|
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned:
1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post.
2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no.
3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture.
4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. |
On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 00:40 Killscreen wrote:
The truth is this; genetically we are all cavemen, and women today respond to the same thing cave women did. Dont think for a second that sexual preference is decided by anything other than genes; it's way too important to be left up to chance. They want a guy who wont put up with their shit, who will spank their ass and pull their hair. Its an ugly truth, and super politically incorrect, but the truth nonetheless.
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. why do we like salt and sugar
The difference is that, given an infinite supply of salt/sugar, many animals will engorge themselves to the point of serious health issues whereas human beings are capable of refusing salt/sugar for no other reason than that they just don't feel like having some. It is precisely because we are smart that we are capable of developing more sophisticated value systems for judging what we want in a mate. Whether we feel some innate sexual thrill from particular behaviours on average doesn't change the fact that we are more than capable of easily resisting such desires if we believe that there is a more important disadvantage or if we dislike that person for other reasons.
It's rather ridiculous to presume that sexual attraction is the only feature of mate selection in human beings.
|
just when i gathered up the courage to talk to a girl
her reply is "ow sorry. my ex and i are deciding to get back together. "
dafuq? @_@
what you gonna do now son? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On June 01 2013 01:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 00:40 Killscreen wrote:
The truth is this; genetically we are all cavemen, and women today respond to the same thing cave women did. Dont think for a second that sexual preference is decided by anything other than genes; it's way too important to be left up to chance. They want a guy who wont put up with their shit, who will spank their ass and pull their hair. Its an ugly truth, and super politically incorrect, but the truth nonetheless.
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. why do we like salt and sugar The difference is that, given an infinite supply of salt/sugar, many animals will engorge themselves to the point of serious health issues whereas human beings are capable of refusing salt/sugar for no other reason than that they just don't feel like having some. It is precisely because we are smart that we are capable of developing more sophisticated value systems for judging what we want in a mate. Whether we feel some innate sexual thrill from particular behaviours on average doesn't change the fact that we are more than capable of easily resisting such desires if we believe that there is a more important disadvantage or if we dislike that person for other reasons.
Yes we are capable of not eating sugar and salt, but my point is we still have a craving for them. We WANT sugar and salt, and that is because of our genes that evolved in a time when they were scarce. We do not make a conscious choice of who we are attracted to, we experience a feeling we call attraction under certain circumstances. Our genes determine what those circumstances are.
We are capable of acting against our feelings, but we still have no control over those feelings. We cannot chose when to experience which feelings, and when it comes to sex, we follow our feelings.
|
On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 00:40 Killscreen wrote:
The truth is this; genetically we are all cavemen, and women today respond to the same thing cave women did. Dont think for a second that sexual preference is decided by anything other than genes; it's way too important to be left up to chance. They want a guy who wont put up with their shit, who will spank their ass and pull their hair. Its an ugly truth, and super politically incorrect, but the truth nonetheless.
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. Yes we have an extreme intellect. That is a difference, but this difference cannot and does not account for the fundamental differences you are claiming. You are saying that all life on earth has genetically coded behavior except humans because we are smart. How does our intellect absolve us from genetically coded behavior? And if we are absolved from this, why do we like salt and sugar, and why do we tend to find the same traits attractive? I asked you a lot of questions, and I would appreciate answers to them before I respond any more.
It is not a question of absolution; intellect does not utterly annihilate genetic influence, but it supersedes it in many if not all cases. Many people like salt and sugar, and yet, because of dietary concerns, regional differences in cuisine, and available foodstuffs, many people actively avoid those very flavors. Likewise, many people find similar sexual characteristics attractive, but there are also many people who, for lack of better words, are attracted to "weird" things. The very notion of a fetish entirely complicates the genetic predisposition of sexual preference, in that, for reasons aside from genetics, people have developed sexual interests in feet, pain, animals, costumes, and food. Some men like hairy women, and some like them hairless. Some men find women past birthing age attractive, and yet others find young prepubescent girls to their liking. Intellects role in attraction is one of immense complication, and it is along those lines that arguments in terms of "what women like" must be accordingly complex. In some sense, this very thread is somewhat misleading, in that many posters come here for general advice when, in many cases, specific advice tailored to the woman or man in question would be far more useful because, as has been previously said, generalized notions of masculinity and femininity are useful only in the general case.
