Should I let this slide?
phy
though she didn't have a photo up, I decided to meet her on Thursday
afternoon. I was kind of worried about what she would look like, but I
was pleasantly suprised. We had an enjoyable time and the date ended up
with us talking in her car. We ended up getting pretty hot and heavy
until she finally decided we needed to stop. Considering we were in a
parking lot underneath a vapor light, I was ok with this. She said she
wanted to see me again and even though I am not sure if we would be
right for a long term thing, I decided I want to see where it goes so I
said I would call and work something out for last night.
I called her in the afternoon and she was at her daughters. She still
wanted to go out and said she would call when she left there. I was
pretty jazzed up, thinking that this is a great way to start out the
year. Well, she never did call. Even though I was disappointed, I took
it in stride. I know I will eventually get another date, whether it is
three days, three weeks or three months from now.
Today, just out of curiousity, I sent her an email asking her what
happened. She said her other daughter had come into town so she ended up
not leaving until really late. ehh, her loss. She should have at least
let me know. That was going to be the end of it, but she called a little
while ago to apologise. I guess she was sincere so I was nonchalant
about it and left open the possibility of going out again. She really
does seem like she likes me and I am most definitely attracted to her,
but not calling to cancel shows some pretty serious lack of
consideration. So I am pretty much on the fence on whether I should
bother investing time in this woman. What would you people do?
-phy
jackfrost
hot and sweaty on the first date! I thought this forum was for the
shy retiring types
ThePuttKing
I would see this woman again if she's interested. Just get what you
can out of her. And if it doesn't work out meet another woman from
that dating site. You should pat yourself on the back, it's sounds
like you did well !
Nil
Oh meen, phy until now you're still searching. As a woman, show
more interest to her and make some sense and concern on her.
Pretty sure she with you not only for a couple of hours,months.
But probably for the rest of your life.
Nil
deaf
The vision of you two with your decrepit bodies hot inside the car
almost made me *puke*. I hope my lust will be weaker when I reach your age.
Mxsmanic
> She really
> does seem like she likes me and I am most definitely attracted to her,
> but not calling to cancel shows some pretty serious lack of
> consideration. So I am pretty much on the fence on whether I should
> bother investing time in this woman. What would you people do?
I'd start thinking about her instead of thinking of myself. You worry about
your investment, you worry about the consideration you get, but you don't seem
to care about the consideration (if any) that you give her, or the time and
effort she invests. You must become less self-centered if you want to succeed
with women (or people in general).
phy
be7a-4d6...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> hot and sweaty on the first date! I thought this forum was for the
> shy retiring types
>
Well, yeah, it is, but I am proof that shyness can be overcome, at least to
certain degrees. If I can do it, so can you!
-phy
phy
news:hhqian$huk$1...@tornado.tornevall.net:
> The vision of you two with your decrepit bodies hot inside the car
> almost made me *puke*. I hope my lust will be weaker when I reach your
> age.
This is a funny response. How do you know how decrepit my or her body is?
You say lust like it has to be a *bad* thing.
-phy
phy
news:k2r1k594fo7atkb1s...@4ax.com:
> I'd start thinking about her instead of thinking of myself. You worry
> about your investment, you worry about the consideration you get, but
> you don't seem to care about the consideration (if any) that you give
> her, or the time and effort she invests. You must become less
> self-centered if you want to succeed with women (or people in
> general).
There really hasn't been a whole lot of time or effort invested on either
of our parts. I agree with you about being considerate of others, but
consideration does not mean accepting anything less than respect from
others. In any event, I spoke to her this morning and am going to call her
again in a couple hours and maybe we will hang out for a while this
evening.
-phy
Lobsterboy
> I called her in the afternoon and she was at her daughters.
OOOOPS! A woman with kids. This complicates things a bit. Keep in mind
that her kids will be always her priority, and if the relationship
keeps its progress and she deems you good father (not godfather, LOL)
material she´ll try to trick you into being a surrogate father for her
kids; another guy´s kids. Are you willing to pay that price for a
relationship?.
Pumpkinhead
"Lobsterboy" <fatpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c6dfcf90-cf95-42f5...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I guess they are grown up which is less worse.
phy
d42bff...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
The kids are either married or in college. this point is moot. Besides,
good luck meeting someone over 30 who is not a mother.
-phy
Lobsterboy
> The kids are either married or in college. this point is moot.
I didn´t know that. In that case there´s no problem at all.
>Besides, good luck meeting someone over 30 who is not a mother.
It´s not so difficult. Finding a woman on that age range wich is
attractive enough and is attracted to you is.
phy
d8dd19...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
At least around here, a woman that age who doesn't have children is a rare,
rare creature. Even more rare than the second thing you said.
-phy
Mxsmanic
> At least around here, a woman that age who doesn't have children is a rare,
> rare creature. Even more rare than the second thing you said.
Up to age 30 or so, women have an advantage in looking for partners. Beyond 30
and especially beyond 40, the advantage switches to men.
There are women in their forties who are attractive and free of baggage (no
ex-spouses, no kids, good careers, etc.), but they are very rare and in
extremely high demand. Most women in this age cohort who are not happily
married are divorced with children and living in relative poverty, and they
are often desperate to find a new spouse, mostly for the sake of material
support.
nSCOURGE
Bullshit.
Welfare state dynamics have erased direct/material benefits as a
determinant factor in female sexual choice(which is all that is
relevant to male evolutionary concerns).
At this age females want the same ideal they have always wanted(and
will always want at any age) - a young, physically attractive male to
give them their next oxytocin fix.
MorrowRd
least to
certain degrees. If I can do it, so can you! >
If I can do it, anyone can is my line.
Shyness and other social issues can be overcome provided the person's
mind isn't embedded or trapped in some sort of mental illness. Even
the people who rely on meds to provide balance, at least the ones in
my circle of exposure, are unable to achieve real success. Maintaining
balance is the ceiling for their success.
Everyone else, those who are in the pit of social dysfunction due to
the experiences of the past, or just plain low self worth or esteem,
can tip the scales back in their favor if they want to do the work.
An agenda needs to be created, a system constructed which will
implement various parts of the agenda, and the trial and error of
those systems. I've shared a few over the years..
The plus for those seeking relationships is the online dating
resources available today, which were non-existant during my time in
the dating world. The downside to the online soliciting is that people
can become lazy. First impressions are virtual..send in your best
picture from say, 3 years ago. (or more) Make up things about
yourself like how much you make, social status, etc.
In my world, I had to fix a few things first. Being a bluntly honest
person didn't help at the time because I tended to share too much
personal information than I needed to. Luckily that didn't result in
failure...just in retrospect, I wondered why people didn't think of me
as weird. (maybe they did) I also used the world almanac to learn
about communities in the United States which boasted a higher female
to male population, and then tried moving there. That particular
trial and error plan didn't work because even in communities where men
were (statistically) in demand, I didn't find myself finding women
interested in me.
