Why Looks AND Provisioning Matter

[ketostix]

keto man...the whole "be a horny good guy" thing...come on dude. you know what we were talkin about when we went down that route. we're talkin about bein sexual. i guess...we're talkin about the mental side of things. what you discuss; thats the IMAGE part of things, thats the image part of sex appeal. john and jonwon and me and interceptor et al. when we're talkin about "horny good guy thing" we're talkin about the ACTION part. the doing part. the bein sexual part. none of us disregard the fact that you need to also possess the sex appeal image. but havin a sex appeal image isn't enough. you also need the sex appeal attitude!!! the sex appeal character!!! im sure you an understand and agree with this.

Yes, swifty I understand the distinction, but being sexual without the image or without value, often results in guys being shot down. It's just mental masturbation to say being sexual and acting on it is that important. Women make it a lot easier when they're actually attracted to you first.

 

[jonwon]

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.

I never called him a looser, yes it is a flame.

Your starting to get on my nerves.

 

[ketostix]

I never called him a looser, yes it is a flame.

Your starting to get on my nerves.

In so many words you have tried to portray guys you disagree with as losers who don't get it and don't get women. Now you're trying to say you haven't conveyed what you have. I'm starting to get on your nerves? You think for the reasons I've given you don't get on people's nerves? By the way I thought you were going to ignore me?

 

[jonwon]

In some many words you have tried to potray guys you disagree with as losers who don't get it and don't get women. Now you're trying to say you haven't conveyed what you have. I'm starting to get on your nerves? You think for the reasons I've given you don't get on people's nerves? By the way I thought you were going to ignore me?

No i haven't.

I would ignore you, but you help to pass time whilst i chill with my hang-over listening to music

Hence entertainment, you provide it.

 

[ketostix]

I
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.

See the problem here is I don't think Rollo was trying to provide a code for every single individual woman's behavior. No, he was providing the main motivators that most women will operate under. The "code" has been cracked long ago on Sosuave. When you cut through all the BS broadly appearance, value and status cause the attraction most often in females. The devil is in the details however regarding how you communicate those things.

The other problem with your argument is you're basically saying that women's selection is totally random and that there's not criteria or factors to it. If this is the case then one guy wouldn't be any more or less attractive to women than another. Anyone that is familair with women's behavior knows this isn't true. Some guys fvck 30+ different girls a year and many just 2 or 3 and quite a few 0. And how many women do you see who will openly say they would do all manner of things with various celebrities. Appearance, value and status matter highly to most women.

 

[STR8UP]

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!

I'll have to read this again a few times, but I'm pretty sure this just goes to further prove this theory. How is this contradicting anything that was said?

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

I'm trying really hard to understand what you are trying to say, but it sounds as if you are talking in circles like the rest of them. Please clue me in.

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

This might be the root of the disagreement here.

You are taking my logical analysis of something to mean that I "subscribe" to a "way of thinking". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't feel as if a man SHOULD provide for women. That is not what I am saying at all.

If I remember awhile back in a similar discussion that's exactly what other posters were trying to say. I was saying that "Women seek providers" and they were taking it as "A man should provide for a woman".

Keto brought this up a few times. It isn't about the act of providing, it is the qualities a man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide.

 

[jonwon]

Keto brought this up a few times. It isn't about the act of providing, it is the qualities a man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide.

Seperate this:
man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide.

To this:

It isn't about the act of providing, it is the 'qualities' of a 'man'!

And you have nailed it.

 

[ketostix]

I think this might be an experiment by Rollo to see how quickly this particular looks-matter thread will degenerate. Anybody else notice how he hasn't replied once to his own thread?

Deus you're the one who makes every thread into a "only looks matter thread". You see what you want to see.

 

[STR8UP]

Jonwon, seriously man, you're a great poster, but I don't understand why you and others attack (or should I say criticize) a theory, but provide nothing to back it up.

As Keto pointed out, if there were no method to women's madness we would ALL be on a level playing field. This site wouldn't even exist. There would be no Average Frustrated Chumps.

And about the monogamy thing....where did you pull that out of? Again, I say one thing and it's taken COMPLETELY out of context. I said humans are believed to be "semi-monogamous" which means that they will develop a pair bond with one mate and have sex with others. How did you get "The matrix has you brainwashed into believing in monogamy?