r.Evo, I don't necessarily disagree, only that I can't caution enough against someone from clinging to some standardized notion of "dominant" when a specific one tailored to the individual would be far more useful. There are also always going to women who don't like dominant men, even in a "hard-coded" sense; they may be nominally fewer, but they are out there.
|
On June 01 2013 02:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 00:40 Killscreen wrote:
The truth is this; genetically we are all cavemen, and women today respond to the same thing cave women did. Dont think for a second that sexual preference is decided by anything other than genes; it's way too important to be left up to chance. They want a guy who wont put up with their shit, who will spank their ass and pull their hair. Its an ugly truth, and super politically incorrect, but the truth nonetheless.
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. Yes we have an extreme intellect. That is a difference, but this difference cannot and does not account for the fundamental differences you are claiming. You are saying that all life on earth has genetically coded behavior except humans because we are smart. How does our intellect absolve us from genetically coded behavior? And if we are absolved from this, why do we like salt and sugar, and why do we tend to find the same traits attractive? I asked you a lot of questions, and I would appreciate answers to them before I respond any more. It is not a question of absolution; intellect does not utterly annihilate genetic influence, but it supersedes it in many if not all cases. Many people like salt and sugar, and yet, because of dietary concerns, regional differences in cuisine, and available foodstuffs, many people actively avoid those very flavors. Likewise, many people find similar sexual characteristics attractive, but there are also many people who, for lack of better words, are attracted to "weird" things. The very notion of a fetish entirely complicates the genetic predisposition of sexual preference, in that, for reasons aside from genetics, people have developed sexual interests in feet, pain, animals, costumes, and food. Some men like hairy women, and some like them hairless. Some men find women past birthing age attractive, and yet others find young prepubescent girls to their liking. Intellects role in attraction is one of immense complication, and it is along those lines that arguments in terms of "what women like" must be accordingly complex. In some sense, this very thread is somewhat misleading, in that many posters come here for general advice when, in many cases, specific advice tailored to the woman or man in question would be far more useful because, as has been previously said, generalized notions of masculinity and femininity are useful only in the general case. r.Evo, I don't necessarily disagree, only that I can't caution enough against someone from clinging to some standardized notion of "dominant" when a specific one tailored to the individual would be far more useful. There are also always going to women who don't like dominant men, even in a "hard-coded" sense; they may be nominally fewer, but they are out there.
The way evolution works is by random mutations. So what attracts people will vary, and some, in fact most, of those variations will not be beneficial. Others are simply dysfunctions, like homosexuality. These however are not equally distributed among the population. There are more straight people than there are gay people by a significant magnitude.
Some men are more attracted to blondes than brunettes, but most are attracted to a women with an hourglass shaped body with facial features correlated with fertility.
Most people will like sugar and salt, and most people will be attracted to the traditional traits i outlined earlier.
edit: i dont want to piss off any lgbt people here. By dysfunction I dont mean wrong, bad, evil etc. I mean dysfunction like allergies or color blindness.
