PUA derail from "friend or more?"

[kora]

BTW if he were a woman, the "Pick Up Artist" (PUA) sites would say, she's doing it to have her ego stroked. There's a recurring pattern among women, certainly not all women but enough for men to notice a general pattern. Keeping a harem of lesser "beta men" around to have these little text interactions with, and nothing else. That jerk man she's actually having sex with didn't treat her right? She'll go complain about it to one of her "text" men. These men have typically been reduced to a "friends only" status, although women sometimes do keep a harem around, to have other options if the main man doesn't work out. Anyways in this pattern, it's all about attention whoring. The PUA answer to that, is not to give that kind of attention.

Could a man act like this? Don't know. None of my friends do, but that doesn't mean anything, because my friends tend to be similar to myself.

Whaaat ??? Girls don't do that...unless they were proper fucked up idiots...PUA is obviously full of shit...probably some guys wishing girls who considered them friends when they liked them justifying their attention as ego stroking instead of normal friendly behavior...

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Whaaat ??? Girls don't do that...unless they were proper fucked up idiots...PUA is obviously full of shit...probably some guys wishing girls who considered them friends when they liked them justifying their attention as ego stroking instead of normal friendly behavior...

Most people are proper fucked up idiots beneath the wax.

 

[Yellow]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

So what's it called when a lady has a harem of "alphas" and "omegas"?...

Yet again, I don't understand the issue. OP seems to have a perfect situation. If you two aren't having "monogamy talks", then you're both free agents who also have each other. Best of both worlds.

 

[kora]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Most people are proper fucked up idiots beneath the wax.

Quit projecting

@yellow if you're alpha you can't be part of a male harem because that is non alpha/dominating behavior. :-)

 

[bvanevery]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Regarding attention whoring / keeping a harem of beta males to complain to:

Whaaat ??? Girls don't do that...unless they were proper fucked up idiots...

I don't see the point in saying they don't, if there's an immediate qualification that they do after all. One need merely debate how "fucked up" they have to be, to engage in the "beta male friend zone" behavioral pattern.

PUA is obviously full of shit...

I don't think so in this case. PUA definitely doesn't have answers for various areas of man / woman interaction, but sexual activity, there's something to be learned from them.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

... oh, and we've had so much luck with PUA discussions on this forum before...

Maybe more care should be taken in avoiding large generalizations that really do not apply across the spectrum, as the issue here with generalizing women as exuding a particular trait that (of course) women here are finding no relationship to.

I understand that some people's experience (if they are young enough, and absorbed in the dating process) might be very focused on girls who fit the description, but outside that demographic there's just a lot of "normal" people. Life isn't a TV show that focuses on extremes of behavior to generate either outrage or amusement.

 

[bvanevery]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Maybe more care should be taken in avoiding large generalizations that really do not apply across the spectrum, as the issue here with generalizing women as exuding a particular trait that (of course) women here are finding no relationship to.

That goes both ways, as in not making statements that "girls don't do that... [unless]..." Called a "No True Scotsman" argument.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

That goes both ways, as in not making statements that "girls don't do that... [unless]..." Called a "No True Scotsman" argument.

Feel better now, even if you instigated the whole mess?

...I think I insinuated that there's a demographic where it might be relevant. At least, in an environment run by "Mean Girls" ... which mostly stops mattering once you get past high school and/or junior college.

 

[bvanevery]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Feel better now, even if you instigated the whole mess?

What mess? You must have some awfully powerful knee jerk reactions to the acronym 'PUA' to call present discussion a mess.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

What mess? You must have some awfully powerful knee jerk reactions to the acronym 'PUA' to call present discussion a mess.

Thanks for nitpicking word use to insinuate something negative about me that isn't true. You're good at this game.

... but yeah, as I said, we've already done the PUA thing to death. I've been here a lot longer than you. I already know where it's going to go.

Good luck. I shall not forget you, soldier.

 

[bvanevery]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Thanks for nitpicking word use to insinuate something negative about me that isn't true.

