More proof women love cheaters

DUDE what the hell happened to you that your so freakin jaded?

Does this thread have something to do with Strip Clubs?

I would hardly call an anecdote "PROOF". You can find an "anecdote" to support any viewpoint in the universe. One anecdote hardly constitutes "EVIDENCE" let alone proof. OK, if you want a strip-club connection here's one: A lot of wives (including mine) think we Strip Club Afficiandos are the cheaters, everytime we walk into one of these places. I don't agree with her, but she feels that whenever I show an interest in another woman, especially one without much clothes on, that may be breathing in my ear, I am breaking my marriage vows.

Three to four months ago on a now locked thread, some of the same issues were discussed with evidence presented going way beyond one anecedote, and since strippers are women too, this current thread for some customers assuming certain threshold requisite alpha characteristics are present to begin with - yes it can have alot to do with strippers. Some customers will understand what I am talking about and some will not, however I am suggesting that using the "gentlemen horndog" option instead of being the standard jerk - has few penalties but a very high upside, and I also base this on a number of personal experiences in recent months using that same approach.

As usual Davy, you're an idiot. Some women like bad boys, and some don't. A lot of women that like bad boys grow out of that phase as well. Deal with it...

BTW, I'd only cheat with Cheryl (Tweedy) Cole is she was your gf...lol...

"Some women like bad boys, and some don't. A lot of women that like bad boys grow out of that phase as well."

I'm not sure sure its a bad boy thing per se, it seems to mostly be related to perceived nonmonogamy, which makes sense in evolutionary terms because high volume seed spreading was the optimal survival strategy for 3 to 5 million years, and it is clearly something of a built-in genetic survival strategy in female DNA that causes them to continually seek out these kind of men. There's no evidence that I've seen that suggests these women "grow out of it" in the sense they all of a sudden start getting the big "chemistry" for the noncontrolling, sincere, faithful guy typical "nice guys" - although they may settle and marry one eventually. Point is my guess is that most will never be "in love" (as the phrase is traditionally defined) with these guys.

I cited the news story because its just another example of a well known trend, however women in Cheryl Tweedy's class (9 and 10 level) in fact are if anything are exactly the type that let the raw "chemistry" completely control and make the decisions for them in regards to relationships, without rational thoughts necessarily getting in the way, such minor details as a guy being both 20 years older and married. They crave the "chemistry" thing like its crack-cocaine.

Now I happen to be dealing with actual ongoing real-life situations where, in place of acting like a regular jerk, instead using what I refer to as a sort of gentlemen horndog (polite and respectful with the constant tinge of nonmonogamy present) approach in regards to women all who happen to be in the 8,9, and 10 range ( and now not just restricted to strippers) and is having success far higher than even I would have expected, even though my natural instincts in the past would have been to focus on one woman at a time. Ok its counter-intuitive and is inconsistent with what most woman claim they want: "a faithful nice guy", but one has to go with what works.

Sorry, David9999, but I grew out of my "bad boy phase" as soon as I realized that the purpose of dating extended beyond trying to piss of my parents (which was around age 16 or so).

Guys he obviously is pissed at some chick. David maybe women like a guy confident in himself and not always paranoid about her motives.

wondergrl5 - the only chick currently pissing me off is you with your speculative bullshit, because its flat out wrong. In fact, I have had alot of women, (and these women are all top shelf level), in recent months claiming to in effect be "pissed" off at ME for my (openly admitted) horndog attitude and behavior, yet (counter-intuitively) their response toward me has been quite the opposite, and that's partly why I once again brought up this topic, previously discussed in different variations several months ago on threads now locked-up.

Its obvious to me you don't get it, because you really think confidence, wealth, and some of other typical Alpha physical characterisitics - w/o adding this tinge of nonmonogamy I've referred to - works with these top shelf women. Well as I stated I found nonmonogamy to be an absolute key factor, and you'll note there is a similar poster on stripperweb.com, with the name "Shot" -that strangely enough is getting similar results. So its not just me, however I don't expect most women to accept this, and they tend to more happy in their Land Of Oz la la land believing their own bullshi.t and many expecting the faithful nice guy to both turn them on and save them. So actually I don't give a fuck what you think.

the only thing i wanna add is that after being around enough strippers and hearing all the lame ass stories about cheating jerk boyfriends...i am proud to be a nice guy. really, its a complete turn off to me that these types of women, stripper or non, are attracted to these types of men. i didn't give it much thought at first but now im a little brighter about these things and realized how sad these women really are..thinks about it, girl stays with jerk cheater, jerk cheater gives girl std ( true storie from a stripper gf of mine), girl continues to stay with jerk cheater because women like this are usually unintelligent and have no depth to understand why they like to be abused. I spend a lot of time with professional women who are completely opposite in this regard. im kinda ranting, but i will say it again. any women or stripper who chooses to be with a guy thats a douchebag i view as a brainless tool...

David9999, time for you to go. You post more bullshit here than anyone.

"I didn't give it much thought at first but now im a little brighter about these things"

Oh no doubt, actually you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, however I just hope you're under age 25 because any guy that still lapping up the chick-speak "I want a nice guy" kool aid and hasn't figured it out by then - well good luck then

>>So its not just me, however I don't expect most women to accept this, and they tend to more happy in their Land Of Oz la la land believing their own bullshi.t and many expecting the faithful nice guy to both turn them on and save them.<<

Save me? I don't need anyone to save me: I need someone with whom I share similar interests and values, and with whom I have sexual chemistry.

Confidence is one thing, the arrogant Alpha-male behavior that you're describing is, IMO, the biggest turn-off that a man can possess. Will I pretend that it's somehow cute or endearing while at work to make some money? Sure. But in "real life," I don't care how tough you try to be, how expensive your car is, or how big your dick is... these things are irrelevant. I want a nice guy, and my dating record proves it. If any guy thinks that nonmonogamous behavior is acceptable, he can show himself the door.

"Confidence is one thing, the arrogant Alpha-male behavior that you're describing is, IMO, the biggest turn-off that a man can possess"

You've obviously don't get it either. It was precisely to avoid appearing egotistical I only indirectly alluded to (what I've previously labeled) the typical BENIGN Alpha characteristics (where there is no dispute that most women seek out) such as height, strength, physical condition, intelligence, resources, and general appearance.

