The Battle of the Sexes

Im gonna try this with a woman I wanna score a date with who is a waitress at a dive down the road from me. I will lie to her and abuse her and let her kknow I love to cheat. I will post back the results.

I was going to add something to this discussion, before it turned back into another "chicks dig bad boys" in pseudo-scientific window dressing post, but now I want to add something else. I don't expect an answer, since most of my questions to David9999 on this matter, or requests for explanations of inconsistencies are ignored, so then what can it hurt to add another.

The theory is that dominant genes in females have them programmed to value men who are programmed to cheat by dominant genes. Several hundred thousand years of evolution (or is it millions) and tens of thousands of years of evolving societal standards and rules governing human behavior can not change this. So the trick is that men can pick up on these codes and cues, and seduce a woman without her even knowing it by virtue of appealing to socially unalterable and genetically unaltered codes. So the question, in two parts really then is if women can't control what they want or how they will respond, what makes you think men can? And if these codes, these all-powerful evolutionary imperatives can be so easily fooled, of what possible evolutionary use are they?

There's no question that at a subconscious level most young attractive women tend (regardless of causation and regardless of how much they will deny it) to be turned off by faithful, sincere, non-controlling monogamous males aka "nice guys" in terms of that critical but all important "chemistry" they crave so badly - yet its very clear at the same time they also get this sort of turn on by abusive, controlling, deceptive and nonmonogamous males.

Most of us simply don't want to abuse, lie to, or tell women what to do (although certainly giving them a bit of disrespect shouldn't be a problem for most males) - however there's not a alot of downside to presenting the gentlemen horndog vibe.

By the way, other factors like wealth, presentability, height, strength, intelligence etc - of course they matter too - however w/o inducing one or 2 of these key "malignant" Alpha characterisitics (the tinge of nonmonogamy being the classic) - its not going to matter much anyways.

The point is to stop blaming women for what they cannot control, and give them exactly what they they respond to - and if you don't believe me, try it and see what happens

Man. That is one long post. Too much to comment on and i really dont wanna anyway. Much of your post is true especially if you hang out at stripclubs. But, There is a whole class of different women out there who aren't players, users, haters, manipulators,etc...I still say just be yourself and meet women everywhere, anywhere.

BG, do you have any sisters you grew up with?

This is the second recent OP that really makes me feel terrible for the single guys out there. I think this is a subject that does not get the attention it deserves.

Book Guy: You seem like a nice person. I would submit the world is not as bad as it seems at times. But I would also submit there are realistic limits on what is possible in this world. If you accept those limits (or just recognize that they exist and you can't do much about them), you will feel less involved in any "battle".

I gather you are either in your 40s or at least your late 30s. I take it you are well educated and at least "normal" looking. You apparently have the right education to be a professional of some sort, but you are not incredibly wealthy. You have a normal sex drive (for a guy). You apparently have never been married, and maybe you've never been in a long term committed relationship (i.e., where you are actually living with the girl full time for a year or more).

I submit the first thing you need to decide is what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to find random casual sex with young hotties -- then you are right. It will never happen, unless you pay for it.

Why is that?

First, the pool of women who are interested in random casual sex (without pay) is very, very small. Women just have a much lower sex drive than we do. They are primarily interested in LTRs, not sex. If you find a woman half as interested in sex as you are, count yourself unusually lucky. Think about it -- there are almost no porn sites, no escorts and no strip clubs aimed solely at women. Why? Because there is no demand.

Second, within that small pool, the few women who are sex driven are not going to be interested in you. Why not? First, they are going to tend to be young, and they are going to be engaged in a youthful indiscretion, so they are focusing on guys their own age. Second, just like you, if they are really just looking for shallow, purely sexual experiences, they are going to focus on guys who are not merely good looking, but guys who are totally hot -- guys who work out every day, sport a six pack, etc. (And, no, they won't care that those guys are morons.) Third, to the extent that they might ever go outside the group of guys who are young and hot, it will be for guys who are rich and powerful (because women are attracted to wealth and power).

And again, this is a very small group of women to begin with. So, respectfully, you have to give up on the idea of random, casual sex with a young hottie. It won't happen unless you pay for it. That's why strip clubs and hookers exist.

That's the sad reality. But there is a positive, more cheerful perspective as well.

If you are looking for an emotionally fulfilling relationship (which includes good sex) that IS possible as well. Unlike the sex bimbo dead end, this is playing to your strengths. Because the vast, vast majority of women want nothing more (and nothing less) than a long term, commmitted relationship leading to marriage. Even when they won't admit it even to themselves, most women want that relationship (and really want to get married). This is why the "sex and the city" movie is so fucking popular with women, and with women all across the spectrum in terms of race, social class, etc.

Depending on where you live, it is extremely possible (easy, even) to find a woman who is interested in a long term committed relationship. This is what most women want anyway. I happen to live in the NYC metropolitan area, where the number of available women outnumber the number of available men (because a large percentage of men living in the NYC metro area are jerks, or unemployed, or gay, or have criminal records). So it's a little easier where I live (and, conversely, it's harder for guys living in rural areas). But there are a number of venues for finding women interested in relationships. Picking up a woman at a bar, however, is NOT one of those venues.

But there are some caveats here.

Women want to find a guy who shows he is interested in a committed relationship. I went on an online dating site once and posted a profile that was all about how I wanted a real relationship. I got dozens of responses within hours. (And not just internet responses. I went out on dates and had sex on the 1st date with several of the women who responded.) Why? Most guys only talked about themselves and how they wanted women who looked hot. That's not what women are looking for. They are looking for guys who show they are serious about settling down. If you have never been married and never lived with a woman long term, that will count against you, and you will need to explain that history.

Women want financial security. I cannot overemphasize how important this is. It may seem crass, but they want men who are well off. You don't have to be rich (although it helps), but you do usually need to be gainfully employed. Women are really wary of men who cannot seem to hold down a job.

You can go down in age (typically 5 to 10 years) because lots of women are happy to marry older guys anyway. But this is a potential issue for someone your age. A lot of women in their 30s and early 40s are really crazy about having kids, and are scared to death that they will blow it if they wait too long. So if you do not demonstrate quickly that you are ready to settle down and start a family, they will assume you are commitment-phobic, and they will dump you fast and move onto the next guy. They aren't trying to be mean. They just feel like they have no time to waste.

Unless you are really rich or unusually lucky, you cannot get a girl more than 10 years younger. The young girls will want guys their own age (can you blame them?). You have to give up on the girls in their 20s.

In terms of looks, this is much less important to them, as a general rule, than it is to us. As long as you are within the bounds of "normal," they don't care. On the other hand, they will try to look good for you. Most women in the dating world get it, that is, they understand we want them to be attractive. I think it is ok to be upfront about what it important to you. I think if you date a girl who is fat and pretend you don't care (when you really do care) you are asking for trouble. But on the other hand, given that you are talking about women in their 30s and 40s, you have to accept the reality that they are not going to be totally hot -- they are going to show signs of wear and tear as they get older, that's just the way it is.

In sum, you can leave the battle of the sexes and find a happy relationship with a woman, BUT

*don't expect to find someone in her 20s;

*accept the fact that she won't be a 10 in looks (but ask yourself honestly, are most of the strippers and whores "10s"? No, if you saw them walking down the street in normal clothes you wouldn't even notice most of them; what makes them unusual is that they are willing to act slutty; my wife is in her 40s and she looks better than most of the strippers I see);

*be aware that there may be pressure to move forward quickly to have children;

*you need to have a job or some other visible source of income; and

*more than anything else in the world, you need to be able to show that you are ready for a LTR, and to explain (probably without extended references to strippers and hookers) why you have never gotten married until now

You can't have a fantasy. You cannot get a 20 year old hottie to suck you off for free just because she thinks you're so smart and so hot. That's never happening. But not all women are vicious or manipulative either. Some are decent, just like some men are decent. You can have reality -- a nice, attractive woman who cares about you and with whom you are happy. And reality is pretty good.

Interesting points. I guess I was rambling, but ... the advice offered is diametrically opposed to what I have seen actually take place in the real world.

For instance, the theory that women want a long-term committed relationship? I have found (and seen) that if the male suitor addresses a woman from a position of interest in commitment, this means NOT that the woman goes (as suggested above) "wowee, a good catch who wants something similar to what I want!" Rather, she goes "another drip with no cojones." Or, worse yet, "now that I know he is commitment-able, I no longer have to be nice to him. Given that I have ALREADY controlled him into submission, I only have to keep him around by means of a few random intermittent positive reinforcements. Meanwhile, I will have my fun with someone else whom I canNOT control without fucking him." Further, "Since I have learned that I CAN cause him (self-perceived emotional) harm through hateful behaviors, I now choose to ACTUALLY CAUSE HIM HARM, merely because it is possible."

So, it's a nice theory, this whole provider-nice-guy thang. It doesn't actually happen in practice. Or, if it does, then it's not likely WITH ME, since I've never been able to make it work out.

Lookit, I'm simply saying we're in the middle of an historical blip. Female arrogance, aggression, and cruelty are at an all-time high. They're in the cat-bird seat. By means of their own actions they might also harm themselves -- I know a lot of physically declining women who kick themselves for having been such cunts when they were more attractive. They had indoctrinated themselves into the "bitch is cool" category so that they could "fend off" males vigorously; only to find that they themselves turned out lonely and without males, because of their very act of off-fending them! So, I'm not saying that it's all either "this goal" or "that goal." Rather, I'm saying, there's a disaster brewing out there. I'm an innocent bystander getting shot in the crossfire.

I don't "hate" women. I do dislike sex with ugly women. And I dislike the act of interacting initially in that false kind of "here's the trick to fooling someone into liking me by acting exactly the opposite of what they say they want" thing. I don't think I can effectively do it. I mean, I've tried, and it doesn't turn out great.

Thing is, the suggestions here don't even ring true to my past life. Back when I WAS a "young hot stud" in college, I didn't get laid. I was the guy all the gals would play with and then NOT fuck, because somehow I was "intimidating." So again, your belief that a young woman would prefer to hook-up in sexual non-committed liaisons with people who are of a certain "type"? For a while I WAS that type and it STILL didn't do me any good.

In fact, the best thing that ever happened for my sex life was, that I started to ignore my career and just go about getting fired and not caring. Then, women liked me, because I had this air of "Can't be controlled." Silly, but true.

A final point. This idea that women have lower sex drives than men? Preposterous. How often do I get laid? How often do most average males get laid? Once a month. Once very six months. It's called "getting lucky" for men, becaues it's SO RANDOM AND RARE. Now then, how often do young women have sex? Once a week. You tell me who is more interested in sex.

I know, I know, the traditional myth is, that men "gotta have it" and women can care or care less about it. But what I see IN PRACTICE and IN ACTUAL FACT, is that females scream yell beg and get VERY VERY bitchy if they don't get it often enough. During the act, they're the ones going, "Oh yes, fuck yes, yes yes YES fuck fuck mygod mygod mygoooood." The men are going, "ungh. Good." Males experience sex like a sneeze: fix the necessary itch, move on. Women have earth-shattering experiences that change their whole world view.

So, you tell me who likes sex more. In REALITY, not in the myths perpetrated by the evo-psych crowd. Desmond Morris doesn't look to me like someone with any good advice about how I can get laid ...

And on top of all that, of course, is still the perception that it's a BATTLE out there, a COMPETITION in which someone "loses" if the woman "lets" the man have sex, or if the man "lets" the woman control him, or whatever.

The whole point of this thread, to me, wasn't to learn to beat the game. It was to simply recognize the fact, that the game sucks and really I don't want to be playing it at all. And on top of that, it sucks for women too, but they continue to perpetrate and perpetuate it, and men don't have any choice but to go along.

Here's another way to put it: when we're all 14, men have male thoughts of fucking fucking fucking; women have female thoughts of princess girlie unicorn pink. Then men grow up, and have male thoughts of fucking fucking fucking; and women grow up and have female thoughts of fucking fucking fucking. In other words, we're indulging women in youthful childish fantasies, if we seek to fulfill the princess girlie unicorn pink. They CAN be asked to be mature, responsible adults. They ARE capable of it. Why must we FORCE it on them? And only those men with a certain "control instinct" (in other words, winning the game) can address the issue at all. They're MANIPULATORS.

How to beat a manipulation complex? Out-manipulate the manipulators. But I don't want to have to do that ... I don't LIKE manipulation, either done BY or TO me.

Eh, I'm rambling. Anyway, thanks for being nice enough to listen.

njcsfan gives good advice, even though he is wrong about the women wanting sex less part. (They want as much, probably more, but are just orders of magnitude more discriminate about who with.)

Anyway, yeah, if you are looking at the way the young hotties act, and extrapolating to all women that is going to be a problem. Young hotties can literally get away with any behavior no matter how terrible to most men who will hang onto even the slightest sliver of hope think they may score. The hotties realize this, and LOVE to abuse their power, as Book Guy correctly points out. (OTOH, they love it even more when men have the cojones to call them down on it.)

Also as njcsfan says, despite what anyone will tell you it's just a not a realistic option for most guys to be banging them willy-nilly after a certain, so if you want to, then be prepared to shell out the cash.

But Book Guy is also right. Women will, at some point, want to find someone to settle down with, but even then they will ALWAYS be attracted to the bad boys. They want the best of both worlds.

I think the biggest thing is to focus your efforts on women who are have similar values and intelligence (and age) to you. Otherwise the 40 year old nerd trying to bang a 20 year old party girl/coke sniffing bimbo, is just never going to happen. (Again don't believe the self-help gurus or posters, they just plain LIE about their unlimited success with women.)

And if you just can't find women closer to your own age/intelligence/values attractive, then just accept that you will have to be shelling out the cash for them. Come to peace with that, and have fun. But please. Stop beating your head against a wall, thinking the impossible is possible.

Book Guy, funny but I just had a similar converstion with my ATF the other day. One thing that may help is to understand the difference between right-brain-dominant people and left-brain-dominant people. Most women are right-brain-dominant, most men are left-brain-dominant. The two look at the world entirely differently and have trouble understanding each other. For example, most men are all about concrete things and ideas, while women are all about emotions and spirit.

I once read that "Women give sex to get love, men give love to get sex." I think that illustrates the difference exactly. (I'm right-brain-dominant BTW, which is kinda interesting because there aren't very many of us around, especially heterosexuals. Any other right-brain-dominant males here? I doubt it, which is probably why my opinions are often so different from the others I read here.)

Good comments. I'm just venting, I guess. There are times in my life when I feel "damned if you do, but damned if you don't" about certain issues. Sometimes women are the issue. Sometimes jobs are the issue; sometimes something else.

On top of that, I feel like I perceive a "cultural Zeitgeist" type of thing. A change in paradigm. And that is, that we've lauded "youthful indiscretion" so much in our culture, that we've invented an ENTIRE HALF OF OUR POPULATION which ACTIVELY seeks ineptitude as its view of a successful life. Inept = success? That's a problem. This is the girlie-girlie shit that somehow gets perpetuated as sweet childish fumbling.

I have to admit, I'm physically attracted to younger female bodies. This is normal, natural. I go further. I'm NOT physically attracted to most female bodies. And I'm pretty incompetent at making "love" or long-term romantic commitment have ANY relation to sexual interest. In fact, the more luvvy-duvvy she is with me, the less I want to fuck her. If she gives me a backrub and makes me a sandwich? I just fall asleep. If she loves giving blowjobs? So what, she'd better look good to me. This is NORMAL. I can't help but be like this. My body responds like this AUTOMATICALLY. If I lost my eyesight, maybe something would change; otherwise, I can't really see it being different any time in the near or distant future.

Does this make me a bad person? No.

Does the fact that a young woman LIKES causing harm, make her a bad person? Yes.

See the difference? Grr ...

Well, France-Romania sucked. Worst game of the tournament so far. No wonder I'm feeling cantankerous.

FONDL: Once again I have to agree with you. I have also read your quote. I am left brained or brainless.

If I get this right, I should be looking for a woman 10 years or less younger than me. That means that I should be looking for a 56 year old grandmother. I ain't looking. It has been a little over 4 years since my divorce. I could be dating women 20 or 30 years younger than me. I choose not to. I would rather pay for it with 20 or 30 year old strippers. As for their intelligence. Some are dumber than dog shit. Others are highly intelligent. I consider myself lucky to know so many that are willing to share time with an old goat but I also know know that they know that I am not a threat. They know that I am NOT looking for an SO.