Seriously, go back and read everything I posted WITHOUT just picking out one word and tell me how you arrived at what you thought I said.

 

[jonwon]

Jonwon, seriously man, you're a great poster, but I don't understand why you and others attack (or should I say criticize) a theory, but provide nothing to back it up.

As Keto pointed out, if there were no method to women's madness we would ALL be on a level playing field. This site wouldn't even exist. There would be no Average Frustrated Chumps.

And about the monogamy thing....where did you pull that out of? Again, I say one thing and it's taken COMPLETELY out of context. I said humans are believed to be "semi-monogamous" which means that they will develop a pair bond with one mate and have sex with others. How did you get "The matrix has you brainwashed into believing in monogamy?

Seriously, go back and read everything I posted WITHOUT just picking out one word and tell me how you arrived at what you thought I said.

I accused you of 'jacking into the Matrix' Hence 'Western ideals on how HUMANS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER'. (or not being fully FREE FROM IT).

I have provided back up has have most posters, its there STR8UP, it is THERE, but this is blinding you : Hence 'Western ideals on how HUMANS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER'.

Western sphere! The model your working with, is the social structure that has been put up with, that you are CONFORMING TO!

But your RESISTING, i can TELL!

Hence you will SEE.

I will leave it at that.

If anyone has got POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS< IT IS YOU, your very very very close, to understanding what is being talked about.

Very close, you almost broke through it, BUT, BUT, some disbelief KICKED IN, it HAPPENED HERE:

Seperate this:
man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide.

To this:

It isn't about the act of providing, it is the 'qualities' of a 'man'!

And you have nailed it.


It isn't about the act of providing, it is the 'qualities' of a 'man'!

It isn't about the act of providing, it is the 'qualities' of a 'man'!

For some reason, SOMETHING made you PUT THIS ON THE END:
man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide

Thats where it GRIPPED YOU AGAIN.

It DOES NOT EXIST< EXCEPT IN YOUR OWN MIND<< FIGHT IT¬!

YOUR QUOTE:
Keto brought this up a few times. It isn't about the act of providing, it is the qualities a man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide.

The second PART DOES NOT EXIST, only in your mind IS THIS TRUTH.

 

[John-467]

ahahaha....Now this is funny, god damn I keep saying I'm not gonna say shyt else.

Look...I'm about to respond to most of you guys in this thread, Keto (who blantly ignored me in the last post lol), Str8up (the guys with 8,000 Real Estate properties lol), and some others.

Just hold on, sit back, take your hands outta your pants......you'll see my post in a minute.

 

[STR8UP]

Seperate this:
man possesses that are consistent with a man who has the ABILITY to provide.

To this:

It isn't about the act of providing, it is the 'qualities' of a 'man'!

And you have nailed it.

It IS the qualities of a man, and those qualities can be outlined and defined to give us a better understanding of why people do what they do. In your opinion what ARE these qualities?

I think we are all generally in agreement as to the base qualities that women seek in a man, what is the root of the desire for these qualities? there is a reason whay women want confidence and other traits, what is the reason?

I'm spending WAAAY to much time on this thread......

 

[STR8UP]

Just hold on, sit back, take your hands outta your pants......you'll see my post in a minute.

Can't wait to see what kind of new and valuable insight you have.....

 

[jonwon]

It IS the qualities of a man, and those qualities can be outlined and defined to give us a better understanding of why people do what they do. In your opinion what ARE these qualities?

I think we are all generally in agreement as to the base qualities that women seek in a man, what is the root of the desire for these qualities? there is a reason whay women want confidence and other traits, what is the reason?

I'm spending WAAAY to much time on this thread......

Lets take apart JOHN.

The guy is:

Witty, funny, aloof, laid back, ****y a little arrogant, CONFIDENT and self ACTUALIZED, he does not CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT HIM< DO YOU THINK HE CARES WHAT WOMEN THINK?

The MODEL OF A MAN IS NOT DEFINED AROUND WOMEN.

Women are a Complimentary to the MAN not the FOUNDATION.

I sense your SURROUNDED by FALSE STATEMENTS OF PROVIDER GUY, through most probably your INTERACTIONS WITH WOMEN, in your IMMEDIATE CIRCLE<<

NOT ALL WOMEN MARRY THE PROVIDER.