|
On June 01 2013 02:14 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 02:07 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:
[quote]
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. Yes we have an extreme intellect. That is a difference, but this difference cannot and does not account for the fundamental differences you are claiming. You are saying that all life on earth has genetically coded behavior except humans because we are smart. How does our intellect absolve us from genetically coded behavior? And if we are absolved from this, why do we like salt and sugar, and why do we tend to find the same traits attractive? I asked you a lot of questions, and I would appreciate answers to them before I respond any more. It is not a question of absolution; intellect does not utterly annihilate genetic influence, but it supersedes it in many if not all cases. Many people like salt and sugar, and yet, because of dietary concerns, regional differences in cuisine, and available foodstuffs, many people actively avoid those very flavors. Likewise, many people find similar sexual characteristics attractive, but there are also many people who, for lack of better words, are attracted to "weird" things. The very notion of a fetish entirely complicates the genetic predisposition of sexual preference, in that, for reasons aside from genetics, people have developed sexual interests in feet, pain, animals, costumes, and food. Some men like hairy women, and some like them hairless. Some men find women past birthing age attractive, and yet others find young prepubescent girls to their liking. Intellects role in attraction is one of immense complication, and it is along those lines that arguments in terms of "what women like" must be accordingly complex. In some sense, this very thread is somewhat misleading, in that many posters come here for general advice when, in many cases, specific advice tailored to the woman or man in question would be far more useful because, as has been previously said, generalized notions of masculinity and femininity are useful only in the general case. r.Evo, I don't necessarily disagree, only that I can't caution enough against someone from clinging to some standardized notion of "dominant" when a specific one tailored to the individual would be far more useful. There are also always going to women who don't like dominant men, even in a "hard-coded" sense; they may be nominally fewer, but they are out there. The way evolution works is by random mutations. So what attracts people will vary, and some, in fact most, of those variations will not be beneficial. Others are simply dysfunctions, like homosexuality. These however are not equally distributed among the population. There are more straight people than there are gay people. Most people will like sugar and salt, and most people will be attracted to the traditional traits i outlined earlier.
Your notion of function and dysfunction is nothing more than a dressed up appeal to nature, and it in no way is predicated on anything other than your personal preference for "nature's way". Human intellect fundamentally complicates the prerogative to mate, so much so that any standardized "function" of organic human life is utterly meaningless. There is no essential way in which humanity "works" or "doesn't work", and to simply point to evolutionary biology without the according respect given to psychology and the immensely complicated study of the human psyche is to miss the forest for the trees. There is a reason why every major medical body does not consider homosexuality a dysfunction, and that has everything to do with the immensely complicated of a "functional" human organism.
|
On June 01 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 02:14 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 02:07 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice.
Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all.
Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. Yes we have an extreme intellect. That is a difference, but this difference cannot and does not account for the fundamental differences you are claiming. You are saying that all life on earth has genetically coded behavior except humans because we are smart. How does our intellect absolve us from genetically coded behavior? And if we are absolved from this, why do we like salt and sugar, and why do we tend to find the same traits attractive? I asked you a lot of questions, and I would appreciate answers to them before I respond any more. It is not a question of absolution; intellect does not utterly annihilate genetic influence, but it supersedes it in many if not all cases. Many people like salt and sugar, and yet, because of dietary concerns, regional differences in cuisine, and available foodstuffs, many people actively avoid those very flavors. Likewise, many people find similar sexual characteristics attractive, but there are also many people who, for lack of better words, are attracted to "weird" things. The very notion of a fetish entirely complicates the genetic predisposition of sexual preference, in that, for reasons aside from genetics, people have developed sexual interests in feet, pain, animals, costumes, and food. Some men like hairy women, and some like them hairless. Some men find women past birthing age attractive, and yet others find young prepubescent girls to their liking. Intellects role in attraction is one of immense complication, and it is along those lines that arguments in terms of "what women like" must be accordingly complex. In some sense, this very thread is somewhat misleading, in that many posters come here for general advice when, in many cases, specific advice tailored to the woman or man in question would be far more useful because, as has been previously said, generalized notions of masculinity and femininity are useful only in the general case. r.Evo, I don't necessarily disagree, only that I can't caution enough against someone from clinging to some standardized notion of "dominant" when a specific one tailored to the individual would be far more useful. There are also always going to women who don't like dominant men, even in a "hard-coded" sense; they may be nominally fewer, but they are out there. The way evolution works is by random mutations. So what attracts people will vary, and some, in fact most, of those variations will not be beneficial. Others are simply dysfunctions, like homosexuality. These however are not equally distributed among the population. There are more straight people than there are gay people. Most people will like sugar and salt, and most people will be attracted to the traditional traits i outlined earlier. Your notion of function and dysfunction is nothing more than a dressed up appeal to nature, and it in no way is predicated on anything other than your personal preference for "nature's way". Human intellect fundamentally complicates the prerogative to mate, so much so that any standardized "function" of organic human life is utterly meaningless. There is a reason why every major medical body does not consider homosexuality a dysfunction.