The point here is that eventually, something is going to work. Some
sort of system or mechanism you have created to either acquire a
relationship, job, (hopes/dreams) is going to succeed in some way.
I have followed a system called [will - faith- purpose - power] for
many many years and while various inner parts of that system have
changed somewhat, the core remains the same. I have used it to
acquire everything I have in life.
Way back in the beginning of all this, I was so far in the pit of
social virginity (due to reclusive living), it was difficult for me to
hold a normal conversation with people without stumbling around and
staying focused. I'm in pretty good shape these days, so when I read
about other people achieving success, no matter what that success is,
and if the person on top of it all is a fellow brother in social
dysfunction, I am behind them.
I do agree with the advice given about now considering the needs of
your interest. It's a change I know, especially for those of us who
are used to being by ourselves alot. It is however, a small price to
pay to achieve a decent male/female relationship.
Good Luck
Nil
Hey.... correction for that. Sound not good. Don't judge the book
by it's cover. Not all same as what you think.
Nil
nSCOURGE
This isn't a value judgement.
Don't judge the book
> by it's cover.
These are not superficial observations.
> Not all same as what you think.
So what?
Frequencies are still meaningful.
> Nil
nSCOURGE
Shyness can always be overcome *provided* there exists a receptive
female(ie. justified expectation of gain) to embolden male behavior -
if such a female does not present in reality, the causal onus can
hardly be on the less contrary agent.
> -phy
nSCOURGE
MorrowRd wrote:
> <Well, yeah, it is, but I am proof that shyness can be overcome, at
> least to
> certain degrees. If I can do it, so can you! >
>
> If I can do it, anyone can is my line.
>
> Shyness and other social issues can be overcome provided the person's
> mind isn't embedded or trapped in some sort of mental illness. Even
> the people who rely on meds to provide balance, at least the ones in
> my circle of exposure, are unable to achieve real success. Maintaining
> balance is the ceiling for their success.
>
> Everyone else, those who are in the pit of social dysfunction due to
> the experiences of the past, or just plain low self worth or esteem,
> can tip the scales back in their favor if they want to do the work.
> An agenda needs to be created, a system constructed which will
> implement various parts of the agenda, and the trial and error of
> those systems. I've shared a few over the years..
>
> The plus for those seeking relationships is the online dating
> resources available today, which were non-existant during my time in
> the dating world.
Wow.
Do you seriously think the online dating phenomenon is a boon for all
but the most physically attractive males(and all females in general)?
Online exacerbates sampling error in the female assessment of male
quality, skewing female expectations of male availability(such that
any male who fails to qualitatively meet those expectations will be
spurned), and thus inflates sexual competition(along with female
sexual value).
How is this a good thing for hard-luck(male) cases?
Their prospects would be (*much*) better off in the dark ages(no
bullshit)!
nSCOURGE
Sorry, I meant to say that it exacerbates female selectivity by
*decreasing* sampling error in their observation of male quality.
MorrowRd
Do you seriously think the online dating phenomenon is a boon for all
but the most physically attractive males(and all females in general)?
>
Yes, I do.
<How is this a good thing for hard-luck(male) cases? >
Their chances for getting their foot in the door is somewhat less
complicated since you have a [pre] first impression, to the first
impression itself. The plan here is to get an opportunity to meet
someone, which might be hard for a person not experienced in breaking
the ice. Hopefully the person has worked out a few kinks in their
personality flaws (like all the borderline weird stuff) beforehand or
they blow it once the in-person event takes place.
<Sorry, I meant to say that it exacerbates female selectivity by
*decreasing* sampling error in their observation of male quality. >
Explain how this is a bad thing, coming from the shy male
perspective.
nSCOURGE
It is intuitive that any dynamic which increases female selectivity,
will weigh against the success of a large population of males(esp
those who have already demonstrated a low status in unfortunate life-
history outcomes).
nSCOURGE
MorrowRd wrote:
> <Wow.
> Do you seriously think the online dating phenomenon is a boon for all
> but the most physically attractive males(and all females in general)?
> >
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> <How is this a good thing for hard-luck(male) cases? >
>
>
> Their chances for getting their foot in the door is somewhat less
> complicated since you have a [pre] first impression, to the first
> impression itself. The plan here is to get an opportunity to meet
> someone, which might be hard for a person not experienced in breaking
> the ice. Hopefully the person has worked out a few kinks in their
> personality flaws (like all the borderline weird stuff) beforehand or
> they blow it once the in-person event takes place.
>
What the hell are you talking about?
Physical chemistry(genetic quality) is the limiting factor in female
mate choice, and is the real quantity females observe in abstracting
all other higher characteristics.
So, females spin events through their reality distortion fields(where
irrationality is mapped onto a justification framework of cognitive
bias), such that an attractive man can do no wrong(and then reverse
holds equally).
Like someone(I think it was KC) in this group once said a long time
ago: "how a guy looks *is* his personality"(as far as females are
concerned).
So, why fixate on a spurious relationship to begin with?
MorrowRd
will weigh against the success of a large population of males(esp
those who have already demonstrated a low status in unfortunate life-
history outcomes). >
I know that the replies to female ad's are far more than what the
males receive, based on the consistancy just from the stories I read
here in this forum. Then I am reminded of my sister, whom after her
divorce explored the online dating scene. She's blonde, with average
looks, but told me she received hundreds of replies to her online ad
at eharmony. So many she didn't read them all. However, some of the
people she dated were hardly any I would have considered consistant
with her taste in men. The one in particular was very religious
(clergy actually - had attended seminary), was a devoted [unemployed]
gamer, cheap (non-generous cheap), but basically an easy going nice
guy. I spent some time with him myself and found him very likeable.
Nevertheless, he was an easy going geeky looking loser who was
uninterested in finding a job, way back when the economy was good.
They dated for a year. Now I wonder how this guy would have managed
to succeed in getting a girlfriend like her in any other scenerio
other than posting positive attributes in an online profile - could
have read something like "traditional family values, loyal, faithful"
and then made up a few other things.
I have mentioned that I thought there were drawbacks to the online
dating scene. I also will not put up an argument with anyone, yourself
included, who have explored online dating themselves and found it to
be a waste of time. Since I have never experienced it personally, I
was just looking at it and wondering if it would have been helpful to
not have to create a situation where you have to break the ice on your
own. Something most challenging for even the best of us.
nSCOURGE
MorrowRd wrote:
> <It is intuitive that any dynamic which increases female selectivity,
> will weigh against the success of a large population of males(esp
> those who have already demonstrated a low status in unfortunate life-
> history outcomes). >
>
> I know that the replies to female ad's are far more than what the
> males receive, based on the consistancy just from the stories I read
> here in this forum. Then I am reminded of my sister, whom after her
> divorce explored the online dating scene. She's blonde, with average
> looks
I would fully expect an average looking blonde to get a deluge of
interest.