You chose the word 'mess', to describe some pretty brief commentary in passing. If you didn't mean anything by it, why did you use it? It's your word, you're responsible for it.

EDIT: in fact, I just figured out why you used it. You're projecting. You had some previous 'mess' with a big PUA discussion. So you say this one is a 'mess' as well. It isn't.

You're good at this game.

What game? You are coming across as a person who's Angry-O-Meter blows the mercury the minute the term 'PUA' is introduced to a discussion. Since we've only had a few sentences about the whole thing, one of which included PUA doesn't have all the answers for everything between men and women, your stance is puzzling.

... but yeah, as I said, we've already done the PUA thing to death. I've been here a lot longer than you. I already know where it's going to go.

I can only infer that you're very, very angry about some previous PUA discussion, and about that body of ideas in general. I seriously doubt you know where I'm going. For one thing, you seemed to think this was going to turn into some big discussion of PUA.

Good luck. I shall not forget you, soldier.

I don't understand your figure of speech and I'm not sure I care to.

 

[Yellow]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Meh, everyone's a sleaze, when you think about it.

I'm still vague on what PUA means. I mean, I've looked up the definition, but they way it comes up here so often, you'd think it was a fucking religion.

Also, learning about this Alpha/Beta thing this week, gee whiz, you fellas are a lot harsher on each other than the most callous woman could be. Imagine, just dismissing someone "Beta". You might as well point at his dick and laugh.

Anyway higs, theoretically, a man could be "alpha" and be willing to join a harem, especially of he doesn't have to interact much with the other harem members. After all alpha =/= insecure and possessive. Also, I don't see much to suggest that alphas-people must be inflexible or uber-dominating. According to theory, that would be more of the behavior of a Beta who's trying to posture or whatever.

I dunno. It's all silly.

Humans aren't harem mammals, so we don't have alphas or betas in a reproductive sense. We just have cultural dynamics (which are based directly, or ancestrally on resource availability) leading to a variety of family unit styles and mating rituals.

 

[bvanevery]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

As amusing as this may all be to contemplate, we've completely derailed giving the OP any advice on her situation. Maybe she's gotten all the advice anyone could possibly need and there's nothing more to say. So now we're filling empty space. I will do my part by unsubscribing from this thread. I just wanted to make my point about people's possible motives for their behavior, other than romantic or sexual interest. Some people do like being talked at to prop themselves up, and aren't going to reciprocate romantically or sexually for interacting that way.

 

[Yellow]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

It's okay. There's a 19 day rule. If someone joins, asks a question, and then never comes back, then after 19 days, the thread is fair game for derailings and general mayhem.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

It's okay. There's a 19 day rule. If someone joins, asks a question, and then never comes back, then after 19 days, the thread is fair game for derailings and general mayhem.

I thought it was an 18-day rule, so I was being nice by waiting an extra day. Drat.

 

[Yellow]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

It might be 18 days. My memory is terrible.

 

[Jennywocky]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

It might be 18 days. My memory is terrible.

As long as it's not 17 days.
That would be bad.

 

[Sinny91]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

It's okay. There's a 19 day rule. If someone joins, asks a question, and then never comes back, then after 19 days, the thread is fair game for derailings and general mayhem.

Excellent, I love mayhem.

Suppose I've friend zoned a few beta's

 

[Happy]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

PUA is still a thing? I thought that meathead ideology died out years ago.
I'm also surprised alpha/beta is still a thing. I personally don't fit into either category. Are there other classifications? What's the deal with all that?

 

[Sinny91]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Are there other classifications?

Fuckable, not fuckable.
Useful, not useful.
Intelligent, tool.
Sweet, jerk.
Gentleman, fuckboy...


Only my classifications mind

 

[Happy]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Fuckable, not fuckable.
Useful, not useful.
Intelligent, tool.
Sweet, jerk.
Gentleman, fuckboy...


Only my classifications mind

By that criteria, I'd be a useful, intelligent, jerk of a gentleman. Emphasis on the jerk. And gentleman would be a loose classification at best.