Well, im not sure of what definition of dysfunction you are using. Im not really interested in debating the semantics of the word, but it is a dysfunction in the sense that it prevents you from reproducing, or at least greatly hinders it.
|
the caveman biotruths in here are suffocating
|
On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 00:40 Killscreen wrote:
The truth is this; genetically we are all cavemen, and women today respond to the same thing cave women did. Dont think for a second that sexual preference is decided by anything other than genes; it's way too important to be left up to chance. They want a guy who wont put up with their shit, who will spank their ass and pull their hair. Its an ugly truth, and super politically incorrect, but the truth nonetheless.
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract.
I had a feeling you'd respond in this way. The appeal to authority is duly noted and received. Two points I'd like to make, firstly simply studying something at uni doesn't make you an expert and I am almost CERTAIN you were not educated in this specific area - you have made inferences and draw connections between things you were taught and the general world of dating. Secondly, even if you consider what I have said to be anecdotal I have strong confidence that it is a relatively insightful way to look at people, and also I am seeing research published every year which pushes scientific understanding in this direction anyway. I just imagine that it will take a while for it to become the standard because research always lags behind theory of course.
Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent.
I have no idea where the hell you are coming from here. First of all, celebrity sex symbols are mostly about eye candy. Secondly, I very very rarely come across women who completely agree about who is most attractive. Thirdly, Johnny Depp is really shy. lol.
|
On June 01 2013 02:01 greenrose wrote:
just when i gathered up the courage to talk to a girl
her reply is "ow sorry. my ex and i are deciding to get back together. "
dafuq? @_@
what you gonna do now son? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Personally I would use a strawman theory and play up her boyfriend, she'll realize how short he falls from those expectations and will tear him down herself and remember why they broke up in the first place. I've used it a few times to success with taken women.
|
On June 01 2013 02:26 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 01:01 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 00:53 sc4k wrote:On June 01 2013 00:40 Killscreen wrote:
The truth is this; genetically we are all cavemen, and women today respond to the same thing cave women did. Dont think for a second that sexual preference is decided by anything other than genes; it's way too important to be left up to chance. They want a guy who wont put up with their shit, who will spank their ass and pull their hair. Its an ugly truth, and super politically incorrect, but the truth nonetheless.
In my experience this is only applicable for a certain set of women, to which not all belong. One common characteristic women are attracted to seems to be confidence, but beyond that you have to take each woman for their own entity and make your judgements of character, not assume that one way of acting will be the trick. Also there are women who are specifically attracted to unconfident people! I think your attempt to 'simplify' matters by making it out that every woman wants to be with a caveman is unhelpful. Its very hard to discuss dating and women without generalizing. What I wrote wont apply to 100% of all women, but it does apply to most. Like I said, this is determined by genes. Women can have a limited number of children, so they have to be picky with which male they choose to mix their genes with, and they are programmed to pick males with the best genes available. Like all other social mammals, the alpha male is the usual choice. Im sure there are women who are attracted to unconfident men; there are women who are attracted to other women, dead bodies and trees, which technically speaking is a dysfunction ( just like allergy and color blindness are dysfunctions ), since these attractions will produce poor offspring or none at all. Its as true as saying men are attracted to women with hourglass shaped bodies who have symmetric facial features correlated with fertility. There are exceptions to this, but its still true for a vast majority of men. Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females. Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale. It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. I had a feeling you'd respond in this way. The appeal to authority is duly noted and received. Two points I'd like to make, firstly simply studying something at uni doesn't make you an expert and I am almost CERTAIN you were not educated in this specific area - you have made inferences and draw connections between things you were taught and the general world of dating. Secondly, even if you consider what I have said to be anecdotal I have strong confidence that it is a relatively insightful way to look at people, and also I am seeing research published every year which pushes scientific understanding in this direction anyway. I just imagine that it will take a while for it to become the standard because research always lags behind theory of course. Show nested quote +
Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent.
I have no idea where the hell you are coming from here. First of all, celebrity sex symbols are mostly about eye candy. Secondly, I very very rarely come across women who completely agree about who is most attractive. Thirdly, Johnny Depp is really shy. lol.
Feel free to post links to those papers.
