Comments by David9999 (page 7)

I like this line "The nice guy cares too much, too soon. He has made the woman too important" Oh so I suppose if the "nice guy" waits a certain period - then everything is fine and the big "chemistry" happens. Each female can reveal the secret waiting period that will induce all the magic. Gee the horror of it all, making a woman "important". This entire article (the latest in a series over the years from 'relationship experts' invariably consisting of convoluted and twisted explanations on the nice guy debate) is simply more of the same nonsense and provides even more proof that there are definitely evolutionary connections to all of this. We're animals and affected by animalistic instincts, some formed millions of years ago -its not that complicated.

asian women

"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

correction "ultra hot and very young" female and so forth

correction "monogamy is ver unnatural for men anyways"

Dennis Farina (father and rogue) as spoken to Edward Burns (son) in THE SIDEWALKS OF NEW YORK, an small independent movie - Farina said more or less the same thing: about for nearly every beautiful woman, there's a bored guy somewhere. The statement you've quoted is flat out incorrect as applied to all beautiful or nearly all beautiful women. Its (of course) an over-statement when applied to all beautiful women - but at some point with many, yes. Lets assume for the sake of simplicity we're talking about the rare 10 level women in the range of 18 to 35, equisite facial beauty combined with incredible bodies, model looks, could do Playboy etc 1. probably most of these women in this category particularly those over age 21 are in some kind of steady relationship, and when they end one relationship its usually to start a new one 2. the guys they're attracted to will often tend to be womanizers, many have had other ultra beautiful girlfriends before, and while they might put the womanizing on hold for a time, they will eventually grow tired of any woman. 3. at some point many of these guys will in fact become bored no matter how beautiful a woman might be, as nonmonogamy is very unnatural for most men anyways As for true 10 level women most are absolutely addicted to the crack-cocaine like "chemistry" high of a relationship, and once the "in love" part (as the female views it) ends (which it usually won't for awhile if the guy is cheater) -then the guy himself needs to look for the exit.

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.

By the way the last time I was explicitely accused of lying was on Thursday by an ultra-hot dancer A who was concerned about my other involvements around town which I accurately described to her as B,C,D, and ultra young and very young female E needing to be put on hold indefinitely due to excessive flakiness. Female A's exact words were "my concern is with the others you're lying about" (odd choice of words really) My response with a 100% straight face: "there are no others" Her response "yeah right" I'm constantly being accused of lying even when telling the truth, which of course is a good thing in this context. Now just today I was indirectly accused of lying or shading the truth in some way by Female B who asked (for some reason) specifically about another specific female (lets call her C) B "You been with C this week"? Answer "No, not this week at all" (100% true) B "you sure"? Answer: "no no not at all" (she was trying to figure why I was not seeing her quite as much in recent weeks) This isn't about jealousy, its this horndog vibe thing. Women can sense the vibe when you're constantly looking for new women to screw -and that's precisely (IMHO) what perks the chemistry up and gets them really into the "chemistry" thing and everything that derives from it.

6 ft 3 inches and 200 lbs, athletic build, in-shape for an over 40 type

Lying in general requires a thought process and (apart from the high quality let's say 10% group) I'm not sure most strippers have that many brain cells operating. Recent conversation with young Dancer A (who has at least some college credits) Dancer A "Well, what do you REALLY think about me"? Customer: "You're Ok, but I will have to admit, I think you're a bit flakey sometimes" Dancer A "Flakey? what does that mean?" (apparently flakey is now in the "big word" category too.) urbandictionary.com definition: adj.,to be unreliable, and/or absent-minded, flighty, fickle."

"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.

"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.

"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.

(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.

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.

"she had just had her 28th birthday and was feeling old." That is amazing and this was only a few weeks back and it took me by total surprise too, and her reaction was so bad maybe she was drinking (can bartenders in a strip club take a drink like strippers do?) To give a bit of context to the story, in this particular upscale club which I very rarely fequented because of overpriced VIPs etc, it was near the end of a period of time where I had been dropping very large sums of money in the prior 4 or 5 weeks (approx $5000 in total) or so on this very young (ultra low 20's) super attractive/ super personality dancer just starting in the business, and my guess is what happened is this particular bartender who wasn't always there on the same days I was in the club must have somehow heard some details (probably from bouncers or waitresses who I was giving large tips to) about my recent track record in the club - because no one else was buying that many VIPs sessions during that timeframe - so this bartender was ready to "hunt bear" as they say. I was 100% sober drinking a coke and I actually thought she was going to punch me out, she was absolutely beside herself with anger, apparently thinking I was dissing her in some way, and when I heard the swears start, I figured I would defuse it with a 20 dollar bill

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.

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

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"

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.

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

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Time_Magazine_infidelity_in_genes_15AUG94.htm This is from the original Time Magazine cover story back in 1994 written by Robert Wright

Not sure when the other situations happened, however there are dancers doing things today they wouldn't have dreamed of doing a year or 2 back and its because many are very very worried about increasingly reduced earnings. What's she really saying is: "I didn't used to do this type of thing, however I do it now with certain customers because I want repeat business."

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.

"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.