>, but told me she received hundreds of replies to her online ad
> at eharmony. So many she didn't read them all. However, some of the
> people she dated were hardly any I would have considered consistant
> with her taste in men. The one in particular was very religious
> (clergy actually - had attended seminary), was a devoted [unemployed]
> gamer, cheap (non-generous cheap), but basically an easy going nice
> guy. I spent some time with him myself and found him very likeable.
> Nevertheless, he was an easy going geeky looking loser who was
> uninterested in finding a job
I don't know what age demographic you're in, but the hottest twenty-
something's I know are all paired off with doubledigit(IQ), unemployed
slackers(most of whom don't even have cars!)
These are gorgeous(though trashy) females with options and yet they
*choose* to privilege delinquents.
There is only one explanation.
> way back when the economy was good.
> They dated for a year. Now I wonder how this guy would have managed
> to succeed in getting a girlfriend like her in any other scenerio
> other than posting positive attributes in an online profile
I don't think most males are very adept at guaging what females find
attractive.
In particular, there seems to be this myth that females don't like
skinny geeky types, but from my personal observations, females don't
fault guys for being skinny(think about all the hottest girls you
know, and I'd bet they're all paired off with skinny guys), unlike
when guys are overweight by even the *slightest* of margins.
And as for the rest, as long has he has sufficiently masculine facial
characteristics(and good facial symmetry), they could care less about
the geek part.
I'd bet your sister thought he was attractive(and probably most other
girls would too), but didn't you ever ask her what she saw in him?
>- could
> have read something like "traditional family values, loyal, faithful"
> and then made up a few other things.
>
> I have mentioned that I thought there were drawbacks to the online
> dating scene. I also will not put up an argument with anyone, yourself
> included, who have explored online dating themselves and found it to
> be a waste of time. Since I have never experienced it personally,
I don't have any experience on which to base a personal opinion
either; I was just commenting on what I believe are the unavoidable
systemic consequences of the online dynamic(where I'm sure there is
alot of trivial 'success' confounded by female courtship junkies, and
opportunists looking for an infrequent free meal/movie ticket).
> I
> was just looking at it and wondering if it would have been helpful to
> not have to create a situation where you have to break the ice on your
> own. Something most challenging for even the best of us.
Assuming shyness was more than a subjective apprehension, justified by
some expectation of prior observations and outcomes(which I hold to),
I might be inclined to agree.
But even then, if shyness is to become a factor, it will be beyond the
introductory stage(so getting your foot in the door won't do much good
if they are just as likely to latch the dead-bolt, lol).
phy
7cffc3...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Do you seriously think the online dating phenomenon is a boon for all
> but the most physically attractive males(and all females in general)?
>
It has been a boon for me. It bypasses the awkward initial approach and
breaking the ice stage. I still have issues with that.
-phy
nSCOURGE
That wasn't the question.
> -phy
Mxsmanic
> It is intuitive that any dynamic which increases female selectivity,
> will weigh against the success of a large population of males(esp
> those who have already demonstrated a low status in unfortunate life-
> history outcomes).
It might be intuitive to you, but it's incorrect. Higher selectivity does not
equate to a lower success rate for a larger population. The success rates
don't change at all.
Dating services usually favor younger women and older men. Older women often
resort to such services but not necessarily successfully, and the same is true
for younger men. Young people in general tend to favor face-to-face
encounters, in any case, as their criteria tend to be mainly physical.
nSCOURGE
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > It is intuitive that any dynamic which increases female selectivity,
> > will weigh against the success of a large population of males(esp
> > those who have already demonstrated a low status in unfortunate life-
> > history outcomes).
>
> It might be intuitive to you, but it's incorrect. Higher selectivity does not
> equate to a lower success rate for a larger population.
Because of the nested morphology of qualitative assortment, any
dynamic which promotes female selectivity(with respect to its limiting
function in dimorphic sex), will pose stochastic problems which tend
to cluster female availability within small neighbourhoods(of the male
population).
> The success rates
> don't change at all.
>
> Dating services usually favor younger women and older men.
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Guys will privilige sufficiently attractive and available 'older'
females over more attractive 'younger' females, who are less available
and/or higher maintanence.
What the hell do you think the whole cougar phenomenon is all about
(and note the lack of any sympathetically framed male equivalent)?
Young females on the other hand won't touch an older guy("ewww,
creepy!") with a ten foot pole.
I often wonder how 40+ males will react, when the phenomenon escalates
such that none of them can get laid because all 40+ year old females
are aspiring cougars.
> Older women often
> resort to such services but not necessarily successfully, and the same is true
> for younger men. Young people in general tend to favor face-to-face
> encounters, in any case, as their criteria tend to be mainly physical.
Old people are the same, the only thing that changes is the
expectation of reciprocal attraction.
Mxsmanic
> Because of the nested morphology of qualitative assortment, any
> dynamic which promotes female selectivity(with respect to its limiting
> function in dimorphic sex), will pose stochastic problems which tend
> to cluster female availability within small neighbourhoods(of the male
> population).
Just say "I disagree." It saves bandwidth.
> Guys will privilige sufficiently attractive and available 'older'
> females over more attractive 'younger' females, who are less available
> and/or higher maintanence.
Younger women are often lower maintenance, since they have no baggage and a
shorter list of ironclad requirements (apart from requiring physical
attractiveness).
> What the hell do you think the whole cougar phenomenon is all about
> (and note the lack of any sympathetically framed male equivalent)?
Cougar?
> Young females on the other hand won't touch an older guy("ewww,
> creepy!") with a ten foot pole.
They do it regularly, much more often than young men touch older women.
> Old people are the same, the only thing that changes is the
> expectation of reciprocal attraction.
Older women resort to dating services because face-to-face encounters are no
longer working or are no longer practical.
phy
f8b762...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> Because of the nested morphology of qualitative assortment, any
> dynamic which promotes female selectivity(with respect to its limiting
> function in dimorphic sex), will pose stochastic problems which tend
> to cluster female availability within small neighbourhoods(of the male
> population).
When someone uses language on Usenet that makes it appear that they are
submitting an article to a peer-reviewed Journal of Science, it makes me
suspect that they are using verbiage to cover up a certain level of
ignorance about a subject.
-phy
phy
f8b762...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> Are you out of your fucking mind?
>
> Guys will privilige sufficiently attractive and available 'older'
> females over more attractive 'younger' females, who are less available
> and/or higher maintanence.
>
> What the hell do you think the whole cougar phenomenon is all about
> (and note the lack of any sympathetically framed male equivalent)?
>
> Young females on the other hand won't touch an older guy("ewww,
> creepy!") with a ten foot pole.
>
> I often wonder how 40+ males will react, when the phenomenon escalates
> such that none of them can get laid because all 40+ year old females
> are aspiring cougars.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
You probably think that you know what you are talking about.
-phy
phy
08ad86...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
It is a boon for many, especially shy people. Believe it or not, you don't
have to be super attractive to get a date. It helps, but not all women are
willing to settle for sloppy seconds.
-phy
nSCOURGE
Remedy your own level of ignorance, dumb shit, and you won't think
that.
Either that, or show me how to explain it in lay terms?