If guys don't have at least those factors lined-up, then they better not bother with top shelf women, just stick to regular women.

The controversy only arises with the (equally critical) typical MALIGNANT Alpha characteristics - basically nonmonogamous, deceptive, self-centered, condescending, disrespectful (toward women in general), controlling behavior, and in some cases various indicators of a predisposition toward violence - all of these likely increasing (for the mating female) the odds that her genes will be moved forward successfully. It so happens in a modern parlance, these malignant characteristics also generally describe "jerk" behavior.

The idea that the all-important "chemistry" - (which woman have no direct volitional willful control over) that most women need to sustain relationships with particular males - operates apart from any of these benign characteristics - is absurd. Evolutionary baggage in general cannot simply be wished away.

Now the point of my earlier comments was to suggest that assuming a man has the key major benign alpha characteristics, especially when it concerns ultra-attractive women, he will generally also need some of the malignant characteristics, most notably related to the issue of nonmonomgamy, if not in substance then via perception. The perception of fidelity, while commendable in terms of being a good citizen, can often be fatal to the all important "chemistry". Seed spreading simply wins over monogamy, and that was the rule for millions of years, and via legacy DNA there is obviously major elements of that in most women today.

It's not (really) the position that bugs me; it's the hypocrisy ABOUT that position ...

I really believe that a LOT of women are drawn to the bad boy types, whether they realize it or not. I'm not one of those and can't be, not wired that way. But it amazes me how many women put up with the tons of shit their guys dump on them. I'm seeing a dancer now who has history with that (abuse, cheated on, law problems with the BF etc.) but she's really a terrific girl. I just don't get it. My take, be strong and confident but not an asshole.

LOL ;)

Dude why resort to insults I was commenting on your post is all. god knows youve commmented on any thread Ive started. Ok if Im not getting your point explain it to me in lymans terms cause Im trying to understand where your comin from.

Book Guy - that's true, and while I can understand women actually sincerely believing (when made) their typical "I really want a nice guy" statement, yet when they are shown case after case in the public domain of famous women, who can choose to marry nearly any man on the planet, over and over again involved with horndog men AND overwhelming evidence that males who cheat or are perceived as being cheaters can ratchet up the chemistry, AND also are presented with a completely rational and cohesive explanation as to why this (in evolutionary terms) makes perfect sense - they tend to go into this big denial mode, or the usual low road which is to use the Bella 21 technique from stripperweb.com - where the entire issue becomes one of low confidence wussy/marshmellow/wimp males making excuses.

Note I've never stated women in a conscious volitional manner purposely want to get involved with men that either cheat or they believe are cheating, of course its all subconscious, but so isn't that critical "chemistry" which is absolutely critical for the go/no go decision made by the woman, and it doesn't matter whether you label it "being in love" chemistry or "sexual chemistry" - it either happens or not for the woman and therefore is totally out of her control, and while "shared interests and values" may sound good on paper, its an irrelevant issue because women will often latch onto men that simply make the chemistry work, regardless of those factors.

Let me attempt to simplify it:

Humans are in simplest terms are survival machines, more precisely our genes above any other factor seek survival,(even over the personal survival of the individual host) and the laws they operate under do not necessarily follow modern day rational thought.

Most men in general are innately horndogs of sorts, meaning if they could get away with it and didn't die of an STD, they for example would have sex with a new woman each day -however due to societal factors and other factors, they suppress this natural tendency

Now there is a reason why nature made men into horndogs, it was to keep the species alive, where for millions of years high volume seed spreading by physically and mentally superior males increased (individual and group) odds of moving genes forward. Pair bonding, parental investment etc while completely logical and beneficial in a modern rational sense, were really relatively late stage evolutionary devices, so they comprise a relatively a small subset of time in terms of man's existence on earth, so genes seek how the dominant time frame of the 3 to 5 million yr development period

Now there is also a reason why women are naturally attracted to horndogs, because they too have a (subconciously based) vested interest in moving THEIR genes forward and keeping the human race alive. They have relatively few eggs, whereas men have virtually unlimited sperm, and they want a man who in turn will have hiers, also likely to keep the genes moving forward. Primordial based DNA clearly impacts in a major way their (the females) "decisions" involving selections of mates, such "decisions" being not volitional or willful per se, but driven by the "chemistry" which gives the women the high of being "in love". That feeling of elation is there for a reason, its purpose being to direct women toward men best accomplishing the ultimate goal - that being long term genetic survival

"Nice guys" who in evolutionat terms are non seed spreaders being are perceived via genetic selection as in effect genetic dead-ends in relative terms, and cannot offer the exciting (ultimately illusive of course) promise of genetic immortality offered by the alpha seed spreader males.

The point is in modern times a guy perceived as a horndog by a woman will generally ratchet up the chemistry. Now the woman may or may not "like" the guy in a general sense, but the odds will increase she will fall "in love" with him and will want to mate with him, and that's simply evolution speaking

"Height" is kind of a vague term. I don't think that most women want someone who is shorter than them, but some really tall women sometimes don't have a choice. Take wondergrl...she's only 4'11"...so everyone is taller than her almost...lol... ;)

"Intelligence" is also very relative. If a girl is dumb as a post (I won't use wondergrl as the example here because she's far from that), it wouldn't take much smarts for a guy to look "intelligent". Some girls like geeky guys...some don't.

"Resources" is also overstated I think. Haven't we all seen guys that don't have a pot to piss in have a girl on their arm?

Wondergrl, Davy *is* a layman...he's no expert on this subject, as usual...he just thinks he is. Basing almost his entire theory on what "famous women" do is just silly, whether he realizes it or not. Most show-business relationships are a joke, and that's not just a recent thing. And BTW, who the fuck cares about what goes on the stripperweb site?!?!

David9999. Chill. Take up raising tropical fish like I do. They are so soothing. Plus I get to watch them fuck!

dave you got too much time on your hands, plus your posts are like people who like to talk a lot cause they think they sound so smart, we all know what those people are like. I'm a nice guy and proud of it. I could care less if some stripper girl says she likes nice guys or not. I respect others and myself. Many of these women in clubs don't care about respect, so thats a total turn off to me. Are you getting it now Dave? Please no replies about stupid stories about seed spreading, genetically inclined, volitional blabber, alpha-male dumb ass ramblings of yours.