Remember this and there are alot of happily married women who dont have a provider MAN IN THERE LIFE.

There are ALOT OF LOOSER MEN WITH SMOKING HOT WOMEN.

The Pre-quisits for a provider are most probably apart of your SOCIO-GROUP-BUT (hence GROUP THINK IS POISIONING YOU)

BUT

BUT

BUT

IF even.

IF EVEN.

It was a pre-quisit for the WOMEN< SHE is LYING TO HERSELF and the POWER OF A MAN CAN SMASH HER PERCEPTIONS DOWN, its up-to YOU to then JUDGE HER WORTH, for YOU.

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

I would never ever ever be USED<< which JOHN COVERS PERFECTLY<<<< YOUR SETTING YOURSELF UP FOR THAT PATH<<< LEAVE IT AND LEAVE IT TODAY.

So what if you FAIL to snag a women because the PROVIDER WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR HER.

There are PLENTY MORE< Who WILL WANT YOU FOR 'YOU'

For YOU, for YOU, for YOU.

(the model i state for JOHN, is not the TEMPLATE FOR BEING A MAN, it is one of MANY SUCCESFUL TEMPLATES FOR SUCCESS WITH WOMEN, BUT EVEN LOOSERS BAG AND MARRY AND STAY TOGETHER WITH WOMEN).

Looks and MONEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT<<< IF there IMPORTANT TO HER<<< TRADE HER IN<<<<< or BE USED<<<

There nothing but strings to your MAN BOW, nothing more nothing LESS<<

To your MAN.

 

[reset]

The times I have been successful with women (at least as far as maintaining and increasing interest level) have been when I was just having a good time. The whole C&F thing has never been a problem for me. It's just what I do, I love to tease and make fun of women, and if they have a personality, they enjoy it. You just play with them, tease them, bust their balls, and turn what they say around on them. The attitude is like "hey I'm having fun with you, but what was that you just said? Do you REALLY believe that? That's goofy. You're a goofy girl" and they love that attitude, it's when their eyes start sparkling and they start hitting you playfully and calling you a jerk. But they don't really think you're a "jerk", you're just a confident ****y guy, and since you have this presence about you, they are comfortable. They love proving themselves to you as you qualify them. They want more of it and all of the sudden you can't get rid of them.

It's all FUN. You are both having FUN. There's no thinking involved. When we post here it's all the man's logic, which is normal, but when you're actually with the girl and are in the confident frame of mind, it just kind of happens. You're not necessarily thinking of tomorrow, or the stuff you read on how you're "supposed" to act. If you have some confidence those "man qualities" just come out, because you are a man after all, that stuff is inside of you. It's just the constant second guessing, and being in the "Matrix" that causes us to lose sight of our natural, spontaneous, almost CHILD-LIKE nature. That's when you start worrying how you are coming off to the girl, if you are doing or saying the right thing, you get "out of the moment" and the whole thing falls apart.

It's like two kids playing together and teasing each other. It's really just nature taking its course.

This is an interesting discussion--I guess I don't think in terms of "she wants me to be rich and successful", I look at it like "I want to play with this girl." I have friends who say "yeah that chick is really hot but you know she only wants a guy with money" and that's kind of a pessimistic attitude to have, because all women respond to a guy who is confident, PLAYFUL, and teases them. It makes them feel like a woman, and as you see the woman feeling like a woman, you feel like more of a man.

And I am not a DJ at all, but that attitude I have described has been successful so far as getting girls to be the ones who chase after me, call me, find stupid excuses to be around me, stuff like that. That is my true personality. Things like so suave have just helped me realize that it's more about being your natural spontaneous self, MINUS the years and years of f'd up AFC conditioning. I believe there's always a real man underneath.

My challenge now is to take who I already am and stay in the game long enough that I have the courage to get more physical, and not fall in love too soon--because when my emotions start getting involved (and I am working on that) I can get needy and clingy and push the girl away--basically the opposite of the things I did to get her all hot and bothered in the first place.

Hope I didn't ramble on and get off topic here, maybe someone could comment on what I just said. I think I'm starting to really "get" what you guys are talking about here.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

...Hope I didn't ramble on and get off topic here, maybe someone could comment on what I just said. I think I'm starting to really "get" what you guys are talking about here.

