Why Looks AND Provisioning Matter

[iqqi]

Would not this be better described by as one's character? The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the idea that it is one’s character that matters most – for both men and women.

Yes, character would be another word for what I described as personality.

Guys that didn't appeal to me at first have become attractive to me as I got to know their character. I see this happen all the time.

It's also well known with some high profile celebrities and historical figures that a winning personality = high levels of attraction.

Magnetic, is a great key word.

I don't think that anyone is really thinking about gene selection when they choose or marry someone. Not even subconsiously. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds to me.

 

[iqqi]

He's deleted posts that disagreed with him.

Can't wait to see what he does with this post, lol!!!

 

[ketostix]

Would not this be better described by as one's character? The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to the idea that it is one’s character that matters most – for both men and women.

I’m currently in a relationship with a woman who I like very much. By the collective wisdom on this forum then it should be her looks alone that make me like her as I do. Yes indeed I do find her to be very pretty. On the other hand I also have opportunity with other women who are as equally beautiful - including her sister who looks very much like her. Yet it is only her that I like as I do. It is because it is not just her looks but who she is, what she does, what she says, her standards, it all adds up to her character, I like her character much more than any one else’s character. That’s what I’m most attracted to, her character.

This is why as easy as it would to be to show why your counter-arguments are wrong, I'm starting to think it's not worth the bother. And that you read things into Rollo's and other's post that aren't really there. Potato, some of your post have been good in the past, but I've been starting to suspect that you might actually be a woman.

I mean you and iqqi basically are saying that "your face, your smile, your body, your walk, your smell, the words you use, your tone, the way you talk, the way you interact with people, your eyes, your expressions, your jokes, your humour" are not mostly visual appearance with a smaller part being auditory. You said a person's face, facial expressions eyes, smile, body, how they walk is not appearance but character. It's like you're saying blue is not blue. No, character is character and appearance and judging on appearance is another thing. And I can show you 10 guys with good character to one guy with looks and means and it'll be clear who attracts more women. Character is about the last thing women really value.

Women are selecting on genetic traits and status. I will concede one point women do screen heavily on a man's genetic brain wiring or mental fitness. This is manifested primarily in visual cues she recieves from looking at you with a lesser emphasis on word choice and how you say things, the latter pointing to wit and being outgoing. But to make the leap that women ignore looks and means and choose a guy based on his "character" and being a good guy is a big leap and an erroneous one. You and iqqi are just trying to make women out to be less shallow and petty than they are. Just because a woman is petty and shallow but choose more things about a man to be petty and shallow about or to screen him on, doesn't make her less petty and shallow. If anything more so. Plus women like to use erroneous attribution, "Oh it wasn't his great looks and body, or his good job. It was his great character!".

 

[Monkey]

Bottom line - if you don't pass a womans looks criteria everything else is meaningless...

 

[jonwon]

This sounds like your sexual gender theories are trying to fit into Darwin's evolutionary mumbo jumbo - that is not based on facts!! Since most here are Darwin fans, they'll agree with these false premises and conclusions!

Agreed.

I could blow this thread wide apart.

But i cant be arsed.

I could post in links, science mumbo jumbo shi* the works, but you know i cant be arsed, you know why.

Because it would be a waste of time.

Great posts as always John, not many man can even begin to understand where your coming from, not many at all.

This is not revolutionary, well not to me anyway, i have gone even past this level.

Most of you have not.

LMS standing is probably the wisest one in this whole thread.

Props LMS, 100% respect

Your all so keen to kiss Rollo's nuts, PATHETIC!

No wonder i wont miss this site, when i leave for good.

But i come here for some posters, it is becoming clear who to take notice of and who not to.

Potato, your like a stealth bomber, i will spend more time looking up your wisdom, nice

Sometimes this site is no better then the regurgitated cra* one follows from the 'money PUA' agenda.

I suppose i may be on the 'to ban' list'?

Also whilst i am here, why the fuc* are so many great posters banned from this site? I do wonder sometimes about this place.

 

[jonwon]

Im going to put Rollo's post in a nut shell.

There are some good things in his post i wont deny that, but its surrounded by a whole lot of nothing, but nicely written out.

