Why Looks AND Provisioning Matter

[John-467]

Okay, there's a SHYT LOAD of problems with this theory.

1.) Let's assume you are correct for a minute, THAT THESE INTERNAL PROCESSES are wired into women....then why:

>>> Do you see women who most would consider to be stable women (not ones with emotional distress or some shyt).....why do you see these women hooked up with guys who TAKE THEIR RESOURCES? Guys who USE THEM for their financial stability? Guys who aren't stronger, faster, or more attractive then anyone...basically AVERAGE LOOKING GUYS, they aren't funnier, nothing....just average.....why do you see regular women supporting these guys and taking care of them? YOU would say either I'm lying and this doesn't exist....or you would say that there's something WRONG with the women I'm talking about, when these are regular everyday women.

I mean, the guy I'm talking about doesn't fit in the GOOD DAD category and he damn sure doesn't fit in the GOOD GENES category, so explain WHYYYYY since the women are HARD-WIRED to ONLYYYY look for these qualities...why are they fvckin this loser than?

Why are they supporting him (paying his living expenses)? Why are they EVEN WITH HIM?

Surellyyyyyyy if they are HARD-WIRED AND PROGRAMMED to ONLYYYYYY go after the Good Dad or the Good Gene or the guy with both the Good Dad and Good Gene qualities, then she wouldn't AT ALLLL be attracted to the guy I'm talking about.....RIGHT? Okay, then why IS SHE?


>>> Number two, again, let's assume your theory is correct. If women were already PRE-PROGRAMMED to be with a PARTICULAR TYPE OF GUY, thennn....wouldn't that mean that:

1.) Guys with money, looks, strength, nice body (really all qualiteis of the good gene and the good dad guy)...WOULDN'T that mean that if this guy in question has ALLLL of the qualities that she is HARD-WIRED to look for..wouldn't it mean this guy would experience a ZERO REJECTION RATING by women who have NOT FOUND the guy in question? Wouldn't it mean that the guy wouldn't get rejected BY ANY WOMAN that hasn't already found a guy like him?

Now you know god damn well, this guy isn't going to go out and FVCK every single god damn woman he goes after? Now you aren't that stupid are you? But according to YOUR THEORY....if the guy was high on the GOOD GENES and GOOD DAD categories both at the same time, then WOMEN SHOULD BE FALLING AT THEIR FEET!!

Look out in the environment..in the field. You see (and I'm not gay) but you see great looking guys with great careers with great bodies with great minds..you see these guys getting rejected left and right.

So explain that...I mean again, assuming your theory is correct...explain that one for me.

 

[John-467]

>> Number three, and hey Uncles it gets better. Again, assuming your theory is correct, you are ESSTENTIALLY SAYING, that WE AS HUMAN BEINGS, are NOOOOOOO smarter, NOOOOO wiser, NOOOOOOO better than ANIMALS!!!!!

It is what you define and say that is hard-wired in women is what it hard-wired REALLY in female ANIMALS! Now (I'm no scientist), but you know what makes a person a human fvckin being?

It's their ability to CHOOSE. It's their ability to rationalize, have emotions, make THEIR OWN FVCKING DECISIONS.

According to you guys, women dont' MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS on who they fvck, they are PRE-PROGRAMMED.....(and I get critizied for calling chicks a bytch, you basically just called her a female dog yourself, at least when I call da bytch dat I'm jokin )

So basically you are saying, that WOMEN ARE NO BETTER THAN ANIMALS? Just like a dog is and can be pre-programmed to KNOW WHO HIS MASTER IS...a woman is ALREADY PROGRAMMED LIKE THIS and can't POSSIBLY make ANY OTHER DECISIONS on her own outside of the programming?

Now I know about the programming of the subconscious mind and all that stuff, so don't get all Robert Anthony on me, but as a HUMAN BEING, even with a SUBCONSCIOUS programming, I can AT ANY TIME MAKE ANOTHER GOD DAMN DECISION TO DO ANYTHING!