Even if men are predisposed to cheat, you have no evidence that women are predisposed to be attracted to cheaters. A woman gains no genetic advantage by mating with a cheater. Her genetic material is not spread by the man's infidelity. Simply put, her eggs do not travel with his sperm. A woman will successfully carry forward her genetic material if she has offspring. It is not a dead end to mate with a monogamous man.

Most anthropologists believe, in fact, that it is an advantage for women to mate with monogamous men. Their genetic material will be carried forward, after all, only if their offspring live long enough to reproduce. That will more likely happen if her mate sticks around to help her raise the kids. While that is a debatable theory (like everything else in anthropology) there is clearly no genetic payoff for the woman in mating with a cheater.

Implicitly you seem to reason that attractive alpha male traits (strength, success, good looks) are associated with non-monogamy. But you offer zero evidence to show that is true. I am aware of no evidence to show that cheaters are more likely, for example, to be rich or successful.

Apart from your flawed theory, the balance of your evidence is stunningly weak. Anecdotes prove nothing, because we can always cite counter examples of women who dump their cheating SOs.

The fact that some women stay with cheaters does not prove they are genetically predisposed to do so. Women and men stay in bad relationships for a host of reasons. We have all heard of women who stay with violent abusive SOs. Does that mean women are chemically attracted to men who abuse them? What would be the genetic payoff of such a predisposition? Your argument is a classic example of confusing cause and effect. The sun rises every day in the east and sets in the west. Therefore the sun revolves around the earth. Nice theory but wrong.

>>Your argument is a classic example of confusing cause and effect. The sun rises every day in the east and sets in the west. Therefore the sun revolves around the earth. Nice theory but wrong.<<

I couldn't have said it better myself. It reminds me of the correlation studies used to "prove" that marijuana is a gateway drug: if you go around asking a bunch of junkies if they ever smoked pot, the answer will probably be yes. Conversely, if you ask most people who smoke pot if they do heroin as well, the answer is likely to be no. Correlations simply do not determine cause and effect, and I would argue that such studies are the leading cause of misleading statistics, theories, etc.

Well, I think, for some people, smoking pot does lead to other things & for some others, it obviously doesn't. Some people can smoke pot with no problems & other people get addicted. So what...

"We have all heard of women who stay with violent abusive SOs. Does that mean women are chemically attracted to men who abuse them? What would be the genetic payoff of such a predisposition?"

Well actually for a large number of modern women, there does seem to be an innate attraction toward men that are abusive, and they actually get involved with these same kind of men over and over again, many violent some even a threat to their personal safety. As for your question "what would be the genetic payoff of such a predisposition"? In modern terms, none, but that's irrelevant because genes w/o much doubt are operating off rules developed in earlier times, over 100's of thousands of years or millions of years. Yes, in primordial times mere existence was violent and brutal, a violent male would certainly have a key survival advantage over a passive male, such trait being a key Alpha survival trait.

"Her genetic material is not spread by the man's infidelity."

You've missed a key point, HER genetic material no, but her offspring's and offspring's offspring and so forth, and if she mates with monogamous (C) instead of nonmonomgamous (A) - the (genetically perceived) chances in the genetic lottery of life are reduced. Genes tend to seek the best odds

As for pair bonding and marriage (very late stage evolutionary devices) - genes to a large degree probably don't recognize such modern constructs. Such institutions did in fact cause THE KEY advancements in civilization, but the problem is that genes (being slow to change) apparently haven't figured this all out yet. Nonmonogamy would in fact be very very rare in males if genes were currently directing them in that manner.

Although most people today would accept the notion that men are predisposed toward nonmonogamy, if not by act then by desire, and a sizable portion of people would accept this as a legacy of evolutionary genetic survival - it would seem very odd that an exception would be made today for modern women, that somehow they are exempted from a DNA carryforward from earlier times, when in fact it is clear that mating with monogamous males in primordial times would have induced a higher risk to their ultimate genetic survival chances. One would have to believe that modern men are greatly impacted by genes, and modern women very little.

As one poster in here stated a few weeks back. "men admit it and women don't" - referring to the obvious influence of innate desires when selecting mates, such desire arguably to a large degree a product of earlier times when raw day to day survival was in question.

I hesitate to carry on this discussion. Your arguments are so illogical and devoid of factual support that I am starting to wonder if this entire thread is a spoof. It was obvious from the start that you are have no background as a scientist. Now I am wondering whether you graduated from college.

A woman who mates with a nonmonogamous man gains NO genetic advantage. I am not missing any point. You are just talking nonsense. Her offspring are only the children she gave birth to; her offspring do not include the children other women give birth to. If you cannot understand that, then no one can help you. Indeed, if you cannot understand that, you obviously skipped high school biology. Your "argument" on this point is literally an incoherent sentence that consists of complete gibberish.

Pointing out that women are not naturally attracted to cheaters is not claiming that women are not influenced by genes. It is claiming that they gain no advantage by mating with nonmonogamous men.

Mating for life is not a late stage evolutionary device. Other primates do it (and they branched off from us millions of years ago). In fact, other mammals do it. Once again, your arguments are made without any apparent knowledge of the scientific record. With such a profound lack of interest in the scientific record, you resemble nothing more than the opponents of evolution, which is ironic given the nature of your arguments.

Your comments about abusive spouses are particularly stupid, and reveal how absurd it is to explain everything via genetic predisposition. You confuse strength with being an abusive spouse. But a strong mate is not an abusive mate, and an abusive mate is not a strong mate. Indeed, most men who abuse their wives are weak, pathetic losers -- the exact opposite of alpha males. Some women stay with abusive spouses for a host of reasons, none of which have anything to do with their genetic legacy. These are, indeed, the same type of reasons that cause women (AND men) to remain with spouses who are alcoholic, drug addicted, unemployed, irresponsible with money, mentally ill, chronically physically ill and -- yes -- impotent. Are you going to argue that those traits are all genetically advantageous too? Not everything can or should be explained based on inherited traits.

