Things women say.

Post Reply New Topic

Behold my thoughts on the sexual marketplace and why you can't take anything women say they want in men at face value.

Moderately attractive girl you had a crush on in high school: "I like guys that are shy and quirky, they are so cute" *swoon*
Shy, quirky you: (inside voice) "AWWWW YEEEAAAHH" *Draws special attention to own shyness and quirkyness*

---Intermission--- 2 weeks later...

Moderately attractive girl has leapt in bed with notoriously promiscuous, outgoing, dim, definitely not quirky alpha thug from the football team.
Moderately attractive girl: "Bawwwww, he's so abusive and uncaring, I can't tell whether he wuvs me or not!
Shy, quirky you(foolishly projecting the workings of the male mind onto her): "Then why are you with him?"
Moderately attractive girl: *sniff* "Yeah you're right"

---Intermission--- 2 weeks later...

Moderately attractive girl didn't break up with him.
Moderately attractive girl sporting bruise above her left eye: "Oh well I'm pregnant with his child now, that's sure to make him stay" *sniff* "I need a hug"
Shy, quirky you: (inside voice) *while half-heartedly attempting to comfort her* "what the f**k is this s**t..."

Is the girl in the above (funny, I hope) ridiculous example lying when she said that she wants a shy, quirky guy? Well no, not exactly she probably does find those traits endearing, allow me to explain.

First we should understand something that is true of both sexes:

With regards to long term relationships, when a man or woman says I look for X, Y and Z personality traits in a partner, they say that on the assumption that they are already going to be sexually attracted to that person. No one considers a long term relationship with someone they aren't sexually attracted to unless they are completely out of options.

So why is it different for men and women?

Men:
1) as a whole understand what they find sexually attractive in women, although they take great care in who they tell, lest they be labeled misogynists.
Men are heavily visually oriented so it's usually down to age, looks and feminine behaviour (in that order of priority). Age meaning the younger the better. Looks being the objectively measurable physical effects from the levels of oestrogen in the woman's body and being visibly free from disease (including obesity). Every man has his preferences, be it in hair style, eye colour, etc. But rarely do they stray from the thin pretty archetype.
Feminine behaviour is difficult to describe in words, but let's just say feminine women are truly rare in the present time, feminism the ideology has tried to turn women into "men sans penises". Ugh. Fortunately it's not as important as the first two.

2) are somewhat attracted to most women. This ties in neatly with the discovered facts about the sexual antics of our distant ancestors. Like most things in life, things are distributed along a gaussian curve. Most women are average lookswise, a few are gorgeous, a few are drown-me-at-birth ugly. See the shaded area here on my crudely drawn graph. When I say somewhat sexually attracted I mean, if the right situation arose, there would be _some_ maintainable arousal (down there) for all women who fall into the shaded area.


Women:

1) generally do not understand what they find sexually attractive. Why? It's a lot more complicated than the male list, there are a lot of factors. It would take a very introspective, honest, self aware woman to truly understand her own desires. It's not unknown knowledge however (almost forbidden maybe), smart people figured it out a long time ago, but women are certainly not taught these things.
While men are somewhat ok with being flawed shallow creatures when it comes to their sexual preferences, women are not. White knights and women alike, love to believe and perpetuate the myth that all women are uniquely mysterious. It's crap. We are all greater apes running on 50000 year old programming, we are more alike to one another than we are different. That is why game works so well.
I'm not going to breakdown the whole list here, but all men should at least know that it's almost all behavioural: signs of power/status and preselection (women want what other women want) are at the top, looks are at the bottom.

2) are not somewhat attracted to most men. In the complicated hierarchy that is male attractiveness, women are only sexually attracted to the top quadrant of men. This again fits neatly into what we've been able to ascertain about the mating habits of our distant ancestors.

Some men will no doubt be frothing with rage reading this, but have some sympathy for the ladies, imagine going through life never having an orgasm from sex, it's almost a given for men. But it's reality for some girls lower down the curve or those who get married off young, simply because they are never sexually aroused by their partners.