No, I do not have a masters degree in dating. I simply take what we know about the mating habits of other social mammals and apply it to humans, which are also social mammals.
edit: think Ill stop posting now, ended up kinda hijacking the thread. Anyone who wants to continue is free to PM me.
|
On June 01 2013 02:23 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 02:20 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 02:14 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 02:07 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:53 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:47 farvacola wrote:On June 01 2013 01:43 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:32 Shiori wrote:On June 01 2013 01:29 Killscreen wrote:On June 01 2013 01:19 sc4k wrote:
[quote]
Well I have been observing couples for a long time as I am an experienced 'observer' and I believe that people often go for opposites to 'balance' out their genes. I also believe that men and women can all be placed on a different point in the scale between masculine and feminine. There are male 'brained' individuals who are heterosexual females, and female brained individuals who are heterosexual males. By no means are they in the minority either, I have observed that it seems for every 'manly-brained' male there will be an 'androgenous-brained' male and the opposite is true for females.
Purely feminine, pink-everywhere and puppies-on-the-brain women, who appreciate straightforward manliness and ruggedness, are not nearly as common as you might think. The same goes for men who are solely interested in hunting, sex and combat. I have observed that these two 'extremes' are attracted to each other the same way that tall guys and short girls so often get together. It's about balancing the scale.
It follows, therefore, that the people whose brains are more centrally orientated will respond better and be more attracted to more moderate behaviour and less extreme 'male' or 'female' characteristics. And I believe this is certainly the case. I would estimate that as many women I know who enjoy the 'caveman' act are turned off completely by it. Im sorry but this is anecdotal and doesn't constitute data. I have studied evolutionary biology and sexual selection at a university, so Im not just basing this on my own personal experiences, its actual science. The fact is that not everyone is able to attract the type of mate they would like and have to settle for the person they are able to attract. Look at it this way; do you see a lot of variation in male and female sex symbols? I think you'll find that most fit my descriptions. You might not think Jonny Depp is very masculine, but he is. Girls are attracted to Justin Bieber, women arent. For someone who studies evolutionary biology and sexual selection, you don't seem to be aware of the notion that genetic determinism is a fringe view that virtually nobody holds to (in the strong sense of it utterly determining in an unambiguous way what people do). To say that women are "programmed" to like particular things is absurd and has no scientific basis. I disagree. It has a strong scientific basis. For you to say it doesn't, you would need to show how humans are fundamentally different from every other sexually reproducing species on earth. If it isn't genetically determined, why do men find the same physical traits attractive? Or does it only apply to men and not women? How would you explain sexual jealousy if not for genetically coded behavior? How do you explain our like of sugar and salt if not genetically determined behavior? Are our dietary preferences genetically coded, but sexual preferences not?
Perhaps there is some weak predisposition for women to prefer certain things over others, but it is a weak predisposition, not a deterministic programming.
If there is only a weak disposition, how do you explain this? Given how important mate selection is, wouldnt you expect it to be a strong disposition? I mean spreading our genes is our primary purpose, why is there only a weak disposition when you would expect a strong one? Did you seriously just ask for a difference between humans and every other sexually reproducing organism on Earth? There's a pretty big one, and it involves the typing of words, the thinking of thoughts, and the agency of self-determined behavior. I'll let you fill in the blanks. Yes we have an extreme intellect. That is a difference, but this difference cannot and does not account for the fundamental differences you are claiming. You are saying that all life on earth has genetically coded behavior except humans because we are smart. How does our intellect absolve us from genetically coded behavior? And if we are absolved from this, why do we like salt and sugar, and why do we tend to find the same traits attractive? I asked you a lot of questions, and I would appreciate answers to them before I respond any more. It is not a question of absolution; intellect does not utterly annihilate genetic influence, but it supersedes it in many if not all cases. Many people like salt and sugar, and yet, because of dietary concerns, regional differences in cuisine, and available foodstuffs, many people actively avoid those very flavors. Likewise, many people find similar sexual characteristics attractive, but there are also many people who, for lack of better words, are attracted to "weird" things. The