Your entire approach strikes me as singularly un-scientific. You have a conclusion you want to believe, and so you will adopt any argument -- however illogical or unsupported -- to defend that conclusion. A genuine scientific approach would call for an experiment. Here's my proposal. Post an ad with your photo and a positive description of yourself on match.com. In the ad, explicitly state that you are looking for a long term, monogamous relationship leading to marriage. At the same time, go to one of the sex dating web sites (pick your choice) and post the same ad with the same photo, but this time state clearly that you are just looking for a good time. If you are right, then you should get more responses to the second ad. I am betting you will be wrong. On match you will get a ton of women responding, assuming you are not fat, ugly, extremely old or post a really crummy ad (when I did a match ad I had dozens of emails within hours of posting). On any of the sex websites (where men outnumber women by something like 10 to 1, by the way), you will get almost no responses. Indeed, I will back up my bet. If you let me see both ads to verify that you are not cheating on the rules (e.g., that you use a decent photo and a good, positive self-description), I will bet you $1000 that you will get many, many more responses on match than you will on any sex dating website you choose.

But you won't take me up on the bet, I am sure, because you know in your heart women are not more attracted to cheaters. Proof? The women you are talking about are all sex workers to whom you pay money. If women really were attracted to cheaters, you wouldn't need to do that, ever. You'd get all the sex you need without ever visiting a strip club or paying an escort. We have a thriving sex industry in this country (indeed, all over the world, and since the dawn of time), precisely because for the vast majority of women they will only knowingly and willingly sleep with nonmonogamous men if they are paid.

"A woman who mates with a nonmonogamous man gains NO genetic advantage."

Correct but irrelevant.

However since the mating decision is made at the genetic "decision" level, her GENES (who have a vested interested in getting moved forward) perceive a longer term genetic advantage by incorporating a seed spreader into the lineage - genetic survival being the primary goal of genes.

I happen to be married, however your "experiment" is worthless, because very very often what females SAY they want and what they actually RESPOND to in regards to what they find attractive in males - are two different things. More troubling to me is your apparent failure to understand that such mating "decisions" are nearly all made at the subsconscious level, meaning of course many women on a rational conscious basis do not even understand their own innate primordial based wants and desires.

So, how often do you beat your wife then Davy, you Alpha male you?

Davy just likes to talk njscfan...it's all just hot air...he thinks he's being a rebel by spouting off things that most people (or the media) might not beleive.

This... is Howard Cosell. Tonight we have for you a fight of epic proportions, coming straight to you from TUSCL's palace. From the right coast, there's the New Jersey Fandango, the Garden State Brawler; a scrappy middleweight from a little state. On the left, fighting out of the genetically predisposed corner, fighting for the Alpha Male stables, no other than David the Seed Spreader. Who will win? It remains to be seen. Now let's go down ringside to Michael Buffer.

ROAMLF!!!!!!!!

Harrydave your to funny!!!!!!!!!

I think Davy's from MA BTW...that's just a guess though.

No way to tell. He has yet to seed spread a review.

Yea, I know...I'm just going off what's he's said so far here on the board, which could all be BS I guess.

Harrydave -- you kinda dated yourself with the Howard Cosell reference. But still it was very funny.

NJ, I knew from previous posts that the great majority of participants here are getting on in life and would remember Howard and his unique announcing style. But damn! The fight seems to be over already, and all I did was go to the fridge for another beer!

David -- Here's a simpler experiment. Stop going to strip clubs, AMPs, and escorts. Just try to have sex with women to whom you never, ever pay any $$$$ whatsoever. Be very open to them all that you are married, and that you have no plans ever to leave your wife. Come back in a month and tell us how many different women you shagged. Bet it's going to be a pretty short list.

Wait! Here's an even better experiment. Tell your wife you've been shamelessly cheating on her for years. Then tell us how many minutes pass before she throws you out of the house. After all, since women are so attracted to cheaters, your wife's reaction will surely be to jump on your tool. She won't want to consciously, of course, but given her genetic predisposition, the chemistry will be so overpowering that she won't be able to resist you.

Bottom line: if women are attracted to cheaters, then (a) why do you pay for sex and (b) why do you hide it from your wife?

harrydave, it's not my fault the fight ended. I tried to keep it going, but David is too busy fighting off all the women irresistably attracted to his alpha male seed spreading. Poor guy.

Well njscfan, I hate to say this, but you could try that second experiment above with your wife too. ;) I wouldn't recommend it though...

No, I'm smart enough to know what the outcome would be of that experiment. It wouldn't be pretty.

NJSCFan said: "David -- Here's a simpler experiment. Stop going to strip clubs, AMPs, and escorts. Just try to have sex with women to whom you never, ever pay any $$$$ whatsoever. Be very open to them all that you are married, and that you have no plans ever to leave your wife. Come back in a month and tell us how many different women you shagged. Bet it's going to be a pretty short list."

Problem is, the other variable isn't accounted for. Perhaps David is extremely attractive to women; perhaps he's not. Maybe he's "got game" and is charming in that way that makes women go to bed with him; or maybe he's a "nice guy" and is friendly in that way that makes women say "Awwww, you're so cute, your wife is really lucky" and NOT go to bed with him. So, what would cause him to get a "long list" or a "short list" by cheating on his wife, might have nothing to do with whether or not he's married.

Experiment fails. Lacks control group. :)

And I think THAT'S the point of this thread. The control group IS, men who cheat. Or, to put it differently ... the "got game" part of the equation is something that both (a) gives men the chance to cheat on their wives (if they're married) and (b) DEFINES what it is that makes men attractive to women.

Women fall for those men who are able to charm their pants off. Doesn't matter whether he's married or not. Marriage is independent of his ability in that regard.

Consequently, women fall for (by definition) men whom other women fall for.

Consequently, again by definition, women fall for cheaters.

Oh brother

What is the point of this thread?

Wondergirl, I think there's really not much to it, but to many MEN, it's really a surprise to hear these stories. It's not a big deal at a strip-club discussion board, or among women, especially not among dancers, for someone to suggest that many women will likely "cheat" on a supposedly monogamous pair-bond. That's because the women are familiar with this fact, though they may put it differently, or even not engage in "permanent" monogamy in the first place in ORDER to be able to cheat.

