Post by phoenixferret on Feb 4, 2008 0:21:23 GMT -5
carboncopy said:
sweetpea said:
no, it isn't. none of this is relevant to anything except your desire to believe it. when men get hung up on this sorta crap, it is obviously an effort to explain away their perceived 'failures' to bag the 'hot chicks' they want.
Most men, and especially shy men, are prefectly willing to enter relationships with the plainest of women. It's funny that all women deny that so vehemently even though most of them get asked out on dates several times a day while in public.
Whoah... have you ever spoken to a woman..? That definitely doesn't happen. A lot of women wish it did!
Annnnnd... Ok, I'm posting the evolution stuff anyway, if only for shits and giggles.
carboncopy said:
I think the evolutionary factor is the single most important thing and I completely agree with what you are saying about the history of a dominant male having many females to mate with. Today it's the same exact thing except for the fact that we generally don't live in close-knit groups and it's easy for a person to roam around - so the dominant males can wander away and not be inconvenienced.
Also, furher to my point. Alpha males did care for females, but they also had a tendency to switch partners often, which was beneficial because it propagated the genes quicker.
It only propagated that individual male's gene's quicker; it didn't propagate the species any quicker. This is only beneficial in terms of the survival of those particular genes--not necessarily the survival of the species. And "alphaness" would not necessarily be beneficial to the survival of the species as a whole. Do you understand?
No it isn't. You get fewer offspring this way and it's of lower quality because the weak males then do alot of the mating.
One woman can only have one pregnancy at a time--she can only produce a finite number of children, no matter who fathers her children. A man can father more children by sleeping with many women, but a woman can only produce so many offspring in a lifetime, no matter how many men she sleeps with. You're looking at it from a one-sided perspective.
If you have ten men and ten women, and those ten women can only have, let's say 10 pregnancies each, then no matter who the women sleep with, there can be only 100 total pregnancies. Get it?
"Weak" is relative. Offspring need only be strong enough to survive and procreate. And the vast majority of "non-alpha" types are not particularly weak in any sense of the word.
Once again, that's how it used to be when early humans lived in small tribes and there was no viable way to exist outside of the group. Dominant males would protect the females and offspring since they had no other choice.
How did they have "no other choice?" Apes, for one, don't grudgingly take on these duties; I'm pretty sure they don't have the intellectual capacity to think, "well I'd like to live the bachelor life, but I'd really better stick around to ensure the survival of my genetic material."
Yes, women are looking for "good genes", there is no question about that. However, my point was that women often fail to differentiate between a man who would be a good long time protector and an effective poser who has the charm. Obviously it was beneficial to our species that women often made this "mistake" because it's so prevalent. The only other explanation is that dominant men have recently gotten alot better at fooling women by playing on their emotions, but it's less likely.
You claimed women were wired to like men who only wanted sex... now you seem to be saying women can be tricked into believing that a guy wants to be with her long-term, which is different. Of course that's true--some women just aren't all that bright in some respects, and some guys are just really good liars. The reverse is true, too (ie, there are a lot of not-so-bright men and good female liars). In terms of evolution, all that means is that you don't have to be a genius or a saint to survive and procreate.
Alpha behavior is best of the gene pool if you look at it from a standpoint of survival. It provides the best chance of keeping the species alive. It does not however equate to the top quality of human beings in our modern understanding. Alpha males can be bigots, pricks, idiots, boors etc... it doesn't matter, what is important is that they were able to overpower (for example physically) other men and got to procreate.
Because alpha males were the only ones able to mate in prehistoric times doesn't mean the women desired them. Female desire didn't necessarily matter. If you have a choice between mating with the the guy who just chased all the other men into the woods and mating with no one, you're probably going to mate with the only guy left. Otherwise, your genes don't get passed on at all--not much choice there.
What I am saying is that in today's society women claim to pick their mates based on more refined qualities, but in actuality they still gravitate towards those who display dominant personalities. It just happens that a dominant personality almost always correlates with immediate sexual expectations and tendency to switch partners.