I have two friends that have lost their wives to illness's in the last 3 years. One has jumped right on the band wagon and started dating women his age. The other is like me and prefers to spend his money on strippers.

I am happy with my new life style.

Actually, as I get older I find looks matter less and terrible personality, contemptuous hot chick behavior is an incredible turn off. Almost, but not quite, to the point where I am ready to give up on strippers.

What about others (they may definitely be the wrong board to ask). Do looks/youth matter less to you as you get older?

I personally find, that as I age, I get more and more picky about a woman's appearance. (I don't MEAN to, I don't CHOOSE to, I just do.) I look back at the pictures of the girls in high school and college for whom I was head ove rheels in desperate luv luv loooove, and I wonder what on earth attracted me to them. They appear to me, now, just as another "typical girl who couldn't make a buck stripping."

FONDL,

Although I seem to often have similar experience to yourself and many times agree with you, I am VERY left brained. I have a difficult time with emotions and don't deal well with them.

Book Guy: you are describing a really tough situation. Given the way you feel, and what you feel is happening to you, honestly maybe there is no solution.

I will not BS you. If you're pushing 40, the likelihood that you can regularly get a 20 year old to fuck you for free is slim to none unless you suddenly become very rich. I don't think that is going to change, regardless of the "culture" of our society. I'm attracted to young women too, but luckily, I am also attracted to women my age and everything in between. If you are ONLY attracted to 20 year olds, it is going to be a tough road ahead. There are exceptions, but they are pretty rare. Once during my 1st marriage I had an affair with a girl in her early 20s (I was in my mid-30s), but it was a fluke and it only lasted 4 months. I just think you have to be a realist and accept that is not going to happen as a general rule. And, yes, the young girls are going to be pretty cruel about making you feel stupid for trying to get their attention.

It seems to me your options are paying for it, or broadening your tastes to include women who are not quite so young.

I don't know where you live, and so maybe the demographics are different in your area. But where I live the women start singing a different tune when they are in their 30s and they are still not married and don't have kids. Anyone who doubts the desire of women in that age group to have children, respectfully, has not spent a lot of time around single women in their 30s (and if they are still single when they hit 40, then they get really desperate). Are there exceptions, sure, but in general 90% of the women out there want kids, and their time period for doing that is limited.

Likewise, I really disagree with anyone who thinks most women in their 30s and 40s are not looking for a LTR. Just go on match.com or any similar site -- there are gillions of them. And if they think you are a possible catch, they will fuck on Date # 1 in order to hook you.

The only women in the "cat bird seat" are the hot ones in their 20s. Once they are in their 30s, the power starts shifting in your favor. That's why there are a lot of unattractive, fat men who are able to snag pretty good looking women.

The only thing they have in their favor is our unreasoning desire for sex. And yes, our sex drive is stronger. Ask any sex therapist, look at polling data, and last but not least, look at sex web sites of any kind -- they are all male dominated. There are reasons for this -- we have a ton more testosterone in our system than they do. (It's actually used as a chemical therapy for both men and women who have low sex drive -- the difference being that men will use much, much more. If you ever meet a women who is transitioning to be a man, you will find she is on a heavy testosterone therapy -- and she/he is going to be as horny as we are. But that's the exception that proves the rule.) The fact that some women in some categories may get laid more often doesn't prove otherwise. It just shows the women are trading their pussy for something they want. And the quickest point of access to pussy is a committed relationship (well, that and cold hard cash).

I realize that doesn't do you any good if you find all women over 30 unattractive, or if you find the idea of having a committed relationship unappealing. If that's your situation, then you are kind of fucked. I'm not trying to be mean. Just honest.

But personally I think having sex once a month (or once every six months -- yikes) sounds horrible, and if I were ever in that spot I'd get a little more flexible about my taste in women. The big advantage of having a good marriage is that you have ready access to sex. I boinked my wife twice this past weekend. I think a healthy dose of sex during marriage runs about 2 to 3 times per week. Add to that the fooling around I do with strippers/escorts on the side, and it's pretty easy to have sex 3 to 6 times a week. If I went a month without sex I think my balls would burst.

I know, I know, a lot of marriages are crummy and the sex is non-existent. We have neighbors where (according to the wife) they haven't had sex in a year. But that's not a reason to stay out of LTRs. That's a reason to stay out of crummy LTRs. And that means being really upfront about what you want, and then making the effort to make sure it happens. Early in a relationship it just happens, of course, because you're hot for each other. But after a while you are going to have to work at it. My wife and I have been together for years, but we do shit to keep it interesting (e.g., this weekend we were at a huge party, like a hundred people; we were both feeling horny, so we went upstairs and fucked in one of the rooms. If we had just waited until we went home after the party, we would have been too tired to have sex. By having a "do it now" mentality, we made it more exciting.)

You make your life sound like it's had long patches barren of sex. That's never happened to me during my entire adult life, and for a very simple reason: I've ALWAYS been in a marriage or some other LTR. I have no other special quality to make women attracted to me. As a general rule, I don't think they are attracted to me. But I've always been in a relationship, and that's given me a solid base of sexual release. To add variety, I've kept extra sex on the side with sex workers and the occasional civilian affair.

I really believe that's a winning formula for loads of sex. Plus you're never lonely. But it does not get you random sex with young civilian hotties. I just accept that it is not happening. And I would go further, I don't want it, because I don't want sex with those kind of women/girls to ever turn into a "relationship." Spend a lot of time with someone who is 20 (as I did last week) and you realize pretty quickly how insipid they can be. I'd rather keep my sexual relations with young women on a strictly busines level.

I am not suggesting writing off looks as a factor. Personally, I just can't. I am not going to fuck an ugly or fat hag. But I can find a number of different types of women attractive. Shit I dated a civilian in her 50s a couple years back who was smoking. And older women are often better in bed. I'm often shocked at how often young women suck (no pun intended) at blow jobs, and don't know the first thing about how to fuck. But you can't change your taste in women, and if you really are only attracted to the really young ones, I'm not sure what you can do.

Another excellent post by njscfan.

But women are definitely hornier. I mean have you ever fucked any in the beginning of a relationship not for money? They can't get enough! You can literally fuck them for hours and they'll still want more. But us guys can only pop two or three times in the same amount of time (am I only speaking for myself here?) then we need a nap. And then there is all the super freaky shit they want you to do to them. Make your friggin' jaw drop...

Oh, I must say though, women are much better at lying and convincing people about how they want sex less than men.

Here's a great story about the young hottie thinking she can hold men emotionally hostage just because the guy might have a chance at scoring. Recently, I pursued a very attractive young lady I met at a bar. We went out had a good time, there was a little oral sex involved, then we became phone friends. I wanted more, she apparently didn't. She understood this and used this against me in the most devious ways in order to demonstrate her power over me, i suppose. I started to ignore her phone calls and this seemed to really peeve her. Who was I to ignore her phone calls. I ignored her texts too. This went on for a couple of weeks then I took a phone call from her and said its time to say goodbye, have a nice life. Man, that felt good!!!!!!!!!

^^^ I love it. That's exactly how bitches like that need to be treated.

Wow - A series of great posts.

I can only add that:

1) Mother Nature does not care about the long term emotional
happiness of either sex - she just wants children...

2) My experience is that 35 year old (and up) women do want sex
more than men - a nice (and funny when you think of it)
reversal from high school and college days..

3) Both men and women tend to want sex on their terms - you can
complain about it, but you may as well lament having 2 legs
and only one dick.... Both sexes are just wired that way...

In my 20's, I was commitment minded, but kept on meeting women who weren't. In my last long term relationship I learned that there are women who will lie when the truth sounds better.

In my mid thirties, after that last relationship, I warned women on dates not to lie and some did just that first thing. There are a number of people who can live a lie-I'm not one of them.

Early this year, I put on a confirmed bachelor ring and gave up on relationships altogether. Since then, I've learned that fully two thirds of people in marriages cheat on each other. Because marriage is something sacred to me, I can't imagine how horrible it is to be in a marriage like that.

I know that there are some sane women out there, but I don't have the first clue where to find them.

Well, not all women out there are out to get men & belittle them for sure.

When I was at college, I was sitting in the balcony of my then gf's apartment and a womyn's "take back the night" sort of rally was ongoing at a nearby church parking lot. The girls there were quite upset because some of them had just been threatened with being run over by a couple of guys that apprently didn't take too kindly to their protest (they drove their car right at & through the protest, but weren't smart enuff to cover up their license plate first!). After the protesters were done ranting for a while, they marched up the street towards where Frat Row was to confront some of the people that they felt were oppressing them (which was actually true - girls got treated like dirt up at those house a lot), but my gf's next door neighrbors decided that it would be fun to taunt the crowd as they passed. After several rounds of "I'll come up there/down there and kick your ass...blah, blah, blah", my gf said, much to my surprise, that it was "great" that all this was happening, and she was far from some wildy liberal, "bull-dyke-man-hater type".

The reality is that, in this country, women are still 2nd-class citizens. They make less money than we do, they generally get less respect in the workplace than we do, etc., etc.. Hell, women are even 2nd-class citizens on this discussion board!! They get subjected to racial & sexist rants, get hit on all the time, etc., etc.. Even strippers have it hard IMO...when was the last time your boss said to you, "Hey, thanx for showing up to work today, that'll be a $20 tip out before you get to work..."?

Look at the protester that actually stood up at a Hillary rally in NH a bunch of months ago and yelled what was written on his stupid sign - "Iron my shirt!!". It's 2008 for cripes sake, and women haven't even celebrated 100 years of being able to vote!!

Sure, I joke all the time with my attractive female friends about "Oh, what it would be like to be a pretty girl" and get "pretty girl discounts" everywhere & better treatment just because of my great female looks.

I really doubt that "fastseduction.com" is going to get you anywhere near where you want to be. The best pickup line that I ever saw was done by one of my former co-worker right in front of myself & another co-worker. My friend went up to the bar to get a beer, and, instead of coming immediately back to our table, he stood by the bar about 3-4 feet away from this group of hot girls. Everytime that he put his beer down after drinking it, he would move a lil closer to them so as to not be noticed. After he got right up next to them without being noticed, he said to one of them, "Hey, is this my beer or yours? Oh, Hi, I'm Tim..."...and it worked! We were stupified...lol... There really isn't any secret to talking to women...they are people just like you and me. They actually like flowers too...just ask them what kind that they like before you give them some...

This website is probably the WORST place to be looking for advice on how to get laid without paying for it...lol...

"In fact, the more luvvy-duvvy she is with me, the less I want to fuck her. If she gives me a backrub and makes me a sandwich? I just fall asleep. If she loves giving blowjobs? So what, she'd better look good to me. This is NORMAL."

No it isn't...wake up... One of the hottest girls that I ever dated was like this...the closer you got to her & her real feelings, the further away from you she ran. If you treated her like dirt (like another bf did to her after we stopped dating), she would fawn all over you (she actually wanted to marry this guy & have his baby!). She was severely messed up in the head, and sure, there are some girls out there that are like that...but not all of them are.

I completely agree that scat is "brainless" BTW.

BookGuy, I'm supprised you'd be looking at garbage like fastseduction.com. It seems like you are looking for a set of hard and fast rules. You know better than that. You can't predict what particular components are going to make up any one woman's personality. You need to amass the proper tool set for dealing with people. This can be hard to do if you lack life experience. My suggestion would be to work on your bad boy image a little more. That will be the most useful to you.

Quote: "I am left brained or brainless." Shadowcat never spoke truer words.

I think the whole point is that he knows all about the women loving the bad boy thing. (One of the rules from fastseduction.com. Is he is supposed to reject that rule or that one ok?) But he rejects being that way due to the manipulativeness involved. He wants to transcend the unfortunate game we find ourselves in. To find a young hot nympho who just loves him for who he is. (Correct me, and my apologies for putting words in your mouth, if I am wrong, BG.)

Actually maybe he doesn't even care if they love him or just. Just wants them to be attracted enough to fuck him?

"This is the second recent OP that really makes me feel terrible for the single guys out there. I think this is a subject that does not get the attention it deserves."

I feel terrible for *most* married men. Perhaps I know the wrong men and women, but marriage seems like total garbage. LTRs, are thumbs up, imo, btw. And, in those few, very few, happy marriages it seems like either the man is getting sex outside of marriage or he has a tiny sex drive like his wife. And, yes the wife having a tiny sex drive seems to be the norm.

Hungry older women? Yes, and by and large those women get hit on from what I've seen. An older women friend with a strong sex drive was complaining to me about the lack of men. From what I could see despite her age and lack of looks she was definitely getting attention from ugly men. When I ask her about it, she was like yes, but those aren't the men she is interested in.

I have NO interest in older women. Getting zero is better than being with an older woman for me. With a young hottie my body feels like Superman! With an old hottie my body feels like it just wants sleep and NO sexual contact please! It isn't a choice, but rather how my body responds. Yes, the older woman is generally an excellent fit as far as friendship or conversation because it seems like being old that I have much more in common with older women.

Jablake: I don't really disagree with you. I think my marriage is a good one, but I also think I am just lucky. My first marriage sucked. And I know a lot of marriages go badly. A friend of mine who is a therapist told me that not only is it true that half of all marriages end in divorce, but half of the intact marriages are unhappy.

I also agree that one of the keys to a happy marriage is sexual compatibility, and in my case that has been achieved by in part by sleeping around.

Having said all that, I still think it is also true that a lot of single guys are unhappy and lonely. I guess Thoreau was right when he said the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.

The one thing I will say for marriage is that if it is a good relationship it can be a great source of emotional satisfaction. I think I am like most guys in that most of my positive emotional relationships have been with women. Most men -- myself included -- are somehow poorly equipped to handle and express our emotions. I am much smarter than my wife, for example, but she is much more emotionally astute. Thus if you are in a good marriage, then you can enjoy a constant source of emotional support. As I get older that becomes more important to me.

Also, my kids have been the most important and best thing that has ever happened to me, so my marriages (even the first one) are important for that reason as well.

I still think more attention should be paid to single men and some of the challenges they are facing (like what Book Guy has described).

Yeah, you guys are all aiming at the right targets. Some of the commentary does hit home, some of it misses by a bit. For instance, I'm already over 40; but I'm not attracted to the typical 20-year-old female. I agree with folks that an LTR would be great (as long as I'm attracted to the woman involved) and I'd be happy to end up in one with someone about 28-ish or 35-ish. As long as I "automatically" or "naturally" think of her as hot.

I see some men think women have more sex drive, some men think men have more sex drive. I really don't care who has more, across the population in general. I only care whether or not I can find someone whom I think of as "attractive enough" and coax her into wanting to have it "often enough" WITH ME. In my experience, the early stages of an LTR are generally the right times to get this happening; but I've never had a relationship which succeeded in lasting longer than 1.5 years. There's this "automatic" point after which I'm just not getting a boner any more. I recall falling asleep when one girl (and she had a pretty hot bod!) was sucking my cock ... made it pretty clear to me I was dealing with autonomous responses, NOT with "preferences" that could somehow be changed. That's why I said, that short of actually LOSING MY EYESIGHT, her appearance was going to have to be a factor.

But how much of a factor? I dunno, I can't put a number on it. I don't need stone-cold 10s in my life; and many women who obsess over looks to the point of presenting what TV calls a "perfect 10" (generally like Pam Anderson types) are often rather vapid and mindless, not interesting to me. (I do find the women on "Charmed" to be visually smokin' hot, BTW. But there's a "housewife just did the dishes" look to the outfits and make-up that Hollywood puts on them, and I think that this is part of why I find them appealing. Stupid TV show, though. Idiotic.) Maybe I'm after 9s, or 6s, or something else, I dunno. I usually am not interested in plastic-looking women, and I tend to end up with the more athletic sorts.

Anyway, I think when I mentioned fastseduction.com, I wasn't really trying to defend that location as a place that actually HAD good advice to offer in the cut-and-dried manner. The discussions there can be quite good (I haven't been back in a few months) since most men are not obsessed with the luvvy-luvvy games of something like Salon.com, where the "traditional" view of women is perpetrated (there, the line is, that they "need" a provider figure to father children, and will "fall for" a man who acts romantic). I do reject most of fastseduction.com's more simplistic teachings. But I have to admit there's a kernel of truth in there.

And the best I can do to articulate that kernel, is this: there's a double-reversal necessary with women. You have to act one thing and bo another. Or, you have to say one thing and do another. Or, you have to go after the women whom you most are unattracted to. Or, you have to approach women who are least attracted to you. Or, you have to be most aggressive about the idea that you're not aggressive. Or, you have to make sure you're romantic at exactly the times when she doesn't want it. Or, you have to say you only want sex, because then she'll think you don't want sex. Or, you have to give her what she says she doesn't want, because then she'll try to make you into what she thinks she does want. Or ...

