Seduction is a myth

[Curtis24]

Here's an article that argues seduction is a myth - women choose their mates based on genetic factors, and men can't change this. What do you think?

(PUA = Pick-up Art)


SEDUCTION DOES NOT EXIST
Read this before you spend your money on products and seminars or even worse, before you lose a lot of priceless time in your life trying to put into practice concepts that have been made up by greedy con artists or obsessed daydreamers.

*Seduction* is the biggest SCAM played on men in history! Just like the “get-rich-quick” schemes, only this time it’s a “get-laid-quick” scheme.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not implying average Joes cannot pick up hot babes. It happens sometimes. Only the real process going on has nothing to do with the distortion of reality that people call “seduction.”

I am not only saying this “art” has never been proven effective. Oh no… I am saying much more… I show on this website that seduction does not exist at all. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is: I can take any bet against the seduction community. I elaborate it in “A Job for the MythBusters.”

We are discussing a worldwide movement, a multimilion dollar industry, and I am only asking for 1 (one) fair scientific experiment proving it. Just don’t tell me about a poll taken near a seduction boot camp.

Some underestimate the power of this argument thinking “OK, they didn’t prove it yet, big deal.” They didn’t prove these PUA theories, and they NEVER will. How do I know it? Because, although there is a huge financial incentive to test it, no one has even tried so far. You don’t have to be an economist to realize what it says about PUA delusion. Let me suggest you imagine something. Imagine that a pua guru could put the following on top of his his salesletter or the back-cover of his book:

“Oxford University Study says that UltraPuaCompany gets you laid! In a 2012 oxford study, the group of men coached by us outperformed the control group by 174% – as featured on CNN, Times, Fox, New England Journal of Science”

That box alone would double his conversions overnight. Let me remind you, most of these guys spend upwards of 40 hours a week tweaking their marketing, their salesletters, all in desperate attempts for a little more conversion. So let me get this straight… A game guru will spend 150 hours split-testing every comma on his salesletter to get an additional 0.5% boost in his ebook sales, but he doesn’t have a single weekend to double his profits? Give me a fucking break.

Scientific research evidently contradicts the very idea of seduction. Sections “Genes and Personality Types” and “Her Type” give you a brief overview explaining why the concept that attraction can be created is against the laws of nature. It is a myth. Also many comments below this blog include information about various studies that brought results contrary to PUA teachings.

When asked about scientific evidence the PUAs use this little trick:

These gurus point at research proving VERY GENERAL concepts like “women pursue men of high status.” We all do! If you have two identical twin sisters, with the same personality, education etc. wouldn’t you choose to enter in a relationship with the rich one? Or “women feel good around men who have sense of humor.” Sure they do, so what? Does it prove the effectiveness of all that PUA techniques??

Of course it is not what seduction is all about. It’s not the core of PUA pseudo-science. Seduction is the belief you can “create” sexual attraction in the head of a woman who previously hasn’t been attracted to you (for ex David DeAngelo frequently repeats that you can “create attraction”). This particular claim has never ever been evidenced! Not even Chuck Norris can create attraction!

I thought the above is clear. However, I keep getting responses from PUA pseudo-intellectuals pointing at studies that supposedly prove seduction. What’s worse many of them insist that they have read this website. So if you still think there is some merit in PUA stuff because of [insert any scientific hypothesis] – then you should get acquainted with “Alpha-Excuses” under menu “Alpha-Lames”.

As a matter of fact, you can test the effectiveness of all that seduction techniques yourself. Make an effort, don’t just go out approaching women and assuming something worked when you succeed. At least once try to verify all that seduction philosophy with a simple experiment that I describe in “Do Yourself a Favor” section.

The fact that attraction cannot be created doesn’t mean that you can’t analyze human mating process, and come up with an effective strategy to spot attraction that is already there or move out when there is no potential for a pick-up (read more in section “Approach Guide”).

If you believe in things like horoscopes leave this website. But if you are a rational person ask yourself the question: why hasn’t any scientist ever produced any evidence for the existence of such happening as seduction? After all, it’s a multimilion dollar industry: books, downloads, CDs, seminars sold worldwide! Renown journalists began to seriously examine the subject after Neil Strauss had released the bestseller “The Game”. The answer to this question is included in the question itself: it is a multimilion dollar business. You don’t want to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, do you? Just like in case of seduction, horoscopes have their advocates, who publish thousands of books, run websites, even produce TV shows, although both of these ideas are beyond crap.

People have always considered love and sex as magical or divine. As always when people didn’t know how something worked they turned to magic or other superstitions. That’s why the belief in the art of seduction has its long history. Seduction patterns are just like spells in magic. It has as much to do with science, as chemistry had to do with alchemy. Pseudoscientific terms mixed with success stories without any rational connection whatsoever.

I must admit that there is a fraction of the whole seduction “science” that can be useful after you remove the ridiculous alpha male ideology. I mean all the tips on self-confidence and similar advice based on pop-psychology. But it has nothing to do with seduction itself. These “inner game” information can be found in a public library under the psychology section.

Yes, all you Wanna-Be-Casanovas heard me right: there is no such thing as seduction! Seduction is just a cultural label, nothing more.

RATIONAL THINKING

I am a “beta male”, I don’t use pick-up lines, negs, patterns nor any other techniques recommended by the pick up artists (PUAs). I am still “myself”, and I DO pick up HBs, I mean attractive women. I also DO believe many PUAs pick up (but not seduce) attractive women. I just DON’T believe they do so because of the skills they claim to have.

I DID give seduction a try years ago. It’s not like I am criticizing something I don’t know at all. I ’ve been there, done that.

That’s all about me. A lot a people take this whole topic very personally. I cannot understand it. There is nothing more annoying in a discussion than someone who criticizes the opponent instead of the opponent’s views.

I will be happy to exchange thoughts (even harsh but material arguments) with anyone who:

- focuses on the facts – it’s not like someone made up all that seduction stories, right?

- respects science – after all some even call it “seduction science”,

- and most important of all: follows basic laws of rational thinking. If you gonna say something about your intuition, karma, stuff like that, realize that in fact you are just saying: “I don’t agree with you cause I like blue, and you think red is much more better.” You are not arguing, you are just expressing what you like or dislike. Remember, there is no such thing as illogical thinking.

“Logic is the underpinnings of reason and argument. To be logical is to follow a pattern of reasoning that doesn’t contain flaws or weaknesses. A true logical debate puts forward the best possible arguments from both sides and allows the evidence to carry the conclusion rather than fallacies that appeal to attacks, emotions, or trickery.”

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic


Pick up artistry appeals to emotions and trickery (read more in “Logical fallacies” section under “Alpha-Lames” tab). This is one example of common flawed reasoning:

Is the lawn moist?

Yes, it is.

IT MEANS => it has rained.

WRONG. The gardener could have watered the lawn.



The PUA picked up a lot of pretty women?

Yes, he did.

IT MEANS => his seduction techniques do work.

WRONG. It could have been his looks or a million other things you didn’t even think of.

Here is the TRICKY PART:

most people automatically associate that other option (the gardener in the first example) only with money or being good looking. So when those two are eliminated (the PUA turns out to be average in both financial status and looks) they reason => it must have been his skills! They simply have no clue about stuff like the „Self-Seeking Like Theory“ or maybe a million other undiscovered yet factors. This is also called the Third Cause Fallacy – see section “Logical Fallacies.” The bottom line is until you PROVE IT with FAIR experiment, you cannot assume it works.

Why we accept that such fields as economy, politics, law or even sports should be understood in accordance with the laws of rational thinking, and at the same time we don’t use logic in the field of dating? For sure not as carefully as in other areas of life. Most reasoning is very shallow, very superficial: “I have seen many hot girls around this guy, so he must be successful with the babes.” Really? How successful? How did you measure it? Maybe the girls you have seen this guy with amount to just like 0,1% or less of the number of chicks that he approached last year. So his success rate is 0,1% or less!

Now think rationally for a second: IF there is seduction, IF this PUA stuff really works, what should be the success rate of a player who is like the “full package”, not only socially skilled but also deadly handsome? You guessed 99%? Maybe 80%? OK, at least 50%?

WRONG – the reality is even less than 9,8% ! (9,8% is his number-to-lay ratio, so his approach-to-lay ratio must be a lot lower!) Read ending of section “BS Created So Far” under tab “Alpha-Lames.” How can they explain it?

Small digression: Some seduction fans ignore scientific evidence and facts, and try to defend these nonsenses with analogies. First off, why do you need analogies given the thousands of studies in this field? If you are really stubborn about analogies, the ending of the above mentioned section also give an example why analogies have no use.

So now you see why success rate is such an important term. Disregarding success rate enables those con artists to trick you into believing they discovered the true love elixir! We challenged all those PUA freaks to test their skills (section “The Experiment”) – no replies so far. Except one guy who said he will take part… as long as we pay him! Imagine what a huge occasion it is for those self-proclaimed casanovas. They have the chance to prove their techniques in a FAIR, scientific manner! What a great advertisement opportunity!

STICK TO THE FACTS

You playas take a lot of things for granted! For ex. the player is not a stud, he scores a beautiful babe, so all guys immediately exclude “looks” as one of the reasons that accounted for his success. Hold on! You just assumed that “looks” is the same thing as “beauty.” The world we live in is much more complex. Read “Reality Check”, in particular section “Her Type.”

Short history lesson: yes, there was life on this planet before Ross Jeffries opened the Pandora box of seduction. Men hit on women all the time, and sometimes even “average frustrated champs” (AFCs as the Neo-Casanovas say) picked up beauties – ask your parents or grandparents. So next time you hear some seduction addict trying to sell you enlightening stories about his average looking PUA master who just scored a “perfect 10”, ask him how can he be so sure that it wasn’t a coincidence? How can he be so sure that his success had anything to do with his “skills”? Does he score 9s or 10s on a regular basis? Are you sure it’s not like 1 pretty babe for every 100 girls he approaches?

There is like a million things that can have influence on attraction between men and women. Have you heard of the butterfly effect? No, not the dumb teen movie starring Ashton Kutcher. I mean the scientific theory. The Chaos Theory sure works in the field of dating. If there are millions of things that may be responsible for a hurricane in US, even a butterfly in South America, then imagine how many variables are there when you are hitting on some girl? The PUAs treat this subject in a very superficial manner. They just take one element, like some pick-up line or NLP anchor, ignore thousands of others, observe what work, and come up with a seduction theory. Wow! This way I could prove a lot of Harry Potter’s spells do work!

Small digression: When I began this website I often used the comparison regarding Harry Potter spells to make some guys realize that the way they “prove” PUA stuff I could prove magic love spells. But Piotr noted in one of his comments:

“The parallel is more literal than figurative. Jeffries ran a seminar and sold a tape that purportdely showed how to use “magick” (i.e. spells, sigils, rituals, incantations etc) to seduce women. It looks like Jeffries has dropped it from his catalogue but here is a review of the product “Secrets of Kick-Butt Magick and Psychic Influence”:

http://www.bestpuatraining.com/ross-jeffries/secrets-of-kick-butt-magick-and-psychic-influence-review”

So Pick Up Artistry is limitless! Some people will swallow ANY kind of crap, even magic! PUAs have the mentality of the folks from dark middle ages!

The PUAs could ask why be so sure about genes theories? (read more in “Reality Check”) Couldn’t the Chaos Theory also tackle these ideas, as there are millions of other causes that can affect mate choice? The huge difference between the Self-Seeking Like Hypothesis or Dr. Fisher’s theory and all that seduction stuff is that genes theories were proved by carrying out experiments that are almost impossible to question. All that couples’ faces by accident seemed so similar to all those volunteers? No, there is no room for coincidences, so millions of other factors are eliminated. Helen Fisher’s theories are also based on research that involved thousands of couples. She ruled out other factors and focused on the patterns she could find. This is not just the impression that some PUA and his wingman got after a night out. These are years of meticulous research. Also confirmed by the choices of thousands of users of Chemistry.com.