 

[Sinny91]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Oooo you sound perfect, come hither.

Oh wait, you omitted one of the most important criteria, but I suppose the say on that one isn't down to you..

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

PUA is still a thing? I thought that meathead ideology died out years ago.

I think there's more of a holistic "life coach" or "law of attraction" or "be your best self" style of PUA community thriving, judging from what a friend told me.

Makes a lot more sense than the "treat her like shit" maxim.

 

[Happy]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

I think there's more of a holistic "life coach" or "law of attraction" or "be your best self" style of PUA community thriving, judging from what a friend told me.

Makes a lot more sense than the "treat her like shit" maxim.

Oh good. I was picturing the "treat her like shit" attitude I used to see on PUA sites. I used to watch their videos for their comedic value. The people making the videos were always clearly wannabes, and were usually creepy AF. They'd almost always target the (and I don't mean any sexism here, ladies) 'dumb broads'. I reckon they're one of the most hilarious stereotypes.

 

[Intolerable]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

I've always read the beta male thing as being unwilling to risk confrontations / challenges. To me though that isn't a beta male. A beta male to me is one who blindly follows others who owns no original nor creative thought let alone having one to defend. The ultimate follower in other words.

By the read definition I would be classified as beta because I don't take fool risks and I don't dress like a peacock. I do take risks but they aren't the type you wear on your sleeve. They are more intellectual risks and career risks.

That probably explains why I've had fewer but longer lasting relationships with women than other guys. I know some women like guys who have tattoos, wear jewelry and show stupid amounts of risk in their everyday lives. All superficial stuff.

 

[Intolerable]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

A bit of googling suggests further categories. Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, Omega and Sigma. Interesting.

If this has any legitimacy to it, I think I identify most with the definition of the Sigma male.

Has anyone looked into this?

It does look pretty good though I don't think it can account for everything.

For example in personality a new woman doesn't terrify me but she does present something new. A new persona that I have to figure out. So the first few exchanges are tense. That doesn't stop me from breaking the ice though. So maybe still Sigma. That thing about showing up with a tier 1 woman out of nowhere is definitely me. I've done that on a number of occasions.

The scorn for women thing is true as well but not in a general sense. I need to be around her and see her ways before any scorn is evoked.

Insofar as the pack mentality I'm definitely a Sigma as well. I don't value the pack in my life. Never have and never will. I do find that a lot of people try to befriend me. Some of that becomes reciprocal but people eventually figure out that the debates in my head tend to be more valuable to me than the conversations outside of it.

Pretty good stuff Happy!

 

[kora]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

https://xkcd.com/1027/

Xkcd author take on it

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Has anyone looked into this?

Of course not. Only an Epsigrammalon would care.

 

[kora]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Omg Omg an epsigrammalon *gets allflustered and hot*

 

[Pyropyro]

Oooh PUA party! Supreme Gentleman mode activate!

*Applies Axe body spray*
*Re-reads "Art of Seduction" books*
*Dusts off and puts on classy fedora*

@Happy The alpha beta roles are real but not in the PUA sense. In wolves (where this whole hierarchy was falsely established by poor research) alphas = parents; betas = siblings. Betas become alphas when they establish their own pack.

Alphas show aggressive behaviour to betas not because they're stronger but rather because older brothers and sisters tend to eat too much of the food. It's the wolfie way of saying "save some for your younger sister/brother!"

 

[Fukyo]

You need one of these Pyro

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

You need one of these Pyro

Haha! That is positively Pimparific

 

[nanook]

I know where these threads about PUA are going. Misandry. Always.