But to a lot of prototypical "nice guys" out there, this is a surprise. They've been raised on the belief that MEN are the "dogs" who need to be controlled, and women are the controlling factor. They live their lives with the assumption that females object to, or at least severely limit access to, sexuality, and that only reluctantly do women engage in coitus. So, when they suddenly find out that ACTUALLY, women are sleeping around all over the place, but it's done behind the backs of those "nice guys" and probably in a manner that takes advantage of them, they're surprised to learn something new. To THEM, it's a new and worthwhile discussion.

The problem here is not, about how much sex women engage in. The problem is the hypocrisy ABOUT that amount. Women are touted across the developed West as "better" than men, about monogamy; men are treated as though our sex drives are only good for exploitation or control. When we find some piece of evidence that notes that females are actually just as horny as us, we delight in it, because it blows the lid off of the whole construct and makes us, for a little while at least, feel a bit more vindicated. Maybe we AREN'T evil criminals from the womb to the grave, maybe we're just normal. :)

ok thank you book guy. Your explanation minus the this gender sucks and no it all undertones actually makes sense.

pardon the typos

What is the "prototypical" nice guy? What constitutes "nice" is very subjective.

Women cheat but less commonly than men. The only existing data is for married couples, but it persistently shows a significant difference -- about 15 percent of woman and 25 percent of men cheat. To me, far more compelling are these 2 facts. On all the sex dating websites men outnumber women 10 to 1. Second, almost the entire sex industry is geared toward men, not women. There are exceptions but they are rare. If women cheated as often as men (or had sex drives that match men) you would not see that imbalance. The free market responds to demand, and men have a much higher demand for sex.

I also think it is pretty obvious that testosterone correlates with the difference in sex drive. It is used as a treatment, in fact, for both men and women who have low sex drives. Show me someone with a really strong sex drive, and usually that person will have a high level of testosterone. And generally men have much higher levels of testosterone than women.

Wow...there are a lot of guys on this board that don't think very much of women in general I guess. I don't think it's that unusual for women to be just as horny as men BTW.

"What is the "prototypical" nice guy? What constitutes "nice" is very subjective."

Few women will ever specifically define the term "nice guy" as they invariably place the(usually relationship-fatal) tag on these guys based largely on instinct, however there are a number of character traits that seem to be common. For example a typical "nice guy" would probably be defined as monogamous, sincere, honest, non-controlling, and definitely not violent or having any predisposition toward violence. Unfortunately these traits in general were highly disadvantageous in terms of survival in the harsh, short, and brutal existence of early man, which just happens to comprise approximately about 99.99% of man's 3 to 5 million year existence on earth. Its completely logical today that many women (still carrying this evolutionary baggage in their DNA) would end up having that all important "chemistry" shut down, once they sense the vibe a man a man is substantively a "nice guy" with the traits I've described.

No doubt women truely want "nice guys", they are not lying when they say this, however their mate selections will be made basically a subconsious level where they will have little if any volitional control. In the end at it conerns that all important falling "in love" they are basically a slave to the much talked about "chemistry" they crave so badly, which I would argue has very little to do with modern day logic.

By the way, note that nearly all women when they first fall "in love" even when its with an obvious (except to them that is) hard core player/user/manipulative bastard - will label the guy a "nice guy". Of course in substance he's not a "nice guy" if you use the (I believe near universal) definition above. So that factor ends up muddling things up even more.

"Jerks" arguably could be defined as "nonmonogamous, deceptive, insincere, controlling males, sometimes having a predisposition toward violence.

The issue of women tending to be attracted to "jerks" is hardly controversial. The only controvery is causation. Gloria Steinem even conceded that. The standard explanation however was "low self esteem" or "need to right old wrongs" (all caused by distance fathers etc - Robin Norwood's approach). The old explanations have huge flaws, particularly with women who demonstrate the same tendencies who are brought up in near ideal circumstances. One would have to believe the majority of families in western industrialized societies are dysfunctional - if one were to believe this was the root causation of this predisposition in some or most women.

Yea, women would sure be crazy to go for those sincere, honest, non-controlling, non-violent types. People that are messed up in the head (male or female) will make bad choices in life...including who to "mate" with, period. If you're as bad a lawyer as you are at analyzing issues of biology or anthroplogy, I feel bad for all your clients Davy-boy.

yawn...snore..zzz..these are words to define davey boys posts....good god...shutup!!! You know Davey boy stop hanging out in SC's and maybe you will see that there are a lot of women attracted to your description of a nice guy. Too much blabber about womens DNA being encoded to want jerks...i would hate to be a nice-guy caveman. trying to treat my fellow cave-women with respect and all she wants is to be clubbed over the head. Of course, your whole argument is based on your belief in evolution, you think we came from apes, sometimes i think your logic came from apes. Please go away.

"Maybe we AREN'T evil criminals from the womb to the grave, maybe we're just normal. :)"

Yes, its often an artificial construct when the typical "nice guy" goes out of his way to put out the idea that he really wants to focus on just one woman. When a guy falls for a girl, he might in fact be telling the truth to her, but that is to some extent a byproduct of societal pressures that suggest faithfulness to one woman is in part doing his duty and being a sort of good citizen. In fact I would freely admit that such focus and committment and family building has been the key factor in advancing civilization, but such artificiality often (instead of honestly admitting to being or wanting to be a voracious horndog) is what gets the chemistry shut down.

Now on the issue of women and cheating, while I agree with you that women in general are just as horny as men, there are two absolutely critical differences. First, whereas men are horny every day of the month, women's libido tends to be more time-focused, and tends to go ballistic right before and during ovulation, a period only comprised of approximately 4 to 5 days per month in total. Second, women being relationship-centric (having but 300 to 400 eggs produced during their lifetimes)generally have a degree of selectivity in mates. QUALITY is important to them, whereas men being more goal centric and having millions of sperm and an innate desire disperse their seed widely - VOLUME is what matters.

In evolutionary terms for most of man's existence, young attractive fertile females would in general either be about to be impregnated, pregnant, or temporarily infertile during lactation - so there would be little evolutionary purpose to having the volume of mates typical men would seek out -and nearly all of those factors have been transferred forward. Now of course the pill and other birth control makes all of that irrelevant, however once again evidence clearly suggests that genes have not adjusted to that factor. Yes, women are far more sexually active with far more partners, but despite the so-called "sex revolution" starting 40 years ago, most women still do not have the voracious appetite for recreational sex (sex w/o the necessity of love, marriage or committment) that most men have.