Websites you should also check out:

Aaronsleazy.com

Puahate.com

Anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com

Just remember that among many rational people there are also some crypto-PUAs on Puahate.com.

Aaron’s “Minimal Game” is one of the few pickup guides I can honestly recommend. Don’t let the title fool you. Although he used the word “game”, his techniques have nothing to do with game as understood by the seduction industry. But first get acquainted with the “Approach Guide” under tab “Reality Check” which is free of charge : )


As mentioned by one of the contributors to the “Approach Guide”: One of the things that brought me closer to understand just how crappy most game crap is – was when an older ex-gamer said something like “the truth is, mainstream 7$ books on self-help or dating are far superior than any community course”.

I totally agree with this remark, and that’s why I also recommend the “Flirting Bible”:


One last book that I just have to recommend here on the front page is “Love At First Sight”. Although this is not a scientific analysis, one has to be blind not see the striking facial similarities reported in the book (most of us guys are visualizers). Correlations that can’t be just a coincidence. It explains the grand puzzle of the average looking guy who gets “the girl.” It explains the distinction between “looks” and “beauty” that I am going to repeat all over throughout this website. Without understanding it, one cannot fully comprehend the real dynamics of sexual attraction (to paraphrase Durden’s absurd RSC).

Suzi Malin who as a famous British portraitist observed facial features throughout all her life, discovered a pattern of facial resemblance that is followed by famous couples. Remember she chose celebrities only because as public persons their photos can be used for such analyzes, and for the same reason it is easy to track information about their romantic lives. These people have everything that matters in the “game of love” – looks, cash, fame. These men also have all the psychological advantages that are considered as an attribute of womanizers – the beloved by gamers social skills that cool guys usually have, the charisma of Hollywood stars, politicians and famous journalists, or the laid back personality of rock stars. But somehow they get chosen by women whose faces remind their own (or their first blood). And note that this has been reported in case of long-term relationships where psychology matters for women a lot more than when casual hook ups spark up (yes, contrary to what PUA crap tells you, almost each and every study distinguishing long- and short-term relationships confirms this tendency). Now imagine, what happens when women look for a one night stand. You think they simply choose the most handsome guy around? Let me put it this way, trendy bars and clubs are filled with good looking people during the weekend, who in general just want to “have some fun”, but somehow the result is NOT a massive orgy. Although a lot of guys would have nothing against it…


http://www.seductionmyth.com/

[Curtis24]

I guess few men want to believe its true :P

[Breedingvariety]

I guess few men want to believe its true :P
I believe pick up art is effective. I just don't believe it is lasting. So if somebody knows what turns women on and what repulses them, he can adjust his behavior and pick her up. He is better at that, if he is a good actor. I don't believe you can pick up a long term partner as it is based on deception and intimacy would reveal the truth in not so long run.

But I don't know.

[Curtis24]

I believe pick up art is effective. I just don't believe it is lasting. So if somebody knows what turns women on and what repulses them, he can adjust his behavior and pick her up. He is better at that, if he is a good actor. I don't believe you can pick up a long term partner as it is based on deception and intimacy would reveal the truth in not so long run.

But I don't know.

Nah, pick-up is total scam, wishful thinking. But it may appear to work because:

1) it teaches some basic social skills, without which no man can get sex
2) it encourages men to actually talk to women.

[arcticwolf]

I think some people have way too much free time on their hands. :D

[Curtis24]

I think some people have way too much free time on their hands. :D

Do you agree or disagree? Don't just make snide comments.

[arcticwolf]

Do you agree or disagree? Don't just make snide comments.

Will do, but not right now. It's after midnight and I gotta get up at 5am. Later.

[derLowe]

Here's an article that argues seduction is a myth - women choose their mates based on genetic factors, and men can't change this. What do you think?

(PUA = Pick-up Art)



http://www.seductionmyth.com/

Hmmmmmmm interhuman relationships are far more complex than either the PUA or this man suggest.

Tho I agree with him that it is partially genetics based but there is also a multitude of other factors that are in play. I have mulled over this quite a bit in my free time.

[Breedingvariety]

Pick up artists think presentation is all that matters. Anti-PUA author says it's all genetics.

They ignore actual social status. Pick up artists try to imitate it. Anti-PUA author don't even acknowledge it as a factor in mate value. But how come celebrities and rich people have endless possibilities in mating market, even if them not being that good of genetic material, seemingly?

[Caismeachd]

Initially it's genetics and superficial charm but women will go with whoever they have the most attachment too. It's why college age girls often have so many one night stands but will go back to their pushover boyfriend afterwards. I don't know about seduction because I've been fortunate enough to have good enough looks where I don't have to pursue very aggressively with corny pick up lines or anything (I've experimented with it though), but I have experienced a lot of women cheating on their BF w me (often without telling me they have a BF) and they will go back to them even if they are uglier than me, just because they have more attachment/roots. Had a few leave them for good over me but women like that are very fickle in the first place and not to be trusted.

[derLowe]

Pick up artists think presentation is all that matters. Anti-PUA author says it's all genetics.

They ignore actual social status. Pick up artists try to imitate it. Anti-PUA author don't even acknowledge it as a factor in mate value. But how come celebrities and rich people have endless possibilities in mating market, even if them not being that good of genetic material, seemingly?

This image comes to mind.
http://de-motivational-posters.com/images/money-it-can-buy-happiness.jpg

Social status plays a big role in relationships. I seen money and status attract more hot woman than a good personality and humor.

[arcticwolf]

This image comes to mind.
http://de-motivational-posters.com/images/money-it-can-buy-happiness.jpg

Social status plays a big role in relationships. I seen money and status attract more hot woman than a good personality and humor.

Ditto that.

[Curtis24]

In the natural world, high social status is a consequence of superior genetics. It is typically established by victory in some form of skirmish, the demonstration of some metabolically expensive trait or the display of species important resources. In all cases — skirmish, extravagance or resouces– it is superior genetics that is being established i.e. the fight or the flourish serve as a proxy for the animals genotype. Is mating different with humans? Are humans — because of their superior intellect and extensive culture — fundamentally different from other animals in their courtship and mating behaviour? NO! Culture has indeed moderated and obscured much of our more primitive behaviour but it all remains intact, barely disguised. In humans, social status is demonstrated by (a) displays of material wealth; and/or (b) displays of superior genetics. Further, in most cases (a) is a consequence of (b) so we can simplify this discussion by confining our attention only to (b). Driving a prestige car, living in an expensive house, wearing expensive clothing, wearing jewelery, being tall, being muscular, being somatically and facially symmetrical, having certain sexually dimorphic traits etc. all serve to establish the value of a males genotype. If you don’t have high social status to begin with you have nothing to “showcase”.

“or creating a connection and evoking those feelings through conversation and communication (ross jefires speed seduction).”

Attraction has nothing to do with the parts of the brain that are related to “feelings” and “conversation”. Feelings i.e. affects originate in the limbic system. The limbic system is associated with pair bonding and attachment NOT sexual attraction. Attraction precedes and is not necessarily followed by pair bonding.

‘There are many “guru” pushing products or personal gain they may sully the good name of the whole of the community but to claim that seduction is entirely a myth and attraction is decided purely by fate is asinine.”

No, the claim that the neural circuits associated with attraction that have evolved over thousands of years — and evolved well before our neocortex — that have ensured that we exist as a species today can be readily subverted by those that have mediocre or inferior genotypes is what is asinine. Evolution by natural selection together with sexual selection, coupled with thousands of years worth of time have executed an exhaustive search of the design space for neural modules/circuits to drive sexual reproduction in primates in such a manner that genes that are most useful in the environment of original adaptation are preserved and propagated.

If there were ANY merit in the claims of the seduction gurus viz. that attraction can be created, then over the course of the 200,000 years or so of human history:
(a) these methods of subverting biology would have been discovered well-before the late 20th century;
(b) these communication of these methods of subversion would have been incorporated into the socialisation and enculturation process of young males across all cultures and societies; and
(c) genes for beauty, hyperfeminity and hypermasculinity (the actual triggers for attraction) would have become depleted from the human gene pool.

In addition to the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, phylogenetic and ethological evidence I have presented (admittedly in brief), that neither (a), (b) nor (c) has occurred counts as stong, independent and converging lines of evidence that ATTRACTION CAN NOT BE CREATED.

[Curtis24]

This image comes to mind.
http://de-motivational-posters.com/images/money-it-can-buy-happiness.jpg

Social status plays a big role in relationships. I seen money and status attract more hot woman than a good personality and humor.

I already posted about this, but money gives you more opportunities to meet attractive women. It does not, by itself, create attraction.

You need some level of financial success to be able to attend the expensive social gatherings and venues that attractive women frequent. In other words, you need money to get access to women in the first place. But you also need the right genes, and the right phenotype(physical looks), to actually sleep with them.

Google "Bill Gates wife", if you don't believe me. Or look at the girl Mark Zuckerberg is marrying. Neither of the two men's wives are ugly, but you'd think that if money really could "buy love", they'd have supermodels as wives. They don't.

I wish Agrippa was here to take part, but he has said on past occasions that even with media brainwashing, the most sexually successful men(the men who have sex with the most attractive women) are racially progressive.

[Curtis24]

Also, the woman in that pic has a masculine body. Her face is also covered.

[Marmie Dearest]

PUA is largely pathetic. Very few men can even pull it off without making themselves look silly or pissing the lady right off. Furthermore, its touted as a method for successful promiscuity, not deep, lasting relationships, which makes it even more crass and repellent.

Im sure there are some tips a timid man could pick up in order to improve his ability to get a girlfriend, but PUA overall is pretty silly.

I think men can learn better communication skills and build confidence and be better at getting dates, but I don't think the PUA method is the sound or effective way of achieving that goal. Take a shower, carry yourself with pride, be interesting to talk to, and maybe learn to dance...or at least find a hobby that could be used as a way to meet like minded women.

Negging, for example, is very childish and even emotionally abusive, and while it may make an insecure girl believe you're a dominant, confident man, its a dirty trick and won't lead to a healthy relationship in the long run.

In fact when men even mention PUA on the internet, a big "loser" siren goes off in my head. It makes him automatically seem insincere, immature, and potentially self absorbed and unfaithful, a man who disrespects women in general.

Its a different form of Mary being able to sense the lame lmao.

[Marmie Dearest]

I already posted about this, but money gives you more opportunities to meet attractive women. It does not, by itself, create attraction.

You need some level of financial success to be able to attend the expensive social gatherings and venues that attractive women frequent. In other words, you need money to get access to women in the first place. But you also need the right genes, and the right phenotype(physical looks), to actually sleep with them.

Google "Bill Gates wife", if you don't believe me. Or look at the girl Mark Zuckerberg is marrying. Neither of the two men's wives are ugly, but you'd think that if money really could "buy love", they'd have supermodels as wives. They don't.

I wish Agrippa was here to take part, but he has said on past occasions that even with media brainwashing, the most sexually successful men(the men who have sex with the most attractive women) are racially progressive.

oh dear. Re: Gates and Zuckerburg...you're a very confused young man if you think real love has anything to do with supermodels. How lost you must be to even equate such a thing with love. I feel certain Zuckerburg loves his wife, who is pretty (though very Asian) and more importantly has stood by his side for 9 years.

Gates and the founder of Facebook have brains and money, if not brawn, and they have brains enough to pick women they had loving relationships with, instead of having a disastrous physically driven fling with some random ho they wanted to impress their friends with.