You still speak as though women everywhere are always sleeping with jerks and getting dumped the next day. I don't know where you're getting this stuff, but it's very common for casual sex to be part of the early stages of dating these days; women aren't holding out for months and then finally "giving in" only to be dumped right away. Perhaps this scenario occurs a lot with young teenagers, but in the adult world? I would guess very seldom.
In today's society, women can have preferences and be choosy. Most men have to take anything that comes their way and doesn't run away screaming. When it comes to shy men it becomes almost grotesque - all they want is a plain looking, plain acting, not-monstrously obese woman who accepts them. Uniformly they can't even find that. It seems that attraction, at least in women, is not that variable.
First of all, I'm pretty sure most shy men have *not* lowered their standards that way, and you can ask around to see if this is true. Some guys are more choosy, and some guys are less. It's the same with women--some just want any guy to love, some have extremely rigid standards. It varies.I wonder if, like many men of a similar mindset, when you talk about "women" in the sense of "what women want," you actually mean only very very "hot" women? Because otherwise nothing you say makes much sense. In that case, you have to take into account the fact the there are much fewer hot women than men who want hot women. That pretty much explains everything.
When women discuss dating, they are basically talking about the top 20% of alpha men.
Apparently you don't have any idea what or who women discuss when they discuss dating.
The rest doesn't exist to them unless they are pressed by circumstances such as having a baggage of kids and/or being in the final countdown of their biological clock.
Even making this disturbing assumption, that means even "nice guys" and the like can probably snag a woman at maybe 24-35, when the ladies start wanting kids. So your theory still makes no sense.
Women don't really need such advice because their romantic life is unequivocally easier than mens'. At least when it comes to finding partners. That's part of what's so puzzling that with such vast choices women make such bad ones with tremendous consistency.
What "tremendous consistency" of bad choices are you talking about?? You mean the way a lot of relationships don't work out? I guess if you haven't had much relationship experience, you can't be expected to understand what goes into all that "tremendous consistency" of people entering relationships with the "wrong" people.
And women can often get straight-up sex easier, but that doesn't mean women have a better shot at a good relationship.
It has been said so many times before that it's a little strange it's still lost on you, but men's argument is that there is a great inconsistency between what women say they want in men and the choices they make in partners. It's not a matter of being presumptiuous or overly generalizing. It comes from everyday observation. The vast percentage of men (not just shy ones) who struggle to find partners is a testament to that.
Saying it over and over does not make it any more true. That's what you're having trouble understanding.
There is no great inconsistency between what "women" say they want and the choices they make. SOME women have personal problems that lead to relationships with guys who treat them like shit. MOST women end up with guys who are varying degrees of "nice," from "he screams at me but he hugs me sometimes and talks to me," to "he's always sweet to me no matter what happens." It depends what an individual woman's priorities are, whether she requires a guy on the "mostly very nice" end of the scale, or whether she doesn't mind less-nice if he meets other criteria.
Where is the "vast percentage of men who struggle to find partners?" You mean... in China? Here in the US, girls have trouble finding the right partner as much as guys do. And you can imagine as many different scenarios as you want of women only wanting alpha males or whatever, but... it is a presumption, whether you want to admit it or not.
Now, I am a woman, I have female friends... All the ones who say they want nice guys really do want nice guys. The others who have different priorities don't say they need a nice guy. Again:
The women who say they want nice guys... they date nice guys.
The women who say they want exciting/tough/hot guys... date exciting/tough/hot guys.
Is that clear?
And I just wanted to quote this, because I think it's worth being seen despite my gigantor-post starting a new page.
sweetpea said:
this is a support forum. we offer friendship and support here. predicting failure is not generally considered to be supportive. not real encouraging, and not our style here at SU. you'd do better to hand out your 'advice' on a seduction forum. there's no reason why every freakin forum on the internet has to be overrun with seduction advice. there's no reason why one little corner of the internet can't be a place for shy people to simply be friends and support each other regardless of gender. please just take it somewhere else.