The bottom line is in modern existence, a women who happens to be highly nonmonogamous, would hold (as it concerns that trait) no special additional attraction for most men in term of mating. Men, if let loose, following their evolutionary based desires, would have sex with nearly all young fertile attractive women, regardless of whether they are monogamous or not, so long as they don't believe they would get killed doing so, by for example a jelous mate.

DickJohnson "i would hate to be a nice-guy caveman. trying to treat my fellow cave-women with respect and all she wants is to be clubbed over the head. Of course, your whole argument is based on your belief in evolution, you think we came from apes, sometimes i think your logic came from apes"

HA HA thats funny now Im seeing a caveman coming up to a woman saying "pardon me miss my I club you now?"

Your right this thread is getting silly. So they hate women we get it.

Explanation is not advocacy. I'm not advocating or even justifying horndog behavior for all men. If you can focus on one woman, and the chemistry works both ways, fine. Some men do well with that.

The point of the original thread (in part based upon recent personal situations) was to suggest that of all the typical "jerk" traits, pervasive nonmonogamy could be the key one. That means that a man does not have to go the ultra-low road by being threatening, disrespectful of women, or treat them like crap, - all well known attraction factors with certain top shelf women. However merely being a married man and with a single woman probably will not be enough by itself to be sufficient to reach the requisite level of nonmonogamy, it seems it has to be at a prolific level of sorts, and its a real plus if for example a particular woman truely understands and believes that you (if given free reign) would have sex with as many women in town as possible, of course within the limits of any fear of STDs or interference from 3rd parties.

I would not have posted the conclusion I did if it simply involved pay-to-play situations, its way beyond that. In fact, I actually believed (when certain horndog behavior was suspected and independently verified by several of the women) their attitudes toward me would change, in other words, it would be over. The exact opposite happened, its merely pushed the "chemistry" up further proving (for these women at least) they are slaves to the chemistry, regardless of the counter-intuitive nature of it, and regardless of what society tells us. OK on the superficial level they express anger, but that is not how they respond in substance.

See, wondergrl, you're just a "slave to your chemistry." If you met David you'd find him irresistable. And even if you didn't, that would only be due to the fact that you would be lying to yourself. On your animalistic subconscious level you'd find David's alpha horndog so hot, because in your subconscious mind you'd be back in the cave days, imagining him porking all the other cavewomen (which, for some reason, you would find would satisfy some deep genetic need that you don't even understand, you silly girl). And if you believe all that, then there is a really marvelous bridge over the East River I'd like to sell you. We all have to accept it. David is just to sexy for his seed spreader.

David, remind me, why are you paying for sex when you have more "top shelf" women than you can handle?

Ahhhh i get it!!! let me remove my panties now and prepare for fertilization.

David brings interesting ideas to the discussion of male/female relations. I don't understand why anybody here would want to to silence him; espcecially in this age of political correctness, where discussions like these almost never see the light of day except in scientific journals.

However, David poses two ideas which seem contradictory:

1) "...whereas men being more goal centric and having millions of sperm and an innate desire <to> disperse their seed widely - VOLUME is what matters."

2) "...Men, if let loose, following their evolutionary based desires, would have sex with nearly all young fertile attractive women..."

David, if VOLUME is all that matters to the seed-spreader sex, then why are you including "attractiveness" in the males' evolutionary based desires? Couldn't a young, fertile female with an ugly face bear children just as well as a young, fertile female with a beautiful face?

At any rate, I find myself agreeing with some of the things you are saying in general. One thing though - when you speak of primitive humans, you ascribe some sort of chemistry or "in-love" feeling to the pairing of the sexes. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Based on anthropologic studies, romantic love appears to be strictly a by-product of dyadic caregiver societies, which is a recent historical development. As far as I understand, romantic love would be entirely foreign to the caveman/cavewoman bond. We can save that for the movies, and those wonderful posters of Raquel Welch in leopard skins.

References:

Stone Age Economics, 1972, Marshall Sahlins
Wandering God, 2000, Morris Berman

"David, if VOLUME is all that matters to the seed-spreader sex, then why are you including "attractiveness" in the males' evolutionary based desires? Couldn't a young, fertile female with an ugly face bear children just as well as a young, fertile female with a beautiful face?"

I meant to say volume (or quantity) tends to be the focus for males whereas with females quality tends to be the focus. Other factors of course are involved. Males in evolutionary terms to optimize survival chances would have had sex both with high volumes of females and females believed to most fertile - such fertility being determined (on a shortcut basis) via facial symmetry among other factors. Facial symmetry as representing health and therefore probable fertility has been widely discussed in the literature today, such symmetry being equated with a type of universal standard of "beauty" among widely varying cultures.

"David, remind me, why are you paying for sex when you have more "top shelf" women than you can handle?"

Very high net worth creates very high risk for actual substantive relationships.

By the way since you've already concluded my posts are among other things "illogical and devoid of factual support", "stupid", based upon "flawed theory", and use evidence that is "stunningly weak." Why not post on another topic?

"when you speak of primitive humans, you ascribe some sort of chemistry or "in-love" feeling to the pairing of the sexes. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Based on anthropologic studies, romantic love appears to be strictly a by-product of dyadic caregiver societies, which is a recent historical development"

Exactly (supporting earlier posts I've made), pair bonding itself which corrolates with (modern day's biggest issue) "romantic love" - is in fact a late state evolutionary device of sorts. Such romantic love providing the adhesive factor necessary for both a longer term and more civilized type of mating and living arrangement.

The problem is when we are dealing with 100,000's of thousands of years or longer ago time periods, its very hard to translate modern notions to these earlier time periods. We can only infer what people were feeling. However I buy the notion that "falling in love" (as we use the term today) in these earlier times (the bulk of human history) was either non-existent or a very different kind of thing, and that's partly because its very unlikely that females "consented" to sex in any substantive way, and by today's standards they would have clearly been raped in most cases. Point is the man didn't need the female to "fall in love" because her consent was irrelevant. There's little doubt if the females resisted they were overpowered. When for example the dominant tribal Alpha leader males selected their mates from among newly fertile young women, her attitude was probably irrelevant. However over 1000's or years, in genetic terms females would have subconsiously "understood" that such mating with certain males had signficant long term genetic survival advantages - then the chemistry factor became more equated with the way we discuss it today.