I mean realistically some models arent that pretty. Google Louis Vuitton models without make up and be prepared to go wtf. Being a six foot tall size zero coatrack actually doesn't equal genetically superior beauty.

You've not only confused sex with love, you've confused arbitrary cultural standards of fashion with real biological beauty. If you don't understand what I mean, then tell me why Marilyn Monroe was shorter and heavier than today's supermodels, yet she was the pinnacle of sexy 50 years ago. Dude, its because cultural standards of beauty are social and they change and don't always have biology as the standard. Still don't believe me? Go look at a Rubens painting. Derp.

[Breedingvariety]

What Curtis24 quote in post #13 says:
-Attraction is attraction;
-Attraction is caused by attraction.

[Han Cholo]

It's relieving to know my success has not been due to "seduction" or whatever but by my good genes. It will save me lots of time in the future.

[Marmie Dearest]

What Curtis24 quote in post #13 says:
-Attraction is attraction;
-Attraction is caused by attraction.

well he also said that wealth is largely the product of good genes, however I would argue that Prince Charles is one ugly slightly inbred but extraordinarily wealthy man...and there are trust fund babies and heirs of fortunes who aren't all that good looking, or in some cases they may be good looking but unintelligent, and in some cases truly suffering from some kind of genetic deformity (hemophilia anybody?)...and this doesn't even acknowledge the people who came into wealth by gambling or other forms of luck...which is why technically the ideas behind the concept of democracy are the scientific discoveries accompanying the enlightenment that a pauper can potentially be as beautiful or as smart as a prince

So not only did he make a redundant argument about attraction, he also attempted to justify Social Darwinism which has actually long since proven to be made of fail.

Le sigh.

[Breedingvariety]

well he also said that wealth is largely the product of good genes, however I would argue that Prince Charles is one ugly slightly inbred but extraordinarily wealthy man...and there are trust fund babies and heirs of fortunes who aren't all that good looking, or in some cases they may be good looking but unintelligent, and in some cases truly suffering from some kind of genetic deformity (hemophilia anybody?)...and this doesn't even acknowledge the people who came into wealth by gambling or other forms of luck...
Yes. He doesn't explain how wealth is attained. He just says "genes". That is no explanation at all. I bet he would say "genes" as explanation to anything.

which is why technically the ideas behind the concept of democracy are the scientific discoveries accompanying the enlightenment that a pauper can potentially be as beautiful or as smart as a prince
What do you mean?

So not only did he make a redundant argument about attraction, he also attempted to justify Social Darwinism which has actually long since proven to be made of fail.
Exactly!:) :thumbs up

[MM81]

Here's an article that argues seduction is a myth - women choose their mates based on genetic factors, and men can't change this. What do you think?

(PUA = Pick-up Art)


I think the author is 100% right. Seduction, in the popular meaning of the word, is a myth.

[Partiasn]

I'm not sure I get his article.

The Alpha Male IS A NATURAL concept, and has been proven in nature.

Women are attracted to “Alphas” for the same reason any other mammal would be attracted to the Alpha Male, and for the same reason female gorillas are attracted to Alpha Males.

PUA on the other hand is a different sort of thing. In the sense that is DOES work on a certain type of woman. That is the ones that WANT to be lied to, and in that sense it is no different than any other sales pitch.

PUA are essentially beta males that are courting the off cast females from the Alpha. And as such as is the case there are always more females then there are Alpha Males.

On the other hand, one might be better to say that the “Alpha Male” of womens imagination is what does not exist. Granted you CANNOT fool a woman that does not want to be fooled.

Unfortunately most women want to believe that they will one day be with the “Alpha” and that he will not be the vindictive asshole that all Alphas really are.

I would say though that it is impossible to fool a women into thinking you are an Alpha when in reality you are only a beta or theta or not even on the scale. As a generally rule all Alphas have beta cohorts in the gorilla clan and that is who gets the HB after the Alpha is done with them.

I will say this much though.
Yes PUA nonsense is Bull $h!t in the highest degree, because even though you can fool a woman that is willing to listen to your lie, if she is fresh off a rejection from the “Gorilla King” you are setting yourself up for a future fall.

Because in reality being an Alpha is something you have because of born privilege and cannot be created without that sort of support.

IE Looks, Wealth, Status, which are all individual achievements NOT based on any Pick Up line you create.

The real issue here though is if the woman is stupid enough or warped enough to be lied into a situation by you as a man. Then she is NOT rational enough to form any sort of real relationship with.

[derLowe]

I'm not sure I get his article.

The Alpha Male IS A NATURAL concept, and has been proven in nature.

Women are attracted to “Alphas” for the same reason any other mammal would be attracted to the Alpha Male, and for the same reason female gorillas are attracted to Alpha Males.

PUA on the other hand is a different sort of thing. In the sense that is DOES work on a certain type of woman. That is the ones that WANT to be lied to, and in that sense it is no different than any other sales pitch.

PUA are essentially beta males that are courting the off cast females from the Alpha. And as such as is the case there are always more females then there are Alpha Males.

On the other hand, one might be better to say that the “Alpha Male” of womens imagination is what does not exist. Granted you CANNOT fool a woman that does not want to be fooled.

Unfortunately most women want to believe that they will one day be with the “Alpha” and that he will not be the vindictive asshole that all Alphas really are.

I would say though that it is impossible to fool a women into thinking you are an Alpha when in reality you are only a beta or theta or not even on the scale. As a generally rule all Alphas have beta cohorts in the gorilla clan and that is who gets the HB after the Alpha is done with them.

I will say this much though.
Yes PUA nonsense is Bull $h!t in the highest degree, because even though you can fool a woman that is willing to listen to your lie, if she is fresh off a rejection from the “Gorilla King” you are setting yourself up for a future fall.

Because in reality being an Alpha is something you have because of born privilege and cannot be created without that sort of support.

IE Looks, Wealth, Status, which are all individual achievements NOT based on any Pick Up line you create.

The real issue here though is if the woman is stupid enough or warped enough to be lied into a situation by you as a man. Then she is NOT rational enough to form any sort of real relationship with.

Plenty of truth in that paragraph. Woman like that live mostly in their heads.

[Partiasn]

Plenty of truth in that paragraph. Woman like that live mostly in their heads.

I think both genders have a bit of a problem with this, to tell you the truth.

Guys expect behavior form women they are not capable of as well.

Guys for one will continuously dish out Chivalry, to a woman that is screwing his best friend, and robing his bank account, all the while believing she a pure as the driven snow. In fact it even gets worse, some men even knowing she is a dirt bag will continue to treat her as if she is a Lady.

For me respect is EARNED, and those of the feminist variety have not earned it.

[derLowe]

I think both genders have a bit of a problem with this, to tell you the truth.

Guys expect behavior form women they are not capable of as well.

Guys for one will continuously dish out Chivalry, to a woman that is screwing his best friend, and robing his bank account, all the while believing she a pure as the driven snow. In fact it even gets worse, some men even knowing she is a dirt bag will continue to treat her as if she is a Lady.

For me respect is EARNED, and those of the feminist variety have not earned it.

Yes I seen a few of my friends do this as well. One of my friends dated a absolutely trashy girl for 3 years. She got drunk every night, cheated on him repeatedly and she kept getting weird fungal infections all over her skin. Yet he treated her like gold, it was rather bizarre to watch.

I remember once after one of their many brake ups, to cheer my friend up I invited him out to dinner at a very exclusive restaurant on the rooftops of Durban. He told her and she invited her self along. It was a formal affair me in formal attire the other patrons in Long dresses and formal ware. My friends girl arrived there in: a see through black top, no bra a micro skirt, no underwear and boots, this outfit showed off her fungal skin infection to every one! Lets just say it was a very long and embarrassing dinner for me.

After a while she got some one richer and dumped my friend. He learned nothing thing from his experience but I did: Due to family issues this friend was never socialized as a child always staying as a loner, this in turn handicapped him in his adult life, causing him to have no expectations of how people should behave, as you can imagine if you have no standards you accept any old trash.

I am happy to say his choice of woman has improved, he is now dating a devout church girl who is very nice.

[Breedingvariety]

Lol, derLowe.

[Aces High]

Not really,but then again water is a myth if you break it down into its various componenets.............and a tree will end up as cocktail sticks if you analyze it as well.

Seduction isnt a myth its an art form...............some have it...some dont.

[Linet]

Not really,but then again water is a myth if you break it down into its various componenets.............and a tree will end up as cocktail sticks if you analyze it as well.

Seduction isnt a myth its an art form...............some have it...some dont.

I agree with that...Seduction if a very high form of art and i believe few people have it...its not something you can learn, its inner... either you have it, either you dont...
...people who have it, are blessed... are peopel who know what to say, how to say it, and how to act every given moment in order to attract and hold the other persons attention and thoughts...

[Partiasn]

Yes I seen a few of my friends do this as well. One of my friends dated a absolutely trashy girl for 3 years. She got drunk every night, cheated on him repeatedly and she kept getting weird fungal infections all over her skin. Yet he treated her like gold, it was rather bizarre to watch.



After a while she got some one richer and dumped my friend. He learned nothing thing from his experience but I did: Due to family issues this friend was never socialized as a child always staying as a loner, this in turn handicapped him in his adult life, causing him to have no expectations of how people should behave, as you can imagine if you have no standards you accept any old trash.

I will assure you there are plenty of men in society that are fully socialized into our current culture, who do the same thing. It think Chivalry is part of the problem to tell you the truth. Today you have to know when to be Chivalrous and when to be an Ass. Being Chivalrous is not always the best option for modern women, because a large percentage of them are just Bitches and not worth the effort. There are those rare jewels though that do deserve respect, but they are few and far between these days.

Especially in the USA!

Let me put it another way, as a younger man in my teens and twenties I studied martial arts, and as such a specified system, but fact is the system is NOT what saves your ass in a street fight. Beating the enemy by any means necessary does in fact save your life.

So the "Socialization System" and BS that western society dishes out about Chivalry, is generally both wrong and of no value to modern men. If you want to stay alive, and have your finances intact you need to operate on hard fact (http://www.avoiceformen.com/), not Acceptable BS that comes from our society.



I remember once after one of their many brake ups, to cheer my friend up I invited him out to dinner at a very exclusive restaurant on the rooftops of Durban. He told her and she invited her self along. It was a formal affair me in formal attire the other patrons in Long dresses and formal ware. My friends girl arrived there in: a see through black top, no bra a micro skirt, no underwear and boots, this outfit showed off her fungal skin infection to every one! Lets just say it was a very long and embarrassing dinner for me.


LOL!

Well the fact is men who are Manginas, are that way because they believe in various myths about women and their character. They mix allot of their protective instincts as well as the BS that comes from Chivalry, into a very poisonous cocktail of stupidity for themselves.

The real truth about the "Alpha Male" though is this.
Even though he is suave and women love him, at the end of the day he is going to treat her like a POS on the way out.

So allot of the Raging Rhetoric that feminist puke out is in fact true for a certain number of men.

Those being the 20% Alpha Males that are chased by the 40% of women in the western society.



I am happy to say his choice of woman has improved, he is now dating a devout church girl who is very nice.

Being with a Church Girl, is a good option most of the time, but it will not fix his own mental issues. Also women in churches have the same sexual drives as other women, on the up side they generally have more values, and are less likely to screw you over, if they really believe in their faith and are committed to working on their own character.

[Kalitas]

Money is not a genetic factor, but it seems to be more important when choosing a partner :p

[Breedingvariety]

Money is not a genetic factor, but it seems to be more important when choosing a partner :p
Or as PUA would say:- you offer her a lifestyle. I would say- find a rich wife. Mary FTW.