I could have simply done this and got the point across.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

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

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


What he has done, is put them together.

Not sure how in the hell they belong together in his model, because the way i see it, that model would only work prior to feminism, hence 1950's or back.

Even then, i just cant see it.

LMS was spot on, i think alot of people are agreeing for the sake of agreeing.

Sorry Rollo, i love your shi*, but i hate this and i dislike how poeple will throw rational out of the window to conform to 'bias'.

Oh and why dont you ask your pet guard dogs to sit.

 

[mrRuckus]

I just want to throw out there that it's well documented a number of species settle down with one 'caregiver' male and then go off and 'cheat' with a genetically superior male in order for her children to have both a father used to provide and raise the young and to give the children the best genetics they can get. I wish i had sources but i've read about it before and saw some documentary from the UK that compared and contrasted human and animal sexual behavior

In terms of menstruation, it's been demonstrated that women prefer different types of men given the time of the month. For example, women tend to prefer stronger, more masculine men during the period that she's most fertile during the month even if overall she tends more towards sensitive and/or intellectual types. Don't insult our intelligence by piping up and saying "NUH UH not all" since that's a given.

 

[STR8UP]

Potato,

I used to think like you did in regards to Rollo's thoughts. That is until I really pondered it one day and realized the mistake I was making. I wasn't applying all of the logic necessary to nature.

That's just it....there is LOGIC behind nature.

I can't even believe people debate this stuff Anyone who has studied the human mating process knows this (Rollo's material) is based upon scientific study. I have read a lot of material on the subject, but nothing that was as well articulated, and certainly nothing that addressed the subject matter specifically as it applies to helping guys get a better grasp of how all of this stuff works.

The naysayers arguments are "keep it simple". "All you gotta do is learn how to fukk her mind and body".

Innovative.

Or iqqi's "It's the WHOLE package".

Well DUH, Sherlock, as dense as some people can be I don't think anyone on either side would debate that.

Anyone can walk outside and say. "It's nature that makes a tree grow". Iqqi is saying, "It's all about a guys personality, the whole package". That's like explaining how a tree grows by saying "It's nature".

It's an oversimplified explanation that doesn't explain anything at all. Break that DOWN into pieces, then you start to get answers. Is it laziness? Or do you just want to argue?

If "gene's don't mean sh!t" you wouldn't be alive today. You do understand that there is a REASON behind the survival of your ancestors, don't you?

And to those of you who argue "Well things are different today than they were 1000 years ago". Yea, they are different. But it hasn't been long enough for our species to devolve.

With some of you it's like trying to have a discussion with a religious person. Doesn't matter how much logic you throw at them, their answer is "It just is".

 

[STR8UP]

I just want to throw out there that it's well documented a number of species settle down with one 'caregiver' male and then go off and 'cheat' with a genetically superior male in order for her children to have both a father used to provide and raise the young and to give the children the best genetics they can get. I wish i had sources but i've read about it before and saw some documentary from the UK that compared and contrasted human and animal sexual behavior

In terms of menstruation, it's been demonstrated that women prefer different types of men given the time of the month. For example, women tend to prefer stronger, more masculine men during the period that she's most fertile during the month even if overall she tends more towards sensitive and/or intellectual types. Don't insult our intelligence by piping up and saying "NUH UH not all" since that's a given.

Scientists have studied the correlation in primates between testicle size and the level of monogamy that is practiced by a given species.

Gorillas are a monogamous species, and have relatively small testicles. Chimpanzees fukk like bunny rabbits on Viagra, and have large testicles.

Guess where humans fall? Right in between. That means we are a "somewhat monogamous" species.

Surely our "science means nothing" crowd can come up with SOMETHING to refute all of this well documented research.

 

[STR8UP]

I want to see a moderator close another mod's thread for turning into a flame war, like all the other looks-matter threads. That'll be pretty funny.

There wouldn't be a flame war if people debated the points they don't agree with rather than getting all fired up and posting jibberish.

 

[jonwon]

That's just it....there is LOGIC behind nature.

I can't even believe people debate this stuff Anyone who has studied the human mating process knows this (Rollo's material) is based upon scientific study. I have read a lot of material on the subject, but nothing that was as well articulated, and certainly nothing that addressed the subject matter specifically as it applies to helping guys get a better grasp of how all of this stuff works.