The thing is, men need to learn how to approach women, because women obviously don't approach men and don't respect men, who can't approach women and many men have missed learning about it at an ideal age, like when they were 12 years old, for many reasons, such as being fat and late in puberty due to hormones in plastic and animal products, simply being introverted and socially detached types or being intimidated and having no role model due to having old school parents. This is why there is a culture of approach-self help on youtube and the likes. Women who say this culture is full of shit are practicing severe misandry and what's more hurtful doublebind (because they do expect men to be good at approaching) right there. Why would anyone look up the definition of pick up and make anything out of it? This is obviously a biased approach, ignorance + reductionism. Go and watch ALL videos on youtube about approach anxiety, inner game, outer game and tell me that it does not cover the whole spectrum of what men and women are like, from egocentric and exploitative to intergral and spiritually awake, from introversion to extroversion, sensation to intuition, neurotypical to autism and of course stupid and smart, capitalist fraudulence and sincere compassion.

Cursing at PUA is like cursing at any type of self help that women practice, in regards to improving their social interactions and image in society. Girlpower ....

 

[Yellow]

I know where these threads about PUA are going. Misandry. Always.

The thing is, men need to learn how to approach women, because women obviously don't approach men and don't respect men, who can't approach women and many men have missed learning about it at an ideal age, like when they were 12 years old, for many reasons, such as being fat and late in puberty due to hormones in plastic and dairy, simply being introverted of being intimidated by old school parents. This is why there is a culture of approach-self help on youtube and the likes. Women who say this culture is full of shit are practicing severer misandry and what's worse doublebind (because they do expect men to be good at approaching) right there. Why would anyone look up the definition of pick up and make anything out of it? This is obviously a biased approach, ignorance + reductionism. Go and watch ALL videos on youtube about approach anxiety, inner game, outer game and tell me that it does not cover the whole spectrum of what men and women are like, from egocentric and exploitative to intergral and spiritually awake, from introversion to extroversion, sensation to intuition, neurotypical to autism.

Cursing at PUA is like cursing at any type of self help that women practice, in regards to improving their social interaction. Girlpower ....

To be fair, a lot of the "girlpower" stuff is misandry. Much of it is unhealthy, and frankly stomach-churning. Just like a lot of the PUA stuff appears repulsive.

Maybe it's the approach, or the intent that really matters. If you approach (or advocate the approach toward) your preferred gender the way a hunter approaches a herd of deer, then things are going to go poorly. If you see someone providing "hunting tips" as if you're something "other" than a peer, you're going to react poorly.

If a man (or woman) is simply trying to learn how to attract a mate, it's different.

 

[nanook]

I enjoy your posts on the subject, because it's rare to read comments on gender subjects that are not biased or if so, by accident, not by attitude.

I understand that women must have an anxiety based emotional logic (being afraid of evil hunters), this is logically implied by a passive gender role, which i consider to be largely inborn, not socially constructed. I also think that men are goal oriented by nature*, but this has been suppressed in many individuals, by society. As a result of being completely repressed and passive in life myself, i can probably understand/empathize with the fear of women!

Nevertheless i am not afraid of women approaching me, because i do not have a life time experience of being hit upon by all the most aggressive women in the world. So if women were to advocate approaching men in a hunter like manner, my only initial worry would be, being "shit tested" and rejected anyways, by a whole army of women out to get the most manly man they can find. *

I can see why some men would hate that and assume that women have similar experiences - fearing approaches by men, not because they are inherently goal oriented, but because women feel rejected after learning, that what the men was looking for isn't what they crave to be accepted for. This experience of raised hope, followed by disappointment and rejection and probably consequential insecurity seems however unavoidable to me, in dating. Humans, who are not spiritually awake, will always project their hopes and desires into another one, before approaching them. And humans who are not spiritually awake are always trapped in hope and disappointment and insecurity. We have to discover, that our only hope is to manage (or rather let go of) our own egoic emotions, because the world will never stop provoking them. Blaming it won't help.

* Though, in reality, this shit-testing-mob-attack could never happen to me personally, because they would completely overlook me due to my height of 5'6. The worst thing that ever happens to me is women, who are 10 years older, contacting me on okcupid to tell me, i should smile more.

*passive/goal oriented, this is grossly simplified language, i can't explain agape and eros all over again.