I mean I can have a "habit" of doing something, but I can CHANGE it at any time....this is not so EASY in the Animal Kingdom. Animals are HARD-WIRED to do shyt, animals are pre-programmed to do ALOT OF THE SHYT you are saying that HUMAN BEINGS (WOMEN) are pre-programmed to do..and in that sense, women would be no HIGHER than a fvcking parrot.

Do you EVENNNNNNN HEARRRRRR wtf you guys are saying sometimes??

Okay so, I sitting here, I'm having computer problems like fvcking hell trying to get my Adobe to work, but I'm going to be here alll weekend.

Strup, Keto, Rollo, and all the other guys who share this mindset....can you please answer the above situations I just brought to you?

BTW...go Pistons! :yes:

 

[STR8UP]

Funny that a guy who insists that you can’t trust what a woman says also insists that his sexual prowess is confirmed by what women say.

That's a very good point. Let me address it.

I initially thought the same thing. Is she blowing smoke up my ass?

Then I noticed a pattern. Not one, but ONE AFTER ANOTHER saying the same thing. And up until a few years ago I never heard that. Not once.

That coupled with the fact that it got back to me from another source (women don't have much incentive to lie about this to other women) and the one who talked about it in front of all of our friends when the topic of sex came up.

It's like a chick telling you that your d!ck is big. If one chick says it only to you, take it with a grain of salt. If multiple chicks say you got a big d!ck, and they tell other women, and they announce it in front of a group of people, well, draw your own conclusions but I think it's pretty safe to say they aren't lying.

So it wasn't the words per se, it was the action that they took in conveying those words.

Yes, sex is just sex. Over the years I’ve engaged in sexual play thousands of times. Only thrice have I engaged in sex for reproductive purposes. Thus, sex for reproductive purposes becomes a statistically insignificant reason for having sex. By far, the reason for sex is for pleasure.

First, let me say that I appreciate the fact that you are the ONLY one on the other side of the table who is putting any effort into backing up what they are saying. Props.

As for sex being primarily for pleasure, yes, most of us fukk because it feels good, not to produce babies.

But why does sex feel so good that it makes you want to engage in it? Because it serves a biological purpose.

See, you can't argue that the psychological aspect of sex has changed but ignore the fact that the physical aspect is the same. It's very easy to give an opinion on the psychological side, but when it comes down to it you have to account for the fact that we are still doing the same thing we have done for eons.....we fukk because it gives us a rush.

That is the problem with the other side to this argument. You getting laid is NOT determined by random criteria. "It's the WHOLE man, the CHARACTER of the man" you argue. Well, what makes up the the whole man and his character? It is traits that to some extent are indicative of a man having the capability to secure resources, among lots of other things, of course.

With these guys that you all call AFC, mostly they are being rejected for not being entertaining enough, their presence not being pleasurable to the woman, often because they are boring, or have irritating personalities.

Being entertaining and pleasurable to women doesn’t mean that you have to be a clown and put on a variety show. Sometimes just having an honorable character that makes her feel proud to stand next to is pleasure enough.

Not buying it.

This is Oprah/ eHarmony B.S.

Women just want a man who entertains her and she can feel proud of? C'mon now....

IYes your biology and her biology, as that relates to how and what you are, plays a big role in deciding if you and a particular woman would ever get together. But the biology of the need for reproduction does not necessarily play a role

So at what point in history did this change? Was it the advent of birth control? Are you saying that it was always this way?

Nope, it’s true. A woman who is truly happy in a relationship will rarely, if ever cheat. It is when the guy becomes boring, routine, unattractive, unavailable that women begin to look elsewhere.

Or when he begins to display other characteristics that show weakness as a man, which directly relates to his ability for provisioning. Don't choose which part to keep and ignore the rest.

 

[John-467]

Str8up, leave potato alone and address what I just wrote to u Jr.

 

[Interceptor]

good insight, John.

For me, personally, I have personally seen these circumstances in couples. Times where I could not understadn "WHy woulhd SHE be with HIM?"
and vice versa.
Eventually, I got the viewpoint that it's not Black and White, cut and dried. It's not a BInary, Yes or NO type of dilemma.
So I personally have a problem with an argument or conclsuion that states this as "ONLY".