[Partiasn]

Money is not a genetic factor, but it seems to be more important when choosing a partner :p

Honestly with women, it is more a status thing I think than money per say. As such in more traditional and therefor more natural societies, women determined who they wanted to mate with by status.

Today the government itself is the Husband, or more likely the Pimp of most women in western countries. As such they don't really need husbands to support them. On the other hand it is still biologically ingrained in her brain that she must marry up to find a good mate, that can care for her offspring.

Unfortunately there are very few actual men in western culture they can marry up to. Especially considering the main target of the "Culture War" was the "Evil White Male".

Most of the white male population is decimated, and not in a position to be what these women want. The same seems to have been the case in Soviet Russia.

Although in Russia there were fewer ethnic groups for the women to choose from, so the racial disintegration was not as bad as say in the US. Here in the US, the number of marriageable males is likely to go down, significantly in the future, and the marriageable white males by even a grater standard.

Fact is most modern/feminist women have successfully reduced themselves to industrial slaves and prostitution for the global financial and economic machines. I'm guessing the vast majority of them will never marry because there will be no men to meet their standards. Granted you will always have token marriage/cohabitation.

Marriage in the US and western nations appears to be a dead issue (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/5/us-marriage-rate-continues-decline-men-tie-knot-la/?page=all) at this point because there is just too many fingers in the pie.

This is an issue that the white, preservationist probably need to consider, if they want any plans they make to be successful.

[Partiasn]

Or as PUA would say:- you offer her a lifestyle. I would say- find a rich wife. Mary FTW.

Pick Up Artist culture does not create a stable family. It is a good option for men looking to play with women, and get free sex, off of older desperate women, but it will not save the White Culture.

[Curtis24]

The reality is that a woman decides to sleep with you entirely based on what your face looks like. UNLESS she lives in a repressive society and has no rights.

[Mary]

Money is not a genetic factor, but it seems to be more important when choosing a partner :p

No, there is a study on this. Women were asked whether they would have a one night stand with Donald Trump or Johnny Depp. Everyone chose Johnny Depp, no one chose Donald Trump. It shows that money doesn't matter for attraction.

[Partiasn]

No, there is a study on this. Women were asked whether they would have a one night stand with Donald Trump or Johnny Depp. Everyone chose Johnny Depp, no one chose Donald Trump. It shows that money doesn't matter for attraction.

Both Donald Trump and Johnny Depp are high status wealthy perceived as "Alpha Males" by women. So in that case a better study would be The Donald, Johnny Depp, and some unknown Male Model type.

Looks can be part of the attraction, but so is money and status.
But for men looks alone will not cut it.

[2Cool]

No, there is a study on this. Women were asked whether they would have a one night stand with Donald Trump or Johnny Depp. Everyone chose Johnny Depp, no one chose Donald Trump. It shows that money doesn't matter for attraction.

Now ask the same question but say that Donal Trump will spend lavish amounts of money on them.

Women are attracted to power and social status. Money = power. Rarely do you see attractive men go out with a average/ugly/old looking women simply because they have money.

The same can't be said about women:
http://www.tvsmacktalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/8-greograci-briatore008.jpg

This is kinda where the concept of gold digger comes into play.

[Mary]

Both Donald Trump and Johnny Depp are high status wealthy perceived as "Alpha Males" by women. So in that case a better study would be The Donald, Johnny Depp, and some unknown Male Model type.

Looks can be part of the attraction, but so is money and status.
But for men looks alone will not cut it.

If money was a factor then Donald Trump would have gotten 50% of the votes, but he didn't.

Money and status is a factor in intra-male competition. So if you want to pick up a man, that's a good strategy. But for women it doesn't matter.

[Mary]

Now ask the same question but say that Donal Trump will spend lavish amounts of money on them.

Women are attracted to power and social status. Money = power. Rarely do you see attractive men go out with a average/ugly/old looking women simply because they have money.

The same can't be said about women:
http://www.tvsmacktalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/8-greograci-briatore008.jpg

This is kinda where the concept of gold digger comes into play.

Then they're going out with their money and not with the man. The actual man is not attractive.

Imagine if the woman was the one with the money instead, what would she buy?

[Curtis24]

Money is not a genetic factor, but it seems to be more important when choosing a partner :p

Only in a repressive society - which you could argue that America currently is.

[2Cool]

Then they're going out with their money and not with the man. The actual man is not attractive.

Imagine if the woman was the one with the money instead, what would she buy?

Yes she'd buy the man for money, but money entails power which is what women are attracted to in the end. Women tend to be attractive to the alpha-male type. Men with confidence, high social status etc. Looks become secondary at that point.

She'd spend it on things she likes? Cars, houses, jewelry, clothes, food, entertainment, vacations etc.? Things that rich man buy too.

[Mary]

Yes she'd buy the man for money, but money entails power which is what women are attracted to in the end. Women tend to be attractive to the alpha-male type. Men with confidence, high social status etc. Looks become secondary at that point.

She'd spend it on things she likes? Cars, houses, jewelry, clothes, food, entertainment, vacations etc.? Things that rich man buy too.

I'll make you a list.

Things that make you attractive:

* Hard cock
* masculine looks
* Violence potential
* Forcing your will on other people
* Being controlling
* Being sexually demanding
* Being alert

Things that you think make you attractive but actually don't:

* Money
* Social status
* Job
* Sense of humor
* Good listener
* Education
* Being nice

[Partiasn]

If money was a factor then Donald Trump would have gotten 50% of the votes, but he didn't.

Money and status is a factor in intra-male competition. So if you want to pick up a man, that's a good strategy. But for women it doesn't matter.

BS, are you telling me women do not evaluate by status?

Hey Ill go even further, I think more than half of them would become Lesbians if status becomes the issue.

I think Sweden would be proof of that, but that is just a guess on my part. Or maybe they just were always lesbians to start with?

[Arne]

That´s why they are in need of Niggers ?

[Mary]

BS, are you telling me women do not evaluate by status?

Hey Ill go even further, I think more than half of them would become Lesbians if status becomes the issue.

I think Sweden would be proof of that, but that is just a guess on my part. Or maybe they just were always lesbians to start with?

Men care about status. You're confusing what men like with what women like. So no women don't care about status.

[Partiasn]

Men care about status. You're confusing what men like with what women like. So no women don't care about status.


I'll make you a list.

Things that make you attractive:

* Hard cock
* masculine looks
* Violence potential
* Forcing your will on other people
* Being controlling
* Being sexually demanding
* Being alert

Things that you think make you attractive but actually don't:

* Money
* Social status
* Job
* Sense of humor
* Good listener
* Education
* Being nice



These are more Traits that create Status Among men. And you also are listing some of them, at lest the first three as traits that make men attractive.

* Violence potential
* Forcing your will on other people
* Being controlling
* Being alert
* Money
* Social status
* Job
* Education

So!
By that definition, women are attracted to status.

I will give you this though, and that is the "Alpha Male" of womens imaginations and the real thing are two different things.

[Partiasn]

That´s why they are in need of Niggers ?

Yes exactly!

And that is why white women will, chase OJ Simpson, as opposed to a better looking white guy.

If the Nigger is perceived as "High Status" then she will go for it.

[Arne]

Yes exactly!

And that is why white women will, chase OJ Simpson, as opposed to a better looking white guy.

If the Nigger is perceived as "High Status" then she will go for it.

You know it´s not fully true.
They don´t only chase them if they are rich.. :coffee:
Many Chicks spread their cheeks if the guy is black cause they like to be degraded and beaten.

[Mary]

These are more Traits that create Status Among men. And you also are listing some of them, at lest the first three as traits that make men attractive.

* Violence potential
* Forcing your will on other people
* Being controlling
* Being alert
* Money
* Social status
* Job
* Education

So!
By that definition, women are attracted to status.

I will give you this though, and that is the "Alpha Male" of womens imaginations and the real thing are two different things.

* Status - A specific accomplishment. Money, job, education, social position, material possessions, etc. This is stuff that men are into.

* Fear - People do what you say because they're afraid of you. Imposing your will, violence potential, controlling behavior, etc. This is stuff that women are into.

Status does not benefit women. Because it's not transferable to the offspring.

What women want is very concrete (see the list I made). Men will have a wild imagination about what women want.

[Mary]

Being attractive to women is something you're born with. If you're not born attractive, you will never be attractive.

How do you know if you are attractive? Women will pay you for sex.

[Arne]

Being attractive to women is something you're born with. If you're not born attractive, you will never be attractive.

How do you know if you are attractive? Women will pay you for sex.

Yes, i´m born that way.

[Mary]

Yes, i´m born that way.

Congrats.

[Osprey]

Congrats.

Pay him now, Mary.

[Quorra]

I think the OP has a very good point. Each woman is attracted to different men.

[Mary]

Pay him now, Mary.

I'm out of money.

[Linet]

* Status - A specific accomplishment. Money, job, education, social position, material possessions, etc. This is stuff that men are into.

* Fear - People do what you say because they're afraid of you. Imposing your will, violence potential, controlling behavior, etc. This is stuff that women are into.

Status does not benefit women. Because it's not transferable to the offspring.

What women want is very concrete (see the list I made). Men will have a wild imagination about what women want.

I am afraid to say that...but i agree with you...:thumbs
(I just hope i understood well :sherlock: what you have said and i wont regret it later :sweat:)

[Quorra]

I am afraid to say that...but i agree with you...:thumbs
(I just hope i understood well :sherlock: what you have said and i wont regret it later :sweat:)

How do you agree with any of this half baked speculation of hers?:confused:

They are hardly concrete observations.:tongue

[Linet]

i agree that women like their man to be capable to take care of himself and us...that doesn tmean to pay for us or to spend his money...but the fact that he could afford it means he has abilities, he is clever he has targets and purpose etc
Also no girl like cowards, we like our bf to be able to stand and talk to the others face when he disagrees or when he is being challenged or offended....

[Quorra]

i agree that women like their man to be capable to take care of himself and us...that doesn tmean to pay for us or to spend his money...but the fact that he could afford it means he has abilities, he is clever he has targets and purpose etc
Also no girl like cowards, we like our bf to be able to stand and talk to the others face when he disagrees or when he is being challenged or offended....

Well of course these qualities are important. I just can't see how this relates to Marys ideas:confused:

I suppose good seduction can be an indicator of these qualities but I think there are men you are atttacted to based on genetic qualities. It's known as "Chemistry" or "a spark".

It's very cynical and dismissive of natural selection to assume that this genetic attraction plays no part.

It's also very indicative of the descructive nature of modern life that we are so ready to dismiss it in favour of cynicism. That is, I just need a man for the moment, here's one, he's socially capable so therefore he can shelter me for the moment. It's very much a survivalist, getting by, attitude.

[Linet]

Well sure chemistry is the alpha and the omega, but if the guy i like is a coward is over and chemistry wont help him...:no:


I agreed on that post...this single one... i dont agree with anything else she says....:)
Dont be afraid, you wont have a second Mary around :wink

[Breedingvariety]

Eugenicist view is the best. Fuck whom ever you want. Only the best should reproduce. Loose the ego.

[Arcaius]

Eugenicist view is the best. Fuck whom ever you want. Only the best should reproduce. Loose the ego.

hahahh you realize that this only works best for us guys ;) not so much for the girls....

this makes "players" from the guys and "sluts" from the girls so i'm pretty sure they wont go blindly in to this :P ,at least the ones with self esteem and "spine"

[Quorra]

hahahh you realize that this only works best for us guys ;) not so much for the girls....

this makes "players" from the guys and "sluts" from the girls so i'm pretty sure they wont go blindly in to this :P ,at least the ones with self esteem and "spine"

I think he's talking about eugenics rather than easy sex.:p

[Quorra]

Well sure chemistry is the alpha and the omega, but if the guy i like is a coward is over and chemistry wont help him...:no:ok but I will just say that social talent =/= bravery and is often just the sign of a superficial man with no real physical talents.