Btw, anyone, please realize that you are actively filtering out the less goal oriented men or men who project less (often sex related) expectations, by not giving much useful information about yourself on a dating site or in your fashion style.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Re: Am I just a friend or more than a friend? What are the signs?

Omg Omg an epsigrammalon *gets allflustered and hot*

I can emulate the Epsigrammalon as a lossless subroutine of my pristine and omniscient Alfalfa wave resonant state.

 

[Tannhauser]

One does not really need the PUA perspective to see that bvanevery is fully correct. Another funny thing: these women will tell the "text guys" how other men are "sleazy" etc for being overtly sexual. That is how these women make sure that they can keep the beta-males around without having sex with them, while simultaneously being on the lookout for the best possible genetic material. Even better: this will even prevent the beta-males from pursuing other women sexually (because it is "sleazy"), thus effectively removing all competition on the female side.

It's not a conscious process, but it's genius.

Women will never admit this, but compared to men, they have some extremely sophisticated social techniques that men cannot even fathom.

 

[Yellow]

One does not really need the PUA perspective to see that bvanevery is fully correct. Another funny thing: these women will tell the "text guys" how other men are "sleazy" etc for being overtly sexual. That is how these women make sure that they can keep the beta-males around without having sex with them, while simultaneously being on the lookout for the best possible genetic material. Even better: this will even prevent the beta-males from pursuing other women sexually (because it is "sleazy"), thus effectively removing all competition on the female side.

It's not a conscious process, but it's genius.

Women will never admit this, but compared to men, they have some extremely sophisticated social techniques that men cannot even fathom.

I'm not sure it's really that complicated. I'm not saying the actual run of it is any better, but let me provide an alternative.

There are many men who will give women attention. Not necessarily because they want sex, maybe they are just being neutral and friendly. Maybe they want the dynamic of a man-woman friendship. Let's be honest though, there's almost always at least a tiny hint of sexual tension, real or imagined.

So armed with attention, the women talk. They form what they think/imagine are mutually friendly friendships. They know that the inkling of sexual tension exists, that they really aren't that funny, or fun to be around, or cool. It doesn;t matter though. They just want to feel liked and accepted like everyone else. The men do too (which is why they hang around longer than they should).

It's not that she complains about jerks because she's trying to (consciously or unconsciously) control the man-friend's behavior, it's that she wants someone to talk to, and he's going to provide reliably comfortable, supportive feedback.

This is sometimes just a natural process. Like, "hey, this person/these people talk to me, they like to hear about my life too, and I feel this connection. The flirting is totally joking and harmless". Rather than, "This man is being more generous with his attention than is typical because he wants/is getting some sense of sexual feedback. I'm really not that cool." The more oblivious and lonely the woman is, the more likely she is to latch on.

Alternatively, the men (maybe I should be saying the attracted and the attractees, because this works in other gender/sex dynamics too, but that seems tedious) are giving the woman this attention, pandering, in a way, in the hopes that they will form a bond. This might just be friendship (plus the little spark of sexiness from time to time), or for more. But he is fooling himself as well. He can admit that "this woman is opening up to me and using this as a chance to feel some semblance of friendship because she craves positive attention just like any other human, and I'm providing it. Our chances of mutual sexual attraction are barely above those of strangers", or he can sink into the comfortably warm waters of prattle, some boob-heavy hugs, and a cute companion at the mall.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Women have a different position in a relationship because they choose their mate, it's not some ingenious socio-technique, they have a different position of power (chooser vs candidate) and it reflects that. Many recent trends have actually bridged this gap, the fact that procreation is less important in a relationship means there's a greater potential for equal footing and compromise on both sides.

How does one even begin to define a beta male? One that doesn't do the same thing an alpha does? If so, then this definition is object oriented and largely arbitrary to begin with.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Women have a different position in a relationship because they choose their mate

...And guys don't choose...?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

...And guys don't choose...?

They don't get to decide if they are chosen for procreation. In a power neutral scenario and 0 violence or coercion. They are always applicants.

 

[Yellow]

^^ That's my confusion too. It's true that it's often up to the man to take the initiative, but many mate-choice dynamics are far less about the woman's preference than the man's.