> -phy
phy
2ae7ae...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Remedy your own level of ignorance, dumb shit, and you won't think
> that.
It isn't a matter of my ignorance. I get the jist of what you are saying.
It is just that I don't agree with you and it could have been expressed in
much more simple terms.
> Either that, or show me how to explain it in lay terms?
Can I ask what your degree is in? That may give me insight into suggestions
concerning your request.
-phy
nSCOURGE
Do you seriously contend I *don't* know what I'm talking about,lol?
Obviously, there is an element of hyperbole(last paragraph only) in
what I wrote(which you obviously lack the wit to appreciate).
But just to play with your apparent incredulity(and transparent appeal
to ridicule), can you offer a compelling argument why we should not
expect mating dynamics to tend in that direction, if sexual
competition/female sexual value(and thus, selectivity) continues to
escalate unabated(until unviable frequencies tilt the fitness
landscape in some other direction)?
If the equilibrium of either sexual competition, or female
selectivity, is sufficiently perturbed, a cascading process can
initiate a feedback loop between the two, which can only resolve
through evolutionary outcomes.
>
> -phy
nSCOURGE
How is a fallacious appeal to authority(which you are making),
relevant to my question?
> -phy
nSCOURGE
phy wrote:
> nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:662421c4-1d00-45d4-9a62-
> 08ad86...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> >
> > phy wrote:
> >> nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1a00fc6a-220a-4a26-aa02-
> >> 7cffc3...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > Do you seriously think the online dating phenomenon is a boon for all
> >> > but the most physically attractive males(and all females in general)?
> >> >
> >>
> >> It has been a boon for me. It bypasses the awkward initial approach and
> >> breaking the ice stage. I still have issues with that.
> >
> > That wasn't the question.
> >
> >> -phy
> >
>
> It is a boon for many, especially shy people.
No, it isn't, because what we are really observing are problems of
female selectivity.
If you are one of the few males who are not subject to this problem,
you are exceptionally rare.
More likely, you are just too obtuse to observe the real problem(hint:
you're not doing as well as you think you are - consider that chick
you think blew you off because of her daughter; yeah, her shitfaced
daughter with tattoos and a penis, lol).
> Believe it or not, you don't
> have to be super attractive to get a date. It helps, but not all women are
> willing to settle for sloppy seconds.
Is it even useful to consider what the fuck you mean when you say
'super attractive' or 'sloppy seconds'(this is why it is often
unproductive to indulge imprecise colloquial semantics, assuming
someone actually has something meaningful to say), if this fails to
disagree with my observation that male genetic quality prevails as the
limiting factor in female availability?
From the tone and tendency of your replies, I can only infer that you
are contemptuous of any sympathy for those who justifiably fixate on
problems of female selectivity/receptivity(which, of course, implies
problems of effective female availability, given their limiting
function in dimorphic sex).
Since this is the message you convey, you shouldn't expect sympathetic
reciprocity from anyone who holds this as the real problem it is
(reciprocity - deal with it!).
Also, I really *shouldn't* snap at anyone, but If you're going to
presume to challenge what I write, you had better have some
explanations or arguments to back you up, or expect to be abused in
kind.
> -phy
nSCOURGE
All I can say is that you live in a different universe.
PandoraElpis
Mxsmanic wrote:
> nSCOURGE writes:
>
> > Because of the nested morphology of qualitative assortment, any
> > dynamic which promotes female selectivity(with respect to its limiting
> > function in dimorphic sex), will pose stochastic problems which tend
> > to cluster female availability within small neighbourhoods(of the male
> > population).
>
> Just say "I disagree." It saves bandwidth.
>
> > Guys will privilige sufficiently attractive and available 'older'
> > females over more attractive 'younger' females, who are less available
> > and/or higher maintanence.
>
> Younger women are often lower maintenance, since they have no baggage and a
> shorter list of ironclad requirements (apart from requiring physical
> attractiveness).
>
> > What the hell do you think the whole cougar phenomenon is all about
> > (and note the lack of any sympathetically framed male equivalent)?
>
> Cougar?
Holy fuck you are clueless.
> (snip delusions of reality)
PandoraElpis
Besides the obviously fallacious implications of this, if it is only a
vague(?) suspicion, than this suggests you are in no position to make
an authoratitive criticism.
> -phy
PandoraElpis
phy wrote:
> nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:b9b8648e-024a-48ea-9ddd-
> 2ae7ae...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Remedy your own level of ignorance, dumb shit, and you won't think
> > that.
>
> It isn't a matter of my ignorance. I get the jist of what you are saying.
> It is just that I don't agree with you
Could you specify why you disagree, and perhaps help out everyone else
who is groping for an equally substantive justification of
disagreement?
Mxsmanic
> When someone uses language on Usenet that makes it appear that they are
> submitting an article to a peer-reviewed Journal of Science, it makes me
> suspect that they are using verbiage to cover up a certain level of
> ignorance about a subject.
Sometimes that suspicion is justified ... even when the person really _is_
submitting an article to a journal!
Mxsmanic
> Either that, or show me how to explain it in lay terms?
People who understand something well can always explain it in simple terms.
people like Issac Asimov and Richard Feynman spring to mind.
nSCOURGE
But it is *always* fallacious to consider.
Mxsmanic
> How is a fallacious appeal to authority(which you are making),
> relevant to my question?
In the same way that using lots of extra words with many syllables is relevant
to your answer--that is to say, not very.
Mxsmanic
> Besides the obviously fallacious implications of this, if it is only a
> vague(?) suspicion, than this suggests you are in no position to make
> an authoratitive criticism.
Authoratitive?
If you really want to try to impress people with big words, at least run a
spell checker.
nSCOURGE
If my detractors understand already(as they always seem to claim), why
bother?
If you want to make the effort on my behalf, you're more than welcome
to.
nSCOURGE
But that's why you're here, isn't it, lol?
Mxsmanic
> From the tone and tendency of your replies, I can only infer that you
> are contemptuous of any sympathy for those who justifiably fixate on
> problems of female selectivity/receptivity(which, of course, implies
> problems of effective female availability, given their limiting
> function in dimorphic sex).
From the tone of your replies, I infer that you aren't having the success
you'd like to have with women, and you are attempting to rationalize your lack
of success to an extreme, by asserting that the lack of success is inevitably
preordained by inflexible, sacred laws of Science, rather than any
incompetence on your part. Is this correct?
nSCOURGE
Exactly, so there is no logically valid reason to consider it(which
suggests why you do).
nSCOURGE
My relative success with women is irrelevant to the arguments I have
made, and is thus fallacious to consider
Mxsmanic
> But that's why you're here, isn't it, lol?
It's just friendly advice. Even for those naive enough to be impressed by big
words in general, improper usage and incorrect spelling may still be very
revealing and very damaging to the impression one is trying to create.
PandoraElpis
Excuse me, but isn't it *your* position that females find you
repugnant through no fault of your own(the kind of case that is in
perfect agreement with what he has been claiming in this thread)?
