DJF or John 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.
Thats exactly what you were saying, thats exactly what you meant, sorry. Dont be a sore loser and trying to deny what you said becuase youre logic has been proven to be flawed.
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.
Thats great, but thats your opinion at this stage. So far you have failed to prove it as fact hat we are making a bad diagnosis. So for now, when I want your opinion, Ill give it to you. Otherwise, PROVE IT!
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.
um, no thats not what Im doing. I have in none of my posts talked about how one needs to dress one way, then weeks later come back and change it and say "oh now you need to dress this way". Where did you get this? please provide me with a quote of mine where I said I do this.
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.
Listen to you. You say I have a "lack of understanding"....
Son, your the one who doesnt make any damn sense when hes trying to prove something in a logical manner. ie your last post, which was a failed attempt at this. It didnt follow any logical structure, your conclusion came from no where.
If someone is incapable of making logical conclusions given assumed logical rules, I definitely cant see how this same person would be capable of having any understanding of women. You see, to understand women really comes down to fitting the best hypothesis to available observations. This requires a logical mind. YOu clearly dont have this. You clearly dont explain things with the best fitting hypothesis.
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.
blah, blah, blah...You just took some analagy and stated that getting women is the same thing as being an actor in your analagy. Sorry, bad analagy.
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).
If you actually had an understanding of what my theory says, you would quickly learn that you dont have to look like a GQ model to get attractive women. Why?
becuase part of the theory says that women all have their own individual opinion on what they personally consider a good looking guy. This idea of a "good looking guy" varies from woman to woman.
(this might require a little bit of logic to understand, but hopefully you can make it)
So what this means is that no matter what you look like (This applies to most men, but not all) there will be atleast 1% of the "attractive female" population that think you are hot. For atleast 1% of the attractive female population, how you look fits their idea of a good looking man. This means youll have a chance to get lay a good looking woman, becuae 1% does not equal 0%.
(<--this paragraph here might be hard for you to absorb, but I hope you can manage)
My theory in no way implies only GQ models lay hotties nor does it imply most men are losers who will only be banging ugly women.
