Do boys/girls only care about matarial things a person has?

Post Reply New Topic

They only care if you associate with reality. If you disassociate, then you may be kinda on the side. I know I tend to be the one who disassociates, because there is another side to any argument that needs to be given more light than the ones I say. Usually someone has a response that they assume associates more with reality than the one I give. Even then, the times I mention I disassociate with reality are probably the times people actually say I am in touch with reality, but I can't predict people. They look like they are against you when you want them for you and look like they are for you when you are against them. I wish each day I was the one who associates with reality. I mean for once can I not be the bad guy or the one you should sympathize with in the corner. I don't want the opposite either. What I actually want is to be a regul- (Yes, there is no such thing as regular or normal) -ar person. Problem is: I don't I do, I do I don't, I say I do and don't well I'm crazy. I say that wild assumption and the message is "stop rambling!" or a short response. Or, you're not crazy. I don't know. Another problem is that people think that I think I 100% know what they are telling me, and no I don't. Even then, there are more severe people who disassociate with reality that people have more of a connection with.

The problem isn't even people. The problem I see is this way of communicating that society imposes that is completely unknown to some of us that we tend to be gullible about.

Possible piece of advice with that statement? "I've been there before."

Last edited by ZachGoodwin on 19 Nov 2017, 9:10 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Yes.

Bias confirmed.
You're welcome.

Not really. The majority of friends I know in committed relationships are as broke as a joke. There's very, very few women out there who are gold diggers.

Probably because when most people say "alpha" they're using it in an outlandish, cartoon-y version of what "alpha" actually is.

Secondly, as has already been demonstrated, it doesn't matter if "alphas" actually exist in human society because the people who want to believe it are going to invent it into existence.

So a fat guy who works at McDonald's has a girlfriend?

"Well, he has really white teeth, so, he's an alpha and it's hypergamy."

Ultimately, it's a belief rooted in emotion, not logic, and I've learned long ago that debating emotion-based belief with logic never works.

I've learned that too.

http://web.simmons.edu/~turnerg/MCC/Matechoice2PDF.pdf

I have yet to see any evidence to disprove hypergamy.

Probably because you'll always find a way to define a woman's actions as "hypergamy" no matter what the case may actually be.

"Yeah, she's dating a fat guy who works at McDonald's, but his teeth are really white, so it's hypergamy."

It's an emotionally comforting framework from which to view your failure to attract women; therefore, it's unlikely you'd ever accept any evidence to the contrary.

I could say the same to you. You are too locked in to consider any evidence, no matter how convincing.

I think it's laughably arrogant to say your own beliefs are purely rooted in logic. Especially since there is no evidence to disprove hypergamy, while there is some to prove it. And also just look around in the world we live in. Where are all the rich women marrying poor men? There should be loads of them if hypergamy didn't exist right? Purely a construction of emotion my ass.

If 50% of men have 0 children and 50% of men have 2 children and 100% of women have 1 child, even if all children survive into adulthood the human population would have been continually halving. So no that is not how it has historical been happening.

I love the way the guys on here think NT females use logic in choosing men or for anything.

You clearly don't understand.

Those are not the actual numbers, their purpose is to descibe the general pattern.

None of us believe women use logic to choose men. Hypergamy is not a conscious process, it's an instinct. It has more to do with a how women feel. Women generally feel more attracted to men who earn more than them, as opposed to men who earn less.

The average is probably 3 children from thr breeding men, to maintain population (if by average we assume that a breeding man impregnate 2 women).
Anyway closet’s example numbers are wrong but the study he is referring to is real: We humans, are descendants of a minority of men (~40%) and a majority of women (~80%); which means that there was a big portion of men who didn’t breed at all.
Y Chromosome can be easily traced you know; from son to father to grandfather...etc.

Here is an example of a super-alpha male: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... ghis-khan/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -Khan.html

The part how Genghis Khan bloodline became prestigious in Muslim Asian societies is interesting. There are other examples of super-alpha men in humanity such as Mohammad and probably Ramses II.

Won’t date non middle class guys=\= gold digger
Gold digger= goes after only rich men.

Women who only date well off men are superficial. Get terms right.

Are those friends constantly unemployed or working min wage jobs?

Heads up despite middle classe opinions 2,000 or more a month isn’t poor.

Western population growth is decreasing. The us growth is less then it was when we were founded as a nation. And people back then rarely lived past 40.

Some of those guys have 2-4 kids with each woman. There’s a lot of single moms with 2-4 kids. No thanks. And they don’t want me either, I can’t provide for their kids.

Thank you, much clearer

In Feudalism, which is how most of us got here, men at the top went into the church or were soldiers. In Europe the church meant no children, (officially) and as soldiers many died young, they based the continuation on their line on that of their family rather than individually, so yes the men at the top either had many children (to replenish the constantly diminishing stock) or often none. This is not women them picking out.

To marry up as far as possible would have been seen as an upper class women's most important duty, as well as her one chance of receiving approval from her own family. These weddings were dynastic, often betrothals happened between very young children (for good reason).

So I agree that at the top it's all about positioning, but lower down? much less so

If only 40% of men lower down (with less to loose) had that input into society, the other 60% would be continually rioting.

Men with money, status looks ect usually have more confidence. There are very few women who do not find confidence attractive. I think it is probably the most important thing in attracting NT women. Women do not all find the same type of confidence attractive however, hence the different preferences.

So women find men who can provide for them more attractive than men who can't, just as men find women who are younger (breeders) and good looking (healthy) more attractive, and none of this is anyone's fault because it's evolution.

So, anyone on this here not depressed now?

Also the men who are so much “on demand” by women are seen more attractive.

But you are just a little pig, so what do you know? :p

^Oink!