I agreed on that post...this single one... i dont agree with anything else she says....:)
Dont be afraid, you wont have a second Mary around :wink I guess not.

:laugh:

[Breedingvariety]

I think he's talking about eugenics rather than easy sex.:p
I'm talking about utopian society, where people are less egoist and more racially minded. Where they voluntarily back away from reproducing, if they are deemed not leaning towards ideal by ones tribe. Them should not be prevented from enjoying lifes depravations. Them should have all the sex they relax.

[Arcaius]

I think he's talking about eugenics rather than easy sex.:p

hahh i know but the " Fuck whom ever you want" is the interesting touch to his statement :D and that's why commented it :P

[Arcaius]

I'm talking about utopian society, where people are less egoist and more racially minded. Where they voluntarily back away from reproducing, if they are deemed not leaning towards ideal by ones tribe. Them should not be prevented from enjoying lifes depravations. Them should have all the sex they relax.

it will be nice to be back in Eden again :thumb001: :whoo: :Hug00001:

[Arcaius]

ok but I will just say that social talent =/= bravery and is often just the sign of a superficial man with no real physical talents.
I guess not.

:laugh:

hmmmm i think that's legit,what you say.... but i think linet was talking about the actual cowards in life.... not just about the night that somebody will hook up with the girl

but about what you say...totally, it's just shows if that guy is a player... and if he knows his way around the ladies :P

[Quorra]

I'm talking about utopian society, where people are less egoist and more racially minded. Where they voluntarily back away from reproducing, if they are deemed not leaning towards ideal by ones tribe. Them should not be prevented from enjoying lifes depravations. Them should have all the sex they relax.

:confused:

[Linet]

...bravery is essential...i am not asking my bf to be a bully, but to be brave...not to lower his head to others....:Pruegelknabe:
Apart from that you are right...i want the whole pachage, he has to be clever and of course to like him and also to like his character etc...:cool2:

[Breedingvariety]

:confused:
Most of my post are word games. Closer to flirt than gospel.

I'm talking about utopian society, where people are less egoist and more racially minded.
Individual dies, race lives on.

Where they voluntarily back away from reproducing, if they are deemed not leaning towards ideal by ones tribe.
That's counter biological. Thus, of higher constitution.

Them should not be prevented from enjoying lifes depravations.
Depravations are desired.

Them should have all the sex they relax.
Otherwise they will conflict.

[Mary]

Most of my post are word games. Closer to flirt than gospel.

Individual dies, race lives on.

That's counter biological. Thus, of higher constitution.

Depravations are desired.

Otherwise they will conflict.

vvjb0nRgIRs

[Breedingvariety]

Mary, you have opened my eyes to creepiness of total submission.

Muslims are right in very small part. For the most part they are wrong.

[Mary]

Mary, you have opened my eyes to creepiness of total submission.

Muslims are right in very small part. For the most part they are wrong.

Lay off the shrooms, man. I'm sure you'll find a girlfriend too.

[Breedingvariety]

Lay off the shrooms, man. I'm sure you'll find a girlfriend too.
Be honest 'Laden, what do you think?

[Mary]

Be honest 'Laden, what do you think?

About what?

[Breedingvariety]

That's counter biological. Thus, of higher constitution.
The very biological evolution was based on disregarding most base leanings. By going against ones gut feeling. Thus humanity and thus Northern man.

[Mary]

The very biological evolution was based on disregarding most base leanings. By going against ones gut feeling. Thus humanity and thus Northern man.

No, just go with your instincts, you'll be fine.

[Partiasn]

* Status - A specific accomplishment. Money, job, education, social position, material possessions, etc. This is stuff that men are into.

[ Fear - People do what you say because they're afraid of you. Imposing your will, violence potential, controlling behavior, etc. This is stuff that women are into.

Status does not benefit women. Because it's not transferable to the offspring.

What women want is very concrete (see the list I made). Men will have a wild imagination about what women want.

Ok I'm game!
Lets look at that list one more time and try to examine the WHY from a more biological and evolutionary perspective women or are attracted to men.

Here is your list with some change by me.

Things that make you attractive to women:

* Hard cock= This one sould be obvious, no cock, no kids, no genes, waste of time for the woman.

* masculine looks=Indicator of physical health and indicate the presence of good genes. Indicator of survivablity of her genes into the future [the main point of sex]

* Violence potential=Indacator of the mans ability to ward off dangers in the world, protect her and her offspring. This is tied in to the “masculine looks indicator'

* Forcing your will on other people= Indicator of status in the group, IE a Leader or fighter in Hunter gather clans. Is still very much in force in modern male organizations. [Note: although it never was exactly how women envision it]

* Being controlling=Same as the Forcing your will indicator

* Being sexually demanding=Different aspect of the Forcing your will indicator

* Being alert=Not sure about your context here


Things that make you attractive to the male hierarchy

* Money= This one is tied to the Violence potential, Forcing your will, and being controlling. Without all of these traits a man cannot clime in the business world, and he will never make any money.

* Social status=In order to attain this you need to have Violence potential, and the ability to force your will on others, to make the business deals to succeed. masculine looks is also a pulse in this area.

* Job=If you have 1) Money and 2) Social Status, then you have a Job.

* Sense of humor= Tied to Being controlling,Being sexually demanding, Forcing your will,

* Good listener=Another Control method, Tied to Being controlling,Being sexually demanding, Forcing your will on others,

* Education=Is valuable for status with men, to a degree.

* Being nice=Of no value with women, is valuable in male groups in forming alliances and brotherhoods.

Ok do you now see how these things fit together somewhat more?

"What women Like" is the Result of "What Men Do/Are"

In Essence women like power, and access to power, both physical power/sexual and social power/money.

[Mary]

"What women Like" is the Result of "What Men Do/Are"

In Essence women like power, and access to power, both physical power/sexual and social power/money.

Women select men, that means men are whatever women want them to be.

Women only want good genes. Not power, money, social status or success in the business world. None of those things indicate good genes to women.

You have good genes if:

* You look manly (as in not gay)
* You carry a knife (for the purpose of killing someone)
* You are not able to hold a job because of your attitude problem (you can't conform to somebody telling you what to do)
* You have a high likelihood of going to prison or dying (it's your retirement plan)
* You demand to get everything that you want sexually (you don't care about the woman)
* You make people do what you want (if they don't do what you want the consequences are worse)
* You make your woman willingly do things for you (she wants to do what you want to do)

You have bad genes if:

* You look gay
* You carry an iphone or similar
* You have a regular job
* You plan to retire when the time comes
* You want to please the woman sexually
* You do as you're told by other people
* You can't control your hoe

If you're not sure which category you belong in, use this test:

Do women pay to gain sexual access to you?

That means they pay you cash or gifts in order to get the chance to fuck you.

[Quorra]

You have good genes if:

* You carry a knife (for the purpose of killing someone)



:laugh2:

[~Nik~]

* You carry a knife (for the purpose of killing someone)

I actually do...http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2012/24/1339471139-sournois.gif

[Mary]

I actually do...http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2012/24/1339471139-sournois.gif

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/001/232/picsor.jpg

[~Nik~]

Pics.?

Of course, then I would end up in The Hague, I know how it works. Look for another exhibitionist psychopath, like IM for example. :D

[Mary]

Of course, then I would end up in The Hague, I know how it works. Look for another exhibitionist psychopath, like IM for example. :D

So it didn't happen.

[Partiasn]

Women select men, that means men are whatever women want them to be.

Women only want good genes. Not power, money, social status or success in the business world. None of those things indicate good genes to women.

You have good genes if:

* You look manly (as in not gay)
* You carry a knife (for the purpose of killing someone)
* You are not able to hold a job because of your attitude problem (you can't conform to somebody telling you what to do)
* You have a high likelihood of going to prison or dying (it's your retirement plan)
* You demand to get everything that you want sexually (you don't care about the woman)
* You make people do what you want (if they don't do what you want the consequences are worse)
* You make your woman willingly do things for you (she wants to do what you want to do)



Do you know the meaning of the word, "Thug Fetish"
LOL!



You have bad genes if:

* You look gay
* You carry an iphone or similar
* You have a regular job
* You plan to retire when the time comes
* You want to please the woman sexually
* You do as you're told by other people
* You can't control your hoe

If you're not sure which category you belong in, use this test:

Do women pay to gain sexual access to you?

That means they pay you cash or gifts in order to get the chance to fuck you.

LOL!
I will give you credit for the Gay, iphone thing. :P

But the rest of it is BS

[~Nik~]

So it didn't happen.

I carry a knife actually when I go outdoor. But I have no photos available for proof. :ohwell:

[Mary]

Do you know the meaning of the word, "Thug Fetish"
LOL!

It has nothing to do with thugs. This is what indicate that a man has good genes. Women don't like poseurs.


LOL!
I will give you credit for the Gay, iphone thing. :P

But the rest of it is BS

How would you know are you a woman?

[Partiasn]

:laugh2:

Then your good genes get you a 9mm diameter hole in your head, placed there by the police, and you never get to pass those genes on. ;)

Dam! Evolution is such a Bitch! :D
LOL!

[Mary]

Then your good genes get you a 9mm diameter hole in your head, placed there by the police, and you never get to pass those genes on. ;)

Dam! Evolution is such a Bitch! :D
LOL!

Not if he has a woman that takes the bullet for him. But you wouldn't know about that would you?

[Partiasn]

Women select men, that means men are whatever women want them to be.

You have good genes if:

* You look manly (as in not gay)
* You carry a knife (for the purpose of killing someone)
* You are not able to hold a job because of your attitude problem (you can't conform to somebody telling you what to do)
* You have a high likelihood of going to prison or dying (it's your retirement plan)
* You demand to get everything that you want sexually (you don't care about the woman)
* You make people do what you want (if they don't do what you want the consequences are worse)
* You make your woman willingly do things for you (she wants to do what you want to do)

You have bad genes if:


Dam!
That is just so Obvious.
I don't know how I could have missed it.

Ok, Ok!
So let me ask you this.
So what happens when you "Good Genes" BF goes to Prison and has a cell mate.

Lets call him Bubba!
And he gets, to say play the "Woman" in that relationship. Where does that leave you? :P



That means they pay you cash or gifts in order to get the chance to fuck you.

LOL
Why in the hell would I do that?

[Partiasn]

Not if he has a woman that takes the bullet for him. But you wouldn't know about that would you?

LOL!
You got Kevlar Plates in that Burka, that we don't know about? :P

[Mary]

Dam!
That is just so Obvious.
I don't know how I could have missed it.

Ok, Ok!
So let me ask you this.
So what happens when you "Good Genes" BF goes to Prison and has a cell mate.

Lets call him Bubba!
And he gets, to say play the "Woman" in that relationship. Where does that leave you? :P

You're only saying that because you want to play the woman yourself. It's only those kind of guys that say this.


LOL
Why in the hell would I do that?

Because women will offer to pay a man with good genes, if they're smart.

[Partiasn]

You're only saying that because you want to play the woman yourself. It's only those kind of guys that say this.
:lol00002:



Because women will offer to pay a man with good genes, if they're smart.

True!
But they are sooo old most men their own age would not have them.
But hey Gigolo got to earn a living one way or the other.

Anyway!
Been fun, I got to charge my Iphone, a get to bed, so I can prove my bad genes, workin for da Man. ;)

[Partiasn]

Because women will offer to pay a man with good genes, if they're smart.

In a fertility clinic maybe.

But lets face it, men will come closer to paying for pussy than women will come to paying for dick.