The naysayers arguments are "keep it simple". "All you gotta do is learn how to fukk her mind and body".

Innovative.

Or iqqi's "It's the WHOLE package".

Well DUH, Sherlock, as dense as some people can be I don't think anyone on either side would debate that.

Anyone can walk outside and say. "It's nature that makes a tree grow". Iqqi is saying, "It's all about a guys personality, the whole package". That's like explaining how a tree grows by saying "It's nature".

It's an oversimplified explanation that doesn't explain anything at all. Break that DOWN into pieces, then you start to get answers. Is it laziness? Or do you just want to argue?

If "gene's don't mean sh!t" you wouldn't be alive today. You do understand that there is a REASON behind the survival of your ancestors, don't you?

And to those of you who argue "Well things are different today than they were 1000 years ago". Yea, they are different. But it hasn't been long enough for our species to devolve.

With some of you it's like trying to have a discussion with a religious person. Doesn't matter how much logic you throw at them, their answer is "It just is".

Your too stuck in the western world beliefs, it has 'blinded you'.

Listen to me!

I am trying to reach out to you.

Ignore this, it is your choice<< IN-TIME YOU WILL SEE!

 

[guru1000]

What is the secret key ingredient to attracting females, short and long term?

CHARACTER!

Let's take three scenarios.

A RICH PROVISIONER. Does the woman chase him? Initially YES, maybe long term.

A MODEL LOOKING GUY. Does the woman chase him? Initially YES, but not long term.

A MAN WITH CHARACTER. Picture this scenario. You are out on a date with a HB 9.5. She asks " So what do you do for a living, What kind of house do you own?". You rise and say "That is disgusting.". You walk out. Does she chase you? Will she always chase you if you are of high character. YES!

I , personally , have or have had all 3 traits.

LOOKS are good. PROVISIONING is great. But character always wins the race!

 

[STR8UP]

In all of these quasi-scientific/psychological explanations what is often missing is that sex is often just sex - just another activity that we engage in for our own pleasure. Sex for many is like a drug. It feels good and one wants more. Often having sex with someone is little different than a junkie getting another fix, nothing more, nothing less. Biological imperatives rarely matter, consciously or unconsciously.

Sex is just sex.

Yet another explanation that explains nothing. As if there is no reason behind the things we do. If this were the case humans would be EXTINCT in a few generations. Everything we do is a well orchestrated dance that ensures our species survival.

"Oh no.....with feminism and women being able to work and earn money everything is completely different. We are no longer guided by biological urges"

Do you really believe this?

In conclusion, and in direct contradiction to the OP, most women see in the same man their best opportunity for offspring both in genetic material and in resources.

So biology plays no part, yet it does? Which is it?

Women cheat because the man is not fulfilling her emotions needs, that is, he is not making her happy.

As any woman would LOVE for you to believe.

That's a woman's EXCUSE to cheat, not her reason. What if a man claimed he cheated because his woman wasn't "there" for him? He would be tarred and feathered. Why the double standard? Because it benefits WOMEN for it to exist.

Lets all just give women some get out of jail free cards, why don't we?

he implies that a man must necessarily succumb to a woman’s method in order to have and raise children.

I'm pretty sure he was clear about it being a two way street.

The idea that women would choose one man for genetic material and another for security/resources would make for a very dysfunctional society.

I don't know what planet you are living on, but I've been to the other side of the globe and back and I see quite a bit of dysfunction.

This just goes back to my theory that most men are ostriches. They would rather stick their heads in the sand and "pretend" rather than acknowledging the harsh realities of the mating game.

 

[jonwon]

Sex is just sex.

Yet another explanation that explains nothing. As if there is no reason behind the things we do. If this were the case humans would be EXTINCT in a few generations. Everything we do is a well orchestrated dance that ensures our species survival.

"Oh no.....with feminism and women being able to work and earn money everything is completely different. We are no longer guided by biological urges"

Do you really believe this?



So biology plays no part, yet it does? Which is it?



As any woman would LOVE for you to believe.

