How does one get a girlfriend?

Post Reply New Topic

I guess sometimes I have fallen in love with women that have probably been to physically attractive compared to who I might have a chance to get as a girlfriend. I regret now a couple of chances that I might have had in my 20s, where I wasnt sufficiently interested to do something. Often I havent done something unless I have already been madly in love with someone. At the moment my main problem is that I dont know to many women at all. Besides often I dont know how I shall make the final step. Asking a girl out for the cinema is one thing, another is to understand if and when I can kiss her. you have to try.[/quote]

Are you sure it's absolutely everything? It's not too difficult to find exceptions to this. How about masochism? What possible primal instinct does any form of self harm fulfill? Tobacco? Alcohol? Ice Cream? Collecting train numbers? I would agree that many of our desires are primal, however on top of this we also have many that are absorbed from our culture and are in fact detrimental to our survival. There are more complex drives inside us than purely survival can account for.

I may have a hunger instinct, but where is the primal element in my desire for curry and my revulsion of mushrooms?


So why do we pair together AFTER we've had children? Surely once you've had 2, 3 or 4 any more is actually reducing the quality of life of the ones you already have? What percentage of 'pairing' is actually trying to conceive children? I doubt if it's even 1%. Again, there is something other than simply survival going on here. We pair for pleasure. For a self-esteem boost. Many reasons, to fulfill psychological needs that are in us as a result of our environment, our conditioning, as well as our genes. Why, if our sexual desires are purely based on survival of the species, do they not get switched off once we've had a couple of children? Also, why do gay people have sexual desires?


Using what detection mechansim? That there are no shortage of couples with infertility problems suggests our detection mechanism is faulty at best. Why are there so many BAD relationships? If we really are getting paired off with the most perfect people, why are 50% of marriages ending in divorce?

Also, once you've 'ensured the survival' of your line, why carry on doing the same? Isn't variety a vital part of how nature guarantees survival? After having children with a tall, muscular, average IQ guy, wouldn't it make sense for a woman to go and have a couple of children with a short, skinny Hi-IQ guy? It would if purely survival of your line is the issue.

And the big spanner in the works: how do we know what traits future survival will require? Maybe the skinny guy has a higher immunity to some disease that will wipe out the descendants of the tall thin guy? Some vital survival traits can NEVER be seen. Tall offspring are far more likely to bash their heads in bumping into tree branches or low door frames.

Overall, your ideas imply a level of power in females that borders on super-psychic paranormal! To be able to instinctively know the health history of a prospective partner, to know he will adapt to every problem life throws at him and his offspring will also be able to do this for generations into the future. And they can figure this out "in the first 30 seconds" according to popular opinion. Wow!! ! How can men compete with such awesome super-powers?

Why is there so much variation in humans if we're all supposed to be attracted to the same characteristics, anyway? Surely the fact that there IS so much variety is evidence that different people find very different traits desirable. Every one of our ancestors managed to find a mate, and amazingly enough, our ancestors are very similar to us. A short, skinny, low IQ guy is evidence that whole chains of short, skinny, low IQ guys were deemed attractive to somebody. And every one of your direct ancestors survived childhood and succesfully reared at least one child, so you should be proud of them and don't believe the hype that there is only one objective set of criteria for valuing a human being.


How can we realistically assess them without carrying around a "Do it yourself IQ test" and set of syringes for blood tests? Intelligence and health need not go together, for a start.

<EDIT: this is actually a circular argument. What are good genes? The ones that bestow attractive traits. What are attractive traits? Examples of good genes. (and can genes be morally 'good' or 'bad', anyway?) If a person is coughing their lungs out, it's probably a sign of bad health (although they may have good genes, it's smoking that caused the harm) however there is no visible evidence of the majority of serious health problems. Forget what the dating scammers and non-thinking gossip journo's write. Look at the reality around you. What are most visits to hospitals for? TESTS!! !! Because you need medical knowledge and equipment to detect health problems. What about the number of illnesses that are discovered too late to cure? Why did no colleague use their 'evolutionary instinct' to detect it?

The reality is that most ill health is detected only when you get serious symptoms, nobody else sees something awry. If what you say is true, we are wasting a load of money on expensive doctors and medical equipment when we could just go to a night club and get a bunch of women dancing round their handbags to give us a quick health assessment

People with high intelligence, in general, have MORE problems finding a partner than people of low intelligence. Men, in particular, are very wary of intelligent women. Either intelligence is not useful to survival, or it is not being perceived as such. If of no value, then how have we evolved this intelligence? Physical health is also nowhere near a guarantee of attractiveness. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are intelligent and physically (and mentally) healthy, but who are not deemed attractive.



The most powerful driving force is actually our desire to 'fit in' with those around us. Experiments have shown that around 2/3 of us will ignore our own instincts to go along with our peers.

Yukalife, I've seen comments like yours almost verbatim in online dating guides (and repeated on WP too). These people are climbing the power ladder using deception to sell you something. You have everything you need to attract the right partner, the problem (and its not trivial) is realising it.

I'm not denying that basic instincts aren't playing a big role. I also believe that our cultural conditioning is also playing a huge role, too. Back to my comment on intelligence not being as desirable as one would expect. Purely cultural, in my opinion. The media present a very warped (at best) view of intelligence, at worst it's outright hostility. In contrast, the media is besotted with the idea of physical beauty. Much easier to understand and write about.