So, unless you have something important to say, why don't you quit
baiting argument and give it a rest already(esp since its already been
established that nSCOURGE has your number).
PandoraElpis
Only if they are naive enough to be impressed by your fallacious
arguments.
nSCOURGE
Sorry, I should say this appears to be what you are 'baiting'(it is
fallacious, in any case).
phy
news:7ffb6887-da26-4db8...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
I was just wondering if you were educated enough to use those big words
or were just plagerizing from elsewhere.
-phy
phy
news:693bc10c-786e-4686...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>> It isn't a matter of my ignorance. I get the jist of what you are
>> saying. It is just that I don't agree with you
>
> Could you specify why you disagree, and perhaps help out everyone else
> who is groping for an equally substantive justification of
> disagreement
I disagree because of the knowledge of human nature that I have gleaned
from experience.
-phy
phy
ed1ebb...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>> When someone uses language on Usenet that makes it appear that they are
>> submitting an article to a peer-reviewed Journal of Science, it makes me
>> suspect that they are using verbiage to cover up a certain level of
>> ignorance about a subject.
>
> Besides the obviously fallacious implications of this, if it is only a
> vague(?) suspicion, than this suggests you are in no position to make
> an authoratitive criticism.
It isn't an authoritive criticism. It is my opinion.
-phy
phy
d6bc2a...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> But just to play with your apparent incredulity(and transparent appeal
> to ridicule), can you offer a compelling argument why we should not
> expect mating dynamics to tend in that direction, if sexual
> competition/female sexual value(and thus, selectivity) continues to
> escalate unabated(until unviable frequencies tilt the fitness
> landscape in some other direction)?
The only argument I can give is personal experience and anectotal evidence
from several of my friends amd acquaintences.
-phy
PandoraElpis
While I agree with phy that the cougar dynamic won't reach the
hyperbolic proportions you suggested, tendencies in that direction
seem impossible to ignore.
But, are people around here really naive enough to think that, given
the opportunity, older females would not sexually privilege young
males over old males!?
While it may not prove significant in all cases, discounting the fixed
behavioral implications of female limiting function can only
exacerbate the kinds of problems which are in evident currency around
here.
Still, with the imbecile provocateur here to subvert discourse, this
thread has lost its appeal, except in anticipation of watching you
deftly set up an oblivious mxs for the zing, which he will heedlessly
walk into again and again as the lone talent he demonstrates(and the
only thing he seems to be any good for).
> >
> > -phy
binkmeister
> nSCOURGE<nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1a00fc6a-220a-4a26-aa02-
> 7cffc3...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Do you seriously think the online dating phenomenon is a boon for all
>> but the most physically attractive males(and all females in general)?
>>
>
> It has been a boon for me. It bypasses the awkward initial approach and
> breaking the ice stage. I still have issues with that.
>
Back in 2006 when I was looking at women's ads on dating sites, I can
remember becoming physically ill after reading just a handful. They
always seemed to congeal into a mixture of syrupy sweetness, lists of
wants/demands, talk of college degrees, talk of how their kids are the
"lights of their lives"[yeah, right], talk of how they like to live life
to the "fullest"[whatever that means], misspelled words, no/poor
punctuation, bad grammar, blurry pictures, etc.
What became apparent to me then was that women are very bad at knowing
how to attract a man with words. They tend to use words, phrases and
topics that would be more attractive to other women.
At the very least it seemed as though they were trying to cover up a
whole lot of hell in their lives. I maybe read two ads that year that
actually came out and said that they were lonely and depressed and
needed someone to fill a void. At least they were honest. Creepy, yes,
but honest.
But I guess in the end it didn't matter because each female dim bulb
probably got 1000 responses from the male dim bulbs and somebody,
somewhere made some money off of the transaction.
phy
b12f-73e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> While I agree with phy that the cougar dynamic won't reach the
> hyperbolic proportions you suggested, tendencies in that direction
> seem impossible to ignore.
>
> But, are people around here really naive enough to think that, given
> the opportunity, older females would not sexually privilege young
> males over old males!?
This may be true with certain women whose only goal is sex. I have only
went out wtih two women that were older than me. I think the aim of both
women was to spend time with someone whose company they enjoyed.
>
> While it may not prove significant in all cases, discounting the fixed
> behavioral implications of female limiting function can only
> exacerbate the kinds of problems which are in evident currency around
> here.
>
> Still, with the imbecile provocateur here to subvert discourse, this
> thread has lost its appeal, except in anticipation of watching you
> deftly set up an oblivious mxs for the zing, which he will heedlessly
> walk into again and again as the lone talent he demonstrates(and the
> only thing he seems to be any good for).
>
I am not setting anybody up. I just respond to post if I have a comment
to make about it. Usually my comments are based on my opinions developed
through personal experience.
-phy
nSCOURGE
phy wrote:
> PandoraElpis <Pandor...@live.com> wrote in news:d9b61594-f25a-4194-
> b12f-73e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > While I agree with phy that the cougar dynamic won't reach the
> > hyperbolic proportions you suggested, tendencies in that direction
> > seem impossible to ignore.
> >
> > But, are people around here really naive enough to think that, given
> > the opportunity, older females would not sexually privilege young
> > males over old males!?
>
> This may be true with certain women whose only goal is sex. I have only
> went out wtih two women that were older than me. I think the aim of both
> women was to spend time with someone whose company they enjoyed.
Perhaps they just didn't want to have sex with you(females 'outsource'
courtship diversions when their highly trafficked fuck-buddies are
being circulated between other females).
> >
> > While it may not prove significant in all cases, discounting the fixed
> > behavioral implications of female limiting function can only
> > exacerbate the kinds of problems which are in evident currency around
> > here.
> >
> > Still, with the imbecile provocateur here to subvert discourse, this
> > thread has lost its appeal, except in anticipation of watching you
> > deftly set up an oblivious mxs for the zing, which he will heedlessly
> > walk into again and again as the lone talent he demonstrates(and the
> > only thing he seems to be any good for).
> >
>
> I am not setting anybody up. I just respond to post if I have a comment
> to make about it. Usually my comments are based on my opinions developed
> through personal experience.
Don't worry, he was referring to me and Mxs.
> -phy
Mxsmanic
> My relative success with women is irrelevant to the arguments I have
> made, and is thus fallacious to consider
I should hope so, but I'm not convinced. It sounds an awful lot like desperate
rationalization.
Mxsmanic
> Excuse me, but isn't it *your* position that females find you
> repugnant through no fault of your own(the kind of case that is in
> perfect agreement with what he has been claiming in this thread)?
Yes. It's nobody's fault, actually. However, that only concerns physical
attractiveness, and there's a lot more to human nature than that.
> So, unless you have something important to say, why don't you quit
> baiting argument and give it a rest already(esp since its already been
> established that nSCOURGE has your number).