It's all about doubling back on itself. In fact, the short form of this is:

Just lie. Manipulate. Cruelty works.

And so BobbyL is perhaps the closest to rephrasing my point of view, and the most accurate to understanding what it is that I'm complaining about. The problem really isn't that I "can't understand" women (though that is a disappointment) or that I "can't get laid" (there are practical solutions, sometimes, though they involve changing your goals to more attainable ones, and recognizing certain aspects of reality that you might not be too happy with). It is, rather, that I am sad FOR HUMANITY (here in the dating adult pair-bonding heterosexual college-educated West), because ...

... the women require a system which damages the women, and damages the men in the process.

Or, to put it differently again: they (the women) have the power to change FROM something rather detrimental to all involved, and TO something where mutual respect is a possibility, but, true to form, when a young woman is given power to choose, the choice she makes is, "Don't you fucking ever ask me to do anything reasonable you dick-fuck-asshole-because-you-have-a-penis I'm damn well sticking this needle in my arm no matter WHAT you think."

And the "needle in my arm" could be, literally, heroin; or it could be, metaphorically, any of a number of other self-destructive things.

So, they force self-destructiveness onto THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE. We gotta lie.

And, as BobbyL points out ... I don't like the blow to my sense of being a moral self, which that system requires of me.

So, yeah, I do without sex. For years at a stretch. I'm warped, fucked up, I don't understand it. I go meet people at a bar and try to interact with them, and I just end up somehow being insulted by everyone and then they all go, "What a dickweed THAT dude is." And then twenty minutes later, someone's telling me, "Man, you're the nicest dude here, you must have women eating out of your hand." Then after six weeks of this treatment, I don't go to bars any more. 8) And so on.

The messages are so contradictory. I can't manage an interaction with a female (though, yes, "they" are indeed easy to talk to, and I don't actually have "shyness" troubles) that will actually GO anywhere. I just ... talk. Then we get done talking and I'm done. If, to the contrary, I "try" to drive the interaction toward something? What? Nothing "happens." The whole "it just happened" thing never happens.

I'm actually quite right-brained, by the way. I don't really buy into that kind of categorization on the whole, but it's fun for a lark. I'm also an ENTJ, and I did my Enneagram once but I can't remember the result.

I feel this way about working careers, often, too. How do people STAND it, to have to do such mindless stuff for such low pay and for so many hours a week? Don't you just want to Go Postal? And then they promote the most inept person, but that person was good at ... lies, manipulation. But that's a different issue.

Well, I've said the sentence that makes it all make sense to me:

-- the whole "it just happened" thing never just happens --

Glad I came to that realization. But it's not much of a prognosis.

Henry David Thoreau went to a party on November 14, 1851.

"In the evening went to a party. It is a bad place to go -- thirty or forty persons, mostly young women, in a small room, warm and noisy. Was introduced to two young women. The first was as lively and loquacious as a chickadee; had been accustomed to the society of watering-places, and therefore could get no refreshment out of such a dry fellow as I. The other was said to be pretty-looking, but I rarely look people in their faces, and moreover, I could not hear what she said, there was such a clacking -- could only see the motion of her lips when I looked that way. I could imagine better places for conversation, where there should be a certain degree of silence surrounding you, and less than forty talking at once... These parties, I think, are part of the machinery of modern society, that young people may be brought together to form marraige connections. I confess that I am lacking a sense, perchance, in this respect, and I derive no pleasure from talking with a young woman half an hour simply because she has regular features. The society of young women is the most unprofitable I have ever tried. They are so light and flighty that you can never be sure whether they are there or not. I prefer to talk with the more staid and settled, settled for life, in every sense."
journal entry, Nov. 14, 1851
(note: Thoreau was 34 years old)

Zerzan: Nice quote. Thanks.

Ah yeah, HDT again. I have a lot in common with him. I don't WANT to have all that much in common with him -- I have an impression that he was profoundly unhappy, though quite often correct about the things on which he wrote.

You guys really added to this thread since the last time I logged in here. If you're just looking for sex, it seems like I run into females who only seem to be looking for that, I remember vaguely a web site I had to register some basic information and I kept getting emails from girls for months, two of the first ones said they had a bet to fuck as many guys on the web site as possible (I don't know if you would want to hook up with them or not), I can try to find the web site on my pc if anyone is interested. What I didn't understand was why so many females were sending me messages when I only had a basic profile and no pic. I thought that was weird.

I know some girls who are 30 have a very high sex drive (one in particular). I don't know if I would recommend this but she talked me into having sex with her and I decided to go along with it thinking it would be good exercise. After that or maybe a couple of more weeks, I started to lose interest in her, however that's when she started bugging me to have sex every time she saw me. She was the one who was falling asleep after sex but the time was very late so we were both tired anyway.

I don't look as old as I am and no one seems to believe my age when I tell the truth. You can get a girl in her 20's if you don't look that old.

As I'm getting older I seem to be getting more interested in studying financial stocks and making lots of money rather than thinking about getting hitched. However in the last few years I have developed an interest in some of the goth and vampire looks (maybe it's just the sexy fangs). I won't go into details about supernatural things I've noticed. Most supernatural things I see now don't even phase me. Been a long time since I've noticed anything supernatural though. I hope I'm not going crazy. I do believe in supernatural entities and have heard that they have been watching me. I only had 2 hours of sleep so I'm guess I'm ranting. Good luck in your search.

"What I didn't understand was why so many females were sending me messages when I only had a basic profile and no pic. I thought that was weird. "

It's called spam. They were trying to sell you something, and bombarding everyone with those messages.

Also, I don't see what your belief in the supernatural has to do with this topic, or anything for that matter? Just like to ramble and be self-indulgent, eh?

Bobby is right. The "sex dating" websites are all a scam designed to get men to get paid subscriptions. They try to make it look like there are women on the site, but the actual real life women are outnumered by men by a factor of 10 to 1. Most of the women profiles are fake and are just there to get you to upgrade to a paid subscription. These things also populate Craigslist and the like -- most of the postings supposedly by women looking for casual no strings sex are actually fake and are designed to lure you into going to a paid website and getting a subscription. When you are getting sent emails, they are quite fake. In fact, they are probably written by guys who are paid employees of the subscription web site. The extreme numerical imbalance between men and women on the sex dating sites, by the way, is further proof of which group is more interested in no strings sex. On the other hand you will find more women on places like match.

I'm actually beginning to try to work my way through Match.com and EHarmony.com. I got profiles at each but neither is currently "active" (IIRC ... gotta find those passwords somewhere ...). I kinda liked the experience, but I have to admit, the level of intellectual accomplishment of most of the people was really disappointing. They'd say things like, "Do you like to read, cuz I just finished a book and it was awesome!" Nurse-practicioner poinit of view about life, "If it's hard why do it?"

Book Guy,

You *might* want to overlook idiotic statements in the beginning because that can hide a very interesting or compatible woman. For me it isn't easy, but there is gold in them there hills! :) Also, a person's writing can give a distorted picture. For example, Shadowcat has said a few times, and he may be 100% correct, that certain posters would see him very differently if they met him in person. Heck, who knows parodyman might even like him. ;)

Not that it relates to the theme of this thread, but I do agree with jablake that parodyman would probably like shadowcat if they met in person, just by coincidence. But not if they knew each other's handles. From reading a variety of parodyman's posts, I have concluded that he is knowledgeable and reasonable -- except where the magic "shadowcat" handle comes into play. Then parodyman kinda goes off the rails.

I have to disagree slightly with Jablake. If having a really intelligent partner is important to you, then you need to stick to your guns. We all have different tastes and different standards, but I refuse to spend the limited time I have on this earth fucking around with someone who is not interesting to me. On the other hand, I agree you cannot judge a profile at face value. A lot of women deliberately try to dumb themselves down, because they are worried men are intimidated by (or at least not attracted to) smart women. So if a woman seems a little vapid in her profile, she may be faking it.

As for parodyman and shadowcat, I have been thinking of doing a satire of them and other prolific posters, but I am concerned it would cause offense.

Book Guy, I don't mean to be disrespectful in any way and I realize that you may be totally different in person. But here you come across as being very cynical and very negative, both of which are huge-turnoffs for most women in my experience. I think if you worked at truly changing those things - not just pretending to but really cahnge - and it can be done (if youre interested email me and I'll suggest some ways), it would make a huge difference in your love life.

njcsfan: "As for parodyman and shadowcat, I have been thinking of doing a satire of them and other prolific posters, but I am concerned it would cause offense."

Just do it. (You have my official permission to offend me. Hope others will sign up as well.)

Having a "really intelligent partner" isn't important to me, it's just something I can't help responding positively to. (Or, really, the opposite is something I can hardly help rejecting.) I recall one friendly person who suggested I try to meet women in a bookstore, because that way I could know that I was meeting intelligent people. Then he utterly contradicted himself by saying the best place to meet them was in the self-help aisle.

I only had 2 hours of sleep the other night so just ignore my previous posts. It won't bother me. I ignore posts on here all the time. I only seem to be checking this site 2 to 3 times a week now anyway.

Women's innate "choices" are largely controlled by factors outside of their direct control, so stop trying act like its volitional or their fault. Its clearly tied into primoridal based instincts, flowing from early ages, 100's of thousands or millions or yrs back

Interesting thread, but instead of trying to change the world, you've got to work the Alpha angle constantly - and as I've said in the past - instead of becoming a complete jerk if you simply focus on most critical Alpha skill -wide scale seed spreading, today represented by the gentlemen horndog, you will be very shocked at the results. The tinge and vibe and impression of nonmonogamy must be present at all times and every available potential sex partner woman you run into must be convinced that you are presently having or plan to soon have sex with every over 17 under 35 hot chick in town under 35 that isn't nailed to the wall or otherwise preoccupied. Now some you will lose because they think you're spreading disease - but you will gain 10 more for every one you lost.

gee David9999 seems to suggest again to just have the attitude that you will bang anything and put out that "seed spreading" vibe. now thats original. I'm sure that is exactly what's required to get you into bed with lots of hott chicks....hey I'm puttin out the pulse, ooh oohh yeah baby I spread my seed,,,oohh yeah u can't resist cuz its in your DNA...ooohhyeah baby I'm a seed spreader u cant resist my seed spreading powers....

Oh no...not more "alpha-male seed spreading" nonsense...ugh...

Bookguy is saying now "I want to land a nice girl with a hot body." Unless you can change your height (yup chicks like tall guys, believe me) or your cash sitatuation (lots of cash is a big plus and it projects confidence) or cannot even project even them most basic threashold Alpha factors which athletic/in-shape guys can - then your standards are too high.

Changing the world (and women's DNA) is simply not going to happen, they are enslaved to to a large degree - so accept it and deal with it.

As I've said before, the things I mentioned in this thread and prior threads a few months back work at the margin, you cannot (despite certain posters suggesting I've said otherwise) - simply induce a few of these "malignant" Alpha characteristics and all of a sudden have all these hotties drooling over you. Its common knowlege many women are turned off by nice guys and turned on by "jerks" - the only spin I am adding is the evolutionary based underpinnings to all this

This alpha male stuff is just bull shit. In the animal kingdom this old bull would be driven out. In the real world, I can still compete.
My looks, my personality, my money. Get real!

And again I ask the question, if the effect is so marginal, how are you so sure it is really having any effect, or even exists? The two sides of the argument I keep hearing are that the effect is undeniably real and unconscious, and that it is a marginal effect that is only going to work on some subset of women and only with a man they find attractive anyway. In the past I suggested some ways such an effect could be studied, or isolated. To my knowledge no such studies exist, if I'm incorrect I'd love to be informed. In addition I have mentioned that much of what is often described as the bad-boy part is really just assertive male behavior. Is there a way to differentiate? Yes, David9999 contends it is cheating. Men more likely to cheat will be more attractive to females. I await any shred of proof other than assertion that it is so, as I have done every time this thread comes up.

He's not going to answer AN, because he's not a scientist and doesn't really have a clue about what he's talking about. We already learned that a while back...

I do agree though that scat's time has come and gone...he just doesn't realize it yet because he lives in an old man dream world...

Although I tend to reject MOST of the generalizations that evo-psych and such creates, I'm going to have to mostly agree with David9999 here. There are, as I see it, two problems that I've been wrestling with consistently. The first is (as he's pegged it) my height. I've never figured out how to "deal with it" (though, of course, I do simply KNOW intellectually that I CAN'T do anything to deal with it; I mean, "deal" in an emotional way) and I live a life in which my assumption is, that I OUGHT to be taken like a tall person. I'm simply not a tall person. At 5'8" (almost -- without shoes, I'm about 5' 7.75" to 5' 7.9", or 172+ cm) I'm not "in the range." I think like a Corgi -- it's often that I've experienced, "Wait, they thought I wasn't the natural leader here? Wait. They were following me. Until someone pointed out that they shouldn't be. I don't get it. When did they stop thinking my height did NOT matter and start thinking it DID?" Grrr.

So, yes, it's reality, and it sucks.

The second point, though, is that if David9999 is on to something, then I want to know HOW to implement it. Here's the prescription for success, in his words:
"The tinge and vibe and impression of nonmonogamy must be present at all times and every available potential sex partner woman you run into must be convinced that you are presently having or plan to soon have sex with every over 17 under 35 hot chick in town under 35 that isn't nailed to the wall or otherwise preoccupied. Now some you will lose because they think you're spreading disease - but you will gain 10 more for every one you lost."

I do kinda agree. This "tinge of non-monogamy" is indeed an aphrodisiac for many women, especially those who value the assessment of their "position within the tribe." They need to know that they can control the males and they consistently compare themselves to the control-capacities of other females in their immediate vicinity. (A sad sad way to live your life, by the way, but that's a different issue.) So, we seek to display a tinge of non-monogamy (among a host of other traits). Here's the question:

HOW?

Funny thing is, when I WAS actually fucking almost everything that walked (brief periods in my life when things were working for me) I basically was sending a signal that I was NOT fucking anyone. I think in this aspect I'm kind of like an autistic or aspergers-suffferer. I don't have the capacity to understand how it is that other humans read one anothers' vibes. As an example, in school I always liked the slutty girls or the non-slutty ones equally, and only twenty years later did I find out that people were laughing at me for giving the slutty ones the time of day, or for asking out the non-slutty ones and yet hoping to get some action. How did the other boys know?

So, though I've had a lot going for me at different times, it was always the wrong mix. And now that I'm getting even older (and poorer), I really don't see what solutions there are, except to install myself into one of those old-guy-with-young-women situations like fashion photographer or strip-club owner. Or mobster, I guess.

If I'd had access to conversations like this when I was fourteen, maybe I'd have gotten somewhere. Back then, I was able to display alpha characteristics, and the young women were go-getter horny and irresponsible about it, just like the young men. Now it's all goddamned "has to be a meaningful relationship" crap.

So, David9999, I don't necessarily take your advice LITERALLY, but I like it in a metaphorical sense. It's the RIGHT POINT OF VIEW. The idea of whether or not "seed spreading" is literally the case, individual by individual; or whether maybe there's going to be other factors? That's kinda beside the point. The only real point for me (for the thread) is, how to "get out of having to play the manipulation game" while also "getting some nookie." Maybe there's more to it, and as AN suggests it's essentially an unproven assertion.

(Aside about evolutionary psychology: I've said this a thousand times, but here it is again. Ever noticed how the supposed "scientists" can't base any of their "findings" on evidence and experimental method? That's because experiments are impossible! So, gee what a surprise, their generalizations and assumptions turn out to also be their conclusions! They "find" that which their society as a whole propagates. They say women are attracted to provider-males, for instance. And then of course we see women sleeping around with bad-boys who don't have jobs. The evo-psych people are just doing the same thing that the phrenologists did in the Victorian era -- coming up with a theory based on the assumption of predominant socio-cultural norms, failing to recognize their own assumptions, basing all their observations on those assumptions, and then concluding the theory must be right because it matches their observations. What they miss, is that BOTH observation and conclusion are equally skewed in the same direction by acculturation. So, they "prove" that blacks are dumber because of skull dimension, or some other fake finding.)