My belief is that our intellectual capabilities have raced ahead of our instincts. Physical build is actually of little importance in a civilised society. With modern medicine, a 7 stone weakling may easily outlive, outsmart, out earn and be more fertile than a keen body builder. The physically strong can no longer bash heads in as they may wish. Being physically string provides little survival gain once you've moved out of the jungle and stopped banging rocks together. We just need to persuade the female half of the species of this! Power in the world is now held by those who use their brains, not brawn. Our leaders do not fight, they outsmart, even if that involves deception rather than honest thought.

OK, Brad Pitt may be attractive in our society. Do you really think he would be attractive to a Tibetan goat herder lady? I doubt it, after all what does Brad know about goat herding? So his (or anybodies) attractiveness is NOT an objective quality that can be measured. His (or any other current beauty queen/king) image is plastered all over the place, we absorb that and look for similar as our idea of a partner. And comforming is so strong, it will cause many of us to find and keep awful relationships, just because the other has an 'acceptable' image. And because we believe being single is 'unacceptable' etc etc etc. Looking at other cultures ideas of attraction suggests that what we find attractive is what our culture finds attractive, not what our genes are telling us.

This all could be proved scientifically of course. We can measure intelligence, screen for genetic defects, quantify physical and mental health and rank everybody accordingly. And then we *should* find (if your theory is correct) that the highest raters are the most 'in demand' with the opposite sex. Of course we know this would not be the case. For some reason, the 21 year old, low intelligence, petty thieving, violent tendancies, pale, scrawny junky always seems to have more girlfriends than the 21 year clean living, hi IQ guy who's studying anthropology at university. Maybe because the best gene package in human history still cannot survive a shotgun blast at 10 paces.

Yukalife, it's the 'nature' vs 'nurture' debate. You're saying 'nature', I'm saying 'nurture'. In fact you gotta have Mojo

Last edited by ManErg on 16 Oct 2008, 8:31 am, edited 3 times in total.

Yep, Maslow ha in fact developed a hierarchy of human needs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s ... y_of_needs

I very much enjoyed reading your post ManErg. I found it intellectual, witty, amusing, and full of highly valid insights. I've always known I was in the minority because I find nothing less attractive than an unintelligent man, and nothing more attractive than a super intelligent man. What's so great about the body anyway? Sexual pleasure is a brief, superficial pleasure compared to the life long, deep pleasure of intelligence. There's really no comparison, and I pity the sad vapid people who choose partners based on looks alone, dooming themselves to a lifetime of boredom.

ManErg, you've written an excellent post - a lot of good points in it. Thanks for questioning the inane, animalistic hogwash which has become so pervasive these days, it's like a form of tinnitus. Finally, some reason! (Besides, a bunch of women in a nightclub dancing abound handbags couldn't issue a medical certificate if you need the day off work.)

Glad somebody sees what I'm getting at (but wait for the backlash....the key behind using instinct to explain everything is that we can abdicate personal responsibility for behaviour we are ashamed of...)

I'd say the obsession with physical appearance is a throwback to our distance past, so there is a genetic link, but now obsolete. Our brain development has clearly outstripped our bodily development. If I courted controversy, I'd say those still looking at appearance are the past. Those who find the 'deeper' aspects, those that need a bit more time to assess, are the future.

I read the link to Maslow. Reading it and looking at the diagram, he appears confused about where sexual attraction should lie, too! For example, they say non-fulfillment of the top 4 levels does not result in physiological problems, only a psychological feeling of someting missing. I agree with this. *however* , sex is clearly in the wrong place on the 5th, physiological needs level, then. If you don't have sex, you will suffer no physiological problems, the problem is psychological.

The basic urge is radically complicated by the expectations of the culture you find yourself in. Some sexual urges were once classified 'perverse' and are now perfectly norma (and some are even becoming compulsory. yukk) l. We naturally judge relative to those around us. Somebody can be content with any aspect of their life and then suddenly be discontent because they believe others have more. Sex twice a week can be fine for years, then some friends tell you that they're having it "5 times a week, with wife-swapping, dressing up, 47 different positions and a room full of toys." and "that's what everyone does these days" and what fulfilled you before is now unsatisfactory.

This has nothing to do with evolution or instinct, it is social.

This started as a quick post during a quiet day at work and is now evolving into an essay.....!

Well at least there are women that think that way too...

In my (rather limited) experience, I've felt better just holding a woman in my arms rather than the prospect of having sex with her (probably the reason I'm still a virgin)... The connection I feel in the former is just much deeper than that of the baseless physical sex that other people have. I'm not saying that I'm asexual, to the contrary, I'm straight and have a very powerful libido (but as of late, the only thing that my penis has touched is my hand). Anyway, even those times I've basically screwed myself don't compare to the few times I've held a woman in my arms.

Now if only I could do both at the same time...

ManErg, I would say somthing in response, but that would be pointless. You have said it all.

ManErg, I can't argue with your post.

Although I can't say that the seductioun community is a scam because I personally know two people who have applied the knowledge provided by the seduction community to gain multiple long term relationships plus multiple one night stands.

I have personally applied the techniques to make my roomates girlriends attracted to me, plus other girls. I'm working on taking things to the next level with club girls, altough tonight I suffered the consequences with a punch to my forehead, followed by being kicked out of the club and a long argument with the bouncer to get my jacket back ending with some a**hole not involved wanting to fight me.

I escaped with a bruise to my forehead...

For the record I haven't payed any money to any seduction "guru" aside from buying two books, the game and the mystery method,

I asked someone who paid for bootcamps if they are worth it and he said he didn't learn anything different than any book he read.