Or else what? If I'm so insignificant, why do I bother you so much?
nSCOURGE
No claiming you're 'insignificant', just that you have an annoying
tendency to subvert reasonable discourse.
phy
cf5047...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>> This may be true with certain women whose only goal is sex. I have only
>> went out wtih two women that were older than me. I think the aim of both
>> women was to spend time with someone whose company they enjoyed.
>
> Perhaps they just didn't want to have sex with you(females 'outsource'
> courtship diversions when their highly trafficked fuck-buddies are
> being circulated between other females).
One turned into a fuck buddy. The other may turn into something more than
that. The second part of your sentence has no basis in reality, at least
the vast majority of women.
-phy
nSCOURGE
It does in my universe.
> -phy
Mxsmanic
> No claiming you're 'insignificant', just that you have an annoying
> tendency to subvert reasonable discourse.
In other words, I disagree with you, and I refuse to back down.
nSCOURGE
Hello Pot, I'm Kettle - I believe we've met?
PandoraElpis
phy wrote:
> nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:c9997110-689d-4918-8172-
> cf5047...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> This may be true with certain women whose only goal is sex. I have only
> >> went out wtih two women that were older than me. I think the aim of both
> >> women was to spend time with someone whose company they enjoyed.
> >
> > Perhaps they just didn't want to have sex with you(females 'outsource'
> > courtship diversions when their highly trafficked fuck-buddies are
> > being circulated between other females).
>
> One turned into a fuck buddy. The other may turn into something more than
> that.
Nice job being baited into inadvertently supporting his claims.
(snip personal incredulity)
phy
news:6bf703af-f252-4b94...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> One turned into a fuck buddy. The other may turn into something more
>> than that.
>
> Nice job being baited into inadvertently supporting his claims.
>
You can believe that if you want.
-phy
Marlow
> So early this week someone on a dating site sent me a message. Even
> though she didn't have a photo up, I decided to meet her on Thursday
> afternoon. I was kind of worried about what she would look like, but I
> was pleasantly suprised. We had an enjoyable time and the date ended up
> with us talking in her car. We ended up getting pretty hot and heavy
> until she finally decided we needed to stop. Considering we were in a
> parking lot underneath a vapor light, I was ok with this. She said she
> wanted to see me again and even though I am not sure if we would be
> right for a long term thing, I decided I want to see where it goes so I
> said I would call and work something out for last night.
>
> I called her in the afternoon and she was at her daughters. She still
> wanted to go out and said she would call when she left there. I was
> pretty jazzed up, thinking that this is a great way to start out the
> year. Well, she never did call. Even though I was disappointed, I took
> it in stride. I know I will eventually get another date, whether it is
> three days, three weeks or three months from now.
>
> Today, just out of curiousity, I sent her an email asking her what
> happened. She said her other daughter had come into town so she ended up
> not leaving until really late. ehh, her loss. She should have at least
> let me know. That was going to be the end of it, but she called a little
> while ago to apologise. I guess she was sincere so I was nonchalant
> about it and left open the possibility of going out again. She really
> does seem like she likes me and I am most definitely attracted to her,
> but not calling to cancel shows some pretty serious lack of
> consideration. So I am pretty much on the fence on whether I should
> bother investing time in this woman. What would you people do?
>
> -phy
I got to this party very late and I'm sure that my two cents are no
longer relevant, but I'll reply anyway because this sort of thing
comes up a lot with women. So yes, it was rude of her not to call.
Nearly all women will do something like this early on and it comes
from a deep rooted place in their biology. They may or may not
consciously realize it, but they are trying to see if you are the type
of guy that will put up with a lot of shit or not. If you are that
guy, then they will quickly lose interest in you.
One response would be to get seriously pissed off and cuss her out, or
just write her off and never speak to her again. This is wrong. This
kind of response will have you missing out on a lot of potential
relationships.
To prove you are not a door mat, you do have to acknowledge that she
was rude. It was a good move on your part to send the email asking
what happened. Not super angry or defensive or anything like that,
but just enough to let her know that it was annoying and you don't
tolerate that sort of behavior. See how she reacted? She called and
apologized and is now interested again. You passed the test. I think
you should proceed.
Any updates?
--Marlow
nSCOURGE
Yeah, it's called flaking out when better options open up.
Marlow
> > I got to this party very late and I'm sure that my two cents are no
> > longer relevant, but I'll reply anyway because this sort of thing
> > comes up a lot with women. So yes, it was rude of her not to call.
> > Nearly all women will do something like this early on and it comes
> > from a deep rooted place in their biology.
>
> Yeah, it's called flaking out when better options open up.
>
That's a good way of looking at it if you are not ready to change
yourself and your approach to life to something else that works
better. It's easy to put all the blame on the evil women instead of
realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
better response.
Michaela Mackenzie
You get half the story. Unfortunately, even if you got the other half,
two halves don't always make a whole when it comes to people and
their dynamics --- sometimes the sum of two halves is not equal to
the whole. And that would be because the whole is also nothing.
There's another whole flipside to this story and you have to take both
sides into consideration as well as all the circumstances and people
involved when responding.
i.e. duality is a whole lot more complex-yet-simple than you would
believe.
Here's a simple representation of what happened to phy:
When faced with a bitchy attitude or negative comment, I do one of
three
things: 1. throw it right back at the other person. 2. take the bitchy
attitude
and turn it into a compliment or 3. ignore the intent of the comment
and
focus on one aspect of what they said and run with that.
e.g. if someone tells you you look old. Take the word 'old' and say
something like 'Wow. Talk about old. I went to the museum yesterday
and...' What you're doing here is not acknowledging that their
behaviour
or (in the example of this thread) non-action does not affect your
life.
Forget that a test is to see if you'll put up with something. Think
rather that
it's a chance to be creative and put a new spin on the relationship.
Invite
these tests into your life. Much more interesting than a defense
strategy.
- Michaela
nSCOURGE
Marlow wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:00 pm, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I got to this party very late and I'm sure that my two cents are no
> > > longer relevant, but I'll reply anyway because this sort of thing
> > > comes up a lot with women. So yes, it was rude of her not to call.
> > > Nearly all women will do something like this early on and it comes
> > > from a deep rooted place in their biology.
> >
> > Yeah, it's called flaking out when better options open up.
> >
>
> That's a good way of looking at it if you are not ready to change
> yourself and your approach to life to something else that works
> better.
I'm not trying to discourage anyone.
But evolutionary problems only resolve through efficient solutions,
and are thus best considered following from cogent premises(no matter
how taboo), rather than a blind process of elimination, where one just
ends up spinning their wheels.
> It's easy to put all the blame on the evil women
I don't hold females as 'evil'(even if I see no reason to begrudge one
who does).
> instead of
> realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
> better response.
It is fallacious to assume that this is necessarily the case, as in
order for selection to operate opportunistically, male success must be
assortatively culled.
Perhaps more than any other informal online resource, A.S.S contains a
wealth of reasonable discourse on the prevailing state(and near fate)
of the fitness landscape.
And while there are few here who can speak authoritatively on the
subject, your comments make evident that you are not one of them.