More on the above point: in the wonderfully cruel 1-10 scale men use to rate the sexual attractiveness of women. It's common game mantra that on the equivalent 1-10 scale for women: a desirable alpha male is about 20-25 on that scale, while the average beta loser is about a 3/4, and what's key is there are very few men on the scale in between the two.If you aren't an alpha most women find you as sexually attractive as you find sheep.


In conclusion when men say "I like XYZ personality traits in a partner", they really want the imaginary ABCXYZ woman. ABC being the traits necessary to make a woman sexually attractive. Reading above you should be able to see that ABC rarely conflicts with XYZ. Men being somewhat attracted to most women can balance out traits when picking long term partners, ACXY or BYZ for example. The more beautiful the woman, however, the more likely it is that the desire for XYZ becomes eclipsed and forgotten altogether. Hey ho we are who we are.

When women say they want XYZ personality traits in a man. They really want the imaginary ABCXYZ man. Understanding that ABC traits can often completely conflict with or negate XYZ traits AND the fact that an ABC, AB, AC, or BC man is far more sexually attractive to a woman, than an ABC woman is to a man. There is no balance to be found. The XYZ traits checklist flies straight out of the window at the very sight of these men.

I hope you are now enlightened as to how women can say one thing and do the complete opposite.

Game potentially allows an XYZ man to adopt or project ABC traits, yet TheygoMew and her cohorts are vehemently opposed to Game. Why?

how stupid. thanks for wasting a piece of my life

It's a complicated subject, and our views don't mesh perfectly, but this interesting OK Cupid study tends to support your position.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your- ... ne-dating/

Um, how come in your world men can be "we are who we are" and women aren't allowed that?

P.S. I'm a woman and looks are #1 for me. They won't carry the day but if I look at a guy and I can't picture sleeping with him, ever, then it's not going to happen. And I'm far from rare, and I'm actually telling you what my preference is (I don't say one thing and do the opposite).

tl:dr

I did catch a glimpse of the ending however and I believe that its been brought to your attention several times that the reasons why so many members(not only females)are against PUA is for two main things.
1st Its based on manipulation and the fact that there are males out there getting money out of books/seminars on how to manipulate others is extremely disgusting(to say the least).
2ndly the game gives a bad impression of males that its hard to avoid. Even if you arent PUA you cant do things you´d normally do(like approaching a random female)without going through a long set of questions meant to determine wether you are a PUA or not but that you will fail because even though you arent a PUA you are uncomfortable(as most people would be)after being questioned which obviously means that you are a PUA)).
Basically PUAs complain about how females have so many standards and how hard its for a male to succeed on the dating field but their actions are making things even harder but since it works for them they dont care(which goes to show how manipulative and hypocrite they are)

lulz. you must be stud understanding women so well.

also; i agree with mv.

I think they would find a horned goat sexier, maaaa maaaaa......

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 05 Sep 2011, 10:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Bless you dear!

It would be so much easier for us poor lonely guys if more women did this...

Psuedophsyco Babble

Yes, ignore what I said, emlion said it all in her first line.

Hit thread

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4 ... -pictures/ This one is interesting too, particularly:



Not smiling - alpha trait through and through. Looking away from that camera, could that be a sign of aloofness, of disinterest? Now where have I heard that aloofness makes you more attractive before...

So not only do my graphs more or less agree with the first survey, but men who display these two alpha traits are more likely to be found attractive based solely on a photo.

Hmmmmmm.

@mv Women most definitely are allowed the same courtesy, but have you ever considered that what you call "looks" is actually based more in perceived behaviour than physical attributes.

Last edited by lilypadfad on 05 Sep 2011, 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ick. All that reading made me think of high school mind games. Hmmmmm. Remind me never to online date.

Hey sagan! ... Never date online.

(... happy to be of service.)

Rule number one of the internet states that there are no females on the internet.
Rule number one of PUA states that no women knows what she wants and you have to tell her what she wants.
Please stop breaking the rules

That's fascinating - it claims that "not smiling with no eye contact" is by far the most effective type of photo for a man!

Upon closer examination, I saw that the underlying methodology was flawed: the sample size was FAR too small to support the implied level of statistical significance.