Well, that aside is over, yet I still kinda agree with David999's point of view. The real question at hand is, can I actually bring about the lifestyle change. Display the desired traits? I dunno ... I will be starting law school this August, and it seems to make sense to me that this is a great opportunity for me. First, I'll be older than my classmates, which OUGHT to mean I'm a kind of odd man out but also alpha in some ways. Second, it will be a "fresh start" for me so I can wear any outfit, act in any manner I wish, whenever socializing. Third, the women are younger than me, so I'll (for the first time in a LONG time) be in a community of people more likely to be visually appealing to me. Heck, I might even have access to undergrads! Fourth, "being a lawyer" is often presumed to be a high-status, and high-income, profession. (It probably won't be for me, in the long run, since I'm likely to do public interest or small-jurisdiction criminal prosecution.)

So, how'm I gunna work it, boys?

Lets not all forget that we are discussing what women want, and/or are attracted to, in a stripclubforum. The assertion that its common knowledge women are turned off by nice guys and like jerks would be what I expect in a stripclub. Mr real girlfriends, the ones with class and self-respect, don't go for jerks. They have all been attracted to me at one time or another and I consider myself a nice guy. Exactly what quality of woman wants a jerk, or I guess she can't help herself. This guys assertions, David9999, are complete bullshit. You wanna score with more women then increase your odds by hitting on more of them..various factors will determine your success, not the bullshit espoused here.

I don't know about that one. I think it's more a question of age, maturity, and wisdom (certainly strippers tend to score pretty low in all these categories). Even the classiest, apparently most self-respecting girls were attracted to the borderline criminal guys up until about age 25 when most had gotten burned often enough that they started they to get some sense.

Even then (or so women have confessed to me) they will always find the bad boy (jerk) attractive. It's just that they will come to realize that he is no good for them (other than for a bit of sex).

As for nice guy being a turn off:

It's possible to be a nice guy and still be attractive, if you are confident. But a confident jerk will be attractive as well.

I think nice versus jerk is really a non-factor. Confidence which correlates with strength is what really matters.

"Im gonna try this with a woman I wanna score a date with who is a waitress at a dive down the road from me. I will lie to her and abuse her and let her kknow I love to cheat. I will post back the results."

Its not marginal in the fact that its a trivial added factor, instead it works "on the margin" meaning generally only working once the basic platorm is already in place.

"Abuse" per se is not necessary and its this tinge of nonmonogamy that seems key with many hot women. Of course you've got to be in the general range of what a particular class of women find attractive. Many women come across men all the time fitting their general criteria, yet its only certain males that really turn them on - and you'll soon notice how crucial putting out (for want of a better term) the gentlemen horndog vibe actually is. Yes, its counter-intuitive to "nice guys" brought up to respect women and takes time to accept, but its 100% accurate.

I think the analogy that women see the jerk the way us guys would see the hot, young, but rather bitchy stripper. Great for a bit of NSA sex, but certainly not dateable. (I am excluding naive club going PL/RIL and other chumps here of course.)

Similar the nice guy who doesn't have confidence down would be viewed the same way most guys view fat chicks. Sure they might nice, even useful in some settings, we might even "like" them in some friendship sort of way, but fuck them? NEVER!

Marginal and "on the margin" mean the same thing (i.e. minimal, insignificant, peripheral, small, negligible, of limited importance). Saying that "on the margins" means that when several other more important determinative factors are in place the determination is going to be made by a less important less determinative factor does not seem to be much more than an argument about small degrees of difference, at the margins. Once again leading to the question, if you are already a tall, good looking, assertive, successful alpha male exactly why do you need these strategies, and how can you tell it is these strategies that are making a difference?

In the end a lot of this, and all the "how to pick up girls" genre of sites and literature comes down to the advice "be more attractive to women". Well duh. The other point is that being attractive, I agree, has a strong genetic component, but human behavior and attraction is not wholly a matter of genetics. Anyone think Bill Gates fits the traditional genetic definition of an alpha male?

However, the other part of my question, is there any evidence whatsoever, and assertions of fact are not evidence, that a cheating mate is something desirable for a woman

Really, we should be discussing how much more effective confidence is in dating women. Its an incredible aphrodisiac for many women, for sure. Some people like to say it takes money, or game, or good-looks only, etc....but confidence might just be the most important factor.

AN: "In the end a lot of this, and all the "how to pick up girls" genre of sites and literature comes down to the advice "be more attractive to women". Well duh. "

I think the point is that they give you very specific advice (right down to exact words to say in many cases) on how to do be more attractive.

You may or may not agree with the advice they give, but to say that they aren't putting themselves out or making non-obvious claims is just silly, or demonstrates you have not studied what you are attacking.

Hi AbbieNormal,

One or two dancers doesn't equal much in the way of proof, but gambling dancer said she would often only become interested in her man when he was cheating. She didn't want it to be that way, but thought it got her competitive juices flowing. Again, another incident involving gambling dancer. I had agreed to meet her at Angels and didn't think much of it at the time because I was going fairly frequently. Another dancer who usually shows minimal interest in me e.g. she will sit for a couple minutes or just say hello and leave, sits down and I explain that I had come in for gambling dancer. I did this so she wouldn't be offended when I declined her offer of dances and then I might immediately start getting dances from gambling dancer.

I had expected her to either excuse herself or just spend a couple minutes as per usual. Nope. She didn't want to leave my table and was very interested in talking with me. It was like she'd gotten bitten by the love bug. Well after a half hour gambling dancer shows up by the side of the table and she still doesn't want to leave! Remember this is a dancer who normally has little to NO interest in me.

I ended up getting out of my chair and excusing myself to get another table with gambling dancer. The other dancer became more angry and wanted to fight gambling dancer. I step between them and remind her that I was waiting for gambling dancer. Both dancers are hot now, but I keep them separated and take gambling dancer to a far away table. Gambling dancer says heatedly that I should have told her that I had a girlfriend in the club! I explained that the dancer usually has NO interest in me and that I had told her that I was waiting for gambling dancer because she'd called.

Upon leaving the club the fireworks started again between gambling dancer and the other dancer and I had to use a little more than light force to separate them. It was weird, but to me it showed "competition" or "cheating" stroked the fires of interest, which seems not unreasonable because some people are extremely competitive.

At the risk of adding yet another silly over-simplification to this thread, let me just say that long ago I learned to group women into two categories: the dumb ones who were attracted to macho behavior and meaningless surfact charactistics (eg. height); and the smart ones who were more interested in intelligence, dependability and personality. I came to regard my limited height as an advantage because it quickly weeded out the dumb ones and saved me a lot of trouble - I would't have found those girls interesting anyway.

IMO the comments here about bad boys being attractive to women applies only to the dumb ones, who I personally wouldn't find the least bit attractive no matter what their appearance. The first time they tried to talk I'd lose interest in a hurry.

I utterly agree, that the dichotomy of nice-guy -- versus -- jerk is really a red herring. The true dichotomy of effective -- versus -- ineffective is much more likely to be confidence -- versus -- wimpyness. I think when I was talking about what I hoped to achieve and what tactics I would hope to apply, I never really meant (though I might have said it in these words; I'm rephrasing) simply to be arrogant, aggressive, or abusive. I mean something more along the lines of being dominant, decisive, and somehow "masculine" in that quasi-controlling but also quasi-incontrol kind of way. A "true" alpha male, in that you aren't flappable. I bet that David9999 would roughly concur with this analysis.

Problem is, actually DOING it. How does one just "flip a switch" and "become" someone who is PERCEIVED BY OTHERS as a natural leader? Heck, I always knew more about how my soccer team could win more games. Would the less skilled players do what I suggested? No, they listened to the goalie, who was also the quarterback of the football team and therefore (A.) rather un-informed about the specifics of effective soccer tactics and (B.) a lot taller than me, and laden with "social cachet" from his roles outside of the soccer field. The trick isn't JUST to know that you need to be confident and a bit more aggressive and strong willed. The next trick, is to ALSO display those characteristics in such a manner that women gravitate toward you, or at least respond yes to your approaches.

And I'm cracking up at the (shall-remain-nameless) folks in my life who suggested, that women don't tend to be attracted to really truly "jerk" males, except maybe for a little no-strings-attached sex. What kind of assertion is that? "Hey, if you want to fuck a hottie, make sure you aren't a jerk. The only thing a hottie wants from some alpha-jerk is no-strings-attached sex." Duh! That's what I WANT.

Women being "attracted to" a man who cheats on them, are indeed still rather prevalent. (Majority? I dunno.) The question asked by AN, about why women would be attracted to those sorts of men, seems to miss the point. He's saying, I think, "Hey, women DON'T WANT a man who would cheat on them." (In this, he is equating "would cheat on them" with "tinge of non-monogamy" from previous posts.) From that he then equivocates mistakenly, that "don't want" means the same as "are not attracted to." In point of fact, I've seen, quite often, that women "fall for" a bad boy WHOM THEY KNOW IS BAD FOR THEM. They might intellectually know, it's a bad plan; but they're still juiced by his masculine aura and bad-boy demeanor. So, yeah, it's true, a man cheating on them is not a good plan for a woman, not in the rational way that they should pick a partner; but maybe the selfish gene has something to teach us, in that a variety of partners, especially of great hunting strength, would likely help perpetuate a carnivorous female mammal's offspring. So women might THINK, "no, he'll cheat on me," but the DO, "yes, because he'll cheat on HER." They maximize their potential, subconsciously, just like we men do. So, to suggest that they shouldn't want something because it rationally seems bad for them? Well, that's all very rational. But it's not what they do.

Look, dudes, I'm not entirely sold on the whole alpha-male thing. I think women, just like men, are a strange mix of natural emotional responses, and self-restraint, and sudden urges which they do fall prey to, and other sudden urges which they manage to control. I think a LOT of younger guys fall victim to pussy-fication at the hands of our culture, to the point that they think a woman "ought" to want to go out with them for one reason only -- they're "nice" to her. What they don't realize, is that their "niceness" is actually coming across as wimpyness, which means that they get confused. "Nice" becomes bad, and they start a dialogue (monologue?) in which they just succeed in further complicating the issue. What they should learn is NOT merely to avoid "nice," but to avoid WIMPY niceness, and be their own man. Confidence is fetching -- and in fact, I think it's very very hard for a rather confident man to understand why other people don't think of them as confident.

Here's what I want to know. If I've always marched to the beat of a different drummer; if I'm really rather interested in horn-dog sex with every woman possible; if I'm physically fit, and outgoing, and sociable; then why am I not getting laid? I mean, those first two assertions aren't just "play acting" on my part -- I genuinely AM an iconoclast (as are many other dudes on this forum; probably in greater proportion than in most of regular life), and I genuinely AM pretty much emotionally unavailable, the sort of guy a woman ought to read as "he isn't milquetoast in my hands, so I have to fuck him to control him."

But that's just who I REALLY AM. And that is UTTERLY BESIDE THE POINT. Being your own man is no good for getting laid, unless a woman THINKS that you're being your own man. You can't just stride off into the sunset, all John-Wayne about how tough you are. You have to stride off into the sunset and then sneak back into town to make sure she noticed the fact that you were striding off. You can't just BE confident; you have to SEEM TO BE confident. Often that comes in the form of business success, and frankly, I hate business. Women seem to equate the capacity to suck up and suffer a corporate office environment with alpha-male-ness, when in fact, it's usually the whiny beta-male suck-ups who get ahead there. So we have this odd irony, that women want a man who "gets ahead," because she thinks of that as leadership; but the act of getting ahead is, in itself, the act of fitting in and being a follower rather than a leader.

There's a "seem to be" aspect to this whole thing. You can't just be the King. You have to remember how to seem to be the King. (Cf. "Madness of King George.") I can talk about it all day. I sure as hell can't DO it, though.

And that's what I'm getting at. The whole "game" you have to play -- never able to just "be" yourself; but you have to take that old advice, "just be yourself"; but you have to be MORE than "just yourself." And all of that is way too complicated. I don't know what to do next, so I just opt out of it. You'd think, that the act of deciding that I hate the game and I've opted out of it, would be the first step along the road to alpha-dom. But actually, it just means I have no social network and women disapprove of me. They think I'm playing games. It's the men who are SO GOOD AT PLAYING GAMES that the women are fooled into thinking those men are playing no games, who come across to the women as opting out of the game.

Get the reversal? I can't mediate it. Too complicated. Evidently it's just hints and counter-hints, the dance we all dance. Well, I must have Asperger's Syndrome, because dang it I just can't dance that dance. Willie doesn't get dipped. I've actually had street-walkers in my car who decide not to fuck me. Not even for money. This for real is the old "couldn't get laid in a whore house with a fist full of dollars." There's genuinely something "wrong" with me, and that's why I started this thread.

I guess it's still interesting, the whole alpha-versus-jerk discussion, and all that stuff. But mostly it's water under the bridge for me. Nothing I haven't thought of before.

Now I'm off to law school. Any advice? Not just, "be confident," but also, I'd like to hear, HOW TO SEEM TO BE CONFIDENT in an EFFECTIVE manner that GETS ME LAID.

Oh, the smart ones are definitely attracted to bad boys as well. As least until they get burned a few times (and then they are still attracted, but only sexually, not for relationships).

If FONDL thinks otherwise, then I'll venture that he has little experience with women (especially hot ones) or he is defining them as dumb because they are attracted to bad boys. That's a nice model, might comfort you, but, unfortunately, doesn't conform too much to reality.

BG: Well, when I was in college I had a roommate who was in 1st year law school. He was a good looking, confident, funny guy from a wealthy family. He had no problem getting laid as an undergrad, and when they found he was accepted to law school, he got laid even more easily. But I don't think he scored anything his entire first year. Even despite the fact that he spent maybe 80% of his nights partying (no joke). He couldn't figure it out, but apparently, a 3rd year law student told him that girls in law school didn't put out for their classmates in the first year. Something about not wanting to get the rep as sluts. But by 3rd year they didn't care anymore. So hopefully your school is different, or you fish around in other departments.

There really isn't a secret to getting laid in college. Just go to parties where there is lots of alcohol. If you're not that cool and won't get first picks anyway, arrive a bit later: As the women get drunker and desperater anyone, literally, can get laid.

Book Guy: you are really over-thinking this. It is not that hard to get laid. As for having sex with a prostitute, unless there is something really wrong with you, you can get laid any time you want. They are all over the internet. Just contact them, settup an appointment, and go bust your nut. They don't care if you're fat, ugly, old, awkward, stupid or anything else. All they care about is that you have money, and you are not a cop or an ax murderer.

As for having sex with civilians, their standards are a little higher, but not much. As I've suggested, maybe YOUR standards are a little high. It sounds like you are over 40, not particularly successful, and not drop-dead-gorgeous. Given that, and short of hiring a hooker, you are going to have to lower your expectations a little. That means dating girls who are close to you in age, and merely normal in looks. But the idea that you cannot find a girl to fuck is crazy; you can. You can either go the route I've chosen (long term relationships), or do what my single friends do (which is change fuck partners on a regular, even weekly basis). Either way, the quickest and easiest way to meet someone is via the internet. But they will be regular girls, not 20 year old hotties. Given your age and station in life, to get the 20 year hotties, you have to pay (or be very rich, which amounts to the same thing).

You are trying too hard and thinking yourself into a corner. Guys who have serious and obvious deficiencies get laid on a regular basis. So can you.

Of course BG is over-thinking this...he's BG. :) He's also making a HUGE mistake looking for advice of this type on a strip club website, but oh well.

I always feel bad for short guys, but the reality a lot of times is that women just want someone that is taller than *they* are, which usually isn't that hard to find. Being confident? You can totally fake that...people do it all the time, but I think that it requires having the characteristics of a leader, which not everyone is cut out to be IMO.

"if you are already a tall, good looking, assertive, successful alpha male exactly why do you need these strategies, and how can you tell it is these strategies that are making a difference?"

First of all, I'm certainly not claiming to be a 20 year older version of Tom Brady, instead the "presentability" issue itself was brought up specifically to counteract the typical presumptions that: 1. middle age or older strip club patrons are for the most part short, fat, out-of-shape bald guys 2. (or younger patrons) are often social misfit geek types, gang-banger wannabee losers, or wise ass punks getting drunk. Maybe that's 80 to 90% of all patrons I'm not sure, but sometimes there are other categories of customers.