MorrowRd
something else that works better. It's easy to put all the blame on
the evil women instead of
realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
better response.>
You are absolutely correct. Females are a different creature, than
men. They think differently, they behave differently, they perceive
the world differently. So trying to come up with a manly plan to
acquire a relationship with one, is going to take some thought. They
(women/girls) are mostly insecure and tend to fill the void by chasing
cute (but not necessarily good for them) guys. If they by chance,
enter a relationship where the male makes them feel good about
themselves, special, and secure, the guy has won.
How to get there is the trick. Each person, each lady is
different...yet the above plan works, provided it can be tailored to
the individual. You have to do the above, and not be fake. That
applies to those who are unable to "play the shallow game" naturally.
If you are a fake - fake, you will fail. You're better being
yourself, with a workable plan.
Part of the plan (agenda) may involve changing yourself somewhat. If
you disagree with me, and feel that being your failing self should be
enough to acquire what is presently out of your reach, you are in la
la land.
Changing yourself can be as complex, or as simple as need be. You know
yourself, you know your past, you know your patterns. If they don't
work, you need to troubleshoot and find what does work. Creating
systems to follow in various social situations is an avenue I used,
which worked. Pick some social environments which are inter-
changeable, or replaceable and create a persona to use in that
environment to figure out what the social responses to that
personality will be. Then...tweak things and try again.
I love having female companionship...and that comes from a person who
is a natural recluse. Although in the last several years I have
evolved into a more community personality, due to willful changes. A
good thing.
phy
df20ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> But evolutionary problems only resolve through efficient solutions,
> and are thus best considered following from cogent premises(no matter
> how taboo), rather than a blind process of elimination, where one just
> ends up spinning their wheels.
You keep talking about evolution. I don't have time to wait for evolution.
I only have this life time to make stuff happen. If you want to blame
evolution for your lack of success with women, I hope it makes you feel
better.
-phy
Marlow
Well of course, but this is such a typical situation that comes up so
often when you're a straight guy looking to date women. In typical
situations such as this I think its ok to draw general conclusions
even though they might be wrong in any given particular situation.
>
> i.e. duality is a whole lot more complex-yet-simple than you would
> believe.
>
> Here's a simple representation of what happened to phy:
>
> When faced with a bitchy attitude or negative comment, I do one of
> three
> things: 1. throw it right back at the other person. 2. take the bitchy
> attitude
> and turn it into a compliment or 3. ignore the intent of the comment
> and
> focus on one aspect of what they said and run with that.
>
> e.g. if someone tells you you look old. Take the word 'old' and say
> something like 'Wow. Talk about old. I went to the museum yesterday
> and...' What you're doing here is not acknowledging that their
> behaviour
> or (in the example of this thread) non-action does not affect your
> life.
The problem with this approach is that it's not assertive. This will
work fine for making friends but it generally won't work for
attracting women. If someone looks old it's better to either say
something slightly smart assed back or to say "hey, that's rude" then
keep on going with the conversation as though it doesn't really phase
you.
In Phy's case the girl basically stood him up, so he should
acknowledge to her that she did something that he doesn't tolerate.
Otherwise, if you deflect it or ignore it, then she's going to keep
standing him up and not respect him.
--Marlow
nSCOURGE
MorrowRd wrote:
> < if you are not ready to change yourself and your approach to life to
> something else that works better. It's easy to put all the blame on
> the evil women instead of
> realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
> better response.>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Females are a different creature, than
> men. They think differently, they behave differently, they perceive
> the world differently. So trying to come up with a manly plan to
> acquire a relationship with one, is going to take some thought. They
> (women/girls) are mostly insecure
Hubris, thy name is woman.
> and tend to fill the void by chasing
> cute (but not necessarily good for them) guys.
And how do you get them to abandon their chase of cute guys?
Patent a comprehensive solution, and you will become wealthy over
night.
> If they by chance,
> enter a relationship where the male makes them feel good about
> themselves, special, and secure, the guy has won.
But that's why they chase cute guys to begin with - to an oxytocin fix
which *only* hot guys can provide.
But, in general(and increasingly), females don't want long term
relationships - if they did, they would not privilege the kinds of
attractive males whose evolutionary optima tends them to short term
mating.
I get the feeling you are someone(old?) who has grown out of touch
with the present state of the game.
> How to get there is the trick. Each person, each lady is
> different...
They are all largely the same, and all want the same things(which is
why they end up circulating the same small population of males between
them).
> yet the above plan works, provided it can be tailored to
> the individual. You have to do the above, and not be fake. That
> applies to those who are unable to "play the shallow game" naturally.
Bernd will be cross with you(unless you are referring to
'incongruence').
> If you are a fake - fake, you will fail. You're better being
> yourself, with a workable plan.
>
> Part of the plan (agenda) may involve changing yourself somewhat. If
> you disagree with me, and feel that being your failing self should be
> enough to acquire what is presently out of your reach, you are in la
> la land.
If you think phenotypic plasticity always exists within a margin of
success, then you are in la la land.
> Changing yourself can be as complex, or as simple as need be. You know
> yourself, you know your past, you know your patterns. If they don't
> work, you need to troubleshoot and find what does work. Creating
> systems to follow in various social situations is an avenue I used,
> which worked. Pick some social environments which are inter-
> changeable, or replaceable and create a persona to use in that
> environment to figure out what the social responses to that
> personality will be. Then...tweak things and try again.
Find me a successful endomorphic male(to use an obviously example of
deficient attractiveness) who has gained from the above advice(ie. is
mated to a female who is not some order of magnitude fatter than he
is), and I'll show you a universe other than the one I live in.
I think many of these guys who find 'success' are merely guys whose
desperation erodes their selectivity to a point where they are finally
able to 'succeed' with some lowly female who either no other guy
wants, or wh has(anomolously) reached a critical threshold in their
abuse at the hands of more attractive males(which is rare, as a high
threshold for such abuse is adaptive).
nSCOURGE
phy wrote:
> nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:aa50de9a-401e-4cf6-a3d0-
> df20ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > But evolutionary problems only resolve through efficient solutions,
> > and are thus best considered following from cogent premises(no matter
> > how taboo), rather than a blind process of elimination, where one just
> > ends up spinning their wheels.
>
> You keep talking about evolution. I don't have time to wait for evolution.
> I only have this life time to make stuff happen.
Evolution is not hindered by a subjective concern for human condition
problems.
> If you want to blame
I don't 'blame'.
> evolution for your lack of success with women, I hope it makes you feel
> better.
And I hope sticking your head even further up your ass makes you feel
better(although I must admit to not having experienced this myself).
> -phy
nSCOURGE
nSCOURGE wrote:
> phy wrote:
> > nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:aa50de9a-401e-4cf6-a3d0-
> > df20ba...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > But evolutionary problems only resolve through efficient solutions,
> > > and are thus best considered following from cogent premises(no matter
> > > how taboo), rather than a blind process of elimination, where one just
> > > ends up spinning their wheels.