very notion of a fetish entirely complicates the genetic predisposition of sexual preference, in that, for reasons aside from genetics, people have developed sexual interests in feet, pain, animals, costumes, and food. Some men like hairy women, and some like them hairless. Some men find women past birthing age attractive, and yet others find young prepubescent girls to their liking. Intellects role in attraction is one of immense complication, and it is along those lines that arguments in terms of "what women like" must be accordingly complex. In some sense, this very thread is somewhat misleading, in that many posters come here for general advice when, in many cases, specific advice tailored to the woman or man in question would be far more useful because, as has been previously said, generalized notions of masculinity and femininity are useful only in the general case. r.Evo, I don't necessarily disagree, only that I can't caution enough against someone from clinging to some standardized notion of "dominant" when a specific one tailored to the individual would be far more useful. There are also always going to women who don't like dominant men, even in a "hard-coded" sense; they may be nominally fewer, but they are out there. The way evolution works is by random mutations. So what attracts people will vary, and some, in fact most, of those variations will not be beneficial. Others are simply dysfunctions, like homosexuality. These however are not equally distributed among the population. There are more straight people than there are gay people. Most people will like sugar and salt, and most people will be attracted to the traditional traits i outlined earlier. Your notion of function and dysfunction is nothing more than a dressed up appeal to nature, and it in no way is predicated on anything other than your personal preference for "nature's way". Human intellect fundamentally complicates the prerogative to mate, so much so that any standardized "function" of organic human life is utterly meaningless. There is a reason why every major medical body does not consider homosexuality a dysfunction. Well, im not sure of what definition of dysfunction you are using. Im not really interested in debating the semantics of the word, but it is a dysfunction in the sense that it prevents you from reproducing, or at least greatly hinders it.
The definition and use of the words "function" and "dysfunction" are actually very important here, in that they call for a generalized concept of a "working" human, complete with a standardized profile of behaviors and motivations. The point is that a proper conception of a "working" human (complete with acknowledgments paid towards psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and biology) must be incredibly general and open-ended, given how we understand consciousness's role in determining human behaviors. Naturalistic tendencies are just that, generalities imposed by nature that are fundamentally subservient to the human psyche. Granted, this subservience is immensely complicated, and this is why "good" psychology is incredibly complex, but the fact still remains that the directions that nature gives us are hardly one to one commands.
The desire for a human to mate becomes incredibly more complicated the moment that child enters into society, i.e. the moment of birth. From the very moment that our consciousness takes hold of the idea that there are other people out there, be they parents, siblings, friends, or the nebulous cloud known as society, our motivations and feelings become influenced by all that our observations and role amongst others brings with them. A human born into the world without a desire to procreate is only "dysfunctional" if one entirely subjugates the realm of psychology to that of biological imperative, and the fact of the matter is that the world is full to the brim with information, influences and other people that boil down to reasons why mating ought not be done or why one might not feel the compulsion to mate. It is along these lines that society dictates standards such as don't fuck 13 year old girls, because society as a whole has agreed that the biological imperative is not enough to dictate what we ought to accept as a "functioning" human being. Whether or not one considers this line drawing appropriate is not of importance; what is important is that we, as humans in society, are able to draw these lines and refrain from crossing them, and it is in that sense that nature/biology can only tell us so much in terms of what a human function ought to mean.
|
Social scientists say it's incredibly difficult to do meaningful research on what in gender is intrinsic and what is learned cultural behavior, since attitudes/values are instilled at a very early age and they inform everything you do.
On June 01 2013 02:27 NotSorry wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 02:01 greenrose wrote:
just when i gathered up the courage to talk to a girl
her reply is "ow sorry. my ex and i are deciding to get back together. "
dafuq? @_@
what you gonna do now son? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Personally I would use a strawman theory and play up her boyfriend, she'll realize how short he falls from those expectations and will tear him down herself and remember why they broke up in the first place. I've used it a few times to success with taken women.