I will tell you a story.
I was about 17 maybe?
I was at a friend's house.
There was a woman there, much older than me. We got to talking about sex. Somehow I brought up this circumstance of "what if the guy were a wife beater and treated you horribly, would you stay with him then?"

Without pausing, the woman said "Yes. If the sex was good enough."

Take a moment and think about that one...

 

[ketostix]

Str8up, leave potato alone and address what I just wrote to u Jr.

Well pvssy-eater, I for one have several good response to what you wrote. But the most expediate and best one I could come up with is: DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

Besides you're making the basically same arguments you have before which I all ready addressed.

 

[ketostix]

good insight, John.

For me, personally, I have personally seen these circumstances in couples. Times where I could not understadn "WHy woulhd SHE be with HIM?"
and vice versa.
Eventually, I got the viewpoint that it's not Black and White, cut and dried. It's not a BInary, Yes or NO type of dilemma.
So I personally have a problem with an argument or conclsuion that states this as "ONLY".

I will tell you a story.
I was about 17 maybe?
I was at a friend's house.
There was a woman there, much older than me. We got to talking about sex. Somehow I brought up this circumstance of "what if the guy were a wife beater and treated you horribly, would you stay with him then?"

Without pausing, the woman said "Yes. If the sex was good enough."

Take a moment and think about that one...

Interceptor, while it's unusual for a female to make a claim like that, it means nothing. She was obviously enganged in baudy sex talk and her words really meant nothing in regard to what she actually would do in that situation. John is making several erroneous claims, but his basic one that women get turned on by words and ideas is nothing new. That's basic flirting 101. He's mising the real point of this thread.

 

[John-467]

Keto and you talk about others FLAMING YOU and how YOU DON'T FLAME?

It's amazing Keto, that when ANYBODY, could be me, Deus, Jon, iqqi, ANYBODY challenges your "theory" that you so dispearately want to hold onto dispite the fact that it doesn't hold up in EVERYDAY REAL LIFE SITUATIONS...

There are either one of the following:

1.) A girl (according to you girls shouldn't post here, when in all truthfulness lol really these guys could talk to a girl for once in their life)

2.) A troll (defined as a guy who comes in and just WASTES TIME posting senseless bullshyt. )

3.) An AFC (defined as a guy who just doesn't get it)

^^^ Lol I don't fit either category, my dyck is big so I know I'm not a chick, none of my posts are about bullshyt ACTUALLY ALL of my posts are explaining how you, Streup, and rollo's theory doesn't stand up to reality, and I'm not an AFC b/c well....I get something lmao.

So Keto, listen, are you going to respond to my questions or not? Define your theory brother...I mean you log in EVERY FVCKING DAY and preach the same shyt, define it.

Or is the fact of the matter true......you just got caught with your own dildo up your azz AGAIN. :crazy:

 

[John-467]

Keto....smh, look at dis guy run around da topic,

"John is making several erroneous claims, but his basic one that women get turned on by words and ideas is nothing new. That's basic flirting 101. He's mising the real point of this thread."

How about you address what I just said? (hands Keto his reading glasses).....I'm going to have someone read this to you old man in a minute, did you take your medicine this morning? :rock:

 

[Interceptor]

Well, for one, I was there.

And we can speculate about her REAL action,but I still present it as an example of what can come up in a female's thinking.

I still say that some are arguing a little over semantics, and trying to force a yes or No agenda on a theory that is not applicable at all times in every situaiton ALL the time for every single female out there regrdless of nature/nurture.......

 

[STR8UP]

Str8up, leave potato alone and address what I just wrote to u Jr.

You used the word ONNNNLLLLYYYY about half a dozen times in your post, when, once again, NOBODY said anything of the sort.

I have called you and several other posters out on this "hearing stuff" and I have yet to have any of you show me where someone posted what it is you are claiming.

If you can't QUOTE where either Rollo or myself stated that this was an ABSOLUTE, then I have no reason to respond to your post, as 2/3 of everything you wrote came out of the fact that you need a new pair of glasses Or some reading comprehension lessons.