That's a woman's EXCUSE to cheat, not her reason. What if a man claimed he cheated because his woman wasn't "there" for him? He would be tarred and feathered. Why the double standard? Because it benefits WOMEN for it to exist.

Lets all just give women some get out of jail free cards, why don't we?



I'm pretty sure he was clear about it being a two way street.



I don't know what planet you are living on, but I've been to the other side of the globe and back and I see quite a bit of dysfunction.

This just goes back to my theory that most men are ostriches. They would rather stick their heads in the sand and "pretend" rather than acknowledging the harsh realities of the mating game.

Get this into your skull STR8UP.

The ''''THEORY'''' of EVOLUTION!

FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE PROGRESS OF '''''''OPINION'''''' ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES PREVIOUSLY TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK


Then Rollo has fixed this with:

Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship.

There are many places that DONT PRACTICE MONOGAMY.

If you have been around the world, you would have SEEN THIS!

Whos got his head buried in the sand.

Your being lied to, its all around you, your still jacked into the matrix, your stilling unplugging the wires!!

You to me STR8UP, are slotting into the PROVIDER catagory, me i dont have a CATAGORY, not in THIS CONTEXT!

IF BEING A MAN, means i AM A PROVIDER OR A GOOD GENE DAD< Then a MAN IS WHAT I AM, but i AM ALSO ''''''MORE''''''' A DAM HELL OF ALOT MORE.

AND SO ARE YOU!

Also STR8UP.

Your firmly rooted to monogomy, the western ideal of the social structure, your a conformist, when you need to be a revolutionary, hence 10% of men are sleeping with 90% of girls, there is a reason for this, they UNDERSTAND, you DO NOT!

No offence.

Keep doing what your doing you will keep getting what you got.

You wonder why some girls flake, e.t.c on you.

TRUST ME< IF you took JOHN out and BOUGHT HIM A BEER and GLEEMED his KNOWLEDGE, girls will be COMPLAINING ABOUT YOU FLAKING ON THEM!

But you wont.

Also SCIENTIST ARE FUC*ING APPAULING WITH WOMEN, no offence but taking ADVICE FROM SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT WOMEN AND DATED IS WORSE THEN LISTENING TO WOMEN.
(not stating Rolo is a scientist, but his Thoery is based on scientific and social (western) sub-structures).

 

[_sm_]

I have been silently reading this forum for months, never feeling the need to chime in. Rollo, STR8UP and jeokerr are very intelligent contributors and I always pay attention to what they have to say.

Unfortunately, I believe that Rollo has done a profound disservice today.

Rollo’s post is basically a Don Juan interpretation of evolutionary psychology as it (in his opinion) applies to women. Evolutionary psychology grew out of the book Sociobiology, by E.O. Wilson, published in 1975. Evolutionary psychologists often study insects and animals and try to infer the links between evolution and mating behavior. There is lots of talk of “mating strategies,” “parenting,” “high investment,” strategies “low investment,” strategies, etc. among evolutionary psychologists.

These theories are no doubt reasonably good at explaining evolution and behavior in insects and some animals. But as the organism becomes more complex, these theories lose their predictive value until they degrade into nothing more than speculation about subconscious psychology—as Rollo’s post did in an erudite but somewhat facile way.

His basic model in a very broad and sweeping sense, is probably valid. That is, sometimes a woman has conflicting needs between provisioning and genetic material.

I am sure every one of us can think of a case in which a woman cheated on a good provider with a man whom we can reasonably believe might have provided “healthier” genes (if they can even be discerned by appearance or a woman’s sense of smell).

But probably every single one of us can think of a case in which a woman cheated on or left a man who was both a good provider and (visually anyway) likely to be a carrier of “healthy” genes for a man who possessed neither quality. I might add that being a good provider and having “healthy” genes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, more often than not they correlate rather than conflict.

So how do we explain the latter action (leaving a man with both money and looks) in “scientific,” sociobiological terms? We cant.

And that’s the problem.