That is just a fact of life.

[Mary]

In a fertility clinic maybe.

But lets face it, men will come closer to paying for pussy than women will come to paying for dick.

That is just a fact of life.

No, there are women who pay for sex with men who have good genes.

[Melina]

No, there are women who pay for sex with men who have good genes.

Since when?:confused:

[Mary]

Since when?:confused:

It has always been that way.

[Melina]

It has always been that way.

O really?? I thought it was always the opposite.

[Arne]

No, there are women who pay for sex with men who have good genes.

I have good genes.
Which lady wants some kids with me ?
I shall mention my offspring will avoid the sun.

[Mary]

O really?? I thought it was always the opposite.


Catherine, throughout her long reign, took many lovers, often elevating them to high positions[49] for as long as they held her interest, and then pensioning them off with gifts of serfs and large estates.

After her affair with her lover and adviser Grigori Alexandrovich Potemkin ended in 1776, he allegedly selected a candidate-lover for her who had the physical beauty and mental faculties to hold her interest (such as Alexander Dmitriev-Mamonov). Some of these men loved her in return, and she always showed generosity towards them, even after the affair ended. One of her lovers, Pyotr Zavadovsky, received 50,000 rubles, a pension of 5,000 rubles, and 4,000 peasants in the Ukraine after she dismissed him in 1777.

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

[Mary]

I have good genes.
Which lady wants some kids with me ?
I shall mention my offspring will avoid the sun.

I already have a man, but I'm sure some of the other ladies here will be interested. Maybe you guys can hold an auction or something?

[Mary]

Those who think that only men pay for are wrong. Many unsatisfied Italian women are ready to pay for gratifying sex with a man.

A new research shows that 10% of Italian women have paid to have sex with a man at least once.

The research carried out by Associazione Donne e qualità della vita, headed by sexologist Serenella Salomoni shows that when it comes to seeking sexual pleasure, 34% of Italian women are ready to pay as much as 100 Euros to sleep with a man.

But that's not all. Some 22% of the respondents said they are ready to pay between 100 and 500 Euros for sex with a man. There are also women who are ready to pay between 500 and 1000 Euros for a weekend out with a man.

The researchers interviewed 560 Italian women aged between 25 and 65 years. While 36% of these women said that they paid to have sex with a man purely for transgression when they were feeling low, 8% affirmed that they would do it whenever they can.

http://www.africa-news.eu/immigration-news/italy/449-italian-women-paying-for-gratifying-sex-.html

[Mary]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/secrets-gigolos-women-pay-sex/story?id=15644065#.T9gQ6Z0_SrE

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/1480752/We-pay-for-male-escort-sex.html

[Arne]

I already have a man, but I'm sure some of the other ladies here will be interested. Maybe you guys can hold an auction or something?

I have something to offer and i´m white.
That only counts.
Thanks for the listening.

[Mary]

I have something to offer and i´m white.
That only counts.
Thanks for the listening.

Do you have a beard?

[Mary]

mtPET_N4e5A

[Breedingvariety]

Mary, I think you are right. Women are willing to sacrifice and "pay" for a man they desire.

[Osprey]

Seeing the choices of mates that women in this forum have made makes it abundantly clear to me that women are not worth wasting time over. Just fuck her, and raise the child as the child is a version of yourself. Good women are very rare. All young men intending on finding a racialist and romantic, supportinve woman are doomed.

[Melina]

Mary, I think you are right. Women are willing to sacrifice and "pay" for a man they desire.

Only the stupid ugly women..

[Arne]

Do you have a beard?

Yes, i have a Beard.
I was gonna posting a pic with a Beard a while ago.


Mary, I think you are right. Women are willing to sacrifice and "pay" for a man they desire.

Only the stupid ugly women..
I think she´s relating to those which wants Childs.

[Hurrem sultana]

mary is that your husband on the avatar?

[Osprey]

mary is that your husband on the avatar?

Yes

[Arne]

Yes

Hello Mary ;)

[Osprey]

Hello Mary ;)

[Sarmatian]

...The Alpha Male IS A NATURAL concept, and has been proven in nature...

The concept of Alpha Male is a myth.

It was first introduced by David Mech in his book 'The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species' on research of behaviour of wolves in a pack. But at the end of his life Mech stated that his model does not work for wolves in natural environments.

Recent studies accross the world revealed that pack of wolves in natural wild environment is a family where so-called Alpha Male and Female are the only breeding pair and the rest of pack are few generations of their offspring. There is no competition for dominance. Everyone in a pack following the leaders not because the leaders are stronger, smarter or whatever but simply because leaders are their parents. And they all work together because they are all brothers and sisters.

In humans analogy to wolf pack is extended family. That is the only natural basic element of a society. Anything else is artificial construct meant to serve the purpose of 'Divide and Conquer'.

But concept of Alpha Male does work on wolves in situations when they are being exterminated without control. In such case family structure of a pack is getting broken. Without parenting control wolves experience stress which is expressed in aggressive behaviour. Subsequently more stressed wolves show higher levels of aggression and suppressing less aggressive ones.

[Mary]

mary is that your husband on the avatar?

Yes, that is my husband.

[Hurrem sultana]

Yes, that is my husband.

why do people say you married a gypsy,he does not look gyspy

[Mary]

why do people say you married a gypsy,he does not look gyspy

Because some people dream of marrying gypsies themselves I guess.

[Partiasn]

mtPET_N4e5A

LOL!

Women as a general rule will not pay for sex, because most of the time they can find an idiot to fuck them for free.

As far as Kathrine the Great goes, I will grant you she was really good at F-ing her way to the top, starting by having her retard husband knocked off, by the moron that was courting her.

Somehow I seriously doubt that she knew anything about "Genes" in the first place and was more or less paying them to go away. In Essence she was just a garden verity slut, with access to power. But she is a good case study in why women make lousy leaders, and how stupid men are I will grant you that.

So lets go back to your original list


Womens making the Reproductive Selective Choice.


Women select men, that means men are whatever women want them to be.

Women only want good genes. Not power, money, social status or success in the business world. None of those things indicate good genes to women.

You have good genes if:

* You look manly (as in not gay)
* You carry a knife (for the purpose of killing someone)
* You are not able to hold a job because of your attitude problem (you can't conform to somebody telling you what to do)
* You have a high likelihood of going to prison or dying (it's your retirement plan)
* You demand to get everything that you want sexually (you don't care about the woman)
* You make people do what you want (if they don't do what you want the consequences are worse)
* You make your woman willingly do things for you (she wants to do what you want to do)

Men making the Reproductive Selective Choice.


Things that you think make you attractive but actually don't:

* Money
* Social status
* Job
* Sense of humor
* Good listener
* Education
* Being nice


Bit of scientific Fact about the evolution of white, skin eyes and hair. (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=ca523c56-899b-47b5-8f56-6af9c864e70b&k=28533)

The Article basically states that during the Ice Age human groups in the far north were far more dependent on hunting[men] than gathering[women] AS such they were dependent on the male hunters to provide, and since there were far more women than men, only the pretty blonds got to the stage of reproduction.


Form the article and your statements we can deduce that when men have the selective choice we get intelligent, white blond Nordic people, on the other hand when women have the selective choice we get well basically niggers.
:P

Dam! You have just successful proven why women should NOT have selective choice.
LOL!
Am I right?

[Mary]

LOL!

Women as a general rule will not pay for sex, because most of the time they can find an idiot to fuck them for free.

But they don't want an idiot. Women are very selective. They will pay for quality.


Dam! You have just successful proven why women should NOT have selective choice.
LOL!
Am I right?

Women will always be the ones who choose.

[Partiasn]

The concept of Alpha Male is a myth.

It was first introduced by David Mech in his book 'The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species' on research of behaviour of wolves in a pack. But at the end of his life Mech stated that his model does not work for wolves in natural environments.

Recent studies accross the world revealed that pack of wolves in natural wild environment is a family where so-called Alpha Male and Female are the only breeding pair and the rest of pack are few generations of their offspring. There is no competition for dominance. Everyone in a pack following the leaders not because the leaders are stronger, smarter or whatever but simply because leaders are their parents. And they all work together because they are all brothers and sisters.

In humans analogy to wolf pack is extended family. That is the only natural basic element of a society. Anything else is artificial construct meant to serve the purpose of 'Divide and Conquer'.

But concept of Alpha Male does work on wolves in situations when they are being exterminated without control. In such case family structure of a pack is getting broken. Without parenting control wolves experience stress which is expressed in aggressive behaviour. Subsequently more stressed wolves show higher levels of aggression and suppressing less aggressive ones.

Humans are more primates than they are wolves.
In gorilla clans there is generally a male leader that is gloated on by the other female gorillas, but the females are not totally faithful in the clan and to mate outside of the circle with other beta gorillas.

I know at least pat of this is true in one since, I have a friend that his grand son is a hockey player and he by strict terms might be considered a "Alpha Male" in the teen age since.

LOL! The teen age girls do seem to throw themselves at him, because of his status and by their teen minds "High Value Mate".

Alpha Male = High Value Mate in the womans mind.

Mary is right in that context, that aggression is something that many of them even subconsciously look for. Although when you ask a woman out right, she will not say that, because that sort of response is inappropriate in the context of accepted morality.

[Partiasn]

Women will always be the ones who choose.

They did not have the choice in the Ice Age, so it is conceivable that they could lose that choice again. It is always a mater of numbers.

[Breedingvariety]

I know at least pat of this is true in one since, I have a friend that his grand son is a hockey player and he by strict terms might be considered a "Alpha Male" in the teen age since.

LOL! The teen age girls do seem to throw themselves at him, because of his status and by their teen minds "High Value Mate".

Alpha Male = High Value Mate in the womans mind.

Mary is right in that context, that aggression is something that many of them even subconsciously look for. Although when you ask a woman out right, she will not say that, because that sort of response is inappropriate in the context of accepted morality.
Well said. Other consideration is- if Alpha Male does not commit, will they keep throwing themselves on him? Most of throwing is no different to men making advances on women. If women can't get commitment, most of them will look elsewhere.

The difference is women are more selective about who they throw themselves on and that is a sign of desire to commit if the behavior persists. Man is more inclined to have any sex he can get, but he will be no less selective than woman when it comes to commitment.

That's where sex ratio within population comes in. As people settle for "lower standard mate" some stay left out without even least desired mate.

I don't believe the joke someone "would not have sex even if they were last people on this planet" to be true. Sex drive is more powerful than your social indoctrinations. That's why "different value mates" will mate. But if they mate, are they different value?

[Partiasn]

Well said. Other consideration is- if Alpha Male does not commit, will they keep throwing themselves on him? Most of throwing is no different to men making advances on women. If women can't get commitment, most of them will look elsewhere.

The difference is women are more selective about who they throw themselves on and that is a sign of desire to commit if the behavior persists. Man is more inclined to have any sex he can get, but he will be no less selective than woman when it comes to commitment.


Women are what you could call "Serial Monogamist" for the most part. That means they want to be with one guy as long as they like him, and when they find someone else better then they want to be with him.

Men on the other hand just like the orgasm, and want to be with women that turn him on. And that does not mean the same women always.

On the other hand when emotions enter the picture then, the guy may want to be monogamous, but a lot of that depends on the female. Women guide or destroy relationships for the most part. Just a hard fact of life.

[Mary]

They did not have the choice in the Ice Age, so it is conceivable that they could lose that choice again. It is always a mater of numbers.

They would just cheat.

[Marmie Dearest]

Do you have a beard?

Mestizos with goatees are pretty hot.

[sturmwalkure]

I am surprised this thread wasn't started by Mary.

[Curtis24]

Many Chicks spread their cheeks if the guy is black cause they like to be degraded and beaten.

