|
I have often expressed that I hate "players" who use women and leave them feeling horrible.
Let's suppose that in a species where reproduction between males and females involves "courtship" during which time, the guy presents his "fitness" and the female judges...
There are two predominant strategies that the guy can adopt. The first is to become fit so the girls will dig them. The second is to fake fitness, fuck the girl, then run off. The first strategy focuses on rearing a few children successfully. The second strategy involves rearing many children, and hoping that some other "nice" male will come along and raise their children.
So even if we aren't consciously aware of it, there is a species-wide battle of the genes between the "nice" genes and the "exploitive" genes.
Not only that, but badass guys will make nice girls distrust everyone, including nice guys. Badass girls will marry nice guys for their money, and sleep with badass guys.
I hate you. I hate all of you. All you "badboy" guys. all you "bad girl" who are so sweet on the surface. even nice people are ruined by you. including me.
I hate you!!!!!
when you hurt me, I can live on. But every nice person I know has been hurt by you too. They are worse off because of it. you think you are fooling me, but i'm only playing because i want to believe that you are better than that. and i don't know what else i can do. I HATE YOU
 
|
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Hah, first time I read that I was thinking "the female judges ... do what?"
This isn't an analysis, more of a rant on the situation. But it's explained quite well by Dawkins in one of his books, I think it was Selfish Gene. Deception arms-race. Also a possible explanation for our "consciences" -- in order to effectively convince the other that we will not deceive, there is an evolutionary pressure for those that have a mechanism that makes it very difficult for us to deceive. Kind of out there, I think, but very appealing.
|
there's the theory... but it happens in real life all the time. that is more distressing than the theory. i hate it.
|
Korea (South)1888 Posts
"The only way to win is not to play."
Starcraft is more deserving of your time. Trust me.
Or don't trust me. I never did try the alternative. BUT THAT MEANS I'M UNTAINTED.
|
thats some analysis
im on both sides
i definitely play the field well and use some chicks
but the ones im really interested in are always damaged
guess i have noone to blame but myself?
learn to adapt
|
United States7488 Posts
I hate nice guys because you all ruin the image of masculinity. Women are getting used to and expect your supplicating ways and you make it more difficult for all men to get women. You don't have to be a jerk to get women (and to be honest I don't really like them either, because they create damaged girls, which are more trouble then they could ever be worth). Men just need to not be afraid of exposing their manliness; as long as they can remain in control of that masculinity also.
|
Korea (South)1888 Posts
semioldguy got it spot on. You fuckers who are more attractive to women make it harder for everyone else. Stop trying so damn hard so we don't have to either!
No I don't care if I purposefully misinterpreted his argument. The point is that it says what I want it to say.
|
kinda hypocritical coming from someone with the quote "I want women to want me and men to want to be me."
"I hate you. I hate all of you. All you "badboy" guys. all you "bad girl" who are so sweet on the surface. even nice people are ruined by you. including me."
so posting a thread about how much u hate people(god could you use something other than hate, spamming it doesn't emphasis your point anymore than it's already come across) is being nice and fair to "all of them"
anyways,all bias aside
just avoid these kind of people, you'd be amazed at how u can pick apart complete morons and generally smart beings , if u have the mentality of being cautious at least
which brings me to this.. "but badass guys will make nice girls distrust everyone, including nice guys."
That just means u need to put forth the extra effort to show you aren't one of "those" people ; completely practical.
and any girl who looks for ..."he first is to become fit so the girls will dig them. The second is to fake fitness, fuck the girl, then run off."
why should you give a fuck about their superficial tendencies, unless you are victim to the same ailment you seem to be waging war against, i don't see why you can't just de-associate yourself from these people you dreadfully hate.
BTW you aren't going to get any positive feedback from TL with that attitude ( can my assumption give way to credence? )
At least give some background story; so we can know the context, it's pathetically obvious that you're taking it personally, so state your exigency.
|
United States7488 Posts
On July 29 2008 15:24 BottleAbuser wrote:
semioldguy got it spot on. You fuckers who are more attractive to women make it harder for everyone else. Stop trying so damn hard so we don't have to either!
No I don't care if I purposefully misinterpreted his argument. The point is that it says what I want it to say.
Nice guys aren't more attractive to women, but they create more expectations of women for those of us who they are attracted to. And that's what I can't stand.
edit: Nice guys would all have a much easier time if they just treated women like their men friends.
|
Also i took a look at your blogs, actually giving you the benfit of the doubt,"perhaps he posted the story, beforehand,..." I thought, but nope.
Can you be ANYMORE of a fucking hypocrite?, PLEASE, preaching about how you hate badass guys, and how you're a "nice guy", . . . ?
Let's see...