But maybe that's where the alpha/beta thing comes in? The beta offers and the alpha assumes? If so, things are much more fluid than that.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

But maybe that's where the alpha/beta thing comes in? The beta offers and the alpha assumes? If so, things are much more fluid than that.

Well if we count any sexual advance as an alpha thing, then yes, it boils down to who has the initiative and it definitely isn't an exclusively manly thing.

 

[Tannhauser]

Women have a different position in a relationship because they choose their mate, it's not some ingenious socio-technique, they have a different position of power (chooser vs candidate) and it reflects that. Many recent trends have actually bridged this gap, the fact that procreation is less important in a relationship means there's a greater potential for equal footing and compromise on both sides.

How does one even begin to define a beta male? One that doesn't do the same thing an alpha does? If so, then this definition is object oriented and largely arbitrary to begin with.

I think you are not taking into account all the problems entailed in the selection on the women's part. They are choosing, yes, but they are not making this choice in isolation – they are in competition with all the other females, so they have to find some compromise between genetic quality and the probability of having that guy attached to them. Women have an incentive to making a guy monogamous and simultaneously having the option to choose between as many men as possible.

The alpha/beta distinction does not really have a real definition, I agree. But this distinction is useful to distinguish between men with short- and long-term mating strategies.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

They don't get to decide if they are chosen for procreation. In a power neutral scenario and 0 violence or coercion. They are always applicants.

Not in my experience. I've always been the one applied to. And I'm not saying that in a "man, I'm so good. I get my pick of the litter" way, but it's just always been the case in my experience that girls end up approaching me or (if they don't approach) doing everything in their power to entice me into approaching.

I agree that the tendency is for men to be considered the applicant, as men are often the ones expected to make the first move (ie. applying), but I think it's incorrect to say that they have no choice whatsoever and that this is always the case.

 

[Tannhauser]

This is sometimes just a natural process. Like, "hey, this person/these people talk to me, they like to hear about my life too, and I feel this connection. The flirting is totally joking and harmless". Rather than, "This man is being more generous with his attention than is typical because he wants/is getting some sense of sexual feedback. I'm really not that cool." The more oblivious and lonely the woman is, the more likely she is to latch on.

I don't think that is an unreasonable narrative. I would agree that a man and a woman can be friends without the man jerking off to pictures of her behind her back. But I think that is a scenario where both the guy and the women are socially intelligent people with sexual options outside the friendship. If a guy is willing to listen to her talking about all the "jerks", I think the woman knows for sure why that is the case.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Not in my experience. I've always been the one applied to. And I'm not saying that in a "man, I'm so good. I get my pick of the litter" way, but it's just always been the case in my experience that girls end up approaching me or (if they don't approach) doing everything in their power to entice me into approaching.

I know this and I think similarly, I was speaking of procreation.
I agreed with you in this bit:

Many recent trends have actually bridged this gap, the fact that procreation is less important in a relationship means there's a greater potential for equal footing and compromise on both sides.

The alpha/beta distinction does not really have a real definition, I agree. But this distinction is useful to distinguish between men with short- and long-term mating strategies.

I see what you mean. I don't have anything to comment on that in particular, seems to make sense to view people like that when making some kind of related argument. I'm not sure how prevalent and which mating strategies are popular among people.

 

[Intolerable]

The notion that women choose is more a visual than reality.

We don't choose when our options are limited. When a woman ( or a man ) are raised propagandized to find only X + Y + Z worth their time they are fooled even before they've had a chance to choose to only chase one guy. Or hope that one guy chases them.

I've seen it a multitude of times where a woman is chased by an ordinary guy and she tells him she's involved, or she's got some kind of other excuse to friend zone him. He's perfect for her but she can't see it because the first 16 years of her life Mtv was telling her some other guy was perfect for her.

The fact Romans married off their girls at a young age shows that they, not we, were far wiser on the subject of human behavior. The sole intent is to preserve her prospects as the parents were much wiser and knew well ahead of time that her perception was malleable. She would find happiness in an event she didn't choose.