Of course there's some difficulty knowing whether its the "gentlemen horndog" thing that's working or something else, but I do have at least a few situations with the same women comparing the attitude toward me currently vs early last summer, where the only change added - was the horndog issue, and its like night and day with those women. The second factor is nearly all these women are 10 level or very close, a few ultra young (all legal of course), and its not just one or 2 its others now, and the opportunities being offered are not just pay-to-play at this point, although involvement in that regards I view as super-risky and thus too risky for someone married. What you'll find is that as you build it up these women can sense the gentlemen horndog vibe thing (maybe they subconsciously pick it up in the attitude or tone, that in effect you're commoditizing them and thus disrepecting them in some way) because what happens they begin to view nearly all your statements as lies or half-truths. If for example you tell them they're beautiful, (even when you believe it), they claim its a line of some type - because they judge you in the horndog context. In fact they will start accusing you of all sorts of things, most of its false, but it kicks the drama up - and because nearly all these high level women are drama junkies of some type, its a net plus.

There are what I call "benign" Alpha characteristics and there's hardly any controversy with those because nearly everyone accepts them as being attractive to women: things like height, looks, strength, intelligence, confidence etc (although in fairness plenty of women do in fact like short guys, so I'm not saying its always the case then) - however we know Alphas to achieve genetic survival success had to also have "malignant" characteristics: among them deception, controlling behavior, nonmonogamy, and at times the ability and capability to resort to violence if necessary - and today we've developed this fiction that our advanced civilized nature means women today could not possibly (STILL thousands of years later) be attracted to such traits.

It seems very odd that while modern women will nearly all admit that MOST men by nature (i.e. via evolutionary baggage) tend to be nonmonogamous, if not by act then at least by desire - at the same time women (through some apparent feat of magic) have risen above the primordial swamp and advanced to such a high level of human civility that none of this would affect them. I would argue it does affect them, and the evidence is all around us, and it clearly ties into that all important "chemistry" (or being "in love) part of a relationship that nearly all young attractive females are continually seeking to acquire - like a crack addict looking for their next fix.

In addition from the standpoint of nature and logic, this supposed lack of reciprocity or lack of mutuality - where one gender supposedly is far less influenced by genetic baggage - simply doesn't make sense.

Fondle - it you think its just "dumb" females that go for height, I can tell you some of the hottest (real world) girls I dated a few decades back (one 5 ft 8, 123 lbs, stunningly pretty long legged blonde model type, modest A cup) and other 5 ft 6, large C's, about 128 lbs very curvy, rita hayworth looks, playboy type body 1. height was a major issue with them and they told me this over and over 2. these were extraordinarly bright women by all the traditional indicators: mensa and beyond IQ's, valedictorian status etc You act like its a volitional choice with these women: they either like you or they don't, its not something they can just wish away

If anybody were a candidate for foreign woman, I believe BookGuy would be, because several issues are probably resolved 1. the height issue 2. his relentless insistence on hot women.

In the past he's written them off because they supposedly all become westernized almost overnight. I don't buy that it necessarily happens that fast, however in any case BookGuy doesn't seem to have a better plan at the moment.

Simply by living in America we are conferred enormous advantages, and those advantages (relative to 2nd and 3rd world countries) may soon not be offered the way they are currently, so I wouldn't just dimiss them outright.

"that women "fall for" a bad boy WHOM THEY KNOW IS BAD FOR THEM."

Actually I give credit to SHOT for making this perceptive point (on the other site where I never post but I read them) - women when they start a relationship (bad boy or not) alway CLAIM he is a "nice guy" - thus muddling up the issue even more. "He was such a nice guy when I met him". Of course weeks or months later when the "nice guy" starts bossing them around or cheating on them or lying to them -well then he's a jerk. Of course the guy never was a nice guy at any point, he was a jerk from the beginning and he's a jerk later.

David:

Please try not to respond to this inquiry with another post about seed spreading. I tried to engage you on that topic before. Your responses, frankly, were exhausting, because it was impossible to nail you down in a logical argument. So I will leave that one aside.

Instead, a very simple question and the premise is this: You appear to be a guy 40 or older, which would put you in the same general category as Book Guy (and me, for that matter). You claim to be having sex with very young and very hot women.

So a very simple question, and I hope you can give a very simple and straight answer: Are you claiming to be having sex with young hot women who are NOT strippers or escorts AND who are NOT being compensated by you in any fashion?

If the answer is "yes" (i.e., you are fucking a total civilian, non-sex worker, college student who for some reason you have convinced to jump on your 40-year-old-plus wanker) then I will concede you have tapped into something, somehow. Whether it's "seed spreading" or whether it's just that you're an incredibly sexy wonderful guy, I guess the rest of us will never know.

But if the answer is "no" and the 20 year olds you are fucking all just happen to be strippers or prostitutes or sugar babies of some sort . . . then, sadly, you have proven absolutely nothing with all your complicated theories. Because the simple fact is that any hooker will sleep with any guy for the right price, and I have known the oldest, fattest, ugliest, most idiotic, most pathetic guys in the world who have nonetheless managed to "score" on a regular basis with stippers and hookers. It's the money, honey, and it has nothing to do with who the customer is, what he is like, or what vibe he gives off.

So what is the answer?

Well David said:

"The second factor is nearly all these women are 10 level or very close, a few ultra young (all legal of course), and its not just one or 2 its others now, and the opportunities being offered are not just pay-to-play at this point, although involvement in that regards I view as super-risky and thus too risky for someone married. "

So it sounds to me like young 10's are throwing themselves at him for unpaid sex but he is passing this up due to the inherent riskiness which is especially the case since he is married.

(Hope I read and interpreted that correctly.)

Never recall him saying he was in his 40's. Actually he strikes me as late 20s to mid 30s (this is just a pure guess, however).

Bobby: I admit I am guessing about his age as well. I think it is an educated guess based on some of his statements about doing things "decades" ago, which would put him at least in his 40s. But he can easily set the record straight.

As for your interpretation of his description of his exploits, it's certainly a plausible interpretation. But that's the problem, of course, we have to read between the lines to figure out what he's saying. I'm just asking for a plain statement. It is great to claim a young girl is throwing herself at you. I only think it counts, however, if it has actually happened, not that it "might" have happened. My bet is all the sex he is talking about is with hookers and strippers. But again, if I'm wrong, he can easily correct me.

Njscfan - you asked the same question on the March 3, 2008 thread entitled: Why women love cheaters." I've consistently said that I believe the "tinge of nonmonogamy" vibe or whatever term one might label it - is (despite the counter-intuitive nature of it all) in my honest opinion is an important attraction point particularly with young attractive women, and probably more important than even I previously realized. I don't recall saying random 10's were just throwing themselves at me (as another poster alludes to) however I absolutely 100% believe that pronounced faithfulness or the absolute pereception of sexual fidelity, no matter how well intentioned, is probably detrimental to the all-important "chemistry". If being "in love" were simply determined only by the volitional intent of the female instead of some purported mysterious magical feeling - it would be another matter, however the evidence I believe is clear that there is some connection in these important matters to humans primordial based genetic survival instincts.

Your question back in March was: "David, remind me, why are you paying for sex when you have more "top shelf" women than you can handle?"

My answer is the same: "Very high net worth creates very high risk for actual substantive relationships."

To explain further: one nearly always gives up one's actual identity in such relationships whereas anonymity is innate to most no strings attached open and honest type pay-to-play situations. "Real world" interactions usually being in the nature of an "affair" usually have not only clearly identified parties but (often) false promises of future committment and exclusivity.

In my case with this later group where the (generally unpursued) opportunities have arisen, these would usually among other things be related to contacts in the town I live in, at the country club I am a member of, or with various professional associations, health clubs, interactions with colleagues, support personnel at work, clients, or other collaterally related parties. Pay-to-play done openly and honestly permits both parties or at least one party to avoid any emotional involvement, and thus technically in my honest opinion would not be deemed "affairs" as the term is generally construed.

However even pay-to-play can involve emotional issues. As I've said on the March 3rd thread its "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."

You can read what you want into that, because I'm not going to lay it out girl by girl. If you think any guy merely by throwing some money at various dancers can get those kinds of things going in multiple situations simultaneously, hey that's your opinion. In any case, one can induce this added factor themselves quite easily and see if it matters or not for them. I've told you what I've encountered and as I've said, there's really not much downside no matter what.

njcsfan: "It is great to claim a young girl is throwing herself at
you. I only think it counts, however, if it has actually happened, not that it "might" have happened. "

Definitely. It's a fact. Some of these girls get a real sense of power from teasing guys. Making the guy think it really could happen. But all they want to know is that the guy wants to fuck them, and after they've learned, beyond all reasonable doubt what they want, game over for the poor sap.

So, yeah, your dick has to actual go inside of them (and not for cash) to be certain.

Ok, well as expected, David did not give a straight and simple answer to a straight and simple question. Instead, we were treated to another long seed spreading lecture (complete with allusions to David's exalted status in the world).

David may well have his reasons for not wanting a girlfriend. I understand that and, what's more, agree, probably for some of the same reasons.

But it does not change the bottom line. David has not had sex with even one 20 year old hottie who was not a stripper or a hooker (I mean, of course, at his current age; I hope he had sex with 20 year olds when he was younger). So his experiences do not prove anything, because anyone can have sex with hookers.

And, yes, as anyone who has seen hookers for a while will attest, the hookers and strippers sometimes give away freebies (e.g., calling up and asking you to come over for a free fuck off the clock). I'm afraid that does not prove anything either. It's called customer service. In my business (non-adult, non-sex related) I give away free services to my clients or potential clients all the time -- it's a way to attract and retain business. Everyone does it, and every small business person will understand that (especially anyone in a service field).

I once went to a party for escorts and johns. It was on the whole pretty horrifying, and I wouldn't do it again, but it was eye opening with regard to this conversation. The men were overwhelmingly (not 100%, but a clear majority) losers -- fat, ugly, old, pathetic, awkward, geeky losers. They did not have any game -- none! Yet, these hot sexy women were all over them -- hanging on them like they were George Clooney. Even if you have not attended such a weird event, if you are honest with yourself, you have seen the same thing almost every time you have walked into a strip club -- a young hot sexy stripper draping herself over some disgusting, unshaven, half-drunk, dirty old man wearing a t-shirt with some idiotic logo on the front. And that proves -- what? That he's a gentleman horndog? No, that he has money to spend, silly, that's all. Yes, anyone, ANYONE, can make it with a prostitute.

Well, I received my first marriage proposal yesterday! :) No, she is *NOT young* and she isn't a stripper or sex worker. I've been a friend of hers for years. Turns out she is jealous of gambling dancer, which is a real laugh because she knows that gambling dancer is a sex worker. I definitely said NO to the offer and my friend complained that it was due to gambling dancer. I explained that I don't believe in marriage and that I'm too old for marriage and etc. My friend wants to know why I spend so much time with gambling dancer and why she is always calling me then. I tell her that gambling dancer doesn't spend a lot of time with me and she isn't always calling me and that I'm a long time customer of gambling dancer!

Bottom line it seems like my friend is a lot more interested in me since she has actually met and seen gambling dancer. BTW, gambling dancer has a man.

There's no way that Davy-boy is in his 20s or 30s...lol... Have fun trying to nail him down on...anything.

Good thread ... :)

I hate to do it, but sadly in the interest of intellectual honesty I must. David9999 has some science to back him up.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/…

I am still skeptical, and the article does not say that women are more attracted to the cheating as opposed to the alpha male part, but it appears that cheating is a viable reproduction strategy for some men. I suppose this is why in so many more primitive cultures the powerful men make sure nobody can get to their women, so they don't end up investing time and energy in raising someone else's kid, and why the penalties were so great for either the men or women if caught.

Ask youself this: can you really be an Alpha if you're not cheating or giving off a cheating vibe? In theory its probably possible in a modern sense, but certainly not in an evolutionary context and (i'm convinced) its evolutionary based DNA of some type that absolutely is tied into all this "chemistry" women always focus on. By the way the "science" is late on all this stuff, in part because academia and left wing dominated "gender studies" and related university departments see the entire fieldof socio-biology (on these matters at least) as a sort of excuse and advocation for men to cheat and/or disrespect women. So its very non-politically correct to even bring up these ideas.

I started asking these questions at least as early as 14 years ago, actually several years before that. As for the evolution connecting to the (well known) nice guy vs bad guy issue - sorry its not from any book per se, or at least it wasn't 15 to 20 years back. Go back and try to find it, you won't.

I specifically recall asking in 1994 Robert Wright (non-scientist reporter) author of the Moral Animal (also author Time Magazine cover story the same year regarding male nonmonogamy as an evolutionary norm) the following quesiton: "has anyone made an evolutionary connection between certain females well known propensity to be attracted to bad guys and in effect turned off by nice guys"? Wright's answer was while he thought it might be worth studying, that he knew of no connection made by anyone nor any study, and Wright was the main reporter describing what was then state of the art information on these issues at that time.

So here's the reporter writing pretty much the definitve survey of this field from a non-scientist perspective, and he's not even covered or though about or heard about any alleged connection in these matters.

The bottom line is socio-biology is still wide open and in its infancy relative to other fields, so you're not going to necessarily to get it all from books per se, you've got to deduce things yourselves and come up with your own ideas as is necessary -despite often times everyone trying to shout you down.

Well, we now have another significant admission by David: there is no actual science to support what he is saying. (With re to AN's post: as he notes, it does not show women are attracted to cheaters. It only shows cheaters have sex with more partners. Well, no duh.) Yet, David assures us, we just know it is true, because we can "deduce" it on our own. And people who disagree with him (that is, who point out he has no evidence) are accused of trying to "shout him down."

Apart from how ridiculous this argument is, I hope everyone is familiar with the history of racism, and understands that these type of pseudo-science arguments have been used for decades (actually back into the 19th century) to justify the murder of Jews and the sterilization of Blacks. Sociobiology is just the "science" of racism (going all the way back to phrenology) in modern guise. There is a good reason why sensible people reject junk science --- because it is junk.

To re-iterate, non-monogamy among males is not what I take issue with. There is a lot of evidence that the purely "natural" state of humans is polygyny, i.e. one dominant male with several females. For the male this has the obvious benefits of non-monogamy, multiple children by multiple women. For the individual women there is no downside so long as the single male is able to provide for and protect all the women and children. What is decidedly lacking is any evidence that the male's non-monogamy has any benefit to the female, or that the women are more attracted to the man because he has multiple partners. That a desirable man could attract more than one mate, or even that he could convince a woman to bear his offspring rather than her less desirable mate's (i.e. cheating) isn't the same thing as saying women are attracted to men who cheat. If David9999 would say more desirable men cheat more, I'd say it is plausible, because among other things being more desirable gives them more opportunity. But I think he really gets things backward cause and effect wise when he says cheating makes men more desirable. Until someone can explain the advantage a woman derives from the man's non-monogamy (and the example of polygyny is not an advantage, it is the absence of a disadvantage) I'll continue to remain skeptical. However, as I'd repeatedly asked for any evidence of the "bad" traits holding any reproductive advantage for men, instead arguing that the "bad" traits are actually mirroring good ones, I felt obligated to allow that there is in fact some science that "bad" traits confer some advantage to the men in question. So no, I am not conceding the argument, I am conceding on one point that one of David9999's claims apparently has some scientific basis.

I totally agree with AN's post.

"What is decidedly lacking is any evidence that the male's non-monogamy has any benefit to the female, or that the women are more attracted to the man because he has multiple partners"

The issue regarding male non-monogamy is not whether there is an ACTUAL benefit to the woman per se. Certainly in the world we live in today I will readily concede there is no benefit. The issue instead is what mattered during the dominant timeframe of evolution. The "chemistry" of attraction or why women "fall in love" with particular males is clearly not primarily a conscious volitional rational process and by most evidence operates to a large degree at the (subconcious) arguably genetic level. As Wright referred to in the Time Magazine Cover piece male non-monogamy at one point in man's existence was the optimal strategy, probably for most of human existence. Human genes (lagging environmental factors and are very slow to change) are very likely to have difficulty recognizing modern constructs such as marriage and committment. Massive wide scale seed spreading as a genetic survival strategy at a time when probably a very high percentage of women died in child birth - would have had signficant advantages both in advancing the male's genes (along with his female mates) and advancing the human species in general.

It is true some might argue that many of these arguments are correlative and not necessarily causative, for example the tall good looking male attracts more women, therefore on average he would probably be less monogamous than the average male, so of course its absurd to use this in and of itself as proof that the non-monogamy is the key attraction point. The evidence in fact goes way way beyond this, and (just to cite one class of examples) everyone knows some of the biggest sleazebag borderline ugly losers around who are chick magnets - and the common thread nearly always seems to be that they treat women like shit and have a non-monogamous attitude and disrespectful nature toward women in general.