 

[ketostix]

Well the point is women say all kinds of things, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. I've had women say all manner of stuff in baudy sex talk. But John claims all these girls are with guys who aren't attractive, that use them, and etc. I don't see his claims reflecting real life. These are just exceptions not even the norm. There's way more men being "abused" in various ways by women. Does that mean men don't care about women's looks but just want to be mind fvcked by women? His premises are built on mostly exceptions and his imagination.

 

[STR8UP]

I still say that some are arguing a little over semantics, and trying to force a yes or No agenda on a theory that is not applicable at all times in every situaiton ALL the time for every single female out there regrdless of nature/nurture.......

You're smart guy, Interceptor.

That's why I know that YOU, out of anyone here can understand that the some of the people who are arguing against this post MADE UP the argument in the first place. Neither Rollo, nor myself, nor Keto, nor anybody else to my knowledge claimed that these things were EXCLUSIVELY responsible for women's mate choice.

So who is it that is making it a yes or no issue? Only the people who don't agree with the original post, that's who.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

First off, I'm going to close this thread. Yes, my own thread. And yes, I have actually closed my own threads before this when they devolve into flame wars. I hear a lot of complaints about how Mods don't do anything or don't post or are otherwise uninvolved, and this thread is a good example of why most don't. We're caught. If I take sides, if I present a particularly controversial point of view, when ever I close a thread or censor a poster, I run the risk of coming off as less than arbitrary, less than judicial. I'm a popular Mod because I'm involved, but I get reprimanded for being one.

I've been a member of this community for 3+ years and a Mod for about 2, and in that time my posts have been nothing if not a pragmatic observations of the things I see in life, mixed with my background in psychology and what I understand sociology and biology, and the interaction of them. I'm not a brick about anything and I'm happy to have someone present a differing viewpoint. And when it's valid I can and have changed my mind based on things others have shown me. That said, however, I would expect the same degree of critical thought about my own "theories" or observation from anyone else.

Anyone who's had a basic debate class in college knows that in order to win an argument one's point must be presented in such a way as to be more valid than the opposition. In other words, attack the argument not the one presenting it. In light of this it's been my observation that about a third of the responders to this have some very lousy debate skills. Over the course of 6 pages, those with (very hostile) disagreements with my OP have only made jabs at my character, used straw-man and poisoned well tactics, but few have had anything resembling a cogent counter-argument.

This is regrettable because I had hoped this thread would shed some light on the subject for what is an increasingly common topic. Even threads that brush the surface of this draw members like magnets and they turn into a 6+ page re-hash because people are passionate about their opinions on "looks." Looks are personal, and a positive self-image is something most people try to protect - even when the rational, subconscious understanding of how our looks affect our daily lives conflict with it. No psychological schema is more ego-invested than our own self image; so much so that even in asking the question "do looks matter?" it becomes either a personal attack or is passed off as a mater of fact given. Questions aren't scary. People who have none are.

Now before I close this thread I want to drop in some counterpoints to what some of my critics brought up - in good pragmatic debate fashion.

It may surprise you but I've agreed with the point of view IQQI, JOHN 476 and even POTATO have stated, just not in whole. What I see as the main counter arguments here are the "whole package" ideal and the "out in the field - look what's happening" points. I think each of these are valid observations, but both fit into my framework.

JOHN's very impassioned reaction was basically, "hey look, I know lots of hot women who are living with worthless losers now." I could easily make an argument that proves these are exceptions to a rule, or that these women are seeking security in forms that these "losers" happen to provide, or how your own frustration with this biases your opinion (but I wont). However, regardless of the individual reasonings, the fact remains that these guys are on one side of a spectrum. Perhaps these dope-smoking, unemployed, losers are the Good Genes fathers of the kids that single mommy will have the Nice Guy Good Dad help raise once she's "realized what a loser he is?"

People don't like categories. They despise being pigeonholed since it denies them individuality. I'm sure what I posted seems to do this in a way. It seems bleak, or nihilistic. You're either a good looking Good Genes male wantonly breeding with the dozens of women throwing themselves at you, or you're a not as good looking Good Dad male patiently waiting your turn to provide for one of the Good Genes male's left overs. This is the binary response; all or nothing, black or white extremism that results from allowing one's ego-investments and emotional fallout cloud critical thinking.