I know Indian women who have been arranged for marriage by their parents who have told me they were completely fine with it. So don't believe the bunk pushed by the left that arranged marriages were generally bad business where little girls were raped by old men. There is always a truth in everything.

 

[Yellow]

Maybe I'm alone here, but tired of this fountain of perpetual bullshit you seem tapped into. I realize that I'd be wasting my time responding, if this was only for your benefit, but looking at the big picture, I think it should be on record that this crap really is Intolerable. Nevertheless, I prefer to condescend in a dialogue format, so I will make these concepts as simple as possible for you.

The notion that women choose is more a visual than reality.

Despite current cultural dynamics resulting from globalization and overcrowding, human penis size alone provides pulsating, engorged evidence that sexual selection has fallen squarely on the female of the species throughout at least the majority of human history/evolution. Human penises are gigantic compared to other primates.

Why are we breeding larger schlongs, you may ask? It all comes down to the size of our.... brains. Humans have much larger brains than other primates. It necessitates a much larger birth canal ("vagina"). Now, a small, dissatisfying penis can still impregnate a woman as well as a larger one (our natural lubricant is also slightly spermicidal). The problem is, it's not very pleasureable (the kama sutra just isn't enough. Amirte, ladies?). So, women have been breeding men to have larger and larger penises, which are more stimulating to our bigger vaginas, which are accommodating our ridiculously big-headed babies.

We don't choose when our options are limited. When a woman ( or a man ) are raised propagandized to find only X + Y + Z worth their time they are fooled even before they've had a chance to choose to only chase one guy. Or hope that one guy chases them.

You caught us. We're all Beliebers.

The following is textbook material, and so no one is really bothering with these basic concepts in everyday studies. I could list some textbooks for you, but I don't expect you to read them. I'll summarize.

Men (as a rule) like healthy women. Pretty women are healthy.

Women (as a rule) like men who are expressive and seem capable of providing resources and protection during the vulnerable years of pregnancy and early child-rearing.

Of course, these things are partially contextual. The ecosystem and available resources, along with population size, dynamics and lifestyle, are all important contextual factors that affect views of health and prosperity. However, this isn't brainwashing, propaganda, or whatever you tell yourself when you're feeling lonely.

The fact Romans married off their girls at a young age shows that they, not we, were far wiser on the subject of human behavior.

You're right, of course. The Romans were progressive humanitarians, and dedicated nurturers of the human spirit. From their tyrannical leaders to their military decimations, genocidal campaigns, thriving slave trade for sex and labor, and their incredible insight regarding the barbarian races, it's no wonder they we so forward-thinking about the fate of their young women. I agree that we could all learn a thing or two from their example.

The sole intent is to preserve her prospects as the parents were much wiser and knew well ahead of time that her perception was malleable. She would find happiness in an event she didn't choose.

I've seen it a multitude of times where a woman is chased by an ordinary guy and she tells him she's involved, or she's got some kind of other excuse to friend zone him. He's perfect for her but she can't see it because the first 16 years of her life Mtv was telling her some other guy was perfect for her.

What can I say? Women are stupid. I mean, who are we to have a say in who we have sex with? Our vapid, impressionable minds just can't handle those big, important decisions.

I know Indian women who have been arranged for marriage by their parents who have told me they were completely fine with it.

I'm so embarrassed. I wish I had read this before I even started. You know women. I mean, with evidence like this, I don't know why we even bother with books and reading and all that wasteful sciencey stuff.

As a side note, I think I've stumbled on to something. Average penis size appears to be smaller in regions where women are traditionally less empowered to choose their mate. I realize the connection is still conjecture at this point, but I'd like to see a study comparing the length of time in which forced/arranged marriage practices have been common, and the size of the average fuck-stick.


Hello! I think I'm gonna need to move to Venezuela..

 

[Happy]

Excellent post, Yellow.

I hope the subtext isn't wasted.