Once again modern women in general believing themselves to be utterly so civilized seem to think THEIR somehow beyond primordial evolutionary based influence - yet readily claim and will admit males (when given the chance) certainly tend to follow their base instincts. This purported lack of reciprocity between the two genders clearly defies common sense.

The entire "nice guy" vs "bad guy" debate is not fiction, and in fact the central premise has a major amount of truth yet no one has ever quite explained (except via the usual alleged women's "low self esteem" approach) why this occurs, and its pricisely why more than a decade back I ran the exact question by Robert Wright.

The "science" will eventually prove it to be true, however the subject is currently off limits in most of academia because (as i've cited) it appears to give license to and make excuses for bad male behavior

Now if you happen to pose the question to an attractive single female, probably 99% will disgree with the premise, which is hardly surprising because most females do not understand their innate desires nor what causes them anyways. For those females, I suggest you ask them who (if at all) were they attracted to more, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Then ask why?

Very poor example between Bill Clinton and George Bush. President is generally seen as a pea-brain and abject-failure.

Well, I know at least one dance who would tell she is more attracted to an unfaithful man. Probably me she considers it macho and loves competition to be the guy's number one ho.

Is there a way to prove it? My guess is the Freaknomics author could probably devise a clever test to try and get the answer. I think you are on the mark, btw.

Correction:

President Bush is generally seen as a pea-brain and abject-failure.

"However, as I'd repeatedly asked for any evidence of the "bad" traits holding any reproductive advantage for men, instead arguing that the "bad" traits are actually mirroring good ones"

In general the predisposition toward violence in modern times is considered a "bad trait" yet during for early man's first 3 to 5 million years on earth, violence would have been considered a distinct survival advantage relative to a passive male, for among other things such violence 1. a pre-emptive defense against potential threats 2. increased tribal protection and increase survival odds 3. superior resource production via superior hunting skills. 4. optimized selection (via violence as was necessary) of more fertile females

Life was short, harsh, and brutal for probabl 99.999% of man's existence, and our DNA apparently understands this, yet at the rational volitional thought level, we continue to be in denial.

Passivity in males ia hardly an attraction point for females today except in very rare cases, and in fact if anything it tends to be the opposite. Once again its genetic baggage at work, with genes defaulting to the primordial influences despite the illogic in terms of a modern context.

From my experiences when presented this question most hot women will select Bill Clinton, yet they cannot explain why, not surprising at all since I truely believe such women tend to be attracted toward male nonmonogamy (independent of any other factor). Yes, the other factors can and do matter, but nonmonogamy or the perception of nonmonogamy appears critical with these same women. Conversely perceived faithfulness (typical of "nice guys") ends up (also for unexplained reasons on their part) as being considered boring in nature - or as I would argue such males are unable to offer females the exciting (all illusive of course) promise of genetic immortality, with nice guys being perceived (in an evolutionary context) as genetic dead-ends.

Nearly all of this "chemistry" stuff is clearly unconscious, and that explains why most females can never explain any of it.

I do agree with David9999's point of view. I quibble on the slavish adherence to 100% of recent socio-biology's methods and even some of its conclusions, for a variety of reasons, but since I don't differ with the main general attitude, I won't address those issues. They're essentially beside the point. Big point (for me) is, that ENOUGH SEX with HOT ENOUGH women is indeed a possibility, and from there, the introduction of David9999's socio-biology is simply a means toward an end. It's about UNDERSTANDING how to push their buttons, so that you can then GO ABOUT DOING that button pushing.

Many points to make:

I've heard that facially, Bill Clinton is near to ideal symmetry, like in the top 1/100,000th or 1% of humanity or something. Though few initially would call him "hot" he nevertheless has a visual appearance which, as proven by science, predisposes the observers to linking him with desirability.

I never said I wanted young hotties. I never said I wanted to date 20-year olds. I never even said I wanted wanton and uncommitted sex with a wide range of women. I think part of the (fairly useful) advice coming out of this thread is that I would need to "lower" my standards (more on that later) but actually I think I'm well within the ball-park of wanting to interact with women who are actually a reasonable target range. I'm after ENOUGH sex with a woman (or many) who is HOT ENOUGH for me. I had intended that part of the discussion to go toward the idea, that I'm not so much UNDESIRABLE in objective traits, as a SOCIAL MISFIT. In other words, someone else who was exactly like me in height, job ability, wealth, facial symmetry, etc., would be doing a LOT BETTER than I am doing, and so the question was, what am I doing wrong?

On the subject of "lowering your standards." Frankly, it's not ME that has standards, it's my dick. I related very early in this thread when I told the anecdote, of having a woman sucking my cock, and because I didn't find her visually attractive enough, instead of enjoying the experience I simply fell asleep. It was rather difficult to stay interested. This anecdote, as far as I can determine, makes very clear that we're talking about my autonomous, non-voluntary responses, and not about my choices or my volitional responses. I CAN'T HELP IT. So, if I find a woman who is NOT HOT ENOUGH, then there won't be any "lowering my standards" to suddenly declare that she now IS HOT ENOUGH. No, she stays as hot-enough or as un-hot-enough as MY DICK says.

I utterly agree with the debunking of the self-satisfied smugness of "modern" women. As Bill Maher says, if they're so damned evolved, then why do they still respond autonomously to shiny things? Just like a big wide-mouth bass, they see something sparkly and they go all goo-goo eyed. The PC movement out there has us believing that women don't cheat, men do; that men need to "be controlled" by women's more "morally superior" sex drives. Somehow the thing which males intrinsically want, has been declared evil on the basis of the fact that it is somehow "bad for you" because it is "only" biologically mandated; whereas what females intrinsically want, has been delcared good on the basis of the fact that it is somehow "good for you" because it can't be avoided because it is biologically mandated. Hunh? Seems like biological mandates are evil for males but good for females. How come THEY get to decide which side wins?

In the long run, there are lots of issues about whether or not someone here on this thread is 100% or right or not about the minutiae of what motivates a female. But I don't mind, that's not important to me. What's important is dipping my dick. Playing at "gentleman horndog" is as much of a sensible approach as any. Certainly purports to perform better than any previous approach I've used (though I can't really define any given specific consistent tactic that I ever stuck with; none of them worked).

I still have the question about height. I just simply don't know how to overcome this one. I think it would be like a woman with a cleft upper palate (also known as a "hare-lip"). She could be super-hot in her body; and a really cool person to hang with; and she could even have amazing deep-throat skills, and a vibrator built in to her pussy which you turned on and off with a twist of her navel; still, I wouldn't want to make out with her. I simply cannot overcome the natural biological revulsion from a cleft palate. David9999 would start talking, right about now, all about how this is a biologically natural response, about how it has to do with the selfish gene wishing to find as pro-adaptive a partner as possible, and so on. Sure, whatever. How am I going to get laid? If women indeed do respond to me like they do to people with a cleft palate, what do I do to fix it?

Women are remarkably hypocritical about the whole game. The part I listed above -- the double-standard about what is biologically predetermined, being approvable in a female but disapprovable in a male -- is just a small part of it. There are also the weirdnesses over body mass. They get REALLY PISSED OFF if a guy doesn't want to date one of their friends "because she's too fat." But if he doesn't want to date one of their friends "because we don't have chemistry because of her personality" or "because her face isn't the kind of beautiful thing I want" they don't seem to get all up in arms about it at all. If you mention fat, they go haywire. If you mention beauty, which they complain about all the time, they DON'T go haywire, and they tend to be sympathetic to the male rejector. "He just needs that", they're more willing to say.

Further, if SHE mentions height, you know you can't talk her down from it. (Not that she could be, the point isn't whether she's right or wrong, it's what her attitude is.) She'll get very angry at you for suggesting that she has a pre-determined set of standards ("has to have a man taller than she is") and will re-phrase the situation, in her own head, to be one not of looking for certain physical characteristics (which is, in reality, in fact, exactly what she's doing), but instead as looking for "something emotional." So, when he's tall, it isn't "he's taller than me and that means I feel safe / emotionally secure / turned on / whatever." No, when he's tall, it's "I'm not attracted to him because of his height. I'm attracted to the fact that he makes me feel ...". Hypocrisy. Lies.

Maybe the only thing women have in difference from men, is their willingness to never feel that being inconsistent is wrong. Men demand a certain level of cognitive consonance -- if you say you like sucking on big tits, and then you suck on big tits and like it, you don't then say, "I didn't like sucking on big tits." Women are different from that. They like REVERSING THINGS.

If they feel that a man is bad for them, and they SEE that he beats other women, they instantly feel "He doesn't beat other women. He is good for me." And that makes them feel, somehow, that they've "made a mark" on the man. They've "turned him around." Never mind that he doesn't, actually, stop beating women. The women have still had a "special emotional moment" of "thinking hard about him" and there ya go, inside the head of another idiot I mean female.

But that's just water under the bridge. I don't really care to know more about what women are trying to think, unless I can use it. It doesn't seem to me very helpful to be able to say, "Women are likely to do things backwards half the time, and double-backwards the other half the time." You never know which half you're dealing with. I need more implementable tactics.

I just recalled an old joke.

Imagine a fat man wearing a tuxedo, and a skinny man wearing sweat pants. Why does the woman prefer the man in the tuxedo?

Because he's not fat.

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Time…

This is from the original Time Magazine cover story back in 1994 written by Robert Wright

Note how Oprah and her crowd consider every woman as BEAUTIFUL ("You go girl, you got it going" and similar bullshit) and the woman in question could be rolling in fat or ugly as sin - yet ANY flaw in a man: not enough hair, doesn't make enough money, short or whatever - he's usually deemed worthless. Yes, a classic double standard.

BookGuy, you do generate a bit more sympathy by explaining its your DICK as opposed to you per se that needs relatively hot (for you at least) women. Now some of that could be as a result of hanging around with strippers or escorts too much - so in any case it makes all the more reason you might at some point want to opt for foreign women.

With for example many asian women, a man in the 5 ft 7 range is not short at all and these women can be superhot 5 ft to 5 ft 2 with long legs and everything exactly in proportion. Its true some need augmentations and some don't exactly have super shapely asses, however they can make up for it with extraordinary beauty.

Given the amount of time you've been dealing with domestic women, I just don't see any magic bullet for with you with american women per se. In any case use the gentlemen horndog thing with foreign (or recently imported) women - it will work the same as women (in terms of raw instincts) are basically alike no matter where they come from, and I know to absolutely true personally. The differences that are there will be in their attitudes, they tend to appreciate men alot more and are much more loyal

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate for EP here:

The benefit to women of being attracted to cheating men is not to the woman but to her genes. If she has children from "cheating man" then her male children are more likely to acquire the "cheating gene", meaning that they are more likely to have "spread their seed" than non-cheaters. So this means the woman's genes are more likely to get passed along with the cheater's genes than with some monogamous fellows who would be more likely to produce monogamous offspring. (I also think that by having children with multiple women, the genes are more likely to survive to diversification.)

Of course, this logic all rest on cheaters having more offspring on average, and the same holding true for their offspring.

Not saying I am completely convinced by this, but I won't be surprised if an evolutionary psychologist argued it that way.

Any evolutionary psychologists in the house?

David999: "Now if you happen to pose the question to an attractive single female, probably 99% will disgree with the premise, which is hardly surprising because most females do not understand their innate desires nor what causes them anyways."

Maybe 99% of the general population, but I think the number is lower for strippers. I've discussed the matter with some of them, and they seem more aware of or more open about what is really happening with them. (Sometimes it can be nice to get them to snap out of "stripworld" for a few minutes and have a real conversation with them, because on topics like this they do seem more aware than your average woman. Just make to sure to let them go back to "stripperworld" soon though, and keep in mind that your mission is to fuck them, for money.)

BobbyL brings up an excellent point, though it remains latent in his post: strippers are also actually able to snap out of "real world bullshit" (they are much less likely to DENY that they're attracted to a bad boy, for instance) as much as they can snap out of "stripper world" on occasion.

It kind of makes them seem -- golly -- MORE HONEST than regular civilian women. The bullshit which civilian women require -- "I don't want him to want sex too soon. But what's wrong with him, why doesn't he want sex with me?" -- is generally a cleanly wiped slate. Strangely, the stripper world is where the rules are actually straightforward, even though (as we all know) they're paid to lie to us about our desirability and interestingness.

Weird ...

This is a really interesting thread. There is a lot to take in. I will agree with the comments about double standards with women. It is rather amazing to me how blind the female gender is to their own condition in regard to beauty. A fat ugly pig spends $200 to get her hair and nails done, and she thinks that makes her beautiful? I've never met a man so gullible to think that beauty resides mainly in pieces of plastic and dye coloring. I've also yet to meet a woman who understands how silly this really is to (straight) men.

In a similar vain, you have a majority of women who think that a balding man with a hairpiece, regardless of its quality, looks utterly silly, and should just accept the fact that he's going bald. Without exception, these are the same women who think that a woman with "small" or sagging breasts has every right to get "enhancements" to improve her self-image; when in fact 4 out of 5 times the boob job actually ruins her natural look and feel, and most guys would have preferred her without the implants. And yet...AND YET.... do we guys huddle around and ridicule all boob jobs? Or do we accept it as a woman's choice, and display a little sympathy and class in understanding that societal pressures can make people do things that we might not agree with?

I think it was Schopenhaur who wrote: "The fundamental flaw of the female character is that it has no sense of justice."

To wit, observe Hillary Clinton's total lack of understanding that you don't change the rules in the middle of the game (election) -- a prime example of Schopenhaur's female in the highest degree.

LOL @ quoting Schopenhauer on women!

Bobbyl states: "The benefit to women of being attracted to cheating men is not to the woman but to her genes. If she has children from "cheating man" then her male children are more likely to acquire the "cheating gene", meaning that they are more likely to have "spread their seed" than non-cheaters. So this means the woman's genes are more likely to get passed along with the cheater's genes than with some monogamous fellows who would be more likely to produce monogamous offspring. (I also think that by having children with multiple women, the genes are more likely to survive to diversification."

No doubt humans have 2 priority in this exact order 1. survival of their genes 2. personal survival. They subconciously even are willing to sacrifice #2 for #1 if the need arises, and it can help explain why so many women seem to have an innate (often time after time) attraction toward violent males even with the increased high risk of getting killed themselves, a classic example being Nicole Simpson and OJ. Genes in fact run nearly everything.

I am glad someone at least understands what the premise is and can restate it. There is little doubt that human "decision" making occurs primarily at the genetic level even though we few realize it or truely understand it. Richard Dawkins discusses this in great detail in his book The Selfish Gene, but don't expect him to suggest that women are somehow attracted to seed spreading males - its simply too impolitically correct for even Dawkins (himself ultra-liberal) to suggest.

This is entire issue in fact involves a bit of out-of-the box thinking even to get the basic fundamentals which many people just either cannot handle or accept, for example Dawkins sees humans in effect as (genetic) survival machines, not a concept most people are ready to accept.

Wright sums it up well in the Time Magazine piece on the then (1994) state of the art findings by social biologists - which by the way (as i've cited) entirely ignored any alleged built-in attractions on women's part toward highly nonmonogamous males. In my opinion however its simply a logical extension of the already well accepted core beliefs of mainstream socio-biology.

BEGIN QUOTE

The premise of evolutionary psychology is simple. The human mind, like any other organ, was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation; the feelings and thoughts it creates are best understood in these terms. Thus the feeling of hunger, no less than the stomach, is here because it helped keep our ancestors alive long enough to reproduce and rear their young. Feelings of lust, no less than the sex organs, are here because they aided reproduction directly. Any ancestors who lacked stomachs or hunger or sex organs or lust--well, they wouldn't have become ancestors, would they? Their traits would have been discarded by natural selection.

END QUOTE

After reading this quote I could state the basic premise another way. "all things equal women tend to be innately more attracted to lustful males relative to less lustful males" with lust being defined as "intense or unbridled sexual desire" which I believe most reasonable people would admit means: that the odds of that person being interested in multiple female partners - would be far higher.

Well, the title of this thread is, after all, "The Battle of the Sexes" :)

From Thoreau to Schopenhauer, you gotta love it!

on the bad boy and stripper issue

Here's an actual conversation that occured within the last two weeks, myself being the customer.