This is not my message for this thread. In fact I agree with IQQI's "whole package" notion. A Man needs to be the best of both the Good Genes and the Good Dad male. This is that nebulous area dead center between the Abusive Jerk and the Doormat Nice Guy. This is the Man POOK calls the "good guy", the Man who is the "whole package," good provider and good looking. All I've done in the OP is present a framework that this operates in. It's tough for people to accept it when the curtain is ripped back and you see the mechanisms of the whole show - it seems to take the magic and the wonderment out of it, but it doesn't have to. PUAs cut from the Mystery Method cloth are met with a surprising amount of success using behavioral psychology principles that were pioneered by the likes of B.F. Skinner and other behaviorist, yet none of these PUAs know why they work. Most don't even ask. They've got the basics down enough to operate within this framework.

We can banter back & forth about how my OP was Darwinistic, this wasn't my intent. I'm not trying to make this an "evolution is everything and if you ended up on the short end of the stick you're screwed" proposition. I am proposing a framework that takes into account our biological past and psycho-social methods of dealing with human sexuality in a changed environment in our present. I don't have a problem with evolution in a biological, sociological or psychological application, but I'd start with The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins long before Darwin. If you've got a problem with the principle of evolution then you should be disagreeing with 90% of my posts anyway.

 

[John-467]

LOL...now you notice how Str8up and Keto are STILL NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.

Instead....they are trying to take focus OFF of addressing what I just asked them and trying to STEER the focus back to my supposed "theory" when I have none.

Stru8p you aren't telling me that Rollo didn't say that WAS THE END ALL BE ALL, did you read his post? Basically his wording was this was HOW IT IS

Hhaahah Streup why are you so offensive? I can't talk shyt in my posts and make jokes lol, THAT stops you from addressing my questions.

I'll tell you what Keto and Streup, answer the questions I asked you......in ANSWERING THEM, you will see how your "provider/gene" shyt isn't accurate.

:rockon:

 

[John-467]

AHAHA....LOOK! LMS is right....now ROLLA is going to close the thread!

Lol I'll probably be banned also !! :crackup:

 

[John-467]

NO...ROLLO.....b4 u close the thread....

ADDRESS WHAT I JUST SAID, you said you DIDN'T WNAT TO, nooooo do it.

In Pook's Voice: Be a man!!

 

[STR8UP]

But John claims all these girls are with guys who aren't attractive, that use them, and etc. I don't see his claims reflecting real life. These are just exceptions not even the norm.

Yea, like all of the decent, well adjusted women are out there screwing bums. Thats a sign of insecurity and low self esteem, which precludes a woman from being considered to be decent and well adjusted.

I knew a fat dumpy girl (her own words) once who supported her deadbeat boyfriend while he sat on the couch playing video games and fukking other women while she was at work. You think he could have gotten away with that with a woman of high value? Not a chance.

Not en my parta da hood NEways

 

[John-467]

Ok here's Strup speaks,

"Yea, like all of the decent, well adjusted women are out there screwing bums. Thats a sign of insecurity and low self esteem, which precludes a woman from being considered to be decent and well adjusted."

OKAYYY, so Strup you are saying that what I'm seeing and experiencing, ALLLLL of the women have low self-esteem, that's what you are saying right?


"I knew a fat dumpy girl (her own words) once who supported her deadbeat boyfriend while he sat on the couch playing video games and fukking other women while she was at work. You think he could have gotten away with that with a woman of high value? Not a chance. Not en my parta da hood NEways"

Okay, so you are saying that the WOMEN I'm talking about are low quality, low self esteem, etc right?

So Strup, HOLD UP.....HOLD UP.......

Let's say you are right (hell I don't know, maybe the bytch has low self esteem), let's say you are RIGHT...and the women that I'm talking about ALLL have low self esttem.

But? Didnt Rollo say that women are HARD-WIRED to NOT be with the guy I'm talking about? Well in that case, WITH LOW SELF ESTEEM, wouldn't she just NOT BE WITH ANY GUY PERIOD????

 

[John-467]

ahah, OLD MAN I'm kinda baiting you to see that Rollo's whole theory is incorrect.