Because sometimes women want a good provider. And sometimes they want a visually perfect male specimen. And sometimes they want to be entertained or amused by a guy with a good sense of humor and a powerful personality. Sometimes they want a fabulous lover and sometimes they are simply bored. Sometimes they are horny and will bed almost any random guy. And sometimes they want to make someone jealous or create scandal or drama. Sometimes they are simply drunk and we know what can happen then. As a woman ages, provisioning becomes relatively more important. But for a young woman, nearly all of the things I listed could be her motivators at one time or another.

So what does all this mean?

What I think it means is that the behavior of women can not be categorized in any simplistic, “scientific,” either/ or kind of way. They’re creatures driven by social consensus, their genes, their capriciousness, emotions and their hormones. Trying to come up with a two-part explanatory theory that can possibly handle all the relevant variables is impossible and we should all know it is impossible because men have been trying to “crack the code” for thousands of years. It’s unlikely SoSuave did today. A good evolutionary psychologist would likely respond to this by pointing out that all these variables women employ are part of her “integrated successful mating strategy.” And he mights be right. But how can we either prove or disprove such speculation?

So yes, sometimes (often) a woman is looking for good genetic material or provisioning. But sometimes (often)….something entirely different may be (and often is) at work.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...So yes, sometimes (often) a woman is looking for good genetic material or provisioning. But sometimes (often)….something entirely different may be (and often is) at work.

Bravo!

 

[jonwon]

I have been silently reading this forum for months, never feeling the need to chime in. Rollo, STR8UP and jeokerr are very intelligent contributors and I always pay attention to what they have to say.

Unfortunately, I believe that Rollo has done a profound disservice today.

Rollo’s post is basically a Don Juan interpretation of evolutionary psychology as it (in his opinion) applies to women. Evolutionary psychology grew out of the book Sociobiology, by E.O. Wilson, published in 1975. Evolutionary psychologists often study insects and animals and try to infer the links between evolution and mating behavior. There is lots of talk of “mating strategies,” “parenting,” “high investment,” strategies “low investment,” strategies, etc. among evolutionary psychologists.

These theories are no doubt reasonably good at explaining evolution and behavior in insects and some animals. But as the organism becomes more complex, these theories lose their predictive value until they degrade into nothing more than speculation about subconscious psychology—as Rollo’s post did in an erudite but somewhat facile way.

His basic model in a very broad and sweeping sense, is probably valid. That is, sometimes a woman has conflicting needs between provisioning and genetic material.

I am sure every one of us can think of a case in which a woman cheated on a good provider with a man whom we can reasonably believe might have provided “healthier” genes (if they can even be discerned by appearance or a woman’s sense of smell).

But probably every single one of us can think of a case in which a woman cheated on or left a man who was both a good provider and (visually anyway) likely to be a carrier of “healthy” genes for a man who possessed neither quality. I might add that being a good provider and having “healthy” genes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, more often than not they correlate rather than conflict.

So how do we explain the latter action (leaving a man with both money and looks) in “scientific,” sociobiological terms? We cant.

And that’s the problem.

Because sometimes women want a good provider. And sometimes they want a visually perfect male specimen. And sometimes they want to be entertained or amused by a guy with a good sense of humor and a powerful personality. Sometimes they want a fabulous lover and sometimes they are simply bored. Sometimes they are horny and will bed almost any random guy. And sometimes they want to make someone jealous or create scandal or drama. Sometimes they are simply drunk and we know what can happen then. As a woman ages, provisioning becomes relatively more important. But for a young woman, nearly all of the things I listed could be her motivators at one time or another.

So what does all this mean?

What I think it means is that the behavior of women can not be categorized in any simplistic, “scientific,” either/ or kind of way. They’re creatures driven by social consensus, their genes, their capriciousness, emotions and their hormones. Trying to come up with a two-part explanatory theory that can possibly handle all the relevant variables is impossible and we should all know it is impossible because men have been trying to “crack the code” for thousands of years. It’s unlikely SoSuave did today. A good evolutionary psychologist would likely respond to this by pointing out that all these variables women employ are part of her “integrated successful mating strategy.” And he mights be right. But how can we either prove or disprove such speculation?

So yes, sometimes (often) a woman is looking for good genetic material or provisioning. But sometimes (often)….something entirely different may be (and often is) at work.