In any case consistent with my long held belief, when women today speak of "chemistry" being a requisite to sustain a relationship with a man, they are actually talking about "falling in love" and that all-critical component I believe is in the nature of a a bio-chemically induced non-volitional involuntary feeling - and all of that relates to earlier times, whether ultra early stage man, pre-pair bonding or overlapped with pair bonding, there is some kind of distinct connection to earlier times and primoridial instincts and urges.

"where discussions like these almost never see the light of day except in scientific journals."

Not even there except perhaps in an implicit way, and that's only recently. Some of these topics are deemed ultra politically incorrect, and there is a sense that 1. it suggests women to be uncivilized 2. it could license to men to justify nonmonogamous behavior. Men as uncivilized and women as civil is a foundational core belief for example in most Women's Studies programs at the college and university level all over the United States if not advanced western societies. This conflicts with that core belief.

I actually has a brief discussion with (non-scienstist) reporter David Wright (author THE MORAL ANIMAL- who was also invovled in doing the Time male nonmonogamy cover story). I asked him whether given the male nonmonogamy was more than likely an evolutionary norm, was it then possible that the Dawkins (selfish gene) approach had somehow been tied into this apparent modern day attraction many women have for nonmonogamous, controlling, deceptive, and abusive men. At that point, he had not heard the issue brought up anywhere by anyeone, and his book at that point was considered state of the art as a general reporting survey of this emerging field of evolutionary psychology.

Why post online and get pissed when people reply?

This...is Howard Cosell, reporting to you from high above ringside at TUSCL'S Palace. And I must tell you, this contest has taken a very unusual turn. It appears that one of our pugilistic progenitors, David the Seed Spreader, the Neanderthalic Phallic, is now content to just dance around the ring, waving his books by obscure authors, taunting his opponent, and ranting without end at the crowd gathered before us. Not since the days of the great Ali, the champ himself, have I witnessed so much oratorical bombast. Ladies and gentleman, the referee is talking now to the three judges ringside, and, yes, it's official...it's a technical knockout...the Spreader has literally buried the New Jersey Fan Man in a mountain of big, impressive, and highly controversial concepts. We'll be right back after this message from Pepto Bismol.

OMG HD your Alpha male humor made me cream. LOL wiseass!!!!!!!!

wondergrl remove her panties? She would have to *wearing* some in the first place! LOL... I think njscfan might be innately drawn to you too Davy. Ah, I see...we long for the "good ole days" when women would just bend over and take it from any old "Alpha-male" instead of crying rape afterwards...I see...maybe it would have gone something like this:

Hmmm...me Davy, you wondergrl...you come with me now.
Me make you my bitch.
You pick berries for me and raise my kids, while I fuck everything else that moves.
Me man, you woman...you just recepticle for my many man loads.
Me dump load in you whenever I want to, and dont be mad if me forget you name once in a
while.
Me have lots of other bitches.
Me call you bitch #69 for short.
You love me long time bitch #69.
You know who you Alpha Male is baby.
Then, when you get old and skanky, me dump you for younger bitch, then all my kids your
problem.
You get bum deal, but you just deal with it.
Me have many seed to spread.
You no waste my seed in you ass or mouth.
You take seed in pussy everytime...make many baby for me.
You cannot control yourself...me real man that you been waiting for whole life.
Me you Alpha male!
Now go make me dinner...before I beat you sorry ass, and shut those 12 kids up!
Me tired after long day of spreading seed all over town.
You give me back talk and me say, "Talk to hand, cuz ear is no listening".

Why am I always used as an example? LOL

Nice guys are to women as fat chicks are to men. End of story.

Explain "chubby chasers" then Bobbyl...

RE: harrydave commentary: Give this man a lifetime supply of toupees & tacky blazers!

harrydave: as usual, you're right. I concede the "argument" by default, because one of the first rules of psychology is that you don't argue with a mentally ill person about his delusions. It was my mistake to treat David as someone who could be reached with logic or common sense (or humor). I feel bad for him, he seems like a PL occupying a bizarre fantasy life. I promise not to respond to his posts again, no matter how provocatively stupid. It would only be cruel to engage him in debate when the poor man is coping with the demons of his illness.

Without wasting everybody's time on mumbo-jumbo pseudo-intellectual ramblings I will state the obvious. Strippers have horrible morals. Their behavior is gonna support hypothesis that they love cheaters, of course. these women sleep around all the time and cheat themselves with other cheaters. the women I know outside the club have much better morals and don't do this. Is it due to dna? hell no. its cuz they are not drug desiring, brain tweaking, issues laden strippers.

hey!!!

MisterGuy: Exactly. Women are about as likely to like "nice guys" as men are to like fat chicks. It does happen, but is rather rare.

DickJohnson: Thank you. Finally a poster on this board who gets that much!

Strippers have "horrible morals", but strip club patrons are apparently saints. I call bullshit on that one! I agree though...Bobbyl and DickJohnson are two peas in a pod, and we're working on wiping out that strain of pea...

Paging Dr. Mendel. Paging Dr. Mendel.

Now, peas, they really know how to spread.

MisterGuy: You sure like to put words in people's mouths don't you? Did we say customers were saints? I call bullshit on you. (Besides even if patrons were bad (not saying that they are), it would be for possible for strippers to be much worse, right?) How about no more posting for you till you pass a logic 101 course?

DickJohnson states "Strippers have horrible morals"

Talk about condemning an entire class of women.

Strippers relative to nuns, ok they probably have LESS morals, maybe even relative to hairdressers. However your comments are absurd for 2 reasons:

First, many many strippers are relatively normal women who happen to work in a very strange profession. Yes, some are taking illegal drugs, probably a minority. Yup, they have issues, but so don't many other types of women, Yes, the job itself, for those already screwed up, can help screw them up further and I've admitted that before. Of the strippers I've been attracted to, not a single one was on drugs, most don't even drink, and the "morals" I've noticed are as high as any other women I've known. They are in fact reasonably stable women. Of course the major broadcast and print media in the USA relentlessly puts out the drug crazed/broken/low morals tag you are laying down - which anyone who has actually met 100's of stripper in dozens of clubs would know is complete nonsense as an across the board all-purpose rule. Just because every stripper you've run across is screwed up or has "horrible morals" - it doesn't mean all strippers are like that.