I hope everyone understands how creepy and manipulative this is. I don't even understand the market for this sort of advice, what's the point of starting relationships if they're not based on honesty and such?
|
life lesson time from the dude with the most posts on the page, aka i am right: if you sound at all like killscreen and use a load of biotruth caveman horseshit to back your beliefs as fact, you need to reevaluate your life
|
Personally I would use a strawman theory and play up her boyfriend, she'll realize how short he falls from those expectations and will tear him down herself and remember why they broke up in the first place. I've used it a few times to success with taken women
May sound ignorant. But what's the strawman theory? and how does this apply to the situation?
im not the most edumacated person around ya know 
|
So before the next time i visit this chick she starts asking me if im like good at kissing and stuff, followed by a "im not sure if that'll happen but im not sure why it wouldnt" should i take this as a good sign? cause i was kinda like what that didnt make sense lolol
|
On June 01 2013 04:21 arb wrote:
So before the next time i visit this chick she starts asking me if im like good at kissing and stuff, followed by a "im not sure if that'll happen but im not sure why it wouldnt" should i take this as a good sign? cause i was kinda like what that didnt make sense lolol
she wants the dick bro.
lol but in all seriousness of course she is into you. she wants you to fucking kiss her, so next time you see her, flirt with her. Then be like "didn't you want to know if i was a good kisser? i want to show you so you could tell me what you think" or idk some stupid shit like that. it depends how it plays out. but kiss her, don't pussy out when she's pretty much holding a green light over her head.
|
On June 01 2013 04:27 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2013 04:21 arb wrote:
So before the next time i visit this chick she starts asking me if im like good at kissing and stuff, followed by a "im not sure if that'll happen but im not sure why it wouldnt" should i take this as a good sign? cause i was kinda like what that didnt make sense lolol she wants the dick bro. lol but in all seriousness of course she is into you. she wants you to fucking kiss her, so next time you see her, flirt with her. Then be like "didn't you want to know if i was a good kisser? i want to show you so you could tell me what you think" or idk some stupid shit like that. it depends how it plays out. but kiss her, don't pussy out when she's pretty much holding a green light over her head.
i figured, but girls are confusing creatures so i wasnt sure lolol
|
On June 01 2013 04:09 QuanticHawk wrote:
life lesson time from the dude with the most posts on the page, aka i am right: if you sound at all like killscreen and use a load of biotruth caveman horseshit to back your beliefs as fact, you need to reevaluate your life
He's mostly right though. I spent my time living life instead of writing posts, so you can trust me.
|
umm killscreen is actually on point on alot of what he said. he even stated that this DOES NOT APPLY TO 100% OF WOMEN. don't ignore that. obviously you can't generalize everyone but its true, women want a fucking man. is there a chance that a woman might like you with you're a little bitch? sure, someone will like you. but what about when you two are walking together and some manly man walks right by you guys exerting his manliness, rugged as fuck. do you seriously think she's not going to fucking notice that guy or feel anything even slightly resembling attraction? if that's what you think, then you're delusional.
look, im not claiming to be some sort of pimp that fucks tons of girls and knows women like the back of his hands. but i started at a really really early age, with sex, with girlfriends, with everything, and i have made pretty much every fucking mistake in the book. girls don't like over feely guys that constantly talk about their emotions, they also don't like a man that never does, you have to find the right balance, but overall you need to exude confidence in yourself and in the fact that you are a man.
in bed, women like to get fucked. that is 100% true. obviously there is time for romance, especially when you're having a "moment" with that loved one, but there's no rule that says rough sex isn't romantic, or isn't passionate. a girl likes it when you pull her hair a bit, grab her ass hard while you fuck her, if you're fucking her from behind pull her up towards you and lightly (LIGHTLY!!! unless it escalates into more passionate, then obviously use your own judgement but don't be a fucking idiot and turn passion into stupidity) choke her with your free hand while you kiss her neck on the side or pull her hair with the other. she will go fucking nuts. i'm not saying you should rough her up or something because thats what they want, im saying be passionate in sex, be unapologetic, let it be raw, sex is SEX and that is romantic on its own. a good way to know what is a good balance in sex, watch the scene in 300 when leonidas fucks his wife, THAT is what they like, then after lay with them and be romantic, its not hard. its funny because ive had a girl that was my friend at the time tell me she loved that scene and that pretty much every girl wants to get fucked like his wife in the movie....guess what happened next lol.
overall, be a good man, but be confident and don't be scared to take charge. women want equality, obviously as they should have it. but, as zoe saldana or however you spell her name once said in an interview, there is something sexy and romantic about coming home after a long day of work and laying with your man with his arms protecting you, belonging to him, being his.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