For a first post this was legendry

 

[ketostix]

for men and women; is all about sex appeal.

thas it.

for there to be sex, there must be sex appeal. If you break down sex appeal into bits you will get your answers, but i cant be fukked doin that, maybe someone else? one things for sure its very much a visual thing; an image. and i actually like keto's nunbers in this regard. 70 visual (the base look of the person + body language cues (expresiions smiles)) and 30 auditory.

if it becomes more than just sex as in kids and marriage money comes into play. but how much of an issue, im not sure. i guess its somewhere between enough to make do...and infinity?

Wow someone who got it. I was kind of surprised it'd be you for some reason swifty. But yeah you sumarized my posts quite well, and I think you summarized Rollo's points as well. Rollo just went into more detail and some people stil argued against it in circles and I'm not even sure what their argument is outside of basically be "a horny, good guy."

 

[jonwon]

fvck yeah!! :rockon:

keep postin man... you write well. and clearly smart.

this paragraph is great...



and if they find all that in the one person? cha-ching.

my money is still on the genes. if the genes are there you will be picked. there is a girl that i have singled out and for her genes no less. it is in everything that she does and in everything that she is. she can treat me worse than sh!t and i will never stop wanting her. im sure its the genes. above the genes tho there is always choice. men and women always have choice in whom they choose. and as they have choice anything goes. yea...thats it...choice :yes:

Try not to fall into this trap either< it is another trap, spun by Marketing PUA to prove a point there trying to make.

This is not THE RULE< there are expections has quoted, some women sleep with ANIMALS<<<< no JOKE!

Just ACCEPT you CANT CATAGORISE A WHOLE SPECIES HAS EVOLVED HAS HUMANS<< Humans are not robotic gene robots trying to spread there seed like DD will have you believe, yes it has FOUNDATION in alot of ways and IS A GOOD MODEL to work with BUT IT IS NOT THE RULE!!

 

[ketostix]

Get this into your skull STR8UP.

The ''''THEORY'''' of EVOLUTION!

FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE PROGRESS OF '''''''OPINION'''''' ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES PREVIOUSLY TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE FIRST EDITION OF THIS WORK


Then Rollo has fixed this with:

Monogamy is the custom or condition of having only one mate in a relationship.

There are many places that DONT PRACTICE MONOGAMY.

If you have been around the world, you would have SEEN THIS!

Whos got his head buried in the sand.

Your being lied to, its all around you, your still jacked into the matrix, your stilling unplugging the wires!!

You to me STR8UP, are slotting into the PROVIDER catagory, me i dont have a CATAGORY, not in THIS CONTEXT!

IF BEING A MAN, means i AM A PROVIDER OR A GOOD GENE DAD< Then a MAN IS WHAT I AM, but i AM ALSO ''''''MORE''''''' A DAM HELL OF ALOT MORE.

AND SO ARE YOU!

Also STR8UP.

Your firmly rooted to monogomy, the western ideal of the social structure, your a conformist, when you need to be a revolutionary, hence 10% of men are sleeping with 90% of girls, there is a reason for this, they UNDERSTAND, you DO NOT!

No offence.

Keep doing what your doing you will keep getting what you got.

You wonder why some girls flake, e.t.c on you.

TRUST ME< IF you took JOHN out and BOUGHT HIM A BEER and GLEEMED his KNOWLEDGE, girls will be COMPLAINING ABOUT YOU FLAKING ON THEM!

But you wont.

Also SCIENTIST ARE FUC*ING APPAULING WITH WOMEN, no offence but taking ADVICE FROM SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT WOMEN AND DATED IS WORSE THEN LISTENING TO WOMEN.
(not stating Rolo is a scientist, but his Thoery is based on scientific and social (western) sub-structures).

Str8up do you see how in addition to this guy not really saying aything to begin with and criticizing conclusions that weren't necessarily made, he is nasty, crude and personally attacks and insults whoever he disagrees with? He can't discuss ideas or beliefs without making it personal. If he disagrees with your post, he calls you a "loser who doesn't get women".This is female behavior by the way. Kind of ironic that he claims he's a masculine person and it's all about being a masculine man. This is in no way a flame of Jonwon, but a highly objective observation of his behavior. He can't disagree in a agreeable, respectabel manner.