> >
> > You keep talking about evolution. I don't have time to wait for evolution.
> > I only have this life time to make stuff happen.
>
> Evolution is not hindered by a subjective concern for human condition
> problems.
make that an 'existential concern'.
nSCOURGE
I think many of these guys who find 'success' with such *techniques*
are merely guys whose desperation erodes their selectivity to a point
where they are finally
able to 'succeed' with some lowly female who more attractive males
spurn,
> or who has(anomolously) reached a critical threshold in their
> abuse at the hands of such attractive males(which is rare, as a high
PandoraElpis
MorrowRd wrote:
> < if you are not ready to change yourself and your approach to life to
> something else that works better. It's easy to put all the blame on
> the evil women instead of
> realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
> better response.>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Females are a different creature, than
> men. They think differently, they behave differently, they perceive
> the world differently. So trying to come up with a manly plan to
> acquire a relationship with one, is going to take some thought. They
> (women/girls) are mostly insecure
Female insecurity implies something about a low expectation of male
availability/receptivity.
So if female insecurity is a factor in lowly(loser) male success, it
follows more from blind bullshit luck than any 'best response'
strategy, as the prospect of a shy/insecure - but sufficiently
attractive - female is (to steal from Bernd) akin to Proton decay -
not worthy of practical consideration.
nSCOURGE
PandoraElpis wrote:
> MorrowRd wrote:
> > < if you are not ready to change yourself and your approach to life to
> > something else that works better. It's easy to put all the blame on
> > the evil women instead of
> > realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
> > better response.>
> >
> > You are absolutely correct. Females are a different creature, than
> > men. They think differently, they behave differently, they perceive
> > the world differently. So trying to come up with a manly plan to
> > acquire a relationship with one, is going to take some thought. They
> > (women/girls) are mostly insecure
>
> Female insecurity implies something about a low expectation of male
> availability/receptivity.
>
> So if female insecurity is a factor in lowly(loser) male success, it
> follows more from blind bullshit luck than any 'best response'
> strategy, as the prospect of a shy/insecure - but sufficiently
> attractive - female is (to steal from Bernd) akin to Proton decay -
> not worthy of practical consideration.
The mythical shy/insecure(yet minimally attractive) female is a
*cryptid*, unknown to science.
So, yes, it is an exceedingly rare phenomenon. Vanishingly rare.
Unlike males(who are preoccupied with competitive 'overhead'), females
can devote all their effort(lol) to refining estimates of their sexual
value.
Females have evolved to be *very* efficient at this, where they can
now be seen to blow off males who appear, at least superficially,
well within their 'league'(much to the consternation of males).
This is because females learn *very* quickly that virtually every
female will get their turn with the highest echelon of attractive
males if they just wait long enough in the queue(while the same does
*not* hold for males).
If, by some accident of fate, a typical female was lurking ASS at this
very moment, she would be *laughing* at all the male idiots who seem
incapable of acknowledging these inconvenient truths.
phy
f2dcc9...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
> Find me a successful endomorphic male(to use an obviously example of
> deficient attractiveness) who has gained from the above advice(ie. is
> mated to a female who is not some order of magnitude fatter than he
> is), and I'll show you a universe other than the one I live in.
Just off the top of my head (and 'cuz I just watched one of his vids) that
shaytard dude on youtube is pretty hefty and his lady is hawt.
-phy
PandoraElpis
That doesn't show anything, because nSCOURGE was disputing a
presupposed margin of success for some vague modality of social
interactivity refinements(for which I see no significant evidence in
attributing to mating success).
Also, one endomorphic guy(who is ostensibly paired off with a hottie -
not that I even bothered to find who we are talking about), out of
millions(?) who have been laughed at by girls their entire lives, is
not a cognet indication of whatever it is you are trying to suggest
females privilege above base physical attractiveness.
PandoraElpis
You are posing a false dichotomy(observing a real state of nature,
doesn't say anything against pursuing an active solution).
> -phy
binkmeister
I watched one of their videos last week. What's the deal with those
people? They were too perky for me.
I would rather watch the fat man sitting in the hot tub listening to the
Bible on tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW71yKsbsxc
Marlow
> Marlow wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 1:00 pm, nSCOURGE <nre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I got to this party very late and I'm sure that my two cents are no
> > > > longer relevant, but I'll reply anyway because this sort of thing
> > > > comes up a lot with women. So yes, it was rude of her not to call.
> > > > Nearly all women will do something like this early on and it comes
> > > > from a deep rooted place in their biology.
>
> > > Yeah, it's called flaking out when better options open up.
>
> > That's a good way of looking at it if you are not ready to change
> > yourself and your approach to life to something else that works
> > better.
>
> I'm not trying to discourage anyone.
>
> But evolutionary problems only resolve through efficient solutions,
> and are thus best considered following from cogent premises(no matter
> how taboo), rather than a blind process of elimination, where one just
> ends up spinning their wheels.
What are you trying to say here and do you always speak like this?
Could you put this idea in clearer, more simple terms so we can have a
discussion?
>
> > It's easy to put all the blame on the evil women
>
> I don't hold females as 'evil'(even if I see no reason to begrudge one
> who does).
>
> > instead of
> > realizing that there are things that you can do differently to get a
> > better response.
>
> It is fallacious to assume that this is necessarily the case, as in
> order for selection to operate opportunistically, male success must be
> assortatively culled.
Dude, again, what are you trying to say? Is English not your first
language?
>
> Perhaps more than any other informal online resource, A.S.S contains a
> wealth of reasonable discourse on the prevailing state(and near fate)
> of the fitness landscape.
>
> And while there are few here who can speak authoritatively on the
> subject, your comments make evident that you are not one of them.
I never claimed to be an expert on anything here, I'm just stating my
opinions just as you are.
phy
news:00288008-502c-4294...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Well then, what solution are you persuing? I just think looking at it in
terms that nSCOURGE sees it is not helpful or useful. In fact, for me, it
is counterproductive.
-phy
phy
2ad975...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>> But evolutionary problems only resolve through efficient solutions,
>> and are thus best considered following from cogent premises(no matter
>> how taboo), rather than a blind process of elimination, where one just
>> ends up spinning their wheels.
>
> What are you trying to say here and do you always speak like this?
> Could you put this idea in clearer, more simple terms so we can have a
> discussion?
I responded to this guy in a similar fashion as you and he told me I need
to get smarter.
-phy
phy
news:3c6f1fe1-9ffa-40e9...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
This may be well and true, but his challenge was to find one example.
-phy
nSCOURGE
You haven't shown anything about what this porker *did*(which was my
material contention) to get a chick(assuming this is true), all you
did was show a possible case of proton decay(I'm *really* liking
this!).
phy
7a245a...@14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
> , all you
> did was show a possible case of proton decay
You mis-posted. This article should have gone to alt.physics.kooks.
-phy
PandoraElpis
He is suggesting that you have not shown anything that effectively
disputes his position, and are thus making a vacuuous argument.