Customer "You know how all these super hot strippers have to have at least one drug dealer boyfriend (the discussion referring to two particular super hot 10 level strippers that we both know)

Dancer (blonde, a very hot 9 level) "That's not true, I don't have a drug dealer boyfriend. (apparently she has no current boyfriend)

Customer: "Oh I bet"

Dancer: "I (emphasis added) was the drug dealer, and he got busted and now he's in prison"

Customer "gee what a surprise, so you AND your boyfriend at that time were dealing drugs?"

Dancer "basically that was it, but I don't sell drugs and I'm clean now"

"On the subject of 'lowering your standards.' Frankly, it's not ME that has standards, it's my dick. I related very early in this thread when I told the anecdote, of having a woman sucking my cock, and because I didn't find her visually attractive enough, instead of enjoying the experience I simply fell asleep. It was rather difficult to stay interested. This anecdote, as far as I can determine, makes very clear that we're talking about my autonomous, non-voluntary responses, and not about my choices or my volitional responses. I CAN'T HELP IT. So, if I find a woman who is NOT HOT ENOUGH, then there won't be any "lowering my standards" to suddenly declare that she now IS HOT ENOUGH. No, she stays as hot-enough or as un-hot-enough as MY DICK says."

MY DICK, unfortunately feels the same way. I don't see a genetic advantage to that, btw. Seems like I should be willing and able to fuck any fertile woman. With hot women I'm transformed into SUPERMAN (for my age) and with regular or ugly women it is just work. Even at my sexual peak, the hot women were so much better that it seemed almost like a waste of time to go for second level and it was in that there was lasting desire.

A woman's beauty in my eyes is ALL important.

Even if the regular or ugly woman had skill, for me, it wasn't a substitute for looks. And, NO---I don't give a damn about any trophy nonsense---as far as I'm concerned she could wear a burka in public or go prancing around in a bikini.

there wasn't lasting desire.

The most amazing thing of all are these single guys (most of whom are probably getting slaughtered in the dating world) who are so pathetic that they actually ask women what they want in a man expecting some kind of great insight, and the answers are nearly always the same "I want a nice man, pay attention to me, respect me, treat me well blah blah blah" and these guys actually think this is valuable advice.

The strange thing is these women think they are giving good advice, more proof that its nearly all subconscious.

Like I've said before, if you don't figure this out (not the evolutionary connection but at least the nice guy vs bad guy issue) by around age 25 you're probably going to be in serious trouble - unless you just like punishment or are some wuss or something

agree with Jablake on the hot women issue, you definitely physically react at a far more optimized basis -the entire deal is better. We had this AMP where I called ahead and asked if they had a girl at least equal to the (7 or 8 level) girl I did that prior Tuesday, so they said we got this new girl from out of town, but they wouldn't give a description, so I said OK not knowing what to expect. I arrive and she comes out from behind the curtain, wow, 9 plus easily, forget a shower (I had it before arriving)), forget a message, she knew I knew the deal, so we're starting within about a minute of getting in the room and she had this nice ass too (not always the case with these girls) so she switched from CG within probably 3 to 5 minutes moving to doggy (on her insistence) right away, as she knew she had it there, and the body (mine that is) definitely reacted in a positive way to a girl that hot.

"you've got to deduce things yourselves and come up with your own ideas as is necessary"

In other words...just pull things out of your ass & hope for the best...

BTW, any "scientific" article that tries to show that a fictional character, James Bond, proves their "scientific" point is NOT a real science. You guys are taking advice and debating with someone, Davy-boy, who's a *lawyer* BTW...not a scientist. Most of the "hot women" that Davy-boy encounters (and probably doesn't sleep with) always pick Clinton, therefore he's right...ugh...

"do we guys huddle around and ridicule all boob jobs?"

You need to read more of what's been written on this site...I'd say the answer to that for some people on here is yes.

Decades ago I was teasing a buddy about being afraid of breasts, which due to his religious beliefs he was definitely afraid of. Well, his wife who was younger and much more aggressive stood up for her man. She made it sound like no attractive woman was safe because his lust was so insatiable. It was hilarious and the truth is although my buddy was a top quality person, he was afraid of women including his wife who was definitely aggressive. Did she want some namby pamby afraid to strike while the iron is hot man? HELL NO!!! She considered her man to be a predator who had to fight against his extreme manly instincts. The idea that any man especially her husband would be afraid of breasts was repulsive to her. Just as repulsive to her, imo, is the thought he would or could turn down an offer of free sex from a hot woman.

Basically, I think most women want aggressive dominant males. The tall healthy man generally has an advantage over the short healthy male for this reason. The man chasing and catching skirts generally has an advantage over the "castrated" male for the same reason. It is all about dominance and aggression. How can a man truly be aggressive and dominant if he refuses hotties that are pushing their favors on him?

I don't think there needs to be a "tinge" of non-monogamy, but rather an unapolegetic statement that part of being a man is desiring and catching women and none of this equality crapola! Men don't need to apologize for being men and wanting their women to be women.

Having said all that, some women prefer short men who are obedient. That is fine and dandy. I just can't see becoming aggressive to cater to the desires of hot women----it takes too much work and it is a lie. Be yourself and if you have "negatives" e.g. short, docile, obedient, the best bet, imo, is to meet more women. There is definitely a woman out there that will be a win/win, but it takes a lot of exposure. Heck, there are even hot young women who love short, poor, old men! Yes, it is a tiny minority, but they exist. :)

jablake: That is a good objection to EP: (paraphrase) "If the goal is just to spread genes as widely as possible why do guys have any standards at all about who they will fuck."

I can't really think of a good simple explanation to that. I think the whole thing is complicated. Basically we are social creatures and our social standing must have had a strong impact on the survival and reproductive chances of us and our offspring. And then who we fucked had an impact on our social standing. So if you fucked too ugly a woman, although you had a chance of knocking her up, you also had a chance of having your social standing knocked down if found out, so some kind of an equilibrium was reached.

Very hand wavy I know, but that's the only thing I can think of. Maybe some evolutionary psychologist will be able to explain it at all satisfactorily one day, but I don't think we are there yet.

I really don't think EP is that bad overall. But it is certainly young, and immature as far as sciences go. Right now my big problems with it are: lack of empirical evidence to confirm or deny its prediction, and, similarly a tendency to be able to explain too much by reasoning that seems paradoxical in the framework. Also evolutionary psychologists have a tendency to try and give answers to questions e.g. "why do gentlemen prefer blondes?" when the real answer should be "we don't know." (Yes, we speculate on this board all the time, but few are trying to present it as anything beyond that. Let alone science.)

And speaking of vague speculation:

I think two things current attraction models are missing are:

1) The importance of compatible "memes" in mating/attraction. In fact, I think the role of "memes" is getting to be stronger than that of "genes".

2) (Might be related to 1).) I think there is some kind of a Maslowian hierarchy of needs (or, if you want to get even more far out, a Timothy Leahrian 8 circuit model of consciousness thing) at play.

Girls, like strippers, who tend to be stuck at the lower levels: struggle for day to day survival: obsession with primitive power struggles going to be looking for guys who they feel can help them with that. Which generally equals "tough guys" in a very raw, primitive sense. If someone comes in at too high a level, they will just not get it. That guy is just going to seem alien to them. They will judge them by what is important at their level, e.g. raw physical strength. And he will flunk. Girls operating at a bit higher level (e.g. the ones who are in college, LOL! no, the ones who REALLY are, for real) will be attracted to a different sort of guy.

BobbyL writes "If someone comes in at too high a level, they will just not get it. That guy is just going to seem alien to them. They will judge them by what is important at their level, e.g. raw physical strength. And he will flunk. Girls operating at a bit higher level (e.g. the ones who are in college, LOL! no, the ones who REALLY are, for real) will be attracted to a different sort of guy."

That's definitely true about the "alien" thing, even the use of normal words they will tag as "big words" some so mudance its laughable ("perceptive" is a big word for example) - we're from another planet if we can actually put a complete sentence together. However at least perhaps 10% to 20% of strippers or more are not your hard core stripper types, and often times are college grads and in some cases have grad degrees, so they would react in a different way.

Now as far as the "for real" girls not being succeptible to nice guy vs bad guy issue, sorry, I know for a fact that is not accurate. Its the same thing and something (and i've posted months back) I found out quite by accident while in law school, although then I wasn't connecting it to evolution per se. The raw "chemistry" whether its lowly educated (more typical strippers) or regular women affects most of them just the same. They will all regardless of backgrounds be impacted by primordial influences.

As for MisterGuy's comment - yes the science isns't there so one has to piece it together themselves - its not a big deal. The substance of the issue matters alot more than the supposed lack of credentials of the advocate - becasue these behavioral scietists (for reasons I've explained) just will not analyze these issues in any serious manner, which among other things seem to suggest women as being uncivilized in some way. The pretense of women being utterly so above the fray is a core belief of both feminists studies departments and most of academia, where male bashing is perfectly acceptable but anything that might remotely be considered female bashing is absolutely off the table for discussion.

Hi Bobbyl,

"I can't really think of a good simple explanation to that. I think the whole thing is complicated. Basically we are social creatures and our social standing must have had a strong impact on the survival and reproductive chances of us and our offspring. And then who we fucked had an impact on our social standing."

That is a very interesting idea. I would predict that small guys (such as myself) would generally be much more finicky than big guys. The social standing of big guys would seem to be much more secure in that fighting and protecting abilities wayyyyyy back would be highly valued for group survival. The big guys could probably fuck ugly and pretty without risking their social standing. A small guy fucking a disgusting looking woman would not only have the disadvantage of being small, but that added disgrace that he is paired with ugly. The reason the small guy isn't fucking everything in sight like the big guy is because the risk of confrontation with the big guys would skyrocket. Much better to find one hottie to pair with so that risk of confrontation is reduced and social standing is increased via association with a hottie.

BTW, I prefer long term relationships which I think a small guy should in theory probably value much more than a big guy.

"That's definitely true about the "alien" thing, even the use of normal words they will tag as "big words" some so mudance its laughable ("perceptive" is a big word for example) - we're from another planet if we can actually put a complete sentence together."

Yes, I've run into that too often to the point that I try and speak very simply. But, then it isn't just strippers so maybe it is me. ;)

David: I think there are a couple of types of attraction. Attraction in terms of wanting to fuck. Predominately "chemistry" based as you say. And I agree all women are always going to feel the "chemical" attraction for the bad boy. Yes, even the smart women, or those operating higher up the Maslowian pyramid. Same way all guys are going to feel attracted to a young hot chick with nice boobs.

But then there is attraction in terms of long term relationship. After a while most girls (and especially the smarter ones) figure out bad boys are just no good for that. (However, there is no shortage of dumb women in the world so the bad boy is going to have no trouble finding a dumb hot chick who thinks she will be able to reform him, and wants his protection). Anyway, the nice, but confident and intelligent guy, will be attractive in the LTR sense to these women operating a little higher up the Maslowian pyramid. And, yes, this includes fucking them even if they are hot.

The nice guy who doesn't have confidence is always SOL, except maybe around extremely drunk chicks.

(paraphrase) "If the goal is just to spread genes as widely as possible why do guys have any standards at all about who they will fuck."

That is assuming that was the only goal, and that's now what the evidence shows.

That particular issue (being outside of the nice guy bad guy issue) has been looked at in detail and in fact the evolutionary goal was not SIMPLY to spread genes as widely as possible it was also to spread genes (wherever possible) to the most fertile women available, with fertility now clearly in evolutionary terms being tied into to facial symmetry (which now reasearch suggests has universal similar characteristics around the world) and beauty and so forth. Easily identifiable facial symmetry in effect acted as a shortcut method to select the most fertile and (perceieved) healthy females to mate with.

So the typical male sexual attraction toward beautiful women in the modern world finds its logic from our primordial evolutionary existence.

I've known a few guys who have fucked chicks numbering in the triple digits (without paying). Typically they aren't too picky when it comes to looks and weight. But here's the interesting part: They actually think all the girls they fuck are super hot, even though anyone looking at them would immediately bawk otherwise.

"select the most fertile and (perceieved) healthy females to mate with."

I would think that would equate to the HUGE dancers at Angels. The black customers like to say thick, but these women are BIG and seem very healthy. The black customers seem to prefer them over what I and other white customers seem to view as hotties---small and slim. Over at the RolLexx, I've been told that that big women make the most money. Except for my experience at Angels, I wouldn't believe it possible for big women to be in big demand.

These big women have zero sexual value to me. Free is too expensive, imo, and yet black customers (seems to be exclusively black customers) seem to love 'em and spend money on 'em. And, it seems like a smart evolutionary strategy to pick big healthy woman. YUCK! But, it seems to make evolutionary sense to choose bigger woman more capable of defending and taking care of themselves.

David: But why does the fertility of women matter? What is there to lose by fucking an ugly woman who may or may not be as fertile. All it will cost the guy is some semen which he will quickly regenerate, a small risk of STDs, and ???? there must be something else he is risking here.

"I've known a few guys who have fucked chicks numbering in the triple digits (without paying). Typically they aren't too picky when it comes to looks and weight. But here's the interesting part: They actually think all the girls they fuck are super hot, even though anyone looking at them would immediately bawk otherwise."

100% agreed. Worse, they think I should be interested in the disgusting women they think are hot. The conflict usually arose over my focus on one or two hot women who are playing difficult. These guys who have no standards start yapping about plenty of fish in the sea. For them that is 100% true becaue they don't seem to place much value on looks----all women no matter how disgusting are hotties in their eyes or "a hole is a hole."

Fertility mattered because food was scarce? Remember, I believe sharing food among primates is a good way to get sex. An ugly woman might still be demanding some food to put out and if food is scarce then at least make sure she can spread genes. :)

Hmmmm... "Will fuck for woolly mammoth meat?"

"yes the science isns't there so one has to piece it together themselves - its not a big deal."

That doesn't make it science though! You seem to lack a complete & total understanding of the scientific method. It doesn't involve just thinking up an idea and saying, "Hey, that sounds about right to me...great!" Your hypothesis has to be tested, repeated, & stand up to peer review over time. You can't just pull things out of ass, use big words, and call it "science"...that's pseudo-science...nothing more, nothing less...

"But why does the fertility of women matter? What is there to lose by fucking an ugly woman who may or may not be as fertile"

Remember its all about probablities. Its true the ugly woman might in some cases be either equally fertile or more fertile, but genes simply make the best "decisions" based upon the information they have in front of them - the ultimate goal being long term survival. One of the problems with this entire topic is we end up applying modern constructs to a very different world, a primordial existence which obviously was extremely extremely harsh, brutal, and violent.

For example a mating session with a particular female would have certainly in some cases required killing a competing suitor, so your question "what is there to lose"? well for one thing your life.

Second as a matter of simple human biology in modern times and likely in earlier times, while a female in theory could have sex with for example a 1000 men per day, males have (in comparable terms) built-in limitations on the number of females they can service each day, so choices have to be made on that basis alone in some cases.

Think of a lottery but where some skill is involved and the quality level of the various choices can and will affect the outcome.

"But then there is attraction in terms of long term relationship. After a while most girls (and especially the smarter ones) figure out bad boys are just no good for that."

This alleged mysterious "chemistry" young women incessantly refer to obviously refers to the being "in love" part of relationship, more precisely THEIR being in love with the man. You're either saying: One, these women can somehow MAKE themselves "fall in love" with the more mature nice guys or two, they will just settle and give up the "in love" part so they can have their "long term relationship."

The simple truth is women, even ones in their late 20's and early 30's with the biological clock ticking and looking for a husband, generally are not willing to give up the "chemistry" thing - just so they can settle down. They still want it all, and that's precisely the delemma most will admit if pressed. Yes, they will at first say there are no "nice guys" but when explained further it ends up with them admitting they can in fact find lots of decent guys, just none they get the "chemistry" for.

Its not really a matter per se of being a classic "bad boy" as the term is normally used, its more about having at least a few of the "malignant" Alpha characteristics sufficient to kick the (primordial based) chemistry up.

I am saying that EP ignores the role of the rational mind too much. Girls are instinctive attracted to bad boys the way men are attracted to young, hot girls with nice boobs. However, people ARE able to learn. After a while most guys learn that young + hot + nice boobs does not imply good girlfriend. Yeah we still would like to fuck them, but we know they are not relationship material. (Unless we are PL/RIL strip club patrons.) We feel one type of attraction to them always, but the other kind diminishes. Same with women and bad boys.

I also think EP is completely missing "memetic compatibility" so far. (Least I haven't heard anything mentioned about, and when I've mentioned it to EP fans they just scuff. After all that would buck the trend of the 20th century and actually give the rational/conscious mind a big part in our lives.)