Second, the entire issue of many women having this (seemingly strange and counter-intuitive) attraction toward nonmonogamous, deceptive, controlling, mysogynistic, abusive, and (sometimes)even violent males- or some combination of these traits - is not just about women who happen to derive from abusive family backgrounds or have other major unresolved issues - its far more mainstream than that. Your "thinking" (and I am being charitable using that term) on this issue is about 10 to 20 years behind the curve. Those old theories of "low self esteem" "unresolved childhood issues", "poor parenting" and the dozen or so other explanations used to understand these type attractions - are now for the most part provably inoperative. Huge amounts of women today will at least concede having a temporary period in their lives where they were attracted toward men having the traits described above, some now (nominally) claiming they have passed that stage in life, many will admit repeatedly folling the same pattern over and over, however the vast majority of these women are not headcases or dealing with other serious trauma issues from childhood, instead for the most part it is clear they are mainstream level women and basically stable. It is true most will not usually assign evolutionary based causative factors, in part because despite the emerging evidence, they would prefer to opt for the (typical university level women's studies reinforced) politically correct explanations. Modern women, as ultra-civilized, and are simply thought to be beyond the alleged influence of purported evolutionary baggage. That is in effect a central tenet of that position. Yet most know they don't have most of these so-called childhood trauma issues, so many in fact are quite perplexed. The point being this is a very widespread issue, its not just about "brain tweak.ed" females.

good god!!! david9999 must you turn everything into some freakin lab report. I stand by my stereotype that strippers have bad morals. I will add to that and state that like any stereotype there are some exceptions. I'm not gonna cite any studies or junk science crap you get into. It's just my observation so far. I will admit I go to clubs that cater to "extra" service. I know, I know...my morals are no better, at least I admit it. Davey boy stop scaring the women at the clubs with your boring ramblings.

How about this Bobbyl? You're a hypocrite, period. You can't say that you agree with what someone else posts then try to back away from it later. And post a fucking strip club review, and that goes double for you too Davy-boy!

"good god!!! david9999 must you turn everything into some freakin lab report."

Its called a response, to the very exact points you in fact made. By the way, I did create this thread, and you've offered nothing of substance, only insults and personal attacks. If the topic is beyond your intellectual capacity, please post somewhere else.

MisterGuy: I am not backing away from anything that I agreed with. However, just because you pretend that there is something in a post that there isn't does not mean I have to agree with what you are pretending is there. Again, I suggest you taking a course in logic/critical thinking (may use of the time/money you would have otherwise spent in strip clubs, hmmm?) and come back when you have passed that.

I suggest that you come back when you learn to READ before you say you agree with someone that sez that "strippers have horrible morals", then further post that "it would be for possible for strippers to be much worse" than strip club patrons. Don't pretend that you and yer buddy weren't coming down on strippers and leaving yourselves off the hook. And start pulling your own weight around here by posting a strip club review...do something *constructive* for a change instead of just being an ass.

MisterGuy: Are you a complete idiot? It is, of course, possible to agree that strippers have horrible morals without having to think patrons are saints. In fact saying strippers have horrible morals is making absolutely no claim about the morals of customers. They could be equally bad, better, or worse. You really need some basic education MisterGuy. Stop wasting so much time in strip clubs, and do a bit of work on improving your mind.

hey i kinda think that black men have huge cocks...(collective gasp). Now we can all sit back and be bewildered by davids thorouogh response which will include statistical data, studies, anecdotes and im sure personal observations.

I must just be a silly "degenerate" lover Bobbyl...keep trying to backpeddle...your previous words already speak volumes...enjoy the fascism BTW, you fool...lol...

Once again Dick - my comments were a response in a very specific way to the precise points YOU brought up, among which included your assertion that certain common characteristics of strippers (having "low morals" who "cheat themselves," "with other cheaters") resulted in it being preordained that they would be attracted to cheaters - thus attempting to make my central premise not applicable to the general pool of women in society

This is simply not the case, as I've detailed in my earlier response. The issue goes far beyond such women.

Man Dave...u know i gotta say I kinda dig where u are coming from...u hang in there with your points. And i gotta say its been an interesting thread, so thanks for that. I have had a few laughs.

Now that's a fair comment. I will admit to having a natural inclination toward putting an evolutionary spin on nearly all human behaviors. However knowing I have this built-in bias, even I realize there is a hybrid structure of sorts at work, with both innate primoridial based factors and modern environmental factors constantly being overlapped.

Absolute proof of socio-biologic factors as the ultimate causative factors of certain human behaviors and desires - is nearly impossible. However, there are all sorts of practical applications, most with little downside that can be utilized, once you get a handle on this area.

Take the case of male-female relationships, and (getting away from the obvious moral issues involved with married guys screwing around with young women)- lets then assume a guy is in his 20's and single, and he meets a woman he likes, and he may even want a long term relationship - which most would concede is a noble goal. So he wants to ratchet up the chemistry

He can concentrate on just 3 things and improve his odds:

1. putting out that ongoing tinge of nonmonogamy which could be induced by saying something as simple on a date (if the topic arose) as "marriage is great for some people, but in my opinion any guy that is under 35 and gets married, I just think he's crazy" Ok he loses maybe 1 in 10 girls by saying this, but he ratchets up the chemistry with probably 8 or 9 others.

2. making sure the male is around and pushing for sex right before and during the ovulation period, and (its not just me saying this) its well known that sex during that 4 to 5 day period is the sex that matters to most women, and these are the guys she's will have higher odds of having chemistry for.

3. sexual positions - constant emphasis on all the evolutionary positions including dog/ape style, women prone on her stomach with her butt angled up, and probably even woman on top - which (possibly) could relate to the sleeping/or exhausted cave dwelling/early male flat on his back (in effect) accosted by the female. (By the way nocturnal errections in human males do not currently have a precisely known purpose)

OK these are all evolutionary based, however with little downside, so if they don't work, its not a big deal anyways.