No, that is completely untrue.

[Curtis24]

I don't believe the joke someone "would not have sex even if they were last people on this planet" to be true. Sex drive is more powerful than your social indoctrinations. That's why "different value mates" will mate. But if they mate, are they different value?

I do believe it. Pleny of women die childless, despite there being many single (albeit ugly) men they could chose from.

[Breedingvariety]

I do believe it. Pleny of women die childless, despite there being many single (albeit ugly) men they could chose from.
That is because of our social culture, not because they couldn't mate in other circumstances. Like Mary said- standards of women are too high.

For example: woman has sex with a man. Then she sees a better man for her. She dumps the first man and jumps on second. First man dies childless not because she wouldn't have had sex, but because there were better men.

In the past most everybody would get married. Suddenly, many don't get married. Did we evolve where people physically can't have sex with a percentage of opposite sex? Sounds counter intuitive for evolution.

[Quorra]

That is because of our social culture, not because they couldn't mate in other circumstances. Like Mary said- standards of women are too high.

For example: woman has sex with a man. Then she sees a better man for her. She dumps the first man and jumps on second. First man dies childless not because she wouldn't have had sex, but because there were better men.

In the past most everybody would get married. Suddenly, many don't get married. Did we evolve where people physically can't have sex with a percentage of opposite sex? Sounds counter intuitive for evolution.

It does. The more people who breed, the more diversity of genes you get, the more mutations and more chance of people with compatible mutations meeting and breeding. Evolution.

[Curtis24]

In the past most everybody would get married. Suddenly, many don't get married. Did we evolve where people physically can't have sex with a percentage of opposite sex? Sounds counter intuitive for evolution.



In fact, the opposite is true. In evolving species, many people, especially males, fail to find mates.

[Curtis24]

It does. The more people who breed, the more diversity of genes you get, the more mutations and more chance of people with compatible mutations meeting and breeding. Evolution.

Huh?

[Curtis24]

I have good genes.
Which lady wants some kids with me ?
I shall mention my offspring will avoid the sun.

Post a pic of your face, and we'll see how good your genes really are.

[Breedingvariety]

It does. The more people who breed, the more diversity of genes you get, the more mutations and more chance of people with compatible mutations meeting and breeding. Evolution.
Yes, I agree. But, I don't think Europeans have suddenly changed so drastically so as to be unable to mate with members of their ethnic cluster, even if they were last people in this world. It is possible you may not want to mate with more distant clusters in such hypothetical scenario.

He is saying there either is or isn't attraction purely based on being or not being attraction. That is his circular position. The truth is attraction is also determined by situations, scenarios, social culture and conditions.

Conquistadors procreated with Amerindians and they were very distant genetically. Hell, even ugliest Australian Aborigines have mixed with Euros.

Who doesn't procreate is a genetic dead end. And it is natures condition to procreate. So naturally the picky "genes" are fast eliminated.

Even Curtis24 said genes of childless women will be eliminated. He thought it was genetic problem. Like nature suddenly decided to produce women who don't want children. No, it is social matter.

[Mary]

That is because of our social culture, not because they couldn't mate in other circumstances. Like Mary said- standards of women are too high.

You can have high standards as a woman as long as you're willing to provide a high quality product. There's nothing wrong with having high standards as such. You can compare it to selling a Ferrari for $100 000. That's probably what it's worth. But when you pay that much, you actually get a Ferrari.

But now you have a used Ford that someone is trying to sell for the same price as the Ferrari. No one except a total loser is going to buy that.

So it's not that women have high standards, it's that they're trying to scam you.

[Breedingvariety]

You can have high standards as a woman as long as you're willing to provide a high quality product. There's nothing wrong with having high standards as such. You can compare it to selling a Ferrari for $100 000. That's probably what it's worth. But when you pay that much, you actually get a Ferrari.

But now you have a used Ford that someone is trying to sell for the same price as the Ferrari. No one except a total loser is going to buy that.

So it's not that women have high standards, it's that they're trying to scam you.
If all women wanted to acquire the best man, and if they were to do whatever it takes to get him, they would start a bidding war. And still, only one woman would win. Others would be left with nothing.

Sex ratio > Mate value hierarchy

Mate value has subjective side in addition to objective. It is proven by beauty polls on Apricity. And caused by personality differences. You wouldn't want to be dominatrix.

[Mary]

If all women wanted to acquire the best man, and if they were to do whatever it takes to get him, they would start a bidding war. And still, only one woman would win. Others would be left with nothing.

Sex ratio > Mate value hierarchy

Mate value has subjective side in addition to objective. It is proven by beauty polls on Apricity. And caused by personality differences. You wouldn't want to be dominatrix.

You assume that all women are in the same market when they're not. There are two markets:

a) The good genes market (10% of women maybe)

Here women will want the best man and will have a bidding war to get him.

b) The meal ticket market (90% of women)

Here women will want a rich man to pay their way. And they're going to put up a high price for these men to pay. This is where the scamming happens.

[Mary]

I think you can structure men the same way:

a) The trophy wife market (10-20% of men)

Here men will want a woman that's good looking and sexual. And will do anything to get her.

b) The bargain bin (80-90% of men)

Here men will want a girlfriend at a cheap rate. So they will settle with a woman that they don't have to pay very much for.

[Mary]

So I think that the explanation is that the market is segmented, like with premium cars and budget cars. So you have premium women and budget women.

Guys who look to buy budget cars will also buy budget women. Guys who buy premium cars will buy premium women.

[Breedingvariety]

No, there is only one market- world market. What you Mary call markets are divisions of market participant sections by what participants seek. And very debatable, because these divisions are fruits of your fantasy.

[Breedingvariety]

So I think that the explanation is that the market is segmented, like with premium cars and budget cars. So you have premium women and budget women.

Guys who look to buy budget cars will also buy budget women. Guys who buy premium cars will buy premium women.
So you finally admit women want rich mate and money is the decisive factor. Cos poor guy will not be able to buy a premium car.

[Mary]

No, there is only one market- world market. What you Mary call markets are divisions of market participant sections by what participants seek. And very debatable, because these divisions are fruits of your fantasy.

Try it against reality:

* Why do only some men marry hot women? Because they're willing to pay the price.

* Why do some men marry non-hot women? Because they want to have a guaranteed woman at a low price.

It's like with cars: men that buy regular cars just want a car. Men that buy premium cars want a powerful engine, a certain type of wheels, etc.

[Mary]

So you finally admit women want rich mate and money is the decisive factor. Cos poor guy will not be able to buy a premium car.

I think it's like this:

* 10% of women want good genes. If you don't have good genes, you can't pay these women enough money to be with them.

* 90% of women want money. They don't care about your genes, they just want to get paid.

For men:

* 10-20% want trophy wives. You have to be hot and sexual or they will not look at you.

* 80-90% want a bargain. They don't care what you look like as long as they get a girlfriend.

[Mary]

The market always clears in the premium segment, sellers find buyers fast.

It's just in the budget segment that women have raised their prices a lot. Therefore the market doesn't clear.

It's just like with unsold cars:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_I_ixxWlWOZ0/SZ68pAYkyJI/AAAAAAAADZ0/fohhkljAF5A/Unsold%20cars_cause%20jobcuts%20(3)%5B9%5D.jpg?img max=800

http://www.meetwiki.org/2009/02/car-sale-slow-reasons-for-job-cuts-in.html

[Partiasn]

I think it's like this:

* 10% of women want good genes. If you don't have good genes, you can't pay these women enough money to be with them.

* 90% of women want money. They don't care about your genes, they just want to get paid.

For men:

* 10-20% want trophy wives. You have to be hot and sexual or they will not look at you.

* 80-90% want a bargain. They don't care what you look like as long as they get a girlfriend.

Ok yes I agree with this argument, and it does seem to fit the circumstances we see in the world.

The Modern Women, do not really care about prorogation of genes, nor do they care about raising kids for the most part. But most of them do know they need some sort of security when they get older. And a "Sugar Daddy" or meal ticket is a good way to get that.

Unfortunately for most women the number of wealthy men is low, so most of them do not have a realistic shot at a "Sugar Daddy" so they have looked more at finding a "Replacement Husband" and that would be some sort of government assistance program.

So that leaves you with 10% of the female population that both want to reproduce with good genes. And are therefore willing to try and find a real husband as opposed to "Screw a Rich Guy" or get on welfare.


The market always clears in the premium segment, sellers find buyers fast.

IE Senators Wives, assuming they are not Gay, which most of them are these days.




It's just in the budget segment that women have raised their prices a lot. Therefore the market doesn't clear.


I would say that for American Women from the 1960's to the current era something called feminism happened. Basically that was the wholesale crapping on the western especially the white male population. As such most of the so called budget women have priced themselves out of the available market.

I have noticed that younger men do not need them to get an organism, because they can get it for free on the Internet, with porn or women who do it on web cam. In addition the government protection systems of western feminist women is so ridiculous that most men are not going to risk jail for a women that are mostly not attractive, and even less sociable.

Since we are comparing women to cars.
At current my Vehicle of choice is a Jeep TJ. It is tough, light weight, looks decent, easy to work on or modify, and best of all will get me out of a bind in four wheel drive, when I need it too.

A Ferrari on the other hand might do 200mph and is fine engineering technology, but on the other hand my jeep will go places a Ferrari will not, and I can repair it if it F-s up.

In Essence, it might pay to look in places that are not explored, when looking for a good way to find a wife these days.

Just a thought.

[Mary]

Ok yes I agree with this argument, and it does seem to fit the circumstances we see in the world.

The Modern Women, do not really care about prorogation of genes, nor do they care about raising kids for the most part. But most of them do know they need some sort of security when they get older. And a "Sugar Daddy" or meal ticket is a good way to get that.

It's not about financial security. It's a lot more secure to have a job with a pension plan. They gold dig because they can, because nobody stops them. If you as a woman have been raised with the idea that you can always have whatever you want, and if you yell loud enough someone will be along shortly to give it to you, you have no incentive to change. On the contrary, you have an incentive to keep it up. By the time a woman is 20 to 25 this is all she knows.


Unfortunately for most women the number of wealthy men is low, so most of them do not have a realistic shot at a "Sugar Daddy" so they have looked more at finding a "Replacement Husband" and that would be some sort of government assistance program.

So that leaves you with 10% of the female population that both want to reproduce with good genes. And are therefore willing to try and find a real husband as opposed to "Screw a Rich Guy" or get on welfare.

A real gold digger is going to gold dig everybody around her, not just one sugar daddy. It's going to be all the guys around them, all the family around them, their insurance company, the government, anything they can get their hands on.

Yeah, pretty much 10%.


IE Senators Wives, assuming they are not Gay, which most of them are these days.

It doesn't have to be anyone rich and famous, just anyone with good genes.


I would say that for American Women from the 1960's to the current era something called feminism happened. Basically that was the wholesale crapping on the western especially the white male population. As such most of the so called budget women have priced themselves out of the available market.

I have noticed that younger men do not need them to get an organism, because they can get it for free on the Internet, with porn or women who do it on web cam. In addition the government protection systems of western feminist women is so ridiculous that most men are not going to risk jail for a women that are mostly not attractive, and even less sociable.

Since we are comparing women to cars.
At current my Vehicle of choice is a Jeep TJ. It is tough, light weight, looks decent, easy to work on or modify, and best of all will get me out of a bind in four wheel drive, when I need it too.

A Ferrari on the other hand might do 200mph and is fine engineering technology, but on the other hand my jeep will go places a Ferrari will not, and I can repair it if it F-s up.

In Essence, it might pay to look in places that are not explored, when looking for a good way to find a wife these days.

Just a thought.