I think you are completely wrong on another point: Starting in late 20s to early 30s is precisely when most women are getting ready to settle down and get married, if they have not done it already. By that point most women have the sense to no longer be chasing after and trying to tame jerks. The characteristic we would hope would be more important do become more important to them at that point. (Same w most men. You might not know it from reading this board, but I think most sensible men have dropped the fantasy of a stripper wife/GF by that point.)

* Oh, and just in case it isn't obvious, some young hot girls with nice boobs are good girlfriend/relationship material. The way I worded it it sounds imcompatible but that's not what I meant.

"I think you are completely wrong on another point: Starting in late 20s to early 30s is precisely when most women are getting ready to settle down and get married, if they have not done it already. By that point most women have the sense to no longer be chasing after and trying to tame jerks."

You still didn't explain the absolutely critical issue of whether you're saying that most women with the bio clock approaching are 1. just somehow putting the "in love" thing aside or 2. they're magically willing themselves in a volitional sense to make themselves fall "in love' with the nice guy.

The basic requisite of "falling in love" with their future mate (using the plain meaning definition) is still in fact critically important to most marriage minded young women in western societies, and its precisely why so many modern females have a major problem finding a suitable mate.

As for the "rational conscious mind" there is little evidence it has much to do, if anything at all, with this so-called (as females continually describe it) all important "chemistry" and the entire issue of falling "in love", and by the way modern theorists have already spent centuries analyzing the rational conscious mind.

Once again why is it so hard to accept females as being subject to primordial influences when its well accepted that most males are (via their propensity toward nonmonogamy, if not by act then by desire) influenced by such factors from millions of years ago? There's a certain unnatural imbalance to continually assert that only one gender is impacted by all of this.

Looking in detail at the June 9th discussion, I have to agree with BookGuy when he says:

"For instance, the theory that women want a long-term committed relationship? I have found (and seen) that if the male suitor addresses a woman from a position of interest in commitment, this means NOT that the woman goes (as suggested above) "wowee, a good catch who wants something similar to what I want!" Rather, she goes "another drip with no cojones." Or, worse yet, "now that I know he is commitment-able, I no longer have to be nice to him. Given that I have ALREADY controlled him into submission, I only have to keep him around by means of a few random intermittent positive reinforcements. Meanwhile, I will have my fun with someone else whom I canNOT control without fucking him."

I think the mistake njscfan is making is paying way too much attention to what women SAY they want in men versus what they actually respond to. Unless one of these women just wants to marry a guy to pay the bills and be a Daddy and she doesn't need to fall "in love" with him - OK I buy it, but most of these late 20's early 30's women are looking for alot more than that and a solid early committment from a male would be a big turnoff in the bio-chemistry sense for many of these women. Maybe an Alpha they can tame might be acceptable but not relatively infreqently would an up-front "gee I'm really looking to settle down" type male hold their interest -short of some other major attraction points.

"I've known a few guys who have fucked chicks numbering in the triple digits (without paying)"

20,000 women for Wilt Chamberlain too - but sad to say all the stress eventually killed him

My advice to Book Guy and the rest of you trying to analyze why you're not getting laid or finding a girlfriend: Stop agonizing over how you're coming off with women. And stop feeling sorry for yourself that women don't appreciate the type of guy you are or that they think differently than men think. That's not your problem. Your problem is simply a failure of will.

All of you write as though it's a matter of 1) Determining what women want in a man, 2) Transforming yourself into an embodiment of that, and 3) Waiting for chicks to throw themselves at you. It doesn't work that way. Not for men. For women somewhat, but men need to go after what they want like it's as necessary as eating and sleeping. Forget about what women want. You'll never find the answer, and speculating about it won't get you laid - it just gives you an excuse not to.

Chandler has a bit of a problem here. I can't tell if his post is giving advice or not. If it is then he is getting into the analytical/advice game and being hypocritical.

If it's not giving advice, then it's worthless: If a guy has had no results, and does not change he will continue to get no results until he changes what is wrong.

Thanks for the useless post, Chandler!

Chandler,

Welcome back. I thought you bought a boat and sailed off to the South Pacific or something.

Bobbyl,

How about posting a fucking review instead of being critical of what others post.

Say what?

Chandler reappears out of nowhere and makes a post extremely critical of what others have posted here and even critical of their right to even discuss the matter, but no one can be critical of his post for some reason? Think your logic is a little broken there, buddy.

Wow, all this time and STILL no reviews from BobbyI...wow...too funny...

Thanks for caring, David.

I take it Bobby was trying to be satirical or "stir up shit". Whatever. Obviously, I was giving advice on how Book Guy should change his attitude. I didn't say never to analyze anything or that nobody should post about what's wrong with women, if they find that interesting. I only said that it wouldn't help you improve your luck with them.

What chandler is saying is that all the advice and analysis in thread won't improve your luck. In fact no advice and analysis will. Well except for his, of course. But, it's pretty obvious that his advice won't (just stop worrying about it!) won't help either. Probably even less so than what he criticizes.

BookGuy brings up the very good issues, and in fact that kind of inquisitive mind can be very attractive to certain women - because its relatively rare these days in most males. In the case of american women, it does seem like he's pushed the edge as far as he can. The law school thing will help, but it doesn't seem like the kind ofwomen he's attracted to - are in turn attracted to him.

The type of mental imaging I suggest for him is to imagine himself in China as a 5 ft 2 inch uneducated middle aged factory worker - and ask himself - who has the better chance with young hot asian women?

LOL! MisterGay is scared to tangle with me on anything factual, after I destroyed him so badly back during the STD debates. So now he is grasping at straws and attacking the fact that I haven't posted any reviews. As if there is some correlation between review count and quality of posts on the discussion board. Crawl back under your rock, MisterGay.

Yeah, Bobby, that's basically how a discussion board works. Different people post their opinions, which oftentimes are quite, um, different. There's always a chance somebody will take it personally. You hope not so many as to kill the discussion by turning it into a boring battle of insults.

chandler: Many have posted different opinions in this thread. You came in here with the attitude "Man, this is all bullshit. You can't laid by trying to figure out how to get laid. Oh, but I've figured out how to get laid: Stop worrying about it and relentlessly pursue what you want. Now that I've had the last word everyone can stop wasting time thinking about this."

See the difference? We post different opinions but respect others right to do the same and keep discussing the subject.

You just want to shut the whole thing down, and at the same time present a logically inconsistent position (analysis won't help you; but mine will) and give useless advice (just don't worry about it).

On the bright side, it was nice to see you back off when I called you out on trying to shut the discussion down.

"What chandler is saying is that all the advice and analysis in thread won't improve your luck."

What chandler is saying is the truth, period.

"MisterGay is scared to tangle with me on anything factual, after I destroyed him so badly back during the STD debates."

Let's not re-write history here, Mr. misogynist "hey HIV & Herpes is no big deal man, it's just like diabetes" boy...lol... The point is you fool...there are those of us that are pulling the cart of this website along, and there are those of YOU (your buddy Davy-boy included) that are just sitting in the cart being dead weight, period.

I think you're the history re-writer. I didn't say Herpes was as serious as diabetes. It's not even close. We are not even talking same order of magnitude. What I did say is that, medically, Herpes is not even as serious as canker sores.

And since you seem to have next to ZERO medical knowledge, let me tell you that diabetes is pretty fucking serious: It will shorten your life expectancy and dramatically increase your chance of heart attacks and strokes. There can be other serious complications like blindness and loss of limbs. It's really fucking serious, man.

As for the advice in this thread not helping people get laid, I agree that is true of the advice posted by MisterGay and chandler. However, njcsfan did post some very good advice. I

As for you pulling the cart of this website, I doubt anyone has ever found anything of any value in any of your posts. Your typical post being the equivalent of

"Hey, David9999. You are a fucking idiot for saying 2+2=4. Fuck even I figured out when I was five that it's really 5."

Chandler states: "men need to go after what they want like it's as necessary as eating and sleeping. Forget about what women want. You'll never find the answer, and speculating about it won't get you laid - it just gives you an excuse not to."

Yahoo using a major lead-in earlier today addressed a similar issue with a supposed solution to the often talked about "nice guy" mystery with an article by an alleged female "relationship expert" -such article ending up as total bullshit - why shouldn't BookGuy be able to post similar questions in here? Maybe he's sick of the bullshit in the major media.

As is true in all areas of life, the answer is in a quote from "Stripes"

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

Nice to see that you're backpeddling now on blowing off the severity of diabetes & HIV. Who knows, maybe an idiot like you can get it right eventually...even a broken clock is right twice a day!

The is strip club REVIEW website you twit! Start pulling your own weight or shove off!!

See this is another example of how stupid you are, and how you just make up shit:

Someone who still had a 1980's knowledge of HIV said that catching it was equivalent to suicide. So I pointed out how much medicine had advanced, and how the life expectancy on ARVs is now just a few years less than normal life expectancy for HIV-. I said that it was certainly not something anyone would want to have, but about as serious as diabetes, which is hardly equal to suicide. If I wanted to "blow it off", I would say it was no more serious than Herpes. Looks like you are trying for some lame equivocation here.

As I've said before MisterGay, you strike me as a guy with an IQ in the mid 70s. If you gained another 25 IQ points or so, you would realize that this website is many things: A discussion board, a host of blogs, strip club reviews, maps, a messaging system, etc.

So why don't you crawl back under your rock, MisterGay, and leave the discussions to people with IQs at least in the triple digits?


Now back to your over-size hockey helmet and special ed classes for you, MisterGay!

LOL...in that whole thread from a while back you made it seem like most STDs were just no big deal at all, which is reckless at best IMO. Oh yea, you haven't posted any blogs/articles OR strip club reviews...thanx for reminding me of that. Go back to your woman hating...

See this is a perfect example of your feeble little mind "works". I said some STDs are no big deal. An example of that would be chlamydia: Just take some anti-biotics for 10 days and it's gone. Not even as bad as getting a cold. But your stupid mind jumps from "some STDs are no big deal" to "you said all STDs are no big deal". Or if I say something like "strippers seem to be below average intelligence on average" your feeble mind will interpret it as me saying "all women are below average intelligence".

Dude, if any woman deserve to be hated it would be your mother for raising a mindless little POS like you.

Go back to your over-sized hockey helmet and your special ed class, MisterGay.

(And, MisterGay, I would say you posting to a discussion board when your IQ is in the mid 70's is much worse than someone posting to a discussion board w.o. having posted strip club reviews. You really oughta worry about the bigger problem rather than fixate on something completely irrelevant.)

No, you downplayed ALL of the significance of ALL STDs in order to justify having unprotected sex with sex workers, period.

So, let's talk some more about a subject that you obviously don't want to talk about...your complete & total lack of any help with strip club reviews on here. IMO, TUSCL would not be TUSCL without the 59,394 strip club reviews (of which you and Davy-boy have contributed ZERO to). So, what's the dilemma? Do you have a problem with numbers between 1 & 10? We've already have seen that you have trouble writing sentences that make complete sense, but lucky for you...that's not a requirement before you post a review. Have you never been to a strip club or does your Mommy not let you know which club she's dropping you off at (hopefully, it's not the same one that she works at)? Yanno, most clubs do give out cards that have the name & location of the club on it...if that would help you remember where you've supposively been...

If I may get back to the original point of this thread, it seems to me that the basic premise here is that all women want the same thing. Yet how many of us look for the same thing in women? We're all different. And guess what, so are they.

Just like many women get deluded into thinking all men prefer bigger breasts, men can get deluded into thinking all women want X, Y, and Z.

As a short guy, I can tell you that generally women want taller. Not all women by any means, but I'd bet women want taller much more than men want bigger breasts. The good news is that some women want shorter or don't care about height. :) I just have a smaller pool of potential women, but it still a good size pool! :)

If a person isn't getting their needs met, then it might be very tempting to want to change in order to be more attractive to a larger pool of women/men.

MisterGay: Yeah, you are right. I don't think any STD is serious enough to be equivalent to suicide. That was quite the down playing on my part.

And I love your brilliant mind at work once again: "He has posted no reviews. Ergo he has never been to a strip club." Dude, were you born a retard or is it due to some trauma you suffered to the head later on in life?

If you have a problem with my lack of reviews, why not take it up with Founder? If not, you can STFU.

Have fun figuring out those "tricky" numbers between 1 & 10 then...I hope you overcome that difficulty at some point in the distant future...

Oh, I've figured it out.

10 = MisterGay's mother's IQ
7 = MisterGay's father's IQ
3 = MisterGay's IQ

Nope, keep workin' on it...

Then again, maybe this alpha male stuff is all bullshit...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06222008/pos…

Very interesting article, imo.

However, imo, it proved the alpha male stuff isn't bullshit at all. That different strategies might work shouldn't come as surprise to anyone except that the one-size-fits-all crowd that seems to be fairly vocal. Hell, even blubber butts seem to fill a niche although generally in the U.S. the Barbie look is far more propular than the blubber butts.

Go to Angels and the rules are very different. And, it isn't just the salivating over 3000 pound women. The values seem to be very different as well. Watching President Bush or CNN, I generally feel a wave of revulsion and think how nice it might be if the culture at Angels was dominant instead. The main downside besides my having to gouge my eyes out is that 3000 pound women would be everywhere. Farmers would have a much larger market so the tradeoff seems more than fair. :)

That different strategies might work shouldn't come as surprise to anyone except to the one-size-fits-all crowd that seems to be fairly vocal.

Faye Flam's article is unusually disjointed when comparing the article heading with the substance of the article. I don't see her backing up the title.

The major problem is they seem to discount Alphas as just being about size and ferocity and getting "sex by beating up on other males and then monopolizing multiple females." saying "It's all about sex and social status."

JUST all about sex and social status?

As if that's a minor issue. In fact there are enormous legacy effects on what this article is trying to trivilize.

In any case, no one has ever said Alphas were the only relevant story in man's development.

However there are some good points, particularly as it concerns these "sneaky fuckers".

A (quite reasonable) question came up a few months ago in exactly how typical stripper boyfriends fit in with the Alpha theory. Now my explanation then was that there are overlapping characteristics between Alphas and these typical stripper B/F types; no not usually in the POSITVE attributes of Alphas, but in some or all of the NEGATIVE ones: namely a generalized disrespect for women, controlling behavior, deceptive (i.e. sleazy) personality traits, in some cases infidelity, and now and then in some cases use of physical force against them, often (based upon many stripper accounts) kicking or shoving or hair pulling etc

Now what's interesting is mention of "creative arts" which for stripper many times is these (mostly jobless) musician/artist types - who seem to be one of the main types that stripper attract.

Now the article is really pushing it by saying: as for "Sneaker human males may even have used parenting skills to woo mates" Well MAY is the operative phrase at least, because this suggests late stage pair bonding of some type - actually an advanced evolutionary device of sorts (and a much smaller time frame) and not likely to overwhelm the benefits of wide scale seed dispersal and an ultimate genetic survival advantage

I think the "King of TUSCL" would decree that all the seed spreading posts have nothing whatsoever to do with stripclubbing and that imo would be sad and erroneous.

So NO seed spreading posts and NO posts with more than 10 words or more than 2 sentences but in any case whichever is most laconic. Well, that extirpates about 99% of TUSCL's discussion board besides of course the pearls cast down by TUSCL royalty. ;)

"This alpha male stuff is just bull shit. In the animal kingdom this old bull would be driven out. In the real world, I can still compete.
My looks, my personality, my money. Get real!"


The realty is, imo, that througout 99% of human history the "old bull would be driven out" to use your own words. Natural selection played out over millions of years should give some valuable clues as to what women--fertile women--are attracted to on the primordial level in that genes are replicating.

If dragging a woman around by her hair was a successful propagating strategy for millions of years, then that hair dragging should persist at some level even when the game changes radically. Many years ago I was "man-handling" my girlfriend and another man objected. He didn't understand that I wasn't actually "man-handling" her and that ***she wanted me to act even more aggressive.*** I joked with her that if I was anymore aggressive, then I'd be behind bars! The man doing the objecting by the way a very nice guy; a very nice guy who wasn't having success with women. Perhaps his standards were too high or he was attracted to women who didn't value the fact that he was so nice.

I agree with AN 99% of the way. There are very few real alpha males out there, the vast majority of them are just pretenders, it's all an act. Really get to know them and most of them are pretty pathetic, their obnoxious behavior covers up their lack of self confidence. The real ones project a presence that stands out because it's so rare. And they don't fit the stereotype at all.

**

Really miss discussions like these on TUSCL.