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=71540
Starting a porn business, LOL? That's completely "nice" and well thoughtful of you to abuse woman for your own pleasure and money, Sure, everyone looks at porn, moreso or lesso, whatever, but to start a business "pimp" when you are blatantly arguing against the "players of the game" in the OP is ridiculous
OH. MY . GOD
"I do my share of clubbing and picking up girls. Most of them are one night stands. I have so far been in the habit of getting their number, and then taking a picture with my phone just so I "remember who they are", but really it's kind of like collecting ears in Diablo. Honestly, I have yet to get a dead on 10 yet, but I'd say I'm hovering around the 8s with the occasional 7 or 9 quality girls."
And whatever u were banned for earlier it seems it was done so with good resolve,
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=74839
|
Korea (South)1888 Posts
*facepalm*
Okay, okay, I know I know. A more serious take:
I know exactly what's wrong with the OP. It's not what semioldguy pointed out, or what HeavOnEarth is saying. Polyphasic's real problem is that he's not gosu enough. At starcraft. Because if he was, then he'd never have to worry about getting girls. Also what I tell myself whenever I lose a game, esp on ICCUP.
|
i can do both. i just don't like it when girls like me more when i'm being an ass than when i'm being what i think is right.
but ya, i agree with semioldguy. i just hate that i do. har har har
|
On July 29 2008 15:34 Polyphasic wrote:
i can do both. i just don't like it when girls like me more when i'm being an ass than when i'm being what i think is right.
QFT.
|
United States7488 Posts
Maybe it's a problem with what you think is right?
|
On July 29 2008 15:39 semioldguy wrote:
Maybe it's a problem with what you think is right?
if it is, then i'm gonna go through a serious phase of existentialism again.
|
On July 29 2008 15:34 Polyphasic wrote:
i can do both. i just don't like it when girls like me more when i'm being an ass than when i'm being what i think is right.
but ya, i agree with semioldguy. i just hate that i do. har har har
ok first of all, it appears you only ask out the "Badass" girls, that apparently look nice, but have no "soul" if i can go as far to put forth those implifications ; and you actually expect them to respond to "what you think is right" which , TBBH (to be brutality honest) , is in a spiraling twist of fate with spikes and fire and hell bound creatures of the dark eating away at your logic towards this subject matter
secondly, perhaps my assumptions were wrong; and this theory, as you have put forth , applies to EVERY SINGLE FEMALE ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH
then go into your little existentialism crisis and maybe realize that's a load of bull, eventually.
|
Wait. Wait. Wait a minute.
You compared getting phone numbers from women - and taking pictures of them - to "collecting ears in Diablo"?
LOLOLOLOLOL
|
Regarding Semioldguy's comments: I find the idea of an essential or true male nature to be troubling. I don't think there is such a thing. What is considered manly will change with society and social practices. So I really don't agree with the idea of "being a man" as a way to pick up women, as it implies that there is some true male nature and that those who don't embody that nature are somehow less male. There is all kinds of violence in this idea, and not just towards men, but also potentially towards women, since the last several thousand years of human history have largely been characterized by male domination of women, and consequently ideas of masculinity often carry attitudes that are violent in some form towards women.
Manly is that which men do, whether it is being submissive or not.
There is the idea that if we act "manly" we will get better results with women. This too should be critiqued. The idea here is that sleeping with many women is the optimal result. For some, it may be, but I think it may be at least as good for some people to have meaningful romantic relationships with only a few women, or just one woman. It depends on the person. And as far as all this goes, the best way to net the kind of relationship for you is to be who you are (admittedly dangerous wording, but for the sake of discussion, I will use it). In other words, if you are naturally a less dominant type of person, so be it. There are women out there for these types, too.
As to the OP: I reject biological determinism. I agree that biology plays a part in these issues, but lets not overlook arguably much greater role that socialization plays. Our culture tells people what acceptable romantic practices are. IT tells men how to be men and women how to be women. If you don't like what you see, please don't reproduce those behaviors. If the game isn't working for you, don't play the game.
|
|
|
United States7488 Posts
On July 30 2008 04:17 nA.Inky wrote:
Regarding Semioldguy's comments: I find the idea of an essential or true male nature to be troubling. I don't think there is such a thing. What is considered manly will change with society and social practices. So I really don't agree with the idea of "being a man" as a way to pick up women, as it implies that there is some true male nature and that those who don't embody that nature are somehow less male. There is all kinds of violence in this idea, and not just towards men, but also potentially towards women, since the last several thousand years of human history have largely been characterized by male domination of women, and consequently ideas of masculinity often carry attitudes that are violent in some form towards women.
Manly is that which men do, whether it is being submissive or not.
There is the idea that if we act "manly" we will get better results with women. This too should be critiqued. The idea here is that sleeping with many women is the optimal result. For some, it may be, but I think it may be at least as good for some people to have meaningful romantic relationships with only a few women, or just one woman. It depends on the person. And as far as all this goes, the best way to net the kind of relationship for you is to be who you are (admittedly dangerous wording, but for the sake of discussion, I will use it). In other words, if you are naturally a less dominant type of person, so be it. There are women out there for these types, too.
Thanks for completely misinterpreting me.
and masculinity isn't about violence or promiscuity. You can be seeping with masculinity and still exert neither of these qualities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