Feminism had nothing to do with gold digging. If they wanted to gold dig they would not have been feminist. They would have been housewives or something, there you can talk about payouts, because she gets to stay home and she gets everything she wants. Feminism ruined their chances to stay at home and not do anything. So gold digging came along as a way for women to compensate for the loss of the 50s deal.

The 50s deal:

* No work
* Get to live in a nice house
* Easiest household chores ever in history
* No sex (conservative sexual morals)
* Few kids (the two children ideal)
* Nice car
* Vacation
* Stuff

The 60s deal:

* Work
* Education
* Pay for your own place
* Free love (means you're expected to give sex)
* Pay for your own car
* Pay for your own vacation
* Pay for your own stuff

After the 60s deal (the deal we still have today) women took a huge hit. They're looking to compensate for this hit through gold digging.

[Partiasn]

It's not about financial security. It's a lot more secure to have a job with a pension plan. They gold dig because they can, because nobody stops them. If you as a woman have been raised with the idea that you can always have whatever you want, and if you yell loud enough someone will be along shortly to give it to you, you have no incentive to change. On the contrary, you have an incentive to keep it up. By the time a woman is 20 to 25 this is all she knows.

these sort of women are what we have with Generation Y. here in America. or maybe a better term might be "Entitlement Whore"


A real gold digger is going to gold dig everybody around her, not just one sugar daddy. It's going to be all the guys around them, all the family around them, their insurance company, the government, anything they can get their hands on.

Yeah, pretty much 10%.



I think this about sums it up

ihLBCbNIDbI

Ok I will grant you that these two Imbeciles are pretty dam funny, and realistically they are not physically ugly. But fact is NO MAN in his right mind would want to spend any time with them.




Feminism had nothing to do with gold digging. If they wanted to gold dig they would not have been feminist. They would have been housewives or something, there you can talk about payouts, because she gets to stay home and she gets everything she wants. Feminism ruined their chances to stay at home and not do anything. So gold digging came along as a way for women to compensate for the loss of the 50s deal.

The 50s deal:

* No work
* Get to live in a nice house
* Easiest household chores ever in history
* No sex (conservative sexual morals)
This one is sort of wrong, women in the 1950's the married ones had more sex than women after them. Sorry do not have the study off hand
* Few kids (the two children ideal)
* Nice car
* Vacation
* Stuff

The 60s deal:

* Work
* Education
* Pay for your own place
* Free love (means you're expected to give sex)
* Pay for your own car
* Pay for your own vacation
* Pay for your own stuff

After the 60s deal (the deal we still have today) women took a huge hit. They're looking to compensate for this hit through gold digging.

But here you are missing a point about the difference in the 50's women and the 60's through the current version.

50's women even though they behaved more feminine were in actuality more tough than their very stupid and rebellious daughters. Who were in fact morally weak, physically weak, and mentally weak.

Realistically they and ALL American Baby Boomers were spoiled brats, and realistically bigger wimps than any generation, even the brats that came after them.

Modern Gen Y western women want not only Feminism they want entitlement Feminism. The sad Irony is that most of the boys their own age are too busy jacking off to Internet porn and playing video games to notice them. Older men do not even want them as trophy wives because they lack all the style and grace that would be befitting a "Lady" and are just brats.

Lindsay Lohan types.
Even if they are somewhat physically pretty, they lack any real sexual charm in most respects, and are more funny than they are sexy. And I mean funny in a bad sort of way, not ha ha charming personality funny.

[Mary]

I think this about sums it up

ihLBCbNIDbI

Ok I will grant you that these two Imbeciles are pretty dam funny, and realistically they are not physically ugly. But fact is NO MAN in his right mind would want to spend any time with them.

:eek:


But here you are missing a point about the difference in the 50's women and the 60's through the current version.

50's women even though they behaved more feminine were in actuality more tough than their very stupid and rebellious daughters. Who were in fact morally weak, physically weak, and mentally weak.

Realistically they and ALL American Baby Boomers were spoiled brats, and realistically bigger wimps than any generation, even the brats that came after them.

1) I didn't know 50s women had more sex. I'm actually surprised to hear that.

2) Boomers are spoiled but they're sneaky. They will take from anyone: their aging parents, their grown up kids, their siblings, their own partner, the government, anyone that has a dime.


Modern Gen Y western women want not only Feminism they want entitlement Feminism. The sad Irony is that most of the boys their own age are too busy jacking off to Internet porn and playing video games to notice them. Older men do not even want them as trophy wives because they lack all the style and grace that would be befitting a "Lady" and are just brats.

Lindsay Lohan types.
Even if they are somewhat physically pretty, they lack any real sexual charm in most respects, and are more funny than they are sexy. And I mean funny in a bad sort of way, not ha ha charming personality funny.

I think you're confusing generation X with generation Y. Generation X has the entitlement bitches. There you will find 40 year old women who will lie and say they're 20. Internet porn and video games are also for generation X men. Generation Y men can't afford expensive Xbox games. And they will watch porn and then go do it, instead of just fapping.

Gen Y women don't have entitlement. They're willing to do a lot more to get by. Like sell themselves for candy money.

[Sarmatian]

Humans are more primates than they are wolves.
In gorilla clans there is generally a male leader that is gloated on by the other female gorillas, but the females are not totally faithful in the clan and to mate outside of the circle with other beta gorillas.

I know at least pat of this is true in one since, I have a friend that his grand son is a hockey player and he by strict terms might be considered a "Alpha Male" in the teen age since.

LOL! The teen age girls do seem to throw themselves at him, because of his status and by their teen minds "High Value Mate".

Alpha Male = High Value Mate in the womans mind.

Mary is right in that context, that aggression is something that many of them even subconsciously look for. Although when you ask a woman out right, she will not say that, because that sort of response is inappropriate in the context of accepted morality.

You have a good point but surprisingly not all humans fit the behavioral patterns of primates. Only blacks naturally have striking similarity to gorillas social structure. The family structure of traditional white society resemble wolf pack. The only case when primate's behavioral patterns work on whites is when family ties are broken and a bunch of random people of different background assembled to work together. I think its degrading whites mentally, changing their attitudes towards traditional family and isolating them from each other.

[Partiasn]

1) I didn't know 50s women had more sex. I'm actually surprised to hear that.

Here is a quick Internet search it is form the Gardean so it is not the best written.
We had more sex in the 50s, says survey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/aug/06/gender.research)



2) Boomers are spoiled but they're sneaky. They will take from anyone: their aging parents, their grown up kids, their siblings, their own partner, the government, anyone that has a dime.

Ok here is the economic dynamic as it unfolded in the US post WW2 as I see it.

The United States came out of WW2 in an unprecedented economic position, as far as access to resources goes. Most of Europe was bombed out of existence and was not in the position to produce goods and services. The New York Jews were on top of the world, and had control of an unprecedented access to complete media control as well as the "White Guilt Card" which they used on an regular basis.

Their problem was that most Americans at that time were NOT jews and, and did not sympathize with them, so just as they used the Bolshevik Revelation to F-up Russia, they planed the same thing here in the US.

It started out with various "Anti-War" protest in New York, and then moved on to out right terror attacks on various institutions of authority that they seen as controlled by the "Evil White Saxon".

They also had the ability to play Russia vs USA as a military trump card to force ether government to get what they wanted. And they did that liberally here in the US.

The US Babyboomers for the most part were ideological fools, And rich children that were easily controlled. And since the better part of American men were bundled up and sent to Vietnam, that left the country and most of the Germanic women to Semitic Scumbags such as Abbie Hoffman.

Basically Scum Bags like this
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4704574622270826&pid=1.1
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4975548398830042&pid=1.1
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I5014709929312336&pid=1.1

I find his American Flag Shirt very hilarious, considering his clan had nothing founding the US.

Anyway these idiots were then able to lead the US down the prim rosed path to hell, and morale collapse.

In Beginning in the late 1970's the Majority/Germanic Whites or as the Jewish Left like to call them the "Moral Majority" began to fight back, and overturn much of the "Jewish/Globalist" agenda. Reagan was elected for this reason. Granted this was not great for Russia, but in any case the Jews found themselves with a political movement they could not stop and the as usual they began to infiltrate the ranks of the mostly Evangelical communities that were opposing them, and convince them of the "Chosen People BS".

Here we are talking late 1990's.

In any case what you have left with are people like the two bimbos in the above video, who have no moral direction what so ever, and are easy controlled.

Gen X were the dysfunctional Children of the boomers, and Gen Y are the completely disillusioned Children of Gen X.

This is not a complete explanation of the situation, and there are a few details left out, but this is a good out line at this point.

[Partiasn]

The family structure of traditional white society resemble wolf pack. The only case when primate's behavioral patterns work on whites is when family ties are broken and a bunch of random people of different background assembled to work together. I think its degrading whites mentally, changing their attitudes towards traditional family and isolating them from each other.

Honestly I do not think white family structure is based on any of the lower animal structures to tell you the truth.

I will grant you that white individuals are becoming isolated and divided up in the hodge podge that is western empire. what I find particularity disturbing though here in the US is that whites cannot hold their families together and ironically where it used to be only black women on welfare, you now see an influx of white women on it as well.

The sad irony is that Mexican illegals are becoming the upper class because they are the ones that can hold family together and family will always be stronger that Ideological BS that is fed down from the establishment.

Mexican women know something the white women apparently have forgot, and that is a married Mexican women will retain more wealth with less education than a white female with a good education.

And other sad irony for her is that as a generally rule her education will not even get her the same pay as the Mexican man working a Oil Field job.

Basically most of the Feminist white women are in useless middle management jobs that are completely unnecessary to society, but were created for the purpose of employing women.

Before all is said and done these women will be out on the street without a job, a husband, and will be past their age of value for any man.

[Curtis24]

Humans are more primates than they are wolves.
In gorilla clans there is generally a male leader that is gloated on by the other female gorillas, but the females are not totally faithful in the clan and to mate outside of the circle with other beta gorillas.

I know at least pat of this is true in one since, I have a friend that his grand son is a hockey player and he by strict terms might be considered a "Alpha Male" in the teen age since.


Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

For one things, alpha males in the animal kingdom are always going to be the most symmetrical - in other words, the handsomest - male in their community. This makes sense, since good looks mean good health, and good health determines everything in the animal world.

Human beings have adopted a different social structure where assymetrical men are able to attain massive power. Indeed, much of the ranting here at Apricity is criticizing of such a system.

Anyway, make no mistake: power by itself is not attractive to women. They want good looks, just the same as men. Rather, women will cynically marry an assymetrical(average or ugly looking man) to exploit his money, but save their sexual passion for a symmetrical man. Keep in mind that marrying a powerful-ugly man often gives a woman opportunities and access to better-looking men - for instance when they take their vacation to Hawaii, or having an affair with the tennis instructor, etc.

There is, afterall, a reason why women overwhelmingly oppose mandatory paternity tests...

[Curtis24]

I know at least pat of this is true in one since, I have a friend that his grand son is a hockey player and he by strict terms might be considered a "Alpha Male" in the teen age since

The "alpha male athlete" is a total masculine fantasy, and the phoniest as well. Last I checked, teenage girls didn't have posters of Peyton Manning or Joe Montana on their walls.

That being said, atheletes *sometimes* get hot wives for the same reason that billionaires do - their money, which their wives cycnically exploit in order to cuckold on them.

[Breedingvariety]

At last, Curtis24, you have laid your case.:thumbs up

[Curtis24]

Bump!

[Foxy]

Seduction is an ART and it implies many factors. Some people are automatically inclined to be seductive, others are not but all can learn.

[Virtuous]

Orgasm is a myth, Seduction is a myth, what's the next myth I wonder? Sounds like Greek Mythology of the modern times.