Not bad, you made sense even though what you explained goes against the topic of the thread. In a nutshell, you explained how you use your character to attract women. That you don't follow any set guidelines or rules, that you actions alone seem to work (even though the "rules" when done correctly produce similar actions).

The problem that you're challenged with about not falling in love too soon and escalating is that even though you have the means (your character) you don't have a purpose or defined goal (i.e. a laid out description of the type of woman you'd take to the next level).

If you had a solid idea about what type of woman (looks and qualities) you'd be interested in, you'd know when to escalate and with whom. Right now you are happily in a goulash of women without knowing whether you prefer beef, potatoes, onions or noodles.

 

[ketostix]

Not bad, you made sense even though what you explained goes against the topic of the thread. In a nutshell, you explained how you use your character to attract women. That you don't follow any set guidelines or rules, that you actions alone seem to work (even though the "rules" when done correctly produce similar actions).

The problem that you're challenged with about not falling in love too soon and escalating is that even though you have the means (your character) you don't have a purpose or defined goal (i.e. a laid out description of the type of woman you'd take to the next level).

If you had a solid idea about what type of woman (looks and qualities) you'd be interested in, you'd know when to escalate and with whom. Right now you are happily in a goulash of women without knowing whether you prefer beef, potatoes, onions or noodles.

I was about to reply to what you said reset, but I agree with Francisco. What you said isn't bad, but you are getting into what and how to go about interacting with women, basically the icing on the cake. This thread was more about about what fundamental cause attraction and desire in females. One thing is people may have different goals, ONS, sex or acquiring the highest quality girl they can find for something more long-term.

 

[Interceptor]

RIght on, Frankie, Well said.
Basically, and I have said this before, any guy who is starting to "get it" and is getting into the "Enlightened Seducer" stage, and has begun the process is still in too early development for an LTR, IMO.

I am not saying that it CANNOT happen and that it will be the end of the world if you do, Im just saying that sometimes we may be caught up in the "new toy" syndrome and just develop "feelings" for the first girl we happen to 'game" correctly finally.
We need to watch out for that.

Remeber, at some point you are really going to start to BE a "hot commodity".

Women will sense you (congruency in displaying your SELF in all it's masculine, sexual glory) , and they will try a lot of things to keep you with them.

NOW>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is not a cop out for those who are REAL commitment Phobes.

Don't be that guy. That guy is a pvssy who is afraid of women and afraid of being 'vulnerable" and afraid of "losing" afraid of intimacy etc etc

We need to really GO for women who ADD to our lives.

I feel that a lot fo guys get caught up in the "female attention" portion and get swept away by all the recognition and validation.

This is the dangerous part, guys.

Sometimes it's either extreme.
Guy gets girl and 'settles down" and loses attraction and interest, or guy doesnt want one girl ,he wants ALL of them ALL the time at any cost.


Don't get caught by the trap.

 

[reset]

Thanks Francisco, that gives me some clarity. I'll stay on topic.

And I agree with Interceptor, I've been putting the cart before the horse, and in no way ready for a LTR. So that's a step for me in the right direction. Back to your regular scheduled programming.

 

[John-467]

LOL, okay, let's do this.

rollo, Str8up, Keto, and others who have SIMILAR beliefs as they do, tell me have I summarized YOUR beliefs so far?

Summary: Women will ONLY select males based on internal biological processes that are deeply hard-wired into the woman of which she for the most part has little to no AWARENESS of. These processes include selecting the best possible mate who can provide long term security for her and her kids and these qualities include provisioing and security on one side, and then being more strong, fast, and attractive then others on the other end.

To sum it up, when a woman goes out and selects her IDEAL mate she's looking for a man who possess all of these qualities wrapped up into one motafvcka, the qualities of:

1.) Being financially stable or at least HAVING THE ABILITY to be financial stable (The good dad, the good guy)

+

2.) Being a stronger person than a number of his fellow guys, could include physical and mental strength, or at least HAVING THE ABILITY to be stronger.
3.) Having better looks than a number of his fellow guys, could include muscluclar, facial looks or again, could include having the ability to look better. (the good genes guy)

Then women are having problems finding all of these qualites wrapped up in one motafvcka....they will find a guy who has the financial stability but not really the "genes" of being stronger than other guys and vice versa.....

IS THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE?? If I got it twisted tell me Uncles?? Is that it.