make time, but then I'll sacrifice the time needed to get things done. I grab the food that's available, then I go back to building my career. But yes, I should workout, I must if I want to live long. But it has to wait a little, or I can't spend much time doing it to look like the good looking guys, who do it all the time.

So now God, I have to come to the conclusions that I just don't "measure up" and don't "qualify" for the beautiful women. I come on this forum and whine and cry, go out in life feeling like a loser. I settle for some woman I dont' want, get married, get cheated on, get divorced, go bankrupt, commit suicide (it might not go that way, but it could lead to this).

 

[DJF or John]

Your "way" God is like the way of Simon Cowell, and many other Entertainment judges.

"I want you to have a Mel Gibson Attitude."
"I want you to have a Garth Brooks performance."
"I want you to have a Taylor Hicks energy."

These people focus on the outside of the performer, not the power on the inside from which made Mel Gibson, Garth Brooks, and Taylor Hicks successful. While some auditioners can't sing, some actually could sing, but Simon would reject them because they didn't "look" a certain way, thus Simon says, "They could not possibly succeed in the business."

Simon here, is diagnosing the wrong area, he's diagnosing the performer's outside area, thus if the performer doesn't "fit the bill" then Simon kinds says, "You probably won't make it." If Simon did a more accurate diagnosis, from the inside and what's occurring on the inside of the performer, he could make a more accurate prediction of "who has it" and "who doesn't." And the beautiful thing about doing it this way, is that you can create more stars, create more better entertainers, and make more money than other producers and executives who are entirely diagnosing the wrong area.

How many times have people said you couldn't accomplish something and you proved them wrong?

The people that said you couldn't do it, was diagnosing your situation wrongly. If they would have diagnosed it from the inside, they would have more than likely had a different outlook and prescribed a different solution other than, "You should give it up."

God I hope I have helped you out a little bit.

 

[sparky0000]

Pamela Anderson is ugly.


And Paris Hilton and all women of her ilk are hideous to me. Her looks are atrocious and her personality worse. I haven't the slightest clue why anyone says she is hot. I actually debated with my ex about this and for the life of me i can't see how anyone can see her as the slightest bit attractive.

to be honest with you, most men have no quality control. seriously. if they did they would probably only be looking for beautiful virgins. instead they will jump whatever gets in their way.

pamela anderson is only attractive because the media tells you that she is. put a pig on a cover of one of those lame men's magazines and she immediately becomes "hot". a simple case of mob mentality. people are unable to think for themselves (just read the posts on this board for proof). that is why the top people in society are all independent thinkers. they don't care what you think. they just do what they gotta do. the rest of you live your lives unable to come to terms with what you really want or desire.